Alan witnesseth before the Councell of Laterane which was 1â— 15. yeares after Christ nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine for a Thousand yeares attributing any word equivalent in strict Sense unto the same word Transubstantiation untill the yeare 900 which is beyond the Compasse of due Antiquitie At what time you finde note and urge Theophylact who saith of the Bread that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ. Which Phrase in what Sense hee used it you might best have learned from himselfe who in the very same place saith that Christ in a manner is h Theoph. in Ioh. 6. De Christo per sidem manducato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trans-elementated into the Communicant which how unchristian a Paradox it were being taken in strict and proper Sense we permit to your owne judgements to determine Neither yet may you for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word object 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 judged the Objection of the Noveltie of that word Calumnious for that the use of it had beene Ancient before their times as your Cardinall i Calumniam hanc Patres Antique aptissimè coÌ„tutârunt atque ostenderunt non inventum fuisse hoc nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Concilio Nicaeno sed fuisse antè in usu Patrum at illud jam vocabulum usurpari quo sui Majores usi fuissent Bellarm. quo supra c. 3. Bellarmine himselfe witnesseth You furthermore to prevent our Objection demanding why the Ancient 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 have shaped us this Answer namely that k Ets veteres Ecclasiae Doctores non sint usi voce Tran substantrationis tamen usi sunt vocibus iceÌ„ significantibus ut Conversionis TraÌ„smutationis Transi tionis Transformationis Transelementationis siâ—â—libus 〈◊〉 Fortâ—â—it jâ—d Tract de Euchari §. Nota pro solouone Aâ—gumentorum sol 117. Although they used not the very word Transubstantiation yet have they words of the same signification to wit Conversion Transmutation Transition Transformation Trans-elementation and the like So your Lorichius Reader of Divinitie among you who by his vast and rash boldnesse might as justly have inferred from the like Phrases of the Apostle viz * 2. Cor. 3. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are transformed that every Regenerate Christian is Transubstantiated into Christ or from the word * 2. Cor. 1. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is transfigured say that the Divell is Transubstantiated into an Angel of light or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is changed used by l Quiaquid Spiritus Sanctus tetigerit Sanctificat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Hieros 〈◊〉 5. Cyrill urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctifie is Transubstantiated into another thing or from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz Orat. 40 pag. 943. Edit Paris Nazianzene conclude that Every person Baptized is Transubstantiated into Christ âšœ And one of your owne Doctors examining all the Phrases of the Greeke Fathers and comming to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth properly expresse the sense of the Latine word Transubstantiatio hee confesseth that 2 Quanvis Graeci Petres eo nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non utuntur sunt tamen Authores aborum no 〈◊〉 quibus eam quoac hert possit ap 〈◊〉 exprimunt ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Petrus Aread de concord Orient Occident Eccl. lib. 3 c. 2 Tract de Euch. They used it not And what the Greek Church thinketh thereof at this day you may learne from two Patriarchs of Constantinople the One not admitting the Other rejecting it as will bee showne in the second Chapter Will you have the World imagine that so many so excellent and so Ancient Fathers with all that Divine and Humane Learning wherewith they were so admirably accomplished could not in a Thousand yeares space finde out either the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Latine Transubstantiatio and apply them to this Change if they had once dreamed of this your Article of Faith Will you permit us to learne a point of wisedome from your Cardinall n Periculosa est vocum novarum Libertas in Ecclesia cum paulatim ex vocibus novis novae etiam res oriantor cùm cuique licet in tel us 〈◊〉 nomina singere Bell. lib. de Sacram. in Genere cap 7. §. Ex quibus Liberty of devising new wordes saith he is a thing most dangerous because new words by little and little beget new things So he Therefore may we justly place this your new word among those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Saint * 1. Tim. c. 20. Paul will have Christians by all meanes to avoid else so new and barbarous a Name must needs ingender a novel and brutish opinion such as this Article it selfe will appeare to be As followeth The Noveltie of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined and showne not to have beene before the Councel of Laterane namely not untill 1215. yeares after Christ SECT III. THis Article hath beene decreed as you have * See above Ch. 1. §. 2. heard by your Church as a necessary Doctrine of Faith and therefore presumed to be Ancient CHALLENGE THe first Imposition of this Article as of Faith your Cardinall o Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen Bellarmine noteth to have beene in the dayes of Pope Gregory the Seventh viz. 1073. yeares after Christ But surely at that time this could be but a private opinion of some few for Peter Lombard living 67. yeares after this Pope and esteemed the Master of the Romish Schoole when he had laboured to give Resolution to all doubts especially in this very Question whether the Conversion were substantiall or not confesseth plainely saying p Si quaeratur qualis sit Conversio viz. Pants in Encharistia an formalis an substantialis an alterius generis definite non sufficio Quibusdum videtur esse substantialis dicentibus substantiam converti in substantiam Lombard Sent. lib. 4 Distinct 11 lit a. Definire non sufficio I am not able to Determine So he Anno. 1140. Hitherto therefore this Article was but in Conception onely which caused your learned and Subtile School-man Scotus to descend lower to finde out the Birth thereof q Scotus dicit ante Concilium Lateranense non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem Id ille dixit quia non legerat Conc. Rom. sub Gregorib 7. nec consensum Patrum quem nos produximus Bellarm. lib 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen Affirming that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith
Scriptures According to the sense of the Church of Rome which would thereby be thought to Hold no Sense of Scripture now which shee had not Held in more Ancient Times Wee for Triall hereof shall for this present seeke after no other Instances than such as in this Treatise have beene discussed and for brevity-sake single out of many but onely Three A first is in that Scripture Ioh. 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Son of man you cannot have life The word Except was extended unto Infants in the dayes of Pope Innocent the First continuing as hath beene b Booke 1. Ch. 2. Sect. â—1 confessed six hundred yeares together when the Church of Rome thereupon Held it necessary for Infants to receive the Eucharist Contrarily the now Romane Church Holdeth it Inexpedient to administer the Eucharist unto Infants as you have heard Secondly Luk. 22. Take Eate c. Your Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Nicholas in a Councel at Rome Held that by the word Eate was meant an c Booke 3. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Eating by Tearing the Body of Christ sensually with mens teeth in a Literall sense Which your now Romane Church if wee may believe your Iesuites doth not Hold as hath appeared Thirdly the Tenour of the Institution of Christ concerning the Cup was Held in the dayes of Pope d Booke 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. Gelasius to be peremptory for the administration thereof to prove that the Eucharist ought to be administred in both kindes to all Communicants and judging the dismembring of them a Grand Sacrilege as you have heard whereas now your Romish Church Holdeth it not onely lawfull but also religious to with-hold the Cup from all but onely Consecrating Priests Vpon these omitting other Scriptures which you your selves may observe at your best leasure wee conclude You therefore in taking that Oath swearing to admit all Interpretations of Scripture both which the Church of Rome once Held and now Holdeth the Proverbe must needs be verified upon you viz. You hold a Woolfe by the eare which howsoever you Hold you are sure to be Oath-bit either in Holding TENVIT by TENET or in Holding TENET by TENVIT III. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the pretended Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures HEare your Oath a Bulla ead Nec Scripturam ullam nisi juxtà unanimem Consensum Patrum interpretabor Neither will I ever interpret any Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of Fathers Here the word Fathers cannot betoken Bishops and Fathers assembled in a Councel where the major part of voices conclude the lesse for Councel never writ Commentaries upon Scriptures but from Scriptures collect their Conclusions And although the word Vnanimous doth literally signifie the universall Consent which would inferre an Impossibility because that all Fathers have not expounded any one Scripture and very few All yet that you may know wee presse not too violently upon you wee shall be content to take this word Morally with this Diminution For the most part and hereupon make bold to averre that your Iuror by this Oath is sworne to a flat Falsity because you cannot deny but that the Fathers in their Expositions dissent among themselves insomuch that you your selves are at difference among your selves which part to side with b Valent. Ies Anal. lib. 8. cap. 8. Patet nobis via urgendi unum aut alterum Doctorem authoritate reliquorum With the greater saith Valentia nay but sometime with the c Canus Ioc. Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. num 8. Plurium Sanctorum authoritas reliquis licet paucioribus reclamantibus firma Argumenta sufficere praestare non valet Lesser saith Canus Can you dreame of an Vnanimity in Disparity Sometime there is a Non-Constat what is the Iudgement of the Fathers in some points which you call matter of Faith What then Then saith your d Valent. quo supra Quod si per Sententiam Doctorum aliqua fidei controversia non satis commodè componi posset eo quod de eorum consensu non satis constaret sua tunc constet Authoritas Pontifici ut consultis aliis ad definiendum regulis de quibus est dictum Ecclesiae proponat quid sit sentiendum Iesuite the Authority of the Pope is to take place who being guided by other rules may propound what is the Sense Behold here the very ground of that which wee call Popery which is devising and obtruding upon the Church of Christ new Articles of Faith unknowne for ought you know to Ancient Fathers And is it possible to find an Vnanimity of Consent in an Individuall Vnity or rather a Nullity for what else is an Ignorance what the Sense of the Fathers is whether so or so Next that it may appeare that this Article touching the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers is a meere Ostentation and gullery and no better than that Challenge made by the wise man of Athens of all the Ships that entred into the Road to be his owne as if you should say All the Fathers do patronize your Romish Cause Wee shall give you one or two Examples among your Iesuites as patternes of the Disposition of others in neglecting sleighting and rejecting the more Generall Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures One Instance may be given in your Cardinall who in his Commentaries upon the Psalmes dedicated to the then Pope professeth himselfe to have composed them e Bellar. Epist Dedic Paulo Quinto entè CoÌ„ment in Psal Psalmorum ego tractationeÌ„ magis propriâ meditatione quam mulâ—â librorum lectione composui Rather by his owne meditation than by reading of many Bookes whereas hee that will seeke for Vnanimous Consent of Fathers must have a perusall of them all In the second place hearken unto the Accents of your Iesuite Maldonate in his rejecting the Expositions of the Fathers as for Example f Maldon Ies in Matth. 20. Existimant Patres filios Zebedaei temerè respondisse ego vero credo eos verè esse locutos Item in Mat. 16. 18. Non praevalebunt Quorum verborum sensus non videtur mihi esse queÌ„ omnes praeter Hilarium quos legisse memini Authores putant IteÌ„ in Mat. 11. 11. Variae sunt PatruÌ„ opiniones sed ut liberè fatear in nulla earum aquiesco Item in Matth. 11. 13. Prophetae lex Omnes fere veteres ita exponunt sed non est apta satis interpretatio Item in Mat. 19. 11. Non omnes capiunt i e non omnes capimus Sic omnes fere veteres exponunt quibus equidem non assentior Item in Ioh. 6. 62. Sic quidem expono licet Expositionis hujus Autorem nullum habeo hanc tamen magis probo quaÌ„ illam Augustini caeterorumque alioqui probabilissimam quia hoc cum CALVINISTARUM sensu magis pugnat So indeed said the Fathers but I believe the Contrary Item This
by Prayer pag. 10. He is against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist pag. 46. His calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype noteth a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body pag. 115. His naming the Eucharist Divine Sacrament as hee did Divine Altar Divine Bread Divine Table c. pag. 185. Is against the Comparison of the Inapprehensiblenesse of other things in respect of the nature of God pag. 297. His Testimonie for Veneration at Elevation notably corrupted by Dâ—â—â—ntus pag. 513. His O Divine Sacrament reveale unto us c. properly objected for proofe of Divine Adoration of the Eucharist p. 518. DISPENCE the blasphemous Romish Dispensation against Christs command of Communion in both kinds pag. 87. DISTINCTION of Consecration one of Ordination and another of Benediction pag 14. A Distinction of the Presence of Christs Body as a Sacrifice namely as an Object and not as a Subject of the Celebration pag. 440. DIVINE This word applyed anciently by Dionys the Areop to divine and consecrative things p. 185. pag. 518. DOCTRINALL words may be Figurative pag. 134. DOMINVS VOBISCVM in the Romish Masse condemneth the now Romish Private Masse p. 19. DRAVGHT That which is eaten if it enter into the Mouth it is said to passe into the Draught by the Councell of Nice and Toledo pag. 305. By Origen pag. 287. 340. But the Body of Christ is denied to passe into the Draught by Chrysostome and Cyril of Alex pag. 287. 349. 350. Ambros Not into the Belly Ibid. pag. 350. DRINKE YOV ALL OF THIS not spoken of the Priest onely pag. 54. Drinke in Christs words of Institution to be taken Tropically as meant of his Blood pag. 111. E EATERS onely and not Gazers were Anciently admitted to the Eucharist pag. 46. 47. Eating and Drinking are both required of all Communicants for a Sacramentall Refection Confessed against Communicating in one kind pag. 74. 75. Eate in Christs speech of Institution taken Figuratively pag. 111. Eating Christs flesh onely in Vow and Desire pag. 311. in the judgement of Protestants Ibid. Onely Godly and Faithfull are Partakers of Christs Flesh pag. 311. 312. They of the Old Testament ate Christs Flesh pag. 314. Eating onely is Capernaiticall pag. 328. How the wicked Communicants are Guilty pag. 315. Eating with the Mouth delivered in the Church of Rome in the dayes of Poge Nicholas was professedly Capernaiticall pag. 335. Eating Christs Body properly taken is condemned of ancient Fathers p. 349. Eating it Capernaitically by tearing with teeth was taught as an Article of Faith by Pope Nicholas pag. 335. which is yet defended by some Romanists Ibid. Which is against the Faith taught by Pope Innocent pag. 336. That Pope Nicholas his doctrine is Capernaitically haereticall 337. That the maner of the eating of Christs Body in the Church of Rome is yet as faithlesse amongst themselves p. 336. 337. Romish Objections out of the Fathers most unconscionably urged for proofe of a corporall eating as is proved by the Fathers themselves pag 349. 350. 351. And out of other confessions of the Romish Disputers themselves pag. 352. Against either Presence Touching Tasting Breaking Eating of Christs flesh or sprinkling of his Blood p. 353. Vnion with Christs Body by a bodily commixture is Capernaitically Romish pag. 355. See Vnion See Orall See Capernaits See Swallowing ELEVATION of the Hoast objected for adoration of it p. 513. Confessed not to have bin Instituted by Christ and not to have bin alwayes in use p. 513 Elevation of the Chalice not before the dayes of Tho. Aquinas Ibid. EVPHRAIMIVS proveth first that Bread is called Christs Body figuratively and that the Substance of Bread remaineth p 187. EPIPHANIVS Objected most impertinently for the proper sense of Christs speech Hoc est Corpus p. 120. And againe p. 491. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 163. He standeth for Christs bodily opening the Cell of the Blessed Virgin at his birth 277. EPITHETS of Sacrifice attributed by the Fathers to the Eucharist Objected although ascribed to things that are not properly called Sacrifices p. 448. 449. c. ERROVR Pretense of Not-erring the cause of the Romish Errour in continuing the witholding the Cup from the Laity pag. 78. 79. c. EST in the speech of Christ Hoc est Corpus See Figurative EVCHARIST The Remainders hereof after the Consecration were anciently given to Children p. 48. 49. c. Called anciently the Supper of the Lord. p. 47. Anciently burned p. 48 287. They are Symbols of our Resurrection p. 307. It is food onely for the soule pag. 309. 310. 311. c. EVCHERIVS Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is the Body and Blood of Christ p. 405. EVSEEIVS by calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype yeeldeth to a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body pag. 115. His words Bread is the Body of Christ Objected pag. 201. Hee taught the blessed Virgins opening her Cell and is against Heretikes that denied the truth of his body p. 278. Hee is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malachie 5. and confuteth the Objector p. 432. His saying The same Sacrifice with this correction or rather a Remebrance thereof p. 443. His saying A Sacrifice full of God objected pag. 448. and Vindicated 449 Holy Prayers are Incorporeall Vnderstanding Sacrifices 449. and calling Actions that are Godly a pure Sacrifice and opposeth them to a Bloody Sacrifice p. 453. That wee have Expiation here in the Eucharist by the Blood of Christ as remembred herein p. 478. which is objectively EVSEBIVS EMISSENVS saith that Christs Body is a bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist p. 445. Hee is calumniously objected pag. 449. That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine p. 405. EVTHYMIVS expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 163. EXPOSITIONS of Scripture according to the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers falsely pretended and perjuriously transgressed by Romish Disputers p. 576. 577. c. Exposition of Scripture according to the Tenet of the Church of Rome perjuriously sworne unto Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Iuge Sacrificium not rightly applied to the Romish Masse pag. 418. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 22. 20. The word objected and discussed p. 363. c. F FACVNDVS teacheth a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body as plainely as any Protestant p. 128. FAITH Infallible required in every divine worship p. 535. c. FIGVRATIVE speech of Christ in the word Hoc which without absurditie can neither referre to Christs Body as is confessed p. 93. Nor to any Individuum vagum p. 96. The same Pronoune Hoc as demonstrating Bread cannot possibly be without a Figure Confessed p. 99. That Hoc demonstrateth Bread is proved by the Text and is to be taken Neutrally according to Grammar p. 100. 101. c. Proved to
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 a Vt definitur in Conc. Trid. Sess 13 Can. 4. Ex sola veritate verborum Hoc est Corpus meum vera ac propria Transubstantiatio colligitur Vasquez les Disp 176. c. 6 Verba tà m per se clara cogere possint hominem non proterâ—â— Transubstantitionem admittere Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. §. Secundò Trent that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole true and proper Signification of these words This is my Body So you CHALLENGE WHerein you shew your selves to bee men of great Faith or rather Credulity but of little Conscience teaching that to bee undoubtedly True whereof notwithstanding you your selves render many Causes of Doubting For first you b Scotus quem Cameracensis sequtur Dicunt non extare locuÌ„ in Scripturis tà m expressum ut fine declaratione Ecclesiae evidentes cogat Transubstantiationem admittere Atque hoc non est omninò improbabile quià an ità sit dubitari potest cum homines acutissimi doctissimi qualis inprimis Scotus fuit contrarium sentiant Bellar. quo supra Cajetanus aliqui vetustiores audiendi non sunt qui dicunt panem definere esse non tà m ex Evangelio quà m ex Ecclesiae authoritate constare Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34 pag. 419. grant that besides Cardinall Caejetane 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 faith c See in the former Allegation at b Is not altogether improbable and whereunto your Bishop d Corpus Christi fieri per consecrationem non probatur nudis Evangelij verbis sine pia interpretatione Ecclesiae Roffens Episc con Capt. Bab. cap. 9. pag. 99. 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 e Hoc est pro Transit Bonaventura decet Idem ferè habet Oceam Hol cott insinuat etiam Waldensis Volunt Propositionem illam non esse substantivè sed Transitive interpretandam sc ut sit sensus Hoc est Corpus id est Transit in Corpus Sed hoc corrumpit significationeÌ„ verbi Est quod si permittitur nulla est vis in hujus modi verbis ad probandam realem praesentiam nec substantiam Panis hic non manere Et ità potuit Haereticus exponere Hoc est id est Repraesentat Corpus Suarez Ies Tom. 3. qu 78. Disp 58. Sect. 7. Art 1. pag. 754. 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 Sense 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 bee extracted out of the Text without violence to the words of Christ âšœ The like violence is used by your Iesuit I Iac. Gordon Scotus Ies lib. Controv. 4. cap 3. n. 15. Propositiones practicae proferuntur per verba praesentis temporis non futuri ut certi 〈◊〉 de effectuve borum Haec verba Hoc est corpus meum practica sunt efficiunt quod significant Manduâ—â—â— ex hoc Bibite ex hoc ubique demonstrat corpus Christi futurum vel sanguinem ejus futorum Similis statuitur verbis Consecrationis alioqui ista communio esset merè speculativa non practica Gordon who to make Christs Speech to be Practicall for working a TransubstaÌ„tiation doth inforce the words This is my Body and Eat yee this and Drinke yee this being all spoken in the Present tense to signifie the future Which although it were true all Grammarians know to be the figure Enallage From these Premisses it is most apparent that the Romish Doctors cast themselves necessarily upon the hornes of this DileÌ„ma thus Either have these words of Christ This is my Body a Sense Practicall to signifie that which they worke and then is the Sense Tropicall as you have now heard them against your Romish Literall Sense to betoken an operative power and effect of working Bread into the Body of Christ or else they are not Practicall and then they cannot implie your Transubstantiation at all Wee might in the third place adde hereunto that the true Sense of the words of Christ is Figurative as by Scriptures Fathers and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * See the former Booke throughout proved as an insallible 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 Objection You have told us that * See the former Booke throughout the words of Christ are Operative and worke that which they signifie so that upon the pronunciation of the words This is my Body it must infallibly follow that Bread is changed into Christs Body which wee shall beleeve assoone as you shall bee able to prove that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood Luke 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christs Blood or else into his Blood it selfe The Noveltie 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 f Fateor neque Antiquos Patres usos esse hoc nomine Transubstantiationis Christoph de Capite fontium Archicpis Caesar lib. de reali praesen cap. 5. 9. Artic. 4. 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 g Concilium Lateranense sub Innocentio Tertio coactum ut Haereticis os obthurarer Conversionem hanc novo valdè significance verbo dixit Transubstantiationem Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. pag. 422. As for that objected place out of Cyrill of Alexandria Epist ad Caelosyrium Convertens ea in veritatem Carnis It is answered by Vasquez the Iesuite non habetur illa Epistola inter opera Cyrilli Vasquez in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. num 24.
beene * Vid Protestants Appeale Book 2. ch 2. §. 10. confuted for urging the former Objection notwithstanding concealing the Answer he blusheth not to regest the same albeit as one conscious to himselfe of the futility therof he leaveth it presently falling foule upon Theodoret as though that Father had beene in some distemper when he so writ d In his Liturgâ—â— of the Masse Tract 2. §. 2 subd 3. p. 254. saying first that Theodoret used that his Retortion in his * Not so for he was now not iâ—â—a personall Dispute but deliberately writing against thâ— Heresia of the Eutychiant heate of Dispute Then hee taketh part with the Heretike saying It is not likely that an Heretike should have urged against a Catholike sentence for Transubstantiation as for a point of Faith well knowne if the same Doctrine had beene then either unknowne or else condemned as False So hee who might aswell have reasoned in the behalfe of the Sadduces condemned by Christ saying It is not likely that they would so expressely have denyed that there aâ—e any Spirits in their Dispute against Christ if that Doctrine had beene then either unknowne or condemned as False by the Church of God among the Iewes And yet it is certaine that the Heresie of the Sadduces was judged execrable in that Church Now if the Eutychian Heretike finde such Patronage at the hands of your Priest alas what will become of the Father Theodoret Hearken Theodoret being an Orthodoxe Bishop saith hee could not have propounded the Heretikes Argument as grounded upon the Churches received Doctrine of Transubstantiation had the same beene then unknowne and reputed False So he who if hee had not lost his Logike would certainly have argued contrarily saying Theodoret being an Orthodoxe and Catholike Bishop would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstantiation in the name of a ranke Heretike and after himselfe impugned and confuted the same except he had knowne it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholike Church in his time Wherefore if you be men of Faith and not rather of Faction let the miserable perplexities of your Disputers discovered both here and throughout this whole Treatise move you to renounce them as men of prostituted Consciences and their Cause as forlorne of all Truth For a further Evidence take unto you an Answer of your Iesuite Valentia to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity It is not to be held any marvell saith * Valent. Ies l. 2. de Transub c. 7. Dabimus aliud breve simplex sine ullo incommodo responsum Enimverò antequam quaestio ista de Transubstantiatione palà m in Ecclesia agitaretur minime mirûm est si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui minùs considerarè rectè hac de re senserint scripserint maximè cum non tractarâ—nt ex instituto ipsam quaestionem he why some Ancients have writ and thought lesse considerately and truly before that Transubstantiation was handled publikely in the Church especially they not handling the same Question of purpose So hee and this hee calleth a Briefe and plaine Answer And so it is whereby in granting that Transubstantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church he plainly confuteth your now Romane Church which judgeth it to have beene alwayes an Article of Faith And affirming that the same Fathers Handled not the point of purpose it is as plainly confuted by Theodoret who in this Dispute did not argue against the Heretike 〈◊〉 extemporall speech personally but deliberately and punâ—â—lly by writing and therefore of Purpose The Second Father expresly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration is Pope GELASIVS SECT XIII THis Author have Protestants called Pope Gelasius and urged his Testimony Your Disputers civill First at the name of the Author calling Protestants e Non fuit hic Papa Gelasius ut Adversarij impudentèr jactant sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus Bellar. lib. â— de Euch. c. 27. Impudent for stiling him Pope Gelasus But if hee were not that Pope Gelasiue what Gelasius might hee bee then Gelasius Bishop of Caesâ—rea saith your Cardinall Bellarmine Contrarily your f Baronius himselfe â—â—tendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius Anno 496 num 123. c. yet comming to answer to the Sentence of Gelâ—siuâ— doth expound toe doubtful words there of by the phrases of Pope Gelasius ex Epist ad Pâ—â—enos Dardan Episc num 13. 14. which Epistles he before cited as the true Epistles of Pope Gelasius Anno 493. num 23. and Anno 494. num 2. And after Anno 496. num 17. telleth his Reader saying Vides Lector ex usu verborum Phrasiquè dâ—ceÌ„di Gelasij Papae alia ejus sententia perspicuâ— demonstratum esse c. Et Anâ—o 996 num 13. Gelâ— in Epist ad Picen est Peccato Originall substantiam hominis esse depravatâ—m eum tamen eadem substantia mansit Accidentia ut pote justitia originalis alia dona 〈◊〉 Cardinall Baronius contendeth that hee is a more ancient Gelasius Anno 47. namely Gelasius Cyzicenus yet so as confounding himselfe insomuch that hee is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech as he confesseth of Gelasius â—ope of a Rome But what shall we answer for the Impudent Protestants as yoâ— Cardinall hath called them Surely nothing but wee 〈◊〉 more modesty in him who hath so called them considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides nor meane to follow than these g Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutycheâ—em Genad de scriptoribus Eccles c. 14. Anastas de vita 〈◊〉 Margarinus de la Bigat lib. 5. Biblioth Patrum pag. 467. Masson de Episc Rom. in vita â—elasij Aâ—pâ—onl lib. de naeres Tit. Christus haeres 3. in fine Onuphrius de Creat Pontif. Cardin Gelâ—sius 〈◊〉 scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem Nessorium Fuisse Caesariensem Episcopum non posse jure affirmari videtur And proveth why not Historians viz. Genadius yea your Bibliothe carie Anastasiùs Alphonsus de Castro Onuphrius Massonius Margarinus la Bigne all which have intituled this Gelasius Pope of Rome Howsoever it is confessed on all sides that hee was an Orthodox Father and very Ancient Now then Gelasius sayd that h Gelasius lib. de duab natur cont Eutych Sacramenta certa 〈…〉 corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quodper eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae tamen non definit esse substantia vel natura panis viaâ— certè imago similitudo corporis sanguinis Christin in Actione mysticâ celebratur And againe Permanent in proprietate naturae The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ being Divine things yet cease not to bee the nature and substance of Bread and Wine In Answer whereunto both your foresaid i Bellar. Baton quo supra At dicit Gelasius In Divinaru transcunt Spiritu sancto
107. De recipiente semen ut terra bonâ— Qui verbum recipit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trans elementing in a sort of the word of God into the good Iearer Againe Theophylact is objected as saying x Theophyl in Math. 26. Panis ineffâ—bili modo transformatur Panis quidem apparet sed caro est Objected by Mr. Ererely Laturg Tract 2 §. 2. Sâ—bd As for est caro this Phrase 〈◊〉 beene already answered See above at s The Bread is after an ineffable maner Transformed It is true Hee saith so and so doth Hierome say that y Hier. in Marc. 14. Accepit Iesus Panem bâ—nedixit fregiâ— Transfigurans Corpus suum in Panem quod est Ecclesia praesens quae frangitur in passionibus Christ in breaking Bread did Transfigure or Transforme his Body into his Church broken with afflictions and Pope Leo sticketh not to say that 1 Leo. Non alia igitur participatio Corpous quà m ut mâ—id quâ—d summus transeamus De Passione Serm. 24 Wee Christians in communicating Transimus turne or are Changed into Christ his Body So these ancient Fathers Are you not yet out of breath with objecting Testimonies of Fathers Vnconscionably and imperâ—inently No for Master Brerely for a Close desireth to be heard and to try us with an Objection out of the Greeke Church these latter times as followeth a Mr. Brereley in his Apologie of the first Edition concerning the Faith of the ancient Greeke Church It appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines at Wittenberge Anno Domini 1584. intituled Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensium Hieremiae Patriarchae Constantinop c. that the Greeke Church at this day although divided from the Latine professeth to beleeve Transubstantiation So he of the Patriarch Hieremâ—as which Patriarch if he were alive would very hardly containe himselfe from answering this your Brother with some indignation calling him both rash and precipitant seeing that the same Patriarch expresly said that b Hier. Patriarch Non enim hic nominus tantùm communicatio est sed rei identitas etenim verè Corpus Sanguis Christi mysteria sunt non quòd haec in corpus humanum transmutentur sed nos in illa melioribus praevalentibus Which is his Answer in this Poynt to the Doctors of Witâ—enbèrge The Body and Blood of Christ are indeed Mysteries which are not changed into humane flesh but wee into them So that Patriarch âšœ Neverthelesse another bold Romish 17 Franciscus de Sancta Clara. Exposit Artic. Confess Angi in Art 28 Orientalis Ocâ—identalis Ecclesia in hoc Articulo Transubstantiationis conveniunt Hieremus Patriarcha in sua Censura contra Lutherum idem fatetur Priest durst boast of your alliance in this doctrine of Transubstantiation not only with this forenamed Patriarch of Constantinople but also with the whole Easterne and Greeke Church But behold Cyril now Patriarch of Constantinople ready at hand to strangle this false bragge saying as he himselfe speaketh 18 Confâ—ssio fidei â— Reverendissima Cyrillo Patriarchia Constantiâ—op nomine omnium Ecclesiarum Orientalium Edit Anno 1632. In Eucharistiae Administratione Piaesentiam veram realem Christi consitemur prâ—fitemur at illam quam Fides nobis offert non autem quam excogitata docet Transubstantiatio In the name of the East and Greeke Churches Wee professe a true and reall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but that which is offered by faith not that saith he which the devised Transubstantiation teacheth So he namely so as wee Protestants do likewise professe as will be declared in the next Booke at large And that the Grecians who were present at the Councell of Florence did not yield Assent to that Article of Transubstantiation although your Iesuite 19 Gordon Ies Controv. 4. cap. 4. num 25. Quod de Graecis in Concilio Florentino congregatis coÌ„miniscuntur Adversarij cos nimirum nègâsse Transubstantiationem apertum est Commentum Nam Disputatio tantùm erat quibus verbis fieret Transubstantiatio seu Consecratio Gordon would qualifie and mince the businesse yet Binius the Publisher of that Councell 20 Binius Tom. 4. Not. in Conc. Florent Sess 25. In vobis c. Cùm Pontifex egisset ut Graeci dicerent quid statuerent de Processione Spiritus de Purgatorio deque divina Transubstantiatione panis Cumque respondissent se admittere Purgatorium c. De Transubstantiatione verò Panis Suorum sententiae inhaesissent confesseth that they did therein Persist in the opinion of their owne Doctors Master Brerely would thinke it an injury done unto himselfe if we should pretermit his objected Authority of Pope Gregory for Doctor Humphrey saith hee doth charge Gregory the Great with Transubstantiation So Master Brerely who objected this in his Apologie many yeares agoe and had a full Answer in an * Appeale lib. 1. Chap. 2. §. 7. The testimony it self cited out of Greg. by Mâ— Brereley is answered in the first Book concerning EATING Appeale made purposely in confutation of his whole Apologie The Summe of that Answer is this Doctor Humphrey did not speake that as grounded upon any sentence of Gregory but onely upon the report of a Romish Legend supposing it to be true which in the â—udgement of Romish Doctors themselves whose Testimonies are there cited Is unworthy to report the memory of the fact being in it selfe fond filthy and frivolous the Author whereof may seeme to have a face of Iron and a heart of Lead and the Objector namely Master Brerely for grounding his Objection on a Legendary History A Falsisier of his owne promise This Answer was home one would thinke and might justly have provoked him to satisfie for himself if hee could have found any Errour therein yet notwithstanding for want of better service bringeth he in these Cole-worts twise sod CHALLENGE VVHat greater Vnconscionablenesse could your Disputers bewray than by so torturing the Hyperbolicall Figurative and Sacramentall Sayings of Ancient Fathers for proofe of the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ insomuch that they must bee consequently constrained by the force of some Phrases contrary both to the meaning of the same Fathers and to the Doctrine of your owne Romish Church to admit of three other Transubstantiations viz. First of Christ his Body into whatsoever the Appetite of the Communicant shall desire Secondly of Christ his Body into the Body of every Christian And Thirdly of the Body of every Christian into the Body of Christ As the Testimonies objected plainly pronounce âšœ Besides which you may adde a Fourth of Bread into the Deity of Christ And againe a Fift out of Chrysostome of the Wicked receivers turned into Wolves as you have heard As also for a Sixt from others of the Change of * Set the 9 §. following Dioâ—ysius Godly Receivers into God A Seaventh out of Saint Augustine of Changing saith he of Christ * See Booke 5.
nobis sit com nuuis nobis in alimentum datuâ— Modus incomprehensibilis VI. Si nos in consesu quem continet Augustana confessio complexos esse dixi non est quod quis me astutiae insimuleâ— Verbulum in ea Confessione qualis Ratisbonae edita fuit non extat doctrinae nostrae con trarium De Philippo Melancthone ejus Authore viro spectatae pietatis dico non magis me à Philippo quà m à proprijs visceribus divelli posse Et quidem non aliter sanctae memoriae Bucerum sensisse luculentis testimonijs probare mihi semper promptum erit Lutherus meae sententiae non ignarus propriâ tamen manu non gravatus est me salutare Quum Marpurgi essem diconciliatio facta est ab eo conventu digressus affirmat codem quo ante loco Oecolampadium Zuinglium habere quos illic fratrum loco posthà c fore sancte pollicitus est Hactenâ—â— Calvinus Him who hath beene most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause to shew first what hee held not and then what hee held If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not hee will answer you I. I do abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence And II. I have an hundred times disclamed the receiving onely of a Figure in this Sacrament What then did hee hold III. Our Catehisme teacheth saith hee not onely a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our soules And with Swinckfeldius maintaining onely a Figurative perception wee have nothing to do If you further demand what is the Feeding whereby wee are united to Christ's Body in this Sacrament hee tells you IV. that it is Not Carnall but Spirituall and Reall and so Reall that the Soule is as truely replenished with the lively virtue of his flesh by the powerfull worke of the Spirit of God as the Body is nourished with the Corporall Element of Bread in this Sacrament If you exact an expression of this Spirituall Vnion to know the maner hee acknowledgeth it to be V. above Reason If further you desire to understand whether hee were not Singular in this opinion hee hath avouched the judgement of other Protestants professing not to dissent one syllable from the VI. Augustane Confession as agreeing with him in judgement herein Accordingly our Church of England in the 28 Article saith that To such as worthily with faith receive this Sacrament The Bread which wee breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ which Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper onely after a spirituall and heavenly maner the meane whereby as Faith That the Body of Christ by this Sacrament was ordayned onely for food to the Christian man's Soule SECT III. WHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers which are many in this Point of Dispute having before us the judgement of your b Summus Salvâ—tor hoc Sacramentum voluit esse tanquam spiritualem animarum cibum quo alamur confortemur viventes vita illius quo dixit Qui mand ucat me c. Concil Trid. Sess 13. ca. 2. Fathers of the Councell of Trent and of your c Sacramento utendum ad alendam animam Catech. Trid. de Euch. num 29. Romane Catechisme authorized by the same Councell both which affirme that Christ ordained this Sacrament to be the Spirituall food of man's Soule In which respect the Body of Christ is called Spirituall in your Popes d Decret ex Ambros de mysterijs Corpus Christi est Corpus Spirituale Disâ— 2. ca. In illo Decree The Consonant Doctrine of the Fathers will be found in the last Chapter and last Section of this Fift Booke That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Conjunction can be SECT IV. THe soule of man being the most Essentiall and Substantiall part of man because a Spirit immortall and the flesh of Christ being the most Substantiall of all food and theréfore called as of ancient e Ambros lib. 5. de Sacram. cap. 4. Fathers even so by your Fathers of f Conc. Trident. Panem illum supersubstantialé frequenter accipiant Sess 13. ca. 8. Trent Supersubstantiall Bread it must necessarily follow that as it is named by Christ * Ioh. 6. 32. The true Bread and the Life thereby which is the Effect of the Spirituall eating thereof is the most true and Reall Life because Everlasting So the Vnion Spirituall which a Christian hath in his soules feeding is the most Reall and true Vnion as may sufficiently appeare by Analogie To wit that Bread and Wine being the most vitall nourishments for the conservation of man's bodily Essence are therefore chosen as the Fathers teach to represent and exhibit unto him although in themselves but Signes and Symbals the very Body and Blood of Christ Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ are our Reall nourishments in this Sacrament And such as is our food such must be our Vnion by feeding thereon which wee say is by Faith in this Sacrament and you may not gain-say it who to comfort your Disciples are g Alanus alij ex citatis Authoribus dicunt quando reipsa non potest suscipi hoc Sacramentum ad perficiendam hanc unionem sufficere quod hoc Sacramentum in voto suscipiatur quia hoc satis est ut homo fiat membrum Christi vivum uniatur illi Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 64. §. 3. p. 824. Satis est si spiritualiter manducatur in voto etiamsi non Sacramentaliter Acoâ—â—a Ies de Indorum Salute lib. 6. cap. 7. Vere Spiritualiter sumunt qui fide tenent sub iltis speciâ—bus verum esse corpus Christi simul ipsum desiderio recipendi ardeant Tolet. Ies Instruct Sacerd. lib. 21 cap. 29. taught to instruct them that even without this Sacrament the Spirituall Vnion may be presented to the Soule of man with the Body of Christ and that as a sufficient meanes of uniting him to Christ by a Spirituall maner of Eating And this you say is To receive Christ his Body truely albeit this be to receive him onely by faith and desire So you Whence you perceive our Inference viz. If our Spirituall Vnion with Christ his Body may be really and truly made by Faith and Desire without this Sacrament then in our Sacramentall Eating thereof may the Communicant be much more made partaker thereof by Faith and ardent Desire the Sacrament it selfe being a Sâ—â—le of this our Christian Faith CHAP. II. That onely the Godly-faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and thereby united to Christ in the judgement of Protestants SECT I. OVr Church of England in her 28. and 29. Article saith thus The Body of Christ is given to be eaten in this Sacrament onely after a Spirituall maner even by faith wherein the wicked and such as are voyd
doubt which are spoken onely by way of a Metaphoricall Similitude thus As to that which as it were hath Life thereby implying that it is in it selfe without Life as both your Billius the Translator of Nazianzen and Nicetas his Commentator and Expositor and lastly Nazianzen himselfe will manifest I. Billius being hee whom the Romish Seducer himselfe hath attested and whom wee now assume for our Proctor translateth Nazianzen's words thus 11 Billius in Orat. 42. Nazianz. To enim quasi vitâ praeditum alloquar For I will speake unto thee even as having Life or to that which as it were hath Life Wee demand then would any but an Anti-Christian say of Christ that he is but a Quasi one who as it were hath Life Secondly Nicetas Metropolitane of Heraclea is a professed and privileged Expositor of Nazianzen him wee desire to be our Advocate in this Cause 12 Nicetas in locum ipsum Nazianz. O Pascha magnum sacrum Pascha c. Haec verba Nazianzeni ad Festum ipsum perinde ac vitâ praeditum refert These words of Nazianzen ô great Pascha I say ô sacred Pascha Nazianzen saith hee referreth unto the Feast it selfe as if it were indued with Life So hee Do you not see how the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is As it were having Life compelled this learned Bishop to expound the words of Nazianzen as meant properly of The Feast it selfe called in Greeke and Latine Pascha and by us Pace or Easter and not to the Eucharist which was that my Conclusion against which the Romish Seducer hath revelled and thereupon in a maner reviled me to make me a Falsificator like himselfe Lastly Nazianzen is hee whom wee reserve for our Patron in this Cause The subject matter of the whole Oration of Nazianzen now mentioned is as all know that have read it the Celebration of the Great and holy Feast of Easter of the which Feast some few lines after his entrance into his Oration hee hath these words Pascha of the Lord Pascha and in honour of the Trinity I say the third time Pascha This is the Feast of Feasts and Celebrity of Celebrities expresly speaking not of Christ the Lord nor of the Eucharist but of that which hee calleth The Feast of Feasts namely that which hee as expresly named The Pascha of the Lord which words in the beginning of Nazianzen's Oration most harmoniously accord unto his words now controverted in the end of the same Oration with Ecchoing as it were to the Former saith ô great and holy Pascha namely in respect of the same Pascha the Feast of Feasts and Celebritie of Celebrities But this Romish Seducer never considering these Premises peremptorily posteth on objecting onely the words of Nazianzen immediately following which unto a Cursory Reader might seeme to make for him some shew of Confutation for thus hee proceeds ô word of God and Light and Life and Wisedome and Power for I am delighted with all thy names c. Which words we confesse are spoken of Christ and not of the Feast whereupon your Seducer concludeth that the former words ô Pascha refer likewise to Christ Which his Erroneous conceipt hath beene long since confuted by the forenamed Bishop Nicetas expresly affirming of these words that They were spoken of the * See above a◠12 Feast and these last words ô Word of God and Light c. are spoken indeed to Christ the spirituall Pascha But how by Invocation no but by Acclamation saith hee nothing being more Familiar to Orators than to use Apostrophe's by Transition from the Signe to the Thing signified as here from the Signe which was Christ's day of Resurrection to the Contemplation of the person risen againe Notwithstanding were it that this had beene an Invocation of Christ yet except it had beene an Invocation of him as hee was then in the Eucharist it maketh nothing at all for Bellarmines Conclusion which was thus Ergò Christ is corporally is this Sacrament and to be Divinely adored therin By all which you may clearly discern the true meaning of the first objected Author Dionysius from his Expositor Pachymeres II. The Iudgement of Pachymeres by his Reference to the Sentence of Gregory Nazianzen III. The exact Vnderstanding of Gregory Nazianzen by the Commentarie of the Bishop Nicetas And IV. the truth of that Commentarie by the Tenor of Nazianzen's Oration it selfe as you have heard and consequently that there is still just Cause for us to exclaime both against the Sophistry of your Bellarmine and rashnesse and impotencie if not impudencie rather of this frivolous Seducer and Calumniator ⚜ CHAP. IV. That the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice Repugnant to the Iudgement of Antiquity First by their Silence SECT I. YOu are not to require of us that wee produce the expresse Sentences of ancient Fathers condemning the Ascribing of Divine honour to the Sacrament seeing that this Romish Doctrine was neither in Opinion nor Practice in their times It ought to satisfie you that your owne most zealous indefatigable subtile and skilfull Miners digging and searching into all the Volumes of Antiquity which have beene extant in the Christian world for the space of sixe or seven hundred yeares after Christ yet have not beene able to extract from them any proofe of a Divine honour as due to this Sacrament either in expresse words or practice insomuch that you are enforced to obtrude onely such Sentences and Acts which equally extend to the honouring of the Sacrament of Baptisme and other sacred things whereunto even according to your owne Romish Profession Divine honour cannot be attributed without grosse Idolatry and neverthelesse have your Disputers not spared to call such their Objections Cleare Arguments piercing and unsoluble Wee therfore make bold hereupon to knocke at the Consistory doore of the Conscience of every man indued with any small glimpse of Reason and to entreat him for Christs sake whose Cause it is to judge betweene Rome and Vs after hee hath heard the case which standeth thus Divine Adoration of the Host is held to be in the Romish Profession the principall practicke part of Christian Religion Next the ancient Fathers of the Church were the faithfull Registers of Catholike Truth in all necessary points of Christian Faith and Divine worship They in their Writings manifoldly instructed their Readers by Exhortations Admonitions Perswasions and Precepts how they are to demeane themselves in the receiving of this Sacrament not omitting any Act whereby to set forth the true Dignity and Reverence belonging unto it many of the same Holy Fathers sealing that their Christian profession with their Blood It is now referred to the Iudgement of every man whether it can fall within his capacity to thinke it Credible that those Fathers if they had beene of the now Romish Faith would not have expresly delivered concerning the due Worship of this Sacrament this one word consisting but of two syllables viz.
