The Lord's Supper OR, A VINDICATION OF THE SACRAMENT Of the Blessed BODY & BLOOD OF CHRIST: According to its Primitive Institution. In Eight BOOKS; Discovering the Superstitious, Sacrilegious, and Idolatrous Abominations of the Romish Mass. Together with the Consequent Obstinacies, Overtures of Perjuries, and the Heresies discernible in the DEFENDERS thereof. By THOMAS MORTON D. D. BP. of Duresme. THE SECOND EDITION, Much enlarged, for CORROBORATION of sundry Points throughout the whole. Together with particular Answers to such Objections and Cavils, as have been hitherto made and raised by the Advarsary against this Work. LONDON, Printed for R▪ 〈…〉 And part of the Impression to be Vended for the Use and Benefit of Edward Minshew, Gentleman. M. D.C.LVI. LOTIUM CUM DIGNITATE The Right Hon.ble Charles Lord Halifax 1702 bookplate VTRIUSQVE ACADEMIAE CANTABRIG. & OXON. Praeclaris Luminibus ac Ornamentis, caeterisquè Sacrae Theologiae Candidatis, & sincerioris Literaturae Studiosis Gratiam & Salutem in CHRISTO JESV. SI quanto amoris studio Vtramque Academiam prosequor, tanto Honoris testimonio adornare eas possem (Viri Clarissimi) certè quidem hoc qualecunqne Opus meum, vestro praesertim Nomini inscriptum, usque adeò excellens & singulare fuisset, ut nec ad conciliandam gratiam, nec ad culpam deprecandam Praefatione ullâ indigeret. In quo tamen si quae fortè Vobis occurrant (ut sunt sanè plurima) à nullo hactenùs, ex nostris partibus, Authore praevio in medium prolata; vestrae perspicacitatis erit, quanti momenti illa fuerint, dijudicare; quorum duntaxat Apices aliquot saltem attingere operae-precium esse duxi. Sacramento Eucharistiae Resp. Christiana nihil unquam sublimius, nihil sanctius habuit atque Augustius, quo Christiani quodammodò in Christum ipsum transformamur. Huic Institutioni in frontispicio libri, ex aliorum Placitis, MISSAE cognomentum adjicio: quam vocem aliquis fortassis omissam nimis velit. Quin esto tu bono animo, quisquis es pius zelôtes, & Papisticae Missae exosor vehemens. Etenim nomen [Missa] secum omen suum apportat, quod cum à Dimittendis ijs, qui Eucharistiae participes esse nolunt, ortum suum traxerit, Romanam Missam planè jugulat, quae (veluti Amasios suos) Spectatores meros omnibus lenociniis ad se allicit atque invitat; ac si in illo uno Theatrico spectaculo Religio ipsa Christiana ferè tota consisteret: quos tamen (modò Eucharistiae capaces) Antiquitas Catholica apud Graecos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apud Latinos Discedere jussit; et in persistentes, ut in homines praefractos & impudentes, graviter acerbeque invecta est. Haec de Operis Titulo praefari mihi libuit, nè in isthoc vocabulo, Missae, veluti in ipso vestibulo, impegisse videar. Ex parte Operis primâ, quam Practicam dicimus, constat Institutionis Christi Canones decem, per Tridentinos Canones, in Romana Missa, perfringi (tantumnon jugiter) et violari; sed majorinè impudentiâ, an impietate, difficile est dicere: nam Depravationibus istis sufflaminandis mille annorum Consuetudini universali anteponunt sequioris aetatis Diutissimè, scilicet, retentam (ut aiunt) trecentorum annorum modernae Ecclesiae Romanae (en!) sapientioris usum contrarium. Deinde Praeceptum praximque Apostolicam à Pontifice Rom. Abrogari posse garriunt: quin & adversus Exemplum Christi, multis retrò seculis vel ab ipsis Rom. Pontificibus sanctè religioseque observatum, obtendunt Consuetudinem contrariam habendam esse pro lege: quin porrò hoc quoque parum est, quià, quamvis de contrario Praecepto Christi constaret, nihilo-minùs Ius ipsum divinum à Pontifice Romano relaxari posse, jesuita blasphemo ore pronunciat. Sequitur pars altera, quam Dogmaticam nominamus, in multa Membra se diffundens, ità tamen ut horum verborum Christi [HOC EST CORPUS MEUM, * etc.] ⚜ Quâ quidem Particusâ integram Institutionis Christi narrationem (Institutionis, inquam, non autem Romanae, ut dicitur, Consecrationis formam) disertis verbis significavi. Ex quâ tamen mirum quantos clamores excitavit Papista quidam, vit sanè nobilis: cujus Postulatis justo quodam Tractatu (qui Anglicè inscribitur A Discharge) ●atis superque factum est. ⚜ etc.] Expositioni literali Mysterij Romani de Eucharistia moles tota nitatur. Quanquàm dum in istis explicandis Adversarij nonnulli, Fridentinorum Patrum spiritu afflati, Tropum omnem ab eisdem longè exulare jubent; Alij tamen Tropos saltem Sex, velint nolint, coguntur agnoscere. Porrò, in una Particula [HOC] totius Controversiae cardo vertitur; de qua cum quaeritur, quid ea proprie designet, Pontificij Doctores in duas, easque contrarias Opiniones distrahuntur Alij enim per, Hoc, Christi corpus denotari volunt; Alij ad aliud (quod ipsi commenti sunt) Individuum Vagum Pronomen illud referunt: ità tamen ut utrique Andabatarum more, à se invicèm vapulent, dùm hi priorem sententiam prorsus Absurdam, illi posteriorem Absurditatum plenam non dicunt modò, verum-etiam solidis Argumentis evincunt. jam igitur, hoc uno fundamento ipsorum Pontificiorum Contradictionibus (ut olim Turre Babel) diruto atque dejecto, alia de Transsubstantiatione, de Corporali Christi Praesentia, Conjunctione què cum corporibus Communicantium, de propriè dicto Sacrificio, & de divina denique Adoratione, superstructa portentosa Dogmata omnia corruere & labefactari necesse est. De singulis, si placet, pauca delibemus. Primo in loco Transsubstantiationis non Dogma modò, sed & vox ipsa (contra quàm pisces) novitate sua foetet. Ecquid habent, quod opponant? nonnihil, nempè, Patres antiqui (inquiunt) de Conversione hujus Sacramenti verba facientes, Transformationis, Transitionis, Transmutationis, Transelementationis vocabula frequenter usurpârunt: unde ipsissimam suam Transsubstantiationem dilucidè probari gens Romana clamitat & vociferatur. Cum tamen Adversarios nostros minimè lateat, eosdem Sanctos Patres pari libertate sermonis judicijque synceritate easdem voces singulas ad alias conversiones transtulisse, ut (Exempli gratiâ) nunc Verbi praedicati in Auditorem, nunc Corporis Christi in Ecclesiam, nunc hominis Christiani in Christum, nunc denique Corporum Christianorum in ipsam Christi carnem. Vndè sequitur, ut quâ ratione praeclari isti Disputatores unam duntaxat Transsubstantiationem astruere conantur, eâdem ex ipsa lege Parium (ô homines miserè