vinum sueceret §. Dico secundò Rursus Quòd Christus recedat statim ut Species deglutiantur antequam alterentur ffist contra generale principium §. Tertio That the Body of Christ remaineth so long under the formes of Bread and Wine whersoever as the same formes remaine in the same plight as that the same formes of Bread and Wine might be preserved And this hee calleth a Generall Principle in your Romish profession Insomuch that the Body of Christ is moved wheresoever the formes of Bread are moved be it into the dirt or into the Dunghill Secondly that according to your e Potest corpus Christi per accidens moveri ab eo qui potest especies consecratas secundùm locum mutare Suarez Tom. 3. quaest 76. Disp 2. Art 7. And Ad motum specierum movetur Christus Bellar. lib 3. de Euch. c. 19. Si per negligentiam aliquid de sanguine stillaverit in terram c. Decret D. 2. Cap. Si per negligentiam Nunquid cadente Sacramento cadit corpus Christi Dic quod sit Glossa ibid And Bozius lib. 14. de signis Eccles cap. 7. telleth of a woman that hid it in a Dunghill See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Romish Decrees and publike Missals the same Body of Christ is vomited up by the Communicant yea and you have f A Nauseabundis expuituir Suarez quo supra Si quis stomacho evomit illas species corpus Christi evomit si species possint discernab alijs debent cum reverentia sumi cremari cineres juxta Altare recondi Gloss Decret quo supra Summa Angel Tit. Eucharistia n. 5. pag. 147. Cases about the vomiting of it whether upon weakenesse of g Si fiatâ— usea Sacerdâ—â— pâ—r mâ—scam â—ciden em si aliquid venenâ—sum â—â—â—deret in calicem vel quod provocaset vomitum tum c. Missal Rom. Decreto jussâ— PijV. Pont. edit in instruct ante Missâ—m pag. 35. In hac parte distinctionis ponitur poenitentia corpus Christi vomentibus Decret de Conseâ—rat quo supra Stomacke or of h Si quis per ebrictatem vel voracitatem Eucharistiam evomuerit 40. diebus poeniteat Decret ibid. Dicunt isti quod corpus Christi non intrat ventrem quod falsum est cum species intrant quamdiu enim species manenâ— Christus latet integer sub ijs sic potest evomi Drunkennesse Next that it is devoured of i A muribus comâ—ditur quia Denominâ—tiones qua tanâ—ùm indicant motum localem perterminum ejus propriè tribuuntur corpori Christi à quocunque fiant huju smodi est commestio Suarez Tom. 3. qâ—aest 76. Disp 54. pag 706. Mice and blowne away with Wind for we read of your Church-Cases also for these in your * Si hostia consecrata dispareaâ— vel casu aliquo vel vento vel à mure accepta ut nequeat reperiri altera consecretur Missal Rom. quo supra pag. 32. Missals Nor are you satisfied with these but as if you had some hoggish Appetite delighted with dirt you will have it knowne that as you have * See above in this Booke Chap. â— Sect 2. found the Body of Christ Hid for many yeeres in a Dunghill so will you * See Booke 5. Chap. 11. Sect. 1. hereafter prove it to be found in Mans Seege and Draught That the Romish fore-sayd Indignities are contrary to holy Scriptures and Iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT III. HOly Writ teacheth us that there is as great differerence betweene the Humiliation of Christ when hee was on Earth and his now Exaltation in glory in Heaven as there is betweene shame and Glory it being now * 1. Cor. 15. Philip. 2. 8. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Body of Glory Now for you to beleeve and professe the personall burning devouring regorging yea and the hiding of that glorious Body of Christ in a dunghill and the like are such execrable speeches as that wee stand astonished with horrour to heare them thinking that wee 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 Judgement therein from whose diuerse and copious Volumes neither do you allege nor we read any one word of mans spewing up or Mice eating or so much as the Wind blowing away the Body of Christ much lesse of the other basenesse spoken of But contrariwise l Origen in Matth. 15. 27. Id quod materiale est in ventrem abit in secessum suum eijcâ—tur Origen and * Cyril Hier. Catech. Mystag 5. pag. 542. Panis hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Hom. de Euch. in Lucam Num vides panem num vides vinum sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt absit sic ne cogites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 abominable âšœ Suffer us to aske you a question When in the dayes of old as you * See above Booke â— Chap 2. §. 10. in the Challenge know the Remainders of the Sacrament were committed to the fire tell us what that was which was burned was it onely Bread and Wine or yet the Accidents of them only This you cannot say whose Vniversall Doctrine is that so long as the Formes of Bread and Wine are uncorrupt the Body and Blood of Christ are Existent under them Or eâ—se was it the Body and Blood of Christ which was cast into the fire who will not abhorre to conceive such an Abomination to have beene willingly committed by Sacred and Primitive Antiquity and Consequently you ought to execrate all beliefe of a Corporall Existence of Christs Body in the Sacrament within the â—â—â—â—â—dents thereof âšœ That the Romish Answeres for defence of this their vile and beastly Opinion are but false and fond SECT IV. IT was sayd 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 sayd of our Romish Opposites whereof wee haue 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 Visards on their faces come in with two fanaticall m Card. Bellar. and Master Brereley in places above-cited Answers Both which are taken from the condition of Christ his humane Body whilest he was in the World n Noâ—nulli vix ferre possunt ChristuÌ„ quoquo modo
includi in paâ—vâ pixide cadere in terram coÌ„mburi rodi à bestâ—a Annon credunt Christum parvulum inclusum in angustissimo utero eundem potuisse in via caâ— ere humi jacuisse remoto miraculo à bestia morderi combuâ—i potuisse si ita pati potuit in propria specie cur miâ—um videtur si illa sine laesione in specie aliena eidem accidere posse dicamus Bellar. l. 3 de Euc. cap. 10. §. Deniquè Many saith your Cardinall can scarce endure to heare that Christ is included in a Boxe fallen to the earth burnt or eaten of Beasts as though wee doe not read that Christ was included in the Wombe of the Virgin lay upon the Earth and might without any Miracle have beene eaten of Beasts why may not such things now happen unto him but sine laesione without any hurt at all So hee Joyne with this the Determination of your o Aquinas Etiamsi caâ—is hostiam consecratam manducet substantia corporis Christi non definit esse sub speciebus part 3. quaest 80. art 3. Schoole That the Substance of Christ his Body remaineth still although the Hoast be eaten with Dogs But Master Brerely more cunningly that hee might not only disguise your opinions but also make Protestants odious if it might be for their exceptions against them doth readily tell us that Pagans Iewes and Heretikes conceived Indignities against some mysteries of Christian Religion as against Christ his Incarnation and his Crucifying So he Both which Answers are but meere tergiversations by confounding the two most different conditions of Christ That then in the state of his humiliation with This which is Now in the highest exaltation of Glory Wee therefore rejoyne as followeth Your Disputers have so answered as if Christ his Incarnation in the Wombe of a Virgin his Conversation upon earth and his Passion upon the Crosse were not objects of Indignity notwithstanding the Spirit of God hath blazed them to the world to have beene the Indignities of all Indignities Thus * Philip. 2. 6. Who being in the forme of God and thinking it no robbery to be equall wiâ—h God yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made himselfe of no reputation but tooke upon him the forme of a servant such was his Incarnation and became obedient to death even spoken for aggravating the Indignity thereof The shamefull death of the Crosse Than which never any thing could make more either for the magnifying of Gods grace and mercy or for the dignifying of Christ his merit for man as it is written * Ioh. 3. 16. God so loved the World that he sent his Sonne namely to suffer that whosoever should believe in him should not perish but have life everlasting How could your Aâ—swerers but know that it was not the observation of the Indignities which Christ suffered that wrought to the condemnation of Pagans Iewes and Heretikes but their faithlessenesse in taking such scandall thereat as to deprive themselves by their Infidelity of all hope of life by Christ crucified Hearken furthermore That the state of Christ his Humanity cannot be now obnoxious to bodily Indignities and that the Comparing both the Estates in your answering is unworthy the learning of very Catechumenists and Petties in Christian Religion SECT V. THis Disproportion betweene Christ his estate in the dayes of his flesh in this World and his now present Condition at the right hand of God is as extreamely disproportionable as is * 1. Cor. 15. Mortality and Immortality Shame and Glory Misery and Blessednesse Earth and Heaven that being his state of Humaliation and this Contrariwise of his Exaltation as all Christians know and professe And although the Body of Christ now in eternall Majesty be not obnoxious to Corporall injuries yet may Morall and Spirituall abasements be offered unto Christ as well in the Opinion as in the Practise of men Of the Opinion we have an Example in the Capernaites concerning Christ whensoever hee should give his Flesh to be eaten carnally for the Practice you may 〈◊〉 before you the Corinthians who abusing the Sacrament of the Lord did thereby contemne him and were made guilty of high Prophanation against the glorious Body of Christ And what else soundeth that Relative injury against Christ by murthering his Saints on earth complained off by his voice from Heaven * Act. 9. 4. Saul Saul why persecutest thou mee Your Cardinall in answer to the Objection of Indignity offered to Christ by putting him in a Boxe and of being Eaten with Wormes and the like opposed as you have heard saying Why may not such things now happen unto him but sine laesione that is without any hurt Wee answer that if he should suffer nothing in his humanity passively to the Laesio corporis that is hurt of the Body yet should there be thereby in the opinion of men Laesio dignitatis that is a lessening and obscuring of that his Dignity which is set forth in Scripture and which our Article of faith concerning his Bodily sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven teacheth us to be in all Celestiall glory and Majesty This your Aquinas well saw when in regard of Indignity hee judged it a Nesas nunc esset Christum in propriâ specie in pixiâ—le includi putare A. quin. part 3. quaest 76. art 8. An hainous wickednes for any to thinke Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe appearing in his proper forme And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another forme more than when that one and the same Person is knowne to be imprisoned whether open-faced or covered whether in the day or in the night it mattereth not much for still the same person is shut up in prison Againe if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity why do your Jesuites in a point of Opinion deny that Christs Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant because of the * See hereafter Booke 5. Chap. 7. §. â— Indignity against his Majesty Come wee to the point of Practice Let this be our Lesson when there is Reverence in the use of a thing then there may be Irreverence and Indignity in the abuse thereof But your Church hath provided that the Priests Beards be shaven and that the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence The first lest some part of the Hoast which you beleeve to be the Body of Christ should hang on the Priest's Beard the second lest any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be spilt But how much more Indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice Wormes and sometimes as your owne * See above in this Book C. 2. Sect. 2. stories have related kept close in a Dunghill One word more If these seeme not sufficiently indigne because there is not Laesio corporis Hurt to the Body this being your onely Evasion what will you say of
thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 âšœ Bellarmine in great numbers among whom are Luther and Calvin with joynt consent approve of this Canon one of them Bucer by name subscribing unto it with his owne hand in these words So I thinke in the Lord and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall seat of God So they The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines âšœ Where any man may discerne an Allusion of the Fathers to the words of Saint Paul Colos 3. Seeke those things that are above and not on Earth and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referreth to things on Earth and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the things above in Heaven and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spoke of the Table opposite to that Table whereof it was sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as much as There to Here. âšœ The state of the Difference concerning this Canon SECT III. THis as is propounded by your Cardinall standeth thus d Per Agnum omnes intelligunt Christum ut distinguitut contra symbo la Bellar. quo supra Illi Protestantes quasi admoneaÌ„t nè quaerendum Christum in Altarâ— lapideo Sed monte conscendamus ad coelum in coelo sisum Agnum At vult Concilium ut ad sacram ipsam mensam attendamus sed in ipsa non tam Symbola quà m quae sub illis latent consideremus Ibidem per totum All saith hee by the Lambe understand Christ as hee is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar Next But the Protestants thinke saith hee that the Councel admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith as sitting at the Right hand of God But wee all say saith hee that the Councel would have us to attend unto the holy Table meaning the Altar below yet so that wee see in it not so much the outward Symbols and Signes as that which lyeth hid under them viz. The Body and Blood of Christ So hee The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder that is between Heaven above and Earth below Let us set forward in our progresse but with easie and even paces to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes and rottennesse of your Objections That the Nicene Councell is marveilously prejudiciall to your Romish Defence proved by divers Observations Three heere SECT IV. FIve Points are chiefly observable in this Canon First is the nomination of Bread Secondly the mention of two Tables Thirdly the admonition to lift up our minds Fourthly the expression of the Reason thereof Fiftly the Confirmation of the same Reason First That which the Councel would that men be not too intent unto they call Bread after Consecration for the Errour which they would have avoyded was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament according to your Cardinals e Iubet Concilium ut non inhaereamus speciebus panis vini quasi ibi nihil sit nisi quod oculi renuntiant Bellarm quo supra Glosse and then was it after Consecration because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated w ch you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing or else the Errour must have been as indeed it was too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread which must needs be so because it was Consecrated and notwithstanding it being so Consecrated in the Canon it is called Bread Which your Fathers of the Councel of Trent would not have indured especially seeing that wee find that your f Nic. Cabasâ—las Latini dicunt eos qui panem vinum nominant tanquam nondum sanctificatis precantur sanctificationem post illa verba Hoc est Corpus meum rem supervacuam facere Expos Liturg. c. 29. Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes of Bread and Wine after the pronunciation of these words This is my Body by you called the words of Consecration Besides they so call them Bread and Wine as they name them Symbols and Signes which properly they could not be untill after Consecration Secondly the g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Nicen Canon expresly noteth and distinguisheth two Tables in respect of place the one as Here being as much as to say The Table and the other opposed hereunto is instiled That Table I say And now be it knowne that The Table here which is not to be represented by the Antithesis of But that Table must necessarily inferre two distinct Tables as Here and There doe prove two distinct Places except one can make congruitie of these words That Table Here. Which I note in Confutation of a vaine and crotchetive Objector And of this Table Here the Councel forbiddeth Christians to looke Too attentively to the thing set before us But contrarily concerning That other Table they command men to Lift up their minds aloft And not thus only but they also distinguish them in respect of their different Objects The Object of the First Table Here they name Bread and the Cup the Objects of Sense And the other Object opposed to this is that on the other Table expressed to be the Lambe God the Object of our mindes Thirdly the Admonition or Caution which the Councel giveth concerning the Bread is not to be too intent to it but touching the Lambe Christ they command us to lift up our mindes aloft for so the world h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie not to be used wee thinke for an inward looking into the sublimiy of the mystery of the matter before us as your Cardinall fancieth but for looking up aloft unto the Lambe of God in Heaven according to the Catholike Sense of those words * See hereafter Book 7. Chap. 4. §. 2. SVRSVM CGRDA The next two Proofes out of the same Canon of Nice to manifest our Protestant profession touching the Question in hand SECT V. OVr next two Proofes out of the Canon are these First is their Reason of the former Caution The Second the Confirmation of that Reason Both are expresly set downe in the Canon it selfe Why then did those holy Fathers admonish us not to be too intent to the Bread and Wine set before us It followeth Because they are not ordained to satisfie our Naturall man namely by a full Eating and Drinking but for a Sacramentall participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to the sanctifying of our Soules whereas your Church doth attribute to that which you eat in this Sacrament a power of sanctifying the Body by it's Bodily touch But much more will the next Proofe undermine your Defence To confirme their Reason why the Sacrament was not ordayned for the satisfying of the
Benedicts in their names Can there be then any Analogie betweene your High Romane Priest and Christ the Prototype to Melchisedech in so manifold Repugnancies yet notwithstanding every one of you must be forsooth a Priest after the order of Melchisedech Nay but not to multiply many words the Novelty of your Pretence doth bewray it selfe from k Lambard de Ordinat Presb. Accipiunt etiam calicem cum vino patinam cum Hostijs ut sciant se accepisse potestatem placabiles Deo hostias offerendi Hic ordo à filijs Aaron sumpsit initium c. Lib. 4. Distinct 24. 〈◊〉 I. Peter Lombard Master of the Romish Schoole who Anno 1145. taught how truly looke you to that that every Priest at his Ordination in taking the Chalice with Wine and Platter with the Hoast should understand that his power of Sacrificing was from the order of Aaron Nor may you thinke that this was his private opinion for Hee saith your l Pet. Lombardus collegit sententias Theologoorum Magister Theologotum scholasticorum dici meruit Lib. de Script Eccles Tit. Petrus Lombardus Cardinall of him collected the Sentences of Divines and deserved to be called the Master of Schoolemen Thus farre of the Person of Christ as Priest in the next place wee are to enquire into his Priestly Function Of the Function of Christ his Priesthood now after his Ascension into Heaven and your Cardinall his Doctrine Sacrilegiously detracting from it SECT VII BY the Doctrine of your Cardinall in the name of your Church a Bellar. Crucis Sacrificium non est perpetuum sed effectum ejus nec dicitur aeternuÌ„ quod non jugiter sacrificatur non in caelis jam Sacerdos per solam orationeÌ„ nec mediante oblatione Victimae quià tun necesse est eum semper offerre Ergo Eucharistia Sacrificium quod jugiter offertur Oblatio in coelis non est propriè dictum Sacrificium Ergò non est verè ac propriè Sacerdos cùm verum ac proprium Sacrificium offerre non potest Lib. 1. de Missa c. 6 sparsim And Christus non sacrificat nunc per se visibiliter nisi in Eucharistia Bell. ibid c. 25. § Quod autem And Sacrificium câ—â—cis respectu Christianorum â—b c. 20. And Per Ministros suos perpetuò sacrificat seipsum in Eucharistia hoc enim solummodo perpetuum habet Sacerdotium Bellar. ibid. cap. eod ad finem The old Priesthood of Aaron was translated into the Priesthood of Christ Every Priest saith the Apostle must have something to offer else hee were no Priest Thus his Priesthood is called Eternall and must have a perpetuall offering which was not that upon the Crosse Nor can that suffice which the Protestants say That his Priesthood is perpetuall because of the perpetuall virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse or bicause of his perpetuall Act of Intercession as Priest in Heaven or of presenting his passion to his Father in Heaven whither his Priesthood was translated No but it is certaine that Christ cannot now properly sacrifice by himselfe Hee doth it by his Ministers in the Eucharist Because the Sacrifice of the Crosse in respect of Christians is now invisible and seene onely by Faith which although it be a more true Sacrifice yet it is not as our Adversaries say the only Sacrifice of Christian Religion nor sufficient for the Conservation thereof And againe His sacrificing of himselfe in the Sacrament by his Ministers is that by which onely hee is said to have a perpetuall Priesthood Accordingly your Cardinall b Alan Christus in 〈◊〉 coelo 〈◊〉 aliquid Sacerdotalâ— facit nisi respectu nostri Sacramenti quod ipse per nostruÌ„ ministerium efficit continuò offert Lib. 2. â— Euchar. ca. 8 §. Reliqua Alan Christ saith hee performeth no Priestly Function in Heaven but with relation to our Ministery here on earth whereby hee offereth So they for the dignifying of their Romish Masse as did also c Rhemists Christ his Priesthood consisteth in the perpetuall offring of Christ his Body and Blood in the Church Annot. in Heb. 7. 17. your Rhemists but with what Ecclipse of Iudgement and good Conscience is now to be declared If wee take the Sacrifice of Christ for the proper Act of Sacrificing which is destructive so was Christ his Sacrifice but One and Once Heb. 7. and 8. But understanding it as the subject matter of the same Sacrifice once so offered to God upon the Crosse and after his Ascension entred into Heaven and so is it a perpetuall Sacrifice presentative before God For as the High-Priest of the Law after the Sacrifice was killed entred into the Holy place once a yeare but not without Blood Heb. 9. 7. so Christ having purchased an eternall redemption by his Death upon the Crosse went into the Holy place of Heaven with the same his owne Blood Vers 12. To what end Alwayes living to make supplication for us Chapt. 7. Vers 3. and 25. Hence followeth the continuall use which the soules of the faithfull have of his immediate Function in Heaven Having a perpetuall Priesthood hee is able continually to save them that come to God by him Vers 24 25. Whence issueth our boldnesse and all-confidence alwayes to addresse our prayers to him or by him unto God Wee having an High-Priest over the house of God let us draw nere with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts sprinckled from an evill Conscience Chap. 10. 22. The evidence of these Scriptures hath drawne from your Iesuite Ribera even then when hee professeth himselfe an earnest defender of your Romane Masse these Acknowledgements following d Ribera Ies in his Comment upon the places alleged Chap. 7. 23. Chap. 8. 2. 3. Chap. 9. 23. His Book is familitar with you where you may peruse the places viz. upon the Chap. 7. 23. That Christ is a true Priest and all other do partake of his Priesthood in offering Sacrifice only in remembrance of his Sacrifice And that hee did not performe the office of Priesthood onely upon earth but even now also in heaven which Function hee now dischargeth by the virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse Hee proceedeth No man saith hee will deny this Position namely that Christ now ever exerciseth the office of a Priest by presenting himselfe for us So hee Another Theologicall Professour of Bellarmines owne Society in the place where hee noteth Bellarmine to walke in his owne opinion alone procedeth further 8 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom Disp 225. c. 2. Nullus quic em ex Doctoribus quos recentiores Theologi pro hac sententia allegarunt praeter nostrum Bellarminum qui expressè asserit Christum esse principalem offerentem in hoc Sacramento Dicunt Patres Cyprian Ambros alij Nos Sacrificia offerre vice Christi Signifitant nos esse Christi Ministros in hoc Sacrificio non quod Christus hoc Sacramentum offerat