open and published for above sixteene yeares past in two Bookes one called An Encounter against the Foreman the other an Appeale against the Second yet hath not any one appeared out of your Romish Seminaries for the vindicating of them heerein âšœ Since this Part of this Advertisement thus given there have some of your Engineers sought to undermine the whole Structure of this Treatise by the odious Imputation of Falsification One was a L Baron and his Suggestor Another a notable Seducer in his Letters to a noble Peere of this Kingdome the Third a Romishly inspired Detractor who are in this Second Edition defeated by a Countermine of just Vindications against their False and frivolous Exceptions To say nothing of a late Hobgoblin his feigned Letter to a Ladie upbraiding mee with such Taxations of some Falsities which about six and twentie yeares since were falsly charged upon mee by Master Parsons as I proved in a Booke of Encounter By which your Practice is confirmed that which I have often averred That none may expect from you any Satisfactorie Confutation of this or the like Treatises seeing that instead of Shott you answere only with Squibs Goe on in the same Course to make mee thereby a true Prophet and by my Vindications against your Calumniations to occasion greater Advantage to our Cause and just Defence thereof âšœ By these Advertisements you may now easily conceive with what confidence I may procede in this Worke wherein is displayed and layd open in the discussing of these Eight Words of Christ his Institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist HEE BLESSED BRAKE GAVE TO THEM SAYING TAKE EATE DRINKE your ten Romish Prevarications and Transgressions Afterwards in the following Bookes are reveiled the stupendious Paradoxes Sacrilegiousnesse and Idolatrie of your MASSE together with the notorious Obstinacies some few Overtures of Perjuries out of that great Summe which may afterwards be manifested in your swearing to the other Articles of your new Romane Faith and the manifold Heresies in the Defenders thereof as also their indirect and sinister Objecting and Answering of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers throughout as if they contended neither from Conscience nor for Conscience-sake To Conclude Whosoever among you hath beene fascinated according to your Colliers Catechisme with that onely Article of an Implicite Faith let him be admonished to submit to that Duetie prescribed by the Spirit of God to Trie all things and to Hold that which is good And if any have a purpose to Rejoyne in Confutation either of the Booke of the Romish Imposture or of this which is against your Masse I do adjure him in the name of Christ whose truth wee seeke that avoyding all deceitfull Collusions hee procede materially from * Sed surdis canimus poynt to poynt and labour such an Answer which hee beleeveth hee may answere for before the Iudgement seat of Christ Our Lord Iesus preserve us to the glory of his saving Grace AMEN THO. DVRESME late of COVEN LICHF ¶ THe Additions in this second Edition are made more obvious to the Reader by two Parallel lines drawne along the Context at the beginning and ending thus marked âšœ And the Testimonies of Authors now added in the Margin are discernable from the other by being noted with Numerall figures as the Authorities in the First Edition were cited by the Letters of the Alphabet THE SVMMARIE or Generall Heades of the Eight Bookes of this ensuing Treatise wherein also the Principall Additions throughout the whole at the beginning and end thereof are thus denoted âšœ BOOKE FIRST Chap. I. THat the word Masse is vainly and falsly urged from it's Originall to signifie Oblation or Sacrifice and so confessed pag. 1 2. âšœ A Vindication against a Romish Suggester concerning the Mixture of water with wine in the Encharist pag. 5. 6. âšœ The two points of Christs Institution handled in this Controversie are 1. Practicall 2. Doctrinall Chap. II. Of the Practicall and Active points pag. 7. Ten Romish Transgressions against that one Command of Christ DOâ— THIS pag. 9. I. Romish Transgression contradicting the word BLESSED p. 9. âšœ The Testimonie of a Greeke Patriarke thereupon pag. 12. And a Vindication against the adverse conceits of some p. 14. c. âšœ II. Romish Transgress of Christ's word BRAKE for distribution therof p. 15. III. Romish Transgression of the word THEM in the plâ—rall number signifying a Communion against their private Masse pag. 17. âšœ The Testimonie of Pope Innocent 3. pag. 21. c. âšœ IV. Romish Transgr of Christ's words SAID VNTO THEM namely in an audible voice p. 22. c. V. Romish Transgression is against the same word SAID VNTO THEM to wit by a language not understood of the Communicants against the Custome of Antiguitie c. p. 25. âšœ A Vindication against Pr. de S. Clara for his miserable maner of reconciling our English Article with their contrary Romish Canon pa. 37. to p. 43. âšœ VI. Romish Transgression is against Christs words TAKE YEE by not Taking with their hands pag. 43. c. VII Romish Transgression is against Christs words EAT YEE by their approving of meere Gazers at the Celebration p. 45. c. VIII Romish Transgression is against the same word EAT by their other use than Eating as their carrying it about in publique Procession pag. 48. IX Romish Transgression is against these words IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE holding that Infants are capable of the Eucharist and Mad-men also pag. 51. Chap. III. X. Romish Transgressions of the Institution of Christ is against his words DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS c. p. 54. âšœ Other Testimonies from the Divines of Colen pag. 60. The Councell of Braccara pag. 63. and of Trent pag. 64. Of the Jesuite Vasquez pag. 64 65. And of Pope Clement pag. 75. âšœ BOOKE II. OF the Doctrinall poynts in the Institution of the Eucharist pag. 90. Chap. I. Of the Exposition of Christs words THIS IS MY BODY in a figurative sense pag. 91. Proved from these three words THIS IS and MINE ibid. I. The Pronoune THIS properly betokeneth not Christs Body p. 92. âšœ The Testimony of Pope Innocent pa. 93. âšœ Nor signifieth it any Individuum Vagum confessed pag. 95. Nor can Bread properly be called Christ's Body confessed p. 99. But that it noteth Bread as representing Christ's Body prooved p. 100. c. âšœ A Confirmation hereof from the word Cup pa. 105. c. âšœ Chap. II. II. Is Which Verbe doth open the figurative sense to be as much as Signifieth pag. 107 Eight Figures being confessed to be in the words of Christs Institution p. 110. c. âšœ The Testimony of Vasquez Ies for confirmation thereof pag. 112. âšœ The Iudgement of the more ancient Church of Rome and of the Greeke Fathers heerein pag. 114 115. Romish Objections out of the Greeke Fathers answered pag. 115. to 122. And of the Latine Fathers p. 123. âšœ A Vindication of Tertullians Testimony pag. 124. Cardinall Bellarmine his
c. Chap. VII The Fourth Examination of the Doctrine of Protestants in the point of Sacrifice pag. 407. And of the Veritie thereof Ibid. âšœ A Confirmation thereof out of the Romish Masse pag. 474 c. âšœ Chap. VIII Of the Romish Sacrifice as it is called Propitiatory pag. 474 c. Chap. IX How called Propitiatory by Antiquity in a farre Different Sense pag. 477. Namely Objectively onely and not Subjectively even as Protestants doe pag. 478 c. Chap. X. The Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice Confuted by Romish Principles pag. 479 c. Chap. XI Of the Romish Irreâ—olute Doctrine for Approbation of their Sacrifice pag. 483. Repugnant to Antiquity pag. 485 c. Chap. XII The Protestants Offering of Sacrâ—fice Propitiaâ—ory of Complacencie not of Satisfaction pag. 487. âšœ A Vindicatâ—on of some Allegations against the unjust Imputations of one Popishly inspired in diverse passages pag. 491 c. unto pag. 502 c. âšœ BOOK VII OF the last Romish Consequence issuing from the Romish depraved sense of Christs words called Divâ—ne Adoration of this Sacrament pag. 503 c. Chap. I. That there was no Precept for nor Practice of Divâ—ne Adoratioâ— of the Sacrameâ—t at the time of Christ his Institution thereof pag. 504 c. Chap. II. The Objected Testimonies of the Fathers in their Sentenâ—es fall farre short of the marke which is Divine Adoration pag. 506 c. âšœ An Addition of a Sentence of Sainâ— Augustine p. 509. And of Saint Ambrose p. 510 c. âšœ Chap. III. No Act Recorded and Objected out of Antiquity doth sufficiently prove a Divine Adoration of this Sacrament pag. 511. âšœ A necessary Vindication of the Testimonies of Dionysius Pachymeres and Nazianzen against the false traducement of a Romish Seducer p. 521 c. âšœ Chap. IV. Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice reâ—ugnant to the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 524 Generally in their Sursùm Corda pag. 526. âšœ A Testimony of Saint Hierome p. 527 c. âšœ Chap. V. Romish Adoration of the Masse proved to be Idolatrous by discussing their owne Principles pag. 528. Both Materially unto pag. 533. and Chap. VI. Romish Masse-Adoration proved to be Formally Idola rous notwithstanding any Pretence that is or can be made p. 533 c. Chap. VII The same Idolatrous Adoration proved out of Foure grounds of Romish Profession pag. 541. âšœ An Answer to a Conceipted Deceiptfull and Impious Objection of a Iesuite a Spectacle-maker shewing his Spectacles to be false-sighted pag. 545 c. âšœ Chap. VIII Of the Romish Idolatrous worship in their Masse by Comparison equall to the Heathen and in one point worse pag. 547 c. Chap. IX An Examination of the Worship and Reverence at the Reciving of this Sacrament professed by Protestants pag. 550 c. And their Security in respect of Sixe Romish Perplexities pag. 552 c. BOOK VIII Conteining the former Additionals of divers Execrable points in the Defence of the Romish Masse and the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof by divers Synopses and Generall viewes pag. 557 c. Chap. I. Of the Superstitiousnesse p. 557. Sacrilegiousnesse p. 558. and Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse pag. 564. Chap. II. Of the Exceeding Obstinacie of the Defenders of the Romish Masse pag. 566. Demonstrated in a Synopsis wherein Baptisme is paralleled with the Eucharist by the Testimonies of Antiquity pag. 567. Overtures of Perjuries in Defense of the Romish Masse pag. 574. Mixtures of many old Heresies with their Defence of the Masse pag. 581. to the End FINIS OF THE INSTITVTION OF THE SACRAMENT of the blessed Body and Blood OF CHRIST c. The first Booke Concerning the Active part of Christ his Jnstitution of the Eucharist and the TEN Romish TRANSGRESSIONS thereof Chap. I. That the Originall of the word â—ASSE nothing advantageth the Romish Masse SECT I. DIvers of your Romish a Nomen antiquissimum Missa quod quidem fides Christiana profitetur ex Hebraica vel Chaldaica nomenclatura acceptum esse videtur Missah i. e. spontanea oblatio conveniens instituto Sacrificio Baron Cardin. Anno 34. num 59. Est Hebraicum Tolet. les Cardin. Instruct Sacerd lib. 2. cap. 4. Quidam ut Reulin Alcian Xaintes Pintus Pamelius existimant esse Hebraicum As Azor. les reporteth Inst Moral par 1. lib. 10. cap. 18. and Master Malâ—un Reply Sect. 4. pag. 231. Doctors would have the word MASSE first to bee in the first and primitive Imposition and use thereof Divine Secondly in Time more ancient than Christ Thirdly in Signification most Religious derived as They say from the Hebrew word Missah which signifieth Oblation and Sacrifice even the highest Homage that can bee performed unto God And all this to prove if it may bee that which you call THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASSE CHALLENGE SO have these your Doctors taught notwithstanding many other Romanists as well Iesuites as others of principall Note in your Church enquiring as it were after the native Countrey kinred and age of the Word MASSE doe not only say but also proove first that It is no Hebrew-borne Secondly that it is not of Primitive Antiquitie because not read of before the dayes of Saint Ambrose who lived about three hundred seventie three yeares after Christ Thirdly that it is a plaine Latine word to wit Masse signifying the Dismission of the Congregation Which Confessions being testified in our b Latinum non Hebraicum est ut Neoterici studiosè exquirunt Binius Tom. 3. Conc. p. 110. Eodem modo interpretantur complures Durant de Ritib l. 2. cap 2. pag. 190. 192. Magis spectat ad Latinam phrasin Salmeron les Epist ad Canis de nomine Missae So also Azor the Iesuit in the place above-cited Multò probabilius esse Latinam nam si vox Hebraica in usu apud Apostolos fuisset certè retinuissent eâ—m Graeci Syri aliaeque Nationes ut retinuerunt vocerâ— Hosanna Allelujah Pascha Sabbatum similes voces Apud Graecos nulla est hujus vocis mentio pro ea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt est autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 munus sive ministerium publicum Bellarm lib. 1. de Missa cap. 1. Melius qui Latinam Sudrez les in Thom. Tom. 3. disp 74. § 3. where he alleageth Lindan Thom. Hug. de Vict. Leo primus quidem est author apud quem legerim Missae verbum Masson lib. 2 de Episc Rom. in Leon. 1. And Ambrose is the ancientest that either Bellarmine or Binius in the places before-quoted could mention Missa à Missione dicta est Salmeron les Tom. 16. pag. 390. 391. It is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greeke Church and with Ilicet amongst the ancient Romanes See the Testimonie following at c. Margin by so large a Consent of your owne Doctors prooved by so cleare Evidence and delivered by Authors of so eminent estimation in your owne Church must not a little lessen the credit of your other Doctors
noted for Neotericks who have vainely laboured under the word MASSE falsely to impose upon their Readers an opinion of your Romish Sacrificing MASSE âšœ And left Any might object that the same Word MASSE as signifying the Dismission of the People had no good foundation because it was not at first prescribed by the Church but taken up of the People your Iesuite Gordon quitteth this saying 1 Iac. Gordonus Scotus lib. Controvers Controv. 9. cap. 6. Quamvis appellatio Missae originem accepit à populo tamen divinâ providentiâ factum est ut populus hanc appellationem huic mysterio tribueret vulgo enim dici solet quod vox populi sit vox Dei nec dubitamus quin Spiritus instinctu hoc factum sit Pag. 313. The voice of the People is the voice of God and that you are not to doubt but that it was infused into them by the instinct of the Spirit of God âšœ That the word MASSE in the Primitive Signification thereof doth properly belong unto the Protestants and justly condemneth the Romish manner of Masse SECT II. THe word MASSE by the c Missa à Missione dicta est quoniam Catechumeni eâ susceptaÌ„ foras de Ecclesia emitterentur ut in ritibus Paganorum dici consueverat Ilicet quod per Syncopen idem est ac Ire licet Sic nostrum verbum Missa Ite missa est Salmeron les in the place above cited pag. 390. 391. Sic accipitur in jure Canonico in Patribus etiam atque Conciliis Azor les Inst par 1. pag. 850. Gemina Missio prima Catechumenorum alia peractis sacris Missâ completâ Binius in the place afore cited Esse à dimissione per Ite missa est tenet Alcuin Amalar Fortunat. Durant quo supra And the other fore-named Authors who confesse the word to be Latine do hold that it commeth of Ite Missa est for Iubebantur exire Catechumeni Poenitentes ut qui nondum ad communicandum praeparaverant Cassand Consult Art 24. As also in his Tract de solit Missa pag. 217. with others See more hereafter Chap. 2. §. 5 where this point is discussed As for the disraissing of the whole Congregation after the receiving of the Sacrament by an Ite missa est it was used in the second place after the other See Binius above âšœ This crosseth not the distinction of Penances which were anciently in their degrees The first was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of teares and groanes 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them who were admitted to heare instructions 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such as went out before Consecration somewhat after the Catechumeni 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this was indeed of those who were allowed to heare Masse at length but communicated not and this their presence for looking on was onely for Penance-sake to see themselves excluded from the Communion of the faithfull The last was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them which were reconciled and communicated âšœ Confession of Iesuites and Others and that from the authoritie of Councels Fathers Canon-law Schoolmen and all Latine Liturgies is therfore so called from the Latine phrase Missa est especially because the company of the Catechumenists as they also which were not prepared to communicate at the celebrating of this Sacrament after the hearing of the Gospel or Sermons were Dismissed and not suffered to stay but commanded To depart Which furthermore your Ies Maldonate out of Isidore of most ancient authors and of all other the Liturgies is compelled to confesse to be the Most true meaning of Antiquity Which Custome of exempting all such persons being every where religiously taught and observed in all Protestant Churches and contrarily the greatest devotion of your Worshippers at this day being exercised onely in looking and gazing upon the Priests manner of celebrating your Romane Masse without communicating thereof contrary to the Institution of Christ contrary to the practise of Antiquity and contrary to the proper Vse of the Sacrament all which * See Chap. 2. Sect. 9. hereafter shall bee plentifully shewed it must therefore follow as followeth d Alij ut Isidorus de divin offic diverunt Missam appellatam esse quasi dimissionem à dimittendis Catechumenis antequam Sacrificium inchoaretur quam sententiam colligo esse verissimam ex antiquiss Authoribus Clambat enim Diaconus post Concionem Catechumeni exeunto qui communicate non possunt ut constat ex omnibus Liturgiis ubi non potest nomen Missae accipi pro Sacriâ—icio Maldon les lib. de 7. Sacram. Tract de Euch. §. Primum pag 335. CHALLENGE WHereas there is nothing more rife and frequent in your Speeches more ordinary in your Oathes or more sacred in your common Estimation than the name of the MASSE yet are you by the Signification of that very word convinced of a manifest Transgression of the Institution of Christ and therefore your great boast of that name is to be judged false and absurd But of this Transgression more * See below Cha. 2. Sect. 5. hereafter The Name of CHRIST his MASSE how farre it is to bee acknowledged by Protestants SECT III. THe Masters of your Romish Ceremonies and Others naming the Institution of Christ e Durand Ration lib 4. cap. 1. Durant de Ritib l. 2. cap. 3. So Christoph de Capite fontium Archicp Caesar var. Tract de Christi Missa pag 34. Liturgiae veteres partes Missae Christi exactè respondent Missa Christi Ecclesiae Missam declarat call it his Masse yea and as another 2 Dr. Heskins in his parlament Book 3. Chap. 33. saith Christ said Masse And how often doe we heare your vulgar people talking of Christ his Masse Which word MASSE in the proper Signification already specified could not possibly have beene so distastfull unto Vs if you had not abused it to your fained and as you now see false sense of your kind of Proper Oblation and Sacrifice Therefore was it a supersluous labour of M r. f Liturg. tract 1. § 1. Brerely to spend so many lines in proving the Antiquity of the word MASSE CHALLENGE FOr otherwise We according to the above-confessed proper Sense thereof shall together with other Protestants in the * Confess Aug. Cap. de Coena Domini Augustane Confession approve embrace it and that to the just Condemnation of your present Romane Church which in her Masse doth flatly and peremptorily contradict the proper Signification therof according to the Testimony of Micrologus saying g Microl. de Eccl. observat c. 1. Propter hoc certè dicitur Missa quoniam mittendi sunt forà s qui non participant Sacrificio vel communione Sanctà Teste Cassand Liturg. so 59. The Masse is therefore so called because they that communicate not are commanded to depart By all which it is evident that your Church hath forfeited the Title of Masse which shee hath appropriated to her selfe as
he consecrateth by that Prayer which he beleeveth is not ordained for Consecration We may furthermore take hold by the way of the Testification of Mâ— h Traâ—tat of the Mâ—sse pag. 105. Brerely a Romish Priest who out of Basil and Chrysostome calling one part Calix benedictione sacratus alloweth Benediction to have beene the Consecration thereof All this Armie of Witnesses were no better then Meteors or imaginary figures of battailes in the aire if that the Answer of Bellarmine may goe for warrant to wit that the only Pronuntiation of these words Hoc est corpus meum imply in them as hee i Verbâ— haec Hoc est corpus meum pronunciata à Sacerdote cùm intentione con cerâ—ndi Sacramentum continent implicâ—è Invocationem Bellarm. lib 4 de Euch. c 1◠§. Qunt arg saith in Invocation or Prayer Which words as any man may perceive Christ spake not supplicatorily unto God but declaratively unto his Apostles accordingly as the Text speaketh He said unto them as is also well * See the former testimony letter g observed by your fore-said Arch-bishop of Caesarea out of Saint Hierome But none of you wee presume will dare to say that Christ did Invocate his Disciples âšœ This might Bellarmine have learned from Antiquity if he had not rather affected to have been a Doctor over all others than a Scholler to Primitive Fathers who teach that Christ reveiled not unto any his words of * See 〈…〉 B. 7. Ch. 3 at the letters i. k. Invocation by Prayer wherwith he consecrated which they would not have said if they had judged these words THIS IS MY BODY to imply in them an Invocation âšœ These words therfore are of Declaration and not of Invocation Which now Romish Doctrine of Consecrating by reciting these words This is my Body c. your Divines of Colen k Vehemens prorsus insania est quòd nunc arbitrantur se consecrare hoc Sacramentum sine prece quam Canonem appellamus absque invocatione super dona sed tantùm recitatione verborum c. Talis recitatio non est Consecratio Aliter profectò erat in Ecclesia orientali occidentali Hactenùs in Ecclesia doctuâ—â— fuit in prece quâ Sacerdos sic invocat Hanc Oblationem quaesumus Domine acceptabâ—le facere digneris c Antididag de Cath. Relig per Canon Eccles Coloniens Tractâ—t de Missa pag. 100. §. An sine prece have judged to bee a Fierce madnesse as being repugnant both to the Easterne and Westerne Churches But wee have heard divers Westerne Authors speake give leave to an Easterne Archbishop to deliver his mind l Quod autem ille sermo Domini sufficiat ad sanctificationem nullus neque Apostolus nec Doctor dixisse cernitur Nic. Cabosil Explicat Euch. cap 29. Latini obijciunt Chrysostomum dicentem Quemadmodùm opifex sermo dicens crescite multiplicamini semel à Deo dictus perpetuò operatur c. Resp An ergò post illud dictum Dei Crescite nullo adhuc opus habemus adjumento nullâ prece nullo matrimonio Ibid. No Apostle or Doctor is knowne to affirme saith he those sole words of Christ to have beene sufficient for Consecration So he three hundred yeares since satisfying also the Testimonie of Chrysostome objected to the contrary âšœ This Archbishop you 3 âšœ Possevin les Apparat. Tit. Nicolaus Cabassilas Archiepiscopus Thessalonicensis vir clarus fuit grant was Famous in his time living about the yeare 1300. to whom as you know the Bishop of Ephesus and the Patriarch of Constantinople did accord saying that 4 Suarez in 3. Thom. Disp 58. Sect. 3. Nicolaus Cabassilas Marcus Episcopus Ephesinus de Consecratione Hieremias Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus dicunt non consici hoc Sacramentum statim ac illa verba proferuntur sed post quasdam orationes Ecclesiae âšœ This Sacrament is not made assoone as these words are uttered but afterwards by certaine prayers of the Church And why these Greeke Fathers should not rather resolve us of the ancient Greeke tenor of Consecration than any of your late Italian or Latine Doctors who will make question As for your other Greeke Patriarch Bessarion who was made Cardinall by your Church on purpose that he might make some opposition unto his fellowes We make no other account of him than of an Hireling In briefe None of the great multitude of Fathers who have required the use of Prayer besides these words This is my body did thereby testifie that they held these to be words of Invocation âšœ As miserable and more intolerable is the Answer of Others who * See the Testimony before at the letter g towards the end said that the Evangelists have not observed the right order of Christ his actions as if he had first said This is my body by way of Consecration and after commanded them to Take and eat Which Answere your owne m Alij dixerunt Christum his verbis semel dictis consecrà sse sed Evangelistas non servâ le ordinem in reâ— gestae narratione Sed cùm omnes Evangelistae conveniunt in hoc ut dicant primùm Christum accepisse panem deindè benedixisse terriò fregisse tùm dedisse dicendo Hoc est corpus meum videntur non casu sed consilio Evangelistae rem marrâsse ut gesta est Maldâ—n les Disp de Euch. q. 7. p. 133. And among them that do invert the order is Alan lib. 1. de Euch. c. 15. p. 295. Alij docuerunt Châ—stum haec verba Hoc est corpus meuÌ„ c. his reperivisse quae sententia est falsa quia nullâ conjectuâ—à probari potest Id. ibid. Iesuite hath branded with the note of Falsity yea so false it is that as is further * See above lit g. avouched all ancient Liturgies aswell Greeke as Latine constantly held that in the order of the tenour of Christ his Institution it was first said Take yee before that he said This is my Body Lastly your other lurking-hole is as shamefull as the former where when the judgement of Antiquitie is objected against you requiring that Consecration be done directly by Prayer unto God n lustin Apol. 2. docet Oratione confici Eucharistiam Iren lib. 4. c. 5. Invocatione nominis Dei Cyril Hier. Catech. mystag 3. 4. Invocatione Spiritus Sancti Hieron Epistol ad Evag. Sacerdotum precibus August semper ferè piece mysticâ ut lib. 3. c. 4. de Trin. Sacramentum fieri asserit Respondetur Primò quòd veteres non curabant passim exactè declarate precisè quibus verbis conceptis consecraretur licet Ministris secretore institutione ea tradidisse constat Alan l. 1. de Euch. c. 17. p 310. To whom might bee added Cyprian de coena Domini Calix benedictione sacratus you answere that some Fathers did use such speeches in their Sermons to the people but in their secret instruction of Priests did teach otherwise
Christ brake it but the Catholik Church meaning the Romane now doth not breake it but giveth it whole And this you pretend to doe for reverence sake Lest as your q A multo tempore non usurpâ—â—r fractio sed singuli panes seu minores hostiae consecrantur ad evitandum periculum decidentium micatum Lorin Ies in Act. 2. 42. Iesuite saith some crummes may fall to the ground Neither is there any Direction to your Priest to Breake the Bread either before or after Consecration in your Romane Masse especially that which is distributed to the people CHALLENGE BVt now see we pray you the absolute Confession of your owne Doctors whereby is witnessed first that Christ brake the bread into twelve parts r Fregit Nimirùm in toâ— particulas quot erant Apostoli manducaturi praeter suam quam Christus primus accepit Et ut quidam non indiligenter annotavit quemadmodùm unum calicem communem omnibus tradidit ad bibendum ità unâ palma panem in 12. buccellas fractum manibus suis dispensavit Salmer quo suprà Tract 12. §. Sequitur p. 77. Apostolus Act. 2. Vocat Eucharistiam fractionem panis ob ceremoniam frangendi panem in tot particulas quot sunt communicaturi ut Christus fecit in coena Quem morem longo tempore Ecclesia retinuit de quo Apostolus Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio corporis Christi Domini in qua fractione pulchrè representatur Passio corporis Christi Idem Ies Tract 35. §. Vocat pag. 288 In fractione Panis Act 2. Indicat fractionis nomen antiquam consuetudinem partiendi pro astantibus sive manu sive cultro quià panis azymus glutinosus it à facilius dividitur Lorinus Ies in eum locum p. 138. col 2. Benedictionem sequitur hostiae fractio fractionem sequitur Communio Hunc celebrandi morem semper Ecclesia servavit tà m Graeca quà m Latina quarum Liturgiae etsi in verbis aliquandò discrepent certè omnes in eo conveniunt quòd partes has omnes Missae Christi exactè repraesentent nihil de essentialibus omittentes Vsus autem Ecclesiae ejus celebrandi ordonos docent qualis fuit Christi Missa quo illam ordine celebravit Archieâ— Caesar var. Tract p. 27. according to the number of Communicants Secondly that this Act of Breaking of bread is such a principall Act that the whole Celebration of this Sacrament hath had from thence this Appellation given to it by the Apostles to be called Breaking of Bread Thirdly that the Church of Christ alwayes observed the same Ceremonie of Breaking the bread aswell in the Greeke as in the Latine and consequently the Romane Church Fourthly that this Breaking of the Bread is a Symbolicall Ceremonie betokening not only the Crucifying of Christs bodie upon the Crosse but also in the common participation thereof representing the Vnion of the Mysticall body of Christ which is his Church Communicating together of one loafe that as many graines in one loafe so all faithfull Communicants are united to one Head Christ as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10. thus The bread which wee breake is it not the Communion of the bodie of Christ for we being many are one bread Wee adde as a most speciall Reason that this Breaking it in the distribution thereof is to apply the representation of the Bodie Crucified and the Bloud shed to the heart and soule of every Communicant That as the Bread is given Broken to us so was Christ Crucified for us Yet neverthelesse your Church contrarily professing that although Christ did breake bread yet BEHOLD she doth not so what is it else but to starch her face and insolently to confront Christ his Command by her bold Countermand as you now see in effect saying But doe not this A SECOND CHALLENGE AS for that truly-called Catholike Church you your selves do grant unto us that by Christ his first Institution by the Practice of the Apostles by the ancient and universall Custome of the whole Church of Christ aswell Greeke as Latine the Ceremony of Breaking bread was continually observed Which may bee unto us more than a probable Argument that the now Church of Rome doth falsly usurpe the Title of CATHOLIKE for the better countenancing and authorizing of her novell Customes although never so repugnant to the will of Christ and Custome of the truly-called Catholike Church Howbeit wee would not bee so understood as to thinke it an Essentiall Ceremonie either to the being of a Sacrament or to the Sacramentall Administration but yet requisite for the Commandement and Example-sake In the next place to your Pretence of Not-breaking because of Reverence Wee say Hem scilicet Quanti est sapere As if Christ and his Apostles could not fore-see that your Necessitie namely that by the Distributing of the Bread and by Breaking it some little crummes must cleave sometimes unto the beards of the Communicants or else fall to the ground Or as though this Alteration were to be called Reverence and not rather Arrogance in making your-selves more wise than Christ who instituted or than all the Apostles or Fathers of primitive times who continued the same Breaking of Bread Therefore this your Contempt of Breaking what is it but a peremptory breach of Christ his Institution never regarding what the Scripture saith * 1 Sam. 15. 22. Obedience is better then Sacrifice For indeed true Reverence is the mother of Obedience else is it not Devotion but a meere derision of that Command of Christ Doe this The third Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the sense of the next words of Christs Command viz. GAVE IT VNTO THEM SECT V. IT followeth in the Canon of Christ his Masse And he gave it unto them even to THEM to whom he said Take yee eate ye By which pluralitie of persons is excluded all private Massing forasmuch as our High Priest Christ Iesus who in instituting and administring of this Sacrament would not be alone said hereof as of the other Circumstances Doe this The Contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse This holy Synod saith your a Missâ—s illas in quibus solus Sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat probat atque adeò commendat Concil Trid. Sess 22. cap 6. Councell of Trent doth approve and commend the Masses wherein the Priest doth Sacramentally communicate alone So your Church CHALLENGE BVt who shall justifie that her Commendation of the alone-communicating of your Priest which wee may justly condemne by the liberall b Sunt qui in Missâ— communionem recruirunt sic faceor à Christo institutum fuit ita olim fieri consu vit Eras Concord Eccles vers sinem Act. 2. Erant coÌ„municantes in Oratione communicatione fractionis Panis id est in Eucharistia non-minùs quà m oratione Lorinus Ies in Act. 2. 46. Odo Cameracens in Canonem seribit Missas solitarias antiquitùs in usu Ecclesiae non fuisse Et hunc fuisse
antiquum Ecclesiae Romanae morem ut plures de eodem Sacrificio participent doctissimi quique agnoscunt Itáque hac nostra aetate Rev. Pater vir doctiss Iohan. Hoffmeâ—sterus his verbis suam sententiam declaravit Res inquit clamat tà m in Graeca quà m in Latitia Ecclesia non solùm Sacerdotem sacrificantem sed reliquos Praesbyteros Diaconos necnon reliquam plebem aut saltem plebis aliquam partem communicâsse quod quomodò cessavit mirandum est Et aliquos cùm Sacerdote adfuisse qui sacrificia laudis offerebant Sacramentorum participabant Canonis Romani verba manifestè significant viz. Quot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctum corpus sanguinem filij tui sumpserimus c. Item Prosint nobis divina Sacrificia quae sumpsimus Teste G. Cassandro Consult Art 24. pag. 216 217 223. c. Confessions of your owne Doctors who grant first that this is not according to the Institution of Christ saying in the Plurall VNTO 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 Greeke and Romane Fourthly c Idem Ioh. Hoffmeisterus Quomodò inquit ordo antiquus cessaverit mirandum est ut bonus ille usus revocetur laborandum Nunc verò postquà m communionis ordo à nobis observari desijt idque per negligentiam tà m plebis quà m Sacerdotum ut ait Hospin Ex Canone quodam Conc. Nannetensis Sacerdos solus Missam celebrate vetatur absurdum enim est ut dicat Dominus vobiscum Sursum corda Gratias agimus Deo Domino nostro cùm nullus est qui respondeat aut ut dicat Oremus cùm nullus adest qui secum oret Et simile Dâ—cretum reperitur in Concilio Papiensi ut nullus Presbyter Missam celebrare praesumat Cur autem Canon noster Speaking of the forme of the Romane Mosse alijs in superstitionem alijs in contemptum adductus sit in causa potissimum est mutatio prisci ritus Georg Cassand quo sup neither to Two Councels the one called Nanetense the other Papiense decreeing against Private Masse Fiftly nor to the very names of the true d Act. 2. 42. Erant communicantès c. Vsus suit quondam frequentandae quotidiè Eucharistiae non minùs quà m Orationis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sumitur pro usu istius Sacramenti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eadem est vis etiam vocis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro congregatione fidelium ut interpretatur Basilius Lorin Ies loco supra-citato Sacramentall Masse which by way of Excellencie was sometime called Synaxis signifying as Saint Basil saith the Congregation of the faithfull sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion or Communicating and sometimes the Prayers used in every holy Masse were called Collectae Collects because the people used to be collected to the celebration of the Masse it selfe Sixtly Nor to the very * See above at b Canon of the now Romane Masse saying in the Plurall Sumpsimus wee have received And thereupon seventhly repugnant to the Complaints of your owne men against your Abuse who calling the joynt Communion instituted by Christ the Legitimate Masse do wonder how your Priests sole-Communicating ever crept into the Church and also deplore the contempt which your private Masse hath brought upon your Church Hitherto see the Marginals from your owne Confessions Let us adde the Absurditie of the Commendation of your Councell of Trent in saying Wee commend the Priest's communicating alone A man may indeed possibly talke alone fret alone play the Traytour 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 covenant alone Calvin saith indeed of spirituall Eating which may be without the Sacrament as you also g Qui dicunt Christum manducari spiritualiter à fidelibus posse etiamsi Sacramentaliter non manducetur atque eo cibo animam ali vera quidem asseiunt Acosta les de procur Indorum Salut c. 7. p. 532. confesse that a Faithfull man may feede alone of the Body and Blood of Christ But our dispute is of the Corporall and Sacramentall Communicating thereof e Collectae per figuram dicebantue Preces ab ipsa celebratione Missae quùm ad eam populus colligebatur Bellar. l. 2. de Missa cap. 16. §. Post salutationem f Generaliter autem dicendum est quôd illa est legitima Missa in qua sunt Sacerdotes Respondens Offerens atque Communicans sicut ipsa precum compositio evidenti ratione demonstrat Durand l. 4. c. 1. pag. 174. Walfridus Strabo etiam aliqui antiquiores Scholasticorum Interpretes solam legitimam Missam fatentur cui intersuit Sacerdos Respondentes Offerentes atque Communicantes Cossand quo supra * See above at the letter a A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the former Prevarication condemning this Romane Custome by the Romane Masse it selfe WEe make bold yet againe to condemne your Custome of Private Masse and consequently the Commendation given thereof by the Councel of Trent For by the Canon of your Masse wherein there are interlocutorie speeches between 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 Claudius Espencaeus sometimes a Parisian Doctour one commended by h Claudij Espencaeâ— Theologi Parisiensis Tractatus de utraque Mâ—ssa qâ—arum alteram publicam alteram privatam appellant 〈◊〉 Gilberti Theologi Parisiensis Genebrard Genebrard for his Treatise upon this same Subject of the Private Masse albeit he agreeth with the execrable Execration and Anathema of the Councel of Trent against them that hold Solitarie Masses to be unlawfull yet after the expence of much paper to prove that some private Masse must needs have anciently beene because Primitively Masse was celebrated almost in all Churches every day and that Saint * See below at the letter p Chrysostome did complaine of the absence of the people yet comming to determine of the poynt i Haec similia pro privatatuÌ„ Mislarum usu vetustate probabilâ—â— quidem sunt sed minus â—perta nec n. qui oblatum dicunt communicatum negant c. Espen Tract de utraque Missa fol. 226. where also had beene objected the complaint of Chrysoslome so fol 222. This Reason saith he is onely probable but not evident for although they affirme a dayly celebration of the Masse yet doe they not deny a daily Communion Afterwards he seeketh the Originall and beginning of privat Masses out of private k Monachos plus alioqui jam satis gravatos invid â primos privatà rum Missarum Authores fuisse quidaâ—â— faciunt Espenc ibid.
