the Heavens opened and Majesty of Christ when others wanted that sight To the fourth thus The eyes of Saul beholding Christ in Heaven might be as good witnesses of Christ his Resurrection as were the eyes of Saint Stephen Acts 7. who saw him and so much more because he was both made blinde by the brightnes of that sight of Christ and after healed in the Name of Christ If any desire to know the judgement of ancient Fathers in this Case your Cardinall leaveth him to seeke it where he shall please Sure we are that c Aug. in Psal 54. Tract 1 in Iob. Caput in coelis cujus membra calcabantur in terra Augustine d Ambrosâ—â— 1. Cor. 15. Appatuit eâ— primo in coelo Ambrose Pope e Greg. Moral Honâ— 3â— in Evang. ad sinem Persecutorem de coelo aliocurus Gregory the first and f Isil Pelusâ— lib. 1. Epist 409 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eâ— Pheophylact in Act. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Isidore Pelusiota doe expresly affirme that the appearance of Christ to Saint Paul was De Coelo from Heaven âšœ And lest that any fondly by the word Heaven conceiving any inferiour heaven may catch at the Moone you may observe that the Fathers understood that Heaven wherein Christ is sayd to sit at the right hand of God and that whereby the Doctrine of Christ is intituled Celestiall and Heavenly âšœ And if all this were true that hath beene objected that Christ appeared in the Ayre yet is your Consequence but lame that therefore he was bodily also in Heaven if wee may beleeve your Iesuite Lorinus g Potuit tantisper de coelo descendisse Lorin Ies in Act. 9. âšœ And Pelufiota already at the letter Because Christ saith he might for so short a time have descended from Heaven By all which you may perceive that your Cardinall for all his arguing about the Ayre hath beene as the Proverbe is but Beating the Ayre âšœ And lest that any of you might Object that of Acts 23. ver 11. The next night the Lord Christ sayd unto Paul Bethou constant c. as spoken by Christ being Corporally there present when as notwithstanding he was also resident in Heaven one of your owne Iesuites 8 Lorinus Ies Com. in Act. 23. 11. Non audeo de omnibus aepparitionibus affirmare factas immediatè esse à Christo ipso cùm Posset Angelus apparere pro Christo Not daring as hee saith of himselfe to affirme all such like Apparitions to have beene immediately by Christ himselfe will have you to know that they might have beene performed by some Angell in the person of Christ âšœ And as lanke and frivolous is his Confirmation of their Assertion by as he saith Apparitions of Christ unto divers here on earth when as yet hee was certainly in Heaven for it is not certaine that he appeared personally to any here on earth if the position of your Angelicall Doctor Aquinas may stand for good who held it * See above c. 2. §. 3. Impossible for Christ to appeare here on earth in his proper shape in two places at once which sheweth that these Apparitions of Christ were rather onely Visions without any personall appearing We are not ignorant how much you attribute to your Cardinall Bellarmine whom you have heard contending so urgently for proofe of the visible Presence of Christ in divers places at once and what like Esteeme you have of your great Professor Suarez who now cometh Concluding as followeth h Concludo Christi corpus tantùm esse in coelo in Eucharistia seclusoque eodem Eucharistiae mysterio non solùm non esset corpus ubique sâ— neque etiam esset alicubi nisi in coelo contrarium assererâ— esset magna reme â—as sine fundamento contra omnes Theologos Suarez Ies Tom. 1. in Thom. quaest 14. Art 1. Disp 34. §. 4. âšœ Eodem modâ— Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. quaest 76. Disp 189â— cap. 5. Probatur non posse corpus secundu â—extensionem in diversis locis simul bene tamen in uno secundùm extensionem in alijs vero indivisibili more a Deo constitus probatur âšœ The Body of Christ except it 's being in the mysterie of the Eucharist is no where but only in Heaven and to affirme the contrary were a great rashnesse without ground and contrary to all Divines So hee Wee leave these your two most eminent Doctors of the Chaire and both of the same Society of the Iesuites the one for Rome the other for Spaine in this their Contradiction that wee may consult with Antiquitie it selfe An Additionall for a further Confutation Cardinall 9 Ballar lib 3. de Euch. cap. 3. Confirmatur Argumentum eâ— alijs Christi Apparitionibus nom imprimi Petro Apostolo Christum ippâ—ruisse in terra cum eo collocutum fuisse testantur gravissiâ—â— Authores ut Aâ—bros Orat. cont Auxent Hegessppus lib. 3. de Excidio Hierosol Athanas in Apolog. Deiude Antomo appâ—â—uisse Athmas in vita ejus August lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 16. proponit quaestionem utrum cum diversis locis fiant miracula ad memorias alicujus Martyris sit ipse praesens uno tempore in tà m multis locis an ista fiant ministerio Angelorum Et respondet hanc quaestionem esse supra ingenij vires Praetereà Cap. 17. refert historiam quandam Iohannis qui cum ex Monasterio suo non discessisset apparuit tamen adhuc vivens in somnis cuidam alteri longè posito ac deinde dicit dubium esse an spiritus ejus reverà fuisset in utroque loco an id esse factum also modo Si is inquit interfuit somnianti mirabili gratiâ id quidem potuit non naturâ c. Bellarmine for proofe that the same Body of Christ might appeare Visibly in divers places at once doth produce the Apparitions of other men in many places at once and is encountred by your owne 10 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. qu. 76. Disp 139. Cap. 2. Exempla superiùs adducta ex Ambrosio Egesippo Athanasio Giegorio in quibus prima opinio de existentia coporis Christi quoad extensionem ad locum in diversis locis simol probari videtur adde etiam Augustinum de cura pro mortuis Cap. 16. respondet difficilem esse responsionem Verùm hoc testimonium non probat de corpore quoad extensionem ad locum sed de existentia animae in duobus locis simul Neque amplius probat alterum illud Augustini de Iohanne Monacho ubi agitur de spiritu See Vasquez who thorow our the same whole Disputation denieth the existence of Christ in divers places at once quoad extensionem ad locum but onely in one place so and in many invisibly in the Sacrament upon every Altar Ies Vasquez verbatim in each one Concluding that None of them do prove such an Existence by extension of parts in respect of
handled of Communicants on earth than hee doth say of the Priest and People Communicating ô Miracle that They do not consist or stay on earth but are transported into Heaven And againe a little after the words objected The Priest saith hee is here present not carrying the fire but the Holy Ghost These and the like Sayings of Chrysostome do verifie the Censure of your * See Booke 3. Chap. 4. §. 6. Senensis upon him that hee was most frequent in figurative Amplifications and Hyperbole's Another Objection is commonly made out of t Chrysost ad â—â—ulum Antioch hom 2. Helisaeus Mâ—â—lotem accepit Heliae erat posthaâ—c duplex Elias sursum Eliais deorsum Elias Then applying this to the Sacrament Helias nempe melotem Discipulis â—uis reliquit filius autem Dei ascendens nobis carnem 〈◊〉 sed Elias quidem exâ—tus Christus autem ipsam nobis reliquits ipsam ascendens habuit Chrysostome of a Double Elias one above and another below meaning by Elias below the sheepe-skin or Mantle of Elias received by Helisaeus namely that Christ ascending into Heaven in his owne flesh left the same but as Elias did his Mantle being called the other Elias to wit figuratively so the Sacrament a token of Christ's flesh is called his flesh Which must needs be a true Answer unlesse you will have Chrysostome to have properly conceited as a Double Elias so Consequently a Double Christ âšœ And if you be not yet sufficiently acquainted with the style of Chrysostome take unto you another Saying of his wherein hee introduceth Christ as speaking to every good Christian and saying 18 Chrysost ad pop Antioch Hom. 55 Manduca me te sursum haben deorsum tibi connector Eate thou mee I have thee heere above and am annexed to thee there below So hee Do you understand those words as you did his former Speeches literally then must you as necessarily conclude from hence that the Christian Communicant Eating Christ's Body here on earth is corporally present with Christ in Heaven But do you grant it to be figuratively meant then must you confesse that the Conjunction spoken of by Chrysostome is not Corporall but a Spirituall and a Mysticall Communication So then Chrysostome speaking of a Sacrament used a Sacramentall style to call the Sacrament of Christ's Body the Body or flesh of Christ even as Christ according to the Interpretation of Ancient Fathers called Bread his Body as being a Signe and Sacrament of his Body after the usall terme of Scripture in other Sacraments also All which have beene largely showne throughout the Second Booke No marvell therefore if granting that Christ taking his Flesh Personally with him into Heaven which hee left Sacramentally heere on Earth you deny notwithstanding that Elias by leaving his Mantle left not himselfe because his Mantle was not a Sacrament of himselfe âšœ As for the next Testimonie it is no more than which every Christian must confesse namely that it is the same whole and undivided Christ which is spiritually received of all Christians wheresoever and whensoever throughout the world the same wee say Objectively although not Subjectively as the Sixt Booke Chap. 6. and Sect. 3. will demonstrate âšœ And furthermore understand that the Fathers speaking of the Eucharist and calling it The Body of Christ and of the Fragments Bitts and Pieces thereof yet in your owne construction do meane Sacramentally that is Figuratively Your Iesuite 19 Mâ— Fisher Ies â— his Answer to K Iames in huâ— tract of Transubstant §. 4. in â—ish Whites Reply Greg. Nyster Orat. de Paschate Sicut Divinitas replet mundum tamen una estatà mâ—umerabilibus locis of fertur et tamen unum corpus est And the same is objected by Mr. Brerely Tract of the Masse 1. §. 4. Subd 1. pag 149. Master Fisher would thinke it a sleighting of him if his Testimony might not be heard What marvaile saith hee that Imagination fayle us to apprehend the multiplied presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament which is Spirituall Angelicall Supernaturall comparable with the Divine whereof Gregory Nyssen sticketh not to say As Deity filleth the World and yet is One so the Body of Christ is but One and is offered in all places So hee Our Answer in briefe is that Master Fisher sticketh not to abuse both the Credulity of his Reader to make him believe that which is not and his owne Conscience to seeme to believe that which hee believeth not namely that there is an Omnipresencie of Christ's Body as also his Adversaries patience to occasion him to seeke that which is not to be found in the place alleged or yet in any of the Orations of Gregory Nyssene de Paschate If any such Sentence had beene extant in any Booke of Gregory Nyssene or else of any Primitive Father ô how every one of your Romish Disputers would have embraced it and still harped upon it especially it making so evidently for that which your Iesuite urgeth The multiplyed Presence of Christ's Body But it is no newes with us to be dealt with deceiptfully and unconscionably by your Romish Dispuputers âšœ That your most plausible Objection taken out of Augustine concerning Christ his Carrying himselfe in his owne hands is but Sophisticall SECT VII AVgustine in expounding the 33. Psalme and falling upon a Translation where the words 1. Sam 21. are these by interpretation Hee carryed himselfe in his owne hands a Aug. Tom. 8. in Psal 33. Conc. 1. Esserebatur in manibus ejus Hoc quomodò possit fieri in homine quis intelligat manibus alienis portatur quis suis autem nemo portatur Quomodò intelligatur de Davide secundùm literam non invenimus in Christo autem invenimus quando commendans ipsum corpus suum ait Hoc est corpus meum ferebat enim corpus in manibus suis c. saith that these words could not be understood of David or yet of any other man literally for Quomodo fieri potest saith hee How could that be c. And therefore expoundeth them as meant of Christ at what time hee said of the Eucharist This is my Body This is the Testimonie which not onely your b Obijcit Bellar. Vox Quodammodo Signi non propriâ spetie sed alienâ nec modo usitato sed extraordinariè satis est quod non figuratè significatur Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. Cardinall but all other your Disputers upon this subject do so ostentatively embrace and as it were hugge in their Armes as a witnesse which may alone stop the mouth of any Protestant which therefore above all other they dictate to their Novices and furnish them therewith as with Armour of proofe against all Opposites especially seeing the same testimony seemeth to be grounded upon Scripture Contrarily wee complaine of the Romish Disputers against this their fastidious and perverse importunitie in urging a testimony which they themselves could as easily have answered as objected
includi in paâ—vâ pixide cadere in terram coÌ„mburi rodi à bestâ—a Annon credunt Christum parvulum inclusum in angustissimo utero eundem potuisse in via caâ— ere humi jacuisse remoto miraculo à bestia morderi combuâ—i potuisse si ita pati potuit in propria specie cur miâ—um videtur si illa sine laesione in specie aliena eidem accidere posse dicamus Bellar. l. 3 de Euc. cap. 10. §. Deniquè Many saith your Cardinall can scarce endure to heare that Christ is included in a Boxe fallen to the earth burnt or eaten of Beasts as though wee doe not read that Christ was included in the Wombe of the Virgin lay upon the Earth and might without any Miracle have beene eaten of Beasts why may not such things now happen unto him but sine laesione without any hurt at all So hee Joyne with this the Determination of your o Aquinas Etiamsi caâ—is hostiam consecratam manducet substantia corporis Christi non definit esse sub speciebus part 3. quaest 80. art 3. Schoole That the Substance of Christ his Body remaineth still although the Hoast be eaten with Dogs But Master Brerely more cunningly that hee might not only disguise your opinions but also make Protestants odious if it might be for their exceptions against them doth readily tell us that Pagans Iewes and Heretikes conceived Indignities against some mysteries of Christian Religion as against Christ his Incarnation and his Crucifying So he Both which Answers are but meere tergiversations by confounding the two most different conditions of Christ That then in the state of his humiliation with This which is Now in the highest exaltation of Glory Wee therefore rejoyne as followeth Your Disputers have so answered as if Christ his Incarnation in the Wombe of a Virgin his Conversation upon earth and his Passion upon the Crosse were not objects of Indignity notwithstanding the Spirit of God hath blazed them to the world to have beene the Indignities of all Indignities Thus * Philip. 2. 6. Who being in the forme of God and thinking it no robbery to be equall wiâ—h God yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made himselfe of no reputation but tooke upon him the forme of a servant such was his Incarnation and became obedient to death even spoken for aggravating the Indignity thereof The shamefull death of the Crosse Than which never any thing could make more either for the magnifying of Gods grace and mercy or for the dignifying of Christ his merit for man as it is written * Ioh. 3. 16. God so loved the World that he sent his Sonne namely to suffer that whosoever should believe in him should not perish but have life everlasting How could your Aâ—swerers but know that it was not the observation of the Indignities which Christ suffered that wrought to the condemnation of Pagans Iewes and Heretikes but their faithlessenesse in taking such scandall thereat as to deprive themselves by their Infidelity of all hope of life by Christ crucified Hearken furthermore That the state of Christ his Humanity cannot be now obnoxious to bodily Indignities and that the Comparing both the Estates in your answering is unworthy the learning of very Catechumenists and Petties in Christian Religion SECT V. THis Disproportion betweene Christ his estate in the dayes of his flesh in this World and his now present Condition at the right hand of God is as extreamely disproportionable as is * 1. Cor. 15. Mortality and Immortality Shame and Glory Misery and Blessednesse Earth and Heaven that being his state of Humaliation and this Contrariwise of his Exaltation as all Christians know and professe And although the Body of Christ now in eternall Majesty be not obnoxious to Corporall injuries yet may Morall and Spirituall abasements be offered unto Christ as well in the Opinion as in the Practise of men Of the Opinion we have an Example in the Capernaites concerning Christ whensoever hee should give his Flesh to be eaten carnally for the Practice you may 〈◊〉 before you the Corinthians who abusing the Sacrament of the Lord did thereby contemne him and were made guilty of high Prophanation against the glorious Body of Christ And what else soundeth that Relative injury against Christ by murthering his Saints on earth complained off by his voice from Heaven * Act. 9. 4. Saul Saul why persecutest thou mee Your Cardinall in answer to the Objection of Indignity offered to Christ by putting him in a Boxe and of being Eaten with Wormes and the like opposed as you have heard saying Why may not such things now happen unto him but sine laesione that is without any hurt Wee answer that if he should suffer nothing in his humanity passively to the Laesio corporis that is hurt of the Body yet should there be thereby in the opinion of men Laesio dignitatis that is a lessening and obscuring of that his Dignity which is set forth in Scripture and which our Article of faith concerning his Bodily sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven teacheth us to be in all Celestiall glory and Majesty This your Aquinas well saw when in regard of Indignity hee judged it a Nesas nunc esset Christum in propriâ specie in pixiâ—le includi putare A. quin. part 3. quaest 76. art 8. An hainous wickednes for any to thinke Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another forme more than when that one and the same Person is knowne to be imprisoned whether open-faced or covered whether in the day or in the night it mattereth not much for still the same person is shut up in prison Againe if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity why do your Jesuites in a point of Opinion deny that Christs Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant because of the * See hereafter Booke 5. Chap. 7. §. â— Indignity against his Majesty Come wee to the point of Practice Let this be our Lesson when there is Reverence in the use of a thing then there may be Irreverence and Indignity in the abuse thereof But your Church hath provided that the Priests Beards be shaven and that the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence The first lest some part of the Hoast which you beleeve to be the Body of Christ should hang on the Priest's Beard the second lest any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be spilt But how much more Indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice Wormes and sometimes as your owne * See above in this Book C. 2. Sect. 2. stories have related kept close in a Dunghill One word more If these seeme not sufficiently indigne because there is not Laesio corporis Hurt to the Body this being your onely Evasion what will you say of
names of the Things signifyed thereby whereof you have heard a Memorable example out of * See above Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Homer where even as Christ sayd of Consecrated Bread This is my Body So those Heathen in Sacrifising of Lambes for Ratification of their Oaths and Covenants called those Sacrifices their Oaths And that nothing was more familiar among the Heathen you may know by that Proverbiall speech Sine Cerere Libero friget Venus without Ceres and Bacchus Lust doth languish where they give to Bread the name of the Goddesse Ceres and the name of God Bacchus to Wine Secondly and more especially may this appeare out of Iustine immediatly after the place now objected thus 15 Iustin Loco supracitat Hoc est sanguis meus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ saith Iustine receiving Bread saith This is my Body and taking the Cup sayd This is my Blood and delivered them onely in those words the which also even the wicked Devils by Imitation have taught to be done in the Mysteries of their Mithra namely for that Bread and a Pot of Water is put in the Sacrifices of him that is initiated unto their Communion in the Sacrifices by Addition of certaine words as you either know or might have knowne So Iustine To the Heathen Emperour Do you not see how the Devils in their Sacrifices and Mysteries as 16 Tertul. de Corâ—na 〈…〉 Agnoseamus ingenia 〈◊〉 ideuco quaedam de divims assectantis ut nos de suoruâ— fide confundat et â—udâ—cet Idem de Praesâ—ription Ipsus res Sacramentorum devinorum in Idol â—rum mysterâ—â—s aemulatur Tiâ—git ipse quosdam celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem Resurrectionis inducit Tertullian witnesseth affect Divine Rites And by Imitation play Christs Apes as other Fathers use to speake And that not onely in their Materiall Ceremonies such as are Bread and Cup but also in their Verball by Addition of words as Iustine sheweth Where you may perceive how Iustine argued with those Heathen out of their owne Mysteries and that wee may so call them Sacraments even as Saint Paul did with the Athenians out of the Inscription of their owne Altar It happened not above a quarter of a yeare after that had set downe this Observation that in reading a Booke of that never too worthily Commended Mirrour of Learning Master Isaac Casaubone I found this my Opinion fortifyed and as it were animated with his most acurate Judgement shewing out of his most exquisite Reading that 17 Isaac Casaub in 〈◊〉 exercitat 16. Iustinus in Apologia altera narrat malos Daemonas in Mithâ—ae mysterijs S. Eacharâ—â—liae aemulationem quandam tradidisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecce panem et poculum sed aquae ut dixi non vin◠〈◊〉 verba solemnia super Symbolis proferri solita id enim significat isto in loco vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qâ—d super dicta qua voce utuntur Iuris consulti Etiam Arrianus loco paulo ante indicato sacras mysteriorum voces commemorat quas magnà cum reverentiâ excipi solitas ostendit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum Eucharistia et sit et dâ—catur Communio sicut ante est expositum inâ—â—dem Mithrâ—â— mysterijs Communio quae est omnibus animantibus inter se miro Symbolorum genere expriâ—â—baâ—ur The Devils did in aemulation of Christians use in their Mysteries of Mythra Symbols of Bread and Cup adding solemne Mysticall words Hee furthermore sheweth out of Porphyrie that in their Religious Communion they had certaine Aenigmaticall expressions Calling their Communicants if Men Lions if Women Hyenas and if Ministers Crowes Still as you see using Mysticall and Figurative Appellations in their Ceremoniall Rites Vpon which evidence wee may easily encounter your Cardinalls Dilemma with this that followeth Either the Emperour and the Heathen people did perceive that the words of Christ now published by Iustine were spoken Figuratively signifying the Outward Eating of his Body Bodily in a Signe onely or they did not If they did know so much then could they not be offended with Orthodoxe Christians or Scandalized thereby And if they did not know that they were Figuratively and Mystically to be understood then would not those Emperours have absolved Christians from all blame as you see they did but punished them for Sacrificing of Infants which Act among these Heathen was held to be Criminall and Capitall And that Iustine did not Praevaricate by concealing his Figurative sense of Christs words it is as manifest by that he Instructed them therein out of their own Phrases used in their Ceremonies of their God Mithra The Impossibility that any Heathen could be offended at the former words of Justine SECT VI. NO Heathen that heard of the Catholike Faith of Christians concerning the Body of Christ in those Primitive times published by Ancient Fathers and by Iustine himselfe could except it were against their Consciences impute unto Christians a Corporall Eating of the Body of Christ For first the Articles of Christian Faith for which so many Armies of Martyrs conquered the Infidelity of the world by Martyrdome being this that Christ the Saviour of the world God and Man ascended into Heaven and there now reigneth in the Kingdome of everlasting Blessednesse adored of all Christians with Divine worship Another Article Vniversally held of those Catholike Fathers as hath been * See Book 4. c. 5. §. 5. proved that the Body of Christ was ever notwithstanding his Resurrection and Ascension Circumscribed in one place And thirdly All knowing that this Principle was universally and infallibly believed of all the Heathen namely To thinke it Impossible for one Body to be in many places at once Therefore was it Impossible for the Heathen to conceive that the Christians taught a Corporall Eating of that Body on Earth which they believed was Circumscribed and conteined in Heaven Fourthly That this was the Faith which the same Ancient Father Iustine did professe and publish at that time is now to be tryed out of the Bookes of Iustine himselfe That Iustine himselfe did accordingly argue against the Possibility of Christs Bodily Presence on Earth And that Attalas objected condemneth the Romish Capernaiticall Swallowing of Christs Body SECT VII IVstine in the same Apologie now objected and by him directed unto the Heathen Emperor Antoninus sirnamed the Godly before his words of Eating Christs flesh setteth down the Christian Article of his Ascension into Heaven saying 18 Iustin in Apologia secund pag. 64. Deus Christum post Resurrectionem illaturus coelo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. adversantes Daemones percutiat et bonorum numerum expleatur propter quos nondum extremum Decretum et consummationem fecit that God the Father assumed Christ after his death into Heaven there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is To detaine him untill hee vanquished the Devils and filled up the number of the Godly An
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
yea and in Millions of distant Altars at the same time and consequently in all places whatsoever Now whether this Doctrine of Christ's Bodily Presence in many places at once was held of the Catholike Fathers for Hereticall it may best be seene by their Doctrine of the Existence of Christ's Body in one onely place not onely Definitively but also Circumscriptively both which do teach an absolute Impossibility of the Existence of the same in divers places at once And they were as zealous in professing the Article of the maner of Christs Bodily Being in place as they are in instructing men of the Article of Christ's Bodily Being lest that the deniall of its Bodily maner of being might destroy the nature of his Body âšœ So farre that the Ancient Father Vigilius * Vigilius B. 4. C. 5. §. 5. testifieth that to believe The Body of Christ wheresoever it was to be Circumscribed in one place was the Ancient Catholike Doctrine of those Ages âšœ To which end they have concluded it to be absolutely but in one place sometime in a x Chap. 4 thorowout Circumscriptive Finitenesse thereby distinguishing them from all created Spirits and sometime by a Definitive Termination which they set downe first by Exemplications thus y Ibid. Sect. â— If Christ his Body be on Earth then it is absent from Heaven and thus Being in the Sunne it could not be in the Moone Secondly by divers Comparisons for comparing the Creature with the Creator God they a Ibid. conclude that The Creature is not God because it is determinated in one place and comparing the humane and divine Nature of Christ together they b Cha. 4. Sect. â— conclude that they are herein different because the humane and Bodily Nature of Christ is necessarily included in one place and lastly comparing Creatures with the Holy Ghost they c Cha. â— Sect â— conclude a difference by the same Argument because the Holy Ghost is in many places at once and all these in confutation of divers Heretikes A thing so well knowne to your elder Romish Schoole that it confessed the Doctrine of Existence of a Body in divers places at once in the judgement of Antiquity to be d Ibid. Hereticall âšœ Yea and so Hereticall that it openeth a Sluce for the old raucid Heresie of the Ariomanitae by interpretation Maddish-Arians to â—low in upon us who denied the Holy Ghost to be God as not being every where whom the Primitive Fathers did Confute * See B. 4. C. 7. §. 2. Seven in number by proving the Holy Ghost to be every where and therefore God because Hee is in divers places at once Which was likewise * B. 4. â— 6. §. 3. Tertullians Argument to prove the Godhead of Christ II. The property of a Solidity likewise was patronized by Ancient Fathers in confutation of Heretikes by teaching e Chap. 7. Sect. 6. Christs Body to be necessarily Palpable against their Impalpabilitie and to have a Thicknesse against their feigned subtile Body as the Aire âšœ A whole * Booke 4. c. 8. §. â— Generall Councel of Ephesus determining that The Body of Christ is palpable wheresoever it is âšœ and furthermore controlling these opinions following which are also your Crotchets of a Bodies f Cha. 7. Sect. 6. Being whole in the whole space and in every part thereof and of Christ's Body g Cha. 4 Sect. 9 taking the Right hand or left of it selfe III The property of Perfection of the Body of Christ wheresoever in the highest Degree of Absolutenesse This one would thinke every Christian heart should assent unto at the first hearing wherefore if that they were judged Heretickes by Ancient Fathers who h Prateol Elench haeres Tit. Philoponus Alexandrinus Statuit mortuorum resurrectionem esse viz. rationalium animarum cum corruptibili corpore indissolubilem unionem taught an Indivisible Vnion of mens soules with their Bodies naturally still subject to corruption after the resurrection who can imagine that the holy Catholicke Fathers would otherwise have judged of this your generall Tenet viz. to beleeve a Body of Christ now since his Glorification which is destitute of all power of naturall motion sense appetite or understanding otherwise than of a senselesse and Antichristian Deliration and Delusion âšœ Fie no! for they believed no Body of Christ after his Resurrection but such as is * Booke 4. Cha. 9. §. 3. void of all infirmity and in all integrity most perfect âšœ Yea and that which is your onely Reason you allege to avoid our Objection of Impossibilities in such cases to wit i Booke 4. Ch. 5. Sect. â— The Omnipotencie of God the same was the Pretence of Heretikes of old in the like Assertions which occasioned the Ancient Fathers to terme the Pretence of Omnipotencie k Ibid. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. The Sanctuary of Heretikes albeit the same Heretikes as well as you intended as a Father speaketh to magnifie God thereby namely inbeleeving the Body of Christ after his Ascension to be wholly Spirituall To which Heretikes the same Father readily answered as wee may to you saying l Chap. 4. Sect. â— at b c. When you will so magnifie Christ you do but accuse him of falshood not that wee do any whit detract from the Omnipotencie of Christ farre be this Spirit of Blasphemy from us but that as you have beene instructed by Ancient Fathers the attributing an Impossibility to God in such Cases of Contradiction is not a diminishing but an ample advancing of the m Ibid. Omnipotencie of God BOOKE V. Your Orall Eating Gutturall Swallowing and Inward Digestion as you have n Booke â— thorowout taught of the Body of Christ into your Entrails and from thence into the Draught hath beene proved out of the Fathers to be in each respect sufficiently Capernaiticall and termed by them a Sense both o Booke 5. Cha. 6. Sect. 4 Pernicious and Flagitious Besides you have a Confutation of the Hereticall Manichees for their p Booke 5. Ch. 6. Sect. 3. Opinion of Fastning Christ to mens guts and loosing him againe by their belchings Consonant to your Romish Profession both of Christ's q Booke 5. Ch. 6. Sect. 1. Cleaving to the guts of your Communicants and r Booke 5. Cha. 6. Sect. 2. Vomiting it up againe when you have done âšœ Besides the same Fathers condemned the Heresie of the same Capernaites * See Booke 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 5. Chap. 3. â— 2. Ch 8. §. 2. for not discerning Christs words after his speaking of Eating his flesh Hee made mention of his Ascension into Heaven saying When you shall see the Sonne of man ascending where hee first was they did not understand that they therefore could not Eate him on Earth as they imagined because hee should ascend to Heaven âšœ BOOKE VI. This is spent wholly in examining the Romish Doctrine of Masse-Sacrifice and in proving it to be
Sacrilegiousnesse it selfe as you have seene in a former ſ See above in this Booke Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Synopsis BOOKE VII This containeth a Discoverie of your Masse-Idolatry not onely as being equall with the Doctrine of some Heretikes but in one respect exceeding the infatuation of the very t Booke 7. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. Pagans besides the Generall Doctrine of the power of your Priests u Cha. 5. Sect. 3. Intention in consecrating hath beene yoaked by your owne Jesuite with the Heresies of the * Cha. 9. Sect. 5. Donatists When you have beheld your owne faces in these divers Synopses as it were in so many glasses wee pray to God that the sight of so many and so prodigious Abominations in your Romish Masse may draw you to a just Detestation of it and bring you to that true worship of God which is to be performed in Spirit and in Truth and to the saving of every one of your soules through his Grace in Christ Iesus AMEN * ⎠* ALL GLORY BE ONELY TO GOD. AN INDEX Of the Matters contained in the Eight precedent Bookes against the ROMISH MASSE A ABSTEMIOVSNES No sufficient reason for Altering Christs Ordinance in the use of the Cup. pag. 79. ABSVRD to hold with many Romish Doctors Production to be the means of Transubstantiation p. 153. Absurdities expostulated by Master Brerely p. 286. Absurdities of the Romish Doctrine concerning Transubstantiation and the Bodily Being of Christ in the Eucharist with the palpable Absurdities of the Iesuites defence thereof p. 291. unto p. 301. ACCIDENTS No Substance ingendred out of meere Accidents Confessed p. 174. Not Accidents but Aire maketh drunke pag. 175. Accidents newly happening to the Sacrament cannot be without their Subjects p. 178. 179. This Figment never dreamed off by Ancient Fathers Book 3. chap. 3. throughout Accidents nourishing Substance absurdly confirmed by the Iesuite Fisher from Substances nourishing Substances p. 296. num 6. ADDVCTION pretended to be the sole maner of Transubstantiation by some Iesuites and confuted as false by others pag. 153. unto p. 156. ADORATION Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is the Romish Profession pag. 504. Not proved by Christs Institution p. 505. Nor by Antiquity either in their objected Verball speeches p. 506. unto p. 511 Nor in their Reall Objected Practices Ibid. c 3. throughout p. 511. unto pag. 524. Nay it is repugnant to Antiquity pag 524. unto pag. 528. Proved by their owne Principles to be Materially Idolatrous pag. 528. unto p. 533. Because of the many hundred defects in their Consecration in sixe Sections that it is Formally Idolatrous pag. 533. 534. Notwithstanding their Three Pretences p. 534. unto 539. The Impious Iesuiticall Evasion and Delusion to make the Romish worship seeme tollerable p. 539. Which is as ill as any Heathen p. 540. In one respect worse p. 541. Divine Adoration ought toprocede from an Infallible Faith in the God-head of him whom wee Invocate contrary to the Romish Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist Ibid. AELFRICK King his Faith objected for Transubstantiation untruly pag. 160. AETERNITIE What it is p. 263. ALTAR called Table by the Councell of Nice p. 303. Altar Priest Sacrifice and Temple properly so called on Earth all dissolved by Ancient Fathers pag. 415. unto pag. 418. Our Altar in Heaven pag. 418. The word Altar in the Masse not used with the Apostles p 461. 462. confessed Ibid. Allusions of Fathers in their termes Pascha c. Ibid. It is properly a Table Ibid. throughout the Sections AMBROSE Against Prayer in an unknowne Tongue p. 35. He teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech demonstrateth Bread p. 103. and a Figurative sense therein 125. Corruptly objected by Bellarmine for proofe of a proper sense therein Ibid. His sayings Ob. Of Bread is made Christs Body p. 202. Item They are the same that they were p. 178. Ob. Worke of Omnipotencie pag. 188. Ob. Nature is Changed pag. 190. Ambrose corrupted in some Romish Editions Ibid. Hee granteth something to bee Impossible to God even to the advancement of Gods Omnipotencie pag. 229. Proveth the Holy Ghost to be God by its being in divers places at once 239. 262 Holds that Christ at his Birth opened the Coll of the Blessed Virgin p. 278. And that Angels have their definite place and space 262. Hee is objected for penetration of the doores by Christs Body 275. Apparitions of some in two places at once Objected and Answered p. 262. Of Christs Bodily Presence onely in Heaven p. 306. That the Eucharist is nourishment for the soule 310. 385. Holdeth that the Godly onely are Partakers of Christs Body p. 321. See Guilty Hee is wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse pag. 404. He granteth Christs exercising of his Priesthood now in heaven 415. He disclaimeth all properly called Altars Priesthood and Sacrifice here on earth p. 417. The Sacrifice on the Crosse our Iuge Sacrificium pag. 419. That Christ is only offered in an Image here but in Heaven in Truth p 441. Hee nameth the Eucharist a Sacrifice of Christ or rather a Remembrance thereof p. 443. Hee called the Bread before Consecration an Vnbloody Sacrifice 453. and calleth Baptisme a Sacrifice p. 457. His words Here Christ offereth himself Objected 479. And Wee adore in these mysteries the flesh of Christ as the footstoole of his Deity p. 508. To reverence him whose Body wee come to eate Objected Ibid. His Liturgie for praying God propitiously to receive the Gift 563. Calumniously objected 494. See Guilty ANGELS cannot possibly be in divers places at once by the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 261. 262. Their objected Association at the receiving the Eucharist is no Argument of Divine Adoration thereof 506. 507. Angels present also at Baptisme Nazian Ibid. p. 507. ANNIHILATION of Bread is a necessary Consequence of the Romish manner of Transubstantiation pag. 156. ANSELME his saying Iewes ate the same spirituall meate with Christians p. 314. ANCIENT Fathers their wisedome contemned professedly by Romish Disputers in respect of their owne pag. 85. 86. ANTITYPE used of the Greeke Fathers concerning the Eucharist proveth Christs speech to be Figurative pag. 115 The use of this word Antitype pag 454. 455 APOSTLES not made Priests by those words of Christ Hoc Facite p. 57 Apostolicall authority contemned in respect of the now Papall by Romish Doctors pag 86 87 They are rudely called Rude pag. 135. APPARITIONS of Christ unto Peter out of Egesippus and other Fathers Objected and Answered by your Iesuite Vasquez p 240 241. Apparitions of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist manifoldly objected by the Romish Disputers for proofe of a Corporal Presence therein p. 218 219 220. Acknowledged by their owne Schoole-men to be no True flesh or Blood but feigned p. 221. 222. The Suggesters thereof of what disposition they were p. 223 224. APPLICATION of the Sacrifice of Christ in the Romish Partiall p. 483.
