itch as hee himselfe called his owne humour which received a Salve that might have cured him of that itch to be medling with the same Doctor Yet the onely Exception which hath since come to this Doctor 's eares from your side is this now objected point concerning the Manichees whereupon you have heard them both so urgently and boastingly insist and not so onely but they have also divulged this pretended Contradiction in many Counties of this Kingdome to his reproach Will you be so kinde as but to heare an Answer and then either wonder at or hisse or applaude or him or them as you shall finde iust Cause Two things there were condemnable in the Manichees one was their Act and Practice in dismembring the Sacrament by not communicating in both kindes the other was their Opinion which they held for so doing which was as you have heard an hereticall Conceit that Wine was the Creature of the Devill Concerning this hereticall opinion no Protestant said Doctor Morton doth charge the Church of Rome but as for the Act of not Communicating in both kinds he called it Sacrilegious and concluded the Church of Rome in this respect to be as guilty of dismembring the Sacrament as were the Manichees And both these hee hath done by the Authority of Pope Gelasius who decreed in condemning the Manichees First against their Opinion saying Illinescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi c. That is They are intangled in a kind of Superstition Then for the Act of refusing the Cup Because saith he the dividing of the same Mystery cannot be done without grievous sacrilege therefore let these Manichees either receive the whole Sacrament or else let them be wholly excluded from receiving So Gelasius Seeing then Doctor Morton and all Protestants cleare the Church of Rome from the imputation of the Heresie of the Manichees in respect of their opinion and yet condemne them of the Manichean Sacrilege in respect of the Act of dismembring the Sacrament with what spectacles thinke you did your Priest and Iesuite reade that Answere of Doctor Morton to collect from thence either your Churches Iustification from a foule fault of Sacrilege or else the Doctors foule Contradiction to himselfe and that cleerely forsooth in the same respect who themselves are now found to have beene so subtilly witlesse as not to discerne Heresie from Sacrilege an opinion from a fact or a no-imputation of that whereof neither Doctor Whitaker nor any other Protestant ever accused them from a practice condemned by a Romane Pope himselfe Take unto you a Similitude A man being apprehended in the company of Traytors upon suspition of Felonie is fully and effectually prosecuted for Felonie onely if one should say of him that he was not conuicted or condemned of Treason but of Felonie were this either a Contradiction in the party speaking or a full Iustification of the party spoken of You are by this time we thinke ashamed of your Proctors and of their scornefull insultation upon the Doctor in the ridiculous tearmes of Rabbin and magnus Apollo who willingly forbeareth upon this Advantage to recompence them with like scurrility being desirous to be only Great in that which is called Magna est Veritas praevalet By which Truth also is fully discovered the vanity of the Answere both of Master Fisher and of your Cardinall saying that Gelasius condemned only the Opinion of the Manichees which is so transparant a falshood as any one that hath but a glympse of Reason may see through it by the sentence it â—elfe as hath beene proved Our second Reason is in respect of the perfect Spirituall Refection represented by this Sacrament SECT VIII ANother Object represented in this Sacrament is the food of man's soule in his faithfull receiving of the Bodie and Blood of Christ which because it is a perfect spirituall Refection Christ would have it to be expressed both in Eating and Drinking wherein consisteth the perfection of man's bodily sustenance and therefore are both necessarily to be used by law of Analogie betweene the outward signe and the thing signified thereby Two of your Iesuites from whome Master Fisher hath learned his Answere seeke to perswade their Readers that the soules refection spirituall is sufficiently signified in either kind whether in Bread or Wine But be it knowne unto you that either all these have forgotten their Catechisme authorized by the Fathers of the Councell of Trent and confirmed by Pius Quartus then Pope or else Those their Catechists forgot themselves in teaching that This Sacrament was instituted so that two severall Consecrations should be used one of Bread and the other of the Cup to the end both that the Passion of Christ might be represented wherein his Bloud was separated from his Body and because this Sacrament is ordained to nourish man's soule it was therefore to be done by Eating and Drinking in both which the perfect nourishment of man's naturall life doth consist Aquinas and your Iesuite Valentia with others are as expresse in this point as they were in the former who although they as we also hold that whole Christ is received in either kinde for Christ is not divided yet doe they mayntaine that This Sacrament as it is conformable both to Eating and Drinking so doth it by both kindes more perfectly expresse our spirituall nourishment by Christ and therefore it is more convenient that both be exhibited to the faithfull severally as for Meate and for Drinke So they For although in the Spirituall Receiving Eating and Drinking are both one even as the appetite of the Soule in hungring and thirsting is the same as where it is written Matth. 5. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse c. yet in this Sacramentall communicating with bodily instruments it is otherwise as you know The blood of Christ is not dranke in the forme of Bread nor is his Bodie eaten as meate in the forme of Wine because the Bodie cannot be said to be dranke nor the bloud to be eaten So your Durand and so afterwards your Iansenius Wherefore you in with-holding the Cup from the People doe violate the Testament of Christ who requireth in this a perfect representation visible of a compleate and a full Refection spirituall which is sufficient to condemne your Abuse whereby you also defraud God's people of their Dimensum ordained by Christ for their vse Concerning this second Master Fisher one of the society of Iesuites was taught to Answere that the Full causality as he said and working of spirituall Effects of the soule cannot be a wanting to the Sacrament under one kind because of Christ his assistance So he We should aske whether a greater Devotion and 〈◊〉 more plentifull Grace are not to be esteemed spirituall Effects for the good of the Soule which are confessed to be enjoyed by Communicating in both kinds and why not rather than by one For consider we pray you that
sacrificed by the hands of the Priest Here to wit on the Table below representatively as hereafter the Catholique Fathers themselves will shew And these two may easily consist without any necessity of the Priest reaching his hands as farre as the highest Heavens as your Cardinall pleasantly obiecteth Thirdly you alleage Wee are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramentall that is Figurative Receiving and more especially which hath beene both proved and confessed a Reall and true participation of Christ's Body and Blood spiritually without any Corporall Coniunction But it is added saith he that These namely the Body and Blood of Christ are Symbols of our Resurrection which is by reason that our Bodies are ioyned with the Body of Christ otherwise if our Coniunction were onely of our soules onely the Resurrection of our soules should be signified thereby So hee that 's to say as successesly as in the former For the word HAEC These which are called Symbols of our Resurrection may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ immediatly spoken of and placed on the Table in Heaven which we Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies because If Christ be risen then must they that are Christs also rise againe Or else the word These may have relation to the more remote after the manner of the Greekes to wit Bread and Cup on the first Table because as immediately followeth they are these whereof not much but little is taken as you have heard Which other Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection without any Consequence of Christ's Bodily Coniunction with our Bodies more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptisme which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection as doth also your Iesuite Coster call it The Pledge of our Resurrection But this our Coniunction with Christ is the subiect matter of the Fift Booke Lastly how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice is plentifully resolved in the Sixt Booke THE FIFTH BOOKE Treating of the third Romish Doctrinall Consequence arising from your depraved Sence of the Words of Christs Institution THIS IS MY BODY concerning the manner of the present Vnion of his Body with the bodies of the Receivers by Eating c. CHAP. I. The state of the Question SECT I. A Christian man consisting of two men the Outward or bodily and the Inward which is Spirituall this Sacrament accordingly consisteth of two parts Earthly and Heavenly as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread and Wine as the visible Signes and Obiects of Sense and of the Body and Blood of Christ which is the Spirituall part Answerable to both these is the double nourishment and Vnion of a Christian the one Sacramentall by communicating of the outward Elements of Bread and Wine united to man's body in his Taking Eating digesting till at length it be transubstantiated into him by being substantially incorporated in his flesh The other which is the Spirituall and Soules food is the Body and Blood of the Lord therefore called Spirituall because it is the Obiect of Faith by an Vnion wrought by God's Spirit and man's faith which as hath beene professed by Protestants is most Reall and Ineffable But your Church of Rome teacheth such a Reall Vnion of Christ his Body and Blood with the Bodies of the Communicants as is Corporall which you call Per contactum by Bodily touch so long as the formes of Bread and Wine remaine uncorrupt in the bodies of the Receivers Our Method requireth that we first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Orthodoxe truth Secondly to impugne your Romish Vnion as Capernaiticall that is Hereticall And thirdly to determine the Point by comparing them both together Our Orthodoxe Truth will be found in the Preparations following That Protestants prosesse not only a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body but also a spiritually Reall SECT II. ALl the Bookes of the Adversaries to Protestants are most especially vehement violent and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries as though we professed no other manner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's body than only Sacramentall and Figurative For Confutation of which Calumny it will be most requisite to oppose the Apologie of Him who hath beene most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause to shew first what he held not and then what he held If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not he will answere you I doe abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence And I have an hundred times disclaimed the receiuing only of a Figure in this Sacrament What then did hee hold Our Catechisme teacheth saith hee not only a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our soules And with Swinckfeldius maintayning only a Figurative perception we have nothing to doe If you further demand what is the Feeding whereby we are united to Christ's body in this Sacrament hee tels you that it is IV. Not carnall but Spirituall and Reall and so Reall that the soule is as truly replenished with the lively virtue of his flesh by the powerfull worke of the Spirit of God as the body is nourished with the corporall Element of Bread in this Sacrament If you exact an Expression of this spirituall Vnion to know the manner hee acknowledgeth it to be above Reason If further you desire to understand whether he were not Singular in this opinion he hath avouched the iudgement of other Protestants professing not to dissent one Syllable from the Augustane Confession as agreeing with him in iudgement herein Accordingly our Church of England in the 28. Article saith that To such as worthily and with faith receive this Sacrament The Bread which we breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ which Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a spirituall and heavenly manner the meane whereby is Faith That the Body of Christ by this Sacrament was ordained only for food to the Christian man's Soule SECT III. VVHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of ancient Fathers which are many in this point of Dispute having before us the Iudgement of your Fathers of the Councell of Trent and of your Romane Catechisme authorized by the same Councell both which affirme that Christ ordained this Sacrament to be the spirituall food of man's soule In which respect the Body of Christ is called Spirituall in your Popes Decree That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christs Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Coniunction can be SECT IV. THe soule of man being the most essentiall and substantiall part of man because a Spirit immortall and the flesh
Traâ—sient and Passable but permanent and durable which hee proveth both from their expresse words and also by the ground of their Speech which is the Doctrine of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10. For we being many are one Bread in as much as we are partakers of one bread which are spoken of a permanent Vnion of Christians as they are members of Christ As for the second note of Vnion professed by holy Fathers we have already learned from this their generall Doctrine that the Godly onely are truly Partakers of the flesh of Christ And that our Vnion with Christ by virtue of this Sacrament is proper to the Godly and Faithfull is now further confirmed by the Testimonies obiected Some expressing the Vnion to be such whereby Christ abideth in us and we in him as you have heard and some that whosoever hath it hath spirituall life by it whereas They who eate the Bread of iniquity doe not eate the flesh of Iesus nor drinke his Blood saith Hierome whereas your Popish Vnion is common to both For indeed what is it for Christ his Body to be receiued of the wicked but as it were to have him buried in a grave againe And to feed the ungodly with such precious food is like as if a man should put meate into the mouth of a dead Carkasse The former Assertion being so generally the Doctrine of primitive Fathers it is in it selfe a full and absolute Confutation of the Romish Defence throughout the whole Controversie touching the Corporall Vnion with the Body of Christ as properly so taken Have not then your Disputers in urging the iudgement of holy Fathers spun a faire thred trow yee whereby they have thus evidently strangled their whole Cause A Determination of this point in question I. That the former obiected Sentences of Fathers concerning Corporall Vnion are Sacramentally and Spiritually to be understood as proper to the Godly and Faithfull Receiver SECT V. HOwsoever the sound of their words have seemed unto some of you to teach a proper Corporall Vnion with the Bodies of the Communicants yet the Reasons wherewith the said Sentences are invested doe plainly declare they meant thereby a Spirituall Vnion onely first and principally because they ground their sayings upon that of Saint Iohn He that eateth my flesh abideth in me and hath life and I will raise him up at the last day He dwelleth in me and I in him which many of your owne Doctours have expounded to be taken spiritually as doth also your Bishop Iansenius out of Augustine Secondly because they make the Vnion perpetuall to the Receiver Thirdly because they hold this Vnion proper to the spirituall Communicant excluding the prophane from any reall participation of Christs flesh Fourthly because they taught the same Vnion whereof they speake to be made without this Sacrament even by Baptisme and that Really as your Iesuite Tolet hath said Fiftly because they have compared this Vnion to the continued-Vnion betweene Man and Wife Good and solid Reasons we thinke to perswade any reasonable man that they meant no proper Corporall Vnion Whereby peradventure your Iesuite Tolet was induced to grant that Hilarie and Cyril by the Corporall Vnion of Christ's Bodie with ours meant the Vnion by Faith and Charitie As also whereas Damascene saith That by this Communion wee are made ioynt-bodies with Christ And lastly Cyril of Ierusalem calleth the Communicants by reason of their participation of the Bodie and Blood of Christ Christophers that is being interpreted Carriers of Christ and that hereby we are made partakers of that divine nature a Sentence much urged by your Disputers notwithstanding your Suarez seeth nothing in it but a Spirituall Vâ—ion by Grace and Affection Which two Testimonies we may adde to the former Fathers for proofe that onely the Godly have Vnion with Christ II. That the obiected Ancient Fathers without Contradiction to themselves have both affirmed and denied a Corporall and perpetuall Vnion of Christ's Bodie with the Bodies of the Communicants SECT VI. THree acceptions there may be of the word Corporall Vnion the first Literall and proper which this whole Booke proveth out of the Fathers to be Capernaiticall by Corporall Touching Corporall Tearing with Teeth Corporall Swallowing and Devouring and Corporall mixture with our flesh a sence seeming pernicious to Origen and to Augustine odious and flagitious as hath beene proved The second is a Corporall Coniunction Sacramentall that as they called Bread broken the Bodie of Christ by reason of the Sacramentall Analogie with his Bodie Crucified as hath beene plentifully demonstrated so have they called the Sacrament all Vnion with our Bodies the Corporall Vnion of his Body with ours namely that as the Bread is eaten swallowed disgested by vs and incorporated into our Bodies to the preservation of this life so by the virtue of Christ's humanity dying and rising againe for us our Bodies shall be restored to life in that day In which respect Bread the Sacrament of Christ's Body being so changed into the Substance of our flesh is in us a perpetuall pledge of our Resurrection to glory The last is a Spirituall Vnion that as the Body of Christ is immediately foode of the Soule onely so is the Vnion thereof immediately wrought in the Soule and because in Christian Philosophy the Body followeth the Condition of the Soule according to the tenour of Iudgement used in the last day when as the vngodly Soule shall take unto it selfe it 's owne sinfull Body and carrie it into Hell and the regenerate Soule shall returne to it 's owne Bodie and being united thereunto be ioyntly raised to immortalitie and blisse and all this by our Spirituall and Sacramentall for they are not divided in the Godly Communicating of the Bodie and Blood of Christ This ought not to seeme unto you any novell Doctrine having heard it professed by your Iesuite in your publique Schooles saying The glory of the Bodie depends on the glorie of the soule and the Happinesse of the soule depends on Grace therein neither doth this Sacrament saith he any otherwise conferre immortalitie to the Bodie than by nourishing and preserving grace in the soule So hee In which respect wee concurre with the iudgement of ancient Fathers who call this Sacrament the Symbol and Token of the Resurrection the Medicine of Immortality by which our verie bodies have hope of Immortality So they Yea and which is a further Evidence as your obiected Optatus called the Eucharist The pledge of Salvation and hope of the Resurrection so doth Basil speake of Baptisme tearming it our Strength unto Resurrection being a Sacrament both of his death and Resurrection and the Earnest thereof Nor can wee desire a more pregnant confutation of your Corporall Presence than that the Eucharist is called of the Fathers a Pledge as you have obiected To this purpose wee are to consult with Primasius hee telleth vs that Christ
witnessed first that Christ brake the bread into twelve parts Secondly that this Act of breaking of bread is such a principall Act that the whole Celebration of this Sacrament hath had from thence this Appellation given to it by the Apostles to be called Breaking of Bread Thirdly that the Church of Christ alwayes observed the same Ceremonie of breaking the bread aswell in the Greeke as in the Latine and consequently the Romane Church Fourthly that this Breaking of the Bread is a Symbolicall Ceremonie betokening not only the crucifying of Christ's bodie vpon the Crosse but also in the common participation thereof representing the vnion of the mysticall bodie of Christ which is his Church Communicating together of one loafe that as many graines in one loafe so all faithfull Communicants are vnited to one Head Christ as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10. thus The bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the bodie of Christ for we being many are one bread We adde as a most speciall Reason that this Breaking it in the distribution thereof is to apply the representation of the Bodie crucified and the Bloud shed to the heart and soule of every Communicant That as the Bread is given broken to vs so was Christ crucified for vs. Yet neverthelesse your Church contrarily professing that although Christ did breake bread yet BEHOLD she doth not so what is it else but to starch her face and insolently to confront Christ his Command by her bold Countermand as you now see in effect saying But doe not this A SECOND CHALLENGE AS for that truly called Catholike Church you your-selves doe grant vnto vs that by Christ his first Institution by the Practice of the Apostles by the ancient and universall Custome of the whole Church of Christ aswell Greeke as Latine the Ceremonie of Breaking bread was continually observed Which may be vnto vs more than a probable Argument that the now Church of Rome doth falsly usurpe the Title of CATHOLIKE for the better countenancing and authorizing of her novell Customes although neuer so repugnant to the will of Christ and Custome of the truly called Catholike Church In the next place to your Pretence of Not-Breaking because of Reverence We say Hem scilicet Quanti est sapere As if Christ and his Apostles could not fore-see that your Necessitie namely that by the Distributing of the Bread and by Breaking it some little crummes must cleaue sometimes vnto the beards of the Communicants or else fall to the ground Or as though this Alteration were to be called Reverence and not rather Arrogance in making your-selves more wise than Christ who instituted or then all the Apostles or Fathers of primitiue times who continued the same Breaking of bread Therefore this your Contempt of Breaking what is it but a peremptorie breach of Christ his Institution neuer regarding what the Scripture saith Obedience is better then Sacrifice For indeed true Reverence is the mother of Obedience else is it not Devotion but a meere derision of that Command of Christ Doe this The third Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the sence of the next words of Christs Command viz. GAVE IT VNTO THEM SECT V. IT followeth in the Canon of Christ his Masse And hee gaue it vnto them euen to THEM to whom hee said Take yee eate yee By which pluralitie of persons is excluded all private Massing forasmuch as our High Priest Christ Iesus who in instituting and administring of this Sacrament would not be alone said hereof as of the other Circumstances Doe this The Contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse This holy Synod saith your Councell of Trent doth approue and commend the Masses wherein the Priest doth Sacramentally communicate alone So your Church CHALLENGE BVt who shall iustifie that her Commendation of the alone-communicating of your Priest which we may iustly condemne by the liberall Confessions of your owne Doctors who grant first that this is not according to the Institution of Christ saying in the Plurall To them Secondly nor to the practice of the Apostles who were Communicating together in prayer and breaking of bread Act. 2. 46. that is say they aswell in the Eucharist as in Prayer Thirdly Nor to the ancient Custome of the whole Church both Greek and Romane Fourthly neither to Two Councels the one called Nanetense the other Papiense decreâ—ing against Priuate Masse Fiftly nor to the very names of the true Sacramentall Masse which by way of Excellencie was sometime called Synaxis signifying as S. Basil saith the Congregation of the faithfull somtimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion or Communicating and sometimes the Prayers vsed in euery holy Masse were called Collectae Collects because the people vsed to be collected to the celebration of the Masse it selfe Sixtly Nor to the very Canon of the now Romane Masse saying in the Plurall Sumpsimus we haue receiued And thereupon seuenthly repugnant to the Complaints of your owne men against your Abuse who calling the ioynt Communion instituted by Christ the Legitimate Masse doe wonder how your Priests sole Communicating euer crept into the Church and also deplore the contempt which your priuate Masse hath brought vpon your Church Hitherto see the Marginals from your owne Confessions Let vs adde the absurditie of the Commendation of your Councell of Trent in saying We commend the Priest's communicating alone A man may indeed possibly talke alone fret alone play the Traytor alone but this Communicating alone without any other is no better Grammar than to say that a man can conferre alone conspire alone contend or Couenant alone Caluine saith indeed of spirituall Eating which may be without the Sacrament as you also confesse that a faithfull man may feede alone of the Body and Blood of Christ But our dispute is of the Sacramentall Communicating thereof A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the former Prevarication condemning this Romane Custome by the Romane Masse it selfe VVEe make bold yet againe to condemne your Custome of Priuate Masse and consequently the Commendation giuen thereof by the Councel of Trent For by the Canon of your owne Masse wherein there are Interlocutorie speeches betweene Priest and People at the Celebration of this Sacrament the Priest saying Dominus vobiscum The Lord be with you and the People answering the Priest and saying And with thy Spirit your Cl. Espencaeus sometimes a Parisian Doctor one commended by Genebrard for his Treatise vpon this same Subiect of the Priuate Masse albeit he agreeth with the execrable Execration and Anathema of the Councell of Trent against them that hold Solitarie Masses to be vnlawfull yet after the expence of much paper to prove that some private Masse must needs haue anciently beene because Primitiuely Masse was celebrated almost in all Churches euery day and that S. Chrysostome did complaine of the absence of the people yet comming to determine of the poynt This Reason
