significatio refectionis spiritualis quià unam eandem resectionis gratiam spiritualem significat â—â—bus potus Valent quo supr de legis usu Eucharist pag. 491. Iesuites from whom Master Fisher hath learned his Answer seeke to perswade their Readers that the Soules refection spirituall is sufficiently signified in either kinde 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 Councel of Trent and confirmed by Pope Pius Quintus or else Those their Catechists forgot themselves in teaching that b Optimo jure institutum est ut separatim duae consecrationes fierent primò enim ut Passio Domini in qua sanguis à corpore divisus est â—magis referatur Deinde maximè consentaneum fuit ut quoniam Sacramento ad alendam animam utendum nobis erat tanquam cibus potus institueretur ex quibus perfectum corporis alimentum constare perspicuâ—â— est Caâ—echis Rom. part 2. de Euch. num 29. 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 Blood 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 mans 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 do they c Hoc Sacramentum ordinatur ad spiritualem refectionem quae conformatur corporali Ad corporalem autem refectionem Duo requiruntur scilicet cibus qui est alimentum siccum potus qui est alimentum humidum Et etiam ad integritatem hujus Sacramenti duo concuâ—â—â—unt scilicet spiritualis cibus spiritualis potus secundùm illud Ioh. 6 Caro mea verè est cibus Ergò hoc Sacramentum multa quidem est materialiter sed unum formaliter perfectivè Aqui. part 3. quaest 73. Art 2. Etsi negandum non est quin ejus refectionis spiritualis vis commoditas clarius utrâ—que re sâ—nul scilicet cibo potu atque adeò utraque specie significetur ideò enim hoc Sacramentum quod attiâ—â—et 〈◊〉 ad relationem individualem perfectus est in utraque simul specie quà m in altera Greg de Valent. les de usu Sacr. Each c. 6. §. Secundum p. 491. Hoc est convenientius usâ— hujus Sacramenti ut seorsim exhibeatuâ— fidelibus corpus Christi in cibum sanguis in potum Aquin. quo sup qu. 76. Art 2. maintaine 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 convenie it 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 d Sub specie panis sanguis sumatur cum corpore sub specie vini sumatur corpus cum sanguine nec sâ—nguis sub specio panis bibitur nec corpus sub specie vâ—â— edituâ— quià sicut nec corpus â—bitur ità nec sanguis comeditur Duraad Ratitional lib. 4. cap. 42. pag. 326. The blood of Christ is not drunke in the forme of Bread nor is his Body eaten as meate in the forme of Wine because the Body cannot be said to be drunke nor the blood to be eaten So your Durand and so afterwards your * See hereafter Sect 10. âšœ Who also observeth that concerning spirituall Repast 8 â—â—aasen 〈◊〉 cap. 59. Dominus dicit unoâ—actu fidei famein tolli sitim ac proindè unico actu fidei dicitur manducare bibere Christ saith that by the onely act of Faith both hunger and thirst is taken away therefore wee are said both to eat and drinke by the same and onely act of Faith Wherefore you in with-holding the Cup from the People do 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 use Concerning this second e Answer to his Majestie Master Fisher one of the society of Iesuites was taught to Answer 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 a more plentifull Grace are not to be esteemed spirituall Effects for the good of the Soule which are f Secundum Alexandrum de Hales Major fructus ex perceptione utriusque speciei habetur Salmeron les Tom. 9. Tract 37. § Neque benè p. 303. Per accidens tutem non est â—ubium quin usus utriusque speciei possit esse fructuosior eò quod potest majorem devotionem commovere in percipiente Vndè fiat ut propter majorem dispositionem consequitur ille veriorem gratiam ex Sacramento Valent. les Ibid. pag. 493. §. Per accidens confessed to be enjoyed rather by Communicating in Both kinds âšœ Will you have any more know then that your Romane Pope Clement did absolutely teach that 9 Vasquez les in 3. Thom. quaest 80. Disput 215. cap. 2. Probabilior sententia mihi semper visa est eorum qui dicunt majorem-fructum gratiae ex utraque specie quà m ex aâ—â—erutra percipi proindè illos qui calicem sumunt novum augmentum Gratiae consequi Ità Alexander Cassalius Arboreus Clemens Pont. 6. Remandus Et iâ—margine suâ Hinc sententiam Suarez Disp 35. § 6. ut probabilem defendit Hanc sententiam absolutè secutiâ—s est Clemens 6. in Bullâ ad Regem Angliae 1341. in quo illâ— concessit ut in gratiae augmentum in utraque specie communicaret Sacramentum hoc institutum est in modum Convivij Ioh. 6. Caro mea verè est cibus languis meus verè est potus nam in Convivio nihil aliud est quà m cibus potus quorum quilibec suo particulari modo reficit A greater augmentation of Grace is obtained by Communicating in Both. Which was the Cause saith your Iesuite that Hee dispenced with the King of England to participate in Both. For consider we pray you that the Assistance of
nobis sit com nuuis nobis in alimentum datuâ— Modus incomprehensibilis VI. Si nos in consesu quem continet Augustana confessio complexos esse dixi non est quod quis me astutiae insimuleâ— Verbulum in ea Confessione qualis Ratisbonae edita fuit non extat doctrinae nostrae con trarium De Philippo Melancthone ejus Authore viro spectatae pietatis dico non magis me à Philippo quà m à proprijs visceribus divelli posse Et quidem non aliter sanctae memoriae Bucerum sensisse luculentis testimonijs probare mihi semper promptum erit Lutherus meae sententiae non ignarus propriâ tamen manu non gravatus est me salutare Quum Marpurgi essem diconciliatio facta est ab eo conventu digressus affirmat codem quo ante loco Oecolampadium Zuinglium habere quos illic fratrum loco posthà c fore sancte pollicitus est Hactenâ—â— Calvinus Him who hath beene most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause to shew first what hee held not and then what hee held If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not hee will answer you I. I do abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence And II. I have an hundred times disclamed the receiving onely of a Figure in this Sacrament What then did hee hold III. Our Catehisme teacheth saith hee not onely a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our soules And with Swinckfeldius maintaining onely a Figurative perception wee have nothing to do If you further demand what is the Feeding whereby wee are united to Christ's Body in this Sacrament hee tells you IV. that it is Not Carnall but Spirituall and Reall and so Reall that the Soule is as truely replenished with the lively virtue of his flesh by the powerfull worke of the Spirit of God as the Body is nourished with the Corporall Element of Bread in this Sacrament If you exact an expression of this Spirituall Vnion to know the maner hee acknowledgeth it to be V. above Reason If further you desire to understand whether hee were not Singular in this opinion hee hath avouched the judgement of other Protestants professing not to dissent one syllable from the VI. Augustane Confession as agreeing with him in judgement herein Accordingly our Church of England in the 28 Article saith that To such as worthily with faith receive this Sacrament The Bread which wee breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ which Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper onely after a spirituall and heavenly maner the meane whereby as Faith That the Body of Christ by this Sacrament was ordayned onely for food to the Christian man's Soule SECT III. WHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers which are many in this Point of Dispute having before us the judgement of your b Summus Salvâ—tor hoc Sacramentum voluit esse tanquam spiritualem animarum cibum quo alamur confortemur viventes vita illius quo dixit Qui mand ucat me c. Concil Trid. Sess 13. ca. 2. Fathers of the Councell of Trent and of your c Sacramento utendum ad alendam animam Catech. Trid. de Euch. num 29. Romane Catechisme authorized by the same Councell both which affirme that Christ ordained this Sacrament to be the Spirituall food of man's Soule In which respect the Body of Christ is called Spirituall in your Popes d Decret ex Ambros de mysterijs Corpus Christi est Corpus Spirituale Disâ— 2. ca. In illo Decree The Consonant Doctrine of the Fathers will be found in the last Chapter and last Section of this Fift Booke That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Conjunction can be SECT IV. THe soule of man being the most Essentiall and Substantiall part of man because a Spirit immortall and the flesh of Christ being the most Substantiall of all food and theréfore called as of ancient e Ambros lib. 5. de Sacram. cap. 4. Fathers even so by your Fathers of f Conc. Trident. Panem illum supersubstantialé frequenter accipiant Sess 13. ca. 8. Trent Supersubstantiall Bread it must necessarily follow that as it is named by Christ * Ioh. 6. 32. The true Bread and the Life thereby which is the Effect of the Spirituall eating thereof is the most true and Reall Life because Everlasting So the Vnion Spirituall which a Christian hath in his soules feeding is the most Reall and true Vnion as may sufficiently appeare by Analogie To wit that Bread and Wine being the most vitall nourishments for the conservation of man's bodily Essence are therefore chosen as the Fathers teach to represent and exhibit unto him although in themselves but Signes and Symbals the very Body and Blood of Christ Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ are our Reall nourishments in this Sacrament And such as is our food such must be our Vnion by feeding thereon which wee say is by Faith in this Sacrament and you may not gain-say it who to comfort your Disciples are g Alanus alij ex citatis Authoribus dicunt quando reipsa non potest suscipi hoc Sacramentum ad perficiendam hanc unionem sufficere quod hoc Sacramentum in voto suscipiatur quia hoc satis est ut homo fiat membrum Christi vivum uniatur illi Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 64. §. 3. p. 824. Satis est si spiritualiter manducatur in voto etiamsi non Sacramentaliter Acoâ—â—a Ies de Indorum Salute lib. 6. cap. 7. Vere Spiritualiter sumunt qui fide tenent sub iltis speciâ—bus verum esse corpus Christi simul ipsum desiderio recipendi ardeant Tolet. Ies Instruct Sacerd. lib. 21 cap. 29. taught to instruct them that even without this Sacrament the Spirituall Vnion may be presented to the Soule of man with the Body of Christ and that as a sufficient meanes of uniting him to Christ by a Spirituall maner of Eating And this you say is To receive Christ his Body truely albeit this be to receive him onely by faith and desire So you Whence you perceive our Inference viz. If our Spirituall Vnion with Christ his Body may be really and truly made by Faith and Desire without this Sacrament then in our Sacramentall Eating thereof may the Communicant be much more made partaker thereof by Faith and ardent Desire the Sacrament it selfe being a Sâ—â—le of this our Christian Faith CHAP. II. That onely the Godly-faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and thereby united to Christ in the judgement of Protestants SECT I. OVr Church of England in her 28. and 29. Article saith thus The Body of Christ is given to be eaten in this Sacrament onely after a Spirituall maner even by faith wherein the wicked and such as are voyd
Missae Petrus de Palude Non potest evomi nisi quod in stomachum est trajectum Et quod dicit 〈◊〉 illa Glossa quod in secessum non emittitur sed per sudorem aliter emanat fatuum est fingere qui per secessum taliter emitti possunt species sicut emitteretur substantia panis vin non aliter Illa autem quanquam non corrupta emituntur ut in habentibus fluxum ergo species propter quod non est danda Eucharistia habenti talem fluxum quia se emittit integrum quod sumit sicut nec habenti vomitum 〈◊〉 istud magis cederet in irreverentiam Sacramenti quam illud Igitur Corpus Sanguis Christi tamdiu manet in ventre stomacho vel vomitu quocunque alibi quamdiu species manet sicut substantia conversa mansistet si species incorruptae evomuntur vel egrediuntur ut ibi verè Corpus Christ The formes of Bread and Wine do as verily goe into the Stomack and so after into the Draught as could the Substance of either of them if they were there and yet sometimes passe out uncorrupted in Bodies infirme and especially those that labour of the Fluxe Because some so diseased persons do let passe from them that which they eat as uncorrupt as they received it whether it be by Vomit or by Egestion into the Seege So hee Which againe is a Doctrine so verily Romish that your owne Casust in his Booke enstiled Morall Resolutions propoundeth two Cases and afterwards manerly saving your presence resolveth them thus 25 Iohannes Baptista de Bertis Qu. 5. Art 6. Dub. 5. Quid agendum sit si post sumptionem sanguinis patiatur Sacerdos vomitum vel ex infirmitate emittit per secessum quod sumpsit Et idem Iohann Baptista Qu. 5. Artic 3. Dub. 5. Quid agendum si quis post sumptionem sanguinis Christi statim patiatur vomitum Resp Reverenter colligantur species panis si decerni possunt reponantur in sacrario vel sumantur ab aliquo si saltem adsit aliquis ad sumendum dispositus absque nausea ea in quibus inventae fuerunt species comburantur cineres in Sacrario recondantur idem dicendum est si ex infirmitate statim emittat per secessum that If any after the receiving of the Body of Christ shall be provoked by Vomit upward or else by Egestion to cast them out then that the formes of both may be Reverently licked up if any can performe this without loathsomnesse So hee Might this be Possible Wee returne to your Relater Antoninus out of Plaudanus giving you an example of a Devout man much commended by one 26 Antoniâ—â— quo supra Et siquidem homo esset tanti fervoris quod hujusmodi non horreret sed sumeret commendandus esset si tamen esset jejunâ—s Sic Beatus Hugo Cluniacus commendavit Goderanum sumendo partiunculas Hostiae quas leprosus cum vilissimo sputu evomuerat dicens Cratuculam Laurentij esse tollerabiliorem Nec puto eos sibi contrarios sed dictum Thomae videtur intelligendum cum jam videtur species Sacramenti alierata scilicer quod debet comburi animal Dictum verò Petri cum factum est ita recens quòd adhuc creditur species Sacramenti permanere in stomacho tunc debet exenterari Hugo For Licking up the Hoast vomited and after affirming that the suffering on Saint Laurence his Gridiron had beene more tolerable than this So they How like you this For mislike it you may not it being the naturall Brat and Off-spring of your Generall Romish faith Believing as hath beene sayd that the Body and Blood of Christ is under the Consecrated formes of Bread and of Wine wheresoever so long as the same formes remaine uncorrupted This Theme will not permit much Discussion for as the Saying is Omne Coenum maâ—è olet commove senties odorem Wee hasten to the next Section That the very Imagination of this Former Romish Beastly Doctrine would have beene held of the Ancient Fathers most Abominable SECT II. THe Holy Fathers if they had beene of your Romish Faith concerning the Corporall Presence of Christs Body in this Sacrament must have held also your Romish Conclusion of a Possibility of Egestion the Conceipt whereof they did greatly abhorre For * Cyril Hierosol See above Booke 4. cap â—◠§. â— Cyril of Ierusalem to the end that hee might abstract mens mindes from all such monstrously-prophane and Base thoughts and conceptions concerning the Body of Christ denyed peremptorily that Christs Body can passe into the Seege Which also seemed to be so unsavorie and loathsome to * Chrysost Ibid. Chrysostome that hee spit at the first thought thereof with an Absit as much as to say Fy upon it in execration thereof Some Creatures are said for keeping Hunters from pursuing them to cast Dung and Filth backward in their faces and so it falleth out in a maner here where the Turpitude and Beastlinesse of your Doctrine forbiddeth us to inlarge our Confutation and therefore wee hasten to a Conclusion That the Institution of this Sacrament was ordained to be Food onely for the Soule and not for the Body according to the Iudgement of Antiquitie SECT III. THis Proposition hath beene already * See above ch 2. § 3. confessed by your Councel of Trent and Romane Catechisme and confirmed by the Consent of * See above ch 10. §. 5. Antiquity it selfe where it was manifested that albeit they sometime make mention of it's being Food and Life to the Body also yet was not this as your Jesuites have * Ibid. confessed so sayd in respect of any immediate Bodily preservation therof in this Life but in the Everlasting Life of Glorification in the Day of Resurrection after it be reunited to the Soule according to that Promise of Christ Ioh. 6. excepting only the Analogicall and Sacramentall maner of Feeding which wee defend that is to say As the Body Feedeth Corporally on the Sacrament Bread so is the Soule nourished Spiritually with Christs Body and Blood Otherwise the Ancient Fathers maintayned a sole Soule-feeding on Christs Body in which respect as one of your 27 Casaub Ex. erâ—it 16. cap. 39. Vocant Graeci Patres hoc Sacramentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 owne learned Authors hath informed you The Greek Fathers called that which wee receive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Supersubstantiall Bread 28 Tertull. de Orat. Aug. Epist 121. Isidor Hisp de â—ffic lib. 1. cap. 5. Ambros lib. 5. de Sacramentis Non est iste cibus qui vadit in corpus sed qui animae substantiam fulcit Bertram de Corpore Domini Vbi loquitur Ambrosius de Corpore Domini Origen in Genes cap. 24. Christus est panis vitae pascit animas esâ—rientes Tertull de Resurrect de Carne Christi Panis coelestis auditu devoranduâ— intellectu ruminandus fide
Christ brake it but the Catholik Church meaning the Romane now doth not breake it but giveth it whole And this you pretend to doe for reverence sake Lest as your q A multo tempore non usurpâ—â—r fractio sed singuli panes seu minores hostiae consecrantur ad evitandum periculum decidentium micatum Lorin Ies in Act. 2. 42. Iesuite saith some crummes may fall to the ground Neither is there any Direction to your Priest to Breake the Bread either before or after Consecration in your Romane Masse especially that which is distributed to the people CHALLENGE BVt now see we pray you the absolute Confession of your owne Doctors whereby is witnessed first that Christ brake the bread into twelve parts r Fregit Nimirùm in toâ— particulas quot erant Apostoli manducaturi praeter suam quam Christus primus accepit Et ut quidam non indiligenter annotavit quemadmodùm unum calicem communem omnibus tradidit ad bibendum ità unâ palma panem in 12. buccellas fractum manibus suis dispensavit Salmer quo suprà Tract 12. §. Sequitur p. 77. Apostolus Act. 2. Vocat Eucharistiam fractionem panis ob ceremoniam frangendi panem in tot particulas quot sunt communicaturi ut Christus fecit in coena Quem morem longo tempore Ecclesia retinuit de quo Apostolus Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio corporis Christi Domini in qua fractione pulchrè representatur Passio corporis Christi Idem Ies Tract 35. §. Vocat pag. 288 In fractione Panis Act 2. Indicat fractionis nomen antiquam consuetudinem partiendi pro astantibus sive manu sive cultro quià panis azymus glutinosus it à facilius dividitur Lorinus Ies in eum locum p. 138. col 2. Benedictionem sequitur hostiae fractio fractionem sequitur Communio Hunc celebrandi morem semper Ecclesia servavit tà m Graeca quà m Latina quarum Liturgiae etsi in verbis aliquandò discrepent certè omnes in eo conveniunt quòd partes has omnes Missae Christi exactè repraesentent nihil de essentialibus omittentes Vsus autem Ecclesiae ejus celebrandi ordonos docent qualis fuit Christi Missa quo illam ordine celebravit Archieâ— Caesar var. Tract p. 27. according to the number of Communicants 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 Christs bodie upon the Crosse but also in the common participation thereof representing the Vnion of the Mysticall body of Christ which is his Church Communicating together of one loafe that as many graines in one loafe so all faithfull Communicants are united to one Head Christ as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10. thus The bread which wee breake is it not the Communion of the bodie of Christ for we being many are one bread Wee 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 us so was Christ Crucified for us 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 do grant unto us 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 Ceremony of Breaking bread was continually observed Which may bee unto us 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 never so repugnant to the will of Christ and Custome of the truly-called Catholike Church Howbeit wee would not bee so understood as to thinke it an Essentiall Ceremonie either to the being of a Sacrament or to the Sacramentall Administration but yet requisite for the Commandement and Example-sake In the next place to your Pretence of Not-breaking because of Reverence Wee 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 cleave sometimes unto 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 than all the Apostles or Fathers of primitive times who continued the same Breaking of Bread Therefore this your Contempt of Breaking what is it but a peremptory breach of Christ his Institution never regarding what the Scripture saith * 1 Sam. 15. 22. 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 sense of the next words of Christs Command viz. GAVE IT VNTO THEM SECT V. IT followeth in the Canon of Christ his Masse And he gave it unto them even to THEM to whom he said Take yee eate ye 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 a Missâ—s illas in quibus solus Sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat probat atque adeò commendat Concil Trid. Sess 22. cap 6. Councell of Trent doth approve and commend the Masses wherein the Priest doth Sacramentally communicate alone So your Church CHALLENGE BVt who shall justifie that her Commendation of the alone-communicating of your Priest which wee may justly condemne by the liberall b Sunt qui in Missâ— communionem recruirunt sic faceor à Christo institutum fuit ita olim fieri consu vit Eras Concord Eccles vers sinem Act. 2. Erant coÌ„municantes in Oratione communicatione fractionis Panis id est in Eucharistia non-minùs quà m oratione Lorinus Ies in Act. 2. 46. Odo Cameracens in Canonem seribit Missas solitarias antiquitùs in usu Ecclesiae non fuisse Et hunc fuisse
Christ that is with the same Intention as Christ when hee said This of the Bread then in his hands the Priest saying This should intead and meane that This Bread whereof Christ spake and not that which is in his owne hands which now he intendeth to Consecrate and Consequently should he make no Consecration at all And what hereupon must become of your Romish Masse in your Transubstantiation Sacrifice and Adoration you may understand in the next Section The full Overthrow of the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation Corporall Presence Personall Sacrifice and Adoration Consequently upon the former Confutation of your Romish Significative Pronunciation of Christ's words by the Priest SECT V. TRuly hath your Iesuite * See above in the Second Section Suarez expressed the Doctrine of your Church as followeth Except these words This is my Body be taken Significatively and formally they worke no Consecration nor can it be collected that that which is now in the hands of the Priest is the true Body of Christ So he alleging the Couâ—acel of Trent for his warrant But the words as they are pronounced by the Priest cannot possibly be taken Significatively but onely in the way of Rehearsing and Repeating them No one Iota in the Text or Context No one Testimonie of Antiquitie No one Reason or yet competent Example hath beene alleged by any of your Doctors for proofe of the Contrary This point needeth no more discussion onely for further Illustration-sake wee shall commend unto you a more proportionable Example than was any that hitherto your Sophisters have invented which because your Iesuites have affected the * See above in the first and second Sections Similitudes of Historicall and Comicall Representations wee shall likewise borrow from that Stage If therefore any Romish Priest should Act the part of Aäron in imitating an operative Speech of turning and Transubstantiating a Rod into a Serpent in saying to suppose Aäron to have said so This is my Serpent yet could not your Priest possibly deliver the same words Significatively as in the person of Aäron either in saying This because This Rod spoken of by the Priest is not the same Rod whereof Aäron said This nor yet in the word My because that wherof Aäron said My Serpent cannot possibly bee said accordingly My Serpent by the Priest as your selves well know And therefore doth this discover your Romish Intoxication in your Significative Exposition of these words This and My in the Speech of Christ THE THIRD BOOKE Treating of the First Romish Doctrinall Consequence pretended to arise from your former depraved Exposition of Christ's wordes This is my Body called TRANSVBSTANTIATION Your Doctrinall Romish Consequences are Five viz. the Corporall 1. Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ called Transubstantiation in this Third Booke 2. Existence of the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament called Corporall Presence in the Fourth Booke 3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bodies of the Communicants called Reall or Materiall Conjunction in the Fifth Booke 4. Sacrificing of Christ's Body by the hands of the Priest called a Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Sixth Booke 5. Worshipping with Divine Worship called Latria or Divine Adoration of the same Sacrament in the Seventh Booke After follow the Additionals in a Summary Discoverie of the Abominations of the Romish Masse and the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof in the Eighth Booke THese are the five Doctrinall Consequences which you teach and professe and which wee shall by God's assistance pursue according to our former Method of Brevity and Perspicuity and that by as good and undenyable Evidences and Confessions of your owne Authours in most points as either you can expect or the Cause it selfe require And because a Thing must have a Begetting before it have a manner of Being therefore before wee treate of the Corporall Presence wee must in the first place handle your Transubstantiation which is the manner as wee may so say of the Procreation thereof CHAP. I. The State of the Controversie concerning the Change and Conversion professed by Protestants which is Sacramentall And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall First of the Sacramentall SECT I. THere lyeth a charge upon every Soule that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament that herein hee Discerne the Lords Body which Office of Discerning according to the judgement of Protestants is not onely in the use but also in the Nature to distinguish the Object of Faith from the Object of Sense The First Object of Christian Faith is the Divine Alteration and Change of naturall Bread into a Sacrament of Christs Bodie This wee call a Divine Change because none but the same * See hereafter Chap. 4. §. 1. 2. Omnipotent power that made the Creature and Element of Bread can Change it into a Sacrament The Second Object of Faith is the Body of Christ it selfe Sacramentally represented and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Communicants There are then three Objects in all to be distinguished The First is before Consecration the Bread meerely Naturall Secondly After Consecration Bread Sacramentall Thirdly Christs owne Body which is the Spirituall and Supersubstantiall 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 a Est conversio totius substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi totius substantiae Vini in sanguinem manentibus duntaxat speciebus Panis Vini quam quidem Conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissimè Transubstantiationem appellat Conc. Trid. Sess 13. Can. 2. Trent is thus defined Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance of Bread into the Body of Christ and of Wine into his Blood Which by the Bull of b Ego N. N jurò hinc Conversionem fieri quam Catholica Ecclesia appellat Transubstantiationem Extrà quam fidem nemo salvus esse potest Bulla Pij 4. super formâ luram nit professionu Fidei Pius the Fourth then Pope is made an Article of Faith without which a man cannot bee saved Which Article of your Faith Protestants beleeve to bee a new and impious Figment and c Transubstantiationem Protestantes esse sceleratam Haeresin dicunt Bell. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 11. Heresie The Case thus standing it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Foundation As for the Church of England shee professeth in her 28. Article saying of this Transubstantiation that It cannot bee 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 SVPERSTITIONS CHAP. II. The Question is to be examined by these grounds 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 Sense of Christ
Body of Christ not onely 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 bin the reason why Saint Augustine taught Christ to be g August Tract 50. in Ich. Habemus Christum in praesenti ad Baptismatis Sacramentum habemus in praesenti ad Altaris cibum potum Tom. 9. 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 whersoever 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 Objection made by your h Athanas apud Theodoret. Dial. 2. pag. 330. Corpus est cui dicit Sede à dexteris meis per quod corpus Pontifex fuit dictus est per id quod tradidit mysterium dicens Hoc est corpus meum This was objected by Bellarmine lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 11. 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 therof 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 wee are to manifest That the Romish Disputers do Odiously Slanderously and Vnconscionably vilifie the Sacrament of the Eucharist as it is celebrated by PROTESTANTS SECT III. BEllarmine with others i Christus nihil est illis nisi frustum panis vini portiuncula Salmeron Ies in Epist pauli disput 11. §. Septimo EucharistiaÌ„ esse tantùm figuram haeresis est antiqua haec Calvini haeresis Bellar. de Not. Ecclesiae c. 9. §. Quorundam Malè cocta bâ—ccella mysterium carnale nihil divini portentat Refigit inquiunt in memoriam Christi meritum ejusque generi nostrò collata beneficia Augustum sanè I nihil deterius ipsa praesta oculis nostris inspecta imago Crucifixi Westen de 3. hominis offic c. 16 Purus putus panis pistorius merum meracum sive vinum cauponarium Espenc de Adorat lib. 5. cap. 9. p. 188. object against Protestants saying that Their Sacrament is nothing else but a crust of Bread and pittance of Wine And againe A morsel 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 onely 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 k Docet Calvinus Symbola corpus Christi licet loco inter se plurimùm distenâ— tamen conjuncta esse non solum ratione signi quià unum est signum alterius sed quià per signum Deus verè nobis exhibet ipsum corpus verum sanguinem quo animae nostrae verè alantur Bellar. l. 1. de Euc. c. 1. â—it Calvinus affirmat saepiùs Christi corpus esse praesens in Sacramento quatenus ibi animis nostris verè unitur communicatur substantialiter sic enim loquitur secundum substantiam non modò secundum effectum Et Fortunatus Calvinista dicit in Sacramento corpus Christi versari realissimeque percipi Valent. Ies Tom. 4. disp 6. quaest 3. punct 1. §. 7. p. 9. Idem Sadael Beza sentiunt Idem ibid Haec est eorum sententia licet Christi corpus corporaliter essentialiter sit in coelo nihilominus duplici modo in hoc Sacramento verè percipi spiritualiter sacramentaliter spiritualiter quidem ore mentis non dentis id est per fidem coÌ„junctionem virtute Spiritus Sancti in animo communicantis sacramentaliter etiam ore quidem corporis sumendo non ipsum quidem corpus ejus sed signum corporis ejus panem vinum quae dicit esse sigilla certa quibus promissio redemptionis in corpore sanguine Christi fidelibus obsignatur Valent. quo supra Although the Body of Christ be still in Heaven yet is it received in this Sacrament first Sacramentally by Bodily mouthes in receiving 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 l Calvin in his Booke intituted Defensio Carvini de Sacramento Augustana Confessio In sacra Coenâ verè dari cum Pane Vino ipsum Corpus Christi Sanguinem Huic consenâ—um nostrum praebemus Absit verò ut nos vel Coenae Symbolo suam auferamus veritatem vel plus animas tanto privemus beneficio Defens pag. 28. Hujus rei non fallacem oculis figuram proponi dicimus sed pignus nobis porrigi cui res ipsa veritas conjuncta est quòd scilicet Christi Carne Sanguine animae nostrae pascantur Ibid. pag. 44 Sacram unitatem quam nos habemus cum Christo sensui carnis incomprehensibilem fatemur esse Ibid. 45. Spiritualem cùm dicimus fremunt quasi hac voce realem ut vulgò vocant tollamus Nos verò si reale pro vero accipiant ac fallaci imaginatio opponunt Barbare loqui mallemus quà m pugnis materiam praebere Scimus enim quà m non deceant logomachiae Christi servos Ibid. pag. 46. Quasi verò nobis cum Swinkfeldio quicquam sit commune qui nudum signum docuit Ibid. Defens 2. pag. 35. Figuraram esse locutionem fatemur modò non tollatur figurae veritas hoc est modò res quoque ipsa adlit Ibid. pag. 43. Substantiâ Corporis Christi animas nostras bene pasci fateor tamen substantialem praesentiam quam imaginantur repudio Ibid. pag. 55. Nec aliter sanctae memoriae Bucerum sensisse luculentissimis testimonijs probare mihi semper prompum erit Ibid. pag. 61. In veteri Testamento nondum carnem induerat filius
thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 âšœ Bellarmine in great numbers among whom are Luther and Calvin with joynt consent approve of this Canon one of them Bucer by name subscribing unto it with his owne hand in these words So I thinke in the Lord and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall seat of God So they The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines âšœ Where any man may discerne an Allusion of the Fathers to the words of Saint Paul Colos 3. Seeke those things that are above and not on Earth and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referreth to things on Earth and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the things above in Heaven and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoke of the Table opposite to that Table whereof it was sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as much as There to Here. âšœ The state of the Difference concerning this Canon SECT III. THis as is propounded by your Cardinall standeth thus d Per Agnum omnes intelligunt Christum ut distinguitut contra symbo la Bellar. quo supra Illi Protestantes quasi admoneaÌ„t nè quaerendum Christum in Altarâ— lapideo Sed monte conscendamus ad coelum in coelo sisum Agnum At vult Concilium ut ad sacram ipsam mensam attendamus sed in ipsa non tam Symbola quà m quae sub illis latent consideremus Ibidem per totum All saith hee by the Lambe understand Christ as hee is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar Next But the Protestants thinke saith hee that the Councel admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith as sitting at the Right hand of God But wee all say saith hee that the Councel would have us to attend unto the holy Table meaning the Altar below yet so that wee see in it not so much the outward Symbols and Signes as that which lyeth hid under them viz. The Body and Blood of Christ So hee The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder that is between Heaven above and Earth below Let us set forward in our progresse but with easie and even paces to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes and rottennesse of your Objections That the Nicene Councell is marveilously prejudiciall to your Romish Defence proved by divers Observations Three heere SECT IV. FIve Points are chiefly observable in this Canon First is the nomination of Bread Secondly the mention of two Tables Thirdly the admonition to lift up our minds Fourthly the expression of the Reason thereof Fiftly the Confirmation of the same Reason First That which the Councel would that men be not too intent unto they call Bread after Consecration for the Errour which they would have avoyded was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament according to your Cardinals e Iubet Concilium ut non inhaereamus speciebus panis vini quasi ibi nihil sit nisi quod oculi renuntiant Bellarm quo supra Glosse and then was it after Consecration because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated w ch you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing or else the Errour must have been as indeed it was too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread which must needs be so because it was Consecrated and notwithstanding it being so Consecrated in the Canon it is called Bread Which your Fathers of the Councel of Trent would not have indured especially seeing that wee find that your f Nic. Cabasâ—las Latini dicunt eos qui panem vinum nominant tanquam nondum sanctificatis precantur sanctificationem post illa verba Hoc est Corpus meum rem supervacuam facere Expos Liturg. c. 29. Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words This is my Body by you called the words of Consecration Besides they so call them Bread and Wine as they name them Symbols and Signes which properly they could not be untill after Consecration Secondly the g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Nicen Canon expresly noteth and distinguisheth two Tables in respect of place the one as Here being as much as to say The Table and the other opposed hereunto is instiled That Table I say And now be it knowne that The Table here which is not to be represented by the Antithesis of But that Table must necessarily inferre two distinct Tables as Here and There doe prove two distinct Places except one can make congruitie of these words That Table Here. Which I note in Confutation of a vaine and crotchetive Objector And of this Table Here the Councel 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 only but they also distinguish them in respect of their different Objects The Object of the First Table Here they name Bread and the Cup the Objects of Sense And the other Object opposed to this is that on the other Table expressed to be the Lambe God the Object of our mindes Thirdly the Admonition or Caution which the Councel giveth concerning the Bread is not to be too intent to it but touching the Lambe Christ they command us to lift up our mindes aloft for so the world h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie not to be used wee thinke for an inward looking into the sublimiy of the mystery of the matter before us as your Cardinall fancieth but for looking up aloft unto the Lambe of God in Heaven according to the Catholike Sense of those words * See hereafter Book 7. Chap. 4. §. 2. SVRSVM CGRDA The next two Proofes out of the same Canon of Nice to manifest our Protestant profession touching the Question in hand SECT V. 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 eat in this Sacrament a power of sanctifying the Body by it's Bodily touch But much more will the next Proofe undermine your Defence To confirme their Reason why the Sacrament was not ordayned for the satisfying of the
