se includit Contradictionem sicut quòd Homo careat ratione Et qu. 8â— Art 2. ad 1. Corpus non potest actu esse in pluribus locis simul hoc enim est solius Dei Possibility as proper only to God Which though hee speake concerning the locall maner of Being yet his Reason as * See the former testimony your Cardinall confesseth doth as well concerne your Sacramentall maner of being on earth to deny the Body of Christ to be really in many Hoasts and on many Altars at once And Aquinas his reason being this Vnum One saith he is that which is not divided from it selfe but to be in divers places at once doth divide one from it selfe and consequently maketh it not to be One which being a Contradiction doth inferre an Impossbility So hee âšœ Accordingly your Iesuite Conincks 3 AEgid Conincks Ies de Sacram. qu. 75. Art 4. Dub. 3. Thomas in 4. Dist 44. qu. 2. Art â—â— ait Per miraculum fieri non posse ut corpus sit simul in duobus locis sc modo quantirativo Quià esse in pluribus locis repugnat Individuo ratione ejus quod est esse indivisum per sc Sanè haec ratio si absolutè nâ— sonat intelligatur corpus Christi non potest esse simul in coelo in hoc Sacramento If as Thomas saith saith he a Body cannot be in two places at once Quantitaetively no not by any Miracle of God because the thing should so be divided from it selfe then the words being taken as they sound cannot Christ's Body be at once locally in heaven and on earth in this Sacrament So he Thus is the maine Article of your Romish Faith concerning the Corporall Presence of Christ in many places at once wholly overthrowne by the judgement of Thomas Aquinas the Oracle of your Romish Shooles But when as Protestants argue accordingly as you have done your Ies 4 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. Disp 189 Cap 7. Ratio quae ab Haereticis affertur est Corpus idem si in diversis locis collocetur esse divisum à se Vasquez spareth not to call it the Reason of Heretikes Which bewrayeth the distorted and squint-eyed sight of our Romish Adversaries who knowing the same Argument to be used by your owne Aquinas as well as by Protestants do notwithstanding honor the one with the Title of Angelicall and upbraid the other with the black marke of Hereticall Earnestly have wee sought for some Answer to this insoluble Argument as wee thinke and your greatest Doctor hath nothing to say but that the p Duplex est divisio una intrinseca in se altera extrinseca accidentalis in respectu loci Itaque cum corpus est in diversis locis non tollitur indivisio in se sed extrinseca in respectu loci ut cùm Deus sit unus est in diversis locis anima rationalis est in diversis partibus corporis una Bellar. ibid. Being in a place is not the essentiall property of a thing and therefore can be no more said to divide the Body from it selfe than it can be said to divide God who is every where or the soule of man which is one in every part or member of the Body So he Wee throughout this whole Tractate wherein wee dispute of the Existence of a Body in a Place do not tye our selves every where to the precise Acception of place as it is defined to be Superficies c. but as it signifieth one space or distinct Vbi from another which wee call here and there We returne to your Cardinals Answer CHALLENGE AN answer you have heard from your Cardinall unworthy any man of Iudgement because of a Triple falsity therein First in the Antecedent and Assertion saying that Being in a Place or space is not inseparable from a Body Secondly in the Ground of that because Place is not of the Essence of a Body Thirdly in his Instances which hee insisteth upon for Example-sake which are both Heterogenies Contrary to this Assertion wee have already proved the necessity of the Locall Being of a Body wheresoever it is and now wee confirme it by the Assertion of One than whom the latter Age of the World hath not acknowledged any more accurate and accomplished with Philosophicall learning even q Si dicas corpus est hîc ibi idem ipsum quidem distrahas in diversa principio ptimo per se immediato prohibetur corpus esse in pluribus ubi est autem continuitas affectus consequens immediate unitatem Contradictiones enim sunt Iulius Scalliger Exercit. 