having power sensibly to perceive which betokening Bread or the Accidents of bread as you see it doth confirmeth unto us the Tropicall speech of Christ in calling Bread his Body and consequently overthroweth your whole Cause Fourthly the Similitude of Epiphanius must stand thus That which is said to be after the Image of God is such which hath a substantiall being yet so that it be like but not the same in nature And so is Bread having a Sacramentall Analogie to Christ's Body the first as the substantiall meate of man's Body and the other as the supersubstantiall food of Man's Soule Which Conclusion namely that Bread as the signe of Christ's Body is not the same in nature with Christ's Body doth dash out the braines of the Monster Transubstantiation by the which Bread as your Tridentine Faith teacheth is wholly changed into the substantiall nature of Christ's Body As if you would have Epiphanius to have said The Image of God in man is God in nature Thus doe you find the Testimony of Epiphanius to be Convincent indeed but against your Romish Doctrine of Errour and against your Cardinall of a foule falsity who saith that Epiphanius will have us to believe something herein although it be repugnant to our Sences which word no man of Sence can find in Epiphanius He saith indeed that every man is bound upon his Salvation to believe the Truth of Christ his Speech which say wee none but an Infidell can deny because Christ being Truth it selfe therefore all the words of Christ whether spoken Literally or Tropically they are still the Truth of Christ That the same Greeke Fathers have expresly vnfolded their meanings touching a Figurative Sence SECT VIII THe Iudgement of a whole Councell of Greeke Fathers may well suffice for the manifestation of the Iudgement of that Church They in Constantinople at Trullo alluding to these words of Christ This is my Body saying Let nothing be offered but the Body and Blood of Christ that is say They Bread and Wine c. If we had not told you that this had been the speech of Greeke Fathers in a Councell you would have conceived they had beene uttered by some Heretique as your Charity useth to cal us Protestants Neither may the Authority of this Councell be rejected by you as unlawfull in the point of the Sacrament both because it is objected by your selves to prove it an vnbloody Sacrifice whereunto you are answered as also for that your Binius in opposing against some things in this Councell yet neuer tooke any Exception against this Canon We may not let passe another Testimony used by the Antient Father Theodoret namely That Christ called the Bread his Body as he called his Body Bread Matth. 12. saying thereof Except the grane of wheat die c. insomuch that Interchangeably in the one place He gave to the Signe the name of his Body and in the other He gave to his Body the name of the Signe So hee As Protestantly as either Calvin or Beza could speake And you cannot deny but that when Christ called his Body Bread it was an improper and figurative speech And therefore if you will believe Theodoret you are compellable to confesse that Christ in calling Bread his Body meant it not in a proper and literall sence Hitherto of the Greeke Fathers That the same Figurative sence of Christ's words is avouched by the Latine Fathers SECT IX SOme of the Latine Fathers we confesse seeme in some places to deny all Figurative sence but this they doe even by a figure called Hyperbole that is onely in the excesse of Speech thereby to abstract the minds of sensuall men from fixing their thoughts upon externall Rites and to rayse them up to a Sacramentall and Spirituall Contemplation of the Body and Blood of Christ But as for the direct and perspicuous Sentences of these Fathers they cleerely and exactly teach a figurative sence in the words of Christ to wit Tertullian This is my Body That is a figure thereof Cyprian Things signifying and signified are called by the same word Hierom. Wine the type of Christ his Blood Gelasius Bread the image of his Body Ambrose After consecration Christ his Body is signified Saint Augustine in many places may be unto Vs instar multorum To eate the flesh of Christ saith he is a figurative speech Againe In the banquet Christ gave to his Disciples the signe of his Body And yet againe Christ doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave a signe of his Body Lastly unanswerably proving other Sacraments to agree with this in this point and that herein the Eucharist hath no Prerogative above the rest Sacraments saith he for the very Similitude and likenesse which they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments doe often take the names of those things which they doe signifie as when the Sacrament of Christ's Body saith he is after a certaine manner called the Body of Christ But how Hee addeth as if hee had meant to stop the mouthes of all Opposites As it is said by the Apostle of Baptisme we are buried by Baptisme into the death of Christ He saith not wee signifie his buriall but absolutely saith Wee are buried therefore hath he called the Sacrament or Signe of so great a Thing by the name of the Thing signified thereby So he even the same He who will be found like himselfe in the following passages of this Booke especially when we shall handle the manner of Eating of Christ's body which Augustine will Challenge to be figuratively meant We shall take our farewell of the Latine Fathers in the Testimony of Bishop Isidore who will give you his owne Reason why Christ called Bread his Body Bread saith he because it strengtheneth the body is therefore called the body of Christ and Wine because it maketh Blood is therefore referred to Christ's Blood but these two being sanctified by the Holy Ghost are changed into a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ So he and so say we Accordingly Tertullian but least any may Cavill as some doe at his sentence above-cited wee adde his other sentence wherein he sheweth that Christ called Bread his Body in saying This is my body as the Prophet Ieremy called his Body Bread in saying Let us put wood upon his Bread meaning his Body So Tertullian shewing them both to be spoken equally in a figurative Sence CHALLENGE THese Sentences of these holy Fathers are so fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestans as that if the names of these Fathers had beene concealed our Reader might thinke that hee heard Bucer Calvin or Beza speake Goe you now and proclaime that all Ancient Fathers teach your Litterall sence of Christ his words and perswade your selves if you can that any man of Conscience and Iudgement can be seduced to believe you They say indeed that Bread is the Body of Christ
by Protestants which is Sacramentall And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall SECT I. First of the Sacramentall THere lieth a Charge upon every Soule that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament that herein he Discerne the Lord's Body which Office of Discerning according to the iudgement of Protestants is not onely in the use but also in the Nature to distinguish the Obiect of Faith from the Obiect of Sense The First Obiect of Christian Faith is the Divine Alteration and Change of naturall Bread into a Sacrament of Christ's body This we call a Divine Change because none but the same Omnipotent power that made the Creature and Element of Bread can Change it into a Sacrament The Second Obiect of Faith is the Body of Christ it selfe Sacramentally represented and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Communicants There are then three Obiects in all to be distinguished The First is before Consecration the Bread meerely Naturall Secondly After Consecration Bread Sacramentall Thirdly Christ's owne Body which is the Spirituall and Super-substantiall Bread truly exhibited by this Sacramentall to the nourishment of the soules of the Faithfull Secondly of the Romish Change which you call Transubstantiation SECT II. BVt your Change in the Councell of Trent is thus defined Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance of Bread into the whole Substance of the Body of Christ and of Wine into his Blood Which by the Bull of Pius the Fourth then Pope is made an Article of Faith without which a man cannot be saved Which Article of your Faith Protestans beleeve to be a new and impious Figment and Heresie The Case thus standing it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Foundation As for the Church of England she professeth in her 28. Article saying of this Transubstantiation that It cannot be proved by holy Writ but is repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion unto MANY SVPERSTIONS CHAP. II. The Question is to be examined by these ground viz. I. Scripture II. Antiquity III. Divine Reason IN all which wee shall make bold to borrow your owne Assertions and Confessions for the Confirmation of Truth The Romish Depravation of the Sence of Christ his words This is my Body for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT I. YOu pretend and that with no small Confidence as a Truth avouched by the Councell of Trent that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole true and proper Signification of these words This is my Body So you CHALLENGE VVHerein you shew your selves to be men of great Faith or rather Credulity but of little Conscience teaching that to be undoubtedly True whereof notwithstanding you your-selves render many Causes of Doubting For first you grant that besides Cardinall Cajetane and some other Ancient Schoolemen Scotus and Cameracensis men most Learned and Acute held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse which without the Declaration of the Church can evidently compell any man to admit of Transubstantiation So they Which your Cardinall and our greatest Adversary saith Is not altogether improbable and whereunto your Bishop Roffensis giveth his consent Secondly which is also confessed some other Doctors of your Church because they could not find so full Evidence for proofe of your Transubstantiation out of the words of Christ were driven to so hard shifts as to Change the Verbe Substantive Est into a Verbe Passive or Transitive Fit or Transit that is in stead of Is to say It 's Made or It passeth into the Body of Christ A Sence which your Iesuite Suarez cannot allow because as hee truly saith It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word Transubstantiation importeth no more than the Fieri seu Transire of Making or Passing of one Substance into another So that still you see Transubstantiation cannot be extracted out of the Text without violence to the words of Christ Wee might in the third place adde hereunto that the true Sence of the words of Christ is Figurative as by Scriptures Fathers and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * proved as an Infallible Truth So groundlesse is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following But yet by the way wee take leave to prevent your Obiection You have told us that the words of Christ are Operative and worke that which they signifie so that upon the pronuntiation of the words This is my Body it must infallibly follow that Bread is changed into Christs Body which wee shall believe assoone as you shall be able to prove that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood Luc. 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christ's Blood or else into his Blood it selfe The Novelty of Transubstantiation examined as well for the Name as for the Nature thereof SECT II. The Title and Name of Transubstantiation proved to be of a latter date YOu have imposed the very Title of Transubstantiation upon the Faith of Christians albeit the word Transubstantiation as you grant was not used of any Ancient Fathers and that your Romish Change had not it's Christendome or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation as your Cardinall Alan witnesseth before the Councell of Laterane which was 1215. yeares after Christ nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine for a Thousand yeares attributing any word equivalent in strict Sence unto the same word Transubstantiation untill the yeare 1100. which is beyond the Compasse of due Antiquitie At what time you finde note and â—rge Theophylact who saith of the Bread that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ Which Phrase in what Sence hee vsed it you might best have learned from himselfe who in the very same place saith that Christ in a manner is Trans-elementated into the Communicant which how unchristian a Paradoxe it were being taken in strict and proper Sence we permit to your owne iudgements to determine Neither yet may you for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word obiect the like use of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it had beene in use before the Arian Controversie began because the Fathers of the Councell of Nice iudged the Obiection of the Novelty of that word Calumnious for that the use of it had beene Antient before their times as your Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe witnesseth You furthermore to prevent our Obiection demanding why the Antient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change Transubstantiation if they had beene of your Romish Faith concerning the Substantiall Change of Bread into the Body of Christ haue shaped us this Answere namely that Although they used not the very word Transubstantiation yet have they words of the same signification to wit Conversion Transmutation Transition
are the Rites of the old Law called Shadowes in respect of the Sacraments of the Gospell according to the which difference Saint Iohn the Baptist was called by Christ a Prophet in that hee foretold Christ as now to come but he was called more then a Prophet as demonstrating and pointing him out to be now come Which Contemplation occasioned divers Fathers to speake so Hyperbolically of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in comparison of the Sacraments of the old Testament as if the Truth were in these and not in them as Origen did Besides the former two there is Veritas Obsignationis a Truth sealed which maketh this Sacrament more than a Signe even a Seale of Gods promises in Christ for so the Apostle called Circumcision albeit a Sacrament of the old Law the Seale of Faith But yet the print of that Seale was but dimme in comparison of the Evangelicall Sacraments which because they confirme unto the faithfull the Truth which they present are called by other ancient Fathers as well as by Saint Augustine visible Seales of divine things So that now we have in this Sacrament the Body of Christ not only under a Signe or signification but under a Seale of Confirmation also which inferreth a greater degree of reall Truth thereby represented unto us This might have beene the reason why Saint Augustine taught Christ to be Present both in Baptisme and at receiving the Lord's Supper A fourth Reason to be observed herein as more speciall is Veritas Exhibitionis a Truth Exhibiting and delivering to the faithfull Communicants the thing signified and sealed which Christ expressed when he delivered it to his Disciples saying Take eate this is my Body given for you and this is my Blood shed for you Thus Christ by himselfe and so doth he to other faithfull Communicants wheresoever to the ends of the World by his Ministers as by his hands through virtue of that Royall Command DOE THIS Vaine therefore is the Obiection made by your Cardinall in urging us with the testimony of Athanasius to prove that Christ his Body is exhibited to the Receivers As though there were not a Truth in a mysticall and sacramentall deliverance of Christ his Body except it were by a corporall and materiall presence thereof which is a transparent falsity as any may perceive by any Deed of Gift which by writing seale and delivery conveyeth any Land or Possession from man to man yet this farre more effectually as afterwards will appeare But first we are to manifest That the Romish Disputers doe odiously slanderously and unconscionably vilifie the Sacrament of the Eucharist as it is celebrated by PROTESTANTS SECT III. BEllarmine with others obiect against Protestants saying that Their Sacrament is nothing else but a crust of Bread and pittance of Wine And againe A morsell of Bread ill baked by which the Protestants represent unto their memories the death of Christ and the benefits thereof A goodly matter so doth a Crucifix and to make the Sacrament only a Signe is an ancient Heresie So they But have you not heard the Doctrine of the Protestants teaching the Eucharisticall Bread to be more than bare Bread a Sacramentall signe more an Evangelicall signe more a sacred Seale yet more an exhibiting Instrument of the Body of Christ therein to the devout Receiver And have not these outragious Spirits read your owne Cardinall witnessing that the Protestants teach that Although the Body of Christ be still in Heaven yet is it received in this Sacrament first Sacramentally by Bodily mouthes in receiuing the Bread the signe of Christ his Body and by which God doth truly albeit Sacramentally deliver unto the faithfull the reall body of Christ and secondly spiritually to the mouth of the soule by faith and so they truly and really participate of the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ So Bellarmine concerning Protestants which is so plainly professed by Calvin himselfe as would make any Romish Adversary blush at your former Calumnies who hath not abandoned shamefastnesse it selfe CHALLENGE THus may you see that we have not hitherto so pleaded for the Existence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration as thereby to exclude all Presence of Christ his body nor so maintained the proprietie of a Signe or Figure as not to beleeve the thing signified to be exhibited unto us as you have heard With what blacke spot of malignity and falshood then were the Consciences of those your Doctors defiled thinke you who have imputed to Protestants a Profession of using onely bare Bread which they notwithstanding teach and beleeve to be a Sacred Signe of the true Body of Christ in opposition to Heretikes an Evangelicall Signe of the Body of the Messias crucified against all Iewish conceit yea a Seale of Ratification yea and also a Sacramentall Instrument of conveying of the same precious Body of Christ to the soules of the faithfull by an happy and ineffable Coniunction whereof more hereafter in the Booke following where the consonant Doctrine of the Church of England will likewise appeare And as your Disputers are convinced of a malitious Detraction by the confessed positions of Protestants so are they much more by your owne instance of a Crucifix for which of you would not hold it a great derogation from Christ that any one seeing a Crucifix of wood now waxen old should in disdaine thereof call it a wooden or rotten Blocke and not account them irreligious in so calling it but why onely because it is a signe of Christ crucified Notwithstanding were the Crucifix as glorious as either Art could fashion or Devotion affect or Superstition adore yet is it but a signe invented by man And therefore how infinitely more honourable in all Christian estimation must a Sacramentall Signe be which onely the God of Heaven and Earth could institute and Christ hath ordained to his Church farre exceeding the property of a bare signe as you have heard A Father deliuering by politique assurances under hand and seale a portion of Land although an hundred miles distant and convaying it to his sonne by Deed if the sonne in scorne should terme the same Deed or writing blacke Inke the Seale greasie Waxe and the whole Act but a bare signe were he not worthy not onely to loose this fatherly benefit but also to be deprived of all other the temporall Blessings of a Father which hee might otherwise hope to enioy yet such like have beene your Calumnies and opprobrious Reproaches against our celebration of the Sacrament of Christ The Lord lay not them to your Charge Now you who so oppose against the Truth of the mysticall Presence will not conceale from us that Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ which your Church doth so extremely dote on CHAP. II. The Romish professed manner of Presence of Christ's Body in this Sacrament SECT I. OVr Methode requireth to consult in the first
and Wine as they name them Symbols and Signes which properly they could not be untill after Consecration Secondly the Canon expresly noteth and distinguisheth two Tables in respect of place the one as Here being as much as to say This Table and the other opposed hereunto is instiled That Table And of this Table Here the Councell forbiddeth Christians to looke Too attentively to the thing set before us But contrarily concerning That other Table they command men to Lift up their minds aloft And not thus onely but they also distinguish them in respect of their different Obiects The Obiect of the First Table Here they name Bread and the Cup the obiects of sense And the other obiect opposed to this is that on the other Table expressed to be the Lambe of God the obiect of our mindes Thirdly the Admonition or Caution which the Councell giveth concerning the Bread is not to be too intent to it but touching the Lambe of Christ they command us to lift up our mindes aloft for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie not to be used we thinke for an inward looking into the sublimity of the mystery of the matter before us as your Cardinall fancieth but for looking vp aloft unto the Lambe of God in Heaven according to the Catholike fence of those words SVRSVM CORDA The next two proofes out of the same Canon of Nice to manifest our Protestant profession touching the question in hand OVr next two proofes out of the Canon are these First is their Reason of the former Caution the Second the Confirmation of that Reason both are expresly set downe in the Canon it selfe Why then did those holy Fathers admonish us not to be too intent to the Bread and Wine set before us It followeth Because they are not ordained to satisfie our naturall man namely by a full eating and Drinking but for a Sacramentall participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to the sanctifying of our soules whereas your Church doth attribute to that which you eate in this Sacrament a power of sanctifying the Body by it's Bodily touch But much more will the next proofe vndermine your defence To confirme their Reason why the Sacrament was not ordained for the satisfying of the naturall man they adde saying For this cause we receive not much but little which one Clause most evidently proveth it to be spoken of Bread and Wine and not of the Body and Blood of Christ As your generall Romane Catechisme if you have not already learned it will now teach you to beleeve saying that Christ is not great or small in this Sacrament And indeed none ever said of the Eucharist that he eat a little of Christ's Body or a little Christ but yet the Sacrament eaten is sometimes more sometime lesse Nor this onely but the Canon furthermore speaketh of taking a little of that whereof if much were taken saith it it might satiate the naturall man So the Canon But that the outward Sacrament can truly satisfie the naturall man you your selves will testifie in your Booke-Cases and Missals acknowledging men Drunke with the Sacrament even unto vomiting with the one part thereof and also making mention of Men and Mice being fed and nourished with the other So then the naturall man may be satiated with this Sacrament but with what therein The Body and Blood of Christ you abhorre to thinke that with Accidents You may be ashamed to affirme it as from the Iudgement of Antiquity seeing you were never able hitherto iustly to produce one Father for proofe of the Existence of Accidents without their Subiects or of nourishing a substance by meere Accidents Wherefore untill you can prove some one of all these give us leave to beleeve that all were of the mind of that one Father who held it Impossible for an Incorporeall or not-bodily thing to be food to a bodily substance And so much the rather because the Fathers have manifoldly acknowledged in this Sacrament after Consecration the substance of Bread Wherefore the Reasoning of the Councell touching the Eucharist was like as if one should say of Baptisme We take not too much but little lest it might be thought to have beene ordained not for a Sacramentall meanes of sanctifying the Soule but for the clensing of the Flesh None is so stupid as not to understand by Much and Little the substance of water And if you shall need a further Explication of the same sentence of the Fathers of Nice you may fetch it from the Fathers in another Councell held at Toledo in Spaine Anno 693. who shew this Reason why they Take little portions of the Hoast namely say they least otherwise the belly of him that taketh this Sacrament may be stuffed and over-charged and least it may passe into the Draught but that it may be nourishment for the soule Hereby plainly teaching concerning the consecrated matter that were it so much as could burthen the belly it would through the superfluitie thereof goe into the Draught whereas if Lesse it would serve as well or better for a Sacramentall use to the replenishing of our soules in the spiritually receiving of the Body of Christ But you are not so farre bereft of your wits as to imagine that Much which stuffeth and after passeth into the Draught to be Christ's Bodie and you may sweare that the Fathers meant not meere Accidents For mere Accidents have not the property of Substance through the Muchnesse thereof either to satiate the naturall appetite in feeding or to over-charge the Belly by weight in pressing it downe to the Draught Never did any Father father such an Imagination What can be if this be not true reasoning and consequently a full confuration of your Romane Faith Therefore this one Canon of Nice being thus undoubtedly gained concerning the not seeking Christ Here on this Table is sufficient of it selfe to batter downe your Assertion by a five-fold force First by proofe of no Transubstantiation of Bread Secondly no Corporall Presence of Christ's Bodie Thirdly no Corporall Coniunction with the Bodies of the Communicants and consequently Fourthly no proper Sacrifice thereof And lastly no Divine Adoration due unto it Therefore ought you to bid all these your Romish Doctrines and Delusions avant Your Obiections from the former Canon answered SECT V. FIrst you Obiect that The Lambe is said to be placed on the Table mistaking what Table is meant for the Canon specifying two Tables one Here which is of the Eucharist and another That Table namely in Heaven saith that Christ is placed on That Table according to our Faith of his sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven Secondly hee is said say you to be sacrificed by the hands of the Priest which cannot be done as hee is in Heaven The words of the Canon truly resolved doe cashiere this Obiection as thus The Lambe of God set at that Table namely in Heaven is
