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
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
hee preaching unto his Africans a knowne Proverbe in the Punick tongue which I will render unto you in Latine because all of you do not understand Punick The Proverbe is this The Pestilence seeketh money So hee shewing that the Africans understood Latine better than Punick although this were their Nationall Language Farre otherwise your Glosser that the Latine was unknowne to the Africans because their native language was Panick Whereby hee bewrayeth a Proverbially so called Punick Faith Flatly contradicting S. Augustine 23 August lib. 1. Confess cap. 14. Latina didici inter etiam blandimenta Nurricum who furthermore confesseth of himselfe saying I learnt the Latine tongue from the fawning and flattering Speeches of my Nourses Our Conclusion by way of Censure of this mans Exposition of the Articles of the Church of England and of the Romish Authorizers of the same Treatise This one Point being the first of his Paraphrase that fell in our way concerning any doctrine appertaining to the Romish Masse wee have beene the more Copious in Confutation thereof that our Reader might take a just scantling of the judgement of this Paraphrazer in the rest and of those who were the Censurers Approvers and Authorizers of the same more principally Thomas Blacklous 24 Censura Thomae Blacklouse de Libellis de Articulis Confessionis Angl. Catholico animo conscriptis ut Errantes ad Christi caulam reditum inveniant who shewes to what end this Tractate was writ and approoved as he saith To bring those that wander out of the way unto the fold of Christ Meaning the Church of Rome So then wee perceive it was not as he seemeth to pretend in the behalfe of Protestants to free them from any of the former Censures and Anathema's or from the curses and cruelties of the Romish Church against them but onely to ensnare them if it may be in the same Babylonish thraldome of Superstition and Idolatry from whence by the marvailous and gracious providence of God they have beene delivered Therefore from these our Premises VVee Conclude Blacklous and his fellow Privilegers of this Booke to be guilty of all the above-manifested strange dealings in perverting of the senses of the Articles and Authors by him alleged Besides that which surmounteth the rest is the hainous Crime of wilfull Perjurie if they have taken the oath enjoyeth unto all Romish Priests by Pope Pius after the Councell of Trent swearing To expound no Text of Scripture without the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers yet now have allowed such an Exposition of the text of the Apostle concerning Prayer in an unknowne tongue which they were never able to justifie by any one Father of Primitive times for the space of 600 that wee say not a thousand yeares after Christ as hath beene sufficiently proved Before Wee end Wee should aske your Censurers what Church of Rome it is whose doctrine they would reduce Protestants unto Is it the old and primitive Religion of Rome Why this is that which Wee so constantly professe But meane they the Religion of the new Church of Rome in her new Creede of new Articles conformable to the Councel of Trent Wee must say then of your Doctrine as Christ said of Wine No man drinking the Old desireth the New for hee will say the Old is better Luc. 5. 39. The sixt Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sense of the next words of Christs Institution TAKE YEE SECT VIII THus said Christ to his Disciples by which words what is meant your Iesuite will expresse to wit that c Quia Apostoli non acciperent nisi quod ipse dabat verbum Dandi Translationem de manibus Christi in manus Discipalorum significat Sabneron les Tom. 9. Tractat. 18. pag. 126. Videtur quod Christus aut singulis in manus dederit partem à se sumendam aut patinam tradider it propinquioribus c. Iansen Episc Concord cap. 131. Because the Apostles tooke that which Christ gave the word GAVE doth signifie a Delivery out of Christ his hands into the hands of them that did take Here you see is Taking with hands especially seeing that Christ in giving the Cup said Drinke you all Matth. 26. one delivering it to another as it is said of the Paschall Cup Luc. 22. 17. as it is f Iansen Concord in eued locum Fracto pane in duodecim buccellas singulis in manus dederit Calicem propinquiores sequentibus tradiderunt sic enim dixit Accipite dividite inter vos confessed The contrary Canon in your now Romane Masse Concerning this It is to be noted say g Notandum est quòd laudabiliter Ecclesia prospexit ut ab isto modo olim licito nempè accipiendi proprijs manibus Sacramentum pro reverentia Eucharistiae abstineant Et rursus Olim ex patina suis quisque manibus sumpsit suam particulam ut moris fuit ad Sextam usque Synodum nempè Caesar-augustanam verum ob sacram hujus Mysterij singularem reverentiam Ecclesia instituit nè Laici nudâ manu Eucharistiam attingerent sed à Sacerdote in os sumentis mitteretur Salmeron quo supra Tract 12. pag. 78. 