fascinatos, aliosque miserrimè fascinantes!) quatuor alias teneantur admittere. In Membro tertio partis Dogmaticae quaestio de Corporali praesentia Christi in Eucharistia agitatur, quaeque hùc pertinent omnia ad hoc unum Caput reducuntur; Quid sit illud, quod, juxta Christi institutionem, jam intelligitur [Corpus meum?] Hoc Catholica Ecclesia per multa Secula, ab Apostolicis usque temporibus, nullum aliud esse credidit, quàm quod à B. Virgin Natum, Vnum, Vno in Loco Definitum, seu circumscriptum, Organicum quoque, & demum Sensuum omnium absolutissimâ integritate juxtà & Gloriae perfectione cumulatissimâ praeditum. At quod Romanenses Carbonariis suis Discipulis obtrudunt, Deus bone! quale Corpus, & quàm minimè illud MEUM? Primò (id enim natura Transsubstantiationis necessariò exigit) Corpus, quale Pistores pinsunt, ex pane confectum; mox Corpus (namque hoc discontinuitas locorum per se postulat) multiplex, quale Geryonis illud fuisse fingitur: post, Corpus, (quià non definitiuè in loco) quale esse nullum potest, Infinitum: dein Corpus, (quià totum in qualibet parte Hostiae) quale quis vix somniare potest, Paraphysicum: insuper Corpus (ut ipsi aiunt) omni movendi, sentiendi, intelligendíque facultate destitutum, id est, coecum, surdum, exanime: Corpus denique nullis non sordibus cuiusvis sterquilinij, & locorum, quae honestè nominari non possunt, inhonestissimorū obnoxium. Qualia Opinionum portenta, ut omninò Haeretica, veteres Patres semper execrati sunt. Verùm enim verò diversarum aetatum subrancidas Historias, si numeremus, Tredecim proferunt, in quibus memoria de verissimae carnis, verissimique sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia Apparentiâ verissimâ Lectoribus commendatur. In quibus Miraculis, tanquam in Dei testimoniis omni exceptione majoribus, Adversarij nostri mirificè gloriantur; et dici vix potest quantoperè miseros mortales hâc unâ Persuasione suâ dementârint: cùm tamen haec verissima, scilicet, si ponderentur, vanissima esse singula cuivis liquere possit. Quem in finem bonis illis Historicis valedicentes, rectà Scholas petimus, exploraturi an Scholastici eandem insanierint insaniam. Hi tantum abest ut istis Legendariis fidem assensionem uè praebeant, ut in ejusmodi Apparitionibus vel veram carnem Christi, vel omninò veram carnem inesse ausint non pernegare modò, verum-etiam contrariam hanc suam sententiam exquisitis Rationibus defendere. Quanquam quid horum probatione opus est? quandoqudē nemo ferè est tàm mucosis naribus (modònon sensus suos prorsus obstruat) cui non suboleat, imò qui non eas legendo planè odoretur, et persentiscat has fabulas à maleferiatis hominibus anilitèr esse confictas. Quartò, In Corporali sua (ut vocant) Christi conjunctione cum Corporibus Communicantium nihil aliud cernere licet quàm Capernaiticam quandam stupiditatem; quoties Pontificios audimus antiquas suas canere Cantilenas: se nimirùm Dentibus terere, gutturibus deglutire, hoc est, ut nos quidem interpretamur, verè devorare; atque insuper hominum visceribus permiscere; & tandem (adsit verbo reverentia) in secessum egerere; imò tàm canum, muriumque, nec non vilissimi cujusque animalis intestinis, quàm ullius etiam sanctissimi viri, qui illius particeps esse potest. Quis deinceps miretur fuisse olim, qui Philosophos se dicerent, qui asserebant, Nivem sibi atram videri, Coelum consistere, & Terram motione suâ eâque perpetuâ rotari? Hosce scopulos praetervecti, in Contentionum labyrinthum dilabimur, de Sacrificio Missae, tot Amphibologiis & verborum involucris, tot Opinionum Antilogiis, ceu viarum anfractibus, & sinuosis Maeandris undique implicitum, ut absque commoda aliqua Distinctione difficiles, imò impossibiles habeat explicatus: eòque magis, quòd apud veteres Patres (ut quod res est libere fateamur) de Sacrificio Corporis Christi in Eucharistia Incruento frequens est mentio: quae dici vix potest quantopere quorundam, alioqui Doctorum hominum, ingenia exercuerint, torserint, vexaverint; aut econtrà quam jactanter Pontificij de ea re se ostentent: cum tamen hic nodus uno hoc Distinctionis quasi cuneo facilè diffindatur. Vox, Corpus Christi, dupliciter sumitur, vel ut Subjectum Celebrationis Eucharisticae, vel ut ejusdem Corporis Objectum. Si Subjectiuè accipiatur pro eo, cui externa Accidentia insunt, tùm non potest non Corporalem Praesentiam Christi designare: sin verò Objectiuè tantùm, habitâ Relatione ad Christi corpus, vel ut olim in cruce pendentis, vel ut nunc in coelo regnantis, Praesentiam duntaxat Symbolicam declarat; quoniam Objectum, licet rei cruentae, ut in Scena, ipsum est tamen Incruentum. Id quod sex Argumenta, è veterum Patrum testimonijs deprompta, dilucidè demonstrant. Eadē igitur Distinctione quivis poterit ità prorsùs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut non habeant quod contrà mussitent. Quid? quod praetereà etiam Romana Missa Grandis Sacrilegij rea arguitur. Ad extremum, extremae & nefandae Idolomaniae Rom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsum, quae est Sacramenti Eucharistiae divina Adoratio, in medium protrahitur; ubi id, quod adorant, Posse esse adhuc Panem, propter ferè infinitos Defectus, ipsi Adversarij ultrò concedunt: & Nos, Non posse illud non panem esse, juxta Veterum sententiam, Rationibus circiter sexdecim evicimus: atque etiam quas Adorandi Formulas, ceu Praetextus, excusationis ergò, sibi tanquam larvas induxerunt, illis detraximus, ut vultus eorum deformes horridique appareant; usque eò ut illi Idololatricâ impietate Ethnicos aequare, Excusationis verò futilitate longè superare videantur. Quid tandem? tota ferè Missae defensio Manichaeorum, Eunomianorum, Marcionitarum, Eutychianorum, aliorumque multorum Haeresibus scat et passim, ut in postrema nostra Synopsi, veluti in speculo, contemplari quivis poterit. Dùm ista literis consigno, ostenduntur mihi, inter alias, Theses duae, quas Isaacus Casaubonus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Adversarijs suis, propriâ manu scriptis, post se reliquit. Prima; justa Causa est (inquit) cur Transsubstantiatio rejiciatur, ut evitentur Absurda. Altera haec est; Veteres nunquam dixerunt destrui Symbola, sed semper de Signis locuti sunt, quasi de re ipsa. Quae quàm verae sunt, & juxta Veterum sententiam ad Causam nostram oppidò necessariae, nostri muneris erit suo loco