Who so desireth more let him cast his eye upon the 10 Mr. Mâ—iric Casuubon Praehend Cantuar. Transcript Notarum Marginal M. S. Patris sui Isaaci in Bellar. now extant in the Kings Ma. Dibrary at S. Iames. Ab Bellar. Edit Paris 1608. pag. 111. C. D. Adversus implissimam hujus Capitis doctrinam memineris-veterem Ecclesiam â—â— Romana è diametro est hîc opposita nihil studiosiùs fecisse quà m ut in vernaculas linguas verterentur Biblia Gotthieae versionis menuo apud Sozom. p. 90. Dalmaticae Hier To 4. p. 79. Armenae Pachym in vita Chrysost De illa Armena lingua satis constat eam fuisse usurpatam in Ecclesia Vide locum Bellar. Tom. 6. p. 613. Scripturam sacram statim initio versam esse in omnes linguas testatur Euseb Demonst p. 88. De Liturgia in vernacula lingua in Mesopot locus Basil 277. Syr. AEgypt Indica Persica AEthiopiâ—â— Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ioh. Earudem Scythicae Sauromaticae Theodor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 81. ubi nota verba 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem clamat verbis penè eisdem Aug. lib. 2. deâ—dect Christ cap. 5. Adde in Iure oriental Bonifid p. 243. tractatur haec quaestio pronunciatur oporteâ—o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 linquaÌ„ Arab. inter Saâ—arenos Vide Iuris orient Leuncla p. 365. Vellem doctiss Bellar statum Quaestiones rectè concepisset initio hujus Cap. non enim quaeritur An lingua latina fuerit olim sub Imp. Rom in usuâ—â— sacris sed illud quaeritus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrae administrari populo proponi debeant eâ linguâ quâ—â—vel sit populo vernacula vel certò à populo intelligatur Probate possumus veteris Eccles opinionem fuisse 〈◊〉 populum intelligero mysteria Christianae religionis omnia impedimenta esse amovenda quâ de re exstat locus in Constit Iustini p. 1365 insignis p. 366 ex Paulo id ipsum probat Imperator Loquitur autem ibide sacra Eâ—â—aristia Baptismo Eodem referri potest quod Const 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 372. conceditur Iudaeis ut sacram Scrip 〈◊〉 Graecam 〈◊〉 guam vertant quamcunque aliam voluerint habuerint sibi notam aut etiam 〈…〉 Vult enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Refer eodem locum aureum Chrysost 〈…〉 falsco Scripture obscuritatem legi non deberi quia scripta non Rom hon Heb. linguâ oliâ Casu Clem 〈…〉 same words of the Apostle Hee is a Barbarian aeprooveth 〈◊〉 philoso 〈◊〉 lib 〈◊〉 Marginals where hee may see the Transcript of a Patrizing Son of a most admirable Treasure of learning M r. Isaac Casaubon relating his Notes out of Antiquity to prove the generall Consent of Fathers both for the Translating of Scriptures into the Mother-tongues of most Nations as also the Liturgie or Church-service universally used in the vulgar languages of severall Countries âšœ And lest that this might not suffice wee have added the * See above in the beginning of the 6. Sect. letter 〈…〉 Edict of the Emperour Iustinian commanding a lowd voice in the Minister that the people may understand his words Next a Canon of a Councell requiring a * 〈…〉 Concordance both of voice and understanding in the singing of Psalmes as that which ought to be by that Doctrine of Scripture I will pray with my spirit and I will pray with my understanding Then a Decree of one Pope in his Councell that provision be made where people of divers Languages dwell in the same cities that their * Ibid at of the letter 〈◊〉 Servioe may be done according to their Different tongues After the Resolution of another Pope to grant unto the * Ibid. Sclavonians at their conversion to the Faith that Divine Service might be used in their owne tongue moved thereunto as by a voice from heaven sounding out that Scripture Let every tongue praise the Lord. And lastly a * Ibid Prohibition in the Primitive Church that None should speake in languages unknowne to the people âšœ And lest you may hereafter according to your maner scorne our zeale in requiring the joynt prayers and thankesgivings publikely in the Church by the voice of Men Women and Children know yee that 11 Basil Hixam Hom. 4. Immediately before the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Quomodo non songe pulchliis est cùm in Ecclesia par 〈◊〉 sonitus qua 〈◊〉 jusdam littus percellentis undae virorum mulierum infantium ex orationibers ad Deum nostium refusat And in Reg. Contract Qu. 278. Linguâ ignorâ nihil utilitatis redit ad precantem Saint Basil delivering the judgement of Gods Church in his time held this an order decent and beautifull censuring an Vnknowne prayer to be unprofitable to them that pray âšœ When you have digested all these Premises concerning the Equity and Necessitie of knowne Prayers in the publike and Divine Service both in consideration of Gods worship and Mans manifold profit so amply confirmed by so many and uncontrolable testimonies then guesse if you can of what dye the face of your Doctor Stapleton was when hee shamed not to call this our Practice of knowne prayers d Quod autem omnia vernaculè siunt in Ecclesia planè profanum est Stapleton spec pravit Hae ret p. 580. Profanenesse and to number it among Hereticall pravities As for your owne People who preferre an unknowne worship what can wee say lesse than that all such Ignorants are but dumbe worshippers and because of their ignorance in praying they know not what they are to be sent to accompany Popinjayes and Iack-dawes accordingly as S. * See above Sect. 7. in the Challenge 3. Augustine formerly hath resembled them âšœ A SEAVENTH CHALLENGE For Vindication against Francis de Sancta Clara a late Reconciler of our English Articles with the Doctrine of the Romish Church A Romish professor at Doway published a Treatise this very yeare of our Lord 1634. VVhich hee calleth a Paraphrasticall Exposition of the Articles of the Church of England whose ayme is not to draw the Romish professors to the English but the English to the Romish and by his seeming Reconciliation to put upon our Church as wee use to say the Gull albeit his whole Paraphrase be indeed nothing but a Farrago of his selfe-fictions and Opinations whereof his Paraphrasis or Exposition upon this Article will give you a shrewd guesse if you shall have the patience to examine such stuffe Our English Article 12 Franciscus de S. Clara Professor Disac Exposit Artic. Confess Angl. Art 24 Linguâ populo non intellectâ preces peragere Sacramenta administrare verbo Dei primitivae Ecclesiae consuetudini planè repugnat saith that To pray or administer the Sacrament in an unknowne tongue is plainely repugnant to the Word of God and the Custome of the Primitive Church
dici quia Vnio naturae humanae cum verbo in sempiternum durabit Est omne Sacerdotium non quidem nudum ministerium sed etiam potestas Sacrificij offerendi nam et qui dormit Sacerdos esse potest Num. 27. Illud Ob. Apostoli Omnis Pontifex ad offerendum munera hostias quod quidem non videtur ad aliud referri posse quam ad Missae Sacrificium ut diximus ita adhuc in Coelis aliquid esse quod offerat Resp Verùm Graeci omnes Patres in cum locum ex Latinis Ambrosius Anselmus non de Sacrificio incruento sed de cruento quod in Cruce oblatum est intelligunt Quare ad Ob. Resp Satis esse Christo unum assignare Sacrificium cruentum hoc ipso quod est Sacerdos quia ad hunc finem facta est Vnio neque opus est aliquid denuo offerre quod autem offertur in Missa per Ministros se offerat incruento modo non ideò est quod indigeat hac functione ut permaneat Sacerdos sed ut meritum universale Sacrificij cruenti applicetur Num. 35. Disp 86. Ex Patribus quos nos contra Haereticos supra adduximus nullus est qui asserat ex eo solum dici Christum Sacerdotem secundùm ordinem Mechilsedech quòd in coena Sacrificium Corporis sub speciebus Panis Vini obulit Num. 38. Si attente consideremus modum loquendi Scripturae nunquam inveniemus dictum Sacrificium Christi vel secundùm ordinem Melchisedech vel secundùm ordinem Aaron quod sit in perpetuum Sacerdos qui una oblatione consummavit c. that Christ is called a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech not in respect onely of the time to the end of the world but everlastingly beyond all worlds and this not onely in respect of any Sacrifice to bee made heereafter but of that his Bloody Sacrifice once and onely offered upon the Crosse Professing that the contrary Assertion is repugnant to Scripture even By the Exposition of ancient Fathers expresly teaching that Christ's Priesthood is called Eternall because it reacheth beyond all mortalitie And your Cardinall objected that out of Hebr. 5. Every Priest must have something to offer Ergo Christ being a Priest must not bee without a present and continuall Sacrifice which can bee no other than that in the Eucharist Against which the same Jesuit replyeth But all the Greeke Fathers upon this Text saith hee and some of the Latine Fathers also interpret this not of the unbloody but of the bloody Sacrifice of Christ which may bee sufficient for his eternall Priesthood by reason of the unitie of his Humanitie and Divinitie which is eternall Nor is there any one saith hee of all the Fathers whom wee have cited in Confutation of Heretikes that expound that Scripture to exclude the Sacrifice of the Crosse So hee and much more in the place quoted against the particular and petty Reasons objected to the contrarie What Confutation can be more convincent then that which is warranted and fortified by the confessed Evidences of Scriptures and Testimonies of Ancient Fathers âšœ 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 wee heare your Objector speake even your a Bellarm. Immolatio Agni Paschalis potest quidem dici figura Passionis nam si Agnus ille fuit figura Eucharistiae Eucharistia autem figura Passionis quis negat Agnum istum figuram fuisse Repraesentationem Passionis Quarè Ioh. 19. Videmus Evangelistam reddere causam cur non fuerant crura Christi confracta in Passione quia scriptum est de Agno Paschali Os non comminuetis ex eo Tamen magis immediatè principaliter Ceremonia Agni Paschalis potiùs fuit figura Eucharistiae quam Passionis Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 7. §. Illud Quod celebratio Agni Paschalis fuit figura celebrationis Eucharistiae probatur ex Scripturis 1. Cor. 5. