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
be no Answer to say as Pope Leo in effect did viz. that as Priests you are not as were the Leviticall by naturall propagation but by a spirituall ordination because a spirituall Propagation is no proper but a metaphoricall Generation Fifthly not without Succession seeing that Succession as from Saint Peter is the chiefe tenure of your Priest-hood Nor will that of Epiphanius helpe you in this Case to say that You had no Succession by the seed of Aaron because although this may exempt you from the Leviticall Priest-hood yet will not it associate you with the Priest-hood of Melchizedech or of Christ whose Characters of Priest-hood was to be Priests soly individually and absolutely in themselves As little can your ordinary Answer availe telling us that you are not Successors but Vicars of Christ and Successors of Peter because whilest you claime that the Visible Priest-hood and Sacrifice of Christ is still in the Church which is perpetuated by Succession you must bid farewell to the Priest-hood of Melchizedech But if indeed you disclaime all Succession of Christ why is your Iesuit licensed to say that your Roman Popes doe succeed Christ in their Pastorship over the Church although not in their Priest-hood by offering Sacrifices expiating sinnes by their owne virtue Are not the titles of Pastor and Priest equally transcendent in Christ Sixthly not in respect of the no-necessity of a Succession which was Immortality because the Popes shewed themselves to be sufficiently mortall insomuch that one Pope maligning another after death hath dragged the Carcasse of his Predecessor out of his Grave to omit their other like barbarous outrages Seventhly not Personall Sanctity Holy impolluted and separated from sinnes For whosoever being meerely man shall arrogate to himselfe to be without sinne the holy Ghost will give him the Lie As for your Popes we wish you to make choice of whatsoever Historians you please and we doubt not but you shall finde upon record that many of them are noted to have beene as impious and mischievous in their lives and in their deaths as infamous and cursed as they were contrarily Bonifaces Innocents or Benedicts in their names Can there be then any Analogie betweene your high Roman Priest and Christ the Prototype to Melchizedech in so manifold Repugnances Yet notwithstanding every one of you must be forsooth a Priest after the order of Melchizedeck Nay but not to multiply many words the Novelty of your Pretence doth bewray it selfe from Peter Lombard Master of the Romish Schoole who Anno 1145. taught how truly looke you to that that every Priest at his Ordination in taking the Chalice with wine and platter with the Hoast should understand that his power of sacrificing was from The order of Aaron Nor may you thinke that this was his private opinion for He saith your Cardinall of him collected the sentences of Divines and deserved to be called the Master of Schoolmen Thus farre of the Person of Christ as Priest in the next place we are to enquire into his Priestly function Of the Function of Christ his Priest-hood now after his Ascension into Heaven and your Cardinall his Doctrine sacrilegiously detracting from it SECT VII BY the doctrine of your Cardinall in the name of your Church The old Priest-hood of Aaron was translated into the Priest-hood of Christ Every Priest saith the Apostle must have some thing to offer else he were no Priest Thus his Priest-hood is called Eternall and must have a perpetuall offering which was not that upon the Crosse Nor can that suffice which the Protestants say That his Preist-hood is perpetuall because of the perpetuall virtue of his sacrifice upon the Crosse or because of his perpetuall Act of Intercession as Priest in Heaven or of presenting his passion to his Father in Heaven whither his Priest-hood was translated No but it is certaine that Christ cannot now properly sacrifice by himselfe He doth it by his Ministers in the Eucharist Because the sacrifice of the Crosse in respect of Christians is now invisible and seene onely by Faith which although it be a more true sacrifice yet it is not as our Adversaries say the onely sacrifice of Christian Religion nor sufficient for the Conservation thereof And againe His sacrificing of himselfe in the Sacrament by his Ministers is that by which only â—e is said to have a perpetuall Priest-hood Accordingly your Cardinall Alan Christ saith he performeth no Priestly function in Heaven but with relation to our Ministery here on earth whereby he offereth So they for the dignifying of their Romish Masse as did also your Rhemists but with what Ecclipse of Iudgement and good Conscience is now to be declared If we take the Sacrifice of Christ for the proper Act of Sacrificing which is destructive so was Christ his Sacrifice but One and Once Heb. 7. and 8. But understanding it as the subject matter of the same Sacrifice once so offered to God upon the Crosse and after his Ascension entred into Heaven and so is it a perpetuall Sacrifice presentative before God For as the high-Priest of the Law after the Sacrifice was killed entred into the holy place once a yeare but not without Blood Heb. 9. 