sic dici ut reddat populum attentum Teste Cassa in Lepnriâ—urg Cap. 31. confessed to make the People more attentive to their Prayers âšœ A THIRD CHALLENGE Against the same Custome A Custome Commendable say your Fathers of Trent Condemnable say wee even from your owne Consciences because you were never hitherto able to produce either any Commendable yea or Tollerable example expresly recorded within the many Volumes of Antiquitie of any celebration of the Eucharist without a Communion no not in that onely objected place of p Chrysost in Ephes Hom 3. Frustrâ— habetur quotidiana oblatio frustrà stamus ad altare cùm nemo est qui participet Ob. à Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa cap 9. Not that in these daily Celebrations None at all did communicate with the Priest for hee was accompanied at least with some Ecclesia-stickes as is implyed in the words Stamus ad Altare And it is no rare Hyperbale in Chrysostome to use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Paucitie Chrysostome whose Speech is not a Grant that absolutely All were absent from his administration of the Eucharist but certainly it is a vehement Invective against all wilfull Absents So farre was hee from allowing much more from Commending Communicating alone who else-where against such as neglected to Communicate with the poore taking his Argument from the example of Christ That Supper q Chrysost Illa coena Christi communiter omnes accumbentes habuit Tom. 4. in illum locum Pauli Oportet Haereses esse 1 Corinth 11. 19. saith he was common to All. The very Argument of Saint Hierome saying yet more obligatorily r Hieron Coena Domini dicitur quia Dominus in coena tradidit Sacramenta Dominica coena debet omnibus esse communis In 1 Cor. cap. 11. The Lords Supper ought to bee common to All. Such Reverencers were the Primitive Fathers of the Ordinances of Christ And as touching * For againe if it should be strictly racked so should he himselfe not have participated and then was it no Masse at all But Chrysostome's Rhecorique in hyperbolizing is noted espâ—cially by your Senensis as may be observed in Chrysostome's like Invective against the carnall security of men even in the word Nemo Nemo divina sapit nemo terrena contemnit nemo ad coelum attendit Hom. 12. ad Heb. Now none is so senselesse as to thinke hereby that Chrysostome thought himselfe absolutely to bee wholly alone Nemo No man in the testimony of Chrysostome it is knowne to be taken restrainedly for Few and so Å¿ Frustrà stamus c. Ex quibus verbis apparet in his quotidianis Missis folos ferè Ministros Clericos paucos verò aut nullos à populis communicâsse G. Cassander de Liturg Chrysost Yea and Espenseus durst not rely upon this Testimony acknowledged by your selves in the place objected âšœ If all these premises cannot perswade you wee shall present unto you one who wil command your consent Pope Innocent the third 8 Innocent 3. de ossic Missae lib. 2. cap. 20. Statutum est autem in sacris Canonibus ut nullus Presbyterorum Missarum solennia celebrare praesumet nisi duobus praesentibus sibique respondentibus ipse tertius habeatur quia cùm pluraliter dicitur ab eo Dominus vobiscum illud in secretis Orate pro me apertissimè convenit istius salutationi respondeatur à pluribus It is decreed saith he that because it is said by the Priest in the plurall number The Lord be with you and also pray for mee that none presume to celebrate without two besides the Priest to make answere to these Salutations So hee even as you have heard Pope Soter to have said before him The fourth Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the sense of the next words SAID VNTO THEM SECT VI. IN the aforesaid Canon of Christ his Masse it followeth And he said unto Them Christ Saying or speaking to his Disciples by commanding them to Take c. did doubtlesse so speake that they might heare his Command to wit in an audible voice Which done he further commanded concerning this same Circumstance joyntly with the rest saying Doe this The contrary Canon of the Romane Masse But your late Councell of a Si quis dixerit Ecclesiae Romanae ritum quo submissâ voce pars Canonis verba Consecra tionis proferuntur damnandum esse Anathema sit Concil Trident. Sess 22. Can. 9. Trent pronounceth him Anthema who shall condemne her Custome of the Priest uttering the words of Consecration in a lowe voyce Whereby saith your b Quibus verbis Conc. verba Consecrationis altâ voce proferri prohibuit Ledesima les de Script quavis ling. non legend pag. 161. In inclinatione Sacerdotis oscultatione altaris thurificatione secunda expletâ Sacerdos se convertens ad populum sub silentio dicit Dominus vobiscum Et mox voce aliquantulum elevatâ dicit Orate pro me fratres Durand Ration l. 4. c. 32. initio Iesuite it forbiddeth the words of Consecration to be delivered in a loud and audible voice So they CHALLENGE DO you see what your Church doth professe See also we pray you notwithstanding what your owne Doctours are brought to c Christus altâ voce pronuntiabat verba illa Hoc est corpus meum ut audirentur ab Apostolis Bellar. lib. 2. de Missa cap. 12. §. Quod attinet In Ecclesia Orientali altâ voce recitari consuevisse non negamus Idem ibid §. Respondo Certè ex Graecorum Liturgijs invenies tà m in Missa Iacobi Apostoli Clementis Romani quà m in illis quae editae sunt à Basilio Chrysostomo quòd ubi Sacerdos protulisset verba Consecrationis tam post panis quà m post vini Consecrationem populus acclamabat dicendo Amen Idem etiam confirmatur ex Leone Augustino Ambrosio alijs multis Patribuâ— Salmeroâ— les Com. in 1 Cor. 14. Disp 22. p. 188. Moris enim fuit Ecclesiae primitivae ut constat ex Leone magno Iustino Martyre ut verbis Consecrationis altâ voce prolatis populus responderet Amen Idem Tom. 9. Tract 13. pag. 90. Col. 2. confesse namely first that The example of Christ and his Apostles is against this uttering those words in a low and inaudible voice Secondly that The same Custome was controlled by the practice of of the whole Church of Christ both in the East part thereof from the testimonies of ancient Liturgies and Fathers in the ancient Romane Church by the witnessing of two Popes in whose time the People hearing the words of Consecration pronounced did answer thereunto AMEN Thirdly that the same Innovation was much misliked by the Emperour Iustinian who severely commanded by his Edict as d Novellà Constit 123. Iustiniani severè praecipitur Sacerdotibus ut in Eucharistiae celebratione verba clarâ voce pronuntientur ut à populo
exaudiantur Which made Bellarmine to blaster after this manner Ad Novellam responderi possit imprimis ad Imperatorem non peâ—â—inere de ritu sacrificandi leges ferre proinde non multum referre quid ipse sanxerit Bellar. l. 2. de Missa c. 12. §. ad Novellam you know that The Priest should pronounce the words with a cleare voice that they may bee heard of the people Whose authoritie you peremptorily contemne as though it did not belong to an Emperor to make Lawes in this kind But forasmuch as the King of Kings and the High Priest of Priefls the Sonne of God hath said of this as of the other such Circumstances Do this who are you that you should dare to contradict this Injunction by the practice of any Priest saying and speaking yet not as Christ did unto Them but only to himselfe without so much as any pretence of Reason e Vtile est ad reverentiam tanti Sacramenti ut Basil rectè docet lib. de Spiritu Sancto c. 27. multum confert ad dignitatem reverentiam mysteriorum ut non assuescant homines eadem saepiùs audire vel potiùs ut non offerrentur ad aures vulgi Et in Liturgijs Graecis Basilij Chrysostomi praescribunt quaedam sub silentio dicenda In Liturgijs Chrysostomi Sacerdos orat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod non significat moderatâ vocae sed planè secretò In Latinis Liturgijs Innocentio teste praecipua pars Missae secreta erat Bellar quo supra We oppose 1. Never were any words held secret so as not to be heard of them that were baptized and were allowed to bee Communicants Basil speaketh of the rites of Baptisme to be kept secret but to whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and how secret by silence of voice in the Congregation no but Non convenit circumferri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And of what of words nay but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither doth Chrysostome's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor Innocentius his Secretò inferre any more than such a Service in respect of them that were not to be partakers of the Communion Secondly wee oppose concerning the poynt in question that the words of Institution were in those times pronounced with an audible voyce both in the Greeke an Latine Churches as hath beene confessed and their owne Writings doe verifie Bafil Liturg Sacerdos benedicens panem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 altâ voce dicens Accipite Hoc est corpus meum Chrysost in 1. Cor. 15. Hom. 40. Vobis qui mysterijs estis initiati 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 volo in memoriam revocate eam dictionem c. secundùm Graecam Edit which might not likewise have moved the ancient Church of Christ both Greeke and Romane to the same manner of Pronunciation Whereas the Catholike Church notwithstanding for many hundred yeares together precisely observed the ordinance of Christ THE SECOND CHALLENGE In respect of the necessitie of a Lowd voice especially by the Romish Priest in uttering the words of Consecration THe greatest silence which is used by the Romane worshippers is still in the Priests uttering or rather muttering the words of Institution HOC EST CORPVS MEVM and Hic est sanguis meus albeit heere is the greatest and most necessarie Cause of expressing them for the satisfaction of everie understanding Hearer among you For those you call the words of Consecration the just pronuntiation whereof you hold to be most necessary because if the Priest in uttering of them faile but in one syllable so farre as to alter the sense of Christs words which as you say may happen by six manner of Defects then the whole Consecration is void and the thing which you adore is in substance meerely * See Booke 7 c. 5. §. 2. Bread still If therefore the People shall stand perplexed in themselves whether the words which are concealed be duly uttered by the Priest to himselfe how shall it not concerne them to heare the same expresly pronounced lest that according to your owne Doctrine they be deluded in a point of faith and with divine worship adore Bread instead of the person of the Sonne of God Whereof we are to entreat at large in due * Ibidem place if God permit Your fift Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse is a second â—ontradiction against the Sense of the former words of Christ SAID VNTO THEM SECT VII AGaine that former Clause of the Canon of Christ to wit He said unto them teacheth that as his voyce Saying unto them was necessarily audible to reach their eares so was it also Intelligible to instruct their understanding and therefore not uttered in a Tongue unknowne Which is evident by that he giveth a Reason for the taking of the Cup Enim For this is the bloud c. which particle For saith your f ENIM Ea particula intelligitur in forma panis Bellar l. 4. de Euch. c. 14 Cardinall is implyed in the first part also Now whosoever reasoneth with another would be understood what he saith The contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse The Councell of Trent saith your g Concil Trident. Sess 22 c. 8. Statuit non expedire ut divinum Officium vulgari passim linguâ celebretur Azor. les Inst Moral par 1. l. 8. c. 26. §. Verum enim-verò Iesuite decreed that it is not expedient that the Divine service should be celebrated in a knowne tongue Whereupon you doubt not to censure the contrarie Doctrine of Protestants to be h Asserere Missas celebrandas esse linguâ vulgari consilium est Schismaticum Haereticum non acceptandum nè Ecclesia dormitâsse aliquandò atque adeò errâsse videatur Salmeron les Tom. 9. Tract 32. Sect. 5. p. 251. Hereticall and Schismaticall and no wayes to be admitted But why Lest say you the Church may seeme a long time to have beene asleepe and to have erred in her contrarie Custome So you Our Church of England contrarily thus * Article 24. It is a thing repugnant to the Word of God and Custome of the Primitive Church to have publicke prayer and ministring of the Sacraments in a tongue not knowne of the people This occasioneth a double Plea against your Church of Rome first in defence of the Antiquitie and Vniversalitie next for the Equitie of Prayers in a knowne tongue in the publicke service of God I. CHALLENGE Against the Romish Alteration of the Catholicke and Vniversall practice of the Church and the Antiquitie thereof IN the examination of this point Consider in the first place your owne Confessions given by your i Tempore Apostolorum totum populum respondere soliâ—uÌ„ in divinis officijs â—â—t longo tempore post in Occidente Oriente Ecclesia Tempore Chrysostomâ— Cypriani atque Hieronymi eadem Consuetudo invaluit Et Hieronymus scribit in prâ—efat lib. 2. ad Gal. In Ecclesijs urbis Romae quasi coeleste tonited audiri populum
Epistle of Pope Cornelius Thirdly that whereas Some had devised for Reverence-sake certaine Silver vessels by the which they received the Sacrament yet two Councels the one at Toledo and the other at Trullo did forbid that fashion and required that they should receive it with their hands Hitherto from your selves Vaine therefore is your pretence of Reverence in suffering the Priest onely to receive it with his hands as being more worthy in himselfe than all the rest of the people when as our High-Priest Christ Iesus disdained not to deliver it into the hands of his Disciples Or else to deny this liberty unto the people as if their Hands were lesse sanctified than their mouthes But you will say that it is in Reverence lest that the Body of Christ may as you teach light upon the ground if any fragments of the Hoast should chance to fall There can be no doubt but that in the dispensation of this blessed Sacrament Christians ought to use due Cautelousnesse that it may be done without miscarriage yet must you give us leave to retort your pretence of Reverence upon your selves thus Seeing that Christ himselfe instituted and his Apostles observed and that the whole Church of Christ for so many hundred yeares thus practised the administration of this Sacrament from hand to hand without respect of such Reverence they therefore were not of your opinion to thinke every Crumme or piece of the Hoast that falleth to the ground to be really the Body of Christ This Aberration wee may call in respect of others but a small Transgression if yet any Transgression may be called Small which is a wilfull violating of this so direct a Charge of Christ Doe this The seventh Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sense of the next words EATE YEE SECT IX AS in the third Transgression wee by these words of Christ Hee gave it to them spoken in the plurall number have proved from your owne Confessions a necessary Communion of the people in the publike Celebration thereof with the Priest against your now Profession of private Masses contrary to the ancient Custome and Vniversall practice of the Church * âšœ For we insist not upon the fourth degree of Penance in the Greeke Church called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such who in poenam staid to see themselves deprived of that Blessing which others enjoyed See above cap. 1. Sect. 2. concerning All capable thereof So now out of these words TAKE YEE EATE YEE wee observe that the persons present were Takers and Eaters of the blessed Eucharist and not onely Spectators thereof An Abuse condemned by our Church of England in her 25. Article saying Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon The Contrary Canon of the now Romane Masse But your Practice now is slat contrary in your Church by admitting people of all sorts not as the Lords Guests to Eate of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper but as Gazers only to looke on it as upon a proper Sacrifice telling the People that they seeing the Priest eate and drinke i Synod Trideat Sess 22. c. 6. Adstantes si dices spiritualiter communicant In cujus namely the priests persona totus populus spirituali quadam sumptione sanguinem Christi bibere gaudentèr debet credere Ecchiâ—â— Enchirid. de Euch. c. 10. pag. 114. and Acosta the Ies nec above Sect. 5. let g. Doe spiritually eate and drinke in the person of the Priest And the onely beholding of the Priests Sacrifice at the Elevation and Adoration thereof is esteemed amongst you at this day the most solemne and saving worship which any people can performe unto God CHALLENGE BVt Christ you see instituted this Sacrament onely for Eaters The Apostle exhorteth every man to Preparation Let a man examine himselfe and exhorting every one being prepared to Eate saith So let him eate This to use your owne k Temporibus Dionysij Arcop ut patet ex cap. 3. Hier. omnes invitabantur ad singula sacra venite fratres ad communionem Chrys Orat. ad Mart. Philog Quotidianum Sacrificium in cassum fit nemo accedit As witnesseth Card. Alan l. 2. de Euch. cap. 30. pag. 648. Sciendum est juxta antiquos Patres quod soli Communicantes divinis mysterijs interesse consueverant â—nde ante oblationem jubebantur exire Catechumeni Poenitentes sc quià nondùm se praeparaverant ad communicandum Cossand Consult Art 24. pag. 216. 217. And hee further brings in Cochlaâ—â— de Sacrificio Missae witnessing the same 1 Quòd olim tam sacerdotes quâm Laici quicunque Sacrificio Missae non interant peractâ coÌ„municatione cum Sacrificante communicabant sicut in Canon Apostolorum libris antiquissimis Doctorum Ecclesiae perspicuè cognoscitur Cassander Liturg. cap. 30. Nec propriè dici potest Communio nisi plures de eodem Sacrificio participent Haec Micrologus cap. 51. de orat ad populum Teste Espenc Tract de privata Missa fol. 232. col 2. Confessions was practised in ancient times when as the people were thus generally invited Come Brethren unto the Communion When as ancient Fathers as you have also acknowledged suffered none but capable Communicants to be present at the celebration of the Eucharist As for them that came unprepared and as not intending to Communicate they commanded them to be gone and to be packing out of doores To this purpose your owne Relator telleth you from other Authors of the practice of Antiquity and of other succeeding Churches in not suffering any to be present but such as did Communicate and of removing and expelling them that did not Nor can the Church of Rome justly take exception at this seeing that in the Romane Church also in the dayes of Pope Gregory the first l Sciendum est juâ—â—ta antiquos Patres quod soli Communicantes divinis officijs interesse consuverant Microlog de Eccles observat Et in Liturg. AEthiop Si communicate non vultis discedite In Liturg. Amen Exeant foras Nic. Cusan Dico inquit Dionys Areop quòd qui non parati erant ad susceptionem expellebantur ex Ecclesia Haec Tesse Cassandro Liturg. cap. 26. pag. 59. which was 600. yeares after Christ the office of the Deacon at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist was to cry aloud saying m Diaconus diamabat Si quis non communicet det locum Greg. Dial. cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If any do not Communicate let him give place Where wee see the religious wisedome of that ancient Church of Rome which could not suffer a Sacrifice to devoure a publike Sacrament and to exclude a Communion Whereunto the Scriptures gave the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Gathering together and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Communion as also of The Supper of the Lord Yea and Calixtus a Pope more ancient that Gregorie required that persons present should Communicate
de Euch. §. Nono p. 200 Etiam credebant Infantes tunc baptizatos nisi Eucharistiam perciperēt salvos esse non posse Idem Com. in Ioh. 6. 63. p. 717. sheweth They then beleeved that Infants baptised could not be saved except they should participate of the Eucharist taking their Argument from that Scripture of Iohn 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne c. and therefore held they it necessarie to the salvation of Infants That this was the beleefe of Pope Innocent and of the Church of Rome under him your Parisian Doctor o Innocent 1. Rom. Pont. Epist 93. ad Conc. Milever con Pelag. respondebat quòd parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine baptismatis gratia posse donari perfatuum est nisi n. manducaverint carnem filii hominis non habebunt vitam in semetipsis qui autem hanc eis sine regeneratione defendunt videntur etiam mihi Baptismum cassate velle cùm praedicant nos habere quod in eos creditur non nisi Baptismate conferendum Whence Espencaeus thus Mirum ejus temporis Pontifices ex Eucharistiae nececessitate Baptismi ejus praecursoris urgere necessitatem nisi idem ex eodem tùm loco tùm Innocentii argumento authoritate adversus eosdem hostes urgeret August Epist 106. cont Pelag. Contra Apostolicae sedis authoritatem ubi de hac ipsâ re cùm ageretur hoc testimonium exhibitum est Evangelicum ne Parvuli non baptizati vitam posse habere credantur Si autem credunt sedi Apostolicae vel potiùs ipsi Magistro Domino Apostolorum qui dicit non vitam habituros nisi manducaverint biberint c. Espenc de Adorat Euch. lib. 2. cap. 12. pag. 58. Afterwards he bringeth in many other testimonies of Saint Augustine and Ibid. pag. 59. he proveth that he did not retract his opinion Ejus haud dubiè sunt contra Iulianum libri quo valentiorem habuit Adversarium neminem in quem etiam scribendo mortuus est ac proinde sententiam non retractâsse videtur in quibus Iulianum obruit Majorum praejudicio ab Innocentio Rom. Pont. exorsus qui parvulos ait definivit nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis vitam prorsus habere non posse Espenc Ibid. And a little after he sheweth the loosenesse of Aquinas his Solutions Albeit Saint Augustine was not constant in this opinion but as may be gathered out of Bedes Collectanies in 1. Cor. 10. Nulli aliquatenùs dubitandum c. that although the Child do not participate yet by Baptisme hee is made partaker of that which it signifieth Espencaeus also proveth at large out of the expresse writings of Pope Innocent Yea and your greatly approved Binius in his Volumes of the Councels dedicated to Pope Paul the fift p Binius Tom. 1. Conc. ex Rescriptis innocentii Papae ad Conc. Millevet Epist 25. Illud vero c. Hinc Binius Hinc constat Innocenti sententia quae 600. circiter Annos viguit in Ecclesia quamque Augustinus secutus Eucharistiam Infantibus necessariam fuisse Conc. Trid. rectè decrevit eam non solum non necessariam Infantibus sed nè quidem decere ur eis distribuatur Quidam viri non vulgariter docti existimârunt Innocentium hunc locum Nisi manducaveritis c. in Baptismi sumptione interpretari Sed decepti sunt quòd vim argumenti quo Pontifex utitur non sunt assecuti Ille enim ut Pelagium qui docebat Baptismum Infantibus Parente fideli prognatis peccatum originale non contrahentibus necessarium non esse convinceret hâc Ratiocinatione est usus Quibus necessaria est Eucharistiae sumptio usdem Baptismi sumptio magis esse necessaria At infantibus omnibus esse necessariam Eucharistiae sumptionem probatur per verba Iohannis Nisi manducaveritis c. Quae expositio praxi Ecclesiae nunc repugnat De Augustini sententia lege ipsum Augustinum Epist 106. Col. 148. Edit Basil 1543. Haec Binius in Editione sua Colon. Ann. 1618. being omitted in his former Printed Volume Auno 1606. explaineth the same so exactly See the Marginall Citation that it will permit no evasion And so much the rather because that which the Tridentine Fathers allege for cause of Alteration doth confirme this unto us It is undecent say they to give the Eucharist unto Infants This may perswade us that Innocent held it necessary els would he not have practized and patronized a thing so utterly Vndecent ⚜ Besides one of your 14 Iac. Gordon Scorus lib. Contr. 8. c. 1. Prima abrogationis causa quia frequens communio Infantium fieri non poterat nisi indecorè cùm periculo profanationis tanti Sacramenti Secunda causa quià orta est Haeresis quorundam qui existimârunt hanc communionem esse prorsus ad salutem necessariam Infantibus pag. 111. Iesuites spareth not to make a double cause of the Alteration of that Custome one to avoid the Vndecencie and Prophanation of the Sacrament meaning by the casting it up againe and secondly because of the Heresie of those who thought the Reociving of this Sacrament necessarie for the Salvation of Infants Calling this opinion an Heresie ⚜ Wee dispute therefore If the Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Innocent the first held it a Doctrine of faith in the behalfe of Infants that they ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist the same Church of Rome in her Councell of Trent whose Decrees by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth are all held to be beleeved upon necessitie of Salvation did decree contrarily that the participation of the Eucharist is not Necessary no nor yet decent for Infants Say now did the Church of Rome not erre in the dayes of Pope Innocent then is shee now in an errour Or doth shee not now erre herein then did she formerly erre and consequently may erre hereafter not onely in determining a matter to be Necessary to Salvation which in it self is Superfluous and Vndecent but also in opinion Hereticall Thus of the contrary custome of the Church of Rome in elder times The now contrary Opinion concerning the Romane Masse at this day Even at this day also your Iesuite will have us to understand the meaning of your Church to be that r Non quòd Infantes sunt incapaces hujus Sacramenti sed quià hoc nunc magis expedit ad decentiam reverentiam quae aliquali utilitati parvulorum praeferenda est Suarez Tom. 3. Disp 62. Sect. 3. §. Quocirca Infants are capable of the Sacrament of the Eucharist ⚜ And not thus onely but as unreasonably altogether you hold that 14 Non quicunquè usu rationis carentes arcendi sunt à sumptione Eucharistiae sed hi qui nunquam habuerunt usum rationis Aquin. 〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉 Qu. 80. Art 9 Mad-men when they are destitute of reason and discretion may notwithstanding be made Partakers of the same blessed
Controversie is by way of Comparison as namely First by comparing the Institution of Christ with the contrarie Ordination and Institution of the Romane Church Secondly Christ his Example with contrarie Examples Thirdly the Apostles Practice with the adverse Practice Fourthly the Primitive Custome of the Church Catholicke with the after-contrarie Custome and the Latitude thereof together with the latitude of the other Fiftly the Reasons thereof with Reasons Sixtly the divers manners of beginning of the one as also the Dispositions of men therein with the repugnant manner and Dispositions of men in continuing the other The discussing of all which points will present unto your view divers kinds of Oppositions In the first is the Conflict of Religion with Sacrilege In the second a soveraigne Presidence in Christ with Contempt In the third of Faithfulnesse with Faithlesnesse In the fourth of Antiquity with Noveltie In the fift of Vniversality with Paucity In the sixt of Wisedome with Folly as also of Charity with Injustice and Impiety In the seaventh of Knowledge with Ignorance as likewise of Devotion with Prophanenesse And all these marching and warring together without any possibility of Reconciliation at all The first Comparison is of the Institution of Christ with the Contrary proving the Precept of Christ for the Vse of Both kinds to all lawfull Communicants SECT II. THere is one word twice used in the tenour of Christ his Institution once concerning the Bread HOC FACITE DO THIS the second time touching the Cup * 1. Cor. 11. 25. HOC FACITE QVOTIESCVNQVE DO THIS AS OFTEN c. Both which whosoever should denie to have the Sound and Sense of a Precept might be confuted by your owne Iesuites Doctors Bishops and Cardinalls among * See all this above Chap. 2. Sect. 1. in the Margent whom we find your Barradas interpreting it Praecipit your Valentian Praeceptum your Iansenius Mandat your Alan Praeceptio your Bellarmine Iubet each one signifying a Command But of what this is our next Inquisition And it is found that All of them acknowledge Christs Praecept simply for the Bread and Some of them onely but conditionally of the Cup whereof we are now to speake The Acts of Christ were some belonging to Consecration and some to Distribution Manducation and Drinking Such as concerned Consecration of both kinds being with common consent ackowledged to be under that Command of Hoc facite are the Taking Bread and blessing it c. To the other touching Administration of the Cup whereof it is sayd He tooke it and gave it to his Disciples whom after he had Commanded saying Drinke you all of this hee added the other Command set downe by Saint Paul saying unto them Doe this as often as yee shall doe it in remembrance of Mee That by this Obligation hee might charge them to communicate in both kinds A Precept then it must needs bee But wee are not ignorant of your Evasions Your first Evasion Although say e Bellar. lib. 1. de Eucharistilia cap. 25. §. Tertuâ— you it be said to his Disciples Drinke you all and Doe this yet it is spoken to them as they were Priest And only to the Apostles saith Master * M. Brereley Liturg Tract 4. §. 7. after the letter y and after g. Brerely And againe The Apostles did represent the Priests CHALLENGE VVEe answere that your owne f Quorundam opinio est Apostolos factos sacerdotes per illa verba Hoc facite Sed de his verbis non constat facta consecratione facta consecratione immediatè ea dixisse anrequà m Euchristiam ub utraque specie dedit vel post Quod si verba ista Christus post datam Eucharistiam illam dixit manifestum est illum non Sacerdotibus hinc dedisse quod mihi ex literae decursu magis probatur Alfon. de Castro con Heres T it Eucharist pag. 158. Castro will not allow your Antecedent but is perswaded rather by the manifest Current of the Text that The Apostles were not Priests when the Cup was given unto them And although they were then Priests yet we answere that your Consequence viz. Ergò onely Priests are enjoyned to receive the Cup will appeare to be both fond in it selfe and to your owne selves pernicious First as fond as if one should argue thus It was at the first said only to the Apostles Goe and baptize all Nations Ergò none but the Apostles have Command to Baptize which office you permit aswell to women Laicke as to men Next pernicious for say Wee pray you doe the words Drinke yee all of this command all Priests to drinke then must this condemne the contrary * See above in this Chapter at the letter b. Practice of your now Church of Rome which alloweth the Cup to no Priest present but onely to him that doth Consecrate which is directly confuted by the Example of Christ who administred the Cup unto all his Apostles by your doctrine Priests Againe Do these words onely command the Priest to receive the Cup then likewise do you condemne your former Church of Rome which hath sometime permitted the Cup unto Laike Yea and your Cardinall Alan g Hoc facite Quod cùm pertineat maxime ad potestatem sacerdotalem circa consecrandum sacrificandum tamen Apostolus 1. Cor. 11. resert quoque ad sumptionem sive Laicorum sive Sacerdotum Quod Cyrillus facit in Iohan. lib. 12. cap. 38. Et Basil in Moral Reg. 21. cap. 3. ut Hoc facite pertineat ad totam actionem Eucharisticam à Christo factam tà m à Presbyteris quà m a plebe posteà faciendam Eodemque verbo imprimis potestas consecrandi offerendi deinde etiam mandatum sumendi tà m Sacerdotibus quà m alijs fidelibus detur cùm utrumque suo modo licet prius exactius Sacrificium quà m sumptio memoriam mortis Dominicae â—ontineat Alan lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 37. pag. 646. doth not sticke to tell you out of the ancient Fathers that the Command Doe this declared by Saint Luke is applyed by Saint Paul to the receiving in both kinds aswell of People as of Priest And by virtue of the same Command of Christ The Greeke Church hath alwayes observed the use of both kinds unto this day So hee justifying our contrary Consequence even as also your * Laici adulti tenentur ex institutione Christi communicare jure divino hoc thomas probat ex Luc. 22. Hoc facite in commemoretionem mei quae habent vim praecepti non tantùm de celebrando ait Scotus sed etiam de administrando Sacramentum populo Cosmus Phil. de offic Sacerdot Tom. 1. de Sacrific Missae l. 2. c. 2. Cosmus Philiarchus defendeth and confirmeth the same by Aquinas and Scotus the two most eminent Doctors of your Church holding that Laicks are chargible to receive the Eucharist by virtue of the Command of Christ in the same words of Institution Do this âšœ And
illum retinuerunt Graeci quoque hodiè Orientales licitè sanctè quod ad ipsum ritum attinet cum observant Salmeron les Tom. 9. Tract 37. pag. 308. Minimè negamus quin utraque species frequentissimè olim etiam administrata fuerit ut apparet ex Paulo Atl anasio Cyprian Hier. Leone Hist Tripart ex Greg. passim ex alijs veterum Testimonijs itemque ex D. Thoma qui etiam suo tempore in aliquibus Ecclesijs administratum Calicem fuisse significat Valent. les de usu Euch. cap. 8 §. Alioqui pag. 496. Ingenuè tamen apertè confitemur morem generalem extitisse communicandi etiam Laicis sub utraque specie sicut hodiè fit apud Graecos olim erat in more positum apud Corinthios in Africa De quo more loquitur Cyprian Athanas Dionys Etiam probatur ex Ecclesia Latina atque in hunc usum erant olim Calices ministeriales paterae ad differentiam calicum paterarum in quibus Sacerdotes offerebant Salmeron Tom. 9. quo sup Tract 35. §. Ingenuè p. 294. B. Gregorius Sexcenta hujusmodi proferri possent Vsus utriusque speciei à Christo Apostolis à Primitiva Ecclesia qui illum usurpââ—unt comprobatus fuit In posteriori etiam Ecclesia multi Latini Occidentales illum retinuerâ—nt Grâ—â— i quoque hodiè Salmeron ib. Tract 37. § Deinde Satis compertum est universalem Ecclesiam Christi in hunc usque diem Occidentalem seu Romanam mille annis à Christo in solenni praesertim ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione utramvis panis vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse Cassand Consult pag 166. 167. And lest any doubt should be made of Gregory the first Pope of that name his testimony is cited in Gratian among the Popes Decrees De Consecrat Dist 2. Quid sit sanguis Sanguis in ora fidelium funditur Wee must confesse Wee doe confesse yea Wee do ingenuously confesse a Custome of both kinds aswell to the Laicks as Priests to have beene in the Primitive Church most frequent and generall as is proved by the ancient Fathers both Greeke and Latine among whom are Leo and Gregorie both Popes of Rome yea and universall also for a long time continuing a thousand yeares in the Church of Rome and in the Greeke Church unto this day So they Where wee see both the Antiquity and Vniversality thereof to the full which it were easie for us to have shewne Gradatim descending downe from the first Age unto the twelfth but that when wee have as much confessed as neede be proved it might be judged to bee but an importunate diligence and Curiositie to labour any further Neverthelesse if peradventure any should desire to see one or two Testimonies for the last Age hee may satisfie himselfe in the g Bern. Serm. 3. de ramâ—â— palmarum de Sacrament corp sanguinis Dom. Nemo est qui nesciat hanc tà m singularem alimoniam eâ primâ die viz. Palmâ—rum exhibitam commendatam mâ—ndatam deinceps frequentari Algerus lib. 2. c. 8. de Sacram. Iste mos inolevit in Ecclesia ab ipso Christo qui corpus suum sanguinem divisim consecravit dedit Vide etiam Rupertum de divin of fic lib. 6. cap. 23. Margent at the first sight The Romish Objections concerning Primitive Custome Divers Objections are urged on your side to abate something of the Vniversality of the Custome of Both kindes which we defend but if they shall not seeke to decline the Question and to rove about as it were at unset markes their Arguments are but as so many Bolts shot altogether in vaine For our defence is oâ—â—ly this that in the publike solemnization and Celebration of this Sacrament in an Assembly of Christians freely met to communicate no one example can bee shewne in all Antiquity throughout the Catholike Church of Christ for the space of a thousand yeares inhibiting either Priest or Laick from Communicating in both kindes who was duly prepared to receive the Sacrament As for the examples which you usually object they are of no force at all being h Oh Consuetudinem Eucharistâ—â—m domum deferendi c. Sol. By reason of persecution and the pâ—â—icity of Ministers but afterwards abolished by the Church as was the ministration thereof to Infants Ob Communio olim Laicis data â—n poenam gravis delicti Bellar. lib. 4 de Euch. cap. 24. Sol. As if the punishment of the Laicks Communion could signifie Partaking in one kind which is confuted by Durant lib. 2. de Ritib cap. 55. Nonnulli crediderunt Laicam Communionem appellatam quòd sub unica specie etiam Clerici imò Sacerdotes ipsi non conficientes coÌ„municant nunc sub una specie Quare verius est Laicam communionem dictam quia extra sacratiorem locum ubi Sacrificium fit ubi Sacerdos conficiens tùm Ministrieâ— nunicabant And by Pamelius in Cyprian Epist 152. Laicum communicare nihil aliud est quam inter Laicos i. e. extrâ cancellos hoc est extra chorum ut hodiè loquimur Lorinus les in Act. 2. Reverà distinctio non in specie utraque et una esse videtur quoniam utraque species concedebatur nempe Laicis sed in destinato loco separato pro Clericis And there were two punishments of Priests anciently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privari Clericatus honore et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excommunicari âšœ Yea and Gabriel Episc Albispinae l. 1. Observat Sacr. 3. Confuting Bellar. by name Si opinio Bellarmini probabilitate niteretur Canones illam non praetermissuri erant quandoquidem Laici illis temporibus sub utraque specie communicabant âšœ Ob Ritus erat ut Communio praesanctificatorum esset sub una specie die Parascevis corpus fine specie sanguinis Sol. The word it selfe being in the Plurall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prae sanctificata confuteth this Objection and so doe the Liturgies proved to be 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 us 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 very long continuance Many yeares by-passed saith i In Conc. Constant de usu unius speciei Cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta hactenus diutissime observata sit habenda est prolege Eodem modo Conc. Basil penè eisdem verbis Deinde latam legem quamplurimis retrò annis Consuetudo jucundissima effecerat Gasp Cardillus apud Act. Conc. Trident. p. 220. 221. 223. your Villalpandus But most precisely your Iesuite k Secundum certum est Ecclesiam praesentem quae illam praecessit per trecentos aut ducentos annos
Christ doth especially concurre with his owne Ordinance and therefore much rather where the forme of a Sacrament ordained and instituted by himselfe is observed then where it is as of you so notoriously perverted and contemned Yet because you may think we rest upon either our owne or yet of other your Doctors Iudgement in this Defence we shall produce to this purpose the consonaâ—â— Doctrine of ancient Fathers Our third proofe is taken from the manifold Reasons of ancient Fathers for Confirmation of the Necessity of the Communicating in Both kinds SECT IX FOr the proofe of the necessary use of Both kindes in the solemne and publike dispensation of this Sacrament the particular Testimonies of many ancient Fathers might be produced but your owne Authors will ease us of that labour by relating and g Satis compertum est universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem OccideÌ„talem autem seu Romanam mille ampliù à Christo annis in solenn prae fertim ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione Vtramque panis vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse atque ut ità facerent inductos fuisse primò Instituto exemploque Christi qui hoc Sacramentum corporis sanguinis sui duobus hisce panis vini symbolis Discipulis suis fidelium Communicantium personam repraesentantibus prebuit â—um quià in Sacramento sanguinis peculrarem quaÌ„dam virtutem gratiam hoc vini symbolo significatam esse credebant tùm ob rationes mysticas hujus Instituti quae à veteribus variè adducuntur viz. ad repraesentandam memoriam Passioâ—is Christi in oblatione corporis sanguinis effusione juxta illud Pauli Quoâ—iescunque comederitis panem hunc Calicem Domini biberitis mortem Domâ—â— annunciatis donec venerit Item ad significandam integram â—ofectionem sive nutritionem quae cibo potu constat quomodò Christus inquit Caro mea verus est cibus et sanguis meus verus est potus Item ad designandam redemptionem tuitionem corporis animae ut corpus pro salute corporis sanguis pro salute animae quae in sanguine est dari intelligatur Ad significandum quoque Christum utramque naturam assumpsisse corporis animae ut utramque redimeret Cassand Consult Art 22. pag. 166. 167 Christus licet totus sub una specie tamen administrari voluit sub duplici primò ut totam naturam assumpsisse se ostenderet ut utramque redimeret panis enim ad corpus refertur vinum ad animam Si in altera tantùm sumeretur tum mortem suam ad alterius salutem valere significaretur Pet. Lombard 4. Dist 11. Hic Calix pari cuactis conditione sit traditus Theoph in 1. Cor. 11. In veteri Testamento quaedam Sacerdos quaedam populus comedebat nec poterat populus participare illis quorum Sacerdos particeps erat nunc autem omnibus unum corpus proponitur unum poculum Chrysost in 2. Cor. Hom. 18. Coena Domini omnibus debet esse communis quum ille Christus Discipulis suis omnibus qui aderant aequalitèr tradidit Sacramenta Hier. in Cor. 11. Quomodò ad martyrij poculum eos idoneos fecimus si non ad poculum Domini adâ—â—mus Cyprian Epist 54. ad Cornel. Episc Rom. de pace lapâ—â— danda Etiam Lombardus lib. 4. dist 11. ex Ambrosio ad 1. Cor. 11. Valet ad tuitionem corporis animae quod percipimus quià caro Christi pro salute corporis sanguis verò pro anima nostra offertur confessing as much in effect as we did intend to prove viz. That the ancient Fathers were induced to the Continuance of the Custome in Both kindes First by the Example and Institution of Christ Secondly by some particular Grace which they held to be signified by the Cup. Thirdly for the Representation that it had to the Passion of Christ distinctly and respectively to his Body and Blood Fourthly to resemble the Redemption which man hath in his Body by Christ's Body and by his Blood in the soule Fiftly To expresse by these Symbols the perfect spirituall Nourishments wee have by his Body and Blood Sixtly To understand that this Sacrament doth equally belong to People as well as to Priests which they with great earnestnesse enforce with joynt consent as a necessary Ius and Right belonging to both Seventhly that the Cup of the Eucharist doth animate soules to receive the Cup of bloody Martyrdome when the time should be âšœ Eightly by the Precept of Christ 10 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Qu. 801. Disp 216. cap. 6. Iustinus in 2. Apolog pro Christianis postquam descripsit communionem sub utraque specie subjungit Apostoli enim in Commentatiâ—s suis quae Evangelia dicuntur ità sibi Christum praecepisse tradiderunt Respondeo Nullum aliud praeceptum Domini Iustinum ibi agnovisse praeter Hoc facite in memoriam mei Very well and Hoc facite is as full a Command us Hoc manducate or Hoc bibite Iustine one of the most ancient Guides in Christs Church saying plainely that Christ commanded Both kindes to be received And the Commandement which Iustine meant your Iesuite attributeth to Christs saying DO THIS And Cyprian as directly as succinctly 11 Cyprian Serm. de Coena Dom. Evangelium praecâ—pit ut bibatur Resp Satis est si bibatur à Sacerdotibus licet non à Laicis But this is refuted by the Fathers who will admit of no Inequality among Christians in communicating of this sacred Banquet The Gospell commandeth the drinking of it yea and Saint Augustine was so peremptory for the Common use of the Cup that hee called Christian mens 12 Aug. Ser. 2. Feriae Paseâ—ae Simul hoc sumimus simul bibimus quià simul vivimus Teste Cassandro in Exposit Homilijs in Hymnum aquinatis Nec corpus sine sanguine nec sanguis sine corpore jure communicatur 〈◊〉 atque is communicandi ritus usquè ad Tho. Aquinâ—tis â—â—tatem amplius in Ecclesia Catholica obtinuerat tandem ista antiquà Distributio non ut anâ—eà necessaria sed ut licita tantum haberi coeperit Ibid. Bibere in this Sacrament to bee their Vivere and that lawfully the one cannot bee communicated without the other âšœ Whereunto may bee added the Constant profession of the h Graeci dicunt esse necessariò sub utraque specie panis scilicet vini communicandum adeo quidem ut qui sub una specie tantùm communicat etiamsi laicus sit peccate dicatur quod ut aiunt contra Christi Praeceptum agat qui sub utraque specie communicare praecepit Prateol Elench Haeret. lib. 7. tit Graeci âšœ For proofe that the Cause of Priest and people in the receiving of this Sâ—crament is equall we have these Sayings of Antiquity Dominica coena omnibus debet esse communis quià dabatur omnibus Discipulis qui aderant Hier. in 1. Cor. c. 11. Est