copiosè ostendere. Priusquàm verò perorare mihi liceat, vos orandi estis (Viri ornatissimi) ut de Adversariorum nostrorum Iniquitate, de meoque erga vos studio ac Benevolentia nonnihil attexam. Bellarmino, Alano, Maldonato, alijsque Romanae Missae Assertoribus suum, ut par est, ingenij acumen, exactum & perspicax judicium, omnium denique tàm humanae quàm divinae literaturae accuratam cognitionem facilè tribuimus; ità tamen ut in ijs, dùm nostros Theologos criminantur, veritatem; dum suas opiniones defendunt, constantiam; dùm Patres, Patres crepant, objectant, inculcant, fidem modestiamque desideremus. Vt nihil de Eorum juramentis dicamus, quibus se obstrinxerunt, non sine aliqua notâ Perjurij; quod Synopsis nostra Secunda satis superque declarat. Ad nostram quod attinet Sacratissimā Eucharistiam; quia à Ministro Elementa consecrantur et benedicuntur, non minùs Sacramenta sunt, quàm est aqua Baptismatis; quae tamen istos non pudet probris suis contaminare, dum partem alteram merum Pistoris panem, alteram Oenopolae vinum nudum appellant nequitèr. Deindè (ut alias eorum Calumnias praetervolem) quòd eorum de Corporali Christi Praesentiá in Eucharistiâ fanaticam Opinionem, tanquàm Impossibilem, propter implicitam Contradictionem, oppugnamus; Isti, quasi hoc esset Dei Omnipotentiae detrahere, in nos impotentèr debacchantur. Si cui lubeat singulas Operis hujus Sectiones percurrere, vix in aliquam incidet aut Objectionem Adversariorum pro sua Missa, aut Responsionem, aut denique Scripturae expositionem quam non facilè observet ab aliis Pontificiis Doctoribus aut luculentâ ratione solutam, enervatam, explosam; aut denique (quod majus est) per receptas Ecclesiae Romanae doctrinas oppugnatam. Nae illae praeclara est istorum hominum constantia, qui si minùs viribus nostris, suâ tamen imbecillitate & dissensione vincuntur, atque succumbunt. Praetereà de Pontificiorum Doctorum Versutia Obstinaciaque satis queri vix possumus. Versutia eorum cernitur cùm in rebus aliis, tùm praecipuè in abutendis veterum Patrum Testimoniis, sive per falsas Editiones Translationesque ea dépravando; sive novo excogitato Commento illudendo; sive denique adversis frontibus oppugnando: quorum omnium Exempla plurima Libri singuli sequentes vobis exhibent. Obstinaciae verò eorum specimen nullum potest esse illustrius, quàm (quod in altera Synopsi nostra videre est) ex Veterum sententiis factâ Collatione Eucharistiae cum Baptismate. Illi ad sua Dogmata stabilienda, de Praesentia Corporali Corporis Christi in Eucharistia, ipsiusque adeò Adoratione Latreutica, objiciunt Nobis, Patres negâsse Eucharistiam esse nudum Panem. Nos reponimus, eosdem Patres paritèr negâsse, in Baptismate esse Aquam nudam. At opponunt, Veteres Eucharistiam Sacrificium vocâsse. Nos rursùs, Baptisma quoque Sacrificium nominant. Illi, At apud Patres Eucharistia Sacramentum Terribile, & Venerabile dicitur. Regerimus nos, à Patribus moneri homines ad Baptisma, utpote quod Venerandum sit, cùm Tremore accedere. Pergimus dein, & per sexdecim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 par pari referimus, quod Adversariorum nostrorum, nisi animos obfirment, Conscientias mordeat & lancinet; sed manu tamen medicâ, ut sanet. Eant igitur Antagonistae nostri, &, cum de Antiquitate agitur, nos (ut solent) Novatores appellitent, nunquàm tamen efficient, quin ipsi (ut praeclarè olim Clariss. vir josephus Scaliger) Veteratores habeantur. Redeo ad Vos tandem (dignissimi Viri) quorum intimos animorum conceptus audire mihi videor: quibus quoad possim, & liceat, occurrendum esse duxi. Primo in loco; Fateor equidem me jamdiù in istiusmodi Polemicis negotiis exercuisse calamum, non quod nesciverim à Detractione neminem esse immunem, nisi qui nihil scriberet: sed quòd abundè noverim cùm pro salute Patriae, tùm verò maximè pro patria Salutis, atque adeò pro Fidei synceritate nullum non laborem esse subeundum. Secundò, multos alios multo majore cum profectu munere hoc defungi posse agnosco: veruntamen, quatenùs praestare quicquam valeam, illud S. Augustini aures mihi vellicat, animumque stimulat: Qui mendacium docet, (inquit) & qui veritatem tacet, uterque reus est; alter quià prodesse non vult, alter quia nocere desiderat. Nec profectò hanc Romulei stabuli (cùm purgandi non datur) exagitandi provinciam, in re Missatica, alio animo suscepi, quàm ut omnes (quibus veritas cordi est) intelligant, Nos Anglicanae Ecclesiae Alumnos Causam nactos esse Divinis literis consentientem maximè, Catholicae Antiquitatis suffragijs comprobatam, mille omnis ordinis Martyrum sanguine testatam; imò etiam (addendum est enim) cujusvis Christiani, si fieri posset, vel mille mortibus obsignandam. Praetereà, Romanae Ecclesiae Tyrunculis omissis, Antesignanos ipsos libentiùs aggredior, duplici ratione adductus; quià primò, his profligatis, illi non possunt consistere: deindè, ut clariùs constet, in illam Ecclesiam quadrare illud Christi; Si lumen, quod in te, tenebrae, ipsae tenebrae quantae? Quos tamen, dùm Argumentis persequor, non probris insector; quià in hoc altero Certaminis genere vincere vinci est: nam praeclarè olim Artaxerxes Rex militi, hostem convitijs proscindenti, Non ut maledicas te alo, (inquit) sed ut pugnes. Cur verò Vobis potissimùm has meas Lucubrationes dedicarem, plurimae me Causae impulerunt. Antiquitùs plurimi dicebantur Episcopi Catholicae sive Vniversalis Ecclesiae, non solùm quòd Catholicam tenerent fidem, sed etiam quòd suam pro incolumitate Ecclesiae Vniversalis curam Scriptis & laboribus testarentur. Egone igitur ut non illud studium ergà utramque Vniversitatem profitear meum, quod ipsi (ut ità dicam) Vniversalitati debeam? Huc accedit (nam quidni fidorum Amicorum literis fidem habeam?) quòd cum vos Opus nostrum aliud, tribus abhinc annis publici juris factum, non vulgari animorum vestrorum significatione approbâsse intellexerim; hocque, quod nunc ad umbilicum perduxi, non minori cum desiderio expectâsse (quorum illud GRANDEM ROMANAE ECCLESIAE IMPOSTURAM detexit, hoc ROMANAE MISSAE IDOLOMANIAM, tanquàm immane monstrum, confodicat) non committendum putavi, ut non grati animi meum hoc testimonium Vobis referrem. Quid? quòd Causae ipsius necessitas quoque id à me exigere videbatur, quae profectò in hac Causa homines Academicos nihil minùs quàm Academicos & Scepticos esse sinet; nè quis