from the false Exposition of these words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY called Corporall Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist THe Sacramentall Presence hath a double Relation one is in respect of the thing sensibly received which is the Sacrament it selfe the other in respect of the Receiver and Communicant Both which are to be distinctly considered as well for our right discerning of the matter in hand as also for Method's sake The first is handled in this Booke the second in that which followeth CHAP. I. Of the state of this point of Controversie That notwithstanding the difference of opinion of Christ's Presence be only De modo that is of the manner of Being yet may the Romish Doctrine be Hereticall and to hold the contrary is a pernitious Paradoxe SECT I. IT would be a wonder to us to heare Any of our owne profession to be so extremely Indifferent concerning the different opinions of the Manner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament as to thinke the Romish Sect therefore either Tollerable or Reconciliable upon Pretence that the Question is only De modo that is of the manner of Being and that consequently all Controversie about this is but vaine Iangling Such an one ought to enter into his second thoughts to consider the necessity that lieth upon every Christian to abandon divers Heresies albeit their difference from the Orthodoxe profession were only De modo As for example First The Gnostick taught man's soule to have it's beginning by manner of Production from the substance of God The Catholikes said nay but by manner of Creation of nothing The Pelagians maintained a free will in spirituall Acts from the grace of Nature The Catholikes nay but by speciall grace of Christ freeing the will through the efficacious operation of his holy Spirit The Catharists held themselves pure in a purity of an absolute perfection The Catholikes nay but by an Inchoative comparative and imperfect perfection of purity Furthermore against our Christian Faith of beleeving God to be absolutely a Spirit the Anthrepomorphites conceived of God as of one after the manner of men consisting of Armes and Legges c. Not to be tedious We come to the Sacraments The Cataphrygae did not baptize in the name of the blessed Trinity after the manner of the Catholikes The Artotyritae celebrated the Eucharist in Bread and Cheese To omit many others take one poniard which we are sure will pierce into the entrailes of the Cause to wit the heresie of the Capernaits in the dayes of our Saviour Christ who hearing his Sermon teaching men to Eate his flesh and conceiving thereby a carnall manner of Eating irreconciliably contrary to the spirituall manner which was beleeved by the true Disciples of Christ departed from Christ and Apostated from the Faith And that the Romish manner of Eating Christ his Body is Capernaiticall her manner of Sacrifice sacrilegious her manner of Divine Adoration thereof Idolatrous and all these manners Irreconciliable to the manner of our Church is copiously declared in the Bookes following For this present we are to exhibit the different and contradictory manners concerning the Presence of Christ herein The manner of Presence of Christ his Body 1. According to the Iudgement of Protestants 2. In the profession of the Church of Rome That Protestants albeit they deny the Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament yet hold they a true Presence thereof in divers respects according to the Iudgement of Antiquitie SECT II. THere may be observed foure kindes of Truths of Christ his Presence in this Sacrament one is veritas Signi that is Truth of Representation of Christ his Body the next is Veritas Revelationis Truth of Revelation the third is Veritas Obsignationis that is a Truth of Seale for better assurance the last is Veritas Exhibitionis the truth of Exhibiting and deliverance of the Reall Body of Christ to the faithfull Communicants The Truth of the Signe in respect of the thing signified is to be acknowledged so farre as in the Signes of Bread and Wine is represented the true and Reall Body and Blood of Christ which Truth and Reality is celebrated by us and taught by ancient Fathers in contradiction to Manichees Marcionites and other old Heretikes who held that Christ had in himselfe no true Body but meerely Phantasticall as you your selves well know In confutation of which Heretikes the Father Ignatius as your Cardinall witnesseth called the Eucharist it selfe the flesh of Christ. Which saying of Ignatius in the sence of Theodoret by whom he is cited against the Heresie of his time doth call it Flesh and Blood of Christ because as the same Theodoret expounded himselfe it is a true signe of the true and Reall Body of Christ and as Tertullian long before him had explained the words of Christ himselfe This is my Body that is saith hee This Bread is a Signe or Figure of my Body Now because it is not a Signe which is not of some Truth for as much as there is not a figure of a figure therefore Bread being a signe of Christs Bodie it must follow that Christ had a true Body This indeed is Theologicall arguing by a true Signe of the Body of Christ to confute the Heretikes that denied the Truth of Christ's Body Which controlleth the wisdome of your Councell of Trent in condemning Protestants as denying Christ to be Truly present in the Sacrament because they say he is there present in a Signe As though there were no Truth of being in a Signe or Figure which were to abolish all true Sacraments which are true Figures and Signes of the things which they represent A second Truth and Reality in this Sacrament is called Veritas Revelationis as it is a signe in respect of the Typicall Signes of the same Body and Blood of Christ in the Rites of the old Testament yet not absolutely in respect of the matter it selfe but of the manner because the faithfull under the Law had the same faith in Christ and therefore their Sacraments had Relation to the same Body and Blood of Christ but in a difference of manner For as two Cherubins looked on the same Mercy Seate but with different faces oppositely so did both Testaments point out the same Passion of Christ in his Body but with divers aspects For the Rites of the old Testament were as Saint Augustine teacheth Propheticall prenunciating and fore-telling the thing to come but the rites of the new Testament are Historicall annunciating and revealing the thing done the former shewed concerning Christ his Passion rem faciendam what should be the latter rem factam the thing done and fulfilled As therefore the Truth of History is held to be more reall than the Truth of Prophesie because it is a declaration of a reall performance of that which was promised So the Evangelicall Sacrament may be said to containe in it a more reall verity then the Leviticall Therefore
Consecration And that Then as we see now done among us it was Invocated upon even plainly after Consecration saith your Durantus also and indeed almost who not But doe you first if you please admire the wit of your Cardinall in so framing his Consequence and after abhor his will to decive you when you have done for he applyeth the words spoken by Basil of an Invocation before Consecration when as yet by your owne Doctrine Christ is not present as spoken of an Invocation of the Eucharist after Consecration for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ therein and the Divine Adoration thereof as will most evidently appeare For first it is not unknowne to you that the Greeke Church differeth from your Roman in the forme of Consecration at this day they consecrating in words of prayer and Invocation and you in the repetition of Christs words This is my Body wherein there is no Invocation at all And Basil was of the Greeke Church Secondly your Archbishop of Cesarea for proofe that Invocation by prayers was a forme of Consecration used primitively in the Greeke Church citeth the two most ancient Fathers Tertullian and Irenaeus and of the Greeke he alleageth Iustine Cyril Damascen Theophilus Alex. yea and by your leave Basil himselfe too and that Basil was an Orthodox Greeke Father you will not deny Thirdly therefore to come home unto you we shall be directed by the objected words of Basil himselfe appealing herein to your owne consciences For your Lindanus was in the estimation of your Church the strongest Champion in his time for your Roman Cause he to prove that the forme of Consecration of the Eucharist standeth not in any prescribed words in the Gospell but in words of Invocation by prayer as hath beene confirmed by a Torrent of Ancient Fathers saith That the same is illustrated by these words of Basil saying What Father hath left unto us in writing the words of Invocation when the Bread is shewne unto us adding That no man of sound Braines can require any more for the clearing of the point concerning the forme of Consecration So then Invocation was an Invocation by Prayer unto God for the Consecration of the Bread set before them and not an Invocation of Adoration unto the Eucharist as already consecrated which your Cardinall unconscionably we will not say unlearnedly hath enforced Looke upon the Text againe for your better satisfaction It speaketh expresly of an Invocation when Bread is shewne but you deny that Bread is Invocated upon untill after Consecration And Basil demanding What Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocation is in true and genuine sence as if he had expresly said what Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocating God by Prayer of Consecration of Bread to make it a Sacrament as both the Testimonies of Fathers above confessed manifest and your objected Greeke Missals doe ratifie unto us For in the Liturgie ascribed to Saint Iames the Apostle the Consecration is by Invocating and praying thus Holy Lord who dwellest in holiest c. The Liturgie of Chrysostome invocateth by praying We beseech thee O Lord to send thy Spirit upon these Gifts prepared before us c. The Liturgie under the name of Basil consecrateth by this Invocation when the Priest lifteth up the Bread Looke downe O Lord Iesu our God from thy holy habitation and vouchsafe c. All these therefore were according to the Example of Christ Invocations that is Prayers of Consecrating the Sacrament and therefore could not be Invocations and Adorations of the same Sacrament And as for any expresse or prescribed forme or prayer to be used of All well might Basil say Who hath set it downe in writing that is It was never delivered either in Scripture or in the Bookes of any Author of former Antiquity and this is that which is testified in your owne Bookes of Augustine out of Basil saying that No writing hath delivered in what words the forme of Consecration was made Now then guesse you what was in the braines of your Disputers in objecting this Testimony of Basil contrary to the evident Sence and accordingly judge of the weaknesse of your Cause which hath no better supports than such fond false and ridiculous Objections to relye upon Such as is also that your Cardinall his objecting the words of Origen concerning the receiving of this Sacrament saying Lord I am not worthy thou shouldest come under the roofe of my mouth which hath beene confuted as unworthy the mention in this case If you would have some Examples of Adoring Christ with divine worship in the Mystery of the Eucharist by celebrating the manner of his death as Hierom may be said to have adored at Ierusalem Christ in his Crach or as every Christian doth in the Mystery of Baptisme we could store you with multitudes but of Adoring the Eucharist with a proper Invocation of Christ himselfe therein we have not as yet received from you any one CHAP. IV. That the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice Repugnant to the Iudgement of Antiquity First by their Silence SECT I. YOV are not to require of us that we produce the expresse Sentences of ancient Fathers condemning the Ascribing of Divine honour to the Sacrament seeing that this Romish Doctrine was neither in Opinion nor Practice in their times It ought to satisfie you that your owne most zealous indefatigable subtill and skilfull Miners digging and searching into all the Volumes of Antiquity which have beene extant in the Christian world for the space of six or seven hundred yeares after Christ yet have not beene able to extract from them any proofe of a Divine honour as due to this Sacrament either in expresse words or practice insomuch that you are enforced to obtrude onely such Sentences and Acts which equally extend to the honouring of the Sacrament of Baptisme and other sacred things whereunto even according to your owne Romish Profession Divine honour cannot be attributed without grosse Idolatry and never ther the lesse have your Disputers not spared to call such their Objections Cleare Arguments piercing and unsoluble We therefore make bold hereupon to knocke at the Consistory dore of the conscience of every man indued with any small glimpse of Reason and to entreat him for Christ's sake whose Cause it is to judge betweene Rome and Vs after he hath heard the case which standeth thus Divine Adoration of the Host is held to be in the Romish Profession the principall practique part of Christian Religion Next the ancient Fathers of the Church were the faithfull Registers of Catholike Truth in all necessary points of Christian Faith and Divine Worship They in their writings manifoldly instructed their Readers by Exhortations Admonitions Perswasions Precepts how they are to demeane themselves in the receiving of this Sacrament not omitting any Act whereby to set forth the true Dignity and Reverence
Testament could not properly be the Testament it selfe Yea your Iesuite Salmeron pointeth out in the same words a double Figure A double figure saith hee the Cup being put for the thing contained in the Cup and Testament being taken for the Legacy that is granted and given by the Testament With whom your Iesuite Barradius doth consent Hereunto may be added that in the sixt of Iohn where Christ calling that which he giveth to be eaten his flesh in the same Chapter he calleth his flesh which is to be eaten of the Faithfull bread which none of your side durst hitherto interpret without a Figure And yet againe the Apostle speaking of the Mysticall body of Christ which is his Church assembled at the holy Communion to participate of this Sacrament saith of them Wee being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread But why Even as one bread consisteth of many cornes so doth one Church of Christ of many faithfull persons saith your Aquinas Wee may not forget what your Iansenius said of Drinking To whome Master Brereley is ready to yeild his assent saying If we should attend to the Propriety of speech neither is his blood properly drunke out of the Chalice but onely the forme of Wine seeing the blood hath the same manner of Existing as under the forme of bread to wit not divided nor seperated from the body but included in the veines and then in the body Doe you not heare Christ's Blood is not properly drunke if not properly then figuratively as figuratively as if one swallowing the body of Christ should be said to drinke his Body Wee aske Master Brereley what then is that which is properly drunke out of the Chalice and he saith onely the forme of Wine that is to say a meere Accident Hardly can it be said that a man properly drinketh the Aire which he breatheth although it be a Substance And are you brought to believe meere Formalities to be truly Potable But to the point CHALLENGE REpeat now the Premises One figure in the word Bread another in Eat a third in Given a fourth in Shed a fift in Cup a sixt in Testament so many words confessed to be so many Figures in the very words of Christ his Institution beside other-more of the same equivalencie touching the Body of Christ both naturall Ioh. 6. and also mysticall which is his Church 1. Cor. 10. It can be no lesse then a matter of great astonishment to us to see our Romish Adversaries with such pertinacie to condemne Protestants for holding the Sacramentall speeches of Christ to be figurative calling them Tropists when as they themselves are constrained to acknowledge no fewer then Six Tropes in Christ his words as you have heard Of your Cardinall his Objection from the word Shed hereafter That the figurative sence of Christ's words is agreeable to the Iudgement of the more Ancient Church of Rome SECT V. YOur old and publique Romish Glosse saith plainly This heavenly Sacrament because it doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly not in the truth of the thing but in the mysticall Sence to wit it is called the body of Christ that is it signifieth his Body So your Glosse which you may not deny to be the glosse or