of the Communicants is with Swallowing it downe SECT I. YOur Generall Tenet is That the Body of Christ is present in the Bodies of the Receivers so long as the formes of Bread and Wine continue Next that It is swallowed downe and transmitted into the stomacke yet further that your Priest in your Romane Masse is enioyned to pray saying O Lord let thy bodie which I have taken and blood which I have drunke cleave unto my Guts or Entrailes And a lesse Missall but yet of equall Authoritie teacheth all you English Priests to pray saying O God who refreshest both our substances with this food grant that the supply and helpe hereof may not be awanting either to our bodies or soules So that finally If through infirmity of the eater it passe from the stomacke downewards it then goeth into the Draught and place of egestion As hath beene evicted from your owne Conclusions That this former Doctrine is fully and filthily Capernaiticall SECT II. IN this Romish Profession every one may see in your Corporall Presence two most vile and ougly Assumptions One is of your Devouring of Christ and feeding bodily of him The other is a possibilitie of sauing your presence passing him downeward into the Draught or Seege that being as ill this peradventure worse than any Capernaiticall infatuation for which cause it was that your Iesuite Maldonate although granting that you doe corporally receive it into your stomackes yet denied for shame that you are Devourers thereof But I beseech you what then meaneth that which your Romish Instructions Decrees and Missals as we have heard doe teach you to doe with the Hoast in case that any either through Infirmitie or by Surfet and Drunkennes shall cast up the same Hoast out of his stomacke We demand may your Communicants be Vomitores to cast it up againe and can you deny but that they must first have beene Voratores to have devoured that which they doe so disgorge Will you beleeve your Iesuite Osorius To Devoure a thing saith he is to swallow it downe without chewing Say now doe not you swallow the Sacrament with chewing it then are you Capernaiticall Tearers of Christ's Body But doe you Swallow it without Chewing then are you Capernaiticall Devourers thereof Say not that because the Bodie of Christ suffereth no hurt therefore hee cannot be said by Corporall swallowing to be Devoured for his Bodie was not corrupted in the grave and yet was it truly buried and his Type thereof even Ionas without maceration was swallowed vp into the belly of the Whale and yet had no hurt Notwithstanding he was first caught and devoured who was after cast up and vomited That the same Romish manner of Receiving it downe into the Belly is proved to be Capernaiticall by the Iudgement of Antiquity SECT III. THeophylact noted the Capernaites opinion to have beene that the Receivers of the Body of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Devourers of flesh whereas the words of Christ saith hee are to be understood spiritually and so will it be known that we Christians what are not Devourers of Christ So hee But that Swallowing properly taken is a Devouring hath beene proved and if Devoured then why not also that which is the Basest of all Basenesse passed downe by â—gestion into the Seege whereof the Ancient Fathers have thus determined Origen that The materiall part of this sanctified meate passeth into the Draught which saith he I speake of the symbolicall Bodie c. Here will be no place for your Cardinal's Crotchets who confessing Origen to have spoken all this of the Eucharist would have vs by Materials to understand Accidents in respect saith hee of sanctification which they had and of Magnitude which belongeth rather to the matter of a thing then to the forme and by Symbolicall Body to conceive that this was meant of the Body of Christ it selfe as it is present in this Sacrament a Signe or Symboll of it selfe as it was on the Crosse So he as if he meant to crosse Origen's intention throughout every part of his Testimony For first That which he called Bread he calleth also meate sanctified Secondly that meate he teaâ—meth materiall Thirdly This materiall he saith passeth into the Draught Lastly concluding his speech concerning the Sacramentall Body and saying Hitherto have I spoken of the symbolicall body immediately he maketh his Transition to speake of the incarnate Body of Christ as it is the True soules meate But first meerly Accidents were never called by the Ancient Fathers Meates Secondly never Materials Thirdly never Magnitude in it selfe without a Subiect was iudged otherwise then Immateriall Fourthly never any Immateriall thing to have Gravitie or weight in pressing the guts to make an egestion into the Draught If every one of these be not yet all as a foure-fold cord may be of force to draw any Conscionable man to grant that Origen was of our Protestants faith And that which is more than all hee in his Transition expresly sheweth his faith concerning Christ's Body as Spirituall Bread by discerning it from the Sacramentall which he named a Symbolicall Body as one Body distinctly differing from the other As for your Cardinals pageant of Christ's Body in this Sacrament as being a Signe and Symbol of it selfe as it was on the Crosse it hath once already and will the second time come into play where you will take small pleasure in this figment Againe concerning the Body of Christ it selfe Cyrill Christianly denyeth it to goe either into the Belly or into the Draught and Chrysostome as iudging the very thought thereof Execrable denyeth it with an Absit Finally Ambrose is so farre from the proper swallowing of Christ in this Sacrament that distinguishing between Corporall Bread and the Body of Christ which he calleth super substantiall Bread and Bread of everlasting life for the establishing of man's soule hee denyeth flatly that this is that Bread which goeth into the Body If any mouse which your say may run away with the hoast be wholly fed thereon for a monthes space the Egestion of that Creature will be as absoute a Demonstration as the world can have that the matter fed upon after Consecration is Bread And why may you not aswell grant a power of Egestion as confesse which you doe in that Creature a digestion thereof Two false Interpretations fell upon the Catholike Profession concerning the Doctrine of the Eucharist in the dayes of Saint Augustine both which that holy Father did utterly explode The first was by the Manichees who teaching that Christ was Hanged on every tree and tied unto all meates which they eate would needs have their Religion to be somewhat agreeable to the Catholike Profession An Imputation which Saint Augustine did abhorre namely that it should be thought that there was the same reason of the opinion of Mysticall bread among the Orthodoxe which the
dying left us a Pledge for our Memorandum of him after his death By which Pledge what Christian as often as hee shall be put in minde of his death can then containe himselfe from weeping if he doe perfectly love him The comparison here is taken from a man who before his death willeave some thing of worth with his friend as a Pledge of his love and a token of his Remembrance of him after his death But the Pledge and the Pledger are two different things in themselves and as different in place the Pledge being a present token of a Friend absent Nothing now remaineth but some one Father to be Moderator in this Point and no-one more fit than he who is as vehemently obiected against us as any other namely Cyprian who speaking without all Ambages and Hyperboles saith that our Participation of this Sacrament Worketh not any consubstantiall Vnion that the Coniunction of Christ with us hath in it no mixture of persons vz. of Christ and Christians that it uniteth not the substances but ioyneth affections and affianceth our wils After this hee elegantly expresseth the Analogie betweene the Sacramentall and Spirituall nourishment As by Eating and drinking saith hee of the bodily substance our Bodies are fed and live so is the life of the soule nourished with this food So he III. That the former Doctrine of the Fathers is consonant to the Profession of Protestants SECT VII IF you take the Corporall Vnion of Christ's bodie with ours as you doe by a Bodily Touch bodily Eating Swallowing and Mixture with our bodies We abhorre this as much as did the Ancient Fathers in these their precedent Item's to wit First Ambrose opposing hereunto Christs Noli me tangere Touch me not which was spoken to Mary Against your Touch. Secondly Augustines Non dentis sed mentis Against your proper eating Thirdly Theophylact's We devoure not his flesh Against your Swallowing Fourthly Cyprians We mingle not persons Against your Transmitting him into your Bowels and Entrailes And for a further Discoverie of Romish stupidity in your Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Analogie betweene the Sacrament and Christ in the Doctrine of Antiquity is alwayes of the substance of Bread and Wine with his Bodie and Blood But we never read in ancient Bookes of your Sacramentall Eating of Accidents Drinking of Accidents or being fed and living by Accidents Wherefore muster you all those Testimonies of Fathers which speake of the Nourishment augmentation and subsistence of our Bodies by the bodie and blood of Christ and all such Sentences will be so many witnesses of your incredible pervicacie who seeke to prove an Augmentation of our bodies by the bodie and blood of Christ in the Eucharist and yet professe according to your owne Romane faith that as soone as the Formes of Bread and Wine eaten and drunke are corrupted which you know is done in a very short time the Bodie and Blood of Christ hath no longer Residence in the bodie of the Communicant CHALLENGE THrice therefore yea foure-times unconscionable are your Disputers in obiecting the former sentences of holy Fathers as teaching a Corporall and Naturall Vnion of Christ's body with the bodies of Christian Communicants once because they in true sence make not at all for your Romish Tenet next because they make against it then because the Corporall Coniunction though it be of the Bodie of Christ and Bodies of Christians in respect of the obiect yet for the matter and subiect it is of Sacramentall Bread united with our owne Bodies in a mysticall relation to the Body of our Redeemer and lastly and that principally because they meant a Spirituall Coniunction properly and perpetually belonging to the Sanctified Communicants and herein consonant to the profession of Protestants Wherefore primitive and holy Fathers would have stood amazed and could not have heard without horrour of your Corporall Coniunction of Christ his Body in Boxes and Dunghils in Mawes of Beasts in Guts of Wormes Mice and Dâ—gges as you have taught Fie Fie Tell it not in Gath nor let it be once heard off in any heathenish Nation to the Blaspheming of the Christian profession and dishonouring of the broad Seale of the Gospell of Christ which is the blessed Sacrament of his precious Bodie and Blood Before we can proceed to the next Booke wee are to remove a rub which lyeth in our way CHAP. IX That the Obiection taken from the slanders of Iewes and Pagans against Christians by imputing the guilt of Eating man's flesh unto them in receiving of the Sacrament is but ignorantly and idly urged by your Disputers SECT I. MAny leaves are spent by Master Brereley in pressing this Obiection the strength of his inforcement standeth thus Iustine Martyr in the yeare 130. writing an Apologie to the heathen Emperour when hee was in Discourse of the Eucharist The reported Doctrine whereof concerning the reall Presence was the true and confessed Cause of this slander and when he should have removed the suspition thereof did notwithstanding call the Eucharist No common Bread but after Consecration the food wherewith our Flesh and Blood are fed c. Then he proceedeth in urging his other Argument borrowed from the Cardinall to wit Iustine his comparing the change in the Eucharist to be a worke of Omnipotencie and for his not expounding the words of Christ figuratively Then is brought in Attalus the Martyr whilst he was under the tortures and torments of his Persecutors saying Behold your doing Hoc est homines devorare This is a devouring of men We Christians doe not devoure men To whom is ioyned Tertullian making mention of the same slander of Sacrificing a Childe and eating his flesh Ad nostrae doctrinae notam To the infamie of our Profession At length Master Brerely concludeth as followeth So evidently doth this slander thus given forth by the Iewes argue sufficiently the doctrine of Reall Presence and Sacrifice and for as much as the slander went so generally of all Christians it is probable that it did not arise from any sort of one or other Christian in particular So he THE FIRST CHALLENGE Against the Ignorance of the Obiector and the falfe ground of his Obiection SECT II. THe confessed light of History will discouer the mist of Preiudice in our opposites for Irenaeus Augustine and Epiphanius doe all declare that the ground of this Slander against Christians for eating man's flesh was the detestable fact of some Heretiques who professing themselves Christians notwithstanding in Celebration of the Eucharist did indeed eate man's flesh as your Iesuite Maldonate and Cardinall Baronius doe both witnesse The former of these fixing a Credo upon it against your obiected Probabile to the contrarie Againe looke but into the Testimones as they are alleaged by the Obiector and recorded in the Histories themselves and it is found that that Slander raised against Christians was alwayes for eating the flesh of a Child or Infant
as their Eucharist and therefore could not reflect upon any Christian and Sacramentall communicating of Christ his flesh in the Eucharist wherein the Bodie represented according to our Christian profession is not of a Child but of a man of more than thirty yeares of age I say it could no more reflâ—ct on them than that other heathenish Lie that Christians did worship an Asse or Asses head for their God So childishly hath your Priest vaunted in calling his Obiection An evident Argument which will afterwards be encountred with an Argument against your Romish Sacrifice from the Answere of Cyril of Alexandria unto the Emperour Iulian the Apostate in defence of Christian Religion farre more Evident than yours was from the Apologie of Iustine to the other Infidell Emperour A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the Insufficiencie of the Reasons collected out of Iustine SECT III. THe Consequences deduced out of Iustine Martyr have beene answered in effect alreadie First Hee calleth the Eucharist Not common Bread and so doth every Christian speake of every sacred and consecrated thing you Papists will be offended to heare even your Holy Water no Sacrament to be called Common-water Secondly Iustine said As Christ was made flesh by incarnation so is the Eucharist by Prayer It were an Iniurie to Iustine for any man to thinke him so absurd as dealing with an Infidell to prove unto him one obscure mysterie of Christianitie by another And the calling of the Eucharist Flesh Sacramentally as being a Signe of Flesh could be no matter of Scandall to the Pagans who themselves in their Sacramentalls usually called the Signe by the name of the Thing signified one instance whereof you have heard out of Homer calling the Lambe sacrificed whereby they swore for Ratification of their Covenants their faithfull oathes Againe the generall Profession of Christians so well knowne to beleeve that Christ once crucifiedâ— ac cording to the Christian Creed set at the right hand of God in highest Maiestie might quite free them from all heathenish suspition of Corporall Eating the flesh of Christ Thirdly that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is The meate blessed by giving of Thankes Iustine calleth Christ's flesh namely Improperly which who shall affirme properly without a Figure by the Censure of your owne Iesuites must bee iudged Absurde THE THIRD CHALLENGE Against the Vnluckinesse of the Obiectors by their urging that which maketh against them SECT IV. FOr first they have told us of the Martyr Attalius that hee upbraided his heathenish persecutors who put him to death calling them Devourers of mens flesh and avouching in behalfe of all true Christians that they Devoure not man's flesh which no Romish Professor at this day can affirme this Profession that you swallow and transmit that flesh of Christ into the stomacke this having beene confessed by your owne Iesuite to be a Devouring So that the Doctrine of that primitive Age as you now see was as different from your Romish Noveltie as are Corporall and not Corporall Eating of the same Bodie of Christ Finally All our premised Sections throughout this Fift Booke doe clearely make up this Conclusion that the Bodie of Christ which Protestants doe feed upon as their soules food is the Bodie of Christ once Crucified and now sitting in glorious maiestie in Heaven and that Bodie of Christ beleeved by you is of Corporall Eating in deed and in truth of Bread as hath beene proued and will be further discovered in a generall Synopsis Wherefore let every Christian studie with syncere conscience To eate the flesh of Christ with a spirituall appetite as his Soules food thereby to have a Spirituall Vnion with him proper to the Faithfull not subiect to Vomitings or Corruption and not common to wicked men and vile beasts but alwayes working to the salvation of the true Receiver so shall he abhorre all your Capernatticall fancies Thus much of the Romish Consequence concerning Vnion the next toucheth the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ whereunto we proceed not doubting but that we shall find your Disputers the same men as hitherto wee have done peremptorie in their Assertions Vnconscionable in wresting of the Fathers and vaine fantasticall and absurd in their Inferences and Conclusions THE SIXTH BOOKE Entreating of the fourth Romish Consequence which concerneth the pretended proper Propitiatorie Sacrifice in the Romish Masse arising from the depraved Sence of the former words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY and confuted by the true Sense of the words following IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE The State of the Controversie WHosoever shall deny it say your Fathers of Trent to be a true and proper Sacrifice or that it is Propitiatorie Let him be Anathema or Accursed Which one Canon hath begot two Controversies as you know One Whether the Sacrifice in the Masse be a proper Sacrifice 2. Whether it be truly Propitiatorie Your Trent-Synode hath affirmed both Protestants deny both so that Proper and Improper are the distinct Borders of both Controversies And now whether the Affirmers or Denyers that is the Cursers or the parties so Cursed deserve rather the Curse of God we are forthwith to examine We begin with the Sacrifice as it is called Proper This Examination hath foure Trials 1. By the Scripture 2. By the Iudgement of Antient Fathers 3. By Romish Principles and 4. By Comparison betweene this your Masse and the Protestants Sacrifice in the Celebration of the holy Eucharist CHAP. I. Our Examination by Scripture SCriptures alleaged by your Disputers for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice are partly out of the new Testament and partly out of the old In the new some Objections are collected out of the Gospell of Christ and some out of other places Wee beginning at the Gospell assuredly affirme that if there were in it any note of a Proper Sacrifice it must necessarily appeare either from some speciall word or else from some Sacrificing Act of Christ at the first Institution First of Christs words That there is no one word in Christ his first Institution which can probably inferre a Proper Sacrifice not the first and principall words of Luc. 22. HOC FACITF DOE THIS SECT I. WHen we call upon you for a Proofe by the words of Christ wee exact not the verie word Offering or Sacrifice in the same Syllables but shall bee content with any Phrase of equivalencie amounting to the sense or meaning of a Sacrifice In the first place you object those words of Christ Hoc facite Doe this from which your Councell of Trent hath collected the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ which your Cardinall avoucheth with his Certum est as a Truth without all exception as if Doe this in the literall sense were all one with Doe you Sacrifice But why because forsooth the same word in the Hebrew Originall and in the Greeke Translation is so used Levit. 15. for Doe or Make spoken of the Turtle-dove prepared for an Holocaust or Sacrifice and 1