Christ by Faith whereof first Saint Ambrose 1 Ambrosius in Luc. 24. Paulus docuit ubi te reperire possiâ—â—â— ubi ait Si consurrexistis cum Christo quae sursum sunt sapâ—â—e non super terram Ergo non quae supra terram nec in terra nec secundum carnem te quaerere debemus si volumus invenire Nunc enim secundum carnem jam non novimus Christum Denique Stephanus non supra terram quae 〈◊〉 qui stantem 〈◊〉 ad dextram Dei vidit Maria autem quae quaerebat in terra tangere non potuit Stephanus teâ—igit quia quaesivit in coelo Many saith hee sought Christ on Earth but could not touch him But Stephen touched him who sought him in Heaven Consonantly Saint Augustine who to this Question If Mary touched not Christ on Earth what mortall man shall touch him in Heaven Answereth 2 Aug. tom 10. de Temp. Serm. 152. Sin in torra positum Christum Maria non tangio in coelo sedentem quis mortalium possit tangere Sed ille tactus fidem significat Tangit Christaâ— qui credit in eum There is a Touch by Faith hee that believeth in Christ Toucheth him âšœ Thirdly you allege 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 * See above c. 1. Sect. 2. hath beene both proved and confessed a Reall and true participation of Christs Body aâ—d Blood spiritually without any Corporall Conjunction But it is added saith hee that These namely the Body and Blood of Christ are Symbols of our Resurrection which is by reason that our Bodies are joyned with the Body of Christ otherwise if our Conjunction 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 forâ—er For the word HAâ—C These which are called Symbols of our Resurrection may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ immediately spoken of and placed on the Table in Heaven which wee Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies because * See below Booke 5. Cap. ◠§. 1. 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 maner of the Greekes to wit Bread and Cup on the first Table because as immediatly followeth they are these whereof not much but little is taken as you have heard Which other * See below Booke 5. Cap. ◠§. 1. Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection without any Consequence of Christs Bodily Conjunction with our Bodies more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptisme which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection as doth also your Jesuite m Ad futuram Resurrectionem per Baptismi Sacramentum jus pignus accepimus Coster institut Christ lib. 4. c. 4. See more in the Booke following c. 8. Sect. 6. Coster call it The pledge of our Resurrection But this our Conjunction with Christ is the Subject matter of the fift Booke Lastly how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice is plentifully resolved in the * See Chap. 5. Sect. 4. 5. 6. sixt Booke THE FIFTH BOOKE Treating of the Third Romish Doctrinall Consequence arising from your depraved Sense of the words of Christs Institution THIS IS MY BODY concerning the maner of the present Vnion of Christs 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 the Inward which is Spiritual this Sacrament accordingly consisteth of two parts Earthly and Heavenly as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread Wine as the visible Signes and Objects 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 mans body in his Taking Eating Disgesting 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 Object of 〈◊〉 by an Vnion wrought by Gods Spirit and mans 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 * See below Ch. â— Sect. â— 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 wee first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Orthodox Truth Secondly to impugne your Romish Vnion as Capernaiticall that is Hereticall And thirdly to Determine the Point by comparing them both together Our Orthodox Truth will be found in the Propositions following That Protestants professe not onely a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body but also a Spiritually-Reall SECT II. IN all the Bookes of our Adversaries written against Protestants they are most especially vehement violent and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries as though wee professed no other maner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body than onely Sacramentall and Figurative For Confutation of which Calumnie it will be most requisite to propose the Apologie of a Calvin in hiâ—s libris viz. Consensio in re Sacramentariaâ— Diâ—ensio contra 〈◊〉 et Explicatio de vera participat coenae Dom. I. Fâ—teor me abhorrere ab hoc crasso commento localis praesentiae Substantiâ Christi animae nostrae pasâ—untur sed secundùm Virtutem non secundùm Substantiam II. Signum tantum pâ—â—rigi centies contrà Quasi vero cum Swinckâ—â—ldio quiâ—quam nobis commune III. In Catechismo disserui non solùm beneficiorum Christi significationem habemus in coena sed substantive participes in nam cum eo vitam coalescimus Figurata locutio fateor modò non tellatur rei veritas IV. Neque enim tantùm dico applicari merita sed ex ipso Christi corpore alimentum percipere animas non secùs ac terreno pane corpus vescitur Vim carnis suae vivisicans spiritus sui gratiâ in nos transs sundit Spiritualem dicimus non carnalem quamvâ—â— realem ut haec vox provera contra fallacem sumitur non secundùm substantiam quam vis ex ejus substantia vita in animas nostras prosâ—uit V. Ergò in coena miraculum agnoscimus quod naturae sines sensus nostri modum ex supoâ—at quod Christi caro
de illo facimus quidem in Sacramento id fit intelligit nos non parteÌ„ corporis Christi sumerâ—e sed Sacramenti Schoolemen discerned his meaning in the other words of Eating as yet not making parts of his Body but of the Sacrament of his Body âšœ Lastly do but call to mind Saint * See above Chap. §. 2. 〈◊〉 Augustines Observation just the same with the now-Cited Testimony of Athanasius to wit Christs mention of his Ascension in his Body from Earth lest that they might conceive of a Carnall Eating of his flesh and these Premises will fully manifest that Saint Augustines Faith was farre differing from the now Romish as Heaven is distant from Earth Wee still stand unto Christs Qualification of his owne speech when hee condemned all Carnall sense of Eating his flesh saying thereof The flesh profiteth nothing c. For Conclusion of this Point you may take unto you the Commentary of Saint i Chrysost in Iohan 6. Gracè Homi 47. Latinè Homil 46. Verba quae ego locutus sum Spiritus Vita Suâ—ritus hoc est Spiritus alia hoc enim nihil carnale nullam consequentiam carnalem habentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to non prodest quicquam Quid hoc nunc de ipsa carne dixit absit sed pro carnaliterâ— audite de ijs qui carnaliter accipiunt quae dicuntur Quomodo non prodest quicquam caro sine qua nemo potest rivere vide quod non de carne sed de carnali auditione dictum est Chrysostome as followeth Did not Christ therefore speake of his flesh farre be it from us saith hee so to thinke for how shall that flesh not profit without which none can have life but in saying The flesh profiteth nothing is meant the carnall understanding of the words of Christ And that you may know how absolutely hee abandoneth all carnall understanding of Christs words of Eating his flesh hee sayth They have no fleshly or naturall Consequence at all So hee Ergo say wee to the Confutation of your Romish Beliefe no Corporall touch of Christ in your mouths no Corporall Eating with your teeth no Corporall Swallowing downe your throat how much less any Corporall mixture in your Bellies or Guts as your Romane * See Chapt. 6. Sect. â— following Church professeth CHALLENGE WHether therefore the Capernaites though to eate Christs Flesh raw or roasted torne or whole dead or alive seeing that every Corporall Eating thereof properly taken is by the Fathers held as Carnall and Capernaiticall it cannot be that the Romish maner of Eating should accord in the Judgement of Antiquity with the Doctrine of Christ Notwithstanding you cite us to appeare before the Tribunall of Antiquity by objecting Counter-Testimonies of Ancient Fathers and wee are as willing to give you Answering The Extreme Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers in wresting the Figurative Phrases of Ancient Fathers to their Orall maner of Receiving the Bodie of Christ proved by just evidences out of the Fathers themselves SECT VI. IT is a miserable thing to see how your Authors delude their Readers by obtruding upon them the Sentences of Fathers in a literall sense against the evident Expressions of the same Fathers to the Contrary I. k Origen Hom. 5. 〈◊〉 divers Script Loca Sub tectum tuam ingreditur imitare Centurionem dic non sum dignus Domine c. Objic Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 8. Non vidi Adversariorum Responsum ad hoc Yea Resp Orig. ibid. Intrat nunc Dominus sub tectum credentium duplici figurâ seu more quaÌ„â—â— enim sancti Ecclesiarum Aâ—â—istites sub tectum tuum 〈◊〉 tunc ibidem Dominus per cos ingreditur tu sic existimes tanquam Dominum suscipiendum Theâ— followeth the other figure Cum hic sanctus cibus incorruptibile epulum c. Origen say you will have the Communicant to thinke himselfe unworthy that the Lord should enter under the roofe of his mouth Right hee saith so but in the same sense wherein hee equivalently sayd 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 l Chrysost Hom. 60. ad Pop. Antioch Mulâ—i dicunt se velle videro ejus formam ipse concedit non tantum videre sed tangere monducare dentibus terere So Chrysâ—t ibid. Lingua rubescit sanguine Christi Et lib. 3. de Sacerdâ—â—io â—om 47. in Ioh. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritualia sunt Wee see touch eate and teare with our teeth the Flesh of Christ True but to note that hee spaâ—e it in a Rhetoricall Figurative sense he equivalently saith also in the same place Our tongues are made red with his Blood And elsewhere to put all out of question * See his testimonie in the former Section at i These saith he are Spirituall and containe no Carnall thing Yet what need you our Comment Your Josuit Maldonate would haue gladly prevented us 3 Dentibus teri quemadmodum Chrysost locuâ—us est haec non postunt nisâ— Sacramento tenus intelligt non propriâ— Maldon Ies in Matt. 26. 26. The words of Chrysostome saith hee of tearing the Flesh of Christ cannot be otherwise understood than Sacramentally Euen he which concluded but now that to say * See above Ch. 4. Sect. 2. We eat Christs Flesh properly is a false proposition âšœ And touching the other Phrase S. Augustine as Emphatically of Baptisme 4 Aug. in Ioh. Tract 11. Vnde rubet Baptismus nisi Christi sanguâ—e consecratus It is red with the Blood of Christ âšœ III. Gaudentius say you saith o Gaudent Promisit corpus suum porâ—igit tibi corpus suum corpuâ— accipis De pane fecit corpus proprium c. Obj. Bellar lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 21. Albeit a little after upon these words Nist manducaveritis Voluâ—t Christus animas nostras precioso suo sanguine sanctiâ—icariâ— per imaginem pretiosae passionis quâ— omnes fideles populi exempla passioâ—s ante oculos hâ—bentes quotidie gerentes in manibus ore sumentes ac pectore redemptionis nostrae opas indelebili memoâ—â teneamus Gandent Tract 2. de Ratione Sacramentorum We receive the Body which Christ reacheth making of Bread his Body We grant he sayd so but hee interpreteth himselfe saying Christ would have our soules sanctified with the Image of his Passion Againe scan but his former words Christ made his Body de Pane of Bread in the literall Sense and it will infer a Body of Christ not made of the flesh of the Virgin IV. But p Aug lib. â— Con. adver Legist Proph. cap. 9. Christum sanguinem dantem fideli corde ac ore suscipmus Ob. Bellaâ— quo supra cap. 24 §. In Sexto Augustine teacheth that We receive the Body of Christ both with heart and mouth Which your q
verbo Dei juxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum â—ijcitur Caeterum juxta precationem pro proportione fidei factus sit utilis efficiens ut perspicax sit animus Nec materia panis sed super eo dictus sermo prodest non indigne comedenti Et haeâ— quidem de Symbolico corpore multa porro de verbo dici possunt quod factum est caro verusque cibus quem qui comederit vivet in aeternum The materiall part of this meate Sanctified by prayer passeth into the Draught which saith hee I speake of the Symbolicall Bodie c. Here will be no place for your i Bellar. Ista omnia recte intelligâ— possunt de Eucharistia at materiale quod in secessum abit sunt accidentia non respectu formae naturalis sed sanctificationis magnitudinis nam magnitudo ad materiam potius pertinet quam ad formam Et per hoc quod Symbolicum corpus vocat intelligit corpus Christi ut est hic Symbolum signum suiâ—psius ut â—rat in cruce lib. 2. de Euch. cap. â— Cardinalls Crotchets who confessing Origen to have spoken all this of the Eucharist would have us 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 than 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 Origens intention throughout every part of his Testimony For first That which he called Bread hee calleth also meat Sanctified Secondly That Meat he termeth Materiall Thirdly This Materiall he saith passeth into the Draught Lastly concluding his speech concerning the Sacramentall Body and saying Hitheâ— have I spoken of the Symbolicall Body immediatly he maketh his â—ransition to speake of the Incarnate Body of Christ as it is the True Soules meate But first meerely Accidents were never called by Ancient Fathers Meats Secondly never Materials Thirdly never Magnitude in it selfe without a Subject was judged otherwise than Immateriall Fourthly never any Immateriall thing to have Gravity or weight in pressing the guts to make an egestion into the Draught If every one of these be not yet all may make up a foure-fold Cord to draw any Conscionable man to grant that Origen was of our Protestants Faith âšœ And although Obstinacie it selfe should struggle with us touching the former sentence of Origen yet his words immediatly following should we think challenge a Consent Because cause after he had spoken of Sanctified meate meate Materiall meate which goeth into the Belly Meate whose matter doth not profit the Eater Meate passing into the Draught Meate named the Symbolicall Body which your Cardinall teacheth to betoken Christs owne naturall Body He immediatly after maketh a Transition from this Meate to that which he calleth the True meate and saith 3 Sequâ—tur apud Orig. in Matth c. 15. Haec quidem de Symbolico corpore multa porro de ipso verbo diâ—i possunt quod factum est caro ve â—usque cibus quem qui comederit ommino vivet in aeternum quem nullus malus potest 〈◊〉 nam si malus ederet verbum carnem factum cum sit panis vivus nequaquam scriptum 〈◊〉 Quisquis ederiâ— hunc panem vivâ—t in aeâ—ernum Further more many things might be spoken of the word which was made Flesh even the True Bread which whosoever shall eat shall live for ever which no wicked man can eate else should hee live for ever Directly opposing this Word made Flesh to that which he had called the Symbolicall Body Ergo say wee Origen your Cardinall must pardon us taught the Symbolicall Body and Christ True and proper Flesh to be two different Subjects And againe for better manifestation hee distinguisheth in their effects the one to be insufficient to give life the other to be Salvificall in it selfe even to Life everlasting And Thirdly hee differenceth them in their Eaters intimating that The wicked may be partakers of the former Symbolicall Bodie because of this flesh whereof the Scripture saith The Word was made flesh called the True meate he testifieth and professeth that No wicked man can eate this If in imitation of Origens discourse upon the Eucharist one should say of the Baptisme of a man of yeeres and growth thus Water in Baptisme is in it selfe a Liquor although profitable to the Receiver according to the proportion of Faith yet doth it clense onely the flesh and is afterward cast out of the Font into the Channell adding immediatly Thus much be spoken of the Symbolicall Water and should furthermore say many things of the True Water which is the virtue and grace of the Holy Ghost which whosover shall partake shall live for ever but whereof No wicked man can be partaker What man can be so seely as not to apprehend a plaine distinction made betâ—â—â—â—ene the Symbolicall Water and the Truly Spirituall which is the Grace of the Holy Ghost as differing in respect of their Essences Effects and in the Persons capable thereof âšœ As for your Cardinalls Pageant of Christs Body in this Sacrament as being a Signe and Symboll of it selfe as it was on the Crosse it * See Bookeâ— Chap. 2. Sect 6. hath once already and will the * Booke 6. c. 5. Sect. 7. second time come into play where you will take small pleasure in this figment Againe concerning the Body of Christ it selfe l Cyrâ—l Hierosol Catech Mystag â— Panis hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Cyrill Christianly denyeth it to goe either into the Bellie or into the Draught and m Chrysost de Euch. in Encaen Non sicut reliquâ— cibi in secesâ—um vadunt absitâ— ne sic cogites Chrysostome as judging the very thought thereof Execrable denyeth it with an Absit Finally n Ambros l. 5. de Sacram. ca. 4. Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus sed panis vitae 〈◊〉 qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit Ibid. supersubsta◠〈◊〉 Ambrose is so sarre from the proper Swallowing of Christ in this Sacrament that Distinguishing betweene Corporall Bread and the Body of Christ which he calleâ—h Super substantiall Bread and Bread of everlasting life for the establishing of mans Soule hee denyeth flatly that this is that Bread which goeth into the Body If any Mouse which you say may run away with the Hoast be wholly fed thereon for a moneths space the Egestion of that Creature will be as Absolute a Demonstration as the world can have that the matter fed upon after Consecration is Bread And why may you not as well grant a power of Egestion as confesse which you do in that Creature a Digestion thereof Two false Interpretations fell upon the Catholike Profession concerning the Doctrine of the
shewed in the Third Booke III. Vpon the same Sacramentall and Analogicall reason they have used to say that wee See Touch Tast and Eat Christs Body albeit Improperly as hath beene plentifully declared and confessed in this Fift Booke IV. Because Eating produceth a Nourishing and Augmentation of the Body of the Eater by the thing Eaten they have attributed like Phrases of our Bodily Nourishment and Augmentation by Christs Body which you your selves have confessed to be most Improperly spoken in the same Booke V. Almost all the former Vnions Corporall of our Bodies with Christ have beene ascribed by the same Fathers unto the Sacrament of Baptisme wherein there cannot Properly be any Corporall Touch or Conjunction at all As for example in saying I. That Wee in Baptisme hold the feet of Christ II. Are Sprinkled with his Blood III. Do Eat his flesh have Vnion with him in Nature and not onely on Affection IV. Being made Bone of his Bone and Flesh of his Flesh V. Thereby have a Pledge of our Resurrection to Life And a Pledge as you have now heard is of that which is Absent Each one of these and many other the like are abundantly alleged in the Eighth Booke of this Treatise of the Masse The summe of all these Premises is that wee are to acknowledge in the Objected Testimonies of Fathers concerning the Symbol and Sacrament of Christs Body their Symbolicall and Sacramentall that is Figurative Meanings And lest you may Doubt of the reason hereof we adjoyne the Section following The Divine Contemplations which the Holy Fathers had in uttering their Phrases of our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body and Nourishment thereby to Immortality for the Elevating of our minds to a Spirituall apprehension of his Body and Blood SECT V. YOur Jesuites Bellarmine Tolet Suarez and Vasquez have already instructed you not to take such Sayings of the Fathers as they are uttered lest the Fathers might be held to be Absurd in themselves or Derogatory to the Dignity and Majesty of this Sacrament And they say well But it had beene better if they had furthermore unfolded unto us the Fathers true Mysticall meaning therein which wee must endeavour to do out of the premised Sentences of the same Fathers to the end that you and wee may make an holy and comfortable use of their Divine meditations upon this Sacrament They have sayd I. That Christ hath a Naturall Vnion by his Godhead with God the Father II. That this Godhead of Christ by his Incarnation is united Hypostatically into our Nature of Manhood in him whereby wee have with Christ our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction III. That by the same Hypostaticall Vnion of his Divine and Humane Nature together his Bodily Flesh is become the Flesh of God his Blood the Blood of God IV. That these being the Flesh and Blood of God are become thereby to be Vivificall that is giving Life Blisse and Immortality both to the Bodies and Soules of the Faithfull in Christ V. That the Faithfull by Reason of the Specificall Vnion of their Humane nature with the Humane Nature of Christ are made partakers the reby of his Divine Nature and of all the Infinite Vivification and power of grace in this world and of Glory and Immortality in the world to come wrought by his Death and Passion VI. Both by Baptisme and by the Eucharist wee have a Naturall and Corporall Vnion with the Body of Christ mystically in as much as the Sacrament of Bread and Wine the Choycest Refections of mans Bodily Life are Touched Tasted Eaten and Sensually mixed with our Flesh to the nourishing and augmenting the same untill it become of the Essence of our Bodily Substance unseparably Therfore hath this Sacrament most aptly beene called a Pledge of an unspeakable Vnion of Christs Body with ours unto Immortality and an Earnest of our Resurrection Lastly from this Sacrament there resulteth a Spirituall Vnion continuing in the Faithfull after the Receiving of this Sacrament even all their life long and notwithstanding called by the same Fathers Corporall and Naturall that is as they interpret themselves from the Nature of Faith by believing that Christ had truly a Naturall and Bodily flesh the same Specifically with ours Which Vnion your Jesuites have beene enforced to acknowledge to be in it selfe not Properly a Corporall and Naturall Vnion but Spirituall and Mysticall wrought onely in the Soule But how This indeed is worthy our knowledge as a matter full of Christian Comfort Thus then The Disposition of the Body in Christian Philosophy followeth the Disposition of the Soule For when the Soules of the Faithfull departing this life in the state of Grace and the Soules likewise of the Vngodly passing but from hence into the thraldome of Sin shall resume their owne Bodies by virtue of that Resumption shall be made possessors of Life and Blisse both in Body and Soule and the Wicked contrarily of Curse and Damnation in both according to that Generall Doome Come you Blessed unto the one c. and Goe you Cursed to the other c. Nor will your learned Suarez deny this 22 Suarez in 3. Tho. qu 79. Disp 64. §. 2. Gloria corporis respondet gloriae animae sicut beatitudo animae respondet gratiae charitati ut sicut hoc Sacramentum neque habet nequè haberé potest aliam efficaciam circa gloriam animae praeter eam quam habet circa gratiam charitatem itaque neque aliter pâ—â—est efficere gloriam corporis quam gloriam animae CoÌ„dudit Hoc Sacramentum non aliam conferre vitam immortalitatem corporis quam nutriendo conservando charitatem gratiam The Glory of the Body saith hee dependeth upon the Glory of the Soule and the Happinesse of the Soule dependeth upon Grace therein neither doth the Sacrament any otherwise conferre Immortality to the Body but by nourishing and preserving grace in the Soule Which is Divinely spoken And yet wee have a more Ancient than your Jesuite even Cyprian one of the Ancientest of the Primitive Fathers whose words may serve us for a Comment upon the former objected Sayings of other Fathers Hee in his Discourse of the Supper of the Lord the Blessed Sacrament of our Vnion which the Faithfull Communicants have in receiving it 23 Cyprian de Câ—na Dom. Potus Esus ad eandem pertinent rationem quibus sicut corporea nutritur substantia vivit â—â—colum 〈◊〉 perseâ—erat ita vita spiritus hoc propâ—io alimento nutritur quod est esâ—a 〈◊〉 hoc animae est fides quod cibus corporiâ— est verbum spiritui excellentiori virtute peragens aeternaliter quod agant alimenta carnalia temporaliter As by meat and drinke saith hee the Substance of our Bodies is nourished and liveth in health so the life of the Spirit is nourished with this Aliment For what Meat is to the Flesh that is Faith to the Soule and what Food is to the Body that
the Word is to the Spirit working by a more excellent power for Eternity than can our Carnall Nutriments for our Temporall life and Being So hee Nothing now remaineth but the last exercise of Faith which is by Application in Speciall taught by our Saviour in saying to his Disciples Take ye Eat this is my Body given for you and This is my Blood of the New Testament shed for you Hereby although it be spoken as hath beene proved Sacramentally and Figuratively to instruct every of his Disciples in taking thereof to apply those words Body given for you c. as verily spoken to himselfe as if hee had sayd Take thou Iohn and Take thou Peter My Body given for thee Iohn and for thee Peter c. in a Sacramentall Analogie So then as my Bodily hand taketh the Sacramentall Bread the Signe of Christs Body and my Bodily mouth eateth and my Bodily stomacke digesteth and turneth it as nourishment into my flesh so my Soule saith that I believe that the Body of my Saviour was Crucifyed and his Blood shed for mee whole man Body and Soule And that thereby I have an Interest in the power of his Passion both for Redemption and for Everlasting Salvation whereof I have a Sacramentall Pledge by the converting of Bread into the Substance of mine owne Flesh According to the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity set downe in the last Chapter of this Fift Booke âšœ CHAP. X. Of the Romish Historicall Objections Chiefely insisted upon out of Iustine concerning the Slander raysed against Christians of Eating mans flesh sprung as is pretended from the Catholike Doctrine of Eating Christs Body in the Eucharist which is their First Argument SECT I. MAny leaves are spent by M. a Mr. Brerely in his Liturgie Tra. 2. §. 2. Subd 4. p. 121. Where in his Margin hee citeth Vadian whom hee nameth a Zuinglian And if so how farâ—e hee was from confessing a Corporall Presence the Romish Authors who condemne him for the contrary opinion doe prove See above Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Brerely in pressing this Objection the strength of his Inforcement standeth thus Iustine Martyr in the yeare 130. writing an Apologie to the Heathen Emperour when he 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 hee should have removed the suspicion thereof did notwithstanding call the Eucharist No common Bread but after Consecration the food wherewith our Flesh and Blood is fed c. Then hee proceedeth in urging his other Argument as followeth borrowed from the b Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. 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 * In the Margin of Master Berely Ibid. Attalas the Martyr whilest he was under the Tortures and Torments of his Persecutors saying Behold your Doing Hoc est homines devorare This is a Devouring of men wee Christians do not Devoure men To whom is joyned Tertullian making mention of the same Clamour of Sacrifising 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 hee âšœ And so long before him Doctor Heskins 1 Heâ—kins in his Parliament B. 2. Cap. 42. fol. 156. This fame among the Infidels being grounded upon the same faith of Christians proveth the Presence Meaning the Corporall Presence and Existence of Christs Body in the Eucharist That the Romish Objection is in it selfe most Slanderous against the Historicall Truth taught by the Ancient Fathers and Confessed by the Romish Doctors themselves SECT II. VVHat That the Catholike Doctrine of Ancient times concerning our Eating of Christ's Body in this Sacrament should have beene the Cause yea or yet the Occasion to the Heathen and Iewes of imputing to the Christians a Capernaiticall Eating of Man's flesh This is the first Argument which your Objectors from Historicall Relations use for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist out of this Ancient Father Iustine Martyr In Confutation whereof wee produce see the Margin the Testimonies of these Ancient Fathers 2 Aug. Haeres 26. Cataphryges Sacramenta perhibentur funesâ—a habere Nam de infanti anniculi sanguine quem de toto ejus corpore minutis punctionum vulneribus extorquent quasi Eucharistiam suam conficere perhibentur miscentes eum fariâ—ae panemquê inde facientes qui pâ—er si mortuus fuerit habent illum pro Martyre sin vivus pro Magno Saceâ—dote Augustine 3 Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum Haereticorum omnes nos blasphemant avertunt aures a praeconio veritatis Irenaeus 4 Terâ—ull ad uxorem Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante cibum gustes Agapae verò non nisi Vespere Tertul. Apolog. 16. Alij Asini caput per ludibrium Christiani appellabantur Asinarij c. Tertullian 5 Epiphan Haeres 26. Foelum jam natum detractum pistillo â—undunt omnes contusi pueri participes facti esu peracto c. Epiphanius and 6 Origen testatur opera Iudaeorum has calumâ—ias adversus Christianâ—s diâ—â—igatus lib. 1. contra Celsum 〈…〉 Origen together with the Confessions of your owne Romish Authors 7 Maâ—donat lib. 7. de Sacramentis Tom. de Eucharislia §. Sexta Questio Montanistae Peputiani ut Author est August lib. de Haeres c. 27. Epiph. in Haeres 49. Infantem conspersum farinâ solebant compungere sanguinem ab illa expressum miscere farinâ ex eo panem conficere ad Eucharistiam Vnde credo natam fuisse illam notam quam Gentiles inurebant Christianis quod infantes occiderent Maldonat 8 Baronius Anno 120. num 22. usque ad numerum 36. Quae Gnostici agebant in occulto palam facta coÌ„vertebant in Christianos nam Epiphanius Haeres 26. Foetum jam natum detractum pistillo tundunt omnes contusi pueri participes facti esu peracto c. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum Haereticorum omnes nos blasphemant averâ—unt aures a praeconio veritatis Origenes testatur opera Iudaeorum has calumnias adversus Christianos divulgatas lib. 1. con Celsum Caecilius Ethnicus apud Minutium Felicem obijcit in Octavium Baronius locis supra notatis Sic jam de initiandis tyronibus fabula tam detestanda quam nota est c. Lorinus Ies in Sap. cap. 12. v. 5. Striges Magi nostri puerorum sanguinem