Tongue of your whole Church because it hath beene confirmed by the same Authority of Pope Gregory the thirteenth wherewith your Extravagants and former Decrees of Popes have beene Authorised CHALLENGE IF all Protestants should meeteat once in one Synod and should conspire together as labouring to prove a figurative Sence in these words of Christ This is my body I suppose that a more exact perspicuous copious and ponderous Proofe could not be defined then hitherto hath beene evinced from your owne Confessions grounded as well upon sound and impregnable Reasons as upon direct Testimonies of holy Scriptures That the former Figurative Sence of the words of Christ is agreeable to the Iudgement of Antient Fathers of the Greeke Church SECT VI. YOu wil needs defend your litterall Exposition by the verdict of Ancient Fathers and we appeale to the Venerable Senate both of Greeke and Latine Fathers The Greeke generally calling the Elements of bread and wine in this Sacrament Some Types Antitypes and Symbols that is Figures and Signes Some calling Christ his Speeches Tropicall or Figurative and his Table Typicall Some saying that Christ would haue his Disciples hereby Represent the image of his Body And one as expressly as any Protestant can speake even Theodoret by name that Christ here gave to the Signe the name of his Body as elswhere he gave to his Body the name of the Signe You cannot deny but these Phrases of Signes and Symbols are most frequent in the writings of all the Greeke Fathers which we take to be a convincing Argument vntill you can give us some reasonable Solution hereunto To this purpose you leaving the principall Obiections fasten onely upon certaine Crotchets and thereupon you bestirre your selves THE FIRST CHALLENGE Against the first Romish Answere touching the word Type and Antitype vsed by the Greeke Fathers THree kinds of Answeres have beene applyed as Three wedges to dissolve this difficulty but a knot of wood cannot be loosed with a wedge of waxe such as every of your Answeres will appeare to be The first interpreting Types and Antitypes not to be taken for Signes but for Examples is at the first hearing reiected by your Cardinall and others The Second alleadged out of Damascen and much insisted upon by some favourers of your Romish Sence namely that the Fathers should call Bread and Wine Antitypes but not after Consecration So they And if so then indeed we should have no cause to oppose But this Answere is proved to be apparantly false by your Cardinall and others out of the expresse Testimonies of these Greeke Fathers viz. Dioâ—ysius Areopagita Clemens Iustine Macarius Basil and Nazianzene The third Answere is your Cardinals owne yet but faintly urged with a Peradventure they called them Antitypes but not Types after Consecration and he is encountred by your Suarez and Billius acknowledging that the words Types and Antitypes are used of the same Fathers in one and the same signification This our Obiection how strong it is may be seene by your much but vaine strugling Your quaintest device is yet behind A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the last and most peremptory Romish Pretence making Christ in this Sacrament to figure and to represent himselfe as a King in a Stage-play THe Solution which seemeth to your Disputers most perswasive is thus set downe by your Cardinall and your Iesuite Suarez viz. The Greeke Fathers called Bread and Wine Antitypes and Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ because the same Body and Blood of Christ as they are in this Sacrament vnder the forme of Bread and Wine are signes
place in all questions with the wordes of Christ his Institution but seeing that you can alleage nothing for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but onely a literall Exposition of Christ's words This is my Body which by Scriptures Fathers your owne Principles and by unanswerable Reasons hath beene proved to be most grosly false wee shall not need to insist further upon that only we shall but put you in minde of Saint Paul's words in teaching the use and end of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament to wit The shewing of Christ's death untill his comming againe meaning corporally at the last day Which word VNTILL being spoken of a last day doth exclude your comming againe of Christ in his Corporall Presence every day for the Apostles word is absolutely spoken of his Bodily Comming and not of the manner thereof albeit other Scripture teacheth that his Comming must be in all glorious Visibility We goe on In the Eucharist saith your 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 manner of presence excepting onely Relation to place which we say is in many respects impossible as we shall prove but first we are to remove a Mil-stone for so you esteeme an Obiection which you cast in our way of Demonstration of a Corporall Presence de facto from as you say Miracles manifesting the same The pretended principall Romish Demonstration of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in this Sacrament taken from pretended Miraculous Apparitions of visible Flesh and Blood revealed to the World SECT II. TRue Miracles we shall hold as God's Seales of Divine Truth if therefore you shall alleage any such for proofe of a Corporall Presence see they be true else shall wee iudge them not to be God's Seales but the Deuils 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 â—orts of stuffes having collected a packet of Apparances useth his best Eloquence to set forth his merchandize to sale telling us by the way of Preface that he will report onely such Stories whereby it is made Evident by God himselfe that the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist even by the Testimony of mens eyes that have seene it A thing saith hee most miraculous which every one that hath eyes may yet see So he even as Coccius before him in every particular and after both Master Brereley thus prefacing Miracles sent by God confirme the same wherin at the breaking of the Hoast sundry times great copie of blood issued out as is testified by many Writers We are now attentive to the Relation of your Oratour and Others and afterwards as you shall perceive to give that credit unto them which the cause it selfe shall require We will take their Relations according to the order of Times 1. Anno CCCC Simon Metaphrastes saith Bozius telleth in the dayes of Honorius the Emperour for the confirmation of the faith of an Eremite that the Sacrament being propounded presently Infans visus est a living Infant was seene by three old men on the Altar and whilst the Priest divided the Bread an Angell was seene and seemed to divide and cut in peeces the flesh of the Child and so Senex carnis cruentae apertè particeps factus est resipiscit The old Heremite being made partaker evidently of the Bloody flesh repented 2. Anno 600. A woman as Bozius reporteth and with him Coccius had laughed to heare the Bread called the Body of Christ which she her selfe had made with her owne hands and was observed to laugh by Pope Gregory who thereupon fell to prayer with the people and by and by looking aside upon the Hoast behold the formes of Bread were vanished and he saw Veram carnem true flesh Then the people wondred the woman repented and the Hoast at the prayer of the Priest in pristinam formam reversa est Returned into its owne shape againe 3. Anno 800. A certaine Priest called Phlegis being desirous to see Christ in the Eucharist not that hee doubted thereof but that hee might receive some heavenly comfort Divinitùs from God after prayers for this purpose he saw after Consecration Puerum Iesum The Child Iesus in the Hoast amplexatus est eum post multam deosculationem c. he embraced him and after much kissing of him he desired to receive the Sacrament and the Vision vanished and he received it So he These two last are also alleaged by your Cardinall Bellarmine 4. Not many yeares after a fourth in Italy A Priest saying Masse and finding Veram carnem super Altare verumque sanguinem in Calice True flesh upon the Altar and true Blood in the Câ—p fearing to receive it forthwith reported it to the Bishop demanding what he should doe The Bishop consulteth with the other Bishops his Brethren by whose common consent the Priest taking the Cup and the flesh shut them up in the middest of the Altar Haec pro divinissimis miraculis summa cum reverentia servanda decrevit The Bishop decreed that these should be perpetually reserved and kept as most divine Reliques 5. Anno 1050. Cardinall Baronius will needs have you know that Berengarius was confirmed by a like miracle from God as the Bishop of Amalphi saith he witnesseth to Pope Stephen upon his oath That when hee was doubting of the truth of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament at the breaking of the Hoast Rubra perfecta caro inter eius manus apparuit it a ut digitos eius â—râ—entaret Red and perfect flesh appeared betwixt his hands insomuch that his hands were bloodied therewith 6. Anno 1192. Behold an History saith your Cardinall Baronius most worthy of beliefe you must beleeve it At Thuring after that the Priest had given the Sacrament to a yong Girle then sicke and had washed his fingers in a pot of water she observing it very diligently willed them that were by to vncover the water for I saw said shee a piece of the Eucharist fall out of the hands of the Priest into it which being brought unto her to drinke all the water was turned into Blood and the piece of the Hoast albeit no bigger than a mans finger was turned In sanguineam carnem into a bloody flesh All that see it are in horrour the Priest himselfe suspecting his owne negligence feareth and wisheth that it may be burned After was this made knowne and divulged to the Bishop of Mentz This Archbishop commandeth his Clergy to attend upon this whilst it should be carried in publike
your severall Churches What shall we then further say concerning a Being of a Body in divers places at once Surely that which hath beene plentifully proved already that such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is egregiously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well in Divine as in naturall Philosophy because as this whole Discourse sheweth they have verified that saying of Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. VII Of the fourth Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODY by teaching it to be Organicall and not Organicall Divisible and Indivisible SECT I. THe Question is not now of the Mysticall presence of Christ his Body in the Sacrament which we with the Fathers especially Greg. Nyssen confesse to be whole as well in a part of Bread consecrated as in the whole loafe even as the Image of the King may be as perfect in a penny as in a shilling But neither hee nor any Father ever said that a little Hoast which boast you call Christ is equall with a great Hoast No for the Fathers in the Councell of Nice absolutely denyed this nor yet is Christ wholly represented in the least part of the Hoast as your Fathers of Trent have taught because no such part can resemble Totum Christum whole Christ Sacramentally which is not of sufficient bignes to be sensibly eaten in the nature of nourishment thereby to resemble the Spirituall nourishment of our Soules which is the Body of Christ So that all you have said maketh iust nothing for the Corporall and materiall Presence of Christs Body which we further impugne That it is necessary the Body of Christ wheresoever consist of distinct members and proportions of a Bodie SECT II. THe Body of Christ as we professe had perfect Dimensions and Distinctions of parts an head exposed to pricking with thornes a face to buffers a backe to scourges eyes to visible noddings and mockings eares to blasphemies hands and feet to piercing with nayles This is that Body which we confesse to be the Body of Christ and which we celebrate in the use of this Sacrament in Remembrance that he had a Body consisting of proportion of divers parts distinct one from another Two of your Cardinals doe both answere that Quantity magnitude proportion and extension of parts are unseparably united to the Body of Christ in this Sacrament or else saith one If the Nose should stand where the Eye is and the Eye where the Nose is it should be a confused Monster So they So necessary it is even in your owne faith that the Bodie of Christ consist of Organicall parts distinct one from another That the Romish Church hath decreed a doctrine of Corporall Presence of a Body of Christ withall the parts thereof in the least indivisible point of the Hoast SECT III. THe Canons of that Councell of Trent decreed as a Doctrine of Faith necessary to salvation to beleeve That the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part of the Hoast whereby is meant saith your Iesuite The whole Body of Christ is in every albeit the least part of the Hoast So he But we demand how then shall the Body of Christ but want proportion of distinct parts which you say are Vnseparably united to a Body You distinguish that the Body of Christ being in this Sacrament hath extension of parts of a Body distinctly in it selfe but in respect of the Place or of the formes of Bread under which it is the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and indivisible Point thereof CHALLENGE THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illuminate the eyes of any Reader to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth and of Errour namely to know that there cannot be a greater Contradiction and consequently Impossibility than for a Body consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts such as are Hands Legs Eyes and other Organicall members to have Being any where without Extension Commensuration and distinct Proportion of the same to the space wherein it is as the Propositions following will prove That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and humane Body in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of latter times SECT IV. ALbertus Scotus Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned and Ancient Schoolemen who as your Iesuite testifieth Thought it impossible that a Body that hath extension of parts should be contained in an indivisible point The same opinion is ascribed by your Iesuites as ancient unto Durand and Occham Now what greater iniury can there be than after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundreth yeares since the Ascension of Christ for any Christian to professe with your ancient Schoole-men an Impossibility that The Body of Christ is whole in everie the least part of the Hoast to impose upon men's consciences as an Article of Faith so fond and so palpable a figment That which seemed to the above-named Durand and Occham such an Opinion whence as they thought it must needes follow that the Eyes must be where the Nose is the hand confounded with the legges which as your Cardinall Alan truly said were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos and altogether monstrous That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be proportionable to the Dimension of the places wherein they are is proved by the confessed Romish Principle it selfe SECT V. THe reason which your Cardinall layeth downe to prove it necessary that Christ his Body should have in it selfe according to the nature of a Body distinct parts of head and eyes and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule hee taketh from Magnitude which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length bredth and depth this saith he is inseparably united to Christ his Body in its owne intrinsecall disposition in it selfe but not so saith he in regard of the place CHALLENGE THis your owne Reason may wee iustly retort upon your selves proving that if the naturall disposition of the Bodie of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe it must be so likewise in respect of place and space because the three dimensions of the Body of Christ as you have confessed stand thus that one is an extension in Length another in Breadth the third in Depth and each of these three are distinct one from another Well then The arme must be here and thus farre longer than the foot the legge here and thus farre thicker than the finger the hand here and thus farre broader than the toe and accordingly distinctly in other parts But Hîc and Hucusque Heere and There thus farre and so farre being Relatives of space and place doe demonstratively shew that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body which they have in themselves divisibly the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi place