5. quaest 6. For how can there hee Continuity in that 5. the Termiâ—i whereof are separated by divers places Iulius Scaliger by name a Professed Romanist who hath concluded as a Principle infallible that Continuity being an immediate affection and property of Vnity One Body cannot be said to be in two places as here and there without dividing it selfe from it selfe So hee Certainly because Place being the Terminus to wit that which doth confine the Body that is in it it is no more possible for the Body to be in many places at once than it is for an Vnity to be a multitude or many Which truth if that you should need any further proofe may seeme to be confirmed in this that your Disputers are driven to so miserable Straits as that they are not able to instance in any one thing in the world to exemplifie a Possibility of the being of a Body in divers places at once but onely Man's soule which is a spirit and God himselfe the Spirit of Spirits of both which * See below Ch ◠§. 2. 〈◊〉 §. 2. hereafter Onely you are to observe that the Cardinals Argument in proving Space to be separable from a Body because it is not of the Essence of a Body is in it selfe a Non sequitur as may appeare in the Adjunct of Time which although it be not of the Essence of any thing yet is it impossible for any thing to be without Time or yet to be in two different Times together âšœ And for the better discovery of the weakenesse of this their common Objection Wee adde that although Vbi Place or Space be not of the essence of a Body to constitute it one yet may it be sufficient to demonstrate it to be but one Body because of Contradiction as well as all proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or properties as Risibility in a man or else as Quantity to a Body and Circumscription to Quantity which although they be after their Substances in nature yet are they joyntly and inseparably with them in Times But that wee may argue from the very termes of Contradiction Your asserting the same Body of Christ to be Locall according to the dimensions of Place and not Locall according to the dimensions of Place at one time implies a Contradiction But you teach the same Body of Christ to be
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
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
Body hee proveth out of the Gospel where hee is found desirous to eate his owne Passeover with his Disciples when taking Bread he made it his Body saying This is my Body that is a figure of my Body So he as Protestantly as can be spoken Which our Collection your miserable shift how to ridde your selves of it doth rather confirme unto us 12 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 7. Illud Tertulliani Hoc est corpus meum Id est non significat panem Eucharisâ—â—ae esse siguram corporis Domini sed quod fuit olim figura in Testamento veteri nunc in veritatem corporis mutatum esse Conjungitur enim figura corporis mei cùm hoc ut sit sensus Hoc Id est Panis qui olim fuit figura corporis mei The Sense is this saith your Cardinall THIS that is This Bread which was once namely in the old Testament a signe of my Body So he O the profundity of this Answer Is a Signe saith Tertullian that is Was a Signe saith your Cardinall If one saying of the Sun-rising It is in the East and your Cardinall should comment saying that is It was in the East would you believe him And that Tertullian meant directly that the Bread which he now spoke of signified not the Bread of the Old Testament but the Bread of the Eucharist as it was a Signe then representing the Body of Christ two reasons may perswade us First because Tertullian observeth that Christ concerning the participating of the Eucharist said That hee desired to eate his owne Passeover meaning the Eucharist as distinct from the Iewish Passeover Next because he confuteth the Heretikes who denyed that Christ had a true Body by this Sacrament because Bread herein was a figure of a Body And Christ's figures were not of things only imaginary but also reall and essentiall And this is confessed by your Iesuite 13 Maldon Ies de sacra Euchar. §. 