that came vnprepared and as not intending to Communicate they commanded them to be gone and to be packing out of doores To this purpose your owne Relator telleth you from other Authors of the practice of Antiquity and of other succeeding Churches in not suffering any to be present but such as did Communicate and of removing and expelling them that did not Nor can the Church of Rome iustly take exception at this seing that in the Roman Church also in the daies of P. Greg. the first which was 600. yeares after Christ the office of the Deacon at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist was to crie alowde saying If any doe not communicate let him give place Where wee see the religious wisdome of that ancient Church of Rome which could not suffer a Sacrifice to devoure a publike Sacrament and to exclude a Communion Whereunto the Scriptures gave the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Gathering together and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Communion as also of The Supper of the Lord. Yea and Calixtus a Pope more ancient than Gregorie required that persons present should Communicate Because saith he the Apostles had so ordained and our Church of Rome obserueth the same But what haue We said have Wee called this Sacrament the Supper of our Lord so we thought were we taught by the Apostle 1. Cor. 11. before wee heard your Iesuite Maldonate denying this and bitterly inveying against Protestants terming them Blind men for want of judgement for so calling it But he must pardon vs if we though wee should suspect our owne sight yeild to the ancient Fathers of Primitive times as to men farre more cleare-sighted than that Iesuite could be who as both your Romane Catechisme with Lindan instructeth and as your Cardinall Baronius confesseth following the authority of the Apostles used to call the sacred Eucharist the Lord's Supper distinct from the Paschall Supper which went before it amongst whom you have Dionysius Areopagita with Chrysostome Cyprian Augustine Hierome Anselme Bernard Whereupon with some of them we enioyne a Necessity of a ioynt Communion with those that are present Will you suffer a Golden mouth to be Moderator in this Controuersie thus then Whosoever thou art saith Chrysostome that being fit to participate of this Sacrament shalt stand only looking on and not eate thou doest no lesse Contumely and reproach to the Sacrament than a man invited to a Feast who will not taste thereof doth unto the Lord that invited him to bee a Guest So hee And to shew that it cannot be sufficient to behold it only as a proper Sacrifice as you pretend the same Father as you know saith against such By-standers Why doe we waite at the Altar offering meaning unproperly a Sacrifice when as there is none to communicate And why dost thou impudent fellow stand here still not being one of them that participate thereof But enough This then you perceiue is a matter of no small importance even by reason of the nature of this Sacrament which is a Divine Banquet being also enioyned upon the Catholike Church by that Command of Christ DOE THIS Therefore the Command and Precept comming maketh you Transgressors for not Eating even as by the first Command given unto man-kind of Eate not our first Parents became Transgressors for Eating So justly doth our Church require that Gazers who comunicate not should depart We forbeare to repeate that which we have formerly prooved to wit that you by not dismissing the non-Communicants from beholding the Celebration this Sacrament are condemned by the word Masse whereof you have so long boasted untill that now your Glorie is become your shame The Eight Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse by a second Contradiction of the Sence of the former words EATE YEE SECT X. THis is the last Act of Christ concerning the use of the first Element viz. Bread saying EATE YEE even as he said of the other Drinke yee and of both hee gave this his joynt Command Doe this Wherefore this Act of Eating being thus prescribed as the only bodily outward end of this Sacrament it doth exclude all other bodily Vses of man's inuention Accordingly our Church of England Article 25. saith Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be carried about but to be duely used The contrarie Canon of the Romane Masse The holy Synod of Trent saith your Iesuite hath ordained that this Sacrament be preserved carried abroad and publikely proposed to the people in Procession with solemne Pompe and Worship Which is a laudable Custome CHALLENGE VVE doe not dispute against all manner of Reseruation of the Eucharist for wee acknowledge some to be ancient but wee inquire into the religious use and end of Reseruation which we say was not for any publike Profession or Adoration but only for a Sacramentall Eating thereof And how vniustly you call this your Procession only for publike Adoration Laudable wee are provided to demonstrate by the Confessions of your owne Iesuites and others out of Cyprian and other Fathers who consulting first about Antiquitie grant that after the Celebration of the Eucharist anciently The Remainders which were left lest they should corrupt and putrifie were usually either given to children under age yet not to be received Sacramentally but only to be consumed by them or were burnt in the fire or else eaten reverently in the Vestrie called the Pastophorium Which was likewise the Custome of Rome in the primitive age as Pope Clement witnesseth And although in the times of extreme persecution Christians were permitted to take the Eucharist and carrie it home to their houses yet it was as you grant to no other end but that they might eate it and this only in the time of Persecution After which time the same Custome was abrogated So you How then can you call the Reservation of the Hoast for publike Procession and not for Eating Laudable which hath beene thus checked and gain-sayed by so syncere Antiquitie Secondly when you please to reveile unto us the first Birth of your owne Romane Custome you grant that it was not untill a Thousand foure hundred yeares after Christ And must it then be called a Laudable Custome whereby that we may so speake beardlesse noveltie doth take place of sage and gray-headed Antiquitie Thirdly in discussing the end which was destinated by our Saviour Christ you further grant that The primitive and principall end prescribed by Christ is for Sacramentall eating and that the Sacrament is to be given for this as it 's primary effect And yet notwithstanding for you to bring in a Pompous ostentation of not Eating and to call it a Laudable Custome argueth what little Congruitie there is betweene your Practice and Christ's Institution And how much lesse Laudable will this appeare to be when we consider the grosse and intollerable Abuses of your
Processions which are displayed by your owne Authours Noting in them the very fooleries of the Romane Pagans by your fond Pageants where Priests play their parts in representing the persons of Saints others of Queenes accompanied with Beares and Apes and many like profane and sportfull Inuentions and other Abuses which occasioned some of your owne more devout Professors to wish that this your Custome were abrogated Thinking that it may be omitted with profit to the Church both because it is but an Innovation and also for that it serveth most-what for ostentation and pompe rather than pious Devotion So they Lastly lest you may obiect as else where that a Negative Argument as this because Christ did not institute this Custome therefore it may not be allowed is of no effect we adde that the Argument negative if in any thing then must it prevaile in condemning that Practice which maintaineth any new End differing from that which was ordained by Christ Which made Origen and Cyprian argue Negatively in this Case the one saying Christ reserved it not till to-morrow and the other This bread is received and not reserved or put into a Boxe Which Conclusion we may hold in condemning of your publike Carrying of the Hoast in the streets and Market-places to the end only that it may be Adored aswell as of latter times your Pope Pius Quartus which your Congregation of Cardinals report did forbid a new-upstart Custome of Carrying the Sacrament to sicke people that they might adore it when as they were not able to eate it All these Premises doe inferre that your Custome of Circumgestation of the Sacrament in publike Procession onely for Adoration cannot justly be called Laudable except you meane thereby to have it termed a Laudable Noveltie and a Laudable profanation and Transgression against the Institution of Christ as now from your owne Confessions hath beene plainly evicted and as will be further manifested when wee are to speake of your Idolatrous Infatuation it selfe The Ninth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the Sence of the words following IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE SECT XI REmembrance is an act of Vnderstanding and therefore sheweth that Christ ordained the use of this Sacrament only for persons of Discretion and Vnderstanding saying DOE THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE The contrarie Canon of the Romane Masse in times past Your Iesuite Maldonate will be our Relater ingenuously confessing that in the dayes of Saint Augustine and Pope Innocent the first this opinion was of force in your Church For six hundred yeares together viz. that the Administration of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants Which opinion saith hee is now reiected by the Councell of Trent Determining that the Eucharist is not only not necessarie for Infants but also that is Indecent to give it unto them So he Of this more in the Challenge CHALLENGE IS not now this your Churches Reiecting of her former Practice a Confession that she hath a long time erred in Transgressing of the Institution of Christ How then shall your Trent-Fathers free your fore-father Pope Innocent and your former Romane Church from this taxation This they labour to doe but alas their miserie by collusion and cunning for the same Synod of Trent resolveth the point thus The holy Synod say they teacheth that Children being void of the use of Reason are not necessarily bound to the Sacramentall receiving of the Eucharist This wee call a collusion for by the same Reason wherewith they argue that Children are not necessarily bound to receive the Eucharist because they want reason they should have concluded that Therefore the Church is and was necessarily bound not to administer the Eucharist to Infants even because they wanted Reason Which the Councell doubtlesse knew but was desirous thus to cover her owne shame touching her former superstitious practice of Giving this Sacrament vnto Infants In excuse whereof your Councell of Trent adioyneth that the Church of Rome in those dayes was not condemnable but why Because saith your Councell Truly and without Controversie wee ought to beleeve that they did not give the Eucharist unto Infants as thinking it necessary to Salvation Which Answere your owne Doctors will prove to be a bold and a notorious vntruth because as your Iesuite sheweth They then beleeved that Infants baptized could not be saved except they should participate of the Eucharist taking their Argument from that Scripture of Iohn 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne c. and therfore held they it necessarie to the salvation of Infants That this was the beleefe of Pope Innocent and of the Church of Rome vnder him your Parisian Doctor Espencaeus also proveth at large out of the expresse writings of Pope Innocent Yea and your greatly approved Binius in his Volumes of the Councels dedicated to Pope Paul the fift explaineth the same so exactly See the Marginall Citation that it will permit no Euasion And so much the rather because that which the Tridentine Fathers alledge for cause of Alteration doth confirme this unto us It is vndocent say they to give the Eucharist unto Infants This may perswade vs that Innocent held it necessary els would he not haue practized and patronized a thing so vtterly vndecent Wee dispute therefore If the Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Innocent the first held it a doctrine of faith in the behalfe of Infants that they ought to receiue the Sacrament of the Eucharist the same Church of Rome in her Councell of Trent whose Decrees by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth are all held to be beleeued vpon necessity of Salvation did decree contrarily that the participation of the Eucharist is not necessary no nor yet decent for Infants Say now did the Church of Rome not erre in the dayes of Pope Innocent then is she now in an error Or doth shee not now erre herein then did she formerly erre and consequently may erre hereafter in determinining a matter to be Necessary to Salvation which in it selfe is Superfluous and Vndecent Thus of the contrary custome of the Church of Rome in elder times The new contrary Opinion concerning the Romane Masse at this day Euen at this day also your Iesuite will haue vs to vnderstand the meaning of your Church to be that Infants are capable of the Sacrament of the Eucharist CHALLENGE VVHereunto wee oppose the Authority of the Councell of Carthage and of that which you call the Councell of Laterane which denyed as you know that the Eucharist should be delivered vnto Infants accounting them vncapable of divine and spirituall feeding without which say they the corporall profiteth nothing But we also summon against the â—ormer Assertion eight of your ancient Schoolemen who vpon the same Reasons made the like Conclusion with vs. And wee further as it were arresting you in the Kings name produce against you Christ his writ the Sacred Scripture