6. vers 38. Christ being the Oracle of Truth which descended from Heaven to reueale the will of his Father might iustly exact beliefe that whatsoever he spake to the sonnes of men was most true as it is written The will of God is that whosoever beleeveth in me c. Vers 40. vz. That they must eate his flesh But his hearers could not understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what was the true sence of these words which caused them to say This is an hard saying Therefore like Schollers of preposterous wits would they not beleeve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely That they were True hence it was that Christ reproued them for not Beleeving only vers 64. and not for not understanding Because it was as lawfull for Christ's Disciples to be ignorant of his darke Sayings and Parables which were therefore so spoken that his Schollers might more earnestly labour to know them as it was after lawfull for them to seeke of their Master whose precept is to Seeke and promise to Find how to understand them As it is written His Disciples said unto him Declare unto us the Parable of the seed and Christ answered them He that soweth c. That admirable Doctour of Gods Church Saint Augustine will shew himselfe herein an understanding Scholler of Christ See his Testimonie requiring of all the Disciples of Christ in the first place Beliefe of Christ's words that they are True before they did understand what was the Truth thereof confirming his Rule by that Scripture Except you beleeve you shall not understand O but the Capernaites saith Master Brereley did understand Christ's wordes right well And Saint Augustine contrary to Master Brerely expresly answereth They did not understand the Truth of Christ his speech but apprehended it foolishly and literally nor was there ever any Father or Authour no not in your owne Romish Church wee thinke before one Master Breerley that thought otherwise His second Assertion touching that speech of Christ The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickeneth That it was not spoken by Christ to Qualifie his former termes of Eating his flesh is very like also to be his owne being flatly contrary to the same Father whom he avouched for Saint Augustine saith that Christ by these wordes taught the Capernaites to understand his other words of Eating spiritually a Truth which Master Brerely's owne great Master Cardinall Bellarmine hath published alleaging for proofe thereof the Testimonies of other Fathers saying Chrysostome Theophylact Euthemius and also Origen so expoundeth it So hee Master Breerly his third Inference is Therefore the words speaking of Eating his Flesh are not Figurative which indeed is the maine Controversie for never any but an Infidell denied the speech of Christ to be true nor yet did ever any but an Orthodoxe understand the Truth of the speech what it was that 's to say whether the Truth be according to a Litterall Sence as Master Brereley would have it or else in a Figurative which hath beene our defence and proofe throughout the Second Booke from all kinde of Evidences of Truth Here therefore we are onely to deale with Master Breerly and with his pretended witnesse Saint Augustine to whom hee would seeme to adhere Notwithstanding that wee may beleeve Master Brereley himselfe If wee should attend to the propriety of speech Christ's blood is not properly drunke So he albeit Christ his speech was as expresly for drinking his Blood as for Eating his Bodie And every Schoole-boy will tell him that every speech which is unproper is figurative As for Saint Augustine hee standeth as a sworne witnesse against the proper and literall sence of Eating Christ's flesh calling it Flagitious Besides rather than we should want witnesses to aver this Truth divers Iesuites will be ready in the following Chapter to tell Master Brereley flatly that if hee say the words Eating Christs flesh are properly spoken he speaketh false CHALLENGE Proving the obiected Saint Augustine to contradict the Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence as Protestantly as can be desired MAster Brereley his Conclusion taken from Christ's speech of Eating is to inferre a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament But Saint Augustine cited above in the Margent thus Christ to them that thought hee was not to give his Body to be eaten said that hee himselfe was to ascend up into Heaven and then indeed they were to know that he meant not to give his Body to be eaten after that manner which they conceived which was carnall by tearing and renting it in peeces Wherein you may plainly discerne the Argument of Saint Augustine to be that Christ by his Bodily Ascension would shew to the world that he being bodily absent from the Earth his flesh could not be here eaten by Bodily Tearing asunder Thus he against the Capernaits which must as necessarily confute the Romanists Corporall Eating his flesh whether it be by Chewing or Swallowing whether visibly or invisibly it mattereth not because it being the same Body that ascended were it visibly or invisibly it is equally absent from Earth We have no list after so plaine a discoverie of Master Brereley his manifold ignorances to play upon his Person but rather doe pray that at the sight of his Errours he may be reduced unto the Truth now after his fondly miscalled Strong Reasoning to the contrarie CHAP. IV. That the manner of Eating the Body of Christ once professed in the Church of Rome was both Capernaitically-Hereticall and is also still no lesse in the profession of divers in the same Church SECT I. THe first member will appeare by the faith of the Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Nicolas whose faith about the yeare 1059. may be best knowne by the Oath which was prescribed by him unto Berengarius concerning the Eating of the body of Christ in this Sacrament Which oath as your Cardinall Baronius doth certifie you from the stories of those times Pope Nicholas and a Generall Councell held at Rome revised approved and prescribed to Berengarius to take for the abiuration of his errour concerning the manner of eating the body of Christ and the same Oath was after published by the Popes authoritie throughout all the Cities of Italy France and Germanie and wheresoever the report of Berengarius should come So he You cannot now but expect such a forme of an Oath which must be as truely Romish as either Romane Pope or Romane Councel could devise Marke then the enioyned tenor of the Oath I Berengarius Archdeacon c. doe firmely professe that I hold that Faith which the Reverend P. Nicholas and this holy Synod hath commanded me to hold to wit That the body of Christ is in this Sacrament not onely as a Sacrament but even in trueth is sensibly handled with the hands of the Priest and broken and torne with the teeth of the faithfull So the Oath The same forme of Abiuration is registred in the publique
the Eucharist to make it a Sacrifice without some Sacrificing Act. A Sheepe is no Sacrifice whilst it remaineth in the fold nor can every Action serve the turne except it be a destructive Act for the Sheepe doth not become therefore a Sacrifice because it is shorne nor yet can any destructive Act be held Sacrificing which is not prescribed by Divine Authority which onely can ordaine a Sacrifice as hath beene confessed But no such divine ordinance hath hitherto beene proved Is it not then a miserable case which you are in to suffer your selves to be deceived by such Mountebankes who pretend to direct mens Consciences in the Mysteries of Christian Faith and particularly concerning this high point of Proper Sacrifice and in the end give no other satisfaction than by meere Riddles of a Visible not Visible Consecrated not Consecrated Destroyed and not Destroyed with Blood separated and not separated from the Body and each one spoken of the same Body of Christ Our last point concerning a proper Sacrifice followeth CHAP. VII Our Fourth Examination is of the Doctrine of PROTESTANTS in the point of Sacrifice IN discussion whereof we are to consider first the Acts which are incident unto the Celebration of this Sacrament and then the Object thereof which is the true and reall Body of Christ as it was Sacrificed upon the Crosse In respect of the Acts we say I. That Spirituall Sacrifices albeit Vnproper are in one respect more true and doe farre excell all merely Corporall Sacrifices according to Scripture SECT I. WHen Christ called himselfe the True Vine the True light the True Bread in respect of the naturall Vine Light and Bread He taught us to distinguish betweene a Truth of Excellency and a Truth of propriety by their different Effects That which hath the naturall property of Bread although Manna preserveth but the temporall life for They are Manna and died But the Bread of Excellency which is Christ's Body preserveth to Immortalitie It is a good Observation which your Canus hath that Many spirituall things are called Sacrifices in Scripture because they were prefigured by the outward bodily Sacrifices of the Lambe as the killing of Beasts were signes of mortification which is a killing of sinne So he And the Thing prefigured you know is alwaies held more excellent than the figure thereof First the Sacrifice of Contrition Psal 51. 17. The Sacrifice of God is a Contrite heart Secondly of Righteousnesse by Mortification Psal 4. 5. Offer the Sacrifice of Righteousnesse And Rom. 12. 1. Present your Bodies a living Sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God which is your reasonable Service Thirdly the Sacrifice of Prayer and Praise Hosea 14. 2. We will render the Calves of our lips Fourthly of Almes-workes Heb. 13. 16. With such Sacrifices God is well pleased Fifthly Sacrifice of Preaching Rom. 15. 16. That I ministring the Gospell that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the holy Ghost Sixthly the Sacrifice of Martyrdome Phil. 2. 17. Yea and if I be offered up upon the Sacrifice and Service of your faith c. Next we say II. That all these Spirituall Acts although improperly called Sacrifices yet are they more excellent than all merely Corpoporall and proper Sacrifices in the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT II. VPon this Contemplation Ancient Fathers have breathed out many divine Ejaculations for the expressing of the excellent Prerogatives of Spirituall Sacrifices in respect of Corporall Of the Sacrifice of Contrition thus Gods wrath is to be appeased with Spirituall Sacrifices And They were then Sacrifices for sinne which are now Sacrifices of Repentance for sinne And God sheweth he will not have the Sacrifice of a slaine beast but of a contrite breast Of the Sacrifice of Righteousnesse thus He that dieth to the world is for himselfe a Sacrifice And Then were creatures slaine to cleanse mens bodies but now are men to mortifie their vices Every one being made a Priest over his owne body to over-rule vices And They offered those grosse bodies of sheepe but we the more subtile and pure of vertues because unbloody things best agree with God And This is a new and admirable Sacrifice And The best Sacrifice is to have a pure minde and a chaste Body Of the spirituall Sacrifice of Prayer and Praises unto God thus These are most perfect and onely Sacrifices acceptable to God Of Preaching the word of God thus We stay vices with the sword of the word And of The Function Evangelicall It is a pure Sacrifice and immaculate And A Sacrifice sweeter than all Spices Of Almes-workes thus These God testifieth to be more pleasant unto him than all the Sacrifices And This is a true Sacrifice whereof the other Sacrifices are but Signes Of Martyrdome thus We are God's Temple our hearts his Altars we then offer up our bloody Sacrifice when we contend for the truth with our blood In briefe Every good worke done to the end that we may enjoy God is a true Sacrifice Hitherto of our Proposition by the Determination of holy Fathers In the next place we say for the Assumption III. That Protestants professe in their Celebration divers Sacrifices of chiefe Excellency SECT III. COrporall and Spirituall Sacrifices are by you distinguished calling the first Proper and the other Improper but the spirituall excelleth by infinite Degrees as you have heard In which kinde Protestants in their Celebration professe foure sorts of Sacrifices For proofe hereof we may instance in our Church of England most happily reformed and established First the Sacrifice of Mortification in Act and of Martyrdome in Vow saying We offer unto thee O Lord our selves our soules and bodies to be an holy lively and reasonable Sacrifice unto thee Next a Sacrifice Eucharisticall saying We desire thy fatherly goodnesse mercifully to accept of our Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving And why may we not with the Scripture call this a Sacrifice seeing that your Bishop Iansenius held it for an Argument of proving Christ to have offered a Sacrifice even Because he gave Thanks giving of Thankes being a kinde of Sacrifice So he Thirdly a Sacrifice Latreuticall that is of Divine worship saying And although we be unworthy to offer up any Sacrifice yet we beseech thee to accept of our bounden duty and service c. This performance of our Bounden Service is that which Ancient Fathers called an Vnbloody Sacrifice Nor is our Church of England alone in this Profession This Truth we refer unto the Report of your Cardinall and of Canus by whom you may understand the agreement betweene them whom you name Lutherans in their Augustane Confession and of Calvin by acknowledging not some one Act but the whole worke of this Celebration according to the Institution of Christ both in Communication Commemoration and Representation of his Death with
of their owne so distinct and different Nations For the which cause they can finde no better entertainment with your Iesuites than to admonish you that You are not to be moued with the example of such barbarous people O Iesuiticall superciliousnes to contemne them as Barbarous in an example of praying in a knowne tongue the contrarie whereunto as namely praying in an vnknowne tongue the Apostle condemneth as Barbarousnes it â—elfe With the same modestie might you scoffe at and reproach other more ancient Nations and Christians commended by primitiue Fathers for celebrating their Oblations Prayers and Psalmes in their Nationall tongues so that one repeating the words first the whole people with ioynt voyce and heart accorded in â—inging Among whom are recorded the converted Iewes the Syrians and All as well Greekes as Romanes praying in their owne tongue and with â—armonicall consent singing of Psalmes in the publike worship as also the Grecians Egyptians Thebaeans Palestinians Arabians Phoenicians and Syrians This from the Testimonies of holy Fathers Whether therefore the tongue we pray in be barbarous or learned it is not respected of God but whether it be knowne or vnknowne is the point In which respect wee may vsurpe the Similitude which St. Augustine hath What availeth a golden Key if it cannot open that which should be opened or what hurâ—eth a wooden Key if it be able to open seeing that wee desire nothing but that the thing shut may be opened By this time you see your Noveltie in your Romish practice Behold in the next place the Iniquitie and prophanenesse thereof and how after the death of Pope Gregory the first which was abouâ— 608. yeares after Christ your Romane Church degenerated as much from the then Romane truth in this point as shee did from her Romane tongue and Language it selfe Wee are here constrained to pleade the whole cause for the defence of a necessity of a knowne worship in respect of God of Man and of Both. A SECOND CHALLENGE Shewing the Iniquitie of Seruice in an vnknowne tongue And first of the Iniury done by the fore-said Romane Decree vnto the soules of Men. THe former Decree of your Councell for vnknowne Seruice how iniurious it is unto man we may learne by the Confessions of Iesuites and others granting that The Apostles in their times required a knowne Language Greeke in the Greeke Churches and Latine in the Latine Churches because that first this made for the Edification and Consolation of Christians Secondly that Man gaineth more both in mind and affection who knoweth what he prayeth As for him that is Ignorant you say He is not edified in asmuch as he knoweth not in particular although in generall he doth vnderstand Thirdly that the Apostle commandeth that all things be done to edification Fourthly that the knowne Service is fitter for Deuotion and thereupon some of you haue furthermore Concluded that It were better that the Service were used in a Language knowne both to the Clergie and People And againe that People profit no whit by praying in a strange language So your owne Writers as you may obserue in the Marginals Now what more extreame and intolerable Iniurie could you doe to the soules of Gods people than by imposing a strange language