The Fathers Doctrine herein Ibid. Repugnant to the Romish p. 484 485. And that this is for false Gaine p. 486. AQVARII Heretikes what they were p. 62. 81. ARMY Consisting of one man pag. 268. ARNOBIVS That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine pag. 406. ATHANASIVS against the Hereticall Manichees for the Certitude of the Sense of Touching p. 170. That Angels are but in one place p. 262. So the Holy Ghost is in all places Ibid. He is against the Apparitions of souls departed in diverse places at once because that this is proper to God Ibid. The Body of Christ is to rise in all Perfection pag. 283. Apparitions of some in two places at once objected out of Athanasius and Answered pag. 261 262 c. His Saying that Christ mentioned his Ascension to prevent the Capernaiticall sense of Eating his flesh pag. 340. And Wee by the Incarnation of Christ are Deifyed p. 361. And By Baptisme are made alive with Christ and our flesh no more Earthly but made the same word which was made flesh Ibid. His Saying That Christ transmitteth not his Priesthood to any Successor p. 411. And that Bread and Wine of Melchisedech were a signe of an unbloody Sacrifice p. 453. â—ine And that Wee adore the Trinity before we be baptized in their names p. 509 ATTALAS the Martyr denyeth the Devouring of Christ p. 375 382. AVERROES his Imputing unto Christians the Devouring of their God because of the Romish false Profession p. 381. AVGVSTINE against Prayer in a Language Vnknowne p. 29. Vnconscionably objected to the Contrary p. 34. Hee is for Consecration by Prayer p. 11. And is against the Communion but in one kinde p. 77. He teacheth Hoc in Christs words to demonstrate Bread p. 103. Corruptly and Vnconscionably alleged by many Romanists for making Christ in the Eucharist a Figure of himselfe as he was on the Crosse p. 118 119. He dignifyeth the Bread as it is Sacramentall with the arme of Heavenly Bread p. 127. And teacheth a Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body Eat my flesh p. 127. 136. His Saying That which you see is Bread pag. 169. That on the Altar not borne of the Virgin Mary p. 158 233. Hee expoundeth the Fruite of the Vine Math. 26 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 164. His Saying Of the Sacramentall part one consisteth of many Graines p. 170. His Saying That which is distributed on the Lords Table is to be diminished p. 179. I. He is against the Being of a Body in two places at once p. 245. II That Christs Body removing cannot be in the place from whence it is removed Ibid. III. He is not alwayes with men here on earth because ascended Ibid. IV. Christs Body cannot be both in Sun and Moone p. 246. V. The Divine abideth still on Earth the Humane is in one place in Heaven Ibid. He is objected for Christs carrying himselfe in his owne hands p 249 His Saying that The Soule of Christ could not be in Heaven and Hell both at once p. 262 Ob. For Penetration of the Doores by Christs Body Answered p. 275. He is against the Romish Article of any Bodies Being in every part of the space of its Existence pag. 274. Hee saith that Christâ—s Bodily Presence is to be sought after onely in Heaven pag. 306. That Iewes ate the same Spirituall meate with Christians 314. That only the Godly participate of Christs Body p. 315. The wicked saith hee receive the Sacrament but not the virtue thereof by Virtue signifying The Body of Christ 324 325 326. He saith that The â—apernaits understood not Christs meaning p. 330. And that Christ confuted them by mentioning his Ascension Ibid. He is against the Manichees their belching Christ out p. 351. And against them that impâ—ted to Christians a worship of Ceres and Bacchus Ibid. His Testimony Fit Panis mysticus Corrupted by adding Corpus Christi p. 352. His Saying You eat not the Body which you see 340. Wee receive with mouth and heart fondly Objected p. 343. And Christs Blood is powred out into our mouths Ibid. His Saying By Baptisme wee are incorporated into Christ pag. 357. Hee is for onely the Soule-eating of Christs Body p. 385. Hee is wrongfully urged for a Proper Sacrifice from the Act of Melchisedech pag. 404. Hee is for Christs exercising his Priesthood now in Heaven pag. 415. How Presbyteri are Priests Ibid. Sacrifice is called as Easter day is called Christs Passion p. 442. The Death of Christ the onely True Sacrifice Ibid. Hee and other Doctors before him held Baptisme to be a Sacrifice of Christs Passion p. 459. But Metaphorically Ibid. Every Good worke is a True Sacrifice p. 471. The Blood of Christ reveiled herein that is Objectively pag. 478. Baptized are brought thither by feare p. 507. To reverence Baptisme wheresoever it is pag. 508. None Eateth Christs â—â—esh before hee adore it Ibid. Wee are to Reverence the Sacrament of Baptisme and Celebration of the Eucharist without carnall sense p. 509. He is for Prostrating of the Body lifting up of the mind to Heaven p. 526 AVGVSTANA CONFESSIO or the Confession of Auspurge consented unto by all Protestants p. 310. See LVTHERANS B BAPTISME is called a Buriall as Bread is called Christs Body p. 125 As Baptisme the Sacrament of Adoption is called Adoption so Bread is Christs Body p. 128. Euphramius his comparison of Water of Baptisme with Bread in the Eucharist p. 129 It is paralleld with the Eucharist almost in all the Sayings of the Ancient Fathers which the Romish Disputers allege for proof of either a Literall Exposition of Christs words This is my Body or for Transubstantiation or Corporall Presence or Bodily Vnion or Proper Sacrifice or Divine Adoration to the Confutation of the Objectors in each one p. 568 569 570 571 572 573. in a Generall Synopsis BASIL against Prayer in an Vnknowne Tongue p. 36. He is for Consecration by Prayer p. 10. Hee is for an Audible voice in the Priest p. 23. Hee calls the Eucharist a Viand p. 366. and Baptisme the Pledge and earnest of Blessing to come p. 367. Hee calleth the Eucharist an Vnbloody Sacrifice p. 451. His Liturgie for offering a Reasonable Service Objected and Answered Ibid. pag. 452 c. Hee saith that the Mysteries of Baptisme were kept secret p. 512. His saying that No Father left in writing the words of Invocation 519. Bellarmine absurdly mistaken in the word Invocation 518. proved 520. Basil's Liturgie in praying to God propitiously to receive the Gift doth confute the Romish Doctrine of a Corporall Presence and Sacrificatory Presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 562. BEASTS to Eat and Swallow the Body of Christ is the Beastly and Capernaiticall Romish Doctrine p 348. A Beast adoring the Host absurdly objected by Bellarmine p. 516. BEDA expoundeth the Fruite of the Vine to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 163. BERENGARIVS his forme of
qui se castâ—am concepâ—scentiam obscâ—deâ—â—do â—ut Châ—yl Non membroâ—â—â— abscisione sed ma larum cogitationum incâ—epatione male dictioni nempe olnoxius qui mâ—m brum sibi â—bscondâ— Idem habet Hieron Addit Chrysost super Matth. Abscissis verilibus non tollitur concupiscentia Concupiscentia inde sit molestior Doctrinall and teacheth Mortification and yet is not literally to bee understood as you all know by the literall errour of h Idem Origenes scripsum castravit ut poslet liberius praedicâ—re tempore Persecutionâ—s securrus este unter foeminas Abul uper Matth. 5. qu 250. pag. 316. Origen who did really Castrate himselfe And the same Origen who thus wounded himselfe by that literall Exposition in his youth Hee in his Age expounding the words of Christ concerning the Eating of his flesh sayd of the literall sense thereof that i Origen Litera haec occidit in Levit. Hem 7. It killeth Secondly these words This is the New Testament in my Bood they are words as Doctrinall as the other This is my Body and yet figurative by your owne k See above cap. 2. §. 4. Confession Thirdly the words of Christ Iohn 6. of Eating his flesh are Doctrinall and yet by your owne l Verus hee ralâ—s Sensus horum verborum non est quòd caro Christi nihil prodest sed quod carnalis intelligentia nihil prodest ut exponunt-Chrys Theophyl Euthem Origen Cyprian alij vocatur enim eo in loc nomine carnis humana carnalis cogitatio ut distinguitur à spirituali cogitatione Bellaâ— lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Sed praeter Construction are not to bee properly understood but as Christ afterwards expounds himselfe Spiritually Fourthly where Christ thus sayd The Bread which I shall give is my stesh Ioh. 6. 51. he saith also of his Body that it is True Bread Ver. 32. and Bread of life Verse 48. and living Bread whereof whosoever eateth liveth eternally Verse 5â— All Divine and Doctrinall Assertions yet was his Body figuratively called Bread Fiftly that in those words of Christ to Peter Matth. â—6 Vpon this Rocke will I build my Church And To thee will I give the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven And Ioh. 21. Fede my sheepe In which texts of Scripture you place although most falsly your Doctrinall foundation of Popedome it selfe yet know you all these to be Tropicall Speeches Yea and what say you to the first Doctrinall Article and foundation of Christian Doctrine delivered by God unto man in the beginning * Gen. 3. 15. The seed of the woman shall breake the Serpents head Is not the later part of the Article altogether Figurative yet signifying this Doctrinall point even the vanquishing of the power of Satan who hath neither head nor tayle but is Metaphorically called a Serpent Your fourth Romish Objection SECT IV. T He Apostles saith your m Bell. Apostoli rudes simplices erant c. Lib. 1. de Euch. c. 9. §. Argumentum secundum Cardinall were rude and simple Therefore needed to be Instructed by Christ in plaine tearmes Without Figures So he CHALLENGE ANd yet Christ you know did often speake Figuratively unto them talking of Bread Leaven Seed c. And stiling them the Salt of the earth yea even in this Sacrament us hath beene confessed in the words Eate Shed Testament Another Iesuite witnesseth that n Apostoli à Christo edocti fuerunt illuminati ut cum summâ revereÌ„ Sacramentum hoc susciperent Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp 46 §. 3. The Apostles were illuminated and instructed by Christ that they might receive thus Sacrament with all Reverence So he âšœ And so also taught your Doctor Heskins before him 1 D. Heskins in his Parliament B. 3. pag. 53. Christ saith he instructed his Apostles in the Faith of the blessed Sacrament before he instituted it âšœ Therefore are they but rudely by you tearmed Rude and the rather because They who being commanded to prepare the Passeover perceived that by Passeover was figuratively understood the Paschall Lambe and thereupon prepared the Passeover according to the Lord's Command could not be ignorant that in this like Sacramentall speech This is my Bodie the Pronoune THIS did literally point out Bread and siguratively signifie Christ's Body Doubtlesse if the manner of Christ's speech in the Eucharist had not beene like the other in the Passeover they would have desired Christ to explaine his meaning as they did sollicitously in other doubts Their last Romish Objection SECT V. VVEe are never to let passe the Literall Sense saith your o Nunquà m dimittamus proprium verborum sensum nisi cogamur ab aliquâ aliâ Scriptura c. Bell. l. 1. de Euch. Cap. 9. §. Vltimo Cardinall except we be compelled thereunto by some Scripture or by some Article of Faith or by some common Interpretaion of the whole Church So he CHALLENGE SVrely nor wee without some one of these but that you may know the grounds of our perswasion to be more than one or yet all These And how bountifully wee shall deale with you wee shall shew in the Proposition following Ten Reasons for proofe of the Necessity of interpreting the words of Christ Figuratively SECT VI. FIrst Wee have beene compellable to allow a Figurative Sense by the confessed Analogie of Scripture in all such Sacramentall Speeches of both Testaments concerning Circumcision Rocke Baptisme as also that speech of Christ Ioh. 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man as you have * See above c. 2. §. 3. heard Secondly Wee are Challengable hereunto by our p See hereafter B. â— Chap. ◠§ 〈◊〉 Article of Faith which teacheth but one naturall Body of Christ and the same to Remaine now in Heaven Thirdly Wee are inforced for feare of such q See hereafter B. â— Chap. 4. Heresies as have followed in other Case upon the literall sense for it was not the Figurative but the literall and proper sense of being borne againe by Baptisme Ioh. 3. that begat the errour of Nicodemus and the like literall sense of God's Eyes Hands Feet c. brought forth the Anthropomorphites And so was it the literall sense of those words in the Canticles Tell mee where thou lyest at noone which deluded the Donatists and of Origen you have heard that hee by the literall sense of these wordes Some there be that castrate themselves c did fondly wrong himselfe Fourthly Wee are necessarily mooved to reject your literall sense by a confessed Impossibility taught by that Vniversall Maxime r See above Chap. 1. §. 4. Disparatum de disparato c. shewing that Bread being of a different nature from flesh can no more possibly be called the flesh or Body of Christ literally than Leade can be called Wood. Fiftly Wee are perswaded hereunto by the former alleaged Interpretation of the Ancient Fathers both of the Greeke and Latine Church calling the Sacrament a
used by that Father betweene The Flesh of Christ crucified and therfore Borne of the Virgin and the Sacrament of Christs Body whereof Christ sayd This is my Body CHAP. V. The second Romish Contradiction to the overthrowing of that which Christ called MY BODIE by making one Body of Christ not One but Many SECT I. YOur Profession standeth thus g Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. The Body of Christ albeit now in Heaven yet is say you substantially in many places here on earth even whersoever the Hoast is Consecrated So you Next your Master h Mr. Brerely in his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse pag. 150. Because Calvin Institut 4. cap. 17. §. 10. saith Etsi incredibile videtur ut in tanta locorum distantia penetrare ad nos possit Christi caro ut sit nobis in cibum c. Brerely laboureth earnestly to draw Calvin to professe a Possibility of Christ's Bodily Presence in divers places at once contrary to M. Calvins plaine and expresse profession in the same Chapter where he directly confuteth this Romish Doctrine of Madnesse saying thus i The same Calvin in the same Chap 17. §. 24. Cur inquiunt non faciat Deus ut caro eadem diversa loca occupet ut nullo loco contineatur ut modo specie careat Insane quid à Deo postulas ut carnem simul faciat esse non carnem perinde ac si instes ut lucem simul lucem faciat ac tenebras Ibid. §. 26. Corpus Christi ex quo resurrexit non Aristoteles sed Spiritus Sanctus finitum esse tradit coelo contineri usque ad ultimum diem Et. §. 30. Cujus ergô amentiae est coelum terrae potius miscere quà m non extrahere Christi corpus è coelesti Sanctuario To seeke that Christ his Body should be in many places at once is no lesse madnesse than to require that God should make his Body to be flesh and not to be flesh at one time whereas not Aristotle but the Spirit of God saith he hath taught us that this his Body is to bee contained in Heaven untill the last day Afterwards Calvin inveigheth against the folly of your Church which will not acknowledge any presence of Christ in this Sacrament except it bee locall on earth As if saith hee shee would pull Christ out of his Sanctuary of Heaven And at last after that he had said k As for the objected sentence he explicateth himself §. 32. Christus illis presens non est nisi ad nos descendat quâ—si verò si nos ad se evehat non aequè ejus potiamur praesentiâ E◠§. 36. Vt Christum illie ritè apprehendant piae animae in coelum erigantur necelle est As untruly also doth hee allege Bucer Beza and Farel pag. 237. who had the same sense with Carvin Mr. Foxe sayd that Christ if hee list might be on earth but he sayd not so of and in the same time Christ his Body is united to the Soule of the Communicant hee so explaineth himselfe that hee meant a spirituall Vnion so that it doth fully appeare that Master Brerely in this point as usually in many others allegeth Calvins testimony against Calvins sense and his owne conscience It is irkesome to see the fury wherewith your Disputers are carried against Protestants amongst whom wee see againe your Master l See in the former Allegâ—ition Brerely imposing upon Beza the same opinion of the Presence of Christ's Body in Heaven and on Earth at one time Although notwithstanding m Fiâ—ri posse ut Christi corpus possit esse in pluâ—ibus locis simul praetâ—r hunc Apostatum nemo inficiatus est quod cum credere nâ—luit tollit ab omnipotenti virtute Salmer Ies tom 9. tract 23. p. 173. your Iesuite Salmeron as bitterly taxeth Beza for contrarily holding it Impossible for one Body to be in two places at once whom therefore he calleth an Apostata and whom n Beza cum Adversarijs congressus ubi Calvini mysteria non posset defendere in eam prorupit Blasphemiam ut Deum neget omnipotentem disertè enim scribit Deum non posse officere ut Corpus aliquod manente substantiâ sit absque loco vel in pluribus locis simul Illud enim Angeli axioma apud Deum nihil est impossibile non sine exâ— pâ—ione accipiendum esse quod factum fieri nequit infectum O argutos Philosophos qui Dei Majestatem ad suas Physicas regulas non erubâ—scunt revocare Frateol Elench Haeres lib. 2. Tit. Bezanitae another termeth for the same cause Blasphemous as if this were indeed to deny the Omnipotencie of God Whereas according to our former Proposition it is rather to defend it because God is the God of Truth which is but one and truth is without that Contradiction which is necessarily implyed in your Doctrine of the Locall presence of any one Body in many places at once as in the next place is to be evinced That the same Second Romish Contradiction holding the Presence of one Body in many places at once is proved by the nature of Being in distinct places at one time to be a making One not One. SECT II. IN the first place hearken to your Aquinas the chiefest Doctor that ever possessed the Romish Schoole o Catholici isti cum Thoma in quartum distinct 14. art 2. hanc rationem cut non possit corpus Christi localiter esse c. Quod si verò non postic corpus Christi localiter esse in diversis locis quâ—à divideretur à seipso profectò nec possit Sacramentaliter esse eadem ratione qui licet dicat hoc non esse per loci occupationem tamen dicit per realem veram praesentiam in plariribus Hostijs sive Altaribus quae realis praesentia in tot Altaribus non locâ— intermedijs non minùs tollere videretur indivisionem rei Bel. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. pag. 491. Quidam Catholici atque in eis Sanctus Thomas existimant non posse unum corpus esse simul in diversis locis localiter quià â—mquiunt unum est illâ—d quod indivisum 〈◊〉 quocunque alio Bellar. quò suprà it is not possible by any Miracle that the Body of Christ be locally in many places at once because it includeth a Contradictio by making it not one for one is that which is not divided from it selfe So hee together with others whom you call Catholikes who conclude it Impossible for the Body of Christ to be locally in divers places at once âšœ Besides that his other Sentence wherein hee holdeth this 2 Aquin. in Supplem in 3. part qu. 83. Art 3. ad 4. Dicendum quod corpus Christi localiter in diversis locis non potest fieri der miraculum quia esse in pluribus locis simul repugnat individuo ratione ejus quod est Enâ— individuum in
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
thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 âšœ Bellarmine in great numbers among whom are Luther and Calvin with joynt consent approve of this Canon one of them Bucer by name subscribing unto it with his owne hand in these words So I thinke in the Lord and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall seat of God So they The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines âšœ Where any man may discerne an Allusion of the Fathers to the words of Saint Paul Colos 3. Seeke those things that are above and not on Earth and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referreth to things on Earth and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the things above in Heaven and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoke of the Table opposite to that Table whereof it was sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as much as There to Here. âšœ The state of the Difference concerning this Canon SECT III. THis as is propounded by your Cardinall standeth thus d Per Agnum omnes intelligunt Christum ut distinguitut contra symbo la Bellar. quo supra Illi Protestantes quasi admoneaÌ„t nè quaerendum Christum in Altarâ— lapideo Sed monte conscendamus ad coelum in coelo sisum Agnum At vult Concilium ut ad sacram ipsam mensam attendamus sed in ipsa non tam Symbola quà m quae sub illis latent consideremus Ibidem per totum All saith hee by the Lambe understand Christ as hee is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar Next But the Protestants thinke saith hee that the Councel admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith as sitting at the Right hand of God But wee all say saith hee that the Councel would have us to attend unto the holy Table meaning the Altar below yet so that wee see in it not so much the outward Symbols and Signes as that which lyeth hid under them viz. The Body and Blood of Christ So hee The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder that is between Heaven above and Earth below Let us set forward in our progresse but with easie and even paces to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes and rottennesse of your Objections That the Nicene Councell is marveilously prejudiciall to your Romish Defence proved by divers Observations Three heere SECT IV. FIve Points are chiefly observable in this Canon First is the nomination of Bread Secondly the mention of two Tables Thirdly the admonition to lift up our minds Fourthly the expression of the Reason thereof Fiftly the Confirmation of the same Reason First That which the Councel would that men be not too intent unto they call Bread after Consecration for the Errour which they would have avoyded was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament according to your Cardinals e Iubet Concilium ut non inhaereamus speciebus panis vini quasi ibi nihil sit nisi quod oculi renuntiant Bellarm quo supra Glosse and then was it after Consecration because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated w ch you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing or else the Errour must have been as indeed it was too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread which must needs be so because it was Consecrated and notwithstanding it being so Consecrated in the Canon it is called Bread Which your Fathers of the Councel of Trent would not have indured especially seeing that wee find that your f Nic. Cabasâ—las Latini dicunt eos qui panem vinum nominant tanquam nondum sanctificatis precantur sanctificationem post illa verba Hoc est Corpus meum rem supervacuam facere Expos Liturg. c. 29. Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words This is my Body by you called the words of Consecration Besides they so call them Bread and Wine as they name them Symbols and Signes which properly they could not be untill after Consecration Secondly the g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Nicen Canon expresly noteth and distinguisheth two Tables in respect of place the one as Here being as much as to say The Table and the other opposed hereunto is instiled That Table I say And now be it knowne that The Table here which is not to be represented by the Antithesis of But that Table must necessarily inferre two distinct Tables as Here and There doe prove two distinct Places except one can make congruitie of these words That Table Here. Which I note in Confutation of a vaine and crotchetive Objector And of this Table Here the Councel forbiddeth Christians to looke Too attentively to the thing set before us But contrarily concerning That other Table they command men to Lift up their minds aloft And not thus only but they also distinguish them in respect of their different Objects The Object of the First Table Here they name Bread and the Cup the Objects of Sense And the other Object opposed to this is that on the other Table expressed to be the Lambe God the Object of our mindes Thirdly the Admonition or Caution which the Councel giveth concerning the Bread is not to be too intent to it but touching the Lambe Christ they command us to lift up our mindes aloft for so the world h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie not to be used wee thinke for an inward looking into the sublimiy of the mystery of the matter before us as your Cardinall fancieth but for looking up aloft unto the Lambe of God in Heaven according to the Catholike Sense of those words * See hereafter Book 7. Chap. 4. §. 2. SVRSVM CGRDA The next two Proofes out of the same Canon of Nice to manifest our Protestant profession touching the Question in hand SECT V. OVr next two Proofes out of the Canon are these First is their Reason of the former Caution The Second the Confirmation of that Reason Both are expresly set downe in the Canon it selfe Why then did those holy Fathers admonish us not to be too intent to the Bread and Wine set before us It followeth Because they are not ordained to satisfie our Naturall man namely by a full Eating and Drinking but for a Sacramentall participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to the sanctifying of our Soules whereas your Church doth attribute to that which you eat in this Sacrament a power of sanctifying the Body by it's Bodily touch But much more will the next Proofe undermine your Defence To confirme their Reason why the Sacrament was not ordayned for the satisfying of the
Christ by Faith whereof first Saint Ambrose 1 Ambrosius in Luc. 24. Paulus docuit ubi te reperire possiâ—â—â— ubi ait Si consurrexistis cum Christo quae sursum sunt sapâ—â—e non super terram Ergo non quae supra terram nec in terra nec secundum carnem te quaerere debemus si volumus invenire Nunc enim secundum carnem jam non novimus Christum Denique Stephanus non supra terram quae 〈◊〉 qui stantem 〈◊〉 ad dextram Dei vidit Maria autem quae quaerebat in terra tangere non potuit Stephanus teâ—igit quia quaesivit in coelo Many saith hee sought Christ on Earth but could not touch him But Stephen touched him who sought him in Heaven Consonantly Saint Augustine who to this Question If Mary touched not Christ on Earth what mortall man shall touch him in Heaven Answereth 2 Aug. tom 10. de Temp. Serm. 152. Sin in torra positum Christum Maria non tangio in coelo sedentem quis mortalium possit tangere Sed ille tactus fidem significat Tangit Christaâ— qui credit in eum There is a Touch by Faith hee that believeth in Christ Toucheth him âšœ Thirdly you allege Wee are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramentall that is Figurative Receiving and more especially which * See above c. 1. Sect. 2. hath beene both proved and confessed a Reall and true participation of Christs Body aâ—d Blood spiritually without any Corporall Conjunction But it is added saith hee that These namely the Body and Blood of Christ are Symbols of our Resurrection which is by reason that our Bodies are joyned with the Body of Christ otherwise if our Conjunction were onely of our Soules onely the Resurrection of our Soules should be signified thereby So hee that 's to say as successesly as in the forâ—er For the word HAâ—C These which are called Symbols of our Resurrection may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ immediately spoken of and placed on the Table in Heaven which wee Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies because * See below Booke 5. Cap. ◠§. 1. If Christ be risen then must they that are Christs also rise againe Or else the word These may have relation to the more remote after the maner of the Greekes to wit Bread and Cup on the first Table because as immediatly followeth they are these whereof not much but little is taken as you have heard Which other * See below Booke 5. Cap. ◠§. 1. Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection without any Consequence of Christs Bodily Conjunction with our Bodies more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptisme which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection as doth also your Jesuite m Ad futuram Resurrectionem per Baptismi Sacramentum jus pignus accepimus Coster institut Christ lib. 4. c. 4. See more in the Booke following c. 8. Sect. 6. Coster call it The pledge of our Resurrection But this our Conjunction with Christ is the Subject matter of the fift Booke Lastly how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice is plentifully resolved in the * See Chap. 5. Sect. 4. 5. 6. sixt Booke THE FIFTH BOOKE Treating of the Third Romish Doctrinall Consequence arising from your depraved Sense of the words of Christs Institution THIS IS MY BODY concerning the maner of the present Vnion of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Receivers by eating c. CHAP. I. The State of the Question SECT I. A Christian man consisting of two men the Outward or bodily the Inward which is Spiritual this Sacrament accordingly consisteth of two parts Earthly and Heavenly as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread Wine as the visible Signes and Objects of Sense and of the Body and Blood of Christ which is the Spirituall part Answerable to both these is the Double nourishment and Vnion of a Christian the one Sacramentall by communicating of the outward Elements of Bread and Wine united to mans body in his Taking Eating Disgesting till at length it be Transubstantiated into him by being Substantially incorporated in his Flesh The other which is the Spirituall and Soules food is the Body and Blood of the Lord therefore called Spirituall because it is the Object of 〈◊〉 by an Vnion wrought by Gods Spirit and mans Faith which as hath beene professed by Protestants is most Reall and Ineffable But your Church of Rome teacheth such a Reall Vnion of Christ his Body and Blood with the Bodies of the Communicants as is Corporall which * See below Ch. â— Sect. â— you call Per contactum by Bodily touch so long as the formes of Bread and Wine remaine uncorrupt in the Bodies of the Receivers Our Method requireth that wee first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Orthodox Truth Secondly to impugne your Romish Vnion as Capernaiticall that is Hereticall And thirdly to Determine the Point by comparing them both together Our Orthodox Truth will be found in the Propositions following That Protestants professe not onely a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body but also a Spiritually-Reall SECT II. IN all the Bookes of our Adversaries written against Protestants they are most especially vehement violent and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries as though wee professed no other maner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body than onely Sacramentall and Figurative For Confutation of which Calumnie it will be most requisite to propose the Apologie of a Calvin in hiâ—s libris viz. Consensio in re Sacramentariaâ— Diâ—ensio contra 〈◊〉 et Explicatio de vera participat coenae Dom. I. Fâ—teor me abhorrere ab hoc crasso commento localis praesentiae Substantiâ Christi animae nostrae pasâ—untur sed secundùm Virtutem non secundùm Substantiam II. Signum tantum pâ—â—rigi centies contrà Quasi vero cum Swinckâ—â—ldio quiâ—quam nobis commune III. In Catechismo disserui non solùm beneficiorum Christi significationem habemus in coena sed substantive participes in nam cum eo vitam coalescimus Figurata locutio fateor modò non tellatur rei veritas IV. Neque enim tantùm dico applicari merita sed ex ipso Christi corpore alimentum percipere animas non secùs ac terreno pane corpus vescitur Vim carnis suae vivisicans spiritus sui gratiâ in nos transs sundit Spiritualem dicimus non carnalem quamvâ—â— realem ut haec vox provera contra fallacem sumitur non secundùm substantiam quam vis ex ejus substantia vita in animas nostras prosâ—uit V. Ergò in coena miraculum agnoscimus quod naturae sines sensus nostri modum ex supoâ—at quod Christi caro