If the particular reason which o Dicendum quòd vinum modicè sumptum non potest multum aegrotanti nocere Aquinas part 3. quaest 74. Art 1. Aquinas giveth saying That Wine moderately taken of such can do no hurt may not satisfie yet this being also a Cause accidentall and extraordinary you ought to be regulated by this generall Rule That extraordinary Cases ought not to justle out ordinary Lawes and Customes For that Command of Christ to his Apostles Go preach to every Creature stood good in the generall albeit many men happened to be deafe Saint Peter requireth of every Christian of sit yeares that he be prepared to give an answer of his faith to every one that asketh which precept was not therefore alterable because of multitudes of many that were dumbe Finally to close up with you he that by the rule of Hospitality is to cheere up his guests doth not prescribe that because some mens stomackes are queasie and not able to endure Wine or else some meates therefore all others should be kept fasting from all meates and Drinkes and the Eucharist you know is called by Saint Paul The Supper of the Lord and by ancient Fathers an holy * See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9. in the Châ—ll Banquet The second kind of Romish Pretences is of Such which might have beene common to other Churches The other Causes above-mentioned were common to the primitive Church of Christ wherein the use of Both kindes was notwithstanding preserved and continued except that you will say no Northerne Nations were Christians in those times and that no stomackes of Christians were dis-affected to wine in loathing it c. But two other Pretences you have which you thinke to be of more speciall-force to forbid the use of this Sacrament in Both kindes One is Because saith your m Primò movet Ecclesiam consuetudo recepta approbata consensu Gentium Populorum Bellar. quo sup Cardinall such is the now-received and approved Custome of Nations and People So he But first to argue that your Church did therefore forbid the use of both kindes because she had approved the contrary Custome is a meere Nugacitie and Tautologie and as much as to say Shee would forbid it because shee would forbid it Secondly saying that the Vse of but One kinde had indefinitely the Consent of Nations and People is a flat falsity because as hath beene confessed The Greeke Church not to mention AEthiopians AEgyptians Armenians and Others have alwayes held the Contrary Custome Lastly to justifie your Churches Innovation in consenting to the humour of People of latter times what can you censure it lesse than a grosse and absurd Indulgence The other Motive which the n Mover Eccleclesiam quidem vehementer Irreverentia profanationes tanti Sacramenti quae vix evitari possent in tanta fidelium multitudine si omnibus daretur sub utraque specie Bellar. ibid. Cardinall calleth a Vehement presumption and which all your Objectors most earnestly urge is the Cause of Irreverence lest the blood might be spilt especially in such a multitude of faithfull Communicants and also lest any particle of the Hoast fall to the ground saith Master * Liturg. tract 4. §. 6. Brerely We have but foure Answers to this mighty Objection First that this was not held a Reason to Christ or his Apostles or to the Church of Christ for many ages when notwithstanding the multitudes of Communicants were innumerable Secondly that The Casuall spilling of the Cup saith your o Vtriusque speciei usum illicitum esse atque sacrilegium aitfalsum est quòd usui Calicis annexum sic peccatum vel sacrilegium propter periculum effusionis nam si haberet adjunctum peccatum neque Christus Dominus neque Apostoli in primitiva Ecclesia nec Orientales modo nec Occidentales ante Conc. Constantiense neque denique Sacerdotes celebrantes eo uterentur ritu Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 37. §. Deinde p 308. Salmeron is no sinne else would not Christ have instituted the use of the Cup nor would the Apostles or Primitive Church aswell in the West as in the East in their communicating nor yet the Priest in consecrating have used it So he We might adde by the same reason should people be forbid the other part also lest as your Priest said any particle thereof should fall to the ground Furthermore for the avoiding of Spilling you as your Cardinall Alan p Cernuntur hodiè ex antiquitate relictae quaedam fistulae argenteae aureae velut canales calicibus vetustioribus adjunctae ut per eas sine effusione hauriri posset sanguis è calice quarum in Ordinario Rom. sit mentio Et adhuc in Missa solenni Pontificis adhibentur ubi ministri Cardinales aut illustriores personae communicant sub utraque specie posteriorem speciem fistulà haurieÌ„tes sed ista instrumenta non fuisse in usu apud plebem in parochialibus Ecclesijs planè existimo sed tantum in sacris Cardinalium Canonicorum et Monachorum Conventibus Alan lib. 1. de Euch cap 47. p. 495. relateth have provided Pipes of silver which are used by Popes Cardinals Monkes and some other Illustrious lay-Personages Surely there being no respect of persons with God as said Saint Peter we thinke that he who will be Saint Peter's Successor should have taken out with Saint Peter that lesson of Christ of loving the whole flocke of Christ aswell Lambes as Sheepe not to provide Pipes or Tunnels for himselfe alone and his Grandes for receiving this part of the Sacrament and to neglect all other Christians albeit never so true members of Christ For this wee all know that q 1. Cor. 11. Itaque fratres mei cum conveneritis invicem expectate Dominus ex aequo Tibi pauperi mensam proprij corporis poculum sanguinis tradidit Teste Salmeron les Tom. 14. Disp 19. pag. 153. Our Lord Christ prepared his table aswell for the poore as the Rich according to the Apostles Doctrine by your owne construction answerable to the Doctrine of ancient Fathers And that the Pretence of Reverence cannot be a sufficient Reason of altering the ordinance of Christ we may learne from ancient Histories which evidently declare that the opinion of Reverence hath often beene the Damme and Nourse of manifold Superstitions As for example The Heretikes called * See §. 9. Discalceati in pretence of more humility thought that they ought to goe bare-foote The * See above Sect. 8. g Encratitae in pretence of more sanctity abhorred marriage The r Aquarij solam aquam apponendam asserebant sobeietatis conservandae causâ vinum vitantes Alsons à Caflto cont Id ere 's Tit. Eucharistia Har. 6. Aquarij in pretence of more sobriety used water in this Sacrament The Manichees wanted not their pretence of not drinking wine in the Eucharist because they thought it was created by an evill Spirit And yet were
these judged by Pope Gelasius to be Sacrilegious âšœ Hence was it that your Iesuite demanded 13 Nic. Causin Ies in his booke called the Holy Court pag. 539. How was it possible saith he that the Heresie of Eutyches being nousled under a false zeale of Reverence towards the person of the Sonne of God might not insnare the Empresse Pulcheria a woman Yea and what greater defence had the Pharisees for all their Superstitions than that of Reverence whom notwithstanding Christ did pierce thorow with so many Vae's for annulling of the Precepts of God by their Traditions under the pretence of religious Reverence and sanctity In briefe It was the opinion of Reverence that made Saint Peter to contradict our Lords Command when he said Thou shalt never wash my feete yet how dangerous it had beene for Peter to have persisted in opposition the Reply of our Saviour doth declare If I wash not thy feete faith Christ thou hast no part with me c. Vpon which Text Saint Å¿ Discamus Christum prout vult venerari honorato namque jucundissimus est honor non quem nos putamus nam eum Petrus honorare putabat cùm sibi pedes eum lavare prohibuit sed non erat honor quem agebac sed contrarium Chrysost Hom. 60. ad pop Antioch Tom. 1. Chrysostome readeth unto you this Lecture Let us therefore learne saith he to honour and reverence Christ as he would and not as wee thinke meete And sure we are that he would that same which he commanded saying Do this Therefore our next Difference betweene our defence and yours is no other than obedient Reverence and irreverent or rather irreligious Disobedience As for your Pretence of manifesting hereby a t Si sic tanta esset degnitas Laicorum circà sumptionem corporis Christi quanta Clericorum Gerson Tract de utraque specie Greater dignity of Priests than of Laicks it is too phantasticall for the singularity too harsh for the noveltie and too gracelesse for the impietie thereof seeing that Christ who gave his Body and Blood an equall price of Redemption for all sorts would have the Sacrament of his Body and Blood equally administred to People as to Priests as you have heard the Fathers themselves professe The Third kinde of Romish Pretences which are more peculiar to their owne Church in two points First because a Movit Ecclesiam ad hunc usum stabiliendum lege firmandum quòd videret ab Haereticis et ex errore oppugnari Sacramentarij autem non credunt Concomitantiam sanguinis Domini cùm corpore in specie panis undè etiam ij Lutheranorum maximè urgent utramque speciem qui cum Sacramentarijs rident Concomitaâ—â—tiam Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 28. §. Secundò Heretikes saith Bellarmine and meaning Protestants do not believe Concomitancie that is to say that the blood of Christ is received under the forme of bread but for this Concomitancie the Church was moved to prescribe the use of the Eucharist in one kinde So he And this point of Concomitancse is that which b In his booke dedicated to K. Iames. Master Fisher and c In his Liturg. of the Masse pag. 396. Master Brerely most laboured for or rather laboured upon And albeit your Romane d Maximè omnium ad convellendam eorum haeresin qui negabant sub utraque specie corpus Christi contineri Catech. Rom. par 2. c. 4. nu 50. Catechisme judgeth this the principall Cause of inducing your Church to preferre one kinde yet wee whom you call Heretikes believe that the devout Communicant receiving Christ spiritually by faith is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucified in the inward act of the Soule and only deny that the Whole is received Sacramentally in this outward act under one onely part of this Sacrament which is the present Question And in this wee say no more than your Bishop Iansenius judged reasonable who hath rightly argued saying e Verùm non facilè apparet quomodò apertè exterior illa sumptio dici possit bibitio manducatio rectè dicitur quià sumitur aliquid ibi per modum cibi sed quomodò bibitio cùm nihil sumatur per modum potus non n. diceremus eum manducare et bibere qui panem tinctum vino sumeret quamvis sumat quod famem tollat et sitim Proindè secundùm horum sententiam videtur omninò dicendum cum dicitur manducare bibere non ratione actus exterioris qui manducationis tantùm speciem habet sed ratione actus interioris nempe ratione fidei Iansen Concord in Evang. pag. 457. It doth not easily appeare how the outward receiving of Christ under the forme of Bread should he called Drinking but onely Eating being received after the manner of meates as that is called Drinking onely which is received after the manner of drinke Drinking therfore and Eating are distinguished by Christ in the outward Act. So he even as your owne * Durand Rationale lib. 4. c. 54. Vna pars absque alia sumpta non est completum Sacramentum cùm panis corpus significat non potest sacramentaliter sumi sinè altera specie before him had truly concluded with whom Master * See Booke 2. Cap. 2. § 4. Brerely will beare a part Therefore your Concomitancie if wee respect the Sacramentall manner of Receiving is but a Chimaera and as great a Solecisme as to say that the Body and Bones of Christ are drunke and his Blood eaten contrary to the Sacramentall representation in receiving Bread and Wine as hath beene proved 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 answer plainly and without Circumlocution that the Reason is Lest that your Church might seeme to have erred in her alteration if the ancient Custome And this your f Secunda ratio quià qui Concomitantiam negant ex alio pernitioso errore petunt utramque speciem quià nimirum existimant jure divino esse praeceptum propterea totam Ecclesiam longo tempore in hac re turpiter enâssè Bellar. quo sup §. Secundo Cardinall Bellarmine and the Iesuite g Rectissimè facit Ecclesia quod ipsa praxi contratiâ refutat eorum haeresin qui utramque speciem jure divino necessariam omnibus esse perperam contendunt Quae ratio jure optimo inter caetera cosiderata est in Conc. Constant contra Bohemos in Conc. Trident. contra recenâ—iores Sectarios Greg. de Valent. Ies Tract de usu Eucharist cap 10 §. Deindè pag 499. Valentian use and urge 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 use h Ego existimo Patres
judged 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 senselesse 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 m Vt nobis Iocupletissiâ—i testes atque omni exceptione majores retulerunt in Germania qui eò loci per omnia obediunt Romanis Pontificibus non solùm Reverendi Patres Calicem vitae non cupiunt aut petere audent c. Gasp Card Villalp apud Act. Concil Trident. pag. 222. §. Accedit above-said Gasper Cardillo in the Councell of Trent with exultation told their Father-hoods as being a matter of great joy that they who are under the Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome in Germany dare not so much as desire the Cup of life So hee A GENERALL CHALLENGE Concerning this last Transgression of Christ his Massè SECT XIII IN this wee 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 Vnâ—â—aritablenesse can be more odious than when they cannot but confesse that there is more spirituall grace in the receiving of the Communion in Both kindes do notwithstanding boast even in the open Councel of Trent of some of their Professors who in obedience to the Church of Rome do not onely * See the last testimonie above their owne words not desire the Cup of life but also dare not so much as desire it Which Vaunt wee thinke besides the Impietie thereof inferreth a note of prophane Tyranny Secondly when wee compare these Fathers of Trent with the Fathers of most primitive Antiquity they answer n Tertio loco objiciunt Ecclesiae sapientiam antiquitatem atque potestatem atque potestatem aiunt enim Ecclesiam primitivam quae antiquior scientiâ atque vitae sanctitate praestantior erat utraque specie usam fuisse nostra igitur illam imitari debet praesertim eum eandem atque illa habet potestatem in ejusmodi legibus positivis sive abrogandis sive dispensandis Respondemus non esse dubium quin Ecclesia primitiva nostrae majore charitate ac proindè uberiori sapientia praecelluerit nihilominus tamen interdum contingit minùs sapientem in aliquo maliùs sapere quâm alium absolute sapientiorem Saepe etiam accidit minùs perfectum hominem vitare aliquem errorem quem melior non vitat Salmcron Ies Tom. 9. Tractat. 38. §. Tertio loco pag. 320. Although the primitive Church say they did exceed our's in Zeale Wisdome and Charity neverthelesse it falleth out sometimes that the wiser may in some things be lessè wise than another Which answer if wee 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 of all ancient Fathers and indeed as the saying is To put upon them the Foole. The like answer two of their Iesuites made to the Practice of the Apostles saying that your Church having the same spirit hath the same power to alter the Custome whereas we have proved that the ground which the Apostles lay for their Custome was the Institution of Christ But that which the Romane Church allegeth is meerely a Pretence of Plenitude of her owne Authority It is impossible therefore that in so great a Contradiction there should be the same Spirit And can there be a more intollerable Arrogancie than is this which this Romane spirit bewrayeth in both these Thirdly upon the Consideration of this their Contempt of Apostolicall and primitive Antiquity in this Cause wee finde that your Romish Priests are to be condemned of manifest perjurie also for in the Forme of Oath for the profession of the Romish Faith every Priest and Ecclesiasticke is sworn o Forma Iuramenti per Bullam Pij quarti Apostolicas Ecclesiasticas Traditiones admitto Ego spondeo juro c. To admit of all Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall Traditions as also to hold what the p Caetera omnia à Concilio Tridentino declarata confirmata firmissimè teneo Ibid. Romanam Ecclesiam Magistram esse Ecclesiarum credo c. Councel of Trent hath decreed But this Custome of administration of Both kindes as hath been acknowledged was an Apostolicall Custome and from them also remained in an Ecclesiasticall profession and practice thorow-out a thousand yeares space which your Church of Rome notwithstanding in her Councel of Trent whereunto likewise you are sworne hath altered and perverted which doth evidently involve your Priests and Iesuites in a notorious and unavoydable Perjurie Fourthly As for the note of Foolishnesse what more mad folly can there be seene in any than to take upon them a serious Defence of a Custome for satisfaction of all others and yet to be so unsatisfied among themselves so that both the Objections urged by Protestants against that Abuse are fortified and also all your Reasons for it are refuted either by the direct Testimonies of your owne Doctors or by the common Principles and Tenents of your Church or else by the Absurdities of your Consequences issuing from your Reasons and Answers divers of them being no lesse grosse than was your objecting the Antiquity and Generality of the particular Romane Church for lesse than three hundred yeeres and to preferre it before the confessed Vniversall primitive Custome of above the Compasse of a Thousand yeares continuance before the other Fiftly the last is the note of Blasphemy for this name the contempt of Christ his last Will and Testament must needs deserve and what greater contempt can there be than contrary to Christ his Do this concerning Both kinds to professe that Sacrilegious dismembring of the holy Sacrament which Gelasius the Pope himselfe had anciently condemned or if this be not Blasphemous enough then supposing that Christ indeed had commanded Consecration in Both kindes upon divine right yet notwithstanding to hold it very probable as saith your Iesuit q Licet Gabriel quidam alij sentiunt divini juris esse ut Sacerdos in utraque specie sacrificet nihilominùs tamen opinantur authoritate Romani Pontificis fieri posse ut in una tantum specie sacrificet viz. in consecratione panis sine vino quià putant multa esse juris divini quae remittere relaxare queat Pontifex ob publicam aliquam gravem necessitatem ut videmus votum jus-jâ—randum Matrimonium ratum non consummatum authoritate Pontificis relaxari dissolvi Et ità in hac questione prima
puto probabilius verius esse ut dixi juris esse divini ut Sacerdos in duplici specie sacrificet Et nihilominùs existimo valdè probabile authoritate Pontificiâ ob publicam urgentem necessitatem praedictum jus divinum relaxari posse Sed quia nunquà m est relaxatum ego consilium darem ut nunquà m relaxaretur Azorius Iesuit Tom. 1. Iustit Moral lib. 10. cap. 19. §. Tertium pag. 857. Azorius that the authority of the Pope may dispense therewith But because Divine right was never yet dispensed with I saith hee would give my Councel that it never may be O Iesuite thus to deale with Christ his Command If hee or any other Iesuite had made as bold with the Pope * âšœ Extravag de verbo signific Tit. 14. Cap. 4. Gâ—ossa Dominum Deum nostrum Papam insituled in your publike Glosse OVR LORD GOD THE POPE as this doth with Christ himselfe saying unto him Any of your decrees holy Father may be dispenced with by any Iesuite of our Societie yet because no Iesuite hath taken upon him hitherto so much my councell is that none of your Deerees be ever dispensed withall The Pope wee suppose albeit he would thanke this man for his councell for not Doing so yet doubtlesse would he reward him with a welcome into the office of his holy Inquisition for his judgement to thinke it lawfull so to do namely to leave it to the discretion of every Iesuite to dispense with his Papall Decrees And notwithstanding the Iesuites Suppose wee may depose that your Romish licence for but One kinde is a dispencing or rather a despising of the Ordinance of Christ âšœ And this the Iesuites themselves do thinke * See above in this Chapter Sect. 3. in the Chal. 1. which may appeare in that Conclusion which your Iesuite Vasquez gave concerning Christ Consecrating the Eucharist but in one kinde before his Disciples at Emmaus Where he resolved that This was an act of Christs Supreme authority not imitable by the Church And that the necessary Obligation of Consecrating in Both kindes is not dispensable by the Pope So hee Wherfore the Act of Christ being equally an Administration in only one kinde and Both these equally done by the same Supreme Excellencie and authority of Christ the determination and Resolution must necessarily be this That the Administration and Consecration in only One kinde are equally Indispensable We are already wearied with citing of the manifold vilde odious and irreligious Positions of your Disputers and Proctors for this your Cause yet one Pretence more may not be pretermitted least we might seeme to contemne the wit and zeale of your Iesuite Salmeron against the use of this Sacrament in Both kindes The use of Both kinds saith r Dispensandus non est utriusque speciei usus Hereticis quia non sunt danda sancta Canibus nec Catholicis quia debent distingui ab Haereticis qui communicant sub duabus Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 37. 5. His potius pag. 411. he is not to bee allowed to Catholikes because they must bee distinguished from Heretikes nor to Heretikes because holy things are not to bee given unto Dogges Now blessed be God! that we are esteemed as Heretikes and Dogges to be distinguished from them in this and other so many commanded Acts wherein they have distinguished themselves from all Primitive Fathers from the Apostles of Christ and from Christ himselfe An Appeale unto the ancient Popes and Church of Rome against the late Romish Popes and Church in Confutation of their former Transgressions of Christ his Institution SECT XIV THe ancient Popes and Church of Rome were as all the world will say in authority of Command and in sincerity of judgement equall and in integrity of life Superiour unto the latter Popes of Rome and Church therof yet the ancient held it as a matter of Conscience for the Church in all such Cases belonging to the Eucharist to be conformable to the Precept and Example of Christ and of the Apostles So you have heard a P. Calixtus See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9. Pope Calixtus Anno Christi 218. requiring all persons present at the Masse to Communicate For which reason it was wee thinke that Pope b P. Greg. Ibid. at â— Gregory Anno 60â— commanded every one present at the Masse and not purposing to Communicate to Depart There is an History related by AEneas Sylvius after Pope Pius the Second which sheweth the reason why another c See above Chap 2. Sect 7. Chall 6. 21 Pope of Rome with his Consistory yeelded a liberty to the Sclavonians to have Divine Service in their Nationall Language and reporteth that it was thorow the sound of that voice which is written in the Psalmes Let every tongue praise the Lord. d P. Iulius See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Pope Iulius Anno 336. was much busied in repressing the Sopping of bread in the Chalice and other like abuses of the Sacrament in his time and the reason which he gave was this Because quoth he these Customes are not agreeable to Evangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine and our Church of Rome doth the same Where he addeth concerning the manner of Communicating e Ibid. Wee reade saith hee that both the Bread and Cup were distinctly and severally delivered As if he had meant with the same breath to have confuted your other Romish Transgression in distributing to the people the Sacrament but in one of Both. And who can say but that Gregory and Leo both Popes f See above Chap. 3. Sect. 5. observing the same use of Christ had the same Resolution Sure we are that Pope g P. Gelasius See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. r. Gelasius Anno 404 called the Abuse in dismembring of this Sacrament by receiving but in One kinde A Grand Sacrilege Wee reade of a Councell held at Toledo in Spaine under Pope Sergius stiled h Synod Tolet. 16. Conc. Generale sub Sergio Papa Baron ad An. 693. This Councel cap 6 saith Quontam quidaÌ„ non panes mundos atque integros sed crussulâ—m particulam offerunt quod nequaquam in sacrae authoritatis historia gestum perpenditur ubi legitur Christum benedixisse dedisse panem c Apud Bâ—nium Tom 3. And this being by Baroniâ—â— a Generall Councel could not conclude without the Popes consent in your judgements Generall Anno 69â— reproving those Priests who offered Bread in crusts and lumps But with what reason were they reprehended Because saith the Councell that fashion is not found in the Sacred storie of the Evangelists All those ancient Popes who held the Example of Christ in his Institution and Apostolicall Customes to be necessary Directions of Christ his Church in such points concerning the ministration of this Sacrament being so utterly repugnant to your now Romish Opinions and Practices it must follow that those former Popes being admitted for Iudges whom all Christians
witnesses âšœ It followeth in the words of Christs Institution This is the Cup of the new Testament in my blood Now what of this hearken to your Bishop Iansenius m Hic Calix est novum Testamentum Non potest accipi in proprio sensu sed in eo quem clariâ—ra verba Matthaei et Mâ—rci indicant exigunt Sivè enim Calix suâ—atur provascâ—â— potorio sive Synechdochicâ— pro sanguine in poculo contento non potest consistere ut in ijs verbis sit propria locutio Nemo enim dix erit propriâ locutione vasculum illud potorium fuisse novum Testamentum cùm incertum sit an adhùc exstet illud poculum at novum Testamentum est aeternum Sed nec sanguis in calice contentus potest esse novum Testamentum propria locutione quià lex Evangelica in Epist ad Heb dicitur novum Testamentum apuâ—l Matth. Marcum sanguis dicitur hovâ— Testamenti At unicâ—m est nâ—â—um Testamentum Ianseâ— Concord in 〈◊〉 locum pag. 910. These wordes saith he cannot not be taken properly whether the Cup bee taken for the vessell used for drinking which was a temporall thing and therfore could not bee the Testament of Christ which is aeternall or else whether you take it for the matter in the Cup which is a Figure called Synechdoche for it being the blood of the new Testament could not bee properly the Testament it selfe Yea and your Iesuite Salmeron pointeth out in the same words a double Figure h Subest in his duplex Metonymia 1. quuà Conâ—inâ—ns ponâ—â—ur pro Contento id est poculum sive Calix pro vino eò quod vinum in ipso continetur 2. est cò quod contentum in poculo foedus vel Testamentum dicitur novum cùm sit ejus symbolum propter species Testamentum hoc in loco potest sumi prolege Evangelica quae veteri legi opponitur ut rem Testamento legatam testatamvè significet Quemadmodùm haeres diceâ—solet Hic fundus est Testamentum Patris me Id est portio haereditatis à patre meo legata in quem sensum Apostolus loquitur ad Heb. Iesus est sponsor melioris Testamenti Id est haereditatis Salm. Ies Tom 9. Tract 15. § 3. p. 98. A double Figure saith he is here the Cup being put for the thing contained in the Cup and Testament being taken for the Legacie that is granted and given by the Testament wiâ—h whom the o Testamentum sumitur pro legâ—to Metonymiâ—è continens Testamentum sumitur pro contento legate sâ—u haereditate quae Testamento continetur Barrad lib. 3. de Euch. c. 5 pag. 79. Tom. 4. Iesuite Barradas doth consent Hereunto may be added Christs Tropicall Saying in the 6. 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 bee 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 * 1. Cor. 10. 17. Wee being many are one bread and one Body for wee 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 p Sicut unus panis ex multis granâ—s c. Aquia in cum locum Aquinas But none of you will deny that the Apostles naming the Communion of the Faithfull to bee one Bread or Loafe is altogether Figurative CHALLENGE COllect wee now the Parcels above-mentioned First in the word This necessarily referred to Bread inferring one Figure in the former Chapters And next in this Section one Figure in the word Broken Another in the word Eate A third in the word Drinke A fourth in the word Given A fift and sixt in the word Shed A seaventh in the word Cup An eighth in the word Testament nine in all and then your Gybes and Tants against our Figurative Exposition of Christs words as so many bolts shot upwards must fall directly upon your own pares Of your Bellarmines Objection of the word Shed hereafter in the sixt Booke and 2. Chapter âšœ It is no better than Hemlocke which you put into your Disciples mouthes to stupifie them withall when you reach them to stand to the Literall words of Christ lest that otherwise Christs speech should bee accounted a Lie First against your owne knowledge who are not ignorant that Truth is not opposed to Figurative but to False speech else all the Parables of Christ which are altogether Figurative should be called false which were Blasphemie to affirme And also against the acknowledgement already specified confessing that Bread cannot in a proper and Literall sense be truly called Christs Body And the generall Rule is that Truth in a Figurative sense cannot be so in a Literall no more than a Literall Truth can be Figurative and Tropicall âšœ That the Figurative sense of Christ's words is agreeable to the Iudgement of the more Ancient Church of Rome SECT V. YOur old and publike Romish Glosse saith plainly q Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur Corpus Christi sed impropriè unde dicitur suo more sed non reâ— veritate sed significante mysterio ut fit sensus vocatur Corpus Christi id est significatur Gloss Decret de Consecrat Dist 2. Can. Hoc est This heavenly Sacrament because it doth truely represent the flesh of Christ is called the Body of Christ but improperly not in the truth of the thing but in the mysticall Sense 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 * Gregorius XIII Papa In the privilege before the body of the Canon Law Gregory the thirteenth wherewith your Extravagants and former Decrees of Popes have beene Authorized CHALLENGE IF all Protestants should meete at once in one Synod and should conspire together as labouring to prove a figurative Sense in these words of Christ This is my Body I suppose that a more exact perspicuous copious and ponderous Proofe could not be desired than hitherto hath beene evinced from your owne Confessions grounded aswell upon sound and impregnable Reasons as upon direct Testimonies of holy Scriptures That the former Figurative Sense of the words of Christ is agreeable to the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers of the Greeke Church SECT VI. YOu will needs defend your literall Exposition by the verdict of Ancient Fathers and wee appeale to the Venerable Senate both of Greek and Latin Fathers The r Graeci Patres vocant Eucharistiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae sunt apud nostros figurae Sacramenta
the way if wee shall consult with 18 Bertram de Corpore sanguine Domini after that he had cited Ambrose Hierome Austine Origen Fulgentius saith Animadvertat clarissimè Princeps sapientia vestra quod positis sanctarum â—rupturarum testimonijs sanctorum Patrum dictis evidentissimè monstratum est quod panis qui corpus Christi Calâ—s qui sanguis Christi appellatur figura sit quâ—à mysterium quod non parva differeâ—◠〈…〉 corpus quod per mysterium existit corpus quod passum est Quia hoc proptum Servatoris corpus â—st nec in eo aliqua figura est sed ipsa rei manifestatio At in isto quod per mysterium geritur figura est non solum proprij Christi corporis verumetiam credentis in Christum populi Bertram to know what he hath observed both out of Scriptures and Testimonies of Ancient Fathers by name Ambrose Augustine Hierome and Fulgentius he doth tell his Prince and Emperour that They demonstrate that the Bread which is called the Bodie of Christ is a figure because a Mysterie and that there is no small difference betweene the same Body which is the Mysterie and the Bodie which was crucified for that this is the proper Bodie of Christ and no figure but a manifestation But in that which is done by a Mysterie there is a figure both of the proper Bodie of Christ and also of the people that believe in him The same Orthodoxe Fathers of Primitive times thirteene in number have told us already that Christ called * See above B. 2. Chaâ— 1 Sect. 6. Bread his Body which hath beene the overthrow of your Romish Expositions of Christ's speech as you have heard Saint Cyprian saying that Christ created his owne Body thereby as your * â—yp ian See Book 3. 〈◊〉 4 Sect. 2. in 〈◊〉 second Ediâ—ion Cardinall confessed meaning Bread The Fathers of the Councel of Carthage forbidding any thing to be offered in this mysterie but Bread and Wine mixed with Water deliver their Canon thus 29 Conc. Carâ—â—ag Tempare Bontâ—â— Can 37. Or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lâ—tta apud Bin. Canon 4. In Sacramento corporis sanguinis Domini nihil amplius offeratur quà m quod Dominus prodidit hoc est Panis Vâ—num aquâ mixtum Which is a most corrupt Transtation and ought to bee thus Nihil amplius quà m corpus sanguis Domini id est Panis Vinum Which is recorded De Consecrat Cap. In Sacramento It can be no Answer to say that they meant the Layâ—â—ffering before Consecration becauâ—e they call that Offering now spoken of The Body and Blood of Christ which all know to bee spoken Sacerdotally before it was consecrated That nothing in those sacred mysteries be offered more than the Body and Blood of Christ as Christ himselfe hath ordained That is say they than the Bread and Wine Hereby plainly teaching that as they are called Christ's Bodie and Blood in their Sacramentall and Mysticall use and signification so are they Bread and Wine in their proper essence The foresaid Canon is registred among the Papall Decrees The Heretike Novatus binding some Receivers of the Eucharist to his part by saying 30 Euseb lib. 6. Cap. 35. Verba Novati Eucharistiam sumpturo Iura mihi per corpus sanguinem Domini te nunquà m me deserturum c. Whereupon Eusebius Miser ille homo non priùs degustavit Graec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Here the Translator omitteth in his Translation the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bread Sweare to me by the Bodie and Blood of Christ not to depart from mee Hereupon Eusebius So the miserable man did not receive that Bread before he had said Amen that is given consent to the Motion of Novatus Where we finde Eusebius calling it Bread which had beene Consecrated by Novatus and named The Bodie of Christ This our Collection may be held so much the rather of some force because the Romish Translator which was Christoferson Bishop of Chichester according to his guise els-where did fairely leave out the word Bread but is a foule fault in a Translator of an History Will you have any more you may admit into the same Cuire these other Suffrages of Cyprian Hierome Eucherius and Primasius * See afterwards B. 6. C. 3. §. â— Melchizedech in his Oblation of Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ Calling that the Body and Blood of Christ which then before Christ his incarnation in the flesh could bee essentially nothing but Bread and Wine because it was onely a Type of the Body and Blood of Christ to come And what will you say to the other * See afterwards B. 6. C. 5. §. 11. Fathers who affirmed hereof in as full an Emphasis that Christ is still Crucified bleeding and slaine in this Sacrament notwithstanding that our Christian Faith generally beleeved denyeth that this can happen to his glorified Body now after his Resurrection and therefore such Phrases were to be understood of the breaking of the Bread and powring out of Wine Sacramentally and Analogically that is Figuratively representing the Crucifying of his Body and Shedding of his Blood The Fathers who used this accent of speech were Alexander and Gregory both Popes of Rome Chrysostome Cyprian Hierome Cyrill of Hierusalem Hesychius Paschasius Eusebius Emissenus Enow one would thinke to silence all Oppositions of them who are instant in nothing more than in pressing the Improprieties of the speeches of Antiquitie in a literall sense and hereby verifying that Proverbe of Salomon Qui nimis emuâ—git elicit sanguinem Even so they who by the same Reason wherby they urge the sayings of Fathers literally for the proofe of an unbloody Sacrifice properly so called must be constrained likewise â—o admit against the Catholike faith of all Christians a Sacrifice properly slaine and bloodie therein The like will bee proved from their other Hyperboles and the Excessive termes of Antiquitie viz. of Tearing Christs Bodie and dying our teeth in his Blood and the like in the * Booke 5. thorow-out fifth Booke and from their checking their owne Phrase of offering the Sacrifice of his Bodie by recalling and correcting themselves immediatly thus Or rather a Memoriall thereof in the * Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 6. sixth Booke All these Observations are as demonstrable for the vindicating of the judgement of Ancient Fathers as any Child of the Catholike Church could have desired if the same holy Fathers had beene intreated to expound their owne meanings Wee returne to our former Argument Christ Instituting a Sacrament and in Taking Bread and Blessing Bread saying This is my Bodie must necessarily bee understood to have spoken Sacramentally that is Figuratively as hath beene prooved from Scripture as in all other Sacraments so likewise in the severall confessed Figurative words of Christ concerning this Sacrament by eight severall Instances in this second Booke This one Argument
qui se castâ—am concepâ—scentiam obscâ—deâ—â—do â—ut Châ—yl Non membroâ—â—â— abscisione sed ma larum cogitationum incâ—epatione male dictioni nempe olnoxius qui mâ—m brum sibi â—bscondâ— Idem habet Hieron Addit Chrysost super Matth. Abscissis verilibus non tollitur concupiscentia Concupiscentia inde sit molestior Doctrinall and teacheth Mortification and yet is not literally to bee understood as you all know by the literall errour of h Idem Origenes scripsum castravit ut poslet liberius praedicâ—re tempore Persecutionâ—s securrus este unter foeminas Abul uper Matth. 5. qu 250. pag. 316. 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 sayd of the literall sense thereof that i Origen Litera haec occidit in Levit. Hem 7. It killeth Secondly these words This is the New Testament in my Bood they are words as Doctrinall as the other This is my Body and yet figurative by your owne k See above cap. 2. §. 4. Confession Thirdly the words of Christ Iohn 6. of Eating his flesh are Doctrinall and yet by your owne l Verus hee ralâ—s Sensus horum verborum non est quòd caro Christi nihil prodest sed quod carnalis intelligentia nihil prodest ut exponunt-Chrys Theophyl Euthem Origen Cyprian alij vocatur enim eo in loc nomine carnis humana carnalis cogitatio ut distinguitur à spirituali cogitatione Bellaâ— lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Sed praeter Construction are not to bee properly understood but as Christ afterwards expounds himselfe Spiritually Fourthly where Christ thus sayd The Bread which I shall give is my stesh Ioh. 6. 51. he saith also of his Body that it is True Bread Ver. 32. and Bread of life Verse 48. and living Bread whereof whosoever eateth liveth eternally Verse 5â— All Divine and Doctrinall Assertions yet was his Body figuratively called Bread Fiftly that in those words of Christ to Peter Matth. â—6 Vpon this Rocke will I build my Church And To thee will I give the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven And Ioh. 21. Fede 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 * Gen. 3. 15. The seed of the woman shall breake the Serpents head Is not the later part of the Article altogether Figurative yet signifying this Doctrinall point even the vanquishing of the power of Satan who hath neither head nor tayle but is Metaphorically called a Serpent Your fourth Romish Objection SECT IV. T He Apostles saith your m Bell. Apostoli rudes simplices erant c. Lib. 1. de Euch. c. 9. §. Argumentum secundum Cardinall were rude and simple Therefore needed to be Instructed by Christ in plaine tearmes Without Figures So he CHALLENGE ANd yet Christ you know did often speake Figuratively unto them talking of Bread Leaven Seed c. And stiling them the Salt of the earth yea even in this Sacrament us hath beene confessed in the words Eate Shed Testament Another Iesuite witnesseth that n Apostoli à Christo edocti fuerunt illuminati ut cum summâ revereÌ„ Sacramentum hoc susciperent Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 46 §. 3. The Apostles were illuminated and instructed by Christ that they might receive thus Sacrament with all Reverence So he âšœ And so also taught your Doctor Heskins before him 1 D. Heskins in his Parliament B. 3. pag. 53. Christ saith he instructed his Apostles in the Faith of the blessed Sacrament before he instituted it âšœ Therefore are they but rudely by you tearmed Rude and the rather because They who being commanded to prepare the Passeover perceived that by Passeover was figuratively understood the Paschall Lambe and thereupon prepared the Passeover according to the Lord's Command could not be ignorant that in this like Sacramentall speech This is my Bodie the Pronoune THIS did literally point out Bread and siguratively signifie Christ's Body Doubtlesse if the manner of Christ's speech in the Eucharist had not beene like the other in the Passeover they would have desired Christ to explaine his meaning as they did sollicitously in other doubts Their last Romish Objection SECT V. VVEe are never to let passe the Literall Sense saith your o Nunquà m dimittamus proprium verborum sensum nisi cogamur ab aliquâ aliâ Scriptura c. Bell. l. 1. de Euch. Cap. 9. §. Vltimo Cardinall except we be compelled thereunto by some Scripture or by some Article of Faith or by some common Interpretaion of the whole Church So he CHALLENGE SVrely nor wee without some one of these but that you may know the grounds of our perswasion to be more than one or yet all These And how bountifully wee shall deale with you wee shall shew in the Proposition following Ten Reasons for proofe of the Necessity of interpreting the words of Christ Figuratively SECT VI. FIrst Wee have beene compellable to allow a Figurative Sense by the confessed Analogie of Scripture in all such Sacramentall Speeches of both Testaments concerning Circumcision Rocke Baptisme as also that speech of Christ Ioh. 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man as you have * See above c. 2. §. 3. heard Secondly Wee are Challengable hereunto by our p See hereafter B. â— Chap. ◠§ 〈◊〉 Article of Faith which teacheth but one naturall Body of Christ and the same to Remaine now in Heaven Thirdly Wee are inforced for feare of such q See hereafter B. â— Chap. 4. Heresies as have followed in other Case upon the literall sense for it was not the Figurative but the literall and proper sense of being borne againe by Baptisme Ioh. 3. that begat the errour of Nicodemus and the like literall sense of God's Eyes Hands Feet c. brought forth the Anthropomorphites And so was it the literall sense of those words in the Canticles Tell mee where thou lyest at noone which deluded the Donatists and of Origen you have heard that hee by the literall sense of these wordes Some there be that castrate themselves c did fondly wrong himselfe Fourthly Wee are necessarily mooved to reject your literall sense by a confessed Impossibility taught by that Vniversall Maxime r See above Chap. 1. §. 4. Disparatum de disparato c. shewing that Bread being of a different nature from flesh can no more possibly be called the flesh or Body of Christ literally than Leade can be called Wood. Fiftly Wee are perswaded hereunto by the former alleaged Interpretation of the Ancient Fathers both of the Greeke and Latine Church calling the Sacrament a
in a Boxe appearing in his owne forme Thirdly Because Christs Blood to issue and sprinkle out of his veines who can easily beleeve yea and your Iesuite Coster with some Others spare not to professe as well as wee that * See the fixt Booke Chap. 1. §. 4. Shedding of Christs Blood out of his Body was onely on the Crosse Fourthly Because it were Vndecencie to reserve such Reliques experience teaching that they do 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 only not the flesh of Christ but even no true flesh at all but onely a colour and signe thereof âšœ Fiftly You have here before you in the Margin your Iesuite Vasquez denying those to bee the Apparitions of true Flesh and as though none but simple people were deceived with such Apparitions he holdeth it sufficient that 3 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. Quaest 76. Art 8 Disput 193. Cap. 2. Respondeo Neque apparere carnem Christi neque alterius quae reverà caro sit sed carnis solùm effigieÌ„ Quod autem simplices decipiantur credant ibi esse carnem Christi divisibili cruento modo parum refert haec enim deceptio instructione verâ Doctorum Pastorum corrigendus est Their Deception herein may bee corrected by the true instruction of the Learned How will your Bozius Coccius Bellarmine and your many other Doctors together with their Beleevers disgest this to bee thus ranked by this your Iesuite among the Simple and Ignorant people in this their deliration concerning such fictitious Apparitions âšœ Do you not then see the different faith of your owne Historians and of your owne Divines namely that those Historians as uncleane Beasts swallow downe at the first whatsoever cometh into their mouthes but those your Divines like more Cleane creatures do ruminate and distinguish truth from falsehood by sound reason and judgement and prove the Authors of such Apparitions flat lyars the Reporters uncredible Writers and the Beleevers of them starke Fooles That the Romish Answer to free their former pretended Miraculous Apparitions from suspicion of Figments or Illusions is Vnsufficient SECT IV. ALbeit in these Apparitions there be not true flesh say m Quamvis non fiat ut vera caro Christi vel reverà vera caro ut respondent Thomistae sed tantum color figura ejus tamen quòd sit externa species sive imago divinitùs facta sufficiens est ad confirmationem veritatis Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disput 55. Sect. 2. some of your Doctors yet such Apparitions being miraculously wrought are sufficient Demonstrations that Christs Flesh is in the Eucharist But why should not wee yeeld more credit to those Schoole-men who say n Alens Gabriel Palacius dicunt quòd miracula siunt veris non apparentibus signis figuris Asserunt talem apparitionem non esse factam virtute Dei sed Daemonis Suarez Ibid. Where hee addeth Hoc ab ijs gratis dictum est True miracles use to bee made in true signes and not in such as seeme onely so to bee because seeming signes are wrought by the Art of the Devill And wee take it from the Assurance which your Iesuite giveth us that o Potest Daemon repraesentare figuras quarum libet rerum ut argenti auti epul rum quemadmodum perâ—ssimi Sculprores Pictores vâ—tias foâ—mas figurâ— rerum ità finguam ut interdum verae esse videantur Sed verè propriè miraculum id dicitur opus quod omnis â—aturae creatae vum atque potentiam excedit Et una differentia quâ vera miracula possunt à falsis discerni haec est quòd falsa sunt phaÌ„tastica simulata ideoque non diturna vel sunt planè inutilia Perer. Ies in Exâ— 7 Disp 4. Num. 34. D. 5. N. 36 38. Tertia ratio sum potest ad confirmandam veritatem Corporis ex dignitatâ— personae corpus assumentis quae cum sit veritas non decuit ut in ejus opere aliqua sictio insit Aquin. part 3. qu. 5. Ait 2 Devils and Painters can make such semblances and Similitudes and that true Miracles are to bee discerned from false in that false Miracles carry onely a likenesse of things and are unprofitable Furthermore yourp 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 stand you still confuted by your owne domesticall witnesses Wee may adde this Reason why there could be no Resemblances of Truth because all the personall Apparitions are said to bee of an Infant and of the Child Iesus albeit Christ at his Ascension out of this World * Baron Aâ—n 34. was 34. yeares of age and yet now behold Christ an Infant 34. yeares old as if your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had beheld Christ with the Magi in Bethelehem at the time of his birth and not in Bethaven with his Disciples at the instant of his Ascension Of the Suggesters of such Apparitions and of their Complices SECT V. THe first Apparition of flesh above-mentioned was not before the dayes of the Emperour Arcadius which was about the yeare 395. The second not untill 700. yeares after Christ nor is it read of any like Apparition in all the dayes of Antiquitie within the compasse of so long a time excepting that of one Marcus recorded by p Irenaeus adversus Haereses lib. 1. c. 9. Marcus purpureum rubicundum apparere facit ut puraretur ea gratia sanguinem stillare in Calicem per invocationem per maguâ— illum Irenaeus who faigned to Make the mixed Wine in the Cup through his Invocation to seeme red that it might bee thought that grace had infused Blood into the Cup which the same Father noteth to have beene done by Magicke at what time there were dayly Proselytes and new Converts to the Christian Religion and on the other side divers rankes of Heretikes as namely Valentinians Manichees Marcionites and others who all denyed that Christ had any corporall or Bodily Substance at all Were it not then a strange thing that so many Apparitions should be had in after-times in Churches established in Christian Religion concerning the truth of Christs Body and no such one heard of in these dayes of Antiquity when there seemed to bee a farre more necessary use of them both for confirming Proselytes in the faith and reducing Heretikes from their Errour that Apparition only of Marcus excepted which the Church of Christ did impute to the Diabolicall Art of Magicke As for the Reporters much need not to be said of them Simon Metaphrastes is the first who was of that small Credit with your Cardinall that in Answer to an Objection from the same Author he sayd q Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont. c.
