hand of the Capernaites old Heretickes as all know even because they are set downe in Scripture to have perverted the sence of Christ his words of Eating his flesh and thereupon to have departed from Christ Iohn 6. Your Romish particular manner of Corporall Receiving of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is three-fold 1. Orall in the Mouth 2. Gutturall in the Throat and permit vs this word 3. Ventricall in the Belly of the Communicant That the Romish Orall manner of Receiving Corporally the Body of Christ with the mouth is Capernaticall SECT I. CHewing the Sacrament with the Teeth was the forme of Eating at the time of Christ his Institution as is proved by your owne Confession in granting that the vnleavened bread which Christ used was glutinosus that is gluish clammie and such as was to be cut with a knife But that the same manner of Eating by Chewing was altered in the Apostolicall or Primitive times is not read of by any Canon yea or yet admonition of any Father in the Church whether Greek or Latine That also Chewing continued in the Romish Church til a thousand and fiftie yeares after Christ is not obscurely implyed in the former tenour of the Recantation of Berengarius prescribed by the same Church which was to eat as you have heard By tearing it with the teeth And lastly that this hath since continued the ordinary custome of the same Church is as evident by your Cardinall Alan and Canus who have defended the manner of eating by Tearing Nor was Swallowing prescribed by any untill that the queazie Stomacke of your Iesuites not enduring Chewing perswaded the contrarie Which kinds of Eating whether by Chewing or Swallowing of Christ's flesh being both Orall none can deny to have beene the opinion of the Capernaites First of not Chewing and then of Swallowing in the VI. Chapter following That the Corporall and Orall Eating of Christ's flesh is a Capernaiticall Heresie is proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers SECT II. SOmetime doe Ancient Fathers point out the Errour of the Capernaites set downe Ioh. 6. concerning their false interpreting the words of Christ when hee speaketh of Eating his flesh which they understood literally But this literall sence Origen calleth a killing letter that is a pernitious interpretation even as of that other Scripture He 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 confuting the Capernaiticall conceit of Corporall eating of Christ's flesh will have us to observe that Christ after hee spake of his flesh did forthwith make mention of his Ascension into Heaven but why That Christ might thereby draw their bodily thoughts from the bodily sence namely of eating it corporally upon earth which is your Romish sence Tertullian likewise giveth the Reason of Christ's saying It is the spirit which quickeneth because the Capernaites so understood the wordes of Christ's speech of Eating his flesh As if saith Tertullian Christ had truly determined to give his flesh to be eaten Therefore it was their Errour to dreame of a truly corporall eating Augustine out of the â—ixt 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 Plainly denying it to be Christs Body which is eaten Orally and then affirming it to be the Sacrament of his Body and as plainly calling the manner of Corporall Eating a Pressing of bread with the teeth We say Bread not the Body of Christ For when he commeth to our Eating of Christ's flesh he exempteth the corporall Instruments and requireth only the spirituall saying Why preparest thou thy Tooth It is then no corporall Eating and hee addeth Beleeve 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 Iesuite hath confessed lest we should understand this properly he teacheth us to say Christ is not divided into parts Contrarily when we speake Sacramentally that is figuratively and improperly hee will have us to grant that Christ his flesh is divided in this Sacrament but remayneth whole in Heaven Say now will you say that Christ's Body is Divided by your eating the Eucharist in a literall sence your owne Iesuits have abhorred to thinke so And dare you not say that in Eating this Sacrament you doe Divide Christs Body in a literall sence then are you to abhorre your Romish literall Exposition of Christ's speech which cannot but necessarily inferre a proper Dividing of the flesh of Christ Lastly doe but call to remembrance Saint Augustines Observation iust the same with the now-cited Testimonie of Athanasius to wit Christ's mention of his Ascension in his Bodie 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 Christ's Qualification of his owne speech when hee condemned all Carnall Sence of Eating his flesh saying thereof The flesh profiteth nothing c. For conclusion of this point you may take unto you the commandement of Saint Chrysostome as followeth Did not Christ therefore speake of his flesh farre be it from us saith he 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 he abandoneth all carnall understanding of Christ's words of Eating his flesh hee saith They have no fleshly or naturall Consequence at all So he Ergo say we to the Confutation of your Romish beliefe no corporall touch of Christ in your mouthes no Corporall eating with your Teeth no Corporall swallowing downe your Throate how much lesse any Corporall mixture in your bellies or guts CHALLENGE VVHether therefore the Capernaites thought to eate Christ his flesh raw or rosted 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 manner of Eating should accord in the iudgement of Antiquity with the doctrine of Christ Notwithstanding you cite us to appeare before the Tribunall of Antiquity by obiecting counter-Testimonies of ancient Fathers and we are as willing to give you the Answering The extreme Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers in wresting the figurative Phrases of Ancient Fathers to their Literall and Corporall manner of Receiving the Body of Christ SECT III. IT is a miserable thing to see how your Authours delude their Readers by obtruding upon them the Sentences of Fathers in
condemned in divers who sopped the Bread in the Chalice and squeezed Grapes in the Cup and so received them even as did the Artoryritae in mingling Bread with Cheese censured for Heretiques by your Aquinas In which Comparison your Aberration from Christ's Example is so much greater than theirs as you are found Guilty in defending 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 Greatly Sacrilegious notwithstanding your Church authorizeth the same Custome of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants 3. As you pretend Reverence for withdrawing the Cup so did the Aquarii forbeare wine and used only Water under a pretence of Sobriety 4. Sometime there may be a Reason to doe a thing when as yet there is no right nor Authority for him that doth it Wee therefore exact of you an Autority for altering the Apostles Customes and Constitutions and are answered that your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts Iumpe with them who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions replyed that 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 literally and why you urge his other saying Except yoâ—… eat my flesh 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 entrâ—ils because forsooth the words of Christ are Doctrinall And have you not heard of one Nicodemus who hearing Christ teach that every man must be Borne againe who shall be partaker of God's Kingdome and that hee expounding them in a Literall Sence conceited a new Entrance into his Mothers wombe when as nothing wanted to turne that his Errour into an Heresie but only Obstinacie But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers you have received a full Synopsis BOOKE III. After followeth your Article of Transubstantiation I. Your direct profession is indeed to beleeve no Body of Christ but that which was Borne of the Virgin Mary But this your Article of Transubstantiation of Bread into Christs Body generally held according to the proper nature of Transubstantion to be by Production of Christs Body out of the Substance of Bread it necessarrly inferreth a Body called and beleeved to be Christ's which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin as S. Augustine hath plainly 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 Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly you exclude all judgement of Senses in discerning Bread to be trâ—… Bread as did the Manichees in discerning Christ's Body 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 Eâ—charist after Consecration in confutation of the same Errour in the Marcioniâ—es 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 Eâ—tychian Heretique and instantly condemned by Theodoret and as fully abandoned by Pope Gelasâ—… BOOKE IV. Catholique 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 Eâ—tychians and Eâ—nomians all of them diversly oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body sometime in direct tearmes and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences whether it were by gaine-saying the Finitenesse or Solidity or else the compleat Perfection thereof wherein â—ow farre yee may challenge affinity or kindred with them be you pleased to examine by this which followeth 1. The Heretiques who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily Finitenesse said that it was in divers places at once as is confessed even as your Church doth now attribute unto the same Body of Christ both in Heaven and in Earth 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 Catholique Fathers for Hereticall it may best be seene by their Doctrine of the Existence of Christ's Body in one only place not only Definitively but also Circumspectively both which doe 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 manner of Christ's Bodily Being in place as they are in instructing men of the Article of Christ's Bodily Being lest that the deniall of it's Bodily manner of being might destroy the nature of his Body To which end they have concluded it to be absolutely but in one place sometime in a Circumspective Finitenesse thereby distinguishing them from all created Spirits and sometime by a Definitive Termination which they set downe first by Exemplifications thus 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 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 conclude that they are herein different because the humane and Bodily Nature of Christ is necessarily included in one place and laâ—tly comparing Creatures with the Holy Ghost they conclude a difference by the the same Argument because the Holy Ghost is in many places at once and all these in confutation of divers Heretiques A thing so well knowen 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 Hereticall 2. The property of a Solidity likewise was patronized by Antient Fathers in confutation of Heretiques by teaching Christ's Body to be necessarily Palpable against their Impalpabilitie and to have a Thicknesse against their feigned subtile Body as the Aire and furthermore controlling these opinions following which are also your Crotchets of a Bodies Being whole in the whole space and in every part thereof and of Christ's Body taking the Right hand or left of it selfe 3. The property of Perfection of the Body of Christ wheresoever in the highest Degree of Absolutenesse This one would thinke everie Christian heart should assent unto at the first hearing wherefore if that they were judged Heretiques by Antient
make a thing ioyntly to be and not to be This is a Contradiction and were not Omnipotencie but Impotencie not an effect but a defect To conclude Every thing either is or is not take away this Principle say you and farewell all learning and knowledge So you and that without contradiction most truely As your Doctors have taught the truth in Thesi and Doctrine so will they manifest the same in Hypothesi by examples of Impossibilities because of Contradiction namely that it is Impossible for God to be contained in one place Secondly for a Spirit to be divided into parts Thirdly for Bread to be the Body of Christ at the same instant when it is Bread Fourthly for the same thing to be present together at divers times Fiftly for one thing to be twice produced in divers places at once Sixtly for a Body having quantity not to be able to possesse a place Seaventhly It is impossible for Christ his Body as it is in the Sacrament to come from one place into another Eighthly Impossible it is to vndoe that which is once done because this were to make that which is true to be false So your Iesuites with others III. That the Doctrine of Calvin who is most traduced in this point accordeth to the former Iudgement of ancient Fathers SECT IV. IT is no new Calumny which you have against Calvin as if he had impugned the Omnipotencie of God in this Question of the Sacrament which Calvin himselfe did refute in his life-time professing that he is farre from subiecting the power of God to man's reason or to the order of nature and beleeving that even in this Sacrament it exceedeth all naturall principles that Christ doth feed men's soules with his Blood But his only exception is against them who will impose upon God a power of Contradiction which is no better than infirmity it selfe Wee saith hee are not so addicted to naturall reason as to attribute nothing to the power of God which exceedeth the order of nature for we confesse that our soules are fed with the flesh of Christ spiritually above all Physicall or naturall vnderstanding but that one should be in divers places at once and not contained in any is no lesse absurdity then to call light darknesse God indeed can when hee will turne light into darknes but to say light is darknesse is a perverting of the order of Gods wisedome So Calvin and Beza accordingly with him And so say we that it is possible for Christ as God if he were so pleased to make of Bread an humane body as easily as of stones to raise up Children to Abraham for there is involved no Contradiction in this But to make Bread to be flesh while it is Bread is a Contradiction in it selfe and as much as to say Bread is no Bread and therefore to the honour of the Omnipotencie of Christ wee iudge this saying properly taken to be Impossible CHAP. IV. That the Romish Doctrine of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament doth against that which Christ called CORPVS MEVM MY BODY imply sixe Contradictions The first Romish Contradiction in making it Borne and not borne of a Virgin SECT I. THe Catholique Faith hath alwayes taught concerning the Body of Christ That it was borne of the Virgin Mary Secondly that this so borne was and is but One Thirdly that this one is Finite Fourthly that this finite is Organicall and consisting of distinct parts Fiftly that this Organicall is now Perfect and endued with all Absolutenesse that ever any humane body can be capable of Sixtly that this Perfect is now also Glorious and no more subiect to vilification or indignity here on earth But your now Romish Doctrine touching Corporall Presence in this Sacrament doth imply Contradictions touching each of these as now we are to manifest beginning at the first Our Apostolicall Article concerning the Body of Christ is expresly this Hee was borne of the Virgin Mary which is the ancientest Article of Faith concerning Christ that is read of in the Booke of God The seed of the woman c. Gen. 3. to shew that it was by propagation But your Romane Article of bringing the Body of Christ into this Sacrament is that The substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body which inferreth a Body made of the substance of Bread as we have already proved and as all substantiall Conversions doe shew whether they be naturall or miraculous When the substance of Ayre is naturally changed into the substance of Water this water is made of Ayre when the substance of Water was miraculously changed into Wine the substance of the Wine was produced out of the substance of water when the Body of Lots Wife was turned into a pillar of salt the substance of that salt was made of the substance of her Bodily flesh CHALLENGE DOe you then beleeve your Doctrine of Transubstantiation that it is the substantiall Change by the operative wordes of Consecration of Bread into a Body which you call the Bodie of Christ then is this Body not borne but made nor by Propagation from the Blessed Virgin but by Production and Transubstantiation from Bread which differences Borne of the Virgin Mary and not borne of the Virgin Mary are plainly contradictory which was the cause that Augustine as Bertram sheweth distinguished betweene the Body borne of the Virgin and that which is on the Altar as betweene Aliud and Aliud one and another thing And this Argument hath beene fortified before and is furthermore confirmed by Saint Augustine afterwards The second Romish Contradiction to the ouerthrowing of that which Christ called MY BODY by making one Body of Christ not one but many SECT II. YOur Profession standeth thus The Body of Christ albeit now in Heaven yet is say you substantially in many places here on earth even wheresoever the Hoast is consecrated So you Next your Master Brerely laboureth earnestly to draw Calvin to professe a Possibility of Christ's Bodily presence in divers places at once contrary to Master Caluins plaine and expresse profession in the same Chapter where he directly confuteth this Romish Doctrine of Madnesse saying thus To seeke that Christ his Bodie 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 be 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 be locall on earth As if saith he she would pull Christ out of his Sanctuary of Heaven And at last after that he had said Christ his Body is united to the soule of the Communicant he so explaineth himselfe that hee meant a spirituall Vnion so
Eutychian Heretikes you know confounded the properties of Christs humane nature with his Godhead pretending as you doe the Omnipotencie of Christ for the patronizing of their heresie As thinking thereby thus saith Theodoret out of Amphilochius To magnifie the Lord Christ whereas this was indeed as the same Father saith to accuse God of falshood You may heare the same voice sound out of the Romane Chaire Pope Leo speaking of Eutyches the Authour of that heresie saith that Hee affirmed that thereby hee did more religiously conceive of the Maiestie of Christ by denying his humane nature whom therefore that holy Pope censureth to have beene seduced by the spirit of falsity Therefore it cannot be but that the Fathers in confuting an heresie founded upon a pretence of Omnipotencie 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 The Body of Christ being a compounded thing cannot be changed into a divine nature because it hath Circumscription This had beene no good reasoning except his CANNOT had imported an absolute Impossibility Vigilius anciently Bishop of Trent might have read a Lesson to the late Bishops at Trent who against the same Heretique 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 least that any might thinke this was but his owne private opinion he averreth saying This is the Catholique 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 Being on Earth it was absent from Heaven and going to Heaven it left the Earth Damascen had to deale with the fore-named Heretique and professing to deliver the substantiall difference of both natures hee differenceth them by these contrary Charters 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 not Capable of Circumscription because whole in the whole hoast and in every part thereof and to the very Angels of God Invisible Let vs ascend hither to the more primitive Ages to inquire of Fathers who had conflicts also with Heretiques who gaine-said the Truth of either nature Athanasius urged Christ his Ascention into Heaven to prove that he was truely man as God because his God-head was never out of Heaven being Vndeterminate in place and uncircumscribed even then when it was Hypostatically united with the Body being on earth Therefore it was his Body that ascended into Heaven from Earth His Argument is taken from Circumscription even as Nazianzene also doth Characterize them Augustine falling upon such Heretiques as taught a Bodily presence of Christ in the Sunne and in the Moone at once which you your selves will confesse could not be imagined to be according to the Course of nature giveth them first this Caueat You may not saith hee so defend the Deity of Christ as to defraud the Truth of his humanity then he addeth as if none could faine a presence of a Body without determination in space or place Bodies cannot be without space And againe A Bodie cannot be at one time in places distinct one from another And what els doth that saying of Ambrose imply spoken as to Christ Stephen saith he who saw thee in Heaven sought thee not upon earth Cyrill of Alexandria is a Father whose Patronage your Disputers would bee thought often to rely vpon hee is now about to deliver his Iudgement so freely and plainly as if he had meant to stop the mouthes of all our Opposites in the same Answere which he maketh against certaine Heretiques who held that God's nature is a Substance which can receive division and partition If God saith Cyrill should be divisible as a Bodie 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 Answere to other Fathers that Cyrill meant not that it was absolutely Impossible that Quantity should be without Circumscription but onely according to the Course of nature then might the Heretiques whom Cyrill confuted have made the same Answere and consequently Cyril's Consequence and confutation had beene of no force What shall wee say must still the antient Fathers be made no better than Asses in arguing that your Romish Masters forsooth may be deemed the only Doctors even then when they prepare the same Evasion for Heretiques which they devise for themselves but you must pardon us if wee beleeue that Cyrill seeing hee durst say that God himselfe if hee were a Body must be in a place as a thing having Quantitie and Circumscribed would have abhorred your now Romish Faith of beleeving Christ's Bodie consisting of Quantity albeit not Circumscribed in place CHALLENGE THese so many and manifest proofes of the ancient Fathers concluding an Impossibility of Existence of a Body without Determination in one place may be unto us a full Demonstration that they were Adversaries to your Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence and that all your Obiections out of them are but so many forged and forced Illusions Wee conclude If Christ himselfe gave a Caveat not to beleeve such Spirits as should say of his Bodily presence in this world after his Resurrection Behold here is Christ and behold there is Christ then doubtlesse much lesse credit is to be given to your Church which teacheth and professeth an Here is Christ and a There is Christ in the same instant as wee shall further more confirme by like verdict of Antiquity when wee shall heare the Fathers proue both that Angels and all created Spirits are finite Creatures and not Gods even because they are contained in one place and also that the holy Ghost is God and no finite Creature because it is in divers places at once But we must handle our matters in order That the Romish Doctors in their Obiections have no solid proofe of the Existence of one Body in divers places at once from the Iudgement of Antiquitie SECT VII IT is a kind of Morosity and Perversnes in our Opposites to obiect those testimonies which have their Answeres as it were tongues in their mouthes ready to confute their Obiections For Chrysostome saith not more plainly that Christ at one and the same time sitting with his Father in Heaven is here handled of Communicants on earth than hee doth say of the Priest and People communicating that They doe not consist or stay on earth but are transported into Heaven And againe a little after the words obiected The Priest saith