79. you that the Church of Rome hath judged it laudable that Lay-people abstaine from taking the Sacrament with their owne hands but that it be put into their mouthes by the Priest which is so ordained for a singular reverence So you CHALLENGE VVHat we may note of this your Notandum the h Apostoli primùm manibus suis panem sanctum acceperunt hujus ritus meminerunt veteres Patres Nam Tert. lib. ad uxorem inquit Eucharistiae Sacramentum nec de aliorum manibus quam praesidentium sumimus Et ex Cyprian Serm. de lapsis ob nonnulla exempla quae producit constat Eucharistiam in manibus Cōmunicantum Laicorum dari Vt constat ex Concil Teletano cap. 14. ex sexta Synodo in Trullo 101. ubi prohibentur fideles offerre vascula aurea argentea in quibus accipiant Eucharistiam ut per ea communicent sed proprijs manibus Idem colligitur ex Epistol Cornel. Papae quam refert Euseb lib. 6. Hist c. 35. ex Dionys Alex. ut refert Nicephor cap. 9. ex verbis Ambrosij Suarez les Tom. 3. In Tho. Disp 49. Sect. 6. initio Hoc intelligi potest ex Greg. Nazian Morom fuisse ut Christiani Eucharistiam quam accepissent ad os admoverent unde relictam esse credo Consuetudinem in multis locis quando non communicant dùm Eucharistia ostenditur manus tendant quasi gestientes manibus sumere Maldon Ies de Euch. §. Nova creatura pag. 283. Confessions of your owne Iesuites will shew first that the Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Church for above 500 yeares was according to Christs Institution to deliver the Bread into the hands of the Communicants Secondly that the same Order was observed at Rome as appeareth by the
handle these points in order take our next Position for a Directory to that which shall be answered in the sixt Section That some Fathers understood the Apostles words 1. Corinth 10. Spiritually namely as signifying the Eating of Christs Flesh and drinking his Blood both in the Old Testament and in the New SECT III. VPon those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. verse 4. They ate of the same Spirituall meate c. The Iewes received the same Spirituall meate p Aug. Tract 26. in Ioh. sup illa verba Apostoli 1. Cor. 20. de fidelibus Iudaeis Omnes candem spiritualem escam in Manna edebant bibebant eundem potum spiritualem c. Corporalem escam diversam illi Manna nos aliud spiritualem sed candem aliud illi aliud nos bibimus sed aliud specie visibili idem autem significante virtute Item Eandem quam nos escam sed Patres nostri nèmpè fideles non Patres illorum Aug. Ibid. saith Saint Augustine namely they who were faithfull Yea saith your q At eandem inter se non nobis cum candem Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Quia Cardinall the Iewes received the same among themselves but not the same with us Christians So hee Albeit the words of Augustine are plainly thus The same which wee eate so plainely that divers on your owne side doe so directly and truly acknowledge it that your Jesuit r Iudaeos candem escam spiritualem edisse nobiscum exposuit hunc locum de Manna Augustinus qui eum secuti sunt multi ut Beda Strabo Author Glossae ordinariae reprobatum hoc esse a posterioribus Ego persuasum habeo Augustinum si nostra aetate fuisset longè aliter sensurum fuisse omni genti Hereticorum inimicissimum cum videret Calvinistas ad eundèm ferè modum hunc locum interpretari Maldon Ies in Ioh. 6. vers 50. col 706. Maldonate not able to gain-say this Truth pleaseth himselfe notwithstanding in fancying that If Augustine were alive in this Age hee would thinke otherwise especially perceiving Hereticall Calvinists and Å¿ Calvin Instit lib. 4. Cap. 14. Sect. 23. Eandem nobiscum contra Scholasticorum dogma quo docent veteri lege tantum adumbrari gratiam novâ praesentem conferri Calvin himselfe to be of his opinion So hee Was it not great pity that Augustine was not brought up in the Schoole of the Jesuites surely they would have taught him the Article of Transubstantiation of the Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and Corporall Vnion against all which there could not be a greater Adversary than was Augustine whom Maldonate here noteth to have beene the Greatest enemy to all Heretikes whom t Bertram de Corp. Dom. pag. 20. Quaeres fortasse quam eandem nimirum ipsam quam hodie populus credentium in Ecclesia manducat Non enim licet diversa intelligi quoniam unus idemque Christus qui populum in mare baptizatum carne suâ pavit eundem que potum in Petra Christum sui sanguinis 〈◊〉 populo praebuisse Vide nondum passum Christum esse etiam tamen sui corporis sanguinis mysterium operatum fuisse non enim putamus ullum fidelium dubitare panem illum Christi corpus fuisse effectum quod discipulis Dominus dicit Hoc est Corpus meum Bertram followed in the same Exposition and by your leave so did your u Eandem escam spiritualem id est Corpus Christi in signo spiritualiter intellecto idem quod nos sed aliam escam corporalem quam nos Aquinas in 1. Cor. 10. Aquinas also The same saith hee which wee eate Yea and Anselme imbraceth the same exposition in the very words of Saint Augustine The same which wee eat Thus much by the way Wee goe on to our Answers That the wicked Receivers are called Guilty of Christs Body not by properly Eating of his Body unworthily but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament thereof Symbolically SECT IV. THE Distinction used by Saint Augustine who is still a resolute Patron of our Cause hath beene alwayes as generally acknowledged as knowne wherein hee will have us to discerne in the Eucharist the Sacrament from the thing represented and exhibited thereby Of the Sacrament hee saith that * Aùg in Ioh. Tract 26. Sacramentum â—umitur a quiâ—â—â—dam ad vitâ—â—m 〈◊〉 quibuâ—dam 〈◊〉 exitium Reâ— vero ipsa cujus est Sacramenttum omni homini ad vitam null◠〈◊〉 mortem quicunquè ejus particips â—uerâ—â— It is received of some to Life and of some to destruction but the thing it selfe saith hee is received of None but to Salvation So hee No Protestant could speake more directly or Conclusively for proofe First That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Body of Christ is as well tendred to the Wicked as to the Godly Secondly That the Wicked for want of a living faith have no Hand to receive it Thirdly That their not preparing themselves to a due receiving of it is a Contempt of Christ his Body and Blood Fourthly and Consequently that it worketh the judgement of