7. so Christ having purchased an eternall redemption by his Death upon the Crosse went into the holy place of Heaven with the same his owne blood V. 12. To what end Alwaies living to make supplication for us Ch. 7. V. 3. and 25. Hence followeth the continuall use which the soules of the faithfull have of his immediate function in Heaven Having a perpetuall Priest-hood he is able continually to save them that come to God by him V. 24 25. Whence issueth our boldnesse and all-confidence alwaies to addresse our prayers to him or by him unto God We having an high Priest over the house of God let us draw neare with a true heart infull assurance of faith having our hearts sprinckled from an evill Conscience Ch. 10. 22. The evidence of these Scriptures hath drawne from your Iesuit Ribera even then when he professeth himselfe an earnest defender of your Romane Masse these Acknowledgements following viz. upon the Ch. 7. 23. That Christ is a true Priest and all other doe partake of his Priest-hood in offering sacrifice onely in remembrance of his Sacrifice And that he did not performe the office of Priest-hood onely upon earth but even now also in heaven which function he now dischargeth by the virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse He proceedeth No man saith he will deny this Position namely that Christ now ever exercizeth the office of a Priest by presenting himselfe for us So he This is still Christ's function of Priest-hood whereunto this Apostle exhorteth all Christians at all times of need to make their addresse which Saint Iohn propoundeth as the only Anchor-hold of Faith in his Propitiation 1. Iohn 2. If any sinne we have an Advocate with
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
Augustine in his Comment vpon the Psalmes often exhorting all sorts of men to sing them and thereupon the Author of the Preface before his Comment as it were tuning his note to Augustines doth deny that any can sing Psalmes as he ought to God who knoweth not what he singeth And lest that this might not suffice we have added the Edict of the Emperour Iâ—stinian commanding a lowd voice in the Minister that the people may vnderstand his words Next a Canon of a Councell requiring a Concordance both of voice and vnderstanding in the singing of Psalmes as that which ought to be by that Doctrine of Scripture I will pray with my spirit and I will pray with my vnderstanding Then a Decree of one Pope in his Councell that provision be made where people of diuers Languages dwell in the same Cities that their Service may be done according to their Different tongues After the Resolution of another Pope to grant vnto the Sclavonians at their conversion to the faith that Divine Service might be vsed in their owne tongue moued thereunto as by a voice from heauen sounding out that Scripture Let every tongue praise the Lord. And lastly a Prohibition in the Primitive Church that None should speake in languages vnknowne to the people When you have disgested all these Premises concerning the Equity and Necessity of knowne Prayers in the publike and Divine Service both in consideration of God's worship and Mans manifold profit so amply confirmed by so many and vncontrollable testimonies then guesse if you can of what dye the face of your Doctor Stapleton was when hee shamed not to call this our Practice of knowne prayers Profanenesse and to number it among Hereticall pravities As for your owne People who preferre an vnknowne worship what can wee say lesse than that all such Ignorants are but dumbe worshippers and because of their ignorance in praying they know not what they are to be sent to accompanie Popiniayes and Iack-dawes accordingly as St. Augustine formerly hath resembled them The sixt Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sence of the next words of Christs Institution TAKE YEE SECT VIII THus said Christ to his Disciples by which words what is meant your Iesuite will expresse to wit that Because the Apostles tooke that which Christ gave the word GAVE doth signifie a Delivery out of Christ his hands into the hands of them that did take Here you see is Taking with hands especially seeing that Christ in giving the Cup said Drinke you all Math. 26. one delivering it to an other as it is said of the Paschall Cup Luc. 22. 17. as it is confessed The contrarie Canon in your now Romane Masse Concerning this It is to be noted say you that the Church of Rome hath iudged it laâ—dable that Lay-people abstaine from taking the Sacrament with their owne hands but that it be put into their mouthes by the Priest which is so ordained for a singular reverence So you CHALLENGE WHat wee may note of this your Notandum the Confessions of your owne Iesuites will shew first that the Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Church for aboue 500. yeares was according to Christ's Institution to deliver the Bread into the hands of the Communicants Secondly that the same Order was observed at Rome as appeareth by the Epistle of Pope Cornelius Thirdly that whereas Some had devised for Reverence-sake certaine Silver vessels by the which they received the Sacrament yet two Councels the one at Toledo and the other at Trullo did forbid that fashion and required that they should receive it with their hands Hitherto from you selves Vaine therefore is your pretence of Reverence