mans infirmity to descend raw through the Body into the Draught which in other meates is knowne sometime to be certaine you falling into this speculation tell us concerning the Egestion that it is held Probable that the Body of Christ doth not passe with the formes into the Draught in that Case So you affirming this to be but onely Probable whereas whosoever shall teach that the Body of Christ is not severed from the forme of Bread so long as it is uncorrupt which is your generall Tenet they must hold that the same Body in the like case of mans bodily infirmity doth passe by Egestion in like sort into the seege For if as you do also say the same Body of Christ hath beene once hidden in a Dunghill why may you not as wickedly beleeve that it may passe into the Draught That the Romish foresaid Indignities are contrary to holy Scriptures and iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT III. HOly Writ teacheth us that there is as great difference betweene the humiliation of Christ when he was on earth and his now Exaltation in glory in Heauen as there is betweene Shame and Glory it being now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Body of Glory Now for you to believe and professe the personall burning devouring regorging yea and the hiding of that glorious Body of Christ in a dung hill and the like are such execrable speeches as that we stand astonished with horrour to heare them thinking that we have heard in these the scoffes reproaches and blasphemies of some Pagans against Christian Religion rather than the opinion of any that take to themselves one syllable of the name of Christians If this had beene the ancient Faith some Fathers doubtlesse upon some occasion by some one sentence or other would have revealed their Iudgement therein from whose diuerse and copious Volumes neither doe you alleage nor we reade any one word of mans spewing up or Mice eating or so much as the winde blowing away the Body of Christ much lesse of the other basenesse spoken of But contrariwise Origen and Cyrill distinguishing betweene the spirituall Bread which is the Reall Body of Christ and the Bread Sacramentall say That not that Body but this Bread goeth into the Draught Which to affirme of Christs Body were an Assertion abhominable That the Romish Answeres for defence of this their vile and beastly Opinion are but false and fond SECT IV. IT was said of Philosophers of old that nothing was so absurd but some one or other of them would take in hand to defend it the like may be said of our Romish Opposites whereof wee have given you divers Instances throughout this whole Treatise as in the most particulars so for the point now in Question And although many of your Disputers have for modesties sake passed by it yet have two among you as it were putting on Vizards on their faces come in with two fanaticall Answeres Both which are taken from the condition of Christ his humane Body whilest he was in the world 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 we 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 he Ioyne with this the Determination of your Schoole That the substance of Christ his Body remaineth still although the Hoast be eaten with Dogs But Master Brerely more cunningly that he might not 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 Heretiques conceived Indignities against some mysteries of Christian Religion as against Christ his Incarnation and his Crucifying So he Both which Answeres 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 reioyne 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 obiects of Indignity notwithstanding the Spirit of God hath blazed them to the world to have beene the Indignities of all Indignities Thus Who being in the forme of God and thinking it no robbery to be equall with 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 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 Answerers 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 Infidelitie 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 Mortality and Immortality Shame and Glory Misery and Blessednes Earth and Heaven that being his state of humiliation and this contrariwise of his exaltation as all Christians know and professe And although the Body of Christ now in eternall Maiesty be not obnoxious to Corporall iniuries yet may Morall and Spirituall abasements be offered unto Christ as well in the Opinion as in the Practice of men Of the opinion wee have an Example in the Capernaites concerning Christ whensoever he should give his flesh to be eaten carnally for the Practice you may set 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 iniury against Christ by murthering his Saints on earth complained off by his voice from Heaven Saul Saul why persecutest thou me Your Cardinall in answere to the Obiection 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
thereby they might have seemed to have abhorred the proper Characters of our Christian Profession We 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 he 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 Middest of the Chancell so that they might compasse it round was farre 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 carried in it the true and absolute property of an Altar no but they used therein the like liberty as they used to doe in applying the name Altar to Gods people and to a Christian man's Faith and Heart Will you suffer us to come home to you The Father Gregory Nazianzen for his soundnesse of Iudgement surnamed the Divine comparing this Inferiour Altar and Sacrifice on earth with the Body of Christ seated in Heaven saith that the Sacrifices which he offereth in his Contemplation at the Altar in Heaven are More acceptable than the Sacrifices which are offered at the Altar below as much as Truth is more excellent than the Shadow So he Therefore say we 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 we required Materials have objected against us bare words phrases and very shadowes Lastly Cyril of Alexandria made an Answer to the Objections then published by Iulian the Apostate against the Truth of Christian Religion By this conflict betweene these two wits as it were by the clashing of a Stone and Steele together such a flash of lightning will appeare as may sufficiently illuminate every Reader for the understanding of the judgement of Antiquity thorowout the whole Clause concerning Bodily Sacrifice The Apostate objecteth See the Margent as an exception against Christians that they are not Circumcised that they use no Azymes nor keepe the Passeover of the Iewes albeit Gain Abel and Abraham before the Law and the Israelites under the Law and Heathenish Grecians alwaies without that Law offered Sacrifices unto God But they saith Iulian writing of Christians erect no Altars unto God offer no such Sacrifices as were of old nor invent any new but say that Christ was once offered for them This Objection you see is pertinent to our Cause in hand and as consonant will the Answer of the holy Patriarch Cyril be who to the other points held it Satisfaction enough to say see againe the Marginals That we Christians have the spirituall Circumcision of the heart That we observe the Spirituall Azymes of Syncerity and Truth And as for the Passeover Christ our Passeover was offered up namely upon the Crosse for so is it answerable to the words objected by Iulian. And to the Objection of not erecting Altars Cyril saith not a word But what for the point of Sacrifice Hearken we pray you Although saith he the Iewes Sacrificed to fulfill God's precepts in shadowes yet we doing that which is right meaning the Truth opposite to Shadowes performe a spirituall and mentall worship as namely Honesty and an holy Conversation And againe The Iewes offered in Sacrifice Bulls and Sheepe first fruits of the Earth Cakes and Frankincense but wee offer that which is spirituall to wit Faith Hope Charity and Praises because an unbodily Sacrifice is fit for God And yet againe We Sacrifice to God spiritually and mentally the perfumes of vertues This is the Summe of Saint Cyril his Answer void of all mention of any Offering of the Body of Christ as either Corporally present in the Eucharist to be Sacrificed by the Priest or yet of any Corporall Touch thereof by eating with the Bodies of Communicants no nor any intimation of any Proper Sacrifice professed by Christians Here will be no place for your Answer to tell us that the Question was of Bloody and not of Vnbloody Sacrifices No for Cyril in his Answer handleth as well the unbloody Sacrifice of Cain as the bloody Oblation of Abel and expresseth as fully the unbloody Sacrifice of Cakes and Frankincense as he doth the Bloody of Sheepe and Oxen. Neverthelesse we should confute our selves by objecting this Testimony seeing that the Custome of the Primitive Church being then professedly not to reveale the Mystery of the Sacrament of Baptisme or of the Eucharist either to Infidels or Catechumenists and therefore this silence of Cyril in not so much as mentioning the Sacrifice of the Masse might seeme to have beene purposely done to conceale it from both Iulian the Patron of Heathenish worship and all Infidels So indeed we should have thought but that then Iulian and Cyril both would as readily confute us Iulian because he himselfe had beene more than a Catechumenist in the Church of Christ even as namely Gregory Nazienzene witnesseth once A Reader of Scriptures to the people not thinking it any Derogation unto him so to doe therefore was he not ignorant of the then Christian Doctrine concerning the Eucharist And which is a point as observable when he objecteth against Christians want of Sacrifices by and by as if Christians had nothing to say for themselves but that Christ gave up himselfe once he expresseth this their Answer as that which hee held not to be sufficient And Cyril also would controll us who in his whole Answer opposing Spirituall to Corporall defendeth no Sacrifice at all among Christians but that which he calleth Spirituall and mentall as for example Godly Conversation Faith Hope Charity Praises c. All which are excluded out of your Definition of Proper Sacrifice The Case then is plaine If that the now Romish Doctrine of a Proper Bodily Sacrifice of Christ's Body offered up in the hands of the Priest by an Elevation and after in Consummating the same by eating it with his mouth which you call a Sacrificing Act had beene Catholike learning in that Age then assuredly could neither Iulian have challenged Christians for no Sacrifice nor Cyril have defended them by confessing indeed no Sacrifice among Christians but only Spirituall and Mentall CHAP. VI. Our third Examination which concerneth your Profession of the Romish Masse by your Romish Principles The State of the Question WELL have you
and why might they not use the same Tenure of Speech which our Lord Christ used before them But they say also that Bread is therefore called his Body as being an outward Sacrament Signe and Figure of his Body seeing that every Sacrament being a Signe or Figure the Sacramentall Speech must necessarily be Figurative as hath beene proved by Scripture as in all other Sacraments so likewise in the severall confessed Figurative words of Christ concerning this Sacrament in six severall Instances This one Argument of it selfe hath beene tearmed by Master Calvin Murus ahaeneus that is a brazen Wall and so will it be found more evidently to be when you shall perceive the same Fathers judging that which they call Change into Christ's flesh to be but a Change into the Sacrament of his flesh Bread still remayning the same and teaching that Melchisedech offered in his Sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ when he offered onely the Types of both in the Sixt Booke And now we are to with-stand your Paper-bullets wherewith you vainely attempt in your Objections following to batter our Defence withal CHAP. III. The Romish Obiections against the Figurative Sence Answered The first Obiection SECT I. NOthing useth to be more properly and simply spoken say you than words of Testaments and Covenants Ergò this being a Testamentary Phrase must be taken in the literall Sence CHALLENGE WHat is this are Figurative speeches never used in Covenants and Testamentary Language or is there not therefore sufficient perspicuity in Figures This is your rash and lavish Assertion for you your selves doe teach that The Old and New Testament are both full fraught with multitude of Tropes and Figures and yet are called Testaments Secondly That the Scripture speaking of the Trinity and some divine things cannot but speake improperly and figuratively Thirdly That Sacramentall speeches as The Rocke was Christ and the like words are Tropicall and Figurative Fourthly That even in the Testamentary Speech of Christ at his Institution of this Sacrament saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood there is a Figure in the very word Testament So have you confessed and so have you consequently confuted your owne Obiection Hereto might be added the Testament of Iacob prophesying of his sonnes and saying Reuben is my strength Iudah a Lions Whelpe Issachar a strong Asse Danan Adder in the way All figurative Allusions Nay no man in making his Testament can call it his Will or say that he hath set his hand and Seale unto it without Figures Namely that he hath given by writing a Signification of his Will that the Subscription was made by his Hand and that he added unto it the Print of his Seale These Three Will Hand Seale every word Figuratiue even in a Testament The Second Romish Obiection against the Figurative Sence SECT II. LAwes and Precepts say you should be in plaine and proper words But in the Speech of Christ Take eate you c. are words of Command Ergò They may not be held Figurative CHALLENGE CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts viz. of Pulling out a man 's owne eye of cutting off his hand Matth. 5. Or yet of a Penitents Renting of his heart Ioel 2. Or of not hardening his heart Psal 95. and the like Christ commanded his Disciples to prepare for his keeping the Passeover with his Disciples and the Disciples prepared the Passeover as Iesus commanded them saith the Evangelist In this Command is the word Passeover We demand The word Passeover which is taken for the Sacrament and Signe of the Passeover is it taken figuratively You cannot deny it And can you deny that a Commandement may be delivered under a Figurative Phrase You can both that is say and gaine-say any thing like false Merchants onely so farre as things may or may not make for your owne Advantage But to catch you in your owne snare your Doctrine of Concomitancy is this viz. Bread being turned into Christ's Body is ioyntly turned into whole Christ and Wine being changed into his blood is likewise turned into whole Christ both flesh and blood If then when Christ commanded his Disciples saying Drinke you All of this that which was Drunke was the whole substantiall Body of Christ either must his Disciples be said to have Drunke Christ's Body properly or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken To say the first contradicteth the universall expression of man's speech in all Languages for no man is said to drinke Bread or any solid thing And to grant the Second that the speech is Figurative contradicteth your owne Objection Againe Christ commanded to Eate his Body yet notwithstanding have Three Iesuites already confessed that Christ's Body cannot be said to have beene properly Eaten but figuratively onely What fascination then hath perverted your Iudgements that you cannot but still confound your selves by your contrary and thwarting languages Your Third Romish Obiection SECT III. DOctrinall and Dogmaticall speeches say you ought to be direct and literall But these words This is my Body are Doctrinall CHALLENGE A Man would maruaile to heare such silly and petty Reasons to be propounded by those who are accounted great Clerkes and those who know full well that the speech of Christ concerning Castrating or gelding of a man's selfe is Doctrinall and teacheth Mortification and yet is not literally to be understood as you all know by the literall errour of Origen who did really Castrate himselfe And the same Origen who thus wounded himselfe by that literall Exposition in his youth Hee in his Age expounding the words of Christ concerning the Eating of his flesh said of the literall sence thereof that It killeth Secondly these words This is the New Testament in my blood they are wordes as Doctrinall as the other This is my body and yet figurative by your owne Confession Thirdly the words of Christ Ioh. 6. of Eating his flesh are Doctrinall and yet by your owne Construction are not to be properly vnderstood but as Christ afterwards expounds himselfe Spiritually Fourthly where Christ thus said The bread which I shall give is my flesh Ioh. 6. 51. he saith also of his Body that it is True bread Verse 32. and bread of life Verse 48. and living bread whereof whosoever eateth liveth eternally Verse 51. All Divine and Doctrinall Assertions yet was his body figuratively called bread Fiftly that in those words of Christ to Peter Matth. 16. Vpon this Rocke will I build my Church And To thee will I give the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven And Ioh. 21. Feed my Sheepe In which texts of Scripture you place although most falsly your Doctrinall foundation of Popedome it selfe yet know you all these to be Tropicall Speeches Yea and what say you to the first Doctrinall Article and foundation of Christian Doctrine delivered by God unto man in the beginning The seed of the