oportere sicut edebantur animalium carnes quae dentibus conteruntur Madridius Ies de frequenti usu Eucharistiae cap. 4. Capernaites First of Chewing and then afterwards of Swallowing in the sixt Chapter following in it's due place That the Corporall and Orall Eating of Christs Flesh is a Capernaiticall Heresie is proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers SECT V. SOmetime do Ancient Fathers point out the Error of the Capernaites set downe Iohn 6. concerning their false interpreting the words of Christ when hee speaketh of Eating his Flesh which they understood literally But this literall sense a Origen Hom. 7. in Levit. pag. 141. Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam Si secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est occidit haec litera vis tibi aliam proferam ex Evangelio literam quae occidit Qui non habet inquit gladium vendat tunicam emat gladium Si vero spiritualiter non occidit sed est in eo spiritus vivificans Origen calleth a Killing letter that is a pernicious interpretation even as of that other Scripture Hee that hath not a Sword let him buy one c. but this latter is altogether Figurative as you know and hath a Spirituall understanding therefore the former is Figurative also Athanasius b Athanas Tract in illa verba Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium hominis c Quod hominibus corpus suffecisset ad cibum ut universis mundi alimonia fieret Sed propterea ascensionis suae meminit ut eos a corporali intellectu abstraheret Quae locutus sum inquit spiritus sunt vita id est corpus in cibum dabitur ut spiritualiter unicuique tribuatur fiat singulis praeservatio ad Resurrectionem confuting the Capernaiticall conceipt of Corporall Eating of Christs Flesh will have us to observe that Christ after hee spake of his Flesh did forth-with make mention of his Ascension into Heaven but why That Christ might thereby draw their thoughts from the bodily sense namely of Eating it Corporally upon Earth which is your Romish sense âšœ His Reason Reduced into Logicall forme must have beene this against the Capernaites who imagined a Carnall Eating of Christs Flesh That which was to ascend into Heaven could not be eaten Corporally on Earth But Christ sayd that his Body should ascend into Heaven And therefore signified thereby that hee could not be eaten upon Earth which ought to have beene a Satisfactory reason and Answere to the Capernaites themselves âšœ Tertullian likewise giveth the reason of Christs saying It is the Spirit which quickeneth because the Capernaites so understood the words of Christs speech of Eating his Flesh As if saith c Tertul. de Capernaitis Quia durum intolerabile existimarunt sermonem quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset praemisit Spiritus est qui vivificat lib. de Resurrect carnis Tertullian Christ had truly determined to give his Flesh to be eaten Therefore it was their Errour to dreame of a truly Corporall Eating d Aug. in Iob 6. Non moritur Non qui panem premit dente sed qui man ducat in Corde Tract 26. Idem in Psal 98. Spiritualiter intelligite non Hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estit bibituri sanguinem illum quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum commendavi vobis spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos Augustine out of the sixt of Iohn bringeth in Christ expounding his owne meaning of Eating his Flesh and saying You are not to eate this flesh which you see I have commended unto you a Sacrament which being Spiritually understood shall revive you Plainely denying it to be Christs Body which is Eaten Orally and then affirming it to be the Sacrament of his Body and as plainely calling the maner of Corporall Eating A pressing of Bread with the teeth Wee say Bread not the Body of Christ For when hee cometh to our Eating of Christs flesh hee exempteth the Corporall Instruments and requireth only the Spirituall saying e Aug. apud Gratian. de Consecrat 〈◊〉 2. Vt quid Quid paâ—â— dentem ventrem crede manducasti Ex Aug. de remed 〈◊〉 §. ut quid Why preparest thou thy Tooth It is then no Corporall Eating and hee addeth Believe and thou hast eaten Saint Augustine goeth on and knowing that Corporall Eating of any thing doth inferre a Chewing by dividing the thing eaten into parts as your owne Iesuit hath * See above Booke 5. cap. ◠§. 2. confessed lest wee should understand this properly hee teacheth us to say f Idem rursus apud Gratiam ibid. Christus manducatus vivit quia resurreâ—t it occiâ—us nec quando manduâ—â—us partes de illo facimus quâ—dem Sacramento id â—it noâ—ut fideles quemadmodum manducent carnem Christi per parteâ— manducatur in Sacramentis mâ—net integer câ—â—lo in corde Ex Aug. Serm. de verbis Evangeliâ— Christ is not divided into parts Contrarily when wee speake Sacramentally that is Figuratively and improperly hee will have us to grant that Christ his Body is divided in this Sacrament but remayneth whole in Heaven Say now will you say that Christs Body is Divided by your Eating the Eucharist in a literall sense your owne Iesuits have abhorred to thinke so And dare you not say that in Eating this Sacrament you do Divide Christs Body in a literall sense then are you to abhorre your Romish Literall Exposition of Christs speech which cannot but necessarily inferr a proper Dividing of the flesh of Christ âšœ Wee may not conceale the Evasion which your Disputers have devised for blunting the Diâ—t of this notable Sentence You see not the same Body saith Saint Augustin 1 Bellarm. lib. 2 de Eucharist cap. 24 â—uxtà Lanfrancum Resp non Idem corpus id est non èodem modo non in specie visibili aut mortali Idem quoad substantiam non Idem quoad modum That is say they not after the same maner namely not in a visible and mortall shape So they Than which Exposition what can be more extravagant by skipping from the Predicament of Substance to the Predicament of Quality You shall not eat the same Body saith Saint Augustine What then shall they eat Hee addeth I have commended to you a Sacrament to be eaten Therefore the Opposition used by Saint Augustine is to Distinguish betweene Christs Body and the Sacrament of Bread as betweene Substance and Substance for hee sayd not to eat his Body As you see it to signify the maner of Eating invisibly but you are not to eat That which you see as denying Christs Body to be the matter of their Sight even as Saint Augustine doth often expresse himselfe as well in that place where hee called his Body The Bread the Lord and the Sacrament The Bread of the Lord like as your owne 2 Gabriel Biâ—l Lect. 80. lit n. Non cum manducamus partes
de illo facimus quidem in Sacramento id fit intelligit nos non parteÌ„ corporis Christi sumerâ—e sed Sacramenti Schoolemen discerned his meaning in the other words of Eating as yet not making parts of his Body but of the Sacrament of his Body âšœ Lastly do but call to mind Saint * See above Chap. §. 2. 〈◊〉 Augustines Observation just the same with the now-Cited Testimony of Athanasius to wit Christs mention of his Ascension in his Body from Earth lest that they might conceive of a Carnall Eating of his flesh and these Premises will fully manifest that Saint Augustines Faith was farre differing from the now Romish as Heaven is distant from Earth Wee still stand unto Christs Qualification of his owne speech when hee condemned all Carnall sense of Eating his flesh saying thereof The flesh profiteth nothing c. For Conclusion of this Point you may take unto you the Commentary of Saint i Chrysost in Iohan 6. Gracè Homi 47. Latinè Homil 46. Verba quae ego locutus sum Spiritus Vita Suâ—ritus hoc est Spiritus alia hoc enim nihil carnale nullam consequentiam carnalem habentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to non prodest quicquam Quid hoc nunc de ipsa carne dixit absit sed pro carnaliterâ— audite de ijs qui carnaliter accipiunt quae dicuntur Quomodo non prodest quicquam caro sine qua nemo potest rivere vide quod non de carne sed de carnali auditione dictum est Chrysostome as followeth Did not Christ therefore speake of his flesh farre be it from us saith hee so to thinke for how shall that flesh not profit without which none can have life but in saying The flesh profiteth nothing is meant the carnall understanding of the words of Christ And that you may know how absolutely hee abandoneth all carnall understanding of Christs words of Eating his flesh hee sayth They have no fleshly or naturall Consequence at all So hee Ergo say wee to the Confutation of your Romish Beliefe no Corporall touch of Christ in your mouths no Corporall Eating with your teeth no Corporall Swallowing downe your throat how much less any Corporall mixture in your Bellies or Guts as your Romane * See Chapt. 6. Sect. â— following Church professeth CHALLENGE WHether therefore the Capernaites though to eate Christs Flesh raw or roasted torne or whole dead or alive seeing that every Corporall Eating thereof properly taken is by the Fathers held as Carnall and Capernaiticall it cannot be that the Romish maner of Eating should accord in the Judgement of Antiquity with the Doctrine of Christ Notwithstanding you cite us to appeare before the Tribunall of Antiquity by objecting Counter-Testimonies of Ancient Fathers and wee are as willing to give you Answering The Extreme Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers in wresting the Figurative Phrases of Ancient Fathers to their Orall maner of Receiving the Bodie of Christ proved by just evidences out of the Fathers themselves SECT VI. IT is a miserable thing to see how your Authors delude their Readers by obtruding upon them the Sentences of Fathers in a literall sense against the evident Expressions of the same Fathers to the Contrary I. k Origen Hom. 5. 〈◊〉 divers Script Loca Sub tectum tuam ingreditur imitare Centurionem dic non sum dignus Domine c. Objic Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 8. Non vidi Adversariorum Responsum ad hoc Yea Resp Orig. ibid. Intrat nunc Dominus sub tectum credentium duplici figurâ seu more quaÌ„â—â— enim sancti Ecclesiarum Aâ—â—istites sub tectum tuum 〈◊〉 tunc ibidem Dominus per cos ingreditur tu sic existimes tanquam Dominum suscipiendum Theâ— followeth the other figure Cum hic sanctus cibus incorruptibile epulum c. Origen say you will have the Communicant to thinke himselfe unworthy that the Lord should enter under the roofe of his mouth Right hee saith so but in the same sense wherein hee equivalently sayd that Hee who entertaineth a Bishop and Spirituall Pastor must know that now Christ entreth under his roofe namely Christ Figuratively II. Chrysostome who speaketh in the highest straine saith that l Chrysost Hom. 60. ad Pop. Antioch Mulâ—i dicunt se velle videro ejus formam ipse concedit non tantum videre sed tangere monducare dentibus terere So Chrysâ—t ibid. Lingua rubescit sanguine Christi Et lib. 3. de Sacerdâ—â—io â—om 47. in Ioh. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritualia sunt Wee see touch eate and teare with our teeth the Flesh of Christ True but to note that hee spaâ—e it in a Rhetoricall Figurative sense he equivalently saith also in the same place Our tongues are made red with his Blood And elsewhere to put all out of question * See his testimonie in the former Section at i These saith he are Spirituall and containe no Carnall thing Yet what need you our Comment Your Josuit Maldonate would haue gladly prevented us 3 Dentibus teri quemadmodum Chrysost locuâ—us est haec non postunt nisâ— Sacramento tenus intelligt non propriâ— Maldon Ies in Matt. 26. 26. The words of Chrysostome saith hee of tearing the Flesh of Christ cannot be otherwise understood than Sacramentally Euen he which concluded but now that to say * See above Ch. 4. Sect. 2. We eat Christs Flesh properly is a false proposition âšœ And touching the other Phrase S. Augustine as Emphatically of Baptisme 4 Aug. in Ioh. Tract 11. Vnde rubet Baptismus nisi Christi sanguâ—e consecratus It is red with the Blood of Christ âšœ III. Gaudentius say you saith o Gaudent Promisit corpus suum porâ—igit tibi corpus suum corpuâ— accipis De pane fecit corpus proprium c. Obj. Bellar lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 21. Albeit a little after upon these words Nist manducaveritis Voluâ—t Christus animas nostras precioso suo sanguine sanctiâ—icariâ— per imaginem pretiosae passionis quâ— omnes fideles populi exempla passioâ—s ante oculos hâ—bentes quotidie gerentes in manibus ore sumentes ac pectore redemptionis nostrae opas indelebili memoâ—â teneamus Gandent Tract 2. de Ratione Sacramentorum We receive the Body which Christ reacheth making of Bread his Body We grant he sayd so but hee interpreteth himselfe saying Christ would have our soules sanctified with the Image of his Passion Againe scan but his former words Christ made his Body de Pane of Bread in the literall Sense and it will infer a Body of Christ not made of the flesh of the Virgin IV. But p Aug lib. â— Con. adver Legist Proph. cap. 9. Christum sanguinem dantem fideli corde ac ore suscipmus Ob. Bellaâ— quo supra cap. 24 §. In Sexto Augustine teacheth that We receive the Body of Christ both with heart and mouth Which your q
of any Sacramentall Altar on earth Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him as hee did himselfe saying n Gregor Nazianzen Si ab his Altaribus me arcebunt at aliud habeo cujus figurae sunt ea quae nec oculis cermmus super quod nec ascia nec manus ascendat nec ullum Artificum instrumeÌ„tum auditum est sed mentis totum hoc opus est huicque per contemplationem astabo in hoc gratuÌ„ immolabo SacrificiuÌ„ oblationes Holocausta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantò praestantiora quantò Veritas umbrâ Orat. 28. pag. 4â—4 I have another Altar in Heaven whereof these Altars are but Signes a better Altar to be beholden with the eyes of my mind there will I offer up my Oblations as great a Difference doubtlesse as betweene Signes and Things This could not hee have sayd of those Altars if the Sacrifices on them both were as you pretend subjectively and corporally the same If wee would know how what and where the thing is which a Christian man ought to conteÌ„plate upon when hee is exercised in this our Eucharisticall Sacrifice o Chrysostom in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. Illud sanè tremendum Sacrificium ut cum concordia ad illud accedamus ut Aquilae facti ad ipsum coelum evolemus ubi enim cadaver ibi aquilae Cadaver Domini corpus propter mortem Aquilas autem non oportet ad inseriora trahi aut repere sed ad superiora volare Solem Iustitiae intueri oculo mentis acutissimo Aquilarum enim haec mensa est non Graculorum Chrysostome is ready to instruct him Not to play the Chough or Iay in fixing his thoughts here below but as the Eagle to ascend thither where the Body is namely for so hee saith in Heaven According to that of the Apostle Heb. 10. Christ sitting at the right hand of God Vers 12. What therefore Therefore let us draw neere with an Assurance of faith Vers 22. If wee would understand wherein the difference of the Iewish Religion and Christian Profession especially consisteth in respect of Priesthood p Aug. advers Iudaeos ca. 9. Nam Aaron Sacerdotium jam nullum est in aliquo templo Christi Sacerdotium est aeternum in coelo Augustine telleth us that They have no Priesthood and the Priesthood of Christ is eternall in Heaven And the holy Fathers give us some Reasons for these and the like Resolutions For if any would know the Reason why wee must have our Confidence in the Celestiall Priest Sacrifice and Altar q Oecumen in Heb. 10. super haec verba Cum certitudine â—idei Cum deinceps nihil visible supersit neque Templum hoc est coelum neque Pontifex id est Christus neque Hostia quae Corpus illius est fido deinceps opus est Oecumenius and r Ambros in Heb. 10. Cum â—iducio nit Apostolus nihil enim hic visible neque Sacerdos neque Sacrificium neque Altare Ambrose will shew us that it is because Here below there is nothing visible neither Temple ours being in Heaven nor Priest ours being Christ nor Sacrifice ours being his Body nor yet Altar saith the other Heare your owne Canus f Canus loc Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. Oblatio quam Christus in coelis incruentum fecit pag. 421. Christs offereth an unbloody Oblation in Heaven âšœ Chrysostome will not be behind his disciple Oecumenius in expressions who differenceth our Christian Religion from the Iewish for that 11 Chrysost in Hebr. Hom. 11. in Moral Quantum est inter Aaron Christum tantum est inter Iudaeos nos quippe nos habemus Sacrarium in Coelis Sacerdotem in coelis hostiam c. Talia igitur nos offeramus Sacrificia quae in illo Sanctuario possunt offerri And then explaining what they were viz. Sacrificium laudis justitiae Spiritus contribulati haec sacrificia offeramus Our Sanctuary Priest and Sacrifices is in Heaven And if Christians intend any other Sacrifice than that hee admonisheth that they may be such which may be accepted of in the Heavenly Sanctuarie as namely The Sacrifice of Iustice Praise and of a Contrite Spirit and the like all meerely Spirituall as you confesse and therefore but Metaphorically called Sacrifices And 12 Hierom. in Epist ad Hebdeb quaest 2. Ascendamus igitur cum Domino coenaculum magnum stratum accipiamus ab eo sursum Calicem novi Testamenti ibique cum eo Pascha celebremus inebriantes inebriemur ab eo Vino Sobrietatis Saint Hierome also inviteth us To Celebrate our Passeover with him above âšœ Thus in respect of the place of Residence of Christ our High-Priest and his Function which hath beene already confirmed by the Fathers of the first Councell of Nice And thus farre of the place of this Altar the Throne of Grace something would be spoken in respect of Time That the former Sacrilegious Derogation from Christs Priestly Function in Heaven is contradicted by Scriptures and Fathers in respect of the Time of the execution thereof SECT IX CHrist his Bodily existence in Heaven as wee have * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 9. heard is set out by the Apostle in these termes Hee abideth a Priest for us Hee continueth a Priest Hee having a continuall Priesthood Hee without intermission appeareth before God for us Thus the Apostle But what of this will you say Do but marke Are you not All heard still proclaiming as with one voice that your Romish Sacrifice of the Masse is the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Barradas Quod singulis diebus Christus offert incurrentè Hoc judge Sacrificium est Ecclesiae Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap. 15. Salmer Effusio sanguinis semel facta semper prodest modo jugiter offeratur In Heb. 10. Disp 19. Beccanus Iuge Sacrificium Veteris Testamenti fuit figura Missae in novo ratione determinationis temporis sicut ille offerrebatur mane vespere ita Christus à principio mundi usque ad finem Apoc. 13. Agnus occisus Lib. de analog utriusque Testam cap. 13. num 14. Iuge Sacrificium that is the Continuall Sacrifice Continually offered Whereof the Iuge and Continuall Sacrifice of the Law was a Signe So you But it were strange that the Iuge Sacrificium of the Law continuing both Morning and Evening should be a figure of your Masse-Sacrifice which is but onely offered in the Morning As if you would make a picture having two hands for to represent a person that hath but one But not to deny that the Celebration of the Eucharist may be called a Iuge Sacrificium for so some Fathers have termed it Yet they no otherwise call it Iuge or Continual than they call it a Sacrifice that is Vnproperly because it cannot possibly be compared for Continuance of Time to that Celestiall of Christ in the highest Heaven where Christ offereth himselfe to God for us day and night without Intermission
neither would nor ought to have concealed the words and names lest thereby they might have seemed to have abhorred the proper Characters of our Christian Profession Wee descend to the Fathers It is not unknowne unto you how the Fathers delighted themselves in all their Treatises with Iewish Ceremoniall Termes onely by Allegoricall Allusions as they did with the word Synagogue applying it to any Christian assembly as Arke to the Church Holocaust to Mortification Levite to Deacons Incense to Prayers and Praises and the word Pascha to the day of the Resurrection of Christ But if any should say that these Fathers used any of these words in a proper Signification hee should wrong both the common sense of these Fathers and his owne Conscience It were superfluous to urge many Instances where one will serve The word Altar applyed to the Table of the Lord which anciently stood in the g Euseb Hist lib. 10. cap. 4. Ex Orat Danegyr Paulino Tyriorum Episcopo dedicata qui Basilicam ibi construxit Sanctuario hoc modo absoluto perfecto sellisque quibusdam in altissimo loco ad Praesidum Ecclesiae honorem collocatis subsellijs ordine dispensatis Altarique denique tanquà m Sancto Sanctorum Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in medio Sanctuarij sito c. Cocclus Tom. 2. Tract de Altari Athanasio in vita Antonij Altare Domini multorum multitudine circumdatum Chrysost de visione Angelorum lib. 6. de Saerdotio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys Hierarch Eccles cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 August de Verbis Dom. Serm. 46. de eo quod scriptum Qui mandueat Christus quotidie pascit mensa Ipsius est illa in medio constituta These Testimonies verifie the same Assertion of Doctor Falke against Gregory Martin cap. 17. The Table stood so that men might stand round aboue it Midst of the Chancell so that They might compasse it round was more rarely called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greekes or Altare of the Latines than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mensa that is Table which they would not have done if Altar had carryed in it the true and absolute property of an Altar nay but they used therein the like liberty as they used to do in h August quaest super Exod. lib. 2. cap. 9. Altare est populus Dei Lib. 1. de Serm. in monte Altare in interiore Dei templò id est fides Lib. 10. de Civitat Dei cap. 4. Ejus est Altare cor nostrum And other Fathers ordinarily applying the name Altar to Gods People and to a Christian man's Faith and Heart ⚜ All this notwithstanding you are not to thinke that wee do hereby oppugne the Appellation of Priest and Altar or yet the now Situation thereof in our Church for use as Convenient and for order more Decent but onely the Romish Opinion and Doctrine whereby you hold them in the verie proprietie of words and not as the Fathers did onely by way of Allusion For your better Apprehension of this Truth if you will be pleased to observe that Christ in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sacrament propounded it in the place where hee with his Disciples gave it unto them to be Eaten and Drunken then tell us where it was ever knowne that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking In Gods Booke wee find Levit. 9. that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eate their Oblation On but Besides the Altar Neither may you thinke it any Derogation to this Sacrament that the place whereon it is Celebrated is not called an Altar of the Lord seeing the Spirit of God by his Apostle hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes for the Apostle as hee called this Sacred Banquet purposely The Supper of the Lord and the Vessell prepared for the Liquid The Cup of the Lord so did hee name the place whereon it was set The Table of the Lord and the Contemners thereof Guiltie of the Body and Blood of the Lord and thereupon did denounce the Vengeance and Plague which fell upon prophane Communicants The Iudgement of the Lord and all these in one Chapter 1. Cor. 11. The like Difference may be discerned betweene your maner of Reverence in Bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist onely and ours in Bowing aswell when there is no Eucharist on the Table as when there is which is not to the Table of the Lord but to the Lord of the Table to testifie the Communion of all the Faithfull Communicants thereat even as the People of God did in Adoring him before the Arke his Footstoole Psal 99. 5. and 1. Chron. 28. 2. as Daniels Bowing at Prayer in Chaldea looking towards the Temple of Ierusalem where the Temple of Gods Worship was Dan. 6. 10. And as David would be knowne to have done saying Psal 5. 7. I will Worship towards thy holy Temple Will you suffer us to come home to you The Father Gregory Nazianzen for his soundnesse of Iudgement Sirnamed the Divine comparing this Inferiour Altar and Sacrifice on earth with the Body of Christ seated in Heaven faith that the Sacrifices which hee offereth in his Contemplation at the Altar in Heaven are i Nazian orat 28. Esto ego pellor ab Altari in Ecclesia at novi aliud Altare mentis contemplationis in coelo ibi adstabo Deo offeram Sacrificia quae sunt tanto acceptiora quà m ea quae offerimus ad Altare quanto pretiosior est veritas quà m umbra More acceptable than the Sacrifices which are offered at the Altar Below as much as Truth is more excellent than the Shadow So hee Therefore say wee the Sacrifice of Christ his Body and Blood are subjectively in Heaven but objectively here in the Eucharist here Representative only as in a Shadow but in Heaven presentatively in his Bodily presence So vainly your Disputers hitherto whilst that wee required Materials have objected against us bare words phrases and very shadowes Lastly Cyril of Alexandria k Cyril Alexand. cont Iulian. lib. 9 Iulian Ob. Iudaei sacrificant vos autem invento novo Sacrificio quare non sacrificatis illud commune nobiscum habent etiam Templa Altaria c. Resp Cyril multò post Vitae honestas ad meliora propensio est Sacrificium fragrantissimum Et Paulus hortatur nos exhibere corpora nostra Sacrificium sanctum rationalem cultum nostrum Deo Igitur etsi Iudaei sacrificarent ut in umbris praecepta implerent nos tamen latâ viâ euntes ad id quod rectum est veniemus nempè spiritualem immortalem cultum proficientes Iulian. Mosi dicitur septem diebus azymis vescemini vobis parum est abstulisse Cyril Resp Impletur Lex à nobis in azymis maximè fide justificatis in Spiritu mentalemque cultum praeponentibus tali modo Vnde scribit D. Paulus ut diem agamus in azymis sinceritatis veritatis Rursus
the same your Oath made to damne others doth serve chiefly to make the Swearers themselves most damnable If peradventure any of you shall oppose saying that none of you within this Kingdome which never admitted of the Councel of Trent nor of the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth are yet bound to that Oath let him know that although this may excuse him from an Actuall Perjury yet can it not free him from the Habituall which is that hee is disposed in himselfe to take it whensoever it shall be offered unto him in any Kingdome that doth imbrace and professe the same Our last Advertisement followeth Of the Mixture of many old Heresies with the former Defence of the Romish Masse SECT V. THe more odious the Title of this Section may seëme to be the more studious ought you to shew your selves in examining the proofes thereof that so you may either confute or confesse them and accordingly re-assume or renounce your Romish Defence Heresie hath a double aspect One is when it is direct having the expresse termes of Heresie the Other is oblique and by consequence when the Defence doth inferre or imply necessarily the same Hereticall Sense even as it may be said of Treason For to say that Caesar is not King is a Treasonable speech Directly in a plaine Sense and to say that Tribute money is not due to Caesar is as Treasonable in the Consequence Thus much being premised wee are now to recognize such Errours wherin your Disputers may seeme to have accordance with old Heretikes which point wee shall pursue according to the order of the Bookes BOOKE I. Wherein your Church is found altering almost the whole forme of Christ his Institution and the Custome of the Catholike Church descended from the Apostles which Presumption Pope a Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 3. Iulius condemned in divers who sopped the Bread in the Chalice and squeezed Grapes in the Cup and so received them even as did the * Ibid Artotyritae in mingling Bread with Cheese censured for Heretickes by your Aquinas In which Comparison your Aberration from Christs example is so much greater than theirs as you are found Guilty in defending b Booke 1. thorowout Ten Innovations for one 2. Your Pope Gelasius condemned the Hereticall Manichees for thinking it lawfull not to receive the Cup in the Administration of the Eucharist judging it to be c Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 7. Greatly Sacrilegious notwithstanding your d Ibid. Church authorizeth the same Custome of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants 3. As c Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 10. you pretend Reverence for withdrawing the Cup so did the f Ibid. Sect. 10. Aquarij forbeare wine and used onely Water under a pretence of Sobriety 4. Sometime there may be a Reason to do a thing when as yet there is no right nor Authority for him that doth it Wee therefore exact of you an Authority for altering the Apostles Customes and Constitutions and are answered that g Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 4. your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts Iump with them who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions replyed that h Ibid. They were herein above the Apostles whom therefore Irenaeus reckoneth among the Heretikes of his Time BOOKE II. It is not nothing which hath beene observed therein to wit your Reasoning why you ought not to interpret the words of Christ This is my Body i Booke 2. Cha. 3. thorowout literally and why you urge his other Saying Except you eate my flesh k Ibid. for proofe of Bodily Eating so that your Priest may literally say in your Masse that The Body of Christ passeth into your Bellies and Entrails because forsooth the words of Christ are l Booke 2. Cha. 3. Sect. 2. Doctrinall And have you not heard of one Nicodemus who hearing Christ teach that every man must be * Ioh. 3. Borne againe who shall be partaker of Gods Kingdome and that hee expounding them in a Literall Sense conceited a new Entrance into his Mothers wombe when as nothing wanted to turne that his Errour into an Heresie but onely Obstinacie But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers you have received a full m See above in this Booke Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Synopsis BOOKE III. After followeth your Article of Transubstantiation I. Your direct profession is indeed to believe no Body of Christ but that which was Borne of the Virgin Mary But this your Article of Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Body generally held according to the proper nature of Transubstantiation to be by n Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. Production of Christs Body out of the Substance of Bread it necessarily inferreth a Body called and believed to be Christs which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin as Saint Augustine hath plainly o Booke 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. taught diversifying the Bodily thing on the Altar from the Body of Christ borne of the Virgin Therefore your Defence symbolizeth with the Heresie of Apollinaris who taught a p Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 2 Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly You exclude all judgement of q Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. Senses in discerning Bread to be truly Bread as did the r Manichaei dicebant Christum non esse verum hominem sed phantasma quoddam Prâ—teol Elench Haeret. Manichees in discerning Christ's Body when hee was heere alive which they thereupon held not to have beene a True but a Phantasticall Body Tertullian also challengeth the Verity of Sense in judging of Wine in the Eucharist after Consecration in Confutation of the same Errour in the Marcionites Thirdly for Defence of Christ his invisible Bodily Presence you professe that after Consecration Bread is no more the same but changed into the Body of Christ which Doctrine in very expresse words was bolted out by an Eutychian Heretike and instantly coudemned by Å¿ Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 12. Theodoret and as fully abandoned by Pope t Ibid. Sect. 13. Gelasius BOOKE IV. Catholike Fathers were in nothing more zealous than in defending the distinct properties of the two natures of Christ his Deity and Humanity against the pernicious Heresies of the Manichees Marcionites Eutychians and Eunomians all of them diversly oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body sometime in direct termes and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences whether it were by gaine-saying the Finitenesse or Solidity or else the compleat Perfection thereof wherein how farre yee may challenge affinity or kindred with them be you pleased to examine by this which followeth I. The Heretikes who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily Finitenesse said that it was in divers places at once as is u Book 4. Chap. 4. Sect. â— Chap. â— Sect. 3. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. confessed even as your Church doth now attribute unto the same Body of Christ both in Heaven and in Earth
from receiving in both kinds pag. 71. That the ancient Romane Church had their Communion in both kinds p. 68. The now Romish doe alter the forme of Christs words of Institution called by them the words of Consecration pag. 138. Romish Objections of the Sayings of the Fathers for proofe of Orall-Eating even against the Confessions of the same Doctors pag. 342. 343. c. Romish Church See Innovation S SACRAMENT is to be instituted onely by God pag. 189. Confessed Ibid. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is no Sacrament but in the Sacramentall use of Eating it Sacramentally and that it was delivered to boyes to be eaten onely as Holy Bread and not as a Sacrament p. 48. 49. c. SACRIFICE The Question discussed pag. 389. No word of Christs Institution that can imply a Sacrifice pag. 390. No act of proper Sacrifice pretended in the Romish that can be evinced out of the Institution of Christ No not by their owne Customes pag. 398. Not that in Act. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 400. Not that of 1. Cor. 10. 18. Are Partakers of the Altar pag. 401. Nor out of the old Testament concerning Melchisedech The Fathers speaking often of the Sacrifice of Christians in Bread and Wine pag. 407. 408. But improperly as is confessed pag 438. The Bread and Wine cannot be the Sacrament of the New Testament by the generall confessions of the Romish Doctors Ibid. Proofe of a No-Transubstantiation disproveth the Romish Sacrifice in the Masse p. 439. A Distinction that the word Sacrifice of Christs Body is taken of the Fathers Objectively and not Subjectively The necessity and verity of this Distinction p. 404. A Sacrifice onely Representative pag. 441. How the Sacrifice may be called the same which Christ offered pag. 443. Epithets of the Fathers added to the word Sacrifice unconscionably by Romish Disputers p. 448. and in the Vindication following How it is called of the Fathers a Bloody Sacrifice pag. 455. 456. c. The word Sacrifice attributed by the Fathers to many acts which are confessed not to be proper Sacrifices p. 459. Nothing properly sacrificed in the Romish Masse pag. 467. Sacrificing Acts there be three Visible Sacred and Destructive All wanting in the Romish Masse Ibid. The Sacrifice professed by Protestants The Spirituall more excellent than any Corporall except Christs on the Crosse p. 470. Proved out of the Fathers p. 471. Their different kinds p. 472. They offer the same Sacrifice of the Crosse Objectively p. 473. See Commemorative and Propitiatorie See Priesthood and Melchisedech See Stage-play See Vnbloody and Representative SACRILEGIOVSNESSE of the Romish Masse shewen in a full Synopsis p. 558. 559. Instances thereof p. 562. and of Prayers Ibid. SAXONS Faith in the dayes of King Edgar is contrary to the now Romish in the point of Transubstantiation p. 158. A Vindication thereof against a late Romish Calumniator Ibid. SENSE Iudgement of sense is able to prove that Bread is not Transubstantiated p. 467. Resurrection of Christs Body proved thereby Ibid. By the Act of Thomas pag. 478. Argument of Sense is justified by Ancient Fathers pag. 479. That not to beleeve Sense in sensible Objects is as faithlesse as senselesse pag. 173. See Touch and Smell SHED in Christs speech of Institution is taken Figuratively pag. 110. The word is objected in the Present tense for proofe of a Sacrifice and yet confessed by themselves to be token the Future pag. 392. 393. c. See Blood SICK prayed for in the Church was anciently used for the sicke in particular as for Gorgonia pag. 517. SIGNIFICATIVELY A terme used for the Romish Defence of the Priests Operative Consecrating of the Bread to turne it into the Body of Christ altogether in vaine which the Iesuites with all their wits have not beene able to make good p. 138. 139. c. SIMILITVDES used of the Iesuites for shewing that the words of Christ are spoken Significatively and Operatively by the Priest for Conversion of Bread into Christs Body by saying This is my Body are all lame As their Similitude of saying This is a Circle is the making thereof and the like is confessed to be fond and extravagant pag. 94. Their Similitude of a Stage-play to illustrate Christs Representing of himselfe in the Eucharist urged by the Romish shewen to be most Absurd pag. 118. Their Similitude of Voice and Colour objected for proofe of the Being of a Body in divers places at once most fondly pag. 258. 274. Their Similitude of Mans soule and of God to prove the Presence of Christs Body in divers places at once is silly and senselesse Ibid. Their Similitude of Christs being called Feast and Guest Viand and Pledge of Ancient Fathers fondly and falsely objected by the Romish Doctors for proofe of a Corporall Presence in the Eucharist pag. 366. and that it plainely confuteth it pag. 367. Their Similitude of a Stage-play againe not rightly applyed to shew that the same may be called a Blood and Vnbloody Sacrifice pag. 457. Their Similitude of Iacobs taking to him Leah instead of Rachael for Defence of the Romish Idolatry pag. 533. 545 SLANDER against the Christian Church in Primitive times as if they had eaten an Infant in the Celebration of the Eucharist falsely objected by Romanists pag. 334. SMELL miraculous of Ioane Martlesse in discerning one Consecrated Hoast amongst a thousand Vnconsecrated pag. 173. SOCRATES Miracles have beene wrought by the Eucharist pag. 223. c. SOLOE COPHANES is no Errour in Scripture p. 393. c. SOVLE of man objected as being in many parts of the Body for proofe of the possibilitie of a Bodily presence in divers places at once pag. 261. c. Soules of Saints departed have not their Apparitions in divers places at once Ibid. The soule of Christ could not be in Heaven and Hell both at once saith S Augustine Ibid. SPIRITVALL Sacrifices of six kinds mentioned by the Fathers pag. 471. STAGE-PLAY The Romish Maner of Christs Body on the Crosse by the same Body in the Eucharist after a Maner of a Stage-play displayed to be most false and contradictory to it selfe pag. 445. c. See Similitude STATIONS Anciently what they were pag. 515. in the Margin SVESTANCE is falsely interpreted Accidents pag. 181. SVPERSTITIOVSNESSE of the Romish Masse seene in a full Synopsis pag. 557. SVPPER of the Lord so commonly called by Antiquity pag. 45. 46. c. SVRSVM CORDA used of the Fathers to signifie the not-intending the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 525. Cyril of Ierusalem To have our hearts in Heaven S. Augustine Not to Earth but Heaven where the heart cannot putrifie The same is confessed concerning the Custome of the Primitive Church that it was a Prostrating of the Body and a lifting up of the mind to Heaven Ibid. Which should not need if they had beleeved they had had Christ on Earth Hieron Let us ascend up with Christ into the great Chamber Ibid. SVVALLOVVING of the