13. Conjectura pag. 295. Dicet aliquis cur Tertullianus figuram vocavit potiùs quà m veritatem Respons Id propositam quaellionem postulasse volebat enim probare contra Marcionitas Christum habuisse verum corpus quia illi negare non poterant fuisse Eucharistâ—am figuram corporis Si autem fuit sigura fuit veritas quia fantasma siguram non caperet Maldonate to have beene the Argument of Tertullian who once againe sheweth that Christ called Bread his Body in saying This is my Body as the Prophet Ieremy called his Body Bread in saying Let us put Wood upon his Bread meaning his Body So Tertullian shewing them both to be spoken equally in a figurative sense These are so directly repugnant to your Romish doctrine that one of your Church in his Admonition before the words of Tertullian seemes to impute unto Tertullian the Heresie which you commonly lay to the charge of us Protestants 14 Beat. Rheâ—â—n Admonit ante lib. Tertull. Error putantium corpus Christi esse tantùm sub sigura condemnatur est Of thinking the Body of Christ to be onely in a figure in this Sacrament of the Eucharist Next Cyprian thus q Cyprian Serm. de Vact. Et significantia significata ijsdem vocabuliscenserentur Things signifying and signified are called by the same words Vpon the which ground he made bold to say that Christ's Body is Created in this Sacrament by Body understanding Bread saith your Cardinall Bellarmine Hierome r Hier. cont Iovia Typus sanguinis Wine the Type of Christ his Blood Gelasius s Gelas cont Eutych Quod in ejus imagine profitemur Apud Bibliothec. Patrum Tom. 5. p. 475. Bread the image of his Body Ambrose t Ambros de Inst mister cap 9. Post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur Et 1 Cor. 11. Mysterium esse Typum sanguinis After consecration Christ his Body is signified âšœ Whereupon we are compelled to complaine against your Cardinall Bellarmine who even there where he professedly laboureth to extract out of the Fathers your Romish sense from the words of Christ This is my Body for a proofe of the literall exposition thereof as they sound This is my Body and not as Protestants teach This signifieth my Body misallegeth the words of Saint Ambrose to his owne purpose thus Before the Benediction of Christ's words This is my Body one kinde of thing is named and after Consecration It is the Body of Christ insteed of these words After the Consecration 15 Bellar. lib 4. de Eucharist cap 13. §. Gregor Nyssen Explicat Ambrosius lib 4. de Sacrament cap. 4. quae sint verba Domini in quibus Sacramentum conficitur recitans illa Hoc est c. Et in lib. de Init. Myster cap. 9. Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus Hoc est corpus meum ante benedictionem verborum coelestium alia species nominatur post consecraticnem corpus Christi est the Body of Christ is signified Iust Protestantwise as can be Do but now tell us how you wish wee should censure this Errour whether as a wilfull Falsity and then should you eclipse his Credit and Authority or else only as a Temeritie and then ought you to Censure as indifferently of such escapes if any such happen of Protestants according to the Law of Equitie Veniam petimusque Damusque vicissim Saint Augustine whom one of your profession hath of late more choicely singled out for a Patron of your Romish defence hath unanswerably impugned your Romish Faith in this very point proving other Sacraments to agree with this in like of Predication and that herein the Eucharist hath not Prerogative above the rest u Aug. lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ Figurata locutio Idem cont Adimant Manich cap. 12. Non dubitavit dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum signuÌ„ daret corporis sui Idem Epist 23. ad Bonifac. Tom 9. Sacramenta propter similitudinem earum rerum quas repraesentant plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergò secundùm quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi et Sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi ità Sacramentum fidei sides est Sicut de ipso Baptismo ait Consepulti sumus per baptismum in mortem Christi non dicit sepulturam significamus sed prorsus ait Consepulti sumus Sacramentum igitur tantae rei non nisi ejusdam rei vocabulo nuncupavit And intripreting that which he called Fidei Sacramentum hee sa 〈◊〉 Respondetur Parvulum baptizatum credere propter fidei Sacramentum Sacraments saith he for the very Similitude and likenesse wihich they have with the things wherof they are Sacraments do often take the names of those things which they do signific as when the Sacrament of Christ's Body saith he is after a certaine manner called the Body of Christ But how Hee addeth as if hee had meant to stop the Mouthes of all Opposites As it is said by the Apostle of Baptisme we are buried by
