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
visibles but being sanctified by the holy Spirit are turned into a Sacrament of Christ's Body So hee This is indeed a true Analogie not to be performed by Accidents Could any of them whom you call Calvinists have spoken more significantly either in contradicting your Exposition of Christ's words for he saith that Christ called Bread his Body or in declaring the true proper Sence of the Sacramentall Conversion for he saith Bread is Changed into a Sacrament of Christ's Bodie or else in giving the Reason why Bread and Wine were chosen to be Sacraments and Signes of Christ's Body and Blood by which we are spiritually fed for hee sheweth that it is because of their Naturall Effects Bread substantially and therefore not Accidentally strengtheneth Man's Body Wine turneth in Blood Which overthroweth your third Figment of onely Accidents as if the Substance of Bread and Wine were not necessary in this Sacrament Say then doth the Accident of Roundnesse and Figure of Bread strengthen mans Body or doth the Accident Colour of Wine turne into Blood As well might you affirme the only Accident of Water in Baptisme to be sufficient to purge and cleanse the Body by the colour and coldnesse without the substantiall matter thereof The Second part of the Analogie is discerned in the Mysticall Body of Christ which is the Congregation of the Faithfull Communicants We are all one Body in as much as we are partakers of one Bread It standeth thus As many Granes of Corne make one Loafe of Bread and many Grapes make one measure of Wine in the Cup So many Christians partaking faithfully of this Sacrament become One mysticall Body of Christ by the Vnion of Faith and Love This Exposition as it is yeilded unto by your Cardinall Cajetan and authorized by your Romane and Tridentine Catechisme so is it also confessed to be used of Almost all holy Doctours Hee was held a most expert and artificiall Painter in Plinie that could paint Grapes so to life as to deceive Birds which came to feed on them But they are the only Sophisticall Doctors that offer in the Eucharist only Accidents as painted Colours in stead of naturall because where there is not a Reall Analogie there is no Sacrament You may not say that the Analogie consisteth in the matter before Consecration because every Sacramentall Analogie is betweene the Sacrament and the Thing Signified but it is no Sacrament before it be Consecrated CHALLENGE SAy now what Better Authour is there than Christ What better Disciple and Scholler than the Apostle of Christ or what better Commentary upon the words of Christ and his Apostle than the Sentences of Ancient Fathers calling the one part Wine the other Bread after Consecration as you have heard Our Third Proofe that the Substance of Bread remayneth after Consecration in the Sacrament is taken from the Iudgement of Sense necessarily First by the Authority of Scripture SECT VII ALthough man's Sense may be deceived thorow the inconvenient Diposition of the Medium thorow which he seeth as it hapneth in judging a straight Staffe to be Crooked which standeth in the Water and in thinking a White Obiect to be Greene in it selfe which is seene through a Greene glasse or Secondly by the unequall Distance of place as by conceiving the Sunne to be but two feet in breadth or the Rainbow to be a Colour and not Light or Thirdly by some defect in the Organ or Instrument of seeing which is the Eye whereby it commeth to passe that wee take One to be Two or mistake a Shadow for a Substance yet notwithstanding when our Eyes that see are of good Constitution and Temper the Medium whereby we see is perfectly disposed the Distance of the Obiect which we see is indifferent then say we the iudgement of Sense being free is True and the Concurrence and ioynt Consent of divers Senses in one arbitrement is infallible This Reason taken from Sence you peradventure will judge to be but Naturall and Carnall as those Termes are opposed to a true and Christian manner of Reasoning Wee defend the Contrary being warranted by the Argument which Christ himselfe used to his Disciples Luc. 24. 39. Handle mee and see Your Cardinall although he grant that this Reason of Christ was available to prove that his owne Body was no Spirit or Fancy but a true body even by the onely Argument from the Sence of Touching Yet saith he was it not sufficient in it selfe without other Arguments to confirme it and to prove it to have beene a humane body and the very same which it was So he Which Answere of your Cardinall we wish were but only false and not also greatly irreligious for Christ demonstrated hereby not onely that he had a body as your Cardinall speaketh but also that it was his owne same humane body now risen which before had beene Crucified and wounded to Death and buried according to that of Luke That it is even I. Luc. 24. 39. Now because It is not a Resurrection of a Body except it be the Same body Therefore would Christ have Thomas to thrust his hands into his sides and feele the print of his wounds to manifest the same body as Two of your Iesuites doe also observe the One with an Optimè the Other with a Probatum est Accordingly the Apostle Saint Paul laid this Argument taken from Sence as the foundation of a Fundamentall Article of Faith even the Resurrection of the same Body of Christ from the dead for how often doth he repeate and inculcate this He was seene c. And againe thrice more Hee was seene c. And Saint Iohn argueth to the same purpose from the Concurrence of three Sences That which wee have heard which we have seene and our hands have handled declare wee unto you The validity of this Reason was proved by the Effect as Christ averreth Thomas because thou hast seene that is perceiued both by Eye and hand thou hast beleeved The Validity of the Iudgement of Sense in THOMAS and the other Disciples confirmed in the second place by your owne Doctors SECT VIII PErerius a Iesuite confidently pleadeth for the Sense of Touch I feare not saith hee to say that the Evidence of Sense is so strong an Argument to prove without all doubt an humane Bodie that the Devill himselfe cannot herein delude the touch of man that is of vnderstanding and consideration As for the unbeleeving Disciples Christ his Handle me c. saith your Iesuite Vasquez was as much as if he had said to them Perceive you my true flesh as being a most efficacious Argument to prove the truth of an humane Body So he yea and Tolet another Iesuite did well discerne the case of Thomas to have beene an extreme Infidelity when hee said Except I put my finger into the print of the nailes and thrust my hand into his side I will not beleeve Which
Subiect matter Is it the Body of Christ then must you grant which wee with holy Fathers abhorre to thinke that the Body of Christ passeth into the Draught or is it Bread Then farewell Transubstantiation Nay will you say but they were Accidents And we Answer that it was never heard no not in your owne Schooles that meere Accidents were called which are Origen's words in this place either Meates or Materialls Yea and Origen that hee might bee knowne to understand Materiall Bread furthermore calleth it now after Consecration Matter of Bread S. Ambrose his Comparison is of like Consequence As one Baptized had beene an old Creature and was made a new one euen so speaking of the Bread and Wine after Consecration they being changed into another thing remaine that which they were before But hee you know that was baptized remaineth after Baptisme in Substance the same man although in respect of Spirituall Graces hee suffereth a Change Of which Testimone more hereafter Cyprian is a Father much alleadged and urged by you in defence of Transubstantiation but is now at hand to controll you Our Lord gave in this Banquet saith he Bread and Wine with his owne hands when hee pertaked thereof with his Apostles but on the Crosse hee delivered vp his Body to the Souldiers to be pierced with wounds to the end that sincere verity and true sincerity having an inward impression in the Apostles hee by them might manifest to the Gentiles how that Bread and wine is his Body and Blood and by what meanes there may be agreement betweene Causes and Effects and how different names and formes might be reduced to one Essence that things signifying and things signified might be called by the same names So hee A Catholique Father as all know whom if you aske what Consecrated thing it was which Christ had in his hands and gave to his Disciples hee answereth it was Bread and Wine and not absolutely that which hee gave up to be Crucified on the Crosse by Soldiers namely his Body and Blood If againe you demand of Cyprian why Christ called the Bread which hee had in his hand his Body he readily answereth saying The things signifying or Signes are called by the same names whereby the things signifyed are termed A Protestant of admirable learning unfolded unto you the Iudgement of Antiquity from the Testimonies of divers Fathers in saying of this Sacrament after Consecration that The bread by being divided is diminished that It is delivered by fragments that these are so little that they are to be called rather Bitts then Parts Thus they spake expressly of Bread Consecrated but to say that you eate bitts and Fragments of whitenes of Roundnes and other Accidents who is so absurd among your selves And to affirme the same of Christs body who is so impious Somewhat more of this when we shall appeale to the Canon of that famous Councell of Nice Another Inference we may take from Antiquity in her calling this Sacrament Pignus a Pledge so Hierome and Gaudentius of the Presence of Christ now departed from us A Perfect Argument of the Bodily Absence of Christ by virtue of the Relation betweene the Person and his Pledge The third and last Classis of Fathers may be viewed in the Section following A Confirmation of the same Iudgement of the Fathers acknowledging in expresse tearmes Bread to remaine after Consecration in Substance the same The First Father is THEODORET SECT XII THeodoret maketh a Dialogue or Conference betweene two Parties being in Controversie about the humane and bodily nature of Christ the one is named Eramstes upon whom is imposed the person of an Heretike for Defence of the Sect of the Eutychians who falsly held That the Body of Christ after his Ascension being glorified was swallowed up of his Deity and continued no more the same humane and Bodily Essence as before his Resurrectiit had beene The other Party and Disputer is named Orthodoxus signifying the Defender of the Truth of the Catholique Doctrine which Person Theodoret himselfe did sustaine in behalfe of the Catholique Church In this Dispute the Heretike is brought in for Defence of his Heresie arguing thus Even as Signes in the Eucharist after the words of Invocation or Consecration are not the same but are changed into the Body of Christ Even so after his Ascension was his Body changed into a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning Substance of a Divine Essence Which both your Romanists and Protestants confesse to have beene the Doctrine of these Heretikes This was that Heretike his Obiection The Orthodoxe or Catholique which was Theodoret himselfe commeth to answer promising to catch the Heretique as he saith in his owne Snare by retorting his Argument of Similitude against him thus Nay But as the mysticall Signes in the Eucharist after Sanctification depart not from their former nature but continue in their former Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Substance So the Body of Christ after the Resurrection remaineth in its former Figure Forme Circumscription and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Substance which it had before You may perceive that the Assertion set downe in the name of a grand Heretike is absolutely your Romish Profession for Transubstantiation at this day to wit Bread is changed after Consecration into the Substance of Christ's Body and that also the Assertion of Theodoret in the person of the Catholique Professor being flat contradictory is as absolutely the Doctrine of Protestants defending that Bread after Consecration remaineth in Substance the same Wherefore if ever it now concerneth your Disputers to free your Romish Article from Heresie which divers have undertaken to doe by their Answeres but alas so absurdly that any reasonable man must needs laugh at and so false as which any man of conscience must as necessarily detest them The Principall Answere is that which your Cardinall giveth that Theodoret in saying that Bread remayneth the same in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meant not Substance properly understood but the essence of Accidents So hee An Answere by your leave notoriously ridiculously and heretically False First Notoriously false because the Argument of Theodoret being taken from a Similitude and every Similitude consisting of two Propositions the first called Protasis and the other Apodosis it is necessary by the Rule of Logique as you know that the words and termes betokening the same Similitude be used in the same signification in both Propositions But in the Apodosis of Theodoret which is this So the Body of Christ after the Resurrection remaineth the same in Figure Forme and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was meant properly Substance because this was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the maine point in Question betweene Theodoret and the Heretique viz. whether the Substance of Christ's Body continued the same which it had beene in time
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
of Christ being the most substantiall of all food and therefore called as of ancient Fathers so even by your Fathers of Trent Supersubstantiall Bread it must necessarily follow that as it is named by Christ The true Bread and the Life thereby which is the effect of the spirituall Eating thereof is the most true and Reall Life because Everlasting So the Vnion spirituall which a Christian hath in his soules-feeding is the most Reall and true Vnion as may sufficiently appeare by Analogie To wit that Bread and Wine being the most vitall nourishments for the conservation of man's bodily essence are therefore chosen as the Fathers teach to represent and exhibit unto him although in themselves but Signes and Symbols the very Body and Blood of Christ Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ are our Reall nourishments in this Sacrament And such as is our food such must be our Vnion by feeding thereon which wee say is by Faith in this Sacrament and you may not gain-say it who to comfort your Disciples are taught to instruct them that even without this Sacrament the spirituall Vnion may be presented to the soule of man with the Body of Christ and that as a sufficient meanes of uniting him to Christ by a spirituall manner of Eating And this you say is To receive Christ his Body truly albeit this be to receive him only by faith and desire So you Whence you perceive our Inference viz. If our spirituall Vnion with Christ his Body may be really and truly made by Faith and Desire without this Sacrament then in our Sacramentall eating thereof may the Communicant be much more made partaker thereof by Faith and ardent Desire the Sacrament it selfe being a Seale of this our Christian Faith CHAP. II. That only the Godly faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Bodie and Blood of Christ and thereby united to Christ in the iudgement of Protestants SECT I. OVr Church of England in her 28. and 29. Article saith thus The Body of Christ is given to be eaten in this Sacrament only after a spirituall manner even by faith wherein the wicked and such as are void of faith eate it not although they doe visibly presse with their teeth the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ yet are they in no wise Partakers thereof But your Romish Church flatly otherwise as you all know and therefore hath your Sympresbyter Master Brereley endevoured to assume some Protestants to be on your side whom he hath alleaged with like faithfulnesse as he hath cited Master Calvin then whom he could not have in this case a greater Adversary For although Calvin grant with all Protestants that the wicked and faithlesse receive truly by way of Sacrament the Body of Christ yet doth he deny that they have in their bodies any Corporall coniunction or Vnion with Christ because the Vnion which we have saith he is Only spirituall only with the soule onely with the heart onely by faith and although it be offered to the wicked to be really received yet doe they not receive it because they are Carnall Their onely Receiving therefore is but Sacramentall So Mr. Calvin It had beene good that your Priest had suspected his Iudgement and as well in this Case as in others by doubting his owne eye-sight had borrowed your Cardinall his Spectacles then would hee have clearly perceived that together with other Protestants Calvin held that The wicked although they receive the Symbols and outward Signes of Christ's body yet the body it selfe they doe not receive So your Cardinall of the Doctrine of Protestants For although indeed Calvin said that The wicked eate the Body of Christ yet explaining himselfe he added these two words In Sacramento that is Sacramentally which in Calvins stile is alwayes taken for Symbolically only As for the consent of Protestants herein we put it to your great Cardinall and Champion their greatest Adversary to expresse He ioyneth Lutherans to the Calvinists in one consent for denying the Orall and Corporall Eating thereof and for believing the Eating of it to be Only by Faith Yet left any may say that in receiving the same Sacrament he doth not receive the thing signified thereby you may haue a Similitude to illustrate your iudgments as thus The same outward word concerning Iustification by Christ commeth to the eares of both Vnbeleevers and Beleevers But the Beleevers only are capable of Iustification That only the Godly-faithfull are Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and thereby Vnited unto him in the iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT II. CHrist speaking of that which is the most Reall Eating saith Ioh. 6. He that eateth me remaineth in me and shall live for ever Vpon which Text Saint Hierome concludeth The men that live in pleasure neither eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his Blood Next Origen inferreth that No wicked man can eat Christ his flesh And Saint Augustine most peremptorily Without doubt saith he they doe not spiritually eate the flesh of Christ nor drinke his blood although that they doe visibly and carnally presse the Sacrament thereof with their teeth and notwithstanding eate their condemnation So he thereby distinguishing the inward soules Eating Spirituall from the outward and Sacramentall Eating as he doth man's Spirit from his Teeth In which respect he as verily denied that Indas ate his Lord the bread as hee affirmed him to have eaten The bread of the Lord. Therefore the Bread Sacramentall was not the Bread the Lord. Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria teacheth that whosoever doth truly receive the body of Christ Is in Christ and Christ in him both so ioyned one with the other as waxe melted with waxe is united together All these so evident Testimonies of so ancient Fathers doe inferre this Conclusioâ— against you that none doe really eate the Body of Christ who receive him but only Sacramentally And afterwards other Fathers will be found to ioyne their Consent hereunto where they teach that none eate his flesh with whom Christ hath not a perpetuall vnion Now for you to answere that their meaning is not that the ungodly eate it not really but that they eate it unworthily and therefore unprofitably for their salvation is but recoyling and giving backe when you want a shield for your defence For the Testimonies alleaged which deny that the faithlesse and godlesse men Eate Christ's Body speake directly of the Act of spirituall Eating and not only of the Effect as you fancie Peruse you their Testimonies and be you our Iudges That by Spirituall Eating your Romish Corporall Vnion through Sacramentall Eating is excluded SECT III. SAcramentall Eating and Vnion professed by your Church is as you may remember said to be Corporall by Christ's bodily Touch of the body of the Receiver but seeing the godly and faithfull man only can be partaker of the body and blood of Christ and be really united unto it as the
Fathers have declared what could these holy Fathers have thought of your Barbarous or rather Brutish faith that teacheth such a Corporall Vnion by a bodily Touch and Eating whereby according to your owne Doctrine Rats Wormes and Dogges and whatsoever vile beast may be as reall partakers of the bodie of Christ as Peter or Iohn or whosoever the essentiall member of Christ Wherefore you must suffer us to reason aswell against your Corporall Coniunction by bodily Touch as Many of your Divines have done against bodily Vnion by coniunction and commixture but why even Because the Sacrament was not ordained for a bodily but for a spirituall Coniunction So they So that wee need say no more but fore-seeing what you will obiect we adde the Propositions following CHAP. III. That wicked Communicants albeit they eate not bodily Christ's Bodie yet are they Guilty of the Lords Bodie for not receiving it spiritually namely thorow their Contempt for not receiving the Blessing offered thereby SECT I. THe Apostle 1. Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever saith hee Eateth this Bread and Drinketh this Cup unworthily he shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord And Vers 29. eateth and drinketh Damnation to himselfe not discerning the Lord's Bodie Your Rhemish Professors men not the least zealous for your Romish Cause obiecting this against the Protestants call upon you saying first Hereupon marke well that ill men receive the Body and Blood of Christ be they Infidels or ill livers for else they could not be guilty of that which they receive not Secondly That it could not be so hainous an offence for any to receive a piece of bread or a cup of wine though they were a true Sacrament for it is a deadly sinne for any to receive any Sacrament with will and intention to continue in sinne or without repentance of former sinnes but yet by the unworthy receiving of no other Sacrament is man made guilty of Christ's Bodie and Blood but here where the unworthy Receiver as Saint Chrysostome saith doth villany to Christ's owne person as the Iewes and Gentiles did that crucified him Which invincibly proveth against the Heretikes that Christ is herein really present And guilty is he for not discerning the Lord's Body that is because hee putteth no difference betweene this high meate and others So your Rhemists Your Cardinall also as though he had found herein something for his purpose fastneth upon the sentence of Cyprian who accounted them that after their deniall of Christ presented themselves to this Communion without repentance to offer more iniurie to Christ by their polluted handes and mouthes than they did in denying Christ and besides he recordeth Examples of God's miraculous vengeance upon those who violated the body of Christ in this Sacrament So hee All these points are reducible unto three heads One is that ill men might not be held guiltie of the Body of Christ except they did receive it as being materially present in this Sacrament Next is the Guilt of prophaning this Sacrament which being more hainous than the abuse of any other Sacrament therefore the iniury is to be iudged more personall The last that the Examples of God's vindicative Iudgements for Contempt hereof have beene more extraordinary which may seeme to be a Confirmation of both the former Before we handle these points in order take our next Position for a Directory to that which shall be answered in the VI. Section That some Fathers understood the Apostles words 1. Cor. 10. spiritually namely as signifying the Eating of Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood both in the Old Testament and in the Newe SECT II. VPon those words of the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. v. 4. They ate of the same spirituall meate c. The Iewes received the same spirituall meate saith S. Augustine Yea saith your Cardinall the Iewes received the same among themselves but not the same with us Christians So hee Albeit the words of Augustine are plainly thus The same which we eat so plainly that divers of your own side doe so directly and truely acknowledge it that your Iesuite Maldonate not able to gain-say this Trueth pleaseth himselfe notwithstanding in fancying that If August were alive in this Age he would think otherwise especially perceiving Hereticall Calvinists and Calvin himselfe to be of his opinion So hee Was it not great pitty that Augustine was not brought up in the Schoole of the Iesuites surely they would have taught him the Article of Transubstantiation of the Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and Corporall Vnion against all which there could not be a greater Adversarie than was Augustine whom Maldonate here noteth to have beene the Greatest Enemie to all Heretickes whom Bertram followed in the same Exposition and by your leave so did your Aquinas also The same saith he which wee eate Thus much by the way Wee goe on to our Answeres That the wicked Receivers are called Guiltie of Christ's Bodie not for Eating of his Body unworthily but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament thereof SECT III. THe Distinction used by St. Augustine hath bene alwayes as generally acknowledged as knowne wherein hee will have us to discerne in the Eucharist the Sacrament from the thing represented and exhibited thereby Of the Sacrament hee saith that It is received of some to life and of some to destruction but the thing it selfe saith hee is received of None but to Salvation So hee No Protestant could speake more directly or conclusively for proofe First That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Body of Christ is as well tendred to the wicked as to the Godly Secondly that the wicked for want of a living Faith have no hand to receiue it Thirdly that their not preparing themselves to a due receiving of it is a Contempt of Christ his Body and Blood Fourthly and Consequently that it worketh the iudgement of Guiltines upon them All which both the Evidence of Scripture and consent of Antiquity doe notably confirme For the Text obiected doth clearely confute your Romish Consequence because S. Paul's words are not Hee that eateth the Body of Christ and drinketh his Blood unworthily is guilty of his Body and Blood but Hee that eateth the Bread and drinketh the Cupp of the Lord unworthily c. which we have proved throughout the 2. Booke to signifie Bread and Wine the signes and Sacraments of his Body and Blood after Consecration And to come to Antiquity All the Fathers above cited Ch. 1. § 6. who denyed that the wicked Communicants are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ albeit knowing as well as you that all such unworthy Receivers are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ have thereby sufficiently confuted your Consequence which was that because the wicked are Guilty of Christ's bodie Ergò his Body is Corporally present in them But we pursue you yet further That a Guiltines of Contempt of Christ's Body and
