spirituale Christo proprium item Regnum divinum universale ratione Hypostaticae Vnionis item gloriae in Beatitudine TeÌ„porale terrenuÌ„ Christo conveniebat Lib. Recog pag. 28. Everlasting Secondly much lesse a King of Peace who hath beene reproved by Antiquity for being b Victor Pacis perturbator Irenaeus apud Euseb hist lib 5 cap. 24. A Troubler of the Peace of Christs Church And generally complained of by others as being c Non tantùm contra Barbaros sed etiam ejusdem patriae sanguinis fidei principes Domini nostri Dei pacis minus pacifici Vicarij Espenc in 1. Tim. digress lib. 2. cap 6 pag. 273. Nothing lesse than the Vicar of the God of Peace because of his raising hostile warres against Princes of the same Nation Blood and Faith And for d Leodiens Epist ad Paulum 2. de Greg. Septimo Novello schismate Regnum Sacerdotium scindebat Teste Espencaeo quo supra Distracting the Estates of Princedome and Priestdome Thirdly not King of Iustice because some Popes have excited Subjects and Sonnes to rebell against their Liege Soveraigns and Parents Fourthly not Originally without Generation by either Father or Mother some of them having beene borne in lawfull Wedlocke and of knowne honest Parents albeit of othersome the Mothers side hath beene much the surer It will be no Answer to say as Pope e Non secundùm câ—dineÌ„ Aaron cujus SacerdotiuÌ„ per propaginem sui seminis in ministerio temporali fuit cum Veteris Testamenti Lege cessavit sed secundùm ordinem Melchisedech in quo aeterni Pontificis forma praecessit Leo papa Serm. 2. in Annivers die Assumpt ad Pontif. Leo in effect did viz. that as Priests you are not as were the Leviticall by naturall Propagation but by a Spirituall ordination because a Spirituall propagation is no proper but a metaphoricall Generation Fifthly not without Succession seeing that Succession as from S. Peter is the chief tenure of your Priesthood Nor will that of Epiphanius help you in this Case to say that f Nunc sanè non amplius semen secundùm successionem eligitur sed forma juxta virtutem quaeritur Epiphan cont Haeres 55. You had no Succession by the seed of Aaron because although this may exempt you from the Leviticall Priesthood yet will not it associate you with the Priesthood of Melchisedech or of Christ whose Characters of Priesthood was to be Priests soly individually and absolutely in themselues without Succession by another And this the words of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Christ had an Intransmissible Priest-hood do fully signifie As little can your ordinary Answer availe telling us that you are not g Salmeron Ies Nos in Christo Sacerdotes sumus tanquam Vicarij Satis est nobis illum Principem semper vivere Com. in Heb. cap. 10. Disp 19. Successors but Vicars of Christ and Successors of Peter because whilest you claime that the Visible Priest-hood and Sacrifice of Christ is still in the Church which is perpetuated by Succession you must bid farewell to the Priest-hood of Melchisedech But if indeed you disclaime all Succession of Christ why is your Jesuite licensed to say that your h Ribera Successor quidem Christo Petrus reliqui post eum Pontifices in officio gubernandi Ecclesiam pâ—scendi oves Christi Verbo praedicatinis Sacramentorum administratione At non successit in officio redemptionis Pontificis per se Deum irâ—tâ—m placantis in quo non sunt Successores sed Ministri Christi In Heb. 10. num 8. Roman Popes do succeed Christ in their Pastorshâ—p over the Church although not in their Priesthood by offering Sacrifices expiating sinnes by their owne virtue Are not the Titles of Pastor and Priest equally transcendent in Christ Againe if you be Vicars of Christ then are you not after the Order of Melchisedech who is read to have had no more any Vicar than that hee had either Father or Mother Sixtly not in respect of the no-necessity of a Succession which was * Heb 7. 23. Immortality because the Popes shewed themselves to be sufficiently mortall insomuch that one Pope maligning another after death hath dragged the Carcasse of his Predecessor out of his i Platinâ—â— in Vitis Sergij 3. Formosi â—tephani Christophori Grave to omit their other like barbarous outrages âšœ In respect of which Mortality Athanasius is as contradictory to your Romish Doctrine as can be who resolveth saying 5 Athanas con Arian Orat. 3. pag. 380. Aaroni quidem Successores dati omninò legale Sacerdotium mortis temporis progressu alios atque alios Sacerdotes accepit Dominus autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aaron indeed had Successors and in the Legall Priest-hood in processe of time by reason of death one succeeded another but our Lord had a Priesthood without Transition and Succession being himselfe alwayes a faithfull High-Priest From the same law of Mortality Theodoret concludeth likewise that Christ in the New Testament 6 Theod. in Heb. 7. Quemadmodum non habuerit Melchisedech Successores ità nec hic ipsum ad alios transmittit Item Qui ex lege Sacerdotes sunt quia moâ—talem habent naturam eâ de Causâ habent filios Successores hic autem quia immortalis non transmitur ad alium munus Sacerdoâ—â—j Transmitteth not his Priesthood to any other Wherein wee may say that Theodoret was Scholler to Chrysostome 7 Chrysost in Hebr. 7. Hom 13. Quia semper vivit non habet Successorem Ostendit novum Testamentum praestantius esse Veteri inductâ comparatione de Sacerdotibus quod illud quidem homines habuit Sacerdotes hoc autem Christum who likewise maketh the excellencie of the New Testament in comparison of the Old to consist in this that they had many Priests successively for that by reason of Mortality they were but men in the New Testament wee have Christ a Priest So hee This one Observation might satisfie any reasonable man for the confutation of your Romish Doctrine of Proper Priesthood the rather because you were never able to prove out of any Father that Distinction of yours to wit of one being the Vicar albeit the Successor of Christ No no this Distinction now after a thousand yeares since Christ his Incarnation hath beene the adulterate Coyne of your owne Romish forge âšœ Seventhly not Personall Sanctity * Heb. 7. 26. Holy impolluted and separated from sinnes For whosoever being meerely Man shall arrogate to himselfe to be without sinne the holy Ghost will give him the * 1. Iohn 1. 8. Lie As for your Popes wee wish you to make choice of whatsoever Historians you please and wee doubt not but you shall finde upon record that many of them are noted to have beene as impious and mischievous in their lives and in their deaths as infamous and cursed as they were contrarily Bonifaces Innocents or