herein both of them correcting the Vulgar Translation in the word Pledge and one of them giving an Absitâ—l against this Sence of it The Reason of both is because he that giveth a Pledge taketh it againe when the Thing for which it was pledged is received But he that giveth an Earnest will have it continue with him to whom it was given And so God assuring his Chosen by his Spirit doth for their greater Confidence give it as an Earnest and not as a Pledge So they Thereby advancing Gods gracious love towards man and man's faith in God's love Here will be no corner of Pretence that this being an Errour of Print and not of Doctrine may be rejected by you without Prejudice to your Oath no for Errour of Print ariseth from some affinity of words as where these words This is a sound reason being delivered to the print was returned from the Presse thus This is a fond reason But betweene Pignus and Arrhabo there is no more Symphony than betweene an Horse and a Saddle Nor will it availe you to say that the Originall Greeke was corrupted for it is the same Greeke word which Hierome himselfe who as you know used the perfectest Greeke Text doth here avow to be True II. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the Romish Expositions of Scripture THe Tenour of the Oath in this respect is I admit the sacred Scriptures in that Sense which the Mother Church hath held and doth hold By Mother Church understanding the Church of Rome as without which there is no salvation which is expressed in the same Oath as another Article therein and which else-where we have proved to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE in a full Tractate from the Doctrine of the Apostles of Generall Councells of severall Catholique Churches and from such Primitive Fathers whose memories are at this day registred in the Romish Calender of Saints How then can the Oath for this point be taken without danger of Perjury But to come to the Article concerning the Expositions of Scriptures According to the sence of the Church of Rome which would thereby be thought to Hold no Sence of Scripture now which she had not Held in more Antient Times We for Triall hereof shall for this present seeke after no other Instances than such as in this Treatise have been discussed and for brevity-sake single out of many but only Three A first is in that Scripture Ioh. 6. Except you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man you cannot have life The word Except was extended unto Infants in the dayes of Pope Innocent the First continuing as hath beene confessed six hundred yeares together when the Church of Rome thereupon Held it necessary for Infants to receive the Eucharist Contrarily the now Romane Church Holdeth it Inexpedient to administer the Eucharist unto Infants as you have heard Secondly Luc. 22. Take Eat c. Your Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Nicolas in a Councell at Rome Held that by the word Eate was meant an Eating by Tearing the Body of Christ sensually with men's teeth in a Literall sence Which your now Romane Church if we may beleeve your Iesuites doth not Hold as hath appeared Thirdly the Tenour of the Institution of Christ concerning the Cup was Held in the dayes of Pope Gelasius to be peremptory for the administration thereof to prove that the Eucharist ought to be administred in both kindes to all Communicants and judging the dismembring of them a Grand Sacrilege as you have heard whereas now your Romish Church Holdeth it not only lawfull but also religious to withhold the Cup from all but only consecrating Priests Vpon these omitting other Scriptures which you your selves may observe at your best leasure we conclude You therefore in taking that Oath swearing to admit all Interpretations of Scripture both which the Church of Rome once Held and now Holdeth the Proverbe must needs be verified upon you viz. You hold a Wolfe by the eare which howsoever you Hold you are sure to be Oath-bit either in Holding TENVIT by TENET or in Holding TENET by TENVIT III. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the pretended Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures HEare your Oath Neither will I ever interpret any Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of Fathers Here the word Fathers cannot betoken Bishops and Fathers assembled in a Councell where the major part of voices conclude the lesse for Councell never writ Commentaries upon Scriptures but from Scriptures collect their Conclusions And although the word Vnanimous doth literally signifie the universall Consent which would inferre an Impossibility because that all Fathers have not expounded any one Scripture and very few All yet that you may know we presse not too violently upon you we shall be content to take this word Morally with this Diminution For the most part and hereupon make bold to averre that your Iuror by this Oath is sworne to a flat Falsity because you cannot deny but that the Fathers in their Expositions dissent among themselves sometimes a Greater part from the lesse insomuch that you your selves are at difference among your selves which part to side with With the greater saith Valentia nay but sometime with the Lesser saith Canus Can you dreame of an Vnanimity in Disparity Sometime there is a Non-Constat what is the Iudgement of the Fathers in some points which you call matter of Faith What then Then saith your Iesuite the Authority of the Pope is to take place who being guided by other rules may propound what is the Sence Behold here the very ground of that which we call Popery which is devising and obtruding upon the Church of Christ new Articles of Faith unknowen for ought you know to Ancient Fathers And is it possible to finde an Vnanimity of Consent in an Individuall Vnity or rather a Nullity for what else is an ignorance what the Sence of the Fathers is whether so or so Next that it may appeare that this Article touching the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers is a meere Ostentation and gullery and no better than that Challenge made by the wise man of Athens of all the Ships that entred into the Road to be his owne as if you should say All the Fathers doe patronize your Romish Cause We shall give you one or two Examples among your Iesuites as patternes of the Disposition of others in neglecting sleighting and rejecting the more Generall Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures One Instance may be given in your Cardinall who in his Commentaries upon the Psalmes dedicated to the then Pope professeth himselfe to have composed them Rather by his owne meditation than by reading of many bookes whereas he that will seeke for Vnanimous Consent of Fathers must have a perusall of them all In the second place hearken unto the Accents of your Iesuite Maldonate in his
not but as the first hath verified the Title of that Booke to prove your Doctrine of the Necessity of salvation in your Romish Church to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE So this second which I now according to my promise present vnto you will make good by many Demonstrations that your Romish MASSE is a very Masse or rather a Gulfe of many Superstitious Sacrilegious and Idolatrous Positions and Practises And because the very name of Romane Church is commonly used as in it selfe a powerfull enchantment to stupifie every Romish Disciple and to strike him deafe and dumbe at once that he may may neither heare nor utter any thing in Conference concerning the Masse or any other Controversie in Religion be the Protestants Defence never so Divine for trueth or ancient for time or universall for Consent or necessary for beleefe I therefore held it requisite in the first place to discover the falshood of the former Article of your Church before I would publish the Abominations of the Masse to the end that for Idolatrie in Scripture is often termed spirituall Adulterie the Romish Church which playeth the Bawd in patronizing Idolatry being once outted your Romish Masse as the Strumpet might the more easily either be reformed or wholly abandoned This may satisfie you for the necessity of this Tractate The next must be to set before you your owne delusorie tricks in answering or not answering Bookes written against you especially such as have beene observed from mine owne experience One is to stangle a Booke in the very birth so dealt Mr. Breereley long since by a letter writ unto mee to prevent the publishing of my Answere against the first Edition of his Apologie when he sent me a second Edition thereof to be answered which both might and ought to have beene sent a twelve-month sooner but was purposely reserved to be delivered not untill the very day after my Answere called and Appeale was published Of which his prevention I have therefore complained as of a most unconscionable Circumvention Another device you have to give out that the Booke whatsoever written against your Romish Tenents is in answering and that an Answere will come out shortly So dealt Mr. Parsons with me Certifying me and all his credulous Readers of an Epistle which hee had received from a Scottish Doctor censuring my Latine Apologies to be both fond and false and promising that his Answere to them Printed at Gratz in Austria should be published before the Michaelmas following whereas there have beene above twenty Michaelmasses sithence every one giving Mr. Parsons his promise the flatt lie A third Art is a voluntarie Concealement and thus Maister Brereley who hauing had knowledge of the fore-mentioned Booke of Appeale manifesting his manifold Aberrations and Absurdities in doctrine his ignorances and fraudes in the abuse of his Authors as in other passages through-out that booke so more especially the parts concerning the Romish Masse yet since hath written a large Booke in defence of the Romish Liturgy or Masse vrging all the same proofes and Authorities of Fathers but wisely concealing that they had beene confuted and his fashoods discouered Only he and Master Fisher singling out of my Appeale an explanation which I gaue of the testimonie of Gelasius in condemning the Manichees concerning their opinion of not administring the Eucharist in both kindes did both of them