dying left us a Pledge for our Memorandum of him after his death By which Pledge what Christian as often as hee shall be put in minde of his death can then containe himselfe from weeping if he doe perfectly love him The comparison here is taken from a man who before his death willeave some thing of worth with his friend as a Pledge of his love and a token of his Remembrance of him after his death But the Pledge and the Pledger are two different things in themselves and as different in place the Pledge being a present token of a Friend absent Nothing now remaineth but some one Father to be Moderator in this Point and no-one more fit than he who is as vehemently obiected against us as any other namely Cyprian who speaking without all Ambages and Hyperboles saith that our Participation of this Sacrament Worketh not any consubstantiall Vnion that the Coniunction of Christ with us hath in it no mixture of persons vz. of Christ and Christians that it uniteth not the substances but ioyneth affections and affianceth our wils After this hee elegantly expresseth the Analogie betweene the Sacramentall and Spirituall nourishment As by Eating and drinking saith hee of the bodily substance our Bodies are fed and live so is the life of the soule nourished with this food So he III. That the former Doctrine of the Fathers is consonant to the Profession of Protestants SECT VII IF you take the Corporall Vnion of Christ's bodie with ours as you doe by a Bodily Touch bodily Eating Swallowing and Mixture with our bodies We abhorre this as much as did the Ancient Fathers in these their precedent Item's to wit First Ambrose opposing hereunto Christs Noli me tangere Touch me not which was spoken to Mary Against your Touch. Secondly Augustines Non dentis sed mentis Against your proper eating Thirdly Theophylact's We devoure not his flesh Against your Swallowing Fourthly Cyprians We mingle not persons Against your Transmitting him into your Bowels and Entrailes And for a further Discoverie of Romish stupidity in your Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Analogie betweene the Sacrament and Christ in the Doctrine of Antiquity is alwayes of the substance of Bread and Wine with his Bodie and Blood But we never read in ancient Bookes of your Sacramentall Eating of Accidents Drinking of Accidents or being fed and living by Accidents Wherefore muster you all those Testimonies of Fathers which speake of the Nourishment augmentation and subsistence of our Bodies by the bodie and blood of Christ and all such Sentences will be so many witnesses of your incredible pervicacie who seeke to prove an Augmentation of our bodies by the bodie and blood of Christ in the Eucharist and yet professe according to your owne Romane faith that as soone as the Formes of Bread and Wine eaten and drunke are corrupted which you know is done in a very short time the Bodie and Blood of Christ hath no longer Residence in the bodie of the Communicant CHALLENGE THrice therefore yea foure-times unconscionable are your Disputers in obiecting the former sentences of holy Fathers as teaching a Corporall and Naturall Vnion of Christ's body with the bodies of Christian Communicants once because they in true sence make not at all for your Romish Tenet next because they make against it then because the Corporall Coniunction though it be of the Bodie of Christ and Bodies of Christians in respect of the obiect yet for the matter and subiect it is of Sacramentall Bread united with our owne Bodies in a mysticall relation to the Body of our Redeemer and lastly and that principally because they meant a Spirituall Coniunction properly and perpetually belonging to the Sanctified Communicants and herein consonant to the profession of Protestants Wherefore primitive and holy Fathers would have stood amazed and could not have heard without horrour of your Corporall Coniunction of Christ his Body in Boxes and Dunghils in Mawes of Beasts in Guts of Wormes Mice and Dâ—gges as you have taught Fie Fie Tell it not in Gath nor let it be once heard off in any heathenish Nation to the Blaspheming of the Christian profession and dishonouring of the broad Seale of the Gospell of Christ which is the blessed Sacrament of his precious Bodie and Blood Before we can proceed to the next Booke wee are to remove a rub which lyeth in our way CHAP. IX That the Obiection taken from the slanders of Iewes and Pagans against Christians by imputing the guilt of Eating man's flesh unto them in receiving of the Sacrament is but ignorantly and idly urged by your Disputers SECT I. MAny leaves are spent by Master Brereley in pressing this Obiection the strength of his inforcement standeth thus Iustine Martyr in the yeare 130. writing an Apologie to the heathen Emperour when hee was in Discourse of the Eucharist The reported Doctrine whereof concerning the reall Presence was the true and confessed Cause of this slander and when he should have removed the suspition thereof did notwithstanding call the Eucharist No common Bread but after Consecration the food wherewith our Flesh and Blood are fed c. Then he proceedeth in urging his other Argument borrowed from the Cardinall to wit Iustine his comparing the change in the Eucharist to be a worke of Omnipotencie and for his not expounding the words of Christ figuratively Then is brought in Attalus the Martyr whilst he was under the tortures and torments of his Persecutors saying Behold your doing Hoc est homines devorare This is a devouring of men We Christians doe not devoure men To whom is ioyned Tertullian making mention of the same slander of Sacrificing a Childe and eating his flesh Ad nostrae doctrinae notam To the infamie of our Profession At length Master Brerely concludeth as followeth So evidently doth this slander thus given forth by the Iewes argue sufficiently the doctrine of Reall Presence and Sacrifice and for as much as the slander went so generally of all Christians it is probable that it did not arise from any sort of one or other Christian in particular So he THE FIRST CHALLENGE Against the Ignorance of the Obiector and the falfe ground of his Obiection SECT II. THe confessed light of History will discouer the mist of Preiudice in our opposites for Irenaeus Augustine and Epiphanius doe all declare that the ground of this Slander against Christians for eating man's flesh was the detestable fact of some Heretiques who professing themselves Christians notwithstanding in Celebration of the Eucharist did indeed eate man's flesh as your Iesuite Maldonate and Cardinall Baronius doe both witnesse The former of these fixing a Credo upon it against your obiected Probabile to the contrarie Againe looke but into the Testimones as they are alleaged by the Obiector and recorded in the Histories themselves and it is found that that Slander raised against Christians was alwayes for eating the flesh of a Child or Infant
confessed asseverantly by your owne Iesuit where he will have you furthermore to observe that Bread and Wine before Consecration is called an Immaculate Sacrifice even in your Roman Masse And that the Primitive Fathers called Bread and Wine Sacrifice after Consecration also we have likewise proved in two full Sections which your Cardinall is bound to acknowledge who to prove that Melchizedech Sacrificed Bread and Wine produced the Testimonies of Ambrose Augustine Chrysostome Oecumenius and Theophylact to conclude them to have beene Figures of the Eucharist which we desire you to cary still in minde untill we end this Section Hereupon we demand whether you think that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist can be called of Christians a Sacrifice properly either before or after Consecration No saith one Iesuit Because it is not agreeable to our Priest-hood No saith a Second because it were most absurd that the Church of Christ should have a lifelesse Sacrifice and consequently more vile than was the Iewish No saith a Third because it were an heinous impiety now after the abrogation of the terrene Sacrifices of the Iewes to beleeve that the Church of God should professe an Offering of Corporall and earthly Sacrifices No saith a Fourth for it is the judgement of all Christians that there is no Sacrifice in Christian Religion but the Body and Blood of Christ because otherwise the Act of Sacrificing thereof being a Divine Worship should be exercized upon Bread and Wine So they Wee would be glad to take the Apostle of Christ to be our Guide for our better security he as is likewise confessed teacheth that God now is not to be worshipped by way of Sacrifice with any outward thing Oh that your Divines would exercise their quils in publishing such sound Truths as this is we then would wish them Good speed in all their Writings Notwithstanding upon consideration of the Premises we are inforced to complaine of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Cardinall who to prove a proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist did as you may remember produce the Testimonies of five Fathers wherein that which they called a Sacrifice they expressed to be Bread and Wine which by the joynt and consonant Confession of the Cardinall himselfe and other prime Iesuites of his owne society cannot be held to be proper Sacrifices without Absurdity and Impiety And the like obliquity of Iudgement you may finde in your Romish Divines in alleaging the Testimonies of Irenaeus for proofe of the Sacrifice of your Masse which your Iesuit Maldonat hath truly observed to have beene spoken of Bread and Wine even before Consecration One word more By this you may perceive another proofe of the Idiome of Ancient Fathers in Extending the word Sacrifice beyond it's literall sense which beside the former the last annexed Testimony of Augustine confirmeth shewing that now there is in this our Sacrifice no other Subject but Bread and Wine This may serve for the present concerning the true and proper Subject of the Eucharist Bread and Wine We in the next place are to examine the pretended Subject which your Church will have to be the Body and Blood of Christ Our Second Demonstration is that the Ancient Fathers held not the Body and Blood of Christ to be the proper Subject matter of the Eucharist in calling it a Sacrifice SECT II. HOw commeth the Body and Blood of Christ to be a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist Your Cardinall will tell us to wit Bread and Wine are consecrated and by Consecration made the Body and Blood of Christ so that now Not Bread saith he but the Body of Christ is the Thing sacrificed This is plaine dealing and as much as if he had said If there be in the Eucharist no Transubstantiation of the Bread into Christ's Body by Consecration then cannot Christ's Body be a proper Sacrifice But that there is no such Transubstantiation or Corporall Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament hath beene proved to be the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers by many Demonstrations thorow-out the third and fourth Bookes A stronger Argument there needeth not Our Third Demonstration is because the objected places of Antiquity for proofe of a Representative Sacrifice properly so called doe not point out any where the Body of Christ as the proper Subject but only as the Object of the Sacrifice spoken of SECT III. The necessary use of this Distinction OVr Distinction is this These words The Body and Blood of Christ as they are applyed to the Eucharist in the name of Sacrifice may admit of a double Acception one is to take them subjectively as being the proper Materiall Subject of this Sacrament the other is to understand them objectively that is to accompt the Body and Blood of Christ as they were the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to be only the proper Object of a Christian Celebration according to the Direction and Institution of Christ saying Doe this in remembrance of me Your Romish Church professeth the Body and Blood to be the proper Subject we nay but the proper Object of our Celebration This Distinction well learned will be unto our Reader as an Ariadne's thred to winde him out of the Labyrinth of all Obscurities and seeming Repugnancies of Ancient Fathers out of all the confused Subtilties and equivocall Resolutions of your Romish Disputers and out of the Perplexities wherewith some Protestants also may seeme in some sort to have beene intangled The Demonstration it selfe is Because the Eucharist being only Commemorative and Representative cannot be a proper Sacrifice answering the Romish Objection taken from the Sacrifices under the Law SECT IV. THat it cannot be called properly a Sacrifice which is onely for Commemoration and Representation is the Conclusion of your owne Cardinall although it cannot be denied but that Improperly it may be called as well as you may call the Image of Christ crucified the Crucifix But to come to your Objection your Romish Divines and Romish Cardinall are very earnest and instant in proving that because the Iewish Sacrifices being Representations of the passion of Christ were notwithstanding true and proper Sacrifices Therefore the being Representative can be no hindrance that the Eucharist should be a proper Sacrifice So they But yet so as if they had meant to say nothing to the purpose because the Iewish Sacrifices albeit they were Representations of Christs Passion yet were they not only Representations thereof as the Eucharist is but were also beside that Sacrifices in themselves and so ordained to be by God first in their matter as Bulls Sheepe Goats next in their Sacrificing Act which was destructive as to be slaine and lastly in their proper and peculiar end which was as your Cardinall witnesseth for expiation of legall Pollutions and remission of temporall punishments Each one of these may satisfie your Objection The Confirmation of the former Demonstration out of the Fathers first
either private or illegitimate or false respectively Hitherto of the Primitive Custome Notwithstanding all this will your Romane Church boast of her contrary Custome of after-times telling vs in her Councels that her Custome of administring the Eucharist but in one kinde is rightly observed as a Custome which hath beene Diutissimè observata that is of most long continuance Many yeares by passed saith your Villalpandius But most precisely your Iesuite Salmeron It is certaine saith he that the Church for these three or two hundred yeares hath used to communicate to the Laity vnder one kinde So they CHALLENGE NOw after that wee have proved out of your owne Confessions the length of the Custome of both kinds to have beene in the Continuance above a thousand yeares after the first Institution of this Sacrament and for largenes thereof in an universall consent thereunto without any exception by any example ordinary publique and legitimate and that you have heard also even the Fathers of your Church opposing against it a contrary custome not above the Compasse of three hundred yeeres and yet to call it Diutissima A Custome of long continuance What Tergiversation could be more shameles But enough of this point In the next place because the same your Councell hath told us that your Contrary Custome was brought in Rationabilitèr with good Reason wee are forth-with to discusse the Reasons thereof Our sixt Comparison is of Reasons for the Vse of both kindes collated with Reasons obiected to the contrary SECT VI. A Sacrament according to the common definition is a Visible signe of an invisible Grace and so farre is a Signe true and perfect as it doth fully represent the things that are ordained to be signified thereby Signification being the very proper nature and end of a signe as well in sacred as in prophane Rites Come now and let vs industriously and calmly debate this matter which wee have in hand both in respect of the thing signified which is the Sacrament or spirituall Obiect as of the party Communicating who is the Subiect thereof Our first Reason is taken from the due Perfection of this Sacrament which must necessarily be in both kindes The things Spirituall as all Christians professe are the Body and Blood of Christ which are signified in the Sacrament of Bread and wine These two then are not two Sacraments but one Sacrament as you know which therfore ought to be performed in both or els the Act will be a Sacrilegious dismembring of the Sacrament of Christ This shall we easily prove from the Principles and Confessions of your owne Schooles Your Church professeth to celebrate the Eucharist both as it is a Sacrifice and as it is a Sacrament As you hold it to be a Sacrifice you generaly teach that both kinds are necessarily to be received of the Priest because they both belong to the Essence thereof So your Cardinall Consult with your Aquinas your Iesuites Valentia and Vasques and they will say as much in behalfe of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament their reason is Because both kindes making but one Sacrament ought to be celebrated perfectly and therefore is the Priest bound to consecrate this Sacrament in both kindes by that command of Christ saying Do this nor can this be omitted without Sacrilege So they If such be the necessity of consecrating in both kindes vnder the hand of the Priest then lieth the same obligation vpon the Church likewise for distributing it in both kindes vnto the people to whom it is to be administred in token of Christ his Passion for them applicatorily both in his Body and Blood but the Bread only can no more represent the Blood of Christ in the mouthes of people in the eating thereof then it can by Consecrating it in the hands of the Priest and consequently the dismembring thereof as you do must necessarily condemne both Priest and People A Consequence which your figment of Concomitancie cannot possibly auoid A Corroboration of the same Reason against the Sacrilegious dismembring of this Sacrament by the Testimony of Pope Gelasius and a Vindication of Dr. Morton from the Traducement of other your Priests and Iesuites SECT VII THe Haereticall Manichees forbare the vse of the Cup in this Sacrament in an opinion that wine was not created by God but by some evill spirit whom Pope Gelasius did therfore condemne by his publique Decree which hereticall opinion as once I said cannot iustly be imputed unto the Church of Rome in her manner of abstaining from the Cup in the Eucharist This saying M. Fisher the Iesuite of late thought good to pervert to his owne use thus The Crime wherewith some Protestants charge us that our receiving under the sole forme of Bread is to iump in the opinion of the Manichees we may as D. Morton confesseth reiect as iniurious saying with him that it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine but the reason of their forbearance that was iudged hereticall So hee But this mans march is but slow M. Breerly a Romish Priest one well esteemed among you for his exceeding labour and pains in defending the Romish Cause to his power by his many Books almost in every particular commeth on more roundly as followeth D. Morton himselfe saith he shall plead in our behalfe who saith that the Manichees did heretically celebrate the Eucharist only in one kind in an opinion that wine was not created by God but by some evill spirit and were therfore anciently condemned for Heretiques but the Romanists are not to be accused of this Heresie of the Manichees in their not distributing of both elements of bread wine And to obiect this against that Church were an accusation iniurious for it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine but their reason thereof which made them hereticall said he So your Priest yet what of all this So clearly doth D. Morton saith he cleere vs from the foule and false imputation urged against us by D. Whitaker who noted the Administration but in one kind now used by the Romish Church to have had it's originall from the Manichees and so clearly doth he contradict both M. Whitaker himselfe in one place accusing us in another excusing us in one and the same Respect of which foule fault of Contradiction in so great a Rabbin when hee cleereth himselfe in stead of being Bishop of Litch field he shall be unto me euer Magnus Apollo Thus far M. Breerly Alas what wil become of the Doctor being as you see thus fiercely assaulted by two at once one a Iesuite the other a Romish Priest both conspiring together to make the Doctor ridiculous CHALLENGE IT is now about twenty yeares since the said Doctor in Confutation of a Booke of Master Brereleys intituled an Apologie published a Treatise called the Protestants Appeale wherein were discovered many hundred of Master Brereleyes Ignorances Falsities and Absurdities who ever since hath had Master Parson 's
itch as hee himselfe called his owne humour which received a Salve that might have cured him of that itch to be medling with the same Doctor Yet the onely Exception which hath since come to this Doctor 's eares from your side is this now objected point concerning the Manichees whereupon you have heard them both so urgently and boastingly insist and not so onely but they have also divulged this pretended Contradiction in many Counties of this Kingdome to his reproach Will you be so kinde as but to heare an Answer and then either wonder at or hisse or applaude or him or them as you shall finde iust Cause Two things there were condemnable in the Manichees one was their Act and Practice in dismembring the Sacrament by not communicating in both kindes the other was their Opinion which they held for so doing which was as you have heard an hereticall Conceit that Wine was the Creature of the Devill Concerning this hereticall opinion no Protestant said Doctor Morton doth charge the Church of Rome but as for the Act of not Communicating in both kinds he called it Sacrilegious and concluded the Church of Rome in this respect to be as guilty of dismembring the Sacrament as were the Manichees And both these hee hath done by the Authority of Pope Gelasius who decreed in condemning the Manichees First against their Opinion saying Illinescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi c. That is They are intangled in a kind of Superstition Then for the Act of refusing the Cup Because saith he the dividing of the same Mystery cannot be done without grievous sacrilege therefore let these Manichees either receive the whole Sacrament or else let them be wholly excluded from receiving So Gelasius Seeing then Doctor Morton and all Protestants cleare the Church of Rome from the imputation of the Heresie of the Manichees in respect of their opinion and yet condemne them of the Manichean Sacrilege in respect of the Act of dismembring the Sacrament with what spectacles thinke you did your Priest and Iesuite reade that Answere of Doctor Morton to collect from thence either your Churches Iustification from a foule fault of Sacrilege or else the Doctors foule Contradiction to himselfe and that cleerely forsooth in the same respect who themselves are now found to have beene so subtilly witlesse as not to discerne Heresie from Sacrilege an opinion from a fact or a no-imputation of that whereof neither Doctor Whitaker nor any other Protestant ever accused them from a practice condemned by a Romane Pope himselfe Take unto you a Similitude A man being apprehended in the company of Traytors upon suspition of Felonie is fully and effectually prosecuted for Felonie onely if one should say of him that he was not conuicted or condemned of Treason but of Felonie were this either a Contradiction in the party speaking or a full Iustification of the party spoken of You are by this time we thinke ashamed of your Proctors and of their scornefull insultation upon the Doctor in the ridiculous tearmes of Rabbin and magnus Apollo who willingly forbeareth upon this Advantage to recompence them with like scurrility being desirous to be only Great in that which is called Magna est Veritas praevalet By which Truth also is fully discovered the vanity of the Answere both of Master Fisher and of your Cardinall saying that Gelasius condemned only the Opinion of the Manichees which is so transparant a falshood as any one that hath but a glympse of Reason may see through it by the sentence it â—elfe as hath beene proved Our second Reason is in respect of the perfect Spirituall Refection represented by this Sacrament SECT VIII ANother Object represented in this Sacrament is the food of man's soule in his faithfull receiving of the Bodie and Blood of Christ which because it is a perfect spirituall Refection Christ would have it to be expressed both in Eating and Drinking wherein consisteth the perfection of man's bodily sustenance and therefore are both necessarily to be used by law of Analogie betweene the outward signe and the thing signified thereby Two of your Iesuites from whome Master Fisher hath learned his Answere seeke to perswade their Readers that the soules refection spirituall is sufficiently signified in either kind whether in Bread or Wine But be it knowne unto you that either all these have forgotten their Catechisme authorized by the Fathers of the Councell of Trent and confirmed by Pius Quartus then Pope or else Those their Catechists forgot themselves in teaching that This Sacrament was instituted so that two severall Consecrations should be used one of Bread and the other of the Cup to the end both that the Passion of Christ might be represented wherein his Bloud was separated from his Body and because this Sacrament is ordained to nourish man's soule it was therefore to be done by Eating and Drinking in both which the perfect nourishment of man's naturall life doth consist Aquinas and your Iesuite Valentia with others are as expresse in this point as they were in the former who although they as we also hold that whole Christ is received in either kinde for Christ is not divided yet doe they mayntaine that This Sacrament as it is conformable both to Eating and Drinking so doth it by both kindes more perfectly expresse our spirituall nourishment by Christ and therefore it is more convenient that both be exhibited to the faithfull severally as for Meate and for Drinke So they For although in the Spirituall Receiving Eating and Drinking are both one even as the appetite of the Soule in hungring and thirsting is the same as where it is written Matth. 5. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse c. yet in this Sacramentall communicating with bodily instruments it is otherwise as you know The blood of Christ is not dranke in the forme of Bread nor is his Bodie eaten as meate in the forme of Wine because the Bodie cannot be said to be dranke nor the bloud to be eaten So your Durand and so afterwards your Iansenius Wherefore you in with-holding the Cup from the People doe violate the Testament of Christ who requireth in this a perfect representation visible of a compleate and a full Refection spirituall which is sufficient to condemne your Abuse whereby you also defraud God's people of their Dimensum ordained by Christ for their vse Concerning this second Master Fisher one of the society of Iesuites was taught to Answere that the Full causality as he said and working of spirituall Effects of the soule cannot be a wanting to the Sacrament under one kind because of Christ his assistance So he We should aske whether a greater Devotion and 〈◊〉 more plentifull Grace are not to be esteemed spirituall Effects for the good of the Soule which are confessed to be enjoyed by Communicating in both kinds and why not rather than by one For consider we pray you that
teach others their Grammer should be so far over-taken as to need to be put in mind of their Accidence if ever they learned it which telleth them that The neuter gender will agree with any thing that hath no life whether seene or not seene In which respect there might be a difference betweene Hoc de Patre and Hoc de Pane for although Priscian would cry out if hee heard one saying Hoc lana or Hoc lapis wherein Hoc is taken adiectively yet if a Question being raised concerning the lightnes and heavines of Wool and of Stone one shewing the Wool in his hand should say Hoc est leve the other pointing at the Stone should say Hoc est grave will any thinke that Priscian would be offended for Hoc in Latine more then others would be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not to trouble you with that in your Summa Angelica wherein Hoc neutrally taken is made to agree with Cibus And although Protestants be so inexpert in the rudiments of learning yet will you not thinke that they whom you call Catholiques could be so deceived who as your Iesuite witnesseth were Many that taught that Hoc in the words of Christ put substantively may without any Inconvenience agree with Panis in This meaning This which I give you Are you not yet ashamed of your Rashnesse then must we now put you unto it In your owne vulgar Latin Translation it is said of Evah the the wife of Adam Hoc est os Gen. 2. what Insobriety then is this in your Disputers so eagerly to reach that blow unto the Protestants wherewith they must as necessarily buffe◠their owne Mother-Church by which the same Translation is made Authentique and wound their owne Consciences being themselves bound by Oath to defend it in all their disputations Away then with these Puerilities especially now being busied in a matter of so great importance wherein consisteth the foundation of all the maine Controversies concerning the Roman Masse For if the Pronoune This have Relation to Bread there needs no further dispute about the figurative sence of Christ's speech Wee returne to the Schoole of Christ the holy Scripture to consult about Christ's meaning with his Disciple Saint Paul where he professeth to deliver nothing concerning Christ his Institution of this Sacrament but that which hee had Received of the Lord. Him we desire to expound vnto vs the words of Christ delivered by Three Evangelists and to tell what hee gave unto them and what he called his Body and he telleth vs plainly saying The bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ alluding to those words of the Evangelists He brake it and that was Bread And that you may know that this was Catholique Doctrine in the dayes of Antiquity wee adioyne the next Proposition That it was Bread and Wine which Christ called his Body and Blood in the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT VI. FOr proofe hereof behold a Torrent of Ancient Fathers pressing upon you Iraeneus Tertullian Origen Hierome Ambrose Augustine Cyrill of Hiernsalem Cyrill of Alexandria Theodoret Gaudentius Cyprian Clemens of Alexandria and Isidore Thirteene to the dozen whose sayings we may best know by their owne Idiome and Tenure of speech The first noting Christ to haue confessed bread to have beene his Body The second Christ to have called bread his Body The third that Christ's speech was spoken of bread The fourth that That which hee broke was bread The fift that It was bread which he brake The sixt that It was bread of the Lord and not bread the Lord. The seventh that the words My Body were spoken of the bread The eight that Christ saith of the bread This is my Body And the same Father as if he had studied to take away all Scales of doubtfulnesse from the eyes of your mindes illustrateth the matter thus So saith hee did Christ call his Body Bread as else-where hee calleth his flesh a Graine of Wheate Except the Graine of Wheate die it bringeth forth no fruit The ninth that Christ gave to the bread the name of his Body The tenth that Christ said of the Consecrated bread This is my Body The eleuenth that It was Wine which hee called his blood The twelfth that He blessed Wine when he said drinke And the last The bread strengthening man's body was therefore called the body of Christ All these so Learned and Ancient Fathers sufficient Grammarians we trow teaching the Pronoune This to demonstrate Bread doe as absolutely confute your Romish Exposition to prove the speech Figurative as any Protestant in the world could doe if hee were permitted to plead his owne Cause CHALLENGE VVE will try what a Syllogisme will doe that after your Posall in Grammar we may encounter you with Logique The Maior No Bread can possibly be called a Body of flesh without a figure This Proposition hath had the Vniversall consent of all Schooles by virtue of that Maxime of Maximes Disparatum de Disparato c. The Minor But in these words This is my Body the Pronoune This doth demonstrate Bread This hath beene the generall Exposition of Fathers The Conclusion Therefore the words of Christ This is my Body are to be taken figuratively Except you will contradict both the Generall confession of your owne Schooles and Vniversall consent of Ancient Fathers That it was Bread which Christ called his Body is proved manifestly from your owne Romish Positions and Principles SECT VII YOur first Position is this The word This must either point out Bread or the Body of Christ or that Third common Substance which you call Individuum vagum But to referre the word This unto the Body of Christ is as hath beene confessed Absurde And that the word This should signifie your Individuum vagum is an Exposition fall of Absurdities as hath beene also acknowledged It remaineth therefore that the Pronoune This pointeth out precisely Bread A second Principle you have to wit That these words This is my Body are wordes of Consecration and Operative so that by This is meant that which is Consecrated and as your Councell of Trent speaketh changed into the Body of Christ. But by the Decree of the same Councell not the Body of Christ nor any Third thing but Bread onely was then consecrated and changed into the Body of Christ Ergo the Pronoune THIS hath onely Relation to the Bread CHALLENGE A New Syllogisme would be had to put the matter out of question Maior No Sence which is Impossible can be given properly to the wordes of Christ This is my Body This needeth no proofe Minor But to call Bread Christ's Body properly is a Sence Impossible This hath beene your owne constant profession Conclusion Therefore cannot this Sence be given properly to the Body of Christ.
