The Article of the Church of Rome Contrarily 13 Concil Trid. Sess 22. Can. 9. Si quis dixerit tantùm linguâ vulgari Missam celebrari debere Anathema sit Hee that shall say that the Masse ought to be Celebrated onely in the vulgar tongue let him be Anathema that is Accursed The English Article hath two points 1. That Prayer in a tongue unknowne to the People that pray is Repugnant to the Word of God 2. That it is also plainely Repugnant to the Custome of Primitive Antiquity First of the Repugnance to the word of God The Romish Expositor Paraphrasing upon these words Repugnant to the word of God supposeth in the first place that thereby is meant the Doctrine of the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. concerning Prayer in a Tongue not understood of him that prayeth and then for answere thereunto repeateth onely their old Crambe to wit that by Prayers there spoken off are not meant the publike prayers in the set and solemne service of the Church of Corinth but other their 14 Paraph Crediderim Sanctum Paulum vel de privatis conventibus vel de privatis colloquiis post omnia officia habitis ibi agree Private Convents and Colloquies And whereas the Apostle requireth of the Idiote that is Private or Lay-man as wee call him that hee understand his Prayer so as to be able to give consent thereunto in publike saying Amen he 15 Paraph. Idiota apud Apostolum i. e. Ille cui incumbit respondere expoundeth this as understood of Him who by office answereth Amen for the rest of the People whom wee name the Parish-Clerke Both which have beene * See the Challenges above thorowout Confuted by your owne Schoolemen and the Latter more especially by Bellarmine himselfe in our former Sections as you have seene A second devise of qualifying these words of our Article Repugnant to the word of God is his owne but thus 16 Paraph. Decrevit igitur Articulus esse Repugnans Scripturis id est non Doctrinae Scripturae sed Scriptioni seu Traditioni Scripturae quae fuit Corinthijs in Lingua communi The Article decreeth it to be repugnant to the Scriptures that is saith hee not to the Doctrine of Scripture but to the Scription or tradition of Scripture which among these Corinthians was in praying in a common tongue Here you have a dainty Distinction betweene the word Scripture and Scription the word Scripture to signifie the Doctrine of Scripture and the word Scription to betoken Tradition of Scripture So hee by an elegant Figure which wee forbeare to name but wish there were some sense in it For was it ever heard off that there was a Scripture without Scription that is to say a Writ without writing or when as all Divines ever distinguished of Traditions into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Written which are the Scriptures themselves and Vnwritten which are without the same written word of God Was it possible for them to conceive of a Tradition in Scripture which was not Scripture or word of God If so then whereas all Creatures are distinguished into Sensible and Insensible it shall be possible to point out a Sensible Creature void of Sense His third Crotchet 17 Idem Dum. dicit esse Repugnans verbo Dei intelligi deberent Institutioni D. Pauli non Christi cujus scripta sub nomine verbi Dei comprehenduntur omnia tamen ab Apostolis demandata non sunt mandata Christi ut ab omnibus concessum est When the Article saith Repugnant to the word of God It is to be understood as meaning Repugnant to the Institution and Ordinance of Saint Paul not of Christ Saint Pauls writings being comprehended under the name of Gods word although all that are commanded by the Apostles are not therefore the commands of Christ as all do confesse So hee That there are in Scripture Apostolicall Constitutions namely such as are fitted to the Churches according to the Conveniences of the times distinguished from Divine Constitutions which are enjoyned the Church as necessary for all times it is true But that both which this Paraphrase affirmeth either S t. Paul in requiring a Knowno Prayer delivered not therein the Doctrine of Christ necessary for all times or that our English Composers of this their Article in affirming the Institution of Vnknowne Prayers to be Repugnant to the word of God did not thereby understand the word and Commandement of Christ in his Authenticall Scripture are two as strange exorbitancies as your Glosser could make For the Apostle to shew that hee taught a Doctrine which concerned all the Churches of Christ and at all times useth Similitudes to Illustrate his meaning universally fitting all ages and Congregations of Christians in their solemne prayers If a Trumpet saith hee or a Pipe give an uncertaine sound who shall prepare himselfe either to the Battell or to the daunce applying those Similitudes as well to praying as to preaching in an Vnknowne tongue But every one of you will grant that the same Scripture for necessitie of preaching in a knowne tongue is the Divine Institution of Christ and not onely an Apostolique Constitution Therefore except you will separate that which Christ by his Apostle hath joyned together you must confesse the same necessitie of the Command of Christ for knowne Prayer Besides his Conclusion How shall hee that understandeth not say Amen being as true of all Prayers in all subsequent ages of the World as it could be to the Church of Corinth it prooveth the truth of the Divine Ordinance of Christ therein Thus farre of the meaning of S. Paul now to returne to our Article Whereas you and all that ever read Protestant Bookes know that whensoever they affirme any thing to be Repugnant to the word of God they meane to the Scripture as it is the expresse Command and Ordinance of God and of Christ and that notwithstanding your Glosser should dare to tell us that the meaning of our Articling An unknowne Prayer to be Repugnant to the Word of God must signifie not Repugnant to Scripture or to the Institution of Christ but to Scription and Apostolicall Tradition must needs argue in your Professor some ecclipse of judgement by the which also hee venteth out his Inference following A fourth straine he hath in his Inference from our English Article as followeth 18 Idem Vi hujus verbi probabiliter inferri potest debere Ecclesiae officia apud nos hodiè celebrari in lingua Latina quià per se loquendo est lingua communis communites intellecta solùm autem asseritur in Articulo Preces publicae fiant linguâ à populo intellectâ quod sine dubio debet intelligi de lingua per se communi non per Accidens loquendo The Article affirmeth saith hee that Prayers ought to be used in a tongue knowne to the people therefore wee properly inferre that Prayers in our Church may be in
potest naturaliter exercere actus sensuum exteriorum Ita tenet Thomas Alij Authores quia sensus ejus non potest recipere has species ab objectis externis quia hic actus est materialis extensus suâ naturâ Quamvis potentia absoluta potest Idem dicendum de sensibus interioribus apetitu sentiente quia non uti phantasmatibus nec actum secundum elicere quia hic actus est materialis nisi à materiali extenso principio non potest intellectus ejus secluso miraculo acquirere novas species nec prius exquisitis uti quia intellectus hoc non potest facere nisi simul phantasia operetur cum intellectu non loquor de speciebus infusis Haec Suarez in 3. Thom. quaest 76. Art 7. Disp 53. §. 4. So also Vincentius Silivitius Senes Ies Moral quaest Tom. 1. Tract 4. 5. num 139. 141. Motus localis non convenit corpori per se non possunt actiones sensum convenire Christo naturaliter quia hae exercentur per species in substantia divisibili At Christi corpus est in Sacramento indivisibiliter c. Suarez and other Romish Doctors First that Christ as hee is in this Sacrament hath no power naturally of himselfe to move himselfe And this your owne dayly experience hath brought you unto whilest beleeving Christs Corporall Presence in the Hoast you shut him up in a Boxe where you still find the same lying as destitute of power of motion as any other unconsecrated Bread which being put together with it lyeth so long untill they both equally waxe mouldy putrifie and ingender wormes Secondly that Christ in himselfe as being in this Sacrament hath no naturall faculty of sense nor abilitie without a miracle to heare or see c. Thirdly That hee is voyd of all sensible appetite Lastly that without some miraculous power hee cannot possibly apprehend in his understanding any thing present nor yet remember any notions past So hee âšœ Iosephus Angles Florent in 4. Sent. Qu. de existentia corporis Christia in Euch. Dissio 1. 2. Aâ—t 9. 12. Corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento nec potest tangi nec per se nec per Accidens quatenùs est in Eucharistia non potest ullam sensationem accipere Ratio quia omnis receptio specierum quae est sensatio fit in organo quantitativo nec agere nec pati potest nec actionem transientem agere Communis opinio est Scoti Christus non potest aliquam operationem potentiae merae naturalis ut est nutriendi sentiendi habere Ratio omne agens positivum agit per contactum quod est modo quantitativo And Art 12. Oculus Christi non videt suum corpus ut est in hoc Sacramento proptereà quod est inextensum oculus est inextensus Scotus in 4. Sent. Dist 10. quaest 5. Nulla sensatio potest esse in Christo ut est in Eucharistia Petrus de Aquilia in doctrina Scoti spectatissimus in 4. Sent. Dist 10. quaest 1. Christi corpus in Eucharistia non potest uti aliquâ potentiâ activâ See Palenterius above Chap. 4. Sect. 9. Similter Aegidius Conicks de Sacramen Quaest 76. Art 6. num 91. Yet so that he is not alone For hee allegeth for this opinion your Aquinas and concludeth it as being without Contradiction Which your Doctor * See the Marginals immediately preceding Angles calleth a Common Opinion noting Scotus your subtilest of Schoolemen to be a Patron thereof Which they founded upon your other generall but yet vast and wilde Paradoxe of an Existence of Christs Body in this Sacrament without a Quantitative maner of Being by way of Extension of Parts It were well that you would take the Testimonies of your other two Jesuites for a supplement as namely of 1 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. qu 76. Art 7. Disp 191. c. 5. Opposita sententia vera est eo ipso quòd caret corpus Christi extensione in Sacramento neque agere neque pati posse prout est in hoc Sacramento corporeâ actione neque passione neque tangere aliquid neque ab alio tangi nec posse intelligere quantum per conversionem ad phantâ—smata nec sensus omnes operari posse operationes suas immanentes And therefore the Externall much lesse Disp 190. c. 3. Citat Thomam alios Scholasticos de non posse moveri per se Vasquez denying to Christs Body all Possibility of either doing or suffering as it is in this Sacrament And of 2 Gordon Scoâ—â—â— Ies Controv. 8. cap. 4. â— 19. Corpus Christi 〈◊〉 specie paâ—â—â— est modo planè 〈…〉 mortem in cruce sepulchro neque enim videt audit aut loquitur aur alias corporis 〈◊〉 actiones exercet prout est in hoc Sacramento cum in eo sit modo indivisibili et spirituali Gordon affirming the Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament to be Plainly after a deadly maner as hee was in the grave neither hearing nor seeing nor exercising any virtuall Act âšœ That this is a new brutish and barbarous Doctrine destitute of all ancient Patronage either of written or of unwritten Tradition but against Both. SECT III. HAve you any Text yea or yet pretext either of Scripture or humane Tradition for countenancing this so prodigious and monstrous a conception Certainely Scripture telleth us that Christ his Body by Resurrection is perfected in Sense and Agility and his soule in Iudgement and Capacity Nor can you shew any Father in the Church of Christ within the Circumfrence of 1400. yeares after Christ who held this your doctrine so much as in a Dreame or who hath not esteemed the Body of Christ to be of the most absolute perfection we say no one Father or Teacher of the Evangelicall Truth once fancied this un-christian and false faith âšœ No no your own 3 Fran. Collius lib. 5. De sanguine Christi Disp 5. cap. 1. Athanasius Serm. 2. in illa verba ad Philip 2. Propter quod Deus eum exaltavit Hic solus è mortuâ—s integer resurrexit Et libro de Incarnat verbi Cum omni integritate surrexit quae est Patrum omnium doctrina Et Leo Papa Tract explicans illud 2. Cor. 5. Cognovimus Christum secundum carnem Christi corpus post Resurrectionem factum est Impassibile nihil in eo enim infirmum remansit Doctor of Theology will tell you out of Athanasius of many surnamed the Great and out of Pope Leo whom you your selves instiled Great Both so intituled for their singular worthinesse who taught that Christ rose againe Perfest in his Bodie So Athanasius And that No infirmitie remained in him So Leo. And addeth of himselfe that All the Fathers were of the same Iudgement If so then were they directly Adversaries to your prodigious Beliefe except you will dare to say that Blindnesse Deafenesse and Senslesnesse are no