from receiving in both kinds pag. 71. That the ancient Romane Church had their Communion in both kinds p. 68. The now Romish doe alter the forme of Christs words of Institution called by them the words of Consecration pag. 138. Romish Objections of the Sayings of the Fathers for proofe of Orall-Eating even against the Confessions of the same Doctors pag. 342. 343. c. Romish Church See Innovation S SACRAMENT is to be instituted onely by God pag. 189. Confessed Ibid. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is no Sacrament but in the Sacramentall use of Eating it Sacramentally and that it was delivered to boyes to be eaten onely as Holy Bread and not as a Sacrament p. 48. 49. c. SACRIFICE The Question discussed pag. 389. No word of Christs Institution that can imply a Sacrifice pag. 390. No act of proper Sacrifice pretended in the Romish that can be evinced out of the Institution of Christ No not by their owne Customes pag. 398. Not that in Act. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 400. Not that of 1. Cor. 10. 18. Are Partakers of the Altar pag. 401. Nor out of the old Testament concerning Melchisedech The Fathers speaking often of the Sacrifice of Christians in Bread and Wine pag. 407. 408. But improperly as is confessed pag 438. The Bread and Wine cannot be the Sacrament of the New Testament by the generall confessions of the Romish Doctors Ibid. Proofe of a No-Transubstantiation disproveth the Romish Sacrifice in the Masse p. 439. A Distinction that the word Sacrifice of Christs Body is taken of the Fathers Objectively and not Subjectively The necessity and verity of this Distinction p. 404. A Sacrifice onely Representative pag. 441. How the Sacrifice may be called the same which Christ offered pag. 443. Epithets of the Fathers added to the word Sacrifice unconscionably by Romish Disputers p. 448. and in the Vindication following How it is called of the Fathers a Bloody Sacrifice pag. 455. 456. c. The word Sacrifice attributed by the Fathers to many acts which are confessed not to be proper Sacrifices p. 459. Nothing properly sacrificed in the Romish Masse pag. 467. Sacrificing Acts there be three Visible Sacred and Destructive All wanting in the Romish Masse Ibid. The Sacrifice professed by Protestants The Spirituall more excellent than any Corporall except Christs on the Crosse p. 470. Proved out of the Fathers p. 471. Their different kinds p. 472. They offer the same Sacrifice of the Crosse Objectively p. 473. See Commemorative and Propitiatorie See Priesthood and Melchisedech See Stage-play See Vnbloody and Representative SACRILEGIOVSNESSE of the Romish Masse shewen in a full Synopsis p. 558. 559. Instances thereof p. 562. and of Prayers Ibid. SAXONS Faith in the dayes of King Edgar is contrary to the now Romish in the point of Transubstantiation p. 158. A Vindication thereof against a late Romish Calumniator Ibid. SENSE Iudgement of sense is able to prove that Bread is not Transubstantiated p. 467. Resurrection of Christs Body proved thereby Ibid. By the Act of Thomas pag. 478. Argument of Sense is justified by Ancient Fathers pag. 479. That not to beleeve Sense in sensible Objects is as faithlesse as senselesse pag. 173. See Touch and Smell SHED in Christs speech of Institution is taken Figuratively pag. 110. The word is objected in the Present tense for proofe of a Sacrifice and yet confessed by themselves to be token the Future pag. 392. 393. c. See Blood SICK prayed for in the Church was anciently used for the sicke in particular as for Gorgonia pag. 517. SIGNIFICATIVELY A terme used for the Romish Defence of the Priests Operative Consecrating of the Bread to turne it into the Body of Christ altogether in vaine which the Iesuites with all their wits have not beene able to make good p. 138. 139. c. SIMILITVDES used of the Iesuites for shewing that the words of Christ are spoken Significatively and Operatively by the Priest for Conversion of Bread into Christs Body by saying This is my Body are all lame As their Similitude of saying This is a Circle is the making thereof and the like is confessed to be fond and extravagant pag. 94. Their Similitude of a Stage-play to illustrate Christs Representing of himselfe in the Eucharist urged by the Romish shewen to be most Absurd pag. 118. Their Similitude of Voice and Colour objected for proofe of the Being of a Body in divers places at once most fondly pag. 258. 274. Their Similitude of Mans soule and of God to prove the Presence of Christs Body in divers places at once is silly and senselesse Ibid. Their Similitude of Christs being called Feast and Guest Viand and Pledge of Ancient Fathers fondly and falsely objected by the Romish Doctors for proofe of a Corporall Presence in the Eucharist pag. 366. and that it plainely confuteth it pag. 367. Their Similitude of a Stage-play againe not rightly applyed to shew that the same may be called a Blood and Vnbloody Sacrifice pag. 457. Their Similitude of Iacobs taking to him Leah instead of Rachael for Defence of the Romish Idolatry pag. 533. 545 SLANDER against the Christian Church in Primitive times as if they had eaten an Infant in the Celebration of the Eucharist falsely objected by Romanists pag. 334. SMELL miraculous of Ioane Martlesse in discerning one Consecrated Hoast amongst a thousand Vnconsecrated pag. 173. SOCRATES Miracles have beene wrought by the Eucharist pag. 223. c. SOLOE COPHANES is no Errour in Scripture p. 393. c. SOVLE of man objected as being in many parts of the Body for proofe of the possibilitie of a Bodily presence in divers places at once pag. 261. c. Soules of Saints departed have not their Apparitions in divers places at once Ibid. The soule of Christ could not be in Heaven and Hell both at once saith S Augustine Ibid. SPIRITVALL Sacrifices of six kinds mentioned by the Fathers pag. 471. STAGE-PLAY The Romish Maner of Christs Body on the Crosse by the same Body in the Eucharist after a Maner of a Stage-play displayed to be most false and contradictory to it selfe pag. 445. c. See Similitude STATIONS Anciently what they were pag. 515. in the Margin SVESTANCE is falsely interpreted Accidents pag. 181. SVPERSTITIOVSNESSE of the Romish Masse seene in a full Synopsis pag. 557. SVPPER of the Lord so commonly called by Antiquity pag. 45. 46. c. SVRSVM CORDA used of the Fathers to signifie the not-intending the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist pag. 525. Cyril of Ierusalem To have our hearts in Heaven S. Augustine Not to Earth but Heaven where the heart cannot putrifie The same is confessed concerning the Custome of the Primitive Church that it was a Prostrating of the Body and a lifting up of the mind to Heaven Ibid. Which should not need if they had beleeved they had had Christ on Earth Hieron Let us ascend up with Christ into the great Chamber Ibid. SVVALLOVVING of the
Who so desireth more let him cast his eye upon the 10 Mr. Mâ—iric Casuubon Praehend Cantuar. Transcript Notarum Marginal M. S. Patris sui Isaaci in Bellar. now extant in the Kings Ma. Dibrary at S. Iames. Ab Bellar. Edit Paris 1608. pag. 111. C. D. Adversus implissimam hujus Capitis doctrinam memineris-veterem Ecclesiam â—â— Romana è diametro est hîc opposita nihil studiosiùs fecisse quà m ut in vernaculas linguas verterentur Biblia Gotthieae versionis menuo apud Sozom. p. 90. Dalmaticae Hier To 4. p. 79. Armenae Pachym in vita Chrysost De illa Armena lingua satis constat eam fuisse usurpatam in Ecclesia Vide locum Bellar. Tom. 6. p. 613. Scripturam sacram statim initio versam esse in omnes linguas testatur Euseb Demonst p. 88. De Liturgia in vernacula lingua in Mesopot locus Basil 277. Syr. AEgypt Indica Persica AEthiopiâ—â— Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ioh. Earudem Scythicae Sauromaticae Theodor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 81. ubi nota verba 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem clamat verbis penè eisdem Aug. lib. 2. deâ—dect Christ cap. 5. Adde in Iure oriental Bonifid p. 243. tractatur haec quaestio pronunciatur oporteâ—o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 linquaÌ„ Arab. inter Saâ—arenos Vide Iuris orient Leuncla p. 365. Vellem doctiss Bellar statum Quaestiones rectè concepisset initio hujus Cap. non enim quaeritur An lingua latina fuerit olim sub Imp. Rom in usuâ—â— sacris sed illud quaeritus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrae administrari populo proponi debeant eâ linguâ quâ—â—vel sit populo vernacula vel certò à populo intelligatur Probate possumus veteris Eccles opinionem fuisse 〈◊〉 populum intelligero mysteria Christianae religionis omnia impedimenta esse amovenda quâ de re exstat locus in Constit Iustini p. 1365 insignis p. 366 ex Paulo id ipsum probat Imperator Loquitur autem ibide sacra Eâ—â—aristia Baptismo Eodem referri potest quod Const 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 372. conceditur Iudaeis ut sacram Scrip 〈◊〉 Graecam 〈◊〉 guam vertant quamcunque aliam voluerint habuerint sibi notam aut etiam 〈…〉 Vult enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Refer eodem locum aureum Chrysost 〈…〉 falsco Scripture obscuritatem legi non deberi quia scripta non Rom hon Heb. linguâ oliâ Casu Clem 〈…〉 same words of the Apostle Hee is a Barbarian aeprooveth 〈◊〉 philoso 〈◊〉 lib 〈◊〉 Marginals where hee may see the Transcript of a Patrizing Son of a most admirable Treasure of learning M r. Isaac Casaubon relating his Notes out of Antiquity to prove the generall Consent of Fathers both for the Translating of Scriptures into the Mother-tongues of most Nations as also the Liturgie or Church-service universally used in the vulgar languages of severall Countries âšœ And lest that this might not suffice wee have added the * See above in the beginning of the 6. Sect. letter 〈…〉 Edict of the Emperour Iustinian commanding a lowd voice in the Minister that the people may understand his words Next a Canon of a Councell requiring a * 〈…〉 Concordance both of voice and understanding 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 understanding Then a Decree of one Pope in his Councell that provision be made where people of divers Languages dwell in the same cities that their * Ibid at of the letter 〈◊〉 Servioe may be done according to their Different tongues After the Resolution of another Pope to grant unto the * Ibid. Sclavonians at their conversion to the Faith that Divine Service might be used in their owne tongue moved thereunto as by a voice from heaven sounding out that Scripture Let every tongue praise the Lord. And lastly a * Ibid Prohibition in the Primitive Church that None should speake in languages unknowne to the people âšœ And lest you may hereafter according to your maner scorne our zeale in requiring the joynt prayers and thankesgivings publikely in the Church by the voice of Men Women and Children know yee that 11 Basil Hixam Hom. 4. Immediately before the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Quomodo non songe pulchliis est cùm in Ecclesia par 〈◊〉 sonitus qua 〈◊〉 jusdam littus percellentis undae virorum mulierum infantium ex orationibers ad Deum nostium refusat And in Reg. Contract Qu. 278. Linguâ ignorâ nihil utilitatis redit ad precantem Saint Basil delivering the judgement of Gods Church in his time held this an order decent and beautifull censuring an Vnknowne prayer to be unprofitable to them that pray âšœ When you have digested all these Premises concerning the Equity and Necessitie of knowne Prayers in the publike and Divine Service both in consideration of Gods worship and Mans manifold profit so amply confirmed by so many and uncontrolable 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 d Quod autem omnia vernaculè siunt in Ecclesia planè profanum est Stapleton spec pravit Hae ret p. 580. Profanenesse and to number it among Hereticall pravities As for your owne People who preferre an unknowne 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 accompany Popinjayes and Iack-dawes accordingly as S. * See above Sect. 7. in the Challenge 3. Augustine formerly hath resembled them âšœ A SEAVENTH CHALLENGE For Vindication against Francis de Sancta Clara a late Reconciler of our English Articles with the Doctrine of the Romish Church A Romish professor at Doway published a Treatise this very yeare of our Lord 1634. VVhich hee calleth a Paraphrasticall Exposition of the Articles of the Church of England whose ayme is not to draw the Romish professors to the English but the English to the Romish and by his seeming Reconciliation to put upon our Church as wee use to say the Gull albeit his whole Paraphrase be indeed nothing but a Farrago of his selfe-fictions and Opinations whereof his Paraphrasis or Exposition upon this Article will give you a shrewd guesse if you shall have the patience to examine such stuffe Our English Article 12 Franciscus de S. Clara Professor Disac Exposit Artic. Confess Angl. Art 24 Linguâ populo non intellectâ preces peragere Sacramenta administrare verbo Dei primitivae Ecclesiae consuetudini planè repugnat saith that To pray or administer the Sacrament in an unknowne tongue is plainely repugnant to the Word of God and the Custome of the Primitive Church
used by that Father betweene The Flesh of Christ crucified and therfore Borne of the Virgin and the Sacrament of Christs Body whereof Christ sayd This is my Body CHAP. V. The second Romish Contradiction to the overthrowing of that which Christ called MY BODIE by making one Body of Christ not One but Many SECT I. YOur Profession standeth thus g Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. The Body of Christ albeit now in Heaven yet is say you substantially in many places here on earth even whersoever the Hoast is Consecrated So you Next your Master h Mr. Brerely in his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse pag. 150. Because Calvin Institut 4. cap. 17. §. 10. saith Etsi incredibile videtur ut in tanta locorum distantia penetrare ad nos possit Christi caro ut sit nobis in cibum c. Brerely laboureth earnestly to draw Calvin to professe a Possibility of Christ's Bodily Presence in divers places at once contrary to M. Calvins plaine and expresse profession in the same Chapter where he directly confuteth this Romish Doctrine of Madnesse saying thus i The same Calvin in the same Chap 17. §. 24. Cur inquiunt non faciat Deus ut caro eadem diversa loca occupet ut nullo loco contineatur ut modo specie careat Insane quid à Deo postulas ut carnem simul faciat esse non carnem perinde ac si instes ut lucem simul lucem faciat ac tenebras Ibid. §. 26. Corpus Christi ex quo resurrexit non Aristoteles sed Spiritus Sanctus finitum esse tradit coelo contineri usque ad ultimum diem Et. §. 30. Cujus ergô amentiae est coelum terrae potius miscere quà m non extrahere Christi corpus è coelesti Sanctuario To seeke that Christ his Body should be in many places at once is no lesse madnesse than to require that God should make his Body to be flesh and not to be flesh at one time whereas not Aristotle but the Spirit of God saith he hath taught us that this his Body is to bee contained in Heaven untill the last day Afterwards Calvin inveigheth against the folly of your Church which will not acknowledge any presence of Christ in this Sacrament except it bee locall on earth As if saith hee shee would pull Christ out of his Sanctuary of Heaven And at last after that he had said k As for the objected sentence he explicateth himself §. 32. Christus illis presens non est nisi ad nos descendat quâ—si verò si nos ad se evehat non aequè ejus potiamur praesentiâ E◠§. 36. Vt Christum illie ritè apprehendant piae animae in coelum erigantur necelle est As untruly also doth hee allege Bucer Beza and Farel pag. 237. who had the same sense with Carvin Mr. Foxe sayd that Christ if hee list might be on earth but he sayd not so of and in the same time Christ his Body is united to the Soule of the Communicant hee so explaineth himselfe that hee meant a spirituall Vnion so that it doth fully appeare that Master Brerely in this point as usually in many others allegeth Calvins testimony against Calvins sense and his owne conscience It is irkesome to see the fury wherewith your Disputers are carried against Protestants amongst whom wee see againe your Master l See in the former Allegâ—ition Brerely imposing upon Beza the same opinion of the Presence of Christ's Body in Heaven and on Earth at one time Although notwithstanding m Fiâ—ri posse ut Christi corpus possit esse in pluâ—ibus locis simul praetâ—r hunc Apostatum nemo inficiatus est quod cum credere nâ—luit tollit ab omnipotenti virtute Salmer Ies tom 9. tract 23. p. 173. your Iesuite Salmeron as bitterly taxeth Beza for contrarily holding it Impossible for one Body to be in two places at once whom therefore he calleth an Apostata and whom n Beza cum Adversarijs congressus ubi Calvini mysteria non posset defendere in eam prorupit Blasphemiam ut Deum neget omnipotentem disertè enim scribit Deum non posse officere ut Corpus aliquod manente substantiâ sit absque loco vel in pluribus locis simul Illud enim Angeli axioma apud Deum nihil est impossibile non sine exâ— pâ—ione accipiendum esse quod factum fieri nequit infectum O argutos Philosophos qui Dei Majestatem ad suas Physicas regulas non erubâ—scunt revocare Frateol Elench Haeres lib. 2. Tit. Bezanitae another termeth for the same cause Blasphemous as if this were indeed to deny the Omnipotencie of God Whereas according to our former Proposition it is rather to defend it because God is the God of Truth which is but one and truth is without that Contradiction which is necessarily implyed in your Doctrine of the Locall presence of any one Body in many places at once as in the next place is to be evinced That the same Second Romish Contradiction holding the Presence of one Body in many places at once is proved by the nature of Being in distinct places at one time to be a making One not One. SECT II. IN the first place hearken to your Aquinas the chiefest Doctor that ever possessed the Romish Schoole o Catholici isti cum Thoma in quartum distinct 14. art 2. hanc rationem cut non possit corpus Christi localiter esse c. Quod si verò non postic corpus Christi localiter esse in diversis locis quâ—à divideretur à seipso profectò nec possit Sacramentaliter esse eadem ratione qui licet dicat hoc non esse per loci occupationem tamen dicit per realem veram praesentiam in plariribus Hostijs sive Altaribus quae realis praesentia in tot Altaribus non locâ— intermedijs non minùs tollere videretur indivisionem rei Bel. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. pag. 491. Quidam Catholici atque in eis Sanctus Thomas existimant non posse unum corpus esse simul in diversis locis localiter quià â—mquiunt unum est illâ—d quod indivisum 〈◊〉 quocunque alio Bellar. quò suprà it is not possible by any Miracle that the Body of Christ be locally in many places at once because it includeth a Contradictio by making it not one for one is that which is not divided from it selfe So hee together with others whom you call Catholikes who conclude it Impossible for the Body of Christ to be locally in divers places at once âšœ Besides that his other Sentence wherein hee holdeth this 2 Aquin. in Supplem in 3. part qu. 83. Art 3. ad 4. Dicendum quod corpus Christi localiter in diversis locis non potest fieri der miraculum quia esse in pluribus locis simul repugnat individuo ratione ejus quod est Enâ— individuum in