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
having power sensibly to perceive which betokening Bread or the Accidents of bread as you see it doth confirmeth unto us the Tropicall speech of Christ in calling Bread his Body and consequently overthroweth your whole Cause Fourthly the Similitude of Epiphanius must stand thus That which is said to be after the Image of God is such which hath a substantiall being yet so that it be like but not the same in nature And so is Bread having a Sacramentall Analogie to Christ's Body the first as the substantiall meate of man's Body and the other as the supersubstantiall food of Man's Soule Which Conclusion namely that Bread as the signe of Christ's Body is not the same in nature with Christ's Body doth dash out the braines of the Monster Transubstantiation by the which Bread as your Tridentine Faith teacheth is wholly changed into the substantiall nature of Christ's Body As if you would have Epiphanius to have said The Image of God in man is God in nature Thus doe you find the Testimony of Epiphanius to be Convincent indeed but against your Romish Doctrine of Errour and against your Cardinall of a foule falsity who saith that Epiphanius will have us to believe something herein although it be repugnant to our Sences which word no man of Sence can find in Epiphanius He saith indeed that every man is bound upon his Salvation to believe the Truth of Christ his Speech which say wee none but an Infidell can deny because Christ being Truth it selfe therefore all the words of Christ whether spoken Literally or Tropically they are still the Truth of Christ That the same Greeke Fathers have expresly vnfolded their meanings touching a Figurative Sence SECT VIII THe Iudgement of a whole Councell of Greeke Fathers may well suffice for the manifestation of the Iudgement of that Church They in Constantinople at Trullo alluding to these words of Christ This is my Body saying Let nothing be offered but the Body and Blood of Christ that is say They Bread and Wine c. If we had not told you that this had been the speech of Greeke Fathers in a Councell you would have conceived they had beene uttered by some Heretique as your Charity useth to cal us Protestants Neither may the Authority of this Councell be rejected by you as unlawfull in the point of the Sacrament both because it is objected by your selves to prove it an vnbloody Sacrifice whereunto you are answered as also for that your Binius in opposing against some things in this Councell yet neuer tooke any Exception against this Canon We may not let passe another Testimony used by the Antient Father Theodoret namely That Christ called the Bread his Body as he called his Body Bread Matth. 12. saying thereof Except the grane of wheat die c. insomuch that Interchangeably in the one place He gave to the Signe the name of his Body and in the other He gave to his Body the name of the Signe So hee As Protestantly as either Calvin or Beza could speake And you cannot deny but that when Christ called his Body Bread it was an improper and figurative speech And therefore if you will believe Theodoret you are compellable to confesse that Christ in calling Bread his Body meant it not in a proper and literall sence Hitherto of the Greeke Fathers That the same Figurative sence of Christ's words is avouched by the Latine Fathers SECT IX SOme of the Latine Fathers we confesse seeme in some places to deny all Figurative sence but this they doe even by a figure called Hyperbole that is onely in the excesse of Speech thereby to abstract the minds of sensuall men from fixing their thoughts upon externall Rites and to rayse them up to a Sacramentall and Spirituall Contemplation of the Body and Blood of Christ But as for the direct and perspicuous Sentences of these Fathers they cleerely and exactly teach a figurative sence in the words of Christ to wit Tertullian This is my Body That is a figure thereof Cyprian Things signifying and signified are called by the same word Hierom. Wine the type of Christ his Blood Gelasius Bread the image of his Body Ambrose After consecration Christ his Body is signified Saint Augustine in many places may be unto Vs instar multorum To eate the flesh of Christ saith he is a figurative speech Againe In the banquet Christ gave to his Disciples the signe of his Body And yet againe Christ doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave a signe of his Body Lastly unanswerably proving other Sacraments to agree with this in this point and that herein the Eucharist hath no Prerogative above the rest Sacraments saith he for the very Similitude and likenesse which they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments doe often take the names of those things which they doe signifie as when the Sacrament of Christ's Body saith he is after a certaine manner called the Body of Christ But how Hee addeth as if hee had meant to stop the mouthes of all Opposites As it is said by the Apostle of Baptisme we are buried by Baptisme into the death of Christ He saith not wee signifie his buriall but absolutely saith Wee are buried therefore hath he called the Sacrament or Signe of so great a Thing by the name of the Thing signified thereby So he even the same He who will be found like himselfe in the following passages of this Booke especially when we shall handle the manner of Eating of Christ's body which Augustine will Challenge to be figuratively meant We shall take our farewell of the Latine Fathers in the Testimony of Bishop Isidore who will give you his owne Reason why Christ called Bread his Body Bread saith he because it strengtheneth the body is therefore called the body of Christ and Wine because it maketh Blood is therefore referred to Christ's Blood but these two being sanctified by the Holy Ghost are changed into a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ So he and so say we Accordingly Tertullian but least any may Cavill as some doe at his sentence above-cited wee adde his other sentence wherein he sheweth that Christ called Bread his Body in saying This is my body as the Prophet Ieremy called his Body Bread in saying Let us put wood upon his Bread meaning his Body So Tertullian shewing them both to be spoken equally in a figurative Sence CHALLENGE THese Sentences of these holy Fathers are so fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestans as that if the names of these Fathers had beene concealed our Reader might thinke that hee heard Bucer Calvin or Beza speake Goe you now and proclaime that all Ancient Fathers teach your Litterall sence of Christ his words and perswade your selves if you can that any man of Conscience and Iudgement can be seduced to believe you They say indeed that Bread is the Body of Christ
Type and Antitype not Forme or Figure of Bread Now there is a maine and manifest difference betweene Forme and Type For Accidentall Formes are things Reall and the determinate Obiects of Sense but Types or Antitypes are only Relatives and as such no Obiects of Sense but of Reason and understanding onely As for Example when a Iudge is set in his Scarlet upon the Bench the Eye seeth nothing but red Scarlet and the fashion of the Gowne and outward figurature of his Face and so may every Childe see him for these are Outward and Visible Accidents But to see that man as hee hath upon him the person of a Iudge ordained to try Causes betweene parties is a sight of the minde which looketh upon his Office to discerne him by his Habit from common Subiects Even so is it in this Sacrament As the Bread and Wine are Round and White and Sweet in Taste our Bodily Senses perceive them but as they are Types and Antitypes that is Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ so are they spiritually discerned with our understanding only As therefore it followeth not that the Scarlet Gowne of the Iudge because it is an Ensigne of his Office should be only Colour and Fashion without the matter and Substance of the Cloth no more can any conclude from Cyrill that because the Sacrament is a Type therefore this Type was only Forme and outward Accidents without all Substance of Bread And thus your Cardinall his first Apertissimum Argumentum for proofe of Accidents without the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament is proved to be Apertissimum Figmentum void of all substance or almost shadow of Truth His next observation is the Change by Transubstantiation and the errour of Sense in iudging it to be Bread Wee call vpon Cyrill to decide this Controversie who is best able to interprete himselfe Hee therefore that said of the Eucharist after Consecration It is not Bare Bread but the Body of Christ affirmed as much of Consecrated Oyle saying It is 〈◊〉 Bare Oyle But we are answered that Cyrill in denying the Eucharist to be Common Bread called it after Consecration Christ's Body but in denying Oyle to be Bare Oyle hee called it yet still Chrisme that is Sanctified Oyle after Consecration So your Cardinall And so are wee posed for ever But behold another Iesuiticall Fraud For Cyrill as he called the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body after Consecration so doth he call the Consecrated Oyle Charisma that is the Gift of the Grace of Christ and not Chrisma that is Chrisme or Oyntment as your Cardinall rendreth it Wee say againe he calleth that Charisma which notwithstanding hee saith was after Consecration still Oyle wherewith their Foreheads were anointed This must we iudge to have beene a notable Falsification of Bellarmine except you would rather we should thinke that when hee was now to prove that our Senses are deceived in iudging of Bread to be Bread he meant to prove it by seeming to be deceived himselfe in thus mistaking the word Chrisma for Charisma and so utterly perverting the Iudgement of Cyrill by whom we are contrarily taught that the Sight is no more deceived in iudging Bread to be Bread than in discerning Oyle to be Oyle For neither was the other Bare Oyle being a Type of a spirituall Gift nor yet was it therefore changed into the Spirituall Grace it selfe because it is so called but onely is a Type and Symbol thereof Which One Parallel of Oyle with Bread doth discover the Vnconscionable pertinacie and Perversnes of your Disputers in urging the Testimony of Cyrill The like Romish Obiection out of Chrysostome and as Vnconscionable SECT V. SAint Chrysostome his Testimony may in no wise be omitted which seemeth to your Disputers to be so Convincent that your Cardinall placed it in the front of his host of the Fathers whom he produceth as able to breake through an army of Aduersaries alone and Mr. Breerely reserved it to the last of the Testimonies which hee alleaged as that which might serve for an Vpshot I will conclude saith hee admonishing the Christian Reader with Saint Chrysostome his Saying you long to heare it wee thinke Although Christ his speech saith Chrysostome may seeme absurd vnto Sense and Reason Iexhort you notwithstanding that especially in mysteries we looke not unto that which is before us but observe Christ's words for we cannot be disappointed of that which he saith but Sences may be deceived Wherefore because he said This is my Body we are altogether to beleeve it for hee deliuereth no sensible things unto us but all which he delivereth in things sensible are insensible even as in Baptisme the gift of Regeneration granted us is Intelligible For if thou wert without a Body then things only unbodily should be given unto thee but now because thy Soule is ioyned with a Body therefore in things sensible hath Christ delivered unto thee things intelligible So Chrysostome Now what of all this Chrysostome saith your Cardinall could not speake more plainly if he had had some Calvinist before him whom he meant to exhort to the Faith So he meaning the Faith of Transubstantiation which as hath beene confessed was no doctrine of Faith untill more than a Thousand yeares after Christ But to returne to Chrysostome whose Sentence we may compare to a Nut consisting of a Shell and a Kernell The Shell wee may call his Figurative Phrases the Kernel we may terme his Orthodox meaning Of both in the Section following Of the Rhetoricall and Hyperbolicall Phrases of Chrysostome SECT VI. TO begin with the Shell First we are to know that Hyperbole is a Rhetoricall Trope or Figure which may be defined to be an Excessive speech signifying a Truth in an Vntruth As to say Something is more darke than darknesse it selfe which being strictly taken were an Impossibility and Vntrue but it doth imply this Truth namely that the thing is wonderfully and extremely darke Secondly that Chrysostome was most frequent in this Figure Hyperbole your owne Senensis doth instruct you where giving a generall Caution that Fathers in their Sermons doe use to declame Hyperbolically he doth instance most specially by name in Chrysostome Thirdly that the Excessive Phrases of Chrysostome upon this Sacrament doe verifie as much viz. to tell his people that Their Teeth are fixed in the flesh of Christ that Their tongues are bloodied with his Blood and that The Assembly of the People are made red therewith Fourthly that he is as Hyperbolicall in denying in the Celebration of this Sacrament the iudgement of Senses saying Doe we see Bread or Wine which is spoken in as great an exuberancie of speech as are the next wordes immediatly following saying Thinke not that you receive the Body from a man but fire from a Seraphin or Angell with a paire of Tongs You will thinke notwithstanding those kind of Phrases that Chrysostome thought he saw as well Bread
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
Manichâ—es had of their Corporall bread As for example that Christ should be Fastened or tied to mens guts by eating and let loose againe by their belching Which Hereticall Doctrine how shall it not accord with your Romish which hath affirmed a passage and Entrance of Christs body into and Cleaving unto mens Guts by eating and a Repasse againe by Vomitting albeit the matter so fast and loose in the iudgement of St. Augustine be Bread still after Consecration The Second Calumniation against the true Professours was by others who testified that Catholikes in the Eucharist adored Ceres and Bacchus after the manner of the Paganes What answere doe you thinke would a Romish Professor have made in this Case doubtles according to your doctrine of Corporall presence by saying thus Whereas some affirme that we adore Bread and Wine in this Sacrament yet the truth is wee adore that whereinto Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated to wit the Bodie and blood of Christ the sonne of God But S. Augustine as one fancying nothing lesse Wee saith he are farre from the Gods of the Pagans for we embrace the Sacrament of Bread and wine This is all and all this he spake after Consecration Whereupon we are occasioned to admonish our Christian Reader to take heed of the fraudulent practice of the Romish Sect because of their abusing of the Writings of ancient Fathers Whereof take unto you this present example The Paris Edition An. 1555. hath the Sentence of S. Augustine thus Noster Panis Mysticus fit nobis non nascitur But the last Paris Edition Ann. 1614. hath foisted in and inserted Corpus Christi albeit the sence be full without this Addition to signifie that Common Bread is by Consecration made Mysticall or Sacramentall according to S. Augustine his owne exposition saying that Wee embrace the Sacrament of Bread and Cup and also the Phrase of Panis fit corpus Christi Bread is made Christs Bodie be repugnant to a common Principle of all Christianity which never beleeved a Body of Christ made of Bread So that the foresaid Addition is not a correcting but a Corrupting of the Text. CHALLENGE HOw might it concerne you upon these premises if there be in you any spirit of Christianity to suffer S. Augustine to be your Moderator in this whole Cause who upon the speech of Christ Except you eate my flesh giveth this generall Rule That whensoever we fiâ—d in Scripture any speech of commanding some â—eynous Act or forbidding some laudable thing there to hold the speech to be figurative even as this is of eating the flesh of Christ So hee And what this figurative speech signifieth this holy Father declareth in the next words It Commandeth saith hee that wee doe Communicate of the passion of Christ and sweetly and profitably keepe in memory that his flesh was crucified for us Thus you see hee excludeth the Corporall Sensuall and Carnall Eating that hee might establish the spirituall of mind and Memory If St. Augustine by this his counsell might have prevailed with your Disputers and Doctors they never had fallen upon so many Rocks and Paradoxes nor sunke into such puddles of so nastie and beastly Absurdites as have beene now discovered which by your Doctrine of Corporall Presence you are plunged into CHAP. VII The Third Corporall manner of Vnion of Christ his Body by a Bodily mixture with the Bodies of the Communicants professed by some Romanists at this day is Capernaiticall SECT I. WEe heare your Iesuite reporting that Many latter Divines in your Church have beene authorized in these daies to write labouring to bring the Romane Faith to so high a pitch as to perswade a Reall naturall corporall and substantiall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants even almost all of late saith he who have written against Heretiques So hee Among others we find your Cardinall Alan who will have it Really mingled with our flesh as other meates Transubstantiation onely excepted as did also Cardinall Mendoza And what else can that sound which we have heard out of your Roman Missal praying that The Bodie of Christ eaten may cleave unto your gutts iust Manichean-wise as you have heard even now out of St. Augustine CHALLENGE Confuting and dispelling this foggie myst of Errour by your owne more common confessions THis first opinion of mingling the Body of Christ corporally with man's Bodily parts what thinke you of it your Iesuite calleth it Improbable and as repugnant to the dignity and maiesty of this Sacrament Rash and absurd Iustly because if this Doctrine were true you must likewise grant that the same Bodie of Christ which you say is eaten of myce and Rats is mingled within their guts and entrails and so such vile Creatures should be as really capable of Communion with Christ's Body as the most sanctified among Christians can be for which the Beasts themselues if they could speake would as the Asse unto Balâ—am condemne the foolishnes of your Prophets namely those of whom you have heard your Iesuite confessing that this is the Doctrine of Almost all late Diuines which is to adde one Capernaiticall Absurdity to another It onely remaineth to know with what Spirits these your New Divines have thus written your Suarez telleth vs saying That they speake so in hatred of Heretiques meaning Protestants against whom they writ Who would not now magnifie the Profession of Protestants to observe their Adversaries to be so farre transported with the Spirit of malignity and giddines against them that by the iust Iudgement of God they are become so starke blind in themselves as that they fall into opinions not onely as is confessed Rash and Absurd but also Capernaitically-Hereticall And indeed they who imagined a Corporall Eating how should they not aswell have conceived a Corporall fleshly Commixtion CHAP. VIII Of the Romish Obiections out of the Fathers for proofe of Corporall Presence and Corporall vnion with the Bodies of the Communicants SECT I. IT cannot be denyed but that many antient Fathers are frequent in these kind of Phrases Our Bodies are nourished and augmented by the flesh of Christ and his Body is mingled with our flesh as melted waxe with waxe yea we have a corporall and naturall vnion with him These kind of sayings of the Holy Fathers have beene obiected not onely by your new Divines for proofe of a Corporall Coniunction of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants but also by your Cardinall and all other like Romish Professors for defence of a Corporall Presence of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament but with what coloured Consciences white or blacke they have beene so obiected commeth now to be scanned by iust Processe That the obiected Sentences of Fathers doe not intend a Corporall Coniunction so properly called even by the Confession of Romish Divines of best esteeme SECT II. ALl your Obiectors produce the Testimonies of Fathers for proofe
for sole Praying where there is no note or occasion of Sacrifice and he instanceth in the Fathers mentioning the Morning and Evening 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church But you will not say wee thinke that there was any proper Evening Sacrifice in use in those times What can you say for your Cardinall his former lavish assertion who is thus largely confuted Nay how shall you justifie your selves who are bound by Oath not to gain-say in your Disputations the Vulgar Latine Translation which hath rendred the same Greeke words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministrantibus eis that is They ministring and not They sacrificing which might be said as well of preaching praying administring the Sacrament all which to meâ—t with your other Objection being done according to the will of God and belonging to his worship and service might be properly said to have beene done unto God That the Second objected place out of the new Testament to witt 1 Cor. 10. cannot inferre any Proper Sacrifice SECT II. 1. Cor. 10. 18. BEhold Israel are not they who cat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar then vers 20 21 22. But that which the Gentiles offer they offer to Devills and not unto God and I would not have you partakers with Devills yee cannot drinke of the Cup of the Lord and the cup of Devills you cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord and the table of Devills Hence Bellarmine Here saith hee the Table of the Lord is compared with the Altar of the Gentiles Therefore is the Table of the Lord certainly an Altar and therefore it hath a Sacrifice 2. Because the Eucharist is so offered as were the Sacrifices of the Iewes And 3. Because he that eateth the Eucharist is said so to be partaker of the Lord's Altar as the Heathen of things sacrificed to Idolls are said to be partakers of the Idolls Altar So hee following only his owne sence and not regarding the voyce or judgement of any other If we should say in Answer to his first Objection that your Cardinall wanted his spectacles in reading of the Text when hee said that the Apostle compareth the Table of the Lord whereon the Eucharist is placed with the Altar of the Gentiles which was the Altar of Devills it were a friendly answer in his behalfe for the words of the Text expressely relate a Comparison of the Table of the Lord with the Table of Gentiles and Devills and not with their Altar And although the Heathen had their Altars yet which crosseth all the former Objections their common Eating of things sacrificed unto Idolls was not upon Altars but upon Tables in feasting and partaking of the Idolothytes and not in Sacrificing as did also the Gentiles The whole scope of the Apostle is to dehort all Christians from communicating with the Heathen in their Idoll Solemnities whatsoever and the summe of his Argument is that whosoever is Partaker of any Ceremony made essentiall to any worship professed hee maketh himselfe a partaker of the profession it selfe whether it be Christian vers 16. or Iewish vers 18. or Heathenish and Devillish vers 20. And againe the Apostle's Argument doth aswell agree with a Religious Table as with an Altar with a Sacrament as with a Sacrifice and so it seemeth your Aquinas thought who paraphraseth thus upon the Text You cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord in respect of the Sacrament of the Lords Body and of the table of Devills To an Objector who avoucheth no Father for his Assertion it may be sufficient for us to oppose albeit but any one Primasius therefore expounding this Scripture maketh the Comparison to stand thus As our Saviour said Hee that eateth my flesh abideth in mee so the eating of the Bread of Idols is to be partakers of the Devills But this participation of Devills must needs be spirituall and not corporall you know the Consequence CHAP. III. That no Scripture in the old Testament hath been justly produced for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist THe Places of Scripture selected by your Disputers are partly Typicall and partly Propheticall That the first objected Typicall Scripture concerning Melchisedech maketh not for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist SECT I. The State of the Question WEE are loth to trouble you with Dispute about the end of Melchisedech his ministring Bread and Wine to Abraham and his Company whether it were as a matter of Sacrifice unto God or as Divers have thought only of refreshing the wearie Souldiers of Abraham because the Question is brought to be tried by the judgement of such Fathers who have called it a Sacrifice Wherefore we yeeld unto you the full scope and suppose with your Cardinall that the Bread and Wine brought forth had beene sacrificed by Melchisedech to God and not as a Sacrifice administred by him to his Guests Now because whatsoever shal be objected will concerne either the matter of Sacrifice or else the Priest-hood office of the Sacrificer we are orderly to handle them both That the Testimonies of the Fathers for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist from the Type of Melchisedech's Sacrifice are Sophistically and unconscionably objected out of Psalm 110. and Heb. 5. SECT II. SOme of the objected Testimonies See the Margent comparing the Sacrifice of Melchisedech to the Eucharist in the name of a Sacrifice doe relate no further than Bread and Wine calling these Materials The Sacrifice of Christians such are the Testimonies of Ambrose Augustine Chrysostome Theophylact Oâ—cumenius and Cassiodore together with two Iewish Rabbins promising that at the comming of Christ all Sacrifices should cease Except the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist This is your first Collection for proofe that the Eucharist is a Proper Visible Sacrifice But first Vnconscionably knowing and confessing it to be no better than a Iewish Conceit to thinke the Bread and Wine to be properly a Sacrifice of the new Testament Wherefore to labour to prove a Proper Sacrifice in that which you know and acknowledge to be no Proper Sacrifice doe you not blush How much better had it becomne you to have understood the Fathers to have used the word Sacrifice in a large sence as it might signifie any sacred ministration as Isidore doth instruct you Who if you aske what it is which Christâ—ans doe now offer after the order of Melchisedech he will say that it is Bread and Wine That is saith he the Sacrament of the Body and Blood Even as Ierome long before him Melchisedech in Bread and Wine did dedicate the Sacrament of Christ distinguishing both the Sacrament from a Proper Sacrifice and naming the thing that is said in a sort to be offered Not to be the Body and Blood of Christ but the Sacrament of both Your second kinde of objected Sentences of Fathers doe indeed compare the Bread and Wine of Melchisedech with the Body and Blood
of Christ in the Eucharist In this Rancke wee reckon the Testimonies of Cyprian Hierome Eusebius and Eucherius saying that Melchisedech himselfe offered up the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrifice which Body and Blood of Christ you will All sweare we dare say was not the proper Subject matter of the Sacrifice of Melchisedech who performed his Sacrifice many thousands of yeares before our Lord Christ was incarnate in the flesh to take unto him either Body or Blood And therefore could not the Fathers understand by the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood any thing but the Type of Christ his Body and Blood these being then the Object of Melchisedech's faith as the cited Sentences of Hierome and Eusebius doe declare Which is a second proofe of the unconscionable dealing of your Disputers by inforcing Testimonies against common sence But will you see furthermore the Vnluckinesse of your game and that three manner of wayes First your ordinarie guize is to object the word Sacrifice out of the Fathers as properly used whereas your Allegations tell us that they used it in a greater latitude and at libertie Secondly and more principally wheresoever you heare the Fathers naming Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ ô then behold Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ his Body and behold it 's Corporall presence and that most evidently this is your common shout And yet behold in your owne objected Sentences of Fathers that which was most really Bread and Wine of Melchisedech was notwithstanding by the fore-named Fathers called the Body and Blood of Christ A most evident Argument that the Fathers understood Christ's words in calling Bread his Body figuratively That the Apostle to the Hebrewes in comparing Melchisedech with Christ did not intimate any Analogie betweene the Sacrifice of Melchisedech and of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist SECT III. BVt you pre-occupate viz. The Apostle speaking of Melchisedech saith Of whom I had much to say and that which is uninterpretable because you are dull of hearing Chap. 5. vers 11. Whence it may seeme saith vour Cardinall a thing undeniable that the Apostle meant thereby the mysterie of the Eucharist because it was above their capacitie and therefore hee purposely forbare to mention either Bread or Wine So your Answerer To whom you may take for a Reply as in our behalfe the Confession of your much-esteemed Iesuite Ribera who telleth you that The Apostle naming it a thing Inexplicable and calling them Dull meant not thereby to conceale the matter implyed which was so pertinent to that hee had in hand from them because of the want of their Capacitie but did in so saying rather excite them to a greater Attention shewing thereby that he did not dispaire but that they were capable of that which hee would say at least the learned among them by whom others might have learned by little and little So hee proving the same out of those words of the Apostle Passing by the Rudiments c. Let us goe on unto perfection that is saith he Doe your diligence in hearing that you may attaine unto the understanding of these things which are delivered unto those that are perfect This is the Briefe of his large Comment hereupon Notwithstanding what our Opposites faile of in the point of Sacrifice They intend to gaine from the Title of Priesthood Of the Priesthood of Melchisedech as it is compared with the pretended Romish Priesthood out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes SECT IV. The State of the Question Aarons Priesthood said your Cardinall is translaâ—ed into the Priesthood of Melchizedech and this into the Priesthood of Christ A Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedech which because it is perpetuall and eternall cannot be performed properly by Christ himselfe and therefore must be executed by his Ministers â—s Vicars on earth So he accordingly as your Councell of Trent hath decreed Insomuch that M. Sanders will have the whole Ministerie of the new Testament to issue Originally from Melchizedech This is a matter of great moment as will appeare which we shall resolve by oâ—rtaine Positions The foundation of all the Doctrine concerning Christ and Melchizedech is set downe in the Epistle to the Hebrewes That the Analogie betweene Melchizedech his Priesthood and the eternall Priesthood of Christ in himselfe is most perfect and so declared to be Heb. 5 6 7 Chapp SECT V. THe holy Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrewes comparing the Type Melchizedech with the Arch-Type Christ Iesus in one order of Priesthood sheweth betweene Both an absolute Analogie although not in equalitie of Excellence yet in similitude of qualities and offices As first in Royaltie Melchizedech is called The King of Iustice and Peace So Christ but infinitely more is called Our Iustice and Peace Secondly Melchizedech in respect of Generation was without Generation from Father or Mother according to the formalitie of Sacred Storie so Christ according to the veritie of his Humanitie without Father and in his divine nature without Mother of whom also it is written Who shall declare his Generation Thirdly in Time Melchizedech a Priest for ever having neither beginning nor end of Dayes according to the same Historicall Tenure so Christ an eternall Priest Chap. 5 6. Fourthly in Number only One who had no Predecessor nor Successor So Christ who acknowledged no such Priest before him nor shall finde any other after him for ever Fifthly Christ was Vniversally King and Priest as the Apostle noted Chap. 7. 4. saying That the Priesthood was changed from Aaron and Levi to Christ in Iuda That is that Christ's Power might be both Regall and Sacerdotall saith Chrysostome which was a singular dignity as your Iesuite well observeth That the nature of everie other Priesthood be it of your Romish High-Priest dissenteth as much from the Priesthood of Melchizdech as the Priesthood of Melchizedech agreeth with the Priest-hood of Christ SECT VI. IF Comparison might be made of Priesthood whom would you rather that we should instance in than in your intituled Summus Pontifex that is the High Priest your Pope who notwithstanding cannot be said to be a King as Melchizedech much lesse as Christ Everlasting Secondly Much lesse a King of Peace who hath beene reproved by Antiquitie for being A Troubler of the Peace of Christ's Church And generally complained of by others as being Nothing lesse than the Vicar of the God of Peace because of his raising hostile wars against Princes of the same Nation Blood and Faith And for Distracting the Estates of Princedome and Priestdome Thirdly not King of Iustice because some Popes have excited Subjects and Sonnes to rebell against their Leige Soveraignes and Parents Fourthly not Originally without Generation by either Father or Mother some of them having beene borne in lawfull wedlocke and of knowne honest Parents albeit of other-some the mothers side hath beene much the surer It will