perversion of a Testimony in Saint Ambrose pag. 125. With a Supply of other Latine Fathers as of Tertullian pag. 124. Saint Augustine pag. 126 127. And of Facundus pag. 128. Together with a cleare Myrror wherein to discerne the Iudgement of Antiquity for a Figurative sense of Christs words pag. 129. âšœ Chap. III. Romish Objections against the Literall sense Answered pag. 132. thorow-out Chap. IV. âšœ The Pronoune Possessive MY Added as the third Key for opening of the Figurative sense of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY pag. 138. Whether it be taken Narratively or Significatively pag. 139. âšœ BOOKE III. OF the first Romish Consequence arising from the depraved sense of Christs words which is called TRANS-SVESTANTIATION pag. 145. Chap. I. Conversion held by Protestants is Sacramentall but that which is defended by the Romanists is Trans-substantiall c. pag. 146. thorow-out Chap. II. Romish Transsubstantiation not absolutely proved by Scripture it selfe as is Confessed p. 147. It is an Innovation both in Name and in the Article it selfe pag. 151 c. Chap. III. Romish maner of Transsubstantiation whether by Adduction or Production both confuted by Romish Doctors as Absurd pag. 153 c. âšœ The Testimonies of two Popes contradicting one another about Formall Transsubstantiation p. 155. And a Confutation of both maners of Conversion by their owne principles pag. 156. With a Vindication against a late Calumniator concerning the ancient Saxons faith in the Doctrine of the Eucharist pag. 158 c. And a Confirmation thereof from Christs speech pag. 163. And of Pope Innocent the third pag. 164. And from other Testimonies of Antiquity pag. 169 170. The Iesuite Mallounes Instance in Ioane Martlesse her nose for her admirable faculty of smelling pag. 873. And from the existence of some new Accidents after Consecration pag. 176. Further adding to the Testimonies of Antiquity that of Tertullian p. 178. and an Objected Testimony of Pope Clement pag. 179. and out of Athanasius what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is pag. 182. Together with the Testimony of Euphraimius Bishop of Antioch pag. pag. 187. âšœ Chap. IV. The Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Doctors in Objecting for Transsubstantiation the Fathers there calling it a Change by Omnipotentie pag. 188. âšœ The Testimony of Hilarie pag. 191 And a Vindication of Cyprian's Saying Christs Body is created herein p. 192. and of another of his Infusing Divine essence pag. 193 c. âšœ Their further Vnconscionablenesse in alleging the Fathers as denying it to be Common Bread pag. 194 c. Their forbidding us to judge it by Sense pag. 195 c. âšœ The Iudgement of Master Isaac Casaubon concerning Saint Cyril pag. 197 198. âšœ Their other Objections out of other Fathers anew pag. 198 201 c. âšœ Two Testimonies of Gregory Nyssen pag. 203. And of Cyrill the moderne Patriarch of Constantinople against Transubstantiation pag. 205. With Master Isaac Casaubon his Iudgement concerning the Doctrine of Antiquity for this point pag. 209 c. âšœ BOOKE IV. OF the Second Consequence of the Romish Depravid Exposition of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY viz. The Corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 210. Chap. I. The Difference of Opinions De modo of Christs Being in the Eucharist pag. 210. âšœ A double question concerning the Quomodoâ— p. 211. âšœ Chap. II. Twelve miraculous Apparitions of True Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist by Popish Historians related and judicially proved by their owne Doctors to be but so many Illusions pag. 217. unto pag. 227. âšœ The Iesuite Malloun's vaunt of such like Miracles pag. 221. And the Opinion of Vasquez the Iesuite to the Contrary p. 222 c. With a Digression for the Discussion of the miraculous separation of Christs Blood from his Body out of a Romish Doctor Collius p. 225 c. And of Blood issuing out of Christs Images from the same Author pag. 227 c. âšœ Chap. III. Of the Impossibility of the Romish Corporall Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist by reason of Contradiction pag. 228. âšœ The Testimonies of Theophylact and Iustine Martyr for that purpose pag 229. âšœ Confessed by Romish Doctors pag. 230 c. Of Sixe Contradictions implyed in the Romish Profession of the Corporall Presence p. 231 c. Chap. IV. I. Romish Contradiction is to make the same Body to be Borne and not Borne of the B. Virgin Mary pag. 232 c. Chap. V. II. Romish Contradiction is to make One Body not One by teaching it to be in diverse places at once pag. 234. âšœ The Confession of Conincks the Iesuite pag. 235 c. And the Profession of Saint Augustine in this point pag. 244 245. And that the Romish Objections out of Antiquity are frivolous 247. Adding another Testimony out of Chrysostome pag. 248. And Greg. Nyssen Ibid. Saint Augustines Quodammodo expounded by Suarez pag. 251 c. With a Comparison that Christs Body cannot be above nor below it selfe p. 254. The Testimony of Vasquez in this point p. 256. And of the Iesuite Conincks Ibid. Chap. VI. Romish Objections and Preâ—ences for proofe of a Body in divers places at once from Colour and Voice Confuted pag. 258 to 264. âšœ The Sentence of Pope Innocent pag. 258. âšœ Chap. VII III. Romish Contradiction in making Christs Body Finite to be Infinite pag. 264. âšœ The Testimony of Hilarie pag. 266. and of Athanasius Ibid. And the Enthymeme of the Fathers pag. 287. And the Doctrine of the Lutherans Ibid. And the Infatuation of the Iesuite Lessius framing an Army of but One man p. 268 c. âšœ Chap. VIII IV. Romish Contradiction by teaching Christs Organicall Body not to be Organicall pag. 269. Contrary to the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 273 c. âšœ Chrysostomes Testimony for Demonstration of Christs Body by Touch. pag. 276. And Cyrill of Alexandria Ibid. And the Testimony of the Iesuite Lessius according thereunto pag. 277. And of the Camels passing through the Needles eye in the Iudgement of Hierome pag. 279. And a Vindication of the Testimony under Pope Hilaries name for proofe of an whole Body in every part of the Host p. 279 c. Chap. IX V. Romish Contradiction is in making Christs Perfect Body Vnperfect pag. 281. By their vile Doctrine of a Body of Christ in the Sacrament voyd of all power of Motion Sense and Vnderstanding Ibid. âšœ The Testimonies of other Iesuites pag. 282 283. And that this is both Contrary to Scriptures and Fathers p. 283. 285. âšœ Chap. X. VI. Romish Contradiction is in making Christs Glorious Body Inglorious pag. 286 c. âšœ A pertinent Question pag. 287. And a Vindication of Truth against Master Fisher a Iesuite his Defence of all Romish Seeming Indignities and Absurdities which by their Doctrine of Christs Bodily Presence do Consequently ensue pag. 291 to 300. And the Testimonies of the Fathers against Bellarmines jeere and scoffe pag. 306 c. âšœ BOOKE V. Of the Third Romish Consequence of their depraved sense of Christs
words THIS IS MY BODY by their Corporall Vnion with Christs Body p. 308 c. Chap. I. Protestants professe an Vnion Spiritually-reall pag. 309 c. Chap. II. That onely the Godly and Faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Vnion with Christ by this Sacrament pag. 311 c. âšœ That onely the Godly are united to Christ by this Sacrament in the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 320 321 c. And Saint Augustines accurate Iudgement herein pag. 323. With a Vindication of Saint Augustines Testimony against the notable corruption thereof by Doctor Heskins pag. 325 to 328. âšœ Chap. III. Of the Capernaiticall Heresie of the Corporall Eating of Christs flesh pag. 328. âšœ Tertullians Saying that Christs flesh is not truly Eaten pag. 331. And Saint Augustines Testimony about the mention of Christs Ascention into Heaven in Answering the Capernaites pag. 331 c.. âšœ Chap. IV. That the Romish maner of Eating of Christ's Body is sufficiently Capernaiticall in Five kinds pag. 333. First by Bodily Touch. âšœ That the Fathers are not Conscionably Objected as touching that poinâ— Ibid. c. âšœ Chap. V. II. Romish Capernaiticall maner of Eating is Orall Eating by Tearing in the dayes of Pope Nicolas the Second pag. 335. âšœ The contrary Iudgement of Pope Innocent the Third pag. 336. And Saint Augustine his Sentence Wee Eate in significante Mysterio pag. 344. And that the same Vnconscionablenesse of Objecting is proved by some Romish Doctors themselves very largely pag. 346 347 c. âšœ Chap. VI. Of the Third Romish Corporall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants by Swallowing it downe pag. 347 c. âšœ A further Evidence of Origen his exact Iudgement pag. 350. And the miserable straights of Romish Doctors in Answering the Sentence of Augustine concerning the Eating of Christs flesh pag. 352 c. âšœ Chap. VII Of the Fourth maner of Romish Corporall Vnion with Christs Body by a Bodily Mixture pag. 354 c. Chap. VIII The Romish Objections of the Sentences of the Fathers for a Corporall Vnion by Mixture of Christs Body with mens Bodies proved to be Vnconscionable pag. 356 357. âšœ The Sentences of Hilarie and Cyril of Alexandria so much pressed at large pag. 358. And also a Confutation of the Romish Objections out of their owne Confessions pag. 362. And further that the Objected Testimonies of these Fathers make against the Romish Corporall Vnion pag. 365. Shewing that onely the Godly are Vnited to Christ Ibid. âšœ Chap. IX âšœ The Second kind of Romish Objections which is from Similitudes used by the Fathers from Feast Guest Viands and Pledge but most unconscionably Objected by the Romanists pag. 366. yea that the same Testimonies plainely Confute the Romish Presence together with the Reconciling of the seeming Repugnances of the Sentences of the Fathers in Opposition to the Romish and in an accordance with our Protestant Profession pag. 369 c. Adding likewise the Divine Contemplation of the Fathers in their phrasing of a Corporall Vnion of Christs body with the Bodies of the Faithfull Communicants p. 372 c. âšœ Chap. X. Of Romish Historicall Objections insisted upon out of Iustine Martyr from the slander then raised against Christians for Eating of mans flesh pag. 374. âšœ That this Objection is slanderous Ibid. And against the Historicall Truth pag. 375. As wilde is their second proofe because say they Iustine wrote to an Heathen Emperour pag. 376. Confuted out of Iustine himselfe and the Cardinall's Dilemma by a more just Dilemma and pertinent pag. 378 379 c. As also by an Impossibility that the Heathen could be offended at the words of Iustine pag. 380. Proved out of Iustine and Attalas Ibid. An Answer to Averroes his imputing to Christians the Devouring of Christs flesh pag. 381 c. âšœ Chap. XI âšœ The Fift and last most base Romish Vnion of Christs Body in passing it downe by Egestion into the Draught pag. 382. Which to Antiquity would have beene held most abominable pag. 384. That the Institution of the Sacrament was ordained to be food only for the Soule by the Doctrine of Antiquity p. 385 c. âšœ BOOK VI. OF the Fourth Romish Consequence from their depraved sense of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY by esteeming Christs Body present to be a Properly and Truly Propitiatory Sacrifice pag. 389 c. Chap. I. That there is no Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist from any word of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament pag. 390. But absolutely Confuted thereby pag. 393 394. II. Not proved by any Sacrificing Act of Christ at his first Instituting this Sacrament pag. 398. âšœ The Testimony of the Iesuite Vasquez pag. 399. Chap. II. Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist not proved by any other Scripture of the New Testament pag. 400. âšœ The Saying of the Councel of Trent pag. 402 c. âšœ Chap. III. The Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body not proved by any Scripture out of the Old Testament pag. 403 c. âšœ A Vindication of the Allegations of some Testimonies of Fathers against a Calumnious Romanist pag. 405. A Second Vindication of some other Testimonies Objected p. 406. As also an Argument against the Sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisedeeh pag. 408 c. And a Testimony of Athanasius against the Translation of the Priesthood of Christ to any other with whom agreeth Theodoret and Chrysostome pag. 411. To whom is joyned the Confession of the Iesuite Estius against Bellarmine pag. 414. Besides a speciall Challenge against Bellarmine in the point of Christs eternall Priesthood out of the Confession of Vasquez at large pag. 420. Adding also a Typicall Scripture Exod. 24. The Blood of the Testament Objected by Bellarmine and Answered by the Iesuite Vasquez pag. 424. And by Pope Leo long since pag. 425. An Objection Ro. from the Comparison of the Figures of the Old Testament with the Sacraments of the New Answered pag. 426. With the Testimony of Athanasius pag 427 c. Chap. IV. Of Propheticall Scriptures Objected for the Romish Sacrifice pag. 429. Malachie 5. Ibid. And Psalme 72. Of an Handfull of Corne. p. 433. âšœ A Vindication of a Truth of an Allegation against a Rash Seducer pag. 434. A Vindication against another Romish Detractor shewing that Cardinall Bellarmine hath not Objected Propheticall Scriptures judiciously pag. 435. And against the Objected Iuge Sacrificium pag. 436 c. âšœ Chap. V. Examination of the point of Sacrifice from the Iudgement of Antiquity by Eleven Demonstrations pag. 437 c. âšœ A Discovery of a Romish Absurd Defence concerning the Bloody Representative Sacrifice of Christ pag. 446 447 c. And an Argument for the dignifying of the Table of the Lord so called although alià s termed an Altar pag. 462 463 c. âšœ Chap. VI. The Third Examination of the Poâ—m of Romish Sacrifice is to Confute it by Romish Principles and proving that there is no Sacrificing Act therein pag. 466.