by Damascen to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Essentiall to a Body In like maner Ephraemius in Photâ—us sticketh to the same Argument of difference of natures by reason of Contradiction saying concerning the two distinct natures of Christ That none that hath wit can say that the same Nature is both palpable and impalpable visible and Invisible âšœ Let us ascend hither to the more primitive Ages to inquire of Fathers who had conflict also with Heretikes who gainesaid the Truth of either Nature Athanasius urged Christ his Ascension into Heaven 〈◊〉 prove that hee was as truly man as God because his God head was never out of Heaven being h Athanas 〈◊〉 2. Adversus eos q. trullum nos miraculum 〈◊〉 eo quod carâ—em negant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vndâ—â—rminate in place and uncircumscribed even then when it was Hyphstatically united with the Body being on earthâ— Therefore it was his Body that ascended into Heaven from Earth His Argument is taken from Circumscription even as I l Nazian Epist 1. id Cledâ—â— Hominem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianzen also doth Characterize them Cyril of Alaxandria is a Father whose Patronage your Disputers would be thought often to rely upon hee is now about to deliver his Iudgement so freely and plainly as if hee had meant to stop the mouthes of all our Opposiâ—es in the same Answer which hee maketh against certaine Heretikes who held that God's nature is a Substance which can received vision and partition If God saith m Cyril Alex Tom. 2. lib. de T. inir Si verè Sâ— chohem Partitionem Divini naturâ— ut 〈◊〉 dicunt reciperet intelligeretur ut corpus si autem hoc in loco omâ—â—nò li quanta facta esset non effugeret Circumscripâ—â— fol. 89. Cyril should be divisible as a Body then should it be contained in place and then should it have Quantity and having Quantity it could not but be Circumscribed Will you now say which hitherto hath beene your onely Answer to other Fathers that Cyril meant not that it was absolutely Impossible that Quantity should be without Circumscription but onely according to the Course of nature then might the Heretikes whom Cyril confuted have made the same Answer and consequently Cyril's Consequence and Confutation together with the Arguments of the Fathers above-mentioned had beene of no force What shall wee say must still the ancient Fathers be made no better than Asses in arguing that your Romish Masters forsooth may be deemed the onely Doctors even then when they prepare the same Evasion for Heretikes which they devise for themselves but you must pardon us if wee believe that Cyril seeing he durst say that God himselfe if hee were a Body must be in a place as a thing having Quantity and Circumscribed would have abhorred your now Romish Faith of believing * See hereafter Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Christ's Body consisting of Quantitie albeit not Circumscribed in place âšœ The Arguments which wee receive from these Fathers in Confutation of your Romish Faith of believing the same Humane Body of Christ Circumscribed in Heaven and Vncircumscribed on your Altars on Earth are Two The first is their denying the Possibility of Christ's Body to be Vncircumscribed and that upon two grounds One because Circumscription is Essentiall and as Proper to Christ's Body as Vncircumscription is Proper to his Divine Nature without which Difference there should follow a Confusion of his two Different natures which was the very same Heresie which they impugned Their second ground is from the infallible Rule of Contradiction being the extremest Degree of Impossibilitie that can be imagined namely For the same â—ody to be at the same time mortall and immortall palpable and impalpable And yet your Fathers of the Councell of Trent in their wisedomes have Canonized it for an Article of your Faith by teaching a palpable and Circumscriptive Body of Christ in Heaven and impalpable and Vncircumscriptive on Earth It might be held a kind of Impiety not to consult with Saint Augustine in a Question of this moment The Iudgement of Saint Augustine stiled by learned Doctors The Mallet of Heretikes to knocke out their Braines First giving this Caution viz. 13 Aug. Epist 57. ad Dardan where after this Coveat Cavendum ne ità Divinitatem affirmamus ut corporis veritatem auferamus hee hath these words Spatia locotum tolle corpotibus nusquaÌ„ erunt quià nusquam erunt nec erunt Idem Tract 31. in toh Homo secundùm corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco unde venit non est Deus autem implet omnia ubique totus nec secundùm spatia tenetur locis erat tamen Christus secundùm visibilem carnem iâ— terra