Perplexity in the Romish worship Book 7. Chap. 9. Sect. 3. Propitiatory Sacrifice distinguished B. 6. Ch. 8. Sect. 1. Objectively Chap. 9. Sect. 2. The Romish Propitiatory void of Propitiatory qualities Booke 6. Chap. 10. Sect. 1 c. Protestants professe an Vnion with Christ more than figurative B. 5. Ch. 2. They professe a Sacrifice both Encharisticall and Latreuticall B. 6. Ch. 7. Sect. 1 c. And offer Christ's Propitiatory Sacrifice objectively Ib. Sect. 4. Slandered as celebrating Bare Bread Book 4. Ch. 1. Sect. 3. In the celebration of the Eucharist they use due Reverence and are free from all Perplexities wherewith the Romish are intangled in their worship Booke 7. Ch. 9. Sect. 3. See Vnion Q. QVantity and Quality differ extremely in respect of their being in place or space Booke 4. Chap. 6. Sect. 6. R. REservation of the Eucharist to other ends than eating is an Innovation Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. Reverence of this Sacrament falsly pretended for an Alteration of Christ's Institution Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. Reverence professed by Protestants B. 7. Ch. 9. What are the properties of due Reverence Ibid. See Adoration and Idolatry S. SAcrifice not properly so called in the now Testament Book 6. Chap. 1. and so thorowout the Book 6. Not proved by Christ's Institution or any Scripture whether Typicall or Propheticall Chap. 3 c. Commemorative only not proper Ch. 5 c. The Romish Masse is destitute of all Sacrificing Acts Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Sacrifice how professed by Protestants Ch. 7. Sect. 1. Sacrilegiousnesse of the Romish Masse in a Synopsis Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Scriptures their Exposition impudently appropriated to the Romish Church Booke 8. Ch. 2. Sect. 8. Shed in Christ's Institution taken unproperly without effusion of Blood B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 4. Of the Present Tense B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 4. Similitude of making a Circle is but a juggling Invention for proofe of Transubstantiation or the literall sence of Christ's words B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 2. Another of a Stage-play for proofe of a proper Sacrifice â—idioulously objected B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Chall 2. B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 7. Ch. 5. Sect. 12. Slander of Iewes Pagans against Christians as eating a Childe foolishly objected for proofe of a Corporall eating of Christ's flesh B. 5. Chap. 9. Sect. 1. Against Protestants as denying God's omnipotency B. 4. Ch. 3. Sect. 1 4. And as if they held but bare bread in the Sacrament Booke 4. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Soule fondly objected for proofe of a possibility of a Bodies existence in many places at once Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. A great difference betweene Body and Soule B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Stage-play See Similitude Superstitiousnesse of the Romish Masse in a Synopsis Book 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. T. TOngue unknowen unlawfull in Gods Service Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. Translation called the Vulgar Latine rejected by the Romish Disputers notwithstanding their Oath to the contrary Booke 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Booke 〈◊〉 Chap. 1. Sect. 2. And yet objected B. 6. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. Transubstantiation not proved by Christ's words This is my Body Booke 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. Novelty of the word and Article Ibid. Bread remaineth Sect. 4 c. As well foure Transubstantiations evinced out of the same Testimonies of Fathers whereby the Romish Disputers seeke to prove one B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. Types and Antitypes how applyed to the Eucharist by the Fathers B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. V. VIaticum spoken of by the Fathers objected idly B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. Vnbloody Sacrifice so termed of the Fathers to signifie void of blood as in the Sacrifice of Melchizedech B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 9. which they also call a Bloody Sacrifice Ibid. Ch. 5. Sect. 11. Vnion of Christ's body with the bodies of the Communicants by this Sacrament is spirituall B. 5. Ch. 1 2. The wicked are not united and yet guilty of Christ's blood Chap. 3. Corporall Vnion how understood by the Fathers B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 5 c. See Capernaites Voice objected seelily for proofe of a possibility of a Body to be indivers places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 1. Vulgar Translation See Translation II. Index of the Generall Consent of ancient Fathers in points controverted thorow-out the eight former Bookes BOOKE I. ANtiquity in generall against the Romish forme of Consecration Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Against their Not Breaking of Bread in the distributing thereof Sect. 4. Against Private Masse Sect. 5. Against uttering the words of Consecration in a low voice Sect. 6. Against an Vnknowen tongue in the publike service of God Sect. 7. Against the presence of Persons not Communicating Chap. 2. Sect. 9. Against Reservation of the Eucharist for Procession or other like ends Sect. 10. Against Communicating but in one kinde Chap. 3. Sect. 5. The Objections out of the Fathers in this point answered Ibid. The Father 's many Reasons for the common use of the Cup. Sect. 9. BOOKE II. ANtiquitie agreeing in the Exposition of the words of Christ This is my Body by referring Hoc This to Bread Chap. 1. Sect. 6. And in yeelding unto them a Figurative Sence Chap. 2. Sect. 6 c. BOOKE III. ANtiquity never mentioning the word Transubstantiation Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Expounding these words Fruit of the Vine to meane Wine after Consecration Chap. 3. Sect. 5. Acknowledging the verity of Sence Sect. 9. And Bread remaining after Consecration Sect. 11. Never speakes of Accidents without Substance Sect. 11. Chap. 3. Sect. 14. Nor of any Miraculous Conversion of the Sacrament putrified into Bread againe Ibid. Romish Art in deluding the Testimonies of Antiquity Ibid. Antiquity objected and answered Chap. 4. thorow-out BOOKE IV. ANtiquity against the Possibility of the Being of a Body in moe places than one at once Chap. 6. Sect. 6 c. or yet Angels Chap. 5. Sect. 3. For the manner of the birth of Christ in opening the wombe Chap. 7. Sect. 7. BOOKE V. ANtiquity agreeing that only the Godly are partakers of Christ's body and blood Chap. 2. Sect. 2. In expounding the words The flesh profiteth nothing spiritually Chap. 5. Sect. 2. The Fathers Hyperbole's necessarily to be observed Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Objected for mens being nourished with Christ's flesh unconscionably Chap. 8. Sect. 1. As also for Mixture with mens Bodies Chap. 8. Sect. 3. whereby they must as well provâ— foure Transubstantiations as one 〈◊〉 Agreeing that Noneâ—… Christ in whâ—m Christ doth â—ot remaine Ibid. How they are to be understood concerning Corporall Vnion Ch. 8. Sect. 4 c. See Liturgies BOOKE VI. ANtiquity unconscionably objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice from the Sacrifice of Melchizedeâ—h Ch. 3. Sect. 2. And in the Exposition of Malachy Ch. 4. Sect. 2 c. Agreeth for Christ's Priestly Function in heaven Chap. 3. Sect. 8. Explane themselves to signifie a Sacrifice unproperly Chap. 4. Sect. 5
the Assistance of Christ doth especially concurre with his owne Ordinance and therefore much rather where the forme of a Sacrament ordained and instituted by himselfe is observed then where it is as of you so notoriously perverted and contemned Yet because you may thinke we rest upon either our owne or yet of other your Doctors Iudgement in this Defence we shall produce to this purpose the consonant Doctrine of ancient Fathers Our third proofe is taken from the manifold Reasons of ancient Fathers for Confirmation of the Necessity of the Communicating in both kinds SECT IX FOr the proofe of the necessary vse of both kindes in the solemne and publique dispensation of this Sacrament the particular Testimonies of many ancient Fathers might be produced but your owne Authours will ease us of that labour by relating and confessing as much in effect as we did intend to prove viz. That the ancient Fathers were induced to the Continuance of the Custome in both kinds First by the Example and Institution of Christ Secondly by some particular Grace which they held to be signified by the Cup. Thirdly for the Representation that it had to the Passion of Christ distinctly and respectively to his Bodie and Blood Fourthly to resemble the Redemption which man hath in his Body by Christ's Body and by his Blood in the soule Fifâ—ly To expresse by these Symbols the perfect spirituall Nourishments wee have by his Body and Blood Sixtly To understand that this Sacrament doth equally belong to People as well as to Priests Seventhly that the Cup of the Eucharist doth animate soules to receive the Cup of bloody Martyrdome when the time should be Whereunto may be added the Constant profession of the Greeke Church in obeying the Canon of Christ and holding it necessarily to be observed of the people also by receiving in both kindes and that otherwise wee transgresse against the Institution of Christ All these Testimonies of primitive Fathers under the Confession of your owne Doctors are so many Arguments of the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity for proofe of an obligation of precept upon the Churches of Christ whatsoever for the preservation of the perfect forme of Christ's Ordinance in the administring of the Sacrament in both kindes Vpon this Evidence may you justly call your fellow-Priest Master Brereley to account for his bold Assumption saying that No Doctor speaking of ancient Fathers can be produced either expressely or else by necessary Consequence affirming the necessity of the Laicks receiving under both kinds Your selves perceiving now not only One but many ancient Doctors to have expressed not only One but many Necessities inferring the same And then you may furthermore question him for his next as lavish Assertion affirming in his fift Answere that The Authorities obiected for the necessity of both kinds speake not of a Sacramentall but only of a spirituall Receiving with the mouth of their hearts When shall we find conscionable dealing at this man's hands Having thus finished our Assumption we shall more expeditely satisfie such your Reasons or rather Pretences which you bring to disguize your sacrilegious Abuse The Romish Pretences for their Innovation and Alteration of Christ his Institution by the publique vse of but One kind SECT X. VVE heare the Councell of Trent pretending as they say Iust reasons of altering the primitive Custome and vse of both kinds but naming none which we may well thinke was because they deserved not the mention surely such they were that your Iesuite had rather that you should belieue them then try and examine them It being your part as hee saith Rather to thinke them inst than to discusse them But wee are not bound to your Rules of blinde Obedience God will have us to use the sight which he hath given us least If the blinde leading the blinde both fall into the Ditch And whether the Reasons which are given by your Doctors be not blinde Seducements wee are now to try Some of your Reasons are taken from extraordinary Cases some Instances are common to all other Churches Christian and some are made as being peculiar to the Church of Rome The first kind of Romish Pretences from extraordinary Cases The first Pretence is thus alleaged Many Northerne Countries are destitute of Wine and therefore one kinde is to be used for Concord and Vniformity-sake Will you be answered from your selves Aquinas making the same Obiection of want of Wine and Wheate in forreine Countries Resolveth that Notwithstanding Wheate and Wine may be transported easily to all parts Accordingly doth he resolve of the want of Balsame used in your Consecration and yet it is farre more scarce then Wine or Wheate Yet what Northerne Countrie almost can you name that hath not abundance of Wine for many persons even unto râ—ot and can they not as well have it in moderate measure for a sacred Rite But what talke you of Vniformity and Concord in this Case of Alteration which are your two next Pretences wherein notwithstanding the Church of Rome is dissenting from the Greeke and all other Christian Churches in the World Or if this were a necessary Cause why did not your Church allow the use of both kinds to the Church of Bohemia but twice raised a fierce warre against them for which your Iesuite Salmeron seemeth to be full sorrie marrie it was because that warre had not his wished successe Is their Concord in Hostilitie Againe because you thirdly pretend Vniformity also why then doe your consecrating Priests only receive both kinds sacramentally and all the other Priests in Communicating participate but in one or how is it that you allow a â—…priuiledge to Popes Cardinals Monkes and noble Personages to receive in both kinds and deny this liberty to others Is there likewise Vniformity in Disparity Your fourth Pretence is because divers are Abstemious and have an Antipathy against Wine and some sickly persons also can hardly receive without Irreverent casting it up againe If the particular reason which Aquinas giveth saying That Wine moderately taken of such can doe no hurt may not satisfie yet this being also a Cause accidentall and extraordinary you ought to be regulated by this generall Rule That extraordinary Cases ought not to iustle out ordinary Lawes and Customes For that Command of Christ to his Apostles Goe preach to every Creature of man stood good in the generall albeit many men happened to be deafe Saint Peter requireth of every Christian of fit yeares that he be prepared to give an answere of his faith to everyone that asketh which precept was not therefore alterable because of multitudes of many that were dumbe Finally to close vp with you hee that by the rule of Hospitality is to cheere up his Guests doth not prescribe that because some mens stomackes are queasie and not able to endure Wine or else some meates therefore all others should be kept from fasting from all meates and Drinkes and the
Type and Antitype not Forme or Figure of Bread Now there is a maine and manifest difference betweene Forme and Type For Accidentall Formes are things Reall and the determinate Obiects of Sense but Types or Antitypes are only Relatives and as such no Obiects of Sense but of Reason and understanding onely As for Example when a Iudge is set in his Scarlet upon the Bench the Eye seeth nothing but red Scarlet and the fashion of the Gowne and outward figurature of his Face and so may every Childe see him for these are Outward and Visible Accidents But to see that man as hee hath upon him the person of a Iudge ordained to try Causes betweene parties is a sight of the minde which looketh upon his Office to discerne him by his Habit from common Subiects Even so is it in this Sacrament As the Bread and Wine are Round and White and Sweet in Taste our Bodily Senses perceive them but as they are Types and Antitypes that is Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ so are they spiritually discerned with our understanding only As therefore it followeth not that the Scarlet Gowne of the Iudge because it is an Ensigne of his Office should be only Colour and Fashion without the matter and Substance of the Cloth no more can any conclude from Cyrill that because the Sacrament is a Type therefore this Type was only Forme and outward Accidents without all Substance of Bread And thus your Cardinall his first Apertissimum Argumentum for proofe of Accidents without the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament is proved to be Apertissimum Figmentum void of all substance or almost shadow of Truth His next observation is the Change by Transubstantiation and the errour of Sense in iudging it to be Bread Wee call vpon Cyrill to decide this Controversie who is best able to interprete himselfe Hee therefore that said of the Eucharist after Consecration It is not Bare Bread but the Body of Christ affirmed as much of Consecrated Oyle saying It is 〈◊〉 Bare Oyle But we are answered that Cyrill in denying the Eucharist to be Common Bread called it after Consecration Christ's Body but in denying Oyle to be Bare Oyle hee called it yet still Chrisme that is Sanctified Oyle after Consecration So your Cardinall And so are wee posed for ever But behold another Iesuiticall Fraud For Cyrill as he called the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body after Consecration so doth he call the Consecrated Oyle Charisma that is the Gift of the Grace of Christ and not Chrisma that is Chrisme or Oyntment as your Cardinall rendreth it Wee say againe he calleth that Charisma which notwithstanding hee saith was after Consecration still Oyle wherewith their Foreheads were anointed This must we iudge to have beene a notable Falsification of Bellarmine except you would rather we should thinke that when hee was now to prove that our Senses are deceived in iudging of Bread to be Bread he meant to prove it by seeming to be deceived himselfe in thus mistaking the word Chrisma for Charisma and so utterly perverting the Iudgement of Cyrill by whom we are contrarily taught that the Sight is no more deceived in iudging Bread to be Bread than in discerning Oyle to be Oyle For neither was the other Bare Oyle being a Type of a spirituall Gift nor yet was it therefore changed into the Spirituall Grace it selfe because it is so called but onely is a Type and Symbol thereof Which One Parallel of Oyle with Bread doth discover the Vnconscionable pertinacie and Perversnes of your Disputers in urging the Testimony of Cyrill The like Romish Obiection out of Chrysostome and as Vnconscionable SECT V. SAint Chrysostome his Testimony may in no wise be omitted which seemeth to your Disputers to be so Convincent that your Cardinall placed it in the front of his host of the Fathers whom he produceth as able to breake through an army of Aduersaries alone and Mr. Breerely reserved it to the last of the Testimonies which hee alleaged as that which might serve for an Vpshot I will conclude saith hee admonishing the Christian Reader with Saint Chrysostome his Saying you long to heare it wee thinke Although Christ his speech saith Chrysostome may seeme absurd vnto Sense and Reason Iexhort you notwithstanding that especially in mysteries we looke not unto that which is before us but observe Christ's words for we cannot be disappointed of that which he saith but Sences may be deceived Wherefore because he said This is my Body we are altogether to beleeve it for hee deliuereth no sensible things unto us but all which he delivereth in things sensible are insensible even as in Baptisme the gift of Regeneration granted us is Intelligible For if thou wert without a Body then things only unbodily should be given unto thee but now because thy Soule is ioyned with a Body therefore in things sensible hath Christ delivered unto thee things intelligible So Chrysostome Now what of all this Chrysostome saith your Cardinall could not speake more plainly if he had had some Calvinist before him whom he meant to exhort to the Faith So he meaning the Faith of Transubstantiation which as hath beene confessed was no doctrine of Faith untill more than a Thousand yeares after Christ But to returne to Chrysostome whose Sentence we may compare to a Nut consisting of a Shell and a Kernell The Shell wee may call his Figurative Phrases the Kernel we may terme his Orthodox meaning Of both in the Section following Of the Rhetoricall and Hyperbolicall Phrases of Chrysostome SECT VI. TO begin with the Shell First we are to know that Hyperbole is a Rhetoricall Trope or Figure which may be defined to be an Excessive speech signifying a Truth in an Vntruth As to say Something is more darke than darknesse it selfe which being strictly taken were an Impossibility and Vntrue but it doth imply this Truth namely that the thing is wonderfully and extremely darke Secondly that Chrysostome was most frequent in this Figure Hyperbole your owne Senensis doth instruct you where giving a generall Caution that Fathers in their Sermons doe use to declame Hyperbolically he doth instance most specially by name in Chrysostome Thirdly that the Excessive Phrases of Chrysostome upon this Sacrament doe verifie as much viz. to tell his people that Their Teeth are fixed in the flesh of Christ that Their tongues are bloodied with his Blood and that The Assembly of the People are made red therewith Fourthly that he is as Hyperbolicall in denying in the Celebration of this Sacrament the iudgement of Senses saying Doe we see Bread or Wine which is spoken in as great an exuberancie of speech as are the next wordes immediatly following saying Thinke not that you receive the Body from a man but fire from a Seraphin or Angell with a paire of Tongs You will thinke notwithstanding those kind of Phrases that Chrysostome thought he saw as well Bread
and Wine in this Sacrament as he could discerne either Man from a Seraphin or Spirit or his own Fingers from a paire of Tongs Fiftly that the Sentence obiected against us is adorned with the same figure Hyperbole when he saith that No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament and that our Senses herein may be deceived Words sore pressed by you yet twice unconscionably both because every Sacrament by your owne Church is defined to be A Sensible Signe and also for that you your selves confesse that Our senses cannot be deceived in their proper sensible Obiects Sixtly that Chrysostome himselfe well knew he did Hyperbolize herein who after that he had said No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament notwithstanding he addeth immediately saying of this Sacrament that In things Sensible things Intelligible are given unto us Thus farre of the Rhetorique of Chrysostome Now are we to shew his Theologie and Catholique meaning as it were the Kernell of his speech Hee in the same Sentence will have us understand Man to consist of Body and Soule and accordingly in this Sacrament Sensible things are ministred to the Body as Symbols of Spirituall things which are for the Soule to feed upon So that a Christian in receiving this Sacrament is not wholly to exercise his mind upon the bodily Obiect as if that were onely or principally the thing offered unto us No for then indeed our Senses would deceive our Soules of their spirituall Benefit As for Transubstantiation and Absence of Bread Chrysostome in true Sence maketh wholly against it by explaining himselfe and paralleling this Sacrament with Baptisme As in Baptisme saith hee Regeneration the thing intelligible is given by water the thing sensible the Substance of water remaining Which proportion betweene the Eucharist and Baptisme is held commonly by ancient Fathers to the utter overthrow of Transubstantiation And that Chrysostome beleeved the Existence of Bread after Consecration hath beene already expressly shewne and is here now further proved For he saith of Bread after Consecration that Wee are ioyned together one with another by this Bread And now that you see the Nut cracked you may observe how your Disputers have swallowed the shell of Hyperbolicall Phrases and left the kernell of Theologicall Sence for us to content our selves withall Furthermore for this is not to be omitted the other Testimony of Chrysostome is spun and woven with the same Art which saith of Consecrating this Sacrament that Man is not to thinke it is the hand of the Priest but of Christ himselfe that reacheth it unto him seeing immediately after as it were with the same breath it is added It is not the Minister but God that Baptizeth thee and holdeth thy head Thus farre concerning the Iudgement of Sences which hath beene formerly proved at large both by Scriptures and Fathers wee draw nearer our marke which is your Transubstantiation Fourthly the Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers in urging other Figurative Sayings and Phrases of the Fathers of Bread Changed Transmuted c. into the Body of Christ for proofe of a Transubstantiation thereof in a Proper Sence SECT VII SVch words as these Bread is the Body of Christ It is made the Body of Christ It is Changed Translated Trans-muted Transelementated into the Body of Christ are Phrases of the highest Emphasis that you can find in the Volumes of Antiquity which if they were literally meant according to your Romish Sence there ought to be no further Dispute But if it may evidently appeare by the Idiome of speech of the same Fathers that such their sayings are Tropicall and sometimes Hyperbolicall then shall we have iust Cause to taxe your Disputers of as great Vnconscionablenes if not of more in this as in any other For whensoever they find in any Father as in Eusebius these words The Bread is the Body of Christ they obiect it for Transubstantiation but Vnconscionably First seeing that the Fathers doe but herein imitate our Lord and Master Christ who said of the Bread This is my Body which hath beene proved by Scriptures and Fathers to be a Figurative and unproper speech Secondly seeing that they use the same Dialect in other things as Cyrill of Sacred Oyle saying this is Charisma the Gift of Grace as hee called also the Holy Kisse a Reconciliation and others the like as you have heard Thirdly seeing that you your selves have renounced all proper Sence of all such Speeches because things of different natures cannot possibly be affirmed one of another for no more can it be properly said Bread is man's Body than we can say An Egg is a Stone as you have confessed Againe Some Fathers say Bread is made Flesh as S. Ambrose obiected but Vnconscionably knowing First that you your selues are brought now at length to deny the Body of Christ to be Produced out of Bread Secondly knowing the like Idiome of Fathers in their other speeches Chrysost saying that Christ hath made us his owne Body not only in Faith but in deed also And Augustine saying that Christians themselves with their Head which ascended into heaven are one Christ yea and Pope Leo saying of the party Baptized that Hee is not the same that he was before Baptisme by which saith he the Body of the party Regenerate is made the Flesh of Christ crucified Finally Venerable Bede saith Wee are made that Body which we receive In all which the word Made you know is farre from that high straine of Transubstantiation Wee draw yet nearer to the Scope Wee may not deny but that the Fathers sometimes extend their voyces higher unto the Praeposition Trans as Transit Transmutatur signifying a Change and Trans-mutation into the Body of Christ Every such Instance is in the opinion of your Doctours a full demonstration of Transubstantiation it selfe and all the wits of men cannot saith one Assoyle such Obiections Wherein they shew themselves altogether Vnconscionable as hath beene partly declared in Answering your Obiected Sayings of Ambrose In aliud Convertuntur of Cyprian his Panis naturâ mutatus of Cyrils Trans-mutavit and as now in this Section is to be manifested in answering your other Obiections to the full The Father Greg. Nyssen comparing the Body of Christ with Manna which satisfied every man's tast that received it saith that The Body of Christ in this Sacrament is changed into whatsoever seemeth to the Receivers appetite convenient and desired This is obiected by your Cardinall to prove Transubstantiation but First Vnconscionably because it is in it selfe being literally understood euen in your owne iudgements incredible For what Christian will say that the Body of Christ is Transubstantiated into any other thing much lesse into whatsoever thing the appetite of the Receiver shall desire No. But as Manna did satisfie the bodily Appetite so Christ's Body to the Faithfull is food satisfying the Soule in