non videt In that Christ sayd saith hee You shall not have mee alwayes with you hee spake it of the Presence of his Body But in saying I am with you untill the Consummation of the World hee spake it of his Divine Majesty Providence and Invisible grace But according to that nature which was borne of the Virgin and after was manifested in the Resurrection You shall not have me alwayes with you So hee Your sole Answer in the Iudgement of your choycest Divines delivered by your Cardinall is this 15 Bellarm. l. 1. de Euchdr cap. 14. §. Denique Augustinus intelligit corporis Christi praesentiam visibilem more humano inter homines conversantis atquè ita se explicat Quare quia conversatus est secundùm corporis praesentiam quadraginta dies ipsis videnâ—ibus modo side renet oâ—ulis non videt that S. Augustine in denying that Christ is alwayes with us according to the presence of his Bodie understood a visible presence thereof after an humane Conversation with men which hee collecteth from that which followeth in the speech of Saint Augustine That Christ was seene of the Apostles in his Bodily presence after his Resurrection and as his Assension But now saith S. Augustine Wee see him by Faith and not with our eyes So your Cardinall Which is as raw and extravagant a Collection and repugnant to the meaning of Saint Augustine as can be Because the whole scope of Saint Augustine is to shew the Excellency of Christs Divine Nature in respect of the Humane in regard of Presence it selfe and not in respect of visibilitie or any maner of Presence Because the Divine nature by it's Omnipresency is alwayes with us but the other which was seene after his Visible Conversation upon Earth was seene to ascend into Heaven Hee inforceth directly from hence therefore It is not here on Earth Thus It ascended into Heaven and is not here for hee there sitteth at the right hand of God But as for the Presence of his Majesty which signifieth his Deity It is here saith Saint Augustine and not departed from us which is a manifest Distinguishing of the Deity and Humanity of Christ meerely in respect of Hic est Non hic est that is Presence of the one and Not-Presence of the other As also betweene Recessit Non-Recessit in like Difference whereas if according to the Popish Faith the Distinction held onely in respect of the Visibilitie or Invisibilitie of Presence you alwayes teaching that Christs Body is substantially Present on Earth Invisibly in the Eucharist then in respect of the maner of Presence by * Because Saint Aug. calleth the presence of his majestie and grace Invisible â—re the Testimony above cited Invisibilitie there should be no Prerogative of Difference betweene Chists Divine and Bodily Being on Earth against the Conclusive Determination of Saint Augustine in this place Which is also confirmed by that which is further objected in opposition against us out of the last words of Saint Augustine The Church saith hee Seeth not him with her eyes but holdeth him by Faith namely by believing the Presence of his Body But where to wit Sitting at the right hand of God saith hee but not in the Pix or on the Altar The next Testimony of this Father may be that his Malling and braining of the Hereticall Manichees who held a Bodily Presence of Christ both in the Sunne and Moone at once He making a flat Contrary Conclusion 16 Aug. contra Faust Manich. l. 20. cap. 11. Secundum praesentiam spirituasem nullo modo 〈◊〉 pari posset secundùm vero praesentiam corporalem simul in sole in luna in quâ—â— esse non posset Christs Bodily Presence could not saith hee be in the Sunne and Moone at once Yes will the Romish Answer Miraculously it may God a mercy Papist would the Heretike have sayd for I likewise when I sayd it was in the Sunne and Moone at once was not such a Lunatick as to thinke it could be naturally so and without a Miracle The same holy Father that hee might shew himselfe constant to his owne Teneâ— explaining the words of Christ You have heard that I sayd I goe and come unto you â—wirdâ— Hee went away saith hee according to that wherein hee was man in one place and hee remained with them as God and in all places still opposing the Nature of Man and God according to the Different Presences of One-where and All-wheres More Testimonies for proofe of this one point there needs not âšœ CHALLENGE THese so many and manifest proofes of the ancient Fathers concluding an Impossibility of Existence of a Body without Determination in one place may be unto us a full Demonstration that they were Adversaries to your Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence and that all your Objections out of them are but so many forged and forced Illusions âšœ Onely be it knowne unto you that in this whole Discourse the word Circumscription in place is used in a large Acception for every limitation of a Body in a space or Vbi adequate unto the thing Circumscribed âšœ Wee conclude If Christ himselfe gave a Caveat not to believe such Spirits as should say of his Bodily presence in this world after his Resurrection * Mat. 24 23. Behold heere is Christ and behold there is Christ then doubtlesse much lesse credit is to be given to your Church which teacheth and professeth an Here is Christ and a There is Christ in the same instant as wee shall furthermore confirme by like verdict of Antiquitie when wee shall heare the Fathers prove both that * See Cap. 6. §. 3. Angels and all Created Spirits are finite Creatures and not Gods even because they are contained in one place and also that the * Chap 6. §. 2. Holy Ghost is God and no finite Creature because it is in divers places at once But wee must handle our matters in order That the Romish Doctors in their Objections have no solid proofe of the Existence of one Body in divers places at once from the Iuagement of Antiquitie SECT VI. IT is a kinde of Morosity and Perversnesse in our Opposites to object those Testimonies which have their Answers as it were tongues in their mouthes ready to confute their Objections For Å¿ Chrysost li 3. de Sacerdoâ—â— O miraculum O Dei benignitatem qui cum patre suâ—â—tâ— sedet eodem tempore omniuÌ„ manibus pertractatur Obijcit Bellar lib 2. le Euch. cap. 22 Not considering what went before 〈◊〉 words in the sauâ—e place where â—hrysostâ—â— will not have his heart beleeve that the Priest and people â—â—â—taking doe noâ— in tertis consiâ—st sed ponus in coelum transferrâ— then followeth O miraculâ—â— c. adâ—st enim Sacerdos non ignem gestans sed Spiritum Sanctum Chrysostome saith not more plainly ô Miracle that Christ at one and the same time sitting with his Father in Heaven is heere
quibus Divites comparantur cum depâ—â—â—â—â— grave in Sarciaâ—â—â— peccatorum totius corporis privitatem intrare possint per aâ—gustam portam As the Camels Beasts to whom the rich are resembled could passe through the straight gate of Hierusalem as soone as they were disburthened of their loads So Rich men casting off the load of their sins may enter in at the straight gate that leadeth unto life A Vindication of Truth against an Objected Testimony under the name of Pope Hilary for proofe of the Being of the whole Body of Christ in every part of the Hoast SECT VIII VVE are to insert in this place the forgotten Objected words which passe under the name of Pope Hilarie and recorded in your Papall decrees 10 Decret de Consecratione Dist 2. Vbi pars ex Hilario Papa Vbi pars est corporis est totum eadem est ratio in corpore Domini qâ—ae est in Manna quod in cjus figura praecessit de quo dicitum Qui plus collogerat ' non habuit amplius neque qui minus 〈◊〉 habâ—â—â— minus Non enim est quantites visibilis aestimanda in hoc mysterio sed virtus 〈◊〉 spiritualis 〈…〉 Non est quantitas aestimanda ut sub minori quantitate minus sic Corpus Christi sub 〈◊〉 where there is part of Christs Body in the Sacrament there is the whole there being the same reason of this as there was of Manna whereof it is written Hee that gathered much had no more than others and hee that gathered not so much had no whit lesse Which your Romish Glosse applyeth to the Sacrament to signifie that There is no lesse quantity of Christs Body under a lesse quantity of the Sacrament none greater under a greater Our Answer is Three-fold I. That your Doctors could never yet prove the writings which goe under the name of Popes * Legat qai velit nostri Roberti Coci Censuram Scriptorum Decret all Epistles to have beene truly theirs whereof many of themselves have doubted and which some also have denyed II. That the Comparison fighteth mainly against your professed Romane Faith in this very point which you contend for For you teach Body of Christ to be whole in the whole and in every the least imaginable part of the Hoast without all maner of situation therein so as not having the Head above and the Feete below This you cannot deny to be your owne positive Tridentine Sense But the Manna which was diminished and augmented in Quantity by Gods providence had notwithstanding a certaine determinate Quantitie expressely mentioned in the same Text Every man a Gomer according to their families namely every one an equall but yet a severall measure and Quantity for one mans Manna was not the same which another had This agreeth not with your Corporall eating of one and the same Body of Christ Next the Granes of the same Manna for it was like Coriander-seed had their severall situations and distinct places in every Gomer some lying above and some below some on the right side and some on the left side of the Measure which differences you absolutely deny to accord with the maner of Christs being in this Sacrament III. The Comparison will farre better suite with the Spirituall soules receiving of the Body of Christ Every Faithfull one indeed participating the same whole Christ by Faith whether in a Greater or lesser Hoast without all proportioning of his Bodily Dimensions âšœ CHALLENGE SHall not then the Novelty of your Romish Article which was no so much as beleeved of Romish Doctors of this last Age of Christianitie Shall not your Contradiction to your owne Romish Principle Shall not the expresse Testimony of Saint Augustine who as hee was universally acknowledged to be a Catholike Father so was hee never condemned by any other Catholike Father for this his Doctrine concerning the Existence of Bodily parts according to proportionable Dimensions of Space Finally shall not the affinity which your opinion hath with damnable Heresies perswade you of the falsity of this your Romish Faith CHAP. IX Of the fift Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ MY BODY as the same Body is now considered to be most perfect by making it most Imperfect SECT I NOne will thinke we neede to impose any absurd Doctrine upon your Church the Absurdities which wee have already heard professed therin under the testifications of your owne Disputers having beene so marvellously and palpably absurd as hath beene shewne Among which wee may reckon this that followeth as not the least prodigious Consequence of your Romish Corporall Presence to wit That your Church of Rome alloweth a Doctrine teaching a Body of Christ now glorified to be destitute of naturall and voluntary motion of Sense and of Vnderstanding SECT II. CAtholike Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ after the Resurrection but that hee was able naturally of himselfe as hee was man to performe the perfect Acts which other men can who are of right constitution of Body and of sound understanding such as are the functions of Iudgement and reason and of appetite sense and motion according to the liberty of his owne will This Doctrine was above a thousand yeeres Catholike But your now Romane Faith is to beleeve as followeth in the Conclusions set downe by your Jesuite a Suarez Ies Dico secundò corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento potest per se moveri localiter à Deo loquor de potentia Dei absoluta Nam juxta legem statutam suppono corpus Christi nunquam separari à speciebus nec moveri nisi motis illis neque in hac conclusione invenies Theologum ullum aperte contradicentem In tertiam Tho. qu. 76. Art 7. Disput 32. Conc. 2. Conclus 3. Corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento non possit naturaliter moveri localiter ab intrinseco à propria anima interna virtute motiva naturall neque per se neque per accidens Loquor de naturali virtute non ut est instrumentum verbi operans per virtutem miraculorum effectricem Ratio quia non potest anima movere corpus suum nisi per membra organica quae habent extensionem in locum Sed membra corporis Christi non hoc modo existunt in hoc Sacramento multo minus potest movere species Sacramentales quas nec physice contingere possit neque ad motum voluntatis movere Ibid Conclus ult Potest ut est in hoc Sacramento virtue extrinseca moveri per Accidens quia possunt Sacramentales species moveri ut a Sacerdote Elevando Sect. 3. De sensibus exterioribus Nominales citati dicunt posse Christum ut est in hoc Sacramento ut Deum audire c. Alij hoc negant Sunt nonnulli qui negant id fieri posse de Potentiâ Dei absolutâ ut corpus in extensum à loco aut seipsum videat aut alia Dico non
your framing a Christ unto your selves who as hee is in this Sacrament Is you say without power of motion of sense and of understanding Why my Masters can there be Lamenesse Blindnesse Deafenesse and Impotencie it selfe without Hurt of the same party so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill âšœ A Vindication of the former Truth against the palpably-Absurd albeit amongst you most plausible Defence of your seeming Romish Absurdities in Master Fishers Answer to KING JAMES of Blessed and ever surviving Memory SECT VI. HIs Tractate upon Transubstantiation so greatly magnified of the Romish Professors is very large wee shall draw his principall Points into a Compendium which consisteth of two Generalls and of divers Particulars His two Generalls are his Position and Supposition Master Fisher his Generall Position for Defence of Romish Absurdities the Consequences of your Transubstantiation Numb 1. A Christian Catholike saith he Seeing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming Absurdities that presse carnall Imaginations to the ground growes more and more strong to believe them imbracing these difficulties as signes of that doctrine which was believed of the Primitive Church And againe The seeming Absurdities should rather incline a Christian to beleeve this mystery Our Reply in Generall to prove that his former Assertion may truly be termed FISHERS FOLLIE For if the Absurder a thing be it shall deserve a more beliefe then the Pagans of whom Tully could say There is nothing so Absurd which is not taught of some Philosopher even to the affirming of Snow to be Blacke should be held to be more faithfull than the best of Christians and Heretikes who have turned their Phantasticall dreames into Articles of Faith should be judged to be more true Beleevers than are true Catholikes And sure wee are that by this Position the Jewish Rabbins who taught the people to beleeve in an implicit Faith all their Doctrines albeit it were to hold his Left hand was his Right should bee esteemed no lesse Faithfull than the Papist who by like Doctrine of blind Obedience have professed that Christ his Bodie being in divers Hoasts taketh the Right hand and left hand of it selfe And by the same Assertion shall Master Fisher thinke himselfe to be a better Catholike than were any of the ancient Fathers or yet any Romish Doctor yea or than is M. Fisher himselfe as will appeare in the sequele of our Reply The second Generall is Master Fisher his Supposition Numb 2. Master Fisher his Supposition is That although the Absurdities which are imputed by Protestants to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation seeme to be such Because they are not apprehensible by reason yet are they therefore saith he the rather to be beleeved notwithstanding whatsoever Impossibilities that can be pretended So hee Our Confutation must be accordingly two-fold The first in respect of Impossibilities and the next of Indignities Our Reply displaying the Absurditie of Master Fishers Supposition in respect of Impossibilities by the Generall Doctrine of Fathers Consent of Romish Divines and by his owne particular Praevarication First the Ancient Fathers of the Primitive age have unanimously professed a Doctrine of an Absolute Impossibility in all such things which imply any Contradiction as you have * See above in this B. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 2. 3. heard and maintaining this Doctrine of granting an Impossibilitie in such Cases to be a Truth greatly magnifying the Omnipotencie and Almighty power of God even by reason of Contradiction in them which is an affirming and denying of the same thing Concluding furthermore that gain-saying of Impossibilitie in things contradictory hath beene anciently The Sanctuary of Heretikes So the holy Fathers Secondly all the Doctors of the Romish Schooles of whatsoever Age Sect Society or Denomination have subscribed to the judgement of those Ancient Fathers in the same point of Impossibilitie but why Impossibility Because say they that such things are unconceivible in mans reason and that they seeme Absurd because of Contradiction And hereupon have concluded of many Impossibilities touching a Body as for example * See above c. 3. Impossible for a Body to be produced in divers places at once Impossible for a quantitie of a Bodie not to possesse a place Impossible for Christs Body as in this Sacrament to goe from one place to another Impossible for the same Bodie to be equall with a greater quantity and many other more Impossibilities have they reckoned upon the same ground that the Reason of man could apprehend nothing in such points but an implication of Contradiction And now all these great pillars of Christianity as well in the Vniversall Church Primitive as in the now Romish must by Master Fishers former Assertion be held to have beene no better than underminers of the Christian Faith in that they did not Rather beleeve those things to be possible even because they seemed Impossible by reason of Contradiction Lastly to come to Master Fisher his owne Praevarication * Mr. Fisher in his Answere to the 〈◊〉 upon the seventh point which is the â—ommunion in both kinds How can the Body of Christ saith hee be without either Blood or Soule unlesse it were dead and so should Christ be massacred in this Sacrament and that Eucharist be a Bloody Sacrifice and Christ glorious in Heaven cannot say truly that a Body voyd of Soule Blood and Sense is his Body Yea as Calvin himselfe confesseth It is an Absurd maner of speech to terme Christ the meere Bodie of Christ So hee Whereupon hee will be found so implicated within the horâ—es of a Dilemma that hee cannot expedite himselfe For say good Master Fisher should a Christian man as you have sayd the rather beleeve a Doctrine because it seemeth to be Absurd wee speake of sensible Objects why then do you not beleeve these Absurdities which you your selfe now do so utterly therefore condemne But do you indeed condemne them because they seeme impossible and Absurd why then have you broached a Doctrine of Rather beleeving things because of their seeming Impossiblities So easie it is for a Patron of Absurdities to prove himselfe notably Absurd Master Fisher his Generall Supposition in respect of Seeming Indignities happening to the Bodie of Christ from the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Numb 3. As hee sayd of Absurdities in respect of Impossibilitie so doth hee also argue from Seeming Indignities condemning Protestants for arguing against Transubstantiation because of Seeming Indignities As in not conceiving Christs Bodie saith hee to be combined unto the Consecrated formes of Bread and not to be polluted with such Indignities and Obscenities So he Our Reply As though no other Indignities might be imputed to Romish Doctrine except it were in such like Cases wherein the Bodie of Christ should receive some Corporall hurt or pollution There were and are amongst the Romish * See Booke 5. cap. 7. Sect. 1. Professors and that no small Babes who have taught a
all the other Touches Your Objected Testimonies are either our of Cyrill talking of bringing our Earthly Bodies by participation of this Sacrament to a 1 Cyril Alex. lib. 4. in Ioh. cap. 14. Vnde ut hoc corpus 〈◊〉 cibo sibi cognato gustu tactu ad immortalitatem reducetur Objected by Bell. lib. 2. de Euchar c. 25. Kin-like Touch of Christ's Bodie or from Saint Chrysostome where speaking of this Sacrament 2 Chrysostome Multi desiderant Videre formam Christi Ipsum vides 〈◊〉 Objected by Doctor Heskins in his Parliament of Christ booke 3. c. 54. out of Chrysostomes Hom. 3 in Ephâ—â— tous Imputâ—s manibus ausus es ipsius Corpus attinge â— Many saith hee desire to see the forme of Christ and here Christ yeeldeth himselfe in this Sacrament not onely to be seene but also to be felt and Touched And this will your Doctors needs inforce upon us for proofe of a Corporall Touch and Consequently a Corporall presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist But do you not see in this Testimony the word See as well as the word Touch and are you now to learne that which you all teach that Christs Body as it is in this Sacrament is altogether Invisible beyond mans Imagination and not to be seene of men no nor yet to be discernd by the very Devills Besides that All mens eyes by Contemplation can avouch it to be nothing lesse than Seene So that the word Seene being so Vnproperly and Figuratively spoken might have given you reason to discerne that hee used the same Impropriety of Phrase in the other word Touch. Yea and Chrysostome himselfe will tell you that hath Rhetoricated as fully in the word Touch when in an Homily hee willed the People 3 Chrysost in Mart. 14 To people that were to be baptized Tenete pedes Salvatoâ—s To hold Christ our Saviour by the feet But what need many words your owne Doctor and Dictator of Romish Profession Aquinas affirmeth also 4 Aquinas part 3. quaest 76. Art 7. Corpus Christi à nullo in hoc Sacramento videri potest corporali oculo quia ibi est per modum substantiae neque accidentia Corporis Christi habent immediatam habitudinem ad hoc Sacramentum neque corpora quae circumstant eum ad modum substantiae quae non subjacet alicui sen sui sed nec etiam imagin itioni sed soli intellectus Imo nec Daemones possunt videre Christum per intellectum ut est in hoc Sacramento That the Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament is not subject to any sense at all And more particularly for the sense of Touching your Vasquez speaking with Assurance 5 Vasquez Ies in 3. Tho quaest 76. Ant. 7 Disp 191. c. 3. Christus ut est in hoc Sacramento neque alium tangere neque ab allo tangi protest non incerta ratione dicimus Christ saith hee as hee is in this Sacrament can neither touch nor be touched of any thing And your* Schoole againe giveth reasons hereof Therefore can it be no lesse than a blind Boldnesse to urge the word Touch as Properly spoken by these Ancient Fathers which you have learned by your Fathers of the Romish Profession cannot properly agree with the Body of Christ What evasion have you now Forsooth 6 Idem Ibid. quaest 75. Art 2. Disp 180. cap. 9. Tangi dicitur sub pa nis speciebus remote sicut Christus Luc. 8. Quis me tetigit cum tamen nullus ipsum proxime sed tetigit vestem ejus The Cause saith the same Vasquez is as it was with Christ when he sayd Who Toucheth me when men touched him but not immediatly but by Touching his garment So he But soft Sir you your selfe have already affirmed That Christ cannot possibly either Touch or be Touched of any thing in this Sacrament according to the Doctrine of Aquinas who giveth this reason for * See the Testimonie of Aquinas here above cited at 4 That the sense of Touch hath no habitude at all to Christs Body herein not so much as by the Accidents or formes of Bread and Wine neither mediatly nor immediatly which sheweth the Dissimilitude of the Comparison taken from Touching Christs Vestment and thereby his sacred Body which was touched by the same Vestment immediatly and here Touching Christs Body by the Accidents of Bread which you grant do neither Touch Christs Body nor are Touched by it because Christs Body is therein Simply as a Substance without Accidents From the Manuall Touch by Handling wee proceed to the Orall by Eating âšœ CHAP. V. Of the Second Romish Bodily maner of Vnion with Christs Body by Eating That the Second Romish Bodily maner of Vnion with the Body of Christ which is by Orall Eating once professed in the Church of Rome was both Capernaitically-Hereticall and is also still no lesse in the Profession of divers in the same Church SECT I. THe first member wil appeare by the Faith of the Church of Rome in the Dayes of Pope Nicholas whose Faith about the yeare 1509. may be best known by the Oath which was prescribed by him unto Berengarius concerning the Eating of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament Which Oath as your a Baron An. 1059. num 11. Eodem Anno Concilium celebratum est sub Nicolao secundo Generale Romae in Laterano ad quod reus dicturus causam Berengarius Archidiaconus Andegavens praesente Nicolao coram centum tredecim Episcopis Confessionem jurejurando firmavit Quibus verbis conceptum fuit ejusmodi Berengarij jusjurandum cum in pleno CoÌ„cillo detestatus est errorem fidemque Catholicam professus Ego Berengarius ore corde profiteor me eam fidem tenere quam venerabilis Papa Nicolaus haec sancta Synodus tenendam tradidit Panem vinum post consecrationem non solùm Sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus sanguinem Domini nostri Iesu Christi esse sensualiter non solùm Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Hoc jusjurandum ab Humbreto Episcopo â—aâ—d scriptum ab ipso Papa universoque Concilio recognitum atque approbatum antea fuerat Haec ex Lanfranco Nicolaus Papa scriptum Iusâ—irandum inisit per omnes urbes Italiae Galliae Germaniae ad quaecunque loca quo fama Berengariâ— pervenire potuit Hactenus Baronius Cardinall Baronius doth certifie you from the Stories of those times Pope Nicholas and a Generall Councel held at Rome revised approved and prescribed to Berengarius to take for the abjuration of his Errour concerning the maner of Eating the Body of Christ and the same Oath was after published by the Popes authority throughout all the Cities of Italy France and Germany and wheresoever the Report of Berengarius should come So hee You cannot now but expect such a forme of an Oath which must be as truly Romish as either Romane Pope or
Romane Councel could devise Marke then the enjoyned tenour of the Oath I Berengarius Archdeacon c. do firmely professe that I hold that Faith which the Reverend P. Nicholas and this holy Synod hath commanded mee to hold to wit That the Body of Christ is in this Sacrament not onely as a Sacrament but even in truth is sensibly handled with the hands of the Priest and broken and torne with the Teeth of the faithfull So the Oath The same forme of Abjuration is registred in the publike Papall b Ad perpetuam rei memoriam c. Bulla P. ante Gratian. Extat in Decret de Consecrat Dist 2. C. Ego Berengarius Decrees and the Body of these Decrees hath beene lately ratifyed by the Bull of Pope Gregory the thirteenth The same Faith was imbraced afterwarâ—â—â—ds of some c Waldensis Ruardus Scotus sine ulla distinctione has locutiones protulerunt nempe ita contrectari manibus frangi dentibus teri propriè dici de Corpoit Christi dicere visi sunt Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 47. Sect. 4. §. Prima quae Schoolemen who without any Distinction used the same Phrase of Tearing with Teeth Secondly of aftertimes your d Quod si corpus Christi in Eucharistia editur certe frangitur dentibusque fidelium teritur utrumque enim cibo quem edimus conjunctum proprium Can. loc Theol. lib. 5. ca. ult sub finem Canus asseverantly inferreth of the Body of Christ that If it be eaten then certainly it is broken and torne with the teeth But most Emphatically your Cardinall e Tam miro modo corpus Christi connectitur speciebus ut unum ex ambobus fiat Sacramentum Ex hoc sequitur sicut antea per eadem panis ita nunc corpus Christi à nobis contrectari manducari carni nostrae immisceri dentibusque teri hoc vel illo loco vase collocari Quae omnia sive per se sive peâ— Accidens corpori Christi in Sacramento competaÌ„t nihil refert modo certa fide credamus haec tam vere propriae fieri ac dici circa corpus Christi quam si in propria specie esset non minus quam si in ipso panc fiâ—rent non minus quaÌ„ Crucifixio c. attribuuntur Domino Deo in Scriptura propter conjunctam humanitatem in eadeÌ„ Hypostasi Alan Cardin lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 37. pag. 435. Alan It is sayd saith he to be torne with the teeth of the faithfull no lesse properly than if it should be sayd so of the Bread if it were eaten âšœ Flat Contradictory to the Determination of your owne Pope Innocent the third teaching that 1 Innocent lib. 3. de offic Missae cap. 21. Dicamus ergo quod forma panis frangitur â—atteritur sed corpus Christi sumitur comeditur Ea quae notant corruptionem referentes ad formam panis ea vero quae notant acceptionem ad Corpus Christi Not the Body of Christ but the formes of Bread are sayd to be broken because this notifyeth a Corruption meaning of that which seemeth to be Broken and Torne âšœ Yea and your Cardinall g Hoc Concilium Generale fuit Et haec Abjuratio apertissime significat rem à Concilio definitam sub Anathemate nec anathematizantur nisi Haereses damnatae ab Ecclesia Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 21. §. Primum Bellarmine for proofe of Transubstantiation hath recourse unto the same Romane Councel which hee styleth Generall and noteth the thing defined to have beene the Iudgement of the Church and that the same Iudgement was Delivered under the Censure of an Anathema and Cursâ— against the Gain-sayers and therefore Hee with his Disciple Master h In his Rejoynd pag. 270. Fisher who also allegeth the same are Challengeable to hold it according to the literall sense thereof because it will not admit any qualification by any Trope or Figure that can be devised First because the words are purposely set downe as a Forme of Recantation and Abjuration of Heresie but as i Nullae sunt exactiores formulae loquendi in materia fidei quam eae quibus utuntur ij qui Haeresin abiurant Bellar. lib. 2. de Imag. Sanct. cap. 21. §. Secundo nulla you confesse There are no formes of speech more exact and proper in phrase concerning the matter of faith than such as are used by them that abjure Heresie And Secondly for that this Forme of words of Tearing with the teeth the flesh of Christ was also made purposely for Abjuration and abandoning all Figurative sense for the Defence of the literall Exposition of the words of Christ This is my Body c. therefore was it taken literally But what thinke you will Calvin say to this your then Romish forme of Profession in the literall sense k Calvin lib. 2. Defens Sacram. Nonne centum potius mortes prae optandae sunt quam ut quis tanti Sacrificij monstro se implicet pag. 25. A man should rather wish to die on hundred times saith hee than once to intangle himselfe in a Doctrine so monstrously sacrilegious Which Censure of his wee now endeavour to make good That the foresayd Romane Faith of Properly Eating the Body of Christ is Capernaitically-Hereticall as is proved by some of your owne Doctors of the now Romish Church SECT II. YOu have heard of Berengarius his Abrenuntiation of Heresie according to the faith of the then Romane Church in Breaking the Body of Christ and tearing it sensibly with their teeth Hearken now a little and you shall heare in a maner an Abrenuntiation of that then Romane faith by denying it to be either properly Broken or yet really Torne even by the Jesuites themselves l Caro Christi dum in hoc Sacramento manducatur non dentibus atteritur quia tangi nequit estque immortalis impartibilis Manducatio autem realis requirit contactum rei edendae ut possit dividi transmutari Quod hic de Corpore Christi fieri nequit Salmeâ—on Ies Tom. 9. Tract 20. pag. 136 Reall Eating saith your Salmeron requireth a reall touch and tearing of the thing which is eaten but the Body of Christ is not torne with teeth or touched by them that eat him because hee is herein impartible So hee Your Jesuite and Cardinall Bellarmine is as it were in a maze saying and gain-saying as you may perceive yet notwithstanding whether hee will or no must perforce confesse no lesse when hee saith that m Si de ratione manducâ—tionis esset attritio dentibus facta Dico Christi corpus vere proprie manducati etiam corpore in Eucharistia non quod attritio est necessaria ad manducationem satis est enim transmissio in stomachum deglutâ—endo Sin verò attritio dentibus facta sit de ratione manducationis Dico Christi Corpus proprie manducari non tropice non enim dicimus
corpus Christi absolute manducari sed manducator sub specie panis quae sententia significat species manducari visibiliter sensibiliter ac promde dertibus atteri Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euch. ca. 11. §. Respon Corpus The Body of Christ is not absolutely eaten but eaten under the formes of Bread and that is to say saith hee the formes of Bread are sensibly and visibly eaten So hee If this imported a literall maner of Eating then might your Cardinall have sayd as literally of himselfe My Clothes are torne therefore my Body is rent in pieces Not to trouble you with the Cardinall's Philosophy that talketh of Eating and Tearing of Colours But to the point If onely the Accidents of Bread be as hee saith sensibly eaten then was Pope Nicholas his Prescription of Eating Christs Body sensibly in your Cardinalls opinion not True And upon the same Ground it is that your Iesuit n Frangi metaphorica non propria locutio est colligitur ex Thoma qu. 77. Art 7. patet quia fractio proprie in rigore significat divisionem discontinuationem partium quae constat non fieri in partibus corporis Christi Suarez in Thom. qu. 75. Disp 47. Art 1. §. 4. Suarez out of Thomas and other Schoolemen affirmeth the word Broken to be a Metaphoricall phrase not properly belonging to the Body of Christ because it requireth that there should be a Separation of the parts of that which is properly broken So hee as also your * Canus see in the former Section Canus hath concluded And your o Si propriè loqui velimus falsae sunt hae propositiones Corpus Christi manducatur a nobis Corpus Christi devoratur Corpus Christi frangitur quia ipsi modi qui his verbis significantur non conveniunt Copori Christi quod est in hoc Sacramento sed hae sunt verae Recipitur à nobis sumitur à nobis Maldon Ies Tom. 1. de Sacram. Tract de Euch. pag. 144. Verè sumitur sed non atteritur Ibid. pag. 143. Iesuite Maldonate is so bold as to tell you that these Propositions The Body of Christ is Eaten is Broken Torne with the Teeth or Devoured of us properly taken are false Thus your Iesuites as if they had expressely sayd that to thinke the Body of Christ to be eaten torne or devoured properly taken is a Carnall Capernaiticall and as your owne p Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarij in majorem Haeresin incides quā Ipse fuerit Igitur omnia referas ad species ipsas c. Gloss apud Gratian. de Consecrat Dist 2. c. Ego Berengarius Glosse in Gratian concludeth an Hereticall opinion Will you have any more It is but the last day in respect when q Ob. Scoto-Britannus Apud Pontificios corpus Christi Cyclopum dentibus teri Resp Dansqueius Theolog. Canon in Scuto B. Mariae Aspricollis An verò mortales artus Corporis Christi dentibus teri ore blasphemo mente nequissimâ potes comprobare non magis id facias quà m Caiphas cùm tunicam à pectore laceravit one of your grave Criticks so much abhorred the conceit of proper Tearing Christs Body that hee called the Objecting hereof against your Church in his blind zeale Blasphemie and answereth that you do no more Teare Christs Flesh than Caiphas tore his when he rent his Clothes The case then is plaine enough for Confutation of your more ancient Romish Faith That the former Romish and Popish Faith for the Maner of receiving of the Body of Christ is at this day but somewhat altered yet miserably inconstant and Faithlesse SECT III. PRotestants may have in this place just matter of insultation against your Romish Professors to prove their Infidelity in that which they seeme to professe As first that the Ground of your Doctrine of Corporall presence is the litterall and proper interpretation of the words of Christ when hee sayd Take eate this is my Body yet now are you compelled to say that Properly eaten is no proper but a false sense Your Second Doctrine is that the Judgement of a Romane Pope in a Romane Councell in a matter of Faith is Infallible Notwithstanding Pope Nicholas with his Romane Councel is found to have grossely erred in a tenor of Abjuration which of all others as hath beene confessed is most Literall and was therefore purposely devised against a Figurative Sense of the words of Christ and forth-with published throughout Italy France Germany c. to direct men in the Faith of sensuall Eating breaking and tearing the Flesh of Christ with their teeth yet notwithstanding your common Judgement being now to reject such phrases taken in their proper Signification and in a maner to abrenounce Berengarius his Abrenunciation what is if this be not an Argument that either you say you care not or else you beleeve you know not what Let us goe on in pursuit of your Doctrine of the Corporall maner of Eating which you still maintaine and it will be found to be Capernaiticall enough And lest that you may evade by pretence of Not Chewing wee adde as followeth That the Orall Eating of the Sacrament was anciently by Chewing SECT IV. CHewing the Sacrament with the Teeth was the forme of Eating at the time of Christ his Institution as is proved by your owne * Suarez See above Booke 1. Cap. 1. Sect. 4. Confession in granting that the unleavened Bread which Christ used was Glutinosus that is gluish clammie and such as was to be cut with a knife But that the same maner of Eating by Chewing was altered in the Apostolicall or Primitive times is not read of by any Canon yea or yet Admonition of any one Father in the Church whether Greek or Latine among whom Saint Augustine called the maner of eating a * See above cap. 2. Sect. 9. Pressing the Sacrament with the Teeth That also Chewing continued in the Romish Church till a Thousand and fifty yeares after Christ is not obscurely implyed in the former tenor of the Recantation of Berengarius prescribed by the same Church which was to eat as you have heard By tearing it with teeth And lastly that this hath since continued the ordinary Custome of the same Church is as evident by your Cardinall Alan and Canus * See above in the former Section who have defended the maner of Eating by Tearing Nor was Swallowing prescribed by any untill that the queazie stomaches of your r Hostiam salivâ reverenter liquefactam in corpus dimittat non est enim dentibus terenda vel palato admovenda sed ante ablutionis sumptionem deglutienda Coster Ies Institut lib 1 cap. 5. Jesuites not enduring Chewing perswaded the Contrary Which kinds of Eating whether by Chewing or Swallowing of Christs Flesh being both Orall none can deny to have beene the opinion of the ſ Nimis carnaliter intelligebant Discipuli Capernaitae credentes ejus carnem comedi