in suffering the Priest onely to receive it with his hands as being more worthy in himselfe than all the rest of the people when as our High-Priest Christ Iesus disdained not to deliver it into the hands of his Disciples Or els to denie this libertie vnto the people as if their Handes were lesse sanctified than their mouthes But you will say that it is in Reuerence lest that the body of Christ may as you teach light vpon the ground if any fragments of the Hoast should chance to fall There can be no doubt but that in the dispensation of this blessed Sacrament Christians ought to vse due Cautelousnes that it may be done without miscarriage yet must you give vs leaue to retort your pretence of Reverence vpon your selves thus Seeing that Christ himselfe Instituted and his Apostles observed and that the whole Church of Christ for so many hundred yeares thus practized the administration of this Sacrament from hand to hand without respect of such Reverence they therefore were not of your opinion to thinke every Crumme or piece of the Hoast that falleth to the ground to be really the Body of Christ This Aberration wee may call in respect of others but a small Transgression if yet any Transgression may be called small which is a wilfull violating of this so direct a Charge of Christ Doe this The seaventh Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sence of the next wordes EATE YEE SECT IX AS in the third Transgression wee by these words of Christ He gaue it to them spoken in the plurall number have proved from your owne Confessions a necessary Communion of the people in the publike Celebration thereof with the Priest against your now Profession of private Masses contrarie to the ancient Custome and vniuersall practice of the Church so now out of these words TAKE YEE EATE YEE wee obserue that the persons present were Takers and Eaters of the blessed Eucharist and not onely Spectators thereof An Abuse condemned by our Church of Eugland in her 25. Article saying Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon The Contrary Canon of the now Romane Masse But your Practice now is flat contrary in your Church by admitting people of all forts not as the Lords Guests to Eate of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper but as Gazers onely to looke on it as vpon a proper Sacrifice telling the People that they seeing the Priest eate and drinke Doe spiritually eate and drinke in the person of the Priest And the onely beholding of the Priests Sacrifice at the Elevation and Adoration thereof is esteemed amongst you at this day the most solemne and saving worship which any people can performe vnto God CHALLENGE BVt Christ you see instituted this Sacrament only for Eaters The Apostle exhorteth every man to Preparation Let a man examine himselfe and exhorting every one being prepared to Eate saith So let him eate This to vse your owne Confessions was practised in ancient times when as the people were thus generally invited Come Brethren unto the Communion When as ancient Fathers as you have also acknowledged suffered none but Communicants to be present at the celebration of the Eucharist As for them
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
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 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
he is here present not carrying the fire but the holy Ghost These and the like sayings of Chrysostome doe verifie the Censure of your Senensis upon him that he was most frequent in figurative Amplifications and Hyperbole's Another Obiection is commonly made out of Chrysostome of a double Elias one above and another below meaning by Elias below the sheepe-skin or mantle of Elias received by Helisaeus namely that Christ ascending into Heaven in his owne flesh left the same but as Elias did his Mantle being called the other Elias to wit figuratively so the Sacrament a token of Christ's flesh is called his flesh Which must needs be a true Answere unles you will have Chrysostome to have properly conceited as a double Elias so consequently a double Christ As for the next Testimonie it is no more than which every Christian must confesse namely that it is the same whole undivided Christ which is spiritually received of all Christians wheresoever and whensoever throughout the world the same we say Obiectively although not Subiectively as the Sixt Booke Chap. 6. and § 3. will demonstrate That your most plausible Obiection taken out of Augustine concerning Christ his Carrying himselfe in his owne hands is but Sophisticall SECT VIII AVgustine in expounding the 33. Psalme and falling vpon a Translation where the words 1. Sam. 21. are these by interpretation Hee carryed himselfe in his owne hands saith that these words could not be understood of David or yet of any other man literally for Quomodo fieri potest saith he How could that be c. And therefore expoundeth them as meant of Christ at what time he said of the Eucharist This is my Body This is the testimonie which not onely your Cardinall but all other your Disputers upon this subiect doe so ostentatively embrace and as it were hugge in their armes as a witnes which may alone stop the mouth of any Protestant which therefore above all other they dictate to their Novices and furnish them