Body of Christ taught in the Church of Rome is Capernaitically Hereticall pag 347. 348. c. Proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers Ibid. See Devouring T TABLE turned into an Altar by the Councell of Trent expounding the 1. Cor. 10. 18. pag. 401. It was Anciently placed so as to stand round about it pag. 462. See Altar TERTVLLIAN fondly objected by Pamelius for the Romish carrying of the Eucharist in Procession pag. 50. Hee interpreteth Hoc est corpus with Id est figura Corporis p. 124. And Calumniously objected afresh pag. 492. And Bellarmines grosse errour confuted by Pamelius Ibid. Hee in confutaâ—ion of the Accademicks and Hereticks pleadeth for the faithfulnesse of each sense urging that Christ had the same taste of Wine after Resurrection which hee had in the Wine which hee had consecrated pag. 171. And saith Wee make Bits of it pag. 179. Hee holdeth it as a Doctrine of Faith that every Angell hath alotted unto him a prescript place or space pag. 261. Against the Ebionitâ—â— Christ is God because hee is in all places where hee is invocated upon pag. 262. Hee standeth for the blessed Virgins opening her Cell at Christs Birth pag. 277. Hee standeth also for onely the Soule-Eating of Christs Body pag. 385. Hee is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice Malachie 5. And confuteth the Objector pag. 432. Hee calleth Blessings and Himnes Pure Sacrifices pag. 448. His speech of a Womans Act of Offering egregiously perverted by Pamelius to prove a Sacrifice in the Masse pag. 460. His speech of No common Bread and Wine perverted and objected for Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 514. TESTAMENT in Christs speech of Institution taken Figuratively pag. 129. Testamentarie words may be Figurative against Bellarmine pag. 132. THEODORET is against the Communion but in one kind pag. 77. And teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech Hoc est Corpus demonstrateth Bread pag. 103. By his calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype yeildeth a figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body pag. 116. Hee saith Bread remaineth the same in Substance after Consecration pag. 169 Hee noteth something to be Impossible even to the advancement of Gods Omnipotenciâ— pag. 229. And defendeth Circumscription in one place to distinguish Christs Man-hood from his God-head pag. 242. Hee is objected that the wicked are Partakers of Christs Body unconscionably pag. 220. Hee saith that Christ transmitted not his Priest-hood to any Successor pag. 411. and that hee exerciseth it now in Heaven pag. 415. Hee is against the Romish Iuge Sacrificium pag. 436. Hee names the Eucharist the same Sacrifice with this Correction or rather a Remembrance thereof pag. 443. Hee is objected also for Adoning the Symbols pag. 510. THEOPHYLACT is against Prayer in an unknowne Tongue pag. 35. And against the Communion but in one kind pag. 77. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29 to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 163. His saying Bread is trans-elementated into Christs Body vainely Objected pag. 204. Hee taught the blessed Virgins opening of her Cell at Christs Birth against Heretikes that denyed the truth of his Body pag. 277. His saying Wee are not Devourers of Christs Body pag. 349. Hee is wrongfully urged for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the Act of Melchisedech pag. 404. Hee nameth the Eucharist the same Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse with this Correction or rather a Remembrance thereof p 443. THIS and MINE See Hoc Meum THOMAS his Touch is a perfect Evidence of Christs Resurrection pag. 168. THOVGHT is objected for the proofe of the Being of a Body in divers places at once pag. 300. TONGVE unknowne in Gods Service is against Antiquity in Generall pag. 34. A knowne Tongue was used of all Ancient Churches both Greeke and Latine pag. 25. And in after-Churches of remote Nations Ibid. The Iniquity of an unknowne Language against men pag. 27. Against God pag 28. And against God and Man pag. 29. And against Antiquity pag. 34. TOVCH Corporall cannot happen to the Body of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 333. See Thomas and see Sense TRANS-ELEMENTATION Transmutation and the like doe not necessarily imply Transubstantiation pag. 149. TRANSGRESSIONS of Christs Institution of the Sacrament by the Romish Church are ten pag. 7. c. The first in the word Blessed it pag. 9 The second in Breaking pag. 15. The third against the word Them pag. 17. Fourth against the word Said pag. 22. Fift against the same word Said pag. 24. Sixt against the word Take pag. 43. The seventh against the word Eate yee p. 45. Eight against the word Eate pag. 48. Ninth against the word In Remembrance pag. 51. The Tenth is against the words Drinke you All of this by depriving the people of the Cup pag. 54. TRANSLATION of Scripture in all Nationall tongues Anciently pag. 37. See Vulgar TRANSMVTATION Trans-elementation and such like words used Figuratively of the Fathers pag. 20. TRANSSVBSTANTIATION What it is in the Romish Doctrine pag. 146. That it is not proved sufficiently by that Scripture This is my Body p. 147 Confessed not to be necessarily collected from the words of Christs Institution Ibid. The Noveltie of the Name p. 149. That it was not before the Councell of Lateâ—ane pag. 151. Nor thorrowly before the Councell of Trent pag. 152. It is proved to be a false Article by the Romish maner of Defence because neither by Production nor by Adduction which by their owne Confessions are the two onely meanes of Transubstantiation pag. 153. Confuted by the Remayning of the Substance of Bread contrary to the Change thereof into Christs Body pag. 157. It contradicteth our faith of Christs Body Borne of the Virgin Mary Ibid. An Argument why Bread ceasing altogether to be it can be but Succession onely and no Transubstantiation pag. 163. Objections out of the Fathers pag. 188. Yea against their owne Romish Principles pag. 27. Termes objected out of the Fathers unconscionably are these It is Christs Body Made Christs Body Translated Trans-elementated into Christs Body which all are Figurative pag. 199. 200. c. TYPE used of the Greeke Fathers concerning the Eucharist proveth Christs speech to be Figurative pag. 115. See Antitype Types of the old Testament how they are said to be Inferiour to the Signes in the New pag. 426. 427. c. V VIATICVM that is Viands is applyed by the Fathers to the Eucharist ineptly Objected pag. 366. Baptisme and Absolution imparted to men dying are Viatica Viands also for the soule Ibid. VIGILIVS defendeth Circumscription in one place to distinguish Christs Man-hood from his God-head pag. 242. Hee proveth the Holy Ghost to be God because hee is in divers places at once pag. 265. VINDICATION Whereof are many already set downe in the Contents before the beginning of this Treatise VIRGIL's Cum faciam Vitâ—lâ foolishly Objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice p. 392. Bl. VIRGIN The Closure of her sacred Cell
see that as much as is Produced is not Extant for Dust is not Flesh But since hee cannot apply this Reproduction to Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ his Answeâ—â—â— impertinent and hee may be produced for an idle Disputer Suarez by both whom it hath beene confuted And if the Change be not by Production then it must follow that it is not by Transubstantiation which is demonstrable in it selfe because the next maner which they insist upon cannot possibly serve your turne This Sècond maner they name to bee by Adduction which your e Si terminus ad quem Corpus Christi existat sed non in eo loco ubi Terminus à quo id est Panis tum vi Con versionis adducetur ad eum locum Inde vocatur Conversio adductiva nam corpus Christi praeexistit 〈◊〉 Conversionem sed non sub speciebus Panis Con versio igitur non fecit ut corpus Christi simpliciter esse incipiat sed ut incipiat esse sub speciebus non quod per motum localem è Coelo Adducatur sed solùm quia per hanc conversionem fit ut quod ante erat solùm in Coelo jam sit sub speciabus Panis Nec haec accidentalis conversio sed substantialis dicta est quia substantia Panis desinit esse substantia corporis Christi succedit Pani Proindè Substantia in Substantiam transit Talis est Conversio Cibi in hominem per nutritionem nam anima non producitur sed tantùm per nutritionem sit ut incipiat esse in ea materia ubi antea erat forma Cibi Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18. Cardinall defineth to be a Bringing of the Substance of that Body of Christ continuing still in heaven to be notwithstanding at the same time under the shapes of Bread on the Altar and therefore called Substastiall because the Substance of Bread ceaseth to have any Being â—â—en the Body of Christ succeedeth to be under the outward shapes of Bread So he And this is of late crept into the opinion of some few whereby you have created a new faith flat contrary to the faith of the Councel of Trent which defined a Change of the whole substance of Bread into the Body of Christ So that Councel as you have heard Now by the Change of Substance into Substance as when Common Bread eaten is turned into the Substance of Man's flesh the matter of Bread is made the matter of flesh But this your Adduction is so farre from bringing in the Substance of Bread Into the Substance of Christ's Body that it professeth to bring the Body of Christ not so much as unto the Bread but to be under onely the Outward Accidents and formes of Bread Yet had this Figment some Favourers in your f Fuerunt hujus sententiae Alens Bonavent Marsil Dicunt per hanc Conversionem Corpus non accipere esse sed accipere esse hîc nec multum discordat Thomas Denique moderni subscribentes contra Haereticos libenter hanc sententiam amplectuntur quia facilitatem quandam prae se fert ut videre licet apud Iob. Hessels Claud. Gud. Paris Bellar. As witnesseth Suarez quo suppra Disp 50 §. 44. pag. 635. Cum Panis substantialiter mutetur ita ut desinat esse haec Conversio est Substantialis non Accidentalis 2. Corpus Christi est substantia quae succedit Pani proinde Substantia transit in Substantiam dicunt conversionem Adductivam esse quando quod adducitur acquirit esse sub speciebus Panis Bellar. quo supr §. Respondeo 1. Cedere Corpori in ratione existendi est propriè converti in ipsum per Conscquens fit vera in Carnem Transmutatio Alan lib. 1. de Eucharist cap. 34. Schooles No Marvell therefore if there arose some out of your owne Church who did impugne this delusion calling it as your g Dixi Conversionem Panis in corpas Christi esse Adductivam quod dictum video à nonnullis esse perperà m acceptum qui inde non Transubstantiarionem sed Translocationem colligunt Sed dixi corpus Christi non deseruisse locum suum in Coelo neque incipere esse sub speciebus ut in loco sed ut Substantia sub Accidentibus remotâ tamen inhurentia Bellarmia Recog in lib. 3. de Eucharist pag. 81. Cardinall himselfe witnesseth of them a Translocation onely and not a Transubstantiation and that truly if they should not have called it a Trans-accession or Trans-succession rather For who will say if he put on his hand a Glove made of a Lamb-skin which Lambe was long since dead and consequently ceasing to be that therefore his hand is Transubstantiated into the Body of the Lambe yet is there in this example a more substantiall Change by much than can be imagined to be by your Adduction of a Body under onely the Formes and Accidents of the matter of Bread because to speake from your selves there is in that a Materiall Touch betweene the Substance of the hand and the Lamb-skin but in this other there is onely a Conjunction of the Substance of one Body with the Accidents of another Which kinde of meere Succession of a Substance your Iesuite Suarez will allow to bee no more than a h Per solum Adductiram actionem reverà non explicatur vera conversio Substantialis Transubstantiatio sed tantùm Translocatio quaedam quando una Substantia succedit loco alterius non potest propriè diâ—â— unam converti in aliam Suarez Ies loco citato pag. 639. Translocation âšœ And that justly as Any may easily perceive because in every true Transubstantiation there is a Change of a Substance into a Substance as into that which is the Terming of the Change but in this your Adduction there is said to be onely Terminus praesentiae of the Praesence of Christ's Body instead of the Presence of Bread Therefore it is flatly Translocation onely A word more Transubstantiation saith your Councel of Trent is collected out of these words of Christ This is my Body But by sole Adduction saith your 3 AEgidius Coniax Ies de Sacram. Quaest 75. Art 4. Dubit 4. num 142. Ex quo pater refutar sententiam eam quae docet corpus Christi adesse posse per solam Adductionem quia hoc non potest colligi conversio Panis in corpus ex verbis Christi Iesuite Coninx cannot be collected a Conversion of Bread into Christ's Body out of the words of Christ Wee Conclude that seeing Conversion whether by Production or by Adduction are so plainly proved by your selves to be contrary to Truth therefore it is not possible for you to believe a Doctrine so absolutely repugnant to your owne knowledge âšœ This last figment being discarded ponder wee pray you the Weight of this Argument Every true and proper Transubstantiation is a Change into a substance that was not extant before But the Body of Christ was and is alwaies
Transubstantiation was hatched and which is contrary to his owne device of Conversion by Adduction wherein first he i Dicta Corpus Christi ex pane fieri non tanquà m ex materia sed tanquà m à Termino à quo ut mundus ex nihilo then confuting himselfe etiam sit ex aqua vinum that was not ex nihilo In praesenti negotio Conversio non est Productiva Panis enim convertitur in Corpus Christi praeexistens ergò Corpus Christi factum ex Pane ex Carne est idem Bell. l. 3. de Euc. c. 24. § Ad Tertium confoundeth himselfe and secondly his opinion hath beene scornfully rejected by your owne learned Doctors as being nothing lesse than Transubstantiation as you have heard Therefore may you make much of your Breaden Christ As for us Wee according to our Apostollicall Creec believe no Body of Christ but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the Bl Virgin Mary for feare of k Alphonsus de Castro lib. 4 Tit. Christê° Haer. 2. Manichaei dixeruÌ„t Christum non ex utero Virginis prodijsse Et Apollinaris dixit Christum non assumpsisse carnem ex Virgine Item Chiliastae Democritae Melcluoritae ut Procli mitae pratcolus in Elench Haeret. in suic quique titulis Heresie This same Objection being made of late to a Iesuite of prime note received from him this Answer viz. God that was able to raise Children to Abraham out of stones can of Bread transubstantiate the same into that Body of Christ which was of the Virgin And hee againe received this Reply That the Children which should bee so raised out of stones howsoever they might bee Abraham's Children according to Faith yet could they not bee Children of Abraham according to the Flesh Therefore is there as great a Difference betweene that Body from Bread and the other from the Blessed Virgin as there must have beene betweene Children out of Stones and Children out of Flesh And this our Reason accordeth right well to the Ancient Faith professed within this Land in the dayes of Edgar a Saxon King as it is set out in an l Homily en Easter day pag. 35. Homily of that time which standeth thus Much is betweene the body that Christ suffered in and betweene the bodie of the hallowed Howsell The Body truly that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of the Virgin Mary with blood and with bone with skin and with sinewes in humane limbes and his Ghostly body which we call his Howsell is gathered of many Cornes without blood and bone without lâ—mbe and therefore nothing is to be understood heerein bodily but all is Ghostly to bee understood This was our then Saxons Faith wherein is plainly distinguished the Body of Christ borne of the blessed Virgin from the Sacramentall which is called Ghostly as is the Body of Flesh from the consecrated substance of Bread A Doctrine directly confirmed by * See Booke 4. cap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge Saint Augustine Wherefore wee may as truly say concerning this your Conversion that if it be by Transubstantiation from Bread then it is not the Body which was borne of the Blessed Virgin as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication * See above E. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread bee Christ's Body then Something was Christs Body which was not borne of the Virgin Mary CHALLENGE I âšœ In vindication of the same Truth against the late Calumniation of a Iesuite THis Sentence I have seene lately canvassed by a Iesuite against a judicious and religious Knight S r. H. L. falsly imputing unto him divers Falsities pretending especially that the English Translation used by the Knight is differing from the Latine Which Exception of your Iesuite must needes have proceded either from ignorance if hee knew not that the Translation used by the Knight was taken out of the Originall Saxon-language and not out of the Latine or if he knew so much from downe-right boldnesse in charging him with a false Translation I omit his frivolous Cavillations upon words The maine question for the sense is whether in this sentence of the Saxons Faith the Body wherein Christ suffered and his Body celebrated in this Sacrament betoken not two kinde of Bodies essentially differing one from the other or but onely the two different manners of the Being of one Body Your Iesuite affirmeth them to signifie the same Body and he calleth the contrary opinion false His Reason For whereas it is said saith he that the spirituall flesh which is as much as to say our Saviour his flesh in the Sacrament according to the outward shew consisting of Granes of Corne hath no Bones nor Sinewes nor distinction of Parts Life or Motion Here the Iesuite cryeth out against falshood but why Because the Knight forsooth hath pretermitted saith he these words According to the outward shew consisting of granes Whereby he would have us believe the new â—â—mish Faith of a Subsistence of meere Accidents Who if he had meant to have dealt ingenuously he should have manifested that his Latine Translation to have accorded with the Originall Saxon Copie But to take him as wee finde him If his words According to the outward shew imply as it needs must if he will speake to any purpose that the Body of Christ in this Sacrament although in outward shew it be without Bones Sinewes Life and Motion yet it hath all these inwardly in it selfe as it is in this Sacrament then whilest he laboureth to confute one Protestant he contradicteth all his fellow Iesuites of the same Society * See Booke 4. Chap. â— Sect. 2. who deny all possibility of Motion of Christ's Body in this Sacrament by any naturall and voluntary Act without a miracle But to speake to the point This Body and That Body say wee do diversifie two Bodies the one Sacramentall of Bread called Spirituall because of the spirituall and mysticall Signification this Bread consisting of Granes And the other the Naturall Body of Christ consisting of Bones Sinewes c. In a word This and That in this Saxon narration accordeth with the Doctrine of * See Booke 4. Chap. 4. in the Challenge Bertram taken out of Saint Augustine namely That in heaven to differ as much from This on the Altar as did the Body borne of the Virgin Mary from the other which was not so borne But if this Homily will not advantage your Iesuite hee will wrest his prejudicate Conceite out of another Homily of AElfrick if it be possible where we reade thus As Christ before his Passion could convert the substance of Bread and Creature of Wine into his owne Body that suffered and into his Blood which afterwards was extant to be shed So also was he able in the Desert to Convert Manna and Water out of the Rock into his Blood So he citing a Testimonie as fully Opposite unto your Transubstantiation in sense as it seemeth
which none of our Adversaries for ought that I know did ever answer or yet object out of this Author any thing against us So hee And good reason for indeed none need to busie himselfe with answering to these places except you could prove that these were the words of the same Gr. Nyssen and not of some other suborned Author under his name Whereof wee may bee perswaded both because that the objected places are onely read in the 11 Bellarm. de Script Eccles â—d Annum 380. Tit. Greg. Nyssen Observatio secunda praeter libros numeratos exâ—nt ex Editione Paâ—siensi Anno 1573. Catechetica oratio c. after-Editions of the works of Gregory Nyssen and also for that as your own Author who hath published the same Catecheticall Oration confesseth of 12 Author praefat ad Eâ—lit Paris Anno 1573. Quae de Transubstantiatione in Cap. 37. 38. habentur in exemplaribus Manuscriptis multis non haberi To that of the Bodies of the Receivers to be made immortall See an Answer Book 5. Chap. 8. §. 3. Your Objection of Divine Power is Answered already in this Chapter Sect. 2. To that hee Questioneth how Christ's Body being but one can hee without Diminution received of so many it is Answered in the 4. Booke The places concerning the Eucharist which are the same now objected They are wanting in divers Manuscripts of Gregory Nyssen his workes And how much more suspicious may this seeme to them who are acquainted with your Booke-mints and Booke-manglers as well in foysting in false Sentences as in falsifying the true This might have beene our first Answer but lest that if wee should insist upon this wee might seeme to decline your pretended answerlesse Objection observe you with us in the same Author that as he sayeth The Bread is converted into the Body of Christ so hee saith of the same Body of Christ being received that * See above at p. It doth convert the body of the Receiver into Christ himselfe as you have heard Whereby he teacheth both you and us that this word Convert is to bee taken for a mysticall and Sacramentall Change and not for a proper and substantiall except you would conclude from the same Father by you objected that the body of the Communicant is Transubstantiated into Christ himselfe Nor this onely but by vertue of the same word Transit must you bee constrained to allow of a farre more strange Transubstantiation even of the Bread which was eaten of Christ 13 Nyssen in Orat. Catech. qâ—o supra Corpus Dei verti ad divinam Dignitatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in illo Corpore sc Christi transmutants Panis transit in divinam naturam Into his owne Deitie Are you not ashamed to urge such a proper Sense of the same words of Nyssen in one Sentence which in another Sentence of his if properly taken you your selves cannot but abhorre as Hereticall And with the same forehead doth your Cardinall say that Protestants finde nothing to object out of this Father Gregory Nyssen seeing that it is not Nothing to observe where Nyssen saith that 14 Bellar. lib. 2. de Eucharist cap. 16. Gregor Nyssen de vita Mosis Panis qui de Coelo descendit qui verus cibus est qui aenigmaticè hac Historiâ de Manna significatur non incorporea res est quo enim pacto res incorporea corpori cibus fiet res autem quae in corpore est corpus omninò non est The Bread which descended from Heaven is the true meate signified in the History of Manna it is no incorporeall thing and being without a Body cannot be nourishment to a Body Hereupon we make bold to demand of your Answerer what is that in this Sacrament which giveth * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 10. nourishment to all whether Men or Mice that receive it And the Oracle of your Schooles telleth us that not Bread and Wine but the 15 Aqam part 3 Qu. 77 Art 6. Species SacrameÌ„tales manifestum est quòd nutriunt Accidents and Formes of Bread and Wine do nourish Contrarily Gregory Nyssen saith as you have heard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How can an incorporeall thing give nourishment to a thing corporall as thinking it impossible Our Argument then from thence may be this Seeing Accidents of Bread cannot nourish then certainely the substance of Bread in this Sacrament which giveth a bodily nourishment doth remaine therein And if the Substance of Bread remaine then by your owne unanimous Confessions Bread is not changed and converted into the Substance of Christ's Body and consequently must you bidd your Lateran Dame Transubstantiation adiue Chrysostome is found admiring these Mysteries and is objected by Mr. q Mr. Brerely Tract ◠§ 4. Subd 2. pag. 164. Brerely for proofe of the wonderfull Effects of this Sacrament Why what saith he r Chrysost Admiranda Mysteria ut non solùm per dilectionem sed reipsa in illam carnem convertamur Hom. 45. in Iob. Wee our selves saith hee are converted and changed into the Flesh of Christ Which was the former saying of Greg. Nyssen Will your Disputers never learne the Hyperbolicall Language of ancient Fathers especially when they speake of Sacramentall and mysticall things more especially Chrysostome who when hee falleth upon this Subject doth almost altogether Rhetoricat but chiefly when they cannot bee ignorant that such words of the Fathers in the Literall straine are utterly absurd For what greater Absurdity than as is now objected for our Bodies to be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ Hearken unto Chrysostome a word more and hee will tell you that wicked and impenitent Communicants being 16 And againe Hom. 51. in Matth. 14. Quam Satisfactionem offeremus si cùm nutriti hoc cibo ipsi in lupos convertamur Nourished with this food are turned into Woolves Now are we past the limits of due Antiquity you descend lower Theophylact will say hard to us who speaking of this Sacrament saith indeed that Å¿ Theophylact. in Marc. 14. Vocat hanc Conversionem Trans-elementationem quae quidem vox nihil minus significat quà m Transubstantiatio nam Trans-elementatio significat mutationem totius rei ad ipsam materiam quae ab Aristotele Elementum dicitur Si mutatio solius formae rectè dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transformatio mutatio externae figurae transfiguratio cur mutatio substantiae non poterit rectè dici Transubstantiatio Bellarmin lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. §. Secundo The Bread is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ which your Cardinall will have to bee in the same Fathers sense Equivalent with your Transubstantiation Vnconscionably for doth not the same Father say likewise that t Theoph. in Ioh. 6 Qui me man lucat quodammodò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Christian is in a maner Trans-elementated into Christ Like as Isidore Pelusiota spake of u Isiâ—or Pelusiat lib 3. Epistol
Body of Christ not onely under a Signe or Signification but under a Seale of Confirmation also which inferreth a greater degree of reall Truth thereby represented unto us This might have bin the reason why Saint Augustine taught Christ to be g August Tract 50. in Ich. Habemus Christum in praesenti ad Baptismatis Sacramentum habemus in praesenti ad Altaris cibum potum Tom. 9. Present both in Baptisme and at receiving the Lord's Supper A fourth Reason to be observed herein as more speciall is Veritas Exhibitionis a Truth Exhibiting and delivering to the faithfull Communicants the thing signified and sealed which Christ expressed when he delivered it to his Disciples saying Take eate this is my Body given for you and this is my Blood shed for you Thus Christ by himselfe and so doth he to other faithfull Communicants whersoever to the ends of the World by his Ministers as by his hands through virtue of that Royall Command DOE THIS Vaine therefore is the Objection made by your h Athanas apud Theodoret. Dial. 2. pag. 330. Corpus est cui dicit Sede à dexteris meis per quod corpus Pontifex fuit dictus est per id quod tradidit mysterium dicens Hoc est corpus meum This was objected by Bellarmine lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 11. Cardinall in urging us with the testimony of Athanasius to prove that Christ his Body is exhibited to the Receivers As though there were not a Truth in a mysticall and Sacramentall deliverance of Christ his Body except it were by a corporall and materiall presence therof which is a transparent falsity as any may perceive by any Deed of Gift which by writing seale and delivery conveyeth any Land or Possession from man to man yet this farre more effectually as afterwards will appeare But first wee are to manifest That the Romish Disputers do Odiously Slanderously and Vnconscionably vilifie the Sacrament of the Eucharist as it is celebrated by PROTESTANTS SECT III. BEllarmine with others i Christus nihil est illis nisi frustum panis vini portiuncula Salmeron Ies in Epist pauli disput 11. §. Septimo EucharistiaÌ„ esse tantùm figuram haeresis est antiqua haec Calvini haeresis Bellar. de Not. Ecclesiae c. 9. §. Quorundam Malè cocta bâ—ccella mysterium carnale nihil divini portentat Refigit inquiunt in memoriam Christi meritum ejusque generi nostrò collata beneficia Augustum sanè I nihil deterius ipsa praesta oculis nostris inspecta imago Crucifixi Westen de 3. hominis offic c. 16 Purus putus panis pistorius merum meracum sive vinum cauponarium Espenc de Adorat lib. 5. cap. 9. p. 188. object against Protestants saying that Their Sacrament is nothing else but a crust of Bread and pittance of Wine And againe A morsel of Bread ill baked by which the Protestants represent unto their memories the death of Christ and the benefits thereof A goodly matter so doth a Crucifix and to make the Sacrament onely a Signe is an ancient Heresie So they But have you not heard the Doctrine of the Protestants teaching the Eucharisticall Bread to be more than Bare Bread a Sacramentall Signe more an Evangelicall Signe more a Sacred Seale yet more an Exhibiting Instrument of the Body of Christ therein to the devout Receiver And have not these outragious Spirits read your owne Cardinall witnessing that the Protestants teach that k Docet Calvinus Symbola corpus Christi licet loco inter se plurimùm distenâ— tamen conjuncta esse non solum ratione signi quià unum est signum alterius sed quià per signum Deus verè nobis exhibet ipsum corpus verum sanguinem quo animae nostrae verè alantur Bellar. l. 1. de Euc. c. 1. â—it Calvinus affirmat saepiùs Christi corpus esse praesens in Sacramento quatenus ibi animis nostris verè unitur communicatur substantialiter sic enim loquitur secundum substantiam non modò secundum effectum Et Fortunatus Calvinista dicit in Sacramento corpus Christi versari realissimeque percipi Valent. Ies Tom. 4. disp 6. quaest 3. punct 1. §. 7. p. 9. Idem Sadael Beza sentiunt Idem ibid Haec est eorum sententia licet Christi corpus corporaliter essentialiter sit in coelo nihilominus duplici modo in hoc Sacramento verè percipi spiritualiter sacramentaliter spiritualiter quidem ore mentis non dentis id est per fidem coÌ„junctionem virtute Spiritus Sancti in animo communicantis sacramentaliter etiam ore quidem corporis sumendo non ipsum quidem corpus ejus sed signum corporis ejus panem vinum quae dicit esse sigilla certa quibus promissio redemptionis in corpore sanguine Christi fidelibus obsignatur Valent. quo supra Although the Body of Christ be still in Heaven yet is it received in this Sacrament first Sacramentally by Bodily mouthes in receiving the Bread the signe of Christ his Body and by which God doth truly albeit Sacramentally deliver unto the faithfull the reall Body of Christ and secondly spiritually to the mouth of the soule by Faith and so they truly and really participate of the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ So Bellarmine concerning Protestants which is so plainly professed by l Calvin in his Booke intituted Defensio Carvini de Sacramento Augustana Confessio In sacra Coenâ verè dari cum Pane Vino ipsum Corpus Christi Sanguinem Huic consenâ—um nostrum praebemus Absit verò ut nos vel Coenae Symbolo suam auferamus veritatem vel plus animas tanto privemus beneficio Defens pag. 28. Hujus rei non fallacem oculis figuram proponi dicimus sed pignus nobis porrigi cui res ipsa veritas conjuncta est quòd scilicet Christi Carne Sanguine animae nostrae pascantur Ibid. pag. 44 Sacram unitatem quam nos habemus cum Christo sensui carnis incomprehensibilem fatemur esse Ibid. 45. Spiritualem cùm dicimus fremunt quasi hac voce realem ut vulgò vocant tollamus Nos verò si reale pro vero accipiant ac fallaci imaginatio opponunt Barbare loqui mallemus quà m pugnis materiam praebere Scimus enim quà m non deceant logomachiae Christi servos Ibid. pag. 46. Quasi verò nobis cum Swinkfeldio quicquam sit commune qui nudum signum docuit Ibid. Defens 2. pag. 35. Figuraram esse locutionem fatemur modò non tollatur figurae veritas hoc est modò res quoque ipsa adlit Ibid. pag. 43. Substantiâ Corporis Christi animas nostras bene pasci fateor tamen substantialem praesentiam quam imaginantur repudio Ibid. pag. 55. Nec aliter sanctae memoriae Bucerum sensisse luculentissimis testimonijs probare mihi semper prompum erit Ibid. pag. 61. In veteri Testamento nondum carnem induerat filius