at once as â—n heaven Locall according to the dimensions of Place and as on the Altar not Locall according to the dimensions of Place Therfore is your Romish Doctrine Contradictorie to it selfe Yet shall wee be content that you may call this a Sophisticall Argument except the Ancient Fathers shall establish the same Conclusion For this present take unto you a Reason as wee think Impregnable Nothing can possibly be Extrà se without it selfe but for a Body being heere to be at the same time separated from Heere by a Space where it is not as on this Altar and on the other Altar and yet not to be in the Space betweene is to be without it selfe and Consequently divideth it selfe from it selfe which no man will affirme that is not beside himselfe The same Second Romish Contradiction manifested in Scripture by an Argument Angelicall SECT III. M Atth. 28. 6. The Angell speaking to the woman that sought Christ in the grave said Hee is not heere for he is risen and gone into Galilee which is as much as to have said hee could not be in Both places at once an Argument Angelicall But you Answer that it was spoken Morally How wee beseech you as if one should say saith your r Loquitur ad mentem sanctarum illarum mulierum Sed optima est solutio moraliter intel ligi ut si quis dicat talis homo non sedet ad mensam coenatus est enim Bellar. li. 3. de Eu h. c. 4. Cardinall Such a man sitteth not at table for he hath supped What fond trifling is this and wilfull perverting the Truth of God for this your Argument A man sitteth not at table for hee hath supped is scarce a probable Consequence that a man is risen from the table as soone as hee hath supped Contrarily the Angel's Logike is not by a Peradventure but necessary not imaginary but historicall not conjecturall but dogmaticall and Demonstrative âšœ And so Saint 5 Chrysost Venite inspicite ubi positus erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the words of the Evangelist âšœ Chrysostome doth call it For better explanation whereof wee may turne the Causall word FOR into an Illative THEREFORE because it is all one as you know to say hee is not here in the Grave For â—hee is risen out of the Grave And to say Hee is risen out of the Grave Therefore hee is not heere in the Grave Vnderstand then first that the matter subject of this Argument being no morall arbritrary Act of man's will but the omnipotent Resurrection of Christ from the dead which is a fundamentall Article of Christian Faith yea and as it were the foundation of all other Articles without which as the Apostle saith * 1 Cor. 15. 14. Our Faith were vaine the Angell must necessarily be thought to have concluded dogmatically which is the reason that he is so instant and so urgent saying to the woman Come and see the place where the Lord was laid Which hee addeth saith your Å¿ Videli ad Comprobandum dictum Non est hîc Salmer Ies Tom. 11. Tract 9. pag. 72. Iesuite for confirmation of that which hee had said Hee is not heere Seeking by their sight saith also another 6 Maldonat Ies in eum locum Nunc experientia confirmat ipso visu nititur fidem facere Iesuite to make them believe âšœ And as much as if hee had said saith t Quasi dicat si verbo non credatis vacuo sepulchro credatis Anselm Anselme If you believe not my word give credit to the emptie Sepulchre in satisfying your owne sight Therefore was it demonstrative And againe the Angell putting them to make use both of his Saving and their owne Seeing Go yee saith hee and tell his Disciples And they went saith the Text to bring his Disciples word Therefore was his Argument Doctrinall such whereby he thought so fully to perswade them that they might informe others in an Infallible Truth âšœ One of your Doctors of Lovain published a Booke intituled A Confutation of Cavillations wherein hee 7 Marcus Constant Theol. Lovan lib. qui inscribitur Confutatio Cavillationum quibus Sacramentum Euâ—h impeti solet Ad ob 6. Surrexit non est hîc Respondet Catholicus quae est haec Consecutio non est hîc ergo non est in Sacramento adeonè illi inepti ut id colligant non est hîc ergo non potest hîc esse Arundimea sunt haec flaccida tela quae librata non pertingant quo intenduntur propoundeth the Argument of Protestants as if it stood simply thus The Angell sayd of Christ now risen out of the grave Hee is risen hee is not heere Therefore hee cannot be heere And thereupon calleth them Absurd when-as they argue from the Angels owne Logicall terme For in the Text Matth. 28. 6. Hee is not heere For hee is risen Implying the Consequence which you have heard that he could not be both Risen out of the Grave and In the Grave at the same time of the Angels speech But the Causall word For your Doctor omitted quite that hee might more easily impose upon them an Absurdity of his owne devising Thus have you beene confuted by an Argument both Angelicall and Evangelicall âšœ That the Romish Objection out of that Scripture Act. 9. is frivolous SECT IV. CHrist Act. 9. appeared to Saint Paul then Saul when hee was in his way to Damascus c. whence your Cardinall a Simul in summo 〈◊〉 in â—eÌ„re vieuâ— terrae Bellarâ—ll 3. de Eâ—ch c. 3. §. Secundum c. laboureth to prove a double presence of Christ at one instant to wit in Heaven with the Saints and in the Ayre unto Saul First because the light in the Ayre Strucke Saul blinde Secondly because others in the company of Saul heard not the same voice of Christ which hee heard Thirdly because Saul asked saying Lord who art thou and heard and understood the voice Fourthly Because Saul was thereby made a witnesse of seeing Christ risen from the dead And therefore saith hee was this Apparition in the Ayre Every objection may receive it's opposition To the first thus Did none of you ever know a mans eyes so dazled with the brightnesse of the Sun-beames on earth that hee could not see for a while and yet did not the Sun remove any whit from his Sphere So might the glorious shine of the person of Christ in Heaven worke upon Saul on earth To the second thus Have you not read of a voice from Heaven Iohn 12. 29. which some heard articulately and said An Angell speaketh and the common people said It thundreth because as your b Tolet. Ies in cum locum Iesuit confesseth they heard it but confusedly To the third thus Men heare and heare not so farre as God is pleased to reveale or not to reveale himselfe or his word and voyce yea or any sight unto them for Saint Stephen saw
the Heavens opened and Majesty of Christ when others wanted that sight To the fourth thus The eyes of Saul beholding Christ in Heaven might be as good witnesses of Christ his Resurrection as were the eyes of Saint Stephen Acts 7. who saw him and so much more because he was both made blinde by the brightnes of that sight of Christ and after healed in the Name of Christ If any desire to know the judgement of ancient Fathers in this Case your Cardinall leaveth him to seeke it where he shall please Sure we are that c Aug. in Psal 54. Tract 1 in Iob. Caput in coelis cujus membra calcabantur in terra Augustine d Ambrosâ—â— 1. Cor. 15. Appatuit eâ— primo in coelo Ambrose Pope e Greg. Moral Honâ— 3â— in Evang. ad sinem Persecutorem de coelo aliocurus Gregory the first and f Isil Pelusâ— lib. 1. Epist 409 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eâ— Pheophylact in Act. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Isidore Pelusiota doe expresly affirme that the appearance of Christ to Saint Paul was De Coelo from Heaven âšœ And lest that any fondly by the word Heaven conceiving any inferiour heaven may catch at the Moone you may observe that the Fathers understood that Heaven wherein Christ is sayd to sit at the right hand of God and that whereby the Doctrine of Christ is intituled Celestiall and Heavenly âšœ And if all this were true that hath beene objected that Christ appeared in the Ayre yet is your Consequence but lame that therefore he was bodily also in Heaven if wee may beleeve your Iesuite Lorinus g Potuit tantisper de coelo descendisse Lorin Ies in Act. 9. âšœ And Pelufiota already at the letter Because Christ saith he might for so short a time have descended from Heaven By all which you may perceive that your Cardinall for all his arguing about the Ayre hath beene as the Proverbe is but Beating the Ayre âšœ And lest that any of you might Object that of Acts 23. ver 11. The next night the Lord Christ sayd unto Paul Bethou constant c. as spoken by Christ being Corporally there present when as notwithstanding he was also resident in Heaven one of your owne Iesuites 8 Lorinus Ies Com. in Act. 23. 11. Non audeo de omnibus aepparitionibus affirmare factas immediatè esse à Christo ipso cùm Posset Angelus apparere pro Christo Not daring as hee saith of himselfe to affirme all such like Apparitions to have beene immediately by Christ himselfe will have you to know that they might have beene performed by some Angell in the person of Christ âšœ And as lanke and frivolous is his Confirmation of their Assertion by as he saith Apparitions of Christ unto divers here on earth when as yet hee was certainly in Heaven for it is not certaine that he appeared personally to any here on earth if the position of your Angelicall Doctor Aquinas may stand for good who held it * See above c. 2. §. 3. Impossible for Christ to appeare here on earth in his proper shape in two places at once which sheweth that these Apparitions of Christ were rather onely Visions without any personall appearing We are not ignorant how much you attribute to your Cardinall Bellarmine whom you have heard contending so urgently for proofe of the visible Presence of Christ in divers places at once and what like Esteeme you have of your great Professor Suarez who now cometh Concluding as followeth h Concludo Christi corpus tantùm esse in coelo in Eucharistia seclusoque eodem Eucharistiae mysterio non solùm non esset corpus ubique sâ— neque etiam esset alicubi nisi in coelo contrarium assererâ— esset magna reme â—as sine fundamento contra omnes Theologos Suarez Ies Tom. 1. in Thom. quaest 14. Art 1. Disp 34. §. 4. âšœ Eodem modâ— Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. quaest 76. Disp 189â— cap. 5. Probatur non posse corpus secundu â—extensionem in diversis locis simul bene tamen in uno secundùm extensionem in alijs vero indivisibili more a Deo constitus probatur âšœ The Body of Christ except it 's being in the mysterie of the Eucharist is no where but only in Heaven and to affirme the contrary were a great rashnesse without ground and contrary to all Divines So hee Wee leave these your two most eminent Doctors of the Chaire and both of the same Society of the Iesuites the one for Rome the other for Spaine in this their Contradiction that wee may consult with Antiquitie it selfe An Additionall for a further Confutation Cardinall 9 Ballar lib 3. de Euch. cap. 3. Confirmatur Argumentum eâ— alijs Christi Apparitionibus nom imprimi Petro Apostolo Christum ippâ—ruisse in terra cum eo collocutum fuisse testantur gravissiâ—â— Authores ut Aâ—bros Orat. cont Auxent Hegessppus lib. 3. de Excidio Hierosol Athanas in Apolog. Deiude Antomo appâ—â—uisse Athmas in vita ejus August lib. de cura pro mortuis cap. 16. proponit quaestionem utrum cum diversis locis fiant miracula ad memorias alicujus Martyris sit ipse praesens uno tempore in tà m multis locis an ista fiant ministerio Angelorum Et respondet hanc quaestionem esse supra ingenij vires Praetereà Cap. 17. refert historiam quandam Iohannis qui cum ex Monasterio suo non discessisset apparuit tamen adhuc vivens in somnis cuidam alteri longè posito ac deinde dicit dubium esse an spiritus ejus reverà fuisset in utroque loco an id esse factum also modo Si is inquit interfuit somnianti mirabili gratiâ id quidem potuit non naturâ c. Bellarmine for proofe that the same Body of Christ might appeare Visibly in divers places at once doth produce the Apparitions of other men in many places at once and is encountred by your owne 10 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. qu. 76. Disp 139. Cap. 2. Exempla superiùs adducta ex Ambrosio Egesippo Athanasio Giegorio in quibus prima opinio de existentia coporis Christi quoad extensionem ad locum in diversis locis simol probari videtur adde etiam Augustinum de cura pro mortuis Cap. 16. respondet difficilem esse responsionem Verùm hoc testimonium non probat de corpore quoad extensionem ad locum sed de existentia animae in duobus locis simul Neque amplius probat alterum illud Augustini de Iohanne Monacho ubi agitur de spiritu See Vasquez who thorow our the same whole Disputation denieth the existence of Christ in divers places at once quoad extensionem ad locum but onely in one place so and in many invisibly in the Sacrament upon every Altar Ies Vasquez verbatim in each one Concluding that None of them do prove such an Existence by extension of parts in respect of
Place Which being joyned with the former Confession of Suarez already cited affirming it to be a Doctrine Contrary to all Divines to teach the Body of Christ to be any where but only in heaven excepting the mysterie of the Eucharist It will be easie to discerne how little credit is to be given to the Stories which are alleged by Bellarmine of bodily Apparitions without the Sacrament âšœ That the Opinion of the Being of a Body in many places at once implyeth a Contradiction is Secondly proved by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers thereby distinguishing Christ his two Natures Godhead and Manhood one from another by Circumscription and Incircumscription SECT V. ANcient Fathers judged it Impossible for a Body to be without Determination in one only place at one time yea say you they did so but meaning Impossible according to the course of nature but not absolutely Impossible as if by Divine Miracle a Body might not be in many places at once This is your onely Answer and the Answer of every one of your Answerers whereat wee should wonder but that they have given us so often experience what little conscience they make how true their Answers be so that they may be knowne to have answered otherwise they well know that the Fathers meant an absolute Impossibility and that this is most evident by the Heresie which they did impugne and also by their maner of confuting the same The Eutychian Heretikes you a Alfons de Cast cont haeres Eutych know confounded the Properties of Christs humane nature with his Godhead pretending as you do the Omnipotencie of Christ for the patronizing of their Heresie As thinking thereby thus saith b Theod. Dial. 2. Dicunt Christi carnem spiritualem alterius substantiae quà m sit nostra caro imaginantur se per haec Deum magnifacere cum tamen falsi veritatem accusant Theodoret out of Amphilochius to magnifie the Lord Christ whereas this was indeed as the same Father saith to accuse Truth of falshood You may heare the same voice sound out of the Romane Chaire Pope c Leo Papa Ep. 13. quae est ad Pulcher. Aug. Subrepsisse intelligo spiritum falsitatis ut dum affirmat se religiosiùs de filij Dei majestate sentire si ei naturae nostrae veritatem inesse non dicat c. Leo speaking of Eutyches the Author of that Heresie saith that Hee affirmed that thereby he did more religiously conceive of the Majesty of Christ by denying his humane nature whom therefore that holy Pope censureth to have beene seduced by the Spirit of falsity Therfore it cannot be but that the Fathers in confuting an Heresie founded upon a pretence of Omnipotency did hold that doctrine absolutely impossible which they withstood as will now more lively appeare by the Testimonies of themselves Theodoret against this Heretike argueth thus d Theod. Dial. 3. lib. 3. ex Euseb Emis Contra eos qui dicunt Corpus Christi in Divinitate mutatum esse post resurrectionem Hos dicere necesse est vel divinae naturae manus pedes alias corporis partes tributas esse vel fateri corpus manfisse in suae naturae finibus Atqui divina natura simplex est incomposita corpus autem compositum in multas partes divisum non est ergo mutatum in naturam divinitatis quidem immortale â—actum divinà naturâ plenum sed tamen corpus quod propriam habet Câ—cumscriptionem The Body of Christ being a compounded thing cannot be changed into a divine nature because it hath Circumscription This had bin no good reasoning except his CANNOT had imported an absolute Impossibility âšœ And this 11 Eranistes Heret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex lob Theod. opponit Exâ—mplum impossibilium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Dial. 3. Cap 4. Et paulò post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret himselfe doth furthermore make good who in the same Dialogue where to the Heretikes Objection out of Iob saying I know thou canst doe all things nothing is impossible with thee he answereth by instancing in examples of Impossibility because of Contradiction saying It is impossible for eternity to be in time or a thing created to be uncreated or finite to be infinite So he âšœ c Vizil lib. 4 cont Eutych Circumscribitur loco per naturam carnis suae loco non capitur per nâ—turam divinitatis suae Haec fides est confessio Catholica quam Apostoli tradiderunt Martyres roboraverunt fideles nunc usque custodiunt Et paulò superius Quia nunc in Coelo est non est utique in terra Vigilius anciently Bishop of Trent might have read a Lesson to the late Bishops at Trent who against the same Heretike distinguishing the two natures of Christ his Humane nature by being Circumscribed in one place the Divine by being unlocable doubted not to inferre saying of his Bodily nature It being now in heaven is not at all on earth And lest that any might thinke this was but his owne private opinion hee averreth saying This is the Catholike profession taught by the Apostles confirmed by Martyrs and hitherto held of the Faithfull So Fulgentius upon the same Distinction maketh the same Conclusion saying of his Bodily substance that therefore f Fulgent de persona Christi ad Trasimund lib. 2. cap 5. Vnus idemque homo localis ex homâ—ne qui est Deus immensus ex Patie Vnus idemque secundùm humanâ—m substantiam absens caelo cum esset in terra derelinquens terram cùm ascendisset in coelum Being on Earth it was absent from Heaven and going to Heaven it left the Earth Damascea had to deale with the forenamed Heretike and professing to deliver the substantiall difference of both Natures hee differenceth them by these contrary Characters g Damascen de fide Orthodoxi lib 3. cap. 3. Eâ—rum naturarum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 astâ—umus salvari nam câ—eatum mansit creatum increatâ—â— increatum morrale â—manebâ—t mortale immortale immortale 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 âšœ Paulo suâ—erius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Created not Created Capable of mortalitie and not Capable of mortalitie Circumscribed and not Circumscribed and Invisible in it selfe and Visible which notwithstanding is in the Eucharist by your doctrine noâ— Capable of Circumscription because whole in the whole Hoast and in every part thereof and to the very Angels of God Invisible âšœ And yet againe that you may further know that Damiscen is as professedly ours in this point as any Protestant can be hee in confutation of the same Heretike addeth saying How can one and the same Nature be capable at once of two essentiall contrary Differences for how is it possible for the same Nature according to the same to be created and uncreated mortall and immorall circumscribed and uncircumscribed Where by the way you may observe that Circumscription of a Body is accounted