Guiltinesse upon them âšœ If it shall be proved that the like judgement followeth upon the Wicked for absenting himselfe from receiving of this Sacrament in Contempt thereof as well as it doth upon the unworthy Receiver it Determinateth the Point in question to prove the inconsequence of your reason wherof you conclude that the Guiltinesse of Judgement ariseth from unworthy Corporall participation of Christs Body Now Saint Augustines words are that 1 Aug de Necessitate poeniâ—eâ—tiae Tom 10. Hom. 50. Verset ante oculos Imago futuri Iudiciâ— ut cum alij aâ—cedunt ad aliare Dei quô ipse non accedit conâ—â—git quà m sit contremiscenda illa poena qua percipiâ—ntibus alijs vitam aeternam alij in mortem praecipitentur aeternam Item 〈◊〉 Tom 6. contra 〈◊〉 Manichaeum lib. 13 c. 6. Qui autem manducaâ—â— contemnit non habet in se vitam ideo non pervenâ—â—t ad vitam aeteâ—nam Hee that contenineth to eate this hath no life in him and shall be deprived of life eternall Which is by his Contempt not in the Receiving but in the Not-Receiving thereof All which both the Evidence of Scripture and Consent of Antiquity do notably confirme For the Text objected doth clearely confute your Romish Consequence because Saint Pauls words are not Hee that eateth the Body of Christ and drinketh his Blood unworthily is guilty of his Body and Blood but Hee that enteth the Bread and drinketh the Cup of the Lord unworthily c Which wee have proved throughout the second Booke to signifie Bread and Wine the Signes and Sacraments of his Body and Blood after Consecration And to come to Antiquity All the Fathers hereafter cited who deny that the wicked Communicants are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ albeit knowing as well as you that all such unworthy Receivers are
meant not to say that Christs flesh is eaten Tropically inrespect of an Essentiall Eating wherein is required onely that True meat be let downe from the mouth into the stomacke by vitall Instruments but called it a Tropicall Eating in respect of your ordinary and proper maner of Eating by a visible dividing of Christs flesh into parts and morsells and that it be sod and not raw But Christs flesh in the Eucharist is received whole invisibly and without any hurt by which maner of Eating wee represent the Passion of Christ which is thus proved because First It is no hainous sinne to eat Christs flesh Spiritually and without hurting it and Secondly because Saint Auigustine understandeth by an Hainous offence the Capernaiticall maner of eating thereof namely by Tearing it in pieces So hee Wee must take this whole Answer in pieces for Confutation of each particular point lest otherwise a Generall and Briefe Answer might breed Obscurity Your Cardinall thinketh to evade by multiplicity of Distinctions Ob. 1. Hee meant not Eating with Teeth but a passing of it from the Mouth into the Stomacke Sol. This is False because the Apostles in their receiving of it did use Chewing your owne Jesuite Suarez confessing that the Sacramentall Bread in Christ's time was * See Booke 1. cap. 2. §. 2. Glutinosus And that this maner of Tearing with Teeth had beene continued many Ages in the Church of Rome as also used among some of your Church at this day as hath beene * See above Cap. 5. Sect. 4. proved And lastly that Saint Augustine himselfe meant Eating by Tearing with Teeth who as the 4 Bellar lib. 1. de Euch. Cap. 7. Qui manducat corde non qui premit dente c. Vbi de Sacramento loquitur non qui premit dente nimirùm solo Cardinall himselfe confesseth mentioneth the * See above Cap 5. Sect. 5. Pressing of the Sacrament with Teeth Secondly Ob. But the maner of Tearing saith hee is not essentiall to eating but onely the pressing of it downe into the Stomacke So hee Sol. Notwithstanding Pope Nicolas in his Romane Councell expresly required the Sensible Tearing of Christs flesh as hath beene shewed * See above Cap. 5. Sect. 5. whereof you have also heard your Iesuite * See above Cap. 5. Sect. 2. Salmeron confesse saying that Proper Eating requireth a Proper Tearing even as your Cardinall himselfe calling Eating by Dividing into Parts a Proper maner of Eating Ob. 3. Augustine spoke of a visible Eating of Christ and not as ours is Invisible Sol. As if a blinde man could not eat meat as perfectly as he that seeth Ob. 4. But Saint Augustine understood Christs flesh Sod and not Raw. Sol. As though the Eating of mans flesh Raw or Sod could distinguish a Canniball Ob. 5. But Saint Augustine spake of Eating Christs flesh with hurting him which appeareth by this that hee called the maner of Eating which hee spake of an Hainous offence Sol. As though your * See above Booke 4. Cap. 10 Sect. 5. Aquinas had not as well judged it an Hainous offence to put Christ in a Boxe appearing in his visible shape notwithstanding Christs No-sensible-heart thereby Ob. 6. But he spake against the Capernaiticall maner of Eating which was Tearing it in pieces and requireth a Spirituall order in eating and ours is Spirituall Sol. First as if your Eating were not Capernaiticall in any degree which is False Because as the Capernaites interpreted Christs words in a literall sense of Eating it perfectly so did they also conceive a Reall Swallowing of it after it had beene Eaten And doth not your Cardinall plead here wholly for Swallowing of Christs Body or hath not also your Iesuite Coster defined Devouring to be a Swallowing of meat without Mastication or Tearing Or can you deny but the Primitive * See before in this Chap. 6. Fathers Detested the very conceipt of Devouring Christs flesh And Secondly where Saint Augustine opposeth Carnal maner of Eating to the Spirituall could hee possibly meane your Romish kind which you professe to be a taking it