make a thing ioyntly to be and not to be This is a Contradiction and were not Omnipotencie but Impotencie not an effect but a defect To conclude Every thing either is or is not take away this Principle say you and farewell all learning and knowledge So you and that without contradiction most truely As your Doctors have taught the truth in Thesi and Doctrine so will they manifest the same in Hypothesi by examples of Impossibilities because of Contradiction namely that it is Impossible for God to be contained in one place Secondly for a Spirit to be divided into parts Thirdly for Bread to be the Body of Christ at the same instant when it is Bread Fourthly for the same thing to be present together at divers times Fiftly for one thing to be twice produced in divers places at once Sixtly for a Body having quantity not to be able to possesse a place Seaventhly It is impossible for Christ his Body as it is in the Sacrament to come from one place into another Eighthly Impossible it is to vndoe that which is once done because this were to make that which is true to be false So your Iesuites with others III. That the Doctrine of Calvin who is most traduced in this point accordeth to the former Iudgement of ancient Fathers SECT IV. IT is no new Calumny which you have against Calvin as if he had impugned the Omnipotencie of God in this Question of the Sacrament which Calvin himselfe did refute in his life-time professing that he is farre from subiecting the power of God to man's reason or to the order of nature and beleeving that even in this Sacrament it exceedeth all naturall principles that Christ doth feed men's soules with his Blood But his only exception is against them who will impose upon God a power of Contradiction which is no better than infirmity it selfe Wee saith hee are not so addicted to naturall reason as to attribute nothing to the power of God which exceedeth the order of nature for we confesse that our soules are fed with the flesh of Christ spiritually above all Physicall or naturall vnderstanding but that one should be in divers places at once and not contained in any is no lesse absurdity then to call light darknesse God indeed can when hee will turne light into darknes but to say light is darknesse is a perverting of the order of Gods wisedome So Calvin and Beza accordingly with him And so say we that it is possible for Christ as God if he were so pleased to make of Bread an humane body as easily as of stones to raise up Children to Abraham for there is involved no Contradiction in this But to make Bread to be flesh while it is Bread is a Contradiction in it selfe and as much as to say Bread is no Bread and therefore to the honour of the Omnipotencie of Christ wee iudge this saying properly taken to be Impossible CHAP. IV. That the Romish Doctrine of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament doth against that which Christ called CORPVS MEVM MY BODY imply sixe Contradictions The first Romish Contradiction in making it Borne and not borne of a Virgin SECT I. THe Catholique Faith hath alwayes taught concerning the Body of Christ That it was borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly that this so borne was and is but One Thirdly that this one is Finite Fourthly that this finite is Organicall and consisting of distinct parts Fiftly that this Organicall is now Perfect and endued with all Absolutenesse that ever any humane body can be capable of Sixtly that this Perfect is now also Glorious and no more subiect to vilification or indignity here on earth But your now Romish Doctrine touching Corporall Presence in this Sacrament doth imply Contradictions touching each of these as now we are to manifest beginning at the first Our Apostolicall Article concerning the Body of Christ is expresly this Hee was borne of the Virgin Mary which is the ancientest Article of Faith concerning Christ that is read of in the Booke of God The seed of the woman c. Gen. 3. to shew that it was by propagation But your Romane Article of bringing the Body of Christ into this Sacrament is that The substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body which inferreth a Body made of the substance of Bread as we have already proved and as all substantiall Conversions doe shew whether they be naturall or miraculous When the substance of Ayre is naturally changed into the substance of Water this water is made of Ayre when the substance of Water was miraculously changed into Wine the substance of the Wine was produced out of the substance of water when the Body of Lots Wife was turned into a pillar of salt the substance of that salt was made of the substance of her Bodily flesh CHALLENGE DOe you then beleeve your Doctrine of Transubstantiation that it is the substantiall Change by the operative wordes of Consecration of Bread into a Body which you call the Bodie of Christ then is this Body not borne but made nor by Propagation from the Blessed Virgin but by Production and Transubstantiation from Bread which differences Borne of the Virgin Mary and not borne of the Virgin Mary are plainly contradictory which was the cause that Augustine as Bertram sheweth distinguished betweene the Body borne of the Virgin and that which is on the Altar as betweene Aliud and Aliud one and another thing And this Argument hath beene fortified before and is furthermore confirmed by Saint Augustine afterwards The second Romish Contradiction to the ouerthrowing of that which Christ called MY BODY by making one Body of Christ not one but many SECT II. YOur Profession standeth thus The Body of Christ albeit now in Heaven yet is say you substantially in many places here on earth even wheresoever the Hoast is consecrated So you Next your Master Brerely laboureth earnestly to draw Calvin to professe a Possibility of Christ's Bodily presence in divers places at once contrary to Master Caluins plaine and expresse profession in the same Chapter where he directly confuteth this Romish Doctrine of Madnesse saying thus To seeke that Christ his Bodie should be in many places at once is no lesse madnesse than to require that God should make his body to be flesh and not to be flesh at one time whereas not Aristotle but the Spirit of God saith he hath taught us that this his body is to be contained in Heaven untill the last day Afterwards Calvin inveigheth against the folly of your Church which will not acknowledge any presence of Christ in this Sacrament except it be locall on earth As if saith he she would pull Christ out of his Sanctuary of Heaven And at last after that he had said Christ his Body is united to the soule of the Communicant he so explaineth himselfe that hee meant a spirituall Vnion so
that it doth fully appeare that Master Brerely in this point as usually in many others alleageth Calvins testimony against Calvins sence and his owne conscience It is irkesome to see the fury wherewith your Disputers are carried against Protestants amongst whom wee see againe your Master Brerely imposing upon Beza the same opinion of the presence of Christ's Body in Heaven and in Earth at one time Although notwithstanding your Iesuite Salmeron as bitterly taxeth Beza for contrarily holding it Impossible for one Body to be in two places at once whom therefore he calleth an Apostata and whom another tearmeth for the same cause Blasphemous as if this were indeed to deny the Omnipotencie of God Whereas according to our former Proposition it is rather to defend it because God is the God of Truth which is but one and Truth is without that Contradiction which is necessarily implyed in your Doctrine of the Locall presence of any one Body in many places at once as in the next place is to be evinced That the same Second Romish Contradiction holding the Presence of one Body in many places at once is proved by the nature of Being in distinct places at one time to be a making One not One. SECT III. IN the first place hearken to your Aquinas the chiefest Doctor that ever professed in the Romish Schoole It is not possible by any Miracle that the Body of Christ be locally in many places at once because it includeth a Contradiction by making it not one for one is that which is not divided from it selfe So he together with others whom you call Catholikes who conclude it Impossible for the Body of Christ to be corporally in divers places at once Which although he speake concerning the locall manner of being yet his Reason as your Cardinall confesseth doth as well concerne your Sacramentall manner of being on earth And Aquinas his reason being this Vnum One saith he is that which is not divided from it selfe but to be in divers places at once doth divide one from it selfe and consequently maketh it not to be One which being a Contradiction doth inferre an Impossibility So he Earnestly have we sought for some Answere to this insoluble Argument as we thinke And your greatest Doctor hath nothing to say but that the Being in a place is not the essentiall property of a thing and therefore can be no more said to divide the body from it selfe then it can be said to divide God who is every where or the soule of man which is one in every part or member of the Body So he We throughout this whole Tractate wherein we dispute of the existence of a Body in a place doe not tie our selves every where to the precise Acception of place as it is defined to be Superficies c. but as it signifieth one space or distinct vbi from another which wee call here and there we returne to your Cardinals Answere CHALLENGE AN answere you have heard from your Cardinall unworthy any man of Iudgement because of a Triple falsity therein First in the Antecedent and Assertion saying that Being in a place or space is not inseparable from a Body Secondly in the ground of that because Place is not of the essence of a Body Thirdly in his Instances which he insisteth upon for example sake which are both Heterogenies Contrary to this Assertion we have already proved the necessity of the locall being of a Body wheresoever it is and now wee confirme it by the Assertion of One then whom the latter Age of the World hath not acknowledged any more accurate and accomplished with Philosophicall learning even Iulius Scaliger by name who hath concluded as a principle infallible that Continuity being an immediate affection and property of Vnity One body can not be said to be in two places as here and there without dividing it selfe from it selfe So hee Certainly because Place being the Terminus to wit that which doth confine the Body that is in it it is no more possible for the Body to be in many places at once than it is for an Vnity to be a multitude or many Which truth if that you should need any further proofe may seeme to be confirmed in this that your Disputers are driven to so miserable straits as that they are not able to instance in any one thing in the world to exemplifie a Possibility of the being of a Body in divers places at once but only Man's soule which is a spirit and God himselfe the Spirit of Spirits of both which hereafter Onely you are to observe that the Cardinals Argument in proving Space to be separable from a Body because it is not of the Essence of a Body is in it selfe a Non sequitur as may appeare in the Adiunct of Time which although it be not of the Essence of any thing yet is it impossible for any thing to be without time or yet to be in two different times together The same second Romish Contradiction manifested in Scripture by an Argument Angelicall SECT IV. MAth 28. 6. The Angell speaking to the woman that sought Christ in the grave said He is not here for he is risen and gone into Galilee which is as much as to have said hee could not be in both places at once an Argument Angelicall But you answere that it was spoken Morally How wee beseech you as if one should say saith your Cardinall Such a man sitteth not at table for he hath supped what fond trifling is this and wilfull perverting the Truth of God for this your Argument A man sitteth not at table for hee hath supped is scarce a probable Consequence that a man is risen from the table as soone as he hath supped Contrarily the Angel's Logicke is not by a Peradventure but necessary not imaginary but historicall not coniecturall but dogmatiticall and demonstrative For better explanation whereof we may turne the Causall word FOR into an Illative THEREFORE because it is all one as you know to say hee is not here in the Grave For he is risen out of the Grave And to say Hee is risen out of the grave Therefore he is not heere in the Grave Vnderstand then first that the matter subiect of this Argument being no morall arbitrary Act of man's will but the omnipotent Resurrection of Christ from the dead which is a fundamentall Article of Christian Faith yea and as it were the foundation of all other Articles without which as the Apostle saith Our Faith were vaine the Angell must necessarily be thought to have concluded dogmatically which is the reason that he is so instant and urgent saying to the woman Come and see the place where the Lord was laid Which he addeth saith your Iesuite for confirmation of that which he had said He is not heere And as much as if he had said saith Anselme If you beleeve not my word give credit to the empty
representing the Body of Christ is therefore called Christs flesh not in verity of the thing but in a mystery namely as the representation of Christ therein is called his Passion In a word rightly might Calvin say speaking of these Controversies concerning this Sacrament All the Bookes of Augustine upon this subiect proclaime that hee is of our profession Much more concerning Christ his not being corporally here on earth will by the iudgement of Augustine and other Fathers be found in the fifth sixt and seventh Bookes besides that which they affirme in this Booke in the thirteenth and sixteenth Sections following THE SIXT CHALLENGE In generall concluding the maine Point BY this time wee thinke you may discerne betweene plaine dealing and false iugling for your Disputers have usually alleaged for defence of your Transubstantiation and Corporall Presence in the Sacrament the sentences of Fathers used in their Sermons and Exhortations wherein commonly they exercised their Rhetoricke in Figurative and Hyperbolicall speeches as hath beene confessed by your owne Doctours and proved by many their like sayings concerning other Sacramentall Rites but especially of the Sacrament of Baptisme whereas our proofes arise directly from the testimonies of the Fathers which they have commonly had in their sad and earnest Disputations in confutation of many and maine Heresies where indeed they were necessarily to make use both of their Logicke for discerning Truth from Errour and also of Grammer we meane the Exactnesse and propriety of speech void of Amphibologies Hyperboles and Ambiguities whereby the minds of their Hearers or Readers might be perplexed and the Truth darkned This one consideration we iudge to be of necessary importance And thus much concerning the iudgement of ancient Fathers touching this second Contradiction That thirdly the Contradiction and consequently the Impossibility of the Being of one Body in divers places at once is evicted by two sound Reasons the first taken from Contradictory Relations SECT IX YOu have already heard of the Antecedent which was granted by Aquinas viz. It implyeth a Contradiction to say a Body is corporally in two places at once because this maketh that one Body not to be one Which being confessed you have also heard your Cardinall making this Consequence viz. by the same reason it must follow that it is absolutely Impossible But besides there are Actions and Qualities whereof some are Relatives and have respect to some place and others are Absolutes Of the Relatives you have determined that One Body say you as it is in diverse places at once might be below and above on the right hand and on the left behind and before it selfe may move and not move at the same instant without Contradiction because it is so said in divers Respects namely of divers places as the soule of man in divers parts of the Body So you These are but Capriccious Chimera's and mungrell fancies of addle braines who disputing of Bodily Locality can find no example within the Circumferences of the Vniversalities of Creatures but only Man's soule which is a Spirit which point is to be discussed in the twelfth Section In the Interim know you that although Relations doe sometimes take away Contradictions where they are applyable As namely for the same Body to be high and low in respect of it's owne divers parts to wit high in respect of the head and low in respect of the heele wherein there is no comparison of any whole or part with it selfe yet if any should say as much of the same Body whether whole or part as thus The same whole head goeth before and after it selfe or the same one finger is longer and shorter then it selfe hee may iustly be suspected to be besides himselfe all such like speeches being as Contradictory in themselves and consequently Impossible as for a man to say he is elder and yonger than himselfe You will say and it is your common Sanctuary that place is not essentiall to a Body and therefore separable from a Body so that a man may be in two places at once And you may as well say that because Time is not of the essence of a man some man may have a Being without any time or else in two times at once Finally this your Subtilty would have beene iudged a palpable absurdity by ancient Fathers among whom Theodoret taught this Philosophie to hold true in Divinity to wit that whosoever hath properly one thing on the right hand of it and another thing on the left it is Circumscribed in place Whereby hee demonstrateth the truth of Christ's Body because it is Circumscribed and that it is circumscribed because it is written of him that The sheepe shall stand on his right hand and the goates on the left Nor doe you your-selves teach nor yet can you imagine his body to want either his right hand or his left as he is present in this Sacrament One word more The Fathers who were many that distinguished the nature of Christs manhood from his God-head because the first is Circumscribed and the other is not circumscribed would never yeeld to either of both that it is both crucified and not crucified as you doe to Christ's bodie teaching it to be at the same time Circumscribed in Heaven when it is Vncircumscribed as it is on many Altars vpon earth That fourthly a Contradiction and consequently an Impossibility of the Being of a Body in two places at once is proved by absolute Qualities and Actions which are voyd of Relation to place SECT X. VVEre it possible that Actions and Qualities which have respect to Place might avoid the Contradiction yet of such Actions and Qualities as have no Relation to place it will be beyond your imaginations to conceive so as will appeare by your owne Resolutions For your Cardinall and your Iesuite Suarez with divers others have thus determined that such Actions and Qualities as are reall in a Body without any relation to place may not be said to be multiplyed in respect of divers places wherein the same Body is supposed to be As for example the same Body to be hot in some Countrey and cold in another at the same time wounded and not wounded passible and not passible And the like may be said of Love and Hatred which are vitall Actions proceeding naturally from the Subiect So that the Body which in one place is affected with love cannot possibly but be so affected in what place soever So your owne Disputers But have they any reason for these points Yes they have See the Margent For your Cardinall denying that the same Body in respect of divers places may be hot and not hot at the same time giveth us this reason Because saith hee it is one Body and not many So he A reason Infallible Your Iesuite Suarez also denying that the same party can love and hate consent and dissent at the same time in respect of divers places yeeldeth this reason Because saith he these
repugnant affections belonging to one subiect cannot by the omnipotency of God be together in the same because they destroy one another Aquinas and other Schoolemen denying that the same Body can be said to grieve and not to grieve both at once in respect of divers places of being propoundeth the like Reason Because Griefe being in the same man as he is a man cannot be said to be together with not Grieving in him lest we should make a man not to be himselfe Lastly your Cardinall Alan denying that the same Body in respect of divers places can be said to be Mortall and Immortall Passible and impassible expresseth this reason which hee saith was used of old Because these sayings are most repugnant to the understanding of man Enough enough CHALLENGE VVE have in these your Premises received as true Assertions as sufficient Reasons and as absolute Confessions as can be desired which will be as so many Poniards sticking fast in the bowels of your Romish Cause to give it a deadly wound As first this you teach that Christ as he is in this Sacrament hath no naturall faculty either of motion of sense of Appetite or of Vnderstanding all which notwithstanding hee hath in all perfection in heaven But to understand and not to understand to have and not to have an Appetite you will confesse to be as absolute Qualities and Acts Contradictorie free from respect to place as are those which you have allowed to wit Grieve and not grieve love and not love alive and not alive because man hath an appetite and Desire an Act of understanding in himselfe not as hee is in one place more then in another Seeing therefore you have beene enforced by infallible Principles of sound learning to hold it Impossible for one to love and hate and to have contrary passions together because they are Contradictories and would inferre that one man should be and not be himselfe Therefore are you become necessarily Contradictory to your selves Can there be a stronger Argument than this to perswade Christians that your Doctors are men delivered up to strong delusions to beleeve lies of which kind this of teaching a Body to be in divers places at once is not the least CHAP. V. A Confutation of the first Romish Reason obtruded for proofe of a Possibility of existence of a Body in divers places at once taken from the nature either of a Voice or Colour SECT I. MAster Brerely thus The difficulty may be better conceived rather then directly proved by an example of the same word the which being once uttered is thereupon at one instant in the severall hearing of sundrie persons and that not as a distinct noyse confusedly multiplyed in the â—…re but as one and the same peculiar word distinguished by the selfe-same syllables wherein it was uttered So hee and your Doctor Wright before him CHALLENGE BVt the Doctor was answered that the Example is many thousand miles remote from the Cause for our Question is of the Presence of the same Body in divers places at once We say the same Body but this your Example of Word or Voice which you Both call the same is not individually the same in every mans hearing as is here affirmed but onely the same in kinde by a multiplication of the sounds and words uttered as Philosophy teacheth Like as we see in throwing a stone into the water it maketh at the first a Circle and circle multiplyeth upon circle till the last come to a large Circumference Even so the word by voyce breaking the Ayre doth make in the Aire Circle upon circle till it come to the eares of the hearers every of the parts of the Circle being articulated through the multiplication of the first forme the divers eares doc no more receive the same individuall voice than they doâ— the same individuall Aire whereby the voice is conueyed So that this Example is no more in Effect than to prove the same Body in divers places at once by the sound of a word in many mens â—ares which is not individually the same and serveth for nothing rather than to make the Disputer ridiculous Thus was that Doctor answered when he confessed of the voice of the Preacher in the Pulpit which is received by multitudes of hearers and of his other Example of a colour of a red Cow by multiplication of its formes seene of thousand mens eyes at once that it is not Numerically the same Take unto you a cleare Example and Apposite when in a looking-glasse broken into many peeces you see many faces all of them being but so many multiplied and reflected Images of one face you may see that every Image in every broken peece of the glasse is not individually the same wherefore these kinds of Instances are but Mountebanke trickes devised to delude men that love darknesse better then light It might seeme superstitious diligence to confute such soâ—tishnes with the serious iudgement of any grave Father otherwise Gregory Nazianzen is at hand ready to tell you that there is as great a difference betweene Bodies and Voices and Sights as there is betwixt Bodies and Spirits so that whereas two Bodies cannot be in one place yet voices and sights 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are by an Incorporeall manner apprehended so that the same Eare is capable of many voices and the same sight of many Visibles A Confutation of their second and third Reasons taken from the Similitude of man's Soule or Presence of God devised to demonstrate a no Contradiction of a Bodie 's Being in two places at once SECT II. TWo other Instances you have whereby to maintaine your supposed Bodily Presence in two places at once one is in man's Soule the other in God himselfe First we will enquire into the nature of the soule Our exception against a Bodies being in divers places at once is by reason of the distance betweene place and place for it is farre lesse than imaginable that one Bodie should in one and the same moment be at Toledo in Spaine and at Paris in France and yet not to be in the intermediate Space betweene both which divideth Toledo from Paris But the Condition of the Soule is utterly different for it is in the Bodily members not as a Body in diuers places but as a forme in it's owne matter nor having Quantity and extension the unseperable properties of a Body but by a formall perfection As containing the Body and not contained thereof saith your Aquinas For the Soule is so in the head and foot that it is aswell in the parts and members betweene both and therefore not being possibly severed from them cannot be said to be divided from it selfe Insomuch that if any member of the Body as for example the hand should be cut off and diuided from the Body the Soule being indivisible ceaseth to be therein So utterly dissonant is the Soules being in divers places Nay and your Cardinall