by Damascen to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Essentiall to a Body In like maner Ephraemius in Photâ—us sticketh to the same Argument of difference of natures by reason of Contradiction saying concerning the two distinct natures of Christ That none that hath wit can say that the same Nature is both palpable and impalpable visible and Invisible âšœ Let us ascend hither to the more primitive Ages to inquire of Fathers who had conflict also with Heretikes who gainesaid the Truth of either Nature Athanasius urged Christ his Ascension into Heaven 〈◊〉 prove that hee was as truly man as God because his God head was never out of Heaven being h Athanas 〈◊〉 2. Adversus eos q. trullum nos miraculum 〈◊〉 eo quod carâ—em negant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vndâ—â—rminate in place and uncircumscribed even then when it was Hyphstatically united with the Body being on earthâ— Therefore it was his Body that ascended into Heaven from Earth His Argument is taken from Circumscription even as I l Nazian Epist 1. id Cledâ—â— Hominem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianzen also doth Characterize them Cyril of Alaxandria is a Father whose Patronage your Disputers would be thought often to rely upon hee is now about to deliver his Iudgement so freely and plainly as if hee had meant to stop the mouthes of all our Opposiâ—es in the same Answer which hee maketh against certaine Heretikes who held that God's nature is a Substance which can received vision and partition If God saith m Cyril Alex Tom. 2. lib. de T. inir Si verè Sâ— chohem Partitionem Divini naturâ— ut 〈◊〉 dicunt reciperet intelligeretur ut corpus si autem hoc in loco omâ—â—nò li quanta facta esset non effugeret Circumscripâ—â— fol. 89. Cyril should be divisible as a Body then should it be contained in place and then should it have Quantity and having Quantity it could not but be Circumscribed Will you now say which hitherto hath beene your onely Answer to other Fathers that Cyril meant not that it was absolutely Impossible that Quantity should be without Circumscription but onely according to the Course of nature then might the Heretikes whom Cyril confuted have made the same Answer and consequently Cyril's Consequence and Confutation together with the Arguments of the Fathers above-mentioned had beene of no force What shall wee say must still the ancient Fathers be made no better than Asses in arguing that your Romish Masters forsooth may be deemed the onely Doctors even then when they prepare the same Evasion for Heretikes which they devise for themselves but you must pardon us if wee believe that Cyril seeing he durst say that God himselfe if hee were a Body must be in a place as a thing having Quantity and Circumscribed would have abhorred your now Romish Faith of believing * See hereafter Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Christ's Body consisting of Quantitie albeit not Circumscribed in place âšœ The Arguments which wee receive from these Fathers in Confutation of your Romish Faith of believing the same Humane Body of Christ Circumscribed in Heaven and Vncircumscribed on your Altars on Earth are Two The first is their denying the Possibility of Christ's Body to be Vncircumscribed and that upon two grounds One because Circumscription is Essentiall and as Proper to Christ's Body as Vncircumscription is Proper to his Divine Nature without which Difference there should follow a Confusion of his two Different natures which was the very same Heresie which they impugned Their second ground is from the infallible Rule of Contradiction being the extremest Degree of Impossibilitie that can be imagined namely For the same â—ody to be at the same time mortall and immortall palpable and impalpable And yet your Fathers of the Councell of Trent in their wisedomes have Canonized it for an Article of your Faith by teaching a palpable and Circumscriptive Body of Christ in Heaven and impalpable and Vncircumscriptive on Earth It might be held a kind of Impiety not to consult with Saint Augustine in a Question of this moment The Iudgement of Saint Augustine stiled by learned Doctors The Mallet of Heretikes to knocke out their Braines First giving this Caution viz. 13 Aug. Epist 57. ad Dardan where after this Coveat Cavendum ne ità Divinitatem affirmamus ut corporis veritatem auferamus hee hath these words Spatia locotum tolle corpotibus nusquaÌ„ erunt quià nusquam erunt nec erunt Idem Tract 31. in toh Homo secundùm corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco unde venit non est Deus autem implet omnia ubique totus nec secundùm spatia tenetur locis erat tamen Christus secundùm visibilem carnem iâ— terra secundùm invisibilem majestatem in coelo in terra To take heed lest wee sâ— establish Christs Deity that wee destroy not the truth of his Body Hee afterwards concludeth against the Impossibilitie of a Body uncircumscribed saying Take away Space of Place from Bodies and then shall they be no-where and if they be no-where then must they be no-what having no Being at all Secondly where hee concludeth that Christ according to his Visible flesh was on earth when according to his Invisible Majesty Hee was both in Heaven and Earth hee layd this Ground thereof to wit that A Body removing from one place to another is not in that place from whence it came But our Catholike Article of Faith saith that Hee ascended from Earth to Heaven And therefore by Saint Augustine his Argument Hee was not then on Earth In the third place Discussing the Difference of the two Natures of Christ more fully in respect of Presence in Place for the reconciling of a Seeming Contradiction of Christs words saying in one place I am with you unto the Ends of the World and another place saying You shall not have me alwayes with you he assoyleth the Difficultie by Differencing Christs Natures 14 Aug. Tract 50. in â—oh Pauperes semper habebitis vobiscuÌ„ me autem non semper habebitis Potest sic intelligi Accipiant hoc boni sed non sint soliciti loquebatur emiâ— de praesentia corpoâ—â—s sui Nam secunduÌ„ majestatem suam secundùm providenuam secundùm inessabilem invisibilem gratiam impletur ab eo quod dâ—ctum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum usquè ad consummationem seculi secundùm autem â—d quod de Virgine natus est quodque in Resurrectione maniâ—estatus est non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare Quoniâ—m conversatus secundâ— corporis pâ—aesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipuliâ— suis eis videntibus ascendit in coesum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextrim Patris hic est non enim recesâ—â—â— praesentia majestatis Secundùm praesentiam carnis Ec. lesia modo side tenâ—â— oculis
non videt In that Christ sayd saith hee You shall not have mee alwayes with you hee spake it of the Presence of his Body But in saying I am with you untill the Consummation of the World hee spake it of his Divine Majesty Providence and Invisible grace But according to that nature which was borne of the Virgin and after was manifested in the Resurrection You shall not have me alwayes with you So hee Your sole Answer in the Iudgement of your choycest Divines delivered by your Cardinall is this 15 Bellarm. l. 1. de Euchdr cap. 14. §. Denique Augustinus intelligit corporis Christi praesentiam visibilem more humano inter homines conversantis atquè ita se explicat Quare quia conversatus est secundùm corporis praesentiam quadraginta dies ipsis videnâ—ibus modo side renet oâ—ulis non videt that S. Augustine in denying that Christ is alwayes with us according to the presence of his Bodie understood a visible presence thereof after an humane Conversation with men which hee collecteth from that which followeth in the speech of Saint Augustine That Christ was seene of the Apostles in his Bodily presence after his Resurrection and as his Assension But now saith S. Augustine Wee see him by Faith and not with our eyes So your Cardinall Which is as raw and extravagant a Collection and repugnant to the meaning of Saint Augustine as can be Because the whole scope of Saint Augustine is to shew the Excellency of Christs Divine Nature in respect of the Humane in regard of Presence it selfe and not in respect of visibilitie or any maner of Presence Because the Divine nature by it's Omnipresency is alwayes with us but the other which was seene after his Visible Conversation upon Earth was seene to ascend into Heaven Hee inforceth directly from hence therefore It is not here on Earth Thus It ascended into Heaven and is not here for hee there sitteth at the right hand of God But as for the Presence of his Majesty which signifieth his Deity It is here saith Saint Augustine and not departed from us which is a manifest Distinguishing of the Deity and Humanity of Christ meerely in respect of Hic est Non hic est that is Presence of the one and Not-Presence of the other As also betweene Recessit Non-Recessit in like Difference whereas if according to the Popish Faith the Distinction held onely in respect of the Visibilitie or Invisibilitie of Presence you alwayes teaching that Christs Body is substantially Present on Earth Invisibly in the Eucharist then in respect of the maner of Presence by * Because Saint Aug. calleth the presence of his majestie and grace Invisible â—re the Testimony above cited Invisibilitie there should be no Prerogative of Difference betweene Chists Divine and Bodily Being on Earth against the Conclusive Determination of Saint Augustine in this place Which is also confirmed by that which is further objected in opposition against us out of the last words of Saint Augustine The Church saith hee Seeth not him with her eyes but holdeth him by Faith namely by believing the Presence of his Body But where to wit Sitting at the right hand of God saith hee but not in the Pix or on the Altar The next Testimony of this Father may be that his Malling and braining of the Hereticall Manichees who held a Bodily Presence of Christ both in the Sunne and Moone at once He making a flat Contrary Conclusion 16 Aug. contra Faust Manich. l. 20. cap. 11. Secundum praesentiam spirituasem nullo modo 〈◊〉 pari posset secundùm vero praesentiam corporalem simul in sole in luna in quâ—â— esse non posset Christs Bodily Presence could not saith hee be in the Sunne and Moone at once Yes will the Romish Answer Miraculously it may God a mercy Papist would the Heretike have sayd for I likewise when I sayd it was in the Sunne and Moone at once was not such a Lunatick as to thinke it could be naturally so and without a Miracle The same holy Father that hee might shew himselfe constant to his owne Teneâ— explaining the words of Christ You have heard that I sayd I goe and come unto you â—wirdâ— Hee went away saith hee according to that wherein hee was man in one place and hee remained with them as God and in all places still opposing the Nature of Man and God according to the Different Presences of One-where and All-wheres More Testimonies for proofe of this one point there needs not âšœ 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 Objections out of them are but so many forged and forced Illusions âšœ Onely be it knowne unto you that in this whole Discourse the word Circumscription in place is used in a large Acception for every limitation of a Body in a space or Vbi adequate unto the thing Circumscribed âšœ Wee conclude If Christ himselfe gave a Caveat not to believe such Spirits as should say of his Bodily presence in this world after his Resurrection * Mat. 24 23. Behold heere 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 furthermore confirme by like verdict of Antiquitie when wee shall heare the Fathers prove both that * See Cap. 6. §. 3. Angels and all Created Spirits are finite Creatures and not Gods even because they are contained in one place and also that the * Chap 6. §. 2. Holy Ghost is God and no finite Creature because it is in divers places at once But wee must handle our matters in order That the Romish Doctors in their Objections have no solid proofe of the Existence of one Body in divers places at once from the Iuagement of Antiquitie SECT VI. IT is a kinde of Morosity and Perversnesse in our Opposites to object those Testimonies which have their Answers as it were tongues in their mouthes ready to confute their Objections For Å¿ Chrysost li 3. de Sacerdoâ—â— O miraculum O Dei benignitatem qui cum patre suâ—â—tâ— sedet eodem tempore omniuÌ„ manibus pertractatur Obijcit Bellar lib 2. le Euch. cap. 22 Not considering what went before 〈◊〉 words in the sauâ—e place where â—hrysostâ—â— will not have his heart beleeve that the Priest and people â—â—â—taking doe noâ— in tertis consiâ—st sed ponus in coelum transferrâ— then followeth O miraculâ—â— c. adâ—st enim Sacerdos non ignem gestans sed Spiritum Sanctum Chrysostome saith not more plainly ô Miracle that Christ at one and the same time sitting with his Father in Heaven is heere
handled of Communicants on earth than hee doth say of the Priest and People Communicating ô Miracle that They do not consist or stay on earth but are transported into Heaven And againe a little after the words objected The Priest saith hee is here present not carrying the fire but the Holy Ghost These and the like Sayings of Chrysostome do verifie the Censure of your * See Booke 3. Chap. 4. §. 6. Senensis upon him that hee was most frequent in figurative Amplifications and Hyperbole's Another Objection is commonly made out of t Chrysost ad â—â—ulum Antioch hom 2. Helisaeus Mâ—â—lotem accepit Heliae erat posthaâ—c duplex Elias sursum Eliais deorsum Elias Then applying this to the Sacrament Helias nempe melotem Discipulis â—uis reliquit filius autem Dei ascendens nobis carnem 〈◊〉 sed Elias quidem exâ—tus Christus autem ipsam nobis reliquits ipsam ascendens habuit Chrysostome of a Double Elias one above and another below meaning by Elias below the sheepe-skin or Mantle of Elias received by Helisaeus namely that Christ ascending into Heaven in his owne flesh left the same but as Elias did his Mantle being called the other Elias to wit figuratively so the Sacrament a token of Christ's flesh is called his flesh Which must needs be a true Answer unlesse you will have Chrysostome to have properly conceited as a Double Elias so Consequently a Double Christ âšœ And if you be not yet sufficiently acquainted with the style of Chrysostome take unto you another Saying of his wherein hee introduceth Christ as speaking to every good Christian and saying 18 Chrysost ad pop Antioch Hom. 55 Manduca me te sursum haben deorsum tibi connector Eate thou mee I have thee heere above and am annexed to thee there below So hee Do you understand those words as you did his former Speeches literally then must you as necessarily conclude from hence that the Christian Communicant Eating Christ's Body here on earth is corporally present with Christ in Heaven But do you grant it to be figuratively meant then must you confesse that the Conjunction spoken of by Chrysostome is not Corporall but a Spirituall and a Mysticall Communication So then Chrysostome speaking of a Sacrament used a Sacramentall style to call the Sacrament of Christ's Body the Body or flesh of Christ even as Christ according to the Interpretation of Ancient Fathers called Bread his Body as being a Signe and Sacrament of his Body after the usall terme of Scripture in other Sacraments also All which have beene largely showne throughout the Second Booke No marvell therefore if granting that Christ taking his Flesh Personally with him into Heaven which hee left Sacramentally heere on Earth you deny notwithstanding that Elias by leaving his Mantle left not himselfe because his Mantle was not a Sacrament of himselfe âšœ As for the next Testimonie it is no more than which every Christian must confesse namely that it is the same whole and undivided Christ which is spiritually received of all Christians wheresoever and whensoever throughout the world the same wee say Objectively although not Subjectively as the Sixt Booke Chap. 6. and Sect. 3. will demonstrate âšœ And furthermore understand that the Fathers speaking of the Eucharist and calling it The Body of Christ and of the Fragments Bitts and Pieces thereof yet in your owne construction do meane Sacramentally that is Figuratively Your Iesuite 19 Mâ— Fisher Ies â— his Answer to K Iames in huâ— tract of Transubstant §. 4. in â—ish Whites Reply Greg. Nyster Orat. de Paschate Sicut Divinitas replet mundum tamen una estatà mâ—umerabilibus locis of fertur et tamen unum corpus est And the same is objected by Mr. Brerely Tract of the Masse 1. §. 4. Subd 1. pag 149. Master Fisher would thinke it a sleighting of him if his Testimony might not be heard What marvaile saith hee that Imagination fayle us to apprehend the multiplied presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament which is Spirituall Angelicall Supernaturall comparable with the Divine whereof Gregory Nyssen sticketh not to say As Deity filleth the World and yet is One so the Body of Christ is but One and is offered in all places So hee Our Answer in briefe is that Master Fisher sticketh not to abuse both the Credulity of his Reader to make him believe that which is not and his owne Conscience to seeme to believe that which hee believeth not namely that there is an Omnipresencie of Christ's Body as also his Adversaries patience to occasion him to seeke that which is not to be found in the place alleged or yet in any of the Orations of Gregory Nyssene de Paschate If any such Sentence had beene extant in any Booke of Gregory Nyssene or else of any Primitive Father ô how every one of your Romish Disputers would have embraced it and still harped upon it especially it making so evidently for that which your Iesuite urgeth The multiplyed Presence of Christ's Body But it is no newes with us to be dealt with deceiptfully and unconscionably by your Romish Dispuputers âšœ That your most plausible Objection taken out of Augustine concerning Christ his Carrying himselfe in his owne hands is but Sophisticall SECT VII AVgustine in expounding the 33. Psalme and falling upon a Translation where the words 1. Sam 21. are these by interpretation Hee carryed himselfe in his owne hands a Aug. Tom. 8. in Psal 33. Conc. 1. Esserebatur in manibus ejus Hoc quomodò possit fieri in homine quis intelligat manibus alienis portatur quis suis autem nemo portatur Quomodò intelligatur de Davide secundùm literam non invenimus in Christo autem invenimus quando commendans ipsum corpus suum ait Hoc est corpus meum ferebat enim corpus in manibus suis c. saith that these words could not be understood of David or yet of any other man literally for Quomodo fieri potest saith hee How could that be c. And therefore expoundeth them as meant of Christ at what time hee said of the Eucharist This is my Body This is the Testimonie which not onely your b Obijcit Bellar. Vox Quodammodo Signi non propriâ spetie sed alienâ nec modo usitato sed extraordinariè satis est quod non figuratè significatur Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. Cardinall but all other your Disputers upon this subject do so ostentatively embrace and as it were hugge in their Armes as a witnesse which may alone stop the mouth of any Protestant which therefore above all other they dictate to their Novices and furnish them therewith as with Armour of proofe against all Opposites especially seeing the same testimony seemeth to be grounded upon Scripture Contrarily wee complaine of the Romish Disputers against this their fastidious and perverse importunitie in urging a testimony which they themselves could as easily have answered as objected
both in taking exception at the ground of that speech to shew that it is not Scripture at all and also by moderating the rigidity of that Sentence even out of Augustine himselfe THE FIRST CHALLENGE Shewing that the Ground of that speech was not Scripture PRotestants you know allow of no Authenticall Scripture of the old Testament which is not according to the Originall namely the Hebrew Text and the Church of Rome alloweth of the Vulgar Latine Translation as of the onely Authenticall But in neither of them are these words viz. Hee was carried in his owne hands but only that David now playing the Mad-man slipt or fell into the hands of others as your c Tâ—status Abulensis Et collabe batur inter manus eorum Nempè ad modum hominis furiosi ostendebat se ut insanum Cor. in â—um locum Abulensis truely observeth So easily might the Transcribers of the Septuagints erre in mistaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so impossible it is for you to ground the objected Sentence upon divine Scripture even in your owne judgement THE SECOND CHALLENGE Shewing that the Romanists cannot stand to the QVOMODO of Augustine THis word Quomodo How implying it to be impossible for David or any other man to carry himselfe in his owne hands excepting Christ as you defend must argue either an absolute Impossibility or not if it intend an absolute Impossibility of any man to be carryed in his owne hands in a literall sense then could not Christ as man be carryed in his owne hands and if it doe not intimate an absolute Impossibility then might David or any other man by the power of God have carried himselfe in his owne hands So that whether thus or so you will make Augustine contradict himselfe if his words be taken in the precisenesse and strictnesse of that which is a Literall Sense THE THIRD CHALLENGE Shewing that Augustine in another word following to wit QVODAMMODO doth answer Saint Augustine himselfe to his owne formerly objected word QVOMODO SAint Augustine after hee had sayd Quomodo How a word seeming to signifie an Impossibility lest that it being taken absolutely might imply a direct carrying of himselfe in his hands at his Supper he qualifieth that his speech somewhat after saying Quodammodò c. that is After a certaine maner Christ carried himselfe in his owne hands Which is a Modification and indeed a Correction of his former sentence Our next labour must be to find out the meaning of his Quodammodo and what this maner of Christ's carrying himselfe was in the judgement of Saint Augustine Whatsoever it is that a man hath really in his hands were it a loafe of Bread it were ridiculous to say that hee carrieth a loafe of Bread After a sort in his hands if the same were Properly carried therein as will appeare most plainly in the fift Challenge THE FOVRTH CHALLENGE Shewing Saint Augustine to be an utter enemie to the Romish Cause in all their other conceited Maners concerning Christ in this Sacrament AGainst your maner of interpreting the words of Christ HOC EST CORPVS MEVM properly you have heard Augustine often pleading for a Figurative Sense Secondly against your maner of bringing in the Body of Christ by Transubstantiation hee hath acknowledged in this Sacrament after Consecration the Continuance of Bread Thirdly against your Corporall Existence of Christ in many places at once in this Sacrament or else-where without dimension of Place or Space he hath already contradicted you in both holding them Impossible and also by arguing that therefore his flesh is not on Earth because it is in Heaven Fourthly Your maner of properly Eating Christs Body Corporally hee will * See the fift Booke Chap. 5. Sect. 5. and Chap. 6. Sect. 3. renounce hereafter as an execrable Imagination Wherefore Augustine holding 〈◊〉 Impossible for Christs Body to have any Corporall Existence in this Sacrament it is Incredible hee could have resolvedly concluded of Christ's Corporall carrying of his Body properly in his owne hands THE FIFTH CHALLENGE Shewing that the QVODAMMODO of Saint Augustine is the same Maner which the Protestants doe teach by the acknowledgement of some Romanists DOe you then seeke after the maner which Augustine beleeved what need you having learned it of Augustine himselfe by his Secundùm quendam modum where he saith This Sacrament after a sort is the Body of Christ What literally Nay but for so hee saith * August Sicut secundùm quendam moduÌ„ Sacramentum Corporis Corpus Christi est ita Sacramentum Fidei Fides est See above § 8. at a. As Baptisme the Sacrament of Faith is called Faith And if you have not the leisure to looke for Augustine judgment in his writings you might have found it in your owne Booke of Decrees set out by b Decret part 3. de Consecr distinct 2. C. Hoc est Sicut ergo coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi illius viz. quod c. vocaturque immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit Christi Passio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio Observe that in the words coelestis panis qui caro Christi est the word Caro is by the Glosse in Gratian interpreted Species panis at the letter f Caro id est Species panis to avoid the absurdity of interpreting Christ's Flesh to be the Body of Christ Gratian where Augustine is alleged to say that This holy Bread is after it's maner called the Body of Christ as the offering thereof by the hands of the Priest is called Christs Passion Dare you say that the Priest's Oblation is properly and literally in strict sense the Passion of Christ or that Augustine meant any such Maner Surely hee did not and therefore may wee most aptly expound Saint Augustines Quodammodo by this Saint Augustine his Suo modo which is clearely and evidently explained by your owne Romish c Glossa ibid. Coeleste c. Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem Christi caro vocatuâ— unde dicitur suo modo non rei veritate sed significante mysterio â—it sit sensus vocatur Christi coâ—pus id est Significat Glosse where it saith The heavenly Sacrament which representeth the Flesh of Christ is called Christ's Flesh so sayd Suo modo after it's maner not in the Truth of the thing but in a significant mysterie as meaning It is called Christ's Body that is it signifieth his Body So the Glosse âšœ To conclude Wee are in good hope that you will give credit to that which Many of your owne Doctors shall confesse and that with the approbation of your Iesuite Suarez 20 Suar. Ies in 3. Thom. Disp 47. § 4 Quae coveniunt coâ—pori Christi secundùm le non possunt dici de speciebus nisi valdè metaphoricè impropriè eo modo quo nomen rei significatae tribuitur