vestrûm (quod detestabile omen Deus obruat!) in Rom. Artolatriam prolabatur, quò vel Aliis scandalo, Majestati divinae odio, Sibi ipsi denique certo exitio esse possit. Postremò, in hanc spem adducor, nunquàm defuturos ex utraque Academia viros plurimos, Theologici juris consultiss. omnibusque armis instructissimos, non modò ad hujusce Causae patrocinium sustinendum, verumetiam ad Mataeologiam omnem Romanensium expugnandam. Pergite igitur ô macti antiquâ prudentiâ & veritate, pergite, inquam, & Amantissimum vestri diligite; quod rectius noveritis impertite, & precibus vestris adjuvate. In Christo Jesus valete, qui vos conservet in gloriam Gratiae suae! AMEN. THO. DVNELMENS. nuper COVEN. & LICHF. An Advertisement To all Romish Priests and Jesuits of the English Seminaries, concerning the Necessity of this ensuing Treatise; as also of the Author's Sincerity, and his Adversaries unconscionable Dealing in their Allegations of Authors. Grace, Peace, and Truth in CHRIST JESUS. AMong all the Controversies held against your Romish Religion, none were ever more hit, to draw Protestants violently into the fire, than these two; First, the denying your Roman Church to be The Catholic Church, without which there is no Salvation: Secondly, the affirming the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament of the Altar to be Idolatrous. Therefore have I especially undertaken the discussion of both these Questions, that seeing (as Saint Augustine truly said) It is not the punishment, but the Cause which maketh a Martyr; it might fully appear to the world, whether Protestant's enduring that fiery trial, for both Causes, were indeed Heretics, or true Martyrs: and consequently whether their Persecutors were just Executioners of persons then condemned, and not rather damnable Murderers of the faithful Servants of Christ. And I doubt not, but as the first hath veverified the Title of that Book, to prove your Doctrine, of the Necessity of Salvation in your Romish Church, to be a GRAND IMPOSTURE: So this second, which I now (according to my promise) present unto you, will make good, by many Demonstrations, that your Romish MASS is a very Mass, or rather a Gulf of many Superstitious, Sacrilegious, and Idolatrous Positions and Practices. And because the very name of ROMAN CHURCH is commonly used as (in itself) a powerful enchantment, to stupefy every Romish Disciple, and to strike him deaf and dumb at once, that he may neither hear nor utter any thing in Conference, concerning the Mass, or any other Controversy in Religion; be the Protestants Defence never so Divine for Truth, or Ancient for Time, or Universal for Consent, or Necessary for Belief: I therefore held it requisite, in the first place, to discover the falsehood of the former Article of your Church, before I would publish the Abominations of the Mass; to the end that (for Idolatry in Scripture is often termed spiritual Adultery) the Romish Church, which playeth the Bawd, in patronising Idolatry, being once outted, your Romish Mass, as the Strumpet, might the more easily either be reform, or wholly abandoned. This may satisfy you for the necessity of this Tractate. The next must be to set before you your own delusorie tricks, in answering, or not answering Books written against you; especially such as have been observed from mine own experience. One is, to strangle a Book in the very birth: So dealt Master Brerely long since, by a Letter writ unto me, to prevent the publishing of my Answer against the first Edition of his Apology, when he sent me a second Edition thereof to be answered, which both might and ought to have been sent a twelve month sooner; but was purposely reserved not to be delivered, until the very day after my * See the Protestants Appeal in the beginning. Answer (called An Appeal) 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 Book (whatsoever,) written against your Romish Tenants, is in answering, and that an Answer will come out shortly. So dealt Master Parsons with me, * In his Sober Reckoning. Certifying me and all his credulous Readers of an Epistle which he had received from a Scottish Doctor, censuring my Latin Apologies to be both fond and false; and promising that his Answer to them, Printed at Gratz in Austria, should be published before the Michaelmas next following: whereas there have been above twenty Michaelmasses sithences, every one giving Master Parsons his promise the flat lie. A third Art is a voluntary Concealment; And thus Master Brerely, who having had knowledge of the forementioned Book of Appeal, manifesting his manifold Aberrations and Absursurdities in doctrine, his ignorances' and frauds in the abuse of his Authors; as in other passages throughout that Book, so more especially the parts concerning the Romish Mass: yet since hath written a large Book, in defence of the Romish Liturgy or Mass, urging all the same Proofs and Authorities of Fathers; but wisely concealing that they had been confuted, and his Falsehoods discovered. Only he and Master Fisher singling out of my Appeal an Explanation, which I gave of the Testimony of Gelasius (in condemning the Manichees, concerning their opinion of not administering the Eucharist in both kinds) did both of them divulge it in their Books and reports also in many parts of this Kingdom, as making for the justification of their sacrilegious dismembering the holy Sacrament, and for a foul Contradiction unto myself notwithstanding that this their scurrilous insultation (as is * Bo●ke 1. cap. 3. Sect. 7. here proved) serveth for nothing rather than to make themselves ridiculous. The last, but most base and devilish Gullery, is a false imputation of Falsehoods in the alleging of Authors, which was the fine sleight of Master Parsons; a man as subtle for Invention, as elegant for Expression, for Observation as dextrous and acute, and as politic and persuasive for Application, as any of his time. He in an Answer to some Treatises, written against your Romish black Art of Aequivocation by mental Reservation, and other Positions fomenting Rebellion (to wit) in his Books of Mitigation and Sober Reckoning, doth commonly leave the principal Objections and reasons, and falleth to his verbal skirmishes, concerning false Allegations: and (as turning that Ironical Counsel into