divulge it in their Bookes and reports also in many parts of this kingdome as making for the iustification of their sacrilegious dismembring the holy Sacrament and fora foule Contradiction vnto my selfe notwithstanding that this their scurrilous iusultation as is here proued serueth for nothing rather than to make themselues ridiculous The last but most base and deuellish Gullerie is a false imputation of Falshoods in the alleaging of Authors which was the fine sleight of Master Parsons a man as subtileâ— for inuention as elegant for expression for obseruation as dextrous and acute and as politike and perswasiue for application as any of his time He in an answere to some Treatises written against your Romish blacke art of Aequiuocation by mentall Reseruation and other Positions fomenting Rebellion to wit in his bookes of Mitigation and Sober Reckoning doth commonly leaue the principall Obiections Reasons and falleth to his verball skirmishes concerning false Allegations and as turning that Ironicall counsaile into earnest Audacter fortiter calumniare c. he chargeth mee with no lesse than fiftie Falsifications All which I spunged out in a Booke entituled an Encounter and retorted all the same Imputations of falshood upon himselfe with the interest of above forty more Which may seeme to verifie that Cognizance which your owne Brother-hood of Romish Priests in their Quodlibets have fastened on his sleeue calling him The Quintessence of Coggerie As for mine owne integritie I have that which may iustifie mee for howsoever any one or other Error may happen in mis-alleaging any one Author yet that I have not erred much or if at all yet never against my Conscience Heereof I have many witnesses One within me a witnesse most Domesticall yet least partiall and as good as Thousands mine owne Conscience a second is above me God who is Greater than the Conscience A third sort of Witnesses are such as stand by mee even all they who have beene conversant with mee in the perusall and examination of Authors Testimonies by mee alleaged men of singular learning and iudgement who can testifie how much they endeared them-selves vnto mee when any of them happened to shew mee the least errour in any thing Hee that shall say Non possum errare must be no man and hee that will not say Nolo errare as hating to erre can be no Christian man The last witnesse for my integritie may be the Bookes of my greatest Adversaries Mr. Parsons and Mr. Brereley whose many scores of falshoods have beene laid so open and published for above sixteene yeares past in two Bookes one called an Encounter against the fore-man the other an Appeale against the second yet hath not any one appeared out of your Romish Seminaries for the vindicating of them heerein By these Advertisements you may easily conceive with what confidence I may proceede in this worke wherein is displayed and layd open in the discussing of these Eight Words of Christ his Institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist HEE BLESSED BRAKE GAVE TO THEM SAYING TAKE EATE DRINKE your Ten Romish Prevarications and Transgressions Afterwards in the following Bookes are reveiled the stupendious Paradoxes Sacrilegiousnes and Idolatrie of your MASSE together with the notorious Obstinacies some fewe Overtures of Periuries out of that great Summe which may afterwards be manifested in your swearing to the other Articles of your new Romane Faith and the manifold Heresies in the Defenders thereof as also their indirect and sinister Obiecting and Answering of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers thorow-out as if they contended neither from Conscience nor for Conscience-sake
he is here present not carrying the fire but the holy Ghost These and the like sayings of Chrysostome doe verifie the Censure of your Senensis upon him that he was most frequent in figurative Amplifications and Hyperbole's Another Obiection is commonly made out of Chrysostome of a double Elias one above and another below meaning by Elias below the sheepe-skin or mantle of Elias received by Helisaeus namely that Christ ascending into Heaven in his owne flesh left the same but as Elias did his Mantle being called the other Elias to wit figuratively so the Sacrament a token of Christ's flesh is called his flesh Which must needs be a true Answere unles you will have Chrysostome to have properly conceited as a double Elias so consequently a double Christ As for the next Testimonie it is no more than which every Christian must confesse namely that it is the same whole undivided Christ which is spiritually received of all Christians wheresoever and whensoever throughout the world the same we say Obiectively although not Subiectively as the Sixt Booke Chap. 6. and § 3. will demonstrate That your most plausible Obiection taken out of Augustine concerning Christ his Carrying himselfe in his owne hands is but Sophisticall SECT VIII AVgustine in expounding the 33. Psalme and falling vpon a Translation where the words 1. Sam. 21. are these by interpretation Hee carryed himselfe in his owne hands saith that these words could not be understood of David or yet of any other man literally for Quomodo fieri potest saith he How could that be c. And therefore expoundeth them as meant of Christ at what time he said of the Eucharist This is my Body This is the testimonie which not onely your Cardinall but all other your Disputers upon this subiect doe so ostentatively embrace and as it were hugge in their armes as a witnes which may alone stop the mouth of any Protestant which therefore above all other they dictate to their Novices and furnish them therewith as with Armour of proofe against all Opposites especially seeing the same testimony seemeth to be grounded upon Scripture Contrarily we complaine of the Romish Disputers against this their fastidious and perverse importunitie in urging a testimonie which they themselves could as easily have answered as obiected both in taking exception at the ground of that speech to shew that it is not Scripture at all and also by moderating the rigidity of that sentence even out of Augustine himselfe THE FIRST CHALLENGE Shewing that the Ground of that Speech was not Scripture PRotestants you know allow of no Authenticall Scripture of the old Testament which is not according to the Originall namely the Hebrew text and the Church of Rome alloweth of the Vulgar Latine Translation as of the only Authenticall But in neither of them are these words viz. Hee was carried in his owne hands but only that David now playing the Mad-man slipt or fell into the hands of others as your Abulensis truely observeth So easily might the Transcribers of the Septuagints erre in mistaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so impossible it is for you to ground the obiected sentence upon divine Scripture even in your owne iudgement THE SECOND CHALLENGE Shewing that the Romanists cannot stand to the QVOMODO of Augustine THis word Quomodo How implying it to be impossible for David or any other man to carry himselfe in his owne hands excepting Christ as you defend must argue either an absolute Impossibility or not if it intend an absolute Impossibility of any man to be carried in his owne hands in a literall sence then could not Christ as man be carried in his own hands and if it do not intimate an absolute Impossibility then might David or any other man by the power of God have carried himselfe in his owne hands So that whether thus or so you will make Augustine contradict himselfe if his words be taken in the Precisenesse and strictnesse of that which is a Literall sence THE THIRD CHALLENGE Shewing that Augustine in another word following to wit QVODAMMODO doth answere Saint Augustine himselfe to his owne formerly obiected word QVOMODO SAint Augustine after hee had said Quomodo How a word seeming to signifie an Impossibility left that it being taken absolutely might imply a direct carying of himselfe in his hands at his Supper hee qualifieth that his speech somewhat after saying Quodammodò c. that is After a certaine manner Christ caried himselfe in his owne hands Which is a modification and indeed a Correction of the excesse of his former sentence Our next labour must be to find out the meaning of his Quodammodo and what â—his manner of Christ's carying himselfe was in the iudgment of Saint Augustine THE FOVRTH CHALLENGE Shewing Saint Augustine to be an utter enemy to the Romish Cause in all their other conceited manners concerning Christ in this Sacrament AGainst your manner of interpreting the words of Christ HOC EST CORPVS MEVM properly you have heard Augustine often pleading for a Figurative sence Secondly against your manner of bringing in the Body of Christ by Transubstantiation hee hath acknowledged in this Sacrament after Consecration the Continuance of Bread Thirdly Against your Corporall Existence of Christ in many places at once in this Sacrament or else-where without dimension of Place or Space he hath already contradicted you in both holding them Impossible and also by arguing that therefore his flesh is not on earth because it is in Heaven Fourthly Your manner of properly Eating Christ's Body Corporally hee will renounce hereafter as an execrable Imagination Wherefore Augustine holding it Impossible for Christ's Body to have any Corporall Existence in this Sacrament it is Incredible he could haue resolvedly concluded of Christ's Corporall carrying of his Body properly in his owne hands THE FIFTH CHALLENGE Shewing that the QVODAMMODO of Saint Augustine is the same manner which the Protestants doe teach DOe you then seeke after the manner which Augustine beleeved what need you having learned it of Augustine himselfe by his Secundùm quendam modum where he saith this Sacrament after a sort is the Body of Christ what literally Nay but for so hee saith As Baptisme the Sacrament of Faith is called Faith And if you have not the leisure to looke for Augustines iudgement in his writings you might have found it in your owne Booke of Decrees set out by Gratian where Augustine is alleaged to say that This holy Bread is after its manner called the Body of Christ as the offering thereof by the hands of the Priest is called Christ's Passion Dare you say that the Priest's Oblation is properly and literally in strict sence the Passion of Christ or that Aug. meant any such a Manner You dare not yet if you should your Romish Glosse in that place would presently reprove you saying that by this comparison is meant that The Sacrament