CHRISTI SIGNIFICATVR If that there were no more force in the word SIGNIFICATVR than in NOMINATVR why did your Cardinall bogle and startle at it and utterly dash it out The Eighth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 135. pag. 191. S. CYPRIAN OB. NOn effigie sed is not set downe in the Latine sentence of Cyprian and Caro Factus est is left out in the English both of purpose as will be thought ANSW Neither I dare sweare on purpose because both of them are alleged the first NON EFFIGIE SED translated in the English and CARO FACTVS EST expressed in the Latine Our Advantage now is this to call to our Readers Remembrance that hee must interpret these words of Cyprian by that his other Saying namely that Things signifying are called by the same names by which things signified are called The Ninth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 135. pag. 191. M. BRERELY CYprian said Things Indifferent change their nature after they be commanded OB. Hee meant not simply but after a sort as the Testimonies shew which hee alleged ANSW He meant as simply as any Protestant can do saying a little before the words A thing of Indifferencie being determinated by the Church if it be violated is a sinne What is if this be not a Change of the Nature to become by reason of the Churches Decree of a thing Indifferent and not sinfull a thing sinfull and therefore not Indifferent The Tenth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 136. pag. 194. IVSTINE MARTYR OB. YOu make Iustine say that hee called the Eucharist therefore no common Bread because it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Sanctified meate ANSW And that I say millions of Popish Doctors at the first hearing would sweare to wit that the Church of Rome accounteth the matter of the Eucharist COMMON BREAD and WINE before it be Consecrated Our Advantage is that the Objector hath brought an whole house the Church of Rome it selfe which you call the house of God upon his head by this Exception The Eleventh Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 136. pag. 195. S. CYRIL of HIERVSALEM OB. BEllarmine is taxed of Vnconscionablenesse for concluding out of Cyril that the Sacrament is not to be judged by sense when as the words of Cyril in the same place are expressely saying It is the Body of Christ although thy sense tell thee not so yet let thy faith confirme thee c. ANSW I have taxed him most justly not for any mistaking of the words of Cyril but for wresting and abusing his meaning Bellarmine believing it was so sayd of Cyril as absolutely denying that there can be any tryall of the naturall Substance of Bread after Consecration by the verdict of any of mans senses whereas Cyril spake onely of the Sacramentall nature thereof This was evidently proved out of Cyril who affirming Sacred Oile to be no more Bare Oile after Consecration as he said of the Eucharist It was no more meere Wine after it be Consecrated thereby taught us to judge of both alike Even as wee may say upon the same reason that the water of Baptisme is during the use thereof no meere Water But why even because it is Sacramentall and that accordingly wee are not to beleeve our Senses when wee are in Contemplation of this Sacrament to thinke it now to be mere Water but beleeve it to be of another nature else our naturall eyes and senses shall deceive our Spirituall sight of Faith in discerning the Spirituall and Mysticall meanings thereof Yea and in this respect I might have taxed Bellarmine for inferring from such speeches an absolute denying of the tryall by sense of the natural part of the Sacrament because hee might have beene instructed By the * See Booke 2. cap. 1. Sect. 7. Councell of Nice of the meaning of such speeches of the Fathers that Councell saying as much of Baptisme thus Baptisme is not to be considered with the eyes of our Bodies but of our Mindes All which is to abstract the thoughts of Christian men from all Earthly conceipts when they are conversant in the Celebration of such sacred Mysteries This wee have noted Book 3. pag. 207. This also hath occasioned another Advantage against your Romane Faith by observing in the same place of Cyril another Sentence concerning this Sacrament Coelestiall Bread saith hee sanctifying both Body and Soule But how both it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As the Bread is congruous to the Body so is the word meaning Christ in his Body convenient for the soule What other can be meant hereby but that calling the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after Consecration hee acknowledged not any Substantiall change thereof and more demonstrably because of the Comparison hee hath of the Sacramentall applying of the Body of Christ to the food of the Soule as hee doth the Sacramentall Bread to the nutriment of the Body and Sanctification thereof in hope of Resurrection to life as the Fathers have Commented The Twelfth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag 132. pag. 298. S. CHRYSOSTOME OB. CHrysostome is said to be placed in the front of the host of Bellarmines Fathers whereas Bellarmine in his Catalogue of Fathers De Euchar. lib. 2. citeth twenty Fathers before him ANSW If Bellarmine have had other Treatises in his Controversies against K. IAMES of blessed memory wherein Chrysostome was made the Champion was this fondnesse in mee to say as I have sayd and not rather rashnesse in this Objector in thus gain-saying OB. II. But you have furthermore omitted the words of Chrysostome which in English should be these Although these things exceed our sense and reason yet let us hold them without doubting ANSW Hee telleth mee what was omitted looking directly upon that but forgot to acknowledge what was expressed out of Chrysostome looking askew and asquint at it My Translation out of Chrysostome delivered his words in the first part thus ALTHOVGH THE SPEECH OF CHRIST MAY 〈◊〉 STRANGE TO SENSE AND REASON which is 〈◊〉 to that which is omitted Christ's speech exceeds our sense and reason In the other part was set downe these words of Chrysostome YET LET VS BELIEVE HIS WORDS Fully equivalent with those which were omitted YET LET VS RECEIVE CHRIST'S WORDS WITHOVT DOVBTING except the Papists will thinke us to be of their degenerate Faith Of Believing with doubting Where you may perceive that your Objector considered not how easie it had been for me by not omitting some words to have beene superfluous The Thirteenth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 140. pag. 199. SIXTVS SENENSIS OB. IT is alleged out of Senensis that hee maketh Chrysostome to have beene the most frequent in Hyperbolizing of all the Fathers But Senensis onely saith that Chrysostome did Interdum use Hyperbole's ANSW And I say Aliquando seu INTERDVM dormitat Homerus Esto igitur INTERDVM Although I made it good in the same Section that hee often
Materiall Idolatry p. 533. 534. c. IDOLATRIE what it is p. 528. Romish Adoration of the Eucharist is Materially Idolatrous as is confessed by many hundred maner of wayes because of so many defects of due Consecration Ibid. pag. 533. That it is Formall Idolatry pag. 534. c. notwithstanding any Pretence p. 553. either of Morall Certainety pag. 534. As ill as the heathen p 547. In one respect worse p. 549. The same is formally idolatrous p. 540. this is proved by Romish Principles p. 541. By Co-adoration Ibid. By Canonization of Saints p. 542. By Consecration of Popes pag. 544. The false Scales which a Romish Seducer maketh for weighing the difference betweene Protestants Not-Adoring and Papists Adoring of Christ in the Sacrament pag. 545 c. The Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse Epitomized in a Generall Synopsis p. 568 569 c. IEALOVSY of God ought to deterre us from Adoring the Eucharist pag. 534 c. IEWES ate the same Spirituall meat with Christians pag. 314. Iewish Rabbins Objected concerning the Sacrifice of Melchisedech pag. 404. Iewish Sacrifices how proper in themselves and yet Representative which nothing advantageth the Romish p. 440 441 c. IMPOSSIBLE Somthing so called even to the Advancement of Gods Omnipotencie by the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 229. Pretence of Omnipotencie was the Sanctuary of Heretikes as of the Arians Ibid. Acknowledgement of the same Impossibility by the Romish Doctors upon the same Reason because of Contradiction p. 230. Impossibility of Christs Body to be in diverse places at once Confessed by Aquinas Vasquez and other Schoole-men pag. 240 241. Impossibilities by reason of Contradiction as for the same Body to be hot and cold and the like at once p. 255 256 c. IMMOLATION of the Priest is called by S. Augustine Christs Passion as Bread his Body that is Improperly saith the Romish Glosse p. 127. INDIGNITIES most vile attributed by the Romish faith to the supposed Body of Christ in the Eucharist p. 286. Contrary to Antiquity p. 287. Romish Answers to this pag. 288. Master Fishers most absurd Answer for Defense of all seeming Absurdities and Indignities of Romish Doctrine concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 291 292 293 294 c. INDIVIDUUM VAGUM Romishly taught Confessed to be a sense full of Absurdities pag. 96 97 c. INFANTS made Partakers of the Eucharist in the dayes of Pope Innocent erroneously p. 51. Their flesh eaten of Heretikes occasioned the slander thereof by the Heathen upon the whole Christian Church pag. 375 c. INNOVATIONS Ten in the Church of Rome against the Cōmand of Christ DOE THIS repugnant to both the Apostolicall and Primitive Traditions concerning Christs Institution of the Eucharist p. 9. 10 11 c. Novelty preferred before sage Antiquity by the Church of Rome in her Alienation of the Cup from the the Laicks pag. 68. The Innovation of the Church of Rome in Altering Christs Ordinance is maintained by her Advocates with an Odious Vncharitablenesse in preferring a meanes of Lesse Grace before a meanes of More with Arrogancie in attributing more Wisedome to the now present than to the then Ancient Church of Rome By Perjury in swearing to maintaine the Apostolicall Traditions and protesting to disclame them By Blasphemy in teaching the Pope to dispense with the expresse Command of Christ p. 85 86 87 c. INSTITUTION of the Eucharist where it beginneth p. 4. What Circumstances excepted p. 5. It is violated by Ten Romish Transgressions pag. 9. 10 c. It Containeth neither Precept nor Practice of any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist p. 504 505. See TRANSGRESSION INTENT Defects of this in the Priest is cause of Romish Idolatry p. 530. Intent though good cannot free the Romish Adoration of the Eucharist from Formall Idolatry pag. 536 c. INVOCATION used by Gorgonia perversly Objected for Divine Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 516 517 c. IOANE MARTLESSE A miraculous wench Discerning by her Smell one Consecrated Hoast out of a thousand Vnconsecrated p. 173. IRENAEVS teacheth that Hoc in in Christ's Speech demonstrateth Bread p. 103. His Saying It Consisteth of an Earthly part and an Heavenly p. 177. And It is no Common Bread p. 104. Calumniously Objected p. 493. That the Godly are onely Partakers of Christs Body pag. 321. Objected Vnconscionably for Vnion with Christs Body by a Bodily Commixture and nourishing the Bodies of the Communicants p. 365. Confessed p. 356. That they spake of a Permanent Vnion Confessed p. 365. That speaking of the Nourishment of mens Bodies by the Sacrament he meant not any Substantiall Change thereby as is Confessed p. 362. Hee is Objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malach. 5. Which place Confuteth the Objector pag. 432. Hee is Vnconscionably Objected by Bellarmine for Proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse p. 439. His Saying The Altar in Heaven pag. 419. ISYCHIVS His Saying Wee perceive the truth of his Blood pag. 343. And that Christs Body is a Bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist p. 455. Meant of the Passion of the Crosse Confessed p. 479. ISIDORE HISP Against Prayer in an Vnknowne Tongue p. 35. Hee teacheth Hoc in Christs words Hoc est Corpus to demonstrate Bread p. 103. Hee teacheth a Figurative Sense of Christs words This is my Body p. 128. He saith Bread is called Christs Body because it strengtheneth mans soule p. 165. He saith also It is Changed into the Sacrament of Christs Body Ibid. And that Melchisedech offered the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood p. 404. ISIDORE PE LUSIOTA is for the Blessed Virgins opening her Cell at the birth of Christ against Heretiks that denyed the truth of his Body p. 278. IVDGEMENT of God upon Contemners of Holy things p. 318 319 c. IVLIAN the APOSTATE Objecting the No-Altar and Sacrifice among Christians as a note of Atheisme p. 464. IVSTINIAN the Emperour against Prayer in a Tongue Vnknowne p. 36. and against an Vnaudible Voice p. 23 c. IVSTINE is for Consecration by Prayer pag. 13. His calling the Eucharist a Type and Antytipe doth yield a Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body p. 116. And is against Individuum vagum 118. He is Objected in saying It is no Common Bread p. 194. Hee is against the Romish maner of Christs Bodily Penetrations of the Doores p. 276. as is there Confessed His saying Wee are made one by Baptisme not only in affection but also in nature pag. 356. His Apologie to the Heathen Emperour concerning a slander against Christians for Eating the flesh of an Infant p. 374. Where a meere Slander is vehemently and unconscionably Objected by the Romish for proofe of the Orall-Eating of Christs flesh in the Eucharist Ibid. Bellarmines Dilemma thereupon p. 377. And a Dilemma against him pag. 378. Two Testimonies out of Iustine against the Romish Corporall Presence pag. 380 381. Hee saith that Giving of thankes and Praise is
words THIS IS MY BODY by their Corporall Vnion with Christs Body p. 308 c. Chap. I. Protestants professe an Vnion Spiritually-reall pag. 309 c. Chap. II. That onely the Godly and Faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Vnion with Christ by this Sacrament pag. 311 c. âšœ That onely the Godly are united to Christ by this Sacrament in the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 320 321 c. And Saint Augustines accurate Iudgement herein pag. 323. With a Vindication of Saint Augustines Testimony against the notable corruption thereof by Doctor Heskins pag. 325 to 328. âšœ Chap. III. Of the Capernaiticall Heresie of the Corporall Eating of Christs flesh pag. 328. âšœ Tertullians Saying that Christs flesh is not truly Eaten pag. 331. And Saint Augustines Testimony about the mention of Christs Ascention into Heaven in Answering the Capernaites pag. 331 c.. âšœ Chap. IV. That the Romish maner of Eating of Christ's Body is sufficiently Capernaiticall in Five kinds pag. 333. First by Bodily Touch. âšœ That the Fathers are not Conscionably Objected as touching that poinâ— Ibid. c. âšœ Chap. V. II. Romish Capernaiticall maner of Eating is Orall Eating by Tearing in the dayes of Pope Nicolas the Second pag. 335. âšœ The contrary Iudgement of Pope Innocent the Third pag. 336. And Saint Augustine his Sentence Wee Eate in significante Mysterio pag. 344. And that the same Vnconscionablenesse of Objecting is proved by some Romish Doctors themselves very largely pag. 346 347 c. âšœ Chap. VI. Of the Third Romish Corporall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants by Swallowing it downe pag. 347 c. âšœ A further Evidence of Origen his exact Iudgement pag. 350. And the miserable straights of Romish Doctors in Answering the Sentence of Augustine concerning the Eating of Christs flesh pag. 352 c. âšœ Chap. VII Of the Fourth maner of Romish Corporall Vnion with Christs Body by a Bodily Mixture pag. 354 c. Chap. VIII The Romish Objections of the Sentences of the Fathers for a Corporall Vnion by Mixture of Christs Body with mens Bodies proved to be Vnconscionable pag. 356 357. âšœ The Sentences of Hilarie and Cyril of Alexandria so much pressed at large pag. 358. And also a Confutation of the Romish Objections out of their owne Confessions pag. 362. And further that the Objected Testimonies of these Fathers make against the Romish Corporall Vnion pag. 365. Shewing that onely the Godly are Vnited to Christ Ibid. âšœ Chap. IX âšœ The Second kind of Romish Objections which is from Similitudes used by the Fathers from Feast Guest Viands and Pledge but most unconscionably Objected by the Romanists pag. 366. yea that the same Testimonies plainely Confute the Romish Presence together with the Reconciling of the seeming Repugnances of the Sentences of the Fathers in Opposition to the Romish and in an accordance with our Protestant Profession pag. 369 c. Adding likewise the Divine Contemplation of the Fathers in their phrasing of a Corporall Vnion of Christs body with the Bodies of the Faithfull Communicants p. 372 c. âšœ Chap. X. Of Romish Historicall Objections insisted upon out of Iustine Martyr from the slander then raised against Christians for Eating of mans flesh pag. 374. âšœ That this Objection is slanderous Ibid. And against the Historicall Truth pag. 375. As wilde is their second proofe because say they Iustine wrote to an Heathen Emperour pag. 376. Confuted out of Iustine himselfe and the Cardinall's Dilemma by a more just Dilemma and pertinent pag. 378 379 c. As also by an Impossibility that the Heathen could be offended at the words of Iustine pag. 380. Proved out of Iustine and Attalas Ibid. An Answer to Averroes his imputing to Christians the Devouring of Christs flesh pag. 381 c. âšœ Chap. XI âšœ The Fift and last most base Romish Vnion of Christs Body in passing it downe by Egestion into the Draught pag. 382. Which to Antiquity would have beene held most abominable pag. 384. That the Institution of the Sacrament was ordained to be food only for the Soule by the Doctrine of Antiquity p. 385 c. âšœ BOOK VI. OF the Fourth Romish Consequence from their depraved sense of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY by esteeming Christs Body present to be a Properly and Truly Propitiatory Sacrifice pag. 389 c. Chap. I. That there is no Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist from any word of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament pag. 390. But absolutely Confuted thereby pag. 393 394. II. Not proved by any Sacrificing Act of Christ at his first Instituting this Sacrament pag. 398. âšœ The Testimony of the Iesuite Vasquez pag. 399. Chap. II. Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist not proved by any other Scripture of the New Testament pag. 400. âšœ The Saying of the Councel of Trent pag. 402 c. âšœ Chap. III. The Proper Sacrifice of Christs Body not proved by any Scripture out of the Old Testament pag. 403 c. âšœ A Vindication of the Allegations of some Testimonies of Fathers against a Calumnious Romanist pag. 405. A Second Vindication of some other Testimonies Objected p. 406. As also an Argument against the Sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisedeeh pag. 408 c. And a Testimony of Athanasius against the Translation of the Priesthood of Christ to any other with whom agreeth Theodoret and Chrysostome pag. 411. To whom is joyned the Confession of the Iesuite Estius against Bellarmine pag. 414. Besides a speciall Challenge against Bellarmine in the point of Christs eternall Priesthood out of the Confession of Vasquez at large pag. 420. Adding also a Typicall Scripture Exod. 24. The Blood of the Testament Objected by Bellarmine and Answered by the Iesuite Vasquez pag. 424. And by Pope Leo long since pag. 425. An Objection Ro. from the Comparison of the Figures of the Old Testament with the Sacraments of the New Answered pag. 426. With the Testimony of Athanasius pag 427 c. Chap. IV. Of Propheticall Scriptures Objected for the Romish Sacrifice pag. 429. Malachie 5. Ibid. And Psalme 72. Of an Handfull of Corne. p. 433. âšœ A Vindication of a Truth of an Allegation against a Rash Seducer pag. 434. A Vindication against another Romish Detractor shewing that Cardinall Bellarmine hath not Objected Propheticall Scriptures judiciously pag. 435. And against the Objected Iuge Sacrificium pag. 436 c. âšœ Chap. V. Examination of the point of Sacrifice from the Iudgement of Antiquity by Eleven Demonstrations pag. 437 c. âšœ A Discovery of a Romish Absurd Defence concerning the Bloody Representative Sacrifice of Christ pag. 446 447 c. And an Argument for the dignifying of the Table of the Lord so called although alià s termed an Altar pag. 462 463 c. âšœ Chap. VI. The Third Examination of the Poâ—m of Romish Sacrifice is to Confute it by Romish Principles and proving that there is no Sacrificing Act therein pag. 466.
Christ doth especially concurre with his owne Ordinance and therefore much rather where the forme of a Sacrament ordained and instituted by himselfe is observed then where it is as of you so notoriously perverted and contemned Yet because you may think we rest upon either our owne or yet of other your Doctors Iudgement in this Defence we shall produce to this purpose the consonaâ—â— Doctrine of ancient Fathers Our third proofe is taken from the manifold Reasons of ancient Fathers for Confirmation of the Necessity of the Communicating in Both kinds SECT IX FOr the proofe of the necessary use of Both kindes in the solemne and publike dispensation of this Sacrament the particular Testimonies of many ancient Fathers might be produced but your owne Authors will ease us of that labour by relating and g Satis compertum est universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem OccideÌ„talem autem seu Romanam mille ampliù à Christo annis in solenn prae fertim ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione Vtramque panis vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse atque ut ità facerent inductos fuisse primò Instituto exemploque Christi qui hoc Sacramentum corporis sanguinis sui duobus hisce panis vini symbolis Discipulis suis fidelium Communicantium personam repraesentantibus prebuit â—um quià in Sacramento sanguinis peculrarem quaÌ„dam virtutem gratiam hoc vini symbolo significatam esse credebant tùm ob rationes mysticas hujus Instituti quae à veteribus variè adducuntur viz. ad repraesentandam memoriam Passioâ—is Christi in oblatione corporis sanguinis effusione juxta illud Pauli Quoâ—iescunque comederitis panem hunc Calicem Domini biberitis mortem Domâ—â— annunciatis donec venerit Item ad significandam integram â—ofectionem sive nutritionem quae cibo potu constat quomodò Christus inquit Caro mea verus est cibus et sanguis meus verus est potus Item ad designandam redemptionem tuitionem corporis animae ut corpus pro salute corporis sanguis pro salute animae quae in sanguine est dari intelligatur Ad significandum quoque Christum utramque naturam assumpsisse corporis animae ut utramque redimeret Cassand Consult Art 22. pag. 166. 167 Christus licet totus sub una specie tamen administrari voluit sub duplici primò ut totam naturam assumpsisse se ostenderet ut utramque redimeret panis enim ad corpus refertur vinum ad animam Si in altera tantùm sumeretur tum mortem suam ad alterius salutem valere significaretur Pet. Lombard 4. Dist 11. Hic Calix pari cuactis conditione sit traditus Theoph in 1. Cor. 11. In veteri Testamento quaedam Sacerdos quaedam populus comedebat nec poterat populus participare illis quorum Sacerdos particeps erat nunc autem omnibus unum corpus proponitur unum poculum Chrysost in 2. Cor. Hom. 18. Coena Domini omnibus debet esse communis quum ille Christus Discipulis suis omnibus qui aderant aequalitèr tradidit Sacramenta Hier. in Cor. 11. Quomodò ad martyrij poculum eos idoneos fecimus si non ad poculum Domini adâ—â—mus Cyprian Epist 54. ad Cornel. Episc Rom. de pace lapâ—â— danda Etiam Lombardus lib. 4. dist 11. ex Ambrosio ad 1. Cor. 11. Valet ad tuitionem corporis animae quod percipimus quià caro Christi pro salute corporis sanguis verò pro anima nostra offertur confessing as much in effect as we did intend to prove viz. That the ancient Fathers were induced to the Continuance of the Custome in Both kindes First by the Example and Institution of Christ Secondly by some particular Grace which they held to be signified by the Cup. Thirdly for the Representation that it had to the Passion of Christ distinctly and respectively to his Body and Blood Fourthly to resemble the Redemption which man hath in his Body by Christ's Body and by his Blood in the soule Fiftly To expresse by these Symbols the perfect spirituall Nourishments wee have by his Body and Blood Sixtly To understand that this Sacrament doth equally belong to People as well as to Priests which they with great earnestnesse enforce with joynt consent as a necessary Ius and Right belonging to both Seventhly that the Cup of the Eucharist doth animate soules to receive the Cup of bloody Martyrdome when the time should be âšœ Eightly by the Precept of Christ 10 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Qu. 801. Disp 216. cap. 6. Iustinus in 2. Apolog pro Christianis postquam descripsit communionem sub utraque specie subjungit Apostoli enim in Commentatiâ—s suis quae Evangelia dicuntur ità sibi Christum praecepisse tradiderunt Respondeo Nullum aliud praeceptum Domini Iustinum ibi agnovisse praeter Hoc facite in memoriam mei Very well and Hoc facite is as full a Command us Hoc manducate or Hoc bibite Iustine one of the most ancient Guides in Christs Church saying plainely that Christ commanded Both kindes to be received And the Commandement which Iustine meant your Iesuite attributeth to Christs saying DO THIS And Cyprian as directly as succinctly 11 Cyprian Serm. de Coena Dom. Evangelium praecâ—pit ut bibatur Resp Satis est si bibatur à Sacerdotibus licet non à Laicis But this is refuted by the Fathers who will admit of no Inequality among Christians in communicating of this sacred Banquet The Gospell commandeth the drinking of it yea and Saint Augustine was so peremptory for the Common use of the Cup that hee called Christian mens 12 Aug. Ser. 2. Feriae Paseâ—ae Simul hoc sumimus simul bibimus quià simul vivimus Teste Cassandro in Exposit Homilijs in Hymnum aquinatis Nec corpus sine sanguine nec sanguis sine corpore jure communicatur 〈◊〉 atque is communicandi ritus usquè ad Tho. Aquinâ—tis â—â—tatem amplius in Ecclesia Catholica obtinuerat tandem ista antiquà Distributio non ut anâ—eà necessaria sed ut licita tantum haberi coeperit Ibid. Bibere in this Sacrament to bee their Vivere and that lawfully the one cannot bee communicated without the other âšœ Whereunto may bee added the Constant profession of the h Graeci dicunt esse necessariò sub utraque specie panis scilicet vini communicandum adeo quidem ut qui sub una specie tantùm communicat etiamsi laicus sit peccate dicatur quod ut aiunt contra Christi Praeceptum agat qui sub utraque specie communicare praecepit Prateol Elench Haeret. lib. 7. tit Graeci âšœ For proofe that the Cause of Priest and people in the receiving of this Sâ—crament is equall we have these Sayings of Antiquity Dominica coena omnibus debet esse communis quià dabatur omnibus Discipulis qui aderant Hier. in 1. Cor. c. 11. Est
to be absolutely for it in sound it being just the same Doctrine which Augustine Anselme and Bede * See hereafter Booke 5. Chap. 3. §. 1. 2. taught when they said that the faithfull among the Iewes Ate the same spirituall meate Christs Flesh in eating Manna and dranke the same spirituall drink that is the blood of Christ in drinking the water that issued out of the Rocke which Christians now doe And therefore meant not a Corporall eating of Christ but a Sacramentall So say wee Christ could aswell then turne Manna and Water of the Rocke into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood for the nourishing of the soules of God's people of those times as he doth now Convert Bread and Wine into the Sacraments of his Body and Blood for the comfort of us Christians This Answer preventeth the Iesuites Objection 10 In his Booke of Spectacles p. 142. The Time saith he when the people received Manna in the Desert Christ was not in his humane nature therefore could not Manna be changed into his Body nor Water into his Blood So he very truly indeed And therfore must AElfrick his speech be understood Sacramentally as hath beene said which because the Iesuite refuseth to do therefore is he at difference with AElfrick denying that Christ was able to convert Manna into his Body which AElfrick said in expresse termes hee was able to do namely thorow his divine power by a Sacramentall Conversion because Omnipotencie is as properly necessary for the making of a divine Sacrament as it was for the creating of the World But was it not then kindly done thinke you of your Iesuit to lend his Spectacles to another when he had the most need of them himselfe by the which he might have discerned that as Christ Sacramentally and therefore figuratively called Bread his Body and Wine his Blood so did evermore all the faithfull of Christ This Lesson * See Booke 2. C. 2. Sect. 10. hath beene manifested by many pregnant Examples in a full Section which being once got by heart would expedite all the like Difficulties To conclude the former Saxon doctrine is againe confirmed by Saint * See Booke 4. Chap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge Augustine Wherefore wee may as truly say concerning this your Conversion that if it be by Transubstantiation from Bread then it is not the Body which was Borne of the Blessed Virgin as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication * See above B. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread be Christ's Body then something was Christ's Body which was not borne of the Virgin Mary And this wee are now furthermore to evince out of your Pope Innocent the Third against your Councel of Trent He See the Margent of the former Section taught that when the Conversion is of the forme with the substance then is the Change Into that which is now made and was not before as when the Rod was turned into a Serpent So he shewing that the Serpent by that Change was therefore Made of that Rod. But your Tridentine Fathers you know have defined the Conversion of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body to be aswell in Forme as in Matter whereupon by the Iudgement of your Pope Innocent it must follow that the Body of Christ in your Eucharist is made of Bread and if made of Bread then could it not possibly be of the flesh of the Virgin Because there cannot be a Substantiall Change of a Substance into Substance except that the Substance of that whereinto the Conversion is wrought have it's Originall and Making from the Substance of that which was converted and changed Nor could the Contrary be hitherto proved by any Romish Doctor from any Example out of any conversion either naturall or miraculous which hath beene road of from the beginning of Times Our third Reason is taken from the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration but First of the State of this Question SECT III. VVEe wonder not why your Fathers of the Councell of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt of m Si quis dixerit remaneâ—â— substâ—ntiam Panâ—s Anathema sit Conc. Trident. Sess 13. Can. 2. Anathema and Curse upon every man that should affirme Bread and Wine to remaine in this Sacrament after Consecration which they did to terrifie men from the doctrine of Protestants who do all affirme the Continuance of the substance of Bread in the Eucharist For right well did these Tridentines know that if the Substance of Bread or Wine doe remaine then is all Faith yea and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera and meere Fancie as your Cardinall doth confesse in granting that n Panis eâ—si non annihilâ—tur tamen manet niâ—â—l in se ut Aqua post Conversionem in Vinum Neqque obstat quòd fouè materia manserit nam materia 〈◊〉 est Aqua Prima â—Ì„oditio in vera Conversione est 〈◊〉 quod convertitur 〈◊〉 esse Bessur lio 3 de Euch. c 18 〈◊〉 cap. 24. §. Ad Alterum It is a necessary condition in every Transubstantiation that the thing which is converted cease any more to bee as it was in the Conversion of Water into Wine Water ceased to bee Water And so must Bread cease to bee Bread This being the State of the Question wee undertake to give Good Proofes of the Existence and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist the same in Substance after Consecration Our first Proofe is from Scripture 1. Cor. 10. 11. Saint Paul calling it Bread SECT IV. IN the Apostle his Comment that I may so call his two * 1. Cor. 11. 26 27. 10. 16. Chapters to the Corinthians upon the Institution of Christ we reade of Eating the Bread and Drinking the Cup thrice all which by the consent of all sides are spoken of Eating and Drinking after Consecration and yet hath hee called the ourward Element Bread You will say with Some It was so called onely because it was made of Bread as Aärons Rod turned into a Serpent was notwithstanding called a Rod. But this Answer is not Answerable unto the Similitude For first of the Bread the Apostle saith demonstratively This bread and of the other This Cup But of Aärons Rod turned into a Serpent none could say This Rod. And secondly it is contrary to Christian Faith which will abhorre to say in a proper sense that Christs Body was ever Bread Or else you will answer with Others It is yet called Bread because it hath the Similitude of Bread as the Brazen Serpent was called a Serpent But neither this nor any other of your Imaginations can satisfie for we shall proove that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration but because it was Substantially still Bread Our Reason is He had now to deale against the Prophaners of this Sacrament in reproving such as used it as Common Bread * 1. Cor. 11. 22. Not
made into one of many Granes and so Consisteth the other Cometh into one of many Grapes Consonantly S. Cyprian and as plainly 15 Cyprian lib. 1. Epist 6. ad Mag. Nam quando Dominus Corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum Populum nostrum quem portabat indicat adunatum quando Sanquinem suum vâ—num appellat de botris 〈◊〉 expressum gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum luxta Edit Pamel Epi. 76 When Christ called his Body Bread saith he which Bread was made one by the Gathering together of many Cornes he thereby signifieth our people whom he bore shewing them united together and when he called Wine his Blood which Wine is pressed out of many Clusters of Grapes and so gathered into one he signifieth one stocke coupled together by Conjunction of a Multitude into One. Both these holy Fathers even as Chrysostome already Both. 3. chap. 3. Sect. 4. hath done teach as it were with one breath that the Outward Sacramentalls wherein Christ commendeth his Body and Blood being Substances compounded the one of divers Cornes in one loafe the other of divers Grapes in one liquor doe so continue the same still at the receiving thereof as the Analogie irrefutably proveth because these Both signifie the mysticall Body of Christ which is the Church of his faithfull by the union of multitudes of people in one But in your meere Accidents of Bread and Wine you can have no union either of Granes or of Grapes neither can you say that he spake not of the things Consecrated because the things were first Consecrated before they were commended to his Disciples to be eaten and dranke Athanasius will be content to deliver his vote after the other other now cited Primitive Fathers who in confutation of the Hereticall Manichees who fancied onely a Phantasticall Body of Christ observeth that 16 Athan. Tom. 2. Orat 2. in Assumpt Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ both did eate meate and permitted his Body to be touched of his Disciples that thereby they might have not onely their eyes but also their hands Witnesses of the Truth of his Body and remove all exception of the apparition of a Ghost yea and that By the continued sight hereof with their bodily eyes Christ insinuated Faith into their soules Gladly would wee know whether even any doctrine could more patronize that Hereticall doctrine of a Rhantasticall Body than this yours of your maner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the Eâ—charist doth where in these appeareth not so much as a Spectrum of that Body but onely as you â—each Accidents of Bread âšœ Tertullian hath a large Plea against the Academicks who denied the judgement of Sense wherein hee maintaineth the Truth of the Senses and in proofe thereof hee manifesteth the Perfection of Christ his Senses in Seeing Feeling Tasting Smelling and at length he falleth upon the point now in Question saying that m Tertull de Animà cap 7 ad finem Quid agiâ— Academice procacissime totum vitae flâ—tum evertis ipsius Dei providentiam excaecas non licet in dubium sensus istos revocare nè in Christo de fide eorum deliberetur nè fortè dicatur quòd falsò Patris vocem audicrit de ipso testificatam aut deceptus sit cum Petri socrum tetigit aut alium postea unguenti senserit spiritum quod in sepulturam suam acceptavit aâ—um posteà Vinâ—â—aporem quod in Sanguinis sui memoriam consecrâ—â—t Sic enim Mâ—rcion Phantasma cum maluit credere totius corporis in eo dedignaâ—us veritatem Atqui nè in Apostolis quidem ludificata natura est fidelis fuit visus auditus in Monte fidelis gustus Vinâ— in nupâ—â—js fidelis tactus Thomae Recita testationem Iohannis Quod audivimus inquit quod oculis vidimus maâ—us nostrae contrectârunt de sermone vitae Falsa utique testatio si oculorum aurium manuum sensus natura mentitur If wee yield not to the suffrages of Senses some may doubt whether Christ perceived afterwards another Sent of oyntment which hee received meaning another that the naturall Sunt thereof before his Buriall And immediaâ—ly hee addeth marke we pray you One might doubt also whether Christ tasted afterwards another taste of Wine than was that which he consecrated for the memoriall of his Blood That then which Christ Tasted was first Consecrated Next he invadeth the Heretike Marcion for denying the Truth of Christ's Body on earth and confuteth him by the fidelity of the Senses of the Apostles Faithfull saith he was their sight of Christ in the Mount Faithfull was their Taste of Wine at the Marriagè Faithfull was the Touch of Thomas c. then concluding VVhich Testifications saith he had not beene True if their Senses had beene Liars So he in his confutation not onely of the naturall Academicks but also of the Hereticall Marcionites who contrary to the demonstration of the Apostles Senses denied the truth of the humane Body of Christ CHALLENGE THis Apologie of Tertullian in behalfe of the verity of the Senses doth minister to all Christians foure Conclusions First not to conceit of Accidents without Subjects but to discerne of Subjects and Substances by their Accidents Secondly that our Outward Senses rightly constituted more especially the Sense of Feeling are Demonstrations of Truth in Sensible Objects Thirdly that this verification of Subjects by their Accidents is common with Christ his Apostles all Christians and with every reasonably man And lastly that VVine is to be discerned to be truly and naturally VVine after Consecration by the judgement of the Senses because he instanceth in this very point teaching that Christ had the same taste of Substantiall VVine afterwards which hee had before in that which hee consecrated even as he had also the same Sent of Substantiall Oyntment after which hee had before his Buriall And all this even now when he convinced Marcion of Heresie an Enemie to the Catholike Faith in denying the Truth of Christs humane naturall Body notwithstanding the Evidence of Man's Senses Here had beene a full and flat Evasion for that Heretike to say what tell you us of the validitie of the Evidence of two Senses concerning the Truth of Christ's Body seeing you yourselves gain-say the judgement of foure Senses at once in denying the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament This we say they must needs have replyed if that the Catholikes then had beene of your now Romane Beliefe to thinke that all the Senses are deceived in judging the matter of this Sacrament to continue Bread or wine and so might they have blowne away all this Catholike Confutation of Heretikes and Infidels with one and the same breath together with the like Instances against the same Heresie already specified as you have heard Come now hither all yee that say wee must renounce all Verdict of Senses in