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus itaque epulemur in Azymis Veritatis Dicent Adversarij impletum fuisse hoc in Cruce At constat Apostolos in coena manducasse carnem Christi Verum Agnum Paschalem ad cujus epulum nos hortatur Apostolus 1. Cor. 5. Epulemur c Bellarm ibid. §. Quod igitur §. Dicent Cardinall who albeit hee confesseth the Paschall Lambe to have been the figure of Christ on the Crosse yet did it in the Ceremonies thereof saith hee 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 Syncerity 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 wee 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 alleged Testimonies of ancient Fathers who by way of Allusion or Analogie do all call the Eucharist a Paschal Sacrifice But yet that the words of this Scripture should more properly and principally meane the Eucharisticall Sacrifice as if the Jewish 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 as followeth b Bellar. quo supr◠§. Dicent c. Dicent Adversarij Apostolum loqui de Immolatione in cruce facta at nos probabimus â—iguram illam propriè impletam fuisse in coena But our Adversaries saith hee will say that the Apostle in saying our Passeover is offered up speaketh of Christ's Sacrifice offered upon the Crosse but wee will prove that this figure was properly fulfilled at his Supper So he Wee 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 Authoritie of Christ himselfe Joh. 13. 1. Before the day of the Passeover Iesus knowing that his hower was come that he must passe out of the world unto the Father Now when was this spoken Even then saith c Ioh. 13. 1. Antè diem Paschae sciens Iesus quia venit hora ut transiret ex hoc mundo ad Patrem Hic mortem Transitum vocat Alludit ad Pascha ac si Latinè disceret Antè diem festum Transitûs sciens quia venit hora ut transiret ipse Ipse enim Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus Optimus autem terminus Transitus
Christ brake it but the Catholik Church meaning the Romane now doth not breake it but giveth it whole And this you pretend to doe for reverence sake Lest as your q A multo tempore non usurpâ—â—r fractio sed singuli panes seu minores hostiae consecrantur ad evitandum periculum decidentium micatum Lorin Ies in Act. 2. 42. Iesuite saith some crummes may fall to the ground Neither is there any Direction to your Priest to Breake the Bread either before or after Consecration in your Romane Masse especially that which is distributed to the people CHALLENGE BVt now see we pray you the absolute Confession of your owne Doctors whereby is witnessed first that Christ brake the bread into twelve parts r Fregit Nimirùm in toâ— particulas quot erant Apostoli manducaturi praeter suam quam Christus primus accepit Et ut quidam non indiligenter annotavit quemadmodùm unum calicem communem omnibus tradidit ad bibendum ità unâ palma panem in 12. buccellas fractum manibus suis dispensavit Salmer quo suprà Tract 12. §. Sequitur p. 77. Apostolus Act. 2. Vocat Eucharistiam fractionem panis ob ceremoniam frangendi panem in tot particulas quot sunt communicaturi ut Christus fecit in coena Quem morem longo tempore Ecclesia retinuit de quo Apostolus Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio corporis Christi Domini in qua fractione pulchrè representatur Passio corporis Christi Idem Ies Tract 35. §. Vocat pag. 288 In fractione Panis Act 2. Indicat fractionis nomen antiquam consuetudinem partiendi pro astantibus sive manu sive cultro quià panis azymus glutinosus it à facilius dividitur Lorinus Ies in eum locum p. 138. col 2. Benedictionem sequitur hostiae fractio fractionem sequitur Communio Hunc celebrandi morem semper Ecclesia servavit tà m Graeca quà m Latina quarum Liturgiae etsi in verbis aliquandò discrepent certè omnes in eo conveniunt quòd partes has omnes Missae Christi exactè repraesentent nihil de essentialibus omittentes Vsus autem Ecclesiae ejus celebrandi ordonos docent qualis fuit Christi Missa quo illam ordine celebravit Archieâ— Caesar var. Tract p. 27. according to the number of Communicants Secondly that this Act of Breaking of bread is such a principall Act that the whole Celebration of this Sacrament hath had from thence this Appellation given to it by the Apostles to be called Breaking of Bread Thirdly that the Church of Christ alwayes observed the same Ceremonie of Breaking the bread aswell in the Greeke as in the Latine and consequently the Romane Church Fourthly that this Breaking of the Bread is a Symbolicall Ceremonie betokening not only the Crucifying of Christs bodie upon the Crosse but also in the common participation thereof representing the Vnion of the Mysticall body of Christ which is his Church Communicating together of one loafe that as many graines in one loafe so all faithfull Communicants are united to one Head Christ as the Apostle teacheth 1. Cor. 10. thus The bread which wee breake is it not the Communion of the bodie of Christ for we being many are one bread Wee adde as a most speciall Reason that this Breaking it in the distribution thereof is to apply the representation of the Bodie Crucified and the Bloud shed to the heart and soule of every Communicant That as the Bread is given Broken to us so was Christ Crucified for us Yet neverthelesse your Church contrarily professing that although Christ did breake bread yet BEHOLD she doth not so what is it else but to starch her face and insolently to confront Christ his Command by her bold Countermand as you now see in effect saying But doe not this A SECOND CHALLENGE AS for that truly-called Catholike Church you your selves do grant unto us that by Christ his first Institution by the Practice of the Apostles by the ancient and universall Custome of the whole Church of Christ aswell Greeke as Latine the Ceremony of Breaking bread was continually observed Which may bee unto us more than a probable Argument that the now Church of Rome doth falsly usurpe the Title of CATHOLIKE for the better countenancing and authorizing of her novell Customes although never so repugnant to the will of Christ and Custome of the truly-called Catholike Church Howbeit wee would not bee so understood as to thinke it an Essentiall Ceremonie either to the being of a Sacrament or to the Sacramentall Administration but yet requisite for the Commandement and Example-sake In the next place to your Pretence of Not-breaking because of Reverence Wee say Hem scilicet Quanti est sapere As if Christ and his Apostles could not fore-see that your Necessitie namely that by the Distributing of the Bread and by Breaking it some little crummes must cleave sometimes unto the beards of the Communicants or else fall to the ground Or as though this Alteration were to be called Reverence and not rather Arrogance in making your-selves more wise than Christ who instituted or than all the Apostles or Fathers of primitive times who continued the same Breaking of Bread Therefore this your Contempt of Breaking what is it but a peremptory breach of Christ his Institution never regarding what the Scripture saith * 1 Sam. 15. 22. Obedience is better then Sacrifice For indeed true Reverence is the mother of Obedience else is it not Devotion but a meere derision of that Command of Christ Doe this The third Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse contradicting the sense of the next words of Christs Command viz. GAVE IT VNTO THEM SECT V. IT followeth in the Canon of Christ his Masse And he gave it unto them even to THEM to whom he said Take yee eate ye By which pluralitie of persons is excluded all private Massing forasmuch as our High Priest Christ Iesus who in instituting and administring of this Sacrament would not be alone said hereof as of the other Circumstances Doe this The Contrarie Canon of the now Romane Masse This holy Synod saith your a Missâ—s illas in quibus solus Sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat probat atque adeò commendat Concil Trid. Sess 22. cap 6. Councell of Trent doth approve and commend the Masses wherein the Priest doth Sacramentally communicate alone So your Church CHALLENGE BVt who shall justifie that her Commendation of the alone-communicating of your Priest which wee may justly condemne by the liberall b Sunt qui in Missâ— communionem recruirunt sic faceor à Christo institutum fuit ita olim fieri consu vit Eras Concord Eccles vers sinem Act. 2. Erant coÌ„municantes in Oratione communicatione fractionis Panis id est in Eucharistia non-minùs quà m oratione Lorinus Ies in Act. 2. 46. Odo Cameracens in Canonem seribit Missas solitarias antiquitùs in usu Ecclesiae non fuisse Et hunc fuisse