Fathers have so often called it a Sacrifice of Commemoration Representation and Remembrance and that the thing to be represented is his Body crucified and his Blood shed in that Sacrifice of his Passion is a point as questionlesse which accordeth both to the words of Christ his Institution Doe this in remembrance of me and to the Exposition of Saint Paul to be a shewing foâ—th of the Lords death untill he come yea and is also consonant to the last mentioned Doctrine of the Fathers calling it A Sacrifice of Christ or rather a Remembrance thereof The only Question will be how This which you call The same Sacrifice meaning the Body of Christ subjectively in the Eucharist being invisible can be said to represent figure and resemble the same Body as it was the Sacrifice on the Crosse We yeelding unto you a possibility that one thing in some respects may be a Representation of it selfe Your Tridentine Fathers to this purpose say that Christ left this visible Sacrifice to his Church whereby his Body sacrified upon the Crosse should be represented So they From whom it may seeme your Rhemists learned that lesson which they taught Others that Christ's Body once visibly sacrificed upon the Crosse In and By the selfe same Body is immolated and sacrificed under the shapes of Bread Wine and is most perfectly thereby resembled and therefore iâ— most properly Commemorative being called the same Sacrifice by the Ancient Fathers And againe This nearely and lively resembleth that So they But this we utterly deny because although a thing may in some sort be represented by it selfe yet say we there is no Representative quality of any Body and Blood of Christ as it is said by you to be in the Eucharist of his Body and Blood Sacrificed upon the Crosse And upon the Truth or Vntruth of this our Assertion dependeth the gaining or losing of the whole Cause concerning the Question of Sacrifice now controverted betweene us Two of yout Iesuits have undertaken to manifest your Representation by a more fit example than doe your Rhemists thus Even as a King say They having got a Victory should represent himselfe after his warre in a Stage-play in sight c. So they even in earnest which hath beene as earnestly yet easily confuted by us already although indeed the Play deserveth but laughter and that so much the rather because the Representative part as your Councell of Trent hath defined is in your Masse a visible Sacrifice whereby the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse might be represented as you have heard CHALLENGE YOu except you will be Players and not Disputers must tell us where ever it was seene or heard of a King as Conquerour or yet of any other of what condition soever acting himselfe and that visibly perfectly and truly as you have said yea or else any way semblably representing himselfe when as yet the same King or party was to all the Spectators altogether Invisible If you can then shew where this was acted whether it were not in Vtopia and who was the Actor if not 〈◊〉 and of what disposition the Spectators were whether not like the man of Argos who is said daily to have frequented the Theater and Stage alone void of all Actors yet seeming to himselfe to see all Varieties of Actions occasioning him to laugh and applaud at that which he saw represented to himselfe onely in his owne phantasticall braine Now have you nothing else to answer but which you have already said that The Body and Blood in the Eucharist are visible by the visible shapes of Bread and Wine Whereas it had beene much better you had answered indeed nothing at all rather than not only to contradict that which was said by your Fathers of Trent decreeing the Representation to be made By the Sacrifice on the Altar it selfe and more expresly by your Rhemists In and by the same Body in the Eucharist but also to expose your selves to the reproofe of your Adversaries and Scorne of any man of Common sence as if you would perswade him his money is Visible to any that will use his eyes which he hath therefore locked up close in his Coffer least any man might see it But this we have discussed sufficiently in the 2. Booke and 2. Chapter § 6. The sixth Demonstration of the no Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist because divers Epithets objected as given by Fathers to this Sacrifice are used also by them where there is no Proper Sacrifice SECT VIII IT is objected by your Cardinall that Ancient Fathers gave certaine Epithets and Attributes to the Eucharist 1. Some calling it a Full and pure 2. some terrible Service 3. some termed it in the plurall number Sacrifices and Victimes and 4. some Anunbloody Sacrifice So hee concluding from each of these that they meant thereby a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist We encounter all these foure kinde of Instances with like Epithets given by the same Fathers to other Things in your owne judgement improperly called Sacrifices as namely to Prayers Praises giving Thankes and Hymnes instiled True Pure and Cleane and the only perfect Sacrifices by Primitive Fathers Secondly they are as zealous concerning the second point in terming holy Scriptures Terrible the Rules touching Baptisme Terrible words and Horrible Canons and the Christian duly considering the nature of Baptisme One compassed about with Horror and Astonishment Whereof more hereafter And indeed what is there whereby we have any apprehension of Gods Majesty and Divine Attributes which doth not worke a holy Dread in the hearts of the Godly And the third Instance is as idle as any of the rest because the holy Fathers named Prayers Giving of Thankes and other holy Actions Sacrifices and Hoasts in the plurall number And is not there in the Eucharist Prayers Hymnes and Thanksgivings nay but know that in as much as the Fathers have called the Eucharist in the plurall number Hoasts and Sacrifices it proveth that they were not of your Romish Beleefe of Concomitancy to thinke with you that Bread being changed into Christ's Body and Wine into his Blood make but one Sacrifice for there can be no Identity in Plurality The Answer to the fourth Epithete followeth The seventh Demonstration of no Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist Because the principall Epithet of Vnbloody Sacrifice used by the Fathers and most urgently objected by your Doctors for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice doth evince the Contrary SECT IX IT hath beene some paines unto us to collect the objected Testimonies of Fathers for this point out of your divers Writers which you may peruse now in the Margent with more ease and presently percelve both what maketh not for you and what against you but certainly for you just nothing at all For what can it helpe your cause that the Celebration of the Eucharist is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is An unbloody Sacrifice a Reasonable
unbloody Service or Worship In the first place three Liturgies or if you will Masses are objected to prove that by unbloody Sacrifice and Reasonable and unbloody worship is betokened the Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in the Masse one of Basil another of Chrysostome and by some others the Masse of Saint Iames of Ierusalem In which Epithet of Vnbloody say we could not be signified Christ's body Our reasons because as the Margent sheweth the word Vnbloody hath sometime Relation unto the Bread and Wine both unbloody before Consecration called in Saint Iames his Liturgy Gods gifts of the first fruit of the ground who also reckoneth Hymnes among unbloody Sacrifices But Christ's Body is the fruit of the wombe or else sometime is it referred to the Acts of Celebration in Supplication Thanksgiving and Worship of God all unbloody naming that Areasonable and unbloody Service which they had termed an unbloody Sacrifice as Lindan your Parisian Doctor hath truly observed Which Chrysostome also stiled Spirituall marke you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Service or Worship Was ever Christ called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is himselfe rather the person to be worshipped Secondly Reasonable could this point out Christ's Body in the sence of the objected Fathers suffer Chrysostome to resolve us Reasonable Service saith he is that which is performed with the minde without Bodily helpe Thirdly The vnbloody Sacrifice is called Spirituall as you heare how shall this be properly applyed to the Body of Christ You will say not in it's naturall Essence but in the manner of being Invisible Impalpable and the like But we demand the same head of a mans Body is it more Spirituall in the darke than in the light Lastly all these termes in these Liturgies of Vnbloody Sacrifice Reasonable Service and Spirituall are spoken before Consecration when the Body of Christ even in your owne Faith as yet can have no being in the Eucharist and therefore cannot be the Vnbloody Sacrifice here meant by you Will you have the full substance of all these Reasons The word Vnbloody whether it point out Bread and Wine or the Act of outward worship in this celebration called a Reasonable Service and Spirituall Sacrifice it must betoken a thing void of Blood which no Christian Professor dare attribute to the Body of Christ We proceed Eusebius saith indeed We offer an unbloody Sacrifice but what he meant thereby he doth not expresse whether the Signes of Bread Wine which he elsewhere with others as you have heard called Sacrifices or whether as Basil and Chrysostome have done he understood together the publike Service in celebrating the Memory of Christ's Death This then concludeth not for an Existence of the Body of Christ as of the Vnbloody Subject herein But whereas furthermore you may observe that Eusebius objected calleth Godly Actions a pure Sacrifice and opposeth this against Bloody Sacrifices and also termeth Holy Prayers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is without Materiall Substance as he did the Celebration of the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Vnbloody These shew that Eusebius meant a Sacrifice void of Blood which neither the word of God will permit us nor your Councell of Trent will suffer you to impute to the Body of Christ and therefore must needs wound your Roman Oblation of Body and Blood to the very heart Nazianzene objected is as directly opposite to your Masse as East is to West and will strike the matter dead calling it The unbloody Sacrifice whereby saith he we communicate with Christ Flatly differencing the unbloody Sacrifice whereby from Christ himselfe with whom the Faithfull doe communicate in this Sacrament Ambrose objected prayeth to God To accept of this immaculate and unbloody Hoast which are the very words of your Roman Masse and which your Cardinall seeketh to justifie by S. Ambrose But this he cannot doe except their meaning be both the same Let then your Cardinall but tell us the meaning of the Canon of your Masse and you will soone apprehend the Iudgement of Saint Ambrose In our Masse saith your Cardinall it is said Receive holy Father this immaculate Hoast where the Pronoune This saith he doth demo astrate Bread and Wine because spoken before Consecration So he And the Body and Blood of Christ you know are not Bread and Wine Let Athanasius put Perâ—od to this Section who saith that Melchizedech in giving â—read and Wine was the first Type of an unbloody Sacrifice But Melchizedech's was Vnbloody negatively having no Blood at all in it So was never the Body of Christ since his Resurrection according to our Christian Beleefe CHALLENGE WHat a faire peece of service doe you thinke have these Objecters done for the patronizing of your Romane Sacrifice out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers whilest they alleaging their words citing their Bookes and quoting their Chapters have so handled the matter as if they had meant by prevaricating in their owne Cause to betray it seeing that it is apparant that they have delivered unto us the worship in stead of the thing worshipped out of the Councell of Ephesus Basil Chrysostome and Eusebius Next by the word Vnbloody being spoken before Consecration and therefore concerneth not the Vnbloody Body of Christ they have obtruded the thing Distinguished from Christ instead of Christ in the Testimony of Nazianzene But especiaily because in the most of the Sentences the word Vnbloody must needs be taken negatively for want or absence of of Blood and so you may bid your Corporall Presence adiâ—u All which may be strong Arguments unto us both of the deplorable Consciences of your Doctors and of the desperatenesse of your Cause Other Testimonies wherein there is mention of Christ's Body and Blood come now to be discussed A Confirmation of the former Demonstration from the use of the word Vnbloody in the objected Sentences wherein the Fathers make mention of the Body and Blood of Christ SECT X. THis Objection seemeth to be of better moment than the former but only seemeth Clemens Bishop of Rome the first of that name calleth indeed the Eucharisticall Celebration 〈◊〉 unbloody Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ In which sentence the Vnbloody Sacrifice is plainly distinguished from the Body and Blood whereof it is a Sacrifice even as both the Act and Service of Commemoration have beene oftentimes above and are hereafter called of the Fathers a Sacrifice in respect of the Object thereof which is the Body and Blood of Christ on the Crosse This is manifest by two especiall Reasons the first because that which he calleth Vnbloody he termeth also a Reasonable Service Secondly Clemens calleth the same Vnbloody Sacrifice the Signe and Type of Christ's Body and Blood thereby distinguishing them from that Body and Blood whereof they are but Types You will then aske what is this Body and Blood whereof they are said to be Types Yea marry
to a meere Creature Bread For that it is still Bread you shall finde to have beene the Doctrine of Primitive Fathers if you shall but have the patience to stay untill we deliver unto you a Synopsis of their Catholike Iudgement herein after that we have duly examined your Romish Doctrine by your owne Principles which is the next point CHAP. V. An Examination of Romish Adoration of the Sacrament in the Masse to prove it Idolatrous by discussing your owne Principles The State of the Question IDolatry by the Distinction of your Iesuites is either Materiall or Formall The Materiall you call that when the Worshipper adoreth something in stead of God in a wrong perswasion that it is God otherwise you judge the worship to be a formall Idolatry Now because many of your seduced Romanists are perswaded that your Romish worship in your Masse cannot be subject either to Materiall or Formall Idolatry it concerneth us in Conscience both for the honour of God and safety of all that feare God to prove both Wee begin at that which you confesse to be a Materiall Idolatry That the Romish Adoration of the Host in the hand of the Priest is necessarily a Materiall Idolatrie by reason of many hundred confessed Defects whereof Seven concerne the Matter of the Sacrament SECT I. IT is a point unquestionable among you that if the thing in the hand of the Priest be not duly Consecrated then the matter Adored is but a meere Creature and your Adoration must needs be at the least a materiall Idolatry The Seven defects set downe in your Romane Missall and by your Iesuite are these First If the Bread be not of Wheat or secondly Be corrupt or thirdly the Wine be turned Vinegar or fourthly of sowre or fifthly unripe Grapes or sixthly be stinking or imperfectly mixt with any liquor of any other kinde the Consecration is void so that neither Body or Blood of Christ can be there present seventhly yea and if there be more Water than Wine So you All which Defects how easily they may happen beyond the understanding of every Consecrating Priest let Bakers and Vintners judge That there are Six other confessed Defect's incident to either Element in the Eucharist which may hinder the Consecration and necessarily infer an Idolatrous Adoration in respect of the forme of Consecrating SECT II. AS thus If the Priest faile in Pronunciation of these words Hoc est corpus meum or in these Hic est calix sanguinis mei novi aeterni Testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum Which your Romane Missall and Doctors say may happen in either of both six manner of waies first by Addition or secondly by Omission thirdly by Mutation and Change of any one Syllable which may alter the sence of the speech fourthly by Interruption of voice and by too long pausing in uttering of the words fifthly by Corruption of any word sixthly by some Interposition of words betweene which are impertinent Each one of these faults say you concerning either Element doth so disannull the Consecration that The thing Adored is still but Bread and Wine and therefore the worship thereof must be a materiall Idolatry So you And how easie it is for the Priest that we may use your owne Examples to say Hoc est Cor meum or Hoc est Cor-pus or Meum corpus est or Hic Erit Calix or as the Tale goeth of a Priest who having many Hosts before him to be Consecrated lest he might erre in his Grammar in using the singular number for the plurall Consecrated in these words Haec sunt corpora mea These are my Bodies we say for the possibility of these and the like Lapses beside this last from the want of wit the manifold infirmities of man's speech either upon Amazement or Temulency or Temerity and negligence or imperfection of a Stammering tongue can give you a shrewd guesse That there are Foure other confessed kinde of Defects in respect of the Priest's Intention whereby the Consecration being hindred the Romish Adoration must needs be materially Idolatrous SECT III. AS for Example first If the Priest in Consecrating saith your Cardinall have no intention to consecrate at all or to speake from your Romish Missall it selfe secondly If his virtuall Intention in consecrating be not to doe aâ— the Church doth or thirdly If he should consecrate but in mockery or fourthly He having more Hosts before him than he is ware of if he intend to Consecrate fewer than there is before him and yet not knowing which of them all to omit Of the Easines of all these Defects the possibility of retchlesnesse of infidelity of mockery and of obliviousnesse in some Priests may sufficiently prognosticate each of which inferreth a confessed Materiall Idolatry That there are Six other Defects able to frustrate the Consecration by reason of the person of the Priest himselfe as being incompetent for want of due Baptisme SECT IV. FOr first you have a Case of one being a Priest who had not beene baptized and next concerning Defects of Baptisme you resolve as before of pronunciation of the forme of the Eucharist that if in pronunciation of the words of Baptisme Baptizo te in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti the Minister whether man or woman shall vary one word which may corrupt the true sence of the words although but in one Syllable or Letter be it either by adding removing changing or by any of the six Defects already spoken of as in saying Ego te baptizo in nomine Patriae c. or the like then the whole Consecration is of no effect The possibility of womens erring in their Ministery of Baptisme Cardinall Pole may seeme to teach in that his Article whereof it is inquired Whether Parsons Vicars and Curates be diligent in teaching women to Baptize Children after the manner of the Church Take with you another Case supposed by your selves the Author delivereth it at length the briefe is this The woman baptizeth an Infant because it as the Childe of a noble man in Rose-water the Baptisme is void the Childe is afterwards ordained a Bishop and hee is after that sent by the Pope into divers parts of the world and by him innumerable Priests are ordained after the death of the Bishop the case is made knowne but who they were that had beene ordained cannot possibly be knowne whose Ordinations are all invalid and their ministery and Consecrations of no effect What remedy now in this Case None saith the Author at all except there be a Privilege in the Pope to constitute all them Priests who had beene so irregularly ordained only by his word Dicendo sint Sacerdotes saying Be they all Priests So he who notwithstanding had rather thinke the Case could not possibly happen than to trust to this Remedy How-ever it might be in this one the
Vomiting it by the Communicants and the Transmittance into your guts together with the Eating and Feeding thereupon by Dogs Mice Wormes and which transcendeth if it may be all your other Absurdities to be deprived of all naturall power of Motion Sence and Vnderstanding O Abominable Abominable A Synopsis of the Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof by many Evidences from Antiquity SECT V. OVR first Argument is against the foundation thereof which is your Interpretation of the Article HOC by denying it to have Relation to Bread contrary to the verdict of an Inquest of Antient Fathers shewing that the same pointeth out Bread as you have heard whereby the monstrous Conception of Transubstantiation is strangled in the very wombe Insomuch that sometimes they expressely interpret it thus Christs Body and Blood that is say they The Bread and Wine Item Hee gave the name of the Signe to the thing signified Item Bread the Signe of his Body And lastly Bread is called Christs Body because it signifieth his Body Secondly in the point of Transubstantiation it selfe they calling the Eucharist which you dare not Bread and Wine after Consecration and naming them Earthly materialls and Matter of Bread and also as you have heard out of the Antient Liturgies Fruits of the Earth and yet more plainly by way of Periphrasis describing them to consist of Divers graines and Divers grapes After by approving the Suffrage and judgement of our Senses in discerning all Sensible things and in speciall the Eucharist it selfe and at length affirming that there remaineth therein the Substance of Bread and Wine which are the Subject matter of your Divine Adoration All which are other Three Demonstrations of their meanings every singular point being avouched by the Suffrages of Antiquity Thirdly against your Faith concerning the manner of Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because so farre were the Fathers from beleeving that the Body of Christ could be in divers places as you say in Millions at one time that by this property of Being in many places at once they have discerned Angells to be Finite Spirits and not God They have distinguished the Godhead of Christ from his Manhood and they have proved the Holy Ghost to be God and no Creature by the same Reason Than which Three Arguments none can be more Convincent Whereunto you may adde the Fathers speeches contradicting your Dreame of a Body whole in every part in whatsoever space or place by judging it Impossible and also concluding Christ his Ascension into Heaven to argue his Absencâ— from Earth all which have been discussed from point to point Our Fourth Generall Argument is that whereas your Corporall Presence must needs inferre Corporall Eating thereof by the Communicants notwithstanding you have heard the contrary Sentences of Antient Fathers against Tearing and Swallowing of Christ's Body and Bodily Egestion next concerning the Eaters that only the Godly faithfull are partakers thereof insomuch that even the Godly under the old Testament did eat the same Then of the Remainders of the Consecrated Hosts that they were Eaten by the ordinance of the Church by Schoole-boyes and sometimes Burnt in the fire besides they called them Bits and Fragments of Bread broken after Consecration and diminished and lastly in respect of the End of Eating They held the thing present to be a pledge of Christ's Body absent and also allowed such a Touch of his Body by Faith that whosoever so toucheth him is Sanctified Which Observations concerning our Fourth Generall Argument doe minister unto us five particular Reasons which make our Defence to be Impregnable Fifthly forasmuch as you teach the Subject matter of the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ as a proper Sacrifice propitiatory wee upon due inquisition into the doctrine of Antiquity have found the Antient Fathers 1. Noting that which they called Sacrifice herein to be Bread and Wine saying thereupon that Melchizedech in that his Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ 2. Such a Subject which being taken in great Quantity doth nourish and satiate mans Bodily Nature 3. Such as needeth prayer to God that it may be Acceptable to God as was the Sacrifice of Abels sheepe 4. Sonaming it an Vnbloâ—dy Sacrifice as meaning thereby void of Blood which cannot agree to the Body of Christ now risen from death 5. So qualifying their other Exuberances and Excesse of speech wherein they named it The same Sacrifice of Christ once offered by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 correcting it thus A Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall thereof 6. By placing the Sacrifice of Christ his Body as now Presentative only in Heaven and the thing offered on Earth but a Signe 7. In all your objected Testimonies for proofe of the same Body of Christ in the Eucharist which suffered on the Crosse they understood the same as the Object of our Remembrance and not as the Subject of Offering which make up so many Arguments moe 8. By paralleling Baptisme with the Eucharist in like tenour of speech from point to point 9. By praying God to be Propitious to that which is offered Sixthly upon the same Doctrine of Corporall Presence you have erected and fastened the roofe of all your Building which is Divine Adoration of the Host yet notwithstanding have you not beene able by the testimonies of any ancient Father to free your selves from Formall Idolatry by any of your Pretences devised for your excuse either of Good Intent Morall Certainty or of Habituall Condition especially seeing that the Fathers by that their universall Invitation Lift up your Hearts abstracted still the thoughts of the Communicants from contemplating of any Subject present here Below that they might be drawen to the meditation of the Body of Christ as it is in Heaven Lastly in your owne Romish Masse praying after Consecration God to be propitious to the thing offered as to Abel's Sacrifice which was but a sacrificed Sheepe Compute all these Particulars and you shall finde about sixteene Arguments to prove you to be absolutely Idolaters Wee having thus revealed these Three Principall and Fundamentall Abominations doe now proceed to their Concomitants and Consequences which are Mixtures of Heresie in many Overture of Perjury in some and Obstinacie in all We begin at the last CHAP. II. Of the stupendious Obstinacie of the Romish Disputers made palpable by their owne Contradictions and of the Defence thereof as being Contradictory in it selfe SECT I. ALL your Disputers shew themselves in nothing more zealous than in maintenance of your Romish Masse which they contend for by objecting Scriptures Fathers Reasons notwithstanding their Expositions of Scriptures their Inferences out of the Fathers their devised Reasons and almost all their Confutations are confuted rejected contradicted by their owne fellowes as the Sections thorowout this whole Tractate doth plainly demonstrate We cannot
whereof more hereafter In the Interim we shall desire each one of you to hearken to the Exhortation of your owne Waldensis saying ATTEND and obserue the Masse OF CHRIST Of the CANON OF CHRIST his MASSE and at what wordes it beginneth SECT IV. CHrist his Masse by your owne confession beginneth at these words of the Gospell concerning Christ's Institution of the Eucharist Math. 26. Luc. 22. And Iesus tooke bread c. which also we doe as absolutely professe What Circumstances by ioynt consent on both sides are to bee exempted out of this Canon of Christ his Masse or the wordes of his Institution It is no lesse Christian wisedome and Charitie to cut off vnnecessary Controversies than it is a serpentine malice to engender them and therefore we exempt those points which are not included within this Canon of Christ beginning at these wordes And Iesus tooke bread c. To know that all other circumstances which at the Institution of Christ his Supper fell out accidentally or but occasionally because of the then Iewish Passeouer which Christ was at that time to finish or else by reason of the custome of Iudaea doe not come within this our dispute touching Christ his Masse whether it be that they concerne Place for it was instituted in a priuate house or Time which was at night or Sexe which were onely men or Gesture which was a kind of lying downe or Vesture which was wee know not what no nor yet whether the Bread were vnleauened or the Wine mixed with water two poynts which as you know Protestants and your selues giant not to be of the essence of the Sacrament but in their owne nature Indifferent and onely so farre to bee observed as the Church wherein the Christian Communicants are shall for Order and Decencie-sake prescribe the use thereof The Points contained within the Canon of Christ his Masse and appertaining to our present Controuersie are of two kindes viz. 1. Practicall 2. Doctrinall SECT V. PRacticall or Active is that part of the Canon which concerneth Administration Participation and Receiuing of the holy Sacrament according to this Tenor Math. 26. 26. And Iesus tooke Bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his Disciples and said Take eate c. And Luc. 22. 19 20. Doe this in remembrance of mee Likewise also after Supper be tooke the Cup and gaue thankes and gaue it to them saying Drinke yee all of this But the points which are especially to bee called Doctrinall are implied in these words of the Euangelists This is my Bodie And This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for remission of sinnes We begin with the Practicall CHAP. II. That all the proper Active and Practicall points to wit of Blessing Saying Giving Taking c. are strictly commanded by Christ in these words DOE THIS Luc. 22. Matth. 26. 1. Cor. 11. SECT I. THere are but two outward materiall parts of this Sacrament the one concerning the element of Bread the other touching the Cup. The Acts concerning both whether in Administring or Participating thereof are charged by Christ his Canon vpon the Church Catholike vnto the ends of the World The Tenour of his Precept or command for the first part is Doe this and concerning the other likewise saying 1. Cor. 11. 25. This doe yee as often c. Whereof your owne Doctors aswell Iesuites as thers haue rightly determined with a large consent that the wordes DOE THIS haue relation to all the aforesaid Acts euen according to the iâ—dgement of ancient Fathers excepting only the Time of the Celebration which was at Supper and which together with us you say were put in not for example but only by occasion of the Passeouer then commanded to be observed Thus you CHALLENGE THis Command of Christ being thus directly and copiously acknowledged by the best Diuines in the Romane Church must needs challenge on both sides an answerable performance Vpon examination whereof it will appeare vnto euery Conscience of man which Professors namely whether Protestants or Romanists are the true and Catholike Executors and Obseruers of the last will and Testament of our Testator Iesus because that Church must necessarily bee esteemed the more loyall and legitimate Spouse of Christ which doth more precisely obey the Command of the celestiall Bride-groome Wee to this purpose apply our selues to our busines by enquiring what are the Actiue Particulars which Christ hath giuen in charge vnto his Church by these his expresse wordes Doe this All which wee are to discouer and discusse from point to point TEN TRANSGRESSIONS And Preuarications against the Command of Christ DOE THIS practised by the Church of Rome at this day in her Romane Masse SECT II. VVEe list not to quarrell with your Church for lighter matters albeit your owne Cassander forbeareth not to complaine that your Bread is of such extreame thinnesse and lightnesse that it may seeme vnworthy the name of Bread Whereas Christ vsed Solid and tough bread Glutinosus saith your Iesuit which was to be broken with hands or cut with knife Neuerthelesse because there is in yours the substance of Bread therefore we will not contend about Accidents and shadowes but wee insist vpon the words of his Institution The first Transgression of the now Church of Rome in contradicting Christ his Canon is collected out of these words AND HE BLESSED IT which concerne the Consecration of this Sacrament SECT III. FIrst of the Bread the Text saith He blessed it next of the Cup it is said When he had giuen thanks Which words in your owne iudgements are all one as if it should be said Hee blessed it with giuing of thankes By the which word Blessing he doth imply a Consecration of this Sacrament So you The contrary Canon of the now Romane Masse wherein shee in her Exposition hath changed Christ's manner of Consecration The Canon of the Romish Masse attributeth the property and power of Consecration of this Sacrament only vnto the repetition of these words of Christ This is my body and This my blood c. and that from the iudgement as Some say of your Councell of Florence and Trent Moreouer you also alleage for this purpose your publique Catechisme and Romane Missall both which were authorized by the Councell of Trent and command of Pius Quintus then Pope See the Marginals Whereupon it is that you vse to attribute such efficacie to the very words pronounced with a Priestly intention as to change all the Bread in the Bakers shop and wine in the Vintners Cellar into the body and blood of Christ As your Summa Angelica speaketh more largely concerning the Bread CHALLENGE BVt Christopherus your own Arch-bishop of Caesarea in his Booke dedicated to Pope Sixtus Quintus and written professedly vpon this Subject commeth in compassed about with a clowd of witnesses and Reasons to proue that the Consecration