in Prayer joyntly against both God and Man because that without the vnderstanding of the Prayer it is impossible for a man being of discretion to pray vnto or to praise God as hee ought and consequently to obtaine any blessing by prayer from God according to that Apostolicall Doctrine 1. Cor. 14. where he saith of the man ignorant of the language of prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How shall he say Amen at thy giving of thankes seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest To which Argument of the Apostles taken from the Impossibility your Eckius and some Others answere that the Apostle speaketh of Preaching and not of Praying What not of Praying Eckius May it not bee said of this your great Doctor and Antagonist to Luther that this man could not see the River for water for as your Cardinall confesseth in the text it selfe the Apostle vseth these three words Pray sing and give thankes Will you now seeke an Evasion from Mr. Brereley Pr. collecting as he saith the Contrarie in the Apostle as affirming that not the whole vulgar but some one was especially appointed to supply the place of the vnlearned to say Amen Which Reason he may seeme to have borrowed from your Senensis who saith that The Apostle by him That occupieth the place of the vnlearned meant the Clarke of the Parish and not the vulgar people But this is thought of your Bellarmine and others to be but an vnlearned Answere because that In the dayes of the Apostle saith he There was not any such office ordained as is the Clarke of the Parish and if there had beene any such yet the Greeke phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would not admit of any such interpretation So hee Lastly it can be no lesse than an extreme Infatuation to appose as doe your Iesuite Salmeron Eckius and the Rhemists the example of Children because the Children crying Hosanna and not understanding their prayers were notwithstanding say they accepted of Christ. Ergò the Priest Monkes and Nunnes in praysing God may be gratefull to God although they vnderstand not that which they pray So they An Obiection taken as you see from Children or rather as it might seeme made by Children it is altogether so Childish For the Apostle as it were fore-seeing that this might possibly be fancied by some fond and obstinate Opposers to the Spirit of Truth doth in the very same Chapter 1. Cor. 14. 20. purposely prevent it saying Brethren be not children in understanding For although when a Childe asketh his Fathers blessing only with clapping his hands together or uttering halfe syllables it joyeth the Father because his Childe now expresseth his duty according to the Capacitie of a Childe yet if the same Childe after hee is come to the perfect yeares of discretion should performe that duty in no better manner than by childish babling would the Father hold this to be Reverence and not rather plaine Mocquerie So is the Case betwixt us and God who accepteth every one according to that which he hath and not according to that which he hath not A Childe in the capacity of a Childe but a man according to to the apprehension of a man In which consideration the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 13. 11. When I was a childe I spake as a childe but being a man I put away childishnesse Away therefore with this your more than Childish Obiection VVee returne to the Impossibilitie of praying duely in an vnknowne tongue which the Apostle illustrateth by two Similitudes the one taken from an Instrument of peace Verse 7. He that knoweth not the distinct sound of the Pipe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How shall he know what is piped that is it is impossible for him to apply himselfe to the daunce The other from an Instrument of warre Verse 8. If the Trumpet give an vncertaine sound who shall prepare himselfe to battell As if hee would haue said It is impossible to know when to to march forward or when to retraite So it is said of vnknowne Prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How shall he that is ignorant of the language say Amen that is to say by the interpretation of your â—esuite How shall people ignorant of the tongue answere Amen that is yeild consent unto the Prayer seeing that they who dissent among themselves after a Babylonish confusion cannot consent in minde and affection So he Or as your Aquinas How shall he say Amen who vnderstandeth not what good words thou speakest but only knoweth that thou blessest Thus in one Transgression you commit a double Sacrilege to wit by Robbing God of his due Honour and Men of their spirituall graces and Comforts To conclude These Premises doe prove that among many thousands of your people assembled at a Romane Masse and being ignorant of their Service not any such an one a miserable Case can justly be held to be a true Worshipper of God who requireth of his VVorshippers the Calves of their lips and not as now they make themselves the lips of Calves THE FIFT CHALLENGE Out of the Doctrine of the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. more copiously in confutation of your divers Objections IT were an easie matter to bee superfluous in the prosecuting of this Argument by proving the truth of this Doctrine out of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers if it were imaginable that any Reply could be made to that which is alreadie said But yet behold an Anonymus having had notice of most of these points hath formed such Objections and Answeres as his prejudicated and purblinde Conceit could reach vnto First in answere to the places objected out of 1. Cor. 14. affirming out of the Rhemish Annotations That the Apostle speakes not of the publike and set prayers of the Church but of extraordinarie and spirituall exercises of Exhortations and suddaine Prayors So he Wherein the man contradicteth your owne Schoolemen but especially the Apostle his direct saying Verse 23. If the whole Congregation meete together c. what more publike than that Assembly of the whole Congregation And to suppose that they were extraordinarie Prayers what is more consectarie and Consequent than that if the Apostle note it for an Abuse to practice such extraordinarie Exercises of Preaching and Praying in a tongue vnknowne even because the Hearers are not thereby Edified doubtlesse the same Abuse practiced in publike and ordinarie Service being more notorious and Common must needs be so much the more condemnable as witnesse both Ancient Fathers and your owne Brethren who have taught the vse of a knowne Tongue in all publique and ordinarie service of God from this Text of Scripture which as you say speaketh of Prayers extraordinarie Yea but It is sufficient saith he that the vulgar people know in generall although they vnderstand not the Prayers in particular VVhich againe Contradicteth the Apostle who in the sixteenth Verse will have the Private or Vulgar man to be able to
by Protestants which is Sacramentall And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall SECT I. First of the Sacramentall THere lieth a Charge upon every Soule that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament that herein he Discerne the Lord's Body which Office of Discerning according to the iudgement of Protestants is not onely in the use but also in the Nature to distinguish the Obiect of Faith from the Obiect of Sense The First Obiect of Christian Faith is the Divine Alteration and Change of naturall Bread into a Sacrament of Christ's body This we call a Divine Change because none but the same Omnipotent power that made the Creature and Element of Bread can Change it into a Sacrament The Second Obiect of Faith is the Body of Christ it selfe Sacramentally represented and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Communicants There are then three Obiects in all to be distinguished The First is before Consecration the Bread meerely Naturall Secondly After Consecration Bread Sacramentall Thirdly Christ's owne Body which is the Spirituall and Super-substantiall Bread truly exhibited by this Sacramentall to the nourishment of the soules of the Faithfull Secondly of the Romish Change which you call Transubstantiation SECT II. BVt your Change in the Councell of Trent is thus defined Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance of Bread into the whole Substance of the Body of Christ and of Wine into his Blood Which by the Bull of Pius the Fourth then Pope is made an Article of Faith without which a man cannot be saved Which Article of your Faith Protestans beleeve to be a new and impious Figment and Heresie The Case thus standing it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Foundation As for the Church of England she professeth in her 28. Article saying of this Transubstantiation that It cannot be proved by holy Writ but is repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion unto MANY SVPERSTIONS CHAP. II. The Question is to be examined by these ground viz. I. Scripture II. Antiquity III. Divine Reason IN all which wee shall make bold to borrow your owne Assertions and Confessions for the Confirmation of Truth The Romish Depravation of the Sence of Christ his words This is my Body for proofe of Transubstantiation SECT I. YOu pretend and that with no small Confidence as a Truth avouched by the Councell of Trent that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole true and proper Signification of these words This is my Body So you CHALLENGE VVHerein you shew your selves to be men of great Faith or rather Credulity but of little Conscience teaching that to be undoubtedly True whereof notwithstanding you your-selves render many Causes of Doubting For first you grant that besides Cardinall Cajetane and some other Ancient Schoolemen Scotus and Cameracensis men most Learned and Acute held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse which without the Declaration of the Church can evidently compell any man to admit of Transubstantiation So they Which your Cardinall and our greatest Adversary saith Is not altogether improbable and whereunto your Bishop Roffensis giveth his consent Secondly which is also confessed some other Doctors of your Church because they could not find so full Evidence for proofe of your Transubstantiation out of the words of Christ were driven to so hard shifts as to Change the Verbe Substantive Est into a Verbe Passive or Transitive Fit or Transit that is in stead of Is to say It 's Made or It passeth into the Body of Christ A Sence which your Iesuite Suarez cannot allow because as hee truly saith It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word Transubstantiation importeth no more than the Fieri seu Transire of Making or Passing of one Substance into another So that still you see Transubstantiation cannot be extracted out of the Text without violence to the words of Christ Wee might in the third place adde hereunto that the true Sence of the words of Christ is Figurative as by Scriptures Fathers and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * proved as an Infallible Truth So groundlesse is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following But yet by the way wee take leave to prevent your Obiection You have told us that the words of Christ are Operative and worke that which they signifie so that upon the pronuntiation of the words This is my Body it must infallibly follow that Bread is changed into Christs Body which wee shall believe assoone as you shall be able to prove that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood Luc. 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christ's Blood or else into his Blood it selfe The Novelty of Transubstantiation examined as well for the Name as for the Nature thereof SECT II. The Title and Name of Transubstantiation proved to be of a latter date YOu have imposed the very Title of Transubstantiation upon the Faith of Christians albeit the word Transubstantiation as you grant was not used of any Ancient Fathers and that your Romish Change had not it's Christendome or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation as your Cardinall Alan witnesseth before the Councell of Laterane which was 1215. yeares after Christ nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine for a Thousand yeares attributing any word equivalent in strict Sence unto the same word Transubstantiation untill the yeare 1100. which is beyond the Compasse of due Antiquitie At what time you finde note and â—rge Theophylact who saith of the Bread that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ Which Phrase in what Sence hee vsed it you might best have learned from himselfe who in the very same place saith that Christ in a manner is Trans-elementated into the Communicant which how unchristian a Paradoxe it were being taken in strict and proper Sence we permit to your owne iudgements to determine Neither yet may you for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word obiect the like use of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though it had beene in use before the Arian Controversie began because the Fathers of the Councell of Nice iudged the Obiection of the Novelty of that word Calumnious for that the use of it had beene Antient before their times as your Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe witnesseth You furthermore to prevent our Obiection demanding why the Antient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change Transubstantiation if they had beene of your Romish Faith concerning the Substantiall Change of Bread into the Body of Christ haue shaped us this Answere namely that Although they used not the very word Transubstantiation yet have they words of the same signification to wit Conversion Transmutation Transition