earnest, Audacter & fortiter calumniare, etc.) he chargeth me with no less than fifty Falsifications All which I spunged out in a Book entitled an Encounter, and retorted all the same Imputations of falsehood upon himself, with the interest, discovering above forty more of his own. Which may seem to verify that Cognizance, which your own Brotherhood of Romish Priests in their Quodlibets have fastened on his sleeve, calling him The Quintessence of coggery. As for mine own Integrity, I have that which may justify me; for howsoever any one or other Error may happen, in misalleging any one Author, yet that I have not erred much; or if at all, yet never against my Conscience. Hereof I have many Witnesses; One within me, a witness most Domestical, yet least partial, and as good as Thousands, mine own Conscience: a second is above me, GOD, who is Greater than the Conscience. A third sort of Witnesses are such as stand by me, even all they who have been conversant with me, in the Perusal and Examination of Authors Testimonies, by me alleged; men of singular Learning and judgement, who can testify how much they endeared them-selves unto me, when any of them happened to show me the least error in any thing. (He that shall say, Non possum errare, must be no man; and he that will not say, Nolo errare, as hating to err, can be no Christian man.) The last Witness, for my integrity, may be the Books of my greatest Adversaries, Master Parsons, and Master Brerely, whose many scores of Falsehoods have been laid so open and published for above sixteen years passed in two Books (one called An Encounter against the Foreman, the other an Appeal against the Second) yet hath not any one appeared out of your Romish Seminaries, for the vindicating of them herein. ⚜ Since this Part of this Advertisement thus given, there have some of your Engineers sought to undermine the whole Structure of this Treatise, by the odious Imputation of Falsification; One was a L: Baron, and his Suggestor: Another, a notable Seducer, in his Letters to a noble Peer of this Kingdom: the Third, a Romishly inspired Detractor, who are, in this Second Edition, defeated by a Countermine of just Vindications, against their False and frivolous Exceptions. To say nothing of a late Hobgoblin his feigned Letter to a Lady, upbraiding me with such Taxations of some Falsities, which about six and twenty years since, were falsely charged upon me by Master Parsons, as I proved in a Book of Encounter. By which your Practice is confirmed that which I have often averred, That none may expect from you any Satisfactory Confutation of this, or the like Treatises, seeing that instead of Shott, you answer only with Squibs. Go on in the same Course, to make me thereby a true Prophet, and (by my Vindications against your Calumniations) to occasion greater Advantage to our Cause, and just Defence thereof. ⚜ By these Advertisements you may now easily conceive with what confidence I may proceed in this Work, wherein is displayed and laid open, in the discussing of these Eight Words of Christ his Institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, [HE BLESSED; BRAKE; GAVE; TO THEM; SAYING; TAKE; EAT; DRINK,] your ten Romish Prevarications, and Transgressions. Afterwards, in the following Books, are reveiled the stupendious Paradoxes, sacrilegiousness, and Idolatry of your MASS; together with the notorious Obstinacies, some few Overtures of Perjuries (out of that great Sum, which may afterwards be manifested in your swearing to the other Articles of your new Roman Faith) and the manifold Heresies in the Defenders thereof: as also their indirect and sinister Objecting and Answering of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers throughout, as if they contended neither from Conscience, nor for Conscience-sake. To Conclude. Whosoever among you hath been fascinated (according to your Collier's Catechism) with that only Article of an Implicit Faith, let him be admonished to submit to that Duty prescribed by the Spirit of God, to Try all things, and to Hold that which is good. And if any have a purpose to Rejoin, in Confutation either of the Book of the Romish Imposture, or of this, which is against your Mass; I do adjure him in the name of Christ, whose truth we seek, that avoiding all deceitful Collusions, he proceed materially from * Sed surdis canimus. point to point, and labour such an Answer, which he believeth he may answer for before the judgement seat of Christ. Our Lord jesus preserve us to the glory of his saving Grace. AMEN. THO. DURESME, late of COVEN. & LICHF. ¶ THe Additions, in this second Edition, are made more obvious to the Reader by two Parallel lines drawn along the Context, (at the beginning and ending thus marked ⚜) And the Testimonies of Authors (now) added in the Margin are discernible from the other, by being noted with Numeral figures; as the Authorities, in the First Edition, were cited by the Letters of the Alphabet. THE SUMMARIE or General Heads of the Eight Books of this ensuing Treatise; wherein also the Principal Additions, throughout the whole, at the beginning and end thereof, are thus denoted, ⚜ BOOK FIRST. Chap. I. THat the word [Mass] is vainly and falsely urged from its Original, to signify Oblation or Sacrifice; and so confessed. pag. 1, 2. ⚜ A Vindication, against a Romish Suggester, concerning the Mixture of water with wine in the Encharist. pag. 5. 6. ⚜ The two points of Christ's Institution, handled in this Controversy, are 1. Practical. 