witnessed first that Christ brake the bread into twelve parts Secondly that this Act of breaking of bread is such a principall Act that the whole Celebration of this Sacrament hath had from thence this Appellation given to it by the Apostles to be called Breaking of Bread Thirdly that the Church of Christ alwayes observed the same Ceremonie of breaking the bread aswell in the Greeke as in the Latine and consequently the Romane Church Fourthly that this Breaking of the Bread is a Symbolicall Ceremonie betokening not only the crucifying of Christ's bodie vpon the Crosse but also in the common participation thereof representing the vnion of the mysticall bodie of Christ which is his Church Communicating together of one loafe that as many graines in one loafe so all faithfull Communicants are vnited to one Head Christ as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10. thus The bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the bodie of Christ for we being many are one bread We adde as a most speciall Reason that this Breaking it in the distribution thereof is to apply the representation of the Bodie crucified and the Bloud shed to the heart and soule of every Communicant That as the Bread is given broken to vs so was Christ crucified for vs. Yet neverthelesse your Church contrarily professing that although Christ did breake bread yet BEHOLD she doth not so what is it else but to starch her face and insolently to confront Christ his Command by her bold Countermand as you now see in effect saying But doe not this A SECOND CHALLENGE AS for that truly called Catholike Church you your-selves doe grant vnto vs that by Christ his first Institution by the Practice of the Apostles by the ancient and universall Custome of the whole Church of Christ aswell Greeke as Latine the Ceremonie of Breaking bread was continually observed Which may be vnto vs more than a probable Argument that the now Church of Rome doth falsly usurpe the Title of CATHOLIKE for the better countenancing and authorizing of her novell Customes although neuer so repugnant to the will of Christ and Custome of the truly called Catholike Church In the next place to your Pretence of Not-Breaking because of Reverence We say Hem scilicet Quanti est sapere As if Christ and his Apostles could not fore-see that your Necessitie namely that by the Distributing of the Bread and by Breaking it some little crummes must cleaue sometimes vnto the beards of the Communicants or else fall to the ground Or as though this Alteration were to be called Reverence and not rather Arrogance in making your-selves more wise than Christ who instituted or then all the Apostles or Fathers of primitiue times who continued the same Breaking of bread Therefore this your Contempt of Breaking what is it but a peremptorie breach of Christ his Institution neuer regarding what the Scripture saith Obedience is better then Sacrifice For indeed true Reverence is the mother of Obedience else is it not Devotion but a meere derision of that Command of Christ Doe this The third Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the sence of the next words of Christs Command viz. GAVE IT VNTO THEM SECT V. IT followeth in the Canon of Christ his Masse And hee gaue it vnto them euen to THEM to whom hee said Take yee eate yee By which pluralitie of persons is excluded all private Massing forasmuch as our High Priest Christ Iesus who in instituting and administring of this Sacrament would not be alone said hereof as of the other Circumstances Doe this The Contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse This holy Synod saith your Councell of Trent doth approue and commend the Masses wherein the Priest doth Sacramentally communicate alone So your Church CHALLENGE BVt who shall iustifie that her Commendation of the alone-communicating of your Priest which we may iustly condemne by the liberall Confessions of your owne Doctors who grant first that this is not according to the Institution of Christ saying in the Plurall To them Secondly nor to the practice of the Apostles who were Communicating together in prayer and breaking of bread Act. 2. 46. that is say they aswell in the Eucharist as in Prayer Thirdly Nor to the ancient Custome of the whole Church both Greek and Romane Fourthly neither to Two Councels the one called Nanetense the other Papiense decreâ—ing against Priuate Masse Fiftly nor to the very names of the true Sacramentall Masse which by way of Excellencie was sometime called Synaxis signifying as S. Basil saith the Congregation of the faithfull somtimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion or Communicating and sometimes the Prayers vsed in euery holy Masse were called Collectae Collects because the people vsed to be collected to the celebration of the Masse it selfe Sixtly Nor to the very Canon of the now Romane Masse saying in the Plurall Sumpsimus we haue receiued And thereupon seuenthly repugnant to the Complaints of your owne men against your Abuse who calling the ioynt Communion instituted by Christ the Legitimate Masse doe wonder how your Priests sole Communicating euer crept into the Church and also deplore the contempt which your priuate Masse hath brought vpon your Church Hitherto see the Marginals from your owne Confessions Let vs adde the absurditie of the Commendation of your Councell of Trent in saying We commend the Priest's communicating alone A man may indeed possibly talke alone fret alone play the Traytor alone but this Communicating alone without any other is no better Grammar than to say that a man can conferre alone conspire alone contend or Couenant alone Caluine saith indeed of spirituall Eating which may be without the Sacrament as you also confesse that a faithfull man may feede alone of the Body and Blood of Christ But our dispute is of the Sacramentall Communicating thereof A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the former Prevarication condemning this Romane Custome by the Romane Masse it selfe VVEe make bold yet againe to condemne your Custome of Priuate Masse and consequently the Commendation giuen thereof by the Councel of Trent For by the Canon of your owne Masse wherein there are Interlocutorie speeches betweene Priest and People at the Celebration of this Sacrament the Priest saying Dominus vobiscum The Lord be with you and the People answering the Priest and saying And with thy Spirit your Cl. Espencaeus sometimes a Parisian Doctor one commended by Genebrard for his Treatise vpon this same Subiect of the Priuate Masse albeit he agreeth with the execrable Execration and Anathema of the Councell of Trent against them that hold Solitarie Masses to be vnlawfull yet after the expence of much paper to prove that some private Masse must needs haue anciently beene because Primitiuely Masse was celebrated almost in all Churches euery day and that S. Chrysostome did complaine of the absence of the people yet comming to determine of the poynt This Reason
to turne their Wonderment against themselves saying Behold the providence of God! thus plainly to confound the wisdome of the Adversaries of his truth by themselves in their greatest subtilenesse Hitherto of the Comparison of the Ordinance of Christ with the Ordinance of the Romish Church Our second Comparison is of the Example of Christ with the contrarie Example SECT III. VVEre it that we had no Precept of Christ to Doe this but only the Example of his Doing it in the first Institution this should be a Rule for us to observe it punctually excepting in such Circumstances which only occasionally and accidentally hapned therein as hath beene proved and therefore not to dare to give a Non-obstante against the Example of Christ as your Councell of Constance hath done and which your Iesuite also teacheth as if the Example of Christ were no argument of proofe at all Which Doctrine wee are now to trie by the judgement of Antiquity Cyprian confuteth the Aquarij Heretikes that used only Water in the Chalice by the Example of Christ his Institution because Nothing is to be done of us in celebrating of this Mystery which was not done of Christ. So he In the dayes of Pope Iulius Anno 337. there arose many giddie spirits which violated the holy Institution of Christ in this Sacrament when as some consecrated Milke instead of Wine others sopped the bread in the Cup a third sort squiezed Grapes thereinto These and the like that holy Pope did condemne but how by pretence of Custome only no but by the obligation of Christ his Example and institution of this Sacrament in these words following Because these are contrary saith he to Evangelicall and Apostolicall doctrine and Ecclesiasticall Custome as is easily proved from the fountaine of truth from whence the Sacraments had their first ordinance for when our Master of Truth commended this to his Disciples he gave to none Milke but Bread only and the Cup. Nor doth the Gospell mention the sopping of bread but of giving Bread a-part and the Cup also a-part c. So Pope Iulius Those also that offered Bread and Cheese together in this Sacrament are confuted by the Institution of Christ who appointed Bread saith your Aquinas What can be more direct and absolute yet dare your men obiect to the contrarie The Romish Obiection answered At Emmaus Luke 24. Christ meeting with certaine Disciples taking bread and blessing it and thereby manifesting himselfe to them is said immediately after the Breaking of Bread to have vanished out of their sights Ergò it may be lawfull saith your Cardinall to use but one kind Because saith Master Brereley the Text sheweth that Christ vanished away not leaving any time for Benediction or Consecration of the Cup. CHALLENGE THis Argument is still inculcated almost by every Romanist in defence of the Romish Custome of but in one kind notwithstanding it be twice rotten First in the Root and Antecedent For although Christ here had begun the Celebration of the Eucharist yet doth it not appeare that he did now perfect it in distributing either kinde to his Disciples Nor is this likely saith your Iansenius And it is dead-rotten also in the branch and Consequence thereof because that this Act of Christ in Emmaus is not to be urged as an Example to be imitated in the Church which is demonstrable by an Acknowledgement of your Iesuite Valentia As for example The Councell of Trent hath defined that the Priest in Consecrating is commanded by Christ his Institution to consecrate in both kinds Because this saith your Iesuite both the nature of the Sacrifice and Sacrament doth exact but by what words of Command namely for so hee saith by these words Doe this Accordingly your Objectour Master Brereley as if he had meant purposely to confute and confound himselfe The reason why the Priest receiveth both kinds is because hee is to represent the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse But Bread cannot represent Christ dead without some signe of Bloud If then because Christ ministred it not in both kindes in Emmaus it shall be lawfull for the Church to imitate him in that manner of Distribution of this Sacrament it must as equally follow that because hee is not found there to have Consecrated in both kinds it may be lawfull for your Church so to doe not only contrary to your now Romane Custome but also in the judgement of the Councell of Trent contrary to the Command of Christ as hath beene confessed Twice miserable therefore is the darknesse of your Disputers First not to see the Inconsequence of this Obiection and next not to remember that common Principle to wit Extraordinary Acts are not to be Rules for ordinary Duties A SECOND CHALLENGE VVEe conclude You have seene by the testimonies of Cyprian and Pope Iulius that it was good Divinity in their dayes to argue from the Example of Christ his Institution negatively by rejecting such Acts and accounting them as contrarie to the Institution of Christ which accord not with his Example and which are not comprized within the Canon of Christ his Hoc facite which kinde of Reasoning at this day is â—issed at in your Romish Schooles What need many words O tempora Our third Comparison is by conferring Apostolicall Practice with contrary Practice SECT IV. SAint Paul having more speciall occasion to handle this point than any other of the Apostles may worthily be admitted to resolve us in the name of all the Rest Hee Catechizing the Corinthians concerning the true use of the Eucharist recordeth the first Institution thus I have received of the Lord that which I deliver unto you that the Lord Iesus c. And after his Recitall of the Institution of Christ hee himselfe addeth As often as you eate of this Bread and drinke of this Cup you shew the Lords death untill he come againe Let therefore a man examine himselfe and so eate of this Bread and drinke of this Cup. From this wee seeke a Proofe both of the Apostolicall Practice in the use of both kindes in this Sacrament and of our duety in observing the same But wee may spare our paines of prooving the use of both kindes in the Church of Corinth because as your Cardinall Tolet confesseth There is no controversie thereof As for the proofe of our necessary Conformity wee have the same Reasons wherewith the Apostle perswadeth thereunto That saith he which I have received of the Lord I deliver vnto you that Iesus c. Thereby applying the Example of Christ his Institution for a Rule of their Practice which this coniunctive Particle of Eating AND Drinking To Eate AND Drinke five times so coupled in this Epistle doe plainly declare But you tell vs that in this place the Coniunctive AND is is put for a disiunctive Or thereby to teach the Church a liberty to choose whether they shall Eate or Drinke
is but a Chimaera and as great a Solecisme as to say that the Body and Bones of Christ are dranke and his Blood eaten contrary to the Sacramentall representation in Receiving Bread and Wine as hath beene prooved Next when wee aske you why onely your Church will not reforme and regulate her Custome according to the Institution of Christ and the long practice of the primitive Church you answere plainly and without Circumlocution that the Reason is Lest that your Church might seeme to have erred in her alteration of the ancient Custome And this your Cardinall Bellarmine and the Iesuite Valentian vse and vrge as a necessary Reason for confutation of Protestants who held the necessity of publike Communion in both kindes Which Reason your owne Orator Gaspar Cardillo proclaimed as in a manner the sole cause of continuing your degenerated vse Least that the Church saith he may seeme to have erred What can more sauour of an Hereticall and Antichristian spirit than this pretence doth For an Heretike will not seeme to have erred and Antichrist will professe himselfe one that cannot erre which Character of not personall erring was never assumed of any particular Church excepting onely the latter Church of Rome Our Assumption But the Church of Rome which will seeme that she cannot possibly erre in her not administring the Cup unto Laicks is knowne to have erred 600. yeares together in the abuse of the same Sacrament by administring it in an opinion of necessity vnto Infants as hath beene plentifully witnessed by eminent Doctors in your owne Church Hence therefore ariseth another difference betweene the profession of our Custome and yours which is betweene Christ and Antichrist All this while you doe not perceiue but that your opinion of Concomitancie will ruinate the foundation of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation whereof hereafter The seaventh Comparison is betweene the manner of Institution and manner of Alteration thereof SECT XI THe beginning of the Institution in both kindes is knowne and acknowledged to haue beene authorized by him who is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the new Testament even Christ our Lord by whom it was established and published among all his Disciples at his last Supper But your Custome of onely one kinde How we beseech you came it into your Church tell vs. It came not in by any precept but crept in by little and little by the Tacite and silent consent of the Bishops So your Bishop Roffensis and your Iesuite Costerus and Frier Castro This confessed vnknowne maner of Alteration of this your Custome as it doth vtterly refute your common Obiection viz. That every Doctrine and Custome must bee iudged ancient and Catholike the beginning whereof is not knowne so doth it more specially put your M. Breerly to his blush who durst make the same obiection in this very Case in defence of the vse of but One kinde to prove it to haue beene from the beginning because No first knowne beginning of our Catholike practice saith he can be instanced And yet behold here no certaine beginning of this Romish Custome yet notwithstanding confessed to be an Alteration different from the Custome which formerly for a thousand yeares was held a Catholike Custome Was not the Church of Rome then a wise and a worthy Mistris of Churches trow you to suffer her Priests to be guided by the People in a matter of this nature what other difference can this make between our Custome and yours but that which is between divine Ordinance popular negligence or as between a publique Professor a Theeâ—ish Creeper Heresie is certainly a disease but wote you what the Apostle noteth it to be a Cancer or Gangrene which is a disease Creeping by little and little from ioynt to ioynt untill it have eaten vp the vitall parts such a Cancer was this your Custome if you shall stand to your owne former Confessions Our last Comparison is betweene the Contrary dispositions of Professors one in continuing and distinguishing a second in mixing the third in reiecting both kindes SECT XII THe Comparison betweene the divers dispositions of Professors none will be more willing to shew than your Iesuite Salmeron who will have you out of Cardinall Cusanus to observe three States of the Church The first is in her Fervencie The second in her Warmnes The third in her Coldnes In the first state of her Fervencie when the Christians affected Martyrdome for the Gospell of Christ then did the People saith hee communicate in both kindes In the second state which was in her Warmnes though not so hot boyling as before They then used to dip the Hoast into the Chalice and so were made ioyntly partakers of both in one But in the third state of Coldnes the people were allowed the Sacrament onely vnder one kinde So hee CHALLENGE IF now Truth may be iudged by the different dispositions of Professors then may this former Confession witnes for us that there is as much difference betweene the Primitive and the now Romish Custome as there is betweene lively Fervencie and sencelesse Numnes and Coldnes that is to say Godly zeale and Godlesse indevotion and negligence yet a negligence not only approved which is impious but that which is the height of impiety even applauded also by your Priests among whom the above-said Gaspar Cardillo in the Councell of Trent with exultation told their Father-hoods as being a matter of great ioy that they who are under the Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome in Germany doe not so much as desire the Cup of life So hee A GENERALL CHALLENGE Concerning this last Transgression of Christ his Masse SECT XIII IN this we are to make an open discovery of the odious Vncharitablenesse the intolerable Arrogancie the vile Perjury the extreame Madnesse and Folly together with a note of plaine Blasphemie of your Romish Disputers in Defence of this one Romane Custome of forbidding the Cup to faithfull Communicants For what Vncharitablenesse can be more odious than when they cannot but confesse that there is more spirituall grace in the receiving of the Communion in both kinds doe notwithstanding boast even in the open Councell of Trent of some of their Professors who in obedience to the Church of Rome doe not only their owne words not desire the Cup of life but also dare not so much as desire it Which Vaunt we thinke besides the Impiety thereof inferreth a note of prophane Tyranny Secondly when wee compare these Fathers of Trent with the Fathers of most primitive Antiquity they answere Although the primitive Church say they did exceed ours in Zeale Wisdome and Charity neverthelesse it falleth out sometimes that the wiser may in some things be lesse wise then another Which answere if we consider the many Reasons which you have heard the Fathers give for the use of both kinds and their consonant practice thereof what is it but a vilifying of the authority
How can you auoid the necessity of this Consequence All arising from the nature of Predication in this Proposition wherein the Subiect is Bread the Copula Is and Predicate Body of Christ Which because it cannot be properly predicated either of Bread determinate as to say This bread in my hand is Christ's Body or of Bread undeterminate which you call vagum as to say This kind of bread is the Body of Christ it demonstrately sheweth that your Doctors can have no greater Aduersaries in this case than their owne Consciences which will appeare as fully in that which followeth CHAP. II. The Second key in Christ's Words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body opening the Figurative Sence thereof is the Verbe EST IS FOr that Est in these words hath the same sence as Signifieth as if Christ had said expresly of the Bread This signifieth my Body and accordingly of the Wine This signifieth my Blood may be proued by three Propositions infringible Our first Proposition The Verbe EST being ioyned with a thing that is a Signe is alwayes figurative and the very same with this word SIGNIFIETH SECT I. FOr although the Verbe Est be indeed so absolutely simple in it's owne nature that it cannot be resolved into any other word as all other Verbes may be in like Case yet doth it albeit accidentally necessarily inferre a figurative Sence and is as much as Signifieth or Representeth whensoever it ioyneth the Signe and the Thing signified together As for Example A man pointing at a signe hanging before an Inne and saying This is S. George on horse-backe the Verbe Is can inferre no other Sence than Signifieth Why even because the thing whereof it speaketh is a Signe signifying Saint George And Bread in this Sacrament is in all Catholique Divinity a Signe of Christ's Body Therefore the Verbe Is can have no other sence than Signifieth The former Proposition confirmed by all like Speeches whether Artificiall Politique or Mysticall SECT II. YOur owne Iesuits and common Experience it selfe will verifie this Truth First in things Artificiall as To say of the Picture of Hercules This is Hercules is a figure Secondly In things Politique as when a Legacie given by Will and Testament is called the man's Will So they And indeed what is more Common than for a man to say of his Testament This is my Will Of his name subscribed This is my hand And of the waxe sealed This is my Seale When as his Will properly taken is in his heart his hand is affixed to his Arme And his seale may be in his pocket Thirdly In Mysticall and Divine Rites as in Sacrifice even among the Heathen according to that Example out of Homer which is notable The Greekes and Troians when they entred into a league which was to be ratified by a Sacrifice of Lambs upon which both sides were to take their Oathes this their Act is thus expressed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is They brought with them two Lambes their faithfull Oathes Where Lambes the rituall signes of their faithfull Swearing are called Oathes An Example I say even among the Heathen which is as appo e to our purpose and opposite against your defence as can be Our Second Proposition answerable to the first All the like Sacramentall Speeches in Scripture are figuratively understood SECT III. IN all such like Sacramentall Speeches both in the old and new Testament wherein the Signe is coupled with the Thing signified the Speech is ever unproper and Figurative and the Verbe Est hath no other force than Signifieth This Truth is confirmed aboundantly by the Testimonies of your owne Iesuites and others who come fraught with Examples First concerning the old Testament Noting that the Sacrifice of the Paschall Lambe being but a signe was called the Passeover or passing over Secondly that The Rocke being but a signe of Christ was called Christ Thirdly that Circumcision being but a signe of the Covenant was called the Covenant So likewise in the new Testament both concerning Baptisme which in Christ his Speech to Nicodemus being but a signe of Regeneration is called Regeneration And Baptizing which being a Signe of the Buriall of Christ in the speech of Saint Paul is called Buriall Finally that the most proper Interpretation of the Verbe Est Is in such like speeches importeth no more than Significat your Iesuite Salmeron will testifie for us In these speeches saith he The seed is the Word I am the Doore The Rocke was Christ the Verbe Is and WAS must be interpreted for SIGNIFIETH or figureth not of it's owne nature but because the word Rocke cannot be otherwise ioyned with Christ than by a figure or signe So he Even as Master Sanders also is compelled to confesse in a like Case CHALLENGE THus have we argued from Induction and Enumeration of Texts of Scripture in all like Sacramentall Speeches which Exposition by Analogy of Scriptures was ever held of all Divines the most absolute and infallible manner of expounding the Scripture that can be The Truth whereof arieseth essentially out of the Definition of a Sacrament which as well the whole Catholique Church as your Romish hath defined to be a visible Signe But no visible Signe can be ioyned to any thing signified thereby in like Predication without a Figure as hath beene both copiously proved and confessed Our third Proposition viz. Many Figurative Speeches are used by Christ even in his Words of Institution of this Sacrament by your owne Confessions SECT IV. FIrst your Iesuites who otherwise shame not to call Protestants in scorne Tropists because they defend a Tropicall and Figurative sence in the speech of Christ are notwithstanding constrained to acknowledge many figures in other words of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament Lest that otherwise as Maldonate and Suarez confesse the Speeches of Christ should be false as for example When the body of Christ is said to be broken or eaten if they should be taken properly and without a figure called Metaphora So they And so in the words following Body given for you that is which shall be offered for you on the Crosse So your Iesuite Valentia Next The blood is shed for you Matth. 26. It is not denied saith your Iesuite Salmeron but that it is the manner of Scripture to speake of a thing as now done which is after to be done as in this place Is shed because very shortly after it was to be shed upon the Crosse Which is the figure Enallage Againe This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud Hearken to your Bishop These words cannot be taken properly whether the Cup be taken for the vessell used for drinking which was a temporall thing and therefore could not be the Testament of Christ which is eternall or else whether you take it for the matter within the Cup which is the figure Synecdoche for it being the blood of the new
of the same his Body and Blood as they were on the Crosse Like as a King who having gotten a victory in battell should represent himselfe in a Stage-Play as in a fight So They. But without any Sentence of any Father for countenancing so egregious a figment so farre were those Greeke Fathers from urging that counterfeit Testimony which passeth vnder the name of S. Augustine as if hee had said The flesh of Christ is a Sacrament of his flesh and inferring from hence that The Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament is a Signe of it selfe as it was upon the Crosse And they are no small Babes who vent out this proofe by name Billius Gardiner Bishop of Winchester Claudius Sainctes one of name in the Councell of Trent Fisher Bishop of Rochester and Hessell But how prove They this Out of any of the works of Augustine No where then Wee are required to seeke it in Prosper where againe it is not to be found Whither next forsooth it is so cited by Peter Lombard and there it appeareth that Peter Lombard had it out of his supposed Brother Gratian wee say Gratian whose bookes have beene lately reproved and condemned by one of your Arch-bishops for many False allegations of Testimonies of Fathers And when all is done if either Peter-Lombard or Gratian who are the Relators may be admitted to be the Interpreters of that coyned Sentence they will say that the word Flesh there specified is taken for the Shape of flesh and the word Blood for the outward forme of Blood which spoyleth your Play quite wherein you will have the Flesh of Christ under the outward formes and shape in this Sacrament and not the outward formes and shape themselves to be the Signe of the same Body on the Crosse So easie it is for Hunters to pursue their Game with loud cries upon a false sent Wee returne to your Cardinall and to Suarez who invented the Similitvde of the Stage-Play for their Answere which is indeed rather a Childish Playing then Theologicall reasoning yet it is but a mad sport to argue against Conscience as this your Cardinall must needs have done who confessing that the Greeke Fathers did therefore call Sacraments Antitypes because of the great Similitude they have with the things they represent yet now adventureth to say that the Body of Christ as it is in the Eucharist is a Signe of the same Body of Christ as it was upon the Crosse notwithstanding the Body of Christ as it is in the Sacrament according to your owne faith is so Invisible that it cannot be seene of Angels so Indivisible that it cannot be parted or divided and so Vnbloody that there is not the least tincture of blood to be discerned therein Wherfore to perswade your Disciples that those grave Fathers ever taught that the Invisible Indivisible and Vnbloody Body of Christ as in this Sacrament was or could be the Signe of his visible torne crucified and bloody Body vpon the Crosse and so to note an Antitype which is as you call it the Greatest Similitude is all one as to find out the greatest Similitude in the greatest Dissimilitude which yet is the more intollerable because it is against the Confessed Common opinion of your owne Divines who haue taught that The Sacrament of the Eucharist is called Type and Antitype because of the formes of Bread and Wine So your Billius Ma◠you not now discerne the notable perversnesse of your Disputers and that they devised this Stage-Play ad faciendum Populum to please and delude their Readers thereby to fit themselves the better for the Pageant whereof we shall be occasioned to say more in the sixt Booke That the onely Obiection out of the Greeke Fathers concerning the Pronoune HOC in the Testimony of Epiphanius advantageth not the Romish Cause SECT VII COmpare but Epiphanius his owne words your Cardinal's Obiection and our Answere and then make your owne determination as you shall thinke good Man is said to be made after the Image of God Epiphanius not able to define what this Image consisted in whether it be man's soule or minde or virtue notwithstanding resolveth that c All men haue the image of God in them but yet not according to nature namely that substantiall nature which is in God because God is Incomprehensible and infinite c. This is the maine point which Epiphanius will now illustrate but how By something saith your Cardinall which seemeth to be that which it is not And Epiphanius instanceth in the Eucharist wherein Christ taking into his hands those things which the Evangelists doe mention he said of the one HOC This is mine viz. Body and of the other This is mine viz. Blood hereby understanding saith your Obiector The Eucharist which is truely the Body of Christ although it seeme not to be so outwardly being of a round figure and Insensible and therfore farre vnlike to be the Body of Christ So he who thinking he hath overcome doth raise up his Iō and Triumph saying This argument is throughly convincent because Epiphanius addeth He who believeth not the words of Christ doth fall from Saluation adding further that they are to be believed although our senses gain-say it You have heard the Obiection which seeming to so great a Champion so greatly Convincent you will give us licence to make a full Answere First by HOC ET HOC THIS AND THIS by the Interpretation of Epiphanius are meant The things which the Evangelist did mention and the Evangelist mentioned as you know Bread He tooke Bread Hee tooke the Cup meaning Wine in the Cup namely according to the former generall Consent of the Fathers HOC signified Bread in one part of the Eucharist and Wine in the other But Bread neither in the Substance nor in the Accidents can be called Christ's Bodie without a Trope as hath beene Confessed which is our first confutation of your Cardinall who concludeth that Epiphanius excludeth all Tropes out of Christ's speech of HOC Secondly THIS in the words of Christ hath neither equality of Proportion nor yet similitude of forme or figure being round with the body of Christ as Epiphanius willeth us to observe Which confuteth the Assumption of your Cardinall affirming that Epiphanius sought in the Eucharist a similitude of a Thing which seemed to be that which it is not Albeit Epiphanius expresly sheweth that there is no outward similitude betweene This and This spoken of that is to say Bread and Wine and that which is called Mine and Mine namely The Body and Blood of Christ Thirdly This spoken of by Christ in the Iudgement of Epiphanius as it is Round in figure so is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Insensible but not passively as not perceiveable by sence for then it could not be said to be Round which with other outward Accidents are sensible to your selves but actively Insensible as not