meant not to say that Christs flesh is eaten Tropically inrespect of an Essentiall Eating wherein is required onely that True meat be let downe from the mouth into the stomacke by vitall Instruments but called it a Tropicall Eating in respect of your ordinary and proper maner of Eating by a visible dividing of Christs flesh into parts and morsells and that it be sod and not raw But Christs flesh in the Eucharist is received whole invisibly and without any hurt by which maner of Eating wee represent the Passion of Christ which is thus proved because First It is no hainous sinne to eat Christs flesh Spiritually and without hurting it and Secondly because Saint Auigustine understandeth by an Hainous offence the Capernaiticall maner of eating thereof namely by Tearing it in pieces So hee Wee must take this whole Answer in pieces for Confutation of each particular point lest otherwise a Generall and Briefe Answer might breed Obscurity Your Cardinall thinketh to evade by multiplicity of Distinctions Ob. 1. Hee meant not Eating with Teeth but a passing of it from the Mouth into the Stomacke Sol. This is False because the Apostles in their receiving of it did use Chewing your owne Jesuite Suarez confessing that the Sacramentall Bread in Christ's time was * See Booke 1. cap. 2. §. 2. Glutinosus And that this maner of Tearing with Teeth had beene continued many Ages in the Church of Rome as also used among some of your Church at this day as hath beene * See above Cap. 5. Sect. 4. proved And lastly that Saint Augustine himselfe meant Eating by Tearing with Teeth who as the 4 Bellar lib. 1. de Euch. Cap. 7. Qui manducat corde non qui premit dente c. Vbi de Sacramento loquitur non qui premit dente nimirùm solo Cardinall himselfe confesseth mentioneth the * See above Cap 5. Sect. 5. Pressing of the Sacrament with Teeth Secondly Ob. But the maner of Tearing saith hee is not essentiall to eating but onely the pressing of it downe into the Stomacke So hee Sol. Notwithstanding Pope Nicolas in his Romane Councell expresly required the Sensible Tearing of Christs flesh as hath beene shewed * See above Cap. 5. Sect. 5. whereof you have also heard your Iesuite * See above Cap. 5. Sect. 2. Salmeron confesse saying that Proper Eating requireth a Proper Tearing even as your Cardinall himselfe calling Eating by Dividing into Parts a Proper maner of Eating Ob. 3. Augustine spoke of a visible Eating of Christ and not as ours is Invisible Sol. As if a blinde man could not eat meat as perfectly as he that seeth Ob. 4. But Saint Augustine understood Christs flesh Sod and not Raw. Sol. As though the Eating of mans flesh Raw or Sod could distinguish a Canniball Ob. 5. But Saint Augustine spake of Eating Christs flesh with hurting him which appeareth by this that hee called the maner of Eating which hee spake of an Hainous offence Sol. As though your * See above Booke 4. Cap. 10 Sect. 5. Aquinas had not as well judged it an Hainous offence to put Christ in a Boxe appearing in his visible shape notwithstanding Christs No-sensible-heart thereby Ob. 6. But he spake against the Capernaiticall maner of Eating which was Tearing it in pieces and requireth a Spirituall order in eating and ours is Spirituall Sol. First as if your Eating were not Capernaiticall in any degree which is False Because as the Capernaites interpreted Christs words in a literall sense of Eating it perfectly so did they also conceive a Reall Swallowing of it after it had beene Eaten And doth not your Cardinall plead here wholly for Swallowing of Christs Body or hath not also your Iesuite Coster defined Devouring to be a Swallowing of meat without Mastication or Tearing Or can you deny but the Primitive * See before in this Chap. 6. Fathers Detested the very conceipt of Devouring Christs flesh And Secondly where Saint Augustine opposeth Carnal maner of Eating to the Spirituall could hee possibly meane your Romish kind which you professe to be a taking it into your Mouths and by your Corporall Swallowing and Transmitting through the Throat into your Stomack whether Visibly or Invisibly whether Sod or Raw No no nothing lesse but the flat Contrary a meere Spirituall maner of Communicating of Christs passion saith hee and by * See 〈…〉 Sweetly recording in our memories his flesh once crucifyed for us Establishing this latter Eating with Minde and Heart that hee might exclude the other of Eating with Mouth and Teeth âšœ CHAP. VII The Fourth Corporall maner 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 Iesuit reporting that a Multi Catholici his temporibus in odium Haeresis veram praesentiam corporis Christ in hoc Sacramento Sumptione ejus fieri unionem inter Corpus Christi suscipientem quam realâ—m naturalem substantâ—dem atquè eâ—am corporalem vocant Sic Algerus Turrecremata Rossensis Hosius Turrianus Bellarminus Alanus Suarez Ies Tom 3 qu. 79. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Many latter Divines in your Church have beene authorized in these dayes to write labouring to bring the Romane Faith to so high a pitch as to perswade a b Denique Recentiores omnes qui de hoc Sacramento contra Haereticos scribunt hoc fere modo loquuntur Suarez in 3. Tho. Disp 64. §. 3. pag. 822. Reall Naturall Corporall and Substantiall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants even almost all of late saith hee who have written against Heretickes So hee Among others wee find your Cardinall c Card. Alan Cùm comedimus Eucharistiam corpore Christi vere vescimur ex qua manducatione per naturae instrumenta realâ—â—â— recipitur intra nos atque substantiae nostrae permiscetur sicut caeteri cibi nisi quod mutationem in carnem nostram non patiatur De Euch. lib. 1. cap. 28. Alan who will have it â—eally mingled with our flesh as other meats Transubstantiation onely excepted as did also Cardinall d Feâ—tur Mendozam Cardinalem Burgensem in lib. quem de unione scripsit docuisse Christum Sacramentaliter manduâ—atum non solum fieri praesentem in loco quem species possent Sacramentaliter occupare sed quod immodo duâ—â—undi per totum corpus hominis ut toti illi in omnibus ejus partibus uniatur seque illis immisceat sed haec cogitatio non solum improbabilis sed etiam absurda plusquam temeraria est Suarez quo supr pag. 822. Mendoza And what else can that sound which wee have heard out of your Roman * See above Chap. 6. §. 2. Missall praying that the Body of Christ eaten may cleave unto your Guts just Manichean-wise as you have heard even now out of Saint Augustine âšœ And it may be you have Faith also to believe
sanguis Testamenti quod mandavit ad vos Deus De quo Marc. 14. Hic est sanguis Novi Testamenti Sic argumeÌ„tamur Sanguis Testamenti veteris erat sanguis victimae jam immolate et verè sacrificatae Exod. 24. Ergò sanguis novi Testamenti apud Christum est sanguis victimae verè propriè sacrificatae Est autem sanguis ille Christi ut ipse dicit Hic est sanguis meus Ergo ipse fuit victima in coena immolata et sacrificata The Blood of the Old Testament was the Blood of an Hoast truly sacrifised Therefore the Blood of the New Testament mentioned in the Eucharist whereof the other was a figure must needs be the Blood of Christ properly sacrifised therein So hee heaping up Reason upon Reason as it were to make a mountaine and presently after his much working and heaving cometh one of his owne family of the Iesuites Vasquez by name and kicketh all downe with his heeles as it had beene but a Mole-hill saying 16 Vasquez Ies in 3. Tho. Disp 190. num 15. Novum TestamentuÌ„ in sanguine meo apud Evangelistas Paulum in sanguine Christi prout est in hoc sacramento non convenit Nam quaÌ„vis sacramentum Eucharistiae sit sacramentum Novi Testamenti hac ratione dici posset Novi Testamenti tamen longè alio sensu dicitur Novi Testamenti aut Novum Testamentum quòd sit confirmatio consummatio Novi Testamenti hoc est gratiae quam Christus promeruit generi humano de quo Hebr. 9. Testamentum in mortuis confirmatum est hoc est morte Testatoris undè sequitur neque vetus Testamentum sine sanguine dedicatur iude colligit Novum sanguine Christi confirmari Et rursus ubi Testamentum ibi mors intercedat Testatoris necesse est tandem sic concludit Caput Apostolus sic Christus semel oblatus est ad multorum exhaurienda peccata constat igitur sanguinem Testamenti dici eatenus quatenus est effusus in confirmatione illius sicut hac ratione sanguis hircorum vitulorum essusus est Exod. 24. hic est sanguis Testamenti nam sacrificium incruentum in Eucharistia non erat causa universalis Redemptionis illud ergo Effundetur in Remissionem peccatorum significat futuram Effusionem in Passione That it is called The Blood of the New Testament by Christ not as it is in this Sacrament but as it referreth to the Sacrifice of Christes Passion Which hee confirmeth by the most Authenticall kinde of proofe even from the Scripture out of one Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrewes in severall places One from these words A Testament is confirmed in men dead The next Heb. 9. Where a Testament is there doth necessarily intervene the death of the Testator And againe Christ was once sacrifised to take away the death of many He might have added a fourth vers 15. Christ is the mediator of the New Testament that death coming betweene for Redemption c. Each one of these pointing out Christs Bloody Sacrifice on the Crosse teacheth us to deale with you by law of Retortion thus The Old Testament was confirmed by the Death and Blood-shed of the Creature sacrifised And so according to the Apostles Comparison was the New Testament confirmed by the Death and Blood-shed of Christ our Testator Therefore could not the Bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testament be a Figure of an Vn-bloody Sacrifice in the New That your Cardinall Bellarmine hath Contradicted the Doctrine of the Ancient Church of Rome taught by Pope Leo the First SECT XII POpe Leo is hee whom the Church of Rome will be thought to esteeme as equall with the best of Popes and therefore hath honoured him with the singular Title of Magnus Ob insignem sanctitatem doctrinam eloquentiam saith your Iesuit * Possevin Apparat Tit. Leo. Possevin who lived above a thousand yeares since Him doth your 17 Bellar Lib. 1. de Missa Cap. 7. Leo Sermone 7. de Passione Domini Vt umbrae cederent Corpori ceâ—â—arent imagines sub praesentia veritatis antiqua observantia novo tollitur Sacramento hostia in hostiam transit sanguinem sanguis excludit legalis festivitas dum mutatur Impletur 〈◊〉 infra de sacramenti institutione loquens vetus Testamentum consummabat Novum Pascha condebat Cardinall object for proofe of the Sacrifice of the Masse from the Signe of the Paschall Lambe in a Sentence which in it selfe is sufficient to tell us what was the Faith of the Church of Rome in his dayes and to direct you in the point now in Question in manifesting that your Cardinall hath egregiously abused his Testimony for proofe of an Vn-bloody Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist which Leo spake so evidently and expresly of the Sacrifice of his Passion that your Iesuite Vasquez was enforced to 18 Leo Papa de Passione Domini Serm. 7. In solemnitate Pasch li exercendi furoris sui Iudaei acciperent potestatem Opportebat enim ut manifesto implerentur effectu quae diu fuerant figurato promissa mysterio ut ovem significativam â—vis vera removeret ut uno explereâ—ur Sacrifiâ—ro varsarunt differentia victimarum Nam omnia illa quae de Immolatione agni diviniâ—us per Moysen fuerant praestituta Christum prophetarunt Christi occisionem propriè nunciarunt Vt ergo umbrae cederent corpori cessarent imagines sub praesentia veritatis antiqua observantia novo tollitur sacramento hostia in hostiam transit sanguinem sanguis excludit legalis festivitas dùm mutatur impletur Teste Vasquez Ies in 3. Tho. Disp 223. Quest 83. Cap. 6. Againe Solet ex Leone probari Missae sacrificium unicum esse ex Sermone 7. de Paschate Opportebat c. Verùm ibi loquitur de sacrificio cruento Christi subdit enim omnia illa Christi occisionem pronuneiârant per occisionem planè intelligit cruentum sacrificum Eadem ferè verba habâ—t Chrysostomus in Psalm 95. Lest the word Sacrament in the Sentence of Leo may move any to conceive that it is spoken of the Eucharist or yet of any other Sacrament of the Church of Rome It is to bee observed that nothing is more familiar with Leo than to call every Mysterie and Christian Article Sacramentum As for Example in the beginning of this Sermon hee calleth the Feast of Easter Sacramentum Salutis De Festo Nativitatis Serm. 2. Reparator nobis salutis nostrae annua revolutione Sacramentum Et Serm. 16. De voce Christi Transeat Calix iste quod non sit exaudita magna est Expositio Sacramenti confesse thus much even then when hee sought to defend the Romish Sacrifice of the Eucharist The words of Leo are generall All those things which were performed concerning the Sacrificing of the Lambe by Moyses from Gods command were prophesied of Christ and did properly declare the Slaying of Christ So hee
rather because your Cardinall hath no Objection out of the Fathers for his advantage in the word Sacrifice which hee loseth not by the word Incense from point to point For to the first Objection wee oppose saying The word Incense is likewise used without a See in the Testimonies above cited for it is called absolutely Incense and not Incense of Prayer c. Addition To the second Wee accordingly say Incense was meant also to be Pure for you will not imagine that God would promise to his faithfull in Christ Impure things To the third It is as well said concerning Incense as of Sacrifice against the Iewes vers 10. I will not receive any offerings at your hands * Isaiah 1. 13. Incense is an abomination unto mee To the fourth The same Godlesse Iewes did joyntly contemne Gods worship made by Incense as by Sacrifice except you shall thinke it credible that the same men should be both devout and profane in one prescribed Service of God To the last Malachy in the same Sentence and as it were with the same breath equally taketh exceptions to the Iewish Priests in both Sacrifice and Incense Therefore as the word Incense so accordingly the word Sacrifice was used Improperly of the Fathers Do you not now see what reason your Cardinall had to make choise of a corrupt Text wanting the word Incense which hee peradventure foresaw would prove as bitter as Coloquintida in his Pottage The second word in Malachy is Levite I will purge the sonnes of Levi which was spoken as your Cardinall b Bellar. Postquam dixerat Malachias Offertur nomini meo oblatio munda Exponit ca. 3. à quibus offerenda sit munda oblatio Purgabit inquit Fâ—lios Levi ubi per Filios Levi non possunt intelligi Levitae veteris Testamenti sed nostri Sacerdotes Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 10. §. Quintum confesseth of the Ministers of the New Testament Well then did the Prophet call the Ministerie and Service of the New Testament Pure Sacrifice And did hee not in the like maner call the Ministers of the New Testament Purged Levites as also some of the Ancient * Augustine Ambrose Cyprian Leo. Fathers you know used to do and as your Church in degrading of Arch-Bishop Cranmer from his order of c Mr. Foxe Acts and Monuments pag. 2117. Levitico ordine te privamus Deaconship once did Therefore both alike were used Improperly in imitation of this Prophet and also of that in * Isa 66. Isaiah I will send them Priests and Levites That the Text of the Prophet Malachy doth confute the Romish Pretence of Sacrifice even by the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers SECT III. PErmit you us for brevity-sake to contrive this Section into Ob. and Sol. your Cardinalls Objections and our Solutions or Answers I. Ob. Sacrifice is called pure alwayes and in all places Ergo Christs Body Sol. And Chrysostome who is a Chrysost in Psal 95. objected Malachias appellat Thymiama â—urum 〈◊〉 pieces obiected termeth Prayers Pure Incense meaning when or wheresoever II. Ob. The word Sacrificè is spoken of in Malachy without an Adjunct as to say the Sacrifice of praise c. for these are improperly called Sacrifices Ergo c. Sol. Yet First b Tertul. Ob. by Bellarm. lib. 3. contr Marcion ex Psalm 57. In Ecclesijs benedicite Dominum Deum ut pariter coÌ„curreret Malachiae prophetia In omni loco Sacrificium mundum Gloriae silicet relatio Benedictio Laus hymni Which words Bellarmine restraineth to Prayers and Prayses onely in the Masse whereas Tertullian speaketh of Prayers in generall Againe Lib. 4. advers Marc. a little after the beginning Dicente Malachia Sacrificium munduÌ„ scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura Where hee expoundeth Pure Sacrifice to be Praier Tertullian objected expounded the same word Sacrifice to signifie Benedictions and Praises And Secondly c Euseb Demonst lib. 1. cap 6. In omni loco Incensum Sacrificium c. Quid aliud significat quà m orationis Incensum Sacrificium quod mundum dicitur est enim non per cruores sed per pias actiones summo Dâ—o offerendum Eusebius objected calleth this Pure Sacrifice Pious Actions and Prayers Which your Cardinall could not Answer but with a marvellous and miserable Illusion III. Ob. By the word d Bellar. Resp Non quasi Oratio sit ipsum Incensum seu Sacrificium sed illud quod per Orationem id est per verba Consecrationis perficitur Solent enim Patres verba Consecrationis orationes seu mysticas preces interpretati Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 10. First fondly for the words of Consecration containe in them no terme of Prayer And secondly falsely for the Fathers did not call these words Prayer Both which have beene amply discussed Sacrifice were not meant Spirituall Sacrifices c. Sol. Yet e Hieron objected Malach. 1. Vt sciant Iudaei carnalibus Victimis spitituales successuras Thymiama hoc est Orationes Sanctorum offerendas Oblationem mundam ut est in ceremonijs Christianorum Bellar. Licet per Incensum intelligat orationem tamen per Sacrificium intelligit Eucharistiam dicit enim offerri in Ceremonijs Christianorum Be it so but the Question is whether the Action of the Eucharist be not called spirituall that is as is confessed an Vnproper Sacrifice Hierome objected expresly nameth the Sacrifice in Malachy Spirituall To come to your Cardinals principall Reason IV. Ob. The Iewish Sacrifices were called Vncleane not in respect of the Offerers onely but of the Offerings intimating thereby that this Offering in the new Testament can be no lesse than the very Body of Christ Sol. Irenaeus objected plainely putteth the difference to be made by Malachy betweene the Sacrifices as they were the Offerings of the wicked Iewes and the Sacrifices of godly Christians and hee giveth this Reason because f Irenaeus ob advers Haeres lib 4. cap. 34 speaking as well of Sacrifices in Iudaico populo as in Ecclesia saith Non Sacrificia sanctificant hominem sed Conscientia pura ejus qui offert c. Then of Eleemosynae Which the Apostle calleth Hostiam acceptabilem Opportet nos oblationem Deo facere in sententia pura And then Ecclesia offert oblationem hanc Fabricatori puram offerens ei cum gratiarum Actione ex creatura ejus Iudaei autem non offerunt quia manus eorum plenae sanguine c. The Iewes saith hee offered up their Oblations with wicked hearts but the Christians performe theirs with pure Consciences And that the Iewish Sacrifices were not rejected for themselves but for the impiety of their Sacrificers your owne Iesuit g Ribera Ies Ad loca Scripturae adducta respondere Apostoli Apud S. Clementem lib. 6. Const Apost C. 22. in hunc modum Recusabat Deus populi Sacrificia saepenumero in eum peccantis atque existimantis Sacrificijs
and reasonable Sacrifice unto thee Next a Sacrifice Eucharisticall saying Wee desire thy fatherly goodnesse mercifully to accept of our Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving And why may wee not with the Scripture call this a Sacrifice seeing that your Bishop Iansenius held it for an Argument of proving Christ to have offered a Sacrifice even b Iansen ChristuÌ„ in coena Sacrificium obtuliâ—â—e primuÌ„ quidem satis est significatum cum dicitur Gratias egisse Gratiarum enim actio est quoddam Sacrificium à qua Christi actione Sacramentum corporis sanguinis Domini nomen illud ab initio Ecclesia accepit Concord cap. 131. Because hee gave Thanks giving of Thanks being a kinde of Sacrifice So hee Thirdly a Sacrifice Latreuticall that is of Divine worship saying And although wee be unworthy to offer up any Sacrifice yet wee beseech thee to accept of our bounden duty and service c. This performance of our Bounden Service is that which * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 5 Ancient Fathers called an Vnbloody Sacrifice Nor is our Church of England alone in this Profession this Truth wee referre unto the Report of your c Bellarm. Melancthon Eucharistiam Sacrificium esse vult Calvinus non solùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse vult sed etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. §. Ac primum §. Expendamus Cardinall and of d Canus Lutherani in Apologia Augustana perperam Sacrificium definiebant esse opus à nobis Deo redditum ut cum honore afficiamus Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. ca. 12. §. Quibus rebus Bellar. Melancthon dicit Missam dici posse Sacrificium quaetenùs sumptio Eucharistiae fieri potest ad laudem Dei sicut caetera bona opera Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. §. Ac primum Et Calvinus dicit Sacrificium generaliter acceptum complectitur quicquid Deo offertur Ibid. §. Expendamus Kemnitius dicit Sacrificium à Patribus dici Oblationem Immolationem Sacrificium quia est commemoratio repraesentatio veri Sacrificij Christi Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 15. §. Alter modus Canus by whom you may understand the agreement betweene them whom you name Lutherans in their Augustane Confession and of Calvin by acknowledging not some one Act but the whole worke of this Celebration according to the Institution of Christ both in Communication Commemoration and Representation of his Death with Praise and Thanksgiving to be a Sacrifice Eucharisticall And also to use the words of Calvin Latreuticall and Sebasticall that is a Sacrifice of Worship and Veneration which every Christian may and must professe who hath either eyes in his head or faith in his heart the Celebration of this Sacrament in Remembrance of his absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption being the Service of all Services that wee can performe to God Now wherein and in what respect wee may furthermore be said to offer to God a Sacrifice propitiatory improperly will after appeare when wee consider Christ's Body as the Object heerein That Protestants in their Commemoration offer up the same Body and Blood of Christ which was Sacrificed on the Crosse as the Object of Remembrance and most absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption which is partly justified by the Romish Masse it selfe SECT IV. NOw wee are come to the last most true and necessary Point which is the Body and Blood as the Object of our Commemoration Still still do you urge the Sayings of Fathers where they affirme that wee offer unto God The same Body and Blood of Christ on this Altar even the same which was sacrificed on the Crosse which therefore you interpret as being the same subject matter of our Commemoration As is a King acting himselfe upon a Stage as hath beene * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 7. shewen Wee as instantly and more truly proclame that wee offer Commemoratively the same undoubtedly the very same Body and Blood of Christ his All-sufficient Sacrifice on the Crosse although not as the Subject of his Proper Sacrifice but yet as the only adequate Object of our Commemoration as the Emperour Mauritius is sayd to be represented in a Stage-play wherein wee cannot possibly erre having Truth it selfe for our Guide who said Do this in remembrance of mee namely of the same Mee meaning Christ as crucified on the Crosse as the Apostle commenteth saying Hereby you shew the Lords Death till hee come even the Same Body as the Same Death whereunto beare all the Fathers witnesse throughout this Treatise Wee say againe for your better Observation the Same Body as the Same Death but it cannot be the Same Death but objectively onely Ergò can it not be the Same Body but onely Objectively Whereby it will be easie for us to discerne the subject Sacrifice of Christ from ours his being the Reall Sacrifice on the Crosse ours onely the Sacramentall Representation Commemoration and Application thereof âšœ For your better satisfaction Wee exhibit unto you the ancient Practise of your Romish Church in the Service of the Masse celebrated every Saturday in the Passion-weeke wherein as your 2 Bellar. Recog Librorum de Missa Feriâ sextâ majoris hebdomadae non celebratur Missae sacrificium quaÌ„vis in illa Actione dicat Sacerdos Orate Fratres ut et meum et vestruÌ„ Sacrificium c. Et paulò antè Sic fiat Sacrificium nostruÌ„ in conspectu tuo ut placeat Tibi Domine Deus In his duobus lotis vox SacrificiuÌ„ non videtur propriè accipienda sed largo modo pro tota ista Actione Et quòd in ista feria Missa non propriè celebretur legimus in Ordine Romano antiquissimo c. Cardinall doth certifie you and us the Priest in your Missall Prayeth twice to God to receive His Sacrifice although it be properly but onely a Sacrament the whole Action thereof being called a Sacrifice So hee even as directly for our purpose as wee could wish hereby justifying our Calling the Whole Celebration of the Eucharist albeit Properly a Sacrament onely a Sacrifice in a Large and qualified Sense according to the Practise of ancient Fathers as wee have proved throughout the whole Sixt Booke by Eleven Demonstrations âšœ CHAP. VIII Of the Second Principall part of this Controversie which concerneth the Romish Sacrifice is as it is called Properly Propitiatory THis part is divided into an 1. Explication of that which you call Propitiatory 2. Application thereof for Remission of Sinnes The State of the Question of Propitiatory what it is SECT I. THe whole Difference standeth upon this whether the subject matter of our Representation in the hands of the Priest be Properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice or no. Now Propitiatory is either that which pacifieth the wrath of God and pleaseth him by it's owne virtue and efficacie which as all confesse is onely the Sacrifice of Christ in his owne selfe or else a thing is said
and Perversnesse of the Adversary hath beene displayed The Third Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 107. pag. 151. CARD BELLARMINE IT was affirmed that the first Imposition that Bellarmine could find of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as a matter of Faith was about the yeare 1073. by Pope Gregory the Seventh OB. Bellarmine said that he would prove against Scotus that the Fathers taught the same Doctrine ANSVV. Were his proofe as faisible as I hold it Impossible yet was my Assertion notwithstanding most true because I onely spake of the Imposition of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation as an Article of Faith upon mens Consciences not to have beene before that forenamed Pope Gregory the Seventh The Contrary whereof neither hee nor any for him can shew out of any Ancient Father The Advantage hee giveth us is the bewraying of his owne Precipitancie The Fourth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 113. Pag. 162. N. CABASILAS THe Greeke Archbishop Cabasilas hath told us that the Latines of the Romish Church would not indure the Greeks to call the Eucharist after the Romish Consecration Bread The OB. Romane Catholikes do commonly allow that it be called Bread after Consecration ANSVV. I proved from Cabasilas that they will not indure it hee telleth mee without any proofe at all they do But if hee should eat no bread untill hee could finde in Romish writers the Commonly naming of the Eucharist Bread after their Consecration thereof hee within a short time would be found felo de se After this the Objector telleth me which I had taught him before in the first Booke that Cabasilas and the Greekes hold that the words of Christs Institution to wit HOC EST CORPVS MEVM are not words of Consecration and therfore called the Romish Eucharist Bread and Conâ—ludeth OB. Therefore doth not Cabasila's Testimonie availe you ANSW It proveth as much as I there assumed to prove That the Romish would not allow their Eucharist to be called Bread after their Consecration Our Advantage is to observe your pronesse to quarrell you know not for what The Fifth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 125. pag. 177. IRENAEVS OB. I. YOu translate it Even as to make it a Similitude ANSW When I was but a Boy I then learned to translate SICVT SIC which are the words of Irenaeus EVEN As So. OB. II. But the Similitude is onely for the Change and not for the maner of the Change ANSW Can there be a Change with a SICVT EVEN As without a maner of Similitude of Change One Advantage herein may be this our further Observation that Irenaeus as hee said of the BREAD Consecrated that it is NO MORE A COMMON THING BVT CHANGED INTO AN EVCHARIST a Sacrament saith likewise of the other part of the Similitude that THE BODIES OF THE COMMVNICANTS ARE INCORRVPTIBLE IN HOPE OF RESVRRECTION meaning that they are therefore not to be esteemed of in the common Condition of naturall Bodies Our other Advantage will be to learne the language of the Fathers as here of Irenaeus calling the Bodies of the Faithfull INCORRVPTIBLE even here in this life but meaning because of the hope of their future Resurrection when they shall be changed indeed yet not in Substance but onely in Qualities from Incorruptibility and Basenesse Even as hee meant of the change of this Sacrament consisting of an Earthly and an Heavenly part the Earthly being the Bread Naturall and the Heavenly being the same Sacramentall as betokening and signifying the Body of Christ The Sixth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 124. pag. 178. S. AMBROSE OB. I. IN citing of Ambrose you joyne both his Sentences in one ANSW Which is no more Advantage to my Cause than if I should give this Objector two Sixpences for one Shilling OB. II. You adde Even as to make it a Similitude ANSW This needed not to have beene added because Ambrose his words cannot be understood of any Reader but as implying a Similitude OB. III. Bat your Translation is this Things changed remaine what they were before whereas they should have been rendered verbatim thus That those things which were be still and changed into another thing ANSW I call for an Oedipus to unriddle this to say that there is a differencet sense betweene THE THINGS THAT WERE BE STILL AND THEY BE STILL THAT WHICH THEY WERE BEFORE ALTHOVGH CHANGED INTO ANOTHER THING That is to say Of Common Elements made Sacred and Sacramentall The Seventh Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 134. pag. 190 S. AMBROSE OB. ETiam A word of great Asseveration omitted ANSW What needed any more Asseveration than the words set downe IPSA NATVRA MVTATVR which I understand to be as asseverantly spoken as if hee had sworne them OB. II. You say that Ambrose interpreteth his naming of Bread Christ's Body by saying afterwards Corpus Christi Significatur which is long after ANSW It is in the same Chapter and not long after neither But this man is as good an Objector as hee is an Observer who doth not know that which is common to all Writers that what the Author hath spoken somewhat more obscurely before hee explaineth it with words more intelligible albeit long after OB. III. But Ambrose said elswhere Panis dicitur sed Corpus appellatur It is said to be Bread but it is called the Body of Christ So saith hee here Before Consecration it is named Bread but after Consecration the Body of Christ is signified here Significatur is the same with Nuncupatur Signified is the same with named or called ANSW NAMED AND CALLED are onely Appellations of the outward words whereas SIGNIFICATA alwayes import the sense of the same words whether spoken or read so that I shal need for Confutation no more but to appeale unto the Objector himself to distinguish the office of his cares eyes whereby hee apprehendeth onely words from the Function of his Brain-pan in judging of their sense and signification A further Advantage upon this occasion may be had first from another Allegation of the Objector himselfe out of Saint Ambrose lib. 5. de Sacrament cap. 4. Dixi ante verba Christi panis dicitur post deprompta Christi verba non panis dicitur sed corpus appellatur Wee heare that Saint Ambrose proveth that that which is called the Body of Christ was before Consecration that which was called Bread so that Hoc in Christ's speech must signifie Bread which marreth and dasheth your Romiâ—h and literall Exposition of Christ's words the foundation of all your other errours concerning Corporall Presence to note in Saint Ambrose his Iudgement that Hoc in Christ's speech betokened Bread which in the universall Iudgement of all Romish Doctors cannot be attributed to Christ's Body in a literall sense And Secondly to recognize the Art of Bellarmine See Book 2. pag. 125. in his misalleging the same words of Ambrose thus Post Consecrationem corpus Christi est instead of CORPVS
striking their breast to say O Lambe of God that takest away the sinnes of the world have mercie upon us âšœ Besides your other Precations as thus 1 Cornel. Loos Calliâ—ius Duel Fid. Rat. in sine Adhibetur Precatio coram venerabili Sacramento Eucharistiae ex Thuribulo aureo Sanctarum Precationum lib. 2. cap. 7. Catholicâ Fide coram te Domine Iesu prostratus Te sub consecrati Panis specie latentem sed verè corporaliter sub eadem existentem adoro Hic igitur Te Deum adoro quem sub corporis tui praesentia subsistentem credo Da mihi Domine Iesu qui omnis gratiae Fons es I in a Catholike faith being prostrate before thee Lord Iesus adore thee God whom I believe to be corporally present under the formes of Bread and Wine âšœ So you But what do they whom you call Sacramentaries judge of this kinde of worship can you tell e Bellarm. Omnes Idololatriam appellant hujusmodi adorationem Lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 29. §. Porrò All of them saith your Cardinall call it Idolatrie But they whom you call Lutherans are they not of the same Iudgement say f Gregor Valent. Lutherani nos Idololatras vocant seu ut ipsi nugari solent Artolatras Lib. 1. de Idololat cap. 3. §. Sed. They call us because of this worship Artolaters that is Bread-worshippers and Idolaters saith your Iesuite As for our Church of England Shee accordingly saith that The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not reserved carryed about lifted up or worshipped Our Method must now be to treat first of Christs Institution or Masse next of the Profession of Ancient Fathers then of your Romish Masse in it selfe and lastly wee shall returne againe to our owne home to demonstrate the happy Security which our Church hath in her maner of worship So that these contradictory Propositions This Sacrament is to be adored with divine worship and Is not to be adored with divine worship being the two different scales of this Controversie the one will preponderate the other according to the weight of Arguments which shall be put into either of them Of the Institution of Christ shewing that there was therein neither Precept for this Adoration of the Sacrament nor Practice thereof SECT II. NO outward Adoration of the Sacrament was practised of the Disciples of Christ say wee at the Institution thereof which you confesse with us and take upon you to give a reason thereof to wit that g Caster Ies Nec opus erat ut genu slexo significationem novam honoris darent sumentes corpus dominicum quià eundem habebant praesentem corpus suum porrigentem quem mente semper colebant Enchir. de Euch. Tit. Adoratio Answering this Objection Apostoli in ultima coena hoc Sacramentum non adorabant There was no need that the Apostles should use any outward signification of honour to the Sacrament because they had then Christ present and visible before them So your Iesuite which contradicteth your owne Objection of therefore adoring Christ in receiving the Sacrament because then hee * See hereafter Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Cometh under the roofe of your mouths for the neerer our approach is to any Majesty the greater useth to be our outward humiliation But well no Practice of outward Adoration by the Apostles at that time can appeare much lesse have you any Evidence of any Precept for it If there had beene in the words of Christ or in the volume of the New Testament any syllable thereof your Cardinall would not have roaved so farre as to Deuteronomie in the Old Testament to fetch his onely defence out of these words of God h Bellarm. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 29. Scriptum est Deut. 6. DominuÌ„ tuum adobis c. §. His praemissis Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God supposing that the Bread which is worshipped is indeed the Sonne of God which is as it were mere Canting being the basest kinde of Reasoning that can be and is therefore called of Logicians A begging of the point in Question Wee contrarily adhere to the Institution of Christ in all points necessary and essentiall thereunto and knowing that the Apostle promised to deliver * 1 Cor 11. Whatsoever hee had received of the Lord concerning this Sacrament which you hold to be the principall part of your Romish Religion wee are perswaded that hâ—e in expressing the other Commands of Christ touching Consecration Administration and Communication of this Sacrament never taught that your Article of divine Adoration whereof hee gave not so much as the least intimation The Apostolicall times faile you Wee shall try if the next called the Primitive Age can any whit advantage your Cause which is our second Station CHAP. II. Of the Doctrine of Antiquity concerning the Adoration of the Eucharist SECT I. THe Iudgement of Antiquity is objected by you and the same is opposed by us against you Let both be put to the Triall First by answering of your Objections out of the Fathers against us and then by opposing their direct Testimonies against you Your Objections are partly Verball and partly Practicall the Verball are of three kinds two whereof are specified in the next Proposition That neither the objected maner of Invitation to come with Feare nor of Association of Angels spoken of by the Fathers imply any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist SECT II. OVt of a Chrysost in Homaed Cor. 24. Cum horrore accedamus ad Deum Ob. Harding c. Item Bellar lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 22. Citatis locis quibusdaÌ„ Chrysostomi ad haec Adversarij neque respondent neque respondere possint Sienim Angeli ad altare astant capitibus inclinatis cuÌ„ horrore ac tremore vix audent intueri propter splendoreÌ„ indé emicantem quis negare potest aliud ibi esse quam panem Et si angeli adorant quis homines reprehendere potest si adorent Paulò superius ex Hom. 41. ad Corin. Accedimus ad agnum illum jacentem peccata mundi tolentem deprecantes ubi apertissimè dicit vocari agnuÌ„ jacentem c. Et Hom ad Ephes 3. Hostiam quam Angeli cum 〈◊〉 more suscipiunt Chrysostome is objected his Exhortation that Christians in their approach to this Sacrament Do come with horror feare and reverence Next is their talking of the Angels being present at this Celebration holding downe their heads and not daring to behold the excellencie of the splendor c. and to deprecate the Lambe lying on the Altar These seeme to your Cardinall to be such invincible Testimonies to prove the Adoration of Christ as Corporally present that hee is bold to say They never hitherto were answered nor yet possibly can be So he taking all Chrysostomes words in a literall sense whom notwithstanding your owne * See above B. 3. Cha 4. Sect â— in the Challenge Senensis hath made to be the most
their Tombes yea and when as also Theodoret which proveth your Cardinals Objection lucklesse doth expresly say that The substance of Bread remaineth meaning absolutely the proper substance of Bread as hath beene * See this discussed to the full Booke 3. copiously proved whereunto no Divine worship can be lawfully given not onely in the Faith of all other Catholike Fathers but even in the beliefe of the Romane Church at this day And although the Symbols and Signes as you fancie were meere Accidents yet dare not you your selves say that they are to be properly adored with Divine Worship Hitherto have we insisted upon the words objected out of the Fathers by you with more eagernesse than either with good Iudgement or Conscience Your next Objections are taken from their Acts whereunto wee addresse our Answers CHAP. III. That no objected Act out of the Fathers for proofe of an Invocation by Divine Adoration of the Eucharist is conscionably alleged not the first which is their prescribed Concealment of this Mysterie SECT I. ACts insisted upon by you for proofe of Adoration are these The Fathers injoyning a Concealment of this Mysterie from some others their Elevation of the Host after Consecration their Cautelousnesse in administring it without letting any part thereof fall to the ground their Bodily Gesture in token of Humiliation and their pretended Invocating on it Wee acknowledge that wee may begin with the first how strictly often times the Ancient Fathers generally prescribed to others which they observed themselves that this Mysterie should be kept secret from all persons who were not initiated by Baptisme and incorporated therby into the visible Church of Christ were they Infidels or Catechumenists that is unbaptized Christians Vpon this our Confession as the Base hearken what a discant your Doctors can chant saying as followeth a Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 2. ciiat Augustin Serm. 10. de verbis Apostol viz. Quod corpus dixit escam sanguinem potum Sacramentum fidelium agnoscunt fideles Be hanc phrasin nôrunt fideles habet in locis infinitis at profectò non est fidelibus tantùm notum quòd corpus Christi fide percipiatur Idem Objicit Claudius de Sanctes ante lib. de Liturgijs patrum Rursus Bellar qui sup cap. 15. At certè nulla reddi potest causa cur Eucharistiam ne videri quidem permitterent Infidelibus vel etiam Catechumenis si nihil est nisi signum The Fathers said of this mysterie of the Eucharist that onely Fideles nôrunt the Faithfull know it and therefore wee must be perswaded they understood a Corporall Presence of Christ herein and consequently a Divine Adoration due unto it Master Brerely swelleth big in amplifying this Objection take a brief of the whole The Fathers professing to write more circumspectly of this Sacrament so as not daring to explaine it as Theodoret Origen Augustine Chrysostome this were causlesse if the Fathers had thought Christ's words figurative nor had it beene more necessary in this than in Baptisme had the Fathers acknowledged no other presence in this than in Baptisme c. So hee and so also your Irish 1 Mr. Mâ—llon in his Reply pag 221. Iesuite Well then by your owne judgement if it may be found that the Eathers observed a like Circumspection in the maner of uttering and Cautelousnesse in concealing the Sacrament of Baptisme from Infidels and Catechumenists then must you confesse that this your Argument maketh no more for proofe of a Corporall Presence in the Eucharist as you would have it than in Baptisme where you confesse it is no. And now behold the Fathers are as precise in concealing the Mysterie of Baptisme from all persons unbaptized even in as expresse termes as was spoken of in the Eucharist Chrysostome saying against such Persons b Chrysost in Gal. 4. Non natura sed Dei promissio Sacramentum fecit sic renascentia nostra natura quidem nulla est caeterum verbum Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The faithfull know this And againe entring into a discourse of Baptisme he prefaceth saying c And againe in 1. Cor. Hom. 40. about to entreat of the words of S. Paul Quid facientij qui baptizantur pro mortuis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 âšœ And yet againe in Ioh. 85. Hom. 33. joyning that Contemplation of Baptisme and of the Eucharist together hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Initiati âšœ I would indeed speake this plainly but I dare not because of them that are not initiated or Baptized âšœ Basil also speaking of the Rites of Baptisme saith that 2 Basil de Spir. Sanct. Cap. 27. Consecrare oleum unctionis hominem ter mergi renuntiare Satanae reliqua etiam in Baptismo unde habemus nonnè ex antiqua traditione nonnè ex doctrina quam Patres in silentio quod curiosos otiosos submovet servârunt The Ancient Fathers before his time left them in silence and preserved them from curious and idle men âšœ And Dionysius the supposed Areopagite d Dionys Hierar cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let none that is not a perfect Christian be admitted to the sight of the signes of Baptisme even as the Councell e Conâ— Arauâ—â—â—n 1. Catechumeni non sunt ad Baptismum admittendi Can. 19. Arausicanum also decreed Which Cautions are long since antiquated by disuse in Churches Christian because all are now baptized that come to behold this Sacrament If hereupon any Protestant shall inferre a Corporall Presence of Christ in Baptisme and consequently an Adoration of Christ in the same Sacrament you your selves wee know would but hisse at him in detestation of his Consequence as judging it Idolatrous But do you aske why then the Fathers did teach Christians not to speake of these Mysteries in the hearing of the Catechumenists Saint Augustine himselfe whom your Cardinall hath brought in for defence of Corporall Presence will resolve us and witnesse against him telling him not that the reason was the sublimity of the matter as though they could not apprehend it but because f Aug. Tom. 9. Tract 〈◊〉 in Ioh. Quid si eis fidelium Sacramenta non producuntur non ideo fit quod ea ferre non possent sed ut ab 〈◊〉 tantò ardentiùs concupiscantur quantò honorabilius eis occultantur Speaking of the Catechumenists The more honourably the Sacraments are concealed speaking in generall the more ardently they would be coveted and desired As for their not revealing them unto Infidels the reason is evident Infidelity is a mocker and they meant to preserve Christs Sacrament from contempt Thus your most specious Objection serveth for nothing more than to prove your Disputers to be wonderfully precipitant in their Arguing That the objected Elevation or lifting up of the Hoast and preserving of it from falling are no Arguments of Divine Adoration SECT II. SEcondly the Elevation of the Hoast over the head of the Priest is your ordinary Objection