Body especially from this Father S. Cyprian who teacheth every Christian how to interpret the sense of Christ's words in calling Bread his Body and Wine his Blood viz. 6 Cyprian de Vnctione Dedit Dominus in mensa in qua ultimum cum Apostolis participavit Convivium proprijs manibus Panem Vinum in Cruce vero manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum ut in Apostolis exponeret quomodo Vinum Panis corpus esset sanguis Christi quibus rationibus causae cum effectibus convenirent diversa nomina vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam significata significantia eisdem â—ocabulis censerentur Things signifying as Signes and things signified are called by the same termes or names What is if this be not our Protestant Doctrine And were it that Cyprian could possibly have meant a Creating of Christ's Body in this Sacrament properly yet could not such our Opposers have bewrayed more stupiditie or else obstinacie than by urging this Sentence whereby two Articles of your Councel of Trent are absolutely strangled The first is Transubstantiation which as you confesse is of Something Pre-existent Whereas Creation as all know is from a meere Nothing The second Tridentine Article is that the Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament is whole in the whole Host and in every part thereof But Cyprian saith of that Body which hee calleth Created that It is divided Wee have light upon another sentence of Cyprian objected out of the same place and as vehemently pressed as any other out of Cyprian 7 Cyprian de Coenae Dom. in the place objected Ineffabiliter Sacramento visibili divina se infundit essentia ut esset Religioni circa Sacramenta devotio ut ad veritatem cujus corpus sanguis Sacramenta sunt syncerior paâ—eret accessus Objected by Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ The Divine essence saith Cyprian infuseth it selfe into this Sacrament that wee should have a religious devotion towards it that a more sincere addresse may be had to be the Truth whereof the Body and Blood are Sacraments So he Now that you may know our willingnesse to go along with you in the exposition of this Sentence so farre as either the sense of the words will beare or Cyprian his owne direction will permit Wee grant first that the Divine Essence which is the divine power of Christ is exercised in every Sacrament by making it effectuall to the salvation of the Communicants Secondly that by the word Verity or Truth is meant the Reality of his Body and Blood And Thirdly that every one that approacheth to this Sacrament ought to come with a Religious Devotion and sincere affection The onely difference is how Christ's Body and Blood are said to bee Sacraments of the Reality of his Body and Blood here mentioned and your onely Answer is that Christ is a figure and signe of himselfe as hee is in this Sacrament which figment is easily confuted by a Catholike and universall doctrine of all Christian Churches which is that every Sacrament is a visible Signe of an invisible Grace But in this Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ properly taken are nothing lesse than Visible by your owne Confessions who teach them to bee so Invisible herein that they cannot bee discerned either by Angel or the Bodily eyes of Christ himselfe You perceive by this that your Boast of this Place of Cyprian is but a vaine blast Wherefore wee expound the words thus Christ's Body and Blood that is the outward Symbols carrying the names of his Body and Blood are Sacraments and Seales of that Verity of the same Body which was crucifyed and of the same Blood which was shed upon the Crosse for man's Redemption and are here Sacramentally exhibited to the soules of the Faithfull But you will aske who will warrant this our Exposition of the words of Cyprian and wee Answer that wee shall need no other Interpreter than Cyprian himselfe already alleged saying * See before at num 6. in the Morgin that Things signifying are called by the names of Things signifyed So he there and therefore so here are Bread and Wine called the Body and Blood of Christ being in themselves onely Sacraments and Signes whereof you have had example in his Saying that Christ herein created his Body by Body meaning Bread as your Cardinall hath confessed Which may give you a true Patterne of the genuine Idiome of the Fathers as often as they call the Bread Christ's Body or Wine his Blood and that all such Speeches are not more yours in sound than they are ours in true and Orthodox Sense The second Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers for abuse of the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers is seene in objecting their deniall of Common and Bare Bread in this Sacrament for an Argument of Transubstantiation SECT III. TO this purpose Irenaeus saying that a Irenaeus lib. 4. contra Haer cap. 34. Non est Panis Communis Bellar. Obijcit lib. 2. de Euch. per totum It is not Common Bread Ergo say you not to be properly judged by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that b Sol. Chrysost in Psal 22. hom 16. De aqua Baptismi Non est aqua Communis Chrysostome and also other Fathers whom you moreover object saith likewise of the Sacrament of Baptisme * See in this Section liâ— c. h. Wee are to behold it not as common water The second is Iustine Martyr saying d Bellamin Oblustin Mart. lib 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sol. Ratio quia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Eucharisticatus sivè sanctificatus Cibus Wee receive these not as Common Bread or Common Drinke Therefore say you we may not judge them by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that Iustine Martyr in the same place sheweth his Reason why it is not to be called Common even because saith he it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Sanctified meat And so Water in Baptisme is Sanctified as you know The third is Cyrill of Ierusalem saying e Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 13. Ob. Cyril Hieros Catech. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sol. Iâ—em Catech 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consider these not as Common Bread and Wine Ergo say you not to bee judged by Sense Vâ—conscionably knowing that the same Cyrill in the same place saith the same of the water of Baptisme It is not simple Water Yea but hee further saith say f Oh. Cyrill mystag 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you Thinke not of it as of bare Bread adding but the Body of Christ Ergo say you not to bee judged otherwise by Sense Vnconscionably knowing that the same Father in the same place for explanation sake saith likewise of g â—ot Sequiturs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Catech. Mystag 3 Sacred Oyle viz. Even so that holy Oyle is not bare and simple Oyle Adding but the gift of Grace And that your Authours
Consecration It is not Bare Bread but the Body of Christ affirmed as much of Consecrated Oyle saying It is not Bare Oyle But we are answered that n Bellar. Hoc confirmat sententiâ—m nostram Nam Cyrillus non eodem modo loquitur de Chrismate de Eucharistia De hac enim ait Non esse Panem Communem sed Corpus Christi de Chrismate vero dicitur quidem non esse Commune Vnguentum sed non addit Spiritum sanctum vel Corpus Christi sed esse Chrisma Christi sanctificatum oleum l. 2. de Euch. cap. 13. Cyril 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 but Chrisme that is Sanctified Oyle after Consecration So your Cardinall And so are wee posed for ever But behold another Iesuiticall Fraud For Cyril as hee called the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body after Consecration so doth hee 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 hee 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 judging of Bread to bee Bread hee meant to prove it by seeming to be deceived himselfe in thus mistaking the word Chrisma for o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Catech Mystag 3. and so utterly perverting the Iudgement of Cyril by whom we are contrarily taught that the Sight is no more deceived in judging 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 Perversnesse of your Disputers in urging the Testimony of Cyril âšœ All this which I have avouched out of Cyril I have since found exactly confirmed by our Iudicious 8 Not. M. S. in Bellar. formerly alleged Isaac Casaubon the Myrrour of learning concluding with this Epiphonema If I saith he have any judgment Cyril judged Bread to remaine in this Sacrament of the Eucharist as verily as in Oyle consecrated there remaineth Oyle As for the terme of Transmutation of Bread into Christ's Body you may have a further plentifull satisfaction in the Seaventh Section following And wee concurre in Iudgment with the same Cyril exacting that wee regard not our Senses herein namely to looke upon it with our naturall eyes as beholding bare Bread but with Spirituall to behold it to be Sacramentall Bread and in it as in a Signe to discerne the Lords Body as Cyril hath already expounded himselfe saying that it is changed into an Antitype of Christ's Body âšœ The like Romish Objection out of Chrysostome and as Vnconscionable SECT V. SAint Chrysostome his Testimonie may in no wise be omitted which seemeth to your Disputers to bee so Convincent that your p Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 22. Cardinall placed it in the front of his host of the Fathers whom hee produceth as able to breake through an Army of Adversaries alone and Master q Mr. Brerelay Liturg. Tract 2. §. 4. Subd 2. pag. 167. Brerely reserved it to the last of the Testimonies which he alleged 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 r Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 8. Etiamsi sensui cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur quod dicit superatque sensum nostrum rationem sermo ipsius quaeso quod in omnibus rebus sed praecipuè in mysterijs faciamus non illa quae ante nos jacent aspicientes sed verba tenentes nam verbis ejus defrau dari non possumus sed sensus saepiùs fallitur Quoniam igitur ille dixit Hoc est Corpus meum nulla dubitatione teneamus sed credamus nihil enim sensibile traditur à Christo nobis sed in rebus sensibilibus Omnia verò quae tradidit sunt insensibilia sicut in Baptismo per Aquam donum illud conceditur Regeneratio intelligitur quia est nam si incorporeus esses incorporea tibi tradidisset dona quoniam verò Anima conjuncta est Corpori in sensibilibus intelligibilia tibi tradidit Chrâ—sostome may seeme absurd unto Sense and Reason I exhort you notwithstanding that especially in Mysteries we looke not unto that which is before us but observe Christ's words for we cannot bee disappointed of that which hee saith but Senses may be deceived Wherefore because he said This is my Body we are altogether to beleeve it for hee delivereth no sensible things unto us but all which hee 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 onely unbodily should be given unto thee but now because thy Soule is joyned with a Body therefore in things sensible hath Christ delivered unto thee things intelligible So Chrysostome Now what of all this Chrysostome saith your s Bellar. Non potuisset sanè Chrysostomus loqui clariùs si Calvinistam aliquem habuisset quem hortari ad fidem voluisset Ibid. quo supra Cardinall could not speake more plainely if hee had had some Calvinist before him whom hee meant to exhort to the Faith So hee meaning the Faith of Transubstantiation Which as hath been confessed was no doctrine of Faith untill more than a Thousand yeeres after Christ But to returne to Chrysostome whose Sentence wee may compare to a Nut consisting of a Shell and a Kernel The Shell wee may call his Figurative Phrases the Kernel wee may terme his Orthodoxe meaning Of both in the Section following Of the Rhetoricall and Hyperbolicall Phrases of Chrysostome SECT VI. TO begin with the Shell First wee 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 t Non sunt Concionatorum verba in rigore accipienda quùm primùm ad autes perveniant multa enim per Hyperbolen Declamatores enunciant hoc interdum Chrysostomo contingit Senensis Bibliotheca Annot 152. Senensis doth instruct you where giving a generall Caution that
Fathers in their Sermons do use to declame Hyperbolically he doth instance most specially and by name in Chrysostome âšœ And albeit that Wee object plaine places of Chrysostome and such wherein every word may be taken in a proper Sense as for Example where hee reproveth those that are onely Gazers and not Communicants at the Celebration of the Eucharist It is better saith hee not to be present than not to participate yet can wee receive no better Answer or other satisfaction from your Cardinall than thus 9 Quod dicit Chrysostomus melius esse non interesse Sacrificio quà m interesse non communicaâ—â— Dâ—co Chrysostomum ut quaedam alia per excessum esse locuâ—um Bellar. lib. 2. de Missa Cap. 10. §. Ad illud Chrysostome here as else where spake in an excesse âšœ Thirdly that the Excessive Phrases of Chrysostome upon this Sacrament do verifie as much viz. to tell his people that u Dentes Carnl suae insigere Chrys Homil. 45. in Iohan. Lingua cruentatur hoc admirabili Senguine Hom. 83. in Matth. Turbam circumsusam rubificri Lib 3. de Sacerdotio 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 hee is as Hyperbolicall in denying in the Celebration of this Sacrament the judgement of Senses saying x Num vides Panem num Vinum nè putetis Corpus accipere ab homine sed ex ipso Seraphin forcipe ignem Idem Tom. 3 de Eucharist in Encaenijs Do wee see Bread or Wine which is spoken in as great an exuberancie of speech as are the next words immediately following saying Thinke not that you receive the Body from a man but Fire from a Scraphin or Angel with a paire of Tongs You will thinke notwithstanding those kinde of Phrases that Chrysostome thought he saw aswell Bread and Wine in this Sacrament as he could discerne either Man from a Seraphin or Spirit or his owne Fingers from a paire of Tongs Fiftly that the Sentence objected 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 y Sacramentum est invisibilis gratâ—ae signum visibile Magister Sentent lib 4. dist 1. Sacramentum est â—es sensibus objecta Catech. Trid. Teste Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacram cap 11. A Sensible Signe and also for that you your selves confesse that z Sensus non fallitur â—â—cà proprium objectum Sententia vera Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. Our senses cannot be deceived in their proper sensible Objects Sixtly that Chrysostome himselfe well knew he did Hyperbolize herein who after that hee had sayd No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament notwithstanding hee addeth immediately saying of this Sacrament that In things Sensible things Intelligible are given unto us Thus farre of the Rhetorike of Chrysostome Now are wee to shew his Theologie and Catholike meaning as it were the Kernel 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 minde upon the bodily Object 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 Sense maketh wholly against it by explaining himselfe and paralleling this Sacrament with Baptisme As in Baptisme saith a Sicut in Baptismo c. Chrysost See above §. 5. at r. he Regeneration the thing intelligible is given by water the thing sensible the Substance of water remaining Which proportion between the Eucharist and Baptisme is held commonly by ancient * See hereafter at large in the 8. Book Fathers to the utter overthrow of Transubstantiation And that Chrysostome believed the Existence of Bread after Consecration * See above Chap 3. §. 13. hath beene already expressely showne and is here now further proved For he saith of Bread after Consecration that b Nos per hunc Panem unione conjuâ—gimur Chrysost in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. Wee are joyned together one with another by this Bread âšœ And yet furthermore the same Chrysostome hath already delivered his mind touching the infallibility of the sense of Touching declaring in a plaine and literall Sense as from the mouth of Christ * That man's sense of Touch could not be deceived âšœ And now that you see the Nut cracked you may observe how your Disputers have swallowed the Shell of Hyperbolicall Phrases and left the kernel of Theologicall Sense 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 c Chrysost Hom 50 in Matth. juxta Edit Graec. Nè existmes Sacerdotem esse qui hoc facit sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then followeth of Baptisme Ibid. Ille non te Baptizat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 âšœ Words you see as Hyperbolicall as could be uttered and notwithstanding urged by your Doctor Heskins calling it a 9 Dr. Heskins in his partiam of Christ Book 2. Chapt. 55. objecteth Plaine place for proof of a proper Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament But will this rellish with you also All this is to prove unto you that you are not to exact an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more than when the Apostle said of the faithfull in respect of Christ * See above c. 3. §. 7. Thus farre concerning the Iudgement of Senses which hath beene formerly proved at large both by * Ibid. in the Chapters following Scriptures and * Fathers Wee draw neerer our marke which is the word Transubstantiation it selfe Fourthly the Vnconscionablenesse 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 Sense 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 Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ are Phrases of the highest Emphasis that you can finde in the Volumes of Antity
which if they were literally meant according to your Romish Sense there ought to be no further Dispute But if it may evidently appeare by the Idiome of speech of the same Fathers that such their Sayings are Tropicall and sometimes Hyperbolicall then shall wee have just Cause to taxe your Disputers of as great Vnconscionablenesse if not of more in this as in any other For whensoever they finde in any Father as in c Eusebias Emiss Adest Substantia Panis sed post verba Christi est Corpus Christi Hom. 5. Objected by Mr. Brerely Liturg. Tract 2. §. 2. Subd 2. âšœ And Damasc lib. 4. de Orthod side cap. 14. Panem corpus suum facere Objected by Dr. Heskins in his Parliament Booke 2. Chap. 20. âšœ Eusebius these words The Bread is the Body of Christ they object it for Transubstantiation but Vnconscionably First seeing that the Fathers do but herein imitate our Lord and Master Christ who said of the Bread This is my Body which hath beene * See above B. 2. throughout proved by Scriptures and Fathers to be a Figurative and unproper speech Secondly seeing that they use the same Dialect in other things as Cyril of Sacred Oyle saying this is Charisma the Gift of Grace as hee called also the Holy Kisse a d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyrill sup Reconciliation and Others the like as you have heard Thirdly seeing that you your selves have renounced all proper Sense of all such speeches because Things of different natures cannot possibly be affirmed one of another for no more can it be properly said Bread is man's Body than wee can say An Egge is a Stone as you have * See above Booke 2. cap. 1. §. 4. confessed Againe Some Fathers say Bread is made Flesh as Saint c Ambros De Pane Fit Corpus caro Christi Ob by Bellarmine lib. 2. de Euchar cap. 14. and by others Ambrose objected but Vnconscionably knowing First that you your selves are brought now at length to deny the Body of Christ to be Produced out of Bread Secondly knowing the like Idiome of Fathers in their other Speeches Chrysostome saying that f Chrysost Nos secum Christus munam ut ità dicam massam reducit neque id fide tantùm sed reipsâ nos Corpus suum effecit In Matt 26. hom 83. Objecâ—â— by Mr. Brerely Liturg Tract 2. §. 2. Subd 2. Christ hath made us his owne Body not onely in Faith but in Deed also And Augustine saying that g Aug. Ipsi Christiani cum Capite suo quod ascendit in coeâ—um unus est Christus Enarrat in Psal 127. Et in Psal 26. Titulus Psalmi Omnes â— illo Christi Christus sumus Christians themselves with their Head which ascended into heaven are one Christ yea and Pope h Leo De homine Regenerato per Baptismum Vt susceptu à Christo suscipiens Christum non idem sit post Lavacrum quod ante Baptismum fuit sed ut corpus Regenerati fiat caro Crucifixi Serm. de passione 14. Leo saying of the party Baptized that Hee is not the same that hee was before Baptisme by which saith he the Body of the party Regenerate is made the Flesh of Christ crucified Yea and our Venerable Bede saith i Beda in 1. Cor 10. Num nos ipsius Corpus facti sumus quod accipimus nos sumus Wee are made that Body which we receive In all which the word Made you know is farre from that high straine of Transubstantiation Wee draw yet neerer to the Scope Wee may not deny but that the Fathers sometimes extend their voyces higher unto the Preposition Trans as k See above c. 4. §. 7. Transit Transmutatur signifying a Change and Trans-mutation into the Body of Christ Every such Instance is in the opinion of your Doctors a full demonstration of Transubstantiation it selfe and all the wits of men cannot saith one Assoyle such Objections Wherein they shew themselves altogether Vnconscionable as hath beene partly declared in Answering your Objected Sayings of l See above c. 4. §. 2. Ambrose In aliud Convertuntur of m Ibid. at the Letter r Cyprian his Panis naturà mutatus of Cyrils Trans-mutavit and as now in this Section is to be manifested in answering your other Objections to the full The Father o Gregor Nyssen Quicquid assuâ—â—enu conveniens est expertrum sit ut Apostolus vult qui hanâ— mensam nobis pâ—apaâ—vit in id commutatur infirmorbus olus Infantibus Lac c. Lib. de vita Mosis pag. 509. Gregory Nyssen comparing the Body of Christ with Manna which satisfied every man's Taste that received it saith that The Body of Christ in this Sacrament is changed into whatsoever seemeth to the Receivers appetite convenient and desired This is objected by your Cardinall to prove Transubstantiation but First Vnconscionably because it is in it selfe being literally understood even in your owne judgements incredible For what Christian will say that the Body of Christ is Transubstantiated into any other thing much lesse into whatsoever thing the appetite of the Receiver shall desire No. But as Manna did satisfie the bodily Appetite so Christ's Body to the Faithfull is food satisfying the Soule in the Spirituall and heavenly desire thereof Wee say the Soule and not the bodily appetite as your selves well know and the Councell of * â—certne Councell of Niâ—â— L. 4. c. 11. §. 3. Nice doth teach us to professe Secondly Vnconscionably objected because the same Father expresseth his Hyperbolicall maner of Speech likewise saying that p Greg. Niss Corpus illud Christi in Corpus nostrum ingrediens totu nâ—in se transfert Ob. by Bellar. l. 2. c. 10. §. Idem Greg. Christ's Body doth change our bodies into it selfe which in the Literall Sense according to your arguing would prove a Transubstantiation of Mens Bodies into Christ âšœ Were it for these are his two Instances into Milke or Colewoorts But what now 10 Bellar lib. 2. de Euch. ca. 6. Idem Gregorius in Oratione Catechetica cap. 37. multa habet expressè de veritate hujus hic locus ab Euthymio Dicit corpus Christi immortale cum nostro corpore mortali conjungi immortale per illud reddi quod in corpus nostrum ingrediens terum in se transfert commutat Deinde se explicat Dicit hoc fieri divinâ virtute explicat seipsum dicit enim nunc Panem mutart in Carnem Christi quemadmodum dum adhuc in terris esset mutabatur Panis quo ipse vescebatur in Carnem ipsius Quae â—am sunt perspicua ut non fuerit ausus ullus Adversariorum quòd sciam vel ad haec â—oca respondere vel aliquid ex hoc authore nobis objicere The same Gregory Nyssen saith your Cardinall in his Catechetica hatâ— such plaine places for the changing of Bread into the substance of Christ's Flesh as
Dei modus igitur edendi Patribus à nostro diversus quia Substantialis hodiè manducatio quae tunc esse non potuit nempe dum carne pro nobis immolatâ Christus nos pascit ut vitam ab ejus substantia hauriamus Ibid. pag. 83. Calvin himselfe as would make any Romish Adversary blush at your former Calumnies who hath not abandoned shamefastnesse it selfe ⚜ As that your Doctor must needs have done 1 Dr. Heskins in his Parliam of Christ Book 3. cap. 48. who therefore upbraided Protestants with their Common Bread onely because they denyed it to be Transubstantiated into Christ's Body even in the same his Booke wherein notwithstanding he confesseth the Shew-Bread delivered to David by Abimelech to have beene no Common Bread Which because it was before Christ incarnate in the flesh you your selves will sweare was not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ and yet notwithstanding was it no Common Bread CHALLENGE THus may you see that wee 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 bee 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 Conjunction whereof more hereafter in the * In the fift Book throughout Booke following where the consonant doctrine of the Church of England will likewise appeare And as your Disputers are convinced of a malicious 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 delivering by politike assurances under hand and seale a portion of Land although an hundred miles distant and conveying 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 only 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 enjoy 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 maner of Presence of Christs Body in this Sacrament SECT I. OVr Methode requireth to consult in the first place in all Questions with the words of Christ his Institution but seeing that you can allege nothing for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but only a literall Exposition of Christ's words This is my Body which by Scriptures Fathers your owne Principles and by unanswerable Reasons hath beene * Booke 2. proved to be most grosly false wee shall not need to insist further upon that only wee shall but put you in mind of Saint Pauls words in teaching the use and end of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament to wit The shewing of Christ's death untill his coming againe meaning corporally at the last day Which word VNTILL being spoken of a last day doth exclude your coming againe of Christ in his Corporall Presence every day for the Apostles word is absolutely spoken of his Bodily Coming and not of the maner therof albeit other Scripture teach that his Coming must be in all glorious Visibility We goe on In the Eucharist saith your m Si quis negaverit in sanctissima Eucharistia contineri verè realiter substantialiter corpus sanguinem Christi Anathema sit Concil Trid. Sess 13. Can. 1. Nos dicimus Dominum Christum corporalitèr sub specie panis conemeri Gre. Valent. Tom. 4. disp 6. qu. 3. pag 1. Councell of Trent is contained truly really and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ and they account him Accursed whosoever shall not beleeve this By all which is signified a Corporall maner of presence excepting onely Relation to place which we say is in many respects impossible as wee shall prove but first wee are to remove two Mil-stones for so you esteeme your Objections which you cast in our way of Demonstration of a Corporall Presence First de facto from as you say Miracles manifesting the same And the Second is your Pretence of Omnipotencie for the effectuating that Presence The pretended principall Romish Demonstration of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in this Sacrament taken from pretended n Supremus Iorus detur miraculis veluti testimonis 〈◊〉 Dei Bozius de finis Eccles lib 14. cap. 7. pag. 170. Miraculous Apparitions of visible Flesh and Blood revealed to the World SECT II. TRue Miracles wee shall hold as Gods Seales of Divine Truth if therefore you shall allege any such for proofe of a Corporall Presence see they be true else shall wee judge them not to be Gods Seales but the Devills Counterfaits Your Bozius one of the number of the Congregation of the Oratory in Rome professedly studied in historicall learning and appointed to extract out of all Authors whatsoever may make for defence of all Romish Causes after his diligent search into all ancient Records as it were into the Ware-houses of all sorts of stuffes having collected a packet of Apparences useth his best Eloquence to set forth his merchandize to sale telling us by the way of Preface o Hic ea tantummodò referemus quibus est palam factum divinitus in Eucharistia verum corpus esse oculi humani viderunt quod est omnium
used by that Father betweene The Flesh of Christ crucified and therfore Borne of the Virgin and the Sacrament of Christs Body whereof Christ sayd This is my Body CHAP. V. The second Romish Contradiction to the overthrowing of that which Christ called MY BODIE by making one Body of Christ not One but Many SECT I. YOur Profession standeth thus g Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. The Body of Christ albeit now in Heaven yet is say you substantially in many places here on earth even whersoever the Hoast is Consecrated So you Next your Master h Mr. Brerely in his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse pag. 150. Because Calvin Institut 4. cap. 17. §. 10. saith Etsi incredibile videtur ut in tanta locorum distantia penetrare ad nos possit Christi caro ut sit nobis in cibum c. Brerely laboureth earnestly to draw Calvin to professe a Possibility of Christ's Bodily Presence in divers places at once contrary to M. Calvins plaine and expresse profession in the same Chapter where he directly confuteth this Romish Doctrine of Madnesse saying thus i The same Calvin in the same Chap 17. §. 24. Cur inquiunt non faciat Deus ut caro eadem diversa loca occupet ut nullo loco contineatur ut modo specie careat Insane quid à Deo postulas ut carnem simul faciat esse non carnem perinde ac si instes ut lucem simul lucem faciat ac tenebras Ibid. §. 26. Corpus Christi ex quo resurrexit non Aristoteles sed Spiritus Sanctus finitum esse tradit coelo contineri usque ad ultimum diem Et. §. 30. Cujus ergô amentiae est coelum terrae potius miscere quà m non extrahere Christi corpus è coelesti Sanctuario To seeke that Christ his Body 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 bee 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 bee locall on earth As if saith hee shee would pull Christ out of his Sanctuary of Heaven And at last after that he had said k As for the objected sentence he explicateth himself §. 32. Christus illis presens non est nisi ad nos descendat quâ—si verò si nos ad se evehat non aequè ejus potiamur praesentiâ E◠§. 36. Vt Christum illie ritè apprehendant piae animae in coelum erigantur necelle est As untruly also doth hee allege Bucer Beza and Farel pag. 237. who had the same sense with Carvin Mr. Foxe sayd that Christ if hee list might be on earth but he sayd not so of and in the same time Christ his Body is united to the Soule of the Communicant hee 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 allegeth Calvins testimony against Calvins sense 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 l See in the former Allegâ—ition Brerely imposing upon Beza the same opinion of the Presence of Christ's Body in Heaven and on Earth at one time Although notwithstanding m Fiâ—ri posse ut Christi corpus possit esse in pluâ—ibus locis simul praetâ—r hunc Apostatum nemo inficiatus est quod cum credere nâ—luit tollit ab omnipotenti virtute Salmer Ies tom 9. tract 23. p. 173. 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 n Beza cum Adversarijs congressus ubi Calvini mysteria non posset defendere in eam prorupit Blasphemiam ut Deum neget omnipotentem disertè enim scribit Deum non posse officere ut Corpus aliquod manente substantiâ sit absque loco vel in pluribus locis simul Illud enim Angeli axioma apud Deum nihil est impossibile non sine exâ— pâ—ione accipiendum esse quod factum fieri nequit infectum O argutos Philosophos qui Dei Majestatem ad suas Physicas regulas non erubâ—scunt revocare Frateol Elench Haeres lib. 2. Tit. Bezanitae another termeth 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 II. IN the first place hearken to your Aquinas the chiefest Doctor that ever possessed the Romish Schoole o Catholici isti cum Thoma in quartum distinct 14. art 2. hanc rationem cut non possit corpus Christi localiter esse c. Quod si verò non postic corpus Christi localiter esse in diversis locis quâ—à divideretur à seipso profectò nec possit Sacramentaliter esse eadem ratione qui licet dicat hoc non esse per loci occupationem tamen dicit per realem veram praesentiam in plariribus Hostijs sive Altaribus quae realis praesentia in tot Altaribus non locâ— intermedijs non minùs tollere videretur indivisionem rei Bel. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. pag. 491. Quidam Catholici atque in eis Sanctus Thomas existimant non posse unum corpus esse simul in diversis locis localiter quià â—mquiunt unum est illâ—d quod indivisum 〈◊〉 quocunque alio Bellar. quò suprà it is not possible by any Miracle that the Body of Christ be locally in many places at once because it includeth a Contradictio by making it not one for one is that which is not divided from it selfe So hee together with others whom you call Catholikes who conclude it Impossible for the Body of Christ to be locally in divers places at once âšœ Besides that his other Sentence wherein hee holdeth this 2 Aquin. in Supplem in 3. part qu. 83. Art 3. ad 4. Dicendum quod corpus Christi localiter in diversis locis non potest fieri der miraculum quia esse in pluribus locis simul repugnat individuo ratione ejus quod est Enâ— individuum in