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
Place Which being joyned with the former Confession of Suarez already cited affirming it to be a Doctrine Contrary to all Divines to teach the Body of Christ to be any where but only in heaven excepting the mysterie of the Eucharist It will be easie to discerne how little credit is to be given to the Stories which are alleged by Bellarmine of bodily Apparitions without the Sacrament âšœ That the Opinion of the Being of a Body in many places at once implyeth a Contradiction is Secondly proved by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers thereby distinguishing Christ his two Natures Godhead and Manhood one from another by Circumscription and Incircumscription SECT V. ANcient Fathers judged it Impossible for a Body to be without Determination in one only place at one time yea say you they did so but meaning Impossible according to the course of nature but not absolutely Impossible as if by Divine Miracle a Body might not be in many places at once This is your onely Answer and the Answer of every one of your Answerers whereat wee should wonder but that they have given us so often experience what little conscience they make how true their Answers be so that they may be knowne to have answered otherwise they well know that the Fathers meant an absolute Impossibility and that this is most evident by the Heresie which they did impugne and also by their maner of confuting the same The Eutychian Heretikes you a Alfons de Cast cont haeres Eutych know confounded the Properties of Christs humane nature with his Godhead pretending as you do the Omnipotencie of Christ for the patronizing of their Heresie As thinking thereby thus saith b Theod. Dial. 2. Dicunt Christi carnem spiritualem alterius substantiae quà m sit nostra caro imaginantur se per haec Deum magnifacere cum tamen falsi veritatem accusant Theodoret out of Amphilochius to magnifie the Lord Christ whereas this was indeed as the same Father saith to accuse Truth of falshood You may heare the same voice sound out of the Romane Chaire Pope c Leo Papa Ep. 13. quae est ad Pulcher. Aug. Subrepsisse intelligo spiritum falsitatis ut dum affirmat se religiosiùs de filij Dei majestate sentire si ei naturae nostrae veritatem inesse non dicat c. Leo speaking of Eutyches the Author of that Heresie saith that Hee affirmed that thereby he did more religiously conceive of the Majesty of Christ by denying his humane nature whom therefore that holy Pope censureth to have beene seduced by the Spirit of falsity Therfore it cannot be but that the Fathers in confuting an Heresie founded upon a pretence of Omnipotency did hold that doctrine absolutely impossible which they withstood as will now more lively appeare by the Testimonies of themselves Theodoret against this Heretike argueth thus d Theod. Dial. 3. lib. 3. ex Euseb Emis Contra eos qui dicunt Corpus Christi in Divinitate mutatum esse post resurrectionem Hos dicere necesse est vel divinae naturae manus pedes alias corporis partes tributas esse vel fateri corpus manfisse in suae naturae finibus Atqui divina natura simplex est incomposita corpus autem compositum in multas partes divisum non est ergo mutatum in naturam divinitatis quidem immortale â—actum divinà naturâ plenum sed tamen corpus quod propriam habet Câ—cumscriptionem The Body of Christ being a compounded thing cannot be changed into a divine nature because it hath Circumscription This had bin no good reasoning except his CANNOT had imported an absolute Impossibility âšœ And this 11 Eranistes Heret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex lob Theod. opponit Exâ—mplum impossibilium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Dial. 3. Cap 4. Et paulò post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret himselfe doth furthermore make good who in the same Dialogue where to the Heretikes Objection out of Iob saying I know thou canst doe all things nothing is impossible with thee he answereth by instancing in examples of Impossibility because of Contradiction saying It is impossible for eternity to be in time or a thing created to be uncreated or finite to be infinite So he âšœ c Vizil lib. 4 cont Eutych Circumscribitur loco per naturam carnis suae loco non capitur per nâ—turam divinitatis suae Haec fides est confessio Catholica quam Apostoli tradiderunt Martyres roboraverunt fideles nunc usque custodiunt Et paulò superius Quia nunc in Coelo est non est utique in terra Vigilius anciently Bishop of Trent might have read a Lesson to the late Bishops at Trent who against the same Heretike distinguishing the two natures of Christ his Humane nature by being Circumscribed in one place the Divine by being unlocable doubted not to inferre saying of his Bodily nature It being now in heaven is not at all on earth And lest that any might thinke this was but his owne private opinion hee averreth saying This is the Catholike profession taught by the Apostles confirmed by Martyrs and hitherto held of the Faithfull So Fulgentius upon the same Distinction maketh the same Conclusion saying of his Bodily substance that therefore f Fulgent de persona Christi ad Trasimund lib. 2. cap 5. Vnus idemque homo localis ex homâ—ne qui est Deus immensus ex Patie Vnus idemque secundùm humanâ—m substantiam absens caelo cum esset in terra derelinquens terram cùm ascendisset in coelum Being on Earth it was absent from Heaven and going to Heaven it left the Earth Damascea had to deale with the forenamed Heretike and professing to deliver the substantiall difference of both Natures hee differenceth them by these contrary Characters g Damascen de fide Orthodoxi lib 3. cap. 3. Eâ—rum naturarum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 astâ—umus salvari nam câ—eatum mansit creatum increatâ—â— increatum morrale â—manebâ—t mortale immortale immortale 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 âšœ Paulo suâ—erius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Created not Created Capable of mortalitie and not Capable of mortalitie Circumscribed and not Circumscribed and Invisible in it selfe and Visible which notwithstanding is in the Eucharist by your doctrine noâ— Capable of Circumscription because whole in the whole Hoast and in every part thereof and to the very Angels of God Invisible âšœ And yet againe that you may further know that Damiscen is as professedly ours in this point as any Protestant can be hee in confutation of the same Heretike addeth saying How can one and the same Nature be capable at once of two essentiall contrary Differences for how is it possible for the same Nature according to the same to be created and uncreated mortall and immorall circumscribed and uncircumscribed Where by the way you may observe that Circumscription of a Body is accounted
both in taking exception at the ground of that speech to shew that it is not Scripture at all and also by moderating the rigidity of that Sentence even out of Augustine himselfe THE FIRST CHALLENGE Shewing that the Ground of that speech was not Scripture PRotestants you know allow of no Authenticall Scripture of the old Testament which is not according to the Originall namely the Hebrew Text and the Church of Rome alloweth of the Vulgar Latine Translation as of the onely Authenticall But in neither of them are these words viz. Hee was carried in his owne hands but only that David now playing the Mad-man slipt or fell into the hands of others as your c Tâ—status Abulensis Et collabe batur inter manus eorum Nempè ad modum hominis furiosi ostendebat se ut insanum Cor. in â—um locum Abulensis truely observeth So easily might the Transcribers of the Septuagints erre in mistaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so impossible it is for you to ground the objected Sentence upon divine Scripture even in your owne judgement THE SECOND CHALLENGE Shewing that the Romanists cannot stand to the QVOMODO of Augustine THis word Quomodo How implying it to be impossible for David or any other man to carry himselfe in his owne hands excepting Christ as you defend must argue either an absolute Impossibility or not if it intend an absolute Impossibility of any man to be carryed in his owne hands in a literall sense then could not Christ as man be carryed in his owne hands and if it doe not intimate an absolute Impossibility then might David or any other man by the power of God have carried himselfe in his owne hands So that whether thus or so you will make Augustine contradict himselfe if his words be taken in the precisenesse and strictnesse of that which is a Literall Sense THE THIRD CHALLENGE Shewing that Augustine in another word following to wit QVODAMMODO doth answer Saint Augustine himselfe to his owne formerly objected word QVOMODO SAint Augustine after hee had sayd Quomodo How a word seeming to signifie an Impossibility lest that it being taken absolutely might imply a direct carrying of himselfe in his hands at his Supper he qualifieth that his speech somewhat after saying Quodammodò c. that is After a certaine maner Christ carried himselfe in his owne hands Which is a Modification and indeed a Correction of his former sentence Our next labour must be to find out the meaning of his Quodammodo and what this maner of Christ's carrying himselfe was in the judgement of Saint Augustine Whatsoever it is that a man hath really in his hands were it a loafe of Bread it were ridiculous to say that hee carrieth a loafe of Bread After a sort in his hands if the same were Properly carried therein as will appeare most plainly in the fift Challenge THE FOVRTH CHALLENGE Shewing Saint Augustine to be an utter enemie to the Romish Cause in all their other conceited Maners concerning Christ in this Sacrament AGainst your maner of interpreting the words of Christ HOC EST CORPVS MEVM properly you have heard Augustine often pleading for a Figurative Sense Secondly against your maner of bringing in the Body of Christ by Transubstantiation hee hath acknowledged in this Sacrament after Consecration the Continuance of Bread Thirdly against your Corporall Existence of Christ in many places at once in this Sacrament or else-where without dimension of Place or Space he hath already contradicted you in both holding them Impossible and also by arguing that therefore his flesh is not on Earth because it is in Heaven Fourthly Your maner of properly Eating Christs Body Corporally hee will * See the fift Booke Chap. 5. Sect. 5. and Chap. 6. Sect. 3. renounce hereafter as an execrable Imagination Wherefore Augustine holding 〈◊〉 Impossible for Christs Body to have any Corporall Existence in this Sacrament it is Incredible hee could have resolvedly concluded of Christ's Corporall carrying of his Body properly in his owne hands THE FIFTH CHALLENGE Shewing that the QVODAMMODO of Saint Augustine is the same Maner which the Protestants doe teach by the acknowledgement of some Romanists DOe you then seeke after the maner which Augustine beleeved what need you having learned it of Augustine himselfe by his Secundùm quendam modum where he saith This Sacrament after a sort is the Body of Christ What literally Nay but for so hee saith * August Sicut secundùm quendam moduÌ„ Sacramentum Corporis Corpus Christi est ita Sacramentum Fidei Fides est See above § 8. at a. As Baptisme the Sacrament of Faith is called Faith And if you have not the leisure to looke for Augustine judgment in his writings you might have found it in your owne Booke of Decrees set out by b Decret part 3. de Consecr distinct 2. C. Hoc est Sicut ergo coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi illius viz. quod c. vocaturque immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit Christi Passio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio Observe that in the words coelestis panis qui caro Christi est the word Caro is by the Glosse in Gratian interpreted Species panis at the letter f Caro id est Species panis to avoid the absurdity of interpreting Christ's Flesh to be the Body of Christ Gratian where Augustine is alleged to say that This holy Bread is after it's maner called the Body of Christ as the offering thereof by the hands of the Priest is called Christs Passion Dare you say that the Priest's Oblation is properly and literally in strict sense the Passion of Christ or that Augustine meant any such Maner Surely hee did not and therefore may wee most aptly expound Saint Augustines Quodammodo by this Saint Augustine his Suo modo which is clearely and evidently explained by your owne Romish c Glossa ibid. Coeleste c. Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem Christi caro vocatuâ— unde dicitur suo modo non rei veritate sed significante mysterio â—it sit sensus vocatur Christi coâ—pus id est Significat Glosse where it saith The heavenly Sacrament which representeth the Flesh of Christ is called Christ's Flesh so sayd Suo modo after it's maner not in the Truth of the thing but in a significant mysterie as meaning It is called Christ's Body that is it signifieth his Body So the Glosse âšœ To conclude Wee are in good hope that you will give credit to that which Many of your owne Doctors shall confesse and that with the approbation of your Iesuite Suarez 20 Suar. Ies in 3. Thom. Disp 47. § 4 Quae coveniunt coâ—pori Christi secundùm le non possunt dici de speciebus nisi valdè metaphoricè impropriè eo modo quo nomen rei significatae tribuitur
signo Ratio est clara Quia corpus Christi est res omnino distincta speciebus Iuxtà hanc Conclusionem interpretantur multi quod alibi dixit August Sacramentum corporis Christi Quodammodo dici corpus Christi who relateth thus much saying that whereas Saint Augustine hath these words viz. The Sacrament is called Quodammodo that iâ— after a maner the Body of Christ Many saith hee doe expound them as spoken very Metaphorically and Improperly the reason whereof is cleare because the Body of Christ is a thing distinct from the formes So hee Confessing that those Many yield unto us that True and Figurative Sense of Saint Augustines Quodammodo which wee have all this while contended for âšœ In a word rightly might d Calvin Admonit uâ—t ad Westphol Augustinum totum esse nostrum omnes libâ—â— clamant Calvin say speaking of these Controversies concerning this Sacrament All the Bookes of Augustine upon this subject proclame that hee is wholly ours Much more concerning Christ his not being Corporally here on Earth will by the judgement of Augustine and other Fathers be found in the fifth sixt and seventh Bookes besides that which they affirme in this Booke in the Chapters following THE SIXT CHALLENGE In generall Concluding the maine Point BY this time wee thinke you may discerne betweene plaine dealing and false juggling for your Disputers have usually alleged for defence of your Transubstantiation and Corporall Presence in the Sacrament the Sentences of Fathers used in their Sermons and Exhortations wherein commonly they exercised their Rhetoricke in Figurative and Hyperbolicall speeches as hath beene confessed by your owne Doctours and proved by many their like Sayings concerning other Sacramentall Rites but especially of the Sacrament of Baptisme whereas our proofes arise directly from the Testimonies of the Fathers which they have commonly had in their sad and earnest Disputation in confutation of many and maine Heresies where indeed they were necessarily to make use both of their Logicko for discerning Truth from Errour and also of Grammer wee meane the Exactnesse and proprietie of Speech void of Amphibologies Hyperboles and Ambiguities whereby the minds of their Hearers or Readers might be perplexed and the Truth darkned This one Consideration wee judge to be of necessary importance And thus much concerning the judgement of ancient Fathers touching this second Contradiction That thirdly the Contradiction and consequently the Impossibility of the Being of one Body in divers Places at once is evicted by two sound Reasons the first taken from Contradictory Relations SECT VIII YOu have already * See above 〈◊〉 5. §. â— heard of the Antecedent which was granted by Aquinas viz. It implyeth a Contradiction to say a Body is Corporally in two places at once because this maketh that one Body not to be one Which being confessed your have also heard your Cardinall making this Consequence viz. by the same reason it muct follow that it is absolutely Impossible But besides there are Actions and Qualities whereof some are Relatives and have respect to some place and others are Absolutes Of the Relatives you have determined that c Vnum corpus in diversis locis positum unum habet esse substantiale sed multa habet esse localia ex quo fit ut omnia multiplicari debeant quae consequuntur esse locale illa autem non multiplicantur quae aliunde proveniunt Relationes verò ad loca necessariò multiplicantur propter dimensiones locorum Itaque erit idem corpus sursum deorsum propinqusi remotum poterit moveri in locum quiescere in alio loco nec tamen implicatur ulla contradictio Illa enim dicuntur Contradicentra quae conveniunt uni respectu eodem eodem tempore modo loco Ac nè id mirum videatur Anima humana quae tota est in toto corpore quolibet membro Corporis certè ut est in capite est remota à terra ut in pedibus propinqua ut in brachio quiescere dicitur ut in altero moâ— movere Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. § Ac primum One Body say you as it is in diverse places at once might be below and above on the right hand and on the left behind and before it selfe may move and not move at the same instant without Contradiction because it is so said in divers Respects namely of divers places as the soule of man in divers parts of the Body So you These are but Capriccious Chimera's and mungrell fancies of addle braines who disputing of Bodily Locality can finde no Example within the Circumferences of the Vniversitie of Creatures but onely Man's soule which is a Spirit which point is to be discussed in the fift Chapter In the Interim know you that although Relations do sometimes take away Contradictions where they are applyable As namely for the same Body to be high and low in respect of it's owne divers parts to wit high in respect of the head and low in respect of the heele wherein there is no comparison of any whole or part with it selfe yet if any should say as much of the same Body whether whole or part as thus The same whole head goeth before and after it selfe or the same one finger is longer and shorter than it selfe hee may justly be suspected to be besides himselfe all such like speeches being as Contradictory in themselves and consequently Impossible as for a man to say hee is elder and younger than himselfe âšœ Which peradventure one of your Doctors saw when hee denyed in this Sacrament any Motion at all Because els saith 21 Ioh. Paluter à Castro S. T. D. Lect. our in 4. Sect Tom. 4. Lect. 58 Christi corpus in hoc Sacramento non movetur neque per se ne que per Accidens Et paulò post Si ad Hostiae motum moveretur time ad Hostiae motum esseâ— sursum simùl deorsum At hoc ex dictis non sapit verum hee at the Motion of the Hoast Christ's Body should be both below and above at once which savoureth not of Truth So hee And although your 22 Gabriel Biel. Lect. 47. Cùâ—n innumera sint altaria in quibus celebratur sacrum illud mysterium si moveretur per modios orbes coelis sphaeras elementares ad sâ—gula hujusmodi Altaria corpus Christi esset in continuo motu moveretur ad contrari is positionum differentias simul se ad oriâ—ntem ad occidentem meridianum septentrionem pro varietate situs Altarium quod est Absurdum Ridiculosum Gabriel Biel defendeth the Corporall Presence of Christ in Heaven and on your Altars at once yet that If should move from North and South East and West and all at the same time according to the variety of Altars This saith hee is Absurd and Ridiculous âšœ You * See above Chap. 5. §. â— will say and it is your common Sanctuary that Place is not essentiall
to a Body and therefore separable from a Body so that a man may be in two places at once And you may as well say that because Time is not of the essence of a man some man may have a Being without any time or else in two times at once But enough of this hath beene answered in the sixt Section Finally this your Subtilty would have beene judged a palpable absurdity by ancient Fathers among whom Theodoret taught this Philosophie to hold true in Divinitie to wit that whosoever hath properly one thing on the right hand of it and another thing on the left it is Circumscribed in place Whereby hee demonstrateth the Truth of Christ's Body because it is Circumscribed and that it is circumscribed because it is written of him that f Theod Dial. 2. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Sheepe shall stand on his right hand and the â—oates on the left Nor do you your-selves teach nor yet can you imagine his Body to want either his right hand or his left as hee is present in this Sacrament One word more The * See above â—◠§. 5. Fathers who were many that distinguished the nature of Christs manhood from his God-head because the first is Circumscribed and the other is not circumscribed would never yield to either of both that it is both Circumscribed and not Circumscribed as you do to Christ's Body teaching it to be at the same time Circumscribed in Heaven when it is Vncircumscribed as it is on many Altars upon earth Divers other your Contradictorie Relations you may finde in the Sections following in this Fourth Booke That fourthly a Contradiction and consequently an Impossibility of the Being of a Body in two places at once is proved by absolute Qualities and Actions which are voyd of Relation to Place SECT IX VVEre it possible that Actions and Qualities which have respect to Place might avoid the Contradiction yet of such Actions and Qualities as have no Relation to place it will be beyond your imaginations to conceive so as will appeare by your owne Resolutions For your Cardinall and your Iesuite Suarez with divers others have thus g Corpus Christi in diversis locis positum habet unum substantiale quae sunt absoluta in eo non multiplicantur respectu diversorum locorum unde quae recipluntuâ— Ã corpore sive Actiones sint sive Qualitates sive quae unque alia non multiplicaÌ„tur Ratio quà corpus unum est non multa ut si corpus Christi in uno loco calefiat in alio erit calidum si in uno loco vulneretur in altero erit vulnerarum Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. Actus contrarij ut amoris odij assensus dissensus non possunt competere uno subjecto in diversis locis quia vitales actiones proficiscuntur ex potentiae naturali ut à principio agente eadem potentia non habet vim naturalem ad efficiendum actus contrarios Ratio inter actus cortrarios tantam esse repugnantiam ut etiam per potentiam Dei absolutam non possint esse in eodem subjecto loco quià sese omninò destruunt ex parte objecti Suarez Ies Tom. 3. Disp â—8 Sect. ◠§. Atque determined that Such Actions and Qualities as are reall in a Body without any relation to place may not bee sayd to bee multiplied in respect of divers places wherein the same Body is supposed to be As for example the same Body to be hot in some Country and cold in another at the same time wounded and not wounded passible and not passible And the like may be sayd of Love and Hatred which are vitall Actions proceeding naturally from the Subject So that the Body which in one place is affected with love cannot possibly but be so affected in what place soever So your Disputers âšœ Who might have added one of the Oracles of your Church Pope Innocent the third where hee writes of your Romane Masse saying that 23 Innoc. 3. de offic Missae lib. 3. cap. 22. Sed cùm incredibile judicatur ut secundùm eandem naturam simul esset mortalis immortalis It is judged a thing incredible that Christ should be both mortall and Immortall according to the same nature On whom your Iesuite 24 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Quaest 76 Art 6. Disput 189. cap. 4. Qualitates quae pendent à loco ut telatae quales sunt motus actio in subjectum passio ab Agente c. At omnia absoluta à loco ita enunciantur de corpore absoluto à loco ut eorum enunciatio non limitetur Verbi gratiâ Si Petro convenit esse album enunciabitur de illo sive filium habet sive non eò quòd albedo non convenit ei respectu filij Sequitur perinde esse dicere si semel Petrus supponatur esse albus in uno loco absolutè albus erit in omni lâ—co Idem dici porest de aegritudine sanitate c. Vasquez will waite holding the Generall Tenent that whatsoever Quality it is that hath no dependance of place it cannot be limited in respect of place Among these hee reckoneth Blacknesse and Whitenesse âšœ But have they any reason for these Points Yes they have See the Margin For your Cardinall denying that the same Body in respect of divers places may be hot and not hot at the same time giveth us this reason Because saith hee it is one Body and not many So hee A reason Infallible Your Iesuite Suarez also denying that the same party can love and hate consent and dissent at the same time in respect of divers places yeeldeth this reason Because saith hee these repugnant affections belonging to one subject cannot by the Omnipotency of God be together in the same because they destroy one another So Aquinas and other h Quicquid pertinet ad Christum secundùm quod in se est id potest ei tribui in propriâ specie in hoc Sacramento existenti ut vivere mori dolere animatum esse Aquia part 3. qu. 81. art 4. Cum Thoma consentiunt Scotus Altisidorus Aegidius Petrus à Soto huic favet Innocentius Suar. quo sup p. 602. Schoolemen denying that the same Body can be sayd to grieve and not to grieve both at once in respect of divers places of being propoundeth the like Reason Because Griefe being in the same man as hee is a man cannot be sayd to be together with not Grieving in him lest wee should make a man not to be himselfe âšœ Well hath your Iesuit * See the precedent numb 24. Vasquez resolved of Blacknesse health sicknesse and the like that they are not limited by any respect of place As for example If being in one place Peter be Blacke he shall be sayd to be blacke in whatsoever place hee doth consist âšœ Cardinall Alan 1 Putatur à quibusdam vetustioribus Theologis Christum
in it selfe but in respect of the Place or of the formes of Bread under which it is the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and Indivisible Point thereof CHALLENGE THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome The exact discussion of this one point will in it selfe illumnate the Eyes of any Reader to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth and of Errour namely to know that there cannot be a greater Contradiction and consequently Impossibility than for a Body consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts such as are Hands Legs Eyes and other Organicall members to have Being any where without Extension Commensuration and distinct Proportion of the same to the space wherein it is as the Propositions following will prove That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and Humane Body in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of later times SECT IV. ALbertus Scotus Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned and ancient Schoolemen who as your a Totum Christi corpus in partibus indivisibilibus specierum panis esse negaâ—â—â— Albertus Scotus Aegidius quia videtur impossible in se corpus extensum magnae molis cum tota organizatione figura in puncto collocari Suarez quo supra pag. 683. Jesuite testifieth Though it impossible that a Body that hath Extension of parts should be contained in an indivisible point The same opinion is ascribed by your Jesuites as ancient unto b Opinio antiqua quae fuit Durandi dixit corpus Christi in Eucharistia non habere quantitatem Fundamentum hujus opinionis fuit quod essentia quantitatis est habere partes extra partes distinctas inter se sieri autem non possit ut si corpus Christi habeat partes distinctas in Euch. sit totum in qualibet parte Teste Maldonat Ies Tom. 1. de Euch cap. 8. Arg pag. 180. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Durand and c Occham alij dixerunt quidam esse magnitudinem corporis Christi in Eucharistia sed ita ut nulla sit figura nec distinctio partium Sic Occham Bellar. ibid §. â—t Occham Now what greater injury can there be than after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundred yeares since the Ascension of Christ for any Christian to professe with your ancient Schoolemen an Impossibility that The Body of Christ is whole in every the least part of the Hoast to impose upon mens consciences as an Article of Faith so found and so palpable a figment That which seemed to the above-named Durand Occham and other 1 Suarez Ies in 3. Thom. disp 48. Sect. 1. De Distantis partium Nominales concedunt in corpore Christi existentem in Eucharistia pedem non distare magis à capite quam collum Ità Occham Ailliaco Nominals such an Opinion whence as they thought it must needs follow that the Eyes must be where the Nose is the hand confouded with the legs which as your Cardinal Alan truly said were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos and altogether * See above in this Chapter Sect. 2. monstrous âšœ And it may be that divers of you are of the minde of that Doctor of the Seraphicall order who teacheth you to 2 Corpus Christi non est nisi sub specie Panis partibus ejus ipsum esse sub quolibet indivisibili ipsius Hostiae per se negandum est Magister de media villa Sâ—raph Ord. in 4. Sent. Tom. 4. Deny that the Body of Christ is in any indivisible part of the Hoast âšœ That the Organicall parts of the Body of Christ must be proportionable to the Dimension of the places wherein they are is proved by the confessed Romish Principle it selfe SECT V. THE reason which your * See above § 2. Cardinall layet downe to prove it necessary that Christ his Body should have in it selfe according to the nature of a Body distinct parts of head and eyes and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule he taketh from Magnitude which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length breadth and depth This saith he is inseparably united to Christ his Body in it's owne intrinsecall disposition in it selfe but not so saith he in regard of the place CHALLENGE THis your owne Reason may wee justly retort upon your selves proving that if the naturall disposition of the Body of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe it must be so likewise in respect of Place and Space because the three dimensions of the Body of Christ as you have confessed stand thus that one is an extension in Length another in Breadth the third in Depth and each of these three are distinct one from another Well then the Arme must be here and thus farre longer than the Foot the Legge here and thus farre thicker than the Finger the Hand here and thus farre broader than the Toe and accordingly distinctly in other parts But Hîc and Hucâ—sque Here and There thus farre and so farre being Relatives of Space and Place do demonstratively shew that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body which they have in themselves divisibly the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi Place or Space wherein the Body is If therefore you will not Heretically teach a Mathematicall or Phantasticall Body oâ— Christ you must deny the Article of Trent untill you can beleeve and make good that a part of a divisible Body longer or shorter broader or narrower can be and that equally in one indivisible point This is confirmed by the Essence of Christ his glorified Body as you confesse it to be now in Heaven possessing a Reall place in the sayd proportion of Spaces of length and breadth as it had here upon earth which it doth by the naturall Magnitude or Quantity thereof But the sayd naturall Magnitude or quantity of the sayd Body of Christ is according to your wone generall Doctrine in this Sacrament Therefore must it have the same Commensuration of Space although not of the same Space which is one earth Wee should be loath to trouble your wits with these speculations if that the necessity of the Cause by reason of the Absurdities of your Romish profession did not inforce us hereunto Therefore must you suffer us a little to sport at your trifling seriousnesse who writing of this Divine Sacrament and seeing it to be round solid broken moulded in the one kind and liquid frozen and sowring in the other do attribute all these to Quantities and Qualities and Accidents without any other subject at all So then by the Romish Faith wee shall be constrained to beleeve in effect that the Cup is filled with Mathematicall lines the Mouse eating the Hoast is sed with colours and formes that it is Coldnesse that is frozen and Roundnesse which weigheth downe and falleth to the ground as if you should describe a Romish