secundùm invisibilem majestatem in coelo in terra To take heed lest wee sâ— establish Christs Deity that wee destroy not the truth of his Body Hee afterwards concludeth against the Impossibilitie of a Body uncircumscribed saying Take away Space of Place from Bodies and then shall they be no-where and if they be no-where then must they be no-what having no Being at all Secondly where hee concludeth that Christ according to his Visible flesh was on earth when according to his Invisible Majesty Hee was both in Heaven and Earth hee layd this Ground thereof to wit that A Body removing from one place to another is not in that place from whence it came But our Catholike Article of Faith saith that Hee ascended from Earth to Heaven And therefore by Saint Augustine his Argument Hee was not then on Earth In the third place Discussing the Difference of the two Natures of Christ more fully in respect of Presence in Place for the reconciling of a Seeming Contradiction of Christs words saying in one place I am with you unto the Ends of the World and another place saying You shall not have me alwayes with you he assoyleth the Difficultie by Differencing Christs Natures 14 Aug. Tract 50. in â—oh Pauperes semper habebitis vobiscuÌ„ me autem non semper habebitis Potest sic intelligi Accipiant hoc boni sed non sint soliciti loquebatur emiâ— de praesentia corpoâ—â—s sui Nam secunduÌ„ majestatem suam secundùm providenuam secundùm inessabilem invisibilem gratiam impletur ab eo quod dâ—ctum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum usquè ad consummationem seculi secundùm autem â—d quod de Virgine natus est quodque in Resurrectione maniâ—estatus est non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare Quoniâ—m conversatus secundâ— corporis pâ—aesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipuliâ— suis eis videntibus ascendit in coesum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextrim Patris hic est non enim recesâ—â—â— praesentia majestatis Secundùm praesentiam carnis Ec. lesia modo side tenâ—â— oculis
The Atribute of Viaticum is next which having so great Consanguinity with the Communion by feeding may afford us the same Reason of Retorting the same Argument borrowed from the same word upon your Objectors themselves which wee permit to your owne wits to examine that with more Brevity wee may descend to the last Adjunct which is a Pledge of our Resurrection to Immortality which hath beene applyed by your Cardinall as peculiar to the Eucharist to prove a Corporall presence of Christ therein It being a Terme taken from the mouth of the Father Optatus whom wee have answered out of two Fathers Basil and Theodoret who have as well given the same word Pledge of our Resurrection to Immortality unto the Sacrament of Baptisme From whom it may be your * Costerus See above Booke 4. ca. 10. §. 5. Jesuite Coster borrowed his Assertion where hee also nameth Baptisme the Pledge of our Resurrection to life everlasting which one word Pledge now Objected by you will prove as good as Bellerophon's Letters to confute your selves and to vanquish your Romish Defence even from the nature of a Pledge as it is applyed to the Sacrament of the Eucharist by three Fathers I. Hierome 13 Hieron See above Booke 3. Ca. 3. §. 11. Christ saith he left this his last memoriall of his Passion like as one that is travailing into a strange Country leaveth a Pledge with his friend for a memorandum of his benefits II. Gaudentius thus 14 Gaudent See above Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 1â— at â— Christ saith hee being about to be Crucifyed left that Hereditary gift of the new Testament as a Pledge of his Presence And III. Primasius concerning the Institution of this Sacrament saith that 15 Primas in 1. Cor. 11. Salvator Deus exemplum dedit ut quotiescunquè hoc facimus in mente habeamus quod Christus pro nobis mortuus est ideo nobis dicitur Corpus Christi ut cum hoc recordati fuerimus non simus ingrati gratiae ejus Quemadmodum si quis moriens relinquat ei quem diligit aliquod pignus quod ille post mortem ejus quandocunque viderit nunquid potest lachrymas continere si perfectè dilexerit Christ left us an example that as often as wee celebrate this wee should call to remembrance that Christ dyed for us And therfore is it called the Body of Christ saith hee that as often as wee remember wee be not ingrate and unthankfull to his gratiousnesse like as when one Dying leaveth a Pledge of