woman shall breake the Serpents head Is not the latter part of the Article altogether Figurative yet signifying this Doctrinall point even the vanquishing of the power of Satan Your Fourth Romish Obiection SECT IV. THe Apostles saith your 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 as hath beene confessed in the words Eate Shed Testament Another Iesuite witnesseth that The Apostles were illuminated and instructed by Christ that they might receive this Sacrament with all Reverence So he 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 vnderstood 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 body the Pronoune THIS did literally point out bread and figuratively signifie Christ's bodie 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 Obiection SECT V. VVE are never to let passe the Literall Sence saith your Cardinall except we be compelled thereunto by some Scripture or by some Article of Faith or by some common Interpretation of the whole Church So he CHALLENGE SVrely nor we 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 we shall deale with you we shall shew in the Proposition following Ten Reasons for proofe of the Necessity of interpreting the wordâ— of Christ Figuratively SECT VI. FIrst We have beene compellable to allow a Figurative Sence by the consessed 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 heard Secondly We are Challengable hereunto by our Article of Faith which teacheth but one naturall Body of Christ and the same to Remayne now in Heaven Thirdly We are inforced for feare of such Heresies as have followed in other Cases upon the literall sence for it was not the Figurative but the literall and proper sence of being borne againe by Baptisme lob 3. that begat the errour of Nicodemus and the like literall sence of God's Eyes Hands Feet c. brought forth the Anthropomorphites And so was it the literall sence of those words in the Canticles Tell me 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 sence by a confessed Impossibility taught by that Vniversall Maxime 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 Lead can be called Wood. Fiftly We are perswaded hereunto by the former alleadged Interpretation of the Ancient Fathers both of the Greeke and Latine Church calling the Sacrament a Figure and expounding This is by This signifieth Sixtly Wee are urged by the Rule set downe by Saint Augustine for the direction of the whole Catholique Church that Whensoever the precept saith he seemeth to command that which is hainous as to eate the flesh of Christ it is figurative And of this Sacrament doth not Christ say Take Eate This is my body Seventhly A Motive it must needs be to any reasonable man to defend the figurative sence by observing the misery of your Disputers in contending for a literall Exposition thereof because their Objections have beene confuted by your owne Doctors and by Truth it selfe even the holy Scriptures Eightly your owne Vnreasonablenesse may perswade somewhat who have not beene able hitherto to confirme any one of your five former Obiections to the contrary by any one Father of the Church Ninthly For that the literall Interpretation of Christ's wordes was the foundation of the Heresie of the Capernaites and hath affinitie with divers other Ancient Heresies condemned by Antiquitie Tenthly Our last perswasion is the consent of Antiquity against the literall conversion of Bread into Christ's body which you call Transubstantiation against the Literall Corporall Presence against Literall Corporall Eating and Vnion and against a proper Sacrifice of Christ's body Subiectively All which are fully perswasive Inducements to inforce a figurative sence as the sundry Bookes following will cleerely demonstrate from point to point CHALLENGE YOu may not passe over the consideration of these points by calling them Schoole-subtilties and Logicall Differences as Master Fisher lately hath done thinking by this his slie Sophistrie craftily to draw the mindes of Romish Professors from the due discovery of your Romish false literall Exposition of Christ's words THIS IS MY BODY the very foundation of your manifold monstrously-erroneous Superstitious Hereticall and Idolatrous Consequences issuing from thence whereunto we now orderly proceed THE THIRD BOOKE Treating of the First Romish Doctrinall Consequence pretended to arise from your former depraved Exposition of Christ's wordes This is my Body called TRANSVBSTANTIATION Your Doctrinal Romish Consequences are Five viz. the Corporall 1. Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ called Transubstantiation in this Third Booke 2. Existence of the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament called Reall Presence in the Fourth Booke 3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bodies of the Communicants called Reall or Materiall Coniunction in the Fifth Booke 4. Sacrificing of Christ's Body by the hands of the Priest called a Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Sixth Booke 5. Worshipping with Divine Worship called Latria or Divine Adoration of the same Sacrament in the Seventh Booke 6. The Additionals in a Summary Discovery of of the Abhominations of the Romish Masse and Iniquities of the Defenders thereof in the Eight Booke THese are the Doctrinall Consequences which you teach and professe and which we shall by God's assistance pursue according to our former Method of Brevity and Perspicuity and that by as good and undenyable Evidences and Confessions of your owne Authours in most points as either you can expect or the Cause it selfe require And because a Thing must have a Begetting before it have a manner of Being therefore before we treate of the Corporall Presence we must in the first place handle your Transubstantiation which is the manner as wee may so say of the Procreation thereof CHAP. I. The State of the Controuersie concerning the Change and Conversion professed
Body of Christ continuing still in heaven to be notwithstanding at the same time under the shapes of Bread on the Altar therfore called Substantiall but the Substance of Bread ceaseth to haue any Being when 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 Councell of Trent which defined a Change of the whole substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ. So that Councell 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 far frō 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 only the Outward Accidents formes of Bread Yet had this Figment some Favourers in your Schooles No Marvell therefore if there arose some out of your owne Church who did impugne this delusion calling it as your Cardinall himselfe witnesseth of them a Translocation onely and not a Transubstantiation and that truely 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 substantial 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 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 Coniunction of the Substance of one Body with the Accidents of another Which kind of meere Succession of a Substance your Iesuite Suarez will allow to be no more than a Translocation 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 beleeve a Doctrine so absolutely repugnant to your owne knowledge Observe by the way that they who gain-say the Productive and teach the Adductive yet doe all deny Locall mutation à Termino ad Terminum a Paradox which wee leave to your wisdomes to contemplate vpon Our Second Proofe of the Falshood of the Article of Transubstantiation is from the Article of our Christian Creed BORNE OF THE VIRGIN MARY SECT II. TRansubstantiation as hath beene defined by your Councell of Trent is a Conversion of the substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body Now in every such Substantiall Change there are Two Tearmes one is the Substance from which the other is the Substance whereinto the Substantiall Change is made as it was in Christ his miraculous Change of Water into Wine But this was by producing the Substance of Wine out of the Substance of Water as the matter from which the Conversion was made Therefore must it it be by Production of the Substance of Christ's Body out of the Substance of Bread Your Cardinall hath no Evasion but by denying the Conversion to be by Production which notwithstanding was formerly the Generall Tenet of the Romish Schoole ever since the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was hatched and which is contrary to his owne device of Conversion by Adduction wherein first he confoundeth himselfe and secondly his opinion hath beene scornfully reiected 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 vs We according to our Apostolicall Creed beleeve no Body of Christ but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the blessed Virgin Mary for feare of Heresie This same Obiection being made of late to a Iesuite of prime note received from him this Answer viz. God that was ableto raise Children to Abraham out of stones can of bread transubstantiate the same into that Body of Christ which was of the Virgin And he againe received this Reply That the Children which should be so raised out of Stones howsoever they might be Abraham's Children according to Faith yet could they not be 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 out 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 Homily of that time which being published standeth thus Much is betweene the body that Christ sufferedin and betweene the body 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 limbe and therefore nothing is to be understood herein bodily but all is Ghostly to be understood This was our then Saxon's Faith wherein is plainely 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 Saint Augustine Wherefore we 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 If Bread be Christ's Body then something was Christ's body which was not borne of the Virgin Mary Our Third Reason is taken from the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration But first of the State of this Question SECT III. VVE wonder not why your Fathers of the Councell of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt of Anathema and Curse upon every man that should affirme Bread and Wine to remayne in this Sacrament after Consecration which they did to terrifie men from the Doctrine of Protestants who doe all affirme the Continuance of the Substance of Bread in the Eucharist For right well did these Tridentines know that if the Substance of Bread or Wine doe remayne then is all Faith yea and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera and meere Fancy as your Cardinall doth confesse in granting that It is a necessarie Condition in every Transubstantiation that the thing which is Converted cease any more to be as it was in the Conversion of Water into Wine Water
and Wine in this Sacrament as he could discerne either Man from a Seraphin or Spirit or his own Fingers from a paire of Tongs Fiftly that the Sentence obiected against us is adorned with the same figure Hyperbole when he saith that No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament and that our Senses herein may be deceived Words sore pressed by you yet twice unconscionably both because every Sacrament by your owne Church is defined to be A Sensible Signe and also for that you your selves confesse that Our senses cannot be deceived in their proper sensible Obiects Sixtly that Chrysostome himselfe well knew he did Hyperbolize herein who after that he had said No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament notwithstanding he addeth immediately saying of this Sacrament that In things Sensible things Intelligible are given unto us Thus farre of the Rhetorique of Chrysostome Now are we to shew his Theologie and Catholique meaning as it were the Kernell of his speech Hee in the same Sentence will have us understand Man to consist of Body and Soule and accordingly in this Sacrament Sensible things are ministred to the Body as Symbols of Spirituall things which are for the Soule to feed upon So that a Christian in receiving this Sacrament is not wholly to exercise his mind upon the bodily Obiect as if that were onely or principally the thing offered unto us No for then indeed our Senses would deceive our Soules of their spirituall Benefit As for Transubstantiation and Absence of Bread Chrysostome in true Sence maketh wholly against it by explaining himselfe and paralleling this Sacrament with Baptisme As in Baptisme saith hee Regeneration the thing intelligible is given by water the thing sensible the Substance of water remaining Which proportion betweene the Eucharist and Baptisme is held commonly by ancient Fathers to the utter overthrow of Transubstantiation And that Chrysostome beleeved the Existence of Bread after Consecration hath beene already expressly shewne and is here now further proved For he saith of Bread after Consecration that Wee are ioyned together one with another by this Bread And now that you see the Nut cracked you may observe how your Disputers have swallowed the shell of Hyperbolicall Phrases and left the kernell of Theologicall Sence for us to content our selves withall Furthermore for this is not to be omitted the other Testimony of Chrysostome is spun and woven with the same Art which saith of Consecrating this Sacrament that Man is not to thinke it is the hand of the Priest but of Christ himselfe that reacheth it unto him seeing immediately after as it were with the same breath it is added It is not the Minister but God that Baptizeth thee and holdeth thy head Thus farre concerning the Iudgement of Sences which hath beene formerly proved at large both by Scriptures and Fathers wee draw nearer our marke which is your Transubstantiation Fourthly the Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers in urging other Figurative Sayings and Phrases of the Fathers of Bread Changed Transmuted c. into the Body of Christ for proofe of a Transubstantiation thereof in a Proper Sence SECT VII SVch words as these Bread is the Body of Christ It is made the Body of Christ It is Changed Translated Trans-muted Transelementated into the Body of Christ are Phrases of the highest Emphasis that you can find in the Volumes of Antiquity which if they were literally meant according to your Romish Sence there ought to be no further Dispute But if it may evidently appeare by the Idiome of speech of the same Fathers that such their sayings are Tropicall and sometimes Hyperbolicall then shall we have iust Cause to taxe your Disputers of as great Vnconscionablenes if not of more in this as in any other For whensoever they find in any Father as in Eusebius these words The Bread is the Body of Christ they obiect it for Transubstantiation but Vnconscionably First seeing that the Fathers doe but herein imitate our Lord and Master Christ who said of the Bread This is my Body which hath beene proved by Scriptures and Fathers to be a Figurative and unproper speech Secondly seeing that they use the same Dialect in other things as Cyrill of Sacred Oyle saying this is Charisma the Gift of Grace as hee called also the Holy Kisse a Reconciliation and others the like as you have heard Thirdly seeing that you your selves have renounced all proper Sence of all such Speeches because things of different natures cannot possibly be affirmed one of another for no more can it be properly said Bread is man's Body than we can say An Egg is a Stone as you have confessed Againe Some Fathers say Bread is made Flesh as S. Ambrose obiected but Vnconscionably knowing First that you your selues are brought now at length to deny the Body of Christ to be Produced out of Bread Secondly knowing the like Idiome of Fathers in their other speeches Chrysost saying that Christ hath made us his owne Body not only in Faith but in deed also And Augustine saying that Christians themselves with their Head which ascended into heaven are one Christ yea and Pope Leo saying of the party Baptized that Hee is not the same that he was before Baptisme by which saith he the Body of the party Regenerate is made the Flesh of Christ crucified Finally Venerable Bede saith Wee are made that Body which we receive In all which the word Made you know is farre from that high straine of Transubstantiation Wee draw yet nearer to the Scope Wee may not deny but that the Fathers sometimes extend their voyces higher unto the Praeposition Trans as Transit Transmutatur signifying a Change and Trans-mutation into the Body of Christ Every such Instance is in the opinion of your Doctours a full demonstration of Transubstantiation it selfe and all the wits of men cannot saith one Assoyle such Obiections Wherein they shew themselves altogether Vnconscionable as hath beene partly declared in Answering your Obiected Sayings of Ambrose In aliud Convertuntur of Cyprian his Panis naturâ mutatus of Cyrils Trans-mutavit and as now in this Section is to be manifested in answering your other Obiections to the full The Father Greg. Nyssen comparing the Body of Christ with Manna which satisfied every man's tast that received it saith that The Body of Christ in this Sacrament is changed into whatsoever seemeth to the Receivers appetite convenient and desired This is obiected by your Cardinall to prove Transubstantiation but First Vnconscionably because it is in it selfe being literally understood euen in your owne iudgements incredible For what Christian will say that the Body of Christ is Transubstantiated into any other thing much lesse into whatsoever thing the appetite of the Receiver shall desire No. But as Manna did satisfie the bodily Appetite so Christ's Body to the Faithfull is food satisfying the Soule in
are the Rites of the old Law called Shadowes in respect of the Sacraments of the Gospell according to the which difference Saint Iohn the Baptist was called by Christ a Prophet in that hee foretold Christ as now to come but he was called more then a Prophet as demonstrating and pointing him out to be now come Which Contemplation occasioned divers Fathers to speake so Hyperbolically of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in comparison of the Sacraments of the old Testament as if the Truth were in these and not in them as Origen did Besides the former two there is Veritas Obsignationis a Truth sealed which maketh this Sacrament more than a Signe even a Seale of Gods promises in Christ for so the Apostle called Circumcision albeit a Sacrament of the old Law the Seale of Faith But yet the print of that Seale was but dimme in comparison of the Evangelicall Sacraments which because they confirme unto the faithfull the Truth which they present are called by other ancient Fathers as well as by Saint Augustine visible Seales of divine things So that now we have in this Sacrament the Body of Christ not only under a Signe or signification but under a Seale of Confirmation also which inferreth a greater degree of reall Truth thereby represented unto us This might have beene the reason why Saint Augustine taught Christ to be Present both in Baptisme and at receiving the Lord's Supper A fourth Reason to be observed herein as more speciall is Veritas Exhibitionis a Truth Exhibiting and delivering to the faithfull Communicants the thing signified and sealed which Christ expressed when he delivered it to his Disciples saying Take eate this is my Body given for you and this is my Blood shed for you Thus Christ by himselfe and so doth he to other faithfull Communicants wheresoever to the ends of the World by his Ministers as by his hands through virtue of that Royall Command DOE THIS Vaine therefore is the Obiection made by your Cardinall in urging us with the testimony of Athanasius to prove that Christ his Body is exhibited to the Receivers As though there were not a Truth in a mysticall and sacramentall deliverance of Christ his Body except it were by a corporall and materiall presence thereof which is a transparent falsity as any may perceive by any Deed of Gift which by writing seale and delivery conveyeth any Land or Possession from man to man yet this farre more effectually as afterwards will appeare But first we are to manifest That the Romish Disputers doe odiously slanderously and unconscionably vilifie the Sacrament of the Eucharist as it is celebrated by PROTESTANTS SECT III. BEllarmine with others obiect against Protestants saying that Their Sacrament is nothing else but a crust of Bread and pittance of Wine And againe A morsell of Bread ill baked by which the Protestants represent unto their memories the death of Christ and the benefits thereof A goodly matter so doth a Crucifix and to make the Sacrament only a Signe is an ancient Heresie So they But have you not heard the Doctrine of the Protestants teaching the Eucharisticall Bread to be more than bare Bread a Sacramentall signe more an Evangelicall signe more a sacred Seale yet more an exhibiting Instrument of the Body of Christ therein to the devout Receiver And have not these outragious Spirits read your owne Cardinall witnessing that the Protestants teach that Although the Body of Christ be still in Heaven yet is it received in this Sacrament first Sacramentally by Bodily mouthes in receiuing the Bread the signe of Christ his Body and by which God doth truly albeit Sacramentally deliver unto the faithfull the reall body of Christ and secondly spiritually to the mouth of the soule by faith and so they truly and really participate of the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ So Bellarmine concerning Protestants which is so plainly professed by Calvin himselfe as would make any Romish Adversary blush at your former Calumnies who hath not abandoned shamefastnesse it selfe CHALLENGE THus may you see that we have not hitherto so pleaded for the Existence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration as thereby to exclude all Presence of Christ his body nor so maintained the proprietie of a Signe or Figure as not to beleeve the thing signified to be exhibited unto us as you have heard With what blacke spot of malignity and falshood then were the Consciences of those your Doctors defiled thinke you who have imputed to Protestants a Profession of using onely bare Bread which they notwithstanding teach and beleeve to be a Sacred Signe of the true Body of Christ in opposition to Heretikes an Evangelicall Signe of the Body of the Messias crucified against all Iewish conceit yea a Seale of Ratification yea and also a Sacramentall Instrument of conveying of the same precious Body of Christ to the soules of the faithfull by an happy and ineffable Coniunction whereof more hereafter in the Booke following where the consonant Doctrine of the Church of England will likewise appeare And as your Disputers are convinced of a malitious Detraction by the confessed positions of Protestants so are they much more by your owne instance of a Crucifix for which of you would not hold it a great derogation from Christ that any one seeing a Crucifix of wood now waxen old should in disdaine thereof call it a wooden or rotten Blocke and not account them irreligious in so calling it but why onely because it is a signe of Christ crucified Notwithstanding were the Crucifix as glorious as either Art could fashion or Devotion affect or Superstition adore yet is it but a signe invented by man And therefore how infinitely more honourable in all Christian estimation must a Sacramentall Signe be which onely the God of Heaven and Earth could institute and Christ hath ordained to his Church farre exceeding the property of a bare signe as you have heard A Father deliuering by politique assurances under hand and seale a portion of Land although an hundred miles distant and convaying it to his sonne by Deed if the sonne in scorne should terme the same Deed or writing blacke Inke the Seale greasie Waxe and the whole Act but a bare signe were he not worthy not onely to loose this fatherly benefit but also to be deprived of all other the temporall Blessings of a Father which hee might otherwise hope to enioy yet such like have beene your Calumnies and opprobrious Reproaches against our celebration of the Sacrament of Christ The Lord lay not them to your Charge Now you who so oppose against the Truth of the mysticall Presence will not conceale from us that Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ which your Church doth so extremely dote on CHAP. II. The Romish professed manner of Presence of Christ's Body in this Sacrament SECT I. OVr Methode requireth to consult in the first