se includit Contradictionem sicut quòd Homo careat ratione Et qu. 8â— Art 2. ad 1. Corpus non potest actu esse in pluribus locis simul hoc enim est solius Dei Possibility as proper only to God Which though hee speake concerning the locall maner of Being yet his Reason as * See the former testimony your Cardinall confesseth doth as well concerne your Sacramentall maner of being on earth to deny the Body of Christ to be really in many Hoasts and on many Altars at once And Aquinas his reason being this Vnum One saith he is that which is not divided from it selfe but to be in divers places at once doth divide one from it selfe and consequently maketh it not to be One which being a Contradiction doth inferre an Impossbility So hee âšœ Accordingly your Iesuite Conincks 3 AEgid Conincks Ies de Sacram. qu. 75. Art 4. Dub. 3. Thomas in 4. Dist 44. qu. 2. Art â—â— ait Per miraculum fieri non posse ut corpus sit simul in duobus locis sc modo quantirativo Quià esse in pluribus locis repugnat Individuo ratione ejus quod est esse indivisum per sc Sanè haec ratio si absolutè nâ— sonat intelligatur corpus Christi non potest esse simul in coelo in hoc Sacramento If as Thomas saith saith he a Body cannot be in two places at once Quantitaetively no not by any Miracle of God because the thing should so be divided from it selfe then the words being taken as they sound cannot Christ's Body be at once locally in heaven and on earth in this Sacrament So he Thus is the maine Article of your Romish Faith concerning the Corporall Presence of Christ in many places at once wholly overthrowne by the judgement of Thomas Aquinas the Oracle of your Romish Shooles But when as Protestants argue accordingly as you have done your Ies 4 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. Disp 189 Cap 7. Ratio quae ab Haereticis affertur est Corpus idem si in diversis locis collocetur esse divisum à se Vasquez spareth not to call it the Reason of Heretikes Which bewrayeth the distorted and squint-eyed sight of our Romish Adversaries who knowing the same Argument to be used by your owne Aquinas as well as by Protestants do notwithstanding honor the one with the Title of Angelicall and upbraid the other with the black marke of Hereticall Earnestly have wee sought for some Answer to this insoluble Argument as wee thinke and your greatest Doctor hath nothing to say but that the p Duplex est divisio una intrinseca in se altera extrinseca accidentalis in respectu loci Itaque cum corpus est in diversis locis non tollitur indivisio in se sed extrinseca in respectu loci ut cùm Deus sit unus est in diversis locis anima rationalis est in diversis partibus corporis una Bellar. ibid. Being in a place is not the essentiall property of a thing and therefore can be no more said to divide the Body from it selfe than it can be said to divide God who is every where or the soule of man which is one in every part or member of the Body So he Wee throughout this whole Tractate wherein wee dispute of the Existence of a Body in a Place do not tye our selves every where to the precise Acception of place as it is defined to be Superficies c. but as it signifieth one space or distinct Vbi from another which wee call here and there We returne to your Cardinals Answer CHALLENGE AN answer you have heard from your Cardinall unworthy any man of Iudgement because of a Triple falsity therein First in the Antecedent and Assertion saying that Being in a Place or space is not inseparable from a Body Secondly in the Ground of that because Place is not of the Essence of a Body Thirdly in his Instances which hee insisteth upon for Example-sake which are both Heterogenies Contrary to this Assertion wee have already proved the necessity of the Locall Being of a Body wheresoever it is and now wee confirme it by the Assertion of One than whom the latter Age of the World hath not acknowledged any more accurate and accomplished with Philosophicall learning even q Si dicas corpus est hîc ibi idem ipsum quidem distrahas in diversa principio ptimo per se immediato prohibetur corpus esse in pluribus ubi est autem continuitas affectus consequens immediate unitatem Contradictiones enim sunt Iulius Scalliger Exercit. 5. quaest 6. For how can there hee Continuity in that 5. the Termiâ—i whereof are separated by divers places Iulius Scaliger by name a Professed Romanist who hath concluded as a Principle infallible that Continuity being an immediate affection and property of Vnity One Body cannot be said to be in two places as here and there without dividing it selfe from it selfe So hee Certainly because Place being the Terminus to wit that which doth confine the Body that is in it it is no more possible for the Body to be in many places at once than it is for an Vnity to be a multitude or many Which truth if that you should need any further proofe may seeme to be confirmed in this that your Disputers are driven to so miserable Straits as that they are not able to instance in any one thing in the world to exemplifie a Possibility of the being of a Body in divers places at once but onely Man's soule which is a spirit and God himselfe the Spirit of Spirits of both which * See below Ch ◠§. 2. 〈◊〉 §. 2. hereafter Onely you are to observe that the Cardinals Argument in proving Space to be separable from a Body because it is not of the Essence of a Body is in it selfe a Non sequitur as may appeare in the Adjunct of Time which although it be not of the Essence of any thing yet is it impossible for any thing to be without Time or yet to be in two different Times together âšœ And for the better discovery of the weakenesse of this their common Objection Wee adde that although Vbi Place or Space be not of the essence of a Body to constitute it one yet may it be sufficient to demonstrate it to be but one Body because of Contradiction as well as all proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or properties as Risibility in a man or else as Quantity to a Body and Circumscription to Quantity which although they be after their Substances in nature yet are they joyntly and inseparably with them in Times But that wee may argue from the very termes of Contradiction Your asserting the same Body of Christ to be Locall according to the dimensions of Place and not Locall according to the dimensions of Place at one time implies a Contradiction But you teach the same Body of Christ to be
signo Ratio est clara Quia corpus Christi est res omnino distincta speciebus Iuxtà hanc Conclusionem interpretantur multi quod alibi dixit August Sacramentum corporis Christi Quodammodo dici corpus Christi who relateth thus much saying that whereas Saint Augustine hath these words viz. The Sacrament is called Quodammodo that iâ— after a maner the Body of Christ Many saith hee doe expound them as spoken very Metaphorically and Improperly the reason whereof is cleare because the Body of Christ is a thing distinct from the formes So hee Confessing that those Many yield unto us that True and Figurative Sense of Saint Augustines Quodammodo which wee have all this while contended for âšœ In a word rightly might d Calvin Admonit uâ—t ad Westphol Augustinum totum esse nostrum omnes libâ—â— clamant Calvin say speaking of these Controversies concerning this Sacrament All the Bookes of Augustine upon this subject proclame that hee is wholly ours Much more concerning Christ his not being Corporally here on Earth will by the judgement of Augustine and other Fathers be found in the fifth sixt and seventh Bookes besides that which they affirme in this Booke in the Chapters following THE SIXT CHALLENGE In generall Concluding the maine Point BY this time wee thinke you may discerne betweene plaine dealing and false juggling for your Disputers have usually alleged 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 Disputation in confutation of many and maine Heresies where indeed they were necessarily to make use both of their Logicko for discerning Truth from Errour and also of Grammer wee meane the Exactnesse and proprietie 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 wee judge to be of necessary importance And thus much concerning the judgement 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 VIII YOu have already * See above 〈◊〉 5. §. â— 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 your have also heard your Cardinall making this Consequence viz. by the same reason it muct 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 c Vnum corpus in diversis locis positum unum habet esse substantiale sed multa habet esse localia ex quo fit ut omnia multiplicari debeant quae consequuntur esse locale illa autem non multiplicantur quae aliunde proveniunt Relationes verò ad loca necessariò multiplicantur propter dimensiones locorum Itaque erit idem corpus sursum deorsum propinqusi remotum poterit moveri in locum quiescere in alio loco nec tamen implicatur ulla contradictio Illa enim dicuntur Contradicentra quae conveniunt uni respectu eodem eodem tempore modo loco Ac nè id mirum videatur Anima humana quae tota est in toto corpore quolibet membro Corporis certè ut est in capite est remota à terra ut in pedibus propinqua ut in brachio quiescere dicitur ut in altero moâ— movere Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. § Ac primum 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 finde no Example within the Circumferences of the Vniversitie of Creatures but onely Man's soule which is a Spirit which point is to be discussed in the fift Chapter In the Interim know you that although Relations do 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 than it selfe hee may justly be suspected to be besides himselfe all such like speeches being as Contradictory in themselves and consequently Impossible as for a man to say hee is elder and younger than himselfe âšœ Which peradventure one of your Doctors saw when hee denyed in this Sacrament any Motion at all Because els saith 21 Ioh. Paluter à Castro S. T. D. Lect. our in 4. Sect Tom. 4. Lect. 58 Christi corpus in hoc Sacramento non movetur neque per se ne que per Accidens Et paulò post Si ad Hostiae motum moveretur time ad Hostiae motum esseâ— sursum simùl deorsum At hoc ex dictis non sapit verum hee at the Motion of the Hoast Christ's Body should be both below and above at once which savoureth not of Truth So hee And although your 22 Gabriel Biel. Lect. 47. Cùâ—n innumera sint altaria in quibus celebratur sacrum illud mysterium si moveretur per modios orbes coelis sphaeras elementares ad sâ—gula hujusmodi Altaria corpus Christi esset in continuo motu moveretur ad contrari is positionum differentias simul se ad oriâ—ntem ad occidentem meridianum septentrionem pro varietate situs Altarium quod est Absurdum Ridiculosum Gabriel Biel defendeth the Corporall Presence of Christ in Heaven and on your Altars at once yet that If should move from North and South East and West and all at the same time according to the variety of Altars This saith hee is Absurd and Ridiculous âšœ You * See above Chap. 5. §. â— will say and it is your common Sanctuary that Place is not essentiall
mans face in the divers fractions and pieces of a Broken glasse âšœ 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 Wee 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 wee see in throwing a stone into the water it maketh at the first a Circle and circle multiplieth upon circle till the last come to a large Circumference Even so the * Verbum quasi â—aërem verberans Cicero Word by Voyce breaking thâ— Ayre doth make in the Ayre Circle upon circle till a â—ound come to the eares of the hearers every of the parts of the Circle being articulated through the multiplication of the first forme from the severall emanations of the Rayes the divers eares do no more receive the same individuall Voyce than they do the same individuall Ayre whereby the Voyce is conveyed 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 eares which is not individually the same and serveth for nothing rather than to make the Disputer ridiculous Thus was that Doctor answered when hee 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 it's formes seene of thousand men's eyes at once that it is not Numerically the same âšœ And this you must grant whether you will or no because if as your Doctor hath * A little above at Num. 2. confessed See the Margin the Voice be nothing else but Ayre moved then seeing the Ayre which entreth into one mans eare is not the same with that which is received into another man's eare the voice which is an Articulate impression of the Ayre can be said to be no more the same than are the eares of the Hearers Which is furthermore demonstrable in this that the voice is more and lesse perceived of men according to their distances in place from the Speaker some hearing it more and some lesse some in whole and some in part But more and lesse cannot accord to one and the selfe-same thing âšœ Take unto you a cleere Example which is also your owne and Apposite when in a * See the Testimoâ—iâ— last proceding of Ioh. Garietius Looking-glasse broken into many pieces 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 piece of the glasse is not individually the same âšœ For so many Apparitions in the Glasse are by the Confession of your owne 3 Aâ—uin part 3 qu. 76. Art 3 Resp Quod totus Christus est sub quâ— libet parte specietum Panis hostâ—â â—â—egrà manente Quidam exemplum ponunt in imagine quae apparet in speculo quae apparet una in speculo integro in speculo autem fracto apparent singulae in singulis partibus Quod autem noâ—â—e simile quia multiplicatio hujusmodi Imaginum accidit speculo propter diversas reflexiones ad diversas partes speculi Hic autemâ—â— non est nisi una Consecratio propter quam Christus dicitur esse in hoc Sacramento Aquinas so many divers Reflections âšœ Wherefore these kinds of Instances are but Mountebanke-trickes devised to delude men that Love darkenesse better than light It might seeme to be a superstitious diligence to confute such sottishnesse with the serious judgement of any grave Father otherwise c Greg Naz. Orat. 51. Vnius corporis locus duorum aut plurium non est capax sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregory Nazianzen is at hand ready to tell you that there is as great a difference betweene Bodies and Voices or 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 maner apprehended so that the same Eare is capables of many Voices and the same sight of many Visibles A Confutation of their second and third Reasons taken from the Similitude of mans Soule or Presence of God devised to demonstrate a No-Contradiction of a Bodies Being in two places at once SECT II. TWo other d Argumentum sumitur ab exemplis Dei animae rationalis Deus est unus in infinitis locis indivisibilis anima humana est tota in qualibet parte corporis Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. Instances you have whereby to maintaine your supposed Bodily Presence in two places at once one is in mans Soule the other in God himselfe First wee 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 Body 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 humane Soule is utterly different for it is in the Bodily members not as a Body in divers places but as a forme in its owne matter being virtually and operatively in each part nor having Quantity and extension the unseperable properties of a Body but by a formall perfection As containing the Body and not contained thereof c Anima est in corpore ut continens non ut contenta Aquin 1. qu. 52. Art 1. 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 divided from the Body the Soule being indivisible ceaseth to be therein So utterly dissonant is the Soules Being in divers places Saint Augustine will tell you in the VIII Chapter following Section 6. that there is in this respect a Greater difference betweene a Soule and a Body And another Father will illustrate the like difference betweene Bodies and Angelicall Spirits in the next Section Nay and your Cardinall having * See above Ch. 3. Sect. 3. confessed already that It is not possible by any divine power that a spirit should be divisible after the maner 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 hee 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 infinitenesse to containe all places and not to be contained of any And therefore cannot this maner of Presence without irreligious impietie be applyed to any creature which notwithstanding f Quòd si quis requirat esse in loco â—à m circumscriptivâ— quà m definitivè id requirere ut non sit aâ—â—bi dicere possumus dari tertium modum existendi in loco nimirùm per solam praesentiam quomodò Deus est in loco Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. §. Altero your Cardinall blusheth not to do in that maner as was hitherto wee thinke never imagined by any Divine before him namely a maner 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 onely presence after the maner 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 Infinitenesse which being attributed to any thing that is not God doth equall the creature with the Creator God himselfe âšœ Not to mention the Difference of Opinions among Philosophers themselves touching the particular Seats of the Soule of Man One sort of them assigning the Heart as did Hypocrates Chrysippus and Aristotle Another party placing it in the Braine to wit Plato Gallen and Averroës all admitting a Determinate Seate to the Soule do thereby gain-say the Being therof in many parts of the Body as properly occupying so many places âšœ A Confutation of the former two Romish Instances in Mans Soule and God himselfe by Ancient Fathers in their Doctrine concerning Angels and Mens Spirits SECT III. ANcient Fathers wee trow were profoundly learned both in Philosophicall and in Theologicall Mysteries who notwithstanding as your g Iob 1. 6. Cum venissent et astitissent Angeli c. Origen Athanas Greg. Nazianz tanquà m dogma fidei tradunt Angelos moveri localiter neque omnibus locis praesentes sed esse cuique locum suum spatium praefinitum cùm illud necessariò requiratur ut ab uno loco in locum alium veniant Simili ratione confirmat hanc veritaâ—em Tert. Apol. cap. 22. Chryso Hom. in Heb. 1. Ambros lib 1. de Sp. S. c. 10. Damasc l. 2. de fide cap. 3. Nazian Orat. 2. de Theol. Athanas Epist ad Scrap Teste Piâ—eds Ies in eundem locum Iob. 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 than Hyperphysicall Crotchets had entred into the minds of ancient Fathers wee should have heard you allege at least some one of them if not for proofe yet in pretext and colour of patronizing these your repugnant Paradoxes concerning a Body taking the right hand or left of it selfe and the like Velut aegri somnia vanae singuntur Species For your better satisfaction wee shall allege some Testimonies which may sufficiently declare their Iudgement of an Impossibilitie of a Spirits being in divers places at one time whether wee consider the Spirits of Angels or of men yea or the Humane Spirit or soule of Christ Of Angels Damascen h Damascen Orthod fid l. 1. c. 17 l. 3. cap. 7. Angelus dicitur esse in loco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deus autem ubique existens copora vero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are so circumscribed in the place where they worke that they cannot possibly be in moe places at once Athanasius i Athanas Tom. 1 Epist ad Serap p. 201. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As the holy Ghost filleth all places so Angels are contained in a certaine place Accordingly Ambrose k Ambros de Sp. S. lib. 1. cap. 10. Seraphim quod jubetuâ— exequitur Spiritus quod vult dividit Seraphim de loco ad locum transit non enim complet omnia sed ipsum repletur a Spiritu Herein do Angels differ from the holy Ghost which filleth all things that the Seraphims do move from place to place Pope Gregory would be heard speake l Greg. Moral lib. 2. cap. 3. Angeli ut nos loco circumscribuntur comparatione quideÌ„ corporum nostrorum Spiritus sunt con paratione Dei incircumscripti Corpus sunt Angels are circumscribed 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 Objection How do the soules of Saints so often appear 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 Hee giveth his Reason why hee thinketh the other impossible m Athanas quaest â—l Antioch 26. Quomodò cedo mihi una existens Petri aut Pauli anima 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apparere in suo monumento in mille templis per totum mundum nec Angelus potest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edit Paris Anno 1627. Because it is proper saith he 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 think would require no more Tertullian among his many divine Answers to prove Christ to be God he urgeth the Arian Heretikes with this one as not the least n Tert. de Trinit circiter medium against the Ebionites Si homo 〈◊〉 modò Christus quomodò adest ubique invocatus cùm haec non hominis natura sit sed Dei ut adesse 〈◊〉 in omni loco si homo tantummodò Christus cur Mediator invocatur c. Because Christ is present in all places where he is invocated which is a power not incident unto man but proper to the nature of God So he How like you this And Augustine may not be thought to dissent when in arguing he tooke as granted that the o Aug. Epist 57 ad 〈◊〉 Mecum eris in Paradiso Non ex his verbis in coelo existimandus Paradisus neque enim in ipso die futurus erat in coelo homo Christus sed in inferno secundùm animam in sepulchro secundùm carnem Soule of Christ when it departed this life could not be in Heaven
and in Hell at once As for the Being of God in divers places at once which was your Cardinalls instance for proofe 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 egregiously absurd or extremely impious seeing that the Being of God in divers places at once without Contradiction ariseth from the very nature of Gods Infinitenesse of Being in whatsoever place which is as your owne Schoole might have taught him so as p Aquinas 1â— quaest 52. Art 2. 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 be the property of his Deity Such then is the impiety of your arguing by labouring to defend the maner of the Being of a Body by the maner of Being of a Soule or Spirit denyed by q Nazian Orat 51. cont Apollinar Obijcientem Duo perfecta non continebat Christus vz. divinitatem et humanitatem Resp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut vas unius modij non duos modios continet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Nazianzene and maner of the Being of a Creature by the maner of the Being of God the Creator exceedeth all Absurdities that can be named The holy Fathers will have something more to * Below Chap. 7. Sect. 2. 4. say to you but first wee are willing to heare what you can say for your selves A Confutation of the Third Romish Pretence why they need not yeeld to these Reasons whereby their Doctrine is proved to be so grossely Vnreasonable SECT IV. MYsteries of Faith saith your r Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. Argumentum sumitur à mysterijs c. Cardinall which exceed man's understanding are onely 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 Objection from Reason So you Wee answer Some of these former Mysteries wee confesse to be such as exceed 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 God-head 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 grane of Corne dying might revive againe or in the Creation to beleeve that something may be made of nothing than to say that a blinde man was made to see As for the last Objection saying that Å¿ Aeternitas est instans Darationis Bellar. ibid. §. Quintum Eternity is the instant of Duration it is a Paradox for t Aeternitas est duratio immutabilis principio fine carens Lessias Ies Opusâ— Var. de Perfect devia l 4 c. 1. yet is it true that Aeternitas est nunc stans non nunc volans ut tempus Cap. 3. Eternitie is Duration it selfe without beginning or ending which is conceived without Contradiction In all these your former Pretences nothing is more considerable than the miserable Exigence whereunto your Disputers are brought whilest they are constrained for avoiding of Contradictions in things subject to the determination of Sense to pose us with Spiritual Mysteries which are Objects onely of Faith by reason of the Infinitenesse of their properties and therefore may well exceed the reach of mans wit and apprehension without any prejudice unto Truth by Contradiction as if they meant to teach men to put out their eyes and never any more to discerne any sensible things by sensible meanes By which maner of reasoning all the Arguments used by the Apostles against Infidels for proofe of the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ's Body all the Reasons of Fathers against Heretikes in distinguishing of the Properties of the Divine and Humane nature of Christ in himselfe and their former Testimonies in discerning Bodies from Spirits by Circumscription and Spirits from God by Determination in one place and lastly your owne Consequences of many confessed Impossibities concerning Place as the Impossibilitie that God should be contained in Place as for one Body having Qantity to be incapable of a Place and the like are all utterly made voyd For to what end were any of these if your Pretences have in them any shadow of Truth âšœ You other Cardinall Contarenus observed more solidly out of Dionysius Areopagita that the * Set hereafter Chap. 10. Sect. 6. nu 6. God-head differeth from all other things in that it exceedeth all apprehension of man âšœ CHAP. VII The third Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODIE is by making a Body Finite to be a Body not finite SECT I. IF as you have said the Body of Christ is or may be at one time in so many places then may it bee in moe and consequently every-where at one instant This Consequence your ancient Schoolemen taught and your Iesuite a Quasi non possit creatura esse ubique hoc inquam non obstat nam omnipotentiam illi intellexerunt prorsus naturalem quia si non alienâ virtute sed suapte naturâ res existat ubique praesens haec reverà nulli creaturae convenit At nos altero modo non nisi per absolutam Dei potentiam ubiquitatem creaturae arbitramur Valent. Ies lib. 1. de vera Christi praesent in Euch. cap. 12. §. Quae sanè pag. 241. Valentia doth seeme to avow saying What hindereth that a Body may be Vbique every-where at once not by it's naturall power but by the Omnipotencie of God So hee This wee say is to make a Finite Infinite and your old Schoole-Doctors are hereunto witnesses who have judged it b Veterum Theologorum apud D. 〈◊〉 ratio 〈◊〉 est si idem corpus â—ssit esse in â—â—â—â—bus locis simul potest in â—luribus atque 〈◊〉 ubique Et qua â—um eodem Thoma dicunt Haereticum esse affirâ—â—â—â—e corpus Christi esse 〈◊〉 in duobus locis simul quia ubiquâ— esse est pâ—oprium Deo Peste Suâ—rez tom 3. qu 7â— Artic. 1. disput 48. Sect. 4. Hereticall to say That the Body of Christ can be in divers places at once because then he may be in infinite So they And heare you what your Cardinall Bellarmine hath publikely taught To say c Dicere corpus Christi esse vel esse posse in insinitis locis â—â—nul immensitatem divinam
in it selfe but in respect of the Place or of the formes of Bread under which it is the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and Indivisible Point thereof CHALLENGE THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illumnate the Eyes of any Reader to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth and of Errour namely to know that there cannot be a greater Contradiction and consequently Impossibility than for a Body consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts such as are Hands Legs Eyes and other Organicall members to have Being any where without Extension Commensuration and distinct Proportion of the same to the space wherein it is as the Propositions following will prove That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and Humane Body in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of later times SECT IV. ALbertus Scotus Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned and ancient Schoolemen who as your a Totum Christi corpus in partibus indivisibilibus specierum panis esse negaâ—â—â— Albertus Scotus Aegidius quia videtur impossible in se corpus extensum magnae molis cum tota organizatione figura in puncto collocari Suarez quo supra pag. 683. Jesuite testifieth Though it impossible that a Body that hath Extension of parts should be contained in an indivisible point The same opinion is ascribed by your Jesuites as ancient unto b Opinio antiqua quae fuit Durandi dixit corpus Christi in Eucharistia non habere quantitatem Fundamentum hujus opinionis fuit quod essentia quantitatis est habere partes extra partes distinctas inter se sieri autem non possit ut si corpus Christi habeat partes distinctas in Euch. sit totum in qualibet parte Teste Maldonat Ies Tom. 1. de Euch cap. 8. Arg pag. 180. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Durand and c Occham alij dixerunt quidam esse magnitudinem corporis Christi in Eucharistia sed ita ut nulla sit figura nec distinctio partium Sic Occham Bellar. ibid §. â—t Occham Now what greater injury can there be than after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundred yeares since the Ascension of Christ for any Christian to professe with your ancient Schoolemen an Impossibility that The Body of Christ is whole in every the least part of the Hoast to impose upon mens consciences as an Article of Faith so found and so palpable a figment That which seemed to the above-named Durand Occham and other 1 Suarez Ies in 3. Thom. disp 48. Sect. 1. De Distantis partium Nominales concedunt in corpore Christi existentem in Eucharistia pedem non distare magis à capite quam collum Ità Occham Ailliaco Nominals such an Opinion whence as they thought it must needs follow that the Eyes must be where the Nose is the hand confouded with the legs which as your Cardinal Alan truly said were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos and altogether * See above in this Chapter Sect. 2. monstrous âšœ And it may be that divers of you are of the minde of that Doctor of the Seraphicall order who teacheth you to 2 Corpus Christi non est nisi sub specie Panis partibus ejus ipsum esse sub quolibet indivisibili ipsius Hostiae per se negandum est Magister de media villa Sâ—raph Ord. in 4. Sent. Tom. 4. Deny that the Body of Christ is in any indivisible part of the Hoast âšœ That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be proportionable to the Dimension of the places wherein they are is proved by the confessed Romish Principle it selfe SECT V. THE reason which your * See above § 2. Cardinall layet downe to prove it necessary that Christ his Body should have in it selfe according to the nature of a Body distinct parts of head and eyes and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule he taketh from Magnitude which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length breadth and depth This saith he is inseparably united to Christ his Body in it's owne intrinsecall disposition in it selfe but not so saith he in regard of the place CHALLENGE THis your owne Reason may wee justly retort upon your selves proving that if the naturall disposition of the Body of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe it must be so likewise in respect of Place and Space because the three dimensions of the Body of Christ as you have confessed stand thus that one is an extension in Length another in Breadth the third in Depth and each of these three are distinct one from another Well then the Arme must be here and thus farre longer than the Foot the Legge here and thus farre thicker than the Finger the Hand here and thus farre broader than the Toe and accordingly distinctly in other parts But Hîc and Hucâ—sque Here and There thus farre and so farre being Relatives of Space and Place do demonstratively shew that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body which they have in themselves divisibly the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi Place or Space wherein the Body is If therefore you will not Heretically teach a Mathematicall or Phantasticall Body oâ— Christ you must deny the Article of Trent untill you can beleeve and make good that a part of a divisible Body longer or shorter broader or narrower can be and that equally in one indivisible point This is confirmed by the Essence of Christ his glorified Body as you confesse it to be now in Heaven possessing a Reall place in the sayd proportion of Spaces of length and breadth as it had here upon earth which it doth by the naturall Magnitude or Quantity thereof But the sayd naturall Magnitude or quantity of the sayd Body of Christ is according to your wone generall Doctrine in this Sacrament Therefore must it have the same Commensuration of Space although not of the same Space which is one earth Wee should be loath to trouble your wits with these speculations if that the necessity of the Cause by reason of the Absurdities of your Romish profession did not inforce us hereunto Therefore must you suffer us a little to sport at your trifling seriousnesse who writing of this Divine Sacrament and seeing it to be round solid broken moulded in the one kind and liquid frozen and sowring in the other do attribute all these to Quantities and Qualities and Accidents without any other subject at all So then by the Romish Faith wee shall be constrained to beleeve in effect that the Cup is filled with Mathematicall lines the Mouse eating the Hoast is sed with colours and formes that it is Coldnesse that is frozen and Roundnesse which weigheth downe and falleth to the ground as if you should describe a Romish
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 S. Augustine who is so devout in his fervent Meditations upon this holy mystery would not have oppugned it as hee did when unto that Question of Volusianus whether the Bodie of Christ before his Birth did fill the Body of the Blessed Virgin hee answered d Aug. Nullum corpus potest esse ubique totum quantumcunque corpus vel quantulumcunque corpusculum loci occupet spacium eundemquè locum sic occupet ut in nulla ejus parte sit totum necesse est longè alia natura est animae quà m corporis quanto magis Dei Lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Volusian Whose question to S. Augustine was Vtrum Christus intemeratae foeminae corpus impleverit 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 objected the Example of Man's Soule which is sayd to be whole in every member and part of the Body Saint Augustine as if hee had fore-seene your mystery of Errour pre-occupateth saying a In eo quod dicitur Deus ubique carnali cogitationi resistendum est mens acorporis sensibus amorenda ne quasi spaciosa magnitudine opinemur Deum per cuncta diffundi ut aër aut lux omnis enim hujusmodi magnitudo minor in sua parte quà in toto sed ita potius ut est magna sapientia etiam in homme cujus corpus est parvum Nâ—m si duo sint homines aequalâ—er sapientes quorum alter est corpore grandiâ—r non plus sapiunt ambo quam singuli sic in minore corpore non minor est sani tas cum minora majora corpora tam sanâ— sine Dispâ—r est profecto in membroruÌ„ molibus quantitas sed par est in disparatis sanitas quae non quantitas sed qualitas est Non potâ—â—t ergo obtinere quantitas corporis quod qualitas Aug. Epist 57. ad Dardan The nature of a Soule is farre different from the nature of a Body And againe the same holy Father seeking to find 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 Privilege for speaking of Quantity and Magnitude In all such Quantity or Magnitude saith hee there is lesse in the part than 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 have 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 b Idem Minor est unus digitus quam tota manus minor est digitus unus quam duo alibi est iste digitus alibi ille alibi coetera manus Nec solùm immobilibus corporis articulis sed etiam aëris partes suos implent locos Lucisque pars alia infunditur per hanc fenestram alta per aliam major per majorem per minorem autem minor Idem Tom 6. 〈◊〉 fundament cap. 1â— 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 wee may aske where are your Disputers now Nay yet furthermore passing from grosser Bodies he saith as much of Ayre yea and of the most subtill of subtills the light of the Sunne one part whereof saith hee cometh 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 hee would never have condemned the Eutychian Heretike for beleeving c Auâ—ungebat Haeretious omne illud quod in Domino 〈◊〉 potuit post resurrectionem in soâ—â—itatem aliquam esse redactam Greg. Exposit Moral lib. 14. cap. 31. The Body of Christ to have bin brought into such a subtilty that it cannot be felt But a greater subtilty there cannot be than for a divisible Body to be enclosed in every the least indivisible point Show us this Doctrine taught by any Catholike Doctor in the Church within the compasse of the twelve hundred yeares after Christ and then shall wee conceive better of your Cause And lest you may talke as you use of one Body penetrating another wee lay unto you as Damascen sayd unto his Reader that d Damasien l. 1. de Orthodox 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is impossible but that either the one or the other must be divided asunder Wee say furthermore that though this were granted yet would you your selves deny that the other must follow as you may discerne in Angels who are Spirits and moe of them may be naturally in one singular place yet no one can be naturally in two places at once That the Romish Objections against our former Tenet taken from Miraculous Penetrations are feeble and vaine SECT VII IT is ordinarily in the mouthes of every one of you to object the Miraculous entrance of Christ into the house the doores being shut his coming out of the grave when it was covered with a stoâ—e as some thinke 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 wee with many holy * Chrysost Nazianâ—â— Aug. Ambros Fathers do 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 just proportion of Christs Body Which penetration of