2. Doctrinal. Chap. II. Of the Practical and Active points, pag. 7. Ten Romish Transgressions against that one Command of Christ, [DO● THIS.] pag. 9 I. Romish Transgression contradicting the word [BLESSED] p. 9 ⚜ The Testimony of a Greek Patriarch thereupon, pag. 12. And a Vindication against the adverse conceits of some. p. 14. etc. ⚜ II. Romish Transgress of Christ's word [BRAKE] for distribution thereof. p. 15. III. Romish Transgression of the word [THEM] in the plural number, signifying a Communion, against their private Mass. pag. 17. ⚜ The Testimony of Pope Innocent 3. pag. 21. etc. ⚜ IU. Romish Transgr. of Christ's words, [SAID UNTO THEM] namely, in an audible voice. p. 22. etc. V Romish Transgression is against the same word [SAID UNTO THEM] too wit, by a language not understood of the Communicants, against the Custom of Antiguitie, etc. p. 25. ⚜ A Vindication against Pr. de S. Clara, for his miserable manner of reconciling our English Article with their contrary Romish Canon. pa. 37. to p. 43. ⚜ VI. Romish Transgression is against Christ's words, [TAKE YE] by not Taking with their hands. pag. 43. etc. VII. Romish Transgression is against Christ's words, [EAT YE] by their approving of mere Gazers at the Celebration. p. 45. etc. VIII. Romish Transgression is against the same word [EAT] by their other use than Eating, as their carrying it about in public Procession. pag. 48. IX. Romish Transgression, is against these words, [IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME:] holding that Infants are capable of the Eucharist, and Madmen also, pag. 51. Chap. III. X. Romish Transgressions of the Institution of Christ is against his words, [DRINK YE ALL OF THIS] etc. p. 54. ⚜ Other Testimonies from the Divines of Colen, pag. 60. The Council of Braccara, pag. 63. and of Trent, pag. 64. Of the Jesuit Vasquez, pag. 64, 65. And of Pope Clement, pag. 75. ⚜ BOOK II. OF the Doctrinal points in the Institution of the Eucharist. pag. 90. Chap. I. Of the Exposition of Christ's words, [THIS IS MY BODY] in a figurative sense. pag. 91. Proved from these three words, THIS, IS, and MINE. ibid. I. The pronoun [THIS] properly betokeneth not Christ's Body. p. 92. ⚜ The Testimony of Pope Innocent, pa. 93. ⚜ Nor signifieth it any Individuum Vagum, confessed. pag. 95. Nor can Bread properly be called Christ's Body, confessed. p. 99 But that it noteth Bread, as representing Christ's Body, proved. p. 100 etc. ⚜ A Confirmation hereof from the word, [Cup] pa. 105. etc. ⚜ Chap. II. II. [Is,] Which Verb doth open the figurative sense to be as much as [Signifieth] pag. 107 Eight Figures being confessed to be in the words of Christ's Institution, p. 110. etc. ⚜ The Testimony of Vasquez Ies. for confirmation thereof, pag. 112. ⚜ The judgement of the more ancient Church of Rome, and of the Greek Fathers herein. pag. 114, 115. Romish Objections out of the Greek Fathers answered. pag. 115. to 122. And of the Latin Fathers. p. 123. ⚜ A Vindication of Tertullia's Testimony. pag. 124. Cardinal Bellarmine his perversion of a Testimony in Saint Ambrose. pag. 125. With a Supply of other Latin Fathers, as of Tertullian. pag. 124. Saint Augustine. pag. 126, 127. And of Facundus. pag. 128. Together with a clear Mirror, wherein to discern the judgement of Antiquity, for a Figurative sense of Christ's words. pag. 129. ⚜ Chap. III. Romish Objections against the Literal sense Answered. pag. 132. throughout. Chap. IU. ⚜ The pronoun Possessive [MY] Added as the third Key, for opening of the Figurative sense of Christ's words [THIS IS MY BODY.] pag. 138. Whether it be taken Narratively, or Significatively. pag. 139. ⚜ BOOK III. OF the first Romish Consequence, arising from the depraved sense of Christ's words, which is called TRANS-SVESTANTIATION. pag. 145. Chap. I. Conversion, held by Protestants, is Sacramental; but that which is defended by the Romanists is Trans-substantiall, etc. pag. 146. throughout. Chap. II. Romish Transubstantiation not absolutely proved by Scripture itself, as is Confessed. p. 147. It is an Innovation both in Name, and in the Article itself. pag. 151, etc. Chap. III. Romish manner of Transubstantiation, whether by Adduction or Production, both confuted by Romish Doctors, as Absurd. pag. 153, etc. ⚜ The Testimonies of two Popes contradicting one another about Formal Transubstantiation. p. 155. And a Confutation of both manners of Conversion, by their own principles. pag. 156. With a Vindication against a late Calumniator, concerning the ancient Saxons faith, in the Doctrine of the Eucharist. pag. 158, etc. And a Confirmation thereof from Christ's speech, pag. 163. And of Pope Innocent the third. pag. 164. And from other Testimonies of Antiquity. pag. 169, 170. (The jesuite Mallounes' Instance in joane Martlesse her nose, for her admirable faculty of smelling. pag. 873.) And from the existence of some new Accidents after Consecration. pag. 176. Further adding, to the Testimonies of Antiquity, that of Tertullian. p. 178. and an Objected Testimony of Pope Clement. pag. 179. and, out of Athanasius, what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is. pag. 182. Together with the Testimony of Euphraimius Bishop of Antioch. pag. pag. 187. ⚜ Chap. IU. The unconscionableness of Romish Doctors, in Objecting, for Transubstantiation, the Fathers (there) calling it a Change by Omnipotentie. pag. 188. ⚜ The Testimony of Hilary. pag. 191 And a Vindication of Cyprian's Saying [Christ's Body is created herein.] p. 192. and of another of his [Infusing Divine essence.] pag. 193, etc. ⚜ Their further unconscionableness, in alleging the Fathers as denying it to be Common Bread. pag. 194, etc. Their forbidding us to judge it by Sense. pag. 195, etc. ⚜ The judgement of Master Isaac Casaubon, concerning Saint Cyril. pag. 197, 198. ⚜ Their other Objections out of other Fathers anew. pag. 198, & 201, etc. ⚜ Two Testimonies of Gregory Nyssen, pag. 203. And of Cyrill the modern Patriarch of Constantinople, against Transubstantiation. pag. 205. With Master Isaac Casaubon his judgement, concerning the Doctrine of Antiquity for this point. pag. 209, etc. ⚜ BOOK IU. OF the Second Consequence of the Romish Depravid Exposition of Christ's words [THIS IS MY BODY] viz. The Corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. p. 210. Chap. I. The Difference of Opinions De modo, of Christ's Being in the Eucharist. pag. 210. ⚜ A double question concerning the [Quomodo●] p. 211. ⚜ Chap. II. Twelve miraculous Apparitions of True Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist, by Popish Historians related, and judicially proved by their own Doctors to be but so many Illusions. pag. 217. unto pag. 227. ⚜ The jesuite Malloun's vaunt of such like Miracles. pag. 221. And the Opinion of Vasquez the jesuite to the Contrary. p. 222, etc. With a Digression for the Discussion of the miraculous separation of Christ's Blood from his Body, out of a Romish Doctor Collius. p. 225, etc. And of Blood issuing out of Christ's Images, from the same Author. pag. 227, etc. ⚜ Chap. III. Of the Impossibility of the Romish Corporall Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, by reason of Contradiction. pag. 228. ⚜ (The Testimonies of Theophylact and justine Martyr, for that purpose. pag, 229. ⚜) Confessed by Romish Doctors. pag. 230, etc. Of Six Contradictions employed in the Romish Profession of the Corporal Presence. p. 231, etc. Chap. IU. I. Romish Contradiction is to make the same Body to be Borne and not Borne of the B. Virgin Mary. pag. 232, etc. Chap. V. II. Romish Contradiction is to make One Body, not One, by teaching it to be in divers places at once. pag. 234. ⚜ The Confession of Conincks the jesuite. pag. 235, etc. And the Profession of Saint Augustine in this point. pag. 244, 245. And that the Romish Objections out of Antiquity are frivolous. 