The Article of the Church of Rome Contrarily 13 Concil Trid. Sess 22. Can. 9. Si quis dixerit tantùm linguâ vulgari Missam celebrari debere Anathema sit Hee that shall say that the Masse ought to be Celebrated onely in the vulgar tongue let him be Anathema that is Accursed The English Article hath two points 1. That Prayer in a tongue unknowne to the People that pray is Repugnant to the Word of God 2. That it is also plainely Repugnant to the Custome of Primitive Antiquity First of the Repugnance to the word of God The Romish Expositor Paraphrasing upon these words Repugnant to the word of God supposeth in the first place that thereby is meant the Doctrine of the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. concerning Prayer in a Tongue not understood of him that prayeth and then for answere thereunto repeateth onely their old Crambe to wit that by Prayers there spoken off are not meant the publike prayers in the set and solemne service of the Church of Corinth but other their 14 Paraph Crediderim Sanctum Paulum vel de privatis conventibus vel de privatis colloquiis post omnia officia habitis ibi agree Private Convents and Colloquies And whereas the Apostle requireth of the Idiote that is Private or Lay-man as wee call him that hee understand his Prayer so as to be able to give consent thereunto in publike saying Amen he 15 Paraph. Idiota apud Apostolum i. e. Ille cui incumbit respondere expoundeth this as understood of Him who by office answereth Amen for the rest of the People whom wee name the Parish-Clerke Both which have beene * See the Challenges above thorowout Confuted by your owne Schoolemen and the Latter more especially by Bellarmine himselfe in our former Sections as you have seene A second devise of qualifying these words of our Article Repugnant to the word of God is his owne but thus 16 Paraph. Decrevit igitur Articulus esse Repugnans Scripturis id est non Doctrinae Scripturae sed Scriptioni seu Traditioni Scripturae quae fuit Corinthijs in Lingua communi The Article decreeth it to be repugnant to the Scriptures that is saith hee not to the Doctrine of Scripture but to the Scription or tradition of Scripture which among these Corinthians was in praying in a common tongue Here you have a dainty Distinction betweene the word Scripture and Scription the word Scripture to signifie the Doctrine of Scripture and the word Scription to betoken Tradition of Scripture So hee by an elegant Figure which wee forbeare to name but wish there were some sense in it For was it ever heard off that there was a Scripture without Scription that is to say a Writ without writing or when as all Divines ever distinguished of Traditions into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Written which are the Scriptures themselves and Vnwritten which are without the same written word of God Was it possible for them to conceive of a Tradition in Scripture which was not Scripture or word of God If so then whereas all Creatures are distinguished into Sensible and Insensible it shall be possible to point out a Sensible Creature void of Sense His third Crotchet 17 Idem Dum. dicit esse Repugnans verbo Dei intelligi deberent Institutioni D. Pauli non Christi cujus scripta sub nomine verbi Dei comprehenduntur omnia tamen ab Apostolis demandata non sunt mandata Christi ut ab omnibus concessum est When the Article saith Repugnant to the word of God It is to be understood as meaning Repugnant to the Institution and Ordinance of Saint Paul not of Christ Saint Pauls writings being comprehended under the name of Gods word although all that are commanded by the Apostles are not therefore the commands of Christ as all do confesse So hee That there are in Scripture Apostolicall Constitutions namely such as are fitted to the Churches according to the Conveniences of the times distinguished from Divine Constitutions which are enjoyned the Church as necessary for all times it is true But that both which this Paraphrase affirmeth either S t. Paul in requiring a Knowno Prayer delivered not therein the Doctrine of Christ necessary for all times or that our English Composers of this their Article in affirming the Institution of Vnknowne Prayers to be Repugnant to the word of God did not thereby understand the word and Commandement of Christ in his Authenticall Scripture are two as strange exorbitancies as your Glosser could make For the Apostle to shew that hee taught a Doctrine which concerned all the Churches of Christ and at all times useth Similitudes to Illustrate his meaning universally fitting all ages and Congregations of Christians in their solemne prayers If a Trumpet saith hee or a Pipe give an uncertaine sound who shall prepare himselfe either to the Battell or to the daunce applying those Similitudes as well to praying as to preaching in an Vnknowne tongue But every one of you will grant that the same Scripture for necessitie of preaching in a knowne tongue is the Divine Institution of Christ and not onely an Apostolique Constitution Therefore except you will separate that which Christ by his Apostle hath joyned together you must confesse the same necessitie of the Command of Christ for knowne Prayer Besides his Conclusion How shall hee that understandeth not say Amen being as true of all Prayers in all subsequent ages of the World as it could be to the Church of Corinth it prooveth the truth of the Divine Ordinance of Christ therein Thus farre of the meaning of S. Paul now to returne to our Article Whereas you and all that ever read Protestant Bookes know that whensoever they affirme any thing to be Repugnant to the word of God they meane to the Scripture as it is the expresse Command and Ordinance of God and of Christ and that notwithstanding your Glosser should dare to tell us that the meaning of our Articling An unknowne Prayer to be Repugnant to the Word of God must signifie not Repugnant to Scripture or to the Institution of Christ but to Scription and Apostolicall Tradition must needs argue in your Professor some ecclipse of judgement by the which also hee venteth out his Inference following A fourth straine he hath in his Inference from our English Article as followeth 18 Idem Vi hujus verbi probabiliter inferri potest debere Ecclesiae officia apud nos hodiè celebrari in lingua Latina quià per se loquendo est lingua communis communites intellecta solùm autem asseritur in Articulo Preces publicae fiant linguâ à populo intellectâ quod sine dubio debet intelligi de lingua per se communi non per Accidens loquendo The Article affirmeth saith hee that Prayers ought to be used in a tongue knowne to the people therefore wee properly inferre that Prayers in our Church may be in
Sacrament Which is proper to those who as the Apostle teacheth are to Examine themselves to Remember thereby the death of Christ and Sacramentally to Discerne the Lords Body âšœ CHALLENGE VVHereunto wee oppose the Authority of the Å¿ Conc Carthag 3. Eucharistiam Catechumenis mortuis dari prohibet et consequenter pueris qui utrique sunt divini illius cibi incapaces ut quidam ratiocinantur quià tales non possint accipere nec comedere Et Lateranens Conc. sub Innoc. 3. praecipit ut tantùm cùm ad annos discretionis pervenerint Eucharistiam accipiant Quià verò spiritualis manducatio et bibitio est sine qua Sacramentalis non prodest frustrà pueris Sacramentum et cùm periculo porrigeretur Non igitur satis est quòd puer possit naturaliter edere quia hoc possit trinus et quatrimus praestare sed opus est ut possit Sacramentaliter edere 1. cognoscere ibi esse Christum et discernere ab aliis cibis Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 11. in illa verba Dedit Discipulis pag. 78. Councell of Carthage and of that which you call the Councell of Laterane which denyed as you know that the Eucharist should be delivered unto Infants accounting them uncapable of divine and spirituall feeding without which say they the corporall profiteth nothing But wee also summon against the former assertion eight of your ancient t And of this opinion were Mayor Petrus Soto Paludanus Alensis Gubriel Catharinus Dom. Soto Ration eorum saith the same Ies quiâ hoc Sacramentum est cibus spiritualis Ergò accommodatum eis solummodò qui possint actus spiritualis vitae exercere quod parvuli non possunt Suarez Ies quo sup And to the former Schoole-men to make them even wee may adde also Summa Angel Tit. Eucharistia Schoolemen who upon the same Reasons made the like Conclusion with us And wee further as it were â—resting you in the Kings name produce against you Christ his Writ the Sacred Scripture whereby he requireth in all persons about to Communicate three principall Acts of Reason one is before and two are at the time of receiving The first is * 1. Cor. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a man examine himselfe and so come c. The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To discerne the Lords body The third is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To remember the Lords death untill his coming againe All which Three being Acts of Iudgement how they may agree unto Infants being persons void of Iudgement judge you And remember wee pray you that wee speake of Sacramentall Eating and not of that use * See above Sect. 10 before spoken of touching Eating it after the Celebration of the Sacrament which was for Consuming it and not for Communicating thereof CHAP. III. The Tenth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse by the now Church of Rome is in contradicting the Sense of the next words following concerning the second part of this Sacrament of receiving the Cup HE LIKEVVISE TOOKE THE CVP AND GAVE IT TO THEM SAYING DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS And adding 1. Cor. 11. DO THIS AS OFTEN AS YOV DO IT IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE SECT I. BY which words Like maner of Taking and Giving and Saying Drinke yee All of this wee say that Christ ordained for his Guests as well the Sacramentall Rite of Drinking as of Eating and hath tied his Church Catholike in an equall obligation for performance of both in the administring of this Sacrament This Cause will require a just Treatise yet so that our Discourse insist only upon necessary points to the end that the extreme Insolencie Noveltie Folly and Obstinacie of the Romane Church in contradicting of this part of Christ his Canon may be plainely displayed that every conscience of man which is not strangely preoccupated with prejudice or transported with malice must needs see and detest it Wee have heard of the Canon of Christ his Masse The contrary Canon of the Romish Church in her Masse Shee in her Councel of Constance decreed that a Christus sub utraque â—pecie Discipulis administravit Licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ sub utraque specie hoc Sacramentum reciperetur tamen haec consuerudo ut à Laicis sub specie pâ—nis tantùm reciperetur habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare Conc. Constant Sess 13. Although Christ indeed and the Primitive Church did administer the Eucharist in both kindes notwithstanding say they this Custome of but one kinde is held for a law irreproveable Which Decree she afterwards confirmed in her b Ipsa Synodus à Spiritu Sancto edocta ipsius Ecclesiae judicium consuetudinem secuta declarat docet nullo divino jure Laicos Clericos non consecrantes obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum Etsi Christus venerabile hoc Sacramentum sub utraque instituit Apostolis tradidit Concil Trident. Sess 〈◊〉 1. cap. 1. Councel of Trent requiring that the former Custome and Law of receiving it but under one kind be observed both by Laicks yea and also by all those Priests who being present at Masse do not the office of Consecrating Contrarily our Church of England in her thirtieth Article thus Both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandement ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike CHALLENGE BVtwee demand what Conscience should moove your late Church of Rome to be guided by the authority of that former Councell of Constance which notwithstanding maketh no scruple to reject the authority of the same c Respondeo Fuit reprobatum Conc. CoÌ„â—antiens Martino Pont. quantum ad eam partem quâ statuit Concilium fuisse suprà Papam Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 7. §. Quintum Councell of Constance in another Decree thereof wherein it gain-sayeth the Antichristian usurpation of the Pope by Denying the authority of the Pope to be above a Councell and that as the d Dixit Petro Christus Cum frater in te pâ—ccaverit si te non audiat Dic Ecclesiae Ergo Ecclesiam Papae Iudicem constitut Conc. Basil apud AEneanâ—i Sylvium de gest ejusdem Concilij Councell of Basil doth prove from the authority of Christ his direction unto Peter to whom he said Tell the Church We returne to the State of the Question The full State of the Question All Protestants whether you call them Calvinists or Lutherans hold that in the publike and set celebration of the Eucharist the Communion in both kinds ought to be given to all sorts of Communicants that are capable of both The question thus stated will cut off a number of Impertinences which your Objectors busie themselves withall as will appeare in due places Wee repeate it againe In publike Assemblies of all prepared and capable of the Communion The best Method that I could choose for the expedite and perspicuous handling of this great
of it selfe hath beene termed by Master Calvin Murus ahaeneus that is a wall of brasse and so will it bee found more evidently to bee when you shall perceive the same * Booke 3. thorrow-out Fathers judging that which they call a Change into Christs Flesh to bee but a Change into the Sacrament of his Flesh bread still remaining the same in the third Booke âšœ And now wee are to withstand your paper-bullets wherewith you vainely attempt in your Objections following to batter our defence withall CHAP. III. The Romish Objections from Reasons against the Figurative Sense Answered The first Objection SECT I. NOthing useth to bee more properlie and simplie spoken say a Primum Argumentum sumitur à materiâ est enim materia de quâ hic agitur Pactum Sacramentum Testamentum Novum fuisse à Domino institutum pater ex illis verbis Hic est calix Novi Testamenti in sanguine meo Iam verò nihil solet magis propriè simplicitèr aut exquisitè explicaâ—â— quà m Testamentum nè viz. detur occasio litigandi Pacta seu toedera sunt etiam ex eodem genera quae exquisitissimè proprijs verbis explicantur nè locus ullus relinquatur cavillis Sacramentum hoc esse de quo agitur nemo negat Sacramentum autem solere à Deo institui proprijs verbis ut in corum usu non cretur Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch c. 9. §. Primùm §. Deindè §. Poriò â—acramentum A Testament must be alwayes taken in a reall and substantiall meaning M. Maloun the Ies in his Reply you than words of Testaments and Covenants Ergò this being a Testamentary Phrase must be taken in the literall Sense CHALLENGE VVHat is this are Figurative speeches never used in Covenants and Testamentarie Language or is there not therfore sufficient perspicuity in Figures This is your rash and lavish Assertion for you your selves doe teach that b In ipsâ Scriptura dicitur Testamentum Instrumentum Quia pacta Dei soedera inita nobiscum continent ut patet in pacto Circumcisionis cum Abrahamo Ante omnia praefamur S. Scripturam uti Metaphoris non solum ob utilitatem nostram sed etiam propter necessitatem à pluribus Patribus traditur Sacram scripturam de Deo de Trinitate de Patre Filio Spiritu sancto propriè loqui non passe Quandò sermo est de vità aeterâ pâ—aemio siliorum Dei â—laâ—is rebus comparatur per Tropos est explicandus ut August ait Nullo genere lâ—cutionis quod in consuetudine humanâ reperitur Scripturae non utuntur quia utiqué hominibus 〈◊〉 Salâ—â—er Iâ—s Proâ—â—g lib. 1. p. 3. 4. lib. 21. pag. 371. 227. 229. 231. 234. The Old and New Testament are both full fraught with multitude of Tropes and Figures and yet are called Testaments Secondly That the Scripture speaking of the Trinitie and some divine things cannot but speake Improperly and siguratively Thirdly That Sacramentall speeches as The Rocke was Christ and the like words re * See above Chap. 2. Sect 3. let c. Tropicall and Figurative Fourthly That even in the Testamentary Speech of Christ at his Institution of this Sacrament saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood there is a Figure in the very word c See above Chap. 2 Sect. 4. p. q. Testament So have you confessed and so have you consequently confuted your owne Objection Hereto might bee added the Testament of Iacob prophesying of his sonnes and saying * Gen. 49. Reuben is my strength Iudah a Lions Whelpe Issachar a strong Asse Dan an Adder in the way All figurative Allusions Nay no man in making his Testament can call it his Will or say that hee hath set his hand and Seale unto it without Figures Namely that hee hath given by writing a Signification of his Will that the Subscription was made by his Hand and that he added unto it the Print of his Seale These Three Will Hand Seale every word Figurative even in a Testament The second Romish Objection against the Figurative Sense SECT II. LAwes and Precepts say d Verba Legum Praeceptorum debent este propria Bellar lib 1 de Eucharist cap 9. §. Sequitur you should bee in plaine and proper words But in the Speech of Christ Take eate you c. are words of Command Ergò They may not bee held Figurative CHALLENGE CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts viz. of Pulling out a mans owne eye of cutting off his hand Mat. 5. Or yee of a Penitents Renting of his heart Ioel 2. Or of not hardening his heart Psalme 95. and the like Christ commanded his Disciples to prepare for his keeping the Passeover with his Disciples and the Disciples prepared the Passeover as Iesus commanded them saith the * Luc. 22. 