having confessed already that It is not possible by any divine power that a spirit should be divisible after the manner of a Body doth hereby as fully confute himselfe as if hee had said there is no comparison to be made betweene Body and Spirit in respect of Locall being how much lesse betweene it and God the Father of all Spirits who cannot be so in many places at once that he is not likewise both in every intermediate space betweene place and place and also in all places without them this being the propertie of his infinitenes to containe all places and not to be contained of any And therefore cannot this manner of presence without irreligious impietie be applyed to any creature which notwithstanding your Cardinall blusheth not to do in that manner as was hitherto we thinke never imagined by any Divine before him namely a manner of being of a Body in a place which is neither Circumscriptively as naturall Bodies are nor Definitively that is so that being in one place it is not at the same time in another as Angels and Spirits are but a third how By only presence after the manner as God is in place So hee O golden Divine for who knoweth not that Existence in place onely by presence is a propertie of Divine Infinitenes which being attributed to any thing that is not God doth equall the creature with the Creator A Confutation of the former two Romish Instances in Man's Soule and God himselfe by Ancient Fathers in their Doctrine concerning Angels and Men's Spirits SECT III. ANcient Fathers we trow were profoundly learned both in Philosophicall and in Theologicall Mysteries who notwithstanding as your Iesuite witnesseth held it as a Doctrine of Faith that Angels which are Spirits have every one their owne definite places and space and that they cannot be in divers places but by moving from one place to another which cannot be said of any Body that as you say is without motion in divers places at once Surely if ever such strange and paraphysicall nay more then Hyperphysicall Crocheâ—s had entred into the minds of ancient Fathers we should have heard you alleage at least some one of them if not for proofe yet in pretext and colour of patronizing these your repugnant Paradoxes concerning a Bodie taking the right hand or left of it selfe and the like Velut aegri somnia vanae finguntur Species For your better satisfaction we shall alleage some Testimonies which may sufficiently declare their Iudgement of an Impossibilitie of a Spirit 's being in divers places at one time whether we consider the Spirits of Angels or of men yea or the humane Spirit or soule of Christ Of Angels Damascen They are so circumscribed in the place where they worke that they cannot possibly be in moe places at once Athanasius As the Holy Ghost filleth all places so Angels are contained in a certaine place Accordingly Ambrose Herein doe Angels differ from the holy Ghost which filleth all things that the Sâ—raphims doe move from place to place Pope Gregory would be heard speake Angels are câ—rcumscribed being in respect of our Bodies Spirits but in comparison of the uncircumscribed God they are to be esteemed as Bodies So they Our next speculation must be touching the soules of Saints departed The Author set out by your selves in the name of Athanasius unto this Obiection How doe the soules of Saints so often appeare at one moment of time in the Sepulchres as they seeme to have done Answereth that They are not the same Saints but rather visions and adumbrations of them by transfigurations of Angels He giueth his Reason why he thinketh the other impossible Because it is proper saith hee to God alone to be at one moment of time in two places at once So hee And if the Fathers shall say in effect as much of the humane soule of Christ you wee should thinke would require no more Tertullâ—an among his many divine Answers to prove Christ to be God hee urgeth the Arian Heretiques with this one as not the least Because Christ is present in all places where he is invocated upon which is a power not incident unto man but proper to the nature of God So hee How like you this And Augustine may not be thought to dissent when in arguing hee tooke as granted that the Soule of Christ when it departed this life could not be in Heaven and in hell at once As for the Beeing of God in divers places at once which was your Cardinal's instance for proof of a Possibility of the Being of Christ's Body in many places without Contradiction of making One not One by dividing it from it selfe wee know not whether rather to censure it â—gregiously absurd or extreamly impious seeing that the Being of God in divers places at once without Contradiction ariseth from the very nature of God's Infinitenes of Being in whatsoever place which is as your owne Schoole might have taught him so as Containing all places and not contained in any which the Fathers have as fully declared in making Being in all places as filling them with his presence to bee the property of his Deity Such then is the impietie of your arguing by labouring to defend the manner of the Being of a Bodie by the manner of Being of a Soule or Spirit denyed by Nazianzene and manner of the Being of a Creature by the manner of the Being of God the Creator excedeth all Absurdities that can be named The holy Fathers have something more to say to you but first we are willing to heare what you can say for your selves A Confutation of the Third Romish Pretence why they need not yeild to these Reasons whereby their Doctrine is proved to be so grossely Vnreasonable SECT IV. MYsteries of Faith saith your Cardinall which excede man's understanding are only to be apprehended by Faith Such as are the Articles of the Trinity of Christ his Incarnation of the Resurrection of the Creation and of Eternity it selfe and so ought this concerning the Presence of Christ his Body notwithstanding any Obiection from Reason So you Wee answere Some of these former Mysteries we confesse to be such as excede man's understanding yet such againe they are as are not contrary to understanding though above it that is to say such and this you will confesse with us as admit not Contradiction in themselves for it is no Contradiction to say of the Trinitie there is One God and Three Persons because the Essence of the Godhead is common to each person or to say in the Incarnation there is one Person and two natures no more than to say that in one man there is one person and two essentiall parts one his Body the other his Spirit or in the Resurrection to beleeve the same that was created might be restored to life more than to beleeve that one graine of Corne dying might revive againe or in
severall Churches What shall we then further say concerning a Being of a Body in divers places at once Surely that which hath beene plentifully proved already that such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is egregiously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well in Divine as in naturall Philosophy because as this whole Discourse sheweth they have verified that saying of Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. VII Of the fourth Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODY by teaching it to be Organicall and not Organicall Divisible and Indivisible SECT I. THe Question is not now of the Mysticall presence of Christ his Body in the Sacrament which we with the Fathers especially Greg. Nyssen confesse to be whole as well in a part of Bread consecrated as in the whole loafe even as the Image of the King may be as perfect in a penny as in a shilling But neither hee nor any Father ever said that a little Hoast which boast you call Christ is equall with a great Hoast No for the Fathers in the Councell of Nice absolutely denyed this nor yet is Christ wholly represented in the least part of the Hoast as your Fathers of Trent have taught because no such part can resemble Totum Christum whole Christ Sacramentally which is not of sufficient bignes to be sensibly eaten in the nature of nourishment thereby to resemble the Spirituall nourishment of our Soules which is the Body of Christ So that all you have said maketh iust nothing for the Corporall and materiall Presence of Christs Body which we further impugne That it is necessary the Body of Christ wheresoever consist of distinct members and proportions of a Bodie SECT II. THe Body of Christ as we professe had perfect Dimensions and Distinctions of parts an head exposed to pricking with thornes a face to buffers a backe to scourges eyes to visible noddings and mockings eares to blasphemies hands and feet to piercing with nayles This is that Body which we confesse to be the Body of Christ and which we celebrate in the use of this Sacrament in Remembrance that he had a Body consisting of proportion of divers parts distinct one from another Two of your Cardinals doe both answere that Quantity magnitude proportion and extension of parts are unseparably united to the Body of Christ in this Sacrament or else saith one If the Nose should stand where the Eye is and the Eye where the Nose is it should be a confused Monster So they So necessary it is even in your owne faith that the Bodie of Christ consist of Organicall parts distinct one from another That the Romish Church hath decreed a doctrine of Corporall Presence of a Body of Christ withall the parts thereof in the least indivisible point of the Hoast SECT III. THe Canons of that Councell of Trent decreed as a Doctrine of Faith necessary to salvation to beleeve That the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part of the Hoast whereby is meant saith your Iesuite The whole Body of Christ is in every albeit the least part of the Hoast So he But we demand how then shall the Body of Christ but want proportion of distinct parts which you say are Vnseparably united to a Body You distinguish that the Body of Christ being in this Sacrament hath extension of parts of a Body distinctly in it selfe but in respect of the Place or of the formes of Bread under which it is the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and indivisible Point thereof CHALLENGE THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illuminate the eyes of any Reader to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth and of Errour namely to know that there cannot be a greater Contradiction and consequently Impossibility than for a Body consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts such as are Hands Legs Eyes and other Organicall members to have Being any where without Extension Commensuration and distinct Proportion of the same to the space wherein it is as the Propositions following will prove That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and humane Body in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of latter times SECT IV. ALbertus Scotus Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned and Ancient Schoolemen who as your Iesuite testifieth Thought it impossible that a Body that hath extension of parts should be contained in an indivisible point The same opinion is ascribed by your Iesuites as ancient unto Durand and Occham Now what greater iniury can there be than after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundreth yeares since the Ascension of Christ for any Christian to professe with your ancient Schoole-men an Impossibility that The Body of Christ is whole in everie the least part of the Hoast to impose upon men's consciences as an Article of Faith so fond and so palpable a figment That which seemed to the above-named Durand and Occham such an Opinion whence as they thought it must needes follow that the Eyes must be where the Nose is the hand confounded with the legges which as your Cardinall Alan truly said were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos and altogether monstrous That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be proportionable to the Dimension of the places wherein they are is proved by the confessed Romish Principle it selfe SECT V. THe reason which your Cardinall layeth downe to prove it necessary that Christ his Body should have in it selfe according to the nature of a Body distinct parts of head and eyes and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule hee taketh from Magnitude which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length bredth and depth this saith he is inseparably united to Christ his Body in its owne intrinsecall disposition in it selfe but not so saith he in regard of the place CHALLENGE THis your owne Reason may wee iustly retort upon your selves proving that if the naturall disposition of the Bodie of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe it must be so likewise in respect of place and space because the three dimensions of the Body of Christ as you have confessed stand thus that one is an extension in Length another in Breadth the third in Depth and each of these three are distinct one from another Well then The arme must be here and thus farre longer than the foot the legge here and thus farre thicker than the finger the hand here and thus farre broader than the toe and accordingly distinctly in other parts But Hîc and Hucusque Heere and There thus farre and so farre being Relatives of space and place doe demonstratively shew that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body which they have in themselves divisibly the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi place or
space wherein the Body is If therefore you will not Heretically teach a Mathematicall or Phantasticall body of Christ you must deny the Article of Trent untill you can beleeve and make good that a part of a divisible Body longer or shorter broader or narrower can be and that equally in one indivisible point This is confirmed by the Essence of Christ his glorified Bodie as you confesse it to be now in Heaven possessing a Reall place in the said proportion of Spaces of length and breadth as it had here upon earth which it doth by the naturall Magnitude or Quantity thereof But the said naturall magnitude or quantity of the said Body of Christ is according to your owne generall Doctrine in this Sacrament Therefore must it have the same Commensuration of Space Wee should be loath to trouble your wits with these speculations if that the necessity of the Cause by reason of the Absurdities of your Romish profession did not inforce us hereunto Therefore must you suffer us a little to sport at your trifling seriousnesse who writing of this divine Sacrament and seeing it to be round solid broken moulded in the one kind and liquid frozen and sowring in the other doe attribute all these to Quantities and Qualities and Accidents without any other subiect at all So then by the Romish Faith we shall be constrained to beleeve in effect that the Cup is filled with Mathematicall lines the Mouse eating the Hoast is fed with colours and formes that it is Coldnesse that freezeth and Roundnesse which weigheth downe and falleth to the ground as if you should describe a Romish Communicant to be a creature clothed with Shadowes armed with Idaea's fed with Abstracts augmented with Fancies second Intentions and Individuall Vagues and consisting wholly of Chimaera's That your Romish Doctrine is contrary to the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT VI. IF this your profession had beene a Catholike Doctrine doubtlesse Saint Augustine who is so devout in his fervent Meditations upon this holy mystery would not have oppugned it as he did when unto that Question of Volusianus whether the Body of Christ before his birth did fill the Body of the blessed Virgin he answered That every body be it greater or lesse wheresoever it is must needs fill that space wherein it is so that the same Body cannot be the whole in any part thereof So hee which is directly Contradictory to your Article of Trent for here is expresse mention of Relation to place and space And whereas for usuall colour of a Possibility that the whole Body of Christ is in every part of the Hoast you have obiected the Example of Man's Soule which is said to be whole in every member and part of the Body S. Augustine as if hee had fore-seene your mystery of Errour pre-occupateth saying The nature of a Soule is farre different from the nature of a Body And againe the same holy Father seeking to finde out some Similitude whereby wholly to resemble the Existence of God in respect of place in the end saith that Quality hath a prerogative to make some Similitude hereof and hee doth instance in Wisedome which saith hee is as great in a little man as in a great man but denyeth that Quantity hath any such Priviledge for speaking of Quantity and Magnitude In all such Quantity or magnitude saith hee there is lesse in the part then there is in the whole And by this same Maxime concerning whole in respect of Place hee distinguisheth the God-head from the Man-hood by which you haue confounded them And yet againe else-where as though hee thought this your delusion could never be sufficiently contradicted or rather derided hee will further have you not to be so Childish as not to know that The little finger is lesse than the whole hand and one finger is lesse than two and that one finger is one where and the other another where Vpon which where and where being notes of distinct places we may aske where are your Disputers now Nay yet furthermore passing from grosser Bodies hee saith as much of Ayre yea and of the most subtil of subtils the light of the Sunne one part whereof saith hee commeth in at one Window another at another window yet so that the lesse passeth through the lesse and the greater through the greater Moreover if Saint Gregory once Bishop of Rome had beleeved that Christ his Body is whole in every least indivisible part of the Hoast he would never haue condemned the Eutychian Heretique for beleeving The Body of Christ to have beene brought into such a subtilty that is cannot be felt But a greater subtilty there cannot be than for a divisible Body to be enclosed in every the least indivisible point Shew vs this Doctrine taught by any Catholike Doctor in the Church within the compasse of the twelve hundred years after Christ and then shall we conceive better of your Cause And lest you may talke as you vse of one body penetrating another wee say unto you as Damascen said vnto his Reader that This is impossible but that either the one or the other must be divided asunder That the Romish Obiections against our former Tenet are feeble and vaine SECT VII IT is ordinarily in the mouthes of every one of you to obiect the Miraculous entrance of Christ into the house the dores being shut his comming out of the grave when it was covered with a stone his birth from his mother her wombe being shut besides the miraculous passing of a Camell through the Eye of a needle spoken of by Christ all Miraculous indeed as we with many holy Fathers doe willingly Confesse What therefore Therefore say you the Body of Christ did passe through the substantiall dimensions of the Body of the Doores Stone and wombe and consequently confuteth all this which hath beene spoken of the Organicall proportions of a body in respect of space or place So you Wee grant unto you as much as these Fathers speake in noting each of these to have beene the Acts and workes of Omnipotencie but yet without any penetration of Dimensions at all or yet Alteration of the iust proportion of Christs body Which penetration of Dimensions seemed to your Durand as incredible as unto us The principall Testimony which is insisted upon concerning the passing of Christ through the Doores is the saying of Chrysostome viz. Christ's Body was thinne or small changed from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is it 's Thicknes impalpable unto mortall mans hand but onely by divine permission and dispensation So hee And this is alleadged for proofe of a Possibility of his now Corporall Presence in the Sacrament voyd of Palpabilitie never considering the Ordinary and confessed Hyperbole's wherewith Chrysostome embellisheth his Sermons insomuch that we may oppose Chrysostome against Chrysostome even in the point in question who else-where speaking of this Sacrament saith that Christ herein Giveth his Body both to
to be destitute of naturall and voluntary motion of Sence and of Vnderstanding SECT II. CAtholique Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ after the Resurrection but that he was able naturally of himselfe as hee was man to performe the perfect Acts which other men can who are of right constitution of Body and of sound understanding such as are the functions of Iudgement and reason and of appetite sence motion according to the liberty of his own will This Doctrine was above 1000. yeers Catholike But your now Romane faith is to beleeve as followeth in the conclusions set down by your Iesuite Suarez without as he saith the contradiction of any Divine in your Church First that Christ as he is in this Sacrament hath no power naturally of himselfe to move himselfe And this your owne daily experience hath brought you vnto whilst beleeuing Christs Corporall presence in the Hoast you shut him vp in a Boxe where you still find the same lying as destitute of power of motion as any other unconsecrated Bread which being put together with it lyeth so long untill they both equally waxe mouldy putrifye and ingender wormes Secondly that Christ in himselfe as being in this Sacrament hath no naturall faculty of sence nor ability without a miracle to heare or see c. Thirdly That he is voyd of all sensible appetite Lastly that without some miraculous power he cannot possibly apprehend in his vnderstanding any thing present nor yet remember any notions past So he That this is a new brutish and barbarous Doctrine destitute of all ancient Patronage either of written or of unwritten Tradition SECT III. HAve you any Text yea or yet pretext either of Scripture or humane Tradition for countenancing this so prodigious and monstrous a conception Certainly Scripture telleth us that Christ his Body by Resurrection is perfected in sense and Agility and his soule in Iudgement and Capacity Nor can you shew any Father in the Church of Christ within the Circumference of 1400. years after Christ who held this your doctrine so much as in a Dreame or who hath not esteemed the Body of Christ to be of the most absolute perfection we say no one Father or Teacher of the Evangelicall Truth once fancied this unchristian and false faith You must therefore derive this from him whom Christ calleth the Father of lies VVe shall give you good reason for this our Declamation That this Romish Doctrine is blasphemously Derogatory from the Maiesticall Body of Christ SECT IV. VVHat is this which we have heard Christ his humanity after his Resurrection not to have so much Capacity as a Child which is as he is here to vnderstand or imagine any thing done not thè power of a Moale or Mouse which is to heare or see not the faculty of a little Aut so as to move it selfe as if this were not an Antichristian blasphemy against that all-Maiesticall Body humane nature of Christ which being once sowen in infirmity is as the Scripture saith since risen in power Doe you heare In power saith the spirit of God shewing that Infirmity is changed into Potencie in the Body of every Christian and you have turned power into infirmitie even in Christ himselfe whom you have now transformed into an Idoll having eyes and seeth not eares and heareth not feete and walketh not heart and imagineth not and yet this you professe to adore as the person of the Sonne of God O the strength of Satanicall Delusion That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your owne Principle SECT V. REmember your former generall Principle which wee acknowledged to be sound and true viz. All such Actions and Qualities which are reall in any Body without any relation to place cannot be said to be multiplied in respect of divers places wherein a Body is supposed to be As for Example The Body of Christ cannot be cold in one Altar and hot in another wounded and whole in ioy and griefe dead and alive at the same time The reason These are impossible say you because of Contradiction for that the same thing should be capable of such contrarieties it is repugnant to the understanding of man So you which is an infallible Truth when the Modus or Manner of a thing is compared to it selfe and not to any thing else it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be onely one the same Iesuite cannot be sicke in Iapan and sound and in health at Rome in the same instant CHALLENGE NOw say we beseech you is there not the like Contradiction to make the same Christ at the same time as hee is in Heaven intelligent and sensitive and as on earth ignorant and senslâ—sse Or powerfull to move of himselfe on the throne of Maiestie and absolutely Impotent as hee is on the Altar because these Attributes of Christ being Intelligent and potent equally have no Relation to place Notwithstanding all which you shame not to professe a senslesse ignorant and feeble Christ O come out of Babylon and be no more be witched by such her Sorceries CHAP. IX The sixt kind of Romish Contradiction against these words of Christ MY BODY as it is now most Glorious by making it most Inglorious SECT I. BEfore we proceed in discovering the ouglinesse of the Romish Doctrine in this point wee are willing to heare your Master Brerely his preface in your defence The carnall man saith hee is not for all this satisfied but standeth still offended at sundry pretended absurd and undecent indignities Calvin saying That he reiected them as unworthy of the Maiestie of Christ And Doctor Willet saith That they are unseemely and against the dignity of the glorious and impassible Body of Christ So he at once relating and reiecting their opinions That the Indignities whereunto the Body of Christ is made subiect by the Romish Doctrine are most uile and derogatory to the Maiestie of Christ SECT II. ALl Christian Creeds tell us that Christ our Saviour sitteth at the right hand of God that is in perfection of glory But your Iesuite Suarez delivereth it in the generall Doctrine of the Romish Divines That the Body of Christ remaineth so long under the formes of Bread and wine wheresoever untill they be corrupted And this he calleth a Generall Principle in your Romish profession Insomuch that the Body of Christ is moved wheresoever the formes of Bread are moved be it into the dirt or into the Dunghill Secondly that according to your Romish Decrees and publique Missals the same Body of Christ is vomited up by the Communicant yea and you have Cases about the vomiting of it whether vpon weaknes of Sâ—omacke or of Drunkennes Next that it is devoured of Mice and blowne away with wind for wee read of your Church Cases also for these in your Missals VVee thirdly demand whether you thinke it possible for meate that is undigested by reason of