Infirmities Wee returne to the written word of God When the Apostle for the magnifying of the perfection of Christs glorious Resurrection as the Head by Analogy with the promised Corporall Glory of faithfull Christians as his Members by the virtue of Christs owne Resurrection saith of these Phil. 3. Hee shall transforme our vile Bodies and make them conformable to his owne glorious Body namely according to those Celestiall Dotes and Indowments set downe 1. Cor. 11. Incorruption Immortalitie Glory Power By all which the excellencie of the Corporall state of the Saints is delineated whereby to excite all the faithfull to possesse their bodies in sanctity and to prepare them to Martyrdome for the hope-sake of the glory whereof it is said The afflictions of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed Wee suppose the Apostle could not then dreame of a Body of Christ without facultie of Sense or power of Motion âšœ You must therefore derive this from him whom Christ calleth the Father of lyes Wee shall give you good reason for this our Declamation That this Romish Doctrine is Blasphemously Derogatory from the Majesticall Body of Christ SECT IV. WHat is this which we have heard Christ his humanity after his Resurection not to have so much Capacity as a Child which is as hee is here to understand or imagine any thing done not the power of a Moale or Mouse which is to heare or see not the faculty of a little Ant so as to move it selfe as if this were not an Antichristian Blasphemy against that all-Majesticall Body and humane nature of Christ which being once * 1. Cor. 15. 44 Sowen in Infirmitie is as the Scripture saith since risen in power Do you heare In power saith the Spirit of God shewing that Infirmitie is changed into Potencie in the Body of every Christian and you have turned Power into infirmity even in Christ himselfe whom you have now transformed into an * Psal 116. Idoll having eyes and seeth not eares and heareth not feete and walketh not heart and imagineth not and yet this you professe to adore as the person of the Sonne of God O the strength of Satanicall Delusion That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your owne Principle SECT V. REmember your * See above 〈…〉 former generall Principle which wee acknowledged to be sound and true viz. All such Actions and Qualities which are reall in any Body without any relation to Place cannot be sayd to be multiplyed in respect of divers places wherein a Body is supposed to be As for example The Body of Christ cannot be cold in one Altar and hot in another wounded and whole in joy and griefe dead and alive at the same time The reason These are impossible say you because of Contradiction for that the same thing should be capable of such Contrarieties it is repugnant to the understanding of man So you which is an infallible Truth when the Modus or Maner of a thing is compared to it selfe and not to any thing else it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be onely one the same Jesuit cannot be sicke in Iapan and sound and in health at Rome in the same instant âšœ Take you for a Conclusion the Confession of your much approved Doctor who doubteth not to call the opinion which holdeth that The Body of Christ is imperfect to be 4 Petrus Arcad. Corcyren de Concord Eccles Occid Orient Anno 1626. Approbantibus Episcopo Bargi Episc Zacinth Andraea Eudâ—emone Ioh. Doctoribus Facult Parisien Tract de Eucharistia Dicere corpus Christi esse quandoque imperfectum est mira blasphemia Blasphemous Nor may you deny the Disabilitie of Motion in Christs Body to be an Imperfection seeing that as the Head of your Church taught that which all Christian Churches ever professed to wit 5 Innocent 3. Papa de offic Mâ—ssae lib 3. cap. 22. Quatuor sunt corporis glorificati propriae qualitates Claritas subtilitas Agilitas Impassibilitas Agility is a proper 〈…〉 of every glorified Bodie wheresoever it is And you may call to minde the Conclusion of your Iesuite Conincks above-mentioned Cap. 4. Sect. 10. Shewing that for the Same Body to be sayd to move in one place and stand still in another is as flat a Contradiction as to say It is frozen and warme both at once Which hee confirmed in the Margin with severall Reasons which do accordingly confute your Doctrine of Possibility of the voluntary Motion of Christs Body in Heaven and the Impossibilitie thereof as it is in this Sacrament âšœ CHALLENGE NOw say wee beseech you is there not the like Contradiction to make the same Christ at the same time as hee is in Heaven Intelligent and Sensitive and as on earth Ignorant and Senslesse Or Powerfull to move of himselfe on the Throne of Majestie and absolutely Impotent as hee is on the Altar Because these Attributes of Christ being Intelligent and Potent equally have no Relation to Place Notwithstanding all which you shame not to professe a senslesse ignorant and feeble Christ O come out of Babylon and be no more bewitched by such her Sorceries CHAP. X. The sixt kind of Romish Contradiction against these words Of Christ MY BODY as it is now most Glorious by making it most Inglorious SECT I. BEfore we proceed in discovering the ouglinesse of the Romish Doctrine in this point wee are willing to heare your a In his booke of the Liturgie of the Masse Tract 2. §. 4. Subd 1. M. Brerely his preface in your defence The carnall maâ— saith he is not for all this satisfied but standeth still offended at sundry pretended absurd and undecent indignities Calvin saying That hee rejected them as unworthy of the Majesty of Christ And Doctor Willet saith That they are unseemely and against the dignity of the glorious and impassible Body of Christ So hee at once relating and rejecting their opinions That the Indignities whereunto the Body of Christ is made subject by the Romish Doctrine are most vile and derogatory to the Majesty of Christ SECT II. ALl Christian Creeds tell us that Christ our Saviour sitteth at the right hand of God that is in perfection of glory But your Jesuite Suarez delivereth it in the generall Doctrine of the Romish Divines d Suarez Ies Dicendum tamdiu conservaâ—i Christum praesentem sub speciebus quamdiu species illae ibi ita permanent ut sub ijs possit substantia panis vini conservari Haec conclusio fere colligitur ex omnibus Theologis Catholicis Scriptoribus D. Thoma c. Sequitur falsam esse sententiam illorum qui dicunt corpus Christi recedere si in lutum cadant species In tertiam Tho. quaest 75. Art 1. Disp 46. §. Dicendum Sect. 8. Rursus q 76. Disp 54. §. 2. Christus non receditx hoc Sacramento donec in Accidentibus talis fiat Alteâ—atio quae ad corrumpendum panem
your framing a Christ unto your selves who as hee is in this Sacrament Is you say without power of motion of sense and of understanding Why my Masters can there be Lamenesse Blindnesse Deafenesse and Impotencie it selfe without Hurt of the same party so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill âšœ A Vindication of the former Truth against the palpably-Absurd albeit amongst you most plausible Defence of your seeming Romish Absurdities in Master Fishers Answer to KING JAMES of Blessed and ever surviving Memory SECT VI. HIs Tractate upon Transubstantiation so greatly magnified of the Romish Professors is very large wee shall draw his principall Points into a Compendium which consisteth of two Generalls and of divers Particulars His two Generalls are his Position and Supposition Master Fisher his Generall Position for Defence of Romish Absurdities the Consequences of your Transubstantiation Numb 1. A Christian Catholike saith he Seeing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming Absurdities that presse carnall Imaginations to the ground growes more and more strong to believe them imbracing these difficulties as signes of that doctrine which was believed of the Primitive Church And againe The seeming Absurdities should rather incline a Christian to beleeve this mystery Our Reply in Generall to prove that his former Assertion may truly be termed FISHERS FOLLIE For if the Absurder a thing be it shall deserve a more beliefe then the Pagans of whom Tully could say There is nothing so Absurd which is not taught of some Philosopher even to the affirming of Snow to be Blacke should be held to be more faithfull than the best of Christians and Heretikes who have turned their Phantasticall dreames into Articles of Faith should be judged to be more true Beleevers than are true Catholikes And sure wee are that by this Position the Jewish Rabbins who taught the people to beleeve in an implicit Faith all their Doctrines albeit it were to hold his Left hand was his Right should bee esteemed no lesse Faithfull than the Papist who by like Doctrine of blind Obedience have professed that Christ his Bodie being in divers Hoasts taketh the Right hand and left hand of it selfe And by the same Assertion shall Master Fisher thinke himselfe to be a better Catholike than were any of the ancient Fathers or yet any Romish Doctor yea or than is M. Fisher himselfe as will appeare in the sequele of our Reply The second Generall is Master Fisher his Supposition Numb 2. Master Fisher his Supposition is That although the Absurdities which are imputed by Protestants to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation seeme to be such Because they are not apprehensible by reason yet are they therefore saith he the rather to be beleeved notwithstanding whatsoever Impossibilities that can be pretended So hee Our Confutation must be accordingly two-fold The first in respect of Impossibilities and the next of Indignities Our Reply displaying the Absurditie of Master Fishers Supposition in respect of Impossibilities by the Generall Doctrine of Fathers Consent of Romish Divines and by his owne particular Praevarication First the Ancient Fathers of the Primitive age have unanimously professed a Doctrine of an Absolute Impossibility in all such things which imply any Contradiction as you have * See above in this B. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 2. 3. heard and maintaining this Doctrine of granting an Impossibilitie in such Cases to be a Truth greatly magnifying the Omnipotencie and Almighty power of God even by reason of Contradiction in them which is an affirming and denying of the same thing Concluding furthermore that gain-saying of Impossibilitie in things contradictory hath beene anciently The Sanctuary of Heretikes So the holy Fathers Secondly all the Doctors of the Romish Schooles of whatsoever Age Sect Society or Denomination have subscribed to the judgement of those Ancient Fathers in the same point of Impossibilitie but why Impossibility Because say they that such things are unconceivible in mans reason and that they seeme Absurd because of Contradiction And hereupon have concluded of many Impossibilities touching a Body as for example * See above c. 3. Impossible for a Body to be produced in divers places at once Impossible for a quantitie of a Bodie not to possesse a place Impossible for Christs Body as in this Sacrament to goe from one place to another Impossible for the same Bodie to be equall with a greater quantity and many other more Impossibilities have they reckoned upon the same ground that the Reason of man could apprehend nothing in such points but an implication of Contradiction And now all these great pillars of Christianity as well in the Vniversall Church Primitive as in the now Romish must by Master Fishers former Assertion be held to have beene no better than underminers of the Christian Faith in that they did not Rather beleeve those things to be possible even because they seemed Impossible by reason of Contradiction Lastly to come to Master Fisher his owne Praevarication * Mr. Fisher in his Answere to the 〈◊〉 upon the seventh point which is the â—ommunion in both kinds How can the Body of Christ saith hee be without either Blood or Soule unlesse it were dead and so should Christ be massacred in this Sacrament and that Eucharist be a Bloody Sacrifice and Christ glorious in Heaven cannot say truly that a Body voyd of Soule Blood and Sense is his Body Yea as Calvin himselfe confesseth It is an Absurd maner of speech to terme Christ the meere Bodie of Christ So hee Whereupon hee will be found so implicated within the horâ—es of a Dilemma that hee cannot expedite himselfe For say good Master Fisher should a Christian man as you have sayd the rather beleeve a Doctrine because it seemeth to be Absurd wee speake of sensible Objects why then do you not beleeve these Absurdities which you your selfe now do so utterly therefore condemne But do you indeed condemne them because they seeme impossible and Absurd why then have you broached a Doctrine of Rather beleeving things because of their seeming Impossiblities So easie it is for a Patron of Absurdities to prove himselfe notably Absurd Master Fisher his Generall Supposition in respect of Seeming Indignities happening to the Bodie of Christ from the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Numb 3. As hee sayd of Absurdities in respect of Impossibilitie so doth hee also argue from Seeming Indignities condemning Protestants for arguing against Transubstantiation because of Seeming Indignities As in not conceiving Christs Bodie saith hee to be combined unto the Consecrated formes of Bread and not to be polluted with such Indignities and Obscenities So he Our Reply As though no other Indignities might be imputed to Romish Doctrine except it were in such like Cases wherein the Bodie of Christ should receive some Corporall hurt or pollution There were and are amongst the Romish * See Booke 5. cap. 7. Sect. 1. Professors and that no small Babes who have taught a
Benedicts in their names Can there be then any Analogie betweene your High Romane Priest and Christ the Prototype to Melchisedech in so manifold Repugnancies yet notwithstanding every one of you must be forsooth a Priest after the order of Melchisedech Nay but not to multiply many words the Novelty of your Pretence doth bewray it selfe from k Lambard de Ordinat Presb. Accipiunt etiam calicem cum vino patinam cum Hostijs ut sciant se accepisse potestatem placabiles Deo hostias offerendi Hic ordo à filijs Aaron sumpsit initium c. Lib. 4. Distinct 24. 〈◊〉 I. Peter Lombard Master of the Romish Schoole who Anno 1145. taught how truly looke you to that that every Priest at his Ordination in taking the Chalice with Wine and Platter with the Hoast should understand that his power of Sacrificing was from the order of Aaron Nor may you thinke that this was his private opinion for Hee saith your l Pet. Lombardus collegit sententias Theologoorum Magister Theologotum scholasticorum dici meruit Lib. de Script Eccles Tit. Petrus Lombardus Cardinall of him collected the Sentences of Divines and deserved to be called the Master of Schoolemen Thus farre of the Person of Christ as Priest in the next place wee are to enquire into his Priestly Function Of the Function of Christ his Priesthood now after his Ascension into Heaven and your Cardinall his Doctrine Sacrilegiously detracting from it SECT VII BY the Doctrine of your Cardinall in the name of your Church a Bellar. Crucis Sacrificium non est perpetuum sed effectum ejus nec dicitur aeternuÌ„ quod non jugiter sacrificatur non in caelis jam Sacerdos per solam orationeÌ„ nec mediante oblatione Victimae quià tun necesse est eum semper offerre Ergo Eucharistia Sacrificium quod jugiter offertur Oblatio in coelis non est propriè dictum Sacrificium Ergò non est verè ac propriè Sacerdos cùm verum ac proprium Sacrificium offerre non potest Lib. 1. de Missa c. 6 sparsim And Christus non sacrificat nunc per se visibiliter nisi in Eucharistia Bell. ibid c. 25. § Quod autem And Sacrificium câ—â—cis respectu Christianorum â—b c. 20. And Per Ministros suos perpetuò sacrificat seipsum in Eucharistia hoc enim solummodo perpetuum habet Sacerdotium Bellar. ibid. cap. eod ad finem The old Priesthood of Aaron was translated into the Priesthood of Christ Every Priest saith the Apostle must have something to offer else hee were no Priest Thus his Priesthood is called Eternall and must have a perpetuall offering which was not that upon the Crosse Nor can that suffice which the Protestants say That his Priesthood is perpetuall because of the perpetuall virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse or bicause of his perpetuall Act of Intercession as Priest in Heaven or of presenting his passion to his Father in Heaven whither his Priesthood was translated No but it is certaine that Christ cannot now properly sacrifice by himselfe Hee doth it by his Ministers in the Eucharist Because the Sacrifice of the Crosse in respect of Christians is now invisible and seene onely by Faith which although it be a more true Sacrifice yet it is not as our Adversaries say the only Sacrifice of Christian Religion nor sufficient for the Conservation thereof And againe His sacrificing of himselfe in the Sacrament by his Ministers is that by which onely hee is said to have a perpetuall Priesthood Accordingly your Cardinall b Alan Christus in 〈◊〉 coelo 〈◊〉 aliquid Sacerdotalâ— facit nisi respectu nostri Sacramenti quod ipse per nostruÌ„ ministerium efficit continuò offert Lib. 2. â— Euchar. ca. 8 §. Reliqua Alan Christ saith hee performeth no Priestly Function in Heaven but with relation to our Ministery here on earth whereby hee offereth So they for the dignifying of their Romish Masse as did also c Rhemists Christ his Priesthood consisteth in the perpetuall offring of Christ his Body and Blood in the Church Annot. in Heb. 7. 17. your Rhemists but with what Ecclipse of Iudgement and good Conscience is now to be declared If wee take the Sacrifice of Christ for the proper Act of Sacrificing which is destructive so was Christ his Sacrifice but One and Once Heb. 7. and 8. But understanding it as the subject matter of the same Sacrifice once so offered to God upon the Crosse and after his Ascension entred into Heaven and so is it a perpetuall Sacrifice presentative before God For as the High-Priest of the Law after the Sacrifice was killed entred into the Holy place once a yeare but not without Blood Heb. 9. 7. so Christ having purchased an eternall redemption by his Death upon the Crosse went into the Holy place of Heaven with the same his owne Blood Vers 12. To what end Alwayes living to make supplication for us Chapt. 7. Vers 3. and 25. Hence followeth the continuall use which the soules of the faithfull have of his immediate Function in Heaven Having a perpetuall Priesthood hee is able continually to save them that come to God by him Vers 24 25. Whence issueth our boldnesse and all-confidence alwayes to addresse our prayers to him or by him unto God Wee having an High-Priest over the house of God let us draw nere with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts sprinckled from an evill Conscience Chap. 10. 22. The evidence of these Scriptures hath drawne from your Iesuite Ribera even then when hee professeth himselfe an earnest defender of your Romane Masse these Acknowledgements following d Ribera Ies in his Comment upon the places alleged Chap. 7. 23. Chap. 8. 2. 3. Chap. 9. 23. His Book is familitar with you where you may peruse the places viz. upon the Chap. 7. 23. That Christ is a true Priest and all other do partake of his Priesthood in offering Sacrifice only in remembrance of his Sacrifice And that hee did not performe the office of Priesthood onely upon earth but even now also in heaven which Function hee now dischargeth by the virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse Hee proceedeth No man saith hee will deny this Position namely that Christ now ever exerciseth the office of a Priest by presenting himselfe for us So hee Another Theologicall Professour of Bellarmines owne Society in the place where hee noteth Bellarmine to walke in his owne opinion alone procedeth further 8 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom Disp 225. c. 2. Nullus quic em ex Doctoribus quos recentiores Theologi pro hac sententia allegarunt praeter nostrum Bellarminum qui expressè asserit Christum esse principalem offerentem in hoc Sacramento Dicunt Patres Cyprian Ambros alij Nos Sacrificia offerre vice Christi Signifitant nos esse Christi Ministros in hoc Sacrificio non quod Christus hoc Sacramentum offerat
Ordine num 22. Bellarmine and Romane Catechisme distinguish calling the former the Inward which onely the Faithfull have by the Sacrament of Baptisme the other Outward by the Sacrament of Orders And with the like liberty doth Saint Augustine call the Sacrifice of the Old Testament although most proper but a Signe in respect of the Spirituall Sacrifice of this worke of mercie which hee g Aug. ibid. in Apoc. 20. 6. Sed erunt Sacerdotes Christi regnabunt cum Eo c. Non utique de solis Episcopis aut Presbyteris dictum est qui propriê jam vocantur in Ecclesia Sacerdotes sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus propter mysticum Chrisma sic omnes Sacerdotes quià membra unius Sacerdotis c. For there is a double Reason of naming Christians Priests one is in generall because of their offering up spirituall Sacrifices of prayers and Praises to God 1 Pet. 2. 5. And another is in speciall by publike Function commending the same spirituall Sacrifices in publike Service in the name of the Church â— And so according to the same libertie of terming them properly Priests wherewith before as you have heard in comparing Almes with the Iewish Sacrifice he called Almes the true Sacrifice and the other but The signe of it notwithstanding the bodily Sacrifice of the Iewes was in proprietie of Speech The true Sacrifice and the other but Analogicall calleth True namely in the Truth of Excellencie although though not of Propriety as you may see And lastly here you have urged one than whom there is scarcely found among Protestants a greater Adversary to your fundamentall Article of your Sacrifice which is the Corporall existence of Christ in the Eucharist All which notwithstanding the dignity of our Evangelicall Function is nothing lessened but much more amplifyed by this Comparison If furthermore wee speake of the Altar you will have it to be rather on earth below and to that end you object that Scripture Hebr. 13. 10. Wee have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an Altar saith the Apostle whereof they have no right to eat that serve at the Tabernacle This h Rhemists in their Annot. upon the Place and M. Breerly in his Booke of the Liturgie Tract 3. Sect. 3. Subd 4. some of you greedily catch at for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse and are presently repulsed by your i Aquinas Istud altare vel est crux Christi in quâ Christus immolatus est vel ipse Christus in quo per quem prèces nostras offerimus hoc est Altare aureum de quo Apoc. 8. Com. in hunc locum Aquinas expounding the place to signifie Either his Altar upon the Crosse or else his Body as his Altar in Heaven mentioned Apocal. 8. and called The golden Altar If wee our selves should tell you how some one affirmeth that This Altar spoken of by the Apostle is the Body of Christ himselfe in Heaven upon which and by which all Christians are to offer up their spirituall Sacrifices of Faith Devotion Thankefulnesse Hope and Charity you would presently answer that This one certainely is some Lutheran or Calvinist the words are so contradictory to your Romish Garbe notwithstanding you may finde all this in the k Antididag Coloniens de Missae Sacrificio §. Posthac Habemùs Altare Heb. 13. Apoc. 8. Aureum altare in quo per quod omnes Christiani universa Sacrificia spiritualia fidei devotionis gratiatum actionis spei charitatis Deo Patri debent offerre Atque ità sit ut Christus sit altare Sacerdos Sacrificium August lib. 10. de Trinitate Antididagma of the Divines of Collen Besides your Argument drawne from the word Altar in this Scripture is so feeble and lame a Souldier that your l Bellarm. Quia non desunt ex Catholicis qui interpretantur hunc locum vel de Cruce vel de Christo ipso non urgeo eum Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 14. Cardinall was content to leave it behinde him because Many Catholikes saith hee interpret it otherwise âšœ And indeed who is of so shallow a braine as not to discerne the notorious unconscionablenesse of your Disputers who confessing that the Apostles in their times did * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 15. Abstaine from the words Sacrifice Priest and Altar do notwithstanding allege the word Altar in the Text to the Hebrewes for proofe of a proper Altar in the Masse Will you be contented to permit the decision of this point to the judgement of your Iesuite Estius 10 Estius Comment in 13. ad Hebr. Habemus Altate Thomas Altare hoc interpretatur Crucem Christi vel ipsum Christum de quo edere inquit est fructum passionis percipere ipsi tanquam Capiti incorpocari Crucem Christi proprie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est Vnde Ecclesia vocat Aram Crucis Arbitror Expositionem Thomae magis esse germanam quam innuit Apostolous cum paulo post dicit Iesum extra portam passum esse i.e. in ara Crucis oblatum Vt taceam quod toties in hac Epistola atque ex instituto per Antithesim comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernaculo cum Christo seipsum offerente in Cruce Sanè cum nullam facere voluerit mentionem Sacrificij incruenti novae legis non multum verisimile est eum nunc aliud agentem velut ex abrupto voluisse de Sacrificio incruento sermonem jungere Sed potius cruenti in cruce oblati memoriam ex antedictis renovare Huc pertinet quod Corpus Christi in Cruce oblatum Panis vocatur fide manducandus Vt Ioh. 6. Panâ—s quem ego dabo Hee adhereth to the Interpretation of Aquinas which is that here by Altar is meant the Crosse of Christs sufferings which hee collecteth out of the Text of the Apostle where hee saith of the Oblation of Christs Passion that It was without the gate and observeth for Confirmation-sake that the Apostle often of purpose opposeth the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to the Bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testament so farre as never to make mention of the Sacrifice of the New Testament So hee What is if this be not our Protestantiall profession concerning this word Altar to prove it to be taken Improperly for the Altar of Christs Crosse and not for your pretended proper Altar of the Masse âšœ But wee are cited to consult with the Ancient Fathers be it so If then wee shall demand where our High-Priest Christ Iesus is to whom a man in Fasting must repaire m Origen Iâ—junans debes adire Pontificem tuâ—â— Christum qul utique non in terris quaerendus est sed in coelis Et per ipsum debes offerre Hostiam Deo In Levit. Cap. 16. Homil. 10. Origen resolveth us saying Hee is not to be sought here on earth at all but in Heaven If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution that hee cannot partake
Whereupon it is that Irenaeus exhorteth men to pray often by Christ at his Altar b Irenaeus Nos quoque victimas offerre ad altare frequenter Est ergò Altare in coelis illuc etiam preces nostrae orationes dirigendae templum ut ex Apoc apertum est Li. 4. cap. 34. Which Altar saith hee is in Heaven and the Temple open Apocaly p. 11. 19. c Greg. Sine intermissione pro nobis Holocaustum Redemptor immolat qui sine cessatione Patri suam pro nobis incarnationem demonstrat Moral lib 1. cap. 24. in Iob. Where saith Pope Gregory our Saviour Christ offereth up his burnt Sacrifice for us without Intermission And whereupon your Iesuite Coster out of Ambrose affirmeth that d Coster Enchirid contro cap. 9. Solut. ad Object 1. ex Ambros Sicut in coelis Christus corpus suum olim in cruce vulneratum occisum tanquam juge Sacrificium paternis oculis perpetuò pro nobis exhibet ità hîc in terris per Ministerium Sacerdotum idem Corpus in specie mortur exanguis offert That is objectively for it is the Bloody Body that is presented by us in the Eucharist Christ exhibiteth his Body wounded upon the Crosse and slaine as a Iuge Sacrificium that is a Continuall Sacrifice perpetually unto his Father for us And to this purpose serve the fore-cited Testimonies of Augustine Gregory Nazianzen Ambrose Chrysostome and Occumenius some pointing out the Altar in Heaven as the Truth some by Exhortations and some by their Examples instructing us to make our Continuall Approach unto the Celestiall Altar CHALLENGE NOw you who so fixe the hearts and minds of the Spectators of your Masse upon your sublunary Altars and Hoasts and appropriate the Iuge Sacrificium thereunto in respect of Time during onely the houres of your Priestly Sacrificing allow your attention but a moment of Time and you will easily see the Impiety of that your Profession The Iuge Sacrificium of Christ as it is presented to God by him in Heaven hath beene described to be Continuall without Intermission Alwayes that is without any Interruption of any moment of Time to the end that all sorts of Penitents and faithfull Suters solliciting God by him might finde as the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Helpe at any time of need The Gates of this Temple Heaven being ever open the matter of this Sacrifice which is the Body of Christ being there ever present The Priest who is Christ himselfe ever executing his Function Whereas contrarily you will confesse wee dare say that the Doores of your Churches may happen to be all locked or interdicted your Sacrifice shut up in a Boxe or lurched and carryed away by Mice your Priest taken up with sport or repast or journey or sleepe yea and even when hee is acting a Sacrifice may possibly nullifie all his Priestly Sacrificing Act by reason of * See hereafter Book 7. Cha. 5. Sect. 5. Confessed Almost infinite Defects Therefore the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Doctrine of your Masse is thus farre manifested in as much that your owne Ministeriall Priesthood doth so prejudice the personall Priesthood of Christ as it is in Heaven as the Moone doth by her interposition ecclipse the glory of the Sunne by confounding things distinct that is as wee have * In the two former Sections learned from the Fathers Image with Truth The state of Wicked Partakers with the Godly Matters Visible with Invisible Signes with Things Worse with Better Iayes with Eagles and the like A SECOND CHALLENGE âšœ Against your Cardinall Bellarmine his principall Grounds out of the Confession of your owne Iesuit both from Scriptures and from ancient Fathers CHrist saith the Apostle is a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech This for ever your Cardinall 13 Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa Cap. 6. Quod si Sacerdotium Christi durat usque ad consummationem mundi id enim Scriptura aeternum vocat certè Sacrificij ritus durate debet at Sacrificium Crucis semel tantùm peractuÌ„ est nec repeti potest ergò aliud esse debet quod jugiter offeratur Et post aliquot paginas Quod ad aeternum Christi Sacerdotium attinet necesse est ut saepius offerat vel per se vel per Ministros vel per Ministros non quidem cruentè sed aliquo alio modo Idem Paulus docet cum dicit Omnis Pontifex ad offerenduÌ„ hostias constituitur nec dicitur aeternum Sacerdotium quod non jugiter Sacrificatur nec sufficit aeternum quoad effectum So he His other Reasons have been alleged in the former Sections Bellarmine restraineth to the time of Mortality only to the end of the world and that Christs Priesthood can have no further Extent concluding thereupon that for the preserving of the Priesthood of Christ Hee either by himselfe or by some other must necessarily offer some sacrifice unto the end of the world because it cannot bee that that which was but once done can ever againe bee repeated namely his bloody Sacrifice upon the Crosse So hee Concluding it must therefore bee the unbloudy Sacrifice in your Romish Masse Although this Argument deserve no other Confutation than what hath been given out of the Confessions of your own Iesuit Yet because another of the same Society and of singular estimation in your Church namely Vasquez who often expresseth his reading of the works of Bellarmine may seeme as it were to offer his service unto us as being desirous to oppose against the Iudgement of your Cardinall wee may not deny him our due Attention He both out of Scriptures and ancient Fathers alleged in the Margin concludeth 14 Vasquez Ies in 5. Thom. Disp 85. cap. 1 num 1. Thomas non alâ—o modo explicuit perpetuitatem Sacerdotij quà m ratione effectus nempe Redemptionis nostrae qui est permansurus in aeternum Post Quod autem dicunt praedicti Theologi non posse esse aeternum Sacerdotium quod non habet Iuge Sacrificium falsum est ostendemus enim mansurum Sacerdotium sine ullo Sacrificio Num. 5. Modus quo recentiores expliant aeternitatem Sacrificij mihi nunquà m placuit atque non solium Scriptura sed etiam manifestâ ratione refelli potest in primis autem ex illo ad Hebr. 7. ubi Paulus de Christo Hic autem eo quod maneat in aeternum perpetuum habet Sacerdotium vers 24. Vnde Chrysostom Homil. 13. Sacerdotium verè esse sine fine eo quòd Christus manet immortalis in aeternum Pontifex sicut alij multi quia mortales ita hic unus quia immortalis Eadem verba habet Ambrosius in eum locum Clariùs Theophylactus Videas quemadmodum legis Sacerdotes hic praestat quantum quod mortale est immortale praedicti Patres exponunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 utroque modo in commutabile successione carens Post cap. 2. Sacerdotium Christi aeternum
Sacrifica quia morteÌ„ Christi repraesentabant sed quia Immolatione Rei oblatae denotabant Deum authorem vitae mortis Vasquez will say for The acknoledgment of Gods Soveraigntie over life and death âšœ The Confirmation of the former Demonstration out of the Fathers first Explaining of themselves SECT V. SAint Ambrose setting forth two kinde of Offerings of Christ here on Earth and above in Heaven hee saith that a Ambr. Vmbra in Lege imago in Evangelio veritas in coelestibus antè agnus offerebatur nunc Christ offertur quasi Homo quasi recipiens passionem offert sese ipse quasi Sacérdos ut peccata nostra dimittat hîc in imagine ibi in veritate ubi apud Patrem pro nobis quasi Advocatus intervenit Lib. 1. de Offic. Cap. 48. Christ here is offered as one suffering and above hee himselfe Offereth himselfe an Advocate with the Father for us And this our offering of him hee calleth but an Image and that above hee calleth the Truth Clearly shewing that wee have in our Offering Christ's Body onely as it is Crucified which is the Object of our Commemoration But the same Body as it is now the personall subject of a present Time and Place they behold it in Heaven even the same Body which was once offered on the Crosse by his Passion now offered up by himselfe to God by Presentation in Heaven here in the Church onely by our Representation Sacramentally on earth Saint Augustine dealeth as plainly with us where distinguishing three States of Offerings up of Christ hee b August Hujus Sacrificij caro sanguis antè adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Domini per ipsam Veritatem post Ascensum per SacramentuÌ„ memoriae celebratur Cont. Faust lib. 20. cap. 21. Tom. 6. NoÌ„ne semel immolatus est Christus tamen in Sacramento quotidiè immolatur He addeth Nec tamen mentitur qui dicit Christum immolari si enim Sacramenta non haberent similitudinem rerum ipsarum quas repraesentant non essent Sacramenta Ex qua similitudine nomina eorum accipiunt Aug. lib. Epist 23. See of this above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. And yet againe more plainely in his 20 Book against Faustâ—â— cap. 21. it followeth Vt Baptismus dicitur sepulchruÌ„ sic Hoc est corpus meum saith first that under the Law Christ was promised In the Similitude of their Sacrifices meaning his bloody death was prefigured by those bloody Sacrifices Secondly in the offering at his Passion hee was Delivered up in Truth or proper Sacrifice this was on the Crosse And Thirdly after his Ascension The memorie of Him is celebrated by a Sacrament or Sacramentall Representation So hee For although the Sacrifices of the Iewes were true Sacrifices yet were they not truly the Sacrificings of Christ Note you this Assertion Againe speaking of his owne Time when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was daily celebrated hee saith That Christ was once sacrificed namely upon the Crosse and is now daily sacrificed in the Sacrament nor shall hee lye saith hee that saith Christ is sacrificed So hee No holy Augustine shall hee not lye who saith that Christ as the personall Subject of this Sacrament is a Proper Sacrifice in the Literall Sense for whether Proper or Vnproper are the two Seales of this Controversie Now interpose your Catholike Resolution Say first why is it called a Sacrament tell us * See above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 8. out of his Epist 23. ad Bonifacium If Sacraments had not a similitude of things which they represent they were no Sacraments from which similitude they have their Appellation and name of the things to wit The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is called his Body as Baptisme is called a Buriall Be so good as to explaine this by another which may illuminate every man in the point of Sacrifice also although otherwise blinded with prejudice c Epist 23. ad Bonifac Paulò ante verba superiora nempè Pascha appropinquante saepè dicimus crastinam Domini passionem cum ille ante multos annos passus sit nec omninö nisi semel ista passio facta sit nempè isto die dicimus Christus resurrexit cum ex quo resurrexit tot Anni transierunt cum nemo ita â—eptus sit qui nos ita Ioquentes arguat nos esse mentitos ut dicatur ipse Dies quia non est ipse sed similis none semel immolatus est Christus c. As when the day of Christs Passion saith hee being to morrow or the day of his Resurrection about to be the next day but one wee use to say of the former To morrow is Christ's Passio and of the other when it cometh it is Christ's Resurrection yet will none be so absurd as to say wee lye in so saying because wee speake it by way of Similitude even so when wee say this is sacrificed c. So Saint Augustine Who now seeth not that as the Buriall of Christ is not the Subject matter of Baptisme but onely the Representative Object thereof and as Good-Friday and Easter-day are not properly the dayes of Christ his Passion or Resurrection but Anniversarie and Represensative or Commemorative Resemblances of them So this Sacrifice is a Similitude of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse and not materially the same âšœ Lastly heare Augustine againe 2 Aug. lib. 1. Con. advers Leg. Proph. cap. 18. Mors Christi unum unicum verum Sacrificium The death of Christ saith hee is the onely true Sacrifice âšœ Wee omit Testimonies of other Fathers which are dispersed in other Sections Although this one Explanation might satisfie yet shall wee adjoyne others which may satiate even the greediest Appetite in the Demonstrations following The fourth Demonstration From the Fathers Explanation of their meaning by a kinde of Correction SECT VI. ANcient Fathers in good number call that which is represented in the Eucharist and which wee are said to offer The same Host not many the same Oblation no other the same Sacrifice and none but it but they adde by a Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Correction of the excesse of their speech or rather for Caution-sake lest their Readers might conceive of the same Sacrifice herein as properly present saying in this maner Wee offer the same Sacrifice or rather the Remembrance thereof alluding sometime expresly to the Institution of Christ Do this in remembrance of mee The Fathers are these viz. a Chrys â—â— Heb. 10. â—om 17. pa. 1171. Christus semper suo sanguine intraâ— Ipse Sacrificium Sacerdos Hostia si hoc non esset multa oportebat etiam Sacrificia offerri saèpiùs oportebat crucifigi Eandem ipsam Hostiam quaÌ„ Christus immolabat offerimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel potiùs Recordationem ipsius c. Chrysostome b Theophylact in Heb. 10. pa. 885. 886. Nunc