Christ by Faith whereof first Saint Ambrose 1 Ambrosius in Luc. 24. Paulus docuit ubi te reperire possiâ—â—â— ubi ait Si consurrexistis cum Christo quae sursum sunt sapâ—â—e non super terram Ergo non quae supra terram nec in terra nec secundum carnem te quaerere debemus si volumus invenire Nunc enim secundum carnem jam non novimus Christum Denique Stephanus non supra terram quae 〈◊〉 qui stantem 〈◊〉 ad dextram Dei vidit Maria autem quae quaerebat in terra tangere non potuit Stephanus teâ—igit quia quaesivit in coelo Many saith hee sought Christ on Earth but could not touch him But Stephen touched him who sought him in Heaven Consonantly Saint Augustine who to this Question If Mary touched not Christ on Earth what mortall man shall touch him in Heaven Answereth 2 Aug. tom 10. de Temp. Serm. 152. Sin in torra positum Christum Maria non tangio in coelo sedentem quis mortalium possit tangere Sed ille tactus fidem significat Tangit Christaâ— qui credit in eum There is a Touch by Faith hee that believeth in Christ Toucheth him âšœ Thirdly you allege Wee are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramentall that is Figurative Receiving and more especially which * See above c. 1. Sect. 2. hath beene both proved and confessed a Reall and true participation of Christs Body aâ—d Blood spiritually without any Corporall Conjunction But it is added saith hee that These namely the Body and Blood of Christ are Symbols of our Resurrection which is by reason that our Bodies are joyned with the Body of Christ otherwise if our Conjunction were onely of our Soules onely the Resurrection of our Soules should be signified thereby So hee that 's to say as successesly as in the forâ—er For the word HAâ—C These which are called Symbols of our Resurrection may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ immediately spoken of and placed on the Table in Heaven which wee Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies because * See below Booke 5. Cap. ◠§. 1. If Christ be risen then must they that are Christs also rise againe Or else the word These may have relation to the more remote after the maner of the Greekes to wit Bread and Cup on the first Table because as immediatly followeth they are these whereof not much but little is taken as you have heard Which other * See below Booke 5. Cap. ◠§. 1. Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection without any Consequence of Christs Bodily Conjunction with our Bodies more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptisme which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection as doth also your Jesuite m Ad futuram Resurrectionem per Baptismi Sacramentum jus pignus accepimus Coster institut Christ lib. 4. c. 4. See more in the Booke following c. 8. Sect. 6. Coster call it The pledge of our Resurrection But this our Conjunction with Christ is the Subject matter of the fift Booke Lastly how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice is plentifully resolved in the * See Chap. 5. Sect. 4. 5. 6. sixt Booke THE FIFTH BOOKE Treating of the Third Romish Doctrinall Consequence arising from your depraved Sense of the words of Christs Institution THIS IS MY BODY concerning the maner of the present Vnion of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Receivers by eating c. CHAP. I. The State of the Question SECT I. A Christian man consisting of two men the Outward or bodily the Inward which is Spiritual this Sacrament accordingly consisteth of two parts Earthly and Heavenly as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread Wine as the visible Signes and Objects of Sense and of the Body and Blood of Christ which is the Spirituall part Answerable to both these is the Double nourishment and Vnion of a Christian the one Sacramentall by communicating of the outward Elements of Bread and Wine united to mans body in his Taking Eating Disgesting till at length it be Transubstantiated into him by being Substantially incorporated in his Flesh The other which is the Spirituall and Soules food is the Body and Blood of the Lord therefore called Spirituall because it is the Object of 〈◊〉 by an Vnion wrought by Gods Spirit and mans Faith which as hath beene professed by Protestants is most Reall and Ineffable But your Church of Rome teacheth such a Reall Vnion of Christ his Body and Blood with the Bodies of the Communicants as is Corporall which * See below Ch. â— Sect. â— you call Per contactum by Bodily touch so long as the formes of Bread and Wine remaine uncorrupt in the Bodies of the Receivers Our Method requireth that wee first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Orthodox Truth Secondly to impugne your Romish Vnion as Capernaiticall that is Hereticall And thirdly to Determine the Point by comparing them both together Our Orthodox Truth will be found in the Propositions following That Protestants professe not onely a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body but also a Spiritually-Reall SECT II. IN all the Bookes of our Adversaries written against Protestants they are most especially vehement violent and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries as though wee professed no other maner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body than onely Sacramentall and Figurative For Confutation of which Calumnie it will be most requisite to propose the Apologie of a Calvin in hiâ—s libris viz. Consensio in re Sacramentariaâ— Diâ—ensio contra 〈◊〉 et Explicatio de vera participat coenae Dom. I. Fâ—teor me abhorrere ab hoc crasso commento localis praesentiae Substantiâ Christi animae nostrae pasâ—untur sed secundùm Virtutem non secundùm Substantiam II. Signum tantum pâ—â—rigi centies contrà Quasi vero cum Swinckâ—â—ldio quiâ—quam nobis commune III. In Catechismo disserui non solùm beneficiorum Christi significationem habemus in coena sed substantive participes in nam cum eo vitam coalescimus Figurata locutio fateor modò non tellatur rei veritas IV. Neque enim tantùm dico applicari merita sed ex ipso Christi corpore alimentum percipere animas non secùs ac terreno pane corpus vescitur Vim carnis suae vivisicans spiritus sui gratiâ in nos transs sundit Spiritualem dicimus non carnalem quamvâ—â— realem ut haec vox provera contra fallacem sumitur non secundùm substantiam quam vis ex ejus substantia vita in animas nostras prosâ—uit V. Ergò in coena miraculum agnoscimus quod naturae sines sensus nostri modum ex supoâ—at quod Christi caro
oportere sicut edebantur animalium carnes quae dentibus conteruntur Madridius Ies de frequenti usu Eucharistiae cap. 4. Capernaites First of Chewing and then afterwards of Swallowing in the sixt Chapter following in it's due place That the Corporall and Orall Eating of Christs Flesh is a Capernaiticall Heresie is proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers SECT V. SOmetime do Ancient Fathers point out the Error of the Capernaites set downe Iohn 6. concerning their false interpreting the words of Christ when hee speaketh of Eating his Flesh which they understood literally But this literall sense a Origen Hom. 7. in Levit. pag. 141. Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam Si secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est occidit haec litera vis tibi aliam proferam ex Evangelio literam quae occidit Qui non habet inquit gladium vendat tunicam emat gladium Si vero spiritualiter non occidit sed est in eo spiritus vivificans Origen calleth a Killing letter that is a pernicious interpretation even as of that other Scripture Hee that hath not a Sword let him buy one c. but this latter is altogether Figurative as you know and hath a Spirituall understanding therefore the former is Figurative also Athanasius b Athanas Tract in illa verba Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium hominis c Quod hominibus corpus suffecisset ad cibum ut universis mundi alimonia fieret Sed propterea ascensionis suae meminit ut eos a corporali intellectu abstraheret Quae locutus sum inquit spiritus sunt vita id est corpus in cibum dabitur ut spiritualiter unicuique tribuatur fiat singulis praeservatio ad Resurrectionem confuting the Capernaiticall conceipt of Corporall Eating of Christs Flesh will have us to observe that Christ after hee spake of his Flesh did forth-with make mention of his Ascension into Heaven but why That Christ might thereby draw their thoughts from the bodily sense namely of Eating it Corporally upon Earth which is your Romish sense âšœ His Reason Reduced into Logicall forme must have beene this against the Capernaites who imagined a Carnall Eating of Christs Flesh That which was to ascend into Heaven could not be eaten Corporally on Earth But Christ sayd that his Body should ascend into Heaven And therefore signified thereby that hee could not be eaten upon Earth which ought to have beene a Satisfactory reason and Answere to the Capernaites themselves âšœ Tertullian likewise giveth the reason of Christs saying It is the Spirit which quickeneth because the Capernaites so understood the words of Christs speech of Eating his Flesh As if saith c Tertul. de Capernaitis Quia durum intolerabile existimarunt sermonem quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset praemisit Spiritus est qui vivificat lib. de Resurrect carnis Tertullian Christ had truly determined to give his Flesh to be eaten Therefore it was their Errour to dreame of a truly Corporall Eating d Aug. in Iob 6. Non moritur Non qui panem premit dente sed qui man ducat in Corde Tract 26. Idem in Psal 98. Spiritualiter intelligite non Hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estit bibituri sanguinem illum quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum commendavi vobis spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos Augustine out of the sixt of Iohn bringeth in Christ expounding his owne meaning of Eating his Flesh and saying You are not to eate this flesh which you see I have commended unto you a Sacrament which being Spiritually understood shall revive you Plainely denying it to be Christs Body which is Eaten Orally and then affirming it to be the Sacrament of his Body and as plainely calling the maner of Corporall Eating A pressing of Bread with the teeth Wee say Bread not the Body of Christ For when hee cometh to our Eating of Christs flesh hee exempteth the Corporall Instruments and requireth only the Spirituall saying e Aug. apud Gratian. de Consecrat 〈◊〉 2. Vt quid Quid paâ—â— dentem ventrem crede manducasti Ex Aug. de remed 〈◊〉 §. ut quid Why preparest thou thy Tooth It is then no Corporall Eating and hee addeth Believe and thou hast eaten Saint Augustine goeth on and knowing that Corporall Eating of any thing doth inferre a Chewing by dividing the thing eaten into parts as your owne Iesuit hath * See above Booke 5. cap. ◠§. 2. confessed lest wee should understand this properly hee teacheth us to say f Idem rursus apud Gratiam ibid. Christus manducatus vivit quia resurreâ—t it occiâ—us nec quando manduâ—â—us partes de illo facimus quâ—dem Sacramento id â—it noâ—ut fideles quemadmodum manducent carnem Christi per parteâ— manducatur in Sacramentis mâ—net integer câ—â—lo in corde Ex Aug. Serm. de verbis Evangeliâ— Christ is not divided into parts Contrarily when wee speake Sacramentally that is Figuratively and improperly hee will have us to grant that Christ his Body is divided in this Sacrament but remayneth whole in Heaven Say now will you say that Christs Body is Divided by your Eating the Eucharist in a literall sense your owne Iesuits have abhorred to thinke so And dare you not say that in Eating this Sacrament you do Divide Christs Body in a literall sense then are you to abhorre your Romish Literall Exposition of Christs speech which cannot but necessarily inferr a proper Dividing of the flesh of Christ âšœ Wee may not conceale the Evasion which your Disputers have devised for blunting the Diâ—t of this notable Sentence You see not the same Body saith Saint Augustin 1 Bellarm. lib. 2 de Eucharist cap. 24 â—uxtà Lanfrancum Resp non Idem corpus id est non èodem modo non in specie visibili aut mortali Idem quoad substantiam non Idem quoad modum That is say they not after the same maner namely not in a visible and mortall shape So they Than which Exposition what can be more extravagant by skipping from the Predicament of Substance to the Predicament of Quality You shall not eat the same Body saith Saint Augustine What then shall they eat Hee addeth I have commended to you a Sacrament to be eaten Therefore the Opposition used by Saint Augustine is to Distinguish betweene Christs Body and the Sacrament of Bread as betweene Substance and Substance for hee sayd not to eat his Body As you see it to signify the maner of Eating invisibly but you are not to eat That which you see as denying Christs Body to be the matter of their Sight even as Saint Augustine doth often expresse himselfe as well in that place where hee called his Body The Bread the Lord and the Sacrament The Bread of the Lord like as your owne 2 Gabriel Biâ—l Lect. 80. lit n. Non cum manducamus partes
de illo facimus quidem in Sacramento id fit intelligit nos non parteÌ„ corporis Christi sumerâ—e sed Sacramenti Schoolemen discerned his meaning in the other words of Eating as yet not making parts of his Body but of the Sacrament of his Body âšœ Lastly do but call to mind Saint * See above Chap. §. 2. 〈◊〉 Augustines Observation just the same with the now-Cited Testimony of Athanasius to wit Christs mention of his Ascension in his Body from Earth lest that they might conceive of a Carnall Eating of his flesh and these Premises will fully manifest that Saint Augustines Faith was farre differing from the now Romish as Heaven is distant from Earth Wee still stand unto Christs Qualification of his owne speech when hee condemned all Carnall sense of Eating his flesh saying thereof The flesh profiteth nothing c. For Conclusion of this Point you may take unto you the Commentary of Saint i Chrysost in Iohan 6. Gracè Homi 47. Latinè Homil 46. Verba quae ego locutus sum Spiritus Vita Suâ—ritus hoc est Spiritus alia hoc enim nihil carnale nullam consequentiam carnalem habentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to non prodest quicquam Quid hoc nunc de ipsa carne dixit absit sed pro carnaliterâ— audite de ijs qui carnaliter accipiunt quae dicuntur Quomodo non prodest quicquam caro sine qua nemo potest rivere vide quod non de carne sed de carnali auditione dictum est Chrysostome as followeth Did not Christ therefore speake of his flesh farre be it from us saith hee so to thinke for how shall that flesh not profit without which none can have life but in saying The flesh profiteth nothing is meant the carnall understanding of the words of Christ And that you may know how absolutely hee abandoneth all carnall understanding of Christs words of Eating his flesh hee sayth They have no fleshly or naturall Consequence at all So hee Ergo say wee to the Confutation of your Romish Beliefe no Corporall touch of Christ in your mouths no Corporall Eating with your teeth no Corporall Swallowing downe your throat how much less any Corporall mixture in your Bellies or Guts as your Romane * See Chapt. 6. Sect. â— following Church professeth CHALLENGE WHether therefore the Capernaites though to eate Christs Flesh raw or roasted torne or whole dead or alive seeing that every Corporall Eating thereof properly taken is by the Fathers held as Carnall and Capernaiticall it cannot be that the Romish maner of Eating should accord in the Judgement of Antiquity with the Doctrine of Christ Notwithstanding you cite us to appeare before the Tribunall of Antiquity by objecting Counter-Testimonies of Ancient Fathers and wee are as willing to give you Answering The Extreme Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers in wresting the Figurative Phrases of Ancient Fathers to their Orall maner of Receiving the Bodie of Christ proved by just evidences out of the Fathers themselves SECT VI. IT is a miserable thing to see how your Authors delude their Readers by obtruding upon them the Sentences of Fathers in a literall sense against the evident Expressions of the same Fathers to the Contrary I. k Origen Hom. 5. 〈◊〉 divers Script Loca Sub tectum tuam ingreditur imitare Centurionem dic non sum dignus Domine c. Objic Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 8. Non vidi Adversariorum Responsum ad hoc Yea Resp Orig. ibid. Intrat nunc Dominus sub tectum credentium duplici figurâ seu more quaÌ„â—â— enim sancti Ecclesiarum Aâ—â—istites sub tectum tuum 〈◊〉 tunc ibidem Dominus per cos ingreditur tu sic existimes tanquam Dominum suscipiendum Theâ— followeth the other figure Cum hic sanctus cibus incorruptibile epulum c. Origen say you will have the Communicant to thinke himselfe unworthy that the Lord should enter under the roofe of his mouth Right hee saith so but in the same sense wherein hee equivalently sayd that Hee who entertaineth a Bishop and Spirituall Pastor must know that now Christ entreth under his roofe namely Christ Figuratively II. Chrysostome who speaketh in the highest straine saith that l Chrysost Hom. 60. ad Pop. Antioch Mulâ—i dicunt se velle videro ejus formam ipse concedit non tantum videre sed tangere monducare dentibus terere So Chrysâ—t ibid. Lingua rubescit sanguine Christi Et lib. 3. de Sacerdâ—â—io â—om 47. in Ioh. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spiritualia sunt Wee see touch eate and teare with our teeth the Flesh of Christ True but to note that hee spaâ—e it in a Rhetoricall Figurative sense he equivalently saith also in the same place Our tongues are made red with his Blood And elsewhere to put all out of question * See his testimonie in the former Section at i These saith he are Spirituall and containe no Carnall thing Yet what need you our Comment Your Josuit Maldonate would haue gladly prevented us 3 Dentibus teri quemadmodum Chrysost locuâ—us est haec non postunt nisâ— Sacramento tenus intelligt non propriâ— Maldon Ies in Matt. 26. 26. The words of Chrysostome saith hee of tearing the Flesh of Christ cannot be otherwise understood than Sacramentally Euen he which concluded but now that to say * See above Ch. 4. Sect. 2. We eat Christs Flesh properly is a false proposition âšœ And touching the other Phrase S. Augustine as Emphatically of Baptisme 4 Aug. in Ioh. Tract 11. Vnde rubet Baptismus nisi Christi sanguâ—e consecratus It is red with the Blood of Christ âšœ III. Gaudentius say you saith o Gaudent Promisit corpus suum porâ—igit tibi corpus suum corpuâ— accipis De pane fecit corpus proprium c. Obj. Bellar lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 21. Albeit a little after upon these words Nist manducaveritis Voluâ—t Christus animas nostras precioso suo sanguine sanctiâ—icariâ— per imaginem pretiosae passionis quâ— omnes fideles populi exempla passioâ—s ante oculos hâ—bentes quotidie gerentes in manibus ore sumentes ac pectore redemptionis nostrae opas indelebili memoâ—â teneamus Gandent Tract 2. de Ratione Sacramentorum We receive the Body which Christ reacheth making of Bread his Body We grant he sayd so but hee interpreteth himselfe saying Christ would have our soules sanctified with the Image of his Passion Againe scan but his former words Christ made his Body de Pane of Bread in the literall Sense and it will infer a Body of Christ not made of the flesh of the Virgin IV. But p Aug lib. â— Con. adver Legist Proph. cap. 9. Christum sanguinem dantem fideli corde ac ore suscipmus Ob. Bellaâ— quo supra cap. 24 §. In Sexto Augustine teacheth that We receive the Body of Christ both with heart and mouth Which your q