Sacrament Which is proper to those who as the Apostle teacheth are to Examine themselves to Remember thereby the death of Christ and Sacramentally to Discerne the Lords Body âšœ CHALLENGE VVHereunto wee oppose the Authority of the Å¿ Conc Carthag 3. Eucharistiam Catechumenis mortuis dari prohibet et consequenter pueris qui utrique sunt divini illius cibi incapaces ut quidam ratiocinantur quià tales non possint accipere nec comedere Et Lateranens Conc. sub Innoc. 3. praecipit ut tantùm cùm ad annos discretionis pervenerint Eucharistiam accipiant Quià verò spiritualis manducatio et bibitio est sine qua Sacramentalis non prodest frustrà pueris Sacramentum et cùm periculo porrigeretur Non igitur satis est quòd puer possit naturaliter edere quia hoc possit trinus et quatrimus praestare sed opus est ut possit Sacramentaliter edere 1. cognoscere ibi esse Christum et discernere ab aliis cibis Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 11. in illa verba Dedit Discipulis pag. 78. Councell of Carthage and of that which you call the Councell of Laterane which denyed as you know that the Eucharist should be delivered unto Infants accounting them uncapable of divine and spirituall feeding without which say they the corporall profiteth nothing But wee also summon against the former assertion eight of your ancient t And of this opinion were Mayor Petrus Soto Paludanus Alensis Gubriel Catharinus Dom. Soto Ration eorum saith the same Ies quiâ hoc Sacramentum est cibus spiritualis Ergò accommodatum eis solummodò qui possint actus spiritualis vitae exercere quod parvuli non possunt Suarez Ies quo sup And to the former Schoole-men to make them even wee may adde also Summa Angel Tit. Eucharistia Schoolemen who upon the same Reasons made the like Conclusion with us And wee further as it were â—resting you in the Kings name produce against you Christ his Writ the Sacred Scripture whereby he requireth in all persons about to Communicate three principall Acts of Reason one is before and two are at the time of receiving The first is * 1. Cor. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a man examine himselfe and so come c. The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To discerne the Lords body The third is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To remember the Lords death untill his coming againe All which Three being Acts of Iudgement how they may agree unto Infants being persons void of Iudgement judge you And remember wee pray you that wee speake of Sacramentall Eating and not of that use * See above Sect. 10 before spoken of touching Eating it after the Celebration of the Sacrament which was for Consuming it and not for Communicating thereof CHAP. III. The Tenth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse by the now Church of Rome is in contradicting the Sense of the next words following concerning the second part of this Sacrament of receiving the Cup HE LIKEVVISE TOOKE THE CVP AND GAVE IT TO THEM SAYING DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS And adding 1. Cor. 11. DO THIS AS OFTEN AS YOV DO IT IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE SECT I. BY which words Like maner of Taking and Giving and Saying Drinke yee All of this wee say that Christ ordained for his Guests as well the Sacramentall Rite of Drinking as of Eating and hath tied his Church Catholike in an equall obligation for performance of both in the administring of this Sacrament This Cause will require a just Treatise yet so that our Discourse insist only upon necessary points to the end that the extreme Insolencie Noveltie Folly and Obstinacie of the Romane Church in contradicting of this part of Christ his Canon may be plainely displayed that every conscience of man which is not strangely preoccupated with prejudice or transported with malice must needs see and detest it Wee have heard of the Canon of Christ his Masse The contrary Canon of the Romish Church in her Masse Shee in her Councel of Constance decreed that a Christus sub utraque â—pecie Discipulis administravit Licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ sub utraque specie hoc Sacramentum reciperetur tamen haec consuerudo ut à Laicis sub specie pâ—nis tantùm reciperetur habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare Conc. Constant Sess 13. Although Christ indeed and the Primitive Church did administer the Eucharist in both kindes notwithstanding say they this Custome of but one kinde is held for a law irreproveable Which Decree she afterwards confirmed in her b Ipsa Synodus à Spiritu Sancto edocta ipsius Ecclesiae judicium consuetudinem secuta declarat docet nullo divino jure Laicos Clericos non consecrantes obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum Etsi Christus venerabile hoc Sacramentum sub utraque instituit Apostolis tradidit Concil Trident. Sess 〈◊〉 1. cap. 1. Councel of Trent requiring that the former Custome and Law of receiving it but under one kind be observed both by Laicks yea and also by all those Priests who being present at Masse do not the office of Consecrating Contrarily our