into your Mouths and by your Corporall Swallowing and Transmitting through the Throat into your Stomack whether Visibly or Invisibly whether Sod or Raw No no nothing lesse but the flat Contrary a meere Spirituall maner of Communicating of Christs passion saith hee and by * See 〈…〉 Sweetly recording in our memories his flesh once crucifyed for us Establishing this latter Eating with Minde and Heart that hee might exclude the other of Eating with Mouth and Teeth âšœ CHAP. VII The Fourth Corporall maner of Vnion of Christ his Body by a Bodily Mixture with the Bodies of the Communicants professed by some Romanists at this day is Capernaiticall SECT I. WEe heare your Iesuit reporting that a Multi Catholici his temporibus in odium Haeresis veram praesentiam corporis Christ in hoc Sacramento Sumptione ejus fieri unionem inter Corpus Christi suscipientem quam realâ—m naturalem substantâ—dem atquè eâ—am corporalem vocant Sic Algerus Turrecremata Rossensis Hosius Turrianus Bellarminus Alanus Suarez Ies Tom 3 qu. 79. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Many latter Divines in your Church have beene authorized in these dayes to write labouring to bring the Romane Faith to so high a pitch as to perswade a b Denique Recentiores omnes qui de hoc Sacramento contra Haereticos scribunt hoc fere modo loquuntur Suarez in 3. Tho. Disp 64. §. 3. pag. 822. Reall Naturall Corporall and Substantiall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants even almost all of late saith hee who have written against Heretickes So hee Among others wee find your Cardinall c Card. Alan Cùm comedimus Eucharistiam corpore Christi vere vescimur ex qua manducatione per naturae instrumenta realâ—â—â— recipitur intra nos atque substantiae nostrae permiscetur sicut caeteri cibi nisi quod mutationem in carnem nostram non patiatur De Euch. lib. 1. cap. 28. Alan who will have it â—eally mingled with our flesh as other meats Transubstantiation onely excepted as did also Cardinall d Feâ—tur Mendozam Cardinalem Burgensem in lib. quem de unione scripsit docuisse Christum Sacramentaliter manduâ—atum non solum fieri praesentem in loco quem species possent Sacramentaliter occupare sed quod immodo duâ—â—undi per totum corpus hominis ut toti illi in omnibus ejus partibus uniatur seque illis immisceat sed haec cogitatio non solum improbabilis sed etiam absurda plusquam temeraria est Suarez quo supr pag. 822. Mendoza And what else can that sound which wee have heard out of your Roman * See above Chap. 6. §. 2. Missall praying that the Body of Christ eaten may cleave unto your Guts just Manichean-wise as you have heard even now out of Saint Augustine âšœ And it may be you have Faith also to believe
spirituale Christo proprium item Regnum divinum universale ratione Hypostaticae Vnionis item gloriae in Beatitudine TeÌ„porale terrenuÌ„ Christo conveniebat Lib. Recog pag. 28. Everlasting Secondly much lesse a King of Peace who hath beene reproved by Antiquity for being b Victor Pacis perturbator Irenaeus apud Euseb hist lib 5 cap. 24. A Troubler of the Peace of Christs Church And generally complained of by others as being c Non tantùm contra Barbaros sed etiam ejusdem patriae sanguinis fidei principes Domini nostri Dei pacis minus pacifici Vicarij Espenc in 1. Tim. digress lib. 2. cap 6 pag. 273. Nothing lesse than the Vicar of the God of Peace because of his raising hostile warres against Princes of the same Nation Blood and Faith And for d Leodiens Epist ad Paulum 2. de Greg. Septimo Novello schismate Regnum Sacerdotium scindebat Teste Espencaeo quo supra Distracting the Estates of Princedome and Priestdome Thirdly not King of Iustice because some Popes have excited Subjects and Sonnes to rebell against their Liege Soveraigns and Parents Fourthly not Originally without Generation by either Father or Mother some of them having beene borne in lawfull Wedlocke and of knowne honest Parents albeit of othersome the Mothers side hath beene much the surer It will be no Answer to say as Pope e Non secundùm câ—dineÌ„ Aaron cujus SacerdotiuÌ„ per propaginem sui seminis in ministerio temporali fuit cum Veteris Testamenti Lege cessavit sed secundùm ordinem Melchisedech in quo aeterni Pontificis forma praecessit Leo papa Serm. 2. in Annivers die Assumpt ad Pontif. Leo in effect did viz. that as Priests you are not as were the Leviticall by naturall Propagation but by a Spirituall ordination because a Spirituall propagation is no proper but a metaphoricall Generation Fifthly not without Succession seeing that Succession as from S. Peter is the chief tenure of your Priesthood Nor will that of Epiphanius help you in this Case to say that f Nunc sanè non amplius semen secundùm successionem eligitur sed forma juxta virtutem quaeritur Epiphan cont Haeres 55. You had no Succession by the seed of Aaron because although this may exempt you from the Leviticall Priesthood yet will not it associate you with the Priesthood of Melchisedech or of Christ whose Characters of Priesthood was to be Priests soly individually and absolutely in themselues without Succession by another And this the words of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Christ had an Intransmissible Priest-hood do fully signifie As little can your ordinary Answer availe telling us that you are not g Salmeron Ies Nos in Christo Sacerdotes sumus tanquam Vicarij Satis est nobis illum Principem semper vivere Com. in Heb. cap. 10. Disp 19. Successors but Vicars of Christ and Successors of Peter because whilest you claime that the Visible Priest-hood and Sacrifice of Christ is still in the Church which is perpetuated by Succession you must bid farewell to the Priest-hood of Melchisedech But if indeed you disclaime all