and why might they not use the same Tenure of Speech which our Lord Christ used before them But they say also that Bread is therefore called his Body as being an outward Sacrament Signe and Figure of his Body seeing that every Sacrament being a Signe or Figure the Sacramentall Speech must necessarily be Figurative as hath beene proved by Scripture as in all other Sacraments so likewise in the severall confessed Figurative words of Christ concerning this Sacrament in six severall Instances This one Argument of it selfe hath beene tearmed by Master Calvin Murus ahaeneus that is a brazen Wall and so will it be found more evidently to be when you shall perceive the same Fathers judging that which they call Change into Christ's flesh to be but a Change into the Sacrament of his flesh Bread still remayning the same and teaching that Melchisedech offered in his Sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ when he offered onely the Types of both in the Sixt Booke And now we are to with-stand your Paper-bullets wherewith you vainely attempt in your Objections following to batter our Defence withal CHAP. III. The Romish Obiections against the Figurative Sence Answered The first Obiection SECT I. NOthing useth to be more properly and simply spoken say you than words of Testaments and Covenants Ergò this being a Testamentary Phrase must be taken in the literall Sence CHALLENGE WHat is this are Figurative speeches never used in Covenants and Testamentary Language or is there not therefore sufficient perspicuity in Figures This is your rash and lavish Assertion for you your selves doe teach that The Old and New Testament are both full fraught with multitude of Tropes and Figures and yet are called Testaments Secondly That the Scripture speaking of the Trinity and some divine things cannot but speake improperly and figuratively Thirdly That Sacramentall speeches as The Rocke was Christ and the like words are Tropicall and Figurative Fourthly That even in the Testamentary Speech of Christ at his Institution of this Sacrament saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood there is a Figure in the very word Testament So have you confessed and so have you consequently confuted your owne Obiection Hereto might be added the Testament of Iacob prophesying of his sonnes and saying Reuben is my strength Iudah a Lions Whelpe Issachar a strong Asse Danan Adder in the way All figurative Allusions Nay no man in making his Testament can call it his Will or say that he hath set his hand and Seale unto it without Figures Namely that he hath given by writing a Signification of his Will that the Subscription was made by his Hand and that he added unto it the Print of his Seale These Three Will Hand Seale every word Figuratiue even in a Testament The Second Romish Obiection against the Figurative Sence SECT II. LAwes and Precepts say you should be in plaine and proper words But in the Speech of Christ Take eate you c. are words of Command Ergò They may not be held Figurative CHALLENGE CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts viz. of Pulling out a man 's owne eye of cutting off his hand Matth. 5. Or yet of a Penitents Renting of his heart Ioel 2. Or of not hardening his heart Psal 95. and the like Christ commanded his Disciples to prepare for his keeping the Passeover with his Disciples and the Disciples prepared the Passeover as Iesus commanded them saith the Evangelist In this Command is the word Passeover We demand The word Passeover which is taken for the Sacrament and Signe of the Passeover is it taken figuratively You cannot deny it And can you deny that a Commandement may be delivered under a Figurative Phrase You can both that is say and gaine-say any thing like false Merchants onely so farre as things may or may not make for your owne Advantage But to catch you in your owne snare your Doctrine of Concomitancy is this viz. Bread being turned into Christ's Body is ioyntly turned into whole Christ and Wine being changed into his blood is likewise turned into whole Christ both flesh and blood If then when Christ commanded his Disciples saying Drinke you All of this that which was Drunke was the whole substantiall Body of Christ either must his Disciples be said to have Drunke Christ's Body properly or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken To say the first contradicteth the universall expression of man's speech in all Languages for no man is said to drinke Bread or any solid thing And to grant the Second that the speech is Figurative contradicteth your owne Objection Againe Christ commanded to Eate his Body yet notwithstanding have Three Iesuites already confessed that Christ's Body cannot be said to have beene properly Eaten but figuratively onely What fascination then hath perverted your Iudgements that you cannot but still confound your selves by your contrary and thwarting languages Your Third Romish Obiection SECT III. DOctrinall and Dogmaticall speeches say you ought to be direct and literall But these words This is my Body are Doctrinall CHALLENGE A Man would maruaile to heare such silly and petty Reasons to be propounded by those who are accounted great Clerkes and those who know full well that the speech of Christ concerning Castrating or gelding of a man's selfe is Doctrinall and teacheth Mortification and yet is not literally to be understood as you all know by the literall errour of Origen who did really Castrate himselfe And the same Origen who thus wounded himselfe by that literall Exposition in his youth Hee in his Age expounding the words of Christ concerning the Eating of his flesh said of the literall sence thereof that It killeth Secondly these words This is the New Testament in my blood they are wordes as Doctrinall as the other This is my body and yet figurative by your owne Confession Thirdly the words of Christ Ioh. 6. of Eating his flesh are Doctrinall and yet by your owne Construction are not to be properly vnderstood but as Christ afterwards expounds himselfe Spiritually Fourthly where Christ thus said The bread which I shall give is my flesh Ioh. 6. 51. he saith also of his Body that it is True bread Verse 32. and bread of life Verse 48. and living bread whereof whosoever eateth liveth eternally Verse 51. All Divine and Doctrinall Assertions yet was his body figuratively called bread Fiftly that in those words of Christ to Peter Matth. 16. Vpon this Rocke will I build my Church And To thee will I give the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven And Ioh. 21. Feed my Sheepe In which texts of Scripture you place although most falsly your Doctrinall foundation of Popedome it selfe yet know you all these to be Tropicall Speeches Yea and what say you to the first Doctrinall Article and foundation of Christian Doctrine delivered by God unto man in the beginning The seed of the
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
ceased to be Water And so must Bread cease to be Bread This being the State of the Question we undertake to give Good Proofes of the Existence and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist the same in Substance after Consecration Our First Proofe is from Scripture 1. Cor. 10. Saint Paul calling it Bread SECT IV. IN the Apostle his Comment that I may so call his two Chapters to the Corinthians upon the Institution of Christ we reade of Eating the Bread and Drinking the Cup thrice all which by the consent of all sides are spoken of Eating Drinking after Consecration and yet hath he called the outward Element Bread You will say with some It was so called onely because it was made of Bread as Aarons Rod turned into a Serpent was notwithstanding called a Rod. But this Answere is not answerable unto the Similitude For first of the Bread the Apostle saith demonstratively This Bread and of the other This Cup But of Aaron's Rod turned into Serpent none could say This Rod. And secondly it is contrary to Christian Faith which will abhorre to say in a proper sence that Christ's Body was ever Bread Or else you will answere with others It is yet called Bread because it hath the Similitude of Bread as the Brazen Serpent was called a Serpent But neither this nor any other of your Imaginations can satisfie for we shall prove that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration but because it was Substantially still Bread Our Reason is He had now to deale against the Prophaners of this Sacrament in reproving such as used it as Common Bread Not discerning therein Sacramentally exhibited the Lord's Body It had therefore concerned him to have honoured the Sacrament with Divine Titles agreeable to the Body of Christ hypostatically united to his God-head and to have denied it absolutely to have beene Bread considering that by the name of Bread the glory of the same Body might seeme to be abased and Ecclipsed if in Truth and Veritie hee had not beleeved it to have beene then Bread This Reason we guesse you are bound to approve off who in your opinion of the Corporall Presence of Christ his Body and Absence of Bread would never suffer any of your Professors to call it after Consecration by the name of Bread Whereupon it was that the Greeke Archbishop Cabasila complained of the Romish Professors for reprehending the Greeke Liturgies why Because saith he after the words of Christ This is my Body wee call the Symbols and Signes Bread and Wine So hee Which bewrayeth that the very naming of the Sacrament Bread and Wine is in the iudgement of the Church of Rome preiudiciall to their Transubstantiation and that if Saint Paul himselfe should deliuer the same words he did at this day hee should by your Romish Inquisitors be taught to use his Termes in another stile What need many words except in the words of Christ the word Body be properly predicated and affirmed of Bread farewell Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Body But that it is Impossible the Body of Christ should be properly predicated upon Bread hath beene the Generall Confession of your owne Doctours and the Conclusion of our second Booke Our Second Proofe of the Continuance of the Substance of Bread is from the speech of Christ touching the Continuance of Wine after Consecration Matth. 26. 29. by the Interpretation of Antiquity SECT V. THe same is as fully verified by our Lord and Master Christ himselfe in thesecond Element of Wine calling it This fruit of the Vine that is Wine after Consecration where the Pronoune This hath relation to the Wine in the Cup. For the proof of this our Exposition of the words of Christ we have the Consent of these and thus many holy Fathers Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine Hierome Epiphanius Euthymius Theophylact and Bede as witnesseth your Iesuite Maldonate no one Father produced by him to the contrary Then answering But I saith hee cannot be thus perswaded So he Marke this you great Boasters of Accordance with Antiquity and yet this manner of answering the Fathers is most familiar with this Iesuite But he proceedeth telling you that The Fathers notwithstanding did not call it Wine as thinking it to be Wine but even as Christ did when hee called his flesh Bread Iohn 6. Then he addeth They that will follow the Exposition of These Fathers are thus to interpret them And gives his Reason of this his Aduertisement Lest the other Exposition saith he may seeme to agree with the opinion of the Calvinists So he For which his Answere Calvinists are as much beholding to him as are the Ancient Fathers with whom he hath made bold not only to reiect their Authority but also to pervert the plaine and evident meaning of their Testimonies who declare that they understood Naturall and Substantiall Wine as the Marginals doe manifest so plainly as to affirme that It was Wine which then Christ dranke and that hereby the practices of the Heretiques Aquarij are confuted who would drinke nothing but Water in the Eucharist It was the Wine saith Augustine which was used in the mysteries of our Redemption Even that Wine which was blessed saith Clemens Alexandrinus and your owne Bishop Iansenius doth confesse that these words of Christ had reference to the Cup in the Eucharist and not as some say to the Cup of the Passeover Marke you furthermore the Errour of the Aquarij and the Confutation thereof they used only Water in the Eucharist in pretence of Sobriety which Cyprian confuted only upon this ground viz. that this Practice was not warranted by the Institution of Christ wherein Christ ordained Wine and not Onely Water and now tell us if that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation had beene an Article of Faith in those dayes whether it had not concerned Cyprian to have stood exactly upon it for the more just condemnation of those Aquarij to let them know that if they would needs use only Water than according to your Doctrine their Consecration should be void and consequently their Adoration if it had beene then in use should have beene like wise Idolatrous The former Proofe confirmed by Analogie betweene Bread and Christ's Body both Naturall and Mysticall SECT VI. IN 1. Cor. 10. 16 17. The Bread which we breake saith the Apostle is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ for we being many are one Bread and one Body in as much as wee all partake of one Bread In this Sentence the word Bread hath a double Relation the First to Christ his Body Naturall Thus the joynt Participation of the Bread is called the Communion of the Body of Christ. The Analogie in this respect is excellently expressed by Isidore Bread saith hee because it strengtheneth the Body is therefore called Christ's Body and Wine because it turneth into Blood is therefore called Christ's Blood These two are
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 Christ
Bigne all which have intituled this Gelasius Pope of Rome Howsoever it is confessed on all sides that he was an Orthodoxe Father and very Ancient Now then Gelasius said that The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ being Divine things yet cease not to be the nature and substance of Bread and Wine In Answere whereunto both your foresaid Cardinals here as before by Substance interpret Accidents one of them labouring to prove that Gelasius somewhere else called Accidents Substances Were this granted yet the Argument which Gelasius hath in hand will compell the understanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance For whereas the Heretique Eutyches taught that Christ his Body was changed into the Substance of his Divinity after the Resurrection and that the substance of his Body remained no more the same Gelasius confuteth him by a Similitude and Comparison viz. That as the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration So Christ his Bodily Substance remained after the Resurrection Wherein if the word Substance be not in both places taken properly Gelasius should have made but a mad Reason as any reasonable man will confesse For albeit Similitudes doe not amble alwayes on foure feet yet if they halt upon the right foot which is the matter in Question they are to be accounted perfit Dissimilitudes Master Brereley would have you to know that this Gelasius whosoever hee were writeth against the same Eutychian Heresie that Theodoret did and thereupon useth accordingly to his like aduantage the words Substance and Nature in the same sence as did Theodoret. So he And he saith true and therefore must wee assure our selves of the consent of this Gelasius with us untill you shall be able to free your selves from our former Interpretation of Theodoret. But Mr. Brerely opposeth against us another sentence of Gelasius from whence he concludeth that Gelasius held Transubstantiation so that Gelasius must rather contradict himself then that he shal not consent to the Romish Tenet Whereas indeed hee saith no more than in a mysticall sence any Protestant must and will allow viz. that The Sacrament is a Divine thing and that whosoever eate spiritually the Body of Christ are by it made partakers of the blessing of his Divine Nature which dwelleth in Christ bodily saith the Apostle So Gelasius To which saying of Gelasius touching the Eucharist is answerable a like saying of Gregory Nyssen concerning Baptisme calling it a Divine Laver working miraculous effects Yea and Dionysius the Areopagite bestowed the same Attribute viz. Divine upon the Altar the Symbols the Priest the People and the Bread it selfe in the Eucharist If therefore the Epithet Divine must argue a Corporall Change what a number of Transubstantiations must you be inforced to allow Fie upon blind boldnesse This mans falsity in alledging Chemnitius I let passe It is further worthy your Reflection to observe your Disputers how earnest they have bin to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius contrary to the acknowledgement of your owne Historians May wee not therefore suspect that the Testimony obiected was distastfull unto them when they so greatly feared lest this Witnesse should be thought to have beene a Pope and Supreame Paster of your Church Two other Testimonies from Antiquity for the expresse acknowledgement of the Existence of Bread after Consecration in the Sacrament Chrysostome and Bertram SECT XIIII CHrysostome his words are these that Bread after Consecration is freed from the name of Bread being accounted worthy of the name of the Body of Christ albeit the nature of it remaineth therein still Your Exception is that this Epistle is not extant among the workes of Chrysostome This Answer might satisfie us were it not that it was extant sometime in the Libraries of Florence and Canterbury To whom may be adioyned the Authour of that Vnperfect worke still standing under the name of Chrysostome and by you upon any occasion obiected against vs wherein it is expressly said that The True Body of Christ is not contained within these sanctified Vessels It seemeth that your later Parisian Divines were offended with others who would have these words utterly dashed out of their last Editions which were published in the former as you have beene admonished by one most worthy and able to advertise in this kind Bertram is our next witnesse from Antiquity being about 800. yeares agoe and never noted of Errour antiently untill these later times of Booke-butchery that wee may so call your Index Expurgatorius denying altogether all liberty to all men of reading this Booke But why what saith he Hee maintaineth saith your Senensis that the Eucharist is the substance of Bread and Wine And indeed so he doth in his Booke dedicated to the Emperour Carolus Calvus which also he affirmeth to be written According to the truth of Scriptures and iudgement of Ancient Fathers before him This Author undergoeth also the Censure of the Vniversity of Doway which confessing him to have beene a Catholique Priest framed divers Answers whereby they meant to prevent all obiections which Protestants might peradventure urge vnder the Authority of this Author Bertram But how Marke this Romish Profession of answering Protestants as often as they shall insist in the Testimonies of antient Writers Let us say they in Disputation with our Adversaries obiecting ancient Authors tolerate many of their Errours extenuate and excuse them yea and oftentimes by some devised Comment deny them as also by feigning to apply some apt sence unto them So that Vniuersitie This being the guise and professed Art of your Schooles to use all their wits how to delude their Opposites in Disputation what great confidence shall any have of their sincerity in answering Let us leave Bertram under the Testification and Commendation of Abbot Trithemius for his Excellent Learning in Scripture his godly life his worthy Books and by name this now mentioned written expressly Of the Body and Blood of Christ CHAP. IV. Answeres to the Obiections of Romish Doctours taken from the Testimonies of Antient Fathers for Transubstantiation Or an Antidote to expell all their poysonsome Pretences in that behalfe SECT I. THis our Antidote is compounded of five Ingredients vsed for the Discovery of the Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers in their Obiecting the Testimonies of Fathers under False pretences First upon their terming the mysticall Act A Worke of Omnipotencie Secondly their denying of the Eucharist to be Naked and Bare Bread Thirdly in forbidding the Communicants to rely vpon the Iudgement of their Senses Fourthly in their mentioning the Change of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament and calling it Transmutation Transition and the like Fiftly and lastly in forcing of the speeches of Fathers which may seeme to make for Transubstantiation as absolutely spoken of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which the same Fathers doe apply as well to the Sacrament of Baptisme and
also to other sacred Rites wherein you beleeve there is not any Substantiall Change at all The First Vnconscionablenes of your Romish Disputers in obiecting the Fathers speeches ofâ—an Omnipotent Worke in this Sacrament for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT II. A Worke of Omnipotencie is attributed by divers Fathers to the Change which is made in this Sacrament which wee likewise confesse Ambrose compareth the Change by Benediction made in this Sacrament unto many miraculous workes of God yea even to the worke of Creation Cyprian speaketh of a Change in nature by divine Omnipotencie Augustine reckoning it among God's miracles saith that This Sacrament is wrought by the Spirit of God Accordingly we heare Chrysostome proclaiming that These are not workes of humane power He that changeth and transmuteth now is the same that he was in his last Supper Each one of these Testimonies are principally alleaged by your Disputers as the strongest fortresses for defence of your Article of Transubstantiation and being taken altogether they are esteemed as a Bulwarke impregnable but why Because saith your Cardinall Omnipotencie is not required to make a thing to be a Signe Significant Se he We answer first from your owne Confessions and then from the Fathers themselues There are two workes observable in every Sacrament one is to be not onely a Signe of an Invisible grace promised by God but also both a Seale and Pledge thereof as all Protestants hold and as your most opposed Calvin teacheth an Instrumentall cause of conferring grace to the partakers of the Sacraments In both which Respects there is required an Omnipotencie of a Divine work without which the Element cannot be changed into a Sacrament either to signifie or yet to seale much lesse to convey any Grace of God unto man And that wee may take you along with vs It is the Doctrine of your Church with common consent saith your Romane Cardinall that God only can by his Authority institute a Sacrament because he onely can give them power of conferring grace and of infallible signification thereof So hee Well then as well infallible Signification of Grace as the efficacious conveyance of Grace is the worke of the same Omnipotencie To this purpose more plainly your English Cardinall Alan speaking as he saith from the iudgement of Divines telleth you that Although there be an apt nes in every Creature to beare a signification of some spiritall effect yet cannot the aptnes be determinately applyed vnto any peculiar effect nâ— not so much as to signifie the outward Cleannes of man's Body Sacramentally without a Divine Institution much lesse to represent man's sanctification but being so determinated and ordained of God the Creature saith hee is elevated above the Custome of nature not onely in respect of the worke of sanctification but even of signification also So hee And that as well as we could wish for this Omnipotent Change of a Creature into a Sacrament and this Instrumentall Cause of conferring Sanctifying Grace to the Faithfull Communicant is the Generall Doctrine of all Protestants But what Change shall wee thinke Of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body as you teach No but as before Isidore said The Change of visible things by the spirit of God into a Sacrament of Christ's Body Seeing then that both Divine power and authority is required in every Sacrament to make it either infallibly significant or els efficaciously profitable to man and that it is by the same Divine power that the Element is Changed by being Elevated from a common vnto a spirituall and divine property of a Sacramentall Signification as one of your Cardinals hath said What an unconscionablenes is it then in your Disputers from the termes of Omnipotencie and Divine working which is necessary in all Sacraments to conclude a Change of the Element of Bread by Transubstantiation as you have heard But much more transparent will their Vnconscionablenesse be if we consult with the Obiected Fathers themselves For first Ambrose who observeth an Omnipotency in the Change of this Sacrament explaineth himselfe what kind of Efficacy he meant viz. such that The things changed into a divine Sacrament are still the same which they were before namely according to their naturall property Which one Clause doth so strangle all conceit of Transubstantiation that it may seeme you have some reason to wipe this Testimony of Saint Ambrose out of your new Editions notwithstanding by Gods providence so much of Ambrose his tongue is preserved even in the same place as will convince your Obiectors of wilfull Falshood telling you by a Similitude that the Change of Bread in this Sacrament is like to the Change whereby a Christian Regenerate of an old Creature is made a new Creature which is as euery Christian knoweth not a change in the substantiall nature of man but in the Accidentall properties So this Bread of of a common bodily Food is made Sacramentall And the same Father who said of a man that by Baptisme hee is made a new Creature saith also of this Sacrament that By Benediction Bread is made another nature namely of an Elementall become Sacramentall as you have heard and as his owne words import After Consecration the Body of Christ is signified and that which was Wine Is called Blood In the Testimony of Cyprian you applaude your selves for to your Lindan The wordes of Cyprian appeare Golden and hee must needs provoke forsooth all Gospellers to hearken unto them which also seemeth to your Cardinall To admit no solution Our Answere first unto the Authour is to deny it to be the Testimony of Cyprian may we not This Sermon of the Supper of the Lord is by us saith your Master Brerely attributed to Cyprian Whom of your Side he meant by Vs you may be pleased to aske him sure we are your Cardinall doth tell us that The Authour of this Booke is not Cyprian but some other after him But not to disclaime your Authour all that he saith is that Bread is changed by God's Omnipotency not in Figure but in Nature This is all And all this hath beene but even now quitted by your owne Confessions granting a power of Omnipotency in every Sacramentall Change where the naturall Element is altered from it's common habitude into the nature of a Spirituall Instrument and use both signifying and exhibiting Divine Grace and so the word Nature doth import The Schooles distinguishing the Nature of Accidents from the Nature of Subiects shew that there is an Accidentall Nature as well as a Substantiall Theology teaching that By nature we are the children of wrath wherein Nature signifieth onely a vitious Quality This saying viz. Indifferent things in fact Change their nature when they are commanded Master Brerely alloweth of as for example a Surplesse being commanded by lawfull Authority the use thereof becommeth necessary so that the
are the Rites of the old Law called Shadowes in respect of the Sacraments of the Gospell according to the which difference Saint Iohn the Baptist was called by Christ a Prophet in that hee foretold Christ as now to come but he was called more then a Prophet as demonstrating and pointing him out to be now come Which Contemplation occasioned divers Fathers to speake so Hyperbolically of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in comparison of the Sacraments of the old Testament as if the Truth were in these and not in them as Origen did Besides the former two there is Veritas Obsignationis a Truth sealed which maketh this Sacrament more than a Signe even a Seale of Gods promises in Christ for so the Apostle called Circumcision albeit a Sacrament of the old Law the Seale of Faith But yet the print of that Seale was but dimme in comparison of the Evangelicall Sacraments which because they confirme unto the faithfull the Truth which they present are called by other ancient Fathers as well as by Saint Augustine visible Seales of divine things So that now we have in this Sacrament the Body of Christ not only under a Signe or signification but under a Seale of Confirmation also which inferreth a greater degree of reall Truth thereby represented unto us This might have beene the reason why Saint Augustine taught Christ to be Present both in Baptisme and at receiving the Lord's Supper A fourth Reason to be observed herein as more speciall is Veritas Exhibitionis a Truth Exhibiting and delivering to the faithfull Communicants the thing signified and sealed which Christ expressed when he delivered it to his Disciples saying Take eate this is my Body given for you and this is my Blood shed for you Thus Christ by himselfe and so doth he to other faithfull Communicants wheresoever to the ends of the World by his Ministers as by his hands through virtue of that Royall Command DOE THIS Vaine therefore is the Obiection made by your Cardinall in urging us with the testimony of Athanasius to prove that Christ his Body is exhibited to the Receivers As though there were not a Truth in a mysticall and sacramentall deliverance of Christ his Body except it were by a corporall and materiall presence thereof which is a transparent falsity as any may perceive by any Deed of Gift which by writing seale and delivery conveyeth any Land or Possession from man to man yet this farre more effectually as afterwards will appeare But first we are to manifest That the Romish Disputers doe odiously slanderously and unconscionably vilifie the Sacrament of the Eucharist as it is celebrated by PROTESTANTS SECT III. BEllarmine with others obiect against Protestants saying that Their Sacrament is nothing else but a crust of Bread and pittance of Wine And againe A morsell of Bread ill baked by which the Protestants represent unto their memories the death of Christ and the benefits thereof A goodly matter so doth a Crucifix and to make the Sacrament only a Signe is an ancient Heresie So they But have you not heard the Doctrine of the Protestants teaching the Eucharisticall Bread to be more than bare Bread a Sacramentall signe more an Evangelicall signe more a sacred Seale yet more an exhibiting Instrument of the Body of Christ therein to the devout Receiver And have not these outragious Spirits read your owne Cardinall witnessing that the Protestants teach that Although the Body of Christ be still in Heaven yet is it received in this Sacrament first Sacramentally by Bodily mouthes in receiuing the Bread the signe of Christ his Body and by which God doth truly albeit Sacramentally deliver unto the faithfull the reall body of Christ and secondly spiritually to the mouth of the soule by faith and so they truly and really participate of the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ So Bellarmine concerning Protestants which is so plainly professed by Calvin himselfe as would make any Romish Adversary blush at your former Calumnies who hath not abandoned shamefastnesse it selfe CHALLENGE THus may you see that we have not hitherto so pleaded for the Existence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration as thereby to exclude all Presence of Christ his body nor so maintained the proprietie of a Signe or Figure as not to beleeve the thing signified to be exhibited unto us as you have heard With what blacke spot of malignity and falshood then were the Consciences of those your Doctors defiled thinke you who have imputed to Protestants a Profession of using onely bare Bread which they notwithstanding teach and beleeve to be a Sacred Signe of the true Body of Christ in opposition to Heretikes an Evangelicall Signe of the Body of the Messias crucified against all Iewish conceit yea a Seale of Ratification yea and also a Sacramentall Instrument of conveying of the same precious Body of Christ to the soules of the faithfull by an happy and ineffable Coniunction whereof more hereafter in the Booke following where the consonant Doctrine of the Church of England will likewise appeare And as your Disputers are convinced of a malitious Detraction by the confessed positions of Protestants so are they much more by your owne instance of a Crucifix for which of you would not hold it a great derogation from Christ that any one seeing a Crucifix of wood now waxen old should in disdaine thereof call it a wooden or rotten Blocke and not account them irreligious in so calling it but why onely because it is a signe of Christ crucified Notwithstanding were the Crucifix as glorious as either Art could fashion or Devotion affect or Superstition adore yet is it but a signe invented by man And therefore how infinitely more honourable in all Christian estimation must a Sacramentall Signe be which onely the God of Heaven and Earth could institute and Christ hath ordained to his Church farre exceeding the property of a bare signe as you have heard A Father deliuering by politique assurances under hand and seale a portion of Land although an hundred miles distant and convaying it to his sonne by Deed if the sonne in scorne should terme the same Deed or writing blacke Inke the Seale greasie Waxe and the whole Act but a bare signe were he not worthy not onely to loose this fatherly benefit but also to be deprived of all other the temporall Blessings of a Father which hee might otherwise hope to enioy yet such like have beene your Calumnies and opprobrious Reproaches against our celebration of the Sacrament of Christ The Lord lay not them to your Charge Now you who so oppose against the Truth of the mysticall Presence will not conceale from us that Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ which your Church doth so extremely dote on CHAP. II. The Romish professed manner of Presence of Christ's Body in this Sacrament SECT I. OVr Methode requireth to consult in the first