Church of England in her thirtieth Article thus Both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandement ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike CHALLENGE BVtwee demand what Conscience should moove your late Church of Rome to be guided by the authority of that former Councell of Constance which notwithstanding maketh no scruple to reject the authority of the same c Respondeo Fuit reprobatum Conc. CoÌ„â—antiens Martino Pont. quantum ad eam partem quâ statuit Concilium fuisse suprà Papam Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 7. §. Quintum Councell of Constance in another Decree thereof wherein it gain-sayeth the Antichristian usurpation of the Pope by Denying the authority of the Pope to be above a Councell and that as the d Dixit Petro Christus Cum frater in te pâ—ccaverit si te non audiat Dic Ecclesiae Ergo Ecclesiam Papae Iudicem constitut Conc. Basil apud AEneanâ—i Sylvium de gest ejusdem Concilij Councell of Basil doth prove from the authority of Christ his direction unto Peter to whom he said Tell the Church We returne to the State of the Question The full State of the Question All Protestants whether you call them Calvinists or Lutherans hold that in the publike and set celebration of the Eucharist the Communion in both kinds ought to be given to all sorts of Communicants that are capable of both The question thus stated will cut off a number of Impertinences which your Objectors busie themselves withall as will appeare in due places Wee repeate it againe In publike Assemblies of all prepared and capable of the Communion The best Method that I could choose for the expedite and perspicuous handling of this great
out of Theodoret. That Christ gave to Iudas his precious Body And Lastly out of Saint Augustine 8 In 1. Cor. 11. Aug. lib. contra â—ulgent Donatist Dr. Heskins in his parliament of Christ Chap. 48 fol 369. That hee that drinketh the Blood of the Lord unworthily drinketh Iudgement unto himselfe So your Doctor Wee shall helpe him with another Testimonie of 9 Aug. lib. 5. de Baptismo Chap. 8. Iudas peccavit corpus Domini non malum accipiendo sed malâ— pag 369 Tract 6. 〈◊〉 Apostolus ait Qui edit indigne Reus est corporis Domini de ijs dictum qui corpus Do mini velut quem libet cibum sumebant c. Augustine that Iudas sinned in wickedly receiving the Body of Christ. But not to usurpe in this place the Answer of your owne Doctors unto the Ordinary speeches of Chrysostome in his Homilies noting his Rhetoricall Hyperboles wee answer directly from Saint Augustine himselfe who hath already told you that the calling Bread the Body of Christ is not spoken in the strictnesse of the truth of the thing but in a Mysticall Signification that is said your owne Romish * See above â— 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. Glosse unproperly The same Answer may serve for the Objected place of 10 Cypriâ—n de Coena Dâ—m Sacramenta quidem quantum in se sunt sine propria virtute esâ—e non possunt nec ullo modo divina majetas absentat se mysterijs sed quamvis ab indignis se sumi contingi Sacramenta permittant non possunt tamen spiritus esse participes quorum infidelitas tantae sanctitudini contradicit And a 〈◊〉 after Sicut corporea natura substantiâ potus esuâ— ita vita spiritus hoc proprio alimento nutritur A little before Haec mâ—â—erâ— alijs odo viâ—ae in vitam alijs mortis in mortem quia omâ—no justum ut tanto priventur beneficio graâ—â—ae contemptores Objected by Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ B. 3. c. 49. Cyprian wherein furthermore wee find a cleare Distinction betweene the Being of Christs Body Sacramentally in the Eucharist together with the Receiving thereof and it 's Being Spiritually Concerning the Sacramentall virtue namely the thing signified which is ministerially offered to every Communicant in every Divine Sacrament but that this should be effectuall to any Communicant it is necessary that his Receiving be Spirituall For Grace is the virtue of Baptisme to every Person baptized yet according to the termes of Schooles Hee who either by his Infidelity or Impenitency shall Obicem ponere that is set a Barre and resist that Grace hee doth not receive it A man that receiveth with his hand a politike Instrument and Scale offered unto him yet if hee yeeld not his Consent to accept of the Guift it selfe therby conveyed and in the maner that hee ought it may well be sayd that the thing thus bequeathed is really tendered yet in respect of the Parties Contemning it although it be touched and taken after the publike and Civill touch yet notwithstanding is hee not partaker thereof For which Cause it is added in Cyprian that These are therefore the Savour of Life unto Life to some and the Savour of Death unto the Contemners of them which as the Scripture teacheth is common to the preaching of the Word of God likewise Besides do you not marke thaâ— Cyprian speaketh of Sacramenta Sacraments in generall But you have * See above â— 1. c. 3. § 6. at 〈◊〉 told us that the two parts of the Eucharist make but One Sacrament and then may you by the same Alchymie as well extract a Corporall Presence of Christ out of Baptisme as out of the Eucharist That the Vngodly do not Communicate of Christs Body in Receiving the Eucharist is the Determinate Iudgement of Antiquity and Consequently argueth a No-Corporall presence of Christ as an Vnion with him in the Eucharist SECT VIII AFter that you have heard the Symbolicall Phrases of the Fathers so Dissonantly objected for proofe of a Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist Hearken I pray you to their accurate and Determinate Resolutions to the Contrary The Fathers in the Margin deliver their Judgements sometime in an Affirmative locution concerning each true Communicant and partaker of Christs Sacred Body and Blood saying of every such a one that 11 Irenaeâ— adversus