Succession of Christ why is your Jesuite licensed to say that your h Ribera Successor quidem Christo Petrus reliqui post eum Pontifices in officio gubernandi Ecclesiam pâ—scendi oves Christi Verbo praedicatinis Sacramentorum administratione At non successit in officio redemptionis Pontificis per se Deum irâ—tâ—m placantis in quo non sunt Successores sed Ministri Christi In Heb. 10. num 8. Roman Popes do succeed Christ in their Pastorshâ—p over the Church although not in their Priesthood by offering Sacrifices expiating sinnes by their owne virtue Are not the Titles of Pastor and Priest equally transcendent in Christ Againe if you be Vicars of Christ then are you not after the Order of Melchisedech who is read to have had no more any Vicar than that hee had either Father or Mother Sixtly not in respect of the no-necessity of a Succession which was * Heb 7. 23. Immortality because the Popes shewed themselves to be sufficiently mortall insomuch that one Pope maligning another after death hath dragged the Carcasse of his Predecessor out of his i Platinâ—â— in Vitis Sergij 3. Formosi â—tephani Christophori Grave to omit their other like barbarous outrages âšœ In respect of which Mortality Athanasius is as contradictory to your Romish Doctrine as can be who resolveth saying 5 Athanas con Arian Orat. 3. pag. 380. Aaroni quidem Successores dati omninò legale Sacerdotium mortis temporis progressu alios atque alios Sacerdotes accepit Dominus autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aaron indeed had Successors and in the Legall Priest-hood in processe of time by reason of death one succeeded another but our Lord had a Priesthood without Transition and Succession being himselfe alwayes a faithfull High-Priest From the same law of Mortality Theodoret concludeth likewise that Christ in the New Testament 6 Theod. in Heb. 7. Quemadmodum non habuerit Melchisedech Successores ità nec hic ipsum ad alios transmittit Item Qui ex lege Sacerdotes sunt quia moâ—talem habent naturam eâ de Causâ habent filios Successores hic autem quia immortalis non transmitur ad alium munus Sacerdoâ—â—j Transmitteth not his Priesthood to any other Wherein wee may say that Theodoret was Scholler to Chrysostome 7 Chrysost in Hebr. 7. Hom 13. Quia semper vivit non habet Successorem Ostendit novum Testamentum praestantius esse Veteri inductâ comparatione de Sacerdotibus quod illud quidem homines habuit Sacerdotes hoc autem Christum who likewise maketh the excellencie of the New Testament in comparison of the Old to consist in this that they had many Priests successively for that by reason of Mortality they were but men in the New Testament wee have Christ a Priest So hee This one Observation might satisfie any reasonable man for the confutation of your Romish Doctrine of Proper Priesthood the rather because you were never able to prove out of any Father that Distinction of yours to wit of one being the Vicar albeit the Successor of Christ No no this Distinction now after a thousand yeares since Christ his Incarnation hath beene the adulterate Coyne of your owne Romish forge âšœ Seventhly not Personall Sanctity * Heb. 7. 26. Holy impolluted and separated from sinnes For whosoever being meerely Man shall arrogate to himselfe to be without sinne the holy Ghost will give him the * 1. Iohn 1. 8. Lie As for your Popes wee wish you to make choice of whatsoever Historians you please and wee doubt not but you shall finde upon record that many of them are noted to have beene as impious and mischievous in their lives and in their deaths as infamous and cursed as they were contrarily Bonifaces Innocents or
Benedicts in their names Can there be then any Analogie betweene your High 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
rather because your Cardinall hath no Objection out of the Fathers for his advantage in the word Sacrifice which hee loseth not by the word Incense from point to point For to the first Objection wee oppose saying The word Incense is likewise used without a See in the Testimonies above cited for it is called absolutely Incense and not Incense of Prayer c. Addition To the second Wee accordingly say Incense was meant also to be Pure for you will not imagine that God would promise to his faithfull in Christ Impure things To the third It is as well said concerning Incense as of Sacrifice against the Iewes vers 10. I will not receive any offerings at your hands * Isaiah 1. 13. Incense is an abomination unto mee To the fourth The same Godlesse Iewes did joyntly contemne Gods worship made by Incense as by Sacrifice except you shall thinke it credible that the same men should be both devout and profane in one prescribed Service of God To the last Malachy in the same Sentence and as it were with the same breath equally taketh exceptions to the Iewish Priests in both Sacrifice and Incense Therefore as the word Incense so accordingly the word Sacrifice was used Improperly of the Fathers Do you not now see what reason your Cardinall had to make choise of a corrupt Text wanting the word Incense which hee peradventure foresaw would prove as bitter as Coloquintida in his Pottage The second word in Malachy is Levite I will purge the sonnes of Levi which was spoken as your Cardinall b Bellar. Postquam dixerat Malachias Offertur nomini meo oblatio munda Exponit ca. 3. à quibus offerenda sit munda oblatio Purgabit inquit Fâ—lios Levi ubi per Filios Levi non possunt intelligi Levitae veteris Testamenti sed nostri Sacerdotes Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 10. §. Quintum confesseth of the Ministers of the New Testament Well then did the Prophet call the Ministerie and Service of the New Testament Pure Sacrifice And did hee not in the like