upon them thereby according to your owne Confessions to depriue them and that wittingly of Edification Consolation and Devotion the three chiefe Benefits that man's soule is capable off in the seruice of God Thus in respect of your Iniurie against Man A THIRD CHALLENGE Touching the Iniurie done by the same Decree against God himselfe YEt all this notwithstanding you are bent to cozen Christian people with palpable Sophistry by your Cardinall who confesseth that the Psalmes in the dayes of the Primitiue-Church were sung ioyntly of the people Because they were ordayned for instruction consolation of the people as the chiefe end But as for the Diuine Service The Principall end of it saith hee is not the instruction and consolation of the people but the worship of God So hee Whom when we aske why the people then did all ioyne together both in Singing of Psalmes and Answering the Minister in Diuine Service and Prayer Hee saith it was because of the Pauscitie of people and rarenesse of the Assembly Whereby it seemeth he meant to maintaine Your Degenerate Romish Worship with Paradoxes First As if Psalmes publiquely sung in the Church to Gods glorie were not Divine duties and service Secondly As if the Primitive Church using both Psalmes and other Prayers in a knowne tongue as he confesseth did not bold a necessitie of the Common knowledge of both for Instruction and Consolation Thirdly As if the Assemblies of Christians were of such a Paucitie in the dayes of Tertullian when those Psalmes ordained for Instruction and Consolation were in use And fourthly as if People now adayes had not asmuch need of Instruction and Consolation as they that lived in Primitive-times yea and more especially such People who being led blind-fold by an Implicite Faith have reason to crave Instruction and having their Consciences tortured and perplexed with multiplicities of Ceremoniall Lawes have as just cause also to desire Consolation As for your obiecting the Worship of God by vnknowne prayers that may be sufficient which your owne Catechisme authorized by the Councel of Trent teacheth you where answering to that question why God although hee know our wants before wee pray yet will be sollicited by our prayers it saith that hee doth this to the end that Praying more confidently wee may be more inflamed with love towards God and so being possessed with more joy may bee exercised to a â—ervent worship of God So your publike and generall Romane Catechisme The case then is plaine From more Edification there ariseth more Consolation from more Consolation there issueth more Devotion from all these proceeds more filiall Loue and dutifull Worship of God Which was long since shadowed as Philo Iudaeus allegorizeth witnessing your Iesuite by Moses and Miriam singing unto the Lord Moses signifying the understanding part and Miriam betokening the Affection both notifying that we are to sing Hymnes both affectionately and understandingly unto God Therefore if you be men of Conscience recant that your now objected Barbarous Paradoxe Which contrarie to all anciently-professed Divinity and expresse Scripture saying I will pray with my spirit I will pray with my understanding also doth thrust man's Vnderstanding out of God's worship to the vtter abolishing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is his Reasonable worshipping of God by making man as Saint Augustine noteth no better than Oâ—zells Parrots Ravens and Mag-pies all which learne to prate they know not what THE FOVRTH CHALLENGE Against the said Romish Decree as ioyntly injurious both to God and Man from the Text of the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. IN the fourth place VVee are to speake of the Iniquitie of your vnknowne language
somthing els is to be added Another may be your Cardinall his owne Assertion which he once made as a snare to catch himselfe in for in your Romish Masse the Priest hauing the Hoast in his hand prayeth thus Receive holy father This immaculate Hoast If you shall aske him what in this prayer the Pronowne This doth demonstrate hee telleth you readily and asseverantly saying Certainly it demonstrateth unto sence that which the Priest hath in his hand which is Bread So hee Now why there should not be the like certainty of Relation of the Pronounc This to Bread in the speech of Christ as it hath in the prayer of the Priest none of you we thinke shall ever be able to shew Lastly we challenge you to shew within the space of a Thousand three hundreth yeares after Christ out of all the Ancient Fathers any one Testimony that ever affirmed the Pronoune Hoc This to betoken any Individuum vagum or Common Substance or els to confesse that this your doctrine is new extravagant and Adulterate Nor yet can the Defenders thereof say that this is all one as to say This that is that which is contained vnder the forme of Bread because this is like as when one shewing his purse shall say This is money meaning that which is in his purse which is a knowne figure Metonymia Yet were it granted that Hoc betokened an Indiuiduum vagum as to use your owne Similitude when one saith of an herb in his hand This hearb groweth in my garden so Christ should have said of bread in his hand This that is the like kind of bread is my Body yet would not this make the Speech of Christ proper or not figurative because Christ's Body could no more be properly predicated of the kind of wheat Bread then it could be of that bread of wheate then in his hand as Christ himselfe hath taught vs and as we are to prove vnto you For speaking of his Body he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grane of wheate Ioh. 12. 24. not This grane yet Christ's flesh is equally called improperly The grane as This grane of wheate whereof the ancient Father Theodoret will read you all a Lesson in the sixt Section following And now this so open and extreame civill war among your selues in confuting your owne Expositions will further and confirme peace among us in that one Exposition which we are in the next place to defend as followeth The Third Proposition which is according to the iudgement of Protestants that there is a Tropicall and vnproper sence in the Pronoune THIS VVEe reason first Hypothetically If the Pronoune This demonstrate Bread then the words of Christ are necessarily to be taken improperly and figuratively But the Pronoune This doth demonstrate Bread Our Conclusion will be Therefore the words of Christ necessarily are to be taken figuratively All this will be proved confirmed and avouched by Reasons Authorities and Confessions which will admit no Contradiction Wee begin at our proofe of the Consequence of the Proposition That it is impossible for Bread to be called the Body of Christ or Wine his Blood without a Figure SECT IV. THe common Dictate of naturall Reason imprinted by God in man's heart is a Maxime and hath in it an universall Veritie which neither man nor Divell can gain-say and is Confessed by yourselves viz. Disparatum de disparato non propriè praedicatur That is nothing can be properly and literally affirmed ioyntly of another thing which is of a different nature viz. It is impossible to say properly that an Egge is a Stone or to take your owne example we cannot call A man an horse without a Trope or Figure because their natures are repugnant So Salmeron And this hee holdeth necessary Or thus God who is perfect Truth will never make those Propositions to be true at the same time viz. that the Wife of Lot is Salt or Water is Wine or an Asse a man So your Archbishop Yea to come nearer to the point We cannot say that this wine is blood or that this blood is wine but by a Similitude or Representation because they differ in nature So Bellarmine Adding furthermore that it is Impossible the Proposition should be true wherein the Subiect is Bread and the Predicate is taken for the Body of Christ And Bread and Christ's body saith your Sanders cannot be properly affirmed one of another And indeed it is as Impossible Bread should be properly a body of flesh as a body of flesh to be bread which is grounded upon our first Maxime which your Iesuite Salmeron expresseth thus As often as the Verbe EST IS ioyneth things of divers natures together we are necessarily to have recourse to a Trope and Figure Will you be content that your Glosse as the tongue of your Church may have the last word Then hearken to it If bread be Christ's body then something is Christ's body which is not borne of the Virgin Mary and then also the same body must be said to be liuing and not liuing both at once So your Glosse confessing hereby an Impossibilitie of this Predication Bread is Christs Body in a proper and literall sence Our Proposition then standeth firme and infallible our Assumption will be found as true That the Pronoune THIS doth as verily notifie Bread in the words of Christ as if hee had expressly said This Bread is my Body proved first by Scripture SECT V. THe Text of the Evangelist Luc. 22. is light sufficient in it selfe Iesus tooke bread blessed it brake it and gave it to them saying Take Eate THIS namely which they Tooke and they tooke THIS which he Gave and he gave THIS which he Brake and hee Brake THIS which hee Blessed and blessed THIS which hee himselfe Tooke and THIS which hee tooke was Bread Iesus tooke Bread Wee appeale to your owne Consciences who never hitherto could say that in all these sayings of Christ there was made any Change or alteration of THIS which he tooke till the last word pronounced by the Priest which is Meum nor yet can you deny but that he tooke that which was properly and substantially Bread At the writing of this Sorites we light vpon an Answere from one Mr. Maloune encountring it with another but a false Sorites invented by himselfe to the discountenancing of this true one onely wee intreat you that at the reading thereof you will not laugh at his foolery See the Margin Your Grammaticall Obiection is Childish Cardinall Bellarmine your chiefe Master and also your Schoole-fellow M. Breerly as if they would put Protestants to Schoole tell them that Hoc taken for a Substantive neuter cannot agree with Panis it being a Thing then seene and knowne and not being of the neuter gender no more than for a man to say De Patre Hoc est Pater meus A strange thing that great Clerkes when they take upon them to
by Protestants which is Sacramentall And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall SECT I. First of the Sacramentall THere lieth a Charge upon every Soule that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament that herein he Discerne the Lord's Body which Office of Discerning according to the iudgement of Protestants is not onely in the use but also in the Nature to distinguish the Obiect of Faith from the Obiect of Sense The First Obiect of Christian Faith is the Divine Alteration and Change of naturall Bread into a Sacrament of Christ's body This we call a Divine Change because none but the same Omnipotent power that made the Creature and Element of Bread can Change it into a Sacrament The Second Obiect of Faith is the Body of Christ it selfe Sacramentally represented and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Communicants There are then three Obiects in all to be distinguished The First is before Consecration the Bread meerely Naturall Secondly After Consecration Bread Sacramentall Thirdly Christ's owne Body which is the Spirituall and Super-substantiall Bread truly exhibited by this Sacramentall to the nourishment of the soules of the Faithfull Secondly of the Romish Change which you call Transubstantiation SECT II. BVt your Change in the Councell of Trent is thus defined Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance of Bread into the whole Substance of the Body of Christ and of Wine into his Blood Which by the Bull of Pius the Fourth then Pope is made an Article of Faith without which a man cannot be saved Which Article of your Faith Protestans beleeve to be a new and impious Figment and Heresie The Case thus standing it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Foundation As for the Church of England she professeth in her 28. Article saying of this Transubstantiation that It cannot be proved by holy Writ but is repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion unto MANY SVPERSTIONS CHAP. II. The Question is to be examined by these ground viz. I. Scripture II. Antiquity III. Divine Reason IN all which wee shall make bold to borrow your owne Assertions and Confessions for the Confirmation of Truth The Romish Depravation of the Sence of Christ his words This is my Body for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT I. YOu pretend and that with no small Confidence as a Truth avouched by the Councell of Trent that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole true and proper Signification of these words This is my Body So you CHALLENGE VVHerein you shew your selves to be men of great Faith or rather Credulity but of little Conscience teaching that to be undoubtedly True whereof notwithstanding you your-selves render many Causes of Doubting For first you grant that besides Cardinall Cajetane and some other Ancient Schoolemen Scotus and Cameracensis men most Learned and Acute held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse which without the Declaration of the Church can evidently compell any man to admit of Transubstantiation So they Which your Cardinall and our greatest Adversary saith Is not altogether improbable and whereunto your Bishop Roffensis giveth his consent Secondly which is also confessed some other Doctors of your Church because they could not find so full Evidence for proofe of your Transubstantiation out of the words of Christ were driven to so hard shifts as to Change the Verbe Substantive Est into a Verbe Passive or Transitive Fit or Transit that is in stead of Is to say It 's Made or It passeth into the Body of Christ A Sence which your Iesuite Suarez cannot allow because as hee truly saith It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word Transubstantiation importeth no more than the Fieri seu Transire of Making or Passing of one Substance into another So that still you see Transubstantiation cannot be extracted out of the Text without violence to the words of Christ Wee might in the third place adde hereunto that the true Sence of the words of Christ is Figurative as by Scriptures Fathers and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * proved as an Infallible Truth So groundlesse is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following But yet by the way wee take leave to prevent your Obiection You have told us that the words of Christ are Operative and worke that which they signifie so that upon the pronuntiation of the words This is my Body it must infallibly follow that Bread is changed into Christs Body which wee shall believe assoone as you shall be able to prove that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood Luc. 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christ's Blood or else into his Blood it selfe The Novelty of Transubstantiation examined as well for the Name as for the Nature thereof SECT II. The Title and Name of Transubstantiation proved to be of a latter date YOu have imposed the very Title of Transubstantiation upon the Faith of Christians albeit the word Transubstantiation as you grant was not used of any Ancient Fathers and that your Romish Change had not it's Christendome or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation as your Cardinall Alan witnesseth before the Councell of Laterane which was 1215. yeares after Christ nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine for a Thousand yeares attributing any word equivalent in strict Sence unto the same word Transubstantiation untill the yeare 1100. which is beyond the Compasse of due Antiquitie At what time you finde note and â—rge Theophylact who saith of the Bread that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ Which Phrase in what Sence hee vsed it you might best have learned from himselfe who in the very same place saith that Christ in a manner is Trans-elementated into the Communicant which how unchristian a Paradoxe it were being taken in strict and proper Sence we permit to your owne iudgements to determine Neither yet may you for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word obiect the like use of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it had beene in use before the Arian Controversie began because the Fathers of the Councell of Nice iudged the Obiection of the Novelty of that word Calumnious for that the use of it had beene Antient before their times as your Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe witnesseth You furthermore to prevent our Obiection demanding why the Antient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change Transubstantiation if they had beene of your Romish Faith concerning the Substantiall Change of Bread into the Body of Christ haue shaped us this Answere namely that Although they used not the very word Transubstantiation yet have they words of the same signification to wit Conversion Transmutation Transition