visibles but being sanctified by the holy Spirit are turned into a Sacrament of Christ's Body So hee This is indeed a true Analogie not to be performed by Accidents Could any of them whom you call Calvinists have spoken more significantly either in contradicting your Exposition of Christ's words for he saith that Christ called Bread his Body or in declaring the true proper Sence of the Sacramentall Conversion for he saith Bread is Changed into a Sacrament of Christ's Bodie or else in giving the Reason why Bread and Wine were chosen to be Sacraments and Signes of Christ's Body and Blood by which we are spiritually fed for hee sheweth that it is because of their Naturall Effects Bread substantially and therefore not Accidentally strengtheneth Man's Body Wine turneth in Blood Which overthroweth your third Figment of onely Accidents as if the Substance of Bread and Wine were not necessary in this Sacrament Say then doth the Accident of Roundnesse and Figure of Bread strengthen mans Body or doth the Accident Colour of Wine turne into Blood As well might you affirme the only Accident of Water in Baptisme to be sufficient to purge and cleanse the Body by the colour and coldnesse without the substantiall matter thereof The Second part of the Analogie is discerned in the Mysticall Body of Christ which is the Congregation of the Faithfull Communicants We are all one Body in as much as we are partakers of one Bread It standeth thus As many Granes of Corne make one Loafe of Bread and many Grapes make one measure of Wine in the Cup So many Christians partaking faithfully of this Sacrament become One mysticall Body of Christ by the Vnion of Faith and Love This Exposition as it is yeilded unto by your Cardinall Cajetan and authorized by your Romane and Tridentine Catechisme so is it also confessed to be used of Almost all holy Doctours Hee was held a most expert and artificiall Painter in Plinie that could paint Grapes so to life as to deceive Birds which came to feed on them But they are the only Sophisticall Doctors that offer in the Eucharist only Accidents as painted Colours in stead of naturall because where there is not a Reall Analogie there is no Sacrament You may not say that the Analogie consisteth in the matter before Consecration because every Sacramentall Analogie is betweene the Sacrament and the Thing Signified but it is no Sacrament before it be Consecrated CHALLENGE SAy now what Better Authour is there than Christ What better Disciple and Scholler than the Apostle of Christ or what better Commentary upon the words of Christ and his Apostle than the Sentences of Ancient Fathers calling the one part Wine the other Bread after Consecration as you have heard Our Third Proofe that the Substance of Bread remayneth after Consecration in the Sacrament is taken from the Iudgement of Sense necessarily First by the Authority of Scripture SECT VII ALthough man's Sense may be deceived thorow the inconvenient Diposition of the Medium thorow which he seeth as it hapneth in judging a straight Staffe to be Crooked which standeth in the Water and in thinking a White Obiect to be Greene in it selfe which is seene through a Greene glasse or Secondly by the unequall Distance of place as by conceiving the Sunne to be but two feet in breadth or the Rainbow to be a Colour and not Light or Thirdly by some defect in the Organ or Instrument of seeing which is the Eye whereby it commeth to passe that wee take One to be Two or mistake a Shadow for a Substance yet notwithstanding when our Eyes that see are of good Constitution and Temper the Medium whereby we see is perfectly disposed the Distance of the Obiect which we see is indifferent then say we the iudgement of Sense being free is True and the Concurrence and ioynt Consent of divers Senses in one arbitrement is infallible This Reason taken from Sence you peradventure will judge to be but Naturall and Carnall as those Termes are opposed to a true and Christian manner of Reasoning Wee defend the Contrary being warranted by the Argument which Christ himselfe used to his Disciples Luc. 24. 39. Handle mee and see Your Cardinall although he grant that this Reason of Christ was available to prove that his owne Body was no Spirit or Fancy but a true body even by the onely Argument from the Sence of Touching Yet saith he was it not sufficient in it selfe without other Arguments to confirme it and to prove it to have beene a humane body and the very same which it was So he Which Answere of your Cardinall we wish were but only false and not also greatly irreligious for Christ demonstrated hereby not onely that he had a body as your Cardinall speaketh but also that it was his owne same humane body now risen which before had beene Crucified and wounded to Death and buried according to that of Luke That it is even I. Luc. 24. 39. Now because It is not a Resurrection of a Body except it be the Same body Therefore would Christ have Thomas to thrust his hands into his sides and feele the print of his wounds to manifest the same body as Two of your Iesuites doe also observe the One with an Optimè the Other with a Probatum est Accordingly the Apostle Saint Paul laid this Argument taken from Sence as the foundation of a Fundamentall Article of Faith even the Resurrection of the same Body of Christ from the dead for how often doth he repeate and inculcate this He was seene c. And againe thrice more Hee was seene c. And Saint Iohn argueth to the same purpose from the Concurrence of three Sences That which wee have heard which we have seene and our hands have handled declare wee unto you The validity of this Reason was proved by the Effect as Christ averreth Thomas because thou hast seene that is perceiued both by Eye and hand thou hast beleeved The Validity of the Iudgement of Sense in THOMAS and the other Disciples confirmed in the second place by your owne Doctors SECT VIII PErerius a Iesuite confidently pleadeth for the Sense of Touch I feare not saith hee to say that the Evidence of Sense is so strong an Argument to prove without all doubt an humane Bodie that the Devill himselfe cannot herein delude the touch of man that is of vnderstanding and consideration As for the unbeleeving Disciples Christ his Handle me c. saith your Iesuite Vasquez was as much as if he had said to them Perceive you my true flesh as being a most efficacious Argument to prove the truth of an humane Body So he yea and Tolet another Iesuite did well discerne the case of Thomas to have beene an extreme Infidelity when hee said Except I put my finger into the print of the nailes and thrust my hand into his side I will not beleeve Which
to be destitute of naturall and voluntary motion of Sence and of Vnderstanding SECT II. CAtholique Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ after the Resurrection but that he was able naturally of himselfe as hee was man to performe the perfect Acts which other men can who are of right constitution of Body and of sound understanding such as are the functions of Iudgement and reason and of appetite sence motion according to the liberty of his own will This Doctrine was above 1000. yeers Catholike But your now Romane faith is to beleeve as followeth in the conclusions set down by your Iesuite Suarez without as he saith the contradiction of any Divine in your Church First that Christ as he is in this Sacrament hath no power naturally of himselfe to move himselfe And this your owne daily experience hath brought you vnto whilst beleeuing Christs Corporall presence in the Hoast you shut him vp in a Boxe where you still find the same lying as destitute of power of motion as any other unconsecrated Bread which being put together with it lyeth so long untill they both equally waxe mouldy putrifye and ingender wormes Secondly that Christ in himselfe as being in this Sacrament hath no naturall faculty of sence nor ability without a miracle to heare or see c. Thirdly That he is voyd of all sensible appetite Lastly that without some miraculous power he cannot possibly apprehend in his vnderstanding any thing present nor yet remember any notions past So he That this is a new brutish and barbarous Doctrine destitute of all ancient Patronage either of written or of unwritten Tradition SECT III. HAve you any Text yea or yet pretext either of Scripture or humane Tradition for countenancing this so prodigious and monstrous a conception Certainly Scripture telleth us that Christ his Body by Resurrection is perfected in sense and Agility and his soule in Iudgement and Capacity Nor can you shew any Father in the Church of Christ within the Circumference of 1400. years after Christ who held this your doctrine so much as in a Dreame or who hath not esteemed the Body of Christ to be of the most absolute perfection we say no one Father or Teacher of the Evangelicall Truth once fancied this unchristian and false faith You must therefore derive this from him whom Christ calleth the Father of lies VVe shall give you good reason for this our Declamation That this Romish Doctrine is blasphemously Derogatory from the Maiesticall Body of Christ SECT IV. VVHat is this which we have heard Christ his humanity after his Resurrection not to have so much Capacity as a Child which is as he is here to vnderstand or imagine any thing done not thè power of a Moale or Mouse which is to heare or see not the faculty of a little Aut so as to move it selfe as if this were not an Antichristian blasphemy against that all-Maiesticall Body humane nature of Christ which being once sowen in infirmity is as the Scripture saith since risen in power Doe you heare In power saith the spirit of God shewing that Infirmity is changed into Potencie in the Body of every Christian and you have turned power into infirmitie even in Christ himselfe whom you have now transformed into an Idoll having eyes and seeth not eares and heareth not feete and walketh not heart and imagineth not and yet this you professe to adore as the person of the Sonne of God O the strength of Satanicall Delusion That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your owne Principle SECT V. REmember your former generall Principle which wee acknowledged to be sound and true viz. All such Actions and Qualities which are reall in any Body without any relation to place cannot be said to be multiplied in respect of divers places wherein a Body is supposed to be As for Example The Body of Christ cannot be cold in one Altar and hot in another wounded and whole in ioy and griefe dead and alive at the same time The reason These are impossible say you because of Contradiction for that the same thing should be capable of such contrarieties it is repugnant to the understanding of man So you which is an infallible Truth when the Modus or Manner of a thing is compared to it selfe and not to any thing else it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be onely one the same Iesuite cannot be sicke in Iapan and sound and in health at Rome in the same instant CHALLENGE NOw say we beseech you is there not the like Contradiction to make the same Christ at the same time as hee is in Heaven intelligent and sensitive and as on earth ignorant and senslâ—sse Or powerfull to move of himselfe on the throne of Maiestie and absolutely Impotent as hee is on the Altar because these Attributes of Christ being Intelligent and potent equally have no Relation to place Notwithstanding all which you shame not to professe a senslesse ignorant and feeble Christ O come out of Babylon and be no more be witched by such her Sorceries CHAP. IX The sixt kind of Romish Contradiction against these words of Christ MY BODY as it is now most Glorious by making it most Inglorious SECT I. BEfore we proceed in discovering the ouglinesse of the Romish Doctrine in this point wee are willing to heare your Master Brerely his preface in your defence The carnall man saith hee is not for all this satisfied but standeth still offended at sundry pretended absurd and undecent indignities Calvin saying That he reiected them as unworthy of the Maiestie of Christ And Doctor Willet saith That they are unseemely and against the dignity of the glorious and impassible Body of Christ So he at once relating and reiecting their opinions That the Indignities whereunto the Body of Christ is made subiect by the Romish Doctrine are most uile and derogatory to the Maiestie of Christ SECT II. ALl Christian Creeds tell us that Christ our Saviour sitteth at the right hand of God that is in perfection of glory But your Iesuite Suarez delivereth it in the generall Doctrine of the Romish Divines That the Body of Christ remaineth so long under the formes of Bread and wine wheresoever untill they be corrupted And this he 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 Romish Decrees and publique Missals the same Body of Christ is vomited up by the Communicant yea and you have Cases about the vomiting of it whether vpon weaknes of Sâ—omacke or of Drunkennes Next that it is devoured of Mice and blowne away with wind for wee read of your Church Cases also for these in your Missals VVee thirdly demand whether you thinke it possible for meate that is undigested by reason of