potest naturaliter exercere actus sensuum exteriorum Ita tenet Thomas Alij Authores quia sensus ejus non potest recipere has species ab objectis externis quia hic actus est materialis extensus suâ naturâ Quamvis potentia absoluta potest Idem dicendum de sensibus interioribus apetitu sentiente quia non uti phantasmatibus nec actum secundum elicere quia hic actus est materialis nisi à materiali extenso principio non potest intellectus ejus secluso miraculo acquirere novas species nec prius exquisitis uti quia intellectus hoc non potest facere nisi simul phantasia operetur cum intellectu non loquor de speciebus infusis Haec Suarez in 3. Thom. quaest 76. Art 7. Disp 53. §. 4. So also Vincentius Silivitius Senes Ies Moral quaest Tom. 1. Tract 4. 5. num 139. 141. Motus localis non convenit corpori per se non possunt actiones sensum convenire Christo naturaliter quia hae exercentur per species in substantia divisibili At Christi corpus est in Sacramento indivisibiliter c. Suarez and other Romish Doctors First that Christ as hee is in this Sacrament hath no power naturally of himselfe to move himselfe And this your owne dayly experience hath brought you unto whilest beleeving Christs Corporall Presence in the Hoast you shut him up in a Boxe where you still find the same lying as destitute of power of motion as any other unconsecrated Bread which being put together with it lyeth so long untill they both equally waxe mouldy putrifie and ingender wormes Secondly that Christ in himselfe as being in this Sacrament hath no naturall faculty of sense nor abilitie without a miracle to heare or see c. Thirdly That hee is voyd of all sensible appetite Lastly that without some miraculous power hee cannot possibly apprehend in his understanding any thing present nor yet remember any notions past So hee âšœ Iosephus Angles Florent in 4. Sent. Qu. de existentia corporis Christia in Euch. Dissio 1. 2. Aâ—t 9. 12. Corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento nec potest tangi nec per se nec per Accidens quatenùs est in Eucharistia non potest ullam sensationem accipere Ratio quia omnis receptio specierum quae est sensatio fit in organo quantitativo nec agere nec pati potest nec actionem transientem agere Communis opinio est Scoti Christus non potest aliquam operationem potentiae merae naturalis ut est nutriendi sentiendi habere Ratio omne agens positivum agit per contactum quod est modo quantitativo And Art 12. Oculus Christi non videt suum corpus ut est in hoc Sacramento proptereà quod est inextensum oculus est inextensus Scotus in 4. Sent. Dist 10. quaest 5. Nulla sensatio potest esse in Christo ut est in Eucharistia Petrus de Aquilia in doctrina Scoti spectatissimus in 4. Sent. Dist 10. quaest 1. Christi corpus in Eucharistia non potest uti aliquâ potentiâ activâ See Palenterius above Chap. 4. Sect. 9. Similter Aegidius Conicks de Sacramen Quaest 76. Art 6. num 91. Yet so that he is not alone For hee allegeth for this opinion your Aquinas and concludeth it as being without Contradiction Which your Doctor * See the Marginals immediately preceding Angles calleth a Common Opinion noting Scotus your subtilest of Schoolemen to be a Patron thereof Which they founded upon your other generall but yet vast and wilde Paradoxe of an Existence of Christs Body in this Sacrament without a Quantitative maner of Being by way of Extension of Parts It were well that you would take the Testimonies of your other two Jesuites for a supplement as namely of 1 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. qu 76. Art 7. Disp 191. c. 5. Opposita sententia vera est eo ipso quòd caret corpus Christi extensione in Sacramento neque agere neque pati posse prout est in hoc Sacramento corporeâ actione neque passione neque tangere aliquid neque ab alio tangi nec posse intelligere quantum per conversionem ad phantâ—smata nec sensus omnes operari posse operationes suas immanentes And therefore the Externall much lesse Disp 190. c. 3. Citat Thomam alios Scholasticos de non posse moveri per se Vasquez denying to Christs Body all Possibility of either doing or suffering as it is in this Sacrament And of 2 Gordon Scoâ—â—â— Ies Controv. 8. cap. 4. â— 19. Corpus Christi 〈◊〉 specie paâ—â—â— est modo planè 〈…〉 mortem in cruce sepulchro neque enim videt audit aut loquitur aur alias corporis 〈◊〉 actiones exercet prout est in hoc Sacramento cum in eo sit modo indivisibili et spirituali Gordon affirming the Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament to be Plainly after a deadly maner as hee was in the grave neither hearing nor seeing nor exercising any virtuall Act âšœ That this is a new brutish and barbarous Doctrine destitute of all ancient Patronage either of written or of unwritten Tradition but against Both. SECT III. HAve you any Text yea or yet pretext either of Scripture or humane Tradition for countenancing this so prodigious and monstrous a conception Certainely Scripture telleth us that Christ his Body by Resurrection is perfected in Sense and Agility and his soule in Iudgement and Capacity Nor can you shew any Father in the Church of Christ within the Circumfrence of 1400. yeares after Christ who held this your doctrine so much as in a Dreame or who hath not esteemed the Body of Christ to be of the most absolute perfection we say no one Father or Teacher of the Evangelicall Truth once fancied this un-christian and false faith âšœ No no your own 3 Fran. Collius lib. 5. De sanguine Christi Disp 5. cap. 1. Athanasius Serm. 2. in illa verba ad Philip 2. Propter quod Deus eum exaltavit Hic solus è mortuâ—s integer resurrexit Et libro de Incarnat verbi Cum omni integritate surrexit quae est Patrum omnium doctrina Et Leo Papa Tract explicans illud 2. Cor. 5. Cognovimus Christum secundum carnem Christi corpus post Resurrectionem factum est Impassibile nihil in eo enim infirmum remansit Doctor of Theology will tell you out of Athanasius of many surnamed the Great and out of Pope Leo whom you your selves instiled Great Both so intituled for their singular worthinesse who taught that Christ rose againe Perfest in his Bodie So Athanasius And that No infirmitie remained in him So Leo. And addeth of himselfe that All the Fathers were of the same Iudgement If so then were they directly Adversaries to your prodigious Beliefe except you will dare to say that Blindnesse Deafenesse and Senslesnesse are no
your framing a Christ unto your selves who as hee is in this Sacrament Is you say without power of motion of sense and of understanding Why my Masters can there be Lamenesse Blindnesse Deafenesse and Impotencie it selfe without Hurt of the same party so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill âšœ A Vindication of the former Truth against the palpably-Absurd albeit amongst you most plausible Defence of your seeming Romish Absurdities in Master Fishers Answer to KING JAMES of Blessed and ever surviving Memory SECT VI. HIs Tractate upon Transubstantiation so greatly magnified of the Romish Professors is very large wee shall draw his principall Points into a Compendium which consisteth of two Generalls and of divers Particulars His two Generalls are his Position and Supposition Master Fisher his Generall Position for Defence of Romish Absurdities the Consequences of your Transubstantiation Numb 1. A Christian Catholike saith he Seeing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming Absurdities that presse carnall Imaginations to the ground growes more and more strong to believe them imbracing these difficulties as signes of that doctrine which was believed of the Primitive Church And againe The seeming Absurdities should rather incline a Christian to beleeve this mystery Our Reply in Generall to prove that his former Assertion may truly be termed FISHERS FOLLIE For if the Absurder a thing be it shall deserve a more beliefe then the Pagans of whom Tully could say There is nothing so Absurd which is not taught of some Philosopher even to the affirming of Snow to be Blacke should be held to be more faithfull than the best of Christians and Heretikes who have turned their Phantasticall dreames into Articles of Faith should be judged to be more true Beleevers than are true Catholikes And sure wee are that by this Position the Jewish Rabbins who taught the people to beleeve in an implicit Faith all their Doctrines albeit it were to hold his Left hand was his Right should bee esteemed no lesse Faithfull than the Papist who by like Doctrine of blind Obedience have professed that Christ his Bodie being in divers Hoasts taketh the Right hand and left hand of it selfe And by the same Assertion shall Master Fisher thinke himselfe to be a better Catholike than were any of the ancient Fathers or yet any Romish Doctor yea or than is M. Fisher himselfe as will appeare in the sequele of our Reply The second Generall is Master Fisher his Supposition Numb 2. Master Fisher his Supposition is That although the Absurdities which are imputed by Protestants to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation seeme to be such Because they are not apprehensible by reason yet are they therefore saith he the rather to be beleeved notwithstanding whatsoever Impossibilities that can be pretended So hee Our Confutation must be accordingly two-fold The first in respect of Impossibilities and the next of Indignities Our Reply displaying the Absurditie of Master Fishers Supposition in respect of Impossibilities by the Generall Doctrine of Fathers Consent of Romish Divines and by his owne particular Praevarication First the Ancient Fathers of the Primitive age have unanimously professed a Doctrine of an Absolute Impossibility in all such things which imply any Contradiction as you have * See above in this B. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 2. 3. heard and maintaining this Doctrine of granting an Impossibilitie in such Cases to be a Truth greatly magnifying the Omnipotencie and Almighty power of God even by reason of Contradiction in them which is an affirming and denying of the same thing Concluding furthermore that gain-saying of Impossibilitie in things contradictory hath beene anciently The Sanctuary of Heretikes So the holy Fathers Secondly all the Doctors of the Romish Schooles of whatsoever Age Sect Society or Denomination have subscribed to the judgement of those Ancient Fathers in the same point of Impossibilitie but why Impossibility Because say they that such things are unconceivible in mans reason and that they seeme Absurd because of Contradiction And hereupon have concluded of many Impossibilities touching a Body as for example * See above c. 3. Impossible for a Body to be produced in divers places at once Impossible for a quantitie of a Bodie not to possesse a place Impossible for Christs Body as in this Sacrament to goe from one place to another Impossible for the same Bodie to be equall with a greater quantity and many other more Impossibilities have they reckoned upon the same ground that the Reason of man could apprehend nothing in such points but an implication of Contradiction And now all these great pillars of Christianity as well in the Vniversall Church Primitive as in the now Romish must by Master Fishers former Assertion be held to have beene no better than underminers of the Christian Faith in that they did not Rather beleeve those things to be possible even because they seemed Impossible by reason of Contradiction Lastly to come to Master Fisher his owne Praevarication * Mr. Fisher in his Answere to the 〈◊〉 upon the seventh point which is the â—ommunion in both kinds How can the Body of Christ saith hee be without either Blood or Soule unlesse it were dead and so should Christ be massacred in this Sacrament and that Eucharist be a Bloody Sacrifice and Christ glorious in Heaven cannot say truly that a Body voyd of Soule Blood and Sense is his Body Yea as Calvin himselfe confesseth It is an Absurd maner of speech to terme Christ the meere Bodie of Christ So hee Whereupon hee will be found so implicated within the horâ—es of a Dilemma that hee cannot expedite himselfe For say good Master Fisher should a Christian man as you have sayd the rather beleeve a Doctrine because it seemeth to be Absurd wee speake of sensible Objects why then do you not beleeve these Absurdities which you your selfe now do so utterly therefore condemne But do you indeed condemne them because they seeme impossible and Absurd why then have you broached a Doctrine of Rather beleeving things because of their seeming Impossiblities So easie it is for a Patron of Absurdities to prove himselfe notably Absurd Master Fisher his Generall Supposition in respect of Seeming Indignities happening to the Bodie of Christ from the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Numb 3. As hee sayd of Absurdities in respect of Impossibilitie so doth hee also argue from Seeming Indignities condemning Protestants for arguing against Transubstantiation because of Seeming Indignities As in not conceiving Christs Bodie saith hee to be combined unto the Consecrated formes of Bread and not to be polluted with such Indignities and Obscenities So he Our Reply As though no other Indignities might be imputed to Romish Doctrine except it were in such like Cases wherein the Bodie of Christ should receive some Corporall hurt or pollution There were and are amongst the Romish * See Booke 5. cap. 7. Sect. 1. Professors and that no small Babes who have taught a
of Christs Flesh must have meant that they Eate it not worthily But this Distinction cannot possibly accord with your owne Romish Faith which teacheth a Bodily Eating with a Bodily Touch by a Bodily Vnion of the Eater with the Body of Christ common as well to Iudas as to Peter to the Prophanest miscreant as to the Godliest Saint yea to the very Beasts as really as to Men. If this had beene the ancient Catholike Faith then could not these Fathers so peremptorily and precisely have denyed that any Wicked is joyned and united with Christs Body and especially when they mention in expresse termes a Naturall and Corporall Conjunction of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants by this Sacrament which you your selves interpret to be spoken of your Corporall Vnion by a Bodily Touch nor would Origen give this his absolute Non posse The Wicked cannot saith he be partakers of the flesh of Christ which is implyed in the Sayings of the rest of the Fathers when they speake so universally of the True Eater of Christs Body * See above in this Sect. n. 11. c. That every such are joyned with him to Immortality Whereof somewhat more hereafter But our Protestant Distinction for reconciliation-sake is that the Fathers in affirming The Wicked to eat the Body of Christ spake onely Symbolically to wit as they called the Sacrament of Christs Body the Body of Christ Sacramentally and Figuratively as hath beene * See Booke 2. thorowout copiously and convincingly proved So do they affirme the Body of Christ to be Eaten of the Wicked that is to say Symbolically by eating onely the Sacrament of his Body But in affirming that the Godly onely eat Christs flesh they spake of the Spiritually-Real Eating by Faith which was the maner and meanes Spirituall of being truly Vnited to Christs flesh and so to his person God and man and so as his lively members made Capable of Immortality it selfe as well in Body as in Soule This our Distinction wee have received from Saint Augustine for whom both you and wee strive as for the Homer of his age and Patron of our Faith in this Point which is to be tryed in the Section following In the Interim you who so earnestly plead against this privilege of the Godly to be partakers of Christs Body by making the Wicked to be as Capable thereof as any Sanctifyed member of Christ can be thinke but with your selves how that Satan is sayd to have entred into the heart of Iudas after his receiving of this Sacrament and then tell us if the Wicked be really partakers of Christs Body and not to Contradict that Scripture which denyeth that there can be any Communion with Christ and Beliall yet will you inferre in Iudas a Communion betweene Christ and Satan That Saint Augustine to whom both sides appeale is a Direct Patron of our Protestant Cause for proofe that the Wicked eat not the Body of Christ And Consequently an Adversary to the Romish Faith of a Corporall Presence in this Sacrament noting also an egregious Depravation of a Testimony of Saint Augustine by a Romish Doctor SECT IX YOu allege and wee as willingly acknowledge that Saint Augustine said that the Wicked and among others even Iudas doe eat the Body of Christ which hee meant say wee Metonymically and Figuratively in as full a sense as if hee had flatly sayd The Wicked eat onely the Sacramentall Signe of his Body because hee spake so onely Sacramento tenus that is Sacramentally Which Distinction as oft as it is seriously used by us is as scornfully rejected by you and therefore it will be requisite that wee produce some Author hereof who may be beyond all exception And none thinke wee rather than Saint Augustine himselfe especially seeing that your Disputers do collect Testimonies out of him in prejudice of this our defence which is that Saint Augustine denyed that the Wicked receive the Body of Christ properly but onely the Sacrament thereof There were Prophane Spirits in the dayes of Saint Augustine who pampering themselves in their vices notwithstanding presumed of Salvation because of their professing of the Catholike Faith and of their being the Members of Christs mysticall Body which is his Church and Concluded thereupon That they in communicating of this Sacrament eat not onely the Sacrament but indeed the Body of Christ These Saint 8 Aug. lib. 21. de Civitate Dei cap. 25. Respondemus ijs qui salutem promittunt ijs qui Baptismate abluti corporis sanguinis Christi participes facti quomodolibet vixerint in quacun que haeresi impietate â—uerint Respondendum est etiam ijs qui hanc liberationem polli centur solis Catholicis quamvis malè viventibus qui non solo inquiunt Sacramento sed reipsa manducaverunt corpus Christi in ipso scilicer eius corpore constituti de quo dicunt Apostoli unus panis unum corpus multi sumus At the end of the Chapter hee concludeth against these from the nature of Truly Eating this Sacrament Nec ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt quia non possunt esse membra Christi membra meretricis Christus dicit Qui manducat meam â—arnem bibit meum sanguineÌ„ in me maneâ— ego in eo Ostendit quid sit non Sacramento tenus sed revera manducare Corpus Christi manducare hoc est in Christo manere non autem in eo manet qui non est membrum Christi Augustine confuteth at large instancing in the Eating of Christs Body saith First that They cannot be sayd to eat the Body of Christ who are not to be reputed the members of Christ But are then the Wicked to be esteemed by Saint Augustine the Members of Christs mysticall Body Saint Augustine himselfe saith no and proveth as much from the Apostles words You cannot be the members of Christ and the members of an Harlot How then are they sayd in the beginning of that Chapter of Saint Augustine To eat and now in the end thereof Not to eat Christs Body This Hovv is the very Birds eye let therefore our ayme and levell be at this Those foresayd Prophane livers tooke to themselves this presumption for their Pillow to leane and sleepe upon in indulging themselves in their wickednesse Wee say they do eat no onely the Sacrament but indeed wee eat Christs Body it selfe because wee are members of his mysticall Body S. Augustine answereth directly that Christ by saying Hee that eateth my flesh abideth in mee sheweth what it is to Eat Christs Body non Sacramento tenus that is Not onely as concerning the Sacrament but Indeed So hee Where wee have a flat opposition betweene that which is called Revera a Reall eating against Eating onely Sacramentally So that the Antithesis falling betweene these Termes of Eating Christs Body Revera Indeed by the Godly and of Eating it onely Sacramento tenus
as much as to say Not indeed by the Wicked It must necessarily follow that the Wicked do not eat Indeed the Body of Christ and Consequently that there is not Indeed in this Sacrament the Corporall Presence of Christ which your Profession teacheth to be Eaten as well of a Wicked man or of vile Myce as it can be of the most Faithfull member of Christ Againe Saint Augustine once told us That the Sacrament is called the Body of Christ not in the Truth of the thing but in a Significant mystery which your owne Romish Glosse expoundeth to meane that It is called Christs Body Improperly The Second Assertion of Saint Augustine will accord to our former Conclusion 9 Aug. Tract 26. in Ioh. Qui manducat carnem meam in me manet Qui non manet in Christo proculdubio non maÌ„ducat Spritualiter carnem Christi nec bibit ejus sanguinem 〈◊〉 carnaliter visibiliter prem at dentsbus Sacramentum corporis Tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat Hee that abideth not in Christ saith hee although hee presse with his Teeth the Sacrament of Christs flesh yet doth hee not Eat the Spirituall flesh of Christ The Observable is that hee saith not They eat not Spiritually the flesh of Christ But They eat not the Spirituall flesh of Christ therefore called Spirituall because it is Hypostatically united unto his Deity So then that which they properly Eat is not Christ Body but onely the Sacrament thereof allowing no Corporall Touch with the Teeth but onely of the Sacrament it selfe Compare wee now this Doctrine of Saint Augustine of Pressing onely the Sacrament of Christs Body and not Christs Body it selfe with your Pope Nicholas his Profession of Tearing of Christs Body with mens Teeth * See below Ch. 5. Sect. 1. above mentioned and then will it be easie for any man of but ordinary Capacity to collect that Pope Nicholas by his Affirmation meant as directly to proclame your Romish Article of the Corporall Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as S. Augustine by his Denyall meant utterly to disclame and abandon it In the thire place Saint Augustine for your better instruction and apprehension of his meaning exemplifyeth it by two notable Instances and Comparisons the First between two different kinds of Communicants at our Lords owne Table namely Christs faithfull Apostles and the Reprobate Iudas saying 10 Aug. Tract 59. in Ioh. Illi manducarunt panem Dominum Iudas autem panem Domini They received the Bread the Lord meaning the Body of Christ But Iudas What Hee received but the Bread of the Lord which was but the Sacramentall Bread The onely Answer which your i Resp Bellarm. lib. 1. de Eucharistâ— cap. 13. Iudas inutiliter edebat sicut qui comedit et rejicit â—â—â—sus dicitur non comedere Cardinall vouchsafeth is that Saint Augustine spake so because Iudas ate the Bode of Christ Vnprofitably as if the Difference of Eating and Not Eating Christs Body had beene betweene the Different effects Eating Profitably and Not Profitably which you call Spiritually and not Spiritually which is the Evasion of others when as indeed the Comparision is expresly betweene the divers Subject matters of Eating The one being Bread the Lord which is Christs Body the other being the Bread of the Lord which is the Sacramentall Bread as any 〈◊〉 but an Halfe-eyed man may easily discerne Another Comparision remayneth whereabout wee are to have 〈◊〉 Conflict with your Doctor Heskins A Vindication of a Speciall Testimony of Saint Augustine in the same point against the notorious Falsification of his words by Doctor Heskins SECT X. DOctor Heskins before that he deliver the Sentence it selfe as a man but about to put on his Harnesse and yet sounding a Triumph before the victory prefaceth saying This place of Saint Augustine presseth our Adversaries so hard that they have no refuge So hee The words of Saint Austine speaking of Moses and other Faithfull in the Old Testament who in eating Manna ate Christ Spiritually and therefore although they died in Body yet died not Spiritually in their soules are these 11 Aug. To. 9. Tract 26. in Ioh. Illi manducaverunt Manna morâ—â— non sunt Quare quia visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt nam hodiè visibilem cibum accipimus Sed aliud est Sacramentum Aliud virtus Sacramenti Quà m multi de Altari accipiunt moriuntur unde dicit Apostolus judicium sibi manducant Multi manducaverunt Manna mortui non sunt Quare quia visibilem cibum Spiritualiter acceperunt nam hodiè visibilem cibum accipimus sed aliud est Sacramentum Aliud virtus Sacramenti Quà m multi de Altari accipiunt moriuntur That is Many of them the Jewes ate Manna and died not namely in Soule But why Because they understood it Spiritually For wee also at this day do receive the visible meat But the Sacrament is one thing and the Virtue of the Sacrament another thing How many do receive from the Altar and do die and eate damnation to themselves So hee Namely say wee Because they ate onely the Sacrament as the visible meat and not the Virute that is the Bodie of Christ signified thereby And by this our Paraphrasis Saint Augustine is fully Protestant professing with us that the Wicked Communicants do not eate the Body of Christ Your Doctor to make Saint Augustine as flatly a Papist as himselfe hath framed 12 Dr Heskins in his parliament of Christ Booke 3. c. 48. fol. 368. 369. The place of Saint Augustine presseth our Adversaries so strictly that they have no refuge Saying Manducaverunt multi qui Domino placuerunt mortui non sunt Quare quia visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt Nam hodie nos accipimus visibilem cibum Scd aliud est Sacramentum aliud virtus Sacramenti quam multi de Altari accipiunt mòriuntur Note here saith he the Distinction that Saint Augustine maketh betwixt the Sacrament and the virtue of the Sacrament Saying that the Sacrament is one thing and the virtue of the Sacrament another Then of the virtue of the Sacrament he saith that many doe receive it at the Altar and do die Meaning according to the Saying of the Apostle that receiving it unworthily they Die in the Soule eating and drinking their owne Damnation Now would it be learned of the Adversary how hee will understand Saint Augustine in this word Virtue First certaine it is that it is not taken for the Sacramentall Bread For that is the other member of the Distinction Then must it either be taken for the virtue of the Passion of Christ or for the Body of Christ it selfe For in the Sacrament be no more but these three to be received The Sacrament The Body of Christ and the virtue of his Passion It cannot be taken for the virtue of Christ's Passion for that is not nor cannot be
Death and Damnation to the Receiver in the receiving but Life and Salvation This virtue that Saint Augustine speaketh of is such that many do die in the receiving of it It remaineth then that by this virtue of the Sacrament is understood the Body of Christ which many by unworthy receiving do wickedly abuse and so receiving kill their soules and Die the Death that Iudas did See the Margin a false Allegation by depraving the latter part of the Sentence of Saint Augustine alleging them thus Nam multi hodie de Altari accipimus cibum visibilem Sed aliud est Sacramentum aliud Virtus Sacramenti quam multi accipiunt moriuntur that is Many now rèceive from the Altar the visible meate But the Sacrament is one thing and the Virtue of the Sacrament another thing which many eating die And thereupon taking a full Cariere in a large Discourse See the margin argueth thus By the word Virtue saith hee is meant the Body of Christ And by Dying is meant the death of the Soule But Saint Augustine affirmeth that the Wicked do eate of this Virtue or Body of Christ So hee Point-blanke Contrary to our Interpretation as can be not but that wee confesse that Saint Augustine by this word Virtue meant the Body of Christ and that by Dying is understood the Death of mens Soules but that his Assertion affirming Saint Augustine to teach herein That the Wicked Receivers that Dye in their Soules do eate the Virtue which is the Body of Christ is a plaine Imposture by a Grossely false Construction and Composition of Saint Augustines words thus Aliud est virtus Sacramenti Qudm multi c. wherein you see a full point as a deepe Ditch to sever virtus from the immediatly following word Quà m which your Doctor joyneth together whereby the word Virtus is Vitiously abused Then is he injurious to Quà m which being an Adverbe and carrying the Adverbiall Accent above-head as a Badge of Distinction hee notwithstanding turneth into a Pronoune-adjective Quam And thirdly He wrongeth the Construction of them both in matching as it were in marriage a little u in Virtus with a great Q in Quà m whereas every Grammarian by all the rules of Syntaxis would forbid the Banes Wee know you Romish Priests to be reasonable men and will therefore demand whether hee had not reason by some other Edition of Saint Augustine to justifie his Allegation and thereby his owne Conclusion as if Saint Augustine had meant That the wicked do Dye in their Soule by unworthy Eating of the Reall Body of Christ Wee answer no It is Impossible hee should evade by any such excuse and lest wee may seeme to speake partially wee shall offer unto you a witnesse hereof without all exception and that shall be the Author Saint Augustine himselfe the Expositor of his owne meaning in the very same Tractate and in his words a little after expresly concluding the Contrary saying that 13 Aug. Tom. 9. 〈◊〉 Ioh. Tract 26. Hic est panis qui de coelo descendit ut si quis manducaverit ex ipso non moriatur Sed quod pertinet ad virtutem Sacramenti non quod pertinet ad visibile Sacramentum Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premat dente Hee that eateth of this so farre as concerneth the virtue of the Sacrament cannot Dye albeit otherwise in respect of Eating onely the visible Sacrament he do dye Where you see that none that eate the Virtue which is as hath beene confessed the Body of the Lord dye the Death of the Soule And for better explanation hee distinguisheth affirming that the Maner of Eating of the virtue of this Sacrament is Eating it Intus corde Inwardly in the heart and the Eating of the other Sacrament it selfe is Eating outwardly and with the Teeth Now then that your Doctors Error is found to be so palpable and our Cause so Justifiable even by the Judgement of Saint Augustine will you as you are reasonable be also so Conscionable to permit us upon so great advantage to retort that Epiphonema wherewith your Doctor concludeth against us after his Discourse of this and other Testimonies of Saint Augustine already Answered viz. Thus have you received the minde of Saint Augustine as the Catholike Church teacheth and not as the malignant feigneth âšœ CHAP. III. Of the Capernaiticall Heresie concerning the Bodily Vnion with Christ by Eating What it was 1. That the Errour of the Capernaites Iohn 6. was an Opinion of the Corporall Eating of the Flesh of Christ SECT I. MAster Brerely the Author of the Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse lately published and largely applauded by all of your profession doth bestow a whole a Mr. Brerely Lituig Tract 2. §. 3. Section in explicating the Errour of the Capernaites so that it must wholly reflect forsooth upon the Protestants It is not needfull wee should deny that in this Chapter of Saint Iohn Christ doth speake of the Eucharist which if wee did wee might be assisted by your owne Bishop b Ionsen Concord in Ioh. 6. per totum Iansenius together with divers * There are recâ—oned by some these Authors Biel Cusanus Cajcian Tap per Hesselius to whom way be added peter Lombard l. 4. Dist 8. lit D others whom your Jesuite c Maldonat in Ioh. 6. vers 53. Scio Doctos scio Catholicos scio religiosos prohos viros sed impediunt nos quo minus in Haereticos acriter invehamur qui hoc capite de Eucharistra non agi contendunt Maldonate confesseth to have beene Learned Godly and Catholike yet fretteth not a little at them for so resolutely affirming that In this Chapter of Saint Iohn there was no speech of the Eucharist because by this their opposition hee was hindred as the c Maldonat in Ioh. 6. vers 53. Scio Doctos scio Catholicos scio religiosos prohos viros sed impediunt nos quo minus in Haereticos acriter invehamur qui hoc capite de Eucharistra non agi contendunt Jesuite himselfe saith That hee could not so sharpely and vehemently inveigh against Protestants Let it then be supposed as spoken with a relation to a Sacramentall Eating with the mouth as some of the Fathers thought but yet onely Sacramentally and not Properly as by them will be found true Wee returne to the Discourse of your Romish Priest * Above at a Christ having spoken saith hee of Eating his Flesh and the Capernà ites answering How can hee give us his Flesh to eate They understood eating with the mouth yet were a speciall observation never reproved of Christ for mistaking the meaning of his words a strong reason that they understood them rightly but for not beleeving them and Christ often repeating the eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood and requiring them to beleeve and when hee saith The flesh profiteth nothing it is the Spirit
§. 4. Dansqueius See above Booke 5. Cap. 4. Sect. 2. Dicere immortales artus Corporis Christi dentibus teri oris Blasphemi est mentis nequissimae Dansqueluâ— pag. 2. 〈◊〉 Respectively I. Of Taste Wee cannot say that one doth Taste of Christs Body properly but by a Figure II. Of Dividing Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part thereof and cannot be Divided because hee is impartible III. Of Broken Christs Body is not sayd to be Broken in it selfe but onely in the Sacrament of Bread and to say that Christs Body is properly Broken were a false speech and not agreeable to Christs Body IV. Of Tearing Christs Bodie say they cannot be sayd to be Torne but onely Tropically because it is not Divisible and to say that your Church of Rome holds that Christs Body is Torne with the teeth of the Communicants is Blasphemous V. Of Eating The Body of Christ is not absolutely Eaten because if absolutely Eaten then should it be torne with the Teeth and if so then also divided into parts It is therefore sayd to be torne by a Figure because the formes of Bread are torne with the Teeth Of the VI and VII Sprinkling and Powring out of Blood Those are not to be attributed to Christs Blood in the Sacrament because these betoken a Shedding thereof which is a Separation of it from his Body which was never but once on the Crosse nor is it properly Drunken So they That is to say So have they Objected the Sentences of the Fathers and So have they answered and consequently So have also confuted themselves âšœ CHAP. VI. The Third Romish Corporall Vnion of the Bodie of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants is with Swallowing it downe SECT I. YOur Generall Tenet is That the Body of Christ is present in the Bodies of the Receivers So long as the formes of Bread and Wine do continne Nex that a Satis est ut transmissio fiat in stomachum deglutiendo Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euc. cap. 11. It is swallowed downe and transmitted unto the Stomach Yet further that your Priest in your Romane Masse is injoyned to pray saying b Missale Roman authoritate Concilij Tridentini Papa Pij Quarti Ordinarium Missae Corpus tuum Domine quod sumpsi sanguis quem potavi adhaereat visceribus meis O Lord let thy Body which I have taken and Blood which I have drunke cleave unto my Guts or Entrails And a lesse c Missale par 〈◊〉 pro Sacerdotibuâ— in Anglia Iussu Pauls Quintâ— Papae editum Deus qui humani generis utramque substantiam praesentium munerum alimento vegetas renovas Sacramento tribue quaesuâ—us ut 〈◊〉 corporibus nostris subsidium non desit mentibus Missall but yet of equall Authority teacheth all you English Priests to pray saying O God who refreshest both our Substances with this food grant that the supply and helpe hereof may not be awanting either to our Bodies or Soules âšœ Insomuch that your Aquinas concludeth 1 Aquinâ— in 3. qu. 7â— Art 6. ed 3. Subst 〈◊〉 Corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus paâ—is quamdiâ— spâ—cieâ— illa manet That the Body of Christ ceaseth not to be in this Sacrament so long as the forme of Bread continueth in the Eater thereof So hee Not excepting any Eater whether it be Man or Beast thereby embracing this Opinion namely 2 Iosephus Angles Quest de Susâ—â—ption Euch. Art â— Dist Contraria Opinio est Communis Conclusio Brutum comedens Sacramentum verum Corpus Christi divotat fuit expressè definita per Gregorium undecimum Testo nostro Rivâ—to Pictavio in Academ Battaviae Prosessore in lib. Orthodox Cathol Tract 3. qu. 18. That a Beast eating this Sacrament thereby doth Devoure the true Body of Christ which you call The Common Opinion of your Church taught and defined by Pope Gregory the Eleventh âšœ That this former Doctrine is fully and filthily Capernaiticall SECT II. IN this Romish Profession every one may see in your Corporall presence two most vile and ugly Assumptions One is of your Devouring of Christ and feeding bodily on him The other is a Possibility of saying your presence passing him downeward Into the Draught and Seege that being as ill this peradventure worse than any Capernaiticall Infatuation for which cause it was that your Jesuite Maldonate although granting that you do Corporally receive it into your stomachs yet * See above cha 4. §. 2. denyed for shame that you are Devourers thereof But I beseech you what then meaneth that which your Romish Instructions Decrees and Missals as wee have * Ibid. §. 1. heard do teach you to do with the Hoast in case that any either through Infirmity or by Surfet and Drunkennesse shall cast up the same Hoast out of his stomach Wee demand may your Communicants be Vomitores to cast it up againe and can you deny but that they must first have beene Voratores to have devoured that which they do so Disgorge Will you beleeve your Jesuire f 〈◊〉 Ies Tom. 2. Cont. 2. in Ioh. ◠〈◊〉 mea veâ—os est cibus c. votare est â—ine masticatione glutire Osorius To Devoure a thing saith he is to swallow it downe by Chewing Say now do you Swallow the Sacrament by Chewing it then are you Capernaiticall Tearers of Christs Body But do you Swallow it without Chewing then are you Capernaiticall Devourers thereof Say not that because the Bodie of Christ suffereth no hurt therefore he cannot be said by Corporall Swallowing to be Devoured for his Body was not corrupted in the Gâ—ave and yet was it truly Buried and his Type thereof even Ionas without Mastication was Swallowed up into the Belly of the Whale and yet had no hurt Notwithstanding he was first caught and devoured who was afterward cast up and vomited That the same Romish maner of Receiving it downe into the Belly is proved to be Capernaiticall by the Iudgement of Antiquity SECT III. TTheophylact g Theoph. in Ioh. 6. p. 304. Capernaitae putabant quod Christus cogeret eos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voratores carnis suae esse nos hic spiritualiter intelligimus neque carnium voratores sumus noted the Capernaites Opinion to have bin that the Receivers of the Body of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Devourers of flesh where as the words of Christ saith he are to be understood Spiritually and so will it be knowne that wee Christians what are not Devourers of Christ So he But that Swallowing properly taken is a Devouring hath beene proved and if Devoured then why not also that which is the Basest of all Basenesse passed downe by Egestion into the Seege whereof the Antient Fathers have thus Determined Origen that h Origen in Matth. ca. 15 Quod si quicquid in os ingreditur in ventrem abit in secessum eijcitur Et ille cibus sanctificatus