hee preaching unto his Africans a knowne Proverbe in the Punick tongue which I will render unto you in Latine because all of you do not understand Punick The Proverbe is this The Pestilence seeketh money So hee shewing that the Africans understood Latine better than Punick although this were their Nationall Language Farre otherwise your Glosser that the Latine was unknowne to the Africans because their native language was Panick Whereby hee bewrayeth a Proverbially so called Punick Faith Flatly contradicting S. Augustine 23 August lib. 1. Confess cap. 14. Latina didici inter etiam blandimenta Nurricum who furthermore confesseth of himselfe saying I learnt the Latine tongue from the fawning and flattering Speeches of my Nourses Our Conclusion by way of Censure of this mans Exposition of the Articles of the Church of England and of the Romish Authorizers of the same Treatise This one Point being the first of his Paraphrase that fell in our way concerning any doctrine appertaining to the Romish Masse wee have beene the more Copious in Confutation thereof that our Reader might take a just scantling of the judgement of this Paraphrazer in the rest and of those who were the Censurers Approvers and Authorizers of the same more principally Thomas Blacklous 24 Censura Thomae Blacklouse de Libellis de Articulis Confessionis Angl. Catholico animo conscriptis ut Errantes ad Christi caulam reditum inveniant who shewes to what end this Tractate was writ and approoved as he saith To bring those that wander out of the way unto the fold of Christ Meaning the Church of Rome So then wee perceive it was not as he seemeth to pretend in the behalfe of Protestants to free them from any of the former Censures and Anathema's or from the curses and cruelties of the Romish Church against them but onely to ensnare them if it may be in the same Babylonish thraldome of Superstition and Idolatry from whence by the marvailous and gracious providence of God they have beene delivered Therefore from these our Premises VVee Conclude Blacklous and his fellow Privilegers of this Booke to be guilty of all the above-manifested strange dealings in perverting of the senses of the Articles and Authors by him alleged Besides that which surmounteth the rest is the hainous Crime of wilfull Perjurie if they have taken the oath enjoyeth unto all Romish Priests by Pope Pius after the Councell of Trent swearing To expound no Text of Scripture without the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers yet now have allowed such an Exposition of the text of the Apostle concerning Prayer in an unknowne tongue which they were never able to justifie by any one Father of Primitive times for the space of 600 that wee say not a thousand yeares after Christ as hath beene sufficiently proved Before Wee end Wee should aske your Censurers what Church of Rome it is whose doctrine they would reduce Protestants unto Is it the old and primitive Religion of Rome Why this is that which Wee so constantly professe But meane they the Religion of the new Church of Rome in her new Creede of new Articles conformable to the Councel of Trent Wee must say then of your Doctrine as Christ said of Wine No man drinking the Old desireth the New for hee will say the Old is better Luc. 5. 39. The sixt Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sense of the next words of Christs Institution TAKE YEE SECT VIII THus said Christ to his Disciples by which words what is meant your Iesuite will expresse to wit that c Quia Apostoli non acciperent nisi quod ipse dabat verbum Dandi Translationem de manibus Christi in manus Discipalorum significat Sabneron les Tom. 9. Tractat. 18. pag. 126. Videtur quod Christus aut singulis in manus dederit partem à se sumendam aut patinam tradider it propinquioribus c. Iansen Episc Concord cap. 131. Because the Apostles tooke that which Christ gave the word GAVE doth signifie a Delivery out of Christ his hands into the hands of them that did take Here you see is Taking with hands especially seeing that Christ in giving the Cup said Drinke you all Matth. 26. one delivering it to another as it is said of the Paschall Cup Luc. 22. 17. as it is f Iansen Concord in eued locum Fracto pane in duodecim buccellas singulis in manus dederit Calicem propinquiores sequentibus tradiderunt sic enim dixit Accipite dividite inter vos confessed The contrary Canon in your now Romane Masse Concerning this It is to be noted say g Notandum est quòd laudabiliter Ecclesia prospexit ut ab isto modo olim licito nempè accipiendi proprijs manibus Sacramentum pro reverentia Eucharistiae abstineant Et rursus Olim ex patina suis quisque manibus sumpsit suam particulam ut moris fuit ad Sextam usque Synodum nempè Caesar-augustanam verum ob sacram hujus Mysterij singularem reverentiam Ecclesia instituit nè Laici nudâ manu Eucharistiam attingerent sed à Sacerdote in os sumentis mitteretur Salmeron quo supra Tract 12. pag. 78. 79. you that the Church of Rome hath judged it laudable that Lay-people abstaine from taking the Sacrament with their owne hands but that it be put into their mouthes by the Priest which is so ordained for a singular reverence So you CHALLENGE VVHat we may note of this your Notandum the h Apostoli primùm manibus suis panem sanctum acceperunt hujus ritus meminerunt veteres Patres Nam Tert. lib. ad uxorem inquit Eucharistiae Sacramentum nec de aliorum manibus quam praesidentium sumimus Et ex Cyprian Serm. de lapsis ob nonnulla exempla quae producit constat Eucharistiam in manibus Cōmunicantum Laicorum dari Vt constat ex Concil Teletano cap. 14. ex sexta Synodo in Trullo 101. ubi prohibentur fideles offerre vascula aurea argentea in quibus accipiant Eucharistiam ut per ea communicent sed proprijs manibus Idem colligitur ex Epistol Cornel. Papae quam refert Euseb lib. 6. Hist c. 35. ex Dionys Alex. ut refert Nicephor cap. 9. ex verbis Ambrosij Suarez les Tom. 3. In Tho. Disp 49. Sect. 6. initio Hoc intelligi potest ex Greg. Nazian Morom fuisse ut Christiani Eucharistiam quam accepissent ad os admoverent unde relictam esse credo Consuetudinem in multis locis quando non communicant dùm Eucharistia ostenditur manus tendant quasi gestientes manibus sumere Maldon Ies de Euch. §. Nova creatura pag. 283. Confessions of your owne Iesuites will shew first that the Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Church for above 500 yeares was according to Christs Institution to deliver the Bread into the hands of the Communicants Secondly that the same Order was observed at Rome as appeareth by the
acknowledged to have beene Apostolicall in their Resolutions the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostaticall Now 20 30 40 from the former Actuall we proceed to the Doctrinall points THE SECOND BOOKE Concerning the first Doctrinall Point which is the Interpretation of the words of Christ's Institution THIS IS MY BODY THIS IS MY BLOOD LVKE 22. The Doctrinall and Dogmaticall Points are to be distinguished into your Romish 1. Interpreation of the words of Christ his Institution This is my Body c. 2. Consequences deduced from such your Expositions such as are Transubstantiation Corporall Presence and the rest CHAP. I. Of the Exposition of the words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY The State of the Question in Generall BEcause as a In scripture explicandà haeresis est manifesta sicut figurata propriè accipere ità quae sunt propriè dicta ad TropicaÌ„ locutionem detorquere nam in verbis Eunuchi sunt qui se castraÌ„t propter regnum coelorum c. Aug. and to the same purpose also lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ Saint Augustine saith of points of faith It is as manifest an Heresie in the interpretation of Scriptures to take figurative speeches properly as to take Proper speeches figuratively And such is the CAVEAT which b Hoc cavendum nisi in manifestum Haerescos scopulum impingere velimus Salm. Ies Tom. â— Proleg 12. pag. 227. Salmeron the Iesuite giveth you it will concerne both You and Vs as we will avoid the brand of Heresie to search exactly into the true sense of these words of Christ especially seeing wee are herein to deale with the Inscription of the Seale of our Lord IESVS even the Sacrament of his Body and Blood In the which Disquisition besides the Authority of Ancient Fathers wee shall insist much upon the Ingenuity of your owne Romish Authours And what Necessitie there is to enquire into the true sense of these words will best appeare in the after-examination of the divers * See hereafter Booke 3. 4. 5. 6. Consequences of your owne Sense to wit your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Corporall and c Gratian Sacramenta Christi suscipiendo carnem ejus sanguinem materialiter significamus De consecrat dist 〈◊〉 Quà morte Materiall Presence Propitiatory Sacrifice and proper Adoration All which are Dependants upon your Romish Exposition of the former wordes of Christ The Issue then will be this that if the words be certainly true in a Proper and literall sense then wee are to yeeld to you the whole Cause But if it be necessarily Figurative then the ground of all these your Doctrines being but sandy the whole Structure and Fabricke which you erect thereupon must needs ruine and vanish But yet know withall that we do not so maintaine a Figurative sense of Christ his Speech concerning his Body as to exclude the Truth of his Body or yet the truly-Receiving thereof as the Third and Fourth Bookes following will declare That a Figurative sense of Christ his speech THIS IS MY BODY c. is evinced out of the words themselves from the Principles of the Romish Schooles SECT I. THere are three words which may be unto us as three keyes to unlocke the questioned Sense of Christs words wherof two are the Pronoune THIS and the Verbe IS not onely as they were then spoken by Christ himselfe but also as they are now pronounced by the Minister of Christ And the third key is the Pronoune MY whereof hereafter Wee begin with the word THIS The State of the Question about the word THIS When wee shall fully understand by your Church which a Conc. Trident. Sess 13. cap. 1. Verba illa à Christo commemorata à Divo Paulo repetita propriam significationem prae se ferunt holdeth a Proper and literall Signification what the Pronoune THIS doth demonstrate then shall wee truly inferre an infallible proofe of our figurative sense All Opinions concerning the Thing which the word THIS in the divers opinions of Authours pointeth at may be reduced to Three heads * âšœ Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp 201. cap. 1. Omnes opiniones ad tres tantùm calsses reduci possunt nam quidam Hoc reserunt ad substantam panis alij ad aliquod commune quod statim post conversionem demonstret Denique nonnulli ad id solum quod in sine prolationis verborum quod est corpus as you likewise confesse namely to signifie either This Bread or This Body of Christ or else some Third thing different from them both Tell you us first what you hold to be the opinion of Protestants Lutherans and all Calvinists saith your b Lutherani omnes Calvinistae pronomen Hoc propane positum esse dicunt quià panem Christus in manu acceperat diâ—it Hoc est corpus meum Maâ—don Ies in Matth. 26. §. Hâ—c omnes Lutherus in verba Evangelistae Habent hunc sensum Hic panis est corpus meum Iesuite thinke that the Pronoune THIS pointeth out Bread But your Romane Doctors are at oddes among themselves and divided into two principall Opinions Some of them referre the word THIS to Christ's Body Some to a Third thing which you call Individuum vagum In the first place wee are to confute both these your Expositions and after to confirme our owne That the first Exposition of Romish Doctors of great learning referring the word THIS properly to Christ his Body perverteth the sense of Christ his Speech by the Confessions of Romish Doctors SECT II. DIvers of your Romish Divines of speciall note as well Iesuites as Others interpret the word This to note the Body of Christ as it is present in this Sacrament at the pronunciation of the last syllable of this speech Hoc est corpus meum Because they are words * See hereafter let k. n. o. c. Practicall say they that is working that which they signifie namely The Body of Christ And this sense they call Most cleare and in their Iudgements there can be no better than this So your c Hoc designat corpus ut est in termino prolationis hic est sensus luculentissimus Stapleton Prompt Cath. serm Heb. sacra upon these words Hoc est corpus meum Stapleton d Hoc nihil aliud quà m corpus Christi demonstrat Sand. de visib Monarch Ad annum 1549 p. 629. Sanders together with e Demonstrat corpus ipsum in quod panis convertitur in sine propositionis nec est Tautologia quemadmodum neque in illo Hic est filius dilectus Bâ—rrad Ies de Inst Euch. c. 4. Barradius f Vrique pronomen Hoc quod attributi locum tenet necessariò spectat Hoc est inquit Christus corpus meum id est opus quod ego panem accipiens benedicens operor conficio corpus meum est Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 9. pag. 120. §. Ad hoc Of which last
Girculus dùm tamen non est haec sigura dùm dico Hic As a Taylor making a Kirtle and saying wee shall change onely his last word This is a Kirtle for my Mistris CONCVBINA So they CHALLENGE THese kind of Subtilties are frequent in the mouthes of most Romish Priests as often as they are compelled to shew what is demonstrated by the Pronouâ—e This. But that these your Similitudes of making Circles Lines and Nayles are no better than Iugling and Gypsie-trickes of fast or loose and fond devises forged in the braines of idle Sophisters and uttered by your Circulary Priests your owne Authours are ready to manifest for in these Examples of the Painters touching a Line or a Circle as your a Bellar. See before at the letter k Bellarmine sheweth making and saying This is a Circle Is no true Proposition untill the Circle be made And then it is a figurative speech and not a proper using the present Tense Is for the future Shall be So he In like manner your Iesuite b Profectò propesitio non est vera nisi postquà m factus est Cuculus Sed oratio accipitur pro verâ quia id quod futurum est accipitur pro jam facto per Tropum non juxta Proprietatem fermo nis in quem sensum Christus plerunque praesens pro futuro usurpavit ut Matth 26. Apud te facio Pascha cum Discipulis meis id est confestim facio Pasâ—lta Salmeron Iesuit Tom. 9. Traclat 13 §. Secunda Si Est propriè accipiatur pro existere durum est ut uniat subjectum cum praedicato pro futuro tempore quia falsa esset propositio non solùm in orationibus speculativis significativis sed etiam in practicis factivis ut si quis volens facere Circulum rogatus quid est Hoc respondeatque Hic est Circulus Profesiò propositio non est statim vera c. Salmer Ibid. pag. 83. Salmeron affirmeth with a PROFECTÃ’ and full asseveration that the speech of him who in drawing a Circle doth say This is a Circle cannot without a Trope or Figure be judged true So he And furthermore who knoweth not that every Operative speech doth signifie not the Being of a thing but the Making therof and bringing of it unto being For although the Painter be so nimble in drawing a Circle that his hand may go before his tongue yet when the Operative virtue consisteth not in working by the agility of the hand but in the orderly pronouncing of the words of a speech with the tongue so that the Truth therof dependeth upon the utterance of the last syllable it is impossible but the Priest in uttering distinctly these words Hoc est corpus meum must say This is before he come to the last syllable of Meâ—um and consequently in his sense notifie This to be Christ's Body before according to his owne judgement the Body of Christ can have there any being at all By this is discovered the notable Vertigo and dizzinesse of your Iesuite Maldonate Hee to prove that the Pronoune This doth relate to Christ's Body standeth upon the like Operative speculation God saith c Quum Deus ex limo terrae hominem finxit tectè verèque dicere potuiller sumpto in manus luno Hic est Homo Et cum ex costa mulierem fabricavit sumpta costâ dicere potait Haec est Mulier quamvis cum pronunciasset Pronomen Haec nondum fuisset mulier ac significâsset cùm ita locutus fuisset limum non esse hominem costam mulierem sed limum in hominem costam in mulierem converti Sic cùm Christus dicit Hoc est corpus meum significat panem mucari in corpus suum Quemadmodum si in Cana Galileae cùm aquam in vinum c. Maldon Iesuit in Matth. 