therewith as with Armour of proofe against all Opposites especially seeing the same testimony seemeth to be grounded upon Scripture Contrarily we complaine of the Romish Disputers against this their fastidious and perverse importunitie in urging a testimonie which they themselves could as easily have answered as obiected both in taking exception at the ground of that speech to shew that it is not Scripture at all and also by moderating the rigidity of that sentence even out of Augustine himselfe THE FIRST CHALLENGE Shewing that the Ground of that Speech was not Scripture PRotestants you know allow of no Authenticall Scripture of the old Testament which is not according to the Originall namely the Hebrew text and the Church of Rome alloweth of the Vulgar Latine Translation as of the only Authenticall But in neither of them are these words viz. Hee was carried in his owne hands but only that David now playing the Mad-man slipt or fell into the hands of others as your Abulensis truely observeth So easily might the Transcribers of the Septuagints erre in mistaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so impossible it is for you to ground the obiected sentence upon divine Scripture even in your owne iudgement THE SECOND CHALLENGE Shewing that the Romanists cannot stand to the QVOMODO of Augustine THis word Quomodo How implying it to be impossible for David or any other man to carry himselfe in his owne hands excepting Christ as you defend must argue either an absolute Impossibility or not if it intend an absolute Impossibility of any man to be carried in his owne hands in a literall sence then could not Christ as man be carried in his own hands and if it do not intimate an absolute Impossibility then might David or any other man by the power of God have carried himselfe in his owne hands So that whether thus or so you will make Augustine contradict himselfe if his words be taken in the Precisenesse and strictnesse of that which is a Literall sence THE THIRD CHALLENGE Shewing that Augustine in another word following to wit QVODAMMODO doth answere Saint Augustine himselfe to his owne formerly obiected word QVOMODO SAint Augustine after hee had said Quomodo How a word seeming to signifie an Impossibility left that it being taken absolutely might imply a direct carying of himselfe in his hands at his Supper hee qualifieth that his speech somewhat after saying Quodammodò c. that is After a certaine manner Christ caried himselfe in his owne hands Which is a modification and indeed a Correction of the excesse of his former sentence Our next labour must be to find out the meaning of his Quodammodo and what â—his manner of Christ's carying himselfe was in the iudgment of Saint Augustine THE FOVRTH CHALLENGE Shewing Saint Augustine to be an utter enemy to the Romish Cause in all their other conceited manners concerning Christ in this Sacrament AGainst your manner of interpreting the words of Christ HOC EST CORPVS MEVM properly you have heard Augustine often pleading for a Figurative sence Secondly against your manner of bringing in the Body of Christ by Transubstantiation hee hath acknowledged in this Sacrament after Consecration the Continuance of Bread Thirdly Against your Corporall Existence of Christ in many places at once in this Sacrament or else-where without dimension of Place or Space he hath already contradicted you in both holding them Impossible and also by arguing that therefore his flesh is not on earth because it is in Heaven Fourthly Your manner of properly Eating Christ's Body Corporally hee will renounce hereafter as an execrable Imagination Wherefore Augustine holding it Impossible for Christ's Body to have any Corporall Existence in this Sacrament it is Incredible he could haue resolvedly concluded of Christ's Corporall carrying of his Body properly in his owne hands THE FIFTH CHALLENGE Shewing that the QVODAMMODO of Saint Augustine is the same manner which the Protestants doe teach DOe you then seeke after the manner which Augustine beleeved what need you having learned it of Augustine himselfe by his Secundùm quendam modum where he saith this Sacrament after a sort is the Body of Christ what literally Nay but for so hee saith As Baptisme the Sacrament of Faith is called Faith And if you have not the leisure to looke for Augustines iudgement in his writings you might have found it in your owne Booke of Decrees set out by Gratian where Augustine is alleaged to say that This holy Bread is after its manner called the Body of Christ as the offering thereof by the hands of the Priest is called Christ's Passion Dare you say that the Priest's Oblation is properly and literally in strict sence the Passion of Christ or that Aug. meant any such a Manner You dare not yet if you should your Romish Glosse in that place would presently reprove you saying that by this comparison is meant that The Sacrament
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
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
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
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
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 discerned
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
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