names of the Things signifyed thereby whereof you have heard a Memorable example out of * See above Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Homer where even as Christ sayd of Consecrated Bread This is my Body So those Heathen in Sacrifising of Lambes for Ratification of their Oaths and Covenants called those Sacrifices their Oaths And that nothing was more familiar among the Heathen you may know by that Proverbiall speech Sine Cerere Libero friget Venus without Ceres and Bacchus Lust doth languish where they give to Bread the name of the Goddesse Ceres and the name of God Bacchus to Wine Secondly and more especially may this appeare out of Iustine immediatly after the place now objected thus 15 Iustin Loco supracitat Hoc est sanguis meus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ saith Iustine receiving Bread saith This is my Body and taking the Cup sayd This is my Blood and delivered them onely in those words the which also even the wicked Devils by Imitation have taught to be done in the Mysteries of their Mithra namely for that Bread and a Pot of Water is put in the Sacrifices of him that is initiated unto their Communion in the Sacrifices by Addition of certaine words as you either know or might have knowne So Iustine To the Heathen Emperour Do you not see how the Devils in their Sacrifices and Mysteries as 16 Tertul. de Corâ—na 〈…〉 Agnoseamus ingenia 〈◊〉 ideuco quaedam de divims assectantis ut nos de suoruâ— fide confundat et â—udâ—cet Idem de Praesâ—ription Ipsus res Sacramentorum devinorum in Idol â—rum mysterâ—â—s aemulatur Tiâ—git ipse quosdam celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem Resurrectionis inducit Tertullian witnesseth affect Divine Rites And by Imitation play Christs Apes as other Fathers use to speake And that not onely in their Materiall Ceremonies such as are Bread and Cup but also in their Verball by Addition of words as Iustine sheweth Where you may perceive how Iustine argued with those Heathen out of their owne Mysteries and that wee may so call them Sacraments even as Saint Paul did with the Athenians out of the Inscription of their owne Altar It happened not above a quarter of a yeare after that had set downe this Observation that in reading a Booke of that never too worthily Commended Mirrour of Learning Master Isaac Casaubone I found this my Opinion fortifyed and as it were animated with his most acurate Judgement shewing out of his most exquisite Reading that 17 Isaac Casaub in 〈◊〉 exercitat 16. Iustinus in Apologia altera narrat malos Daemonas in Mithâ—ae mysterijs S. Eacharâ—â—liae aemulationem quandam tradidisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecce panem et poculum sed aquae ut dixi non vin◠〈◊〉 verba solemnia super Symbolis proferri solita id enim significat isto in loco vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qâ—d super dicta qua voce utuntur Iuris consulti Etiam Arrianus loco paulo ante indicato sacras mysteriorum voces commemorat quas magnà cum reverentiâ excipi solitas ostendit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum Eucharistia et sit et dâ—catur Communio sicut ante est expositum inâ—â—dem Mithrâ—â— mysterijs Communio quae est omnibus animantibus inter se miro Symbolorum genere expriâ—â—baâ—ur The Devils did in aemulation of Christians use in their Mysteries of Mythra Symbols of Bread and Cup adding solemne Mysticall words Hee furthermore sheweth out of Porphyrie that in their Religious Communion they had certaine Aenigmaticall expressions Calling their Communicants if Men Lions if Women Hyenas and if Ministers Crowes Still as you see using Mysticall and Figurative Appellations in their Ceremoniall Rites Vpon which evidence wee may easily encounter your Cardinalls Dilemma with this that followeth Either the Emperour and the Heathen people did perceive that the words of Christ now published by Iustine were spoken Figuratively signifying the Outward Eating of his Body Bodily in a Signe onely or they did not If they did know so much then could they not be offended with Orthodoxe Christians or Scandalized thereby And if they did not know that they were Figuratively and Mystically to be understood then would not those Emperours have absolved Christians from all blame as you see they did but punished them for Sacrificing of Infants which Act among these Heathen was held to be Criminall and Capitall And that Iustine did not Praevaricate by concealing his Figurative sense of Christs words it is as manifest by that he Instructed them therein out of their own Phrases used in their Ceremonies of their God Mithra The Impossibility that any Heathen could be offended at the former words of Justine SECT VI. NO Heathen that heard of the Catholike Faith of Christians concerning the Body of Christ in those Primitive times published by Ancient Fathers and by Iustine himselfe could except it were against their Consciences impute unto Christians a Corporall Eating of the Body of Christ For first the Articles of Christian Faith for which so many Armies of Martyrs conquered the Infidelity of the world by Martyrdome being this that Christ the Saviour of the world God and Man ascended into Heaven and there now reigneth in the Kingdome of everlasting Blessednesse adored of all Christians with Divine worship Another Article Vniversally held of those Catholike Fathers as hath been * See Book 4. c. 5. §. 5. proved that the Body of Christ was ever notwithstanding his Resurrection and Ascension Circumscribed in one place And thirdly All knowing that this Principle was universally and infallibly believed of all the Heathen namely To thinke it Impossible for one Body to be in many places at once Therefore was it Impossible for the Heathen to conceive that the Christians taught a Corporall Eating of that Body on Earth which they believed was Circumscribed and conteined in Heaven Fourthly That this was the Faith which the same Ancient Father Iustine did professe and publish at that time is now to be tryed out of the Bookes of Iustine himselfe That Iustine himselfe did accordingly argue against the Possibility of Christs Bodily Presence on Earth And that Attalas objected condemneth the Romish Capernaiticall Swallowing of Christs Body SECT VII IVstine in the same Apologie now objected and by him directed unto the Heathen Emperor Antoninus sirnamed the Godly before his words of Eating Christs flesh setteth down the Christian Article of his Ascension into Heaven saying 18 Iustin in Apologia secund pag. 64. Deus Christum post Resurrectionem illaturus coelo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. adversantes Daemones percutiat et bonorum numerum expleatur propter quos nondum extremum Decretum et consummationem fecit that God the Father assumed Christ after his death into Heaven there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is To detaine him untill hee vanquished the Devils and filled up the number of the Godly An
Ordine num 22. Bellarmine and Romane Catechisme distinguish calling the former the Inward which onely the Faithfull have by the Sacrament of Baptisme the other Outward by the Sacrament of Orders And with the like liberty doth Saint Augustine call the Sacrifice of the Old Testament although most proper but a Signe in respect of the Spirituall Sacrifice of this worke of mercie which hee g Aug. ibid. in Apoc. 20. 6. Sed erunt Sacerdotes Christi regnabunt cum Eo c. Non utique de solis Episcopis aut Presbyteris dictum est qui propriê jam vocantur in Ecclesia Sacerdotes sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus propter mysticum Chrisma sic omnes Sacerdotes quià membra unius Sacerdotis c. For there is a double Reason of naming Christians Priests one is in generall because of their offering up spirituall Sacrifices of prayers and Praises to God 1 Pet. 2. 5. And another is in speciall by publike Function commending the same spirituall Sacrifices in publike Service in the name of the Church â— And so according to the same libertie of terming them properly Priests wherewith before as you have heard in comparing Almes with the Iewish Sacrifice he called Almes the true Sacrifice and the other but The signe of it notwithstanding the bodily Sacrifice of the Iewes was in proprietie of Speech The true Sacrifice and the other but Analogicall calleth True namely in the Truth of Excellencie although though not of Propriety as you may see And lastly here you have urged one than whom there is scarcely found among Protestants a greater Adversary to your fundamentall Article of your Sacrifice which is the Corporall existence of Christ in the Eucharist All which notwithstanding the dignity of our Evangelicall Function is nothing lessened but much more amplifyed by this Comparison If furthermore wee speake of the Altar you will have it to be rather on earth below and to that end you object that Scripture Hebr. 13. 10. Wee have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an Altar saith the Apostle whereof they have no right to eat that serve at the Tabernacle This h Rhemists in their Annot. upon the Place and M. Breerly in his Booke of the Liturgie Tract 3. Sect. 3. Subd 4. some of you greedily catch at for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse and are presently repulsed by your i Aquinas Istud altare vel est crux Christi in quâ Christus immolatus est vel ipse Christus in quo per quem prèces nostras offerimus hoc est Altare aureum de quo Apoc. 8. Com. in hunc locum Aquinas expounding the place to signifie Either his Altar upon the Crosse or else his Body as his Altar in Heaven mentioned Apocal. 8. and called The golden Altar If wee our selves should tell you how some one affirmeth that This Altar spoken of by the Apostle is the Body of Christ himselfe in Heaven upon which and by which all Christians are to offer up their spirituall Sacrifices of Faith Devotion Thankefulnesse Hope and Charity you would presently answer that This one certainely is some Lutheran or Calvinist the words are so contradictory to your Romish Garbe notwithstanding you may finde all this in the k Antididag Coloniens de Missae Sacrificio §. Posthac Habemùs Altare Heb. 13. Apoc. 8. Aureum altare in quo per quod omnes Christiani universa Sacrificia spiritualia fidei devotionis gratiatum actionis spei charitatis Deo Patri debent offerre Atque ità sit ut Christus sit altare Sacerdos Sacrificium August lib. 10. de Trinitate Antididagma of the Divines of Collen Besides your Argument drawne from the word Altar in this Scripture is so feeble and lame a Souldier that your l Bellarm. Quia non desunt ex Catholicis qui interpretantur hunc locum vel de Cruce vel de Christo ipso non urgeo eum Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 14. Cardinall was content to leave it behinde him because Many Catholikes saith hee interpret it otherwise âšœ And indeed who is of so shallow a braine as not to discerne the notorious unconscionablenesse of your Disputers who confessing that the Apostles in their times did * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 15. Abstaine from the words Sacrifice Priest and Altar do notwithstanding allege the word Altar in the Text to the Hebrewes for proofe of a proper Altar in the Masse Will you be contented to permit the decision of this point to the judgement of your Iesuite Estius 10 Estius Comment in 13. ad Hebr. Habemus Altate Thomas Altare hoc interpretatur Crucem Christi vel ipsum Christum de quo edere inquit est fructum passionis percipere ipsi tanquam Capiti incorpocari Crucem Christi proprie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est Vnde Ecclesia vocat Aram Crucis Arbitror Expositionem Thomae magis esse germanam quam innuit Apostolous cum paulo post dicit Iesum extra portam passum esse i.e. in ara Crucis oblatum Vt taceam quod toties in hac Epistola atque ex instituto per Antithesim comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernaculo cum Christo seipsum offerente in Cruce Sanè cum nullam facere voluerit mentionem Sacrificij incruenti novae legis non multum verisimile est eum nunc aliud agentem velut ex abrupto voluisse de Sacrificio incruento sermonem jungere Sed potius cruenti in cruce oblati memoriam ex antedictis renovare Huc pertinet quod Corpus Christi in Cruce oblatum Panis vocatur fide manducandus Vt Ioh. 6. Panâ—s quem ego dabo Hee adhereth to the Interpretation of Aquinas which is that here by Altar is meant the Crosse of Christs sufferings which hee collecteth out of the Text of the Apostle where hee saith of the Oblation of Christs Passion that It was without the gate and observeth for Confirmation-sake that the Apostle often of purpose opposeth the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to the Bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testament so farre as never to make mention of the Sacrifice of the New Testament So hee What is if this be not our Protestantiall profession concerning this word Altar to prove it to be taken Improperly for the Altar of Christs Crosse and not for your pretended proper Altar of the Masse âšœ But wee are cited to consult with the Ancient Fathers be it so If then wee shall demand where our High-Priest Christ Iesus is to whom a man in Fasting must repaire m Origen Iâ—junans debes adire Pontificem tuâ—â— Christum qul utique non in terris quaerendus est sed in coelis Et per ipsum debes offerre Hostiam Deo In Levit. Cap. 16. Homil. 10. Origen resolveth us saying Hee is not to be sought here on earth at all but in Heaven If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution that hee cannot partake
of any Sacramentall Altar on earth Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him as hee did himselfe saying n Gregor Nazianzen Si ab his Altaribus me arcebunt at aliud habeo cujus figurae sunt ea quae nec oculis cermmus super quod nec ascia nec manus ascendat nec ullum Artificum instrumeÌ„tum auditum est sed mentis totum hoc opus est huicque per contemplationem astabo in hoc gratuÌ„ immolabo SacrificiuÌ„ oblationes Holocausta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantò praestantiora quantò Veritas umbrâ Orat. 28. pag. 4â—4 I have another Altar in Heaven whereof these Altars are but Signes a better Altar to be beholden with the eyes of my mind there will I offer up my Oblations as great a Difference doubtlesse as betweene Signes and Things This could not hee have sayd of those Altars if the Sacrifices on them both were as you pretend subjectively and corporally the same If wee would know how what and where the thing is which a Christian man ought to conteÌ„plate upon when hee is exercised in this our Eucharisticall Sacrifice o Chrysostom in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. Illud sanè tremendum Sacrificium ut cum concordia ad illud accedamus ut Aquilae facti ad ipsum coelum evolemus ubi enim cadaver ibi aquilae Cadaver Domini corpus propter mortem Aquilas autem non oportet ad inseriora trahi aut repere sed ad superiora volare Solem Iustitiae intueri oculo mentis acutissimo Aquilarum enim haec mensa est non Graculorum Chrysostome is ready to instruct him Not to play the Chough or Iay in fixing his thoughts here below but as the Eagle to ascend thither where the Body is namely for so hee saith in Heaven According to that of the Apostle Heb. 10. Christ sitting at the right hand of God Vers 12. What therefore Therefore let us draw neere with an Assurance of faith Vers 22. If wee would understand wherein the difference of the Iewish Religion and Christian Profession especially consisteth in respect of Priesthood p Aug. advers Iudaeos ca. 9. Nam Aaron Sacerdotium jam nullum est in aliquo templo Christi Sacerdotium est aeternum in coelo Augustine telleth us that They have no Priesthood and the Priesthood of Christ is eternall in Heaven And the holy Fathers give us some Reasons for these and the like Resolutions For if any would know the Reason why wee must have our Confidence in the Celestiall Priest Sacrifice and Altar q Oecumen in Heb. 10. super haec verba Cum certitudine â—idei Cum deinceps nihil visible supersit neque Templum hoc est coelum neque Pontifex id est Christus neque Hostia quae Corpus illius est fido deinceps opus est Oecumenius and r Ambros in Heb. 10. Cum â—iducio nit Apostolus nihil enim hic visible neque Sacerdos neque Sacrificium neque Altare Ambrose will shew us that it is because Here below there is nothing visible neither Temple ours being in Heaven nor Priest ours being Christ nor Sacrifice ours being his Body nor yet Altar saith the other Heare your owne Canus f Canus loc Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. Oblatio quam Christus in coelis incruentum fecit pag. 421. Christs offereth an unbloody Oblation in Heaven âšœ Chrysostome will not be behind his disciple Oecumenius in expressions who differenceth our Christian Religion from the Iewish for that 11 Chrysost in Hebr. Hom. 11. in Moral Quantum est inter Aaron Christum tantum est inter Iudaeos nos quippe nos habemus Sacrarium in Coelis Sacerdotem in coelis hostiam c. Talia igitur nos offeramus Sacrificia quae in illo Sanctuario possunt offerri And then explaining what they were viz. Sacrificium laudis justitiae Spiritus contribulati haec sacrificia offeramus Our Sanctuary Priest and Sacrifices is in Heaven And if Christians intend any other Sacrifice than that hee admonisheth that they may be such which may be accepted of in the Heavenly Sanctuarie as namely The Sacrifice of Iustice Praise and of a Contrite Spirit and the like all meerely Spirituall as you confesse and therefore but Metaphorically called Sacrifices And 12 Hierom. in Epist ad Hebdeb quaest 2. Ascendamus igitur cum Domino coenaculum magnum stratum accipiamus ab eo sursum Calicem novi Testamenti ibique cum eo Pascha celebremus inebriantes inebriemur ab eo Vino Sobrietatis Saint Hierome also inviteth us To Celebrate our Passeover with him above âšœ Thus in respect of the place of Residence of Christ our High-Priest and his Function which hath beene already confirmed by the Fathers of the first Councell of Nice And thus farre of the place of this Altar the Throne of Grace something would be spoken in respect of Time That the former Sacrilegious Derogation from Christs Priestly Function in Heaven is contradicted by Scriptures and Fathers in respect of the Time of the execution thereof SECT IX CHrist his Bodily existence in Heaven as wee have * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 9. heard is set out by the Apostle in these termes Hee abideth a Priest for us Hee continueth a Priest Hee having a continuall Priesthood Hee without intermission appeareth before God for us Thus the Apostle But what of this will you say Do but marke Are you not All heard still proclaiming as with one voice that your Romish Sacrifice of the Masse is the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a Barradas Quod singulis diebus Christus offert incurrentè Hoc judge Sacrificium est Ecclesiae Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap. 15. Salmer Effusio sanguinis semel facta semper prodest modo jugiter offeratur In Heb. 10. Disp 19. Beccanus Iuge Sacrificium Veteris Testamenti fuit figura Missae in novo ratione determinationis temporis sicut ille offerrebatur mane vespere ita Christus à principio mundi usque ad finem Apoc. 13. Agnus occisus Lib. de analog utriusque Testam cap. 13. num 14. Iuge Sacrificium that is the Continuall Sacrifice Continually offered Whereof the Iuge and Continuall Sacrifice of the Law was a Signe So you But it were strange that the Iuge Sacrificium of the Law continuing both Morning and Evening should be a figure of your Masse-Sacrifice which is but onely offered in the Morning As if you would make a picture having two hands for to represent a person that hath but one But not to deny that the Celebration of the Eucharist may be called a Iuge Sacrificium for so some Fathers have termed it Yet they no otherwise call it Iuge or Continual than they call it a Sacrifice that is Vnproperly because it cannot possibly be compared for Continuance of Time to that Celestiall of Christ in the highest Heaven where Christ offereth himselfe to God for us day and night without Intermission