26. Ita cùm Christus dicit accepto pane Hoc est corpus meum quamvis illud corpus nondum ille esset sed futurum erat illud eo pronomine demonstrat nee significat panem quem acceperat esse corpus suum sed mutari in corpus suum Idem in Matth. 26. pag. 635. he in creating man of the slime of the earth might have truly said thereof This is man Or in framing Woman of the Rib of man might have rightly said This is Woman or Christ in working his miracle in Cana of Galilee might have said shewing the water This is Wine So he When notwithstanding he is inforced in every one to alter the Verbe Is thus Slime is changed into man Rib is converted into Woman Water is made Wine as he himselfe confesseth expounding the words This is my Body thus Not that it was then his Body saith he which as yet it was not but was about to be nor that he signified the Bread to be his Body but to be changed into his Body So he As if any thing could be said properly to be that which as yet it Is not âšœ No and therfore your Iesuite Gordon 3 Gordonus Scotus Ies Controvers 4. cap 3. num 15. Hoc demonstrat corpus futurum And your Angles saith directly The Pronoune THIS demonstrateth the Body which is about to be As much as to say This Is shal be Another of your owne Divines will tell you that 4 Si Hoc demonstrat corpus sub ratione corporis Propositio speculativa esset non Practica Ies Angles flor Theol. quaest Art 10. Concl. 4. Which was also the Argument of Bellarmine See above at the letter k. If the Pronoune THIS demonstrate Christ's Body then cannot the speech of Christ be practicall that is to effectuate that which it signifieth and this will marre your doctrine of Transubstantiation quite âšœ Hitherto of your first Interpretation That the second Romish Exposition referring the Pronoune THIS to demonstrate a Third thing called Individuum vagum or Indeterminate substance perverteth the sense of Christ his speech THIS IS MY BODY proved by the Confession of Romish Doctors SECT III. A Third thing differing both from Bread and the Body of Christ which Romish Sophisters have lately invented is that which they call Individuum vagum by which is meant a substance confusedly taken as when one to use your owne example having an Hearb in his hand shall say This hearb groweth in my garden in which speech the word Hearb which is demonstrated by the Pronoune This is not taken determinately for that singular Hearb in his hand for that doth not now grow in his garden but is taken vagè and confusedly for the common Species nature or kind of that hearb And this opinion is defended by a,b Sententia haec est Pronomine illo designari aliquid commune Substantiae panis corporis Christi Commune inquam non secundùm Rem illud enim nullum esse potest sed secundùm rationem seu denominationem viz. sub ratione contenti sub his accidentibus continetur corpus meum Ita Guitmandus
surrexit à Coena accepit haec cum gratias egisset dixit Hoc meum est hoc videmus quod non aequale est neque simile non imagini in carne non invisibili deitati non lineamentis membrorum hoc enim rotundae formae est insensibile quantum ad potentiam voluit per gratiam dicere hoc meum est hoc nemo non fidem habet sermoni qui enim non credit ipsum esse verum excidit à gratia salute Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch cap. 20. words your Cardinall's b Cum docere vellet Epiphan hominem verè factum ad imaginem Dei licet non facile appâ—reat in quo consistat similitudo inter Deum et hominem cum Deus incorporalis sit immensus et dicit multa esse ejusmodi quae aliud sunt aliud videntur ponit exemplum de Eucharistia quae verè est corpus Christi tamen nihil minus est quam quod appareat exterius cum sit â—otundum et insensibile proinde validè dissimile corpori Christi Hic sanè locus omninò convinciâ— nam quod dicit oporet credere ipsum esse verum excludit Tropos praesertim cum addat excidere à Salute qui non credit quod etiam addit ciedendum esse licet sensus repugnent apertissime testatur non cum loqui de significatione sed de re ipsa words to be observed in the Greeke are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The last words shew that Insensible is taken according to power that is actively Objection and our Answer and then make your owne determination as you shall thinke good Man is said to be made after the Image of God Epiphanius not able to define what this Image consisted in whether it be man's soule or minde or virtue notwithstanding resolveth thatc All men have the Image of God in them but yet not according to nature namely that substantiall nature which is in God because God is Incomprehensible and infinite c. This is the maine point which Epiphanius will now illustrate but how By something saith your Cardinall which seemeth to be that which it is not And Epiphanius instanceth in the Eucharist wherein Christ taking into his hands those things which the Evangelists do mention he said of the one HOC This is mine viz. Body and of the other This is mine viz. Blood hereby understanding saith your Objector The Eucharist which is truely the Body of Christ although it seeme not to be so outwardly being of a round figure and Insensible or without sense and therefore farre unlike to be the Body of Christ So he Who thinking he hath overcome doth raise up his Iö and Triumph saying This argument is throughly convincent because Epiphanius addeth He who believeth not the words of Christ doth fall from Salvation adding further that they are to be beleeved although our senses gainesay it You have heard the Objection which seeming to so great a Champion so greatly Convincent you will give us licence to make a full Answer First by HOC ET HOC THIS AND THIS by the Interpretation of Epiphanius are meant The things which the Evangelist did mention and the Evangelist mentioned as you know Bread He tooke Bread He tooke the Cup meaning Wine in the Cup namely according to the * See above Chap. 1. §. 6. former generall Consent of the Fathers HOC signifyed Bread in one part of the Eucharist and Wine in the other But Bread neither in the Substance nor in the Accidents can be called Christs Body without a Trope as hath beene * See above Chap. 1. §. 4. Confessed which is our first confutation of your Cardinal who concludeth that Epiphanius excludeth all Tropes out of Christs Speech of HOC Secondly c Epiphanius in Ancorato Habent omnes id quod est secundùm Imaginem Dei sed non secundùm naturam non enim secundùm aequalitatem habent homines Deus enim mente incoÌ„ prehensibilis est cum spiritus sit super omnem spirituÌ„ All men saith Epiphanius have the Image of God although not according to nature or equality because God the Spirit of Spirits is Incomprehensible Then he seeketh a Similitude from the Eucharist an Image of a thing which seemeth to be that which in nature and equality it is not Now in the Eucharist there are two things to be distinguished the one is the Naturall the other is the Sacramentall Being thereof The Naturall Being of the Elements as of Bread and Wine cannot make this Similitude because whether they be taken as Substances or Accidents Hoc This hath no proportion with the word which is called Meum meaning Christs Body because the Hoc as Epiphanins saith is a Round figure But as Hoc and Hoc are Sacramentall Images representing Meum and Meum Christs Body and Blood the Bread broken to betoken his Body crucifyed and the Wine poured out a-part to signifie Christs Blood Shed so will the Similitude be most Harmonicall Even as Bread and Wine in the Eucharist although they differ in nature yet are they representative Signes and Images of the Body and Blood of Christ So the Image of God in man hath a resemblance of the Godhead although in respect of Nature and Equality it be as different as Finite and Infinite Comprehensible and Incomprehensible According to which Analogicall Mysticall and acramentall sense upon the hearing of these words of Epiphanius Whosoever will not believe Christs words as hee said falleth from grace wee willingly shall say Amen The rather because Epiphanius being an Adversarie to the Marcionites who denyed Christ to have a True Body but onely Phantasticall notwithstanding whatsoever proofe from mens senses who saw and felt them they could not digest the Faith of the Romish Church which teacheth that that which Epiphanius calleth Bread after Consecration should be contrary to the Demonstration of â—oure Senses as of Seeing Smelling Feeling and Tasting meere Accidents Thirdly a place as observable as any other He saith of this Hoc which is of a round figure and differing in nature and proportion from that Meum which is the Body of Christ that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Insensible But how Passively as not being able to be perceived No for then it could not be perceived to be Round But Actively as not able to perceive any thing in which respect hee opposeth it to Meum which is the Body of Christ Which againe manifestly contradicteth the abominable coÌ„mon doctrine of your Church as you have heard of Believing the Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament to be unable either to see or heare or exercise any faculty of sense without a Miracle as is shewed Book 4. Chap. 9. Sect. 2. In the last place I require Iustice from your selves against a Proctor of yours The Case is this Bellarmine said quoth I that Epiphanius taught We are to believe these words of Christ although
quibus Divites comparantur cum depâ—â—â—â—â— grave in Sarciaâ—â—â— peccatorum totius corporis privitatem intrare possint per aâ—gustam portam As the Camels Beasts to whom the rich are resembled could passe through the straight gate of Hierusalem as soone as they were disburthened of their loads So Rich men casting off the load of their sins may enter in at the straight gate that leadeth unto life A Vindication of Truth against an Objected Testimony under the name of Pope Hilary for proofe of the Being of the whole Body of Christ in every part of the Hoast SECT VIII VVE are to insert in this place the forgotten Objected words which passe under the name of Pope Hilarie and recorded in your Papall decrees 10 Decret de Consecratione Dist 2. Vbi pars ex Hilario Papa Vbi pars est corporis est totum eadem est ratio in corpore Domini qâ—ae est in Manna quod in cjus figura praecessit de quo dicitum Qui plus collogerat ' non habuit amplius neque qui minus 〈◊〉 habâ—â—â— minus Non enim est quantites visibilis aestimanda in hoc mysterio sed virtus 〈◊〉 spiritualis 〈…〉 Non est quantitas aestimanda ut sub minori quantitate minus sic Corpus Christi sub 〈◊〉 where there is part of Christs Body in the Sacrament there is the whole there being the same reason of this as there was of Manna whereof it is written Hee that gathered much had no more than others and hee that gathered not so much had no whit lesse Which your Romish Glosse applyeth to the Sacrament to signifie that There is no lesse quantity of Christs Body under a lesse quantity of the Sacrament none greater under a greater Our Answer is Three-fold I. That your Doctors could never yet prove the writings which goe under the name of Popes * Legat qai velit nostri Roberti Coci Censuram Scriptorum Decret all Epistles to have beene truly theirs whereof many of themselves have doubted and which some also have denyed II. That the Comparison fighteth mainly against your professed Romane Faith in this very point which you contend for For you teach Body of Christ to be whole in the whole and in every the least imaginable part of the Hoast without all maner of situation therein so as not having the Head above and the Feete below This you cannot deny to be your owne positive Tridentine Sense But the Manna which was diminished and augmented in Quantity by Gods providence had notwithstanding a certaine determinate Quantitie expressely mentioned in the same Text Every man a Gomer according to their families namely every one an equall but yet a severall measure and Quantity for one mans Manna was not the same which another had This agreeth not with your Corporall eating of one and the same Body of Christ Next the Granes of the same Manna for it was like Coriander-seed had their severall situations and distinct places in every Gomer some lying above and some below some on the right side and some on the left side of the Measure which differences you absolutely deny to accord with the maner of Christs being in this Sacrament III. The Comparison will farre better suite with the Spirituall soules receiving of the Body of Christ Every Faithfull one indeed participating the same whole Christ by Faith whether in a Greater or lesser Hoast without all proportioning of his Bodily Dimensions âšœ CHALLENGE SHall not then the Novelty of your Romish Article which was no so much as beleeved of Romish Doctors of this last Age of Christianitie Shall not your Contradiction to your owne Romish Principle Shall not the expresse Testimony of Saint Augustine who as hee was universally acknowledged to be a Catholike Father so was hee never condemned by any other Catholike Father for this his Doctrine concerning the Existence of Bodily parts according to proportionable Dimensions of Space Finally shall not the affinity which your opinion hath with damnable Heresies perswade you of the falsity of this your Romish Faith CHAP. IX Of the fift Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODY as the same Body is now considered to be most perfect by making it most Imperfect SECT I NOne will thinke we neede to impose any absurd Doctrine upon your Church the Absurdities which wee have already heard professed therin under the testifications of your owne Disputers having beene so marvellously and palpably absurd as hath beene shewne Among which wee may reckon this that followeth as not the least prodigious Consequence of your Romish Corporall Presence to wit That your Church of Rome alloweth a Doctrine teaching a Body of Christ now glorified to be destitute of naturall and voluntary motion of Sense and of Vnderstanding SECT II. CAtholike Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ after the Resurrection but that hee was able naturally of himselfe as hee was man to performe the perfect Acts which other men can who are of right constitution of Body and of sound understanding such as are the functions of Iudgement and reason and of appetite sense and motion according to the liberty of his owne will This Doctrine was above a thousand yeeres Catholike But your now Romane Faith is to beleeve as followeth in the Conclusions set downe by your Jesuite a Suarez Ies Dico secundò corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento potest per se moveri localiter à Deo loquor de potentia Dei absoluta Nam juxta legem statutam suppono corpus Christi nunquam separari à speciebus nec moveri nisi motis illis neque in hac conclusione invenies Theologum ullum aperte contradicentem In tertiam Tho. qu. 76. Art 7. Disput 32. Conc. 2. Conclus 3. Corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento non possit naturaliter moveri localiter ab intrinseco à propria anima interna virtute motiva naturall neque per se neque per accidens Loquor de naturali virtute non ut est instrumentum verbi operans per virtutem miraculorum effectricem Ratio quia non potest anima movere corpus suum nisi per membra organica quae habent extensionem in locum Sed membra corporis Christi non hoc modo existunt in hoc Sacramento multo minus potest movere species Sacramentales quas nec physice contingere possit neque ad motum voluntatis movere Ibid Conclus ult Potest ut est in hoc Sacramento virtue extrinseca moveri per Accidens quia possunt Sacramentales species moveri ut a Sacerdote Elevando Sect. 3. De sensibus exterioribus Nominales citati dicunt posse Christum ut est in hoc Sacramento ut Deum audire c. Alij hoc negant Sunt nonnulli qui negant id fieri posse de Potentiâ Dei absolutâ ut corpus in extensum à loco aut seipsum videat aut alia Dico non