8. Evangelist In this Command is the word Passeover We demand The word Passeover which is taken for the Sacrament and Signe of the Passeover is it taken Figuratively You cannot deny it And can you deny that a Commandement may bee delivered under a Figurative Phrase You can both that is say and gaine-say any thing like false Merchants onely so farre as things may or may not make for your owne advantage But to catch you in your owne snare your Doctrine of Concomitancy is this viz. Bread being turned into Christs Body is joyntly turned into whole Christ and Wine being changed into his Blood is likewise turned into whole Christ both Flesh and Blood If then when Christ commanded his Disciples saying * Matth. 26. 27. Drinke you All of this that which was Drunke was the whole substantiall Body of Christ either must his Disciples be sayd to have Drunke Christs Body properly or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken To say the first contradicteth the universall expression of mans speech in all Languages for no man is sayd to drinke Bread or any solid thing And â—o grant the Second that the speech is Figurative contradicteth your owne Objection Againe Christ commanded to Eate his Body yet notwithstanding have Three e Seâ— above Ch. 2. §. 4. l. Iesuites already confessed that Christs Body cannot bee sayd to have beene properly Eaten but Figuratively onely What fascination then hath perverted your Iudgements that you cannot but still confound your selves by your contrary and thwarting Languages Your third Romish Objection SECT III. DOctrinall and Dogmaticall speeches say f Praecipua dogmata c Bellar. quo supra §. Denota you ought to be direct and literall But these words This is my Body are Doctrinall CHALLENGE A Man would marvaile to heare such seely and petty Reasons to bee propounded by those who are accounted great Clerkes and those who know full well that the speech of Christ concerning Castrating or gelding of a man's selfe is g Abulen in eum loâ—um Christus non laudat cos qui castâ—ârunt se sed
in Plinie that could paint Grapes so to life as to deceive Birds which came to feed on them But they are the onely Sophisticall Doctours that offer in the Eucharist onely Accidents as painted Colours in stead of naturall because where there is not a Sacramentall 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 remaineth 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 through the inconvenient Disposition of the Medium thorow which hee seeth as it hapneth in judging a strait Staffe to bee Crooked which standeth in the Water and in thinking a White Object to bee Greene in it selfe which is seene thorow a Greene glasse or Secondly by the unequall Distance of place as by concelving the Sunne to bee but two feete in breadth or Thirdly by some defect in the Organ or Instrument of seeing which is the Eye whereby it cometh to passe that wee take One to bee Two or mistake a Shadow for a Substance Yet notwithstanding when our Eyes that see are of good Constitution and Temper the Medium whereby wee see is perfectly disposed the Distance of the Object which wee see is indifferent then say we the judgement of Sense being free is True and the Concurrence and joynt consent of divers Senses in one arbitrement is infallible This Reason taken from Sense you peradventure will judge to bee but Naturall and Carnall as those Termes are opposed to a true and Christian maner of Reasoning We defend the Contrary being warranted by the Argument which Christ himselfe used to his Disciples Luke 24. 39. Handle mee and see Your Cardinall although hee 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 sense of Touching b Consequentia Christi affirmativè sumpta Hoc palpatur hoc videtur Ergo est Corpus optuâ—a fuit quià sensus non fallitur circa proprium Objectum â—taque necessariò quod videtur tangitur Corporale est At negativè hoc non palpatur nec videtur Ergò non est corpus Dominus non fecit mala est Non falluntur Sensus nostri cum nos album quid rotundum solidum sentire arbitramur quae sunt propria objècta Sed cùm Panis Substantiam sub illis Accidentibus â—atere denunciant falluntur Dominus solùm probare voluit se non esse inane spectrum seu Phantasma sed verum Corpus id quod ex Testimonio sensus Tangendi optimè probavit Illud autem Corpus esse humanum idem quod anteà suerat non probavit Dominus hoc solo Argumento ex Tangendi sensu desumpto quod sine dubio non erat sufficiens sed multis alijs modis loquendo manducando testimonio Angelorum miraculo Piscium allegatione Scripturarum Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Respondeo Yet saith hee was it not sufficient in it selfe without other Arguments to confirme it and to prove it to have bin a human body and the very same which it was So he Which Answer of your Cardinall wee wish were but onely false and not also greatly irreligious for Christ demonstrated hereby not onely that hee 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 Luke 24 39. Now because * 1. Cor. 15. It is not a Resurrection of a Body except it bee the Same Body Therefore would Christ have Thomas to * Ioh. 20. 27. thrust his hands into his sides and feele the print of his wounds to manifest the Same Body as Two of your Iesuites do also observe the One with an c Optimè Origenes Ostendit se Christus in vero Corpore suo resuscitatum Tolet. les in Ioh. c. 20. pag. 534. Optimè the Other with a d Probatum est Christum idem Corpus numero demonstraÌ„sse Silarez Ies Tom. 2. qu. 54. §. 1. Probatum est Accordingly the Apostle Saint Paul laid this Argument taken from Sense 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 hee repeate and inculcate this * 1. Cor. 15. 5. Hee was seene c. And againe thrice more Hee was seene c. And Saint Iohn argueth to the same purpose from the Concurrence of three Senses * 1. Ioh. 1. 1. That which wee have heard which wee have seene and our hands have handled declare wee unto you The validity of this Reason was proved by the Effect as Christ averreth * 1. Ioh. 20. 29. Thomas because thou hast seene that is perceived 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 Iesuit confidently pleadeth for the Sense of Touch c Illud sine dubitatione dicere non verebor non polle ab ullo Dâ—mone formari corpus corpus adeò simile humano ut siquis cum curà animi attentione id tangeret non facilè dignosceret ipsum non esse corpus humanum Itaque non poterit Daemon similitudine corporis humani oculos fallere Tactus autem sensum fallere omninò non potest quod quatuor Argumentis confirmabo Hoc verissimum esse patet ex eo quod Christus dixit discipulis suis Palpate videte Thomae After digitum c. Perer Ies in Gen. 6. num 78. pag. 2. I feare not saith hee to say that the Evidence of Sense is so strong an Argument to prove without all doubt an humane Body that the Devill himselfe cannot herein delude the touch of man that is of understanding and consideration As for the unbeleeving Disciples Christ his Handle me c. saith your Iesuite f Si Discipuli Christi non potuissent Christi vera osta carnes discernere mollitiem duritiem eorum non dixisset ijs Palpate videte ac si diceret Palpate Percipite veras carnes ossa Vasquez Ies Tom. 2. qu. 51. Art 2. disp 184. cap. 2. pag. 487. Thomas dicit singula Argumenta non fuisse per se sufficientia
Fathers in their Sermons do use to declame Hyperbolically he doth instance most specially and by name in Chrysostome âšœ And albeit that Wee object plaine places of Chrysostome and such wherein every word may be taken in a proper Sense as for Example where hee reproveth those that are onely Gazers and not Communicants at the Celebration of the Eucharist It is better saith hee not to be present than not to participate yet can wee receive no better Answer or other satisfaction from your Cardinall than thus 9 Quod dicit Chrysostomus melius esse non interesse Sacrificio quà m interesse non communicaâ—â— Dâ—co Chrysostomum ut quaedam alia per excessum esse locuâ—um Bellar. lib. 2. de Missa Cap. 10. §. Ad illud Chrysostome here as else where spake in an excesse âšœ Thirdly that the Excessive Phrases of Chrysostome upon this Sacrament do verifie as much viz. to tell his people that u Dentes Carnl suae insigere Chrys Homil. 