as their Eucharist and therefore could not reflect upon any Christian and Sacramentall communicating of Christ his flesh in the Eucharist wherein the Bodie represented according to our Christian profession is not of a Child but of a man of more than thirty yeares of age I say it could no more reflâ—ct on them than that other heathenish Lie that Christians did worship an Asse or Asses head for their God So childishly hath your Priest vaunted in calling his Obiection An evident Argument which will afterwards be encountred with an Argument against your Romish Sacrifice from the Answere of Cyril of Alexandria unto the Emperour Iulian the Apostate in defence of Christian Religion farre more Evident than yours was from the Apologie of Iustine to the other Infidell Emperour A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the Insufficiencie of the Reasons collected out of Iustine SECT III. THe Consequences deduced out of Iustine Martyr have beene answered in effect alreadie First Hee calleth the Eucharist Not common Bread and so doth every Christian speake of every sacred and consecrated thing you Papists will be offended to heare even your Holy Water no Sacrament to be called Common-water Secondly Iustine said As Christ was made flesh by incarnation so is the Eucharist by Prayer It were an Iniurie to Iustine for any man to thinke him so absurd as dealing with an Infidell to prove unto him one obscure mysterie of Christianitie by another And the calling of the Eucharist Flesh Sacramentally as being a Signe of Flesh could be no matter of Scandall to the Pagans who themselves in their Sacramentalls usually called the Signe by the name of the Thing signified one instance whereof you have heard out of Homer calling the Lambe sacrificed whereby they swore for Ratification of their Covenants their faithfull oathes Againe the generall Profession of Christians so well knowne to beleeve that Christ once crucifiedâ— ac cording to the Christian Creed set at the right hand of God in highest Maiestie might quite free them from all heathenish suspition of Corporall Eating the flesh of Christ Thirdly that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is The meate blessed by giving of Thankes Iustine calleth Christ's flesh namely Improperly which who shall affirme properly without a Figure by the Censure of your owne Iesuites must bee iudged Absurde THE THIRD CHALLENGE Against the Vnluckinesse of the Obiectors by their urging that which maketh against them SECT IV. FOr first they have told us of the Martyr Attalius that hee upbraided his heathenish persecutors who put him to death calling them Devourers of mens flesh and avouching in behalfe of all true Christians that they Devoure not man's flesh which no Romish Professor at this day can affirme this Profession that you swallow and transmit that flesh of Christ into the stomacke this having beene confessed by your owne Iesuite to be a Devouring So that the Doctrine of that primitive Age as you now see was as different from your Romish Noveltie as are Corporall and not Corporall Eating of the same Bodie of Christ Finally All our premised Sections throughout this Fift Booke doe clearely make up this Conclusion that the Bodie of Christ which Protestants doe feed upon as their soules food is the Bodie of Christ once Crucified and now sitting in glorious maiestie in Heaven and that Bodie of Christ beleeved by you is of Corporall Eating in deed and in truth of Bread as hath beene proued and will be further discovered in a generall Synopsis Wherefore let every Christian studie with syncere conscience To eate the flesh of Christ with a spirituall appetite as his Soules food thereby to have a Spirituall Vnion with him proper to the Faithfull not subiect to Vomitings or Corruption and not common to wicked men and vile beasts but alwayes working to the salvation of the true Receiver so shall he abhorre all your Capernatticall fancies Thus much of the Romish Consequence concerning Vnion the next toucheth the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ whereunto we proceed not doubting but that we shall find your Disputers the same men as hitherto wee have done peremptorie in their Assertions Vnconscionable in wresting of the Fathers and vaine fantasticall and absurd in their Inferences and Conclusions THE SIXTH BOOKE Entreating of the fourth Romish Consequence which concerneth the pretended proper Propitiatorie Sacrifice in the Romish Masse arising from the depraved Sence of the former words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY and confuted by the true Sense of the words following IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE The State of the Controversie WHosoever shall deny it say your Fathers of Trent to be a true and proper Sacrifice or that it is Propitiatorie Let him be Anathema or Accursed Which one Canon hath begot two Controversies as you know One Whether the Sacrifice in the Masse be a proper Sacrifice 2. Whether it be truly Propitiatorie Your Trent-Synode hath affirmed both Protestants deny both so that Proper and Improper are the distinct Borders of both Controversies And now whether the Affirmers or Denyers that is the Cursers or the parties so Cursed deserve rather the Curse of God we are forthwith to examine We begin with the Sacrifice as it is called Proper This Examination hath foure Trials 1. By the Scripture 2. By the Iudgement of Antient Fathers 3. By Romish Principles and 4. By Comparison betweene this your Masse and the Protestants Sacrifice in the Celebration of the holy Eucharist CHAP. I. Our Examination by Scripture SCriptures alleaged by your Disputers for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice are partly out of the new Testament and partly out of the old In the new some Objections are collected out of the Gospell of Christ and some out of other places Wee beginning at the Gospell assuredly affirme that if there were in it any note of a Proper Sacrifice it must necessarily appeare either from some speciall word or else from some Sacrificing Act of Christ at the first Institution First of Christs words That there is no one word in Christ his first Institution which can probably inferre a Proper Sacrifice not the first and principall words of Luc. 22. HOC FACITF DOE THIS SECT I. WHen we call upon you for a Proofe by the words of Christ wee exact not the verie word Offering or Sacrifice in the same Syllables but shall bee content with any Phrase of equivalencie amounting to the sense or meaning of a Sacrifice In the first place you object those words of Christ Hoc facite Doe this from which your Councell of Trent hath collected the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ which your Cardinall avoucheth with his Certum est as a Truth without all exception as if Doe this in the literall sense were all one with Doe you Sacrifice But why because forsooth the same word in the Hebrew Originall and in the Greeke Translation is so used Levit. 15. for Doe or Make spoken of the Turtle-dove prepared for an Holocaust or Sacrifice and 1
consent of Antient Fathers SECT III. AS for our selves we before all other Reasons and against all opposition whatsoever take our light from the same Scripture immediately after the Text objected wherein it is said of Iudas He that betrayeth me and againe Christ of himselfe I goe my way both in the Present Tense but both betokening the Future because neither Iudas at that instant practised any thing nor did Christ move any whit out of his place Lastly if ancient Fathers may be held for indifferent and competent Expositors we have Origen Tertullian Athanasius Basil Ambrose Theodoret Isidore Pope Alexander and Chrysostome All for the Future Tense by their Confringetur Tradetur Effundetur What my Masters is there no learning but under your Romish caps That the objected words of Christ and the whole Text doe utterly overthrow the pretended Sacrifice in the Romish Masse SECT IV. AMong the words of Institution the first which offereth it selfe to our use is the formerly-objected word BROKEN which word said your Iesuite Suares is taken unproperly because in the proper and exact acception it should signifie a dividing of the body of Christ into parts So he and that truly Else why wee pray you is it that your Roman Church hath left out of her Masse the same word Broken used by Christ in the words which you terme words of Consecration Although you peradventure would be silent yet your Bishop Iansenius will not forbeare to tell us that It was left out lest that any man might conceive so fondly as to thinke the body of Christ to be truly broken So hee It is well The word Shed is the next which properly signifieth the issuing of blood out of the veines of Christ But That Blood of Christ saith your Cardinall speaking of the first Institution did not passe out of his Body Even as Aquinas had said before him But most emphatically your Alphonsus Christ his Bloud was once shed upon the Crosse never to be shed againe after his resurrection which cannot be perfectly separated from his Body And accordingly your Iesuite Coster The true effusion of his Blood which is by separating it from the Body was only on the Crosse So they Hearken now These words Blood shed and Body broken were spoken then by Christ and are now recited by your Priest either in the proper sence of shedding or they are not If in a proper sence then is it properly separated from his Body against your former Confession and Profession of all Christians But if it be said to be shed unproperly then are your Objectors of a proper Sence of Christ his words to be properly called deceitfull Sophisters as men who speake not from conscience but for contention who being defeated in their first skirmish about Christs words doe flie for refuge to his Acts and Deeds whither wee further pursue them That there was no Sacrificing Act in the whole Institution of Christ which the Romish Church can justly pretend for defence of her Proper Sacrifice proved by your owne Confessions SECT V. THere are six Acts of Christ which your Proctors who plead for a proper Sacrifice do pretend for proofe thereof as being ascribable to the Institution of Christ and are as readily and roundly confuted by their owne fellowes as they were by others frequently and diligently fought out or vehemently objected which the Marginals will manifest unto you in everie particular to be no essentiall Acts of a proper Sacrifice 1. Not Elevation because it was not instituted by Christ 2. Not the Breaking of Bread because you say it is not necessarie 3. Not Consecration