Divine for direction to all Posterity to adore the Sacrament with Divine honour even as it is taught in the Church of Rome at this day and to have confirmed the same by some Practice not of one or other private man or woman but by their publike forme of Prayer and Invocation in their solemne Masses or else to confesse that Antiquity never fancied any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist Yet two words more You presse the point of the Invocation of the Sacrament more urgently and vehemently than any other and wee indeed believe that the ancient Fathers if they had held according to the now Romane Church a Corporall presence of Christ would never have celebrated any Masse without an expresse Invocation of the Sacrament as in your now-Romane Masse wee finde it done saying O Lambe of God c. or some other like forme Yet know now that your owne learned Pamelius hath published two large Tomes of all the Masses in the Latine Church from Pope Clemens downe to Pope Gregory containing the compasse of six hundred yeares wee say Latine Missals above forty in number in all which upon our once reading wee presume to say that there is not one such tenour of Invocation at all This our first Reason taken from so universall a silence of ancient Fathers in a case of so necessary a moment may be wee thinke satisfactory in it selfe to any man of ordinary Reason Our second Objection out of the Fathers followeth That the Ancient Fathers gain-sayd the Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament and the Adoration therof by their Preface in their presenting the Host saying Lift up your Hearts SECT II. IT was the generall Preface of Antiquity used in the Celebration of this Sacrament for the Minister to say Lift up your Hearts and the People to answer Wee lift them up unto the Lord. This Sursum Corda Calvin a Calvin Instit lib. 2. c. 17. §. 36. Nec alia cauâ—â in antiqua Ecclesia fuisse institutum ut antè mysteriotum celebrationeÌ„ diceretur Sursùm corda hath objected against you and your Cardinall confessing that this Preface b In omnibus Liturgiis Graecis Iacobi Basilij Chrysost et omnibus Latinis habetur id quod etiam hoc tempore nos facimus Bellar lib. 1. de Euch. ca. 14. §. Respondeo si was in use in all Liturgies of Antiquity aswell Greeke as Latine and continued in the Church of Rome unto this day Then answereth that c Respondeo Sursùm corda non significare elevationem ad locum corporalem sed elevationem à rebus terrenis curis hujus vitae ad Deum res aeternas Non respondetur Habemus ad firmamentum sed Habemus ad Dominum Et certè qui Christum quaerebant in praesepi in templo in sepulchro Sursùm corda habebant quia illum quaerebant qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula Et fieri potest ut qui terram intuetur cor deor um Sic qui in Eucharistia Christum quaerunt venerantur cor sursum habent si de ipso Christo non de negotiis hujus vitae interim cogitent Bellarm Ibid. Hee that seeketh Christ in the Eucharist and worshippeth him if hee thinke of Christ and not of the Cares of earthly things hee hath his heart above So hee As though the word Above meant as the Subject the person of Christ in the Eucharist and not his place of residence in the highest Heavens contrary to the word in the Greeke * Liturg. Graec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liturgies which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Above wherein the Church alludeth to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostle Coloss 3. 1. Seeke the things that are above where Christ is at the right hand of God as your owne d Monet ergo Sacerdos populum Sursùm i. e. super seipsum elevare corda ad Dominum juxtà exhortationem Apostoli Col. 3. Quae sursùm sunt quaerite non quae super terram Durand Ration lib. 4. cap. 33. Durandus the Expositor of the Romish Masse doth acknowledge Saint Augustine saying e Aug. in Psal 148. Laudate Dominum in excelsis Primò de coelo dicit posteà de terris laudatur enim Deus qui fecit coelum terram Nos adhuc in imo sumus sed cum cogitamus quomodo illic laudetur Deus cor ibi habeamus non sine causa audimus Sursùm corda It is not without Cause that it is said Lift up your hearts Hee sheweth the Cause to be that wee who are here at the Bottome might according to that of the Psalmist Praise God in the highest This one would thinke is plaine enough but that is much more which wee have already proved out of the Fathers by their Antithesis and Opposition betweene the Altar on Earth and the other in Heaven where wee have heard * See above Booke 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. c. Chrysostome distinguishing them that fasten their thoughts upon this Below from Them that seeke Christ in Heaven as hee doth Choughs from Eagles Ambrose as they that behold the Image from them that contemplate upon the Truth * Ibid. Nazianzen as they that looke upon the Signes from them that see the Things and to contemplate upon the Better Altar in Heaven And the Councel of * Booke 4. Chap. 11. Sect. 4. Nice as they that stoope downe from them that looke up aloft And wee may not forget the Observation which * Booke 5. Chap. 5. Sect. â— Athanasius made of Christ in his discourse of Eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood purposely making mention of his Ascension into Heaven thereby to draw their thoughts from earthly Imaginations and to consider him as being in Heaven as did also Saint * Aug. See above B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. Augustine Cyril of Hierusalem is a Father whom you have often sollicited to speake for your Cause in other Cases but all in vaine shall wee hearken to him in this Hee interpreting these words Lift up your Hearts will not have it onely to signifie a sequestring of your thoughts from earthly Cares to spirituall and heavenly which you say was the meaning of the Councel of Nice as if that Lifting up their Hearts had beene onely an exercising of their thoughts upon that in the hands of the Priest or on the Altar beneath No but hee saith that it is f Cyril Hier. Catech. Mystag 5. Ob hanc causam clamat Sacerdos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quià oportet sursùm habere cor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non ad terrena negotia deprimere Paulò post 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To have our hearts in heaven with God the lover of man-kind even as did also Saint g Aug. in Psal 85. Certè rectè admonet ut Sursùm corda habeant audiant igitur faciant levent ad coelum quod malè est in terratiâ—i
honour it might fall out by little and little that hee should be honoured as God So your owne Iesuites and Others Yet not to do you wrong in this Contemplation Christ by reason of the Hypostaticall Vnion of his God-head being no meere Creature is wholly excepted whom wee are taught by the Fathers of a Generall i Conc. Ephesin Tom. 1. c. 12. §. Pari. Neque hominem cum verbo adorandum dicimus sed unum eundemque nè illud cum verbo aliquam divisionis imaginationem meriti objiciat Et Tom. 4. c. 26. Adoratione verò non seorsim Deum nec seorsim hominem sed unum Christum Councel to adore not in both his distinct natures but whole Christ CHALLENGE WEe suppose that there is not any of your owne Romish Sect albeit most superstitious who would worship with Divine Worship either the Signes or the Appearance of flesh or the Priest whiles the Sacrament is in his mouth without at least a Morall Perswasion viz. that hee may so do nor without a Good intent viz. that it is well done nor without habituall Condition viz. not to do so if hee knew they were but Signes Apparance of flesh or hee meerely a Priest If therefore there be any Idolatry in adoring any of these things with Christ then certainly much rather which is your Case is it Idolatry to worship with Divine honour Bread it being without Christ. III. That the Romish Worship is proved to be Formally Idolatrous in your Masse by a Consequence from Romish Doctrine touching Canonization of Saints SECT III. COncerning your Popes Canonizing of Saints see the a Ambros Catharinus Compsae Archiepisc Annot. advers nova dogmata Cajet Card. Tit. De Veneratione Canonizatione Sanctorum pag. 126. Ob. Ecclesiam in Canonizatione Sanctorum errare posse Cathar Quòd errare non potest docet Turr. dicens hoc esset fidei fundamentum evertere pag. 127. Adduxi Xâ—sta Quâ—â—ti sententiam â—n Decreto Canonizationis Bonaventurae ubi confidens de Spiritus Sancti supremà directione considenter illum Sanctum esse pronunciat sidelâ—ter ab omnibus teneri praecipit Quod arroganter fecisset si haec res ad fidem non attineret p 128. Bonaveniuram protuli qui docet horribilissimum esse Ecclesiam in hujusmodi errare posse periculosum esse in re sidei eò quòd si unus Sanctus vocatur in dubium etiam caeteri vocari possunt ità periculosum esset invocare Sanctos pag. 129. Adduxi iterùm testimonium Hieronymi in Epist ad Phil. Homâ—â—em non sanctum Sanctorum jungere societati esset Christum violare cujus membra sumus Ibid. Ob. Sat erit in universali credere Canonizationem Sanctorum veram esse at Canonizationem hujus aut illius credere non tenemur quià an Sanctus sit pendet ex facto utrùm nimirum talis fuerit talia fecerit in quo Ecclesia eriare potest quià non est error fidei sed facti pag. 132. Resp Numquid Canonizatio Sanctorum sit in genere non in particulari de quolibet Sancto pag. 135. Ob. Nihilominus piè credendum est eam errare non posse Resp At ego crederem pietatem fidei esse divinae revelationis authoritatis non hominum pag. 142 Ob. Certa autem humanâ certitudine suadet credere pietas fidei certa verè divinâ certitudine jubet credere necessitas fidei pag. 142. Resp Credere vivum esse membrum Christi quod est putridum fidem laedit quare est error perniciosus pag. 144. Et Thomas si per cultum exteriorem aliquod falsum significetur est cultus perniciosus pag. 147. A cultu divino abesse debet omne mendacium quià in eo fidem nostram protestamur cum Deo agimus loquimur qui omne falsum fictum vanum abhominatur Haec Catharinus ibid. pag. 149. Marginals you shall find that the Common opinion of your Church directeth you to thinke that your Church cannot erre in this Function and that all Christians are bound to believe the same but how upon a Morall and Conjecturall perswasion onely No upon a Divine and infallible Certitude and why Because say they if one Saint may be doubted of then might also the Canonization of others be called into Question so that it would be dangerous to worship any Saint lest that wee should worship a dead and a rotten instead of a lively member of Christ which were an Error pernicious seeing that every lye figment and falshood in religious worship must needs be abominable unto God So your Archbishop with others You will aske what maketh all this to the question in hand give us leave to tell you CHALLENGE THe same Archbishop Catharinus b Catharin ibid. quo suprâ— Ob. Doctrina haec suadetur exemplis hostiae non consecratae quam Sacerdos exhibet adorandam ubi â—ulla Idololatria quià sides Ecclesiae non ad has aut illas specieâ— panis refertur sed ad hoc quod corpus Christi contâ—etur sub speciebus panis quando fuerit rite benedictum Putas tu quòd minùs potest errare Ecclesia in adoratione hostiae noÌ„ consecratae quam in cultu Sancti p. 132. 133. Resp Catharin Petrus de Palude asserit nullo modo esse dandam Hostiam simplicem pro consecrata quod esset Idololatria quoniam cum ministratur etiam adoranda proponitur Et Hier. Ferrar. cui quidam objectabat quod Hostia per quam jurabat non erat consecrata Cui respondet si ita suisset fecisset populum Idololatrare atque ideò tanto magis provocaret in seiram Dei Audi in hostia consecrata aâ—oratur Christus ut Deus non simpliciter sed ut existens sub his speciebus Cùm igitur ibi non existat Christus sed creatura pro Christo invenitur cui exhibetur Latria atque ideò Idololatria est Idòlolatrae enim etiam hâc errant ratione qùi coelum puta aut aliquid aliud adorabunt putantes se ibi adorare Deum quem animam Mundi dicebant juxta Varronis Theologiam Non igitur excusantur ab Idololatria quòd arbitrarentur se unum Deum colere sicut verè erat unus Deus sed quod illum ibi adorabant ubi non erat eo modo quo esse existimabant Ibid. pag. 134. 135. deduceth a necessity of an infallible assurance of the Canonization of every Saint from the Infallibility which ought to be had concerning the Consecration of the Eucharist Thus If the Worshipper may be deceived in adoring the Host by mistaking Bread for the Body of Christ then should it be Idolatry saith hee aswell as in the Heathen who adored Heaven instead of God So hee Do you marke aswell Idolatry as that of the Heathen whom neither Morall Certainty nor Good Intent or Habituall Condition could ever free from a formall Idolatry Our Argument from your owne Confessions will be this Whosoever may be mistaken in
is Infallible faith then must usher Prayer yea and preaching also any fundamentall doctrine of beleefe as it is written * Psal 116. 10 2. Cor. 4. 13. I beleeved therefore I spake Yea without divine Faith it is impossible to use any religious Invocation * Rom 10. 14. How shall they invocate on whom they have not beleeved So incredible and faithlesse is your Romish Conjecturall Faith of your worshipping and Invocating Christ on the Earthly Altar whereas according to our Christian Creed of his sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven wee because faithfully do * See the Consent of Fathers above Chap. 4. Sect. 2. Catholikely and comfortably adore him where hee infallibly is upon his Throne of Majestie in Heaven That the Protestants stand secure in respect of the Fourth Romish Perplexity by defect in the Priestly Intention SECT V. FOr the necessity of the Priests due Intention in consecrating your a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 27. §. Quantum ad Nova haeresis orta est hoc tempore cujus Author Lutherus non requiri interiorem â—tentionâ— Ministri ad perfectionem Sacramenti non tà m inquit in Conferentis quà m suscipientis fide sita est virtus Baptismi si Minister joco absolveret sitamen credat se absolutum verissimè est absolutus Et §. Johannes Calvinus Vt si Minister totam actionem intùs subsannans coenam Christi riâ—u legitimo administâ—et non dubitem panem vinum mihi esse verissima Christi corporis sanguinis pignora Sic eâ—â—â—m Protestantes alij Catholicorum sententia est quae est Concil Trid. Requiri intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia Et pauâ—ò post §. Ad hanc Ad hanc Haereticorum sententiam accessit Ambros Catharinus quo excepto in hac doctrina miâ—siâ—è conveniunt Catholici Doctores Cardinall allegeth the Authority addeth the consent of your Doctors except Catharinus produceth the opinion of Luther and Calvin condemning this Romish Doctrine and condemneth their Censure as Hereticall But wee permit it to your discrete Iudgements whether to yeeld to this ostentative â—lourish of your Cardinall or to the exact and accurate discourse of your b Salmeron Ies Intentio duplex publica in observando formam publicam in pronunciatione verborum c. Altera verò privata particularis ipsius Ministri qui aut nihil credit eorum quae facit aut derisoriè facit aut contrariam habet intentionem non coÌ„ferendi Sacramenta At ejus Intentio non est absolutè necessaria Rat. I. Quià cùm intentio intima sit latens in corde ejus insensibilis sequeretur hominuÌ„ animos torqueri scrupulis dubitationibus an verum suscipiant Sacramentum quod sanè Scripturis et Patribus contrarium est qui nos firmâ fide Sacramentum suscipere adhortantur II. Rat. Quia sic hominum salus ex hominum aliquotuÌ„ arbitrio penderet et sic homines plus nocere possent quam Christus juvare III. Quià plecterentur Innocentes propter hominum malitiam quod remotum est à divina bonitate IV. Quià sic liberum erit Omnibus dubirare an Baptizati sint et an Eucharistiam adorent V. Quià hoc dogma proximum erit Donatistarum haeresi contra quos disputat Augustinus docens per malos ministros conferri salutaria Sacramenta VI. Mirum est olim Ecclesiam in controversia Novatianorum Donatistarum asserentium BaptismuÌ„ ab haereticis collatum nullum esse de debita illa intetione Ministri nihil disputâsse Ergo satis est publica Actio nisi Minister contra protestetur aut aliquo modo vitiet formam Sacramenti Sufficit eatenus publicus Actus ut Notarius publicum conficiens Instrumentum nec potest intentione sua internâ licet derisoriè agat illud validum reddere Pro hac sententia stant multi Patres Aug. lib. 1. cont literas Petil. oppugnans illud Donatistarum Conscientia dantis abluit conscientiam accipientis Salmer Ies in Epist Pauli Disp 2. pag. 186. Jesuite Salmeron to the contrary grounded upon sound Reasons among others this that this Perplexitie and doubt whether the Priest hath a Due intention in consecrating worketh to the tormenting of mens Consciences injury to Gods exceeding bounty and goodnesse contrary to the Iudgement of Antiquity and in speciall against that of Saint Augustine Saepè mihi ignota est Conscientia aliena sed semper certus sum de divina misericordia And lastly because of the Affinity which it hath with the heresie of the Donatists So hee All which turneth to the condemnation of your Doctrine teaching a necessary Priestly intention of Noveltie Impietie and relish of Heresie Wee adde to this that saying of the Apostle * Phil. 1. 18. If the word be preached whether of envie and vaine glory or of good will I rejoyce and will rejoyce which proveth that the evill Intention of the Messenger cannot impeach the Benefit of the message of Salvation and embassage of God Now there is the like Reason of the word visible which is the Sacrament as there is of the Audible Take unto you a Similitude in the marginall Testimony of your Iesuite Salmeron of a Notary publicke making a true Instrument according to the forme of Court in the time when he was distracted in his wits neverthelesse the same Instrument is of use and for the benefit of the partie who hath it not through the Intention of the Scribe but by the will of the Ordainer and willingnesse and consent of the Receiver Our fifth Securitie from your Romish Perplexitie touching Ordination SECT VI. TO passe over matters not controverted betweene us whether the Minister that consecrateth this Sacrament ought to be consecrated by Ecclesiasticall Ordination to this Function a matter agreed upon on both sides the onely question is if hee that ministreth happen to be an Intruder and no consecrated Minister whether this his Defect do so nullifie his Consecration of the Eucharist that it becometh altogether unprofitable to the devout Communicant Your Church in this case sendeth you to inquire after the Godfathers Godmothers Priest or Midwife that baptizeth to know whether hee have beene rightly baptized and this not satisfying shee will have you seeke forth the Bishop by whom hee was ordained and so to the Odainer of that Bishop and so to speere further and further untill you come to Saint Peter to see whether each of these were rightly consecrated a Priest and then to search into so many Church-bookes to know the Baptisme of each one without which the Act of this Priest now consecrating is frustrate and your Adoration Idolatrous Contrariwise wee in such an indeprehensible Case observe that wee speake of an extraordinary Case wherein the Actor or Act hath no apparent Defect are no way scrupulous knowing that things do worke Ad modum Recipientis as you have heard in the Example of preaching the word of God were it by Iudas or if
accept of Christ but of the Gift for Christ's sake and to the honour of Christ in whom God is Propitious unto us wee say againe the Gift for Christ and not Christ for the Gift what can be more plaine against all Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament and to receive it into his Celestiall Altar but how by intercession of Angels No but expresly thus By Christ the Mediatour In the Liturgie of e Missa Chrysostomi antè Consecrationem Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile incruentuÌ„ hoc obsequium Deposcimus ut mittas Spiritum sanctum super nos et super apposita munera Sequitur Consecratio Fac Panem istum preciosum Corpus c. Post Consecrationem Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile hoc obsequium pro fideliter doâ—mientibê° c. Post Dominum deprecemur ut qui suscepit ea in sancto et coelesti Altari suo mittat nobis proprerea gratiam et donuÌ„ Spiritus sancti Chrysostome before Consecration God is prayed unto and supplicated thus Wee beseech thee to send thy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts set before us Even as f Ambros de Sacram lib 4. cap. 6. post Consecrationem Offerimus tibi hunc Papem sanctum et Calicem et perimus ut hanc OblationeÌ„ suscipias in sublimi Altari tuo per manus Angelorum sicut accipere dignatus es munera pueri tui Abel c. Ambrose explaineth his Supplication after Consecration for God To accept this Oblation namely that which hee called Holy Bread and Cup. If therefore these former Formes may interpret your Romane Liturgie as it was Ancient the prayer therein to God desiring him to be Propitious must have relation to the things above specified called Holy Bread of life and Cup of Salvation as distinguished from Priest and People Wherefore your Romane Missals being so Ancient in this one point in praying God after Consecration to be Propitious to that which is called the Bread of life eternall and Cup of everlasting salvation lest it might carry a Sacrilegious Sense to wit that the Body of Christ is here the proper Subject of the Eucharist and consequently to need a Propitiation to God by virtue of mens prayers thereby greatly derogating from the meritorious Satisfaction of Christ you ought to reduce this your Romane Canon to the Orthodox meaning of Ancient Liturgies above mentioned and to understand it Sacramentally onely namely our Objective Representation Commemoration and Application thereof by us which is our Act of Celebration To the former vast heape of Sacrilegious Positions and Practices wee may adde your other many vile and impious g Booke 5. thorowout Indignities offered to the all-glorious Sonne of God in making his sacred Body in your owne opinions obnoxious to the Imprisoning in Boxes Tearing with mens Teeth Devouring Vomiting it by the Communicants and the Transmittance into your guts yea and into the parts inferior together with the Eating and Feeding thereupon by Dogs Mice Wormes and which transcendeth if it may be all your other Absurdities to be deprived of all naturall power of Motion Sense and Vnderstanding O Abominable Abominable A Synopsis of the Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof by many Evidences from Antiquity SECT V. OVr first Argument is against the foundation thereof which is your Interpretation of the Article HOC by denying it to have Relation to Bread contrary to the verdict of an Inquest of Ancient Fathers shewing that the same pointeth out Bread as you have a Booke 2. Cha. 1. Sect. 6. heard whereby the monstrous Conception of Transubstantiation is strangled in the very wombe Insomuch that sometimes they expressely * Ibid. interpret it thus Christs Body and Blood that is say they The Bread and Wine Item Hee gave the name of the Signe to the thing signified Item Bread the Signe of his Body And lastly Bread is called Christs Body because it signifieth his Body Secondly in the point of Transubstantiation it selfe They calling the Eucharist which you dare not b Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 5. 11. Sect. 14. in Chrysost and by Cyprian his Confutation of the Aquarii ibid. Sect. 5. Book 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 3. Bread and c Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 5. Wine after Consecration and naming them * Ibid. Sect. 13. Earthly materialls and Matter of Bread and also as you have heard out of the Ancient Liturgies d Above in this Booke Ch. 1. Sect. 4. Fruits of the Earth and yet more plainely by way of Periphrasis describing them to consist of e Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Divers granes and Divers grapes After by approving the Suffrage and judgement of our f Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 8 9 c. Senses in discerning all Sensible things and in speciall the Eucharist it selfe and at length affirming that there remaineth therein the g Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 11. Substance of Bread and Wine which are the Subject matter of your Divine Adoration All which are other Three Demonstrations of their meanings every singular point being avouched by the Suffrages of Antiquity Thirdly against your Faith concerning the maner of Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because so farre were the Fathers from beleeving that the Body of Christ could be in h Booke 4. thorowout divers places as you say in Millions at one time that by this property of Being in many places at once they have discerned Angells to be Finite Spirits and not God They have distinguished the Godhead of Christ from his Manhood and they have proved the Holy Ghost to be God and no Creature by the same Reason Than which Three Arguments none can be more Convincent Whereunto you may adde the Fathers speeches contradicting your Dreame of a Body whole in every part in whatsoever space or place by judging it Impossible and also concluding Christ his Ascension into Heaven to argue his Absence from Earth all which have i Ibid. Chap. 7. Sect 6. and Booke 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beene discussed from point to point Our Fourth Generall Argument is that whereas your Corporall Presence must needs inferre Corporall Eating thereof by the Communicants notwithstanding you have heard the contrary Sentences of Ancient Fathers against k Booke 5. thorowout Tearing and Swallowing of Christ's Body and Bodily Egestion Next concerning the Eaters that onely the Godly faithfull are partakers thereof insomuch that even the Godly under the old Testament did eat the same Then of the Remainders of the Consecrated Hosts that they were l Booke 1. Cha. 2. Sect. 10. Earen by the ordinance of the Church by Schoole-boyes and sometimes Burnt in the fire Besides they called them m Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. and Booke 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. Bits and Fragments of Bread broken after Consecration and diminished And lastly in respect of the End of Eating n Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. They held the
thing present to be a pledge of Christ's Body absent and also o Book 5. Chap. 9. Sect. 2. allowed such a Touch of his Body by Faith that whosoever so toucheth him is Sanctified Which Observations concerning our Fourth Generall Argument do minister unto us five particular Reasons which make our Defence to be Impreinable Fifthly forasmuch as you teach the Subject matter of the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ as a proper Sacrifice propitiatory wee upon due inquisition into the doctrine of Antiquity have p Booke 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. thorowout and elsewhere found the Ancient Fathers I. Nothing that which they called Sacrifice herein to be Bread and Wine saying thereupon that Melchisedech in that his Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ II. Such a Subject which being taken in great Quantity doth q B 3. Chap. 13 Sect. 10 nourish and satiate mans Bodily Nature III. Such as needeth prayer to God that it may be r In this Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Acceptable to God as was the Sacrifice of Abels sheepe IV. So naming it an Vnbloody Sacrifice as meaning thereby Å¿ Booke 6. thorowout more especially Chap. 5. Sect. 9 10. void of Blood which cannot agreed to the Body of Christ now risen from death V. So qualifying their other Exuberances and Excesse of speech wherein they named it The same Sacrifice of Christ once offered by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 correcting it thus t Booke 6. Cha. 5. Sect. 6. A Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall thereof VI. By placing the Sacrifice of Christ his Body as now Presentative onely in Heaven and the thing offered on Earth but a Signe VII In all your objected Testimonies for proofe of the same Body of Christ in the Eucharist which suffered on the Crosse they understood the same as the u Booke 6. Cha. 5. Sect. 1 2 3 4 c. Object of our Remembrance and not as the Subject of Offering which make up so many Arguments moe VIII By paralleâ—ing x In this Booke Chap. 2. Sect. 2 3. Baptisme with the Eucharist in like tenour of speech from point to point IX By praying God to be y Above in this Booke Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Propitious to that which is offered Sixthly upon the same Doctrine of Corporall Presence you have erected and fastned the roofe of all your Building which is Divine Adoration of the Host yet notwithstanding have you not beene able by the Testimonies of any ancient Father to free your selves from Formall Idolatry by any of your z Booke 7. thorowout Pretences devised for your excuse either of Good Intent Morall Certainty or of Habituall Condition especially seeing that the Fathers by that their universall Invitation Lift up your hearts abstracted still the thoughts of the Communicants from contemplating of any Subject present here Below that they might be drawne to the meditation of the Body of Christ as it is in Heaven Lastly in your owne Romish Masse praying after Consecration God to be propitious to the things offered as to Abels Sacrifice which was but a sacrificed Sheepe Compute all these Particulars and you shall finde about sixteene Arguments to prove you to be absolutely Idolaters Wee having thus reveiled these Three Principall and Fundamentall Abominations do now proceed to their Concomitants and Consequences which are Mixtures of Heresie in many Overture of Perjury in some and Obstinacie in all Wee begin at the last CHAP. II. Of the exceeding Obstinacie of the Romish Disputers made palpable by their owne Contradictions and of the Defence thereof as being Contradictory in it selfe SECT I. ALl your Disputers shew themselves in nothing more zealous than in maintenance of your Romish Masse which they contend for by objecting Scriptures Fathers and Reasons notwithstanding their Expositions of Scriptures their Inferences out of the Fathers their devised Reasons and almost all their Confutations are confuted rejected and contradicted by their owne fellowes as the Sections thorowout this whole Tractate do plainly demonstrate Wee cannot therefore otherwise judge but that as Prejudice is the chiefe Director so Obstinacie is the greatest Supporter of your Cause How much more when the Defence it selfe is found to consist upon meere Contradictories whereof you may take a Taste out of your Doctrine of Corporall Presence and of a proper Sacrifice In the first by obtruding on mens Consciences a Beliefe upon due Consequence of a Body of Christ Borne and not Borne of the Virgin Mary One and not one Finite and not Finite Divisible and not Divisible Perfect and not Perfect and also Glorious and not Glorious as hath beene a Booke 4. thorowout proved in each point II. In a point of properly Sacrificing of Christ's Body your Musicke stands upon the same kind of Discords of b See Booke 6. thorowout Teaching a Body Broken and not Broken a matter visible and not visible of Blood shed and not shed and of a suffering Destruction and not suffering Destruction Evident Arguments of Obstinacie one would thinke and yet behold a plainer if it may be One Example instead of many of a stupendious Obstinacie in urging the Iudgement of Antiquity for Defence of your Romish Masse in the chiefect parts thereof proved by instancing onely in their like Sayings concerning Baptisme SECT II. THree chiefe Iesuites besides others have beene as you may c Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 13. remember extremely urgent and important with Protestants to shew if they could the like Phrases of the Fathers in Baptisme as were used of them concerning the Eucharist in the question of Sacrifice as if the just paralleling of these Two might be a Satisfaction unto themselves concerning that one point Wee are to deale more liberally with them and whereas they assume unto themselves the suffrages of Antiquity 1. For a Literall Exposition of Christs words This is my Body 2. For a Change of Bread by Transubstantiation into his Body 3. For a Corporall Presence of the same Body in the Sacrament 4. For a Bodily Vnion with our Bodies 5. For a Proper Sacrifice of the Eucharist And lastly for a Divine Adoration thereof wee answer them from the Fathers in their like Sayings concerning Baptisme throughout every particular A Synopsis of the Speeches of Ancient Fathers objected throughout this whole Treatise for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and assoyled and satisfied by the Parallels and like Equivalent Sayings of the same Fathers to the manifold and manifest Conviction of all Romish Deliration in this their Controversie of the Masse SECT III. WEe shall pursue your Objections and our Solutions according to the Order of the Bookes wherein they are cited BOOKE II. I. Kind of Romish Objections for proofe of the Corporall Presence of Christs Body OB. I. The Fathers call the Eucharist an Antitype of Christ Basil and others Ergo is Christ Corporally therein B. 2. c. 2. § 6. SOL. Nay for Baptisme is