proveth the Efficaciousnesse of the Iudgement of Sence in reducing so extreme an Vnbeleever to beleeve Wherein your Authours are authorized by Saint Augustine saying that Although Thomas his Eyes had beene deceived yet his touch was not frustrate And accordingly by Gregory Pope of Rome who sticketh not to say that The Infidelity of Thomas made more for confirmation of Christian beliefe than did the faith of the other Apostles because his Doubtfulnesse being convinced by the Sense of Touching we are thereby freed from all doubtfulnesse in the faith And if this were not sufficient to confute your Cardinall hee may be shackled with his owne answere who to disable the Infallibilitie of the Sense of feeling said That other Arguments were requisite for the certifying the iudgement of Sense and among these Other he reckoneth Christ his speaking eating and working Miracles All which what are they else wee pray you but equally Obiects of Sense What Vertigo then may this be called in him to seeke to invalidate the verity of Sense by an Argument which iustifieth the certainty of Sense A third Confirmation of the Truth of Senses as sufficient in Divine Causes for discerning Obiects of Sense and particularly in perceiving Bread and Wine to continue the same in this Sacrament by the judgement of Ancient Fathers SECT IX HOw many Heretiques of old were there such as the Valentinians Montanists Marcionites who denied that Christ had a True and Essentiall Bodie and how absolutely were they confuted of Ancient Fathers by the Evidence of men's Senses that heard saw and felt the Body of Christ Which sheweth plainly that a Demonstration by Sense standeth good and strong euen in Christian Philosophie And to come to the point in Question to conclude from the Premises in the former Section who can deny this Consequence viz. By the same Evidence may a Christian man prove Bread to be truly Bread after Consecration whereby Christ proved his Body to be a body of flesh after his Resurrection But this he did from the Infallibility of Sence Therefore this may be equally concluded by the same Argument of Sence And that there is the same Reason of both these the Ancient Father Theodoret sheweth in the Argument wherewith he confuted an Heretique by Sense thus As after Consecration saith he Bread remayneth the same in substance So Christ his Body after the Resurrection remayned in substance the same Thus much of the Analogie As for the word Substance more is to be spoken thereof hereafter Yea and Saint Augustine will not suffer the Communicant to blind-fold himselfe whose Testimony digested by Bede is this That which you have seene is Bread as your eyes doe manifest unto you And he speaketh of Bread as this Sacrament was a Symbol and Signe of the mysticall body of Christ which is his Church consisting of a multitude of Faithfull Communicants as one Loafe doth of many graines of wheate So Saint Augustine Ergò It is Bread after Consecration Tertullian hath a large Plea against the Academici who denied the iudgement of Sense wherein hee maintayneth 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 If wee yeild not to the suffrages of Senses some may doubt whether Christ perceiued afterwards another Sent of oyntment which hee received meaning another than the naturall Sent thereof before his Buriall And immediatly he 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 Heretique Marcion for denying the Truth of Christ's Bodie on earth and confuteth him by the fidelity of the Senses of the Apostles Faithfull saith hee was their sight of Christ in the Mount Faithfull was their Tast of Wine at the Marriage Faithfull was the Touch of Thomas c. then concluding which Testifications saith he had not beene True if their senses had beene Liars So he in his confutation not onely of the naturall Academici 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 fower Conclusions First not to conceit of Accidents without Subiects but to discerne of Subiects and Substances by their Accidents Secondly that our Outward Senses rightly constituted more especially the Sense of Feeling are Demonstrations of Truth in Sensible Obiects Thirdly that this verification of Subiects by their Accidents is common with Christ his Apostles all Christians and with every reasonable man And lastly that Wine is to be discerned to be truly and naturally Wine after Consecration by the iudgement of the Senses because he instanceth in this very point teaching that Christ had the same taste of Wine afterwards which hee had before in that which he consecrated even as hee had also the same Sent of Oyntment after which hee had before his Buriall And all this even now when he convinced Marcion of Heresie an Enemy to the Catholique Faith in denying the Truth of Christ's humane naturall Body notwithstanding the Evidence of Man's Senses Here had beene a full and flat Evasion for that Heretique to say what tell you us of the validitie of the Evidence of two Senses concerning the Truth of Christ's Body seeing you your-selves gain-say the iudgement 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 Catholiques then had beene of your now Romane Beliefe to thinke that all the Sences are deceived in iudging the matter of this Sacrament to continue Bread or Wine and so might they have blowne away all this Catholique Confutation of Heretiques and Infidels with one and the same breath Come now hither all yee that say we must renounce all Verdict of Senses in this Case and tell us whether any Protestant could have beene more opposite to your Doctrine than was Tertullian in his Defence of this Truth whereby hee also defendeth the Catholique Doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ and was never heereof questioned by any Catholique in or since his daies Let none of you obiect that of the Disciples in their way to Emmaus with Christ of whom it is said that They could not know him for the same Text giveth this Cause that their eyes were holden lest they should see him and after Their eyes were opened and they saw him So the Evangelist which is so farre from infringing any thing that hath beene said for the Infallibility of Sence rightly constituted and disposed that this thereby is notably confirmed Wee call vpon Hierome to witnesse saying The Error of not discerning
before his Resurrection the Heretique denying it and Theodoret proving it to be absolutely still the same in Substance and not whether the same only in Quantities and Accidents for these the Apostle teacheth to be alterable Corruption putting on Incorruption Mortality Immortality and shame Glory Therefore in the Protasis and first Proposition of that comparison of Theodoret which was this As the Bread remaineth the same in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can have no other signification than Substance properly taken Secondly Ridiculously false because in reckoning Figure and Forme which are knowne to be Accidents and adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this necessarily is opposed to the former Two as Substance to Accidents Nor was there we suppose ever any so vnlearned who did adde the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Formes and Figures but hee thereby meant to distinguish it as a Substance from its Accidents Thirdly Heretically false for what was the Heresie of the Eâ—tychians tell us They say you held that Christ namely after his Resurrection had not an humane nature but only Divine Which word Humane Nature doth principally imply the Substantiall nature of Man and therefore in his comparison made for the illustration of that Heresie concerning Bread after Consecration in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had the same signification of Substance as your Master Brereley afterwards is compelled to confesse who to the end hee may disgrace Theodoret rudely and wildly taketh upon him to iustifie the Heretiques speech to be Catholique for proofe of Transubstantiation Wherefore Theodoret in his Answere Retorting as he himselfe saith the Heretiques Comparison against him did by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 likewise understand Substance else had he not disputed ad Idem but by a shamefull Tergiversation had betraid his Catholique Cause unto that pernitious Heretique Much like as if one should use this comparison following As the Moone-shine in the water in the opinion of the Vulgar is truly of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament so a feigned friend is equally as loving as is a Faithfull And another retorting the same should confute him saying Nay but as the Moon-shine in the water is not of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament even so a feigned friend is not equally loving as is a Faithfull Here the word Love being taken for Loyall Affection by the Objectour if the sense thereof should be perverted by the Answerer and Retorter to signifie lust the Disputers might be held to be little better than those Two in Agellius where such an Obiectour is compared to a man milking an Hee-Goat or if you will a Bull and the Answerer to another holding under a Sive Here had wee fixed a Period but that wee againe espied one Master Brerely a Romish Priest comming against us with a full careere who after that he had beene confuted for urging the former Obiection notwithstanding concealing the Answere he blusheth not to regest the same albeit as one conscious to himselfe of the futility thereof he leaveth it presently falling foule upon Theodoret as though that Father had beene in some distemper when he so writ saying first that Theodoret used that his Retortion in his heate of Dispute Then hee taketh part with the Heretique saying It is not likely that an Heretique should have urged against a Catholique sentence for Transubstantiation as for a point of Faith well knowne if the same doctrine had beene then either unknowne or else condemned as False So hee who might as well have reasoned in the behalfe of the Sadduces condemned by Christ saying It is not likely that they would so expressely have denied that there are any Spirits in their Dispute against Christ if that Doctrine had beene then either unknowne or condemned as False by the Church of God among the Iewes And yet it is certaine that the Heresie of the Sadduces was iudged execrable in that Church Now if the Eutychian Heretique finde such Patronage at the hands of your Priest alas what will become of the Father Theodoret Hearken Theodoret being an Orthodoxe Bishop saith hee could not have propounded the Heretikes Argument as grounded upon the Churches received Doctrine of Transubstantiation had the same beene then unknowne and reputed False So hee who if he had not lost his Logique would certainly have argued contrarily saying Theodoret being an Orthodoxe and Catholique Bishop would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstantiation in the name of a ranke Heretique and after himselfe impugned and confuted the same except he had knowne it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholique Church in his time Wherefore if you be men of Faith and not rather of Faction let the miserable perplexities of your Disputers discovered both here and throughout this whole Treatise move you to renounce them as men of prostituted Consciences and their Cause as forlorne of all Truth For a further Evidence take unto you an Answere of your Iesuite Valenâ—ia to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity It is not to be held any marvell saith he why some Ancients have writ and thought lesse considerately and truly before that Transubstantiation was handled publikely in the Church especially they not handling the same Question of purpose So he and this hee calleth a briefe and plaine Answere And so it is whereby in granting that Transubstantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church hee plainly confuteth your now Romane Church which iudgeth it to have beene alwayes an Article of Faith And affirming that the same Fathers Handled not the point of purpose it is as plainly confuted by Theodoret who in this Dispute did not argue against the Heretique in an extemporall speech personally but deliberately and punctually by writing and therefore of Purpose The Second Father expresly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration is Pope GELASIVS SECT XIII THis Authour haue Protestants called Pope Gelasius and urged his Testimony Your Disputers cavill First at the name of the Authour calling Protestants Impudent for stiling him Pope Gelasius But if he were not that Pope Gelasius what Gelasius might hee be then Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea saith your Cardinall Bellarmine Contrarily your Cardinall Baronius contendeth that he is a more ancient Gelasius Anno 476. namely Gelasius Citizenus yet so as confounding himselfe insomuch that hee is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech as he confesseth of Gelasius Pope of Rome But what shall we answere for the Impudent Protestants as your Cardinall hath called them Surely nothing but wee require more modesty in him who hath so called them considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides nor meaner to follow than these Historians viz. Genadius yea your Bibliothecarie Anastasius Alphonsus de Castro Onuphrius Massonius Margarinus la
to be destitute of naturall and voluntary motion of Sence and of Vnderstanding SECT II. CAtholique Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ after the Resurrection but that he was able naturally of himselfe as hee was man to performe the perfect Acts which other men can who are of right constitution of Body and of sound understanding such as are the functions of Iudgement and reason and of appetite sence motion according to the liberty of his own will This Doctrine was above 1000. yeers Catholike But your now Romane faith is to beleeve as followeth in the conclusions set down by your Iesuite Suarez without as he saith the contradiction of any Divine in your Church First that Christ as he is in this Sacrament hath no power naturally of himselfe to move himselfe And this your owne daily experience hath brought you vnto whilst beleeuing Christs Corporall presence in the Hoast you shut him vp in a Boxe where you still find the same lying as destitute of power of motion as any other unconsecrated Bread which being put together with it lyeth so long untill they both equally waxe mouldy putrifye and ingender wormes Secondly that Christ in himselfe as being in this Sacrament hath no naturall faculty of sence nor ability without a miracle to heare or see c. Thirdly That he is voyd of all sensible appetite Lastly that without some miraculous power he cannot possibly apprehend in his vnderstanding any thing present nor yet remember any notions past So he That this is a new brutish and barbarous Doctrine destitute of all ancient Patronage either of written or of unwritten Tradition SECT III. HAve you any Text yea or yet pretext either of Scripture or humane Tradition for countenancing this so prodigious and monstrous a conception Certainly Scripture telleth us that Christ his Body by Resurrection is perfected in sense and Agility and his soule in Iudgement and Capacity Nor can you shew any Father in the Church of Christ within the Circumference of 1400. years after Christ who held this your doctrine so much as in a Dreame or who hath not esteemed the Body of Christ to be of the most absolute perfection we say no one Father or Teacher of the Evangelicall Truth once fancied this unchristian and false faith You must therefore derive this from him whom Christ calleth the Father of lies VVe shall give you good reason for this our Declamation That this Romish Doctrine is blasphemously Derogatory from the Maiesticall Body of Christ SECT IV. VVHat is this which we have heard Christ his humanity after his Resurrection not to have so much Capacity as a Child which is as he is here to vnderstand or imagine any thing done not thè power of a Moale or Mouse which is to heare or see not the faculty of a little Aut so as to move it selfe as if this were not an Antichristian blasphemy against that all-Maiesticall Body humane nature of Christ which being once sowen in infirmity is as the Scripture saith since risen in power Doe you heare In power saith the spirit of God shewing that Infirmity is changed into Potencie in the Body of every Christian and you have turned power into infirmitie even in