procession untill they came into the Church of the blessed Virgin Mary where prayers are made by the Archbishop that God would be pleased to retransforme this in primam substantiam panis vini into the former substance of Bread and Wine and so at length it came to passe Thus farre the Story This saith the same Cardinall maketh for Transubstantiation and confuteth the Heresie of those that deny that water mixed with the Eucharist is turned into Blood So he 7. Anno 1230. A Priest in Florence looking into the Chalice saw drops of Blood divided into parts and ioyning together againe an Abbatisse lendeth the Priest a Violl to put the Blood in which the third day after appeared to be flesh This Flesh is still reserved in a Cristall glasse in the Church of Saint Ambrose in Florence and although the outward formes thereof be somewhat darke yet are they to be seene of all Trauâ—llers So hee 8. Anno 1239. In the Kingdome of Valentia Verè memorabile a thing truly memorable In the time of the warres betweene the Christians and Mahâ—metans there was seene of the Priest in the Altar pieces of the Hoast inclosed in linnen and sprinkled with drops of blood which Hoast afterwards by aduise was laid with all reverence on the backe of a Mule to be carried to that place wheresoever the Mule should make a stand The Mule although inticed often by Provandeâ— to stand else-where never made stay untill he came to an Hospitall of Dorchara where falling downe upon his knees least he might afterwards carry any thing lesse noble and worthy then that Hoast protenùs expiravit he suddenly died 9. Anno 1258. When the Priest celebrated the Masse in the Kings Chappell at Paris and was now in elevating the Hoast to shew it unto the people many of them presently saw formosissimum puerum a most beautifull Child And out of the Eucharist sanguis copiosusemanavit much blood issued out so that this cannot be imputed to the Art of the Devill 10. Anno 1261. Illustrissimum illud The most famous upon occasion whereof the Feast of Corpus Christi day was first instituted which Panvinus mentioneth in the life of Pope Vrban the Fourth when there issued out of the Eucharist sanguis copiosus Abundance of Blood So that it cannot be attributed to the cunning of the Deuill 11. Anno 1273. A Miracle was seene at Picenum where a woman reserved the Eucharist which she should have eaten and kept it with purpose to abuse it for recouering the love of her Husband by Magicke The Hoast she laid on Coales and it presently turned into flesh She was astonished but concealed it by the space of seven yeares at length she discovereth it to a Priest he found this flesh being hid so long in a Dung-hill intactam illaesam perfect and entire hee published this Miracle which moued infinite numbers to come and see it And even now after it doth yet incite men to come and visit it for the flesh is seene after so many yeares uncorrupt to the eternall memory thereof 12. Anno 1510. At Knobloch a Village under the Marquisate of Brandenburgh one Paulus Formosus on a night stole the Pix wherein the Eucharist was reserved he sold it to a Iew The Iew pierced it through with a Dagger and blood flowed out c. Most of all these are related by Master Brerely Priest whereupon hee maketh this Conclusion Miracles shewed by God saith he doe forceably confirme the same for at breaking of the Hoast at sundry times great copie and abundance of blood issued out as hath beene formerly testified So they It were pittie when as so many Countries have beene graced with such Miracles England should be thought unworthy of like honour nay here also wee heare there was Anno 950. at Canterbury a Miracle wrought for confirming divers Clergy men then wavering in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation by a Bloody dropping of the Hoast at Masse That these were not Apparitions of true Flesh and true Blood of Christ by the iudgement of Romish Schoole-men SECT III. YOur Bellarmine Baronius Bozius Mr. Breerly and Coccius have for proofe of the Corporall presence of Christ insisted upon Apparitions of as they have said true flesh red flesh perfect flesh of the Infant Iesus and the child Iesus seene embraced and kissed in the Eucharist of wine turned into Blood of Droppes of Blood sprinkling droppes of Blood issuing out and bloodying the fingers of the Priest that saw it But we rather beleeve your Schoole-men of whom besides many that doubted divers together with Thomas Aquinas with the Thomists and other Authors alleged by your Iesuite Suarez denyed all this saying That in such Apparitions there is no True flesh nor true blood of Christ at all Their Reasons First Because Christ say they cannot appeare in his owne proper forme in two places at once Secondly Because it were hainous wickednesse to inclose Christ in a Boxe appearing in his owne forme Thirdly Because Christ's Blood to issue and sprinkle out of his veines who can easily beleeve Fourthly Because it were undecencie to reserve such Reliques experience teaching that they doe putrifie Thus your owne Schoole-men produced and approved by Suarez the Iesuite whose Conclusion and Resolution is that The flesh thus appearing is not onely not the flâ—sh of Christ but even no true flesh at all but onely a colour and Signe thereof So they Do you not then see the different faith of your owne Historians and of your owne Divines namely that those Historians as vncleane beasts swallow downe at the first whatsoever commeth into their Mawes but those your Divines like more cleane creatures doe ruminate and distinguish truth from falshood by sound reason and iudgement and prove the Authors of such Apparitions flat lyars the Reporters uncredible Writers and the Beleevers of them starke Fooles That the Romish Answere to free their former pretended Miraculous Apparitions from suspition of Figments or Illusions is Vnsufficient SECT IV. ALbeit in these Apparitions there be not true flesh say some of your Doctors yet such Apparitions being miraculously wrought are sufficient Demonstrations that Christs Flesh is in the Eucharist But why should not we yeeld more credit to those Schoolmen who say True miracles use to be made in true signes and not in such as seeme onely so to be because seeming signes are wrought by the Art of the Divell And we take it from the Assurance which your Iesuite giveth vs that Divels and Painters can make such semblances and Similitudes and that true Miracles are to be discerned from false in that false Miracles carie onely a likenes of things and are unprofitable Furthermore your P Aquinas proveth against the Heretikes from Sense that Christ had a true Body Because it could not agree with the dignity of his person who is Truth that there should be any fiction in any worke of his Thus
now happen unto him but sine laesione that is without any hurt Wee answer that if hee should suffer nothing in his humanity passively to the Laesio corporis that is hurt of the Body yet should there be thereby in the opinion of men laesio dignitatis that is a lessening and obscuring of that his dignity which is set forth in Scripture and which our Article of faith concerning his Bodily sitting at the Right hand of God in Heaven teacheth us to be in all Celestiall glory and Maiestie This your Aquinas well saw when in regard of Indignity he iudged it An hainous wickednesse for any to thinke Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another forme more than when that one and the same Person is imprisoned whether open faced or covered whether in the day or in the night it mattereth not much for still the same person is shut up in Prison Againe if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity why doe your Iesuites in a point of Opinion deny that Christ's Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant because of the Indignity against his Maiestie Come we to the point of Practice Let this be our lesson when there is Reverence in the use of a thing then there may be Irreverence and Indignity in the abuse thereof But your Church hath provided that the Priests be shaven and the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence The first least some part of the Hoast which you beleeve to be the body of Christ should hang on the Priest's Beard the second least any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be split But how much more indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice Wormes and sometimes as your owne stories have related kept close in a Dunghill One word more If these seeme not sufficiently indigne because there is not Laesio corporis Hurt of the Body this being your onely Evasion what will you say of your framing a Christ unto your selves who as he is in this Sacrament Is you say without power of motion of sense and of understanding Why my Masters can there be Lamenesse Blindnesse Deafenesse and Impotencie it selfe without Hurt of the same partie so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill THE GENERALL CHALLENGE THese above specified Sixe Contradictions so plainly and plentifully proved by such forceable Arguments as the light of Divine Scripture hath authorized the profession of Primitive Fathers testified Confessions of Romish Doctors acknowledged and the Principles of your owne Romish learning in most points confirmed your Abrenunciation of your so many Grosse Errours may be as necessary as your persisting therein will be damnable Before we can end we are to consult with the Fathers of the Councell of Nice especially seeing that aswell Romanists as Protestants will be knowne to appeale to that Councell CHAP. X. Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice obiected for proofe of a Corporall Prescnce of Christ in the Eucharist SECT I. THis as it is delivered by your Cardinall taken out as he saith of the Vatican Library standeth thus Let us not here in this divine Table be in humblenesse intent unto the Bread and Cup which is set before us but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God set upon that Table The Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the World offered unbloodily of the Priest And we receiving truly his Body and Blood let us thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection For this Cause doe we receive not much but little that wee may understand this is not to satisfie but to sanctifie So the Canon The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides SECT II. SCarce is there any one Romish Author handling this Controversie who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice for the countenancing of your Romish Masse Contrarily Protestants as they are set downe by our Zanchy and your Bellarmine in great numbers among whom are Luther and Calvin with ioynt consent approve of this Canon one of them Bucer by name subscribing unto it with his owne hand in these words So I thinke in the Lord and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall Seat of God So they The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines The state of the Difference concerning this Canon SECT III. THis as is propounded by your Cardinall standeth thus All saith he by the Lambe understand Christ as he is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar Next But the Protestants thinke saith he that the Councell admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith as sitting at the right hand of God But we all say saith he that the Councell would have us to attend unto the holy Table meaning the Altar below yet so that we see in it not so much the outward Symbols and Signes as that which lyeth hid under them viz. The Body and Blood of Christ So hee The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder that is betweene Heaven above and Earth below Let us set forward in our progresse but with easie and even paces to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes and rottennesse of your Obiections That the Nicene Councell is marvellously preiudiciall to your Romish Defence proved by five Observations Three here SECT IV. FIve points are chiefly observable in this Canon First is the nomination of Bread Secondly the mention of two Tables Thirdly the admonition to lift up our minds Fourthly the expression of the Reason thereof Fiftly the Confirmation of the same Reason First That which the Councell would that men be not too intent unto they call Bread after Consecration for the Errour which they would have avoyded was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament according to your Cardinals Glosse and then was it after Consecration because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated which you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing or else the Errour must have beene as indeed it was too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread which must needs be so because it was consecrated and notwithstanding it being so consecrated in the Canon it is called Bread which your Fathers of the Councell of Trent would not have endured especially seeing that we find that your Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words This is my Body by you called the words of Consecration Besides they so call them Bread
and Wine as they name them Symbols and Signes which properly they could not be untill after Consecration Secondly the Canon expresly noteth and distinguisheth two Tables in respect of place the one as Here being as much as to say This Table and the other opposed hereunto is instiled That Table And of this Table Here the Councell forbiddeth Christians to looke Too attentively to the thing set before us But contrarily concerning That other Table they command men to Lift up their minds aloft And not thus onely but they also distinguish them in respect of their different Obiects The Obiect of the First Table Here they name Bread and the Cup the obiects of sense And the other obiect opposed to this is that on the other Table expressed to be the Lambe of God the obiect of our mindes Thirdly the Admonition or Caution which the Councell giveth concerning the Bread is not to be too intent to it but touching the Lambe of Christ they command us to lift up our mindes aloft for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie not to be used we thinke for an inward looking into the sublimity of the mystery of the matter before us as your Cardinall fancieth but for looking vp aloft unto the Lambe of God in Heaven according to the Catholike fence of those words SVRSVM CORDA The next two proofes out of the same Canon of Nice to manifest our Protestant profession touching the question in hand OVr next two proofes out of the Canon are these First is their Reason of the former Caution the Second the Confirmation of that Reason both are expresly set downe in the Canon it selfe Why then did those holy Fathers admonish us not to be too intent to the Bread and Wine set before us It followeth Because they are not ordained to satisfie our naturall man namely by a full eating and Drinking but for a Sacramentall participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to the sanctifying of our soules whereas your Church doth attribute to that which you eate in this Sacrament a power of sanctifying the Body by it's Bodily touch But much more will the next proofe vndermine your defence To confirme their Reason why the Sacrament was not ordained for the satisfying of the naturall man they adde saying For this cause we receive not much but little which one Clause most evidently proveth it to be spoken of Bread and Wine and not of the Body and Blood of Christ As your generall Romane Catechisme if you have not already learned it will now teach you to beleeve saying that Christ is not great or small in this Sacrament And indeed none ever said of the Eucharist that he eat a little of Christ's Body or a little Christ but yet the Sacrament eaten is sometimes more sometime lesse Nor this onely but the Canon furthermore speaketh of taking a little of that whereof if much were taken saith it it might satiate the naturall man So the Canon But that the outward Sacrament can truly satisfie the naturall man you your selves will testifie in your Booke-Cases and Missals acknowledging men Drunke with the Sacrament even unto vomiting with the one part thereof and also making mention of Men and Mice being fed and nourished with the other So then the naturall man may be satiated with this Sacrament but with what therein The Body and Blood of Christ you abhorre to thinke that with Accidents You may be ashamed to affirme it as from the Iudgement of Antiquity seeing you were never able hitherto iustly to produce one Father for proofe of the Existence of Accidents without their Subiects or of nourishing a substance by meere Accidents Wherefore untill you can prove some one of all these give us leave to beleeve that all were of the mind of that one Father who held it Impossible for an Incorporeall or not-bodily thing to be food to a bodily substance And so much the rather because the Fathers have manifoldly acknowledged in this Sacrament after Consecration the substance of Bread Wherefore the Reasoning of the Councell touching the Eucharist was like as if one should say of Baptisme We take not too much but little lest it might be thought to have beene ordained not for a Sacramentall meanes of sanctifying the Soule but for the clensing of the Flesh None is so stupid as not to understand by Much and Little the substance of water And if you shall need a further Explication of the same sentence of the Fathers of Nice you may fetch it from the Fathers in another Councell held at Toledo in Spaine Anno 693. who shew this Reason why they Take little portions of the Hoast namely say they least otherwise the belly of him that taketh this Sacrament may be stuffed and over-charged and least it may passe into the Draught but that it may be nourishment for the soule Hereby plainly teaching concerning the consecrated matter that were it so much as could burthen the belly it would through the superfluitie thereof goe into the Draught whereas if Lesse it would serve as well or better for a Sacramentall use to the replenishing of our soules in the spiritually receiving of the Body of Christ But you are not so farre bereft of your wits as to imagine that Much which stuffeth and after passeth into the Draught to be Christ's Bodie and you may sweare that the Fathers meant not meere Accidents For mere Accidents have not the property of Substance through the Muchnesse thereof either to satiate the naturall appetite in feeding or to over-charge the Belly by weight in pressing it downe to the Draught Never did any Father father such an Imagination What can be if this be not true reasoning and consequently a full confuration of your Romane Faith Therefore this one Canon of Nice being thus undoubtedly gained concerning the not seeking Christ Here on this Table is sufficient of it selfe to batter downe your Assertion by a five-fold force First by proofe of no Transubstantiation of Bread Secondly no Corporall Presence of Christ's Bodie Thirdly no Corporall Coniunction with the Bodies of the Communicants and consequently Fourthly no proper Sacrifice thereof And lastly no Divine Adoration due unto it Therefore ought you to bid all these your Romish Doctrines and Delusions avant Your Obiections from the former Canon answered SECT V. FIrst you Obiect that The Lambe is said to be placed on the Table mistaking what Table is meant for the Canon specifying two Tables one Here which is of the Eucharist and another That Table namely in Heaven saith that Christ is placed on That Table according to our Faith of his sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven Secondly hee is said say you to be sacrificed by the hands of the Priest which cannot be done as hee is in Heaven The words of the Canon truly resolved doe cashiere this Obiection as thus The Lambe of God set at that Table namely in Heaven is
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.
of the Communicants is with Swallowing it downe SECT I. YOur Generall Tenet is That the Body of Christ is present in the Bodies of the Receivers so long as the formes of Bread and Wine continue Next that It is swallowed downe and transmitted into the stomacke yet further that your Priest in your Romane Masse is enioyned to pray saying O Lord let thy bodie which I have taken and blood which I have drunke cleave unto my Guts or Entrailes And a lesse Missall but yet of equall Authoritie teacheth all you English Priests to pray saying O God who refreshest both our substances with this food grant that the supply and helpe hereof may not be awanting either to our bodies or soules So that finally If through infirmity of the eater it passe from the stomacke downewards it then goeth into the Draught and place of egestion As hath beene evicted from your owne Conclusions That this former Doctrine is fully and filthily Capernaiticall SECT II. IN this Romish Profession every one may see in your Corporall Presence two most vile and ougly Assumptions One is of your Devouring of Christ and feeding bodily of him The other is a possibilitie of sauing your presence passing him downeward into the Draught or Seege that being as ill this peradventure worse than any Capernaiticall infatuation for which cause it was that your Iesuite Maldonate although granting that you doe corporally receive it into your stomackes yet denied for shame that you are Devourers thereof But I beseech you what then meaneth that which your Romish Instructions Decrees and Missals as we have heard doe teach you to doe with the Hoast in case that any either through Infirmitie or by Surfet and Drunkennes shall cast up the same Hoast out of his stomacke We demand may your Communicants be Vomitores to cast it up againe and can you deny but that they must first have beene Voratores to have devoured that which they doe so disgorge Will you beleeve your Iesuite Osorius To Devoure a thing saith he is to swallow it downe without chewing Say now doe not you swallow the Sacrament with chewing it then are you Capernaiticall Tearers of Christ's Body But doe you Swallow it without Chewing then are you Capernaiticall Devourers thereof Say not that because the Bodie of Christ suffereth no hurt therefore hee cannot be said by Corporall swallowing to be Devoured for his Bodie was not corrupted in the grave and yet was it truly buried and his Type thereof even Ionas without maceration was swallowed vp into the belly of the Whale and yet had no hurt Notwithstanding he was first caught and devoured who was after cast up and vomited That the same Romish manner of Receiving it downe into the Belly is proved to be Capernaiticall by the Iudgement of Antiquity SECT III. THeophylact noted the Capernaites opinion to have beene that the Receivers of the Body of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Devourers of flesh whereas the words of Christ saith hee are to be understood spiritually and so will it be known that we Christians what are not Devourers of Christ So hee But that Swallowing properly taken is a Devouring hath beene proved and if Devoured then why not also that which is the Basest of all Basenesse passed downe by â—gestion into the Seege whereof the Ancient Fathers have thus determined Origen that The materiall part of this sanctified meate passeth into the Draught which saith he I speake of the symbolicall Bodie c. Here will be no place for your Cardinal's Crotchets who confessing Origen to have spoken all this of the Eucharist would have vs by Materials to understand Accidents in respect saith hee of sanctification which they had and of Magnitude which belongeth rather to the matter of a thing then to the forme and by Symbolicall Body to conceive that this was meant of the Body of Christ it selfe as it is present in this Sacrament a Signe or Symboll of it selfe as it was on the Crosse So he as if he meant to crosse Origen's intention throughout every part of his Testimony For first That which he called Bread he calleth also meate sanctified Secondly that meate he teaâ—meth materiall Thirdly This materiall he saith passeth into the Draught Lastly concluding his speech concerning the Sacramentall Body and saying Hitherto have I spoken of the symbolicall body immediately he maketh his Transition to speake of the incarnate Body of Christ as it is the True soules meate But first meerly Accidents were never called by the Ancient Fathers Meates Secondly never Materials Thirdly never Magnitude in it selfe without a Subiect was iudged otherwise then Immateriall Fourthly never any Immateriall thing to have Gravitie or weight in pressing the guts to make an egestion into the Draught If every one of these be not yet all as a foure-fold cord may be of force to draw any Conscionable man to grant that Origen was of our Protestants faith And that which is more than all hee in his Transition expresly sheweth his faith concerning Christ's Body as Spirituall Bread by discerning it from the Sacramentall which he named a Symbolicall Body as one Body distinctly differing from the other As for your Cardinals pageant of Christ's Body in this Sacrament as being a Signe and Symbol of it selfe as it was on the Crosse it hath once already and will the second time come into play where you will take small pleasure in this figment Againe concerning the Body of Christ it selfe Cyrill Christianly denyeth it to goe either into the Belly or into the Draught and Chrysostome as iudging the very thought thereof Execrable denyeth it with an Absit Finally Ambrose is so farre from the proper swallowing of Christ in this Sacrament that distinguishing between Corporall Bread and the Body of Christ which he calleth super substantiall Bread and Bread of everlasting life for the establishing of man's soule hee denyeth flatly that this is that Bread which goeth into the Body If any mouse which your say may run away with the hoast be wholly fed thereon for a monthes space the Egestion of that Creature will be as absoute a Demonstration as the world can have that the matter fed upon after Consecration is Bread And why may you not aswell grant a power of Egestion as confesse which you doe in that Creature a digestion thereof Two false Interpretations fell upon the Catholike Profession concerning the Doctrine of the Eucharist in the dayes of Saint Augustine both which that holy Father did utterly explode The first was by the Manichees who teaching that Christ was Hanged on every tree and tied unto all meates which they eate would needs have their Religion to be somewhat agreeable to the Catholike Profession An Imputation which Saint Augustine did abhorre namely that it should be thought that there was the same reason of the opinion of Mysticall bread among the Orthodoxe which the
Traâ—sient and Passable but permanent and durable which hee proveth both from their expresse words and also by the ground of their Speech which is the Doctrine of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10. For we being many are one Bread in as much as we are partakers of one bread which are spoken of a permanent Vnion of Christians as they are members of Christ As for the second note of Vnion professed by holy Fathers we have already learned from this their generall Doctrine that the Godly onely are truly Partakers of the flesh of Christ And that our Vnion with Christ by virtue of this Sacrament is proper to the Godly and Faithfull is now further confirmed by the Testimonies obiected Some expressing the Vnion to be such whereby Christ abideth in us and we in him as you have heard and some that whosoever hath it hath spirituall life by it whereas They who eate the Bread of iniquity doe not eate the flesh of Iesus nor drinke his Blood saith Hierome whereas your Popish Vnion is common to both For indeed what is it for Christ his Body to be receiued of the wicked but as it were to have him buried in a grave againe And to feed the ungodly with such precious food is like as if a man should put meate into the mouth of a dead Carkasse The former Assertion being so generally the Doctrine of primitive Fathers it is in it selfe a full and absolute Confutation of the Romish Defence throughout the whole Controversie touching the Corporall Vnion with the Body of Christ as properly so taken Have not then your Disputers in urging the iudgement of holy Fathers spun a faire thred trow yee whereby they have thus evidently strangled their whole Cause A Determination of this point in question I. That the former obiected Sentences of Fathers concerning Corporall Vnion are Sacramentally and Spiritually to be understood as proper to the Godly and Faithfull Receiver SECT V. HOwsoever the sound of their words have seemed unto some of you to teach a proper Corporall Vnion with the Bodies of the Communicants yet the Reasons wherewith the said Sentences are invested doe plainly declare they meant thereby a Spirituall Vnion onely first and principally because they ground their sayings upon that of Saint Iohn He that eateth my flesh abideth in me and hath life and I will raise him up at the last day He dwelleth in me and I in him which many of your owne Doctours have expounded to be taken spiritually as doth also your Bishop Iansenius out of Augustine Secondly because they make the Vnion perpetuall to the Receiver Thirdly because they hold this Vnion proper to the spirituall Communicant excluding the prophane from any reall participation of Christs flesh Fourthly because they taught the same Vnion whereof they speake to be made without this Sacrament even by Baptisme and that Really as your Iesuite Tolet hath said Fiftly because they have compared this Vnion to the continued-Vnion betweene Man and Wife Good and solid Reasons we thinke to perswade any reasonable man that they meant no proper Corporall Vnion Whereby peradventure your Iesuite Tolet was induced to grant that Hilarie and Cyril by the Corporall Vnion of Christ's Bodie with ours meant the Vnion by Faith and Charitie As also whereas Damascene saith That by this Communion wee are made ioynt-bodies with Christ And lastly Cyril of Ierusalem calleth the Communicants by reason of their participation of the Bodie and Blood of Christ Christophers that is being interpreted Carriers of Christ and that hereby we are made partakers of that divine nature a Sentence much urged by your Disputers notwithstanding your Suarez seeth nothing in it but a Spirituall Vâ—ion by Grace and Affection Which two Testimonies we may adde to the former Fathers for proofe that onely the Godly have Vnion with Christ II. That the obiected Ancient Fathers without Contradiction to themselves have both affirmed and denied a Corporall and perpetuall Vnion of Christ's Bodie with the Bodies of the Communicants SECT VI. THree acceptions there may be of the word Corporall Vnion the first Literall and proper which this whole Booke proveth out of the Fathers to be Capernaiticall by Corporall Touching Corporall Tearing with Teeth Corporall Swallowing and Devouring and Corporall mixture with our flesh a sence seeming pernicious to Origen and to Augustine odious and flagitious as hath beene proved The second is a Corporall Coniunction Sacramentall that as they called Bread broken the Bodie of Christ by reason of the Sacramentall Analogie with his Bodie Crucified as hath beene plentifully demonstrated so have they called the Sacrament all Vnion with our Bodies the Corporall Vnion of his Body with ours namely that as the Bread is eaten swallowed disgested by vs and incorporated into our Bodies to the preservation of this life so by the virtue of Christ's humanity dying and rising againe for us our Bodies shall be restored to life in that day In which respect Bread the Sacrament of Christ's Body being so changed into the Substance of our flesh is in us a perpetuall pledge of our Resurrection to glory The last is a Spirituall Vnion that as the Body of Christ is immediately foode of the Soule onely so is the Vnion thereof immediately wrought in the Soule and because in Christian Philosophy the Body followeth the Condition of the Soule according to the tenour of Iudgement used in the last day when as the vngodly Soule shall take unto it selfe it 's owne sinfull Body and carrie it into Hell and the regenerate Soule shall returne to it 's owne Bodie and being united thereunto be ioyntly raised to immortalitie and blisse and all this by our Spirituall and Sacramentall for they are not divided in the Godly Communicating of the Bodie and Blood of Christ This ought not to seeme unto you any novell Doctrine having heard it professed by your Iesuite in your publique Schooles saying The glory of the Bodie depends on the glorie of the soule and the Happinesse of the soule depends on Grace therein neither doth this Sacrament saith he any otherwise conferre immortalitie to the Bodie than by nourishing and preserving grace in the soule So hee In which respect wee concurre with the iudgement of ancient Fathers who call this Sacrament the Symbol and Token of the Resurrection the Medicine of Immortality by which our verie bodies have hope of Immortality So they Yea and which is a further Evidence as your obiected Optatus called the Eucharist The pledge of Salvation and hope of the Resurrection so doth Basil speake of Baptisme tearming it our Strength unto Resurrection being a Sacrament both of his death and Resurrection and the Earnest thereof Nor can wee desire a more pregnant confutation of your Corporall Presence than that the Eucharist is called of the Fathers a Pledge as you have obiected To this purpose wee are to consult with Primasius hee telleth vs that Christ