Recantation p. 335. BERTRAM his saying The Body of Christ in Heaven differeth from that on the Altar as much as that which was borne of the Virgin Mary and that which was not pag 159. His saying Bread remaineth in the Eucharist after Consecration pag. 186. The Romish Profession is to delude the Testimonies of Antiquity Ibid. pag. 187. His saying Iewes ate the same Spirituall meat with Christians p. 314. Bâ—ZA unjustly charged with denying Gods Omnipotencie p 231. BLASPHEMIE of a Romish Iesuite Teaching the Pope to dispence with the expresse Command of Christ pag. 87 BLESSED IT was Christs Consecration p. 9. BLOOD A Discourse of Fr. Collius a Romish Doctor of the miraculous Issuings of Christs Blood in the Eucharist p. 225 c. Blood of the Testament Exo. 24. objected for the Sacrifice of the Masse and Confuted by their owne Iesuite 424. Not infused in the Eucharist pag. 469. How the Fathers call the Eucharist both a Bloody and Vâ—bloody Sacrifice p. 455 456 457 c. BODY of Christ changed into whatsoever the Receiver desireth vainely Objected out of Greg. Nyssen pag. 202. Hee saith So doth Christs Body change our Bodies into it self Ibid. And Chrysost Christ hath made us his owne Body not by Faith but in deed also Ibid. An Objected Possibility of a Bodies being in diverse places at once from the like existence of Voice and Colour and of the soule of a man in the parts of his Body p. 259 260 261. Romish Objections against our using of Naturall reason to disprove the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 263. A Body cannot take the right hand and left hand of it selfe pag. 254. The entrance of Christs Body miraculously through the doores p. 275 c. The Body of Christ opened the Cell of the Blessed Virgin p. 2777punc 278. In the Body of Christ by Popish Doctrine his head is not distant from his feet pag. 272. Body of Christ is held by the Romish Sect to be voyd of all sense and understanding as hee is in this Sacrament p 282. Christs Body is the Spirituall and Supersubstantiall food of the Soule p. 310. Eaten in vow and desire Ibid. Christs Body united to the Bodies of the Communicants See VNION See EATE Christs Body not suffering Destruction 467. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. BREAD Sacramentall albeit Bread is dignifyed by Saint Augustine with the name of Celestiall p 127. That Bread remaineth after CoÌ„secration is proved by Scripture p. 162. Consisting of Graines p. 163. Proved by Antiquity p. 163 164. By Sense 169. By the Analogie of Bread consisting of multitudes of Graines of Corne. Ibid. 165. Bread remaineth the same in Substance by the Iudgemen of Antiquity p. 169 Proved by the Councel of Nice p. 303. Bread and Wine called a Sacrifice by Ancient Fathers but Improperly p. 404 405 c. BREAKING of Bread used by Antiquity Contrary to the now Romish Practice pag 15. Breaking in Christs speech is Tropicall Ibid. Broken in the Present tense for proof of a Sacrifice and yet confessed by the Romish to betâ—ken the future pag. 397. C CABASILAS Gr Archb for the forme of Romish Consecration calumniously Objected 493. CAKE upon the Mountaines Objected out of the Psalmes and confuted by Popish Doctors pag. 433. CALVIN unjustly charged with denying Gods Omnipotencie pag. 231. CANON of the Masse Dominus vobiscum contradicteth the Private Masse p. 19. CANONIZATION of Saints fallibly is the ground of Superstitiousnesse p. 542. 543. CAPERNAITICAL Eating of Christs flesh 329. c. The Romish Eating of Christs Body is Capernaiticall p. 335. 336. c. See Vnion See Eating See Swallowing Mr. CASAVBON his large discourse teaching the universall practise of Antiquity to understand the tongue wherein they prayed p. 36. His Satisfaction to the Objected Testimonies of Antiquitie for Transubstantiation and Corporall Presence p. 207. His Iudgement upon the Fathers in the point of Fragments p 179. And upon the Objected Testimonie of Cyrill of Ierusalem pag. 177. His Answere to the Obcted Testimonie of â—ustine concerning the Sacrifice to Mithra among the Heathen pag. 379. His Exposition upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 400. CASSIODORE wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the act of Melchisedech p. 406. That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine Ibid. CATECHISME of TRENT saying All Baptized are Sacerdotes and so August p. 314. CAVTION of Antiquity in not suffering any part of the Eucharist in solid or liquid to fall to the ground Objected and Answered pag. 514. CHâ—VVING the Continuall maner of Eating of the Sacrament p. 339. CHRIST'S Acts of Excellency not to be imitated of any such as was his not compleat Sacramentall communicating in Emmaus pag. 63. 64. c. CHRYSOSTOME against Prayer in an unknowne tongue pag. 35. Hee is vainely objected for the Private Masse of the alone Communicating Priest pag. 21. Hee is for Consecration by Prayer p. 14. Hee is vehement against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist pag. 47. Reverence to Christ is our Obedience pag. 81. Hee is against the Communicating but in one kind p. 77. Hee is for the Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body and for the Continuance of Bread after Consecration p. 116. 117. c. His Question What is Bread The Body of Christ as the faithfull Communicants are the Body of Christ pag. 117. Hee expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 163. 164. Hee saith If Christ had given onely an Image of his Body at his Resurrection hee had deluded his Disciples p. 169. And that in things sensible the Substance remaineth p. 198. And that Christ hath made us his owne Body not onely in faith but in deed also p. 202. Ob Thinke not that it is the Priest that reacheth it but God Sol. Not the Priest but God holdeth the head of the Baptized p. 200. Bread unworthy of the name of Christ's Body albeit the Nature of Bread remaineth still pag. 186. His Testimony blotted out by the Parisian Doctors p. 186 Changed by Divine power 189. Our senses may be deceived wee are altogether to believe it 198. His Hyperbolicall maner of speech confessed 199. Hee saith Something is Impossible to God even to the advancement of Gods Omnipotencie p. 229. Hee is objected for Christs Corporall Presence both in Heaven and in Earth unconscionably pag. 247. Answered Ibid. His Hyperbolicall speeches Ibid. Ob. Hee left his flesh as Elias his Mantle Ibid. Hee holdeth that Angels have allotted unto them a prescript place or space p. 261. Hee is objected for the Romish Penetration of the Doores by Christ's Body Vnconscionably 275. Hee is against the Impalpability of Christs Body p. 276. and against the Passing of Christ's Body into the Seege p. 287. Hee is objected that Godlesse Communicants partake of Christs Body pag. 313. Yet saith that
the onely perfect Sacrifice p. 445. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Calumniously objected p. 496. K KNEELING Confessed by Romanists not to be Absolutely necessary in Reverence performed at the Receiving of the Eucharist pag. 515. Which cannot conclude it not to be expedient with us Ibid. L LIFT VP YOVR HEARTS used of the Councell of Nice p. 303. Vsed also of the Fathers against the Conceipt of Corporall Presence p. 525. LITVRGIES Anciently against the Romish Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist in the Masse p. 46 c. They Confute the Romish Sacrilegiousnesse in their Masse p. 562 563. S. Iames S. Basil S. Chrysostome Pope Clement Ibid. LVTHERANS Opinion touching Christs Presence in the Eucharist agreeth with the Augustane Confession p. 310. See Augustane Confession M MACARIVS His Opinion concerning the word Antitype p. 116. MADE Wee are made the same Body which wee receive So Chrysost and Bede pag. 202. MAD-MEN made Capable of the Eucharist is a Romish Innovation pag. 53 c. MALACH 5. In every place shall Sacrifice be offered in my name Objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse but upon a false foundation p. 429 430 c. It maketh against the Romish Sacrifice by the Exposition of the Fathers p. 434. Other Propheticall Scriptures constrainedly applyed to the Masse p. 435 c. MANNA A Spirituall meat to the Iewes p. 159. It is compared with the Eucharist p. 426 427. MANER Although the Controversie be onely De modo of Christs Presence in the Eucharist yet may the Romish Doctrine be Hereticall pag. 210 211. There is a double Quomodo the one Prudentiae the other Infidelitatis p. 211. MASSE The word Masse is derived from the Latine word Missa est pag. 2. It Confuteth the Romish practice of Non-communicants seeing Masse p. 3. Private Masse a Transgression of Christs Institution pag. 17. Against Antiquity p. 19. The Romish Masse is destitute of whatsoever is pretended to be Properly a Sacrificing Act therein p. 466. MELCHIZEDECH his ministring of Bread and Wine to Abraham not justly Objected for proofe of a Type of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse pag. 404 c. Fathers forcedly Objected for that purpose See Priesthood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not used of the Greekes concerning the Change in the Eucharist pag. 150. MEVM in Christs words Hoc est corpus meum as uttered by the Priest is Figurative pag. 138. That they cannot be Consecratory and Operative words as they are uttered by the Priest Ibid. See Figurative MIRACVLOVS Penetrations of Christs Body Objected p. 275. Thirteene miraculous Apparitions of the true Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist falsly pretended for proofe of a Corporall Presence p. 218 219 220 c. MORAL CERTAINTY No sufficient excuse against the Imputation of Formall Idolatry in the Romish Masse pag. 534 535 c. Protestants security in this respect p. 553 N NATVRE IS CHANGED This Phrase cannot inferre a Corporall Change in the Eucharist pag. 191. Christs two different Natures pag. 242 243 c. NAZIANZEN by his calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype yieldes to a Figurative sense of Christs words This is my Body p. 115. Hee noteth something to be Impossible even to the Advancement of Gods Omnipotencie p. 229. Hee holdeth it as a Doctrine of Faith that Every Angell hath allotted unto him a prescript place or space p. 261. His Answer to Apollinarius denying Christ to be God and man for then two Natures should be in one The reason saith hee of two being in one and of God-head and Man-hood in one are not Comparable p. 263. Hee is Objected for the Penetration of the Doores by Christs Body pag. 275. One place is not Capable of many Bodies pag. 259. Hee called the Eucharist a Viand pag. 366. His saying I have another Altar in Heaven whereof these are but signes pag. 417. His saying The Legall Passeover is a more obscure figure than the Eucharist p. 427. Hee calls the Eucharist an Vnbloody Sacrifice pag. 453. Hee differenceth the Altar below from the Altar in Heaven as the Lesse and more acceptable to God pag. 463. His saying Angels are present at Baptisme pag. 507. His Oration of Gorgonia vainly Objected for proofe of Divine Adoration of the Euchrist p. 517. His saying of Gorgonia That she mingled her teares with the Antitypes of Christs body and blood Ibid. His Pastophorie Ibid. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 518. His saying of ô Pascha Vindicated as spoken of the Feast of Easter and not of the Eucharist pag. 521 522 c. NORTHERN People not utterly destitute of Wine pag. 78. NICETAS is an Expounder of the words of Nazianzen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 522. GREG. NYSSEN is Objected in his Catech. Oration saying The Body of Christ is changed into whatsoever the Receiver will And Christs Body doth change our Bodies into it selfe pag. 202. Hee saith No Incorporcall thing can be Meate to a Corporall thing pag. 305. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seemeth nothing for Transubstantiation pag. 208. He calleth Baptisme a Divine Lavar working merveilous effects pag. 185. And Divine not common Water pag. 195. Hee is objected for Corporall Presence in diverse places at once but unconscionably pag. 248. Hee affirmes the Blessed Virgins opening of her Cell at Christs Birth pag. 277. Hee is Objected unconscionably for Corporall Vnion of Christ by Bodily nourishing our Bodies pag. 362. Confessed that hee spake of a Permanent Vnion pag. 365. That hee speaking of the nourishment of mens Bodies by this Sacrament meant not any Substantiall nourishment thereby which were Absurd as is Confessed Ibid. pag. 362. Hee is againe Objected pag. 500. Hee saith that Christ offered himselfe to his Disciples but was first slaine pag. 456. All such Sayings as this are Confessed to meane Commemoratively and Representatively onely and in a Sacrament or Mystery Ibid. Suffering in a Mystery Ergò Eaten in a Mystery Present in a Mystery Hee called Baptisme Blood in a Mystery Ibid. O OBSTINACY of Romish Disputers made Palpable in a full Synopsis p. 568 569 c. OECVMENIVS wrongfully Objected for a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the Act of Melchisedech pag. 404. Hee disclaiming all Properly called Altar Priesthood and Sacrifice p. 417. OMNIPOTENCY is required in making a Sacrament pag. 188 189 c. Omnipotencie attributed of the Fathers to the Eucharist no Argument of Transubstantiation pag. 188. Calvin and Beza Vujustly charged with Denying God's Omnipotencie pag. 231. Omnipotencie Falsely pretended for Defence of the Eutychian Heresie pag. 267. 277. OMNIPRESENCY of God impudently Objected to proove a Possibility of a Bodily Presence in diverse places at once pag. 260 261. Confuted by Ancient Fathors pag. 262. OPTATâ—S his Saying The Mâ—mbers of Christ are upon the Altar And the Altar is the Seate of Christs Body And it is an haynous thing c. Vnworthily Objected pag. 344. And his Saying of the Eucharist that It is a Pledge of our Salvation
unconscionably Objected for our Corporall Vnion with Christ in the Sacrament pag. 367. ORALL-EATING is Capernaiticall p. 399 340 c. ORDINATION Want of this in the Priest is cause of Romish Idolatry pag. 531. Much more in respect of the same want in the Ordainers by many hundred Possible Defects pag. 532. Protestants Securitie in their Beliefe in respect of this pag. 554. ORGANIZATION of Christs Body Denyed by the Romish pag. 269 270 c. See Body of Christ ORIGEN Objected untruly for an Vnknowne Prayer pag. 35 Hee is against Reservation of the Eucharist to any other end but Eating pag 49. Hee Teacheth Hoc in Christs words to demonstrate Bread pag. 103. Hee expoundeth the Fruite of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to Signifie the Eucharisticall VVine pag. 163. His Saying The Materiall goeth into the Draught pag. 177 187. Hee holdeth it as a Doctrine of Faith that Every Angell hath allotted unto him a prescript place or space pag. 261. Hee standeth for the Blessed Virgins opening her Cell at Christs Birth pag. 277. Hee saith that Onely the Godly are Partakers of Christs Body pag. 321. Hee calleth the Sacrament after Consecration Bread and materiall meat pag 349 350. And No wicked man can eate Christs flesh else hee should live for ever pag. 350. Hee is against the Literall Eating of Christs flesh pag. 339. His Saying Christ entreth under the roofe of his mouth Vnconscionably Objected pag. 342. His Saying Wee Drinke Christs Blood by Receiving his Word pag. 345. The Naturall Sanctifyed and Symbolicall Body meat eaten may goe into the Draught pag. 349. Hee saith Christ is the onely true Passeover pag. 423. And Christ our Priest not to be sought here at all but in Heaven pag. 417. And that The Passeover was onely Signe of Christs Passion p. 443. Hee saith The onely Commemoration is a Proper Sacrifice pag. 477. His Saying I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter into my mouth Objected fondly for Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 521. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Properly taken for Substance in Theodoret. pag. 180 181 182 c. And among the Grecians as well Catholikes as Heretikes Substance falsely interpreted Accidents Ibid. P PACHYMERES upon the words of Dionysius O Divine Sacrament pag. 518. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Which is vindicated againe against a late Calumnious Seducer p. 521. PAMELIVS his Abuse of the Testimony of Tertullian for Procession with the Eucharist p. 50. PAPAL Authority equalled with the Apostolicall and opposed unto it pag. 65 66 c. PARALLâ—LS Answering by Parallels and equivalent termes and phrases of the Fathers is justifyable and necessary pag. 366. PASCHATIVS saith that Christs Body is a Bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist p. 455. That he meant it of the Passion of the Crosse is Confessed p. 456. PASSE-OVER a Figure of the Old Law Objected as a Type of the Masse which was a Type of Christ upon the Crosse p. 422 423 c. Proved out of the Fathers Ibid. PASTOPHORIVM was wherein the Sacrament was reserved in a Chamber not in a Boxe p. 49. PENETRATION of Dimensions denyed by Damascen p. 275. PERIVRâ—â—S of the Romish Disputers and Instances thereof pag. 574 575 c. In Translations and Expositions of Scripture pag. 576 577 c. In affirming Consent of Antiquity and in their supposed necessity of their Doctrines pag. 580 581 c. PERPLEXITIES of Romish Worship in the Adoration of the Eucharist in respect of their Pronunciation of Christs words pag. 552. Of Morall Certainty pag. 553. Priestly Intention Ibid. Of Ordination Ibid. p. 554. from Habituall Condition p. 555. PHILO IVDAEVS Against Prayer in a Language Vnknowne pag. 29. PLACE A Body in two Places at once See Body See Angels And see Circumscription PLEDGE So was the Eucharist called pag. 366. Objected and Answered Ibid. POPE A Pope of Rome against Prayer in an Vnknowne Tongue pag. 35. Popes farre from being Priests after the Order of Melchisedech pag. 410 411. c. PO. ALEXANDER saith that Christs Body is a Bloody Sacrifice and slaine in the Eucharist pag. 455. meant of the Passion of the Crosse Confessed p. 479. PO. GALIXTVS against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist in the Masse pag. 46. POPE CLEMENT by his Calling the Encharist Type and Antitype yeildeth to a Figurative sense of Christs Words This is my Body pag. 116. Hee saith also Wee divide it into Fragments pag. 179. And nameth Haec Antityppa speaking of the Body and Blood of Christ shed pag. 454. PO. CORNELIVS standeth for the Receiving of the Eucharist with Hands p. 44. POPE GALASIVS is against the Communion but in one kinde pag. 71 c. Speaking also of Bread and Wine Consecrated saith They cease not to be in substance the same pag. 148. That the same Gelasius was indeed Pope Ibid. Hee is Objected for calling the Eucharist Divine but as did Gregory Nyssen call Water of Baptisme Divine and Dionysius other sacred things pag. 185. POPE GREGORY is against the Romish Private Masse of the Priests Communicating alone pag. 20. And against the Romish Custome of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist in the Masse pag. 46. He saith that the Infidelity of Thomas was Convinced by Touch. pag. 68. And affirmeth that Angells are Circumscribed in place pag. 262. Hee writeth against the Heretikes who taught the Body of Christ to be brought into an airy substance pag. 274. Against the Eunomians who held the Body of Christ to be Impalpable His Saying Christs Blood is sprinckled on our Posts Vnconscionably Objected pag. 343. And taught that Christ exercised his Priesthood in Heaven p. 419. POPE INNOCENT the Third is against Prayer in a Tongue Vnknowne pag. 35. And against the Romish Private Masse pag. 21. His Errour of Administring the Eucharist to Infants pag. 51 52. Pope Innocent and Pope Iulius Repugnant in the point of Transubstantiation pag. 155. And Expoundeth the fruite of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 164. Hee held Transubstantiation onely in matter and the Councell of Trent both in matter and in forme pag. 155. His Similitude of a Bodies being in diverse places at once from Voice pag. 258. Hee saith that Christs Body should be Mortall and Immortall it is Incredible pag. 256. And of Vasquez his Blacks and Whites Ibid. Hee saith that Agility is one of the Indowments of a Glorifyed Body pag. 285. POPE IVLIVS is against the Alteration of the Institution of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 62. And in reproving Innovations concerning the Eucharist hee challengeth all to follow Christs Institution who allowed the use of both Bread and Cup. pag. 88. Hee held Transubstantiation to be both in matter and forme p. 155. POPE LEO sayd of the Baptised He is not the same hee was but made the flesh of Christ 202. And the Regenerate is made the Body of Christ crucifyed Ib. He is against the abominable Romish Doctrine of an Imperfect
Body of Christ in the Eucharist p. 283. His saying Gustamus Carnem Christi Corruply alleged for Gestamus p. 343. He is Objected for Corporall Vnion of Christs Bodily nourishing our Bodies pag. 356. And that hee spake of a Permanent Vnion pag. 365. His saying By Baptisme the Regenerate is made the Body of Christ crucifyed pag. 357. Hee is also Objected to proove the Paschall Lambe to have prefigured Christ in the Masse and therein egregiously abused pag. 425. POPE NICHOLAS his Decree and Romish Doctrine of Eating Christs flesh Corporally by Tearing it with Teeth the Occasion of Averroes his imputing to Christians the Devouring of their God p. 381. PO. PIVS the Fourth forbad the Eucharist to be carried to the Sicke only for Adoration-sake p. 50. POPE ZePHERINUS Ordayned that the Chalices should be Glasses pag. 514. PRAYER in an Vnknown Tongue Condemned by Antiquity pag. 24 25 26 c. The Practice of Vnknowne Prayer in Divine Service in the Romish Masse is Sacrilegiously derogatory to the Dignity of Christ pag. 558 559 c. Their Praying for Propitiousnesse towards Christ as towards a Sheep p. 560 561 c. PRECEPT Words of Precept may be Figurative p. 133. PRESENCE How Christs Body may be sayd to be present in the Eucharist of Protestants in a foure-fold Truth pag. 212 213. That the Presence of Christs Body Corporally is the Romish maner p. 217. PRETENCE of Reverence is often cause of Disobedience pag 80 81. See Reverence PRIESTS bring present at the Communion ought to Communicate pag. 57 58 c. A Priest hath no more Privilege for the use of the Cup by the Iudgement of Antiquity than any other Faithfull Communicant Ibid. The word Priest as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not used of the Apostle as is Confessed pag. 461. And that Priest as from Presbyter cannot relate to a Proper Sacrifice Ibid. And that Sacerdos is more proper to the Old Testament Ibid. PRIESTHOOD of Melchisedech is agreeable to the Priesthood of Christ pag. 409. And as Disagreeable to the Romish Priesthood pag. 410 411 c. It is denyed to be now exercised in Heaven which is Confuted by Scripture pag. 412 413. Bellarmine his Sacrilegious detracting from it Ibid. Proved by Ancient Fathers pag. 415. The Priesthood of Christ for ever Confessed by a learned Iesuite out of the Fathers pag. 418. See Melchisedech PRIMASIVS by terming the Eucharist a Pledge held a Continuance of Bread therein pag. 180. Hee is fondly Objected for calling the Eucharist a Pledge pag. 369. Hee saith that Christ as Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine that is his Body and Blood pag. 404. His expounding of 1. Cor. 10. 18 Partakers of Devills pag. 401. Hee nameth the Eucharist The same Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse with this Correction or rather Remembrance thereof pag. 442. And that which was borne of the Virgin not now great and now lesse Ibid. PRIVATE MASSE is a Transgression of Christs Command pag. 17 18. And repugnant to Antiquity p. 19 c. PROCESSION with the Sacrament for Adoration is Contrary to Antiquity pag. 48 49 c. And defended by Pamelius out of Tertullian pag. 50. PRODVCTION pretended to be the sole maner of Transubstantiation by divers Romanists and Confuted as Absurd by some others of them pag. 153 154 155 c. PROPITIATORY Sacrifice cannot be properly Attributedâ— to the Eucharistâ— pag. 474 475 c. Our Distinction Ibid. The Romish Sacrifice hath no foundation in Christs Institution pag. 475. Divers Acts unproperly called Propitiatory pag. 476. That it is Propitiatory because of the Remembrance of the bloody Sacrifice and by Application of that Confessed pag. 480. Not Propitiatorie without Relation unto the Crosse pag. 481. That onely Bloody is Propitiatory Ibid. The Romanists Propitiatory of Finite Virtue Ibid. 482. The Church of Rome not yet resolved of the value of their Propitiatory Sacrifice pag. 483. The Romish Application for lucre-sake pag. 486. The Priests Portion therein Ibid. Protestants Application for a Propitiatory Sacrifice more true pag. 487. And absolute pag. 488. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word not justly objected for Divine Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 507. 508. c. PROTESTANTS doe all agree with the Augustane Confession in the point of Vnion of Christs Flesh with the Bodies of the Receivers pag. 310. Their Security from the Romish Perplexities in Adoration of the Eucharist pag. 550. PROVIDENCE of God admired by two Cardinals in these words Quotiescunque Biberitis p. 56. 57. c. Their three Evasions which are by Gods Providence confounded by the contrariety of their owne tongues Ibid. PSALMES vulgarly sung in the publicke worship of God Primitively p. 28. 29. c. PVNICK Tongue not so well knowne to Punicks as the Latine p 42. PVRGATORIE The place of Romish Purgatorie lest it should be evacuated they devised the Sacrifice of Christ to be but of a finite virtue in the Masse p. 486. Q QVANTITIE can be no Similitude for resembling the Being of God in Place but Quantity p. 255. QVOMODO There is a double Quomodo the one Prudentiae the other Infidelitatis pag. 211. 250. R RABBINS of the Iewes wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse from the Act of Melchisedech p. 404. REASON Romish Objections against our Naturall Reasons in Confutation of the Romish Corporall Presence of Christs Body Answered pag. 263. REASONABLE Service in the Liturgies what it signifieth p. 451. Reasonable Sacrifice attributed to the Eucharist objected for a proper Sacrifice although ascribed by other Fathers to unproper Sacrifices by Chrysostome of Prayses by Athanasius to Baptisme p. 452. RELATIONS Contrary Relations fondly attributed to the same body of Christ as to be above and below it selfe 245. although denied by others Ibid. REMAINDERS of the Eucharist were anciently burnt p. 514. Confessed REMEMBRANCE and Discretion required in the Communicant p. 51. REPRESENTATIVE Sacrifice of the old Law how p. 442. The Eucharist onely Representative Ibid. The Romish after a manner of a Stage-play p. 445. See Commemorative RESERVATION of the Eucharist for Romish Procession contradicted by Antiquity p. 48. With whom the end of Reservation was still to be eaten Ibid. REVERENCE most due to Christ is our Obedience p. 81. c. That it is no sufficieÌ„t Reason to with-hold the Cup from the Laity Ibid. What Reverence is lawfull in receiving the Eucharist pag. 551. The reverence of Kneeling justifiable Ibid. ROMISH Doctors divided about the word Masse p. 3 And about Consecration that it was by Prayer p. 9. In the ancient Romane Church Consecration was by Prayer Ibid. And did Brâ—ake Bread Ibid. They gaine-said Private Masse pag. 17. 18. c. And the uttering of Christs words in an unaudible voice pag. 22. 23. c. That a knowne Tongue was used in Gods Service pag. 24. Their Objections for the Communion but in one kind from Antiquity Answered pag. 68. That there is a more spirituall grace and refection
at once as â—n heaven Locall according to the dimensions of Place and as on the Altar not Locall according to the dimensions of Place Therfore is your Romish Doctrine Contradictorie to it selfe Yet shall wee be content that you may call this a Sophisticall Argument except the Ancient Fathers shall establish the same Conclusion For this present take unto you a Reason as wee think Impregnable Nothing can possibly be Extrà se without it selfe but for a Body being heere to be at the same time separated from Heere by a Space where it is not as on this Altar and on the other Altar and yet not to be in the Space betweene is to be without it selfe and Consequently divideth it selfe from it selfe which no man will affirme that is not beside himselfe The same Second Romish Contradiction manifested in Scripture by an Argument Angelicall SECT III. M Atth. 28. 6. The Angell speaking to the woman that sought Christ in the grave said Hee is not heere for he is risen and gone into Galilee which is as much as to have said hee could not be in Both places at once an Argument Angelicall But you Answer that it was spoken Morally How wee beseech you as if one should say saith your r Loquitur ad mentem sanctarum illarum mulierum Sed optima est solutio moraliter intel ligi ut si quis dicat talis homo non sedet ad mensam coenatus est enim Bellar. li. 3. de Eu h. c. 4. Cardinall Such a man sitteth not at table for he hath supped What fond trifling is this and wilfull perverting the Truth of God for this your Argument A man sitteth not at table for hee hath supped is scarce a probable Consequence that a man is risen from the table as soone as hee hath supped Contrarily the Angel's Logike is not by a Peradventure but necessary not imaginary but historicall not conjecturall but dogmaticall and Demonstrative âšœ And so Saint 5 Chrysost Venite inspicite ubi positus erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the words of the Evangelist âšœ Chrysostome doth call it For better explanation whereof wee may turne the Causall word FOR into an Illative THEREFORE because it is all one as you know to say hee is not here in the Grave For â—hee is risen out of the Grave And to say Hee is risen out of the Grave Therefore hee is not heere in the Grave Vnderstand then first that the matter subject of this Argument being no morall arbritrary Act of man's will but the omnipotent Resurrection of Christ from the dead which is a fundamentall Article of Christian Faith yea and as it were the foundation of all other Articles without which as the Apostle saith * 1 Cor. 15. 14. Our Faith were vaine the Angell must necessarily be thought to have concluded dogmatically which is the reason that he is so instant and so urgent saying to the woman Come and see the place where the Lord was laid Which hee addeth saith your Å¿ Videli ad Comprobandum dictum Non est hîc Salmer Ies Tom. 11. Tract 9. pag. 72. Iesuite for confirmation of that which hee had said Hee is not heere Seeking by their sight saith also another 6 Maldonat Ies in eum locum Nunc experientia confirmat ipso visu nititur fidem facere Iesuite to make them believe âšœ And as much as if hee had said saith t Quasi dicat si verbo non credatis vacuo sepulchro credatis Anselm Anselme If you believe not my word give credit to the emptie Sepulchre in satisfying your owne sight Therefore was it demonstrative And againe the Angell putting them to make use both of his Saving and their owne Seeing Go yee saith hee and tell his Disciples And they went saith the Text to bring his Disciples word Therefore was his Argument Doctrinall such whereby he thought so fully to perswade them that they might informe others in an Infallible Truth âšœ One of your Doctors of Lovain published a Booke intituled A Confutation of Cavillations wherein hee 7 Marcus Constant Theol. Lovan lib. qui inscribitur Confutatio Cavillationum quibus Sacramentum Euâ—h impeti solet Ad ob 6. Surrexit non est hîc Respondet Catholicus quae est haec Consecutio non est hîc ergo non est in Sacramento adeonè illi inepti ut id colligant non est hîc ergo non potest hîc esse Arundimea sunt haec flaccida tela quae librata non pertingant quo intenduntur propoundeth the Argument of Protestants as if it stood simply thus The Angell sayd of Christ now risen out of the grave Hee is risen hee is not heere Therefore hee cannot be heere And thereupon calleth them Absurd when-as they argue from the Angels owne Logicall terme For in the Text Matth. 28. 6. Hee is not heere For hee is risen Implying the Consequence which you have heard that he could not be both Risen out of the Grave and In the Grave at the same time of the Angels speech But the Causall word For your Doctor omitted quite that hee might more easily impose upon them an Absurdity of his owne devising Thus have you beene confuted by an Argument both Angelicall and Evangelicall âšœ That the Romish Objection out of that Scripture Act. 9. is frivolous SECT IV. CHrist Act. 9. appeared to Saint Paul then Saul when hee was in his way to Damascus c. whence your Cardinall a Simul in summo 〈◊〉 in â—eÌ„re vieuâ— terrae Bellarâ—ll 3. de Eâ—ch c. 3. §. Secundum c. laboureth to prove a double presence of Christ at one instant to wit in Heaven with the Saints and in the Ayre unto Saul First because the light in the Ayre Strucke Saul blinde Secondly because others in the company of Saul heard not the same voice of Christ which hee heard Thirdly because Saul asked saying Lord who art thou and heard and understood the voice Fourthly Because Saul was thereby made a witnesse of seeing Christ risen from the dead And therefore saith hee was this Apparition in the Ayre Every objection may receive it's opposition To the first thus Did none of you ever know a mans eyes so dazled with the brightnesse of the Sun-beames on earth that hee could not see for a while and yet did not the Sun remove any whit from his Sphere So might the glorious shine of the person of Christ in Heaven worke upon Saul on earth To the second thus Have you not read of a voice from Heaven Iohn 12. 29. which some heard articulately and said An Angell speaketh and the common people said It thundreth because as your b Tolet. Ies in cum locum Iesuit confesseth they heard it but confusedly To the third thus Men heare and heare not so farre as God is pleased to reveale or not to reveale himselfe or his word and voyce yea or any sight unto them for Saint Stephen saw