Haeres lib. 5. confesseth Caro sanguine Christi nutrita membrum ejus est Hee is a member of Christ So Irenaeus And 12 Cyrill Alex. in Ioh lib. 11. c 26. Vnio haec per quam nos inter nos omnes cum Deo conjungimur Et l. 4. c. 10. Qui edunt panem viâ—ae immortalitatem consequuntur Et lib. 10. c. 13. Christum in nobis habitatuâ—um Hee that eateth this Bread of life is joyned with Christ and Christ dwelleth in him So Cyrill And 13 Origen in Matth 15 Verbum caâ—o factum est quem â—â—bum qui comedit vivet iâ— aeternum quem nullus malus potest comedere alioqui scriptum non esset qui edit vivet in aeternum Whosoever eateth of this meate shall live for ever So Origen And 14 Ambrosius de ijs qui myster initiant c. 8. Est panis iste vivus quem qui comedit vivet in aeternum It is living Bread which who so eateth liveth everlastingly So Ambrose 15 Chrysost Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antioch Tradit unâ—onem ratione cujus dicuntur membra Christi The Vnion is that whereby the Eaters are sayd to be the members of Christ So Chrysostome Sometime more Emphatically in a Negative style 16 Origen vide paulâ— sup Origen No wicked one can eate this meat As also Hierome 17 Hiâ—ronym in Malac. Sordidi mundum sanguinem bibunt namely Sacramentally for the signe of his Body who himselfe in lib. 1. contra â—ovianum calleth it Typus sanguinis And againe in Isaiâ—â—â— 66. speaking conclusively saith Omnes qui non sunt sancti spiâ—itu corpore non comedunt carnem nec bibunt sanguinem eius All that are not holy do not eate Christs Flesh or drinke his Blood Wee reserve Saint Augustine for a peculiar Section and our reason is because your Disputers do so earnestly struggle to draw him to your part but yet most vainely and unconscionably as will appeare in the Section following Now whether side yours or ours can more satisfactorily reconcile the seeming Contradictions of the Fathers in saying and gain-saying the Eating of Christs Flesh by the Wicked it will stand with equity and good Conscience that they may carry the Cause Your All-answer and the Answer of you All is by Distinction saying that The wicked eate the Body of Christ Corporally in this Sacrament by a Bodily Touch but they eate it not Spiritually for they eate it not worthly and in that respect are said not to eate it So you As if the Fathers in denying the Wicked to be partakers
Death and Damnation to the Receiver in the receiving but Life and Salvation This virtue that Saint Augustine speaketh of is such that many do die in the receiving of it It remaineth then that by this virtue of the Sacrament is understood the Body of Christ which many by unworthy receiving do wickedly abuse and so receiving kill their soules and Die the Death that Iudas did See the Margin a false Allegation by depraving the latter part of the Sentence of Saint Augustine alleging them thus Nam multi hodie de Altari accipimus cibum visibilem Sed aliud est Sacramentum aliud Virtus Sacramenti quam multi accipiunt moriuntur that is Many now rèceive from the Altar the visible meate But the Sacrament is one thing and the Virtue of the Sacrament another thing which many eating die And thereupon taking a full Cariere in a large Discourse See the margin argueth thus By the word Virtue saith hee is meant the Body of Christ And by Dying is meant the death of the Soule But Saint Augustine affirmeth that the Wicked do eate of this Virtue or Body of Christ So hee Point-blanke Contrary to our Interpretation as can be not but that wee confesse that Saint Augustine by this word Virtue meant the Body of Christ and that by Dying is understood the Death of mens Soules but that his Assertion affirming Saint Augustine to teach herein That the Wicked Receivers that Dye in their Soules do eate the Virtue which is the Body of Christ is a plaine Imposture by a Grossely false Construction and Composition of Saint Augustines words thus Aliud est virtus Sacramenti Qudm multi c. wherein you see a full point as a deepe Ditch to sever virtus from the immediatly following word Quà m which your Doctor joyneth together whereby the word Virtus is Vitiously abused Then is he injurious to Quà m which being an Adverbe and carrying the Adverbiall Accent above-head as a Badge of Distinction hee notwithstanding turneth into a Pronoune-adjective Quam And thirdly He wrongeth the Construction of them both in matching as it were in marriage a little u in Virtus with a great Q in Quà m whereas every Grammarian by all the rules of Syntaxis would forbid the Banes Wee know you Romish Priests to be reasonable men and will therefore demand whether hee had not reason by some other Edition of Saint Augustine to justifie his Allegation and thereby his owne Conclusion as if Saint Augustine had meant That the wicked do Dye in their Soule by unworthy Eating of the Reall Body of Christ Wee answer no It is Impossible hee should evade by any such excuse and lest wee may seeme to speake partially wee shall offer unto you a witnesse hereof without all exception and that shall be the Author Saint Augustine himselfe the Expositor of his owne meaning in the very same Tractate and in his words a little after expresly concluding the Contrary saying that 13 Aug. Tom. 9. 