Eucharist as will be proved at large in the Seventh Booke His Second Absurdity is to be seene in his Comparison common to him with his fellowes reasoning thus that the Articles of the Trinity and of the Incarnation of Christ are above mans Capacity and Reason being onely to be apprehended by Faith and therefore ought men to inthrall their Reason to believe what the Romish Church teacheth concerning the Eucharist and not examine their Mysteries of Transubstantiation which implyeth an Absolute Absence in this Sacrament of the Substance of Bread and an Existence of the Naturall Body of Christ Whereas indeed there cannot bee a more absurd Comparison because the Mystery of the Trinity and maner of Hypostaticall Vnion of the God-head and Man-hood of Christ are Objects transcendently spirituall and matters of Infinitenesse in themselves but the matters of all Sacraments are Corporall Objects of Sense and therefore discernable thereby and subject to the Examen of Reason according to the Practice and * See Booke 3. Conclusions both of Primitive Fathers and Romish Doctors Among whom your Cardinall 1 Contarenus Cardinal Tractat. de officio Ep. lib. 1. Dei cognitionem Summam appellat scientiam divinae ignorationis Dei namque naturam longissimâ— distare ab omni eo quod intellectus noster cogitat necesse fuit quaedam de Deo credenda his proponi quae omnino mentis aciem superaret Contarenus teacheth you out of Dionysius Areopagita that our chiefe Knowledge of God is our Ignorance of him because the knowledge of those things which ought to be believed concerning God differ from the knowledge of all other things in this that they excede all aprehension of mans mind Master Fisher his Inference upon his former Supposition Numb 7. This being supposed saith he I inferre that the Seeming Absurdities of Catholike Reall Presence should incourage a true Christian mind to believe it as to that which was believed in the Primitive Church although accompanyed with so Seemingly Grosse Absurdities as being of things above our Imaginations So hee Our Reply noting the Absurdity of his Inference upon his false Supposition The Supposition having beene proved to be false concerning the Doctrine of Primitive Fathers his Inference from thence cannot be Really true which wee shall now confute by the Sayings of your owne Doctors For if Romish Doctrines concerning the Eucharist were therefore the Rather to be beleeved because that they were accompanyed with Seeming Absurdities then was it either Faithlesnesse or extreme Folly in your owne Romish Divines who reasoned Contrariwise to give you Five Examples instead of fivescore I. Gabriel Biel against the Motion of Christ's Body in the Eucharist from one place into another and so to East and West both at once which saith he were * See above Chap. â— Sect. â— Absurd and Ridiculous II. Your Iesuit Coninks against the Possibility of Christ's Body to move and to be still in the same Instant gain-sayth it * Ibid. cap. Because that is sayth hee altogether Vnconceivable III. Pope Innocent against the Possibility of Christs Body to be Mortall and Immortall at once * See Booke 4. Chap. â— Sect. â— Because saith hee it is Incredible And IV. as other of your * Ibid. See the Marginells Theologues in the same place do affirme Because it is Repugnant to the Vnderstanding of man V. Your Collius Declaming against pretended Miraculous Issues of Christ's Blood out of the Eucharist and sometime out of Images impugneth it saying * Booke 4. Ca. 2. Sect. 6. 7. Whose eares can abide to heare such a Copie and abundance of Blood of Christ to be separated out of his Veines now after his Resurrection yea who without horrour can thinke thereof He that beleeveth this let him heare that notable Saying of Solomon Hee that is sodaine or easie of Beliefe is of a light and unconstant heart Nor could such Copie of Blood issue out without some injurie to the Perfection of his Glorious Body So they Which Sentence of Solomon if Master Fisher had truely had by heart hee could never have held your Romish Doctrines to be the Rather Credible because of their Seeming Absurdities Master Fisher his particular Romish Instances of Seeming Absurdities Numb 8. As for Example I. That a Body so big should be in so little an Hoast II. That a Body so Glorious should be subject to such Indignities and Obscenities III. That the same Body should be in innumerable places at once IV. That Bread being converted into the Body of Christ the sole Accidents should remaine performing the office of the Substance even to the nutrition of mans Body These Difficulties scandalize Protestants and thereupon they hold the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be Absurd and Ridiculous but wee must not depend upon our Senses So hee Our Reply especially out of the Fathers for Discovery of Master Fishers Falshood in pretending the Patronage of Antiquity for Defence of these Particular Romish Absurdities Master Fisher in his former Inference pretended the Beliefe of the Primitive Church as holding of Seeming Absurdities as being things above Imaginations and now insisteth upon your particular Romish Seeming Absurd Tenents if they should be judged by our Senses as though this had beene the Doctrine of Primitive Antiquity whereas indeed he could not have done a greater injurie to the Church Primitive which is ready to Contradict him in each Particular The First objected Seeming Absurdity of the whole Body of Christ in so little an Hoast or as your Tridentine Fathers said In every least part thereof was contradicted by Saint * Booke 4. cap. 8. Sect. 6. Augustine holding it Incredible as well as by some of your Schoolemen who judged it Monstrous and as much as to make the Nose of Christ to stand together with his Heele and so to make his Body a Confused * See Booke 4 c. 8. Sect. Chaos The Second That a Body so glorious should be subject to such Indignites and Obscenities was contradicted by all these holy * See Booke 5. throughout Fathers who have gain-sayd The Eating of Christ with Teeth The devouring with the Throate and abhorred the passing it downe through the Entrails into the Draught as vile and execrable Indignities The Third which is The being of the same Body of Christ in innumerable places at once A Doctrine unanimously contradicted by * See Booke 4. cap 6. Ancient Fathers teaching I. Circumscription to be Inseparable from a Bodie II. Proving thereby Christs Humanity to be a creature and not God because Circumscribed in one place And III. The Holy-Ghost to be God and no creature because not Circumscribed in one place The Fourth That Sole Accidents should remaine and nourish mans Body which one Instance followeth two falsehoods One is to beleeve that Sole Accidents do remaine without all Substance of Bread contradicted by * See Booke 3. cap 3 12. Theodoret your Pope Gelasius and by other holy Fathers The other Falshood is
your professing that Sole Accidents do nourish the Bodies whether of Man or Mouse as you teach But expresly contradicted by the Ancient Father Gregory Nyssen who held it Impossible for any thing which is not a Substance to nourish a Substance Lastly to his Additionall That wee are not in the discerning of the matter of this Sacrament to depend upon our Senses which is most Contradictory to the Doctrine of Antiquity For the Fathers besides these their Assertions * See Booke 3. throughout that we see Bread and Wine the Bread which consisteth of granes of Corne and Wine of Grapes have justified the Judgement of our Senses in sensible Objects and not this onely but by the same Argument taken from our Senses have furthermore confuted and confounded both the Heathen Academicks and Hereticall Marcionites Manichees Eunomians Eutychians and others the most grosly Absurd Heretikes of those Primitive Ages So that now you must conclude that either those Ancient Fathers ought to have submitted their Faith to those Absurd and damned Heretikes or else Master Fisher ought to recant this his pernicious and Hereticall Paradox of Beleeving Doctrines the Rather because they seeme to be Absurd Master-Fisher his Particular Confirmation of one of his Former Instances of a Body being in divers places at once by a quaint example of his owne Numb 9. The Bodie of Christ saith hee being glorious is as swift in operation as any Thought but a mans Thought is so quicke that one may be by Thought in two disjoyned places at once for example in London and at Rome Our Reply detecting the Stupidity of this Objection Wee to omit that which is more * He useth the Common Objection of Man's soule and God himselfe which hath beene confuted formerly See above cap. 6. Sect. 2. common note in Master Fisher now Objecting his owne fancy not so much a Seeming Absurdity as a palpable Stupidity in this his exemplifying the Possibility of the Being of a Body in divers places at once as namely at London and at Rome If Master Fisher thinking of Rome at his being in London should say that even then his Thought was Really at Rome it were easie for any man to guesse in what place of London hee himselfe was because that every Sober man will beleeve that Master Fisher in thinking of Rome had his Thought then in his owne Braine and not at Rome And though it should be possible for him to thinke both of Rome and London at once yet could not this any way exemplifie the Possibility of the Being of one and the same Body in two places in one moment For his Thought of London and of Rome are not one and the same Thought but as distinct and different about the subject matters of his Thoughts as namely the plotting of Treason in Rome and practising and exequuting the same in London should be Master Fisher his Particular Confirmation of the Possibility of Accidents to nourish a Substance from a rare example of his owne Numb 10. It seemeth difficult saith hee to conceive that Accidents can performe the office of any Substance as to nourish a man But wee should perchance find as great a difficultie to beleeve did wee not see it Glasse to be made of Ashes A Bird to be bred out of the rotten Barke of a Tree c. Our Reply manifesting his Absurd Exemplification This his Comparison of Likenesse as any one may discerne at the first sight consisteth meerely of unlikelihoods and Dissimilitudes for he laboureth to prove it to be an equall Difficulty for an Accident to nourish a Substance as it is in his Examples as for a Substance to nourish a Substance The Absurditie whereof is no lesse than for any to argue that because the Body of a man doth beget a Body So the shadow thereof can also beget a Body It is irkesome unto us to have stayd so long in Master Fishers Absurdities wee hasten to our Generall Challenge âšœ THE GENERALL CHALLENGE THese above specified Sixe Contradictions so plainly and plentifully proved by such forceable Arguments as the light of Divine Scripture hath authorized the profession of Primitive Fathers testified Confessions of Romish Doctors acknowledged and the Principles of your owne Romish learning in most points confirmed your Abrenunciation of your so many Grosse Errours may be as necessary as your persisting therein will be damnable Before we can end wee are to consult with the Fathers of the Councel of Nice especially seeing that as well Romanists as Protestants will be knowne to appeale to that Councel CHAP. XI Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice objected for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and against it SECT I. THis as it is delivered by your a Concilij verba Iterùm etiam hic in divina mensa nè humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem calicem sed attollentes mentem fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mensa agnum illum Dei tollentem peccata mundi incruentè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à Sacerdotibus immolatum et pretiosum ejus corpus sanguinem verè nos sumenâ—es credamus haec esse nostrae resurrectionis symbola Propâ—er hoc enim neque multum accipimus sed parum ut sciamus non ad saâ—iâ—tatem sed ad sanctificationem offerri Vt refert Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 10. Cardinall taken out as he saith of the Vatican Library standeth thus Let us not heere in this Divine Table bend our thoughts downewards upon the Bread and the Cup which is set before Vs but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God set upon that Table The Lambe of God which taketh away the sins of the World offered unbloodily of the Priest And we receiving truly his Body and Blood let us thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection For this cause do wee receive not much but little that wee may understand this is not to satisfie but to Sanctifie So the Canon The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides SECT II. SCarce is there any one Romish Author handling this Controversie who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice for the countenancing of your Romish Masse Contrarily Protestants as they are set downe by our b Hunc cano nem Conc. Niceni probatum fuisse Marpurgi Luthero alijs Martinus Bucerus dixit Ità in Domino senrio in hac sententia opto venire ad Tribunal Dei Manu meâ scripsi Teste Hier. Zanchio Miscell de Coena Domini pag. 152. He himselfe assenting unto the same Zanchy and your c Hoc testimonium Niceni Conc. primi in actis ejusdem Conc. in Vaticana Bibliotheca his verbis c. Hoc testimonium agnoscunt etiam Adversarij ut Oecolampadius Calvin Instit lib. 4. cap 17. §. 36. Petrus Boquinus Klebitius nituntur hoc testimonio ad gravissimam suam haeresin stabiliendam â— c. Bellar. ibid âšœ â—â— Greeke
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