for proofe of a Divine Adoration although you have * Suarez See above Book 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 5. at a. confessed that this was not of prime Antiquity But supposing Elevation to have been so ancient yet was it not to the end it should be adored no more than was the Booke of the Gospel in the Roman Church when it was according to the Rite then a Durant de Ritib lib. â— cap. 23 num 7 In ordine Romano Diaconus osculans Evangelium levat in manus codscem partem ejus in dextro humero ponens vadit ad Ambonem Lift up by the hands of the Deacon and carried on his right shoulder What else will you say of the Priests elevation you would perswade in the b Idem de Ritibus l. 2. cap. 40. in Psal 71. In capite montium hoc est ait Rabbi Ionathan Sacrificium in capitibus Sacerdotum Durand Rational lib. 4. cap. 42 num 54. Elevatuâ— ut populus congreslus consecrationem factam esse Christum super Altare venisse reverenter prosternatur in terram illum ore adóret Et Durant quo supr Adorationis ergo Eucharistiam in altum attolli Durandus Ivo asserunt Probabile est Margin by some that the Priest lifting the Hoast over his head was prophesied of by the Psalmist And that the Rite of holding the Hoast up was chiefly that the people knowing it to be now consecrated should understand that Christ is on the Altar whom they are to adore by falling downe on the ground Whereof albeit some of you speak more confidently yet the most principall searcher into Antiquity dare say no more than onely This is probable Wee contrarily conceive 1. that that Rabbinish interpretation can be no good ground to rest upon which * See above B. 3. hath bin rejected by Bellarmine as being idle and frivolous 2. That the Ceremony of Elevation as hath * See above B. 6. Chap. 4. Sect. 5. beene confessed was neither instituted by Christ nor yet alwaies in use in Christ's Church 3. That the same Elevation albeit used after Consecration doth not so much as Probably prove it was for Adoration-sake because it was aswell in use in your lifting up of the Hoast before Consecration as your objected c Missals published by Claudius Sanctes a Parisian Doctor before Consecration in the Missal of S. Iames Attollens In the Masse of Basil Exaltans panem Missals of Saint Iames and Basil do manifest Lastly that where Elevation was practised after Consecration the objected Authors confute your Assertion for in Chrysostome if wee should grant unto you the whole Liturgie to be his which the best learned Grecians at this day do * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. deny it is read d After Consecration in the Masse of Chrysostome Modicum attollens Sacerdos dicit Sancta sanctis That the Priest did take a portion out of the dish and held it up but a little this is not lifting it over the head or very high as your reason for Adoration would require And in your objected S. e In Dionys Areoprelating the forme of their Mosse objected by Durantus de Ritib lib. 2. cap. 40. Mysteria quae ante laudaverat Sacerdos venerandis operta 〈◊〉 in conspectum agit divinaque munera reverenter ostendens ad sacram Communionem convertitur Wherein there is no one word of Venerandis or Reverenter but this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Dionys Areopag cap. 3. Denis there is no more but that The sacred celebrated Symbols were brought into light which after Consecration hee termeth Vncovered Bread divided of the Priest into many parts Bread wee say broken after Consecration which is the break-necke of your whole Defence âšœ And why may not wee thinke the Elevation for Adoration of the Host to be an after-Invention aswell as was the Elevation of the Chalice for the same end whereof it is confessed by your owne Ritualist that 3 Barthol Gavant Com. in Rubr. Missae Tunc se erigens Sacerdos quanâ—â—â— commode potest in altum elevat intentus in eum oculis populo reverenter ostendit adorandum Rubrica Missae Sacerdos genuflectens reverenter adoret calicem disco opertam cum sanguine elevet erectum quantum potest ostendet populo adorandum Hinc Author Non autem sub praecepto haec Blevatio calicis ante Sanct. Thomam ex Soto in 4. Dist 13. Quaest 2. Art 5. Vnde neque Thomas meminit illius ubi minute omnes ritus Missae ponit part 2. Tit. 8. pag. 108. The elevation of the Chalice that the people might adore it was not commanded untill after the daies of Thomas Aquinas So hee and that you know was a thousand and some hundreth of yeares after Christ his Institution of this Sacrament It were strange if the Romish Faith had then been that the Blood of Christ beeing Corporally in the Sacrament and Consequently adored of the people that the Primitive Church should not have used an Elevation of the Cup for better Accommodation-sake aswell as your new Romish Church hath ordained so many Ages since Not to tell you of the Church under Prester-Iohn which as is 4 Cassand in Liturg cap. 11. Sacerdos sublevet Id ipsum quoque facit in Calice sed non elevat confessed used no Elevation âšœ Your third Objection is the diligent Caution given by Ancient Fathers to take heed f Tertull. in lib. de Corona milit Calicis aut panis aliquid in terram discuti anxiè paâ—mur Ob. by Mr. Brerely Litâ—â—g Tract 2. Sect. 8. Sub. 4. pag. 286. And out of Origen Hom. 5. in Levit. Take heed no little crumme fall to the ground Tract 4. Sect. â— And Pius Bishop of Rome ordained that the conseâ—rated Bread and Wine falling to the ground should be left to the Sacrificer and the rest remaining should be burnt with fire unto ashes So great a Reverence was then prescribed Ibid. Tract 2. Sect 8. Subd 4. âšœ Bell. li. 2. de Euch. ca 7. Tertul. de corona milit inter alios Christianos ritus ponit summam cautionem quam adhibebant Christiani ne aliquid Eucharistiae in terram caderet Calicis inquit aut Panis nostri alquid in terram decuti anxiè patimur âšœ Lest that any Crum should fall to the ground and if any little part thereof should fall it should be left to the Priest and the Remainder of the Sacrament after the Masse say you should be burnt to ashes and the ashes laid up So you Pharaoh his Butler and Baker we are sure would have been loath to miscarry in spilling or letting fall any part of their carriage when they were to present their service unto their King much more carefully ought every Christian in executing his sacred Function to observe the Lawes of Decorum Marke we by the way Master Brerely durst not call the part falling any thing but a Part not A part
in Dionysius the Areopagite who writing of the Sacrament c Bellar. Dionys Areop Hier. cap. 3. part 3. O divinissimum sacrosanctum Sacramentum obducta tibi significancium signorum operimenta aperi c. Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 3. Item ipsum invocat Sacramentum petit ab ipso quae à solo Deo rectè peti possunt And Durant de Rit ib. lib. 2. cap. 11. Aud indeed who not said O must divine Sacrament reveale union us the mysterie of thy signes c. which in the eares of your Disputers ringeth a flat Invocation of the Sacrament âšœ And that 10 Mallon Ies in his Reply Nothing could be said more plainly âšœ Contrariwise wee confidently affirme that your Teachers have taken a figure Prosopopoeia for Invocation like men who take Moon-shine for Day-light as wee shall manifest by Examples Confessions yea and the very Instance of Dionysius himselfe Prosopopoeia then is a figure when one calleth upon that which hath no sense as if it had sense as when in Scripture the Prophet said Heare ô Heavens and hearken ô Earth Isa 1. In like maner among the Ancient Fathers one called upon his owne Church Anastasia whence he was to depart and saying thus d Nazian Orat. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oh Anastasia which hast restored our Doctrine when it was despised Others of the Element of Baptisme thus Oh water that hath washed our Saviour and deserved to be a Sacrament or thus e Ambros in Luc. lib. 10. cap. 22. O aqua tu aspersum sanguine Christum lavisti Sacramentum Christi esse meruisti c. Oh water which once purged the world yea as another and naming it f Optat. lib. 6. cont ParmeÌ„ O aqua quae purum feceras orbeÌ„ terraÌ„ lavisti Greg. Nyssen DivinuÌ„ lavacrum See above Booke 3. C. 3. §. 13. A Divine Lavacre c. Nay you your selves can sing chant it to the Crosse g O salve Crux spes unica auge piis justitiaÌ„ c. Est Prosopopoeia Vasquez Ies lib. 2. de Adorat Disp 9. cap. 4. pag. 445. Oh Crosse our only hope c. and in expounding the same allow no more than a Prosopopoeia and figurative speech lest that otherwise your Invocation may be judged Idolatrous And wheras in another Romish Anthem it is sung of the Eucharist Oh holy Feast This Saying saith another h O sacrum coÌ„vivium quod omni Sacramento convenit Tolet. Ies Instruct Sacerd. lib. 2. cap. 15. pag. 366. Iesuite agreeth to every Sacrament Thus have you heard both from Fathers and from your selves the like Tenour of Invocation Oh Church Oh Water Oh Crosse Oh Feast nothing differing from Dionysius his Oh Divine Sacrament yet each one without any proper Invocation at all And that you may further understand that this Dionysius his OH is as in voyce so in sense the same which we judge it to be what better Interpreter can you require of this Greeke Author Dionysius than was his Greeke Scholiast Pachymeres who hath given his Iudgement of this very speech directly saying that i Pachym in locum Dionys 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex Orat. 42. It was spoken as of a thing having life and that fitly as did Nazianzen saith he O great and holy Pascha c. And how should this be otherwise seeing Dionysius at the writing hereof was not in any Church or place where the Eucharist was celebrated but privately contemplating in his mind upon this holy Mysterie The due consideration of these your former so frivolous and so false Objections provoketh us to cry out saying Oh Sophistry Sophistry when wilt thou cease to delude the soules of men In which maner of speech notwithstanding wee do not Invocate but rather detest and abominate your Romish Sophistry And lest any of you should stumble upon the Attribute which Dionysius giveth to the Eucharist in calling it a Divine Sacrament as if it should imply a Corporall Presence therein reade but one Chapter of the same Author and hee will teach you to say as much of many other things wherein you will not believe any Corporall Existence of Christ we are sure for there he equally nameth the place of Celebration * See above Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect 13. Divine Altar the Sacramental Signes Divine Symbols the Minister Divine Priest the Communicants Divine People yea and which may muzzle every Opponent the matter of this Sacrament Divine Bread In the third place is objected this saying of Basil When the Bread is shewne what holy Father hath left in writing the words of Invocation Thus that Father whence your Father Bellarmine thus k Basiâ—i de Spir. sanct cap. 2â— Verba Invocationis cùm ostenditur quis Sanctorum in scripto nobis reliquit Hunc habemus morem veteris Ecclesiae ut post consecrationeÌ„ ostenderetur populo Eucharistia quod nunc fieri videmus conceptis verbis invocaretur Ob. Bellar. lib. 2 de Euch. cap. 25 §. Alterum And Durant de Ritib lib 2. cap. 11. Planè ab ipsis Ecclesiae incunabilis post Consecrationem Eucharistiam in altum tollere Dionys Basil de Spiritu Sancto cap. 27 c. Hence know we the Custome of the ancient Church namely that the Eucharist is shewne to the people after Consecration And that Then as we see now done among us it was Invocated upon even plainly after Consecration saith your Durantus also and indeed almost who not But do you first if you please admire the wit of your Cardinall in so framing his Consequence and after abhor his will to deceive you when you have done for he applieth the words spoken by Basil of an Invocation before Consâ—cration when as yet by your owne Doctrine Christ is not present as spoken of an Invocation of the Eucharist after Consecration for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ therein and the Divine Adoration thereof as will most evidently appeare For first it is not unknown to you that the Greeke Church differeth from your Roman in the forme of Consecration at this day they consecrating in words of prayer and Invocation and you in the repetition of Christ's words This is my Body wherein there is * Broved above Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. in the Challenge no Invocation at all And Basil was of the Greeke Church Secondly your l Archiep. Caesariens seu Christoph de Capite fontium Tractat var. Sacerdos invocando Deum paneÌ„ consecravit Hanc alij ut Tertull. Iren. Iustin Gratiarum actioneÌ„ hujusmodi Invocationem seu benedictionem vocant pag. 34. Alicubi Theodoret Basil Cyril Hierosol Iren. Damascen Theoph. Alex vocant Eucharistiae formam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Invocationem Ibid. pag. 33. And hee allegeth your Lindanus for a Suffragator in this point Archbishop of Caesarea for proofe that Invocation by prayers was a forme of Consecration used primitively in the Greeke Church citeth the two most ancient Fathers
Divine for direction to all Posterity to adore the Sacrament with Divine honour even as it is taught in the Church of Rome at this day and to have confirmed the same by some Practice not of one or other private man or woman but by their publike forme of Prayer and Invocation in their solemne Masses or else to confesse that Antiquity never fancied any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist Yet two words more You presse the point of the Invocation of the Sacrament more urgently and vehemently than any other and wee indeed believe that the ancient Fathers if they had held according to the now Romane Church a Corporall presence of Christ would never have celebrated any Masse without an expresse Invocation of the Sacrament as in your now-Romane Masse wee finde it done saying O Lambe of God c. or some other like forme Yet know now that your owne learned Pamelius hath published two large Tomes of all the Masses in the Latine Church from Pope Clemens downe to Pope Gregory containing the compasse of six hundred yeares wee say Latine Missals above forty in number in all which upon our once reading wee presume to say that there is not one such tenour of Invocation at all This our first Reason taken from so universall a silence of ancient Fathers in a case of so necessary a moment may be wee thinke satisfactory in it selfe to any man of ordinary Reason Our second Objection out of the Fathers followeth That the Ancient Fathers gain-sayd the Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament and the Adoration therof by their Preface in their presenting the Host saying Lift up your Hearts SECT II. IT was the generall Preface of Antiquity used in the Celebration of this Sacrament for the Minister to say Lift up your Hearts and the People to answer Wee lift them up unto the Lord. This Sursum Corda Calvin a Calvin Instit lib. 2. c. 17. §. 36. Nec alia cauâ—â in antiqua Ecclesia fuisse institutum ut antè mysteriotum celebrationeÌ„ diceretur Sursùm corda hath objected against you and your Cardinall confessing that this Preface b In omnibus Liturgiis Graecis Iacobi Basilij Chrysost et omnibus Latinis habetur id quod etiam hoc tempore nos facimus Bellar lib. 1. de Euch. ca. 14. §. Respondeo si was in use in all Liturgies of Antiquity aswell Greeke as Latine and continued in the Church of Rome unto this day Then answereth that c Respondeo Sursùm corda non significare elevationem ad locum corporalem sed elevationem à rebus terrenis curis hujus vitae ad Deum res aeternas Non respondetur Habemus ad firmamentum sed Habemus ad Dominum Et certè qui Christum quaerebant in praesepi in templo in sepulchro Sursùm corda habebant quia illum quaerebant qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula Et fieri potest ut qui terram intuetur cor deor um Sic qui in Eucharistia Christum quaerunt venerantur cor sursum habent si de ipso Christo non de negotiis hujus vitae interim cogitent Bellarm Ibid. Hee that seeketh Christ in the Eucharist and worshippeth him if hee thinke of Christ and not of the Cares of earthly things hee hath his heart above So hee As though the word Above meant as the Subject the person of Christ in the Eucharist and not his place of residence in the highest Heavens contrary to the word in the Greeke * Liturg. Graec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liturgies which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Above wherein the Church alludeth to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostle Coloss 3. 1. Seeke the things that are above where Christ is at the right hand of God as your owne d Monet ergo Sacerdos populum Sursùm i. e. super seipsum elevare corda ad Dominum juxtà exhortationem Apostoli Col. 3. Quae sursùm sunt quaerite non quae super terram Durand Ration lib. 4. cap. 33. Durandus the Expositor of the Romish Masse doth acknowledge Saint Augustine saying e Aug. in Psal 148. Laudate Dominum in excelsis Primò de coelo dicit posteà de terris laudatur enim Deus qui fecit coelum terram Nos adhuc in imo sumus sed cum cogitamus quomodo illic laudetur Deus cor ibi habeamus non sine causa audimus Sursùm corda It is not without Cause that it is said Lift up your hearts Hee sheweth the Cause to be that wee who are here at the Bottome might according to that of the Psalmist Praise God in the highest This one would thinke is plaine enough but that is much more which wee have already proved out of the Fathers by their Antithesis and Opposition betweene the Altar on Earth and the other in Heaven where wee have heard * See above Booke 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. c. Chrysostome distinguishing them that fasten their thoughts upon this Below from Them that seeke Christ in Heaven as hee doth Choughs from Eagles Ambrose as they that behold the Image from them that contemplate upon the Truth * Ibid. Nazianzen as they that looke upon the Signes from them that see the Things and to contemplate upon the Better Altar in Heaven And the Councel of * Booke 4. Chap. 11. Sect. 4. Nice as they that stoope downe from them that looke up aloft And wee may not forget the Observation which * Booke 5. Chap. 5. Sect. â— Athanasius made of Christ in his discourse of Eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood purposely making mention of his Ascension into Heaven thereby to draw their thoughts from earthly Imaginations and to consider him as being in Heaven as did also Saint * Aug. See above B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. Augustine Cyril of Hierusalem is a Father whom you have often sollicited to speake for your Cause in other Cases but all in vaine shall wee hearken to him in this Hee interpreting these words Lift up your Hearts will not have it onely to signifie a sequestring of your thoughts from earthly Cares to spirituall and heavenly which you say was the meaning of the Councel of Nice as if that Lifting up their Hearts had beene onely an exercising of their thoughts upon that in the hands of the Priest or on the Altar beneath No but hee saith that it is f Cyril Hier. Catech. Mystag 5. Ob hanc causam clamat Sacerdos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quià oportet sursùm habere cor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non ad terrena negotia deprimere Paulò post 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To have our hearts in heaven with God the lover of man-kind even as did also Saint g Aug. in Psal 85. Certè rectè admonet ut Sursùm corda habeant audiant igitur faciant levent ad coelum quod malè est in terratiâ—i
enim non putrescit cor si levetur ad Deum Teste Pamel Tom. 1. Missal in Missa Aug. 〈◊〉 pag. 527. Augustine interpret this Admonition to be A lifting up of hearts to heaven Whom as you have * See above B. 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. heard leaving our Eucharisticall Sacrifice on this Altar so would hee have us to seeke for our Priest in heaven namely as Origen more expresly said Not on earth but in heaven accordingly Oecumenius placing the Host and Sacrifice where Christs Invisible Temple is even in heaven âšœ Agreeable to this are the words of Hierome whom notwithstanding your owne 1 Dr. Heskins Parliam Booke 2. Ch. 53. out of Hier. Epist ad Hebdib qu. 2. Doctor hath objected as a Patron for defence of your Romish Masse 2 Hier ad Hebdib cap. 2. Ascendamus igitur cum Domino ad coenaculum magnum stratum accipâ—amus ab eo sursum Calâ—cem Novi Testamenti Ibique cùm eo Pascha celebrantes inebriemur ab eo Vino sobrietatis Let us ascend with our Lord into the great Chamber prepared and made cleane and let us receive of him the Cup of the new Testament and there keeping the Passeover with him let us be made drunke with the wine of Sobriety All as plaine as plainnesse it selfe âšœ Will you suffer one whom the world knoweth to have been as excellently versed in Antiquity as any other to determine this Point Hee will come home unto you h Tempore veters Ecclesiae Romanae populus non cursitabat ad videndum id quod Sacerdos ostendit sed prostratis humi corporibus animis in coelum erectis gratias agebant Redemptori Eras lib. de amab Eccles Concord In the time of the ancient Church of Rome saith hee the people did not run hither and thither to behold that which the Priest doth shew but prostrating their Bodies on the ground they lift up their minds to heaven giving thanks to their Redeemer So hee Thus may wee justly appeale as in all other Causes of moment so in this from this degenerate Church of Rome to the sincere Church of Rome in the Primitive times like as one is reported to have Appealed from Caesar sleeping to Caesar waking Our difference then can be no other than was that betweene Mary and Stephen noted by Ambrose i Ambros in Luc. cap. 24. Maria quae quaerebat Christum in terra â—angere non potuit Stephanus tetigit qui quaesivit in coelo Mary because shee sought to touch Christ on earth could not but Stephen touched him who sought him in heaven A third Argument followeth That the ancient Fathers cendemned the Romish worship by their Descriptions of Divine Adoration SECT III. ALl Divine Adoration of a meere Creature is Idolatry hereunto accord these sayings of k Aug Tom. 2 Epist 44. ad Maxim Christianis Catholicis nihil ut numen adoratur quod conditum est a Deo IdeÌ„ Tom. 8. in Psalm 98. Timeo terram adorare ne me damnet qui fecit coelum terram Nazianz. Orat 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antiquity No Catholike Christian doth worship as a Divine Power that which is created of God Or thus I feare to worship earth lest hee condemne mee who created both Heaven and earth Or thus If I should worship a Creature I could not be named a Christian It were a tedious superfluity in a matter so universally confessed by your selves and all Christians to use Witnesses unnecessarily Wee adde the Assumption But the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament is an attributing of Divine Honour to a meere Creature the Consecrated Bread For that it is still Bread you shall find to have beene the Doctrine of Primitive Fathers if you shall but have the patience to stay untill wee deliver unto you a * See Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Synopsis of their Catholike Iudgement herein after that wee have duly examined your Romish Doctrine by your owne Principles which is the next point CHAP. V. An Examination of the 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 Idolatry 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 a Missal Rom. pag. 31. Vbi debita materia deficit non conficitur Sacramentum Si non sit panis triticeus vel si alioqui corruptus Et pag. 32. Si Vinum sit factum acetum vel penitùs putidum vel de uvis acerbis non maturis expressum vel admixtum aquae ut sit corruptum non conficitur Sacramentum Missall and by your b Dico species consecratae perfectè misceri possunt cum liquore specie distincto tum non manet sub eis sanguis Christi Ità Thomas Teste Suar. Ies in 3. Thom. Disp 67 Sect. 4. § Dico Et Durand Si plus apponatur Aquae quà m Vini erit irritum Sacramentum Lib. 4. cap. 42. 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 Sixe other c Missal Roman in Can. Missâ—e Sex modis contingere potest formae variatio nunâ—rùm per Additionem detractionem alicujus vocis mutationem vel si una ponâ—tur loco alterius corruptionem vocis alicujus detrahendo vel mutando syllabam aliquam transpositioneÌ„ id est ordinis dictionum variatione ac deinde per interruptionem ut pronunciando unaÌ„ partem formae ac quicscendo per aliquod spacium vel loquendo aliquid
peccâsset in Christum sicetiam contra qui panem eundem adorat quòd certo credat non este panem sed ChristuÌ„ is propriè formaliter Christum adorat non panem Lib. 4 de Euchar. cap. 30. Vbi quis simpliciter adorans SacramentuÌ„ non consecratum est actus Latriae actus moraliter bonus procedens ex motivo honesto Sicut quando quis dat Eleemosynam homini petenti nomine Christi ex misericordia infusa operatur si prudenter existimaverit illum esse pauperem quamvis speculativè decipi contingat Suarez Ies Tom. 3. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 65. pag. 829. col 1. Omnis fidelis rectè adorans hostiam consecratam adorat sub eâ conditione si perfecta sunt circa ipsam ea quae ad Consecrationem sunt necessaria secundùm divinam institutionem sic nunquam decipitur neque errat Bonavent in 3. Dist 24. Art 1. quaest â— ad ult Teste Suarez quo supra pag. 828. And in them who require it Actuall albeit Tacitam Azor. Ies reckoneth from Gabriel in Can. Missae Thom. Bonavent Albert. Richard yea and Canonistas Theologos excepting Cajetan Hassel Claud. Sainctes qui simpliciter sine conditione adorandum monent Azor. Instit Tom. 1. lib. 9. cap. 9. §. Decimo Dicendum est quod per se loquendo ac seclusis specialibus circumstantijs per Accidens occurrentibus absolutè adorandum esse hoc Sacramentum nullâ in actu appositâ conditione Ita sentit D. Thom. in 3. Dist 9. quaest 1. Art 2. q. 6. ad 2. ubi solùm dicit non requiri conditionem explicitam sed satis esse si habitu retineatur Habitu autem illam retineri nihil aliud esse videtur nisi mente animo habere intentionem adorandi verum Christum verumque Sacramentum non adhibendi adorationem nisi cum hac pendenti existimatione In eadem sententia est Richardus ubi inquit licet fides credit Christum esse sub speciebus sub conditione si omnia sunt facta quae ad consecrandum sunt necessaria tamen ad adorandum non oportere ut fideles hanc conditionem adhibeant in actuali cogitatione Idem Gabriel Marsil communiter Summistae verbo Adoratio Ità Suarez Tom. 3. quaest 79. Art 8. Disp 6â— pag. 828. col 2. Nihil obfuit Iacob cum Laban sibi ignoranti pro Rachel in concubitu substituerit Leam quia bonâ fide se cum propria uxore dormire putaret Ita non est Artolatra qui adorat Christum in pane non consecrato quem bonâ fide putat consecratum c. Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 33. pag. 181. Although say they in the Margin there be no true Consecration by reason of divers Defects yet in him who upon a Morall certainty with a sincere mind and good intention doth adore Bread it is but Materiall and no Formall Idolatry so that hee have an Habituall condition as being so disposed in his mind not to give a Divine honour unto it if hee knew it to be but Bread As for Example Hee that giveth an Almes to a Rich man being probably perswaded that hee is not rich the Act proceedeth from a pious Intention And As it was no Sin in Iacob to lye with Leah because hee thought her to be his wife so in this case it is no formall Idolatry to worship Bread being Morally perswaded that it is Christ Thus they Your Pretences herein are three Morall Certainty Good Intent and at least Habituall Condition But alas all this is but Sowing Fig-leaves together which will never be able to cover your foule shame of grosse Idolatry To begin first with that which you call Morall Certainty That the Pretence of Morall Certainty of worshipping of Bread instead of Christ cannot free the Romish Church from Formall Idolatry SECT II. OVr Confutation is grounded upon divers impregnable Reasons one whereof is taken from the Iealousie of God in his worship the second from the Faith required in a true worshipper the third from the nature of an Oath and the last from the Vncertainty of that which you call Morall Certainty First then although Morall and Conjecturall perswasions might excuse mens Actions in divers Cases yet in an Object of Divine Worship it is utterly condemnable even because of the Iealousie of the Almighty who expresseth himselfe to be a Iealous God Exod. 20. signifying as b Ego sum Deus tuus fortis zelôtes Exod. 20. 5. Dicitur Deus Zelôtes id est zelum tenens zelus autem est amor privatus nolens habere consortium in amato Et sic viri dicuntur habere zelum de uxoribus suis quia volunt quòd uxores suae solos illos ament solis illis copulentur Sic etiam Deus volebat quòd Idaei eam solum colerent eum ut Deum cognoscerent quando alius coleretur ut Deus dolebat tanquam si vir videat uxorem suam amantem alium virum Et sicut cùm mulier alteri quà m viro suo copulatur fornicari dicitur ita qui alterum quà m verum Deum colebat fornicari dicebatur in Scriptura cum Dijs alienis Abulens in Exod. 20. pag. 273 col 2. you know that Hee will not indure any consort in his worship his Motto being this I am and there is no Other Even as in the Case of mortall Majesty when as a subject building upon a Morall Certainty onely shall question the Title and Right of his Soveraigne established in his Throne hee becometh guilty of High Treason Secondly all Divine Worship must be performed with a Divine Faith which is an Infallible perswasion of the God-head of that which wee honour as God as it is written Hee that cometh to God must believe that God is Heb. 11. 6. and againe You must aske in Faith nothing doubting Iac. 1. because this is the nature of Faith as the Apostle describeth it Faith is the Hypostasis of things not seene Heb. 11. That is to take your c Graeci optimè interpretantur Hypostasin per substantiam quia fides essicit ut ea quae credit non minùs certa habeamus quà m si subsisterent Ribera Ies Com. in Heb. 11. pag. 514. owne Comment Faith â—aketh those things which are believed no lesse certaine than if they did subsist whereby wee are taught both the nature and necessitie of Faith in Divine Worship But Morall and Conjecturall Certainty is not an Hypostasis which implieth an Infallibilitie of Truth but an Hypothesis and supposition of that which may be otherwise and hath in it nothing but Vncertainty at all of which more * Chap. 9. Sect. 4. hereafter Thirdly God himselfe commandeth his People by his Prophet saying Thou shalt worship mee and in * Septuagiots Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shalt sweare by my Name Swearing then is an Adoration by Invocating of God and his owne peculiar Prerogative Hearken now By this Law of God none
to deserve death shall equally satisfie it after hee shall be sorry for his offence and love him and promise amendment will any affirme if the nature of the thing bee duly considered that the Prince is bound to be aswell pleased with the griefe of that man for his offence proceeding from love as hee was offended at the injurie and that hee ought not to punish him nay but the man hath deserved to lose both Land and Life although hee be a thousand times sorry for his offence much lesse possible is it for man to returne an equall Compensation unto God So hee which sheweth sufficiently that there is a Disproportion of Contraries in their divers respects ⚜ CHALLENGE DO you not perceive what a patched Cloake of Sophistry your Cardinall cast upon your Good Intent in your Adoration to cover the filthinesse thereof if it might be and how by another Position hee rent the same in pieces when hee had done Againe you stand thus farre furthermore condemnable in your selves in this Point whilest as you seeke to free your Adoration from Idolatry by Pretence of a Good Intent and notwithstanding hold a Good Intention not to be sufficient thereunto except it be qualified and formed with an Habituall Condition which is your Third and last Pretence as fond and false as either of the former whereof hereafter That the Third Romish Pretence of an Habituall Condition in the Worshipper excuseth him not from formall Idolatry proved first by Scripture SECT IV. HAbituall Condition you have interpreted to stand thus * See above Sect. 1. at the letter a ad finem If hee that chanceth to worship onely Bread be in that Act so disposed in himselfe that hee would not worship the same Bread as Christ if hee knew it were but Bread and not Christ and by this you teach that the Act which you call a Materiall Idolatry is made not onely excusable but your * Ibid. owne words honest and commendable also So you What execrable Doctrine is this that wee heare which cannot be justifiable except you will justifie the Murtherers of the members of Christ and of Christ himselfe First of the members of Christ wee reade of one Saul afterwards Paul breathing out threatnings and slanders against them Act. 9. 1. and persecuting the Church 1. Cor. 15. Galath 1. and drawing both men and women to death Act. 22. 4. And all this not maliciously but as you heare himselfe say Ignorantly 1. Tim. 1. 13. and with a good Conscience Act. 23. 1. and in zeale Phil. 3. 6. A fairer expression of a Good Intent in a wicked practice cannot be than this was and as much may be said for his Habituall Condition namely that if hee had then as afterwards knowne Christ to have beene the Lord of life and those murthered Christians to have beene his mysticall Members hee would rather have exposed himselfe to Martyrdome than to have martyred those Saints of God This Consequence directly appeareth first by his Answer in his miraculous Conversion saying * Acts 9. 5. Who are thou Lord next by his detestation of his Fact * 1. Cor. 15 9. I am unworthy to be called an Apostle because I persecuted the Church c. then by his Acknowledgement of Gods especiall mercie * 2. Tim. 1. 13. But God had mercie on mee Afterwards by his Labour for winning soules to the Faith I have laboured more abundantly than they all And lastly in that hee was one of those Actors of whom Christ himselfe foretold saying * Ioh. 16. 2. They shall draw you before Iudgement seats and when they shall persecute you they will thinke that they do God good service Which also plainly argueth that their and his perswasion of so doing proceded from a Morall Certainty Good Intent and Habituall Condition From these Members let us ascend to our Head Christ the Lord of Glory what thinke you of the Iewes of whom Saint Peter sayd You have murthered the Prince of life Act. 3. 15. But did they this Voluntarily and knowingly as understanding him to have beene the Redeemer of the world and indeed the Prince of life they did not for the same Apostle testifyeth in their behalfe saying I know you did it ignorantly as did also your Rulers Act. 3. 17. If this be not sufficient heare the voice of the person that was slaine Christ himselfe who did so farre acquit them saying They know not what they do Luk. 23. 24. Ignorantly then in a Conjecturall Certainty but yet with Good Intent of whom Saint Paul witnesseth in these words I beare them witnesse that they have the Zeale of God but not according to knowledge Rom. 10. But what for Habituall Condition were they not bent in their owne minds if they had understood what Christ was to have abhorred that so heinous a guilt of the death of the Sonne of God questionlesse for so saith the Apostle If they had knowne they would not have crucifyed the Lord of Glory 1. Cor. 2. 8. Wee conclude seeing these Iewes notwithstanding their Morall Certainty being seduced by their Priests or else their Good Intent of doing God good service therein or yet their Habituall Condition not to have crucified Christ if they had truly knowne him were neverthelesse by Saint Peter condemned yea and of themselves as Formall and verily Murtherers of Christ then ô you Romish worshippers of the Host must it necessarily follow that in your Masses you are equally all Formally Idolaters notwithstanding any of the same three Pretences to the contrary Wherefore as Salomon speaketh of an Adulterous woman * Prov. 30. 20. Shee eateth and wipeth her mouth saying I have done no wickednesse so may wee say of Idolatrous Worshippers and their Proctors for what else are these your three Romish Pretences but like such mouth-wipes or as Anodyna and stupifying Medicines which take away the Sense of the diseased person but do not cure the disease So do you delude miserable people with false Pretences lest they discerning the grosnesse and ouglinesse of your Idolatry might abhorre that worship and abandon your Romish worshippers That the former Romish Pretences have no warrant from Antiquity SECT V. THe number of Ancient Fathers whose workes are yet extant who lived within Six or Seven hundred yeares after Christ are recorded to have beene about 200. out of whose monuments of Christian learning your chiefest Disputers could never hitherto produce anyone that justified your Romish worship by so much as in distinguishing of Materiall and Formall Idolatry nor yet by qualifying any Idolatry under pretence of either Morall Certainty or Good Intent or yet Habituall Condition and therefore must wee judge that they never gave Assent to this your Sorcery For wee may not be so injurious to the memory of so many so famously learned and Catholike Doctors of the Church of Christ that they could not or of persons so holy and zealous of Gods honour and of mens Salvation that they would