that it doth fully appeare that Master Brerely in this point as usually in many others alleageth Calvins testimony against Calvins sence 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 Brerely imposing upon Beza the same opinion of the presence of Christ's Body in Heaven and in Earth at one time Although notwithstanding 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 another tearmeth 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 III. IN the first place hearken to your Aquinas the chiefest Doctor that ever professed in the Romish Schoole It is not possible by any Miracle that the Body of Christ be locally in many places at once because it includeth a Contradiction by making it not one for one is that which is not divided from it selfe So he together with others whom you call Catholikes who conclude it Impossible for the Body of Christ to be corporally in divers places at once Which although he speake concerning the locall manner of being yet his Reason as your Cardinall confesseth doth as well concerne your Sacramentall manner of being on earth 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 Impossibility So he Earnestly have we sought for some Answere to this insoluble Argument as we thinke And your greatest Doctor hath nothing to say but that the 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 then 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 We throughout this whole Tractate wherein we dispute of the existence of a Body in a place doe not tie 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 Answere CHALLENGE AN answere 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 he insisteth upon for example sake which are both Heterogenies Contrary to this Assertion we 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 then whom the latter Age of the World hath not acknowledged any more accurate and accomplished with Philosophicall learning even Iulius Scaliger by name who hath concluded as a principle infallible that Continuity being an immediate affection and property of Vnity One body can not 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 only Man's soule which is a spirit and God himselfe the Spirit of Spirits of both which 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 Adiunct 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 The same second Romish Contradiction manifested in Scripture by an Argument Angelicall SECT IV. MAth 28. 6. The Angell speaking to the woman that sought Christ in the grave said He is not here 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 answere that it was spoken Morally How wee beseech you as if one should say saith your 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 he hath supped Contrarily the Angel's Logicke is not by a Peradventure but necessary not imaginary but historicall not coniecturall but dogmatiticall and demonstrative For better explanation whereof we 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 he is risen out of the Grave And to say Hee is risen out of the grave Therefore he is not heere in the Grave Vnderstand then first that the matter subiect of this Argument being no morall arbitrary 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 Our Faith were vaine the Angell must necessarily be thought to have concluded dogmatically which is the reason that he is so instant and urgent saying to the woman Come and see the place where the Lord was laid Which he addeth saith your Iesuite for confirmation of that which he had said He is not heere And as much as if he had said saith Anselme If you beleeve not my word give credit to the empty
Sepulchre in satisfying your owne sight Therefore was it demonstrative And againe the Angell putting them to make use both of his â—aying and their owne seeing Goe 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 It were iniury unto you to deprive you of that light which Augustine offereth unto you in commenting upon these words of Christ The Poore you shall have alwayes with you but me you shall not alwayes have The light which wil expel all Romish darknesse out of every corner of exception to the contrary is first if you shall say that Christ did not speake of his bodily Presence He spake saith Augustine of his bodily presence in saying you shall not have me alwayes with you Secondly if you answer that Christ denyed not absolutely his Corporall presence but onely the manner of his presence on earth in his visible shape Augustine will reforme you shewing that Christ in saying You shall not have me by Me meant absolutely his Body as it is distinguished from his God-head namely You shall have mee according to my Maiesty and my providence and invisible grace all spirituall but according to my flesh even that flesh which was borne of the Virgin Mary you shall not have me Thirdly If you reason saying But yet is it possible for Christ to be here on Earth and there in Heaven at one instant Augustine will confute you who asking why Christ may not be said to be here in Bodily presence giveth onely this reason because he ascended into Heaven and as alluding to the former words of the Angell addeth And he is not here So raw therefore so vaine and perverse is that Answere of Morall and Civill reasoning which your Cardinall obtruded upon his Readers against an Argument both so Angelicall and Evangelicall That the Romish Obiection out of that Scripture Act. 9. is frivolous SECT V. CHrist Acts 9. appeared to Saint Paul then Saul when he was in his way to Damascus c. whence your Cardinall 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 he heard Thirdly because Saul asked saying Lord who arâ— 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 obiection 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 awhile 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 Iesuite 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 voice yea or any sight unto them for Saint Stephen saw the Heavens opened and Maiestie 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 brightnesse of that sight of Christ and after healed in the Name of Christ If any desire to know the iudgement of ancient Fathers in this Case your Cardinall leaveth him to seeke it where hee shall please Sure we are that Augustine Ambrose Pope Gregory the first and Isidore Pelusiota doe expresly affirme that the appearance of Christ to Saint Paul was de Coelo from Heaven And if all this were true that hath beene obiected that Christ appeared in the Ayre yet is your Consequence but lame that therefore hee was bodily also in Heaven if we may beleeve your Iesuite Lorinus 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 And as lancke and frivolous is his Confirmation of their Assertion by as hee 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 Evangelicall Doctor Aquinas may stand for good who held it 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 only 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 commeth concluding as followeth 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 contrarie were a great rashnesse without ground and contrary to all Divines So hee We leave these your two most eminent Doctors of the Chaire and both of the same Societie of the Iesuites the one for Rome the other for Spaine in this their Contradiction that wee may consult with Antiquity it selfe 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 VI. ANcient Fathers iudged 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 only Answere and the Answere 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 Answeres be so that they may be knowne to have answered otherwise they well know that the Fathers meant an absolute Impossibilitie and that this is most evident by the Heresie which they did impugne and also by their manner of confuting the same The
representing the Body of Christ is therefore called Christs flesh not in verity of the thing but in a mystery namely as the representation of Christ therein is called his Passion In a word rightly might Calvin say speaking of these Controversies concerning this Sacrament All the Bookes of Augustine upon this subiect proclaime that hee is of our profession Much more concerning Christ his not being corporally here on earth will by the iudgement of Augustine and other Fathers be found in the fifth sixt and seventh Bookes besides that which they affirme in this Booke in the thirteenth and sixteenth Sections following THE SIXT CHALLENGE In generall concluding the maine Point BY this time wee thinke you may discerne betweene plaine dealing and false iugling for your Disputers have usually alleaged 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 Disputations in confutation of many and maine Heresies where indeed they were necessarily to make use both of their Logicke for discerning Truth from Errour and also of Grammer we meane the Exactnesse and propriety 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 we iudge to be of necessary importance And thus much concerning the iudgement 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 IX YOu have already 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 you have also heard your Cardinall making this Consequence viz. by the same reason it must 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 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 find no example within the Circumferences of the Vniversalities of Creatures but only Man's soule which is a Spirit which point is to be discussed in the twelfth Section In the Interim know you that although Relations doe 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 then it selfe hee may iustly be suspected to be besides himselfe all such like speeches being as Contradictory in themselves and consequently Impossible as for a man to say he is elder and yonger than himselfe You 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 Finally this your Subtilty would have beene iudged a palpable absurdity by ancient Fathers among whom Theodoret taught this Philosophie to hold true in Divinity 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 The sheepe shall stand on his right hand and the goates on the left Nor doe you your-selves teach nor yet can you imagine his body to want either his right hand or his left as he is present in this Sacrament One word more The 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 yeeld to either of both that it is both crucified and not crucified as you doe to Christ's bodie teaching it to be at the same time Circumscribed in Heaven when it is Vncircumscribed as it is on many Altars vpon earth 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 X. 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 determined that such Actions and Qualities as are reall in a Body without any relation to place may not be said to be multiplyed in respect of divers places wherein the same Body is supposed to be As for example the same Body to be hot in some Countrey and cold in another at the same time wounded and not wounded passible and not passible And the like may be said of Love and Hatred which are vitall Actions proceeding naturally from the Subiect So that the Body which in one place is affected with love cannot possibly but be so affected in what place soever So your owne Disputers But have they any reason for these points Yes they have See the Margent 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 he 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 he these
space wherein the Body is If therefore you will not Heretically teach a Mathematicall or Phantasticall body of 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 Bodie as you confesse it to be now in Heaven possessing a Reall place in the said 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 said naturall magnitude or quantity of the said Body of Christ is according to your owne generall Doctrine in this Sacrament Therefore must it have the same Commensuration of Space 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 doe attribute all these to Quantities and Qualities and Accidents without any other subiect at all So then by the Romish Faith we shall be constrained to beleeve in effect that the Cup is filled with Mathematicall lines the Mouse eating the Hoast is fed with colours and formes that it is Coldnesse that freezeth and Roundnesse which weigheth downe and falleth to the ground as if you should describe a Romish Communicant to be a creature clothed with Shadowes armed with Idaea's fed with Abstracts augmented with Fancies second Intentions and Individuall Vagues and consisting wholly of Chimaera's That your Romish Doctrine is contrary to the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT VI. IF this your profession had beene a Catholike Doctrine doubtlesse Saint Augustine who is so devout in his fervent Meditations upon this holy mystery would not have oppugned it as he did when unto that Question of Volusianus whether the Body of Christ before his birth did fill the Body of the blessed Virgin he answered That every body be it greater or lesse wheresoever it is must needs fill that space wherein it is so that the same Body cannot be the whole in any part thereof So hee which is directly Contradictory to your Article of Trent for here is expresse mention of Relation to place and space And whereas for usuall colour of a Possibility that the whole Body of Christ is in every part of the Hoast you have obiected the Example of Man's Soule which is said to be whole in every member and part of the Body S. Augustine as if hee had fore-seene your mystery of Errour pre-occupateth saying The nature of a Soule is farre different from the nature of a Body And againe the same holy Father seeking to finde out some Similitude whereby wholly to resemble the Existence of God in respect of place in the end saith that Quality hath a prerogative to make some Similitude hereof and hee doth instance in Wisedome which saith hee is as great in a little man as in a great man but denyeth that Quantity hath any such Priviledge for speaking of Quantity and Magnitude In all such Quantity or magnitude saith hee there is lesse in the part then there is in the whole And by this same Maxime concerning whole in respect of Place hee distinguisheth the God-head from the Man-hood by which you haue confounded them And yet againe else-where as though hee thought this your delusion could never be sufficiently contradicted or rather derided hee will further have you not to be so Childish as not to know that The little finger is lesse than the whole hand and one finger is lesse than two and that one finger is one where and the other another where Vpon which where and where being notes of distinct places we may aske where are your Disputers now Nay yet furthermore passing from grosser Bodies hee saith as much of Ayre yea and of the most subtil of subtils the light of the Sunne one part whereof saith hee commeth in at one Window another at another window yet so that the lesse passeth through the lesse and the greater through the greater Moreover if Saint Gregory once Bishop of Rome had beleeved that Christ his Body is whole in every least indivisible part of the Hoast he would never haue condemned the Eutychian Heretique for beleeving The Body of Christ to have beene brought into such a subtilty that is cannot be felt But a greater subtilty there cannot be than for a divisible Body to be enclosed in every the least indivisible point Shew vs this Doctrine taught by any Catholike Doctor in the Church within the compasse of the twelve hundred years after Christ and then shall we conceive better of your Cause And lest you may talke as you vse of one body penetrating another wee say unto you as Damascen said vnto his Reader that This is impossible but that either the one or the other must be divided asunder That the Romish Obiections against our former Tenet are feeble and vaine SECT VII IT is ordinarily in the mouthes of every one of you to obiect the Miraculous entrance of Christ into the house the dores being shut his comming out of the grave when it was covered with a stone his birth from his mother her wombe being shut besides the miraculous passing of a Camell through the Eye of a needle spoken of by Christ all Miraculous indeed as we with many holy Fathers doe willingly Confesse What therefore Therefore say you the Body of Christ did passe through the substantiall dimensions of the Body of the Doores Stone and wombe and consequently confuteth all this which hath beene spoken of the Organicall proportions of a body in respect of space or place So you Wee grant unto you as much as these Fathers speake in noting each of these to have beene the Acts and workes of Omnipotencie but yet without any penetration of Dimensions at all or yet Alteration of the iust proportion of Christs body Which penetration of Dimensions seemed to your Durand as incredible as unto us The principall Testimony which is insisted upon concerning the passing of Christ through the Doores is the saying of Chrysostome viz. Christ's Body was thinne or small changed from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is it 's Thicknes impalpable unto mortall mans hand but onely by divine permission and dispensation So hee And this is alleadged for proofe of a Possibility of his now Corporall Presence in the Sacrament voyd of Palpabilitie never considering the Ordinary and confessed Hyperbole's wherewith Chrysostome embellisheth his Sermons insomuch that we may oppose Chrysostome against Chrysostome even in the point in question who else-where speaking of this Sacrament saith that Christ herein Giveth his Body both to