Sacrifica quia morteÌ„ Christi repraesentabant sed quia Immolatione Rei oblatae denotabant Deum authorem vitae mortis Vasquez will say for The acknoledgment of Gods Soveraigntie over life and death âšœ The Confirmation of the former Demonstration out of the Fathers first Explaining of themselves SECT V. SAint Ambrose setting forth two kinde of Offerings of Christ here on Earth and above in Heaven hee saith that a Ambr. Vmbra in Lege imago in Evangelio veritas in coelestibus antè agnus offerebatur nunc Christ offertur quasi Homo quasi recipiens passionem offert sese ipse quasi Sacérdos ut peccata nostra dimittat hîc in imagine ibi in veritate ubi apud Patrem pro nobis quasi Advocatus intervenit Lib. 1. de Offic. Cap. 48. Christ here is offered as one suffering and above hee himselfe Offereth himselfe an Advocate with the Father for us And this our offering of him hee calleth but an Image and that above hee calleth the Truth Clearly shewing that wee have in our Offering Christ's Body onely as it is Crucified which is the Object of our Commemoration But the same Body as it is now the personall subject of a present Time and Place they behold it in Heaven even the same Body which was once offered on the Crosse by his Passion now offered up by himselfe to God by Presentation in Heaven here in the Church onely by our Representation Sacramentally on earth Saint Augustine dealeth as plainly with us where distinguishing three States of Offerings up of Christ hee b August Hujus Sacrificij caro sanguis antè adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Domini per ipsam Veritatem post Ascensum per SacramentuÌ„ memoriae celebratur Cont. Faust lib. 20. cap. 21. Tom. 6. NoÌ„ne semel immolatus est Christus tamen in Sacramento quotidiè immolatur He addeth Nec tamen mentitur qui dicit Christum immolari si enim Sacramenta non haberent similitudinem rerum ipsarum quas repraesentant non essent Sacramenta Ex qua similitudine nomina eorum accipiunt Aug. lib. Epist 23. See of this above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. And yet againe more plainely in his 20 Book against Faustâ—â— cap. 21. it followeth Vt Baptismus dicitur sepulchruÌ„ sic Hoc est corpus meum saith first that under the Law Christ was promised In the Similitude of their Sacrifices meaning his bloody death was prefigured by those bloody Sacrifices Secondly in the offering at his Passion hee was Delivered up in Truth or proper Sacrifice this was on the Crosse And Thirdly after his Ascension The memorie of Him is celebrated by a Sacrament or Sacramentall Representation So hee For although the Sacrifices of the Iewes were true Sacrifices yet were they not truly the Sacrificings of Christ Note you this Assertion Againe speaking of his owne Time when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was daily celebrated hee saith That Christ was once sacrificed namely upon the Crosse and is now daily sacrificed in the Sacrament nor shall hee lye saith hee that saith Christ is sacrificed So hee No holy Augustine shall hee not lye who saith that Christ as the personall Subject of this Sacrament is a Proper Sacrifice in the Literall Sense for whether Proper or Vnproper are the two Seales of this Controversie Now interpose your Catholike Resolution Say first why is it called a Sacrament tell us * See above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 8. out of his Epist 23. ad Bonifacium If Sacraments had not a similitude of things which they represent they were no Sacraments from which similitude they have their Appellation and name of the things to wit The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is called his Body as Baptisme is called a Buriall Be so good as to explaine this by another which may illuminate every man in the point of Sacrifice also although otherwise blinded with prejudice c Epist 23. ad Bonifac Paulò ante verba superiora nempè Pascha appropinquante saepè dicimus crastinam Domini passionem cum ille ante multos annos passus sit nec omninö nisi semel ista passio facta sit nempè isto die dicimus Christus resurrexit cum ex quo resurrexit tot Anni transierunt cum nemo ita â—eptus sit qui nos ita Ioquentes arguat nos esse mentitos ut dicatur ipse Dies quia non est ipse sed similis none semel immolatus est Christus c. As when the day of Christs Passion saith hee being to morrow or the day of his Resurrection about to be the next day but one wee use to say of the former To morrow is Christ's Passio and of the other when it cometh it is Christ's Resurrection yet will none be so absurd as to say wee lye in so saying because wee speake it by way of Similitude even so when wee say this is sacrificed c. So Saint Augustine Who now seeth not that as the Buriall of Christ is not the Subject matter of Baptisme but onely the Representative Object thereof and as Good-Friday and Easter-day are not properly the dayes of Christ his Passion or Resurrection but Anniversarie and Represensative or Commemorative Resemblances of them So this Sacrifice is a Similitude of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse and not materially the same âšœ Lastly heare Augustine againe 2 Aug. lib. 1. Con. advers Leg. Proph. cap. 18. Mors Christi unum unicum verum Sacrificium The death of Christ saith hee is the onely true Sacrifice âšœ Wee omit Testimonies of other Fathers which are dispersed in other Sections Although this one Explanation might satisfie yet shall wee adjoyne others which may satiate even the greediest Appetite in the Demonstrations following The fourth Demonstration From the Fathers Explanation of their meaning by a kinde of Correction SECT VI. ANcient Fathers in good number call that which is represented in the Eucharist and which wee are said to offer The same Host not many the same Oblation no other the same Sacrifice and none but it but they adde by a Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Correction of the excesse of their speech or rather for Caution-sake lest their Readers might conceive of the same Sacrifice herein as properly present saying in this maner Wee offer the same Sacrifice or rather the Remembrance thereof alluding sometime expresly to the Institution of Christ Do this in remembrance of mee The Fathers are these viz. a Chrys â—â— Heb. 10. â—om 17. pa. 1171. Christus semper suo sanguine intraâ— Ipse Sacrificium Sacerdos Hostia si hoc non esset multa oportebat etiam Sacrificia offerri saèpiùs oportebat crucifigi Eandem ipsam Hostiam quaÌ„ Christus immolabat offerimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel potiùs Recordationem ipsius c. Chrysostome b Theophylact in Heb. 10. pa. 885. 886. Nunc
neither would nor ought to have concealed the words and names lest thereby they might have seemed to have abhorred the proper Characters of our Christian Profession Wee descend to the Fathers It is not unknowne unto you how the Fathers delighted themselves in all their Treatises with Iewish Ceremoniall Termes onely by Allegoricall Allusions as they did with the word Synagogue applying it to any Christian assembly as Arke to the Church Holocaust to Mortification Levite to Deacons Incense to Prayers and Praises and the word Pascha to the day of the Resurrection of Christ But if any should say that these Fathers used any of these words in a proper Signification hee should wrong both the common sense of these Fathers and his owne Conscience It were superfluous to urge many Instances where one will serve The word Altar applyed to the Table of the Lord which anciently stood in the g Euseb Hist lib. 10. cap. 4. Ex Orat Danegyr Paulino Tyriorum Episcopo dedicata qui Basilicam ibi construxit Sanctuario hoc modo absoluto perfecto sellisque quibusdam in altissimo loco ad Praesidum Ecclesiae honorem collocatis subsellijs ordine dispensatis Altarique denique tanquà m Sancto Sanctorum Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in medio Sanctuarij sito c. Cocclus Tom. 2. Tract de Altari Athanasio in vita Antonij Altare Domini multorum multitudine circumdatum Chrysost de visione Angelorum lib. 6. de Saerdotio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys Hierarch Eccles cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 August de Verbis Dom. Serm. 46. de eo quod scriptum Qui mandueat Christus quotidie pascit mensa Ipsius est illa in medio constituta These Testimonies verifie the same Assertion of Doctor Falke against Gregory Martin cap. 17. The Table stood so that men might stand round aboue it Midst of the Chancell so that They might compasse it round was more rarely called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greekes or Altare of the Latines than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mensa that is Table which they would not have done if Altar had carryed in it the true and absolute property of an Altar nay but they used therein the like liberty as they used to do in h August quaest super Exod. lib. 2. cap. 9. Altare est populus Dei Lib. 1. de Serm. in monte Altare in interiore Dei templò id est fides Lib. 10. de Civitat Dei cap. 4. Ejus est Altare cor nostrum And other Fathers ordinarily applying the name Altar to Gods People and to a Christian man's Faith and Heart ⚜ All this notwithstanding you are not to thinke that wee do hereby oppugne the Appellation of Priest and Altar or yet the now Situation thereof in our Church for use as Convenient and for order more Decent but onely the Romish Opinion and Doctrine whereby you hold them in the verie proprietie of words and not as the Fathers did onely by way of Allusion For your better Apprehension of this Truth if you will be pleased to observe that Christ in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sacrament propounded it in the place where hee with his Disciples gave it unto them to be Eaten and Drunken then tell us where it was ever knowne that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking In Gods Booke wee find Levit. 9. that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eate their Oblation On but Besides the Altar Neither may you thinke it any Derogation to this Sacrament that the place whereon it is Celebrated is not called an Altar of the Lord seeing the Spirit of God by his Apostle hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes for the Apostle as hee called this Sacred Banquet purposely The Supper of the Lord and the Vessell prepared for the Liquid The Cup of the Lord so did hee name the place whereon it was set The Table of the Lord and the Contemners thereof Guiltie of the Body and Blood of the Lord and thereupon did denounce the Vengeance and Plague which fell upon prophane Communicants The Iudgement of the Lord and all these in one Chapter 1. Cor. 11. The like Difference may be discerned betweene your maner of Reverence in Bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist onely and ours in Bowing aswell when there is no Eucharist on the Table as when there is which is not to the Table of the Lord but to the Lord of the Table to testifie the Communion of all the Faithfull Communicants thereat even as the People of God did in Adoring him before the Arke his Footstoole Psal 99. 5. and 1. Chron. 28. 2. as Daniels Bowing at Prayer in Chaldea looking towards the Temple of Ierusalem where the Temple of Gods Worship was Dan. 6. 10. And as David would be knowne to have done saying Psal 5. 7. I will Worship towards thy holy Temple Will you suffer us to come home to you The Father Gregory Nazianzen for his soundnesse of Iudgement Sirnamed the Divine comparing this Inferiour Altar and Sacrifice on earth with the Body of Christ seated in Heaven faith that the Sacrifices which hee offereth in his Contemplation at the Altar in Heaven are i Nazian orat 28. Esto ego pellor ab Altari in Ecclesia at novi aliud Altare mentis contemplationis in coelo ibi adstabo Deo offeram Sacrificia quae sunt tanto acceptiora quà m ea quae offerimus ad Altare quanto pretiosior est veritas quà m umbra More acceptable than the Sacrifices which are offered at the Altar Below as much as Truth is more excellent than the Shadow So hee Therefore say wee the Sacrifice of Christ his Body and Blood are subjectively in Heaven but objectively here in the Eucharist here Representative only as in a Shadow but in Heaven presentatively in his Bodily presence So vainly your Disputers hitherto whilst that wee required Materials have objected against us bare words phrases and very shadowes Lastly Cyril of Alexandria k Cyril Alexand. cont Iulian. lib. 9 Iulian Ob. Iudaei sacrificant vos autem invento novo Sacrificio quare non sacrificatis illud commune nobiscum habent etiam Templa Altaria c. Resp Cyril multò post Vitae honestas ad meliora propensio est Sacrificium fragrantissimum Et Paulus hortatur nos exhibere corpora nostra Sacrificium sanctum rationalem cultum nostrum Deo Igitur etsi Iudaei sacrificarent ut in umbris praecepta implerent nos tamen latâ viâ euntes ad id quod rectum est veniemus nempè spiritualem immortalem cultum proficientes Iulian. Mosi dicitur septem diebus azymis vescemini vobis parum est abstulisse Cyril Resp Impletur Lex à nobis in azymis maximè fide justificatis in Spiritu mentalemque cultum praeponentibus tali modo Vnde scribit D. Paulus ut diem agamus in azymis sinceritatis veritatis Rursus
Divine for direction to all Posterity to adore the Sacrament with Divine honour even as it is taught in the Church of Rome at this day and to have confirmed the same by some Practice not of one or other private man or woman but by their publike forme of Prayer and Invocation in their solemne Masses or else to confesse that Antiquity never fancied any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist Yet two words more You presse the point of the Invocation of the Sacrament more urgently and vehemently than any other and wee indeed believe that the ancient Fathers if they had held according to the now Romane Church a Corporall presence of Christ would never have celebrated any Masse without an expresse Invocation of the Sacrament as in your now-Romane Masse wee finde it done saying O Lambe of God c. or some other like forme Yet know now that your owne learned Pamelius hath published two large Tomes of all the Masses in the Latine Church from Pope Clemens downe to Pope Gregory containing the compasse of six hundred yeares wee say Latine Missals above forty in number in all which upon our once reading wee presume to say that there is not one such tenour of Invocation at all This our first Reason taken from so universall a silence of ancient Fathers in a case of so necessary a moment may be wee thinke satisfactory in it selfe to any man of ordinary Reason Our second Objection out of the Fathers followeth That the Ancient Fathers gain-sayd the Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament and the Adoration therof by their Preface in their presenting the Host saying Lift up your Hearts SECT II. IT was the generall Preface of Antiquity used in the Celebration of this Sacrament for the Minister to say Lift up your Hearts and the People to answer Wee lift them up unto the Lord. This Sursum Corda Calvin a Calvin Instit lib. 2. c. 17. §. 36. Nec alia cauâ—â in antiqua Ecclesia fuisse institutum ut antè mysteriotum celebrationeÌ„ diceretur Sursùm corda hath objected against you and your Cardinall confessing that this Preface b In omnibus Liturgiis Graecis Iacobi Basilij Chrysost et omnibus Latinis habetur id quod etiam hoc tempore nos facimus Bellar lib. 1. de Euch. ca. 14. §. Respondeo si was in use in all Liturgies of Antiquity aswell Greeke as Latine and continued in the Church of Rome unto this day Then answereth that c Respondeo Sursùm corda non significare elevationem ad locum corporalem sed elevationem à rebus terrenis curis hujus vitae ad Deum res aeternas Non respondetur Habemus ad firmamentum sed Habemus ad Dominum Et certè qui Christum quaerebant in praesepi in templo in sepulchro Sursùm corda habebant quia illum quaerebant qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula Et fieri potest ut qui terram intuetur cor deor um Sic qui in Eucharistia Christum quaerunt venerantur cor sursum habent si de ipso Christo non de negotiis hujus vitae interim cogitent Bellarm Ibid. Hee that seeketh Christ in the Eucharist and worshippeth him if hee thinke of Christ and not of the Cares of earthly things hee hath his heart above So hee As though the word Above meant as the Subject the person of Christ in the Eucharist and not his place of residence in the highest Heavens contrary to the word in the Greeke * Liturg. Graec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liturgies which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Above wherein the Church alludeth to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostle Coloss 3. 1. Seeke the things that are above where Christ is at the right hand of God as your owne d Monet ergo Sacerdos populum Sursùm i. e. super seipsum elevare corda ad Dominum juxtà exhortationem Apostoli Col. 3. Quae sursùm sunt quaerite non quae super terram Durand Ration lib. 4. cap. 33. Durandus the Expositor of the Romish Masse doth acknowledge Saint Augustine saying e Aug. in Psal 148. Laudate Dominum in excelsis Primò de coelo dicit posteà de terris laudatur enim Deus qui fecit coelum terram Nos adhuc in imo sumus sed cum cogitamus quomodo illic laudetur Deus cor ibi habeamus non sine causa audimus Sursùm corda It is not without Cause that it is said Lift up your hearts Hee sheweth the Cause to be that wee who are here at the Bottome might according to that of the Psalmist Praise God in the highest This one would thinke is plaine enough but that is much more which wee have already proved out of the Fathers by their Antithesis and Opposition betweene the Altar on Earth and the other in Heaven where wee have heard * See above Booke 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. c. Chrysostome distinguishing them that fasten their thoughts upon this Below from Them that seeke Christ in Heaven as hee doth Choughs from Eagles Ambrose as they that behold the Image from them that contemplate upon the Truth * Ibid. Nazianzen as they that looke upon the Signes from them that see the Things and to contemplate upon the Better Altar in Heaven And the Councel of * Booke 4. Chap. 11. Sect. 4. Nice as they that stoope downe from them that looke up aloft And wee may not forget the Observation which * Booke 5. Chap. 5. Sect. â— Athanasius made of Christ in his discourse of Eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood purposely making mention of his Ascension into Heaven thereby to draw their thoughts from earthly Imaginations and to consider him as being in Heaven as did also Saint * Aug. See above B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. Augustine Cyril of Hierusalem is a Father whom you have often sollicited to speake for your Cause in other Cases but all in vaine shall wee hearken to him in this Hee interpreting these words Lift up your Hearts will not have it onely to signifie a sequestring of your thoughts from earthly Cares to spirituall and heavenly which you say was the meaning of the Councel of Nice as if that Lifting up their Hearts had beene onely an exercising of their thoughts upon that in the hands of the Priest or on the Altar beneath No but hee saith that it is f Cyril Hier. Catech. Mystag 5. Ob hanc causam clamat Sacerdos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quià oportet sursùm habere cor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non ad terrena negotia deprimere Paulò post 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To have our hearts in heaven with God the lover of man-kind even as did also Saint g Aug. in Psal 85. Certè rectè admonet ut Sursùm corda habeant audiant igitur faciant levent ad coelum quod malè est in terratiâ—i
enim non putrescit cor si levetur ad Deum Teste Pamel Tom. 1. Missal in Missa Aug. 〈◊〉 pag. 527. Augustine interpret this Admonition to be A lifting up of hearts to heaven Whom as you have * See above B. 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. heard leaving our Eucharisticall Sacrifice on this Altar so would hee have us to seeke for our Priest in heaven namely as Origen more expresly said Not on earth but in heaven accordingly Oecumenius placing the Host and Sacrifice where Christs Invisible Temple is even in heaven âšœ Agreeable to this are the words of Hierome whom notwithstanding your owne 1 Dr. Heskins Parliam Booke 2. Ch. 53. out of Hier. Epist ad Hebdib qu. 2. Doctor hath objected as a Patron for defence of your Romish Masse 2 Hier ad Hebdib cap. 2. Ascendamus igitur cum Domino ad coenaculum magnum stratum accipâ—amus ab eo sursum Calâ—cem Novi Testamenti Ibique cùm eo Pascha celebrantes inebriemur ab eo Vino sobrietatis Let us ascend with our Lord into the great Chamber prepared and made cleane and let us receive of him the Cup of the new Testament and there keeping the Passeover with him let us be made drunke with the wine of Sobriety All as plaine as plainnesse it selfe âšœ Will you suffer one whom the world knoweth to have been as excellently versed in Antiquity as any other to determine this Point Hee will come home unto you h Tempore veters Ecclesiae Romanae populus non cursitabat ad videndum id quod Sacerdos ostendit sed prostratis humi corporibus animis in coelum erectis gratias agebant Redemptori Eras lib. de amab Eccles Concord In the time of the ancient Church of Rome saith hee the people did not run hither and thither to behold that which the Priest doth shew but prostrating their Bodies on the ground they lift up their minds to heaven giving thanks to their Redeemer So hee Thus may wee justly appeale as in all other Causes of moment so in this from this degenerate Church of Rome to the sincere Church of Rome in the Primitive times like as one is reported to have Appealed from Caesar sleeping to Caesar waking Our difference then can be no other than was that betweene Mary and Stephen noted by Ambrose i Ambros in Luc. cap. 24. Maria quae quaerebat Christum in terra â—angere non potuit Stephanus tetigit qui quaesivit in coelo Mary because shee sought to touch Christ on earth could not but Stephen touched him who sought him in heaven A third Argument followeth That the ancient Fathers cendemned the Romish worship by their Descriptions of Divine Adoration SECT III. ALl Divine Adoration of a meere Creature is Idolatry hereunto accord these sayings of k Aug Tom. 2 Epist 44. ad Maxim Christianis Catholicis nihil ut numen adoratur quod conditum est a Deo IdeÌ„ Tom. 8. in Psalm 98. Timeo terram adorare ne me damnet qui fecit coelum terram Nazianz. Orat 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antiquity No Catholike Christian doth worship as a Divine Power that which is created of God Or thus I feare to worship earth lest hee condemne mee who created both Heaven and earth Or thus If I should worship a Creature I could not be named a Christian It were a tedious superfluity in a matter so universally confessed by your selves and all Christians to use Witnesses unnecessarily Wee adde the Assumption But the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament is an attributing of Divine Honour to a meere Creature the Consecrated Bread For that it is still Bread you shall find to have beene the Doctrine of Primitive Fathers if you shall but have the patience to stay untill wee deliver unto you a * See Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Synopsis of their Catholike Iudgement herein after that wee have duly examined your Romish Doctrine by your owne Principles which is the next point CHAP. V. An Examination of the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament in the Masse to prove it Idolatrous by discussing your owne Principles The State of the Question IDolatry by the Distinction of your Iesuites is either Materiall or Formall The Materiall you call that when the Worshipper adoreth something in stead of God in a wrong perswasion that it is God otherwise you judge the Worship to be a Formall Idolatry Now because many of your seduced Romanists are perswaded that your Romish worship in your Masse cannot be subject either to Materiall or Formall Idolatry it concerneth us in Conscience both for the honour of God and safety of all that feare God to prove Both. Wee begin at that which you confesse to be a Materiall Idolatry That the Romish Adoration of the Host in the hand of the Priest is necessarily a Materiall Idolatry by reason of many hundred confessed Defects whereof Seven concerne the Matter of the Sacrament SECT I. IT is a point unquestionable among you that if the thing in the hand of the Priest be not duly Consecrated then the Matter Adored is but a meere Creature and your Adoration must needs be at the least a Materiall Idolatry The Seven defects set downe in your Romane a Missal Rom. pag. 31. Vbi debita materia deficit non conficitur Sacramentum Si non sit panis triticeus vel si alioqui corruptus Et pag. 32. Si Vinum sit factum acetum vel penitùs putidum vel de uvis acerbis non maturis expressum vel admixtum aquae ut sit corruptum non conficitur Sacramentum Missall and by your b Dico species consecratae perfectè misceri possunt cum liquore specie distincto tum non manet sub eis sanguis Christi Ità Thomas Teste Suar. Ies in 3. Thom. Disp 67 Sect. 4. § Dico Et Durand Si plus apponatur Aquae quà m Vini erit irritum Sacramentum Lib. 4. cap. 42. Iesuite are these First If the Bread be not of Wheat or secondly Be corrupt or thirdly the Wine be turned Vinegar or fourthly of sowre or fifthly unripe Grapes or sixthly be stinking or imperfectly mixt with any liquor of any other kinde the Consecration is void so that neither Body or Blood of Christ can be there present seventhly yea and if there be more Water than Wine So you All which Defects how easily they may happen beyond the understanding of every Consecrating Priest let Bakers and Vintners judge That there are Sixe other c Missal Roman in Can. Missâ—e Sex modis contingere potest formae variatio nunâ—rùm per Additionem detractionem alicujus vocis mutationem vel si una ponâ—tur loco alterius corruptionem vocis alicujus detrahendo vel mutando syllabam aliquam transpositioneÌ„ id est ordinis dictionum variatione ac deinde per interruptionem ut pronunciando unaÌ„ partem formae ac quicscendo per aliquod spacium vel loquendo aliquid