you will a transformed Devill yet the seed being Gods it may be fruitfull whatsoever the Seed-man be if the ground that receiveth it be capable Therefore here might wee take occasion to compare the Ordination Romish and English and to shew ours so farre as it consenteth with yours to be the same and wherein it differeth to be farre more justifiable than yours can be if it were lawfull upon so long travelling to transgresse by wandring into by-pathes Our last Securitie from the Romish Perplexity of Habituall Condition SECT VII HAbituall or virtuall Condition as it is conceived by your Professors standeth thus I adore this which is in the hands of the Priest as Christ if it be Christ being otherwise not â—illing so to do if it be not Christ What my Masters Iffs and And 's in divine worship These can be no better in your Church than leakes in a ship threatning a certaine perishing if they be not stopped which hitherto none of your best Artificers were ever able to do For as touching your profane Lecturer c Suarez Ies Simpliciter adorandus est Christus in Eucharistia aliud exigere ex iis esset superstitiosum vanis scrupulis superstitionibus exposituÌ„ neque enim est consentaneum ibi trepidare ubi non est vel probabilis ratio timendi sed potiùs periculum nè dubitatione devotio animi minuatur Tom. 3. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 65. Sect. 2. Suarez labouring to perswade you to Adore Christ in the Eucharist simply without all scrupulizing saying It is not fit to feare where no feare is When as hee himselfe as you have heard hath told us that there are possibly incident * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 6. at a Almost Infinite Defects and consequently as many Causes of doubting which may disannull the âšœ whole Act of Consecration âšœ Every Morall Certaintie as your other i Lessius Ies Opusc Tract de Praescien condit cap. 21. §. Sed contra Moralis certitudo non est absoluta sed secundùm quid qualis nimiùm per conjecturas possit haberi ex signis cum quibus non necessariò conjungitur veritas rei signatae Iesuit and you all confesse being but conjecturall âšœ Therefore there needeth none other Confutation than this of his owne shamelesse Contradiction which as you may see is palpably grosse So impossible it is for any of you to allay the detestable stench of plaine Idolatry Certainely if S. Augustine had heard that a Worship of Latria which hee every-where teacheth to be proper to God were performed to Bread and Wine as the matter of Divine Adoration hee neither would nor could have said in defence thereof as hee did of the Celebration of the Eucharist in his owne time viz. d Aug. contr Faust Manich. lib. 20 cap. 21. Nos à Cerere Libero Paganorum Diis longè absumus Wee are farre from your Paganish worshipping of Ceres and Bacchus But as for us Protestants wee professe no Divine worship of God but with a Divine that is an Infallible Faith that * ⎠* it is God whom wee worship who will not be worshipped but in spirit and truth What furthermore wee have to say against your Romish Masse will be discovered in the Booke following THE EIGHTH BOOKE Of the Additionalls by a Summary Discovery of the manifold Abominations of the Romish Masse and of the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof THese may be distinguished into Principals which are Three the Romish Superstitiousnesse Sacrilegiousnesse and Idolatrousnesse of your Masse and Accessories which are These Obstinacies manifold Overtures of Perjuries Mixture of many ancient Heresies in the Defenders thereof CHAP. I. Of the peremptory Superstitiousnesse of the Romish Masse in a Synopsis SECT I. MAny words shall not need for this first point Superstition is described by the Apostle in this one word * Coloss 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Mans will-worship as it is opposite to the worship revealed by the will of God What the will of Christ is concerning the Celebration of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood wee have learned by his last Will and Testament expresly charging his Church and saying Do THIS pointing out thereby such proper Acts which concerned either the Administring or the Participating of the same holy Sacrament But now cometh in Mans will-worship ordained in the Church of Rome as flatly contradictory to the same Command of Christ by Ten notorious Transgressions as if it had beene in direct Termes countermanded thus Do not This as hath been * Booke 1. thorowout proved notwithstanding the former direct Injunction of Christ or conformable Observation of the holy Apostles or Consent and Custome of the Church Catholike 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 disguized under the feigned vizard of false Pretences which have bin many devised by the new Church of Rome in an opinion of her own wisdome to the befooling vilifying of the Ancient Catholike Church of Christ which never esteemed the same Reasons reasonaable enough for making any Alteration but notwithstanding such imaginations precisely observed the Precept and Ordinance of Christ But that which excedeth 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 * Booke 4. Ca. 2 〈◊〉 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 Sin abhorred by holy Iob saying to his Adversaries * Iob 13. 4 7 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 a Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. in the Challenge Gelasius condemned for a Grand Sacrilege or of the like points formerly discovered in the first Booke wee shall insist onely 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 b Booke â— Cha. â— Sect. â— 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 wee may call a
that which is called in Musicke Discantas 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 hee 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 knowne saith hee 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 hee 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 and 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 farre more abominably Sacrilegious And not much lesse is that which followeth praying God to command his Angel to carry if the Gift be Hee Christ into heaven contrary to the Article of our Catholike Faith which teacheth us to believe his perpetuall Residence in heaven at the right hand of the Father Hee answereth c Bellarm. sup And so Doctor Heskins out of Hugo de sancto victore in his Parliament of Christ Booke 3. Chap. 395. It is not meant that God would command his Angel to carry Christ's Body but our prayers and desires by the intercession of the Angel unto God for us So hee 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 carried by thy Angel 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 wee may so say miserably Radiculous That the former Romish Prayer as it was Ancient 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 avoydance 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 ancient such as are found in the a Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa cap. 24. Super quae propitio c. habentur apud Ambrosium post consecrationem Lib 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. Rursus Bellar. ibid. Haec verba posita sunt post consecrationem apud Ambrosium lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. in Liturgijs Iacobi Clementis Basilij Chrysostomi Missals of Saint 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 b Liturgia Iacobi antè Conjecrationem Diaconus Oremus pro sanctificatis tremendis donis ut Dominus acceptis eis in super-coeleste spirituale Altare suum in odorem suavitatis mittat nobis divinam gratiam Tum Sacerdos Deus ac Pater Domini Dei Servatoris qui tibi oblata munera frugum oblationes accepisti in odorem suavitatis sanctifica animas nostras Post Sacerdos censecrans verba Consecrationis adhibet Sancte qui in sanctis requiescis suscipe hymnum incorruptum in sanctis incruentis Sacrificijs tuis Saint Iames before Consecration the prayer to God is To accept the Gifts unto his celestiall Altar even the Gifts which hee called The fruits of the earth And then after for the Parties aswell Priest as People To sanctifie their soules In the Liturgie of c Liturgia Bafilij ante Consecrationem Pontifex Suscipe nos ut simus digni offerre rationabile illud absque sanguine Sacrificium vide super servitutem nostram ut suscepisti munera Abel sic ex manibus nostris suscipe ista ex benignitate tuâ Et rursus Diac. Pro oblatis sanctificatis honorificentissimis muneribus Deum postulemus ut qui accepit ea in sancto supercoelesti Altari suo in odorem suavitatis emittat gratiam spiritum nobis c. Post sequitur Consecratio Pontifex Respice Domine Iesu Et post Consecrationem Gratias agimus Basil before Consecration it is prayed to God that hee Receiving the Gifts into his celestiall Altar would also concerning the Parties send his Grace and Spirit upon them And no lesse plainly Pope d Clement Constitut lib. 8. cap. 16. called Constitutio Iacobi apud Binium Tu qui Abelis Sacrificium suscepisti And after Pro omnibus tibi gloria c. cap. 17. Benignè aspicere digneris super haec dona proposita in conspectu tuo complaceas tibi in eis in honorem Christi mittas spiritum super hoc Sacrificium testem passionum ejus ut ostendas hunc panem corpus ejus c. Post Consecrationem cap. 19. Etiam rogemus Deum per Christum suum pro munere oblato Domino ut Deus qui bonus est suscipiat illud per Mediatorem Christum in coeleste Altare suum in odorem suavitatis pro hâc Ecclesiâ c. Clemens teaching before Consecration to pray God who received the Gifts of Abel graciously to behold these Gifts propounded to the honour of his Son Christ expresly differencing 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
seemeth not to me to be the Sense of this place which All whom I have read except Hilarie do thinke Item Their Opinions are divers I rest upon of them all Item All Ancients almost do so expound this Text but this is no fit Interpretation Item Thus I expound this Scripture and albeit I have no Author of this Exposition yet I do approve it rather than that of Augustine or of Others although otherwise most probable even because it is repugnant to the Sense and Exposition of the CALVINISTS So hee and that usually O dura ilia With what Stomach could this man swallow that Oath Salmeron the Iesuite may stand for the Third upon that Text Rom. 5. In whom all have sinned which teacheth the universall Guilt of Originall Sin of mankinde What the Sense of the Fathers was from this Text your Canus will certifie you g Canus 〈◊〉 Theol lib. 7. cap. 3. Sanct omnes qui in ejus rei mentionem incidôre uno ore asseruerunt B. Virginem in originali peccato conceptam fuisse And then hee rechoneth adding Et si nullos contravenerit infirmum tamen ex omnium autoritate ArgumentuÌ„ All they saith hee who have formerly fallen upon this subject matter have confessed as it were with one mouth that the Virgin Mary was conceived in Originall sin no one contrarying this Opinion So hee of the Iudgement of Antiquity which notwithstanding hee durst contradict But wee returne to your Iesuite who premising that this Question doth belong to Faith propoundeth h Saloteron Ies in Rom 5. Disp 49. In quo omnes peccaverunt Mariam conceptam in originali peccato etsi non sit haeresis damnata nempè tamen ad fidem spectat Item Disp 51. A qua multitudine Patrum locum ab autoritate infirmum Pauperis est numerare pecus Exod. 13. In judicio plurimorum non acquitsces sententiae ut à vero demas multitudinem multitudini opponimus At Devoti erga D. Virg. Resp Totam Devotionem erga illam non consistere in Patribus ut in Bernardo c. At Antiqui Resp Quilibet senex laudator temporis actiâ—sed illud asserimus quo juniores eo perspicactores Doctores esse After hee wrangleth and wresteth some sayings of Fathers to his part In celeberrimâ Pansiensium Academâ nullus in Theologia titolo Doctoris dignus habetur qui non primum jusjurandi religione se adstrinxerit ad hoc Virginis privilegium tuendum Objections made out of the Fathers for proofe that the Virgin Mary hath the same Originall defect in her owne naturall Generation and shapeth Answers full of regret and reluctancie For first To this Objection The Fathers did consent Hee answereth thus The Argument from Authority is infirme II. To this The Fathers were Ancient Thus The younger Divines are more quicke of understanding III. To this The Fathers were many Hee answereth Hee is but a poore man that can number his Cattell And againe confronting the Ancient Fathers and preferring novell Divines hee saith Wee oppose multitude to multitude IV. But The Fathers were Devout hee answereth Yet all Devotion towards the Blessed Virgin resteth not in the Fathers And when one of the Devoutest of them Bernard by name is objected who had said of the point now in Question i Bernard Epist 174. Hanc prolis praerogaâ—ivam B. Mariae tribuere non est honorate Virginem sed honori detrahere Et Paulò antè Nunquid Patribus doctiores aut devotiores simus To ascribe the prerogative of the Son to the Blessed Virgin is not an honouring but a dishonouring her wherein the same holy Bernard appealeth to Antiquity saying Are wee either more Learned or more Devout than the Fathers Your Iesuite answering to him by name casteth him off with the Rest Here wee see an Oath exacting a Consent to the Vnanimous Expositions of Fathers and heare notwithstanding as plaine a Dissent of your Iesuites opposition unto Vnanimous Consent of Fathers which is the ordinary guise of your Disputers in their expounding of Scriptures and yet behold you forsooth the native children and heires of the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers Your Fathers of the Councel of Trent have set it downe for a Canon whereunto you are also sworne that the words of Christ his Institution concerning the giving of his Body and Blood * Booke 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Have a plaine and proper signification without Tropes which notwithstanding the same words of Christ have beene evinced to be Figurative not onely by the Vnanimous Consent of k Booke 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. and Chap. 2. Sect. 6. 7. Antiquity but also by the expresse l Booke 2. Cha. 2. Sect. 4. See also B. 3. Ch. 3. in the words The fruit of the Vine Sect. 5. Confessions of your owne Iesuites in the words Eate Breake Cup c. and wherin your selves have acknowledged divers Tropes Besides the whole former Treatise is but a displaying of your unconscionable wresting of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers Ponder you these Observations with your selves and then judge whether your Swearing be not Perjury it selfe IV. Overture of Perjury in the Defenders of the Romish Masse is in respect of the pretended Necessity of their Doctrine IN the last Clause of the Oath prescribed in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth you are sworne that every Article therein is the a See above in this Sect. 4. Initio at the letter a. True Catholike Faith without which none can be saved among which is the Article already mentioned swearing to whatsoever was declared in the Councel of Trent by which Councel your now Romane b Synod Trident Sess 15. Missall or Masse-booke is approved Now take a Taste of your Oath in every Epithet First True and hereby are you sworne that in the dayes of Pope Innocentius the third the Administration of the Eucharist to Infants was not held necessary which your owne Authors have c Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 11. confessed and proved to be false Secondly that the presence of them who at the administration of the Eucharist do not communicate is * Ibid. Sect. 5. Sect. 10. Commendable and held a Doctrine Catholike that is anciently Vniversall which was generally condemned by Ancient Fathers and even in the Church of Rome it selfe abandoned by two d Booke 1. Cha. 2. Sect. 9. Popes Lastly in the point of Necessity to salvation To sweare that whosoever believeth not that one may be said to c Booke 1. Cha. 2. Sect. 5. Communicate alone is damned that whosoever believeth not that the Priest in the Masse being alone can duly say The Lord be with you hee is damned or that the f See Booke 4. Body of Christ may not be run away with Mice and be blowne away with the wind hee is damned and a number other like extreme foolish Crotchets set downe in your Missals which wee willingly omit The Summe of all these is that
Materiall Idolatry p. 533. 534. c. IDOLATRIE what it is p. 528. Romish Adoration of the Eucharist is Materially Idolatrous as is confessed by many hundred maner of wayes because of so many defects of due Consecration Ibid. pag. 533. That it is Formall Idolatry pag. 534. c. notwithstanding any Pretence p. 553. either of Morall Certainety pag. 534. As ill as the heathen p 547. In one respect worse p. 549. The same is formally idolatrous p. 540. this is proved by Romish Principles p. 541. By Co-adoration Ibid. By Canonization of Saints p. 542. By Consecration of Popes pag. 544. The false Scales which a Romish Seducer maketh for weighing the difference betweene Protestants Not-Adoring and Papists Adoring of Christ in the Sacrament pag. 545 c. The Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse Epitomized in a Generall Synopsis p. 568 569 c. IEALOVSY of God ought to deterre us from Adoring the Eucharist pag. 534 c. IEWES ate the same Spirituall meat with Christians pag. 314. Iewish Rabbins Objected concerning the Sacrifice of Melchisedech pag. 404. Iewish Sacrifices how proper in themselves and yet Representative which nothing advantageth the Romish p. 440 441 c. IMPOSSIBLE Somthing so called even to the Advancement of Gods Omnipotencie by the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 229. Pretence of Omnipotencie was the Sanctuary of Heretikes as of the Arians Ibid. Acknowledgement of the same Impossibility by the Romish Doctors upon the same Reason because of Contradiction p. 230. Impossibility of Christs Body to be in diverse places at once Confessed by Aquinas Vasquez and other Schoole-men pag. 240 241. Impossibilities by reason of Contradiction as for the same Body to be hot and cold and the like at once p. 255 256 c. IMMOLATION of the Priest is called by S. Augustine Christs Passion as Bread his Body that is Improperly saith the Romish Glosse p. 127. INDIGNITIES most vile attributed by the Romish faith to the supposed Body of Christ in the Eucharist p. 286. Contrary to Antiquity p. 287. Romish Answers to this pag. 288. Master Fishers most absurd Answer for Defense of all seeming Absurdities and Indignities of Romish Doctrine concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 291 292 293 294 c. INDIVIDUUM VAGUM Romishly taught Confessed to be a sense full of Absurdities pag. 96 97 c. INFANTS made Partakers of the Eucharist in the dayes of Pope Innocent erroneously p. 51. Their flesh eaten of Heretikes occasioned the slander thereof by the Heathen upon the whole Christian Church pag. 375 c. INNOVATIONS Ten in the Church of Rome against the Cōmand of Christ DOE THIS repugnant to both the Apostolicall and Primitive Traditions concerning Christs Institution of the Eucharist p. 9. 10 11 c. Novelty preferred before sage Antiquity by the Church of Rome in her Alienation of the Cup from the the Laicks pag. 68. The Innovation of the Church of Rome in Altering Christs Ordinance is maintained by her Advocates with an Odious Vncharitablenesse in preferring a meanes of Lesse Grace before a meanes of More with Arrogancie in attributing more Wisedome to the now present than to the then Ancient Church of Rome By Perjury in swearing to maintaine the Apostolicall Traditions and protesting to disclame them By Blasphemy in teaching the Pope to dispense with the expresse Command of Christ p. 85 86 87 c. INSTITUTION of the Eucharist where it beginneth p. 4. What Circumstances excepted p. 5. It is violated by Ten Romish Transgressions pag. 9. 10 c. It Containeth neither Precept nor Practice of any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist p. 504 505. See TRANSGRESSION INTENT Defects of this in the Priest is cause of Romish Idolatry p. 530. Intent though good cannot free the Romish Adoration of the Eucharist from Formall Idolatry pag. 536 c. INVOCATION used by Gorgonia perversly Objected for Divine Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 516 517 c. IOANE MARTLESSE A miraculous wench Discerning by her Smell one Consecrated Hoast out of a thousand Vnconsecrated p. 173. IRENAEVS teacheth that Hoc in in Christ's Speech demonstrateth Bread p. 103. His Saying It Consisteth of an Earthly part and an Heavenly p. 177. And It is no Common Bread p. 104. Calumniously Objected p. 493. That the Godly are onely Partakers of Christs Body pag. 321. Objected Vnconscionably for Vnion with Christs Body by a Bodily Commixture and nourishing the Bodies of the Communicants p. 365. Confessed p. 356. That they spake of a Permanent Vnion Confessed p. 365. That speaking of the Nourishment of mens Bodies by the Sacrament he meant not any Substantiall Change thereby as is Confessed p. 362. Hee is Objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malach. 5. Which place Confuteth the Objector pag. 432. Hee is Vnconscionably Objected by Bellarmine for Proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse p. 439. His Saying The Altar in Heaven pag. 419. ISYCHIVS His Saying Wee perceive the truth of his Blood pag. 343. And that Christs Body is a Bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist p. 455. Meant of the Passion of the Crosse Confessed p. 479. ISIDORE HISP Against Prayer in an Vnknowne Tongue p. 35. Hee teacheth Hoc in Christs words Hoc est Corpus to demonstrate Bread p. 103. Hee teacheth a Figurative Sense of Christs words This is my Body p. 128. He saith Bread is called Christs Body because it strengtheneth mans soule p. 165. He saith also It is Changed into the Sacrament of Christs Body Ibid. And that Melchisedech offered the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood p. 404. ISIDORE PE LUSIOTA is for the Blessed Virgins opening her Cell at the birth of Christ against Heretiks that denyed the truth of his Body p. 278. IVDGEMENT of God upon Contemners of Holy things p. 318 319 c. IVLIAN the APOSTATE Objecting the No-Altar and Sacrifice among Christians as a note of Atheisme p. 464. IVSTINIAN the Emperour against Prayer in a Tongue Vnknowne p. 36. and against an Vnaudible Voice p. 23 c. IVSTINE is for Consecration by Prayer pag. 13. His calling the Eucharist a Type and Antytipe doth yield a Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body p. 116. And is against Individuum vagum 118. He is Objected in saying It is no Common Bread p. 194. Hee is against the Romish maner of Christs Bodily Penetrations of the Doores p. 276. as is there Confessed His saying Wee are made one by Baptisme not only in affection but also in nature pag. 356. His Apologie to the Heathen Emperour concerning a slander against Christians for Eating the flesh of an Infant p. 374. Where a meere Slander is vehemently and unconscionably Objected by the Romish for proofe of the Orall-Eating of Christs flesh in the Eucharist Ibid. Bellarmines Dilemma thereupon p. 377. And a Dilemma against him pag. 378. Two Testimonies out of Iustine against the Romish Corporall Presence pag. 380 381. Hee saith that Giving of thankes and Praise is
Body of Christ in the Eucharist p. 283. His saying Gustamus Carnem Christi Corruply alleged for Gestamus p. 343. He is Objected for Corporall Vnion of Christs Bodily nourishing our Bodies pag. 356. And that hee spake of a Permanent Vnion pag. 365. His saying By Baptisme the Regenerate is made the Body of Christ crucifyed pag. 357. Hee is also Objected to proove the Paschall Lambe to have prefigured Christ in the Masse and therein egregiously abused pag. 425. POPE NICHOLAS his Decree and Romish Doctrine of Eating Christs flesh Corporally by Tearing it with Teeth the Occasion of Averroes his imputing to Christians the Devouring of their God p. 381. PO. PIVS the Fourth forbad the Eucharist to be carried to the Sicke only for Adoration-sake p. 50. POPE ZePHERINUS Ordayned that the Chalices should be Glasses pag. 514. PRAYER in an Vnknown Tongue Condemned by Antiquity pag. 24 25 26 c. The Practice of Vnknowne Prayer in Divine Service in the Romish Masse is Sacrilegiously derogatory to the Dignity of Christ pag. 558 559 c. Their Praying for Propitiousnesse towards Christ as towards a Sheep p. 560 561 c. PRECEPT Words of Precept may be Figurative p. 133. PRESENCE How Christs Body may be sayd to be present in the Eucharist of Protestants in a foure-fold Truth pag. 212 213. That the Presence of Christs Body Corporally is the Romish maner p. 217. PRETENCE of Reverence is often cause of Disobedience pag 80 81. See Reverence PRIESTS bring present at the Communion ought to Communicate pag. 57 58 c. A Priest hath no more Privilege for the use of the Cup by the Iudgement of Antiquity than any other Faithfull Communicant Ibid. The word Priest as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not used of the Apostle as is Confessed pag. 461. And that Priest as from Presbyter cannot relate to a Proper Sacrifice Ibid. And that Sacerdos is more proper to the Old Testament Ibid. PRIESTHOOD of Melchisedech is agreeable to the Priesthood of Christ pag. 409. And as Disagreeable to the Romish Priesthood pag. 410 411 c. It is denyed to be now exercised in Heaven which is Confuted by Scripture pag. 412 413. Bellarmine his Sacrilegious detracting from it Ibid. Proved by Ancient Fathers pag. 415. The Priesthood of Christ for ever Confessed by a learned Iesuite out of the Fathers pag. 418. See Melchisedech PRIMASIVS by terming the Eucharist a Pledge held a Continuance of Bread therein pag. 180. Hee is fondly Objected for calling the Eucharist a Pledge pag. 369. Hee saith that Christ as Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is his Body and Blood pag. 404. His expounding of 1. Cor. 10. 18 Partakers of Devills pag. 401. Hee nameth the Eucharist The same Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse with this Correction or rather Remembrance thereof pag. 442. And that which was borne of the Virgin not now great and now lesse Ibid. PRIVATE MASSE is a Transgression of Christs Command pag. 17 18. And repugnant to Antiquity p. 19 c. PROCESSION with the Sacrament for Adoration is Contrary to Antiquity pag. 48 49 c. And defended by Pamelius out of Tertullian pag. 50. PRODVCTION pretended to be the sole maner of Transubstantiation by divers Romanists and Confuted as Absurd by some others of them pag. 153 154 155 c. PROPITIATORY Sacrifice cannot be properly Attributedâ— to the Eucharistâ— pag. 474 475 c. Our Distinction Ibid. The Romish Sacrifice hath no foundation in Christs Institution pag. 475. Divers Acts unproperly called Propitiatory pag. 476. That it is Propitiatory because of the Remembrance of the bloody Sacrifice and by Application of that Confessed pag. 480. Not Propitiatorie without Relation unto the Crosse pag. 481. That onely Bloody is Propitiatory Ibid. The Romanists Propitiatory of Finite Virtue Ibid. 482. The Church of Rome not yet resolved of the value of their Propitiatory Sacrifice pag. 483. The Romish Application for lucre-sake pag. 486. The Priests Portion therein Ibid. Protestants Application for a Propitiatory Sacrifice more true pag. 487. And absolute pag. 488. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word not justly objected for Divine Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 507. 508. c. PROTESTANTS doe all agree with the Augustane Confession in the point of Vnion of Christs Flesh with the Bodies of the Receivers pag. 310. Their Security from the Romish Perplexities in Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 550. PROVIDENCE of God admired by two Cardinals in these words Quotiescunque Biberitis p. 56. 57. c. Their three Evasions which are by Gods Providence confounded by the contrariety of their owne tongues Ibid. PSALMES vulgarly sung in the publicke worship of God Primitively p. 28. 29. c. PVNICK Tongue not so well knowne to Punicks as the Latine p 42. PVRGATORIE The place of Romish Purgatorie lest it should be evacuated they devised the Sacrifice of Christ to be but of a finite virtue in the Masse p. 486. Q QVANTITIE can be no Similitude for resembling the Being of God in Place but Quantity p. 255. QVOMODO There is a double Quomodo the one Prudentiae the other Infidelitatis pag. 211. 250. R RABBINS of the Iewes wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the Act of Melchisedech p. 404. REASON Romish Objections against our Naturall Reasons in Confutation of the Romish Corporall Presence of Christs Body Answered pag. 263. REASONABLE Service in the Liturgies what it signifieth p. 451. Reasonable Sacrifice attributed to the Eucharist objected for a proper Sacrifice although ascribed by other Fathers to unproper Sacrifices by Chrysostome of Prayses by Athanasius to Baptisme p. 452. RELATIONS Contrary Relations fondly attributed to the same body of Christ as to be above and below it selfe 245. although denied by others Ibid. REMAINDERS of the Eucharist were anciently burnt p. 514. Confessed REMEMBRANCE and Discretion required in the Communicant p. 51. REPRESENTATIVE Sacrifice of the old Law how p. 442. The Eucharist onely Representative Ibid. The Romish after a manner of a Stage-play p. 445. See Commemorative RESERVATION of the Eucharist for Romish Procession contradicted by Antiquity p. 48. With whom the end of Reservation was still to be eaten Ibid. REVERENCE most due to Christ is our Obedience p. 81. c. That it is no sufficieÌ„t Reason to with-hold the Cup from the Laity Ibid. What Reverence is lawfull in receiving the Eucharist pag. 551. The reverence of Kneeling justifiable Ibid. ROMISH Doctors divided about the word Masse p. 3 And about Consecration that it was by Prayer p. 9. In the ancient Romane Church Consecration was by Prayer Ibid. And did Brâ—ake Bread Ibid. They gaine-said Private Masse pag. 17. 18. c. And the uttering of Christs words in an unaudible voice pag. 22. 23. c. That a knowne Tongue was used in Gods Service pag. 24. Their Objections for the Communion but in one kind from Antiquity Answered pag. 68. That there is a more spirituall grace and refection
from receiving in both kinds pag. 71. That the ancient Romane Church had their Communion in both kinds p. 68. The now Romish doe alter the forme of Christs words of Institution called by them the words of Consecration pag. 138. Romish Objections of the Sayings of the Fathers for proofe of Orall-Eating even against the Confessions of the same Doctors pag. 342. 343. c. Romish Church See Innovation S SACRAMENT is to be instituted onely by God pag. 189. Confessed Ibid. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is no Sacrament but in the Sacramentall use of Eating it Sacramentally and that it was delivered to boyes to be eaten onely as Holy Bread and not as a Sacrament p. 48. 49. c. SACRIFICE The Question discussed pag. 389. No word of Christs Institution that can imply a Sacrifice pag. 390. No act of proper Sacrifice pretended in the Romish that can be evinced out of the Institution of Christ No not by their owne Customes pag. 398. Not that in Act. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 400. Not that of 1. Cor. 10. 18. Are Partakers of the Altar pag. 401. Nor out of the old Testament concerning Melchisedech The Fathers speaking often of the Sacrifice of Christians in Bread and Wine pag. 407. 408. But improperly as is confessed pag 438. The Bread and Wine cannot be the Sacrament of the New Testament by the generall confessions of the Romish Doctors Ibid. Proofe of a No-Transubstantiation disproveth the Romish Sacrifice in the Masse p. 439. A Distinction that the word Sacrifice of Christs Body is taken of the Fathers Objectively and not Subjectively The necessity and verity of this Distinction p. 404. A Sacrifice onely Representative pag. 441. How the Sacrifice may be called the same which Christ offered pag. 443. Epithets of the Fathers added to the word Sacrifice unconscionably by Romish Disputers p. 448. and in the Vindication following How it is called of the Fathers a Bloody Sacrifice pag. 455. 456. c. The word Sacrifice attributed by the Fathers to many acts which are confessed not to be proper Sacrifices p. 459. Nothing properly sacrificed in the Romish Masse pag. 467. Sacrificing Acts there be three Visible Sacred and Destructive All wanting in the Romish Masse Ibid. The Sacrifice professed by Protestants The Spirituall more excellent than any Corporall except Christs on the Crosse p. 470. Proved out of the Fathers p. 471. Their different kinds p. 472. They offer the same Sacrifice of the Crosse Objectively p. 473. See Commemorative and Propitiatorie See Priesthood and Melchisedech See Stage-play See Vnbloody and Representative SACRILEGIOVSNESSE of the Romish Masse shewen in a full Synopsis p. 558. 559. Instances thereof p. 562. and of Prayers Ibid. SAXONS Faith in the dayes of King Edgar is contrary to the now Romish in the point of Transubstantiation p. 158. A Vindication thereof against a late Romish Calumniator Ibid. SENSE Iudgement of sense is able to prove that Bread is not Transubstantiated p. 467. Resurrection of Christs Body proved thereby Ibid. By the Act of Thomas pag. 478. Argument of Sense is justified by Ancient Fathers pag. 479. That not to beleeve Sense in sensible Objects is as faithlesse as senselesse pag. 173. See Touch and Smell SHED in Christs speech of Institution is taken Figuratively pag. 110. The word is objected in the Present tense for proofe of a Sacrifice and yet confessed by themselves to be token the Future pag. 392. 393. c. See Blood SICK prayed for in the Church was anciently used for the sicke in particular as for Gorgonia pag. 517. SIGNIFICATIVELY A terme used for the Romish Defence of the Priests Operative Consecrating of the Bread to turne it into the Body of Christ altogether in vaine which the Iesuites with all their wits have not beene able to make good p. 138. 139. c. SIMILITVDES used of the Iesuites for shewing that the words of Christ are spoken Significatively and Operatively by the Priest for Conversion of Bread into Christs Body by saying This is my Body are all lame As their Similitude of saying This is a Circle is the making thereof and the like is confessed to be fond and extravagant pag. 94. Their Similitude of a Stage-play to illustrate Christs Representing of himselfe in the Eucharist urged by the Romish shewen to be most Absurd pag. 118. Their Similitude of Voice and Colour objected for proofe of the Being of a Body in divers places at once most fondly pag. 258. 274. Their Similitude of Mans soule and of God to prove the Presence of Christs Body in divers places at once is silly and senselesse Ibid. Their Similitude of Christs being called Feast and Guest Viand and Pledge of Ancient Fathers fondly and falsely objected by the Romish Doctors for proofe of a Corporall Presence in the Eucharist pag. 366. and that it plainely confuteth it pag. 367. Their Similitude of a Stage-play againe not rightly applyed to shew that the same may be called a Blood and Vnbloody Sacrifice pag. 457. Their Similitude of Iacobs taking to him Leah instead of Rachael for Defence of the Romish Idolatry pag. 533. 545 SLANDER against the Christian Church in Primitive times as if they had eaten an Infant in the Celebration of the Eucharist falsely objected by Romanists pag. 334. SMELL miraculous of Ioane Martlesse in discerning one Consecrated Hoast amongst a thousand Vnconsecrated pag. 173. SOCRATES Miracles have beene wrought by the Eucharist pag. 223. c. SOLOE COPHANES is no Errour in Scripture p. 393. c. SOVLE of man objected as being in many parts of the Body for proofe of the possibilitie of a Bodily presence in divers places at once pag. 261. c. Soules of Saints departed have not their Apparitions in divers places at once Ibid. The soule of Christ could not be in Heaven and Hell both at once saith S Augustine Ibid. SPIRITVALL Sacrifices of six kinds mentioned by the Fathers pag. 471. STAGE-PLAY The Romish Maner of Christs Body on the Crosse by the same Body in the Eucharist after a Maner of a Stage-play displayed to be most false and contradictory to it selfe pag. 445. c. See Similitude STATIONS Anciently what they were pag. 515. in the Margin SVESTANCE is falsely interpreted Accidents pag. 181. SVPERSTITIOVSNESSE of the Romish Masse seene in a full Synopsis pag. 557. SVPPER of the Lord so commonly called by Antiquity pag. 45. 46. c. SVRSVM CORDA used of the Fathers to signifie the not-intending the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 525. Cyril of Ierusalem To have our hearts in Heaven S. Augustine Not to Earth but Heaven where the heart cannot putrifie The same is confessed concerning the Custome of the Primitive Church that it was a Prostrating of the Body and a lifting up of the mind to Heaven Ibid. Which should not need if they had beleeved they had had Christ on Earth Hieron Let us ascend up with Christ into the great Chamber Ibid. SVVALLOVVING of the
Body of Christ taught in the Church of Rome is Capernaitically Hereticall pag 347. 348. c. Proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers Ibid. See Devouring T TABLE turned into an Altar by the Councell of Trent expounding the 1. Cor. 10. 18. pag. 401. It was Anciently placed so as to stand round about it pag. 462. See Altar TERTVLLIAN fondly objected by Pamelius for the Romish carrying of the Eucharist in Procession pag. 50. Hee interpreteth Hoc est corpus with Id est figura Corporis p. 124. And Calumniously objected afresh pag. 492. And Bellarmines grosse errour confuted by Pamelius Ibid. Hee in confutaâ—ion of the Accademicks and Hereticks pleadeth for the faithfulnesse of each sense urging that Christ had the same taste of Wine after Resurrection which hee had in the Wine which hee had consecrated pag. 171. And saith Wee make Bits of it pag. 179. Hee holdeth it as a Doctrine of Faith that every Angell hath alotted unto him a prescript place or space pag. 261. Against the Ebionitâ—â— Christ is God because hee is in all places where hee is invocated upon pag. 262. Hee standeth for the blessed Virgins opening her Cell at Christs Birth pag. 277. Hee standeth also for onely the Soule-Eating of Christs Body pag. 385. Hee is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malachie 5. And confuteth the Objector pag. 432. Hee calleth Blessings and Himnes Pure Sacrifices pag. 448. His speech of a Womans Act of Offering egregiously perverted by Pamelius to prove a Sacrifice in the Masse pag. 460. His speech of No common Bread and Wine perverted and objected for Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 514. TESTAMENT in Christs speech of Institution taken Figuratively pag. 129. Testamentarie words may be Figurative against Bellarmine pag. 132. THEODORET is against the Communion but in one kind pag. 77. And teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech Hoc est Corpus demonstrateth Bread pag. 103. By his calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype yeildeth a figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body pag. 116. Hee saith Bread remaineth the same in Substance after Consecration pag. 169 Hee noteth something to be Impossible even to the advancement of Gods Omnipotenciâ— pag. 229. And defendeth Circumscription in one place to distinguish Christs Man-hood from his God-head pag. 242. Hee is objected that the wicked are Partakers of Christs Body unconscionably pag. 220. Hee saith that Christ transmitted not his Priest-hood to any Successor pag. 411. and that hee exerciseth it now in Heaven pag. 415. Hee is against the Romish Iuge Sacrificium pag. 436. Hee names the Eucharist the same Sacrifice with this Correction or rather a Remembrance thereof pag. 443. Hee is objected also for Adoning the Symbols pag. 510. THEOPHYLACT is against Prayer in an unknowne Tongue pag. 35. And against the Communion but in one kind pag. 77. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29 to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 163. His saying Bread is trans-elementated into Christs Body vainely Objected pag. 204. Hee taught the blessed Virgins opening of her Cell at Christs Birth against Heretikes that denyed the truth of his Body pag. 277. His saying Wee are not Devourers of Christs Body pag. 349. Hee is wrongfully urged for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the Act of Melchisedech pag. 404. Hee nameth the Eucharist the same Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse with this Correction or rather a Remembrance thereof p 443. THIS and MINE See Hoc Meum THOMAS his Touch is a perfect Evidence of Christs Resurrection pag. 168. THOVGHT is objected for the proofe of the Being of a Body in divers places at once pag. 300. TONGVE unknowne in Gods Service is against Antiquity in Generall pag. 34. A knowne Tongue was used of all Ancient Churches both Greeke and Latine pag. 25. And in after-Churches of remote Nations Ibid. The Iniquity of an unknowne Language against men pag. 27. Against God pag 28. And against God and Man pag. 29. And against Antiquity pag. 34. TOVCH Corporall cannot happen to the Body of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 333. See Thomas and see Sense TRANS-ELEMENTATION Transmutation and the like doe not necessarily imply Transubstantiation pag. 149. TRANSGRESSIONS of Christs Institution of the Sacrament by the Romish Church are ten pag. 7. c. The first in the word Blessed it pag. 9 The second in Breaking pag. 15. The third against the word Them pag. 17. Fourth against the word Said pag. 22. Fift against the same word Said pag. 24. Sixt against the word Take pag. 43. The seventh against the word Eate yee p. 45. Eight against the word Eate pag. 48. Ninth against the word In Remembrance pag. 51. The Tenth is against the words Drinke you All of this by depriving the people of the Cup pag. 54. TRANSLATION of Scripture in all Nationall tongues Anciently pag. 37. See Vulgar TRANSMVTATION Trans-elementation and such like words used Figuratively of the Fathers pag. 20. TRANSSVBSTANTIATION What it is in the Romish Doctrine pag. 146. That it is not proved sufficiently by that Scripture This is my Body p. 147 Confessed not to be necessarily collected from the words of Christs Institution Ibid. The Noveltie of the Name p. 149. That it was not before the Councell of Lateâ—ane pag. 151. Nor thorrowly before the Councell of Trent pag. 152. It is proved to be a false Article by the Romish maner of Defence because neither by Production nor by Adduction which by their owne Confessions are the two onely meanes of Transubstantiation pag. 153. Confuted by the Remayning of the Substance of Bread contrary to the Change thereof into Christs Body pag. 157. It contradicteth our faith of Christs Body Borne of the Virgin Mary Ibid. An Argument why Bread ceasing altogether to be it can be but Succession onely and no Transubstantiation pag. 163. Objections out of the Fathers pag. 188. Yea against their owne Romish Principles pag. 27. Termes objected out of the Fathers unconscionably are these It is Christs Body Made Christs Body Translated Trans-elementated into Christs Body which all are Figurative pag. 199. 200. c. TYPE used of the Greeke Fathers concerning the Eucharist proveth Christs speech to be Figurative pag. 115. See Antitype Types of the old Testament how they are said to be Inferiour to the Signes in the New pag. 426. 427. c. V VIATICVM that is Viands is applyed by the Fathers to the Eucharist ineptly Objected pag. 366. Baptisme and Absolution imparted to men dying are Viatica Viands also for the soule Ibid. VIGILIVS defendeth Circumscription in one place to distinguish Christs Man-hood from his God-head pag. 242. Hee proveth the Holy Ghost to be God because hee is in divers places at once pag. 265. VINDICATION Whereof are many already set downe in the Contents before the beginning of this Treatise VIRGIL's Cum faciam Vitâ—lâ foolishly Objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice p. 392. Bl. VIRGIN The Closure of her sacred Cell