now happen unto him but sine laesione that is without any hurt Wee answer that if hee should suffer nothing in his humanity passively to the Laesio corporis that is hurt of the Body yet should there be thereby in the opinion of men laesio dignitatis that is a lessening and obscuring of that his dignity which is set forth in Scripture and which our Article of faith concerning his Bodily sitting at the Right hand of God in Heaven teacheth us to be in all Celestiall glory and Maiestie This your Aquinas well saw when in regard of Indignity he iudged it An hainous wickednesse for any to thinke Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another forme more than when that one and the same Person is imprisoned whether open faced or covered whether in the day or in the night it mattereth not much for still the same person is shut up in Prison Againe if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity why doe your Iesuites in a point of Opinion deny that Christ's Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant because of the Indignity against his Maiestie Come we to the point of Practice Let this be our lesson when there is Reverence in the use of a thing then there may be Irreverence and Indignity in the abuse thereof But your Church hath provided that the Priests be shaven and the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence The first least some part of the Hoast which you beleeve to be the body of Christ should hang on the Priest's Beard the second least any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be split But how much more indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice Wormes and sometimes as your owne stories have related kept close in a Dunghill One word more If these seeme not sufficiently indigne because there is not Laesio corporis Hurt of the Body this being your onely Evasion what will you say of your framing a Christ unto your selves who as he is in this Sacrament Is you say without power of motion of sense and of understanding Why my Masters can there be Lamenesse Blindnesse Deafenesse and Impotencie it selfe without Hurt of the same partie so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill THE GENERALL CHALLENGE THese above specified Sixe Contradictions so plainly and plentifully proved by such forceable Arguments as the light of Divine Scripture hath authorized the profession of Primitive Fathers testified Confessions of Romish Doctors acknowledged and the Principles of your owne Romish learning in most points confirmed your Abrenunciation of your so many Grosse Errours may be as necessary as your persisting therein will be damnable Before we can end we are to consult with the Fathers of the Councell of Nice especially seeing that aswell Romanists as Protestants will be knowne to appeale to that Councell CHAP. X. Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice obiected for proofe of a Corporall Prescnce of Christ in the Eucharist SECT I. THis as it is delivered by your Cardinall taken out as he saith of the Vatican Library standeth thus Let us not here in this divine Table be in humblenesse intent unto the Bread and Cup which is set before us but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God set upon that Table The Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the World offered unbloodily of the Priest And we receiving truly his Body and Blood let us thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection For this Cause doe we receive not much but little that wee may understand this is not to satisfie but to sanctifie So the Canon The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides SECT II. SCarce is there any one Romish Author handling this Controversie who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice for the countenancing of your Romish Masse Contrarily Protestants as they are set downe by our Zanchy and your Bellarmine in great numbers among whom are Luther and Calvin with ioynt consent approve of this Canon one of them Bucer by name subscribing unto it with his owne hand in these words So I thinke in the Lord and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall Seat of God So they The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines The state of the Difference concerning this Canon SECT III. THis as is propounded by your Cardinall standeth thus All saith he by the Lambe understand Christ as he is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar Next But the Protestants thinke saith he that the Councell admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith as sitting at the right hand of God But we all say saith he that the Councell would have us to attend unto the holy Table meaning the Altar below yet so that we see in it not so much the outward Symbols and Signes as that which lyeth hid under them viz. The Body and Blood of Christ So hee The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder that is betweene Heaven above and Earth below Let us set forward in our progresse but with easie and even paces to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes and rottennesse of your Obiections That the Nicene Councell is marvellously preiudiciall to your Romish Defence proved by five Observations Three here SECT IV. FIve points are chiefly observable in this Canon First is the nomination of Bread Secondly the mention of two Tables Thirdly the admonition to lift up our minds Fourthly the expression of the Reason thereof Fiftly the Confirmation of the same Reason First That which the Councell would that men be not too intent unto they call Bread after Consecration for the Errour which they would have avoyded was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament according to your Cardinals Glosse and then was it after Consecration because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated which you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing or else the Errour must have beene as indeed it was too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread which must needs be so because it was consecrated and notwithstanding it being so consecrated in the Canon it is called Bread which your Fathers of the Councell of Trent would not have endured especially seeing that we find that your Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words This is my Body by you called the words of Consecration Besides they so call them Bread
sacrificed by the hands of the Priest Here to wit on the Table below representatively as hereafter the Catholique Fathers themselves will shew And these two may easily consist without any necessity of the Priest reaching his hands as farre as the highest Heavens as your Cardinall pleasantly obiecteth Thirdly you alleage Wee are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramentall that is Figurative Receiving and more especially which hath beene both proved and confessed a Reall and true participation of Christ's Body and Blood spiritually without any Corporall Coniunction But it is added saith he that These namely the Body and Blood of Christ are Symbols of our Resurrection which is by reason that our Bodies are ioyned with the Body of Christ otherwise if our Coniunction were onely of our soules onely the Resurrection of our soules should be signified thereby So hee that 's to say as successesly as in the former For the word HAEC These which are called Symbols of our Resurrection may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ immediatly spoken of and placed on the Table in Heaven which we Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies because If Christ be risen then must they that are Christs also rise againe Or else the word These may have relation to the more remote after the manner of the Greekes to wit Bread and Cup on the first Table because as immediately followeth they are these whereof not much but little is taken as you have heard Which other Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection without any Consequence of Christ's Bodily Coniunction with our Bodies more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptisme which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection as doth also your Iesuite Coster call it The Pledge of our Resurrection But this our Coniunction with Christ is the subiect matter of the Fift Booke Lastly how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice is plentifully resolved in the Sixt Booke THE FIFTH BOOKE Treating of the third Romish Doctrinall Consequence arising from your depraved Sence of the Words of Christs Institution THIS IS MY BODY concerning the manner of the present Vnion of his Body with the bodies of the Receivers by Eating c. CHAP. I. The state of the Question SECT I. A Christian man consisting of two men the Outward or bodily and the Inward which is Spirituall this Sacrament accordingly consisteth of two parts Earthly and Heavenly as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread and Wine as the visible Signes and Obiects of Sense and of the Body and Blood of Christ which is the Spirituall part Answerable to both these is the double nourishment and Vnion of a Christian the one Sacramentall by communicating of the outward Elements of Bread and Wine united to man's body in his Taking Eating digesting till at length it be transubstantiated into him by being substantially incorporated in his flesh The other which is the Spirituall and Soules food is the Body and Blood of the Lord therefore called Spirituall because it is the Obiect of Faith by an Vnion wrought by God's Spirit and man's faith which as hath beene professed by Protestants is most Reall and Ineffable But your Church of Rome teacheth such a Reall Vnion of Christ his Body and Blood with the Bodies of the Communicants as is Corporall which you call Per contactum by Bodily touch so long as the formes of Bread and Wine remaine uncorrupt in the bodies of the Receivers Our Method requireth that we first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Orthodoxe truth Secondly to impugne your Romish Vnion as Capernaiticall that is Hereticall And thirdly to determine the Point by comparing them both together Our Orthodoxe Truth will be found in the Preparations following That Protestants prosesse not only a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body but also a spiritually Reall SECT II. ALl the Bookes of the Adversaries to Protestants are most especially vehement violent and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries as though we professed no other manner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's body than only Sacramentall and Figurative For Confutation of which Calumny it will be most requisite to oppose the Apologie of Him who hath beene most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause to shew first what he held not and then what he held If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not he will answere you I doe abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence And I have an hundred times disclaimed the receiuing only of a Figure in this Sacrament What then did hee hold Our Catechisme teacheth saith hee not only a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our soules And with Swinckfeldius maintayning only a Figurative perception we have nothing to doe If you further demand what is the Feeding whereby we are united to Christ's body in this Sacrament hee tels you that it is IV. Not carnall but Spirituall and Reall and so Reall that the soule is as truly replenished with the lively virtue of his flesh by the powerfull worke of the Spirit of God as the body is nourished with the corporall Element of Bread in this Sacrament If you exact an Expression of this spirituall Vnion to know the manner hee acknowledgeth it to be above Reason If further you desire to understand whether he were not Singular in this opinion he hath avouched the iudgement of other Protestants professing not to dissent one Syllable from the Augustane Confession as agreeing with him in iudgement herein Accordingly our Church of England in the 28. Article saith that To such as worthily and with faith receive this Sacrament The Bread which we breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ which Body is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after a spirituall and heavenly manner the meane whereby is Faith That the Body of Christ by this Sacrament was ordained only for food to the Christian man's Soule SECT III. VVHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of ancient Fathers which are many in this point of Dispute having before us the Iudgement of your Fathers of the Councell of Trent and of your Romane Catechisme authorized by the same Councell both which affirme that Christ ordained this Sacrament to be the spirituall food of man's soule In which respect the Body of Christ is called Spirituall in your Popes Decree That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christs Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Coniunction can be SECT IV. THe soule of man being the most essentiall and substantiall part of man because a Spirit immortall and the flesh
6. vers 38. Christ being the Oracle of Truth which descended from Heaven to reueale the will of his Father might iustly exact beliefe that whatsoever he spake to the sonnes of men was most true as it is written The will of God is that whosoever beleeveth in me c. Vers 40. vz. That they must eate his flesh But his hearers could not understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what was the true sence of these words which caused them to say This is an hard saying Therefore like Schollers of preposterous wits would they not beleeve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely That they were True hence it was that Christ reproued them for not Beleeving only vers 64. and not for not understanding Because it was as lawfull for Christ's Disciples to be ignorant of his darke Sayings and Parables which were therefore so spoken that his Schollers might more earnestly labour to know them as it was after lawfull for them to seeke of their Master whose precept is to Seeke and promise to Find how to understand them As it is written His Disciples said unto him Declare unto us the Parable of the seed and Christ answered them He that soweth c. That admirable Doctour of Gods Church Saint Augustine will shew himselfe herein an understanding Scholler of Christ See his Testimonie requiring of all the Disciples of Christ in the first place Beliefe of Christ's words that they are True before they did understand what was the Truth thereof confirming his Rule by that Scripture Except you beleeve you shall not understand O but the Capernaites saith Master Brereley did understand Christ's wordes right well And Saint Augustine contrary to Master Brerely expresly answereth They did not understand the Truth of Christ his speech but apprehended it foolishly and literally nor was there ever any Father or Authour no not in your owne Romish Church wee thinke before one Master Breerley that thought otherwise His second Assertion touching that speech of Christ The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickeneth That it was not spoken by Christ to Qualifie his former termes of Eating his flesh is very like also to be his owne being flatly contrary to the same Father whom he avouched for Saint Augustine saith that Christ by these wordes taught the Capernaites to understand his other words of Eating spiritually a Truth which Master Brerely's owne great Master Cardinall Bellarmine hath published alleaging for proofe thereof the Testimonies of other Fathers saying Chrysostome Theophylact Euthemius and also Origen so expoundeth it So hee Master Breerly his third Inference is Therefore the words speaking of Eating his Flesh are not Figurative which indeed is the maine Controversie for never any but an Infidell denied the speech of Christ to be true nor yet did ever any but an Orthodoxe understand the Truth of the speech what it was that 's to say whether the Truth be according to a Litterall Sence as Master Brereley would have it or else in a Figurative which hath beene our defence and proofe throughout the Second Booke from all kinde of Evidences of Truth Here therefore we are onely to deale with Master Breerly and with his pretended witnesse Saint Augustine to whom hee would seeme to adhere Notwithstanding that wee may beleeve Master Brereley himselfe If wee should attend to the propriety of speech Christ's blood is not properly drunke So he albeit Christ his speech was as expresly for drinking his Blood as for Eating his Bodie And every Schoole-boy will tell him that every speech which is unproper is figurative As for Saint Augustine hee standeth as a sworne witnesse against the proper and literall sence of Eating Christ's flesh calling it Flagitious Besides rather than we should want witnesses to aver this Truth divers Iesuites will be ready in the following Chapter to tell Master Brereley flatly that if hee say the words Eating Christs flesh are properly spoken he speaketh false CHALLENGE Proving the obiected Saint Augustine to contradict the Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence as Protestantly as can be desired MAster Brereley his Conclusion taken from Christ's speech of Eating is to inferre a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament But Saint Augustine cited above in the Margent thus Christ to them that thought hee was not to give his Body to be eaten said that hee himselfe was to ascend up into Heaven and then indeed they were to know that he meant not to give his Body to be eaten after that manner which they conceived which was carnall by tearing and renting it in peeces Wherein you may plainly discerne the Argument of Saint Augustine to be that Christ by his Bodily Ascension would shew to the world that he being bodily absent from the Earth his flesh could not be here eaten by Bodily Tearing asunder Thus he against the Capernaits which must as necessarily confute the Romanists Corporall Eating his flesh whether it be by Chewing or Swallowing whether visibly or invisibly it mattereth not because it being the same Body that ascended were it visibly or invisibly it is equally absent from Earth We have no list after so plaine a discoverie of Master Brereley his manifold ignorances to play upon his Person but rather doe pray that at the sight of his Errours he may be reduced unto the Truth now after his fondly miscalled Strong Reasoning to the contrarie CHAP. IV. That the manner of Eating the Body of Christ once professed in the Church of Rome was both Capernaitically-Hereticall and is also still no lesse in the profession of divers in the same Church SECT I. THe first member will appeare by the faith of the Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Nicolas whose faith about the yeare 1059. may be best knowne by the Oath which was prescribed by him unto Berengarius concerning the Eating of the body of Christ in this Sacrament Which oath as your Cardinall Baronius doth certifie you from the stories of those times Pope Nicholas and a Generall Councell held at Rome revised approved and prescribed to Berengarius to take for the abiuration of his errour concerning the manner of eating the body of Christ and the same Oath was after published by the Popes authoritie throughout all the Cities of Italy France and Germanie and wheresoever the report of Berengarius should come So he You cannot now but expect such a forme of an Oath which must be as truely Romish as either Romane Pope or Romane Councel could devise Marke then the enioyned tenor of the Oath I Berengarius Archdeacon c. doe firmely professe that I hold that Faith which the Reverend P. Nicholas and this holy Synod hath commanded me to hold to wit That the body of Christ is in this Sacrament not onely as a Sacrament but even in trueth is sensibly handled with the hands of the Priest and broken and torne with the teeth of the faithfull So the Oath The same forme of Abiuration is registred in the publique