yea and in Millions of distant Altars at the same time and consequently in all places whatsoever Now whether this Doctrine of Christ's Bodily Presence in many places at once was held of the Catholike Fathers for Hereticall it may best be seene by their Doctrine of the Existence of Christ's Body in one onely place not onely Definitively but also Circumscriptively both which do teach an absolute Impossibility of the Existence of the same in divers places at once And they were as zealous in professing the Article of the maner of Christs Bodily Being in place as they are in instructing men of the Article of Christ's Bodily Being lest that the deniall of its Bodily maner of being might destroy the nature of his Body âšœ So farre that the Ancient Father Vigilius * Vigilius B. 4. C. 5. §. 5. testifieth that to believe The Body of Christ wheresoever it was to be Circumscribed in one place was the Ancient Catholike Doctrine of those Ages âšœ To which end they have concluded it to be absolutely but in one place sometime in a x Chap. 4 thorowout Circumscriptive Finitenesse thereby distinguishing them from all created Spirits and sometime by a Definitive Termination which they set downe first by Exemplications thus y Ibid. Sect. â— If Christ his Body be on Earth then it is absent from Heaven and thus Being in the Sunne it could not be in the Moone Secondly by divers Comparisons for comparing the Creature with the Creator God they a Ibid. conclude that The Creature is not God because it is determinated in one place and comparing the humane and divine Nature of Christ together they b Cha. 4. Sect. â— conclude that they are herein different because the humane and Bodily Nature of Christ is necessarily included in one place and lastly comparing Creatures with the Holy Ghost they c Cha. â— Sect â— conclude a difference by the same Argument because the Holy Ghost is in many places at once and all these in confutation of divers Heretikes A thing so well knowne to your elder Romish Schoole that it confessed the Doctrine of Existence of a Body in divers places at once in the judgement of Antiquity to be d Ibid. Hereticall âšœ Yea and so Hereticall that it openeth a Sluce for the old raucid Heresie of the Ariomanitae by interpretation Maddish-Arians to â—low in upon us who denied the Holy Ghost to be God as not being every where whom the Primitive Fathers did Confute * See B. 4. C. 7. §. 2. Seven in number by proving the Holy Ghost to be every where and therefore God because Hee is in divers places at once Which was likewise * B. 4. â— 6. §. 3. Tertullians Argument to prove the Godhead of Christ II. The property of a Solidity likewise was patronized by Ancient Fathers in confutation of Heretikes by teaching e Chap. 7. Sect. 6. Christs Body to be necessarily Palpable against their Impalpabilitie and to have a Thicknesse against their feigned subtile Body as the Aire âšœ A whole * Booke 4. c. 8. §. â— Generall Councel of Ephesus determining that The Body of Christ is palpable wheresoever it is âšœ and furthermore controlling these opinions following which are also your Crotchets of a Bodies f Cha. 7. Sect. 6. Being whole in the whole space and in every part thereof and of Christ's Body g Cha. 4 Sect. 9 taking the Right hand or left of it selfe III The property of Perfection of the Body of Christ wheresoever in the highest Degree of Absolutenesse This one would thinke every Christian heart should assent unto at the first hearing wherefore if that they were judged Heretickes by Ancient Fathers who h Prateol Elench haeres Tit. Philoponus Alexandrinus Statuit mortuorum resurrectionem esse viz. rationalium animarum cum corruptibili corpore indissolubilem unionem taught an Indivisible Vnion of mens soules with their Bodies naturally still subject to corruption after the resurrection who can imagine that the holy Catholicke Fathers would otherwise have judged of this your generall Tenet viz. to beleeve a Body of Christ now since his Glorification which is destitute of all power of naturall motion sense appetite or understanding otherwise than of a senselesse and Antichristian Deliration and Delusion âšœ Fie no! for they believed no Body of Christ after his Resurrection but such as is * Booke 4. Cha. 9. §. 3. void of all infirmity and in all integrity most perfect âšœ Yea and that which is your onely Reason you allege to avoid our Objection of Impossibilities in such cases to wit i Booke 4. Ch. 5. Sect. â— The Omnipotencie of God the same was the Pretence of Heretikes of old in the like Assertions which occasioned the Ancient Fathers to terme the Pretence of Omnipotencie k Ibid. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. The Sanctuary of Heretikes albeit the same Heretikes as well as you intended as a Father speaketh to magnifie God thereby namely inbeleeving the Body of Christ after his Ascension to be wholly Spirituall To which Heretikes the same Father readily answered as wee may to you saying l Chap. 4. Sect. â— at b c. When you will so magnifie Christ you do but accuse him of falshood not that wee do any whit detract from the Omnipotencie of Christ farre be this Spirit of Blasphemy from us but that as you have beene instructed by Ancient Fathers the attributing an Impossibility to God in such Cases of Contradiction is not a diminishing but an ample advancing of the m Ibid. Omnipotencie of God BOOKE V. Your Orall Eating Gutturall Swallowing and Inward Digestion as you have n Booke â— thorowout taught of the Body of Christ into your Entrails and from thence into the Draught hath beene proved out of the Fathers to be in each respect sufficiently Capernaiticall and termed by them a Sense both o Booke 5. Cha. 6. Sect. 4 Pernicious and Flagitious Besides you have a Confutation of the Hereticall Manichees for their p Booke 5. Ch. 6. Sect. 3. Opinion of Fastning Christ to mens guts and loosing him againe by their belchings Consonant to your Romish Profession both of Christ's q Booke 5. Ch. 6. Sect. 1. Cleaving to the guts of your Communicants and r Booke 5. Cha. 6. Sect. 2. Vomiting it up againe when you have done âšœ Besides the same Fathers condemned the Heresie of the same Capernaites * See Booke 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 5. Chap. 3. â— 2. Ch 8. §. 2. for not discerning Christs words after his speaking of Eating his flesh Hee made mention of his Ascension into Heaven saying When you shall see the Sonne of man ascending where hee first was they did not understand that they therefore could not Eate him on Earth as they imagined because hee should ascend to Heaven âšœ BOOKE VI. This is spent wholly in examining the Romish Doctrine of Masse-Sacrifice and in proving it to be
Sacrilegiousnesse it selfe as you have seene in a former ſ See above in this Booke Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Synopsis BOOKE VII This containeth a Discoverie of your Masse-Idolatry not onely as being equall with the Doctrine of some Heretikes but in one respect exceeding the infatuation of the very t Booke 7. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. Pagans besides the Generall Doctrine of the power of your Priests u Cha. 5. Sect. 3. Intention in consecrating hath beene yoaked by your owne Jesuite with the Heresies of the * Cha. 9. Sect. 5. Donatists When you have beheld your owne faces in these divers Synopses as it were in so many glasses wee pray to God that the sight of so many and so prodigious Abominations in your Romish Masse may draw you to a just Detestation of it and bring you to that true worship of God which is to be performed in Spirit and in Truth and to the saving of every one of your soules through his Grace in Christ Iesus AMEN * ⎠* ALL GLORY BE ONELY TO GOD. AN INDEX Of the Matters contained in the Eight precedent Bookes against the ROMISH MASSE A ABSTEMIOVSNES No sufficient reason for Altering Christs Ordinance in the use of the Cup. pag. 79. ABSVRD to hold with many Romish Doctors Production to be the means of Transubstantiation p. 153. Absurdities expostulated by Master Brerely p. 286. Absurdities of the Romish Doctrine concerning Transubstantiation and the Bodily Being of Christ in the Eucharist with the palpable Absurdities of the Iesuites defence thereof p. 291. unto p. 301. ACCIDENTS No Substance ingendred out of meere Accidents Confessed p. 174. Not Accidents but Aire maketh drunke pag. 175. Accidents newly happening to the Sacrament cannot be without their Subjects p. 178. 179. This Figment never dreamed off by Ancient Fathers Book 3. chap. 3. throughout Accidents nourishing Substance absurdly confirmed by the Iesuite Fisher from Substances nourishing Substances p. 296. num 6. ADDVCTION pretended to be the sole maner of Transubstantiation by some Iesuites and confuted as false by others pag. 153. unto p. 156. ADORATION Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is the Romish Profession pag. 504. Not proved by Christs Institution p. 505. Nor by Antiquity either in their objected Verball speeches p. 506. unto p. 511 Nor in their Reall Objected Practices Ibid. c 3. throughout p. 511. unto pag. 524. Nay it is repugnant to Antiquity pag 524. unto pag. 528. Proved by their owne Principles to be Materially Idolatrous pag. 528. unto p. 533. Because of the many hundred defects in their Consecration in sixe Sections that it is Formally Idolatrous pag. 533. 534. Notwithstanding their Three Pretences p. 534. unto 539. The Impious Iesuiticall Evasion and Delusion to make the Romish worship seeme tollerable p. 539. Which is as ill as any Heathen p. 540. In one respect worse p. 541. Divine Adoration ought toprocede from an Infallible Faith in the God-head of him whom wee Invocate contrary to the Romish Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist Ibid. AELFRICK King his Faith objected for Transubstantiation untruly pag. 160. AETERNITIE What it is p. 263. ALTAR called Table by the Councell of Nice p. 303. Altar Priest Sacrifice and Temple properly so called on Earth all dissolved by Ancient Fathers pag. 415. unto pag. 418. Our Altar in Heaven pag. 418. The word Altar in the Masse not used with the Apostles p 461. 462. confessed Ibid. Allusions of Fathers in their termes Pascha c. Ibid. It is properly a Table Ibid. throughout the Sections AMBROSE Against Prayer in an unknowne Tongue p. 35. He teacheth that Hoc in Christs speech demonstrateth Bread p. 103. and a Figurative sense therein 125. Corruptly objected by Bellarmine for proofe of a proper sense therein Ibid. His sayings Ob. Of Bread is made Christs Body p. 202. Item They are the same that they were p. 178. Ob. Worke of Omnipotencie pag. 188. Ob. Nature is Changed pag. 190. Ambrose corrupted in some Romish Editions Ibid. Hee granteth something to bee Impossible to God even to the advancement of Gods Omnipotencie pag. 229. Proveth the Holy Ghost to be God by its being in divers places at once 239. 262 Holds that Christ at his Birth opened the Coll of the Blessed Virgin p. 278. And that Angels have their definite place and space 262. Hee is objected for penetration of the doores by Christs Body 275. Apparitions of some in two places at once Objected and Answered p. 262. Of Christs Bodily Presence onely in Heaven p. 306. That the Eucharist is nourishment for the soule 310. 385. Holdeth that the Godly onely are Partakers of Christs Body p. 321. See Guilty Hee is wrongfully urged for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse pag. 404. He granteth Christs exercising of his Priesthood now in heaven 415. He disclaimeth all properly called Altars Priesthood and Sacrifice here on earth p. 417. The Sacrifice on the Crosse our Iuge Sacrificium pag. 419. That Christ is only offered in an Image here but in Heaven in Truth p 441. Hee nameth the Eucharist a Sacrifice of Christ or rather a Remembrance thereof p. 443. Hee called the Bread before Consecration an Vnbloody Sacrifice 453. and calleth Baptisme a Sacrifice p. 457. His words Here Christ offereth himself Objected 479. And Wee adore in these mysteries the flesh of Christ as the footstoole of his Deity p. 508. To reverence him whose Body wee come to eate Objected Ibid. His Liturgie for praying God propitiously to receive the Gift 563. Calumniously objected 494. See Guilty ANGELS cannot possibly be in divers places at once by the Iudgement of Antiquity pag. 261. 262. Their objected Association at the receiving the Eucharist is no Argument of Divine Adoration thereof 506. 507. Angels present also at Baptisme Nazian Ibid. p. 507. ANNIHILATION of Bread is a necessary Consequence of the Romish manner of Transubstantiation pag. 156. ANSELME his saying Iewes ate the same spirituall meate with Christians p. 314. ANCIENT Fathers their wisedome contemned professedly by Romish Disputers in respect of their owne pag. 85. 86. ANTITYPE used of the Greeke Fathers concerning the Eucharist proveth Christs speech to be Figurative pag. 115 The use of this word Antitype pag 454. 455 APOSTLES not made Priests by those words of Christ Hoc Facite p. 57 Apostolicall authority contemned in respect of the now Papall by Romish Doctors pag 86 87 They are rudely called Rude pag. 135. APPARITIONS of Christ unto Peter out of Egesippus and other Fathers Objected and Answered by your Iesuite Vasquez p 240 241. Apparitions of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist manifoldly objected by the Romish Disputers for proofe of a Corporal Presence therein p. 218 219 220. Acknowledged by their owne Schoole-men to be no True flesh or Blood but feigned p. 221. 222. The Suggesters thereof of what disposition they were p. 223 224. APPLICATION of the Sacrifice of Christ in the Romish Partiall p. 483.
The Fathers Doctrine herein Ibid. Repugnant to the Romish p. 484 485. And that this is for false Gaine p. 486. AQVARII Heretikes what they were p. 62. 81. ARMY Consisting of one man pag. 268. ARNOBIVS That Melchisedech as Christ offered Bread and Wine pag. 406. ATHANASIVS against the Hereticall Manichees for the Certitude of the Sense of Touching p. 170. That Angels are but in one place p. 262. So the Holy Ghost is in all places Ibid. He is against the Apparitions of souls departed in diverse places at once because that this is proper to God Ibid. The Body of Christ is to rise in all Perfection pag. 283. Apparitions of some in two places at once objected out of Athanasius and Answered pag. 261 262 c. His Saying that Christ mentioned his Ascension to prevent the Capernaiticall sense of Eating his flesh pag. 340. And Wee by the Incarnation of Christ are Deifyed p. 361. And By Baptisme are made alive with Christ and our flesh no more Earthly but made the same word which was made flesh Ibid. His Saying That Christ transmitteth not his Priesthood to any Successor p. 411. And that Bread and Wine of Melchisedech were a signe of an unbloody Sacrifice p. 453. â—ine And that Wee adore the Trinity before we be baptized in their names p. 509 ATTALAS the Martyr denyeth the Devouring of Christ p. 375 382. AVERROES his Imputing unto Christians the Devouring of their God because of the Romish false Profession p. 381. AVGVSTINE against Prayer in a Language Vnknowne p. 29. Vnconscionably objected to the Contrary p. 34. Hee is for Consecration by Prayer p. 11. And is against the Communion but in one kinde p. 77. He teacheth Hoc in Christs words to demonstrate Bread p. 103. Corruptly and Vnconscionably alleged by many Romanists for making Christ in the Eucharist a Figure of himselfe as he was on the Crosse p. 118 119. He dignifyeth the Bread as it is Sacramentall with the arme of Heavenly Bread p. 127. And teacheth a Figurative sense in Christs words This is my Body Eat my flesh p. 127. 136. His Saying That which you see is Bread pag. 169. That on the Altar not borne of the Virgin Mary p. 158 233. Hee expoundeth the Fruite of the Vine Math. 26 29. to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine pag. 164. His Saying Of the Sacramentall part one consisteth of many Graines p. 170. His Saying That which is distributed on the Lords Table is to be diminished p. 179. I. He is against the Being of a Body in two places at once p. 245. II That Christs Body removing cannot be in the place from whence it is removed Ibid. III. He is not alwayes with men here on earth because ascended Ibid. IV. Christs Body cannot be both in Sun and Moone p. 246. V. The Divine abideth still on Earth the Humane is in one place in Heaven Ibid. He is objected for Christs carrying himselfe in his owne hands p 249 His Saying that The Soule of Christ could not be in Heaven and Hell both at once p. 262 Ob. For Penetration of the Doores by Christs Body Answered p. 275. He is against the Romish Article of any Bodies Being in every part of the space of its Existence pag. 274. Hee saith that Christâ—s Bodily Presence is to be sought after onely in Heaven pag. 306. That Iewes ate the same Spirituall meate with Christians 314. That only the Godly participate of Christs Body p. 315. The wicked saith hee receive the Sacrament but not the virtue thereof by Virtue signifying The Body of Christ 324 325 326. He saith that The â—apernaits understood not Christs meaning p. 330. And that Christ confuted them by mentioning his Ascension Ibid. He is against the Manichees their belching Christ out p. 351. And against them that impâ—ted to Christians a worship of Ceres and Bacchus Ibid. His Testimony Fit Panis mysticus Corrupted by adding Corpus Christi p. 352. His Saying You eat not the Body which you see 340. Wee receive with mouth and heart fondly Objected p. 343. And Christs Blood is powred out into our mouths Ibid. His Saying By Baptisme wee are incorporated into Christ pag. 357. Hee is for onely the Soule-eating of Christs Body p. 385. Hee is wrongfully urged for a Proper Sacrifice from the Act of Melchisedech pag. 404. Hee is for Christs exercising his Priesthood now in Heaven pag. 415. How Presbyteri are Priests Ibid. Sacrifice is called as Easter day is called Christs Passion p. 442. The Death of Christ the onely True Sacrifice Ibid. Hee and other Doctors before him held Baptisme to be a Sacrifice of Christs Passion p. 459. But Metaphorically Ibid. Every Good worke is a True Sacrifice p. 471. The Blood of Christ reveiled herein that is Objectively pag. 478. Baptized are brought thither by feare p. 507. To reverence Baptisme wheresoever it is pag. 508. None Eateth Christs â—â—esh before hee adore it Ibid. Wee are to Reverence the Sacrament of Baptisme and Celebration of the Eucharist without carnall sense p. 509. He is for Prostrating of the Body lifting up of the mind to Heaven p. 526 AVGVSTANA CONFESSIO or the Confession of Auspurge consented unto by all Protestants p. 310. See LVTHERANS B BAPTISME is called a Buriall as Bread is called Christs Body p. 125 As Baptisme the Sacrament of Adoption is called Adoption so Bread is Christs Body p. 128. Euphramius his comparison of Water of Baptisme with Bread in the Eucharist p. 129 It is paralleld with the Eucharist almost in all the Sayings of the Ancient Fathers which the Romish Disputers allege for proof of either a Literall Exposition of Christs words This is my Body or for Transubstantiation or Corporall Presence or Bodily Vnion or Proper Sacrifice or Divine Adoration to the Confutation of the Objectors in each one p. 568 569 570 571 572 573. in a Generall Synopsis BASIL against Prayer in an Vnknowne Tongue p. 36. He is for Consecration by Prayer p. 10. Hee is for an Audible voice in the Priest p. 23. Hee calls the Eucharist a Viand p. 366. and Baptisme the Pledge and earnest of Blessing to come p. 367. Hee calleth the Eucharist an Vnbloody Sacrifice p. 451. His Liturgie for offering a Reasonable Service Objected and Answered Ibid. pag. 452 c. Hee saith that the Mysteries of Baptisme were kept secret p. 512. His saying that No Father left in writing the words of Invocation 519. Bellarmine absurdly mistaken in the word Invocation 518. proved 520. Basil's Liturgie in praying to God propitiously to receive the Gift doth confute the Romish Doctrine of a Corporall Presence and Sacrificatory Presence of Christ in the Eucharist p. 562. BEASTS to Eat and Swallow the Body of Christ is the Beastly and Capernaiticall Romish Doctrine p 348. A Beast adoring the Host absurdly objected by Bellarmine p. 516. BEDA expoundeth the Fruite of the Vine to signifie the Eucharisticall Wine p. 163. BERENGARIVS his forme of