maner call the Ministers of the New Testament Purged Levites as also some of the Ancient * Augustine Ambrose Cyprian Leo. Fathers you know used to do and as your Church in degrading of Arch-Bishop Cranmer from his order of c Mr. Foxe Acts and Monuments pag. 2117. Levitico ordine te privamus Deaconship once did Therefore both alike were used Improperly in imitation of this Prophet and also of that in * Isa 66. Isaiah I will send them Priests and Levites That the Text of the Prophet Malachy doth confute the Romish Pretence of Sacrifice even by the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers SECT III. PErmit you us for brevity-sake to contrive this Section into Ob. and Sol. your Cardinalls Objections and our Solutions or Answers I. Ob. Sacrifice is called pure alwayes and in all places Ergo Christs Body Sol. And Chrysostome who is a Chrysost in Psal 95. objected Malachias appellat Thymiama â—urum 〈◊〉 pieces obiected termeth Prayers Pure Incense meaning when or wheresoever II. Ob. The word Sacrificè is spoken of in Malachy without an Adjunct as to say the Sacrifice of praise c. for these are improperly called Sacrifices Ergo c. Sol. Yet First b Tertul. Ob. by Bellarm. lib. 3. contr Marcion ex Psalm 57. In Ecclesijs benedicite Dominum Deum ut pariter coÌ„curreret Malachiae prophetia In omni loco Sacrificium mundum Gloriae silicet relatio Benedictio Laus hymni Which words Bellarmine restraineth to Prayers and Prayses onely in the Masse whereas Tertullian speaketh of Prayers in generall Againe Lib. 4. advers Marc. a little after the beginning Dicente Malachia Sacrificium munduÌ„ scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura Where hee expoundeth Pure Sacrifice to be Praier Tertullian objected expounded the same word Sacrifice to signifie Benedictions and Praises And Secondly c Euseb Demonst lib. 1. cap 6. In omni loco Incensum Sacrificium c. Quid aliud significat quà m orationis Incensum Sacrificium quod mundum dicitur est enim non per cruores sed per pias actiones summo Dâ—o offerendum Eusebius objected calleth this Pure Sacrifice Pious Actions and Prayers Which your Cardinall could not Answer but with a marvellous and miserable Illusion III. Ob. By the word d Bellar. Resp Non quasi Oratio sit ipsum Incensum seu Sacrificium sed illud quod per Orationem id est per verba Consecrationis perficitur Solent enim Patres verba Consecrationis orationes seu mysticas preces interpretati Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 10. First fondly for the words of Consecration containe in them no terme of Prayer And secondly falsely for the Fathers did not call these words Prayer Both which have beene amply discussed Sacrifice were not meant Spirituall Sacrifices c. Sol. Yet e Hieron objected Malach. 1. Vt sciant Iudaei carnalibus Victimis spitituales successuras Thymiama hoc est Orationes Sanctorum offerendas Oblationem mundam ut est in ceremonijs Christianorum Bellar. Licet per Incensum intelligat orationem tamen per Sacrificium intelligit Eucharistiam dicit enim offerri in Ceremonijs Christianorum Be it so but the Question is whether the Action of the Eucharist be not called spirituall that is as is confessed an Vnproper Sacrifice Hierome objected expresly nameth the Sacrifice in Malachy Spirituall To come to your Cardinals principall Reason IV. Ob. The Iewish Sacrifices were called Vncleane not in respect of the Offerers onely but of the Offerings intimating thereby that this Offering in the new Testament can be no lesse than the very Body of Christ Sol. Irenaeus objected plainely putteth the difference to be made by Malachy betweene the Sacrifices as they were the Offerings of the wicked Iewes and the Sacrifices of godly Christians and hee giveth this Reason because f Irenaeus ob advers Haeres lib 4. cap. 34 speaking as well of Sacrifices in Iudaico populo as in Ecclesia saith Non Sacrificia sanctificant hominem sed Conscientia pura ejus qui offert c. Then of Eleemosynae Which the Apostle calleth Hostiam acceptabilem Opportet nos oblationem Deo facere in sententia pura And then Ecclesia offert oblationem hanc Fabricatori puram offerens ei cum gratiarum Actione ex creatura ejus Iudaei autem non offerunt quia manus eorum plenae sanguine c. The Iewes saith hee offered up their Oblations with wicked hearts but the Christians performe theirs with pure Consciences And that the Iewish Sacrifices were not rejected for themselves but for the impiety of their Sacrificers your owne Iesuit g Ribera Ies Ad loca Scripturae adducta respondere Apostoli Apud S. Clementem lib. 6. Const Apost C. 22. in hunc modum Recusabat Deus populi Sacrificia saepenumero in eum peccantis atque existimantis Sacrificijs
onely in Concord although as you know this can be no coincident Corporall Touch of their Body reciprocally Thus these holy Fathers And now that you may understand from them Foure several Vnions One Relative Another Spirituall A third Sacramentall in Generall And a Fourth as I may say Eucharisticall peculiar onely to the Sacrament of the Eucharist all of them equally named of these Fathers Corporall and Naturall Vnions and not Vnions of Affection and Concordonely notwithstanding each one of the former Three exclude all Bodily Touch. Wee demand therefore why all these Foure being named Naturall and Corporall Improperly onely the last should inferre a Reall Corporall Touch of Christs Body by the virtue of the same words Naturall or Corporall Your Cardinall giveth his maine reason 2 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 12. Aliud esse apud Hilarium aliqua esse unum naturaliter aliud autem unum esse in alio naturaliter Nam ut aliqua sint unum naturaliter satis est si verè participent naturam ipsius rei in qua