of Christ being the most substantiall of all food and therefore called as of ancient Fathers so even by your Fathers of Trent Supersubstantiall Bread it must necessarily follow that as it is named by Christ The true Bread and the Life thereby which is the effect of the spirituall Eating thereof is the most true and Reall Life because Everlasting So the Vnion spirituall which a Christian hath in his soules-feeding is the most Reall and true Vnion as may sufficiently appeare by Analogie To wit that Bread and Wine being the most vitall nourishments for the conservation of man's bodily essence are therefore chosen as the Fathers teach to represent and exhibit unto him although in themselves but Signes and Symbols the very Body and Blood of Christ Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ are our Reall nourishments in this Sacrament And such as is our food such must be our Vnion by feeding thereon which wee say is by Faith in this Sacrament and you may not gain-say it who to comfort your Disciples are taught to instruct them that even without this Sacrament the spirituall Vnion may be presented to the soule of man with the Body of Christ and that as a sufficient meanes of uniting him to Christ by a spirituall manner of Eating And this you say is To receive Christ his Body truly albeit this be to receive him only by faith and desire So you Whence you perceive our Inference viz. If our spirituall Vnion with Christ his Body may be really and truly made by Faith and Desire without this Sacrament then in our Sacramentall eating thereof may the Communicant be much more made partaker thereof by Faith and ardent Desire the Sacrament it selfe being a Seale of this our Christian Faith CHAP. II. That only the Godly faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Bodie and Blood of Christ and thereby united to Christ in the iudgement of Protestants SECT I. OVr Church of England in her 28. and 29. Article saith thus The Body of Christ is given to be eaten in this Sacrament only after a spirituall manner even by faith wherein the wicked and such as are void of faith eate it not although they doe visibly presse with their teeth the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ yet are they in no wise Partakers thereof But your Romish Church flatly otherwise as you all know and therefore hath your Sympresbyter Master Brereley endevoured to assume some Protestants to be on your side whom he hath alleaged with like faithfulnesse as he hath cited Master Calvin then whom he could not have in this case a greater Adversary For although Calvin grant with all Protestants that the wicked and faithlesse receive truly by way of Sacrament the Body of Christ yet doth he deny that they have in their bodies any Corporall coniunction or Vnion with Christ because the Vnion which we have saith he is Only spirituall only with the soule onely with the heart onely by faith and although it be offered to the wicked to be really received yet doe they not receive it because they are Carnall Their onely Receiving therefore is but Sacramentall So Mr. Calvin It had beene good that your Priest had suspected his Iudgement and as well in this Case as in others by doubting his owne eye-sight had borrowed your Cardinall his Spectacles then would hee have clearly perceived that together with other Protestants Calvin held that The wicked although they receive the Symbols and outward Signes of Christ's body yet the body it selfe they doe not receive So your Cardinall of the Doctrine of Protestants For although indeed Calvin said that The wicked eate the Body of Christ yet explaining himselfe he added these two words In Sacramento that is Sacramentally which in Calvins stile is alwayes taken for Symbolically only As for the consent of Protestants herein we put it to your great Cardinall and Champion their greatest Adversary to expresse He ioyneth Lutherans to the Calvinists in one consent for denying the Orall and Corporall Eating thereof and for believing the Eating of it to be Only by Faith Yet left any may say that in receiving the same Sacrament he doth not receive the thing signified thereby you may haue a Similitude to illustrate your iudgments as thus The same outward word concerning Iustification by Christ commeth to the eares of both Vnbeleevers and Beleevers But the Beleevers only are capable of Iustification That only the Godly-faithfull are Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and thereby Vnited unto him in the iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT II. CHrist speaking of that which is the most Reall Eating saith Ioh. 6. He that eateth me remaineth in me and shall live for ever Vpon which Text Saint Hierome concludeth The men that live in pleasure neither eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his Blood Next Origen inferreth that No wicked man can eat Christ his flesh And Saint Augustine most peremptorily Without doubt saith he they doe not spiritually eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his blood although that they doe visibly and carnally presse the Sacrament thereof with their teeth and notwithstanding eate their condemnation So he thereby distinguishing the inward soules Eating Spirituall from the outward and Sacramentall Eating as he doth man's Spirit from his Teeth In which respect he as verily denied that Indas ate his Lord the bread as hee affirmed him to have eaten The bread of the Lord. Therefore the Bread Sacramentall was not the Bread the Lord. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria teacheth that whosoever doth truly receive the body of Christ Is in Christ and Christ in him both so ioyned one with the other as waxe melted with waxe is united together All these so evident Testimonies of so ancient Fathers doe inferre this Conclusioâ— against you that none doe really eate the Body of Christ who receive him but only Sacramentally And afterwards other Fathers will be found to ioyne their Consent hereunto where they teach that none eate his flesh with whom Christ hath not a perpetuall vnion Now for you to answere that their meaning is not that the ungodly eate it not really but that they eate it unworthily and therefore unprofitably for their salvation is but recoyling and giving backe when you want a shield for your defence For the Testimonies alleaged which deny that the faithlesse and godlesse men Eate Christ's Body speake directly of the Act of spirituall Eating and not only of the Effect as you fancie Peruse you their Testimonies and be you our Iudges That by Spirituall Eating your Romish Corporall Vnion through Sacramentall Eating is excluded SECT III. SAcramentall Eating and Vnion professed by your Church is as you may remember said to be Corporall by Christ's bodily Touch of the body of the Receiver but seeing the godly and faithfull man only can be partaker of the body and blood of Christ and be really united unto it as the
a literall Sence against the evident Expressions of the same Fathers to the contrary I. Origen say you will have the Communicant to thinke himselfe Vnworthy that the Lord should enter under the roofe of his mouth Right hee saith so but in the same sence wherein he equivalently said that Hee who entertaineth a Bishop and Spirituall Pastor must know that now Christ entreth under his roofe namely Christ figuratively II. Chrysostome who speaketh in the highest straine saith that We see touch eate and teare with our teeth the flesh of Christ True but to note that hee spake it in a Rhetoricall and figurative Sence he equiualently saith also in the same place Our tongues are made red with his blood And else-where to put all out of question These saith he are spirituall and containe no Carnall thing Yet what need you our Comment Your Iesuite Maldonate would gladly prevent us The words of Chrysostome saith he of tearing the flesh of Christ cannot be otherwise understood than Sacramentally Even he which concluded but now that to say we Eate Christs flesh properly is a false proposition III. Gaudentius say you saith Wee receive the bodie which Christ reacheth We grant he said so but he interpreteth himselfe saying Christ would have our soules sanctified by the Image of his Passion IV. But Augustine teacheth that Wee receive the body of Christ both with heart and mouth Which your Obiector noteth as being very notable for the Orall Receiving Corporally albeit the same Saint Augustine immediatly expresseth that this and all other such Speeches are to be vnderstood figuratively and unproperly V. But Pope Leo is brought in saying Gustamus We taste with our flesh the flesh of Christ Nay but you have corrupted his Saying for his word is Gestamus Wee beare or carrie it namely by being baptized as there is expressed whereof the Apostle said You have put on Christ VI. But Pope Gregorie say you saith The blood of Christ is sprinkled upon both postes when we receive it both with heart and mouth Which wee say he spake with the same Improprietie of speech wherein hee addeth equivalently that The blood of Christ is sprinkled upon the upper postes when wee carry in our fore-heads by Baptisme the signe of the Crosse VII But Nonâ— receiveth saith Hesychius save hee that perceiveth the truth of his blood But how even as hee himselfe there addeth By receiving the memorie of his Passion VIII But Optatus tels us that The members of Christ are upon the Altar and that The Altar is the seate of his Body and Blood and that it is an hainous thing to breake the Chalices of the Blood of Christ c. Wee grant these to be the Phrases of Optatus indeed which you have obiected but alas my Masters will you never learne the Dialect of the Ancient Fathers after so many Examples as it were lights to illuminate your iudgements Wherein as other Fathers have done Optatus will instruct you for his owne language who in this Booke inveighing against the madnesse of the Donatists for their iniuring of the Ministers of Christ Now saith he doe you imitate the Iewes they laid hands vpon Christ and Christ is now beaten by you on the Altar So hee by the same Hyperbole making as well the Priest that ministreth at the Altar Christ as he did the Signes and Symboles of the parts of Christ which are his Body and Blood the members of Christ even as Christ himselfe said to Saul the Persecutor of the Faithfull Saul Saul why persecutest thou me The great Oratour Chrysostome is further obiected flowing in his Rhetorike and saying of this Sacrament that Wee see him on the Altar and that He is held in the hands of the Priest namely in the same Rhetoricall sence wherewith Augustine said of all the faithfull Christian Communicants You are on the Table you are in the Cup. Or as Chrysostome himselfe required of persons baptized in their perfect age saying Hold you the feet of our Saviour Yet one more Augustine doubted not to say of this visible word the Sacrament of Christ that The Lord's blood is powred out into the mouthes of the faithfull And Hierome is as bold to say of the audible word of God that when it is preached The blood of Christ by it is powred into the eares of the Hearers Master Brereley would thinke much not to be suffered to put in his Vie iu the name of Cyprian Wee are anointed with his blood not only outwardly but also inwardly our soules are fortified with the sprinkling thereof So Cyprian What meaneth this not onely outwardly meaning in Body saith Master Brereley and addeth which convinceth our Bodily receiving thereof So hee From the same Cyprian who in the same place saith in the same stile We cleave to his Crosse sucke his blood and fixe our tongues within the wounds of our Redeemer which are all Sacramentall Allegoricall and Tropolasticall Phrases as Cyprian will clearely expresse himselfe in respect of our outward man and spiritually of the inward CHALLENGE BY this this time it may appeare that all your so serious and exquisite Collections out of the Fathers for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament and Vnion with the Partakers thereof doe appeare by this Encounter of iust Parallels to be indeed the idle Imaginations of your Teachers and the â—rroneous Intoxications of all their Disciples who yeeld assent unto them For to interpret the figurative speeches of the Fathers literally is all one as to sticke Goose-feathers in their Caps and plainly to befoole them by making them of all others the most egregiously absurd as you have already heard and no lesse fond in the outward letter then are these others that follow to wit of Gaudentius We are commanded to eate the head of Christ's Deity with the feet of his Incarnation Or the saying of Saint Hierome When Christ said Hee that drinketh my blood although it may be understood in a Mystery yet the truer blood saith hee is the word of Scripture Or as before him Origen We drinke the blood of Christ saith he not only by the rite of a Sacrament but also in receiving his word whereof it is said My words are spirit and life So they And so iust cause have we to complaine of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Obiecters by their so often abusing the Testimonies of these holy Fathers insomuch that you had need of the often Admonition of your owne Senensis I have often given warning saith he that the sayings of Fathers be not urged in the rigidnesse of their words because they use to speake many times HYPERBOLICALLY and in excesse being either transported by the vehemencie of their Affections or carried with the Câ—rrenâ— of their speech So hee CHAP. VI. The Second Romish Corporall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies
of a Corporall Presence of Christ as vehemently as the others of them have done for maintaining of an Vnion properly and really Corporall Notwithstanding the most eminent Cathedrall Doctors in your Romish Schooles to wit Bellarmine Tolet and Suarez doe explode that Corporall Commixture The first Cardinall and Iesuite now mentioned singling out these Fathers who seeme most peremptorily and Emphatically to teach a Corporall nourishing Corporall Augmentation Corporall and naturall mixture and Vnion of Christ's Body with ours such as were Ireneus Hilary Nyssen Cyrill and others as if he had forgot himselfe and meant to answere for us saith The Fathers in so saying are not so to be understood as if the mortall substance of our bodies were nourished thereby for so they should make it meate for the Belly and not of the mind than which nothing can be more absurd The Second Cardinall and Iesuite speaking of Cyrill and Hilarie They say saith hee that our Bodies have a naturall Coniunction and Vnion in this Sacrament wâ—â—â— the Body of Christ but are not so to be vnderstood as if there were a naturall Vnion which were a Doctrine unworthy of them but their meaning is that for the Vnion-sake which is of Faith and Charitie Christ is really and truly within us who is the cause of faith So hee Your Third Iesuite of prime note we have heard already in Confutation of your new Divines who collected from such Testimonies a Proper Corporall Coniunction terming this Doctrine Rash absurd and repugnant to the dignity and Maiestie of the Sacrament That the Obiected Sentences of Fathers make not for the Romish Corporall Vnion proved by their owne Dialect SECT III. THe expresse Testimonies of the obiected Fathers you may read in the Margent as they are marshalled by your owne Iesuite Suarez to wit Irenaeus Chrysostome Cyril Alexand. Grego Nyssen Pope Leo and Hillarie The Summe is The mixture of Christ's Body with ours by a Corporall and naturall Vnion in deede and not onely in faith or Affection Two kind of Semblances are to be observed one in their like Hyperbolicall Phrasing concerning Baptisme and the other touching our Coniunction with Christ Of Baptisme Hilarie the 6. obiected saith Christians by Baptisme which is one are made one not onely in affection but also in nature Leo the 5. obiected saith also that By Baptisme the Body of the Regenerate is made the flesh of Christ crucified And marke what your Cardinall Tolet hath collected from Augustine namely that Infants by being Baptized are made partakers of the Eucharist because they are memberr of the mysticall Body and are so made in a sort partakers of this Sacrament that is to say of the thing signified eating his flesh and drinking his Blood So hee By which your Obiector must be inforced to admit a like Reall coniunction and consequently of a Reall presence of Christ in Baptisme as they have for the Bodily Vnion and Presence of Christ in and by the Eucharist Yea and the Fathers with the like accent and Emphasis of speech say as much of other things Isidore Pleusiota of the word of God that It feedeth mens soules and is in a manner mingled therewith Of the Baptised that by Baptisme They are incorporated into Christ saith Augustine And that thereby They are made bone of Christ's bone and flesh of his flesh saith Chrysost Of the Eucharist It is mingled with our soules so Damascen Of the participation of the bread of Idolaters with the participation of the Sacramentall bread of the Lords Supper That as by the one Christians are made partakers of Christ's flesh so by that other are men made partakers with Divels So Primasius Wherefore your Disputers by comparing these Sentences of the Fathers with the former if they shall take them as spoken properly and not Sacramentally and figuratively shall be compelled to allow proper Commixtures and nourishings of man's Soule by the Word First a proper mingling of God's Spirit with Man Secondly a proper incorporating of Man into Christ and a proper mixture of Man with Divels And againe upon due Comparison of the Testimonies of Fathers obiected by you with these now alleadged by us concerning the Eucharist it selfe it will necessarily follow that by the same reason wherewith you have sought to prove one kind of proper Presence of Christ's bodie and Transubstantiation and Vnion you must allow fower more One of Christs bodie into the bodie of the Communicant a Second of a Christian Communicant into Christs bodie A Third of a Naturall bodily Vnion of Christians among themselves And fourthly which is Damascen's of Christ's bodie into men's soules All which kind of Presences Vnions Mixtures and Transubstantiations taken in a proper sence you cannot but condemne as Atheologicall and sencelesse in your owne iudgement notwithstanding all the former alleaged Phrases of ancient Fathers And what talke you of the Eucharist as being called the Viaticum and food-provision for our iourneying through death by the ancient Fathers as though this were an Argument of Christs Corporall Presence in the Sacrament and Coniunction with them that participate thereof except you meant to make the same Consequence in behalfe of Baptisme wherewith Basil exhorteth both young and old to be provided as of their Spirituall Viaticum That the obiected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers make against the Romish Corporall Vnion of Christ's Bodie with the Bodies of the Communicants SECT IV. YOur Romish Corporall Vnion is distinguished from the Corporall Vnion spoken of the Fathers by two Properties which are universally beleeved in your Church one is the note of the discontinuance of the Bodie of Christ saying that The Body of Christ continueth no longer in the Body of the Communicant than whilest the outward formes of Bread and Wine doâ— remaine uncorrupt The other is the note of Community beleeving that The Corporall Coniunction with the Communicant is equally as common to the prophane and godly Receiver as are the outward Symbols and Signes which they Sacramentally Eate or Drinke Such are these your two Principles concerning Corporall Coniunction both which are notably contradicted by two contrarie notes of Corporall Coniunction spoken of by the Fathers The first is of the Perpetuity of Christian Coniunction with Christ against your Non-residencie thereof The Second is of the Peculiarity of this Vnion namely onely unto pious and faithfull Receivers and both these by the Testimonies of the obiected Fathers yea even in the most of your obiected Testimonies themselves That the Fathers meant by their Corporall Vnion a perpetuall residence in the Receivers their owne Testimonies above-cited doe declare noting that it is the Vnion whereof Christ spake saying He that eateth me remayneth in me and dwelleth in me c. A Truth so apparent that your best reputed Iesuite Suarez is inforced to confesse that The Corporall Vnion spoken of by the holy Fathers is not
the Virtue of her Sacrifice of the Masse for remission of sinnes or Punishment SECT I. NEver can there be any true Application of the Passion of Christ for remission of sinnes say we which is not absolute but onely partiall Your Iesuit Ribera seemeth to come on roundly towards us and friendly to joyne hands with us in this point of Application of an absolute Remission of sinnes pretending that this was Decreed in the Councell of Trent as indeed it seemeth to have beene and that from the Authority of Scripture and he addeth that Protestants whom he is pleased to grace with the name of Heretikes doe not deny this manifest Truth So he Doe you marke a Truth a manifest Truth a Truth said to be confirmed by your last Councell and a Truth consented unto by the Heretikes as being a manifest Truth Who would not now looke for a Truth universally professed in your Church without all exception But behold even since that Councell of Trent your greatly approved Melchior Canus steppeth forth with a peremptory Contradiction saying that to hold All mortall sinnes to be remitted by the Application of the Sacrifice in the Masse is false except all Divines be deceived So he speaking of the Divines of the Romish Church Your Iesuit Valentia noteth among you another sort of Doctors maintaining that your Masse-Application serveth onely for Remission of such temporall punishment the guilt whereof was formerly pardoned So he CHALLENGE IF any shall but recollect the Contradictions of your owne Doctors thorowout out all these former points of Controversie already handled he will thinke himselfe to be among the people called Andabatae who first blind-folding themselves fell a buffeting one another not knowing whom they hitt therefore wee leave them in their broiles and our selves will consult with Antiquity That the Ancient Fathers never taught any Application of Christ's Passion but that which is for a Plenary Remission of sinnes SECT II. CArdinall Alan hath put into our hands a consent of some Fathers for proofe of an Application for remission of all sinnes for which Christ died The Fathers whom he produceth are these Chrysostome Theophylact Cyprian and Origen If these will not suffice you may take unto you these other Iulius Pope of Rome Iustin Martyr Augustine Cyril and Basil Doe you require any more What needeth it seeing that the same Cardinall further saith There is found no Father to the contrary Thus much of the Application which is to be made by this Sacrament the next is For whom That the Romish Vse of a singular Application of the Sacrifice of the Masse to Non-Communicants because of their present Attendance is repugnant to the Doctrine of Antiquity SECT III. THE Greeke and Latine Churches anciently made up the whole Catholike Church The Greeke pronounced an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Be-gone to all Non-Communicants the Latine Church also ordained that the Deacon should proclaime all Not-Communicants to Depart From which Custome afterwards the word Masse had it's Orginall namely from the words Ite missa est as hath beene confessed But now the Case is so altered that if any Non-Communicant being present shall in Devotion apply himselfe to your Romish Masse your Canon of the Masse prouideth that Application of your Sacrifice be made unto him for Remission of sinnes And that as your Iesuit teacheth The fruit of the Sacrifice Ex opere operato redoundeth unto him and not this only but also to be Spiritually refreshed by the mouth of the Priest Be you therefore intreated to lend your Attention but for an Instant of time and then tell us whether we speake Reason unto you or no. All Antiquity Catholike as hath beene generally confessed by your selves never admitted to that part of the Masse which you call a Sacrifice any but such as were prepared to Communicate in receiving the Sacrament but shut all others out of Doores which we say they neither would nor could lawfully have done if they had beene of your now Romish faith to beleeve that it is a Sacrifice Propitiatory for all such as devontly attend to behold it For wheresoever there was a Sacrifice of Expiation among the Iewes under the Law all persons had liberty to partake thereof We thinke that this Argument sticketh fast in the Bowels of this Cause That the Romish Church lesseneth the due estimation of Christ's Passion in her Applying of it to others for the increasing of falsly-devised and unjust Gaine in behalfe of the Priest without all warrant of Antiquity SECT IV. HItherto we have expected some Reasons which might move your Church so to lessen the proportion of Christ's Passion in the Application thereof for remission either of sinnes or punishments And now at length your Iesuit Salmeron commeth to resolve us saying If the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood were of infinite value then one Masse being said for all the soules in the Dungeon of Purgatory would evacuate and empty the whole place and then should it be in vaine to say many Masses for one soule So he We may not so farre digresse as to enter into this Controversie of Purgatory because we are to finish that which wee have now in hand Else were it easie to shew that the infinite gaine which your Alchemists worke out of your forge of Purgatory-fire hath occasioned this Heterodoxe and gracelesse Doctrine of disannulling the infinite efficacy of Christ's Blood which is so utterly forlorne of all approbation from Antiquity that your Disputers have not alleaged so much as one Iota out of any Father for warrant thereof Next in the Sacrifice of your Masse there is say you a Portion thereof appropriated to the Priest alone which is a power to apply by his Memento the same Sacrifice to whom he will so farre forth that he extend his Memento upon any one to whom he shall be pleased to intend it upon Condition to receive money therfore in so much that It will be more availeable for that one than if it were extended to many So you Very well but by what Law came your Priests to this peculiar power of dispensing a Portion for their owne advantage Cardinall Alan your Advocate is ready to answer for you and we are attentive to heare what he saith There is not either any Scripture saith he or Father shewing any such thing for such a manner of esteeming the fruit of Christ's Sacrifice So he In the third place whiles we are in this speculation we heare one of you putting this Case If the Priest shall receive a stipend of Peter upon Condition that he shall apply his Memento and Intention upon the soule of Iohn departed this life and he notwithstanding doth apply it unto the good of the soule of Paul whether now the Priests Memento should worke for the good of the soule of Iohn according to the Priest's Obligation upon the Condition made with Peter or else for