his flesh and Drinking his Blood So hee By which your Objectour must be inforced to admit a like Reall Conjunction 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 c Isidor Pelus Verbum Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 2. Epist 281. Item Greg. Nyssen de soncto Stephano Gratiâ spiritus sancti permixtus est contemperatus Isidore Pelusiota of the word of God that It feedeth mens soules and is in a maner mingled therewith Of the Baptized that by Baptisme d August apud Gratian. de Consecrat Dist 4. Ad hoc Ad hoc Baptismus valet ut Baptizaâ—i Christo incorporentur They are incorporate into Christ saith Augustine And that thereby e Chrysost in Ephes Hom. 20 de Baptismo Facti sumus os ex ossibus caro ex carne ejus in lavaero They are made bone of Christs bone and flesh of his flesh saith Chrysostome Of the Eucharist f Domase Epist ad Zachar. Episc Dâ—arorum Quod accipitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Teste Casaub in Baron Exercit. 16. cap. 39. 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 g Primasius in 1. Cor. 10. Sicut salvator dixit Qui manducâ—at carnem meam in me manet Sic Idolorum panis Daemonum participatio est Et ut multi de uno pane participantes unum corpus sumus Sic si de eodem pane manducamus unius Idololatriae unum cum illis corpus efficimur As by the one Christians are made partakers of Christs flesh so by that other are men made partakers with Devils 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 mans soule by the word First a proper Mingling of Gods spirit with Man Secondly a proper Incorporating of man into Christ and a proper Mixture of Man with Devils And againe upon due Comparison of the Testimonies of Fathers objected by you with these now alleged 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 Christs Body and Transubstantiation and Vnions you must allow h August Confess lib. 7. cap. 10 Munducabis me Tu me in te mutabis Tu mutaberis in me Theophyl in Ioh. 6. Qui manducat me vivet propter me quodammodò miscetur mihi Cyril in Ioh. 11. cap. 26. Suo corpore Christus credentes per Communionem mysticam benedicens nos secum inter nos unum corpus fecit Suarez in 3. Tho. quaest 79. Art 8. Disp 64. §. 3. Vnionem hanc Patiâ—â— dicunt non esse solum inter Christum nos sed etiam inter noâ—metipsos quarenùs sumus membra Christi Primisius his Testimonie is at the letter g immediately before Foure more One of Christs Body into the Body of the Communicant a Second of a Christian Communicant into Christ Body a Third of a Naturall bodily Vnion of Christians among themselves And Fourthly which is Damascen's of Christs Body into mens soules All which kind of Presences Vnions Mixtures and Transubstantiations taken in a proper sense you cannot but condemne as Atheologicall and senselesse in your owne Judgement notwithstanding all the former alleged Phrases of ancient Fathers for your Corporall Conjunction âšœ The Romish Objections out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers more vehemently and as unconscionably insisted upon for a Proper Corporall Mixture out of the Testimonies of Cyril Alexand. and Hilarie Pictav SECT II. WEe have therefore singled apart the Testimonies of these two i Cyrillus 〈◊〉 10. cap. 13. in Ioh. Filius per benedictionem mysticam ut homo unitur spiritualiter autem ut Deus sui spiritus gratia nos ad novam vitam divinae naturae participationem redintegrans Et lib. 11. cap. 26. Fortasse etiam corporali unione coÌ„jungimur licet Disparati sums Nam si Petrus Paulus unum unitate in Christo sunt Petrus tamen Paulus non est age igitur cum Trinitas unum natura sit consideremus etiam quod nos inter nos corporaliter cum Deo spiritualiter unum simus Et lib. 9. cap. 47. Christus etiam nos in seipso habet quoniam naturam nostram assumpsit corpus nostrum corpus unum sactum est propterea divinae naturae participes facti sumus filij etiam naturales Ita ego in Patre sum quia ex ipso natus sic vos participes facti divinae naturae cum spiritum meum in vobis habitate sciverim Christus enim per spiritum in nobis est corruptibilitatem nostram ad incorruptibilitatem permutans Et cap. 39. opus est nos participes naturae suae fieri in novam vitam transformari quod a liter quam per participationem spiritus fieri ne quit Et. c. 38. Nullus ambigit cum ad coelos asconderit quin virtute spiritus semper adfuerit um praesentia tamen carnis abfuerit Et l. 11. cap. 3. Cum post passionem in coelum ascenderit spiritum misit non enim cum Apostolis conversari poterat cum ad Patrem ascenderat Dialog 2. in Trin. Si verè sectionem partitionem divina natura receiperet intelligeretur ut corpus si autem hoc in loco omnino in magnitudine in quantitate non essugiat circumscriptionem Lib. 11. cap. 26. in illa verba ut ipse in vobis sit sicut ego in Patre considerandum est si ad unionem consensus et voluntatis naturalem etiam invenire possimus per quam nos inter nos et omnes cum Deo conjungimar Lib. 12. cap. 58. in Ioh. Christus omnibus apparet visibiliter et invisibiliter Invisibiliter ut Deus visibiliter ut humo praebet etiam nobis carnem suam tangendam Lib. 4. cap. 14 Quommodò non vivemus cum carnem illam vivificatricem gustamus manducamus Et lib. 11. cap. 22. Caro non prodest quicquam spiritus est qui vivificat ad sanctificandum et vivificandum nihil prodesse carnem ostendit in quantum scil humanae naturae caro est cum igitur Deitati salvatio tribuitur non debetis carnis praesentiam propter hoc desiderare Idem Cyril de Trin. Qui mysticae benedictionis participes unum cum Christo corpus sunt unionem cum illo por fidem sortiti Et lib 4. cap. 17. in Ioh. Sicut si quis liquefactae cerae aliam ceram infuderit alteram cum altera per totum
Secundo Respondeo Wherein also hee expoundeth the like words of Iustin Non est novum apud Itenaeum Hilarium Nyssenum Cyrillum alios ut Eu charistia dicatur alere corpora nostra sed non intelligunt Patres cum hoc dicunt Eucharistiâ nutriri vel augeri mortalem substantiam corporis nostri sic enim facerent Eucharistiam cibum ventris non mentis quâ— nihil absurdius fingi possit It is ordinary saith hee with these Fathers to wit Irenaeus Hilarie Nyssen Cyril and others to say that the Eucharist nourisheth our Bodies But they did not understand a Substantiall nutrition or augmentation of our Bodies for so they should make it to be meat for the Belly and not for the soule than which nothing could be feigned more Absurd So hee Cardinall Tolet is the Second wee desire to heare his Judgement 6 Tolet. in Ioh. cap. 6. Annot. 29. Cum dicunt Hilar Cyril nostra corpora habere unionem corporalem naturalem cum corpore Christ Doctores â—i non sunt ita intelligendi ut velinâ— ex Christo sumpto sumenâ—e fieri unuÌ„ Ens naturale indigna est illis Doctrina sed hoc dicere voluerunt praeter unionem quae ratione charitatis fidei sit adesse intra nos ipsos verè realiter Christum ipsuÌ„ qui causa est fidei ejusdem These Fathers saith hee Cyril and Hilarie when they tell us that wee have a Corporall and Naturall Vnion with Christs Body in the Sacrament are not to be understood as if our Bodies and Christs Body were made one in Entity this were a Doctrine unworthy of them but they meant of the Vnion of Faith and Affection Christ being within us Really as the Cause thereof So he Observe that Cardinall Tolet noteth the Fathers to have sayd that the Bodies of the Communicants and the Body of Christ by this Sacrament have One naturall Being because of their other Sayings that by eating of this Sacrament our Bodies are Nourished and Augmented by Christs Body All which are spoken in a Sacramentall tenour of speech and not properly as you heare Francis Suarez his Course is next 7 Suarez in 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Nihilominus haec sententia improbabilis aliena dignitate majestate hujus SacrameÌ„ti quod non propter corporalem conjunctionem sed propter spiritualem institutum est dicente Christo Mea verba spiritus sunt vita Ioh. 6. See above Chap. 7. Sect. 2. at the letter f. Suarez Damascen lib. 4 cap. 14. Hoc Sacramento nos Christi concorporei existimus animo voluntate copulamur Cyril Hierosol Catechis 4. Mystag Sumpto corpore sanguine Christi efficimur comparticipes corporis sanguinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum ejus sanguinem corpus in nostra membra receperimus arquè ita ut B. Peâ—ius dicit Divinae naturae consortes efficimur Hinc Suarez Vbi propter Sacramentalem susceptionem non agnoscit aliam unionem praeter spiritualem per gratiam c. In 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp 64. quo supra I say saith he that Cardinall Mendoza is reported to have taught namely as out of the Fathers that Christ's Body is so united with our Bodies that they are both joyntly mingled in parts one with another Which is an Opinion Improbable and unworthy of the Majesty and Dignity of the Sacrament which was instituted by Christ not for a Corporall but for a Spirituall Conjunction and the other Conjunction is False and Absurd So he Gabriell Vasquez is now to take his turne first to make his Preface and then to deliver his Opinion 8 Vasquez in 3. Thom. quaest 79. Art 2. Disp 204. cap. 2. Tametsi Antiqui Ecclesiae Patres in exponendis mysterijs nostrae fidei insolita paâ—um in Scholis usitata ratione dicendi interdum utantur ita tamen eorum verba sententias accipere debemus ut licet primo aspectu aliquid Absurdi continere videantur nihil tamen contra ipsos nisi maturo consilio examine aliorumque patrum aut conciliorum testimonijs nixi pronunciemus Ibid. cap. 3. Aliqui omnia Patrum Testimonia quae allegavimus per figuram Hyperbolen interpretantur ut ita Patres virtutem jujus Sacramenti eximiè commendare viderentur non quôd revera fieret ita Ex Haereticis hoc modo testimonia Hilarij Cyrilli interpretatus est Calvinus Neque defuerunt Complutenses aliqui qui eodem modo per Hyperbolen illa explicarent Ibid. cap. 4. Quidam putarunt si sine Hyperbole explicarentur sequi ut caro Christi per omnem partem corporis nostri dissunderetur ut cera cerae lique facta at non sic dissunditur Cyrillus usus est hac similitudine ad ostendendam veram realem mixtionem corporis nostri cum corpore Christi non tamen quoad dissusionem eam similitudimen locum habere putabat Nec enim est Physics unio carnis nostrae cum carne Christi sicut ex duabus ceris neque fieri unam carnâ—m per conversionem unius in alteram sicut fit in nutritione animalis naturali neque id ullus sanae mentis ullo modo assereret Although the Ancient Fathers in expounding these mysteries of Faith use words not so usuall in our Schooles yet ought wee to interpret their speeches so that although at the first sight they containe some Absurdity yet not to take them contrary to their meaning without due advise and that relying upon Testimonies of Antiquity So hee And for Instances hee bringeth divers and more particularly that Similitude of Conjunction already objected out of Cyrâ—l As waxe with waxe melted are joyned together And this if it be taken in the Rigidity of the words hee denyeth to note either Diffusion of Christs Body into the parts of mans Body or else a Substantiall Conversion into them All these acknowledgements being so plaine and ingenuous and delivered with so full an Assurance and Resolution of your owne Doctors of most exquisite judgement above Others in your Church do minister unto us matter of Astonishment to wonder with what Consciences they could urge us with these Sentences of the Fathers as they goe under a Literall habit and propriety of Speech seeing that now after some Deliberation they find the same to be so glowing hot that they themselves not daring to touch them with their bare fingers take hold of them with a Distinction as it were with a paire of Tongs saying that 9 Suarez in 3. Thom. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Existimo omnino certum praeter contactum corporis nostri Christi medijs speciebus Sacramentalibus non intervenire materialem aliquam unionem physicam veram Because there is no Naturall Conjunction between Christs Body and ours excepting onely a Touch of the one by the other under formes of Bread The Vnion spoken of by the Fathers is not Physicall or
Second place the Eucharist is called in the Greeke 3 In Liturgijs ut patet ex Casaubon Exerc. 16. cap. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Liturgies and in the Councell of * Conc. Nicen can 13. Si quis egreditur de corpore ultimo necessario viatico non privetur c. Nice the Viaticum that is Viand or Provision for our Travell in our way to Life everlasting A word objected by your 4 Aquinas part 3. quaest 73. Art 4. Hoc Sacramentum est praefigurativum fruitionis Dei quae erit in patria ideo dictum viaâ—icum quia hic praebet nobis viam illuâ— perveniendi Aquinas and others which notwithstanding can prove no more for your properly Corporall Receiving the Eucharist than it can for receiving the same Corporally in Baptisme which is called by 5 Basil Exhort ad Baptismum De Baptisme sic monet Iuvenem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil and 6 Nazian Orat. 40. de Baptismo vult morientem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregorie Naxianzene our Viaticum See the 7 Gahrieâ— Albispin Episc lib. Observat 11. Qui hoc viaticum in omnibus Canonibus Eucharistiam interpretantur non mious labantur cum tot sint genera viatici quot sunt modi viae ad Ecclesiae communionem obtinendam Consideres nihil aliud dici viaticum nisi quod in morte sumitur in alteram vitam proficiscenti prodesse potest At Baptismus Absolutio quando morientibus impartiuntur quid ni viatica censeri possint Margin The Third is the Title of Pledge which your 8 Bellar. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 cap. 17. ex Optato Optatus vocet Eucharistâ—◠〈…〉 fidei et spem Resurrectionis Cardinall hath urged out of Optatus naming the Eucharist the Pledge of Salvation helpe of Faith and hope of our Resurrection Which are say wee delivered in the same Teâ—or and sense of speech wherein 9 Basil exhort ad Baptis Baptismus namque ad resurrectionem facultas quaedam et aâ—â—abo c. Basil and 10 Theodoret. in Divinorum Decretorum Epitome de Baptismo Baptismus est pignus et Aâ—â—a futuroruÌ„ bonorum et futurae Resurrectionis Theodoret termed Baptisme the Pledge and Earnest of Blessings to come and of our future Resurrection The Common Idâ—ome of Antiquity being so frequent and familiar equally for Baptisme as for the Eucharist who can but admire the Boldnesse of our Adversaries in their so instant pressing and inculcating of those former Sentences which cannot be more earnestly Objected for the one than they may be easily Confuted by the other as will be more conspicuous in our Relation in the next Section following That the former Objected Sentences of Antiquity concerning Feast and Guest c. Viand and Pledge do in themselves altogether Confute your Romish Pretence to the further manifestation of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Romish Disputers SECT II. CHrist by Saint Hierome as you have heard is said in receiving this Sacrament at his first Institution thereof to have beene both Convivium and Convivam that is both Feast and Guest Eating his owne Body And your Doctor Heskins Instanâ—eth in the like speech of Chrysostome saying that 11 Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ Book 2. cap 55. objected out of Chrysostome in Matth 26. Hom. 83. Ipse quoque orbit ex eo ne 〈◊〉 â—â—â—bis illis dicerent Quid 〈◊〉 sanguiâ—â—m bibimus et carnem 〈◊〉 ac ideo perâ—urbarentur Ne igitur tunc quoque id accideret primus ipse 〈◊〉 fecit ut Tranquâ—lo animo ad communicationem mysteriorum induceret Christ himselfe dranke thereof in the behalfe of his Disciples lest they should be troubled with his words of Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood therefore did hee himselfe first receive that hee might induce them to take it with a Quiet Minde So Chrysostome whom your Doctor allegeth for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ and then applying himselfe to his Reader Now you have heard saith hee the mind of Chrysostome upon the words of Christ and by the same also you may know both how He and how also the Apostles who first received the Cup at Christs hand did believe So hee And wee shall as willingly subscribe to the Orthodoxe meaning of Hierome and Chrysostome for they Both agree in one Thus then Christ must have beene a Guest and Feast himselfe unto himselfe in Eating his owne Body either Naturally or Spiritually or Romishly or else Sacramentally But not Naturally to have his Body fed by the same his owne Body for this Conceipt in your * See above own Judgement is Absurd Nor Spiritually Because hee needeth not any Spirituall helpe of any Sacrament for nourishing or augmenting any Grace in his Soule Nor yet Romishly by a Bodily Touch which is your Professed Corporall Vnion Because it was never heard that any man was fed and feasted by an onely Touch. A Bullet for example transmitted into the Belly doth Touch not feed Nutrition and Feeding being Properly a Substantiall Change of a thing Nourishable into the Substance of the Body Nourished And againe what can be more grosse than to imagine albeit but in a Dreame of a man Eating with his Mouth his owne Mouth Swallowing with his Throat his owne Throat Disgesting with his Stomacke his owne Stomacke All which Consequences follow upon a mans wholly Eating his owne Body Therefore must wee apprehend such Speeches of the Fathers in a fourth sense to wit Sacramentally by attributing the name of the Thing unto the Signe as wee teach which sense the Objected Testimony of Chrysostome doth confirme unto us who saith not that Christ Dranke or Ate himselfe but that hee dranke of the Passeover lest they that heard him should say What shall wee drinke his Blood which is as much as if Chrysostome had directly sayd that Christ therefore dranke of the Cup that they seeing him drinke might thereby understand that Hee did no more drinke his owne Blood than Hee in Eating did appeare to Eat his owne Flesh Hee therefore Dranke saith Chrysostome lest they should be troubled to thinke what what but that hee Dranke his owne Blood which sense of Chrysostomes the sentence it selfe doth evince lest that saith hee they should say within themselves Shall wee drinke his Blood Such Interrogative speeches as your owne Schoole teaches you have Vim Negationis that is imply a Negation and import as much as to thinke that Christ did not Drinke his owne Blood Will you have any more Chrysostome explayning the words of Christ Ioh. 6. of Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood giveth all Christians a Caveat not to understand them Carnally 12 Chrysost in Ioh. 6. Hom. 46. Quid est carnaliter intelligere simpliciter ut res dicuntur neque aliud quippiam excogitate And what is it saith hee to understand them Carnally even to understand them simply as they are spoken and not conceive any thing else
digerendus Aug. Tract 26. in Ioh. Panis iste quaerit esurlem interioris hominis Basil in Psalm Est quiddam interni hominis os quo pascitur recipiens verbum vitae qui panis descendit de caelo Wee adde the particular accordant Testimonies of diverse Fathers of whom if you aske What the Meat is which you must believe to Eat in this Sacrament They will tell you Not of the Body but of the Soule If Who must be the Eater Not the outward but the Inward man If What it is that hungreth for this The Inward Soule If What must taste it The Soule If with What mouth That whereof Tertullian said speaking of Christs Flesh It is to be devoured with the Eare ruminated with the Minde and disgested with Faith If How Let Saint Augustine make up the whole harmony Eat his Flesh * See above ch 6. §. 4. This saith hee is a Figurative Speech commanding us to communicate of his Passion and sweetly and profitably close up in our memories that his Flesh was wounded and crucifyed for us So the Fathers Besides many other like Sayings by us already related in the former Sections wherein hath beene opposed out of the Fathers against your Corporall Touch saying of Christ Touch mee not against your Orall Eating thus Not meat of the Tooth but of the Minde against your Swallowing thus Wee Devour not Christs Flesh against your Corporall mixture therewith thus Wee mingle not the Persons and Substances And against your Corporall Transmitting the same Body downe by Egestion thus It descendeth not into the Draught Wee therefore according to the genuine sense of Primitive Fathers answerable to the Doctrine of Christ conclude that such as is our Feeding of Christs Body in this Sacrament such also must be our Eating because Eating is ordained for Feeding But by the universall Consent of all Christian Professours of all ages whether Primitive or Successive Greeke or Romane Protestants or Papists our Spirituall Feeding of Christ Body in this Sacrament is devoyd of all Corporall Instrument or effect Therefore our Spirituall Eating is no way Corporall âšœ CHALLENGE THrice therefore yea foure times unconscionable are your Disputers in Objecting the former Sentences of holy Fathers as teaching a Corporall and Naturall Vnion of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants once because they in true sense make not at all for your Romish Tenet next because they make against it then because the Corporall Conjunction though it be of the Body of Christ and Bodies of Christians in respect of the Object yet for the Matter and Subject 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 Conjunction properly and perpetually belonging to the Sanctifyed 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 Conjunction of Christ his Body in Boxes and Dunghills in Mawes of Beasts in Guts of Mice Wormes and Dogs and at length into the Seege as you have taught Fie Fieâ— Tell it not in Gath nor let it be once heard of in any Heathenish Nation to the Blaspheming of the Christian profession and Dishonouring of the Broad Seale of the Gospel of Christ which is the Blessed Sacrament of his precious Body and Blood âšœ Thus much of the Romish Consequence from their Proper and Literall sense of Christs words This is my Body so farre as concerneth Corporall Vnion The next Consequence will be touching the Proper Sacrificing thereof whereunto wee proceed nothing doubting but that wee shall finde your Romish Disputers the same men which hitherto they have appeared to be Peremptory in their Assertions Vnconscionable in their Inforcements of the Sentences of Antiquity Contradictory to themselves and Vaine and Absurd in their Inferences and Conclusions âšœ THE SIXTH BOOKE Entreating of the fourth Romish Consequence which concerneth the pretended proper Propitiatorie Sacrifice in the Romish Masse arising from the depraved Sense 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 WHo soever shall deny it say your Fathers of a Si quie dixerit non offerri Deo verum proprium Sacrificium aut non esâ—t Propitiatorium Aâ—athema sit cone Triâ— Sess 22. Cap. 1. 3. Visibile cap. 1. Sacramentum verè propitiatorium cap. 2. Trent to bee a true and proper Sacrifice or that it is Propitiatory Let him bee Anatherna or Accisrsed Which one Canon hath begot two Controversies as you b Prima Controversia est 〈◊〉 Missa verè propriè dictum Sacrificium Seâ—undâ— sit nè Propitiatorium Bellar. Prafâ—â—â—â— Tract de Missa know One Whether the Sacrifice in the Masse be a proper Sacrifice 2. Whether it bee truly Propitiatory 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 Deniers that is the Cursers or the parties so Cursed deserve rather the Curse of God wee are forthwith to examine Wee begin with the Sacrifice as it is called Proper This Examination hath foure Trials 1. By the Scripture 2. By the Judgement of Ancient 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 our 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 We 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 his 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 FACITE DOE THIS SECT I. WHen wee call upon you for a Proofe by the words of Christ we exact not the very 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 a Hoc facite Tunc utà Sancto Synodo definitum est Christus Sacerdotes instituit praecepirgue ut ipsi qui 〈…〉 eis essent corpus ejus immolarent Catechis Trid. de Euch. Num. 58. Trent hath collected the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ which your Cardinall avoucheth with his b Cerium est probari Sacrificium Missae his
expounding them of all sins adding also Ego verâ— nunquam invenio hujus Sacrificij usum à Patribus ad pauciora restringi peccata quam ipsa immolatio crucis Ibid. pag. 626. 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 hee produceth are these Chrysostome Theophylact Cyprian and Origen If these will not suffise you may take unto you these b Calix sive medicamentum holocaustum ad sanandas infirmitates purgandas iniquitates Cyprian de Coena Domini Vt cum Deo acceptum fuerit peccata dimittantur August de Civiâ— lib. 20. cap. 25. Omnis nocumenti est reparatio omnis sortis purgatio Damasc lib. 4. de â—ide cap. 14. Omne crimen Iuâ— Papa apuâ— Gratian de Consecrat Dist 2. Vt peccata nostra dimittat Ambros lib. 1. de Oâ—â—ic cap. 48. There might be added â—ustine Martyr Dial. cum Triphone Chrysost Hom. 13. in Ephes Orig. Hom. 13. in Levit. besides the Liturgies of Basil and others that are extant other Iulius Pope of Rome Iustine Martyr Augustine Cyril and Basil Do 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 Proclame all Not-Communicants to Depart From which Custome afterwards the word Masse had it's Originall namely from the words Ite missa est as * See above Booke 1. Chap. â— Sect. â— â— 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 c Canon Missae De Applicatione omnium Circumstantium quorum tibi fides cognita est nota devotio pro quibus Tibi offerimus c. Canon of the Masse provideth that Application of your Sacrifice be made unto him for Remission of sinnes And that as your Iesuite teacheth d Hinc Suarez Ies Quia oblatio hujus Sacrificij est fructuosa ex opere operato ergò rationi consentaneum est ut omnes qui ad illum verè concurrunt vel per proprium actum seu concursum moralem participent hujusmodi fructum talis oblationis In 3. Thom. qu. 83. Art 1. Disp 79. §. â— The Fruit of the Sacrifice Ex opere operato redoundeth unto him and not this onely but also to be e Costerus Christian Institut lib. 1. cap 8 de sacro Missae officio quotidiâ— audiendo Quotquot adsunt dignè se paraÌ„t spiritualiter corpore Domini reficiuntur per os Sacerdotis 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 wee speake Reason unto you or no. All Antiquity Catholike as hath beene generally * See Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. 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 by receiving the Sacrament but shut all others out of Doores which wee say they neither would nor could lawfully have done if they had beene of your now Romish Faith to believe that it is a Sacrifice Propitiatory for all such as devoutly 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 Wee 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 wee have expected some Reasons which might move your Church so to lessen the proportion of Christ's Passion in the Application therof for Remission either of sinnes or punishments And now at length your Iesuite Salmeron cometh to resolve us saying a Salmeron Ies Si hoc esset infiniti valoris celebrata esset Missa pro redemptione omniuÌ„ animarum quae in expiatorio carcere contiuentur totum evacuaret Purgatorium quod non est credendum quia frustrà tot Missae prâ—o uno defuncto celebrarentur Tom. 9. Tract 33. pa. 268. De Missis privatis 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 hee Wee may not so farre digresse as to enter into this Controversie of Purgatory because wee 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 graceles Doctrine of disannulling the infinite efficacie of Christ's Blood which is so utterly forlorne of all Approbation from Antiquity that your Disputers have not alleged so much as one Iota out of any Father for warrant thereof Next in the Sacrifice of your Masse there is say b Valent. Ies Quaedam portio remissionis competit Sacerdoti ministranti quaedam ei cui Sacerdos vult peculiari intentione applicare Quae intentio non tantum valet pro pluribus ac si pro uno solo celebretur Lib. 1. de Missa cap. ult §. Ac primum Et Alan lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. Vt qui Sacrificium pro Petro oâ—â—eit ratione stipendij Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 79. §. 9. pag. 1021. you a Portion thereof appropriated to the Priest alone which is a power to apply by his Memento the same Sacrifice to whom hee will so farre forth that hee extend his Memento upon any one to whom hee shall be pleased to intend it upon Condition to receive money therefore insomuch 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 c Alan In certarum personarum Causis certam Sacrificij aestimationem â—c fructus quantitatem desinire non tam certa loquimur quia ad ista particularia nec Scripturae nec Patres quicquam conferunt Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. pag. 635. Alan your Advocate is ready to answer for you and wee are attentive to heare what
Sacrilegiousnesse it selfe as you have seene in a former ſ See above in this Booke Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Synopsis BOOKE VII This containeth a Discoverie of your Masse-Idolatry not onely as being equall with the Doctrine of some Heretikes but in one respect exceeding the infatuation of the very t Booke 7. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. Pagans besides the Generall Doctrine of the power of your Priests u Cha. 5. Sect. 3. Intention in consecrating hath beene yoaked by your owne Jesuite with the Heresies of the * Cha. 9. Sect. 5. Donatists When you have beheld your owne faces in these divers Synopses as it were in so many glasses wee 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. AN INDEX Of the Matters contained in the Eight precedent Bookes against the ROMISH MASSE A ABSTEMIOVSNES No sufficient reason for Altering Christs Ordinance in the use of the Cup. pag. 79. ABSVRD to hold with many Romish Doctors Production to be the means of Transubstantiation p. 153. Absurdities expostulated by Master Brerely p. 286. Absurdities of the Romish Doctrine concerning Transubstantiation and the Bodily Being of Christ in the Eucharist with the palpable Absurdities of the Iesuites defence thereof p. 291. unto p. 301. ACCIDENTS No Substance ingendred out of meere Accidents Confessed p. 174. Not Accidents but Aire maketh drunke pag. 175. Accidents newly happening to the Sacrament cannot be without their Subjects p. 178. 179. This Figment never dreamed off by Ancient Fathers Book 3. chap. 3. throughout Accidents nourishing Substance absurdly confirmed by the Iesuite Fisher from Substances nourishing Substances p. 296. num 6. ADDVCTION pretended to be the sole maner of Transubstantiation by some Iesuites and confuted as false by others pag. 153. unto p. 156. ADORATION Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is the Romish Profession pag. 504. Not proved by Christs Institution p. 505. Nor by Antiquity either in their objected Verball speeches p. 506. unto p. 511 Nor in their Reall Objected Practices Ibid. c 3. throughout p. 511. unto pag. 524. Nay it is repugnant to Antiquity pag 524. unto pag. 528. Proved by their owne Principles to be Materially Idolatrous pag. 528. unto p. 533. Because of the many hundred defects in their Consecration in sixe Sections that it is Formally Idolatrous pag. 533. 534. Notwithstanding their Three Pretences p. 534. unto 539. The Impious Iesuiticall Evasion and Delusion to make the Romish worship seeme tollerable p. 539. Which is as ill as any Heathen p. 540. In one respect worse p. 541. Divine Adoration ought toprocede from an Infallible Faith in the God-head of him whom wee Invocate contrary to the Romish Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist Ibid. AELFRICK King his Faith objected for Transubstantiation untruly pag. 160. AETERNITIE What it is p. 263. ALTAR called Table by the Councell of Nice p. 303. Altar Priest Sacrifice and Temple properly so called on Earth all dissolved by Ancient Fathers pag. 415. unto pag. 418. Our Altar in Heaven pag. 418. The word Altar in the Masse not used with the Apostles p 461. 462. confessed Ibid. Allusions of Fathers in their termes Pascha c. Ibid. It is properly a Table Ibid. throughout the Sections AMBROSE Against Prayer in an unknowne Tongue p. 35. He teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech demonstrateth Bread p. 103. and a Figurative sense therein 125. Corruptly objected by Bellarmine for proofe of a proper sense therein Ibid. His sayings Ob. Of Bread is made Christs Body p. 202. Item They are the same that they were p. 178. Ob. Worke of Omnipotencie pag. 188. Ob. Nature is Changed pag. 190. Ambrose corrupted in some Romish Editions Ibid. Hee granteth something to bee Impossible to God even to the advancement of Gods Omnipotencie pag. 229. Proveth the Holy Ghost to be God by its being in divers places at once 239. 262 Holds that Christ at his Birth opened the Coll of the Blessed Virgin p. 278. And that Angels have their definite place and space 262. Hee is objected for penetration of the doores by Christs Body 275. Apparitions of some in two places at once Objected and Answered p. 262. Of Christs Bodily Presence onely in Heaven p. 306. That the Eucharist is nourishment for the soule 310. 385. Holdeth that the Godly onely are Partakers of Christs Body p. 321. See Guilty Hee is wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse pag. 404. He granteth Christs exercising of his Priesthood now in heaven 415. He disclaimeth all properly called Altars Priesthood and Sacrifice here on earth p. 417. The Sacrifice on the Crosse our Iuge Sacrificium pag. 419. That Christ is only offered in an Image here but in Heaven in Truth p 441. Hee nameth the Eucharist a Sacrifice of Christ or rather a Remembrance thereof p. 443. Hee called the Bread before Consecration an Vnbloody Sacrifice 453. and calleth Baptisme a Sacrifice p. 457. His words Here Christ offereth himself Objected 479. And Wee adore in these mysteries the flesh of Christ as the footstoole of his Deity p. 508. To reverence him whose Body wee come to eate Objected Ibid. His Liturgie for praying God propitiously to receive the Gift 563. Calumniously objected 494. See Guilty ANGELS cannot possibly be in divers places at once by the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 261. 262. Their objected Association at the receiving the Eucharist is no Argument of Divine Adoration thereof 506. 507. Angels present also at Baptisme Nazian Ibid. p. 507. ANNIHILATION of Bread is a necessary Consequence of the Romish manner of Transubstantiation pag. 156. ANSELME his saying Iewes ate the same spirituall meate with Christians p. 314. ANCIENT Fathers their wisedome contemned professedly by Romish Disputers in respect of their owne pag. 85. 86. ANTITYPE used of the Greeke Fathers concerning the Eucharist proveth Christs speech to be Figurative pag. 115 The use of this word Antitype pag 454. 455 APOSTLES not made Priests by those words of Christ Hoc Facite p. 57 Apostolicall authority contemned in respect of the now Papall by Romish Doctors pag 86 87 They are rudely called Rude pag. 135. APPARITIONS of Christ unto Peter out of Egesippus and other Fathers Objected and Answered by your Iesuite Vasquez p 240 241. Apparitions of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist manifoldly objected by the Romish Disputers for proofe of a Corporal Presence therein p. 218 219 220. Acknowledged by their owne Schoole-men to be no True flesh or Blood but feigned p. 221. 222. The Suggesters thereof of what disposition they were p. 223 224. APPLICATION of the Sacrifice of Christ in the Romish Partiall p. 483.