Christ himselfe whom you have now transformed into an Idoll having eyes and seeth not eares and heareth not feete and walketh not heart and imagineth not and yet this you professe to adore as the person of the Sonne of God O the strength of Satanicall Delusion That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your owne Principle SECT V. REmember your former generall Principle which wee acknowledged to be sound and true viz. All such Actions and Qualities which are reall in any Body without any relation to place cannot be said to be multiplied in respect of divers places wherein a Body is supposed to be As for Example The Body of Christ cannot be cold in one Altar and hot in another wounded and whole in ioy and griefe dead and alive at the same time The reason These are impossible say you because of Contradiction for that the same thing should be capable of such contrarieties it is repugnant to the understanding of man So you which is an infallible Truth when the Modus or Manner of a thing is compared to it selfe and not to any thing else it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be onely one the same Iesuite cannot be sicke in Iapan and sound and in health at Rome in the same instant CHALLENGE NOw say we beseech you is there not the like Contradiction to make the same Christ at the same time as hee is in Heaven intelligent and sensitive and as on earth ignorant and senslâ—sse Or powerfull to move of himselfe on the throne of Maiestie and absolutely Impotent as hee is on the Altar because these Attributes of Christ being Intelligent and potent equally have no Relation to place Notwithstanding all which you shame not to professe a senslesse ignorant and feeble Christ O come out of Babylon and be no more be witched by such her Sorceries CHAP. IX The sixt kind of Romish Contradiction against these words of Christ MY BODY as it is now most Glorious by making it most Inglorious SECT I. BEfore we proceed in discovering the ouglinesse of the Romish Doctrine in this point wee are willing to heare your Master Brerely his preface in your defence The carnall man saith hee is not for all this satisfied but standeth still offended at sundry pretended absurd and undecent indignities Calvin saying That he reiected them as unworthy of the Maiestie of Christ And Doctor Willet saith That they are unseemely and against the dignity of the glorious and impassible Body of Christ So he at once relating and reiecting their opinions That the Indignities whereunto the Body of Christ is made subiect by the Romish Doctrine are most uile and derogatory to the Maiestie of Christ SECT II. ALl Christian Creeds tell us that Christ our Saviour sitteth at the right hand of God that is in perfection of glory But your Iesuite Suarez delivereth it in the generall Doctrine of the Romish Divines That the Body of Christ remaineth so long under the formes of Bread and wine wheresoever untill they be corrupted And this he calleth a Generall Principle in your Romish profession Insomuch that the Body of Christ is moved wheresoever the formes of Bread are moved be it into the dirt or into the Dunghill Secondly that according to your Romish Decrees and publique Missals the same Body of Christ is vomited up by the Communicant yea and you have Cases about the vomiting of it whether vpon weaknes of Sâ—omacke or of Drunkennes Next that it is devoured of Mice and blowne away with wind for wee read of your Church Cases also for these in your Missals VVee thirdly demand whether you thinke it possible for meate that is undigested by reason of
sacrificed by the hands of the Priest Here to wit on the Table below representatively as hereafter the Catholique Fathers themselves will shew And these two may easily consist without any necessity of the Priest reaching his hands as farre as the highest Heavens as your Cardinall pleasantly obiecteth Thirdly you alleage Wee are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramentall that is Figurative Receiving and more especially which hath beene both proved and confessed a Reall and true participation of Christ's Body and Blood spiritually without any Corporall Coniunction But it is added saith he that These namely the Body and Blood of Christ are Symbols of our Resurrection which is by reason that our Bodies are ioyned with the Body of Christ otherwise if our Coniunction were onely of our soules onely the Resurrection of our soules should be signified thereby So hee that 's to say as successesly as in the former For the word HAEC These which are called Symbols of our Resurrection may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ immediatly spoken of and placed on the Table in Heaven which we Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies because If Christ be risen then must they that are Christs also rise againe Or else the word These may have relation to the more remote after the manner of the Greekes to wit Bread and Cup on the first Table because as immediately followeth they are these whereof not much but little is taken as you have heard Which other Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection without any Consequence of Christ's Bodily Coniunction with our Bodies more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptisme which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection as doth also your Iesuite Coster call it The Pledge of our Resurrection But this our Coniunction with Christ is the subiect matter of the Fift Booke Lastly how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice is plentifully resolved in the Sixt Booke THE FIFTH BOOKE Treating of the third Romish Doctrinall Consequence arising from your depraved Sence of the Words of Christs Institution THIS IS MY BODY concerning the manner of the present Vnion of his Body with the bodies of the Receivers by Eating c. CHAP. I. The state of the Question SECT I. A Christian man consisting of two men the Outward or bodily and the Inward which is Spirituall this Sacrament accordingly consisteth of two parts Earthly and Heavenly as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread and Wine as the visible Signes and Obiects of Sense and of the Body and Blood of Christ which is the Spirituall part Answerable to both these is the double nourishment and Vnion of a Christian the one Sacramentall by communicating of the outward Elements of Bread and Wine united to man's body in his Taking Eating digesting till at length it be transubstantiated into him by being substantially incorporated in his flesh The other which is the Spirituall and Soules food is the Body and Blood of the Lord therefore called Spirituall because it is the Obiect of Faith by an Vnion wrought by God's Spirit and man's faith which as hath beene professed by Protestants is most Reall and Ineffable But your Church of Rome teacheth such a Reall Vnion of Christ his Body and Blood with the Bodies of the Communicants as is Corporall which you call Per contactum by Bodily touch so long as the formes of Bread and Wine remaine uncorrupt in the bodies of the Receivers Our Method requireth that we first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Orthodoxe truth Secondly to impugne your Romish Vnion as Capernaiticall that is Hereticall And thirdly to determine the Point by comparing them both together Our Orthodoxe Truth will be found in the Preparations following That Protestants prosesse not only a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body but also a spiritually Reall SECT II. ALl the Bookes of the Adversaries to Protestants are most especially vehement violent and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries as though we professed no other manner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's body than only Sacramentall and Figurative For Confutation of which Calumny it will be most requisite to oppose the Apologie of Him who hath beene most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause to shew first what he held not and then what he held If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not he will answere you I doe abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence And I have an hundred times disclaimed the receiuing only of a Figure in this Sacrament What then did hee hold Our Catechisme teacheth saith hee not only a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our soules And with Swinckfeldius maintayning only a Figurative perception we have nothing to doe If you further demand what is the Feeding whereby we are united to Christ's body in this Sacrament hee tels you that it is IV. Not carnall but Spirituall and Reall and so Reall that the soule is as truly replenished with the lively virtue of his flesh by the powerfull worke of the Spirit of God as the body is nourished with the corporall Element of Bread in this Sacrament If you exact an Expression of this spirituall Vnion to know the manner hee acknowledgeth it to be above Reason If further you desire to understand whether he were not Singular in this opinion he hath avouched the iudgement of other Protestants professing not to dissent one Syllable from the Augustane Confession as agreeing with him in iudgement herein Accordingly our Church of England in the 28. Article saith that To such as worthily and with faith receive this Sacrament The Bread which we breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ which Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a spirituall and heavenly manner the meane whereby is Faith That the Body of Christ by this Sacrament was ordained only for food to the Christian man's Soule SECT III. VVHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of ancient Fathers which are many in this point of Dispute having before us the Iudgement of your Fathers of the Councell of Trent and of your Romane Catechisme authorized by the same Councell both which affirme that Christ ordained this Sacrament to be the spirituall food of man's soule In which respect the Body of Christ is called Spirituall in your Popes Decree That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christs Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Coniunction can be SECT IV. THe soule of man being the most essentiall and substantiall part of man because a Spirit immortall and the flesh
fire thereon and both of them were immediatly burnt with fire from Heaven and perished Belshazzar will needs carouze in the sacred bowles of Gods Temple in the contempt of God and of his Law and behold a writing upon the wall signifyng that his dayes were at an end as it came to passe And yet was there not any peculiar existence of God in these Things Boyes are mocking God's Prophet in Bethel by noting him for a Bald-pate and are devoured by Beares The People loathing Manna are choaked with Quailes If sacred stories will not preuaile peradventure your owne Legends will rellish better with you so then your Bozius will tell you of them Who were suddainly strucke with the plague called Saint Anthonies plague only for seeking to pull downe and demolish Saint Anthonies Image Have you faith to beleeve this and can you not conceive a like right of Iudgement against the Prophaners of the Sacramentall Image of Christ himselfe Be it therefore furthermore knowne unto you that the Sacrament which is celebrated by Protestants although it containe no Corporall Vnion of the body of Christ yet is it not so bare Bread as your Doctors have calumniously suggested unto you but that God hath manifested his Curses upon prophane Communicants and Contemners of this holy Mysterie which hath in it a Sacramentall Vnion of the Bodie and Blood of Christ One example whereof we reade is of one that being afflicted in Conscience for his Abuse of the Sacrament in receiving it but in one kind Did cast himselfe head-long out of a window and so died The other is that which he who now writeth these things saw and can testifie viz. A Batchelour of Arts being Popishly affected at the time of the Communion tooke the Consecrated Bread and forbearing to eate it convayed and kept it closely for a time and afterwards threw it over the wall of the Colledge but a short time after not induring the torment of his guilty Conscience he threw himselfe head-long over the Battlements of the Chappell and some few houres after ended his life Thus farre of this Subiect concerning an Vnion with Christ as it is professed in our Church A Confutation of the Romish professed Corporall Coniunction of Christ his Bodie with the Bodies of the Communicants SECT VI. I. That the Errour of the Capernaites Ioh. 6. was an opinion of the Corporall Eating of the flesh of Christ 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 Section in explicating the Errour of the Capernaites so that it must wholy reflect forsooth upon the Protestants It is not needfull we should deny that in this Chapter of Saint Iohn Christ doth speake of the Eucharist which if we did we might be assisted by your owne Bishop Iansenius together with divers others whom your Iesuite Maldonate confesseth to have beene Learned Godly and Catholique 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 Iesuite himselfe saith That he could not so sharply and vehemently inueigh against Protestants Let it then be supposed as spoken of Sacramentall eating with the mouth as some of the Fathers thought but yet only Sacramentally and not properly as by them will be found true We returne to the Discourse of your Romish Priest Christ having spoken saith he of eating his flesh and the Capernaites answering How can he give us his flesh to eate They undorstood 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 believing them and Christ often repeating the eating of his flesh and drinking of his Blood and requiring them to beleeve and when he saith The flesh profiteth nothing it is the Spirit that quickeneth it is not spoken to exclude the Reall Presence or to qualifie his former sayings but to admonish them not to iudge things by carnall reason and yet more euidently in the words following There are some of you that beleeve not He said not saith Saint Augustine there be some among you that understand not So plainly did hee hereby instruct them not how to understand but to beleeve for had he for their better understanding intended hereby to have qualified or corrected his former sayings as to be meant Eating spiritually by Faith he would have explained himselfe in plaine tearmes and so have satisfied the Iewes Vpon which premises I doe conclude that because our Sauiour did reprove his sorupulous hearers not for want of understanding but for want of beleefe it doth from thence and other premises abundantly follow that his fore-said promise was not obscure and figurative but plaine and literall for our reciving of him without out our bodily mouthes Thus farre your celebrious Priest namely so as in almost all other his Collections not understanding the Truth of the matter His Inferences stand thus First Christ reprehended the Capernaites for not Beleeving his words concerning Eating his Flesh but not for not for understanding them Therefore it followeth that they understood his words of Eating his flesh right well Secondly They understood his speech Therefore Christ in saying The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickneth did not thereby qualifie his former speech to instruct their understanding Thirdly They needed no instruction for their understanding Therefore Christs words of Eating his flesh were not figurative Fourthly these his words were not figurative Therefore his words of Eating his flesh teach a Corporall Presence thereof in the Sacrament Each of these Consequences are delivered as ignorantly as confidently For common learning teacheth that there is a double consideration of Truth in every True speech the one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is True the second is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is the Truth or true sence thereof To the apprehending of the first is required Beliefe whereupon Aristotle gave that Rule to every Scholler that intendeth to learne the principles of any Art to wit Oportet discentem credere A Scholler is bound to beleeve The other point touching the Truth or true sence what it is is the obiect of man's understanding so that there is a great difference betweene both These in the case of a Reprehension As for example the Master teaching the definition of Logicke saying It is an Art of disputing rightly may iustly reproue his Scholler for his not beleeving it because his not beleeving is wilfull so can hee not for his not understanding it for that hee therefore learneth because hee doth not understand except it be that being taught he either through carelesse negligence or else affected ignorance will not understand This agreeth with the Current of Scripture Ioh.