〈◊〉 Ioh. Tract 26. Hic est panis qui de coelo descendit ut si quis manducaverit ex ipso non moriatur Sed quod pertinet ad virtutem Sacramenti non quod pertinet ad visibile Sacramentum Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premat dente Hee that eateth of this so farre as concerneth the virtue of the Sacrament cannot Dye albeit otherwise in respect of Eating onely the visible Sacrament he do dye Where you see that none that eate the Virtue which is as hath beene confessed the Body of the Lord dye the Death of the Soule And for better explanation hee distinguisheth affirming that the Maner of Eating of the virtue of this Sacrament is Eating it Intus corde Inwardly in the heart and the Eating of the other Sacrament it selfe is Eating outwardly and with the Teeth Now then that your Doctors Error is found to be so palpable and our Cause so Justifiable even by the Judgement of Saint Augustine will you as you are reasonable be also so Conscionable to permit us upon so great advantage to retort that Epiphonema wherewith your Doctor concludeth against us after his Discourse of this and other Testimonies of Saint Augustine already Answered viz. Thus have you received the minde of Saint Augustine as the Catholike Church teacheth and not as the malignant feigneth âšœ CHAP. III. Of the Capernaiticall Heresie concerning the Bodily Vnion with Christ by Eating What it was 1. That the Errour of the Capernaites Iohn 6. was an Opinion of the Corporall Eating of the Flesh of Christ SECT I. MAster Brerely the Author of the Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse lately published and largely applauded by all of your profession doth bestow a whole a Mr. Brerely Lituig Tract 2. §. 3. Section in explicating the Errour of the Capernaites so that it must wholly reflect forsooth upon the Protestants It is not needfull wee should deny that in this Chapter of Saint Iohn Christ doth speake of the Eucharist which if wee did wee might be assisted by your owne Bishop b Ionsen Concord in Ioh. 6. per totum Iansenius together with divers * There are recâ—oned by some these Authors Biel Cusanus Cajcian Tap per Hesselius to whom way be added peter Lombard l. 4. Dist 8. lit D others whom your Jesuite c Maldonat in Ioh. 6. vers 53. Scio Doctos scio Catholicos scio religiosos prohos viros sed impediunt nos quo minus in Haereticos acriter invehamur qui hoc capite de Eucharistra non agi contendunt Maldonate confesseth to have beene Learned Godly and Catholike yet fretteth not a little at them for so resolutely affirming that In this Chapter of Saint Iohn there was no speech of the Eucharist because by this their opposition hee was hindred as the c Maldonat in Ioh. 6. vers 53. Scio Doctos scio Catholicos scio religiosos prohos viros sed impediunt nos quo minus in Haereticos acriter invehamur qui hoc capite de Eucharistra non agi contendunt Jesuite himselfe saith That hee could not so sharpely and vehemently inveigh against Protestants Let it then be supposed as spoken with a relation to a Sacramentall Eating with the mouth as some of the Fathers thought but yet onely Sacramentally and not Properly as by them will be found true Wee returne to the Discourse of your Romish Priest * Above at a Christ having spoken saith hee of Eating his Flesh and the Capernà ites answering How can hee give us his Flesh to eate They understood eating with the mouth yet were a speciall observation never reproved of Christ for mistaking the meaning of his words a strong reason that they understood them rightly but for not beleeving them and Christ often repeating the eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood and requiring them to beleeve and when hee saith The flesh profiteth nothing it is the Spirit
Shadowes had an end long since Whereas the Evangelicall Symbols as Images are to be perpetuall to the end of the world as Saint Paul did intimate in his speech of the Eucharist You shew the Lord's death untill his coming againe 1 Cor. 11. Now then that you see what is indeed the Betternesse betweene the figure and thing figured may you not say it had beene better that your Disputers had forborne their Objection From Typicall Scriptures wee descend to Propheticall ⚜ CHAP. IV. That the objected Propheticall Scriptures of the old Testament are by your Disputers violently wrested for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse The first Text is Malachy chap. 5. vers 1. THe first Mal. 5. 1. is objected by your Cardinall in this maner From the rising of the Sunne to the going downe of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place shall Sacrifice and Oblation be offered to my name This saith your Cardinall * See the Testimony following Is a notable Testimony for the Sacrifice of the Masse The State of the Question BE so good as to set downe the State of the Controversie your selves a Insigne testimonium pro Sacrificio Missae Mal. 5. 1. in his verbis Ab ortu solis usque ad occasum magnum est nomen meum in Gentibus in omni loco sacrificatur offertur nomini meo oblatio munda quià magnum est nomen meum in Gentibus dicit Dominus Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 10. Tota controversia est An Malachias loquatur de Sacrificio propriè dicto quale est in Ecclesia Eucharistia an verò de Sacrificio impropriè dicto quales sint laudes Orationes c. Bellarm. Ibid. Argum. 1. Propheta utitur voce Minhhah quod est Sacrificium absolute absque adjuncto ut cum dicitur Sacrificium laudis c. Argum. 2. Vox Munda opponitur immundis oblationibus Iudaeorum quae non dicuntur immundae ex parte offerentium tantùm quià opponit illis oblationem non enim Munda diceretur in omni loco cum in pluribus sint mali Ministri Argum 3. Dicitur Non acciptiam munus a manibus vestris Hinc colligimus non solùm mundam esse hanc nostram sed novam Argum 4. ex antithesi Contemptus Hebraeorum erat in publicis Sacrificijs non in privato cultu tantùm Ergò gloria oblationum apud Christianos erit in publico Sacrificio Argum. 