45. in Iohan. Lingua cruentatur hoc admirabili Senguine Hom. 83. in Matth. Turbam circumsusam rubificri Lib 3. de Sacerdotio Their Teeth are fixed in the flesh of Christ that Their tongues are bloodied with his Blood and that The Assembly of the people are made red therewith Fourthly that hee is as Hyperbolicall in denying in the Celebration of this Sacrament the judgement of Senses saying x Num vides Panem num Vinum nè putetis Corpus accipere ab homine sed ex ipso Seraphin forcipe ignem Idem Tom. 3 de Eucharist in Encaenijs Do wee see Bread or Wine which is spoken in as great an exuberancie of speech as are the next words immediately following saying Thinke not that you receive the Body from a man but Fire from a Scraphin or Angel with a paire of Tongs You will thinke notwithstanding those kinde of Phrases that Chrysostome thought he saw aswell Bread and Wine in this Sacrament as he could discerne either Man from a Seraphin or Spirit or his owne Fingers from a paire of Tongs Fiftly that the Sentence objected against us is adorned with the same figure Hyperbole when he saith that No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament and that our senses herein may be deceived Words sore pressed by you yet twice unconscionably both because every Sacrament by your owne Church is defined to be y Sacramentum est invisibilis gratâ—ae signum visibile Magister Sentent lib 4. dist 1. Sacramentum est â—es sensibus objecta Catech. Trid. Teste Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacram cap 11. A Sensible Signe and also for that you your selves confesse that z Sensus non fallitur â—â—cà proprium objectum Sententia vera Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. Our senses cannot be deceived in their proper sensible Objects Sixtly that Chrysostome himselfe well knew he did Hyperbolize herein who after that hee had sayd No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament notwithstanding hee addeth immediately saying of this Sacrament that In things Sensible things Intelligible are given unto us Thus farre of the Rhetorike of Chrysostome Now are wee to shew his Theologie and Catholike meaning as it were the Kernel of his Speech Hee in the same Sentence will have us understand Man to consist of Body and Soule and accordingly in this Sacrament Sensible things are ministred to the Body as Symbols of spirituall things which are for the Soule to feed upon So that a Christian in receiving this Sacrament is not wholly to exercise his minde upon the bodily Object as if that were onely or principally the thing offered unto us No for then indeed our Senses would deceive our Soules of their spirituall Benefit As for Transubstantiation and Absence of Bread Chrysostome in true Sense maketh wholly against it by explaining himselfe and paralleling this Sacrament with Baptisme As in Baptisme saith a Sicut in Baptismo c. Chrysost See above §. 5. at r. he Regeneration the thing intelligible is given by water the thing sensible the Substance of water remaining Which proportion between the Eucharist and Baptisme is held commonly by ancient * See hereafter at large in the 8. Book Fathers to the utter overthrow of Transubstantiation And that Chrysostome believed the Existence of Bread after Consecration * See above Chap 3. §. 13. hath beene already expressely showne and is here now further proved For he saith of Bread after Consecration that b Nos per hunc Panem unione conjuâ—gimur Chrysost in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. Wee are joyned together one with another by this Bread âšœ And yet furthermore the same Chrysostome hath already delivered his mind touching the infallibility of the sense of Touching declaring in a plaine and literall Sense as from the mouth of Christ * That man's sense of Touch could not be deceived âšœ And now that you see the Nut cracked you may observe how your Disputers have swallowed the Shell of Hyperbolicall Phrases and left the kernel of Theologicall Sense for us to content our selves withall Furthermore for this is not to be omitted the other Testimony of Chrysostome is spun and woven with the same Art which saith of Consecrating this Sacrament that c Chrysost Hom 50 in Matth. juxta Edit Graec. Nè existmes Sacerdotem esse qui hoc facit sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then followeth of Baptisme Ibid. Ille non te Baptizat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Man is not to thinke it is the hand of the Priest but of Christ himselfe that reacheth it unto him seeing immediately after as it were with the same breath it is added It is not the Minister but God that Baptizeth thee and holdeth thy head âšœ Words you see as Hyperbolicall as could be uttered and notwithstanding urged by your Doctor Heskins calling it a 9 Dr. Heskins in his partiam of Christ Book 2. Chapt. 55. objecteth Plaine place for proof of a proper Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament But will this rellish with you also All this is to prove unto you that you are not to exact an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more than when the Apostle said of the faithfull in respect of Christ * See above c. 3. §. 7. Thus farre concerning the Iudgement of Senses which hath beene formerly proved at large both by * Ibid. in the Chapters following Scriptures and * Fathers Wee draw neerer our marke which is the word Transubstantiation it selfe Fourthly the Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers in urging other Figurative Sayings and Phrases of the Fathers of Bread Changed Transmuted c. into the Body of Christ for proofe of a Transubstantiation thereof in a Proper Sense SECT VII SVch words as these Bread is the Body of Christ It is made the Body of Christ It is Changed Translated Trans-muted Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ are Phrases of the highest Emphasis that you can finde in the Volumes of Antity
Dei modus igitur edendi Patribus à nostro diversus quia Substantialis hodiè manducatio quae tunc esse non potuit nempe dum carne pro nobis immolatâ Christus nos pascit ut vitam ab ejus substantia hauriamus Ibid. pag. 83. Calvin himselfe as would make any Romish Adversary blush at your former Calumnies who hath not abandoned shamefastnesse it selfe ⚜ As that your Doctor must needs have done 1 Dr. Heskins in his Parliam of Christ Book 3. cap. 48. who therefore upbraided Protestants with their Common Bread onely because they denyed it to be Transubstantiated into Christ's Body even in the same his Booke wherein notwithstanding he confesseth the Shew-Bread delivered to David by Abimelech to have beene no Common Bread Which because it was before Christ incarnate in the flesh you your selves will sweare was not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ and yet notwithstanding was it no Common Bread CHALLENGE THus may you see that wee have not hitherto so pleaded for the Existence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament after Consecration as thereby to exclude all Presence of Christ his Body nor so maintained the proprietie of a Signe or Figure as not to beleeve the thing signified to be exhibited unto us as you have heard With what blacke spot of malignity and falshood then were the Consciences of those your Doctors defiled thinke you who have imputed to Protestants a Profession of using onely bare Bread which they notwithstanding teach and beleeve to bee a Sacred Signe of the true Body of Christ in opposition to Heretikes an Evangelicall Signe of the Body of the Messias crucified against all Iewish conceit yea a Seale of Ratification yea and also a Sacramentall Instrument of conveying of the same precious Body of Christ to the soules of the faithfull by an happy and ineffable Conjunction whereof more hereafter in the * In the fift Book throughout Booke following where the consonant doctrine of the Church of England will likewise appeare And as your Disputers are convinced of a malicious Detraction by the confessed positions of Protestants so are they much more by your owne Instance of a Crucifix◠for which of you would not hold it a great derogation from Christ that any one seeing a Crucifix of wood now waxen old should in disdaine thereof call it a wooden or rotten Blocke and not account them irreligious in so calling it but why onely because it is a signe of Christ crucified Notwithstanding were the Crucifix as glorious as either Art could fashion or Devotion affect or Superstition adore yet is it but a signe invented by man And therefore how infinitely more honourable in all Christian estimation must a Sacramentall Signe be which onely the God of Heaven and Earth could institute and Christ hath ordained to his Church farre exceeding the property of a bare signe as you have heard A Father delivering by politike assurances under hand and seale a portion of Land although an hundred miles distant and conveying it to his Sonne by Deed if the Sonne in scorne should terme the same Deed or writing blacke Inke the Seale greasie Waxe and the whole Act but a bare signe were he not worthy not only to loose this fatherly Benefit but also to be deprived of all other the temporall Blessings of a Father which hee might otherwise hope to enjoy yet such like have beene your Calumnies and opprobrious Reproaches against our celebration of the Sacrament of Christ The Lord lay not them to your Charge Now you who so oppose against the Truth of the Mysticall Presence will not conceale from us that Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ which your Church doth so extremely dote on CHAP. II. The Romish professed maner of Presence of Christs Body in this Sacrament SECT I. OVr Methode requireth to consult in the first place in all Questions with the words of Christ his Institution but seeing that you can allege nothing for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but only a literall Exposition of Christ's words This is my Body which by Scriptures Fathers your owne Principles and by unanswerable Reasons hath beene * Booke 2. proved to be most grosly false wee shall not need to insist further upon that only wee shall but put you in mind of Saint Pauls words in teaching the use and end of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament to wit The shewing of Christ's death untill his coming againe meaning corporally at the last day Which word VNTILL being spoken of a last day doth exclude your