remembrance unto his friend All these holy Fathers you see interpret this Sacrament to be unto us as a Present Pledge of a Friend Absent whether hee be a living Travailer or one departed this life Primasius his Observation of the Pledge is very remarkable when hee saith of this Sacrament thus called a Pledge that It is Therefore called the Body of Christ giving the name of the Thing to the Token thereof than which Similtude what can be more pregnant and pertinent for the Confuting of your Tridentine Faith concerning the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist Seeing now that the Ancient Fathers have shewne themselves Patrons and Favourers of our Cause it will become us as true Children to do them right To which purpose wee adde and shew That the Seeming Contradictory Sayings of the Fathers are Reconcilable in themselves and yet Repugnant to the Romish Profession SECT III. FOr our making good of this Section it will be required that wee performe it so that the Doctrine of the Fathers notwithstanding this Reconciliation may appeare to be both Adverse to the Romish Corporall Conjunction and also agreeable to our Protestant sense as well in respect of the Sacramentall as of the Spirituall Conjunction which the Receiver of this Sacrament hath with the Body of Christ The Repugnancie of the Fathers to the Romish Corporall Conjunction Sometimes the Fathers are found in this Sacrament to speake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Exactly and precisely and sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Improperly When they speake of a Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body Exactly and simply so taken so often they appeare to deny it absolutely from point to point As I. by their 16 Ambros Serm. 58. in illud Christi ad Magdalen Noli me tangere Ergò eum non super terram nec in terra nec secundum carnem debemus quaerere Salvatorem No Bodily Toucâ— of Christ after his Resurrection So Ambrose II. 17 Aug. Non dentis cibus Idem Serm. 33. de verbis Dom. Nolite parare fances sed cor No meâ—t for Teeth So Augustine Nor For the Iawes So the same Father III. 18 Attalas Martyr See above Not to be devoured with Throat So Attalas the Martyr IV. 19 Cyprian de Coena Dom. Non ventris cibus Not for the Belly So Cyprian V. 20 Idem de Coena Dom De unione nostra cum Christo in hoc Sacramento Ad participationem spiritus non usque ad Consubstantialitatem nostra ipsius conjunction non miscet personas neque unit substantias sed affectus consociat confoederat voluntates Not for Bodily Conjunction of Persons nor for Vnion of Substances So also the same Father VI. 21 Cyril Hierosol See above Booke 4. cap. 10 § 3. Not to be cast into the Draught So Cyrill of Hierusalem Whereunto you may adde as the Complexion and Comprehension of all the rest that of Chrysostome concerning this Sacrament * Chrysost See above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Having no fleshly thing nor yet that hath any Natural Consequence thereof namely of fleshly Vnion In w ch you have all as â—â—at Negatives to your Romish Corporall Vnion by your Bodily Touch whether by Hand Mouth or Belly as the Ancient Fathers could have given if they had concluded their Judgements in a Synod But how then will you say did they speake so expressely of an Vnion by Touching Eating Tearing and of your Corporall Conjunction even unto the Feeding thereby This is the next Doubt which wee are now to assoyle in the next Section The meaning of the words of the Ancient Fathers is fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestants SECT IV. THe Sacramentall Vnion which Protestants teach besides that which they call Spirituall consisteth wholly in the Resemblance which is betweene the Body of Christ and the Substance of Bread and Wine and this is Analogicall which was the Ground of all the Fathers former Speeches concerning a Bodily Vnion with Christs Body in every Degree First then the Fathers in their Symbolicall language have called Bread the Body of Christ onely Sacramentally because it is a Sacrament and Signe of Christs Body which was the Conclusion of our Second Booke II. They have not spared to call the Change of Bread into our Bodies a Change of Christs Body into ours in a like Sacramentall signification as hath beene
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
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
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