The Fathers Doctrine herein Ibid. Repugnant to the Romish p. 484 485. And that this is for false Gaine p. 486. AQVARII Heretikes what they were p. 62. 81. ARMY Consisting of one man pag. 268. ARNOBIVS That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine pag. 406. ATHANASIVS against the Hereticall Manichees for the Certitude of the Sense of Touching p. 170. That Angels are but in one place p. 262. So the Holy Ghost is in all places Ibid. He is against the Apparitions of souls departed in diverse places at once because that this is proper to God Ibid. The Body of Christ is to rise in all Perfection pag. 283. Apparitions of some in two places at once objected out of Athanasius and Answered pag. 261 262 c. His Saying that Christ mentioned his Ascension to prevent the Capernaiticall sense of Eating his flesh pag. 340. And Wee by the Incarnation of Christ are Deifyed p. 361. And By Baptisme are made alive with Christ and our flesh no more Earthly but made the same word which was made flesh Ibid. His Saying That Christ transmitteth not his Priesthood to any Successor p. 411. And that Bread and Wine of Melchisedech were a signe of an unbloody Sacrifice p. 453. â—ine And that Wee adore the Trinity before we be baptized in their names p. 509 ATTALAS the Martyr denyeth the Devouring of Christ p. 375 382. AVERROES his Imputing unto Christians the Devouring of their God because of the Romish false Profession p. 381. AVGVSTINE against Prayer in a Language Vnknowne p. 29. Vnconscionably objected to the Contrary p. 34. Hee is for Consecration by Prayer p. 11. And is against the Communion but in one kinde p. 77. He teacheth Hoc in Christs words to demonstrate Bread p. 103. Corruptly and Vnconscionably alleged by many Romanists for making Christ in the Eucharist a Figure of himselfe as he was on the Crosse p. 118 119. He dignifyeth the Bread as it is Sacramentall with the arme of Heavenly Bread p. 127. And teacheth a Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body Eat my flesh p. 127. 136. His Saying That which you see is Bread pag. 169. That on the Altar not borne of the Virgin Mary p. 158 233. Hee expoundeth the Fruite of the Vine Math. 26 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 164. His Saying Of the Sacramentall part one consisteth of many Graines p. 170. His Saying That which is distributed on the Lords Table is to be diminished p. 179. I. He is against the Being of a Body in two places at once p. 245. II That Christs Body removing cannot be in the place from whence it is removed Ibid. III. He is not alwayes with men here on earth because ascended Ibid. IV. Christs Body cannot be both in Sun and Moone p. 246. V. The Divine abideth still on Earth the Humane is in one place in Heaven Ibid. He is objected for Christs carrying himselfe in his owne hands p 249 His Saying that The Soule of Christ could not be in Heaven and Hell both at once p. 262 Ob. For Penetration of the Doores by Christs Body Answered p. 275. He is against the Romish Article of any Bodies Being in every part of the space of its Existence pag. 274. Hee saith that Christâ—s Bodily Presence is to be sought after onely in Heaven pag. 306. That Iewes ate the same Spirituall meate with Christians 314. That only the Godly participate of Christs Body p. 315. The wicked saith hee receive the Sacrament but not the virtue thereof by Virtue signifying The Body of Christ 324 325 326. He saith that The â—apernaits understood not Christs meaning p. 330. And that Christ confuted them by mentioning his Ascension Ibid. He is against the Manichees their belching Christ out p. 351. And against them that impâ—ted to Christians a worship of Ceres and Bacchus Ibid. His Testimony Fit Panis mysticus Corrupted by adding Corpus Christi p. 352. His Saying You eat not the Body which you see 340. Wee receive with mouth and heart fondly Objected p. 343. And Christs Blood is powred out into our mouths Ibid. His Saying By Baptisme wee are incorporated into Christ pag. 357. Hee is for onely the Soule-eating of Christs Body p. 385. Hee is wrongfully urged for a Proper Sacrifice from the Act of Melchisedech pag. 404. Hee is for Christs exercising his Priesthood now in Heaven pag. 415. How Presbyteri are Priests Ibid. Sacrifice is called as Easter day is called Christs Passion p. 442. The Death of Christ the onely True Sacrifice Ibid. Hee and other Doctors before him held Baptisme to be a Sacrifice of Christs Passion p. 459. But Metaphorically Ibid. Every Good worke is a True Sacrifice p. 471. The Blood of Christ reveiled herein that is Objectively pag. 478. Baptized are brought thither by feare p. 507. To reverence Baptisme wheresoever it is pag. 508. None Eateth Christs â—â—esh before hee adore it Ibid. Wee are to Reverence the Sacrament of Baptisme and Celebration of the Eucharist without carnall sense p. 509. He is for Prostrating of the Body lifting up of the mind to Heaven p. 526 AVGVSTANA CONFESSIO or the Confession of Auspurge consented unto by all Protestants p. 310. See LVTHERANS B BAPTISME is called a Buriall as Bread is called Christs Body p. 125 As Baptisme the Sacrament of Adoption is called Adoption so Bread is Christs Body p. 128. Euphramius his comparison of Water of Baptisme with Bread in the Eucharist p. 129 It is paralleld with the Eucharist almost in all the Sayings of the Ancient Fathers which the Romish Disputers allege for proof of either a Literall Exposition of Christs words This is my Body or for Transubstantiation or Corporall Presence or Bodily Vnion or Proper Sacrifice or Divine Adoration to the Confutation of the Objectors in each one p. 568 569 570 571 572 573. in a Generall Synopsis BASIL against Prayer in an Vnknowne Tongue p. 36. He is for Consecration by Prayer p. 10. Hee is for an Audible voice in the Priest p. 23. Hee calls the Eucharist a Viand p. 366. and Baptisme the Pledge and earnest of Blessing to come p. 367. Hee calleth the Eucharist an Vnbloody Sacrifice p. 451. His Liturgie for offering a Reasonable Service Objected and Answered Ibid. pag. 452 c. Hee saith that the Mysteries of Baptisme were kept secret p. 512. His saying that No Father left in writing the words of Invocation 519. Bellarmine absurdly mistaken in the word Invocation 518. proved 520. Basil's Liturgie in praying to God propitiously to receive the Gift doth confute the Romish Doctrine of a Corporall Presence and Sacrificatory Presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 562. BEASTS to Eat and Swallow the Body of Christ is the Beastly and Capernaiticall Romish Doctrine p 348. A Beast adoring the Host absurdly objected by Bellarmine p. 516. BEDA expoundeth the Fruite of the Vine to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 163. BERENGARIVS his forme of
Recantation p. 335. BERTRAM his saying The Body of Christ in Heaven differeth from that on the Altar as much as that which was borne of the Virgin Mary and that which was not pag 159. His saying Bread remaineth in the Eucharist after Consecration pag. 186. The Romish Profession is to delude the Testimonies of Antiquity Ibid. pag. 187. His saying Iewes ate the same Spirituall meat with Christians p. 314. Bâ—ZA unjustly charged with denying Gods Omnipotencie p 231. BLASPHEMIE of a Romish Iesuite Teaching the Pope to dispence with the expresse Command of Christ pag. 87 BLESSED IT was Christs Consecration p. 9. BLOOD A Discourse of Fr. Collius a Romish Doctor of the miraculous Issuings of Christs Blood in the Eucharist p. 225 c. Blood of the Testament Exo. 24. objected for the Sacrifice of the Masse and Confuted by their owne Iesuite 424. Not infused in the Eucharist pag. 469. How the Fathers call the Eucharist both a Bloody and Vâ—bloody Sacrifice p. 455 456 457 c. BODY of Christ changed into whatsoever the Receiver desireth vainely Objected out of Greg. Nyssen pag. 202. Hee saith So doth Christs Body change our Bodies into it self Ibid. And Chrysost Christ hath made us his owne Body not by Faith but in deed also Ibid. An Objected Possibility of a Bodies being in diverse places at once from the like existence of Voice and Colour and of the soule of a man in the parts of his Body p. 259 260 261. Romish Objections against our using of Naturall reason to disprove the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 263. A Body cannot take the right hand and left hand of it selfe pag. 254. The entrance of Christs Body miraculously through the doores p. 275 c. The Body of Christ opened the Cell of the Blessed Virgin p. 2777punc 278. In the Body of Christ by Popish Doctrine his head is not distant from his feet pag. 272. Body of Christ is held by the Romish Sect to be voyd of all sense and understanding as hee is in this Sacrament p 282. Christs Body is the Spirituall and Supersubstantiall food of the Soule p. 310. Eaten in vow and desire Ibid. Christs Body united to the Bodies of the Communicants See VNION See EATE Christs Body not suffering Destruction 467. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. BREAD Sacramentall albeit Bread is dignifyed by Saint Augustine with the name of Celestiall p 127. That Bread remaineth after CoÌ„secration is proved by Scripture p. 162. Consisting of Graines p. 163. Proved by Antiquity p. 163 164. By Sense 169. By the Analogie of Bread consisting of multitudes of Graines of Corne. Ibid. 165. Bread remaineth the same in Substance by the Iudgemen of Antiquity p. 169 Proved by the Councel of Nice p. 303. Bread and Wine called a Sacrifice by Ancient Fathers but Improperly p. 404 405 c. BREAKING of Bread used by Antiquity Contrary to the now Romish Practice pag 15. Breaking in Christs speech is Tropicall Ibid. Broken in the Present tense for proof of a Sacrifice and yet confessed by the Romish to betâ—ken the future pag. 397. C CABASILAS Gr Archb for the forme of Romish Consecration calumniously Objected 493. CAKE upon the Mountaines Objected out of the Psalmes and confuted by Popish Doctors pag. 433. CALVIN unjustly charged with denying Gods Omnipotencie pag. 231. CANON of the Masse Dominus vobiscum contradicteth the Private Masse p. 19. CANONIZATION of Saints fallibly is the ground of Superstitiousnesse p. 542. 543. CAPERNAITICAL Eating of Christs flesh 329. c. The Romish Eating of Christs Body is Capernaiticall p. 335. 336. c. See Vnion See Eating See Swallowing Mr. CASAVBON his large discourse teaching the universall practise of Antiquity to understand the tongue wherein they prayed p. 36. His Satisfaction to the Objected Testimonies of Antiquitie for Transubstantiation and Corporall Presence p. 207. His Iudgement upon the Fathers in the point of Fragments p 179. And upon the Objected Testimonie of Cyrill of Ierusalem pag. 177. His Answere to the Obcted Testimonie of â—ustine concerning the Sacrifice to Mithra among the Heathen pag. 379. His Exposition upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 400. CASSIODORE wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the act of Melchisedech p. 406. That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine Ibid. CATECHISME of TRENT saying All Baptized are Sacerdotes and so August p. 314. CAVTION of Antiquity in not suffering any part of the Eucharist in solid or liquid to fall to the ground Objected and Answered pag. 514. CHâ—VVING the Continuall maner of Eating of the Sacrament p. 339. CHRIST'S Acts of Excellency not to be imitated of any such as was his not compleat Sacramentall communicating in Emmaus pag. 63. 64. c. CHRYSOSTOME against Prayer in an unknowne tongue pag. 35. Hee is vainely objected for the Private Masse of the alone Communicating Priest pag. 21. Hee is for Consecration by Prayer p. 14. Hee is vehement against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist pag. 47. Reverence to Christ is our Obedience pag. 81. Hee is against the Communicating but in one kind p. 77. Hee is for the Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body and for the Continuance of Bread after Consecration p. 116. 117. c. His Question What is Bread The Body of Christ as the faithfull Communicants are the Body of Christ pag. 117. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 163. 164. Hee saith If Christ had given onely an Image of his Body at his Resurrection hee had deluded his Disciples p. 169. And that in things sensible the Substance remaineth p. 198. And that Christ hath made us his owne Body not onely in faith but in deed also p. 202. Ob Thinke not that it is the Priest that reacheth it but God Sol. Not the Priest but God holdeth the head of the Baptized p. 200. Bread unworthy of the name of Christ's Body albeit the Nature of Bread remaineth still pag. 186. His Testimony blotted out by the Parisian Doctors p. 186 Changed by Divine power 189. Our senses may be deceived wee are altogether to believe it 198. His Hyperbolicall maner of speech confessed 199. Hee saith Something is Impossible to God even to the advancement of Gods Omnipotencie p. 229. Hee is objected for Christs Corporall Presence both in Heaven and in Earth unconscionably pag. 247. Answered Ibid. His Hyperbolicall speeches Ibid. Ob. Hee left his flesh as Elias his Mantle Ibid. Hee holdeth that Angels have allotted unto them a prescript place or space p. 261. Hee is objected for the Romish Penetration of the Doores by Christ's Body Vnconscionably 275. Hee is against the Impalpability of Christs Body p. 276. and against the Passing of Christ's Body into the Seege p. 287. Hee is objected that Godlesse Communicants partake of Christs Body pag. 313. Yet saith that
the Godly onely are partakers of Christs Body p. 320 321. that Our Tongues are made red with his Blood pag. 342. and Wee teare him with our teeth Ibid. His frequent Hyperbolicall speeches confessed Ibid. Hee is objected for Christs bodily nourishing of our bodies pag. 356. 357. And for Corporall union by Mixture with the bodies of the Communicants Ibid. By Baptisme wee are made Bone of his Bone Ibid. And Christ received first himselfe of the Passeover to induce others to take it with a quiet mind pag. 367. His saying To understand Christs words carnally is to understand them literally p. 368. Hee is urged for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the act of Melchisedeth pag 404. That Christ transmitted not his Priesthood to any Successor 411. But exerciseth it now in Heaven 417. Not to play the Iay. Ibid. That all the Lambs sacrificed under the Law prefigured the death of Christ p. 426. The Passeover was a signe of Christs Passion p. 424. Hee is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice in Malachie 5. pag. 431. Confuteth their Objections pag. 433. Hee nameth the Eucharist the same Sacrifice with this Correction or rather a Remembrance thereof pag. 443. Ob. Hee saith of the Eucharist a Terrible Sacrifice Sol. So of Baptisme Terrible Baptisme pag 448. Hee cals it an unbloody Sacrifice p. 452. Ob. That Christ's Body is an unbloody Sacrifice yet slaine on the Crosse pag. 455. Sol. Baptisme is is Christ's Passion p. 457. His saying Wee see Christ lying on the Altar Objected and Answered pag. 506. And his calling of the Sacrament Dreadfull Ibid. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Objected p. 512. Answered by the like saying of Baptisme Ibid. His saying that The Priest did take a little piece and held it up a little p. 513. His saying of the Priests inclining towards the Eucharist p. 515. His Liturgie to receive propitiously the Guift 562. 563. c. CHVRCH of Rome long time in an errour of Administring the Eucharist to Infants p. 51. Her Authority contradicted by the now Romish Ibid. CIRCVMSCRIPTION and Vncircumscription the distinct differences of the God-head and Man-hood of Christ 243 244. c. CLEMENS ALEX. Against Prayer in an unknowne tongue p. 36. He expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 164. c. CLARKE of the Parish was no office in the Apostles times p. 30. CLOVD in the Sea compared with Baptisme p. 427. CO-ADORATION is Idolatrous p. 541. 542 p. 543. 544. COLOVR The Nature hereof to be perceived in divers places at once Objected by the Romish and confuted by themselves 258. COMMEMORATIVE Sacrifice used by Protestants how p 440. 441. c. COMMVNICANTS onely were anciently admitted to the Eucharist and Gazers on excluded p. 45. 46 c. COMMVNION in both kinds commanded by Christ both to all Priests and People that are present at the Communion p. 56. Evasion Romish against the perpetuall custome of the Greeke Church p. 57. Against the precept of Christ p. 56. Against the Example of Christ pag. 62. Against Apostolicall Practice p 65 Against Primitive Custome p. 68. Against Theologicall Reasons p. 70 71 c. Against the ancient Fathers pag. 76. Ob. from Christ at Emmaus Answered p. 65. Romish Pretence of Alteration answered pag. 78 79. A Comparison betweene the Alterations and Observations and betweene the Alterers and Observers p. 83. More Perfection more Spirituall Grace and Refection is obtayned by Receiving in both Kinds p. 75. CONCEALEMENT of the words of Christs Institution by the Fathers from the Catechumenists and Pagans Objected for Corporall Presence pag. 511. And Fideles norunt the same sayd they of Baptisme 512 c. COVNCEL OF AQVISGR Against Prayer in an Vnknowne Tongue p. 35. of BRACARA Against any Alteration of the Institution of Christ in the Eucharist p. 63. of CARTHAGE Against Administring the Eucharist to Infants pag. 53. Which expoundeth the words of Christ in the Eucharist to be taken Tropically 130. The words of the same Councel corruptly translated by Binius Ibid. of COLON saith that Contempt in not Receiving of this Sacrament offereth violence to Christ p. 316. of CONSTANCE Against Communion in both kindes p. 55. of EPHESVS The Body which Christ united to his Godhead as palpable and unpalpable pag. 276. Holds that we have expiation in the Eucharist by the Blood of Christ as remembred herein that is Objectively p. 478. of LATERAN The first that invented the word Transubstantiation p. 149. As also the Article it selfe as is Confessed p. 151. It taught only a Transubstantiation in Matter and not Forme The Councel of Trent both p. 153. of NANATENS Against Private Masse p. 18. of NICE Baptisme is not to be beholden with the eyes of our Body p. 207. This Councel is objected by both Protestants and Papists for the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 301. Calling the thing Eaten Bread after Consecration pag. 302. and the Place a Table Ibid. Much of the Sacrament would satiate and presse downe An Argument that the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration pag. 304. It useth Lift up your hearts aloft pag. 202. Romish Objections Answered p. 203 204 c. It calleth the Eucharist Viand pag. 366 c. of PAPIENS Against Private Masse pag. 18. of TOLEDO is for the Receiving of the Eucharist with Hands pag. 44. Forbiddeth Innovations in receiving of the Eucharist which are repugnant to the Institution of Christ. p. 89. Take a little not much les t the Belly be overcharged that it may be food for thy Soule p. 305 of TRENT Against Christ his Institution of the Eucharist in Forme of Consecration p. 9. And in Private Masse p. 17. And in muttering the words of Christ. pag. 22. And in prescribing of a strange Tongue p. 24. And in Inviting Non-Communicants to gaze vpon the Eucharist p. 45. And in reserving the Eucharist for Procession p. 48. And in Administring the Eucharist to Infants p. 51. And in with-drawing the cup from the Communicants p. 55 c. It defineth a Proper Sense of Christs words This is my Body p. 95. Falsly imposed Transubstantiation as collected out of these words This is my Body pag. 147. Transubstantiation compleat was not defined before the Councel of Trent p. 152. And that the same Councel of Trent held Transubstantiation contrary to the Councel of Laterane Ibid. It Defined the whole Body of Christ to be in every least part of the Hoast p. 270. Which is confuted by Romish Doctors p. 271 272. And by Saint Angustine p. 274. Eucharist is food for the Soule p. 310. In Expounding 1. Cor. 10. 18. turneth a Table into an Altar p. 402. of TRVLLO is for receiving the Eucharist with Hands pag. 44. It interpreteth Christs words This is my Body Tropically pag. 122. CONCOMITANCIE The pretence hereof no just cause to with-hold the Cup from the Laity pag. 81. 82. This Romish Conceit spoyleth
their Stage-play of Representing Christs Body on the Crosse by his Body in the Masse pag. 447. CONSECRASION of the Eucharist was anciently by Prayer p. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. c. Romish Prevarications herein Ibid. A Distinction of Consecration the one by Ordination the other by Benediction p. 14. Consecration of both kinds by the Priest confessed to be necessary pag. 62 63 64 c. Consecrative and Operative words viz. these This is my Body cannot be as they are pronounced by the Priest by reason of the Pronoune Meum p. 138. Words of consecration of the Eucharist are not delivered by any ancient Father saith S. Basil of the Primitive times p. 520. Words of Consecration in the Greeke Liturgies are by prayer to God Ibid. called of Cyril of Ierusa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. And Augustine confirming the same out of Basil Ibid. Consecration of Popes not Infallible pag. 530. The Romish consecration made frustrate by seven defects concerning the matter of the Eucharist p. 528. Six moe by not consecrating p. 529. Fower in the Intention pag. 530. Six moe for want of due Baptisme and Ordination pag. 530 531 532 c. CONTEMPT of the Eucharist and holy things revenged by God Examples thereof p. 318. 319. CONTRADICTION is an absolute Argument of Impossibility p. 229. 230. Six Romish Contradictions in the defence of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 232 c. First is in making one not one but many 235. Second is in contradictory Relations of one Body being on the right side and left side of it selfe 252. Third by making Christs body finite and not finite pag. 264. Fourth in absolute Qualities having no Relation to place as to have Vnderstanding and not Vnderstanding p. 255. c. Fift by making it perfect and imperfect p. 281. Sixth by making it glorious and inglorius 282. CVP. Ioynt use of the Cup both in the Priest and people necessary by the precept of Christs practice Iudgement of Apostles and primitive Fathers notwithstanding any Romish pretence p. 54. 55. 56. c. The word Cup in Christs speech taken Figuratively p. 112. See Communion in both kinds See Innovation CVSTOME of 300. yeares preferred by the Romish before a more ancient of a thousand p. 68. 69. CYPRIAN is against Reservation of the Eucharist by the example of Christ. p. 50. Against the Alteration of the Institution p. 62. He is against Communion but in one kind p. 77. Christ commandeth drinking Ibid. Hee teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech Hoc est corpus demonstrateth Bread p. 103. And a Figurative sense in Christs speech This is my Body p. 125. Hee interpreteth Christs words Matth. 26. 29. of the fruit of the Vine p. 163. His saying Bread changed by Nature Objected p. 202. And againe calumniously objected p. 495 His calling the Bread Christs Body after Consecration the Bread which is collected into one of many graines pag. 170. His saying Christ doth create his more holy Body now pag. 192 As his humanity was flesh p. 188. Things signifying and signified p. 193. Change in Nature by Omnipotencie p. 188. Objected As also Divine Essence infuseth it selfe p. 193. Christ at the Table gave Bread and Wine to his Disciples but on the Crosse hee gave his Body to the Souldiers to be wounded p. 178. Ob. Wee make bits of it pag. 179. Ob. That the Godlesse Communicants are partakers of Christs Body p. 313. Ob. Wee are joyned with Christ inwardly in soule and outwardly pag 344. albeit hee standeth for the onely Soule-eating Ibid. Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is the Body and Blood of Christ pag. 405. Of the word Sacrifice Malachie 5. pag. 433. A pure and full Sacrifice pag. 450. Of Christs bloody Sacrifice slaine in the Eucharist p. 456. meant of the Passion of the Crosse Confessed p. 479. c. CYRIL ALEX. Objected for the proper sense of Christs word This is my Body p. 116. defendeth Circumcision in one place to distinguish Christs Man-hood from his Godhead pag. 243. saying If God were a Body hee should be circumscribed Ibid. Hee proveth the Holy Ghost to be God because in divers places at once Ibid. Against Penetration of the doores by Christs Body p. 176. Objected unconscionably for corporall Vnion by Christs bodily nourishing of our bodies p. 363. And at large for a corporall conjunction of Christ with our bodies as Waxe with Waxe Ibid. Confessed to be abused Ibid. His Answer to Iulian the Apostate who upbraided Christians with the want of al Sacrifice as well as want of Circumcision and how hee called the Eucharist unbloody p. 464. CYRIL HIER Teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech Hoc est corpus demonstrateth Bread p. 103. Calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype yeeldeth to a Figurative sense of Christs words pag. 116. His saying that Christians received the spirit when they received onely the Operation thereof Ibid. His saying Although it tast Bread yet beleeve it to be the body of Christ under the formes of Bread egregiously abused by Bellarmine p. 195. c. This is againe calumniously objected pag. 496. His calling the Bread Christs body as hee calleth holy Oyle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Guift of grace p. 197. His not bare Oyle and Wine Objected 195. Bread remaineth in the Eucharist after consecration proved from him p. 196. The body of Christ goeth not into the Draught 370. His Wee are carriers of Christ 363. His calling the Eucharist spirituall and unbloody Sacrifice p. 455. And Christs body is a bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist Ibid. His Bowing before the Eucharist Objected and Answered p. 520. CYRIL of CONSTANTINOP This CYRIL now Patriarch of Constantinople in the name of the whole East and Greeke Churches saith thus Wee professe not Transubstantiation p. 205. D DAMASCEN his errour upon the use of the word Antitype p. 116. He defendeth Circumscription in one place to distinguish Christs Manhood from his God-head pag. 243. And that every Angell hath its prescript place or space p. 261. That they cannot possibly be in moe than one place at once p. 262. Is likewise against Penetration of bodies pag. 275. His saying It is mingled with our soules p. 357. DEVOVRERS of Christs body by Swallowing such are the Romish p. 347. who say that Beasts devoure it pag. 348. Who if by Chewing are made capernaiticall Tearers Ibid. Devouring of their God imputed to Christians by Averroes was occasioned by the then Romish Doctrine of tearing Christ with their teeth in the Eucharist from the dayes of Pope Nicholas p. 381. Attalas the Martyr denied all Devouring of Christ p. 382. DIDYMVSALâ—X proveth the Godhead of the Holy Ghost by its being in divers places at once pag. 267. DILEMMA of Bellarmine to prove Iustine to have held a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament pag. 377. His Insoluble Dilemma answered and requited with two other Dilemma's p. 377. 378 379. c. DIONYSIVS AREOP Standeth for Consecration
from receiving in both kinds pag. 71. That the ancient Romane Church had their Communion in both kinds p. 68. The now Romish doe alter the forme of Christs words of Institution called by them the words of Consecration pag. 138. Romish Objections of the Sayings of the Fathers for proofe of Orall-Eating even against the Confessions of the same Doctors pag. 342. 343. c. Romish Church See Innovation S SACRAMENT is to be instituted onely by God pag. 189. Confessed Ibid. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is no Sacrament but in the Sacramentall use of Eating it Sacramentally and that it was delivered to boyes to be eaten onely as Holy Bread and not as a Sacrament p. 48. 49. c. SACRIFICE The Question discussed pag. 389. No word of Christs Institution that can imply a Sacrifice pag. 390. No act of proper Sacrifice pretended in the Romish that can be evinced out of the Institution of Christ No not by their owne Customes pag. 398. Not that in Act. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 400. Not that of 1. Cor. 10. 18. Are Partakers of the Altar pag. 401. Nor out of the old Testament concerning Melchisedech The Fathers speaking often of the Sacrifice of Christians in Bread and Wine pag. 407. 408. But improperly as is confessed pag 438. The Bread and Wine cannot be the Sacrament of the New Testament by the generall confessions of the Romish Doctors Ibid. Proofe of a No-Transubstantiation disproveth the Romish Sacrifice in the Masse p. 439. A Distinction that the word Sacrifice of Christs Body is taken of the Fathers Objectively and not Subjectively The necessity and verity of this Distinction p. 404. A Sacrifice onely Representative pag. 441. How the Sacrifice may be called the same which Christ offered pag. 443. Epithets of the Fathers added to the word Sacrifice unconscionably by Romish Disputers p. 448. and in the Vindication following How it is called of the Fathers a Bloody Sacrifice pag. 455. 456. c. The word Sacrifice attributed by the Fathers to many acts which are confessed not to be proper Sacrifices p. 459. Nothing properly sacrificed in the Romish Masse pag. 467. Sacrificing Acts there be three Visible Sacred and Destructive All wanting in the Romish Masse Ibid. The Sacrifice professed by Protestants The Spirituall more excellent than any Corporall except Christs on the Crosse p. 470. Proved out of the Fathers p. 471. Their different kinds p. 472. They offer the same Sacrifice of the Crosse Objectively p. 473. See Commemorative and Propitiatorie See Priesthood and Melchisedech See Stage-play See Vnbloody and Representative SACRILEGIOVSNESSE of the Romish Masse shewen in a full Synopsis p. 558. 559. Instances thereof p. 562. and of Prayers Ibid. SAXONS Faith in the dayes of King Edgar is contrary to the now Romish in the point of Transubstantiation p. 158. A Vindication thereof against a late Romish Calumniator Ibid. SENSE Iudgement of sense is able to prove that Bread is not Transubstantiated p. 467. Resurrection of Christs Body proved thereby Ibid. By the Act of Thomas pag. 478. Argument of Sense is justified by Ancient Fathers pag. 479. That not to beleeve Sense in sensible Objects is as faithlesse as senselesse pag. 173. See Touch and Smell SHED in Christs speech of Institution is taken Figuratively pag. 110. The word is objected in the Present tense for proofe of a Sacrifice and yet confessed by themselves to be token the Future pag. 392. 393. c. See Blood SICK prayed for in the Church was anciently used for the sicke in particular as for Gorgonia pag. 517. SIGNIFICATIVELY A terme used for the Romish Defence of the Priests Operative Consecrating of the Bread to turne it into the Body of Christ altogether in vaine which the Iesuites with all their wits have not beene able to make good p. 138. 139. c. SIMILITVDES used of the Iesuites for shewing that the words of Christ are spoken Significatively and Operatively by the Priest for Conversion of Bread into Christs Body by saying This is my Body are all lame As their Similitude of saying This is a Circle is the making thereof and the like is confessed to be fond and extravagant pag. 94. Their Similitude of a Stage-play to illustrate Christs Representing of himselfe in the Eucharist urged by the Romish shewen to be most Absurd pag. 118. Their Similitude of Voice and Colour objected for proofe of the Being of a Body in divers places at once most fondly pag. 258. 274. Their Similitude of Mans soule and of God to prove the Presence of Christs Body in divers places at once is silly and senselesse Ibid. Their Similitude of Christs being called Feast and Guest Viand and Pledge of Ancient Fathers fondly and falsely objected by the Romish Doctors for proofe of a Corporall Presence in the Eucharist pag. 366. and that it plainely confuteth it pag. 367. Their Similitude of a Stage-play againe not rightly applyed to shew that the same may be called a Blood and Vnbloody Sacrifice pag. 457. Their Similitude of Iacobs taking to him Leah instead of Rachael for Defence of the Romish Idolatry pag. 533. 545 SLANDER against the Christian Church in Primitive times as if they had eaten an Infant in the Celebration of the Eucharist falsely objected by Romanists pag. 334. SMELL miraculous of Ioane Martlesse in discerning one Consecrated Hoast amongst a thousand Vnconsecrated pag. 173. SOCRATES Miracles have beene wrought by the Eucharist pag. 223. c. SOLOE COPHANES is no Errour in Scripture p. 393. c. SOVLE of man objected as being in many parts of the Body for proofe of the possibilitie of a Bodily presence in divers places at once pag. 261. c. Soules of Saints departed have not their Apparitions in divers places at once Ibid. The soule of Christ could not be in Heaven and Hell both at once saith S Augustine Ibid. SPIRITVALL Sacrifices of six kinds mentioned by the Fathers pag. 471. STAGE-PLAY The Romish Maner of Christs Body on the Crosse by the same Body in the Eucharist after a Maner of a Stage-play displayed to be most false and contradictory to it selfe pag. 445. c. See Similitude STATIONS Anciently what they were pag. 515. in the Margin SVESTANCE is falsely interpreted Accidents pag. 181. SVPERSTITIOVSNESSE of the Romish Masse seene in a full Synopsis pag. 557. SVPPER of the Lord so commonly called by Antiquity pag. 45. 46. c. SVRSVM CORDA used of the Fathers to signifie the not-intending the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 525. Cyril of Ierusalem To have our hearts in Heaven S. Augustine Not to Earth but Heaven where the heart cannot putrifie The same is confessed concerning the Custome of the Primitive Church that it was a Prostrating of the Body and a lifting up of the mind to Heaven Ibid. Which should not need if they had beleeved they had had Christ on Earth Hieron Let us ascend up with Christ into the great Chamber Ibid. SVVALLOVVING of the