coming againe of Christ in his Corporall Presence every day for the Apostles word is absolutely spoken of his Bodily Coming and not of the maner therof albeit other Scripture teach that his Coming must be in all glorious Visibility We goe on In the Eucharist saith your m Si quis negaverit in sanctissima Eucharistia contineri verè realiter substantialiter corpus sanguinem Christi Anathema sit Concil Trid. Sess 13. Can. 1. Nos dicimus Dominum Christum corporalitèr sub specie panis conemeri Gre. Valent. Tom. 4. disp 6. qu. 3. pag 1. Councell of Trent is contained truly really and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ and they account him Accursed whosoever shall not beleeve this By all which is signified a Corporall maner of presence excepting onely Relation to place which we say is in many respects impossible as wee shall prove but first wee are to remove two Mil-stones for so you esteeme your Objections which you cast in our way of Demonstration of a Corporall Presence First de facto from as you say Miracles manifesting the same And the Second is your Pretence of Omnipotencie for the effectuating that Presence The pretended principall Romish Demonstration of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in this Sacrament taken from pretended n Supremus Iorus detur miraculis veluti testimonis 〈◊〉 Dei Bozius de finis Eccles lib 14. cap. 7. pag. 170. Miraculous Apparitions of visible Flesh and Blood revealed to the World SECT II. TRue Miracles wee shall hold as Gods Seales of Divine Truth if therefore you shall allege any such for proofe of a Corporall Presence see they be true else shall wee judge them not to be Gods Seales but the Devills Counterfaits Your Bozius one of the number of the Congregation of the Oratory in Rome professedly studied in historicall learning and appointed to extract out of all Authors whatsoever may make for defence of all Romish Causes after his diligent search into all ancient Records as it were into the Ware-houses of all sorts of stuffes having collected a packet of Apparences useth his best Eloquence to set forth his merchandize to sale telling us by the way of Preface o Hic ea tantummodò referemus quibus est palam factum divinitus in Eucharistia verum corpus esse oculi humani viderunt quod est omnium
oportere sicut edebantur animalium carnes quae dentibus conteruntur Madridius Ies de frequenti usu Eucharistiae cap. 4. Capernaites First of Chewing and then afterwards of Swallowing in the sixt Chapter following in it's due place That the Corporall and Orall Eating of Christs Flesh is a Capernaiticall Heresie is proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers SECT V. SOmetime do Ancient Fathers point out the Error of the Capernaites set downe Iohn 6. concerning their false interpreting the words of Christ when hee speaketh of Eating his Flesh which they understood literally But this literall sense a Origen Hom. 7. in Levit. pag. 141. Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam Si secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est occidit haec litera vis tibi aliam proferam ex Evangelio literam quae occidit Qui non habet inquit gladium vendat tunicam emat gladium Si vero spiritualiter non occidit sed est in eo spiritus vivificans Origen calleth a Killing letter that is a pernicious interpretation even as of that other Scripture Hee that hath not a Sword let him buy one c. but this latter is altogether Figurative as you know and hath a Spirituall understanding therefore the former is Figurative also Athanasius b Athanas Tract in illa verba Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium hominis c Quod hominibus corpus suffecisset ad cibum ut universis mundi alimonia fieret Sed propterea ascensionis suae meminit ut eos a corporali intellectu abstraheret Quae locutus sum inquit spiritus sunt vita id est corpus in cibum dabitur ut spiritualiter unicuique tribuatur fiat singulis praeservatio ad Resurrectionem confuting the Capernaiticall conceipt of Corporall Eating of Christs Flesh will have us to observe that Christ after hee spake of his Flesh did forth-with make mention of his Ascension into Heaven but why That Christ might thereby draw their thoughts from the bodily sense namely of Eating it Corporally upon Earth which is your Romish sense âšœ His Reason Reduced into Logicall forme must have beene this against the Capernaites who imagined a Carnall Eating of Christs Flesh That which was to ascend into Heaven could not be eaten Corporally on Earth But Christ sayd that his Body should ascend into Heaven And therefore signified thereby that hee could not be eaten upon Earth which ought to have beene a Satisfactory reason and Answere to the Capernaites themselves âšœ Tertullian likewise giveth the reason of Christs saying It is the Spirit which quickeneth because the Capernaites so understood the words of Christs speech of Eating his Flesh As if saith c Tertul. de Capernaitis Quia durum intolerabile existimarunt sermonem quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset praemisit Spiritus est qui vivificat lib. de Resurrect carnis Tertullian Christ had truly determined to give his Flesh to be eaten Therefore it was their Errour to dreame of a truly Corporall Eating d Aug. in Iob 6. Non moritur Non qui panem premit dente sed qui man ducat in Corde Tract 26. Idem in Psal 98. Spiritualiter intelligite non Hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estit bibituri sanguinem illum quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum commendavi vobis spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos Augustine out of the sixt of Iohn bringeth in Christ expounding his owne meaning of Eating his Flesh and saying You are not to eate this flesh which you see I have commended unto you a Sacrament which being Spiritually understood shall revive you Plainely denying it to be Christs Body which is Eaten Orally and then affirming it to be the Sacrament of his Body and as plainely calling the maner of Corporall Eating A pressing of Bread with the teeth Wee say Bread not the Body of Christ For when hee cometh to our Eating of Christs flesh hee exempteth the Corporall Instruments and requireth only the Spirituall saying e Aug. apud Gratian. de Consecrat 〈◊〉 2. Vt quid Quid paâ—â— dentem ventrem crede manducasti Ex Aug. de remed 〈◊〉 §. ut quid Why preparest thou thy Tooth It is then no Corporall Eating and hee addeth Believe and thou hast eaten Saint Augustine goeth on and knowing that Corporall Eating of any thing doth inferre a Chewing by dividing the thing eaten into parts as your owne Iesuit hath * See above Booke 5. cap. ◠§. 2. confessed lest wee should understand this properly hee teacheth us to say f Idem rursus apud Gratiam ibid. Christus manducatus vivit quia resurreâ—t it occiâ—us nec quando manduâ—â—us partes de illo facimus quâ—dem Sacramento id â—it noâ—ut fideles quemadmodum manducent carnem Christi per parteâ— manducatur in Sacramentis mâ—net integer câ—â—lo in corde Ex Aug. Serm. de verbis Evangeliâ— Christ is not divided into parts Contrarily when wee speake Sacramentally that is Figuratively and improperly hee will have us to grant that Christ his Body is divided in this Sacrament but remayneth whole in Heaven Say now will you say that Christs Body is Divided by your Eating the Eucharist in a literall sense your owne Iesuits have abhorred to thinke so And dare you not say that in Eating this Sacrament you do Divide Christs Body in a literall sense then are you to abhorre your Romish Literall Exposition of Christs speech which cannot but necessarily inferr a proper Dividing of the flesh of Christ âšœ Wee may not conceale the Evasion which your Disputers have devised for blunting the Diâ—t of this notable Sentence You see not the same Body saith Saint Augustin 1 Bellarm. lib. 2 de Eucharist cap. 24 â—uxtà Lanfrancum Resp non Idem corpus id est non èodem modo non in specie visibili aut mortali Idem quoad substantiam non Idem quoad modum That is say they not after the same maner namely not in a visible and mortall shape So they Than which Exposition what can be more extravagant by skipping from the Predicament of Substance to the Predicament of Quality You shall not eat the same Body saith Saint Augustine What then shall they eat Hee addeth I have commended to you a Sacrament to be eaten Therefore the Opposition used by Saint Augustine is to Distinguish betweene Christs Body and the Sacrament of Bread as betweene Substance and Substance for hee sayd not to eat his Body As you see it to signify the maner of Eating invisibly but you are not to eat That which you see as denying Christs Body to be the matter of their Sight even as Saint Augustine doth often expresse himselfe as well in that place where hee called his Body The Bread the Lord and the Sacrament The Bread of the Lord like as your owne 2 Gabriel Biâ—l Lect. 80. lit n. Non cum manducamus partes