corpus Christi absolute manducari sed manducator sub specie panis quae sententia significat species manducari visibiliter sensibiliter ac promde dertibus atteri Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euch. ca. 11. §. Respon Corpus The Body of Christ is not absolutely eaten but eaten under the formes of Bread and that is to say saith hee the formes of Bread are sensibly and visibly eaten So hee If this imported a literall maner of Eating then might your Cardinall have sayd as literally of himselfe My Clothes are torne therefore my Body is rent in pieces Not to trouble you with the Cardinall's Philosophy that talketh of Eating and Tearing of Colours But to the point If onely the Accidents of Bread be as hee saith sensibly eaten then was Pope Nicholas his Prescription of Eating Christs Body sensibly in your Cardinalls opinion not True And upon the same Ground it is that your Iesuit n Frangi metaphorica non propria locutio est colligitur ex Thoma qu. 77. Art 7. patet quia fractio proprie in rigore significat divisionem discontinuationem partium quae constat non fieri in partibus corporis Christi Suarez in Thom. qu. 75. Disp 47. Art 1. §. 4. Suarez out of Thomas and other Schoolemen affirmeth the word Broken to be a Metaphoricall phrase not properly belonging to the Body of Christ because it requireth that there should be a Separation of the parts of that which is properly broken So hee as also your * Canus see in the former Section Canus hath concluded And your o Si propriè loqui velimus falsae sunt hae propositiones Corpus Christi manducatur a nobis Corpus Christi devoratur Corpus Christi frangitur quia ipsi modi qui his verbis significantur non conveniunt Copori Christi quod est in hoc Sacramento sed hae sunt verae Recipitur à nobis sumitur à nobis Maldon Ies Tom. 1. de Sacram. Tract de Euch. pag. 144. Verè sumitur sed non atteritur Ibid. pag. 143. Iesuite Maldonate is so bold as to tell you that these Propositions The Body of Christ is Eaten is Broken Torne with the Teeth or Devoured of us properly taken are false Thus your Iesuites as if they had expressely sayd that to thinke the Body of Christ to be eaten torne or devoured properly taken is a Carnall Capernaiticall and as your owne p Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarij in majorem Haeresin incides quā Ipse fuerit Igitur omnia referas ad species ipsas c. Gloss apud Gratian. de Consecrat Dist 2. c. Ego Berengarius Glosse in Gratian concludeth an Hereticall opinion Will you have any more It is but the last day in respect when q Ob. Scoto-Britannus Apud Pontificios corpus Christi Cyclopum dentibus teri Resp Dansqueius Theolog. Canon in Scuto B. Mariae Aspricollis An verò mortales artus Corporis Christi dentibus teri ore blasphemo mente nequissimâ potes comprobare non magis id facias quà m Caiphas cùm tunicam à pectore laceravit one of your grave Criticks so much abhorred the conceit of proper Tearing Christs Body that hee called the Objecting hereof against your Church in his blind zeale Blasphemie and answereth that you do no more Teare Christs Flesh than Caiphas tore his when he rent his Clothes The case then is plaine enough for Confutation of your more ancient Romish Faith That the former Romish and Popish Faith for the Maner of receiving of the Body of Christ is at this day but somewhat altered yet miserably inconstant and Faithlesse SECT III. PRotestants may have in this place just matter of insultation against your Romish Professors to prove their Infidelity in that which they seeme to professe As first that the Ground of your Doctrine of Corporall presence is the litterall and proper interpretation of the words of Christ when hee sayd Take eate this is my Body yet now are you compelled to say that Properly eaten is no proper but a false sense Your Second Doctrine is that the Judgement of a Romane Pope in a Romane Councell in a matter of Faith is Infallible Notwithstanding Pope Nicholas with his Romane Councel is found to have grossely erred in a tenor of Abjuration which of all others as hath beene confessed is most Literall and was therefore purposely devised against a Figurative Sense of the words of Christ and forth-with published throughout Italy France Germany c. to direct men in the Faith of sensuall Eating breaking and tearing the Flesh of Christ with their teeth yet notwithstanding your common Judgement being now to reject such phrases taken in their proper Signification and in a maner to abrenounce Berengarius his Abrenunciation what is if this be not an Argument that either you say you care not or else you beleeve you know not what Let us goe on in pursuit of your Doctrine of the Corporall maner of Eating which you still maintaine and it will be found to be Capernaiticall enough And lest that you may evade by pretence of Not Chewing wee adde as followeth That the Orall Eating of the Sacrament was anciently by Chewing SECT IV. CHewing the Sacrament with the Teeth was the forme of Eating at the time of Christ his Institution as is proved by your owne * Suarez See above Booke 1. Cap. 1. Sect. 4. Confession in granting that the unleavened Bread which Christ used was Glutinosus that is gluish clammie and such as was to be cut with a knife But that the same maner of Eating by Chewing was altered in the Apostolicall or Primitive times is not read of by any Canon yea or yet Admonition of any one Father in the Church whether Greek or Latine among whom Saint Augustine called the maner of eating a * See above cap. 2. Sect. 9. Pressing the Sacrament with the Teeth That also Chewing continued in the Romish Church till a Thousand and fifty yeares after Christ is not obscurely implyed in the former tenor of the Recantation of Berengarius prescribed by the same Church which was to eat as you have heard By tearing it with teeth And lastly that this hath since continued the ordinary Custome of the same Church is as evident by your Cardinall Alan and Canus * See above in the former Section who have defended the maner of Eating by Tearing Nor was Swallowing prescribed by any untill that the queazie stomaches of your r Hostiam salivâ reverenter liquefactam in corpus dimittat non est enim dentibus terenda vel palato admovenda sed ante ablutionis sumptionem deglutienda Coster Ies Institut lib 1 cap. 5. Jesuites not enduring Chewing perswaded the Contrary Which kinds of Eating whether by Chewing or Swallowing of Christs Flesh being both Orall none can deny to have beene the opinion of the ſ Nimis carnaliter intelligebant Discipuli Capernaitae credentes ejus carnem comedi
oportere sicut edebantur animalium carnes quae dentibus conteruntur Madridius Ies de frequenti usu Eucharistiae cap. 4. Capernaites First of Chewing and then afterwards of Swallowing in the sixt Chapter following in it's due place That the Corporall and Orall Eating of Christs Flesh is a Capernaiticall Heresie is proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers SECT V. SOmetime do Ancient Fathers point out the Error of the Capernaites set downe Iohn 6. concerning their false interpreting the words of Christ when hee speaketh of Eating his Flesh which they understood literally But this literall sense a Origen Hom. 7. in Levit. pag. 141. Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam Si secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est occidit haec litera vis tibi aliam proferam ex Evangelio literam quae occidit Qui non habet inquit gladium vendat tunicam emat gladium Si vero spiritualiter non occidit sed est in eo spiritus vivificans Origen calleth a Killing letter that is a pernicious interpretation even as of that other Scripture Hee that hath not a Sword let him buy one c. but this latter is altogether Figurative as you know and hath a Spirituall understanding therefore the former is Figurative also Athanasius b Athanas Tract in illa verba Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium hominis c Quod hominibus corpus suffecisset ad cibum ut universis mundi alimonia fieret Sed propterea ascensionis suae meminit ut eos a corporali intellectu abstraheret Quae locutus sum inquit spiritus sunt vita id est corpus in cibum dabitur ut spiritualiter unicuique tribuatur fiat singulis praeservatio ad Resurrectionem confuting the Capernaiticall conceipt of Corporall Eating of Christs Flesh will have us to observe that Christ after hee spake of his Flesh did forth-with make mention of his Ascension into Heaven but why That Christ might thereby draw their thoughts from the bodily sense namely of Eating it Corporally upon Earth which is your Romish sense âšœ His Reason Reduced into Logicall forme must have beene this against the Capernaites who imagined a Carnall Eating of Christs Flesh That which was to ascend into Heaven could not be eaten Corporally on Earth But Christ sayd that his Body should ascend into Heaven And therefore signified thereby that hee could not be eaten upon Earth which ought to have beene a Satisfactory reason and Answere to the Capernaites themselves âšœ Tertullian likewise giveth the reason of Christs saying It is the Spirit which quickeneth because the Capernaites so understood the words of Christs speech of Eating his Flesh As if saith c Tertul. de Capernaitis Quia durum intolerabile existimarunt sermonem quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset praemisit Spiritus est qui vivificat lib. de Resurrect carnis Tertullian Christ had truly determined to give his Flesh to be eaten Therefore it was their Errour to dreame of a truly Corporall Eating d Aug. in Iob 6. Non moritur Non qui panem premit dente sed qui man ducat in Corde Tract 26. Idem in Psal 98. Spiritualiter intelligite non Hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estit bibituri sanguinem illum quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum commendavi vobis spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos Augustine out of the sixt of Iohn bringeth in Christ expounding his owne meaning of Eating his Flesh and saying You are not to eate this flesh which you see I have commended unto you a Sacrament which being Spiritually understood shall revive you Plainely denying it to be Christs Body which is Eaten Orally and then affirming it to be the Sacrament of his Body and as plainely calling the maner of Corporall Eating A pressing of Bread with the teeth Wee say Bread not the Body of Christ For when hee cometh to our Eating of Christs flesh hee exempteth the Corporall Instruments and requireth only the Spirituall saying e Aug. apud Gratian. de Consecrat 〈◊〉 2. Vt quid Quid paâ—â— dentem ventrem crede manducasti Ex Aug. de remed 〈◊〉 §. ut quid Why preparest thou thy Tooth It is then no Corporall Eating and hee addeth Believe and thou hast eaten Saint Augustine goeth on and knowing that Corporall Eating of any thing doth inferre a Chewing by dividing the thing eaten into parts as your owne Iesuit hath * See above Booke 5. cap. ◠§. 2. confessed lest wee should understand this properly hee teacheth us to say f Idem rursus apud Gratiam ibid. Christus manducatus vivit quia resurreâ—t it occiâ—us nec quando manduâ—â—us partes de illo facimus quâ—dem Sacramento id â—it noâ—ut fideles quemadmodum manducent carnem Christi per parteâ— manducatur in Sacramentis mâ—net integer câ—â—lo in corde Ex Aug. Serm. de verbis Evangeliâ— Christ is not divided into parts Contrarily when wee speake Sacramentally that is Figuratively and improperly hee will have us to grant that Christ his Body is divided in this Sacrament but remayneth whole in Heaven Say now will you say that Christs Body is Divided by your Eating the Eucharist in a literall sense your owne Iesuits have abhorred to thinke so And dare you not say that in Eating this Sacrament you do Divide Christs Body in a literall sense then are you to abhorre your Romish Literall Exposition of Christs speech which cannot but necessarily inferr a proper Dividing of the flesh of Christ âšœ Wee may not conceale the Evasion which your Disputers have devised for blunting the Diâ—t of this notable Sentence You see not the same Body saith Saint Augustin 1 Bellarm. lib. 2 de Eucharist cap. 24 â—uxtà Lanfrancum Resp non Idem corpus id est non èodem modo non in specie visibili aut mortali Idem quoad substantiam non Idem quoad modum That is say they not after the same maner namely not in a visible and mortall shape So they Than which Exposition what can be more extravagant by skipping from the Predicament of Substance to the Predicament of Quality You shall not eat the same Body saith Saint Augustine What then shall they eat Hee addeth I have commended to you a Sacrament to be eaten Therefore the Opposition used by Saint Augustine is to Distinguish betweene Christs Body and the Sacrament of Bread as betweene Substance and Substance for hee sayd not to eat his Body As you see it to signify the maner of Eating invisibly but you are not to eat That which you see as denying Christs Body to be the matter of their Sight even as Saint Augustine doth often expresse himselfe as well in that place where hee called his Body The Bread the Lord and the Sacrament The Bread of the Lord like as your owne 2 Gabriel Biâ—l Lect. 80. lit n. Non cum manducamus partes
The Atribute of Viaticum is next which having so great Consanguinity with the Communion by feeding may afford us the same Reason of Retorting the same Argument borrowed from the same word upon your Objectors themselves which wee permit to your owne wits to examine that with more Brevity wee may descend to the last Adjunct which is a Pledge of our Resurrection to Immortality which hath beene applyed by your Cardinall as peculiar to the Eucharist to prove a Corporall presence of Christ therein It being a Terme taken from the mouth of the Father Optatus whom wee have answered out of two Fathers Basil and Theodoret who have as well given the same word Pledge of our Resurrection to Immortality unto the Sacrament of Baptisme From whom it may be your * Costerus See above Booke 4. ca. 10. §. 5. Jesuite Coster borrowed his Assertion where hee also nameth Baptisme the Pledge of our Resurrection to life everlasting which one word Pledge now Objected by you will prove as good as Bellerophon's Letters to confute your selves and to vanquish your Romish Defence even from the nature of a Pledge as it is applyed to the Sacrament of the Eucharist by three Fathers I. Hierome 13 Hieron See above Booke 3. Ca. 3. §. 