as their Eucharist and therefore could not reflect upon any Christian and Sacramentall communicating of Christ his flesh in the Eucharist wherein the Bodie represented according to our Christian profession is not of a Child but of a man of more than thirty yeares of age I say it could no more reflâ—ct on them than that other heathenish Lie that Christians did worship an Asse or Asses head for their God So childishly hath your Priest vaunted in calling his Obiection An evident Argument which will afterwards be encountred with an Argument against your Romish Sacrifice from the Answere of Cyril of Alexandria unto the Emperour Iulian the Apostate in defence of Christian Religion farre more Evident than yours was from the Apologie of Iustine to the other Infidell Emperour A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the Insufficiencie of the Reasons collected out of Iustine SECT III. THe Consequences deduced out of Iustine Martyr have beene answered in effect alreadie First Hee calleth the Eucharist Not common Bread and so doth every Christian speake of every sacred and consecrated thing you Papists will be offended to heare even your Holy Water no Sacrament to be called Common-water Secondly Iustine said As Christ was made flesh by incarnation so is the Eucharist by Prayer It were an Iniurie to Iustine for any man to thinke him so absurd as dealing with an Infidell to prove unto him one obscure mysterie of Christianitie by another And the calling of the Eucharist Flesh Sacramentally as being a Signe of Flesh could be no matter of Scandall to the Pagans who themselves in their Sacramentalls usually called the Signe by the name of the Thing signified one instance whereof you have heard out of Homer calling the Lambe sacrificed whereby they swore for Ratification of their Covenants their faithfull oathes Againe the generall Profession of Christians so well knowne to beleeve that Christ once crucifiedâ— ac cording to the Christian Creed set at the right hand of God in highest Maiestie might quite free them from all heathenish suspition of Corporall Eating the flesh of Christ Thirdly that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is The meate blessed by giving of Thankes Iustine calleth Christ's flesh namely Improperly which who shall affirme properly without a Figure by the Censure of your owne Iesuites must bee iudged Absurde THE THIRD CHALLENGE Against the Vnluckinesse of the Obiectors by their urging that which maketh against them SECT IV. FOr first they have told us of the Martyr Attalius that hee upbraided his heathenish persecutors who put him to death calling them Devourers of mens flesh and avouching in behalfe of all true Christians that they Devoure not man's flesh which no Romish Professor at this day can affirme this Profession that you swallow and transmit that flesh of Christ into the stomacke this having beene confessed by your owne Iesuite to be a Devouring So that the Doctrine of that primitive Age as you now see was as different from your Romish Noveltie as are Corporall and not Corporall Eating of the same Bodie of Christ Finally All our premised Sections throughout this Fift Booke doe clearely make up this Conclusion that the Bodie of Christ which Protestants doe feed upon as their soules food is the Bodie of Christ once Crucified and now sitting in glorious maiestie in Heaven and that Bodie of Christ beleeved by you is of Corporall Eating in deed and in truth of Bread as hath beene proued and will be further discovered in a generall Synopsis Wherefore let every Christian studie with syncere conscience To eate the flesh of Christ with a spirituall appetite as his Soules food thereby to have a Spirituall Vnion with him proper to the Faithfull not subiect to Vomitings or Corruption and not common to wicked men and vile beasts but alwayes working to the salvation of the true Receiver so shall he abhorre all your Capernatticall fancies Thus much of the Romish Consequence concerning Vnion the next toucheth the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ whereunto we proceed not doubting but that we shall find your Disputers the same men as hitherto wee have done peremptorie in their Assertions Vnconscionable in wresting of the Fathers and vaine fantasticall and absurd in their Inferences and Conclusions THE SIXTH BOOKE Entreating of the fourth Romish Consequence which concerneth the pretended proper Propitiatorie Sacrifice in the Romish Masse arising from the depraved Sence of the former words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY and confuted by the true Sense of the words following IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE The State of the Controversie WHosoever shall deny it say your Fathers of Trent to be a true and proper Sacrifice or that it is Propitiatorie Let him be Anathema or Accursed Which one Canon hath begot two Controversies as you know One Whether the Sacrifice in the Masse be a proper Sacrifice 2. Whether it be truly Propitiatorie Your Trent-Synode hath affirmed both Protestants deny both so that Proper and Improper are the distinct Borders of both Controversies And now whether the Affirmers or Denyers that is the Cursers or the parties so Cursed deserve rather the Curse of God we are forthwith to examine We begin with the Sacrifice as it is called Proper This Examination hath foure Trials 1. By the Scripture 2. By the Iudgement of Antient Fathers 3. By Romish Principles and 4. By Comparison betweene this your Masse and the Protestants Sacrifice in the Celebration of the holy Eucharist CHAP. I. Our Examination by Scripture SCriptures alleaged by your Disputers for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice are partly out of the new Testament and partly out of the old In the new some Objections are collected out of the Gospell of Christ and some out of other places Wee beginning at the Gospell assuredly affirme that if there were in it any note of a Proper Sacrifice it must necessarily appeare either from some speciall word or else from some Sacrificing Act of Christ at the first Institution First of Christs words That there is no one word in Christ his first Institution which can probably inferre a Proper Sacrifice not the first and principall words of Luc. 22. HOC FACITF DOE THIS SECT I. WHen we call upon you for a Proofe by the words of Christ wee exact not the verie word Offering or Sacrifice in the same Syllables but shall bee content with any Phrase of equivalencie amounting to the sense or meaning of a Sacrifice In the first place you object those words of Christ Hoc facite Doe this from which your Councell of Trent hath collected the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ which your Cardinall avoucheth with his Certum est as a Truth without all exception as if Doe this in the literall sense were all one with Doe you Sacrifice But why because forsooth the same word in the Hebrew Originall and in the Greeke Translation is so used Levit. 15. for Doe or Make spoken of the Turtle-dove prepared for an Holocaust or Sacrifice and 1
the Father Iesus Christ the righteous and he is what The Propitiation for our sinnes The which every faithfull Christian doth apply by faith unto himselfe as often as he prayeth to God in Christ's name for the remission of sinnes saying Through Iesus Christ our Lord. How therefore can this his function of Priest-hood without extreme sacrilege be held Insufficient to his Church for obtaining pardon immediatly from God who seeth not As for other your ordinary Objections taken from two sentences of the Apostle speaking of the Examples of things celestiall and of Purging sinnes now with better Sacrifices you should not have troubled us with them knowing them to be satisfied by your owne Authors Ribera and Aquinas long-ago That the former Romish Sacrilegious Derogation from Christ's Priestly function in Heaven is contradicted by ancient Fathers first inrespect of Place or Altar and Function SECT VIII THeodoret is alleaged by you as denying that Christ now offereth any thing by himselfe but only in the Church albeit he saith not so simply but that he offereth not in the Church personally which all confesse for otherwise Theodoret presently after expresseth that Christ exerciseth his Priest-hood still as man As for the Church his words are not that She offereth the Body and Blood of Christ in Sacrifice but The Symbols of his Body and Blood Therefore is this his Testimony unworthily and unconscionably objected But we will consult with the direct speeches of Antiquity 1. If you aske of the Offering Ambrose answereth you that The offering of Christ here below is but in an image but his offering with the Father is in truth If of the Priest Augustine telleth you The Priest is to be sought for in heaven even Hee who on earth suffered Death for thee There is some difference then sure As little reason have your Disputers to object that one and onely Testimony of Augustine Presbyteri propriè Sacerdotes which hoâ—pake not absolutely but comparatively namely in respect of Lay-Christians who in Scripture are otherwise called Priests As your owne Catechisme distinguisheth calling the former the Inward which only 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 mercy which he calleth True namely in the Truth of Excellency although 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 amplified by this comparison If furthermore we speake of the Altar you will have it to be rather on earth below and to that end you object that Scripture Heb. 13. 10. We have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an Altar saith the Apostle whereof they have no right to eat that serve at the Tabernacle This some of you greedily catch at for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse and are presently repulsed by your Aquinas expounding the place to signifie Either his Altar upon the Crosse or else his Body as his Altar in Heaven mentioned Apoc. 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 Thankfulnesse Hope and Charity you would presently answer that This one certainly is some Lutheran or Calvinist the words are so contradictory to your Romish Garbe notwithstanding you may finde all this in the Antididagma of the Divines of Collen And your Argument drawne from the word Altar in this Scripture is so feeble and lame a Souldier that your Cardinall was content to leave it behind him because Many Catholikes saith he interpret it otherwise But we are cited to consult with the Antient Fathers be it so If then we shall demand where our high Priest Christ Iesus is to whom a man in fasting must repaire Origen resolveth us saying He is not to be sought here on earth at all but in Heaven If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution that he cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on earth Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him as he did himselfe saying I have another Altar in Heaven whereof these Altars are but signes a better Altar to be beholden with the eyes of my mind theye will I offer up my oblations as great a Difference doubtlesse as betweene Signes and Things This could not he have said of those Altars if the Sacrifices on them both were as you pretend subjectively and corporally the same If we would know how what and where the thing is which a Christian man ought to contemplate upon when he is exercised in this our Eucharisticall Sacrifice 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 he saith in Heaven According to that of the Apostle Heb. 10. Christ sitting at the right hand of God V. 12. What therefore Therefore let us draw neere with an Assurance of faith V. 22. If we would understand wherein the difference of the Iewish Religion and Christian Profession especially consisteth in respect of Priest-hood Augustine telleth us that They have no Priest-hood and the Priest-hood 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 we must have our Confidence in the Celestiall Priest Sacrifice and Altar Oecumenius and Ambrose will shew us that it is because Here below there is nothing visible neither Temple ours being in Heaven nor Priest our being Christ nor Sacrifice ours being his Body nor yet Altar saith the other Heare your owne Canus Christ offereth an unbloody Oblation in Heaven 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 we have heard is set out by the Apostle in these termes He abideth a Priest for us He continueth a Priest He having a continuall Priest-hood He without intermission appeareth
before God for us Thus the Apostle But what of this will you say Doe but marke Are you not All heard still proclaiming as with one voice that your Romish Sacrifice of the Masse is the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 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 only 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 Continuall 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 Whereupon it is that Irenaeus exhorteth men to pray often by Christ at his Altar Which Altar saith he is in Heaven and the Temple open Apoc. 11. 19. Where saith Pope Gregory our Saviour Christ offereth up his burnt Sacrifices for us without intermission And whereupon your Iesuit Coster out of Ambrose affirmeth that 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 Oecumenius 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 fix 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 we dare say that the Doores of your Churches may happen to be all locked or interdicted your Sacrifice shut up in a Box or lurched and carried away by Mice your Priest taken up with sport or repast or journey or sleepe yea and even when he is acting a Sacrifice may possibly nullifie all his Priestly Sacrificing Act by reason of Confessed Almost infinite Defects Therefore the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Doctrine of your Masse is thus farre manifested in as much that your owne Ministeriall Priest-hood doth so prejudice the personall Priest-hood 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 we have 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 Of the second Typicall Scripture which is the Passeover shewing the weaknesse of the Argument taken from thence for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse SECT X. FIrst it is meet we heare your Objector speake even your Cardinall who albeit he confesseth the Paschall Lamb to have been the figure of Christ on the Crosse yet did it in the Ceremonies thereof saith he more immediatly and principally prefigure the Eucharist than the Passion which is proved by Scripture 1. Cor. 5. Our Passeover is offered up therefore let us feast it in the Azymes of Sincerity and Truth Which offering up was not fulfilled on the Crosse but it is evident that the Apostle did eat this true Paschall Lambe the flesh of Christ at his Supper and this Apostle exhorteth us to this Feast in saying Let us therefore keepe our feast c. So hee bestowing a large Chapter of Arguments wherewith to bleare our eyes lest that we should see in this Scripture Our Passeover is offered up Rather the Immolation of Christ on the Crosse than in the Eucharist We willingly yeeld unto his alleaged Testimonies of Ancient Fathers who by way of Allusion or Analogie doe all call the Eucharist a Paschall Sacrifice But yet that the words of this Scripture should more properly and principally meane the Eucharisticall Sacrifice as if the Iewish Passeover did rather prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ in the Masse than on the Crosse not one It were a tedious worke to sift out all the Drosse of his Argumentations Neverthelesse because he putteth Protestants unto it saying us followeth But our Adversaries saith he will say that the Apostle in saying our Passeover is offered up speaketh of Christ's Sacrifice offered upon the Crosse but we will prove that this figure was properly fulfilled at his Sâ—pper So he We will now shew you that other Adversaries than Protestants are ready to encounter this your Champion First the choisest Chieftaine of his owne side armed with the Authority of Christ himselfe Ioh. 13. 1. Before the day of the Passeover Iesus knowing that his howre was come that he must passe out of the world unto the Father Now when was this spoken Even then saith Tolet your Cardinall and Iesuit When he came to the celebrating of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood that is at his last Supper But what was meant hereby namely Christ alluded unto the Iewish Passeover saith he in signification of his owne passing over by death to his Father So he So also your Iesuit Pererius out of Augustine A second Scripture is the objected Text 1. Cor. 5. Our Passeover is offered up Christ that is As the figurative paschall Lambe was offered up for the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt so Christ was offered up to death for the Redemption of his people and so passed by his passion to his Father So your Aquinas Our Passeover Namely by his Sacrifice in shedding his Blood on the Crosse So your Iesuit Becanus And By this his Passeover on the Crosse was the Passeover of the Iewes fulfilled So your Bishop Iansenius as flat diameter to your Cardinal's Objection as can be A third Scripture we finde Ioh. 19. They broke not his legs that
Explaining of themselves SECT V. SAint Ambrose setting forth two kinde of Offerings of Christ here on earth and above in Heaven he saith that Christ here is offered as one suffering and above he himselfe Offereth himselfe an Advocate with the Father for us And this our offering of him he calleth but an Image and that above he calleth the Truth Clearly shewing that we have in our Offering Christ's Body only as it is Crucified which is the Object of our Commemoration But the same Body as it is now the personall subject of a present Time and Place they behold it in Heaven even the same Body which was once offered on the Crosse by his Passion now offered up by himselfe to God by Presentation in Heaven here in the Church only by our Representation Sacramentally on earth Saint Augustine dealeth as plainly with us where distinguishing three States of Offerings up to Christ he saith first that under the Law Christ was promised In the similitude of their Sacrifices meaning his bloody death was prefigured by those bloody Sacrifices Secondly in the offering at his Passion he was Delivered up in truth or proper Sacrifice this was on the Crosse And thirdly after his Ascension The memory of Him is celebrated by a Sacrament or Sacramentall Representation So he For although the Sacrifices of the Iewes were true Sacrifices yet were they not truly the Sacrificings of Christ Note you this Assertion Againe speaking of his owne Time when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was daily celebrated he saith That Christ was once sacrified namely upon the Crosse and Is now daily sacrificed in the Sacrament nor shall he lie saith he that saith Christ is sacrificed So he No holy Augustine shall he not lye who saith that Christ as the personall Subject of this Sacrament is a proper Sacrifice in the literall Sense for whether Proper or Vnproper are the two Seales of this Controversie Now interpose your Catholike Resolution Say first why is it called a Sacrament tell us If Sacraments had not a similitude of things which they represent they were no Sacraments from which similitude they have their Appellation and name of the things to wit The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is called his Body as Baptisme is called a Buriall Be so good as to explaine this by another which may illuminate even a man in the point of Sacrifice also although otherwise blinded with prejudice As when the day of Christ's Passion faith he being to morrow or the day of his Resurrection about to be the next day but one we use to say of the former To morrow is Christ's Passion and of the other when it commeth it is Christ's Resurrection yet will none be so absurd as to say we lye in so saying because we speake it by way of Similitude even so when we say this is sacrificed c. So Saint Augustine Who now seeth not that as the Buriall of Christ is not the Subject matter of Baptisme but only the Representative Object thereof and as Good Fryday and Easter-day are not properly the daies of Christ his Passion or Resurrection but Anniversary and Represensative or Commemorative Resemblances of them So this Sacrifice is a Similitude of the Sacrifice of Christ's on the Crosse and not materially the same We omit Testimonies of other Fathers which are dispersed in this and other Sections Although this one Explanation might satisfie yet shall we adjoyne others which may satiate even the greediest Appetite The fourth Demonstration from the Fathers Explanation of their meaning by a kinde of Correction SECT VI. ANcient Fathers in good number call that which is represented in the Eucharist and which we are said to offer The same Host not many the same Oblation no other the same Sacrifice and none but it but they adde by a Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Correction of the excesse of their speech or rather for Caution-sake least their Readers might conceive of the same Sacrifice herein as properly presâ—nt saying in this manner We offer the same Sacrifice or Rather the Remembrance thereof alluding sometime expresly to the Institution of Christ Doe this in remembrance of me The Fathers are these viz. Chrysostome Theophylact Thodoret Ambrose Eusebius and Primasius Your only Answer is that their Exception here used was not to note that it is not the same Body of Christ here Corporally present which was offered upon the Crosse but that it is not offered in the same manner by effusion of Blood as that was which is indeed a Part but not the whole Truth For survay the Marginals and then tell us If that your Sacrifice were the same Body of Christ Corporally present why should Theophylact apply hâ—s qualification not to the manner whether Bloody or Vnbloody but to the person of Christ saying We offer the same Christ who was once offered or rather a Memoriall of his Oblation And Theodoret applying it directly to the thing Non aliud We offer not another Sacrifice but a memoriall thereof why Eusebius Wee offer a Memoriall in stead of a Sacrifice plainly notifying unto tis that they meant the same very Body which was the Subject of the Sacrifice on the Crosse to be the now proper Object of our Remembrance in the Eucharist but not the Subject therein Which agreeth with that which in the former Section was said by Ambrose Our offering up of Christ in an Image and Augustine his celebrating of this Sacrament of Remembrance Semblably as Hierome speakes of the Priest who is said to take the Person of Christ in this Sacrament so that He saith Hierome be a a true Priest or rather an Imitator of him But a Priest and an Imitator is not Identically the same that is represented Master Breeley is not Christ Lastly The same said Primasius in all places which was borne of the Virgin and not now great and now lesse So he But have we not heard you number your many Hoasts on one Altar at one Time and yet the Fathers say We offer not many but the same which must needs be the same one as Object else shew us where ever any Father denied but that upon divers Altars were divers Breads or that but according to their outward Demensions they were now greater now lesse which no way agreeth with the Body of Christ as hath beene proved in discussing the Canon of the Councell of Nice The fifth Demonstration Because the Body and Blood of Christ as they are pretended by the Romish Church to be in this Sacrament cannot be the Representative Sacrifice spoken of by Ancient Fathers against your vaine Instance in a Stage-play SECT VII THat the Subject matter of this Sacrament by you called the same Sacrifice which Christ offered up upon the Crosse ought to be Representative and fit to resemble the same Sacrifice of his Passion is a matter unquestionable among all In which respect the