247. Adding another Testimony out of chrysostom. pag. 248. And Greg. Nyssen. Ibid. Saint Augustine's [Quodammodo] expounded by Suarez. pag. 251, etc. With a Comparison, that Christ's Body cannot be above nor below itself. p. 254. The Testimony of Vasquez in this point. p. 256. And of the jesuite Conincks. Ibid. Chap. VI Romish Objections and Pretences for proof of a Body in divers places at once, from Colour and Voice, Confuted. pag. 258, to 264. ⚜ The Sentence of Pope Innocent. pag. 258. ⚜ Chap. VII. III. Romish Contradiction in making Christ's Body, Finite, to be Infinite. pag. 264. ⚜ The Testimony of Hilary. pag. 266. and of. Athanasius. Ibid. And the Enthymeme of the Fathers. pag. 287. And the Doctrine of the Lutherans. Ibid. And the Infatuation of the jesuite Lessius, framing an Army of but One man. p. 268, etc. ⚜ Chap. VIII. iv Romish Contradiction, by teaching Christ's Organical Body, not to be Organical. pag. 269. Contrary to the judgement of Antiquity. pag. 273, etc. ⚜ Chrysostom's Testimony, for Demonstration of Christ's Body by Touch. pag. 276. And Cyrill of Alexandria. Ibid. And the Testimony of the jesuite Lessius, according thereunto. pag. 277. And of the Camels passing through the Needle's eye, in the judgement of Hierome. pag. 279. And a Vindication of the Testimony, under Pope Hilaries name, for proof of an whole Body in every part of the Host. p. 279, etc. Chap. IX. V Romish Contradiction is in making Christ's Perfect Body, Unperfect. pag. 281. By their vile Doctrine of a Body of Christ, in the Sacrament, void of all power of Motion, Sense, and Understanding. Ibid. ⚜ The Testimonies of other jesuites. pag. 282, 283. And that this is both Contrary to Scriptures and Fathers. p. 283. 285. ⚜ Chap. X. VI Romish Contradiction is in making Christ's Glorious Body▪ Inglorious. pag. 286, etc. ⚜ A pertinent Question. pag. 287. And a Vindication of Truth against Master Fisher a jesuite his Defence of all (Romish) Seeming Indignities and Absurdities, which, by their Doctrine of Christ's Bodily Presence, do Consequently ensue. pag. 291, to 300. And the Testimonies of the Fathers against Bellarmine's jeer and scoff. pag. 306, etc. ⚜ BOOK V. Of the Third Romish Consequence of their depraved sense of Christ's words [THIS IS MY BODY] by their Corporal Union with Christ's Body. p. 308, etc. Chap. I. Protestants profess an Union Spiritually-reall. pag. 309, etc. Chap. II. That only the Godly and Faithful Communicants are Partakers of the Union with Christ, by this Sacrament. pag. 311, etc. ⚜ That only the Godly are united to Christ, by this Sacrament, in the judgement of Antiquity. pag. 320, 321, etc. And Saint Augustine's accurate judgement herein. pag. 323. With a Vindication of Saint Augustine's Testimony, against the notable corruption thereof by Doctor heskin's. pag. 325, to 328. ⚜ Chap. III. Of the Capernaitical Heresy of the Corporal Eating of Christ's flesh. pag. 328. ⚜ Tertullia's Saying, that Christ's flesh is not truly Eaten. pag. 331. And Saint Augustine's Testimony about the mention of Christ's Ascension into Heaven, in Answering the Capernaites. pag. 331, & c ⚜ Chap. IU. That the Romish manner of Eating of Christ's Body is sufficiently Capernaitical, in Five kinds. pag. 333. First by Bodily Touch. ⚜ That the Fathers are not Conscionably Objected as touching that poin●: Ibid. etc. ⚜ Chap. V. II. Romish Capernaitical manner of Eating is Oral Eating, by Tearing, in the days of Pope Nicolas the Second. pag. 335. ⚜ The contrary judgement of Pope Innocent the Third. pag. 336. And Saint Augustine his Sentence [We Eat, in significante Mysterio.] pag. 344. And that the same unconscionableness of Objecting is proved by some Romish Doctors themselves, very largely. pag. 346, 347, etc. ⚜ Chap. VI. Of the Third Romish Corporal Union of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants by Swallowing it down. pag. 347, etc. ⚜ A further Evidence of Origen his exact judgement. pag. 350. And the miserable straits of Romish Doctors, in Answering the Sentence of Augustine, concerning the Eating of Christ's flesh. pag. 352, etc. ⚜ Chap. VII. Of the Fourth manner of Romish Corporall Union with Christ's Body, by a Bodily Mixture. pag. 354, etc. Chap. VIII. The Romish Objections of the Sentences of the Fathers, for a Corporal Union, by Mixture of Christ's Body with men's Bodies: proved to be Unconscionable. pag. 356, 357. ⚜ The Sentences of Hilary and Cyril of Alexandria, so much pressed at large. pag. 358. And also a Confutation of the Romish Objections, out of their own Confessions. pag. 362. And further, that the Objected Testimonies of these Fathers make against the Romish Corporall Union. pag. 365. Showing that only the Godly are United to Christ. Ibid. ⚜ Chap. IX. ⚜ The Second kind of Romish Objections, which is from Similitudes used by the Fathers, from Feast, Guest, Viands, and Pledge; but most unconscionably Objected by the Romanists. pag. 366. yea that the same Testimonies plainly Confute the Romish Presence; together with the Reconciling of the seeming Repugnances of the Sentences of the Fathers, in Opposition to the Romish, and in an accordance with our Protestant Profession. pag. 369, etc. Adding likewise the Divine Contemplation of the▪ Fathers in their phrasing of a Corporal Union of Christ's body, with the Bodies of the Faithful Communicants▪ p. 372, etc. ⚜ Chap. X. Of Romish Historical Objections, insisted upon out of justine Martyr, from the slander then raised against Christians for Eating of man's flesh. pag. 374. ⚜ That this Objection is slanderous. Ibid. And