11. Christ saith he left this his last memoriall of his Passion like as one that is travailing into a strange Country leaveth a Pledge with his friend for a memorandum of his benefits II. Gaudentius thus 14 Gaudent See above Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 1â— at â— Christ saith hee being about to be Crucifyed left that Hereditary gift of the new Testament as a Pledge of his Presence And III. Primasius concerning the Institution of this Sacrament saith that 15 Primas in 1. Cor. 11. Salvator Deus exemplum dedit ut quotiescunquè hoc facimus in mente habeamus quod Christus pro nobis mortuus est ideo nobis dicitur Corpus Christi ut cum hoc recordati fuerimus non simus ingrati gratiae ejus Quemadmodum si quis moriens relinquat ei quem diligit aliquod pignus quod ille post mortem ejus quandocunque viderit nunquid potest lachrymas continere si perfectè dilexerit Christ left us an example that as often as wee celebrate this wee should call to remembrance that Christ dyed for us And therfore is it called the Body of Christ saith hee that as often as wee remember wee be not ingrate and unthankfull to his gratiousnesse like as when one Dying leaveth a Pledge of remembrance unto his friend All these holy Fathers you see interpret this Sacrament to be unto us as a Present Pledge of a Friend Absent whether hee be a living Travailer or one departed this life Primasius his Observation of the Pledge is very remarkable when hee saith of this Sacrament thus called a Pledge that It is Therefore called the Body of Christ giving the name of the Thing to the Token thereof than which Similtude what can be more pregnant and pertinent for the Confuting of your Tridentine Faith concerning the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist Seeing now that the Ancient Fathers have shewne themselves Patrons and Favourers of our Cause it will become us as true Children to do them right To which purpose wee adde and shew That the Seeming Contradictory Sayings of the Fathers are Reconcilable in themselves and yet Repugnant to the Romish Profession SECT III. FOr our making good of this Section it will be required that wee performe it so that the Doctrine of the Fathers notwithstanding this Reconciliation may appeare to be both Adverse to the Romish Corporall Conjunction and also agreeable to our Protestant sense as well in respect of the Sacramentall as of the Spirituall Conjunction which the Receiver of this Sacrament hath with the Body of Christ The Repugnancie of the Fathers to the Romish Corporall Conjunction Sometimes the Fathers are found in this Sacrament to speake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Exactly and precisely and sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Improperly When they speake of a Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body Exactly and simply so taken so often they appeare to deny it absolutely from point to point As I. by their 16 Ambros Serm. 58. in illud Christi ad Magdalen Noli me tangere Ergò eum non super terram nec in terra nec secundum carnem debemus quaerere Salvatorem No Bodily Toucâ— of Christ after his Resurrection So Ambrose II. 17 Aug. Non dentis cibus Idem Serm. 33. de verbis Dom. Nolite parare fances sed cor No meâ—t for Teeth So Augustine Nor For the Iawes So the same Father III. 18 Attalas Martyr See above Not to be devoured with Throat So Attalas the Martyr IV. 19 Cyprian de Coena Dom. Non ventris cibus Not for the Belly So Cyprian V. 20 Idem de Coena Dom De unione nostra cum Christo in hoc Sacramento Ad participationem spiritus non usque ad Consubstantialitatem nostra ipsius conjunction non miscet personas neque unit substantias sed affectus consociat confoederat voluntates Not for Bodily Conjunction of Persons nor for Vnion of Substances So also the same Father VI. 21 Cyril Hierosol See above Booke 4. cap. 10 § 3. Not to be cast into the Draught So Cyrill of Hierusalem Whereunto you may adde as the Complexion and Comprehension of all the rest that of Chrysostome concerning this Sacrament * Chrysost See above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Having no fleshly thing nor yet that hath any Natural Consequence thereof namely of fleshly Vnion In w ch you have all as â—â—at Negatives to your Romish Corporall Vnion by your Bodily Touch whether by Hand Mouth or Belly as the Ancient Fathers could have given if they had concluded their Judgements in a Synod But how then will you say did they speake so expressely of an Vnion by Touching Eating Tearing and of your Corporall Conjunction even unto the Feeding thereby This is the next Doubt which wee are now to assoyle in the next Section The meaning of the words of the Ancient Fathers is fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestants SECT IV. THe Sacramentall Vnion which Protestants teach besides that which they call Spirituall consisteth wholly in the Resemblance which is betweene the Body of Christ and the Substance of Bread and Wine and this is Analogicall which was the Ground of all the Fathers former Speeches concerning a Bodily Vnion with Christs Body in every Degree First then the Fathers in their Symbolicall language have called Bread the Body of Christ onely Sacramentally because it is a Sacrament and Signe of Christs Body which was the Conclusion of our Second Booke II. They have not spared to call the Change of Bread into our Bodies a Change of Christs Body into ours in a like Sacramentall signification as hath beene
SVBSTANCE which being so spoken in respect of the Eucharist proveth infallibly that the Substance of Bread remaineth in this Sacrament after Consecration if so then in the universall judgement of all the Doctors of the Church of Rome there can be no Transubstantiation The Seventeenth Passage Book 4. * Edit 1. pag. 149. pag. 212. TERTVLLIAN OB. I. THe word Bread is added ANSW No but truly related and that by the Authority of Tertullian himselfe whose former words are Christ distributed PANEM BREAD to his Disciples faciens ILLVM that is making IT his BODY THAT IS A FIGVRE of his BODY There is no Schoole-boy that knoweth his Grammar which will not say that the Relative IT must be referred to the Antecedent BREAD And of this IT do depend all the words following OB. II. The words of Tertullian being these Christ sayd This is my Body that is a figure of my Body you put in IS saying That is It IS a figure of my Body which will be complayned of ANSW I answer therefore not to trouble his braines with Grammar-learning which teacheth the Particle IS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to agree with that which followeth but to deale with him by an example to make his fondnesse more palpable Can any man at the first sight of an Ivy-bush say This is a Taverne THAT IS A Signe of a Taverne and not meane that it IS A SIGNE of a Taverne OB. III. Your Adversaries will complaine of this seeing they are perswaded that this is not spoken of a figure actually present but perfectly past ANSW God send mee alwayes such Adversaries who in their greatest subtilties bewray their extremest â—oâ—tishnesse in complaining of my IS in the Present-â—ense and in requiring the sense of the time perfectly past as if Tertulliaâ— had said thus Christ sayd this is my Body THAT IS IT WAS a figure of my Body Here have wee just reason to reflect upon this Objector with that Saying Risum teneatis amici Yet the Objector lest we might thinke him not to Insanire cum ratione yieldeth this Reason why it should be meant of the time passed before the coming of Christ OB. IV. Because of the words immediatly following Figura autem non fuisset nisi esset veritatis corpus shew that the word Figure was not taken representatively but Typically ANSW When Tertullian spake onely narratively by repeating the words of Christ he must needs speak in the tense and time when Christ uttered them when hee sayd IT IS MY BODY THAT IS IS A FIGVRE OF MY BODY But after speaking Enunciatively with the Relation from his owne time when hee wrot to the time of Christs Speech which was the distance of three hundred yeares hee could not but use the time perfectly past saying It had not beene a figure namely when Christ called it his Body except c. The Argument of Tertullian taken from those words of Christ stands thus Christ in the Sacrament gave a figure of his Body But a figure is not a figure of a figure therefore Christ gave a figure of a True Body Let us consult againe with Tertullians words of Exposition IT HAD NOT BEENE A FIGVRE EXCEPT THERE HAD BEENE THE TRVTH OF HIS BODY But Christs Body had no TRVTH of BEING before his Incarnation and time of his existence in the Flesh and therfore FVISSET extended not unto any Type which had beene before Christs being on earth Wherefore this HAD of Tertullian I hope will put this Objector to his Non putabam or Had I wist Our Advantages occasioned by this Accusation are great and divers One is to discerne more clearly the then-Catholike Doctrine in the dayes of Tertullian Next to observe the stupid insatuation of our Romish Adversaries The Last will be to display an Heresie in the Article of the Church of Rome that teacheth an absolute absence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament For if it were condemned by Tertullian in the Marcionites to teach that Christ had no true but a Fantasticall Body notwithstanding all the Demonstrances of sense Eating Weeping Sleeping Bleeding and of the Apostles feeling him How shall not the Romish Doctrine of a No-Existence of Bread in the Eucharist notwithstanding the Contradiction of Smelling Seeing Feeling and Tasting it be a welcome Patronage and Skonce to the former Heresie of denying the Verity of Christs Body THE SEVENTH BOOKE Concerning the last Romish Consequence derived from the depraved sense of the words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY which is your Divine Adoration of the Sacrament contrary to these other words of Christ IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE CHAP. I. WEe have hitherto passed thorow many dangerous and pernicious Gulfes of Romish Doctrines which our instant haste will not suffer us to looke backe upon by any repetition of them But now are wee entring upon Asphaltites or Mare mortuum even the Dead Sea of Romish Idolatrie whereinto all their Superstitious and Sacrilegious Doctrines do empty themselves which how detestable it is wee had rather prove than prejudge The State of the Question concerning Adoration of the Sacrament SECT I. IN the thirteenth Session of your Councell of Trent wee finde a Decree commanding thus a Concil Trid. Cultum Latriae qui vero Deo debetur in veneratione huic Sacramento exhibeant Sess 13. cap. 5. Let the same divine honour that is due to the true God be given to this Sacrament After this warning Piece they shoot off a great b Si quis dixerit in hoc Sacramento unigenitum Dei filiuÌ„ cultu Latriae non esse adorandum Anathema sit Ibid. Can. 6. Canon of Anathemae and Curse against every one that shall not herein worship Christ namely as corporally present with Divine honour That is to say c Suarez Ies Adoratione Latriae absolutà perfectâ quâ per se adoratur Christus Non solùm ChristuÌ„ sub speciebus sed totum visibile Sacramentum unico Latriae cultu quia est unum constans ex Christo speciebus sicut vestis Magna est differentia inter has species cruceÌ„ quae reipsa disjuncta est à Christo In 3. Tho. q. 79. Disput 65. §. 1. 2. To adore with an absolute divine worship the whole visible Sacrament of Christ in the formes of Bread and Wine as your Iesuit expoundeth it A worship saith hee farre exceeding that which is to be given to the Crucifix Whereupon it is that your Priests are taught in your d Missale Rom. Sacerdos prolatis suis verbis Hoc est corpus meum c. hostiam elevat eamque adorat adorandamque ostendit post genu flexo ad terram usque ipsam veneratur Ritus celebrandi Missam Post genuflectu inclinatur Sacramento pectus ter percutiens dicit Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi miserere nobis c. Canon Missae Romane Missall to elevate the Consecrated Hoast and to propound it to the people to be adored and adoring it themselves in thrice
Scriptures According to the sense of the Church of Rome which would thereby be thought to Hold no Sense of Scripture now which shee had not Held in more Ancient Times Wee for Triall hereof shall for this present seeke after no other Instances than such as in this Treatise have beene discussed and for brevity-sake single out of many but onely Three A first is in that Scripture Ioh. 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Son of man you cannot have life The word Except was extended unto Infants in the dayes of Pope Innocent the First continuing as hath beene b Booke 1. Ch. 2. Sect. â—1 confessed six hundred yeares together when the Church of Rome thereupon Held it necessary for Infants to receive the Eucharist Contrarily the now Romane Church Holdeth it Inexpedient to administer the Eucharist unto Infants as you have heard Secondly Luk. 22. Take Eate c. Your Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Nicholas in a Councel at Rome Held that by the word Eate was meant an c Booke 3. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Eating by Tearing the Body of Christ sensually with mens teeth in a Literall sense Which your now Romane Church if wee may believe your Iesuites doth not Hold as hath appeared Thirdly the Tenour of the Institution of Christ concerning the Cup was Held in the dayes of Pope d Booke 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. Gelasius to be peremptory for the administration thereof to prove that the Eucharist ought to be administred in both kindes to all Communicants and judging the dismembring of them a Grand Sacrilege as you have heard whereas now your Romish Church Holdeth it not onely lawfull but also religious to with-hold the Cup from all but onely Consecrating Priests Vpon these omitting other Scriptures which you your selves may observe at your best leasure wee conclude You therefore in taking that Oath swearing to admit all Interpretations of Scripture both which the Church of Rome once Held and now Holdeth the Proverbe must needs be verified upon you viz. You hold a Woolfe by the eare which howsoever you Hold you are sure to be Oath-bit either in Holding TENVIT by TENET or in Holding TENET by TENVIT III. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the pretended Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures HEare your Oath a Bulla ead Nec Scripturam ullam nisi juxtà unanimem Consensum Patrum interpretabor Neither will I ever interpret any Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of Fathers Here the word Fathers cannot betoken Bishops and Fathers assembled in a Councel where the major part of voices conclude the lesse for Councel never writ Commentaries upon Scriptures but from Scriptures collect their Conclusions And although the word Vnanimous doth literally signifie the universall Consent which would inferre an Impossibility because that all Fathers have not expounded any one Scripture and very few All yet that you may know wee presse not too violently upon you wee shall be content to take this word Morally with this Diminution For the most part and hereupon make bold to averre that your Iuror by this Oath is sworne to a flat Falsity because you cannot deny but that the Fathers in their Expositions dissent among themselves insomuch that you your selves are at difference among your selves which part to side with b Valent. Ies Anal. lib. 8. cap. 8. Patet nobis via urgendi unum aut alterum Doctorem authoritate reliquorum With the greater saith Valentia nay but sometime with the c Canus Ioc. Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. num 8. Plurium Sanctorum authoritas reliquis licet paucioribus reclamantibus firma Argumenta sufficere praestare non valet Lesser saith Canus Can you dreame of an Vnanimity in Disparity Sometime there is a Non-Constat what is the Iudgement of the Fathers in some points which you call matter of Faith What then Then saith your d Valent. quo supra Quod si per Sententiam Doctorum aliqua fidei controversia non satis commodè componi posset eo quod de eorum consensu non satis constaret sua tunc constet Authoritas Pontifici ut consultis aliis ad definiendum regulis de quibus est dictum Ecclesiae proponat quid sit sentiendum Iesuite the Authority of the Pope is to take place who being guided by other rules may propound what is the Sense Behold here the very ground of that which wee call Popery which is devising and obtruding upon the Church of Christ new Articles of Faith unknowne for ought you know to Ancient Fathers And is it possible to find an Vnanimity of Consent in an Individuall Vnity or rather a Nullity for what else is an Ignorance what the Sense of the Fathers is whether so or so Next that it may appeare that this Article touching the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers is a meere Ostentation and gullery and no better than that Challenge made by the wise man of Athens of all the Ships that entred into the Road to be his owne as if you should say All the Fathers do patronize your Romish Cause Wee shall give you one or two Examples among your Iesuites as patternes of the Disposition of others in neglecting sleighting and rejecting the more Generall Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures One Instance may be given in your Cardinall who in his Commentaries upon the Psalmes dedicated to the then Pope professeth himselfe to have composed them e Bellar. Epist Dedic Paulo Quinto entè CoÌ„ment in Psal Psalmorum ego tractationeÌ„ magis propriâ meditatione quam mulâ—â librorum lectione composui Rather by his owne meditation than by reading of many Bookes whereas hee that will seeke for Vnanimous Consent of Fathers must have a perusall of them all In the second place hearken unto the Accents of your Iesuite Maldonate in his rejecting the Expositions of the Fathers as for Example f Maldon Ies in Matth. 20. Existimant Patres filios Zebedaei temerè respondisse ego vero credo eos verè esse locutos Item in Mat. 16. 18. Non praevalebunt Quorum verborum sensus non videtur mihi esse queÌ„ omnes praeter Hilarium quos legisse memini Authores putant IteÌ„ in Mat. 11. 11. Variae sunt PatruÌ„ opiniones sed ut liberè fatear in nulla earum aquiesco Item in Matth. 11. 13. Prophetae lex Omnes fere veteres ita exponunt sed non est apta satis interpretatio Item in Mat. 19. 11. Non omnes capiunt i e non omnes capimus Sic omnes fere veteres exponunt quibus equidem non assentior Item in Ioh. 6. 62. Sic quidem expono licet Expositionis hujus Autorem nullum habeo hanc tamen magis probo quaÌ„ illam Augustini caeterorumque alioqui probabilissimam quia hoc cum CALVINISTARUM sensu magis pugnat So indeed said the Fathers but I believe the Contrary Item This