Kings 18. 23. where Elias speaking of the Priests of Baal and telling them that he meant to have a Sacrifice said Doe or Make. So he together with some other Iesuites But vainely ridiculously and injuriously I. Vainely because the word Doe in those Scriptures did not simply in it selfe import a Sacrifice but only consequently to wit by reason of the matter subject then spoken of which was a matter of Sacrifice and are so explaned by just circumstances as may appeare in the places objected Levit. 15. where was speech of a Turtle-dove appointed for a Sacrifice And so likewise in 1. Kings 18. 23. was there mention of a Bullocke to be ordained for a Sacrifice Whosoever having spoken of his Riding shall command one servant saying Make ready and after being an hungrie and having spoken of meat shall command another saying likewise Make ready None can bee so simple as to confound the different sences of the same word Make but knoweth right well that the Significations are to bee distinguished by the different subjects of Speech the first relating to his horse and the other to his meat and the like wherein the different Circumstances doe diversifie the sence of the same word II. Ridiculously For if the Hebrew and Greeke Editions which signifie Doe this doe necessarily argue a sacrificing act or Sacrifice then shall you be compelled to admit of strange and od kindes of Sacrifices one in Gedeon his destroying of the Altar of Baal another in Moses his Putting off of his shooes A third in Christs washing of his Disciples feet A fourth to goe no further in the Mans Loosing of his Colt In all which Instances there are the same originall words now objected by interpretation Doe or Make. III. Injuriously First to the Text of Christ wherein the word is not indefinite Doe but determinate Doe this Next Injurious to your owne many Authors for the words Doe this by the confessions of your owne Iesuites and others have reference to all the former Acts of Christ his Celebration then specified as namely Blessing Breaking Eating c. Yea and if your Cardinalls Answer were held so Certaine among your selves then would not your Iesuite Maldonate have so farre slighted it as to say I will not contend that in this place the word Doe signifieth the same with Doe sacrifice Next Injurious to antiquitie which as is confessed called Doing Masse the Celebration of the Sacrament Besides Injurious to your owne Masse in the Canon inserted by Alexander Pope and Martyr of the Primitive age in these words Doe this as often that is Blesse it Breake it Distribute it c. A plaine and direct Interpretation of the words Doe this Lastly Injurious to S. Paul who in his Comment upon the words of Christ his Institution doth put the matter out of question 1. Cor. 11. where after the words Doe this as often as you doe it in remembrance of mee vers 25. immediately expounding what was meant by Doing expresseth the Acts of Doing thus As often as you shall eat this Bread and drinke this Cup c. Which his Command of Doing by Eating and Drinking was spoken generally to all the faithfull in Corinth that you may not imagine it was wholly restrained to the sacrificing Priests Other Romish Doctors also if they had beene so sure of the force of the word FACITE as your Cardinall seemeth to be then surely would they not have sought to prove it from Virgils Calfe where it is said Cùm faciam Vitulâ and were therefore noted by Calvin and Chemnitius of bold Ignorance But these two Protestants for so saying have beene since branded by your Cardinall with a marke of Imposture as if they had falsly taxed your Romish Authors of such fondnesse But now what shall wee say to such a Gnostick who as though he had knowen what all the Doctors in the Church of Rome had then written and â—ented durst thus engage his word for everie one It may bee hee presumed that none of them could bee so absurd But your Iansenius will quit the report of Calvine and Chemnitius from the suspicion of Falshood who witnesseth concerning some Romish Authors of his time saâ—ing There are some who endeavour to prove the word Facere to be put for Sacrificare by that saying of Virgil Cùm faciam vitula So he And why might not they have beene as absurd as some others that came after yea by your leave Iesuites themselves of your Bellarmines owne Societie who in like manner have consulted with the Poet Virgil about his Calfe but as wisely according to our Proverb as Walton's Calfe which went c. For the matter subject of the Poets Sacrifice is there expressed to have beene Vitula a Calfe You have failed in your first Objection That a Proper Sacrifice cannot be collected out of any of these words of Christs Institution Is GIVEN Is BROKEN Is SHED SECT II. THe Text is Luc. 22. 20. Which Is broken Is given Is shed in the Present Tense and This Is the Cup of the new Testament in my Bloud wherein according to the Greeke there is a varying of the Case whereupon your Disputers as if they had cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are commonly more Instant in this Objection than in any other some of them spending eight full leaves in pressing this Text by two Arguments one in respect of the Case and another in regard of the Time Of the Grammar point concerning the Case This is the new Testament in my Bloud Now what of this It is not said saith your Cardinall This is the Blood shed for you but This is the Cup shed for you Therefore is hereby meant The Bloud which was in the Chalice because wine could not be said to bee shed for us for remission of sinnes But how gather you this Because in the Greeke saith M. Breerly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 varieth the Case from the word Sanguine and the Genus from the word Testamentum and agreeth evidently with Calix which drive Beza unto a strange Answer saying that this is a Soloe cophanes or Incongruitie of speech So he which Objection he learned peradventure of the Rhemists who are vehement in pressing the same their Conclusion is This proveth the Sacrifice of Christ's Blood in the Chalice In which one Collection they labour upon many ignorances 1. As if a Soloe cophanes were a prophanation of Scripture by Incongruitie of speech which as one Protestant hath proved is used as an Elegancie of speech by the two Princes of Orators Demosthenes for the Greeke and Tully for the Latine and by the two Parents of Poets among the Greekes Homer and by Virgil among the Latines 2. As though these our Adversaries were fit men to upbraid Beza with one Soloecophanes which is but a Seeming Incongruitie like a Seeming Limping who themselves confesse Ingeniously that in their Vulgar Latine Translation which is decreed by the
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
the good of the soule of Paul according to the Priest's immediate Intention Here although some of you stand for the justice of the Priest's Obligation yet some others Resolution is that the Priest's intention albeit unjust must stand for good We have done CHALLENGE WHereas it is now evident that your Romish Masse serveth so well for your no small gaine by appropriating of a Priestly portion to be dispensed for some one or other soule for money as it were the Cookes fee and that but onely for the paines of a Spirituall Intention yea though it be to the Injury of the Purchaser It can be no marvell that we heare so often and as loud shouts for your magnifying of the Romane Masse as ever Demetrius and his fellow Crafts-mates made for Diana the Goddesse of the Ephesians It remaineth that we deliver unto you a Synopsis of the Abominations of your Romish Sacrifice which we have reserved to be discovered in the eighth Booke We hasten to the last Examination which is of Protestants CHAP. XII That the Protestants in their Celebration offer to God a Spirituall Sacrifice which is Propitiatory by way of Complacency SECT I. CAll but to minde our former Distinction of a double kinde of Propitiousnesse one of Complacency and Acceptation and the other of Merit and Equivalency and joyne hereunto your owne definition of Propitiousnesse by way of gracious acceptance when you confesse that Every religious Act whereby man in devotion adhereth intirely unto God in acknowledgement of his Soveraignty mercy and bounty is propitious unto God Now then Protestants celebrating the Eucharist with Faith in the Sonne of God and offering up to God the Commemoration of his death and man's Redemption thereby a worke farre exceeding in worth the Creation if it so were of a thousand Thousand worlds and thereby powring out their whole spirit of Thankfulnesse unto God in which respect this Sacrament hath obtained a more singular name than any other to be called Eucharistia that is A Giving of Thankes and that most worthily for as much as the end and efficacy of Christ's Passion is no lesse than our Redemption from the eternall paines of hell and purchase of our everlasting salvation All these I say and other Duties of holy devotion being performed not according to Mans Invention as yours but to that direct and expresse Prescript and ordinance of Christ himselfe Doe this It is not possible but that their whole complementall Act of Celebration must needs be through Gods favour propitious and well-pleasing in his sight Take unto you our last Proposition concerning the second kinde of Propitiousnesse That the Protestants may more truly be said to offer to God a meritoriously Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of Sinne than the Romish doe SECT II. BEfore we resolve any thing we are willing to heare your Cardinals Determination The Death of Christ saith he is a proper and most perfect Sacrifice So he most Christianly But after noting the Profession of Protestants to hold that the same Most perfect Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is the only proper Sacrifice of Christian Religion he denieth this because saith he This is common to all true Religions and being but once done ceaseth to be any more but onely in the virtue and efficacy thereof And all this he doth for establishing of another properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Romish Masse by the hands of the Priest But we beleeving that That Sacrifice of Christ's death was but once offered as according to our other distinction the only subjective meritorious and properly Propitiatory Sacrifice therefore it ceaseth to be so any more but yet is still objectively perpetuall in the Church of God as the object of our Remembrance of his Death Representatively and Commemoratively both in our Acts of Celebration and in our Prayers and Praises offered up to God in the true apprehension of the Efficacy and Virtue thereof In which respect as Christian Beleefe professeth Christ is called The Lambe sâ—aine from the beginning of the world so is he the same still and ever will be untill the end thereof for which Cause our Celebration is called of the Apostle A shewing of the Lord's Death till he come So that as by the Bodily Eye beholding the Serpent on a pole in the Wildernesse they that were stung with the deadly poison of fiery Serpents were healed even so All who by Faith the Eye of the soule behold the Sonne of God lift upon the Crosse shall not perish but have everlasting life But what is that Propitiousnesse of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body will you say which you Protestants will be said to offer more truly to God than that we Romanists doe and wherein doth the difference consist Be you as willing to heare as to aske and then know that first although the whole Act of our Celebration in Commemoration of Christ's Death as proceeding from us be a Sacrifice propitious as other holy Acts of Devotion only by God's Complacency and Acceptance Yet the object of our Commemoration being the Death and Passion of Christ in his Body and Blood is to us by the efficacy thereof a truly and properly propiatory Sacrifice and Satisfaction for a perfect remission of all sinnes Thus concerning Protestants As for you if we consider your owne outward Acts of Celebration where in Ten Circumstances we finde Ten Transgressions of the Institution of Christ and therefore provocatory to stir up Gods displeasure we thinke not that it can be Propitiatory so much as by way of God's Acceptance Next when we dive into the mystery of your Masse to seeke out the subject matter of your Sacrifice in the hands of your Priest which according to the faith of your Church is called a Proper propitiatory Sacrifice in it selfe it hath beene found besides our proofes from Scriptures and your owne Principles by Ten Demonstrations out of Ancient Fathers to be Sacramentall Bread and Wine and not the Body and Blood of Christ Wherefore the Subject of your Sacrifice can be no more properly that is Satisfactorily in it selfe Propitiatory than naturall Bread can be Christ Lastly in examining the End of the Propitiation by the Masse We perceive your Doctors in suspense among themselves whether you be capable of Propitiation for Remission of sinnes or else of Temporall Punishments due to such Sinners or if of Sinnes whether of mortall sinnes or else of venall sinnes onely to wit such as you thinke may be washed away by your owne Holy-water sprinckle Marke now we pray you these three First what you offer namely not to Christ but his Sacrament Secondly by what Acts of Celebration to wit most whereof are not Acts of Obedience but of Transgression Thirdly to what End viz. not for a Faithfull but for a doubtfull not for an absolute but for a partiall Remission and that also you know not whether of sinnes or of punishments and then must you necessarily acknowledge the
and Custome of the Church Catholique and that without respect had to the due Honour of God in his worship or Comfort and Edification of his People And then is Superstition most bewitching when it is disguised under the feigned vizard of false Pretences which have beene many devised by the new Church of Rome in an opinion of her owne wisdome to the befooling and vilifying of the Antient Cathólique Church of Christ which never esteemed the same Reasons reasonable enough for making any Alteration but notwithstanding such imaginations precisely observed the Precept and Ordinance of Christ But that which exceedeth all height of Superstition is when upon the will-worship of man are stamped counterfeit Seales of forged Miracles as if they had beene authorized by the immediate hand of God whereof your Legendaries have obtruded upon their Readers Thirteene Examples to wit of Fictitious Apparitions of visible Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist which maketh your Superstition Blasphemous as if God should be brought in for the justifying of Falshood a Sinne abhorred by holy Iob saying to his Adversaries You are Forgers of Lies will you speake deceitfully for God And furthermore how Sacrilegious and Idolatrous your Romish Superstition is you may behold in the Sections following Of the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof in the point of Sacrifice comprized in this Synopsis SECT II. SAcrilege is whatsoever Violation of any sacred Person Place or Thing Now omitting to speake of your Dismembring the Eucharist by administring it but in One kinde which your Pope Gelasius condemned for Grand Sacrilege or of the like points formerly discovered we shall insist only in your Churches Doctrine of Sacrifice wherein your Sacrifice is found to be grossely Sacrilegious in the Tractate of the Sixth Booke I. By Creating a new Sacrifice as Proper and thereby assuming to her selfe that Excellencie of Prerogative which is proper to Christ alone the high Priest and Bishop of our Soules namely the power of ordaining Sacraments or if need were Sacrifices in his Church Which Guiltinesse we may call a Counterfeiting of the Seale of Christ II. By making this Sacrifice in her pretence Christian but but indeed Earthly and Iewish III. By dignifying it with a Divine property of Meritorious and Satisfactorie Propitiation IV. By professing another properly Satisfactorie and Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of sinnes besides that which Christ offered upon the Crosse As if after one hath paid the Debts of many at once upon condition that such of those Debters should be discharged whosever submissively acknowledging those Debts to be due should also professe the favour of their Redeemer It cannot but be extreme folly for any to thinke that the money once paid should be tendred and offered againe as often as One or Other of the Debters should make such an acknowledgement the Surety having once sufficiently satisfied for all So Christ having once for all satisfied the justice of God by the price of his blood in the behalfe of all penitent Sinners who in Contrition of heart and a living Faith apprehend the Truth of that his Redemption it cannot but be both injurious to the justice of God and to the merit of Christ that the same satisfactory Sacrifice as it were a new payment ought againe by way of Satisfaction be personally performed and tendred unto God V. By detracting from the absolute Function of Christ his Priesthood now eminent and permanent before God in Heaven and thereupon stupifying the mindes of Communicants and as it were pinioning their thoughts by teaching them so to gaze and meditate on the matter in the hands of the Priest that they cannot as becommeth Spirituall Eagles soare alost and contemplate upon the Body of Christ where it 's infallible Residence is in that his heavenly Kingdome VI. By transforming as much as they can the Sacrament ordained for Christians to eat with their owne mouthes into a Theatricall Sacrifice wherein to be fed with the mouth of the Priest VII By abasing the true value of Christ his Blood infinitely exceeding all valuation in making it but finite whereas Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man in one person every propitiatory worke of his must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore of an infinite price and power VIII By denying the Effect of his Propiâ—iation for Sinne to be plenary in the Application thereof IX There hath beene noted by the way the Portion appropriated to the Priest out of your Sacrifice and to be applyed to some particular Soule for money being an Invention as hath beene confessed voyd of all Warrant either by Scripture or by Antient Tradition To say nothing of your fine Art of cheating mens Soules by Priestly Fraud whereof as also of the Rest wee have discoursed at large A New Instance for proofe of Romish Sacrilegiousnesse in the Prayer set downe in the Liturgie of their Masse SECT III. IN your Missall after Consecration it is prayed thus Wee offer unto thy Majesty O Lord this immaculate Host this holy Bread of eternall life this Cup of everlasting salvation upon which vouchsafe to looke with a propitious and favourable Countenance as thou didst accept the gifts of thy holy servant Abel and command these to be caried up into thy celestiall Altar c. So the Canon of your Masse Some Protestants in their zeale to the glory of Christ impute unto you hereupon a Sacrilegious Profanenesse whilest you beleeving That Host and That Cup to be the very Body and Blood of Christ and a Propitiatory Sacrifice in it selfe yet doe so pray God to be propitious unto it and to accept it as hee did the Sacrifice of Abel yeelding thereby no more estimation to Christ than to a vile sheepe which was offered by Abel At the hearing of this your Cardinall See the Margent 1. Prefaceth 2. Answereth 3. Illustrateth 4. Reasoneth First of his Preface The Answer saith he is easie As if that Objection which seemeth to us a huge logg in your way were so little an obstacle that any might skip over it But have you never seene men in trusting too much to their nimblenesse to over-reach themselves in their leape stumble fall and breake their limbes Sembably he in his Answer which is the second point The meaning of our Church saith he is not to pray for Christs reconciliátion who was alwayes well pleasing to God but in respect of the infirmity of the Priest and people that the offering may be accepted from them So he But whatsoever the meaning of the Priest in his praying is sure we are this cannot be the meaning of the Prayer for the matter prayed for is set downe to be Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation which you interpret to be substantially the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament and the tenour of prayer expressely is Vpon which Lord looke propitiously wee say
upon which not upon whom which point is confirmed in that which followeth Thirdly therefore he illustrateth The Comparison saith he is not absolutely betweene the Sacrifice of Abel and of Christ but in respect of the faith and devotion of the Priest and people that they with like faith may offer as Abel did But this piece of Answer is that which is called in Musicke Discantus contra punctum for the prayer is directly Looke downe propitiously upon these as thou didst upon the gifts of Abel The Comparison then is distinctly betweene the Gifts and not betweene the Givers Yea but not absolutely so meant saith he be it so yet if it be so meant but in part that Christ who is Propitiation it selfe shall be prayed for to be propitiously and favourably looked upon by God the prayer is Sacrilegious in an high degree Fourthly his Reason It is knowen saith he that the Sacrifices of sheepe and Oxen had nothing in themselves whereby to pacifie or please God the Scripture saying that Abel offered a better Sacrifice than Cain And againe God had respect to Abel and to his Gifts So he Which is the very Reason that perswadeth Protestants to call that your Prayer most Sacrilegious because whereas the Gifts of Abel were but Sheepe c. you notwithstanding compare them with the offering up of Christ saying As thou didst the Gifts of Abel For although it be true that the Gift of Abel was accepted for the faith of the Giver and not the Giver for his Gift yet if you shall apply this to the point in Question then your Gift in your Opinion being Christ and your Givers but simply men whom you have called Priest People it must follow that Christ is accepted for the faith of the Priest and People and not the Priest and People for Christ which maketh your Prayer far more abominably Sacrilegious And not much lesse is that which followeth praying God to command his Angell to cary if the Gift be He Christ into heaven contrary to the Article of our Catholique Faith which teacheth us to beleeve his perpetuall Residence in heaven at the right hand of the Father Hee answereth It is not meant that God would command his Angell to cary Christs Body but our prayers and desires by their intercession unto God for us So he Which is as truly a false Glosse as the former for in the Tenour of your Masse the Subject of your prayer is Holy Bread of life and Cup of salvation The prayer is plainly thus Vpon which O Lord looke propitiously and immediately after Command These to be caried by thy Angell Marke These viz. That Bread of life and Cup of salvation even that which you call The Body and Blood of Christ as corporally Present which maketh your prayer to be Sacrilegious still and your Expositors that we may so say miserably Ridiculous That the former Romish Prayer as it was Antient doth in the then true meaning thereof condemne the now Romish Church of the former Sacrilegious Innovation SECT IV. FOR to thinke that it should be prayed that God would be propitious to Christ were an Execrable opinion even in the Iudgement of our Adversaries themselves who for avoidance thereof have obtruded an Exposition as farre differing from the Text as doth This from That or Christ from the Priest as you have heard But whither will hee now Your Cardinall telleth you that the words of your Romish Canon are antient such as are found in the Missalls of S. Iames of Clement Pope of Rome of Basil of Chrysostome and of Ambrose You will hold it requisite that wee consult with these Liturgies set out by your selves for the better understanding of the Tenour of your Romish Masse The Principall Quaere will be whether Antiquity in her Liturgies by praying to God for a propitious Acceptation and admittance into his celestiall Altar meant as your Cardinall answered Propitiousnesse towards Priest and People in respect of their faith and devotion and not towards the Things offered distinctly in themselves In the pretended Liturgie of S. Iames before Consecration the prayer to God is To accept the Gifts into his celestiall Altar even the Gifts which he called The fruits of the earth And then after for the Parties as well Priest as People To sanctifie their soules In the Liturgie of Basil before Consecration it is prayed to God that the Receiving the Gifts into his celestiall Altar would also concerning the Parties send his Graâ—e and Spirit upon them And no lesse plainly Pope Clemens teaching before Consecration to pray God who received the Gifts of Abel gratiously to behold these Gifts propounded to the honour of his Sonne Christ expressely differenceth this Sacrifice done in honour of Christ from Christ himselfe who is honoured thereby And after Consecration to Beseech God through Christ to accept the Gift offered to him and to take it into his Celestiall Altar where the prayer to God is not to accept of Christ but of the Gift for Christ's sake and to the honour of Christ in whom God is Propitious unto us wee say againe the Gift for Christ and not Christ for the Gift what can be more plaine against all Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament and to receive it into his Celestiall Altar but how by intercession of Angells No but expressely thus By Christ the Mediatour In the Liturgie of Chrysostome before Consecration God is prayed unto and supplicated thus We beseech thee to send thy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts set before us Even as Ambrose explaineth his Supplication after Consecration for God To accept this Oblation namely that which hee called Holy Bread and Cup. If therefore these former Formes may interpret your Romane Liturgie as it was Antient the prayer therein to God desiring him to be Propitious must have relation to the things above specified called Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation as distinguished from Priest and People Wherefore your Romane Missalls being so Antient in this one point in praying God after Consecration to be Propitious to that which is called the Bread of life eternall and Cup of everlasting salvation lest it might carry a Sacrilegious Sence to wit that the Body of Christ is here the proper Subject of the Eucharist and consequently to need a Propitiation to God by virtue of mens prayers thereby greatly derogating from the meritorious Satisfaction of Christ you ought to reduce this your Romane Canon to the Orthodox meaning of Antient Liturgies above mentioned and to understand it Sacramentally only namely our Objective Representation Commemoration and Application thereof by us which is our Act of Celebration To the former vast heape of Sacrilegious Positions and Practices wee may adde your other many vile and impious Indignities offered to the all-glorious Sonne of God in making his sacred Body in your owne opinions obnoxious to the Imprisoning in Boxes Tearing with mens Teeth Devouring
and you shall finde Basil to have spoken of Service before Consecration Chrysost Of Blood 〈◊〉 Wine before Consecration Eusebius in one place is inter preted by your owne Doctor and Translator to have spoken of a Sacrifice void of Blood Nazianzene speaketh of something in the Eucharist differing from Christ to whom you may joyne Athanasius a Clemens Rom. Const lib. 6. cap. 2â— Pro Sacrifieio câ—uento Rationale incruentum ac illud mysticum Sactificium corporis sanguinis Christâ— quod insymbolum morâ—… ejus câ—… lib. â—Const cap. 26. Adhuc agimus Tibi gratias Pater nostâ—r pro pretioso corpore sanâ—… cujâ—… Aâ—…typa celebramus ut mortem ejus denuntiaremus per ipsum enim Tibl gloriâ— Athen. c Cyril Hierosol Myâ—â—ag 5. Postquà m confecâ—mus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aliquantâ— pâ—st Obsecramus Deum pro c. Et Christum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ob. à Salmeâ—onâ— Ies Tom. 9. Tract 30. a Salmeron Tom. 9. Tract 29. pag. 225. Hesychius lib. 2. cap. 8. in Levit. Dicit Christum cum coenaret seipsuâ— occidisse Chrysoâ—t in 1 Cor. hom 24. In Eucharistia Christùm pati occidi Râ—rsâ—â— Tract 31. pag. 238. Alii docent in Eucharistia offerri cruentum Sacrificium Alexander Papa Epist 1. Cypr. lib. 2. Epist 3. Passio Domini est Sacrificium quod offerimus Hieron in Dialog advers Luciâ—er Christum pluâ—ies passum confitemur Paschatius de Corpore Sanguine Domini Sacrificium Crucis interatur b Quis unquà m Catholicus dixit Christum rursùs morâ— Râ—bera Ies Com. in Heb. 10. num 25. c Observandum est Christum â—icet modo impassibili existat in Sacramento tamen dici à Patâ— ibus mortalem imò mortuum passâ—m in Sacramento eatenus quidem quatenus ex modo Consecrationis ipsaque vi significationis Sacramentalis mors passio Domini commemorantur atque repraesentantur Alan Card. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 38. sub finem d Glossâ— de Consecrat Dist 2. Quid sir Hoc est ejus Mors repraesentatur e Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 25. §. Respondeo si c. Si Catholici dicerent in Sacrificio Missae verè Christum mori argumentum Calvini haberet aliquid viriuÌ„ sed cum dicunt omnes eum non mori nisi in Sacramento signo repraesentante mortem ejus quam aliquando obiir tantùm abest ut Missa obliteret Christi mortem ut potiùs efficiat ut nunquam obliteretur * See above chap. 5. Sect. 3. * Booke 2. chap. 2. Sect. 4. * Ioâ— 6. * Ambrose August above Chap. 5. Sect. 5. * Above Chap. 5. Sect. 6. f Chrysâ—â—t in Epist ad Heb. Hom. 16. Baptismus est passio Christi g Ambros de Pâ—â—nitent lib. 2. cap. 1. In Baptismo crucifigimus in nobis filium Dei * Boâ—ke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 7. * See Baren Anno â—02 c. a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 15. Si Patres existimaâ—unt Eucharistiam solùm â—sse Sacramentâ—â— non etiam Sacrificiâ— nulla esset causa cur aliter loquereÌ„tur de Eucharistia quà m de Baptismo Nusquam autem Patres Baptismum vocant Sacrificium nec dicunt Baptizare esse Sacrificare vel immolare Quo modo igitur possible est Patres in modo lâ—quendi nobiscum in sententia cum Adversariis conveniâ—â—e §. Hic igitur Ruâ—sùs Baptismus est Sacramentum Repraesentationis mortis Christi Rom. 6. Et tamen nulli veterum baptismum Sacrificium Deo oblatum unquam appellaverunt non igitur sola repraesentatio causa esse poâ—uit cur actio coenae Sacrificium appellaretur Ibid. §. Tert. bapt b Card. Alan Patres aâ—usos esse nomine Sacrificii quis possit cum Haereticis vel tenuiter suspicari cum hoc solum eo nomine appâ—llent nec alteri ferè Sacramento unquam tribuunt Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14. c Suarez Ies In muâ—tis Conc. vocatur hoc Sacrificium incruentum Solum est observandum propter Haeâ—eticos qui hoc etiam ad metaphoram detorquenr nomen Sacrificium Sanctos Patres nunquam vocâsse Ministerium Baptismi aut alterius Sacramenti nomine Sacrificii cum tamen SacrificiuÌ„ Mâ—taphoricè sumptuÌ„ in eo conveniet Cum ergo Eucharistiam simpliciter absolutissimè Sacrificium vocant signum est â—os propriè de Sacrificio loqui Tom. 3. Disp 74. Sect. 2. p. 952. * M. Fisher â—or one d H. b. 10 26. Voluntariè peccâ—ntibus non relinquitur SacrificiuÌ„ pro peccato Qui diligentiùs pertiactant hunc locum Apostoli intelligunt de Holocausto Dominicae passionis quod eo tempore offert quiâ—que pro peccatis suis quo ejusdem passionis fide baptizatus Vt sit sensus Non relinquitur Sacrificium pro peccaris hoc est non potest denuò baptizando purgari August Tom. 4. Expos ad Rom. Col. 1185 1186 1187. e Melchiâ—r Canus Quaeris quid Causae plerisque Antiquorum fuerit ut Baptismum Hostiam appellaverint ideoque dixerint non superesse Hostiam pro peccato Heb. 10. quia Baptismus repeti non potest Et quia per Baptismum applicatur nobis Hostia crâ—cis Hinc illi Baptisma translatitiè Hostiam nuncuparunt Loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. pag. 424. a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. §. Sed omissa Omne Sacrificium est oblatio sed non omnis oblatio Sacrificium hoc fit cùm râ—s oblata consumitur b Bellarm. Opera virtutum non sunt propriè dicta Sacrificia Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. §. Haec Non quae in sola actione consistant ut Psalmodia genuflexio opus quodlibet ad honorem Dei factum Ib. §. Secundum Non quae in sola oblatione fita ut aurum argentum c. Ibid. §. Secundò Non decimae aut primitiae §. Sed in Nec Patres appellant Sacrificium id quod solum est figura commemoratio Sacrificii §. Tertiò Non pia voluntas quia invisibilis §. Secundò Non Eleemosynae quia non soli Deo oblatae §. Tertiò Nulla reverentia externa ut genuflexiones preces quia actiones transeuntes §. Sexto Passiones Martyrum alia omnia bona opera largo modo non autem propriè in rigore Sacrificia dici possunt Ibid. cap. 3. §. Resp Martyrum c Cassand Liturg. cap. 22. Ordo celebrandi Missam secundùm Romanos celebrante Pontifice extractus ex variis libellis Ibid. cap. 27. Populus dat Elcemosynas suas i. e. panem vinum tà m masculi quà m foeminae Ibid. De veteri ritu oblationis panis vini Iâ—en lib. 4. cap. 32. Primitias creaturarum offerentes Hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola pura offert Fabricatori offerens cum gratiarum actione Ibid. In expositione ordinis Râ—mani exscriptis Greg. Papae Oblationes fidelium fuisse tantùm panem vinum Et Collectae in usum Pauperum veltestitutionem Ecclesiarum opportuno tempore non