although it be held by your Cardinall Alan The only essentiall Act yet as Some thinke Is it not of the Essence of a Sacrifice And why should not they so judge say wee for many things are Sacrata that is Consecrated which are not Sacrificata that is Sacrificed Else what will you say of Water in Baptisme yea of your Holy-water-sprinckle of your Pots Bells Vestments which being held by you as Sacred are notwithstanding not so much as Sacramentals Besides if Consecration made the Sacrifice then Bread being only consecrated it alone should be the Sacrifice in your Masse 4. Not Oblation whether before or after Consecration 5. Not dipping of the Hoast in the Chalice 6. Although your Cardinall preferred this before all others Not the Consumption of the Hoast by the Priests eating it Which your Iesuite Salmeron and Cardinall Alan together with your Iesuite Suarez accompanied with with seven other of your Schoole-men doe gaine-say because this is Rather proper to a Sacrament than to a Sacrifice And for that also if it were essentiall the People might be held Sacrificers aswell as Priests So they of these Particulars whereof some are more largely discussed afterwards CHALLENGE COnsider now wee pray you that as you All confesse The whole Essence of a Sacrifice dependeth upon the Institution of Christ And that It is not in the power of the Church to ordaine a Sacrifice Next that if any Sacrifice had beene instituted it must have appeared either by some word or Act of Christ neither of which can be found or yet any shaddow thereof What then we pray you can make more both for the justifying of your owne Bishop of Bitontum who feared not to publish in your Councell of Trent before all their Father-hoods That Christ in his last Supper did not offer up any proper Sacrifice As also for the condemning of your owne Romish Church for a Sacrilegious Depravation of the Sacrament of Christ Vpon this their Exigence whither will they now To other Scriptures of the new Testament and then of the old Out of the new are the two that follow CHAP. II. That the other objected Scriptures out of the new Testament make not for any Proper Sacrifice among Christians to witt not Acts 13. 2. of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SECT I. ACTS 13. 2. S. Luke reporting the publike Ministerie wherein the Apostles with other devout Christians were â—ow exercised saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which two of your Cardinalls translate They sacrificing But why Sacrificing say we and not some other ministeriall Function as preaching or administring the Sacrament seeing that the words may beare it They answer us because 1. This Ministerie is said to be done To the Lord so is not Preaching 2. For that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whensoever it is applyed to sacred Ministerie and used absolutely it is alwayes taken for the Act of Sacrificing So they When we should have answered this Objection wee found our selves prevented by one who for Greeke-learning hath scaâ—… had his equall in this our age namely that Phenix M. Isaac Casaubon Looke upon the Margent where you may finde the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have been used Ecclesiastically for whatsoever religious ministration even
before God for us Thus the Apostle But what of this will you say Doe but marke Are you not All heard still proclaiming as with one voice that your Romish Sacrifice of the Masse is the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Iuge Sacrificium that is the Continuall Sacrifice Continually offered Whereof the Iuge and Continuall Sacrifice of the Law was a signe So you But it were strange that the Iuge Sacrificium of the Law continuing both Morning and Evening should be a figure of your Masse-Sacrifice which is but only offered in the Morning As if you would make a picture having two hands for to represent a Person that hath but one But not to deny that the Celebration of the Eucharist may be called a Iuge Sacrificium for so some Fathers have termed it Yet they no otherwise call it Iuge or Continuall than they call it a Sacrifice that is Vnproperly because it cannot possibly be compared for Continuance of Time to that Celestiall of Christ in the highest Heaven where Christ offereth himselfe to God for us day and night without Intermission Whereupon it is that Irenaeus exhorteth men to pray often by Christ at his Altar Which Altar saith he is in Heaven and the Temple open Apoc. 11. 19. Where saith Pope Gregory our Saviour Christ offereth up his burnt Sacrifices for us without intermission And whereupon your Iesuit Coster out of Ambrose affirmeth that Christ exhibiteth his Body wounded upon the Crosse and slaine as a Iuge Sacrificium that is a Continuall Sacrifice perpetually unto his Father for us And to this purpose serve the fore-cited Testimonies of Augustine Gregory Nazianzen Ambrose Chrysostome and Oecumenius some pointing out the Altar in Heaven as the Truth Some by Exhortations and Some by their Examples instructing us to make our Continuall Approach unto the Celestiall Altar CHALLENGE NOw you who so fix the hearts and minds of the Spectators of your Masse upon your sublunary Altars and Hoasts and appropriate the Iuge Sacrificium thereunto in respect of Time during onely the houres of your Priestly Sacrificing allow your attention but a moment of Time and you will easily see the Impiety of that your Profession The Iuge Sacrificium of Christ as it is presented to God by him in Heaven hath beene described to be Continuall without Intermission Alwayes that is without any Interruption of any moment of Time to the end that all sorts of Penitents and faithfull Suters solliciting God by him might finde as the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Helpe at any time of need The gates of this Temple Heaven being ever open the matter of this Sacrifice which is the Body of Christ being there ever present The Priest who is Christ himselfe ever executing his Function Whereas contrarily you will confesse we dare say that the Doores of your Churches may happen to be all locked or interdicted your Sacrifice shut up in a Box or lurched and carried away by Mice your Priest taken up with sport or repast or journey or sleepe yea and even when he is acting a Sacrifice may possibly nullifie all his Priestly Sacrificing Act by reason of Confessed Almost infinite Defects Therefore the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Doctrine of your Masse is thus farre manifested in as much that your owne Ministeriall Priest-hood doth so prejudice the personall Priest-hood of Christ as it is in Heaven as the Moone doth by her interposition ecclipse the glory of the Sunne by confounding things distinct that is as we have learned from the Fathers Image with Truth The state of Wicked Partakers with the Godly Matters Visible with Invisible Signes with Things Worse with Better Iayes with Eagles and the like Of the second Typicall Scripture which is the Passeover shewing the weaknesse of the Argument taken from thence for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse SECT X. FIrst it is meet we heare your Objector speake even your Cardinall who albeit he confesseth the Paschall Lamb to have been the figure of Christ on the Crosse yet did it in the Ceremonies thereof saith he more immediatly and principally prefigure the Eucharist than the Passion which is proved by Scripture 1. Cor. 5. Our Passeover is offered up therefore let us feast it in the Azymes of Sincerity and Truth Which offering up was not fulfilled on the Crosse but it is evident that the Apostle did eat this true Paschall Lambe the flesh of Christ at his Supper and this Apostle exhorteth us to this Feast in saying Let us therefore keepe our feast c. So hee bestowing a large Chapter of Arguments wherewith to bleare our eyes lest that we should see in this Scripture Our Passeover is offered up Rather the Immolation of Christ on the Crosse than in the Eucharist We willingly yeeld unto his alleaged Testimonies of Ancient Fathers who by way of Allusion or Analogie doe all call the Eucharist a Paschall Sacrifice But yet that the words of this Scripture should more properly and principally meane the Eucharisticall Sacrifice as if the Iewish Passeover did rather prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ in the Masse than on the Crosse not one It were a tedious worke to sift out all the Drosse of his Argumentations Neverthelesse because he putteth Protestants unto it saying us followeth But our Adversaries saith he will say that the Apostle in saying our Passeover is offered up speaketh of Christ's Sacrifice offered upon the Crosse but we will prove that this figure was properly fulfilled at his Sâ—pper So he We will now shew you that other Adversaries than Protestants are ready to encounter this your Champion First the choisest Chieftaine of his owne side armed with the Authority of Christ himselfe Ioh. 13. 1. Before the day of the Passeover Iesus knowing that his howre was come that he must passe out of the world unto the Father Now when was this spoken Even then saith Tolet your Cardinall and Iesuit When he came to the celebrating of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood that is at his last Supper But what was meant hereby namely Christ alluded unto the Iewish Passeover saith he in signification of his owne passing over by death to his Father So he So also your Iesuit Pererius out of Augustine A second Scripture is the objected Text 1. Cor. 5. Our Passeover is offered up Christ that is As the figurative paschall Lambe was offered up for the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt so Christ was offered up to death for the Redemption of his people and so passed by his passion to his Father So your Aquinas Our Passeover Namely by his Sacrifice in shedding his Blood on the Crosse So your Iesuit Becanus And By this his Passeover on the Crosse was the Passeover of the Iewes fulfilled So your Bishop Iansenius as flat diameter to your Cardinal's Objection as can be A third Scripture we finde Ioh. 19. They broke not his legs that
a Confession which we will take from the quill of Valentia the Iesuite saying that All right and just Actions may be said in some sort to be Propitiatory and to pacifie God As likewise of Prayer Scripture saith he attributeth a Propitiatory force unto Prayers so farre forth as we obtaine many Blessings of God through his mercy by them So he Which confirmeth our former Distinction of Propitiatory by the mercifull Acceptation of God distinct from your Propitiatory which is of meritorious Satisfaction by its owne virtue which mere man must let alone for ever Thus of our Examination from Scripture The Doctrine of Ancient Fathers concerning a Propitiatory Sacrifice SECT IV. ALbeit our Premises in the former part of this Controversie touching Sacrifice and proving both by Scripture and ancient Fathers that the Eucharist is not properly a Sacrifice might give a Supersedeas to all your further contending by their Authority for Defence of a Sacrifice properly propitiatory because that which is not properly a Sacrifice can no more be a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory than that which is not properly a stone can be properly called a Mil-stone Notwithstanding we would be loth to be indebted unto you for an Answer to your objected Fathers in this point also The Objections which you use and urge are of two kinds some wherein there is no mention of the Body and Blood of Christ at all and the other sort such wherein they both are named and expressed CHAP. IX That the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers might well be understood to call the Celebration of the Eucharist A Propitiatory Sacrifice in respect of divers Spirituall Acts therein without any Conceit of a Proper Virtue of Propititiation it selfe SECT I. A Propitiatory in God's mercifull acceptance we defend but not in Equivalency of valour and Virtue in it selfe First as it is an