Recantation p. 335. BERTRAM his saying The Body of Christ in Heaven differeth from that on the Altar as much as that which was borne of the Virgin Mary and that which was not pag 159. His saying Bread remaineth in the Eucharist after Consecration pag. 186. The Romish Profession is to delude the Testimonies of Antiquity Ibid. pag. 187. His saying Iewes ate the same Spirituall meat with Christians p. 314. Bâ—ZA unjustly charged with denying Gods Omnipotencie p 231. BLASPHEMIE of a Romish Iesuite Teaching the Pope to dispence with the expresse Command of Christ pag. 87 BLESSED IT was Christs Consecration p. 9. BLOOD A Discourse of Fr. Collius a Romish Doctor of the miraculous Issuings of Christs Blood in the Eucharist p. 225 c. Blood of the Testament Exo. 24. objected for the Sacrifice of the Masse and Confuted by their owne Iesuite 424. Not infused in the Eucharist pag. 469. How the Fathers call the Eucharist both a Bloody and Vâ—bloody Sacrifice p. 455 456 457 c. BODY of Christ changed into whatsoever the Receiver desireth vainely Objected out of Greg. Nyssen pag. 202. Hee saith So doth Christs Body change our Bodies into it self Ibid. And Chrysost Christ hath made us his owne Body not by Faith but in deed also Ibid. An Objected Possibility of a Bodies being in diverse places at once from the like existence of Voice and Colour and of the soule of a man in the parts of his Body p. 259 260 261. Romish Objections against our using of Naturall reason to disprove the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 263. A Body cannot take the right hand and left hand of it selfe pag. 254. The entrance of Christs Body miraculously through the doores p. 275 c. The Body of Christ opened the Cell of the Blessed Virgin p. 2777punc 278. In the Body of Christ by Popish Doctrine his head is not distant from his feet pag. 272. Body of Christ is held by the Romish Sect to be voyd of all sense and understanding as hee is in this Sacrament p 282. Christs Body is the Spirituall and Supersubstantiall food of the Soule p. 310. Eaten in vow and desire Ibid. Christs Body united to the Bodies of the Communicants See VNION See EATE Christs Body not suffering Destruction 467. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. BREAD Sacramentall albeit Bread is dignifyed by Saint Augustine with the name of Celestiall p 127. That Bread remaineth after CoÌ„secration is proved by Scripture p. 162. Consisting of Graines p. 163. Proved by Antiquity p. 163 164. By Sense 169. By the Analogie of Bread consisting of multitudes of Graines of Corne. Ibid. 165. Bread remaineth the same in Substance by the Iudgemen of Antiquity p. 169 Proved by the Councel of Nice p. 303. Bread and Wine called a Sacrifice by Ancient Fathers but Improperly p. 404 405 c. BREAKING of Bread used by Antiquity Contrary to the now Romish Practice pag 15. Breaking in Christs speech is Tropicall Ibid. Broken in the Present tense for proof of a Sacrifice and yet confessed by the Romish to betâ—ken the future pag. 397. C CABASILAS Gr Archb for the forme of Romish Consecration calumniously Objected 493. CAKE upon the Mountaines Objected out of the Psalmes and confuted by Popish Doctors pag. 433. CALVIN unjustly charged with denying Gods Omnipotencie pag. 231. CANON of the Masse Dominus vobiscum contradicteth the Private Masse p. 19. CANONIZATION of Saints fallibly is the ground of Superstitiousnesse p. 542. 543. CAPERNAITICAL Eating of Christs flesh 329. c. The Romish Eating of Christs Body is Capernaiticall p. 335. 336. c. See Vnion See Eating See Swallowing Mr. CASAVBON his large discourse teaching the universall practise of Antiquity to understand the tongue wherein they prayed p. 36. His Satisfaction to the Objected Testimonies of Antiquitie for Transubstantiation and Corporall Presence p. 207. His Iudgement upon the Fathers in the point of Fragments p 179. And upon the Objected Testimonie of Cyrill of Ierusalem pag. 177. His Answere to the Obcted Testimonie of â—ustine concerning the Sacrifice to Mithra among the Heathen pag. 379. His Exposition upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 400. CASSIODORE wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the act of Melchisedech p. 406. That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine Ibid. CATECHISME of TRENT saying All Baptized are Sacerdotes and so August p. 314. CAVTION of Antiquity in not suffering any part of the Eucharist in solid or liquid to fall to the ground Objected and Answered pag. 514. CHâ—VVING the Continuall maner of Eating of the Sacrament p. 339. CHRIST'S Acts of Excellency not to be imitated of any such as was his not compleat Sacramentall communicating in Emmaus pag. 63. 64. c. CHRYSOSTOME against Prayer in an unknowne tongue pag. 35. Hee is vainely objected for the Private Masse of the alone Communicating Priest pag. 21. Hee is for Consecration by Prayer p. 14. Hee is vehement against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist pag. 47. Reverence to Christ is our Obedience pag. 81. Hee is against the Communicating but in one kind p. 77. Hee is for the Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body and for the Continuance of Bread after Consecration p. 116. 117. c. His Question What is Bread The Body of Christ as the faithfull Communicants are the Body of Christ pag. 117. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 163. 164. Hee saith If Christ had given onely an Image of his Body at his Resurrection hee had deluded his Disciples p. 169. And that in things sensible the Substance remaineth p. 198. And that Christ hath made us his owne Body not onely in faith but in deed also p. 202. Ob Thinke not that it is the Priest that reacheth it but God Sol. Not the Priest but God holdeth the head of the Baptized p. 200. Bread unworthy of the name of Christ's Body albeit the Nature of Bread remaineth still pag. 186. His Testimony blotted out by the Parisian Doctors p. 186 Changed by Divine power 189. Our senses may be deceived wee are altogether to believe it 198. His Hyperbolicall maner of speech confessed 199. Hee saith Something is Impossible to God even to the advancement of Gods Omnipotencie p. 229. Hee is objected for Christs Corporall Presence both in Heaven and in Earth unconscionably pag. 247. Answered Ibid. His Hyperbolicall speeches Ibid. Ob. Hee left his flesh as Elias his Mantle Ibid. Hee holdeth that Angels have allotted unto them a prescript place or space p. 261. Hee is objected for the Romish Penetration of the Doores by Christ's Body Vnconscionably 275. Hee is against the Impalpability of Christs Body p. 276. and against the Passing of Christ's Body into the Seege p. 287. Hee is objected that Godlesse Communicants partake of Christs Body pag. 313. Yet saith that
Materiall Idolatry p. 533. 534. c. IDOLATRIE what it is p. 528. Romish Adoration of the Eucharist is Materially Idolatrous as is confessed by many hundred maner of wayes because of so many defects of due Consecration Ibid. pag. 533. That it is Formall Idolatry pag. 534. c. notwithstanding any Pretence p. 553. either of Morall Certainety pag. 534. As ill as the heathen p 547. In one respect worse p. 549. The same is formally idolatrous p. 540. this is proved by Romish Principles p. 541. By Co-adoration Ibid. By Canonization of Saints p. 542. By Consecration of Popes pag. 544. The false Scales which a Romish Seducer maketh for weighing the difference betweene Protestants Not-Adoring and Papists Adoring of Christ in the Sacrament pag. 545 c. The Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse Epitomized in a Generall Synopsis p. 568 569 c. IEALOVSY of God ought to deterre us from Adoring the Eucharist pag. 534 c. IEWES ate the same Spirituall meat with Christians pag. 314. Iewish Rabbins Objected concerning the Sacrifice of Melchisedech pag. 404. Iewish Sacrifices how proper in themselves and yet Representative which nothing advantageth the Romish p. 440 441 c. IMPOSSIBLE Somthing so called even to the Advancement of Gods Omnipotencie by the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 229. Pretence of Omnipotencie was the Sanctuary of Heretikes as of the Arians Ibid. Acknowledgement of the same Impossibility by the Romish Doctors upon the same Reason because of Contradiction p. 230. Impossibility of Christs Body to be in diverse places at once Confessed by Aquinas Vasquez and other Schoole-men pag. 240 241. Impossibilities by reason of Contradiction as for the same Body to be hot and cold and the like at once p. 255 256 c. IMMOLATION of the Priest is called by S. Augustine Christs Passion as Bread his Body that is Improperly saith the Romish Glosse p. 127. INDIGNITIES most vile attributed by the Romish faith to the supposed Body of Christ in the Eucharist p. 286. Contrary to Antiquity p. 287. Romish Answers to this pag. 288. Master Fishers most absurd Answer for Defense of all seeming Absurdities and Indignities of Romish Doctrine concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 291 292 293 294 c. INDIVIDUUM VAGUM Romishly taught Confessed to be a sense full of Absurdities pag. 96 97 c. INFANTS made Partakers of the Eucharist in the dayes of Pope Innocent erroneously p. 51. Their flesh eaten of Heretikes occasioned the slander thereof by the Heathen upon the whole Christian Church pag. 375 c. INNOVATIONS Ten in the Church of Rome against the Cōmand of Christ DOE THIS repugnant to both the Apostolicall and Primitive Traditions concerning Christs Institution of the Eucharist p. 9. 10 11 c. Novelty preferred before sage Antiquity by the Church of Rome in her Alienation of the Cup from the the Laicks pag. 68. The Innovation of the Church of Rome in Altering Christs Ordinance is maintained by her Advocates with an Odious Vncharitablenesse in preferring a meanes of Lesse Grace before a meanes of More with Arrogancie in attributing more Wisedome to the now present than to the then Ancient Church of Rome By Perjury in swearing to maintaine the Apostolicall Traditions and protesting to disclame them By Blasphemy in teaching the Pope to dispense with the expresse Command of Christ p. 85 86 87 c. INSTITUTION of the Eucharist where it beginneth p. 4. What Circumstances excepted p. 5. It is violated by Ten Romish Transgressions pag. 9. 10 c. It Containeth neither Precept nor Practice of any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist p. 504 505. See TRANSGRESSION INTENT Defects of this in the Priest is cause of Romish Idolatry p. 530. Intent though good cannot free the Romish Adoration of the Eucharist from Formall Idolatry pag. 536 c. INVOCATION used by Gorgonia perversly Objected for Divine Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 516 517 c. IOANE MARTLESSE A miraculous wench Discerning by her Smell one Consecrated Hoast out of a thousand Vnconsecrated p. 173. IRENAEVS teacheth that Hoc in in Christ's Speech demonstrateth Bread p. 103. His Saying It Consisteth of an Earthly part and an Heavenly p. 177. And It is no Common Bread p. 104. Calumniously Objected p. 493. That the Godly are onely Partakers of Christs Body pag. 321. Objected Vnconscionably for Vnion with Christs Body by a Bodily Commixture and nourishing the Bodies of the Communicants p. 365. Confessed p. 356. That they spake of a Permanent Vnion Confessed p. 365. That speaking of the Nourishment of mens Bodies by the Sacrament he meant not any Substantiall Change thereby as is Confessed p. 362. Hee is Objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malach. 5. Which place Confuteth the Objector pag. 432. Hee is Vnconscionably Objected by Bellarmine for Proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse p. 439. His Saying The Altar in Heaven pag. 419. ISYCHIVS His Saying Wee perceive the truth of his Blood pag. 343. And that Christs Body is a Bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist p. 455. Meant of the Passion of the Crosse Confessed p. 479. ISIDORE HISP Against Prayer in an Vnknowne Tongue p. 35. Hee teacheth Hoc in Christs words Hoc est Corpus to demonstrate Bread p. 103. Hee teacheth a Figurative Sense of Christs words This is my Body p. 128. He saith Bread is called Christs Body because it strengtheneth mans soule p. 165. He saith also It is Changed into the Sacrament of Christs Body Ibid. And that Melchisedech offered the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood p. 404. ISIDORE PE LUSIOTA is for the Blessed Virgins opening her Cell at the birth of Christ against Heretiks that denyed the truth of his Body p. 278. IVDGEMENT of God upon Contemners of Holy things p. 318 319 c. IVLIAN the APOSTATE Objecting the No-Altar and Sacrifice among Christians as a note of Atheisme p. 464. IVSTINIAN the Emperour against Prayer in a Tongue Vnknowne p. 36. and against an Vnaudible Voice p. 23 c. IVSTINE is for Consecration by Prayer pag. 13. His calling the Eucharist a Type and Antytipe doth yield a Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body p. 116. And is against Individuum vagum 118. He is Objected in saying It is no Common Bread p. 194. Hee is against the Romish maner of Christs Bodily Penetrations of the Doores p. 276. as is there Confessed His saying Wee are made one by Baptisme not only in affection but also in nature pag. 356. His Apologie to the Heathen Emperour concerning a slander against Christians for Eating the flesh of an Infant p. 374. Where a meere Slander is vehemently and unconscionably Objected by the Romish for proofe of the Orall-Eating of Christs flesh in the Eucharist Ibid. Bellarmines Dilemma thereupon p. 377. And a Dilemma against him pag. 378. Two Testimonies out of Iustine against the Romish Corporall Presence pag. 380 381. Hee saith that Giving of thankes and Praise is
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