sunt unum hoc modo dicit ipse omnes fideles esse unum naturaliter per fidem sed ut unum sit in alio naturaliter necesse est ut natura unius merè sit in alio hoc modo Christum esse in nobis per carnem naturaliter quia natura carnis ejus nobis vere unitur per Eucharistiam It is not the same thing with Hilarie saith hee Some things to be one Naturally and to be one in another Naturally For things to be one Naturally it is sufficient if both of them partake truly of the Nature of the thing wherein they are one and so hee calleth all Christians one Naturally by Faith But to be one Naturally In another it is necessary that the Nature of the one be meerely within the Nature of the other and so in the meaning of Hilarie is Christs Body sayd to be Naturally within ours by the Eucharist This is your Cardinalls Ground of Assoilement whereupon hee relyeth as on a Rocke immoveable which will instantly prove as wavering as a Reed both False and Fond as you may finde in the Marginalls For Hilarie speaking of one of the other Vnions which hee calleth Naturall by reason of Christs Incarnation in taking our nature of Flesh upon him saith that wee are In him Therefore is your Cardinalls Distinction False Next of the very Sacramentall Vnion whereof it is sayd that Christ is Naturally In us it is also as expressely sayd that wee are likewise Naturally In Christ But none can affirme that Wee in true propriety of speech are Naturally in the Body of Christ Therefore is his Answer most Absurd But you will aske how then can this stand with the scope of the same Fathers for the Confuting of the two former Divers Heresies by an Onely Symbolicall and Mysticall Conjunction with the Body of Christ First thus By our Eating and Drinking in this Sacrament according to Christs Institution is professed a Vivificall flesh of Christ giving eternall life unto the world which as these Fathers truly teach it could not do if it were the Flesh of a meere man And therefore he is by Nature God one with God the Father Ergò Avant Thou Arian-Heretike The Second thus The same Humane flesh of Christ would not have the same divine Vivifical power and virtue except it were perfectly Vnited to his Godhead and therefore is Christ both God and Man and that not by Relation of two different Persons onely but by an Hypostaticall Vnion of two Natures Ergo thou Nestorian Heretike Recant The meaning of these holy Fathers is transparent enough by their owne Sentences as is now proved which if it needed any further Illustration might be manifested by the like Testimonies of that Great Athanasius who from this Article of Christ his Incarnation onely whereby his Godhead assumed our nature of flesh spared not to say 3 Athanasius Tom. 1. Orat. 4. Contra Arianos pag 487. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that By his flesh thus assumed of the word God wee men are Deifyed and made Gods So hee without any Relation to the Sacrament at all And againe when he spake of the same Article of Christs Incarnation he hath Relation to a Sacrament and saith as much of Baptisme as either Hilarie or Cyril did of the Eucharist 4 Ibidem pag. 486. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wee saith hee being borne againe of water and the holy Ghost are all made alive by Christ and our flesh is no more Earthly but now by that word God Wordifyed and made the same by him that for us was made flesh So hee And so according to the Romish presumption of Arguing from the like words of the Fathers concerning the Eucharist Athanasius must be sayd to have judged of Baptisme I. That the Substance of water is changed II. That by it there is a Corporall Vnion properly with the Bodies of the Baptized III. That by the same the Flesh of the Baptized is made the Word God Which nothing but Stupidity could conceive or Impudencie utter or else Obstinacie defend The miserable Vnconscionablenesse of the Romish Objecturs made clearely Discernable by their owne Confessions in granting that the Formerly alleged Testimonies of the Fathers are Not to be taken in a Literall Sense SECT III. ALl the Questions betweene your Romish Disputers and Vs concerning the Speeches of the Fathers objected by them through the whole Treatise of the Masse for proofe of a Bodily Presence is whether they are to be taken Literally and Properly as they sound to the eare or Improperly and Figuratively as they are to be apprehended by our understandings in a qualifyed Sacramentall and Mystical Signification And whether you can conclude from them a Properly so called Corporall Vnion with his sacred Body whether by a Corporall Touch and Tast Mixture or Nutrition and Augmentation thereby or no. You have heard your Doctors object against Vs the naked and Symbolicall Phrases of the Fathers will you be so good as heare them againe both relating the Expositions which the Protestants make of the words of the Fathers objected and afterwards enforced by good evidence to interpret the Fathers accordingly These you Doctors certifie you see the Margin that Calvin indeed Expoundeth each phrase as spoken by an excesse and exuberancie of speech for extolling and commending the Dignity of the Sacrament So hee of Calvin Likewise of your owne Romish Doctors saith your Vasquez Some of the Vniversity of Complutum in Spaine did interpret the words of the Fathers as spoken Hyperbolically And if you shall reject these as the meaner Some wee shall enquire into other Some of better eminencie As namely your Bellarmine and Tolet both Cardinalls your Suarez and even Vasquez himselfe all Iesuits in their Times Let them wee pray you make their owne Answers in order as they have beene Cited First Bellarmine 5 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4 §.