5. Opponit Malachias non omni populo sed Sacerdotibus tantùm veteris Legis non omnes Christianos sed certos homines qui Sacerdotibus succedunt Ergò non loquitur de spirituali sed de Sacrificio proprie dicto The whole Controversie is whether this Scripture spake of a Sacrifice properly so called or of an Vnproper Sacrifice such as are Prayers and Thanksgiving c. So you You contend for a Proper Sacrifice and Wee denye it and now that wee are to grapple together wee shall first charge you with alleging a corrupt Translation as the ground of your false Interpretation That the Romish Objection is grounded upon a false Text which is in your Romish Vulgar Translation even by the judgement of Ancient Fathers SECT I. YOur Romish Vulgar Translation which was decreed in the Councell of Trent to be the onely Authenticall and which thereupon you are injoyned to use in all your Disputations and not this only but bound also thereunto by an Oath in the Bull of Pius Quartus not to transgresse that Decree doth deliver us this Text In every place is sacrificed and offered to my name a pure Oblation c. without any mention of the word Incense at all whereas which your Cardinall b Bellarm. In Hebraea Graeca Editione sic Legimus Incensum offertur nomini meo Sacrificium mundum Quo supra confesseth Both the Hebrew and Greeke Text hath it thus Incense is offered in my name and a pure offering c. and that More plainely saith your c Septuaginta apertiùs Valent. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 4. pag. 526. Valenta Which warranteth us to call your Vulgar Translation false as wee shall now prove and you perceive without any farre Digression For wee meddle not now with the generall Controversie about this Translation but insist onely upon this Particular that as A Lion is knowne by his claw so your Vulgar Translation may be discerned by this one Clause wherein the word Incense is omitted quite If yee will permit us without being prejudicated by your Fathers of Trent to try the Cause by impartiall Iudges which are the Ancient Fathers of Primitive Times especially now when you yourselves are so urgent in pressing us with multitudes of their Testimonies for Defence of your Romish Sacrifice even in their Expositions of this Text of Malachy Looke then upon the d Bellar. Vocem illam Incensum interpretatur Tertull. Orationem ut ante eum Iren. lib. 4. cont Haeres cap. 33. Incensa autem Iohannes vocat orationes Sanctorū Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 10. §. In altero Hieron Thymiama i.e. Sanctorum orationes Deo offerendas In Mal. 1. Chrysost in Psal 95. Thymiama putum vocat Preces quae post Hostiam offeruntur ut Psalm 140. Oratio mea dirigatur tanquam Incensum c. Euseb Caesar demōst Evang. lib. 1. cap. ult De Orationibus Propheta Oratio mea fiat incensum Psal 140. Aug. In omni loco Incensum nomini meo Graecè Thymiama Apoc. Orationes L. 1. contr Advers Legis Prophet cap. 20. Marginalls and you shall find mention of the word Incense according to the Hebrew and Greeke Texts in the very same objected Testimonies of Tertullian Irenaeus Hierome Chrysostome Eusebius and Augustine Notwithstanding wee should not be so vehement in condemning your Romish Translation in this point if the matter now in hand did not challenge us thereunto the word Incense being sufficient in it selfe to satisfie all your Objections taken from the Sentences of Fathers and urged by virtue of the word Sacrifice and Oblation as will appeare That the Text of Malachy doth not imply a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist by the Expositions of Ancient Fathers SECT II. TWo words wee finde in this Prophet concerning the new Testament One is Incense in the Text now alleged the other is the word Levites The first in Chap. 1. vers 3. In every place there shall be an Offering of Incense and a Sacrifice c. You All affirme of Prayers Praises and holy Actions that they are Spiritual and no proper Sacrifices But the Fathers by you objected to wit Tertull. Irenaeus Hierome Chrysostome Eusebius and Augustine do * See the preceding Marginalls Expound Incense to signifie these Spirituall Duties which are unproperly called Incense Therefore may wee as justly conceive that the word Sacrifice used by them and applyed to the service of God in the New Testament was meant Improperly and that so much the
Seducer that I have performed hereof nothing at all Do you heare Flatly Nothing at all Meaning that none of the Epithets above-mentioned by Bellarmine out of the Fathers were at any time attributed by them to any other thing but to your Sacrifice of the Masse But what Nothing at all I. Not the Epithet Terrible False For I proved that the Fathers called Baptisme a 5 Treatise of the Masse Booke 6. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 3. Sacrifice and inscribed it 6 Ibid. Sect. 8. Terible II. Not the Epithet Summum that is Chiefe False For the Father 7 See Booke 6. Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Pelusiota is alleged naming a Pure mind and chaste Body the Best Sacrifice III. Not the Epithet Truest False For there is produced Saint 8 August See Booke 6. cha 7. Sect. 2 Augustine not onely enstiling Every pious worke a True Sacrifice Vero nihil verius saith the Philosopher but also nothing that Where God saith I will have Mercie and not Sacrifice Mercie saith hee is a Sacrifice most Excellent and whereof the other are but Signes IV. Not the Epithet Deo Plenum False For it was proved effectually enough in that the Preaching of the word which is called of the Apostle The Power of God unto Salvation is termed of 9 Chrysost See oke 6. Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Bo Chrysostome a Pure and immortall Sacrifice And what would you say to your Divines of Collen 10 Enchiridion Coloniens fol. 107. Hic Ecclesia quae Corpus Christi mysticum est se totam Deo consecrat adeò ut Cyprianus tale Sacrificium verum et plenum Sacrifiâ—um non dubitaverit appellare who will have you observe Cyprian naming the Church of Christ as his Mysticall Body consecrated to God a pure and full Sacrifice Lastly Not the last Epithet which is Singulare Sacrificium whereof your Romish Seducer boastingly saith as followeth Singular Sacrificium a Singular Sacrifice which is the most convincing Epithet of all the rest proveth the Eucharist not onely to be a Sacrifice but also to be the onely Sacrifice of the Church whereas there be many improper Sacrifices This the Lord Bishop passeth over with Silence and shutteth out for a Wrangler So hee Who might thinke it hapned well to himselfe if hee should be but onely Shut out for a Wrangler and not called in Question for a false and presumptuous Traducer and Seducer for denying that to be performed at all which I did discharge with an Advantage alleging that Ancient Father 11 See Booke 6 Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Iustine naming Prayers and Thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The perfect and onely Sacrifices well pleasing unto God Can there be any thing more Singular than that which is Onely The voice of Saint Augustine is full as loud for the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion The Death of Christ saith 12 August See 〈◊〉 Chap. 5. Sect. 5. hee is the onely Sacrifice which being the onely true Sacrifice must necessarily exclude the Hoast in your Masse from the property of a true Sacrifice If therefore this Epithet be an Argument most convincing above all the rest as is here objected then must it follow that Bellarmine thus amply confuted in this one is in effect convinced of Rashnesse and Weaknesse in his arguing aswell as this Seducer is of Falshood and Malice in his detracting in all the Rest âšœ The Seventh Demonstration Of No-Proper Sacrifice in the Euchrist Because the Principall Epithet of Vnbloody Sacrifice used by the Fathers and most urgently objected by your Doctors for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice doth evince the Contrarie SECT IX IT hath beene some paines unto us to collect the objected Testimonies of Fathers for this Point out of your divers Writers which you may peruse now in the Margin with more ease and presently perceive both what maketh not for you and what against you but certainly for you just nothing at all For what can it helpe your cause that the Celebration of the Eucharist is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is An unbloody Sacrifice a Reasonable and unbloody Service or Worship In the first place three b Basil in his Masse ob by Salmeron Tom. 9. Tractat. 30. §. Sed confutans and by Lindanuâ— Panop lib. 4. cap. 53. Nos appropinquantes Altari tuo suscipere dignissimos offerre hanc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lindanus non carnis sed mentis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Salmeron Ies Absque sanguine hostiam admittee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And not till long after the words of Consecration beginning at Respice Domine Missa Chrysost Ob. ab eisdem quo supra Hanc nostram supplicationem tanquaÌ„ ad altare admittere non recuses fac nos idoneos qui Tibi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nostris pro peccatis offerimus Idem Salmeron Offetimus Tibi rationabile incruentum obsequium Which words are in the body of your Liturgies put before the words of Consecration Edit Antuerp ex officiâ—a Plantin 1560. cum pri vilegio Regis but which Lindan will have to be set after Consecration The Liturgie of S. Iames Pro oblatis sanctisicatis pretiosis immaculatis donis divinis oremus Dominum acceptis eis in supercoeleste mentale spirituale Altare in odorem spiritualis frâ—grantiae c. Paulo post Deus Pater qui oblata tibi dona mera frugum oblationes accepisti in odorem suavitatis And after follow the words of Consecration Sancto qui in Sanctis c. Suscipe incorruptum Hymnum in sanctis incruentis Sacrificijs tuis Liturgies or if you will Missals are objected to prove that by Vnbloody Sacrifice and Reasonable and unbloody Worship is betokened the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood in the Masse one of Basil another of Chrysostome and by some others the Masse of Saint Iames of Ierusalem In which Epithet of Vnbloody say wee could not be signified Christ's Body Our Reasons because as the Margin sheweth the word Vnbloody hath sometime Relation unto the Bread and Wine both unbloody before Consecration called in Saint Iames his Liturgie Gods gifts of the first fruit of the Ground who also reckoneth Hymnes among Vnbloody Sacrifices But Christ's Body is the fruit of the Wombe or else sometime it is referred to the Acts of Celebration in Supplication Thanksgiving and Worship of God all Vnbloody naming that A Reasonable and Vnbloody Service which they had termed an Vnbloody Sacrifice as Lindan your Parisian Doctor hath truly observed Which Chrysostome also stiled Spirituall marke you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Service or Worship Was ever Christ called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is himselfe rather the Person to be worshipped Secondly Reasonable could this point out Christ's Body in the Sense of the objected Fathers Suffer Chrysostome to resolve us c Chrysost Hom. 11. Quid est rationabile obsequium quod per animam quod secundùm Spiritum offertur quicquid non indiget corpore quicquid non indiget
de Missa Cap. 27. §. Tertiò that The Body of Christ indeed suffereth not herein any naturall Destruction but onely Sacramentall that is Metaphoricall Ergo your Romish Masse is destitute of the proper Sacrificing Act of Destruction And againe whereas the word Immolation is taken of h Lombardus cum quaeritat quid Sacerdos gerit sit dicendum Sacrificium aut Immolatio accipit nomen Immolationis pro occisione respondet autem rectissimè Christum semel tantùm immolatum id est occisum fuisse non autem immolari id est occidi in Sacramento repraesentatione Bellorm lib. 1. de Missa cap. 15. Rursus paulò superius § Ad hanc Cruenta Immolatio semel tantùm verè propriè facta est nunc autem non propriè sed pâ—r Repraesentationem Lib. 4. Dist 12. §. Post haec Lombard for being Slaine or suffering by Death It was most truly said by him saith your Cardinall that Christ is not properly immolated meaning not slaine but onely in Representation Well then the State