Papall Decrees and the Body of these Decrees hath beene lately ratified by the Bull of P. Gregory the thirteenth The same Faith was embraced afterwards of some Schoole-men who without any distinction vsed the same phrase of Tearing with Teeth Secondly of after-times your Canus asseverantly inferreth of the Body of Christ that If it be eaten then certainly it is broken and torne with the teeth But most emphatically your Cardinall Alan It is said saith he to be torne with the teeth of the faithfull no lesse properly than if it should be said so of the Bread if it were eaten Yea and your Cardinall Bellarmine for proofe of Transubstantiation hath recourse unto the same Roman Councell which he stileth Generall and noteth the thing defined to have beene the iudgement of the Church and that the same Iudgement was delivered under the Censure of an Anathema and Curse against the Gain-sayers and therefore he with his Disciple Mr. Fisher who also alleageth the same are challengeable to hold it according to the literall sence therof because it will not admit of any qualification by any Trope or figure that can be devised First because the words are purposely set downe as a forme of Recantation and Abiuration of Heresie but as you confesse There are no formes of speech more exact and proper in phrase concerning the matter of faith than such as are used by them that abiure Heresie And Secondly for that this forme of words of Tearing with the teeth the flesh of Christ was also made purposely for Abiuration and abandoning all figurative Sence for the defence of the literall Exposition of the words of Christ This my Body c. therefore was it taken literally But what thinke you will Cavin say to this your then Romish forme of Profession in the literall sence A man should rather wish to die an hundred times saith he than once to intangle himselfe in a Doctrine so monstrously sacrilegious Which Censure of his wee now endeavour to make good That the former Romane Faith of Properly Eating the Body of Christ is Capernaitically-Hereticall at this day as is proved by some of your owne Doctors of the now Romane Church SECT II. YOu have heard of Berengarius his Abrenunciation of Heresie according to the faith of the then Romane Church in Breaking the Body of Christ and tearing it sensibly with their teeth Hearken now a little and you shall heare in a manner an Abrenunciation of that then Romane faith by denying it to be either properly Broken or yet really Torne even by the Iesuites themselves Reall Eating saith your Salmeron requireth a reall touch and tearing of the thing which is eaten but the Body of Christ is not torne with the teeth or touched by them that eate him because he is herein impartible So he Your Iesuite and Cardinall Bellarmine is as it were in a maze saying and gain-saying as you may perceive yet notwithstanding whether he will or no must perforce confesse no lesse when he saith that The Body of Christ is not absolutely eaten but eaten vnder the formes of Bread and that is to say saith he the formes of Bread are sensibly and visibly eaten So hee If this imported a literall manner of eating then might your Cardinall have said as literally of himselfe My clothes are torne therefore my body is rent in pieces Not to trouble you with the Cardinal's Philosophie that talketh of Eating and tearing of Colours But to the point If onely the Accidents of Bread be as he saith Sensibly eaten then was Pope Nicolas his Prescription of Eating Christ's body sensibly in your Cardinal's opinion not true And upon the same ground it is that your Iesuite Suarez out of Thomas and other Schoole-men affirmeth the word Broken to bee a Metaphoricall phrase not properly belonging to the body of Christ because it requireth that there should be a Separation of the parts of that which is properly broken So hee as also your Canus hath concluded And your Iesuite Maldonate is so bold as to tell you that these Propositions The Body of Christ is eaten is Broken Torne with the Teeth or Devoured of us properly taken are false Thus your Iesuites as if they had expressly said that to thinke the Body of Christ to be eaten torne or devoured properly taken is a carnall Capernaiticall and as your owne Glosse in Gratian concludeth an Hereticall opinion Will your have any more It is but the last day in respect when one of your grave Criticks so much abhorred the conceit of proper Tearing Christ's Bodie that he called the Obiecting thereof against your Church in his blinde zeale Blasphemie and answereth that you doe no more Teare Christ's flesh than Caiphas tore his when he rent his clothes The Case then is plaine That the former Romish and Popish Faith for the manner of of receiving of the Body of Christ is but somewhat altered yet miserably inconstant and faithlesse SECT III. PRotestants may have in this place iust matter of insulation against your Romish Professors to prove their infidelity in that which they seeme to professe As first that the ground of your Doctrine of Corporall presence is the literall and proper interpretation of the words of Christ when he said Take eate this is my Body yet now are you compelled to say that Properly eaten is no proper but a false sence Your Second Doctrine is that the iudgement of a Romane Pope in a Romane Councell in a matter of faith is Infallible Notwithstanding Pope Nicolas with his Romane Councell is found to haue grossly erred in a tenor of Abiuration which of all others as hath beene confessed is most literall and was therefore purposely devised against a figurative sence of the words of Christ and forthwith published throughout Italie France Germany c. to direct men in the faith of sensuall eating breaking and tearing the flesh of Christ with their teeth yet notwithstanding your common Iudgement being now to reiect such phrases taken in their proper signification and in a manner to abrenounce Berengarius his Abrenunciation what is if this be not an argument that either you say you care not or else beleeve you know not what Let us goe on in pursuite of your Doctrine of the Corporall manner of eating which you still maintaine and it will be found to be Capernaiticall enough CHAP. V. That the now Romish manner of Eating and bodily receiving of the Body of Christ is sufficiently Capernaiticall in three kindes TEll vs not that no Doctrine of your Church can be called Hereticall before that it be so iudged by some generall Councell no for Rectum est Index sui obliqui and therefore an evident Truth written in the word of God doth sufficiently condemne the contrary of Heresie as well as light doth discover and dispell Darknes And this is manifest by the example which we have now in
before God for us Thus the Apostle But what of this will you say Doe but marke Are you not All heard still proclaiming as with one voice that your Romish Sacrifice of the Masse is the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Iuge Sacrificium that is the Continuall Sacrifice Continually offered Whereof the Iuge and Continuall Sacrifice of the Law was a signe So you But it were strange that the Iuge Sacrificium of the Law continuing both Morning and Evening should be a figure of your Masse-Sacrifice which is but only offered in the Morning As if you would make a picture having two hands for to represent a Person that hath but one But not to deny that the Celebration of the Eucharist may be called a Iuge Sacrificium for so some Fathers have termed it Yet they no otherwise call it Iuge or Continuall than they call it a Sacrifice that is Vnproperly because it cannot possibly be compared for Continuance of Time to that Celestiall of Christ in the highest Heaven where Christ offereth himselfe to God for us day and night without Intermission Whereupon it is that Irenaeus exhorteth men to pray often by Christ at his Altar Which Altar saith he is in Heaven and the Temple open Apoc. 11. 19. Where saith Pope Gregory our Saviour Christ offereth up his burnt Sacrifices for us without intermission And whereupon your Iesuit Coster out of Ambrose affirmeth that Christ exhibiteth his Body wounded upon the Crosse and slaine as a Iuge Sacrificium that is a Continuall Sacrifice perpetually unto his Father for us And to this purpose serve the fore-cited Testimonies of Augustine Gregory Nazianzen Ambrose Chrysostome and Oecumenius some pointing out the Altar in Heaven as the Truth Some by Exhortations and Some by their Examples instructing us to make our Continuall Approach unto the Celestiall Altar CHALLENGE NOw you who so fix the hearts and minds of the Spectators of your Masse upon your sublunary Altars and Hoasts and appropriate the Iuge Sacrificium thereunto in respect of Time during onely the houres of your Priestly Sacrificing allow your attention but a moment of Time and you will easily see the Impiety of that your Profession The Iuge Sacrificium of Christ as it is presented to God by him in Heaven hath beene described to be Continuall without Intermission Alwayes that is without any Interruption of any moment of Time to the end that all sorts of Penitents and faithfull Suters solliciting God by him might finde as the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Helpe at any time of need The gates of this Temple Heaven being ever open the matter of this Sacrifice which is the Body of Christ being there ever present The Priest who is Christ himselfe ever executing his Function Whereas contrarily you will confesse we dare say that the Doores of your Churches may happen to be all locked or interdicted your Sacrifice shut up in a Box or lurched and carried away by Mice your Priest taken up with sport or repast or journey or sleepe yea and even when he is acting a Sacrifice may possibly nullifie all his Priestly Sacrificing Act by reason of Confessed Almost infinite Defects Therefore the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Doctrine of your Masse is thus farre manifested in as much that your owne Ministeriall Priest-hood doth so prejudice the personall Priest-hood of Christ as it is in Heaven as the Moone doth by her interposition ecclipse the glory of the Sunne by confounding things distinct that is as we have learned from the Fathers Image with Truth The state of Wicked Partakers with the Godly Matters Visible with Invisible Signes with Things Worse with Better Iayes with Eagles and the like Of the second Typicall Scripture which is the Passeover shewing the weaknesse of the Argument taken from thence for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse SECT X. FIrst it is meet we heare your Objector speake even your Cardinall who albeit he confesseth the Paschall Lamb to have been the figure of Christ on the Crosse yet did it in the Ceremonies thereof saith he more immediatly and principally prefigure the Eucharist than the Passion which is proved by Scripture 1. Cor. 5. Our Passeover is offered up therefore let us feast it in the Azymes of Sincerity and Truth Which offering up was not fulfilled on the Crosse but it is evident that the Apostle did eat this true Paschall Lambe the flesh of Christ at his Supper and this Apostle exhorteth us to this Feast in saying Let us therefore keepe our feast c. So hee bestowing a large Chapter of Arguments wherewith to bleare our eyes lest that we should see in this Scripture Our Passeover is offered up Rather the Immolation of Christ on the Crosse than in the Eucharist We willingly yeeld unto his alleaged Testimonies of Ancient Fathers who by way of Allusion or Analogie doe all call the Eucharist a Paschall Sacrifice But yet that the words of this Scripture should more properly and principally meane the Eucharisticall Sacrifice as if the Iewish Passeover did rather prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ in the Masse than on the Crosse not one It were a tedious worke to sift out all the Drosse of his Argumentations Neverthelesse because he putteth Protestants unto it saying us followeth But our Adversaries saith he will say that the Apostle in saying our Passeover is offered up speaketh of Christ's Sacrifice offered upon the Crosse but we will prove that this figure was properly fulfilled at his Sâ—pper So he We will now shew you that other Adversaries than Protestants are ready to encounter this your Champion First the choisest Chieftaine of his owne side armed with the Authority of Christ himselfe Ioh. 13. 1. Before the day of the Passeover Iesus knowing that his howre was come that he must passe out of the world unto the Father Now when was this spoken Even then saith Tolet your Cardinall and Iesuit When he came to the celebrating of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood that is at his last Supper But what was meant hereby namely Christ alluded unto the Iewish Passeover saith he in signification of his owne passing over by death to his Father So he So also your Iesuit Pererius out of Augustine A second Scripture is the objected Text 1. Cor. 5. Our Passeover is offered up Christ that is As the figurative paschall Lambe was offered up for the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt so Christ was offered up to death for the Redemption of his people and so passed by his passion to his Father So your Aquinas Our Passeover Namely by his Sacrifice in shedding his Blood on the Crosse So your Iesuit Becanus And By this his Passeover on the Crosse was the Passeover of the Iewes fulfilled So your Bishop Iansenius as flat diameter to your Cardinal's Objection as can be A third Scripture we finde Ioh. 19. They broke not his legs that