6. Vnconscionable Objections from their Epithets of Terrible Chap. 5. Sect. 8. and Vnbloody Sect. 9. which They call also Bloody Sect. 11. And also Baptisme a Sacrifice Sect. 13. And other Spirituall Acts. Sect. 14. Vnconscionable Objections from their words Altar and Priest Sect. 15. Spirituall Acts called Sacrifices unproperly Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Yea and also Propitious Chap. 8. Sect. 1. BOOKE VII ANtiquity unconscionably objected for a Divine Adoration of the Sacrament from any of their words Chap. 2. Sect. 1. as also from any of their Acts either of their Concealement of this Mystery Ch. 3. Sect. 1. or Elevation Sect. 2. or Gesture Sect. 3. or Invocation Sect. 4. Which was never taught by them Ch. 5. Sect. 1. Nay Antiquity was against Divine Adoration of the Eucharist by their Common Admonition Lift up your hearts c. Chap. 4. Sect. 2. BOOKE VIII ANtiquity against the Romish Sacrilegiousnesse in a Synopsis Chap. 1. Sect. 4. Against their Idolatrousnesse teaching Bread to remaine Sect. 5. Their Testimonies unconscionably objected for Corporall Presence Proper Sacrifice and Divine Adoration as appeareth in a Synopsis Instance in Baptisme by paralleling their like speeches of it with the Eucharist Chap. 2. Sect. 2 3. Antiquity insolently rejected and falsly boasted of by our Adversaries Ch. 2. Sect. 4. III. Index of the particular Iudgements of Fathers severally as also of Councels and Popes both in our Oppositions and in the Romish Objections besides those here omitted which have beene otherwise answered in the Generall thorow-out the former TREATISE AMbrose Opp. against unknowen Prayer B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. And that the words of Christ are figurative Book 2. Sect. 9. and That Christ gave bread B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. And for a figurative Sence in the words This is my Body B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. And for Bread remaining B. 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11. Ob. his terming it a Miraculous worke unconscionably Ch. 4. Sect. 2. And for saying Bread is made man's flesh Sect. 7. And that Bread is changed into another thing Ibid. Opp. Hee teacheth Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. And an Vnproper Sacrifice Ib. Ch. 5. Sect. 5. and correcteth his Excessive speech of Sacrifice B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. For naming it an Vnbloody Sacrifice Vnconscionably B. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 9. And for Adoration of Christ's footstoole B. 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. And Christ's appearing to Saul from Heaven Booke 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 5. Opp. proving the Holy Ghost to be God by it's Being in divers places at once Booke 4. Chap. 6. Sect. 2. Athanasius Opp. for a necessitie of Circumscription of a Body in one place only Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. And for Impossibility of Angels being in many places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. And for the spirituall Exposition of those words The flesh profiteth nothing B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. And that Angels cannot be in divers places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Augustine fondly Ob. for an unknowne tongue Booke 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. Chall 6. And for proofe that Christ in the Sacrament was a Figure of himselfe on the Crosse B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Chall 2. Opp. That Bread was called Christs body B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. And that hee alloweth the Iudgement of Sence in this Sacrament B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. And for a Figurative Sence in the words This is my Body B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 9. Ob. for Transubstantiation because a powerfull worke Book 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. Opp. For necessary Circumscription of a Body in one place B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. Ob. That Christ Efferebatur manibus ejus Ibid. Sect. 8. Opp. For the Being of Christ's soule but in one place Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. And that the godly only partake Christ's Body Booke 5. Ch. 2. Sect. 2. Ch. 3. Sect. 3 4. Ob. that the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist is a signe of it selfe on the Crosse fraudulently B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Chall 2. Opp. for expounding that Scripture The flesh profiteth nothing B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Ob. that the Capernaites understood not Christ unconscionably B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. And that Wee receive with our mouths Christ's Body Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. And also his Fideles nôrunt B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. And None eateth before he adore Booke 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. And for Priests properly Book 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Opp. Eucharist an unproper Sacrifice Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 5. and hee is an utter Adversary to the whole Romish Cause B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 8. Chall 4 5. And that Christ appeared to Saul from heaven Ibid. Sect. 5. And hee proveth the Holy Ghost to be God by it's being in divers places at once Booke 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. And is against a Bodies being without Commensuration to place and space Ibid. Sect. 6. And that no Body can be whole in any one part of place Chap. 7. Sect. 6. And that Angels cannot be in divers places at once Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Basil Opp. proving the Holy Ghost to be God by it's being in many places at once Booke 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. Ob. What were the words of Invocation And for Adoration of the Eucharist most grossely B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Opp. That hee called the Eucharist Bread after Consecration B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Bertram Opp. for the existence of Bread after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 14. Chrysostome Opp. against Gazers on the Sacrament B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. Ob. for private Masse Ibid. Sect. 5. Chall 3 Opp. teaching Bread to remaine after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 14. Ob. for Transubstantiation in his words Change by divine power Ibid. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. And his Exception saying Although it seeme absurd to Sense B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 5. and his Hyperbolicall Phrases Ibid. and his words It is made Christ's body indeed Ibid. Sect. 7. and these Wee are changed into the flesh of Christ Ibid. And that the wicked are guilty of Christ's Body for corporall presence B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. His 〈◊〉 miracle saying Christ in heaven is handled here on earth And of a double Elias B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. and for Christ's passing thorow the doores Ibid. Opp. his expounding the words Flesh profiteth not figuratively Booke 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Ob. The words Tearing with teeth Ibid. Sect. 3. and these Christ is held in the hands of the Priest Ibid. And Christ hath made us his body B. 5. Chap. 8. Sect. 3. Opp. Christ's Priestly Residence in heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. And Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall thereof Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. Sacrifice Pure and Terrible Ibid. Sect. 8. And Lambe lying on the Altar Terrible and Angels present B. 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. and Fideles nôrunt Ch. 3. Sect. 1. and Elevation Ibid. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. and Bowing before the Table Booke 7. Chap.
condemned in divers who sopped the Bread in the Chalice and squeezed Grapes in the Cup and so received them even as did the Artoryritae in mingling Bread with Cheese censured for Heretiques by your Aquinas In which Comparison your Aberration from Christ's Example is so much greater than theirs as you are found Guilty in defending Ten Innovations for one 2. Your Pope Gelasius condemned the Hereticall Manichees for thinking it lawfull not to receive the Cup in the Administration of the Eucharist judging it to be Greatly Sacrilegious notwithstanding your Church authorizeth the same Custome of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants 3. As you pretend Reverence for withdrawing the Cup so did the Aquarii forbeare wine and used only Water under a pretence of Sobriety 4. Sometime there may be a Reason to doe a thing when as yet there is no right nor Authority for him that doth it Wee therefore exact of you an Autority for altering the Apostles Customes and Constitutions and are answered that your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts Iumpe with them who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions replyed that They were herein above the Apostles whom therefore Irenaeus reckoneth among the Heretikes of his Time BOOKE II. It is not nothing which hath beene observed therein to wit your Reasoning why you ought not to interpret the words of Christ This is my Body literally and why you urge his other saying Except yoâ—… eat my flesh for proofe of Bodily Eating so that your Priest may literally say in your Masse that The Body of Christ passeth into your bellies and entrâ—ils because forsooth the words of Christ are Doctrinall And have you not heard of one Nicodemus who hearing Christ teach that every man must be Borne againe who shall be partaker of God's Kingdome and that hee expounding them in a Literall Sence conceited a new Entrance into his Mothers wombe when as nothing wanted to turne that his Errour into an Heresie but only Obstinacie But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers you have received a full Synopsis BOOKE III. After followeth your Article of Transubstantiation I. Your direct profession is indeed to beleeve no Body of Christ but that which was Borne of the Virgin Mary But this your Article of Transubstantiation of Bread into Christs Body generally held according to the proper nature of Transubstantion to be by Production of Christs Body out of the Substance of Bread it necessarrly inferreth a Body called and beleeved to be Christ's which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin as S. Augustine hath plainly taught diversifying the Bodily thing on the Altar from the Body of Christ borne of the Virgin Therefore your Defence symbolizeth with the heresie of Apollinaris who taught a Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly you exclude all judgement of Senses in discerning Bread to be trâ—… Bread as did the Manichees in discerning Christ's Body which they thereupon held not to have beene a True but a Phantasticall Body Tertullian also challengeth the Verity of Sense in judging of Wine in the Eâ—charist after Consecration in confutation of the same Errour in the Marcioniâ—es Thirdly for Defence of Christ his invisible Bodily Presence you professe that after Consecration Bread is no more the same but changed into the Body of Christ which Doctrine in very expresse words was bolted out by an Eâ—tychian Heretique and instantly condemned by Theodoret and as fully abandoned by Pope Gelasâ—… BOOKE IV. Catholique Fathers were in nothing more zealous than in defending the distinct properties of the two natures of Christ his Deity and Humanity against the pernicious heresies of the Manichees Marcionites Eâ—tychians and Eâ—nomians all of them diversly oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body sometime in direct tearmes and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences whether it were by gaine-saying the Finitenesse or Solidity or else the compleat Perfection thereof wherein â—ow farre yee may challenge affinity or kindred with them be you pleased to examine by this which followeth 1. The Heretiques who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily Finitenesse said that it was in divers places at once as is confessed even as your Church doth now attribute unto the same Body of Christ both in Heaven and in Earth yea and in Millions of distant Altars at the same time and consequently in all places whatsoever Now whether this Doctrine of Christ's Bodily Presence in many places at once was held of the Catholique Fathers for Hereticall it may best be seene by their Doctrine of the Existence of Christ's Body in one only place not only Definitively but also Circumspectively both which doe teach an absolute Impossibility of the Existence of the same in divers places at once And they were as zealous in professing the Article of the manner of Christ's Bodily Being in place as they are in instructing men of the Article of Christ's Bodily Being lest that the deniall of it's Bodily manner of being might destroy the nature of his Body To which end they have concluded it to be absolutely but in one place sometime in a Circumspective Finitenesse thereby distinguishing them from all created Spirits and sometime by a Definitive Termination which they set downe first by Exemplifications thus If Christ his Body be on Earth then it is absent from Heaven and thus Being in the Sunne it could not be in the Moone Secondly by divers Comparisons for comparing the Creature with the Creator God they conclude that The Creature is not God because it is determinated in one place and comparing the humane and divine Nature of Christ together they conclude that they are herein different because the humane and Bodily Nature of Christ is necessarily included in one place and laâ—tly comparing Creatures with the Holy Ghost they conclude a difference by the the same Argument because the Holy Ghost is in many places at once and all these in confutation of divers Heretiques A thing so well knowen to your elder Romish Schoole that it confessed the Doctrine of Existence of a Body in divers places at once in the judgement of Antiquity to be Hereticall 2. The property of a Solidity likewise was patronized by Antient Fathers in confutation of Heretiques by teaching Christ's Body to be necessarily Palpable against their Impalpabilitie and to have a Thicknesse against their feigned subtile Body as the Aire and furthermore controlling these opinions following which are also your Crotchets of a Bodies Being whole in the whole space and in every part thereof and of Christ's Body taking the Right hand or left of it selfe 3. The property of Perfection of the Body of Christ wheresoever in the highest Degree of Absolutenesse This one would thinke everie Christian heart should assent unto at the first hearing wherefore if that they were judged Heretiques by Antient
Fathers who taught an Indivisible Vnion of mens soules with their Bodies naturally still subiect to corruption after the resurrection who can imagine that the holy Catholique Fathers would otherwise have judged of this your generall Tenet viz. to beleeve a Body of Christ now since his Glorification which is destitute of all power of naturall motion sence appetite or understanding otherwise than of a senslesse and Antichristian Deliration and Delusion Yea and that which is your only Reason you alleage to avoid our Objection of Impossibilities in such cases to wit The Omnipotencie of God the same was the Pretence of Heretiques of old in the like Assertions which occasioned the Antient Fathers to terme the Pretence of Omnipotencie The Sanctuary of Heretiques albeit the same Heretiques as well as you intended as a Father speaketh to magnifie God thereby namely in beleeving the Body of Christ after his Ascension to be wholly Spirituall To which Heretiques the same Father readily answered as wee may to you saying When you will so magnifie Christ you doe but accuse him of falshood not that wee doe any whit detract from the Omnipotencie of Christ farre be this Spirit of Blasphemy from us but that as you have beene instructed by Antient Fathers the not attributing an Impossibility to God in such Cases of Contradiction is not a diminishing but an ample advancing of the Omnipotencie of God BOOKE V. Your Orall Eating Gutturall Swallowing and Inward Digestion as you have taught of the Body of Christ into your Entrails hath beene proved out of the Fathers to be in each respect sufficiently Capernaiticall and termed by them a Sence both Pernicious and Flagitious Besides you have a Confutation of the Hereticall Manichees for their Opinion of Fastning Christ to mens guts and loosing him againe by their belchings Consonant to your Romish Profession both of Christ's Cleaving to the guts of your Communicants and Vomiting it up againe when you have done BOOKE VI. This is spent wholly in examining the Romish Doctrine of Masse-Sacrifice and in proving it to be Sacrilegiousnesse it selfe as you have seene in a former Synopsis BOOKE VII This containeth a Discoverie of your Masse-Idolatry not onely as being equall with the Doctrine of some Heretiques but in one respect exceeding the inâ—atuation of the very Pagans besides the Generall Doctrine of the power of your Priests Intention in consecrating hath beene yoaked by your owne Iesuite with the Heresies of the Donatists When you have beheld your owne faces in these divers Synopses as it were in so many glasses we pray to God that the sight of so many and so prodigious Abominations in your Romish Masse may draw you to a just Detestation of it and bring you to that true worship of God which is to be performed in Spirit and in Truth and to the saving of every one of your soules through his Grace in Christ Iesus AMEN ALL GLORY BE ONELY TO GOD. I. INDEX OF THE PRINCIPALL MATTERS Discussed thorow-out the eight Bookes of the whole former Treatise A ACcidents merely feed not Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. Nor inebriate c. Ibid. Not without Subject according to the ancient Fathers Ibid. See more in the words Bread Councell Cyrill Adoration of the Eucharist Romish Booke 7. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Not from Christ's Institution Chap. 2. Nor from Antiquity Ibid. Sect. 1. Not by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 3. Romish Adoration Idolatrous by their owne Principles Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Eucharist forbid to be carried to the sicke for Adoration Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 10. Romish manner of Adoration of the Host Book 7. Chap. 7. Sect. 1. Coadoration may be Idolatrous Sect. 2. See the words Gesture Idolatry Invocation Reverence Altar unproperly used of the Fathers Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 13 15. Angels not possibly in two places at once Book 4. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Apparitions of Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament fictitious Booke 4. Chap. 2 c. See more in the word Miracles Application of Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice not yet resolved of Booke 6. Chap. 11. Sect. 1. Otherwise the Fathers Ibid. Sect. 2. Romish Application not sufficient for all in Purgatory Sect. 3. Application of Protestants Propitiously how justifiable Ib. Ch. 2. Sect. 1 2. B. BAptisme called a Sacrifice of the Fathers Book 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 15. Want of it in the Romish Priest inferreth Idolatry Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 4. Paralleled with the Eucharist in most points Booke 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 2 3. Beast prostrate before the Host Objected Ridiculously for Adoration Booke 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 3. Blood of Christ not properly shed Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Body of Christ not properly broken Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. That in the Eucharist not borne of the Virgin Mary Booke 4. Chap. 4 5. By Corporall Presence not one Ibid. Sect. 2. Infinite Ibid. Chap. 6. Not organicall Chap. 7. not perfect Chap. 8. nor glorious and subject to vile indignities Chap. 9. See more in Vnion Bread not duly broken in the Romish Masse Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Remaining after Consecration Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 4 5. Proved by many Arguments Ibid. unto Sect. 9. Engendring Wormes Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 10. See Accidents Broken Body of Christ unproperly Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and Booke 6. Chap. 1. Sect. 4. The word Broken in S. Luke signifies the Present Tense Booke 6. Chap. 2. Sect. 3. C CAnonization of Saints a Case doubtfull and dangerous Book 7. Ch. 7. Sect. 3. Capernaiticall conceit of eating Christ's flesh Bodily Booke 5. Chap. 4. Sect. 1. Such was the Romish and is Sect. 3. As also in swallowing and bodily mixture Ibid. Chap. 7 8. See Vnion Christ's Priesthood See Priest-hood Church of Rome hath erred in her opinion of administring the Eucharist to Infants Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 11. Her Doctrine made necessary to Salvation Book 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Concomitance of Blood under the forme of Bread how Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 6. Consecration used of Christ by prayer Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Now transgressed in the Romish Church Ibid. Sect. 4. Forme thereof not set downe either in Scripture or in ancient Tradition Book 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. Many Defects incident to make void the Act and to inferre Idolatry Book 7. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Contradictions Romish VI. against these words of Christ My Body Booke 4. Ch. 4. Cup is to be administred to all the Communicants Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. By Christ's precept and example Sect. 2 3. By Apostolicall practice and Fathers c. Ibid. Custome of 300. yeares preferred by the Romish before a more ancient of a thousand Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 5. D. DEvouring Christ's flesh such is the Romish Swallowing of Christ Booke 5. Chap. 6. Sect. 1 2. and Chap. 9. Distinction of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body as Subjectively