of the Question as your Cardinall himselfe hath set it downe is seeing that every Proper Sacrifice requireth a Proper Destruction and if it be a living Sacrifice a Destruction by death Whether Christ be properly Sacrificed or no. Marke wee pray you your Cardinal's Resolution His bloody Sacrifice was but once truly and properly done but now it is not properly done but by Representation O Spirit of Contradiction For that which is but once onely properly offered can never be said to be againe properly offered and that which is a Bloody Oblation by your owne learning cannot be Vnbloody And as great an Intoxication is to be seene in your Disputers in respect of the other part of the Sacrament touching the Cup For your Cardinall Alan defendeth a Reall Destruction in this maner i Alanus de Eucharist lib. 2 cap. 13. In carnis sanguinis separatione undè propriè in animalibus mactatio consistit vis hujus mysterij ut in eo solo cernatur divinae mortis repraesentatio sequitur Christum esse praesentem modò immolatio quod sunditur in remissione peccatorum ergo per modum Victimae praesens est imò Christus hic praesens induit eum modum quem habuit ut se offerens in Sacrificio Crucis Aliquantò post haec Propter concomitantiam de qua superius diximus in seipso non moritur In creatures living saith hee the thing sacrificed must be slaine and in this slaying by the separation of blood from the Body doth consist all force and virtue of this Mystery because Christ is herein after the maner of Sacrifice taking upon him the maner of Sacrificing which hee had in offering himselfe upon the Crosse by separation of his Blood So hee All which doth inferre a Reall and Proper separation and effusion of Blood yet immediatly after standeth hee to the Defence of Concomitancie which teacheth an Vnion of Body and Blood together in as full a maner as it was in Christ his most perfect estate But Blood Separated and Vnited are as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrarie as can be How much better would it beseeme you to confesse plainly and truly with your Costerus that k Costerus Christian Institut lib. 1. cap. 10. Christus in cruce solus seipsum obtulit per veraÌ„ sanguinis effusionem mortem hic per Sacerdotem tanquam ministrum se offert sine Sanguinis effusione morte sed per utrâ—usque repraesentationem Christ is not offered herewith effusion of Blood but by a representation thereof Thus still wee see your owne Doctors come in your most controverted points towards us albeit as Rowers looking backwards to their owne purposes and conclusions CHALLENGE A Syllogisme will quit the Businesse as for Example Every proper Sacrifice is properly Visible of Prophane is made Sacred and properly suffereth Destruction This is your owne Proposition in each part But the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is neither properly Visible nor properly of Prophane made Sacred nor suffereth any proper Destruction This is also your owne Assumption Therefore the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is not a proper Sacrifice nor properly Sacrificed This except men have lost their braines must needs be every mans Conclusion And that so much the rather because it cannot be sufficient that Christs Body be present in the Eucharist to make it a Sacrifice without some Sacrificing Act. A Sheepe is no Sacrifice whil'st it remaineth in the Fold nor can every Action serve the turne except it be a Destructive Act for the Sheep doth not become therefore a Sacrifice because it is shorne nor yet can any Destructive Act be held Sacrificing which is not prescribed by Divine Authority which onely cun ordaine a Sacrifice as hath beene confessed But no such divine ordinance hath hitherto beene proved Is it not then a miserable case which you are in to suffer your selves to be deceived by such Mountebankes who pretend to direct mens Consciences in the Mysteries of Christian Faith and particularly concerning this high point of Proper Sacrifice and in the end give no other satisfaction than by meere Riddles of a Visible not Visible Consecrated not Consecrated Destroyed and not Destroyed with Blood separated and not separated from the Body and each one spoken of the same Body of Christ Our last point concerning a proper Sacrifice followeth CHAP. VII Our Fourth Examination is of the Doctrine of PROTESTANTS in the point of Sacrifice IN discussion whereof wee are to consider first the Acts which are incident unto the Celebration of this Sacrament and then the Object thereof which is the true and reall Body of Christ as it was Sacrificed upon the Crosse In respect of the Acts wee say I. That Spirituall Sacrifices albeit Vnproper are in one respect more true and do farre excell all merely Corporall Sacrifices according to Scripture SECT I. WHen Christ called himselfe the True Vine the True light the True Bread in respect of the Naturall Vine Light and Bread Hee taught us to distinguish betweene a Truth of Excellencie and a Truth of Propriety by their different Effects That which hath the naturall property of Bread although Manna preserveth but the temporall life for * Iohn 6. See above Booke 5. Sect. 6. They ate Manna and dyed but the Bread of Excellencie which is Christs Body preserveth to * Ibid. Immortality It is a good Observation which your Canus hath that a Canus Quià per Sacrificia legis externae res quaedam spirituales potiores praesignabantur has omninò res Sacrificia holocausta hostias sacrae literae appellant ut mactationes brutorum animalium figurae erant mortificationis Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. In secundo Many spirituall things are called Sacrifices in Scriptur because they were prefigured by the outward bodily Sacrifices of the Lambe as the killing of Beasts were signes of mortification which is a killing of sinne So hee
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