Explaining of themselves SECT V. SAint Ambrose setting forth two kinde of Offerings of Christ here on earth and above in Heaven he saith that Christ here is offered as one suffering and above he himselfe Offereth himselfe an Advocate with the Father for us And this our offering of him he calleth but an Image and that above he calleth the Truth Clearly shewing that we have in our Offering Christ's Body only as it is Crucified which is the Object of our Commemoration But the same Body as it is now the personall subject of a present Time and Place they behold it in Heaven even the same Body which was once offered on the Crosse by his Passion now offered up by himselfe to God by Presentation in Heaven here in the Church only by our Representation Sacramentally on earth Saint Augustine dealeth as plainly with us where distinguishing three States of Offerings up to Christ he saith first that under the Law Christ was promised In the similitude of their Sacrifices meaning his bloody death was prefigured by those bloody Sacrifices Secondly in the offering at his Passion he was Delivered up in truth or proper Sacrifice this was on the Crosse And thirdly after his Ascension The memory of Him is celebrated by a Sacrament or Sacramentall Representation So he For although the Sacrifices of the Iewes were true Sacrifices yet were they not truly the Sacrificings of Christ Note you this Assertion Againe speaking of his owne Time when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was daily celebrated he saith That Christ was once sacrified namely upon the Crosse and Is now daily sacrificed in the Sacrament nor shall he lie saith he that saith Christ is sacrificed So he No holy Augustine shall he not lye who saith that Christ as the personall Subject of this Sacrament is a proper Sacrifice in the literall Sense for whether Proper or Vnproper are the two Seales of this Controversie Now interpose your Catholike Resolution Say first why is it called a Sacrament tell us If Sacraments had not a similitude of things which they represent they were no Sacraments from which similitude they have their Appellation and name of the things to wit The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is called his Body as Baptisme is called a Buriall Be so good as to explaine this by another which may illuminate even a man in the point of Sacrifice also although otherwise blinded with prejudice As when the day of Christ's Passion faith he being to morrow or the day of his Resurrection about to be the next day but one we use to say of the former To morrow is Christ's Passion and of the other when it commeth it is Christ's Resurrection yet will none be so absurd as to say we lye in so saying because we speake it by way of Similitude even so when we say this is sacrificed c. So Saint Augustine Who now seeth not that as the Buriall of Christ is not the Subject matter of Baptisme but only the Representative Object thereof and as Good Fryday and Easter-day are not properly the daies of Christ his Passion or Resurrection but Anniversary and Represensative or Commemorative Resemblances of them So this Sacrifice is a Similitude of the Sacrifice of Christ's on the Crosse and not materially the same We omit Testimonies of other Fathers which are dispersed in this and other Sections Although this one Explanation might satisfie yet shall we adjoyne others which may satiate even the greediest Appetite The fourth Demonstration from the Fathers Explanation of their meaning by a kinde of Correction SECT VI. ANcient Fathers in good number call that which is represented in the Eucharist and which we are said to offer The same Host not many the same Oblation no other the same Sacrifice and none but it but they adde by a Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Correction of the excesse of their speech or rather for Caution-sake least their Readers might conceive of the same Sacrifice herein as properly presâ—nt saying in this manner We offer the same Sacrifice or Rather the Remembrance thereof alluding sometime expresly to the Institution of Christ Doe this in remembrance of me The Fathers are these viz. Chrysostome Theophylact Thodoret Ambrose Eusebius and Primasius Your only Answer is that their Exception here used was not to note that it is not the same Body of Christ here Corporally present which was offered upon the Crosse but that it is not offered in the same manner by effusion of Blood as that was which is indeed a Part but not the whole Truth For survay the Marginals and then tell us If that your Sacrifice were the same Body of Christ Corporally present why should Theophylact apply hâ—s qualification not to the manner whether Bloody or Vnbloody but to the person of Christ saying We offer the same Christ who was once offered or rather a Memoriall of his Oblation And Theodoret applying it directly to the thing Non aliud We offer not another Sacrifice but a memoriall thereof why Eusebius Wee offer a Memoriall in stead of a Sacrifice plainly notifying unto tis that they meant the same very Body which was the Subject of the Sacrifice on the Crosse to be the now proper Object of our Remembrance in the Eucharist but not the Subject therein Which agreeth with that which in the former Section was said by Ambrose Our offering up of Christ in an Image and Augustine his celebrating of this Sacrament of Remembrance Semblably as Hierome speakes of the Priest who is said to take the Person of Christ in this Sacrament so that He saith Hierome be a a true Priest or rather an Imitator of him But a Priest and an Imitator is not Identically the same that is represented Master Breeley is not Christ Lastly The same said Primasius in all places which was borne of the Virgin and not now great and now lesse So he But have we not heard you number your many Hoasts on one Altar at one Time and yet the Fathers say We offer not many but the same which must needs be the same one as Object else shew us where ever any Father denied but that upon divers Altars were divers Breads or that but according to their outward Demensions they were now greater now lesse which no way agreeth with the Body of Christ as hath beene proved in discussing the Canon of the Councell of Nice The fifth Demonstration Because the Body and Blood of Christ as they are pretended by the Romish Church to be in this Sacrament cannot be the Representative Sacrifice spoken of by Ancient Fathers against your vaine Instance in a Stage-play SECT VII THat the Subject matter of this Sacrament by you called the same Sacrifice which Christ offered up upon the Crosse ought to be Representative and fit to resemble the same Sacrifice of his Passion is a matter unquestionable among all In which respect the
This being known will set all straight And Clemens telleth you that it is his Precious Body and his Blood shed which properly taken all Christians professe to be Proper to his Body crucified and Blood shed on the Crosse for the proper object of our Typicall Remembrance as we have formerly proved and you your selves confessed already Cyril of Hierusalem doth attend upon Pope Clemens and in a sort treadeth in his steps The manner of our Celebrating the memory of Christ's death he calleth a Spirituall Sacrifice and an Vnbloody worship wherein against the Iewish Sacrifice he opposeth Spirituall against Corporall as he doth Vnbloody against Bloody But by Spirituall he meant that which wanteth a Body Therefore by Vnbloody he meant that which was properly void of Blood So farre was Cyril from signifying thereby the Vnbloody Body of Christ as the subject matter in the Eucharist As for the Body and Blood of Christ it selfe which hee calleth Propitiation Cyril expoundeth himselfe to meane for so he nameth it Christ slaine for our sinnes which still wee say and you cannot deny is only the Object of our whole spirituall service of Remembrance and Commemoration Both these former Witnesses have delivered their Testimonies as spoken under a forme of Prayer whereunto whether You or Protestants may more justly say Amen judge you The eighth Demonstration of the no Proper Sacrifice of the Masse Because the Ancient Fathers called the Eucharist a Bloody Sacrifice which all you will confesse to be Vnproperly spoken SECT XI TAke but unto you your owne Allegations set downe in the Margent of the Sentences of Antiquit◠and you shall finde how the Ancient Fathers doubted not to say that Christ suffereth is slaine slayeth himselfe suffereth often in this Sacrament and that His Passion and bloody Sacrifice is offered herein Sayings of the highest Accent as you see and of no fewer nor meaner Fathers than these Alexander Gregory both Popes Chrysostome Cyprian Hierome Cyril of Ierusalem Hesychius Pascatius What thinke you of such sayings Can Christ be said properly to be Dead in this Sacrament Never any Catholike said so saith your Iesuit Ribera What then could be the meaning of such words If you should be ignorant your Cardinall Alan would teach you and he would have you Observe what he saith Christ is said by the Fathers to suffer saith he and to die in this Sacrament only so farre as his Death and Passion is commemorated and represented herein And so speaketh also your Roman Glosse What now hindreth but that whensoever we heare the same Fathers affirming that the same Body and Blood of Christ are Sacrificed in the Eucharist we understand them in the same impropriety of speech that they meant onely Representatively especially when as we see your other grand Cardinall comming somewhat home towards us and to confesse as followeth If Catholikes should say that Christ doth truly die in this Sacrament this Argument might be of some force but they say he dieth not but in a Sacrament and Signe representing So he which yet alas is too little a Crevase for so great a Doctor to creepe out at First because there is as well a Figurative as there is a literall Truth for If I should say of Easter day said Augustine it is the day of Christ's Resurrection I should not lie and yet it is but the Anniversary day betokening the other When Christ said of one part of this Sacrament This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood he spake by a double figure said your Iesuit Salmeron yet truly Secondly Christ who is Truth it selfe in saying of Bread This is my Body or Flesh spake a Truth as you all professe and was it not likewise a Truth when he called his Flesh Bread yea and also The true Bread Thirdly the Fathers as they said that Christ is dead suffereth as you now object in this Sacrament in a Mysterie so have They also said of his Body in respect of the Eucharist It is sacrificed in an Image in a Sacrament or Mysterie according to that their generall Qualification saying It is the same Sacrifice which Christ offered or Rather a Remembrance thereof And lastly the Fathers who named Baptisme a Sacrifice as well as the Eucharist doubted not to stretch Baptisme up to as high a note as they have done the Eucharist saying Baptisme is the passion of Christ and In Baptisme we crucifie Christ To signifie that the Body of Christ is the Represented Object and not the Representative Subject of this Sacrament An Elucidation of the Premises by a Similitude of a Stage-play manifesting how the same Vnproper Sacrifice might furthermore have beene called both Bloody and Vnbloody by Antient Fathers SECT XII A Similitude for explanation sake would be had give us leave to borrow one from the Stage-play for manifesting a Truth as well as you have done another from thence for palliating a Falshood You may recognize with us that Tragicall end of the Emperour Mauritius by the command of one Phocas once his slave that grand Patrone of the Popedome by privileging the Church of Rome to be the Head of all Churches as divers of your owne Historians doe relate But to the point By the commandment of this Phocas as you know were slaine two of Mauritius his sonnes three daughters and his wife and all these before his owne eyes and at last the Emperour Mauritius himselfe was also murthered Were now this dolefull Spectacle acted on a Stage might not any Spectator say at the horrid sight thereof This is a bloody Tragedie namely in respect of the Object represented herein And might he not also say as truly This is an Vnbloody Tragedie to wit in respect of the representative Subject Action Commemoration it selfe wherein there is not shed any one drop of mans Blood And from the same Evidence it will be easie to perceive that the Greeke Fathers used to terme the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latines Tremendum that is a Terrible and Dreadfull Sacrifice namely for the Semblance-sake and Analogie it hath with Christ's Death even as one would call the Act representing the cruell Butchering of the Emperour Mauritius an horrible and lamentable Spectacle This is a cleare glasse wherein any may discerne the open visage of Truth from the fained Vizard of Error The ninth Demonstration Because Antient Fathers likewise called the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice for the Representation-sake which it hath of Christ's Death which is Argumentum à paribus SECT XIII WE shall not urge the Antecedent of this Argument taken from Baptisme before that we have made knowne the force of the Consequence thereof First one of your Cardinalls thus If the Fathers had held the Eucharist onely a Sacrament and not also a Sacrifice there had beene no cause why they should not have called Baptisme a Sacrifice it being a Representation of Christ's