esse hujus Authorem Editionis Spiritus Sancti mentem assequutum In omnibus igitur locis vult Concilium Eam haberi pro Authenticâ exceptis erroribus Typographorum Vt Iudic. cap. 11. pro altera Matre lectum fuisse adultera Matre ut quidam objiciunt Nam Concilium probavit veterem benè Typis impressam Post §. Porrò Nullo modo audiendi sunt ii qui post Concilium Tridentinum contendunt Editionem Vulgatam aliquibus in locis quod ad ipsam sententiam attinet emendari Quin potiùs Graeci Hebraici Codices siquidem dissideant à nostra sunt per eam corrigendi Valentia who thinke that Oath to be violated if the Vulgar Latine be rejected at all as lesse true than the Originals And your Spanish Inquisitors finding in one of your Romish Doctors the Rule of Hierome and Augustine urged which is that no Translation Latine or other be further allowed than as it agreeth with the Originals they faire and cleanly wipe it out saying that h Index Expurgatorius Hispanicus ad nomen Martinz Quamvis haec quae Hieronymus Augustinus docuerunt vera sunt tamen post Concilii Tridentini Decretum non licet Vulgatae Latinae Testimonia quovis praetextu rejicere prout in ipsius Concilii Decreto constitutum est fol. 145. Although that which Hierome and Augustine taught be true yet now since the Councel of Trent it is not lawfull to reject the same Translation upon any pretence whatsoever ⚜ Accordingly your Iesuite Lorinus in a matter concerning neither faith nor maners i Lorinus Ies Comment in Lib. Sap. ca. 12. Versq 6. §. Vatablus Non licet nobis discrepantem expositionem ab Editione nostra Vulgata jam correcta sequi It is not lawfull for us saith hee to follow an Exposition differing from the Vulgar Edition which is now corrected ⚜ So they And so farre unsatisfied are your Doctors in taking this Oath Wee are furthermore not destiture of matter for a large Confutation first of your assuming Saint Hierome as the Author of your Vulgar Latine Translation to manifest that it is no more the Translation of Hierome or yet of any one Author than the divers habits of a mans Body from head to foot can be called the worke of one singular work-man Secondly concerning the Authority thereof you professe it to be Authenticall that is as you have defined Conformable to the Originall Hebrew and Greeke although it may be as easily proved not to be that Ancient Vulgar which had continued as the Decree speaketh from divers ages than the Ship of Theseus which after some Ages had beene so thorowly battered and pierced that at last the keele and bottome therof did onely remaine which could be called the Same But passing by all further Dispute wee shall referre you to the judgement of the Patrones of the former Rule so insolently contemned by the Spanish Inquisitors as you have heard by one Instance which may be sufficient in it selfe for triall of the Case now in hand The Text of Scripture is Ephes 1. 14. in the Latine Translation even in that which is set forth by Pope i Clem. Octavus In perpetuam rei memoriam Textus accuratissime mendis purgatus Clement as The most accurate Edition thus k Ephes 1. 14. Lat. Vulg. Spiritu signati promissionis quae est pignus haereditatis Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in quem locum Hieronym Pignus Latinus interpres pro Arrhabone posuit Arrhabo futurae emptionis quasi quoddam testimonium obligamentum datur Pignus verò pro mutuâ pecuniâ ponitur cùm illa reddita fuerit reddenti debitum pignus à Creditore Aug. Serm. de visione Dei Tom. 10. pag. 1687. Accipis Codicem ab amico cui das pignus cum reddideris quod accopisti illc cui reddis habebit tu pignus accipies non enim habebit ambas res sed quando pretium paras dare pro ea re quam tenes bonae fidei contractu de ipso pretio das aliquid exit Arrha non pignus quod sit complendum non quod sit auferendum Sed si Deus charitatem dat tanquam pignus per spiritum suum cum eam rem ipsam reddiderit quâ promissa pignus dedit auferendum est à nobis Pignus Absit Sed quod dedit hoc implebit ideo melius Arrha quà m pignus hoc enim implebitur cum Arrha data est You are sealed with the spirit of promise which is the Pledge of your inheritance But in the Greeke it is You are sealed with the spirit of promise which is the Earnest of your inheritance The Question is whether of these is to be preferred and Hierome and Augustine are ready to resolve you herein both of them Correcting the Vulgar Translation in the word Pledge and one of them giving an Absit against this Sense of it The Reason of both is because hee that giveth a Pledge taketh it againe when the Thing for which it was pledged is received But hee 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 Therby advancing Gods gracious love towards man and mans faith in Gods 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 Symphonie than betweene an Horse and a Saddle Nor will it avayle 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 a Bulla eadem Sacram Scripturam admitto juxta eum sensum quem Tenuit Tenet Mater Ecclesia extra quam nemo salvus c. 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 wee have proved to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE in a full Tractate from the Doctrine of the Apostles of Generall Councels of severall Catholike 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 sense of the Church of Rome which would thereby be thought to Hold no Sense of Scripture now which shee had not Held in more Ancient Times Wee for Triall hereof shall for this present seeke after no other Instances than such as in this Treatise have beene discussed and for brevity-sake single out of many but onely Three A first is in that Scripture Ioh. 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Son 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 b Booke 1. Ch. 2. Sect. â—1 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 Luk. 22. Take Eate c. Your Church of Rome in the dayes of Pope Nicholas in a Councel at Rome Held that by the word Eate was meant an c Booke 3. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Eating by Tearing the Body of Christ sensually with mens teeth in a Literall sense Which your now Romane Church if wee may believe 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 d Booke 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. 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 onely lawfull but also religious to with-hold the Cup from all but onely Consecrating Priests Vpon these omitting other Scriptures which you your selves may observe at your best leasure wee 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 Woolfe 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 a Bulla ead Nec Scripturam ullam nisi juxtà unanimem Consensum Patrum interpretabor 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 Councel where the major part of voices conclude the lesse for Councel 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 wee presse not too violently upon you wee 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 insomuch that you your selves are at difference among your selves which part to side with b Valent. Ies Anal. lib. 8. cap. 8. Patet nobis via urgendi unum aut alterum Doctorem authoritate reliquorum With the greater saith Valentia nay but sometime with the c Canus Ioc. Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. num 8. Plurium Sanctorum authoritas reliquis licet paucioribus reclamantibus firma Argumenta sufficere praestare non valet 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 d Valent. quo supra Quod si per Sententiam Doctorum aliqua fidei controversia non satis commodè componi posset eo quod de eorum consensu non satis constaret sua tunc constet Authoritas Pontifici ut consultis aliis ad definiendum regulis de quibus est dictum Ecclesiae proponat quid sit sentiendum Iesuite the Authority of the Pope is to take place who being guided by other rules may propound what is the Sense Behold here the very ground of that which wee call Popery which is devising and obtruding upon the Church of Christ new Articles of Faith unknowne for ought you know to Ancient Fathers And is it possible to find an Vnanimity of Consent in an Individuall Vnity or rather a Nullity for what else is an Ignorance what the Sense 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 do patronize your Romish Cause Wee 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 e Bellar. Epist Dedic Paulo Quinto entè CoÌ„ment in Psal Psalmorum ego tractationeÌ„ magis propriâ meditatione quam mulâ—â librorum lectione composui Rather by his owne meditation than by reading of many Bookes whereas hee 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 rejecting the Expositions of the Fathers as for Example f Maldon Ies in Matth. 20. Existimant Patres filios Zebedaei temerè respondisse ego vero credo eos verè esse locutos Item in Mat. 16. 18. Non praevalebunt Quorum verborum sensus non videtur mihi esse queÌ„ omnes praeter Hilarium quos legisse memini Authores putant IteÌ„ in Mat. 11. 11. Variae sunt PatruÌ„ opiniones sed ut liberè fatear in nulla earum aquiesco Item in Matth. 11. 13. Prophetae lex Omnes fere veteres ita exponunt sed non est apta satis interpretatio Item in Mat. 19. 11. Non omnes capiunt i e non omnes capimus Sic omnes fere veteres exponunt quibus equidem non assentior Item in Ioh. 6. 62. Sic quidem expono licet Expositionis hujus Autorem nullum habeo hanc tamen magis probo quaÌ„ illam Augustini caeterorumque alioqui probabilissimam quia hoc cum CALVINISTARUM sensu magis pugnat So indeed said the Fathers but I believe the Contrary Item This