Secundo Respondeo Wherein also hee expoundeth the like words of Iustin Non est novum apud Itenaeum Hilarium Nyssenum Cyrillum alios ut Eu charistia dicatur alere corpora nostra sed non intelligunt Patres cum hoc dicunt Eucharistiâ nutriri vel augeri mortalem substantiam corporis nostri sic enim facerent Eucharistiam cibum ventris non mentis quâ— nihil absurdius fingi possit It is ordinary saith hee with these Fathers to wit Irenaeus Hilarie Nyssen Cyril and others to say that the Eucharist nourisheth our Bodies But they did not understand a Substantiall nutrition or augmentation of our Bodies for so they should make it to be meat for the Belly and not for the soule than which nothing could be feigned more Absurd So hee Cardinall Tolet is the Second wee desire to heare his Judgement 6 Tolet. in Ioh. cap. 6. Annot. 29. Cum dicunt Hilar Cyril nostra corpora habere unionem corporalem naturalem cum corpore Christ Doctores â—i non sunt ita intelligendi ut velinâ— ex Christo sumpto sumenâ—e fieri unuÌ„ Ens naturale indigna est illis Doctrina sed hoc dicere voluerunt praeter unionem quae ratione charitatis fidei sit adesse intra nos ipsos verè realiter Christum ipsuÌ„ qui causa est fidei ejusdem These Fathers saith hee Cyril and Hilarie when they tell us that wee have a Corporall and Naturall Vnion with Christs Body in the Sacrament are not to be understood as if our Bodies and Christs Body were made one in Entity this were a Doctrine unworthy of them but they meant of the Vnion of Faith and Affection Christ being within us Really as the Cause thereof So he Observe that Cardinall Tolet noteth the Fathers to have sayd that the Bodies of the Communicants and the Body of Christ by this Sacrament have One naturall Being because of their other Sayings that by eating of this Sacrament our Bodies are Nourished and Augmented by Christs Body All which are spoken in a Sacramentall tenour of speech and not properly as you heare Francis Suarez his Course is next 7 Suarez in 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Nihilominus haec sententia improbabilis aliena dignitate majestate hujus SacrameÌ„ti quod non propter corporalem conjunctionem sed propter spiritualem institutum est dicente Christo Mea verba spiritus sunt vita Ioh. 6. See above Chap. 7. Sect. 2. at the letter f. Suarez Damascen lib. 4 cap. 14. Hoc Sacramento nos Christi concorporei existimus animo voluntate copulamur Cyril Hierosol Catechis 4. Mystag Sumpto corpore sanguine Christi efficimur comparticipes corporis sanguinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum ejus sanguinem corpus in nostra membra receperimus arquè ita ut B. Peâ—ius dicit Divinae naturae consortes efficimur Hinc Suarez Vbi propter Sacramentalem susceptionem non agnoscit aliam unionem praeter spiritualem per gratiam c. In 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp 64. quo supra I say saith he that Cardinall Mendoza is reported to have taught namely as out of the Fathers that Christ's Body is so united with our Bodies that they are both joyntly mingled in parts one with another Which is an Opinion Improbable and unworthy of the Majesty and Dignity of the Sacrament which was instituted by Christ not for a Corporall but for a Spirituall Conjunction and the other Conjunction is False and Absurd So he Gabriell Vasquez is now to take his turne first to make his Preface and then to deliver his Opinion 8 Vasquez in 3. Thom. quaest 79. Art 2. Disp 204. cap. 2. Tametsi Antiqui Ecclesiae Patres in exponendis mysterijs nostrae fidei insolita paâ—um in Scholis usitata ratione dicendi interdum utantur ita tamen eorum verba sententias accipere debemus ut licet primo aspectu aliquid Absurdi continere videantur nihil tamen contra ipsos nisi maturo consilio examine aliorumque patrum aut conciliorum testimonijs nixi pronunciemus Ibid. cap. 3. Aliqui omnia Patrum Testimonia quae allegavimus per figuram Hyperbolen interpretantur ut ita Patres virtutem jujus Sacramenti eximiè commendare viderentur non quôd revera fieret ita Ex Haereticis hoc modo testimonia Hilarij Cyrilli interpretatus est Calvinus Neque defuerunt Complutenses aliqui qui eodem modo per Hyperbolen illa explicarent Ibid. cap. 4. Quidam putarunt si sine Hyperbole explicarentur sequi ut caro Christi per omnem partem corporis nostri dissunderetur ut cera cerae lique facta at non sic dissunditur Cyrillus usus est hac similitudine ad ostendendam veram realem mixtionem corporis nostri cum corpore Christi non tamen quoad dissusionem eam similitudimen locum habere putabat Nec enim est Physics unio carnis nostrae cum carne Christi sicut ex duabus ceris neque fieri unam carnâ—m per conversionem unius in alteram sicut fit in nutritione animalis naturali neque id ullus sanae mentis ullo modo assereret Although the Ancient Fathers in expounding these mysteries of Faith use words not so usuall in our Schooles yet ought wee to interpret their speeches so that although at the first sight they containe some Absurdity yet not to take them contrary to their meaning without due advise and that relying upon Testimonies of Antiquity So hee And for Instances hee bringeth divers and more particularly that Similitude of Conjunction already objected out of Cyrâ—l As waxe with waxe melted are joyned together And this if it be taken in the Rigidity of the words hee denyeth to note either Diffusion of Christs Body into the parts of mans Body or else a Substantiall Conversion into them All these acknowledgements being so plaine and ingenuous and delivered with so full an Assurance and Resolution of your owne Doctors of most exquisite judgement above Others in your Church do minister unto us matter of Astonishment to wonder with what Consciences they could urge us with these Sentences of the Fathers as they goe under a Literall habit and propriety of Speech seeing that now after some Deliberation they find the same to be so glowing hot that they themselves not daring to touch them with their bare fingers take hold of them with a Distinction as it were with a paire of Tongs saying that 9 Suarez in 3. Thom. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Existimo omnino certum praeter contactum corporis nostri Christi medijs speciebus Sacramentalibus non intervenire materialem aliquam unionem physicam veram Because there is no Naturall Conjunction between Christs Body and ours excepting onely a Touch of the one by the other under formes of Bread The Vnion spoken of by the Fathers is not Physicall or