belonging unto it many of the same Holy Fathers sealing that their Christian Profession with their Blood It is now referred to the Iudgement of every man whether it can fall within his capacity to thinke it Credible that those Fathers if they had beene of the now Romish Faith would not have expresly delivered concerning the due Worship of this Sacrament this one word consisting but of two Syllables viz. 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 Practise not of one or other private man or woman but by their publike forme of Prayer and Invocation in their soleme 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 we indeed beleeve 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 him as in your now-Roman Masse we 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 we say Latine Missals above forty in number in all which upon our once reading we 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 we thinke satisfactory in it selfe to any man of ordinary Reason Our second Objection out of the Fathers followeth That the Ancient Fathers gain-said the Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament and Adoration thereof 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 We lift them up unto the Lord. This Sursum Cordâ— Calvin hath objected against you and your Cardinall confessing that This Preface was in use in all Liturgies of Antiquity as well Greeke as Latine and continued in the Church of Rome unto this day Then answereth that He that seeketh Christ in the Eucharist and worshippeth him if he thinke of Christ and not of the Cares of earthly things he hath his heart above So he As though the word Above meant as the Object the person of Christ in the Eucharist and not his place of Residence in the highest Heavens contrary to the word in the Greeke Liturgies which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Above wherein the Church alludeth to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostle Colos 3. 1. Seeke the things that are above where Christ is at the right hand of God as your owne Durandus the Expositor of the Romish Masse doth acknowledge Saint Augustine saying It is not without Cause that it is said Lift up your heares He 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 we have already proved out of the Fathers by their Antithesis and Oppositionâ—etweene â—etweene the Altar on Earth and the other in Heaven where we have heard Chrysostome distinguishing them that fasten their thoughts upon this Below from Them that seeke Christ in Heaven as he doth Choughs from Eagles Ambrose as they that behold the Image from them that contemplate upon the Traâ—h Nazianzene as they that looke upon the Signes from them that see the Things And the Councell of Nice as they that stoope downe from them that looke up aloft And we may not forget the Observation which 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 Cyril of Hierusalem is a Father whom you have often solicited to speake for your Cause in other Cases but all in vaine shall we hearken to him in this He 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 Councell of Nice as if that Lifting up their hearts had beene only an exercising of their thoughts upon that in the hands of the Priest or on the Altar beneath No but he saith that it is To have our hearts in Heaven with God the lover of man-kinde even as did also S. Augustine interpret this Admonition to be A lifting up of hearts to Heaven Whom as you have heard leaving our Eucharisticall Sacrifice on this Altar so would hee have us to seeke â—or our Priest in Heaven namely as Origen more expresly said Not on earth but in Heaven accordingly Oecumenius placing the Host and Sacrifice where Christ's Invisible Temple is even in Heaven Will you suffer one whom the world knoweth to have beene as excellently versed in Antiquity as any other to determine this point He will come home unto you In the time of the Ancient Church of Rome saith he the people did not runne hither and thither to behold that which the Priest doth shew buâ— prostrating their Bodies on the ground they lift up their minds to Heaven giving thankes to their Redeemer So he Thus may we 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 Cesar sleeping to Cesar waking Our difference then can be no other than was that betweene Mary and Stephen noted by Ambrose Mary because she 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 condemned 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 Antiquity No Catholike Christian doth worship as a Divine Power that which is created of God Orthus I feare to worship Earth lest he condemne me 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 yourselves and all Christians to use Witnesses unnecessarily We adde the Assumption But the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament is an attributing of Divine Honour
your owne Confessions and for feare of this kinde of Idolatry your Claudius Sainctes taught that The signes in the Eucharist are not to be adored with the same honour as Christ is And that therefore Bread is not to be adored in the Sacrament with Christ's Body least that the People being not able to distinguish the Body of Christ from Bread should fall into Idolatry And the person communicating orally as you say the Body of Christ now in his mouth is not to be adored Regularly but why Because say you man being capable of honour it might fall out by little and little that he should be honoured as God So your owne Iesuits and Others Yet not to doe you wrong in this Contemplation Christ by reason of the Hypostaticall Vnion of his God-head being no meere Creature is wholly excepted whom we are taught by the Fathers of a Generall Councell 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 he may so doe nor without a Good intent viz. that it is well done nor without habituall Condition viz. not to doe so if he 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 Marginals you shall finde 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 beleeve 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 we 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 Arch-bishop with others You will aske what maketh all this to the Question in hand give us leave to tell you CHALLENGE THE same Arch-Bishop Catharinus 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 I dolatry saith he as well in the Heathen who adored Heaven in stead of God So he Doe you marke as well 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 adoring Bread in stead of Christ's Body may therein be held as Formall an Idolater as any Heathen This is your Bishops Proposition The Assumption But any man may manifoldly be deceived in taking Bread for Christ's Body Which hath beene your generall Confession Our Conclusion must be Therefore any of you may be a Formall Idolater IV. That the Romish Worship is proved to be a Formall Idolatry by the Consequence used from the Consecration of your Popes SECT IV. SAlmeron a Iesuite of prime note in your Church endevoureth to prove that all men are bound to beleeve the new Pope whensoever he is consecrated to be the true Pope not only with a Morall or Humane Assurance but with a Divine and infallible faith as were the Iewes bound to beleeve Christ Iesus at his comming to be the true Messias that is saith he with a faith that cannot possibly be deceived We have nothing to doe with your Iesuits Position in this place concerning the Infallibity of Beleefe of the Consecration and Election of your Popes which we have else where proved to be a Grosse Imposture But we are to argue from his Supposition as for Example CHALLENGE YOur Iesuite grounded his Assertion of an Infallible faith due to be had touching the Consecration of your Popes upon a Supposition and his Conclusion upon the like infallible Beliefe which men ought to have concerning the Consecration of the Eucharist wherein saith he if there should be any Vncertainty so that our faith should depend upon the Intention of the Priest in like manner might every one doubt whether he may adore the Sacrament as being not truly consecrated as also make doubt of the Priest himselfe as being not rightly ordained So he who therefore in all these requireth a faith infallible All these forecited Confessions of your owne Divines as first concerning your Definition of Idolatry next in the point of Coadoration of the Creature together with the Creator Thirdly in your Beleefe of the â—anonization of Saints and lastly in the Consecration of the Pope which are but humane Institutions doe enforce much more a necessity of Infallibility in every Adoration instituted by God Now among all the Schismes of Anti-Popes sometimes of two sometimes of three at once and that for forty or fifty yeares space together if any one of those Popes in his time had heard any Papist saying to him you may not be offended although I hold your Adversary as for example Vrbane to be the true Pope and yeeld to him all Fealtie and Obedience for I doe this to a Good Intent in a Morall Certainty that he is truly elected Pope and in an habituall Condition not to acknowledge him if I knew him not to be Pope wherein if I erre it is but a Materiall Disloyalty would not the Pope notwithstanding all these Pretenses judge this man to be formally an Anti-Papist and pierce him with his Thunder-bolt of Anathema as Popes have often dealt with Cardinals Princes and Emperours in like Case yet what is this Glo-wormes slimy shine to the glory of Divine Majesty CHAP. VIII Of the Romish manner of Adoration in Comparison with the Heathen That the Romish Adoration by your former Pretences justifieth the vilest kinde of Idolatry among the Heathen SECT I. THere is a double kinde of Worship the one is Direct and terminate which pitcheth immediatly upon the Creature without Relation to the Creator whereof your Cardinall Alan hath resolved saying The terminating and fixing of Divine Honour upon any Creature is a notorious Idolatry The second kinde is Relative Honour having
Vomiting it by the Communicants and the Transmittance into your guts together with the Eating and Feeding thereupon by Dogs Mice Wormes and which transcendeth if it may be all your other Absurdities to be deprived of all naturall power of Motion Sence and Vnderstanding O Abominable Abominable A Synopsis of the Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse and Defence thereof by many Evidences from Antiquity SECT V. OVR first Argument is against the foundation thereof which is your Interpretation of the Article HOC by denying it to have Relation to Bread contrary to the verdict of an Inquest of Antient Fathers shewing that the same pointeth out Bread as you have heard whereby the monstrous Conception of Transubstantiation is strangled in the very wombe Insomuch that sometimes they expressely interpret it thus Christs Body and Blood that is say they The Bread and Wine Item Hee gave the name of the Signe to the thing signified Item Bread the Signe of his Body And lastly Bread is called Christs Body because it signifieth his Body Secondly in the point of Transubstantiation it selfe they calling the Eucharist which you dare not Bread and Wine after Consecration and naming them Earthly materialls and Matter of Bread and also as you have heard out of the Antient Liturgies Fruits of the Earth and yet more plainly by way of Periphrasis describing them to consist of Divers graines and Divers grapes After by approving the Suffrage and judgement of our Senses in discerning all Sensible things and in speciall the Eucharist it selfe and at length affirming that there remaineth therein the Substance of Bread and Wine which are the Subject matter of your Divine Adoration All which are other Three Demonstrations of their meanings every singular point being avouched by the Suffrages of Antiquity Thirdly against your Faith concerning the manner of Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because so farre were the Fathers from beleeving that the Body of Christ could be in divers places as you say in Millions at one time that by this property of Being in many places at once they have discerned Angells to be Finite Spirits and not God They have distinguished the Godhead of Christ from his Manhood and they have proved the Holy Ghost to be God and no Creature by the same Reason Than which Three Arguments none can be more Convincent Whereunto you may adde the Fathers speeches contradicting your Dreame of a Body whole in every part in whatsoever space or place by judging it Impossible and also concluding Christ his Ascension into Heaven to argue his Absencâ— from Earth all which have been discussed from point to point Our Fourth Generall Argument is that whereas your Corporall Presence must needs inferre Corporall Eating thereof by the Communicants notwithstanding you have heard the contrary Sentences of Antient Fathers against Tearing and Swallowing of Christ's Body and Bodily Egestion next concerning the Eaters that only the Godly faithfull are partakers thereof insomuch that even the Godly under the old Testament did eat the same Then of the Remainders of the Consecrated Hosts that they were Eaten by the ordinance of the Church by Schoole-boyes and sometimes Burnt in the fire besides they called them Bits and Fragments of Bread broken after Consecration and diminished and lastly in respect of the End of Eating They held the thing present to be a pledge of Christ's Body absent and also allowed such a Touch of his Body by Faith that whosoever so toucheth him is Sanctified Which Observations concerning our Fourth Generall Argument doe minister unto us five particular Reasons which make our Defence to be Impregnable Fifthly forasmuch as you teach the Subject matter of the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ as a proper Sacrifice propitiatory wee upon due inquisition into the doctrine of Antiquity have found the Antient Fathers 1. Noting that which they called Sacrifice herein to be Bread and Wine saying thereupon that Melchizedech in that his Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ 2. Such a Subject which being taken in great Quantity doth nourish and satiate mans Bodily Nature 3. Such as needeth prayer to God that it may be Acceptable to God as was the Sacrifice of Abels sheepe 4. Sonaming it an Vnbloâ—dy Sacrifice as meaning thereby void of Blood which cannot agree to the Body of Christ now risen from death 5. So qualifying their other Exuberances and Excesse of speech wherein they named it The same Sacrifice of Christ once offered by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 correcting it thus A Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall thereof 6. By placing the Sacrifice of Christ his Body as now Presentative only in Heaven and the thing offered on Earth but a Signe 7. In all your objected Testimonies for proofe of the same Body of Christ in the Eucharist which suffered on the Crosse they understood the same as the Object of our Remembrance and not as the Subject of Offering which make up so many Arguments moe 8. By paralleling Baptisme with the Eucharist in like tenour of speech from point to point 9. By praying God to be Propitious to that which is offered Sixthly upon the same Doctrine of Corporall Presence you have erected and fastened the roofe of all your Building which is Divine Adoration of the Host yet notwithstanding have you not beene able by the testimonies of any ancient Father to free your selves from Formall Idolatry by any of your Pretences devised for your excuse either of Good Intent Morall Certainty or of Habituall Condition especially seeing that the Fathers by that their universall Invitation Lift up your Hearts abstracted still the thoughts of the Communicants from contemplating of any Subject present here Below that they might be drawen to the meditation of the Body of Christ as it is in Heaven Lastly in your owne Romish Masse praying after Consecration God to be propitious to the thing offered as to Abel's Sacrifice which was but a sacrificed Sheepe Compute all these Particulars and you shall finde about sixteene Arguments to prove you to be absolutely Idolaters Wee having thus revealed these Three Principall and Fundamentall Abominations doe now proceed to their Concomitants and Consequences which are Mixtures of Heresie in many Overture of Perjury in some and Obstinacie in all We begin at the last CHAP. II. Of the stupendious Obstinacie of the Romish Disputers made palpable by their owne Contradictions and of the Defence thereof as being Contradictory in it selfe SECT I. ALL your Disputers shew themselves in nothing more zealous than in maintenance of your Romish Masse which they contend for by objecting Scriptures Fathers Reasons notwithstanding their Expositions of Scriptures their Inferences out of the Fathers their devised Reasons and almost all their Confutations are confuted rejected contradicted by their owne fellowes as the Sections thorowout this whole Tractate doth plainly demonstrate We cannot
6. Vnconscionable Objections from their Epithets of Terrible Chap. 5. Sect. 8. and Vnbloody Sect. 9. which They call also Bloody Sect. 11. And also Baptisme a Sacrifice Sect. 13. And other Spirituall Acts. Sect. 14. Vnconscionable Objections from their words Altar and Priest Sect. 15. Spirituall Acts called Sacrifices unproperly Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Yea and also Propitious Chap. 8. Sect. 1. BOOKE VII ANtiquity unconscionably objected for a Divine Adoration of the Sacrament from any of their words Chap. 2. Sect. 1. as also from any of their Acts either of their Concealement of this Mystery Ch. 3. Sect. 1. or Elevation Sect. 2. or Gesture Sect. 3. or Invocation Sect. 4. Which was never taught by them Ch. 5. Sect. 1. Nay Antiquity was against Divine Adoration of the Eucharist by their Common Admonition Lift up your hearts c. Chap. 4. Sect. 2. BOOKE VIII ANtiquity against the Romish Sacrilegiousnesse in a Synopsis Chap. 1. Sect. 4. Against their Idolatrousnesse teaching Bread to remaine Sect. 5. Their Testimonies unconscionably objected for Corporall Presence Proper Sacrifice and Divine Adoration as appeareth in a Synopsis Instance in Baptisme by paralleling their like speeches of it with the Eucharist Chap. 2. Sect. 2 3. Antiquity insolently rejected and falsly boasted of by our Adversaries Ch. 2. Sect. 4. III. Index of the particular Iudgements of Fathers severally as also of Councels and Popes both in our Oppositions and in the Romish Objections besides those here omitted which have beene otherwise answered in the Generall thorow-out the former TREATISE AMbrose Opp. against unknowen Prayer B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. And that the words of Christ are figurative Book 2. Sect. 9. and That Christ gave bread B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. And for a figurative Sence in the words This is my Body B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. And for Bread remaining B. 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11. Ob. his terming it a Miraculous worke unconscionably Ch. 4. Sect. 2. And for saying Bread is made man's flesh Sect. 7. And that Bread is changed into another thing Ibid. Opp. Hee teacheth Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. And an Vnproper Sacrifice Ib. Ch. 5. Sect. 5. and correcteth his Excessive speech of Sacrifice B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. For naming it an Vnbloody Sacrifice Vnconscionably B. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 9. And for Adoration of Christ's footstoole B. 