Act commanded by Christ in which sence your Iesuit Valentia saith that Every right Act is in a sort Propitiatory Secondly as it is a godly Act whereby we doe affiance our soule to God Every good worke which is done that we may adhere unto God is a True Sacrifice Thirdly as it is an Act serving peculiarly to Gods worship for Religiousnesse is that said Chrysostome wherewith God testifieth himselfe to be well pleased Fourthly as it is an Act of Commemoration and Representation of that only properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse wee must grant to your Cardinall that Commemoration alone hath not any Propitious Efficacy in it selfe But yet by the Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ resembled thereby God vouchsafeth to be Propitious unto us in which respect Origen exhorting Christians to resort unto Christ whom God hath made a Propitiation through faith in his blood and also to reflect upon the Commemoration which was commanded by Christ saying Doc this in remembrance of mee This saith Origen is the onely Commemoration which maketh God propitious If any would say how then shall we not make Commemoration to be Propitiatory in it selfe We answer as a man holding in his hand a pretious Iewell which is inclosed in a Ring of gold and putting it on his finger to preserve him from a Convulsion the Preservative Virtue is not attributed to the Ring but to the Iewell and yet we say the Ring is the onely meanes to us which maketh the finger capable of that Virtue So say we Christ his owne Sacrifice which was the onely precious subject matter of our Redemption is made now by our Remembring the Object of our Commemoration and Application of it for our Remission and Iustification Nor is Origen alone in this but all they who were many whom you have heard saying that Christs Death and Passion yea his Bloody Body is offered herein Your owne Iesuite Salmeron is witnesse unto us for the Councell of Ephesus Eusebius and Saint Augustine that They declared us to have expiation of our sins by this Sacrifice because the bloody Sacrifice of Christ is remembred and commemorated herein That we say nothing of our Supplications and Prayers by which through the same Virtue of Christ's Propitiation we obtaine pardon and Remission of sinnes whether for Quicke and Dead belongeth not to this Dispute because whether so or so they are but Supplications still together with many other saying Blessings from God Nor of the Act of Thanksgiving from which this Sacrament is called the Eucharist because this is the destinate end of our Celebration and therefore of all our spirituall Sacrifices most acceptable unto God for which cause Iustine Martyr called it by the way of Excellency 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is The onely gratefull Sacrifices Lastly in respect of our Application it selfe whereof in the next Section That the Ancient Fathers called it a Propitiatory Sacrifice Objectively for the Application of the Properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Crosse made of the faithfull in Celebration of the Memory thereof SECT II. WHen it was asked why the Ancient Fathers called Baptisme a Sacrifice it was answered Because the Sacrifice of Christ's Death was applied unto us thereby Yet that Death truly and onely properly propitious is but onely objectively offered in Baptisme The same may be said of the Eucharist whereof your owne great Schoole-man and Bishop Canus saith that It is sufficient that the Eucharist be called a proper and true Sacrifice because the Death of Christ is applyed thereby as if he were now dead Marke As if he were now dead which can be but Objectively only and which as you all know is not your Priestly Sacrifice As for the Ancient Fathers who in their objected Testimonies talked of Christ Suffering being slaine and dying in the Eucharist We Protestants subscribe to their Iudgements with a full faith in acknowledgement that Christ's Death the proper worke of our Propitiation is the only Object of our Remembrance and faith which sayings of the Fathers saith your Iesuit must be understood Sacramentally to signifie the reall slaughter of Christ offered by him upon the Crosse So he Which againe proveth our Conclusion that they understood a Propitiatory Sacrifice onely Objectively in the Eucharist We will end with the objected Testimony of Ambrose thus Here is an Image offered Quasi that is as it were a man as it were suffering a Passion offering himselfe as it were a Priest that he may forgive our sinnes And of his now being elsewhere he saith The truth is in Heaven there is He in truth with the Father So he Whereby is confuted your Conclusion of a Subjective Body of Christ present herein from Quasi homo offertur for this any one may perceive to be but a Quasi Argument for a Corporall presence and to make fully for our Distinction and Defence thereby Enough of the Iudgement of Antiquity Our third Examination followeth CHAP. X. Of the pretended Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice confuted by Romish Principles as destitute of foure Properties of Propitiation
lying on this Altar who teach that as he is in this Sacrament hee hath no locall Site Posture or Position at all It is also true of the Angels he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they stand in dread and the sight is fearefull And he saith no lesse of the festivall day of Christ's Nativity that It is most venerable and terrible and the very Metropolis of all others Yet doth not this argue any Corporall Presence of Christ in respect of the day This answer taken from Chrysostome may satisfie for Chrysostome We grant furthermore to your Cardinall That all the Greeke Fathers call the Eucharist terrible and full of dread But what As therefore implying a Corporall presence of Christ and Divine Adoration thereupon This is your Cardinall's scope but to prove him an ill marke-man take unto you an answer from your selves who teach with the Apostle that All prophane commers to this Sacrament make themselves guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ in which respect we doe acknowledge it to be Dreadfull indeed especially to the wicked but yet making no more for a Corporall presence than the contempt of Baptisme whereby a man maketh himselfe obnoxious to God's iudgements as Augustine hath compared them can infer the same Another answer you may receive from Ancient Fathers who together with the Eucharist have called the reading of Scriptures Terrible and so were the Canons of Baptisme called Terrible even by Chrysostome himselfe As for your objected assistance of Angels at the Celebration of the Eucharist it is no such a Prerogative but that the Prayers of the faithfull and Baptisme will plead for the same honour your Durandus granting of the first that The Angels of God are present with us in our prayers and for the second Divine Nazianzene teacheth that The Angels are present at Baptisme and doe magnifie or honour it with their presence and observance notwithstanding none of you ever defended either Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Baptisme or yet any Adoration of the consecrated Element of water therein If these two may not serve take unto you this saying of Augustine spoken of persons baptized They saith he with feare are brought unto Christ their Physician that is for so he expoundeth himselfe unto the Sacrament of eternall Salvation Which one saying of so Oxthodox a Father doth instruct us how to interpret all your objected Testimonies to with that Whosoever come to the receiving of the Sacrament of Christ they ought to come with feare as if they were in the presence of Christ And thus is your unanswerable Objection answered so that this your Cable-rope being untwisted is become no better than loose tow Now to your third Objection That the most earnestly-objected Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Adoration used of the Fathers doth not necessarily inferre any Divine Worship of the Eucharist SECT III. WEE finde not your Disputers more pressing and urgent in any Argument than in objecting the word Reverence Honour and especially Adoration for proofe that Divine Honour is due to the Eucharist as to Christ himselfe whensoever they finde the use of that Phrase applyed by Antiquity unto this Sacrament Our answer is first in Generall That the words Reverence Honour and Adoration simply in themselves without the adjunct and Additament Divine cannot conclude the Divine worship proper to God To this purpose we desire you not to hearken unto us but to heare your selves speake The Pontificall Vestments Chalices and the like are to be honoured say you but how with divine Honour you will not say it nor will you hold that ancient Bede worthy of Divine Worship albeit you entitle him Venerable in a Religious respect Yea under the degree of divine worship we our selves yeeld as much to the Eucharist as Augustine did to Baptisme when he said We reverence Baptisme wheresoever it is Accordingly of the word Adoration your Cardinall and other Iesuits are bold to say that It is sometimes used also in Scriptures for an honour common to creatures as to Angels to Kings to Martyrs and to their Tombs And although your Disputers should conceale this Truth yet would the Fathers themselves informe us in what a Latitude they used the same word Adoration Among the Latine Fathers one who knew the propriety of that Language as well as any viz. Tertullian saying I adore the plenitude of Scriptures and Gregory Nazianzene among the Greeke for his excellency in divine knowledge surnamed the Divine and therefore may not be thought to apply words belonging to Divine Worship preposterously or improperly instructed the partty baptized to say thus to the Devill Fall downe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and worship me Thus much in Generall Let us proceed You to your particular Objections and We to our Answers 1. Ob. Ambrose saith that We adore in these mysteries the flesh of Christ as the foot stoole of his Deity You call this an Argument infallible nay say we but false because Ambrose doth not say that we adore the Sacrament which is the point in Question but that in our mysticall Celebration of the memory of Christ his Passion we are to adore his humanity namely as it is hypostatically united to the person of his God-head which all Christians professe as well as you yea even in Baptisme also 2. Ob. None saith Augustine doth eat the flesh of Christ before he adore it A Testimony which seemeth to you Notable but which we judge to be indeed not able at all to prove the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament even in the Iudgement of Saint Augustine who hath every-where distinguished betweene the Sacrament and Christ's Flesh as betweene Bread and Christ's Body as hath beene often demonstrated His meaning therefore is no more but this that whosoever shall communicate of this Sacrament the Symbole of Christ must first be a true Christian beleeving that Christ is not onely man but God also and adore him accordingly with Divine honour as well before and without the Sacrament as at the receiving thereof Even as Athanasius spake of Baptisme saying that The Catechumenists did first adore the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost before that they were to be baptized in their names And is there any of your Priests so unchristian as not to adore Christ before he come to the Communion A plaine Case Will you have any more The places alleaged out of Saint Augustine by you are like Bellerophons Letters to confute you for lest Saint Augustines Reader might mis-construe the meaning of Christ's words by perverting them to a Corporall and Orall eating of his Flesh Saint Augustine addeth bringing Christ speaking to the Iewes concerning the eating of his flesh You are not to eat this flesh which you see he saith not You are not to see the flesh which you shall not eat which is your Romish Iuggling But thus You are not to eat the flesh