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. And Christ's appearing to Saul from Heaven Booke 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 5. Opp. proving the Holy Ghost to be God by it's Being in divers places at once Booke 4. Chap. 6. Sect. 2. Athanasius Opp. for a necessitie of Circumscription of a Body in one place only Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. And for Impossibility of Angels being in many places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. And for the spirituall Exposition of those words The flesh profiteth nothing B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. And that Angels cannot be in divers places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Augustine fondly Ob. for an unknowne tongue Booke 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. Chall 6. And for proofe that Christ in the Sacrament was a Figure of himselfe on the Crosse B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Chall 2. Opp. That Bread was called Christs body B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. And that hee alloweth the Iudgement of Sence in this Sacrament B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. And for a Figurative Sence in the words This is my Body B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 9. Ob. for Transubstantiation because a powerfull worke Book 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. Opp. For necessary Circumscription of a Body in one place B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. Ob. That Christ Efferebatur manibus ejus Ibid. Sect. 8. Opp. For the Being of Christ's soule but in one place Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. And that the godly only partake Christ's Body Booke 5. Ch. 2. Sect. 2. Ch. 3. Sect. 3 4. Ob. that the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist is a signe of it selfe on the Crosse fraudulently B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Chall 2. Opp. for expounding that Scripture The flesh profiteth nothing B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Ob. that the Capernaites understood not Christ unconscionably B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. And that Wee receive with our mouths Christ's Body Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. And also his Fideles nôrunt B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. And None eateth before he adore Booke 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. And for Priests properly Book 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Opp. Eucharist an unproper Sacrifice Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 5. and hee is an utter Adversary to the whole Romish Cause B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 8. Chall 4 5. And that Christ appeared to Saul from heaven Ibid. Sect. 5. And hee proveth the Holy Ghost to be God by it's being in divers places at once Booke 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. And is against a Bodies being without Commensuration to place and space Ibid. Sect. 6. And that no Body can be whole in any one part of place Chap. 7. Sect. 6. And that Angels cannot be in divers places at once Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Basil Opp. proving the Holy Ghost to be God by it's being in many places at once Booke 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. Ob. What were the words of Invocation And for Adoration of the Eucharist most grossely B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Opp. That hee called the Eucharist Bread after Consecration B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Bertram Opp. for the existence of Bread after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 14. Chrysostome Opp. against Gazers on the Sacrament B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. Ob. for private Masse Ibid. Sect. 5. Chall 3 Opp. teaching Bread to remaine after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 14. Ob. for Transubstantiation in his words Change by divine power Ibid. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. And his Exception saying Although it seeme absurd to Sense B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 5. and his Hyperbolicall Phrases Ibid. and his words It is made Christ's body indeed Ibid. Sect. 7. and these Wee are changed into the flesh of Christ Ibid. And that the wicked are guilty of Christ's Body for corporall presence B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. His 〈◊〉 miracle saying Christ in heaven is handled here on earth And of a double Elias B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. and for Christ's passing thorow the doores Ibid. Opp. his expounding the words Flesh profiteth not figuratively Booke 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Ob. The words Tearing with teeth Ibid. Sect. 3. and these Christ is held in the hands of the Priest Ibid. And Christ hath made us his body B. 5. Chap. 8. Sect. 3. Opp. Christ's Priestly Residence in heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. And Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall thereof Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. Sacrifice Pure and Terrible Ibid. Sect. 8. And Lambe lying on the Altar Terrible and Angels present B. 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. and Fideles nôrunt Ch. 3. Sect. 1. and Elevation Ibid. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. and Bowing before the Table Booke 7. Chap.
5. Sect. 3. Opp. Angels cannot be in divers places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. jet Ob. for Christ's presence in divers places at once Vnconscionably B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 7. Clemens Alexandrinus opp calling Bread Christ's body B. 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. and calling Bread and Wine Antitypes after Consecration Ibid. Naming it a Sacrifice of Christs body Clemens Bishop of Rome See Pope Councell of Collen opp that contemptuous Refusers to communicate are guilty of the body of Christ B. 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. Of Constance ob for Communion in one kinde B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. Of Ephesus opp for a palpable Body of Christ B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Of Lateran 4. ob for Transubstantiation B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Of Naunts opp against private Masse Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. Of Nice Lambe of God on the Table ob unconscionably for a corporall presence and proper Sacrifice B. 4. Ch. 10. Sect. 3. And for calling the Eucharist a Pledge of the Resurrection B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 6. opp the same Councell against both corporall presence and proper Sacrifice Booke 4. Ch. 10. and against sole Accidents Ibid. Sect. 2. Of Toledo and Trullo opp for receiving the Sacrament with hands Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. And of Toledo against Innovating in the Eucharist Booke 1. Ch. 3. Sect. ult And against Transubstantiation and Corporall Eating Booke 4. Chap. 10. Sect. 3. and against sole Accidents Ibid. Chap. 10. Sect. 2. And of Trullo to prove that which is called Body to be Bread B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 8. Of Trent opp for reporting the Errour of the Romish Church about ministring the Eucharist to Infants B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 11. Cyprian calling it a worke of omnipotency ob Booke 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. and Bread changed in nature Ibid. Figurative Sence of Christ's words This is c. Opp. B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. and calling Bread Christ's body B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Against Reservation of the Sacrament B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. Ob. Wicked men guilty of Christ's body B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. and Wee are anoynted with his blood inwardly B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Opp. calling it a True and Pure Sacrifice Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 8. Cyril Alexand. Opp. Godly only partakers of Christ his Body B. 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. ob that wee have a naturall conjunction hereby with Christ B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 8. and Ob. his Similitude As Wax melted Ibid. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. And Christ dwelleth in us Ibid. Opp. Body as well circumscribed in one place as God uncircumscribed B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. Cyril Hierosol ob Thinke not thou takest bread unconscionably B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 4. and under the forme of bread for proofe of only Accidents fraudulently and Species for Typus Ibid. and Chrisma for Charisma Ibid. and Sacrifice of Christ's Body B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 10. and Bowing for Adoration B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 3. Opp. against Christs body going into the draught B. 4. Ch. 9. Sect. 3. Damascen opp that Angels cannot possibly be but in one place B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Circumscription of a Body necessary Ib. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. and against penetration of Bodies Chap. 7. Sect. 6. And for teaching the word Antitype to have beene used only before Consecration falsly Yet ob B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. And for naming Elevation is ob for Adoration unconscionably Book 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. and for his O Divine Sacrament unconscionably Ib. Sect. 4. Dionysius Areopag opp Calling the Sacrament Antitype after Consecration Booke 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Didymus Alexand. opp Proving the Holy Ghost God by it's being in divers places at once Book 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. Epiphanius his Hoc est meum Hoc objected B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 7. Eusebius ob his saying It is Christ's body unconscionably B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Opp. his correcting of his speech saying Or rather a Memoriall of a Sacrifice B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. naming the Sacrament a bloody Sacrifice unconscionably B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 9. Fulgentius opp For necessary circumscription of a Body Book 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. Gaudentius opp calling that which is present A pledge of Christ's body absent Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11. and calling Bread Christ's body Book 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. His saying ob Body which Christ reacheth Book 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Gelasius See Pope Gregory Nazian opp against the possibility of the being of one Body in divers places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 1. and also of the Angels Ibid. Sect. 3. and that Christ's Priestly Function is in heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. Ob. his naming the Eucharist a Bloody Sacrifice unconscionably Chap. 5. Sect. 9. Opp. against Proper Sacrifice he saith that This is not so acceptable as that in heaven Ibid. Sect. 9 15. and calleth the Symbols after Consecration Antitypes B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Ob. hâ—s sister Gorgonia for Adoration unconscionably Book 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Gregory Nyssen ob his saying It is changed into whatsoever c. unconscionably Book 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. as also these other words Christ's body when it is within ours c. B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. Againe One body divided to thousands and undivided B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. Gregory the Great See Pope Hesychius ob for Praying Perceiving the truth of blood B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. unconscionably Hierome opp that the words of Christ This is my body are figurative B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. and calling the Sacrament present a Pledge of his Body absent B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. and that only the Godly are partakers of Christ's body Book 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Hilary ob for saying Wee are nourished in our bodies by Christ's body B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. unconscionably As also ob That Christ is naturally within us Ibid. Sect. 3. Irenaeus opp For the remaining of Bread after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Ob. For denying the Sacrament to be common bread Ibid. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. unconscionably And that our bodies are nourished with his body B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. and for his saying that our Bodies are not now corruptible Ibid. Sect. 6. Opp. his saying that it was Bread which was called Christs body B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Isidore Hispal opp For a figurative Sence of Christ's words This is my Body B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. Opp. against Conversion by Transubstantiation Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 6. and for the Sence of the word Masse B. 1. Ch. 1. Sect. 2. and for calling the thing sacrificed after the order of Melchizedech Bread and Wine B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. and calling it Bread changed into a Sacrament after Consecration B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. and against Prayer in an unknowen tongue B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. Isidore Pelus opp that Christ spake from heaven to Saul B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 5. and for
Christ's opening the wombe of the Blessed Virgin at his birth Ibid. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Iulius See Pope Iustine Martyr ob his Apologie against the slander of Christians as eating an Infant B. 5. Ch. 9. Sect. 1 3. unconscionably And for calling it no common bread B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. unconscionably Opp. Calling the Symbols Antitypes after Consecration B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and against the altering of Christ's body in his entrance thorow the doore B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Leo. See Pope Nicholas See Pope Oecumenius Opp. For Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. Optatus Ob. his calling the Altar the seat of Christ B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. and that the Eucharist is the Pledge of our Salvation B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 6. Origen ob For bread remaining after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Opp. Against prayer in an unknowen tongue Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 7. Chall 6. and against Christ's body going into the draught Book 4. Chap. 9. Sect. 3. and that only the Godly are Partakers of the body of Christ B. 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. and for expounding Iob. 6. The flesh profiteth nothing B. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Ob. his saying Not worthy that Christ should come under the roofe of our mouthes Ibid. Sect. 3. and for Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. and that it was bread which was called Christ's body Booke 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. Pope Calixtus opp against Gazers only at the celebration of the Sacrament Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. and for calling Communion but in one kinde Sacrilegious B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. For the existence of Bread after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 13. Clemens ob for unbloody Sacrifice B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 10. Greg. 1. opp against Gazers on the Eucharist Booke 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. Ob. for Transubstantiation out of a Legend Booke 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. and for his saying Blood sprinckled upon the posts B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. unconscionably Opp. Angels cannot be in divers places at once B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Gregory 7. Pope ob for Transubstantiation B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Iulius opp against Innovation in the Eucharist B. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Leo Ob. his saying Let us taist with our flesh B. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Opp. against them who erre in pretence of Omnipotency B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. Nicholas ob his Tearing sensibly Christ's flesh with teâ—th B. 5. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. Pius 2. against an unknowen tongue in Gods service B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. Chall 5. Primasius opp his correction Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Tertullian opp for his expounding Christ's words This is my body figuratively B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 9. and for verifying the Truth of Sence in this Sacrament B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. and for expounding the words of Ioh. 6. Flesh profiteth nothing B. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. and that Angels are not in many places at once Book 4. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. and mans being in many places at once impossible B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. and that it was Bread which he called his Body B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Theodoret opp For his expounding Christ's words This is my body figuratively B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6 8. and of bread remaining after Consecration B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9 12. and that one thing cannot have the right hand and left of it selfe Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 9. and for Christ's Priestly Function in heaven B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. and for correcting himselfe a Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 6. and for circumscription of a body in one place necessarily B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. ob his Symbols adored B. 7. Ch. 2. unconscionably Opp. That it was bread which he called his body Book 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Theophylact ob for Transubstantiation B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 2. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. unconscionably Opp. for correcting himselfe saying Sacrifice or rather a Memoriall B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Vigilins Opp. For circumscription of Christ's body in one place B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. IV. Index of the principall places of Scriptures opposed by us and objected against us thorow-out this Controversie PSal 72. 16. There shall be an handfull of corne Ob. to prove the Romish Sacrifice Booke 6. Chap. 4. Sect. 4. Malach. 5. 1. In every place shall Sacrifice and Oblation be offered to my name Ob. For a proper Sacrifice but vainly B. 6. Ch. 4. Sect. 1 3. Matth. 19. 14. Easier for a Camel to passe thorow the eye of a needle c. Ob. For the manner of Christ's presence B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Matth. 26. 29. Fruit of the vine Opp. against Transubstantiation B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 5. Matth. 26. 26 c. And he blessed it Opp. B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Brake it Ibid. Sect. 4. Said unto them Ibid. Sect. 5 6. Take Ibid. Sect. 7. Eat yee B. 1. Ch. 1. Sect. 9. In remembrance Ibid. Sect. 11. Drinke yee all of this Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. In like manner he tooke the cup. Ibid. As often as you shall doe this Ibid. THIS IS MY BODY The word This B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 1 c. The verbe Est Ibid. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. Figurative and not making for Transubstantiation Book 3. Ch. 1. Sect. 1. My body Farre differing from that which is in the hands of the Priest B. 4. thorow out Doe this Ob. for Sacrifice B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 1. Is shed Is broken Is given Ob. for Sacrifice Ibid. Sect. 2. Both unreasonably In remembrance of mee B. 6. thorowout Shed for remission of sins Ob. for a Sacrifice Propitiatory B. 6. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. Matth. 28. 6. He is not here for he is risen Opp. against Being in two places at once Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 4. Luc. 24. 16. Their eyes were holden Ob. B. 4. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. Ibid. Knowen at Emmaus by breaking of bread Ob. Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 3. Ioh. 6. 54. Who so eateth my flesh Opp. Booke 5. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. Ibid. vers 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth Ibid. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Chap. 3. Sect. 6. Ioh. 19. 33. They brake not his legs Ob. B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 2. Ch. 3. Sect. 10. Acts 2. 42. They continued in fellowship breaking of bread Ob. B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Acts 9. Concerning Christ's Apparance to Saul Ob. B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 5. Acts 13. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ob. B. 6. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. 1. Cor. 5. 7. Our Passeover is sacrificed Ob. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. 1. Cor. 10. 3. The same spirituall meat Opp. Booke 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 1. Ibid. vers 16. The Bread which wee breake Opp. against Transubstantiation Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Ibid. vers 18. They which eat are partakers of the Altar Ob. B. 6. Ch. 2. Sect. 10.