against the Historical Truth. pag. 375. As wild is their second proof; because (say they) justine wrote to an Heathen Emperor. pag. 376. Confuted out of justine himself, and the Cardinal's Dilemma; by a more just Dilemma, and pertinent. pag. 378, 379, etc. As also by an Impossibility, that the Heathen could be offended at the words of justine. pag. 380. Proved out of justine and Attalas. Ibid. An Answer to Averro his imputing to Christians the Devouring of Christ's flesh. pag. 381, etc. ⚜ Chap. XI. ⚜ The Fift and last most base Romish Union of Christ's Body, in passing it down by Egestion into the Draught. pag. 382. Which to Antiquity would have been held most abominable. pag. 384. That the Institution of the Sacrament was ordained to be food only for the Soul, by the Doctrine of Antiquity. p. 385, etc. ⚜ BOOK. VI OF the Fourth Romish Consequence, from their depraved sense of Christ's words [THIS IS MY BODY] by esteeming Christ's Body present, to be a Properly and Truly Propitiatory Sacrifice. pag. 389, etc. Chap. I. That there is no Proper Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, from any word of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament. pag. 390. But absolutely Confuted thereby. pag. 393, & 394. II. Not proved by any Sacrificing Act of Christ, at his first Instituting this Sacrament. pag. 398. ⚜ The Testimony of the jesuite Vasquez. pag. 399. Chap. II. Proper Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, not proved by any other Scripture of the New Testament. pag. 400. ⚜ The Saying of the Council of Trent. pag. 402, etc. ⚜ Chap. III. The Proper Sacrifice of Christ's Body not proved by any Scripture out of the Old Testament. pag. 403, etc. ⚜ A Vindication of the Allegations of some Testimonies of Fathers, against a Calumnious Romanist. pag. 405. A Second Vindication of some other Testimonies Objected. p. 406. As also an Argument against the Sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisedeeh. pag. 408, etc. And a Testimony of Athanasius, against the Translation of the Priesthood of Christ to any other; with whom agreeth Theodoret and chrysostom. pag. 411. To whom is joined the Confession of the jesuite Estius against Bellarmine. pag. 414. Besides a special Challenge against Bellarmine, in the point of Christ's eternal Priesthood, out of the Confession of Vasquez, at large. pag. 420. Adding also a Typical Scripture. Exod. 24. [The Blood of the Testament] Objected by Bellarmine, and Answered by the jesuite Vasquez. pag. 424. And by Pope Leo long since. pag. 425. An Objection Ro. from the Comparison of the Figures of the Old Testament with the Sacraments of the New; Answered, pag. 426. With the Testimony of Athanasius. pag, 427, etc. Chap. IU. Of Prophetical Scriptures Objected for the Romish Sacrifice. pag. 429. Malachi, 5. Ibid. And Psalm, 72. Of an Handful of Corne. p. 433. ⚜ A Vindication of a Truth of an Allegation against a Rash Seducer. pag. 434. A Vindication against another Romish Detractor, showing that Cardinal Bellarmine hath not Objected Prophetical Scriptures judiciously. pag. 435. And against the Objected [judge Sacrificium.] pag. 436, etc. ⚜ Chap. V. Examination of the point of Sacrifice from the judgement of Antiquity, by Eleven Demonstrations. pag. 437, etc. ⚜ A Discovery of a Romish Absurd Defence concerning the Bloody Representative Sacrifice of Christ. pag. 446, 447, etc. And an Argument for the dignifying of the Table of the Lord, so called, although alias termed an Altar. pag. 462, & 463, etc. ⚜ Chap. VI. The Third Examination of the Po●m of Romish Sacrifice, is to Confute it by Romish Principles, and proving that there is no Sacrificing Act therein. pag. 466. etc. Chap. VII. The Fourth Examination of the Doctrine of Protestants in the point of Sacrifice. pag. 407. And of the Verity thereof. Ibid. ⚜ A Confirmation thereof out of the Romish Mass. pag. 474, etc. ⚜ Chap. VIII. Of the Romish Sacrifice, as it is called Propitiatory. pag. 474, etc. Chap. IX. How called Propitiatory, by Antiquity, in a fare Different Sense. pag. 477. Namely Objectively only, and not Subjectively; even as Protestants do. pag. 478, etc. Chap. X. The Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice Confuted by Romish Principles. pag. 479, etc. Chap. XI. Of the Romish Irresolute Doctrine, for Approbation of their Sacrifice. pag. 483. Repugnant to Antiquity. pag. 485, etc. Chap. XII. The Protestants Offering of Sacr●fice Propitiatory of Complacency, not of Satisfaction. pag. 487. ⚜ A Vindication of some Allegations against the unjust Imputations of one Popishly inspired, in divers passages. pag. 491, etc. unto pag. 502, etc. ⚜ BOOK. VII. OF the last Romish Consequence, issuing from the Romish depraved sense of Christ's words; called Div●ne Adoration of this Sacrament. pag. 503, etc. Chap. I. That there was no Precept for, nor Practice of Div●ne Adoration of the Sacrament, at the time of Christ his Institution thereof. pag. 504, etc. Chap. II. The Objected Testimonies of the Fathers, in their Sentences, fall fare short of the mark, which is Divine Adoration. pag. 506, etc. ⚜ An Addition of a Sentence of Sain● Augustine. p. 509. And of Saint Ambrose. p. 510, etc. ⚜ Chap. III. No Act Recorded, and Objected out of Antiquity, doth sufficiently prove a Divine Adoration of this Sacrament. pag. 511. ⚜ A necessary Vindication of the Testimonies of Dionysius, Pachymeres, and Nazianzen, against the false traducement of a Romish Seducer. p. 521, etc. ⚜ Chap. IU. Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice repugnant to the judgement of Antiquity. pag. 524▪ Generally in their [Sursùm Corda.] pag. 526. ⚜ A Testimony of Saint Hierome. p. 527, etc. ⚜ Chap. V. Romish Adoration of the Mass proved to be Idolatrous, by discussing their own Principles. pag. 528. Both Materially, unto pag. 533. and Chap. VI Romish Masse-Adoration proved to be Formally Idola rous, notwithstanding any Pretence that is, or can be made. p. 533, etc. Chap. VII. The same Idolatrous Adoration proved out of Four grounds of Romish Profession. pag. 541. ⚜ An Answer to a Conceited, Deceitful, and Impious Objection of a jesuite (a Spectacle-maker) showing his Spectacles to be false-sighted. pag. 545, etc. ⚜ Chap. VIII. Of the Romish Idolatrous worship in their Mass, by Comparison, equal to the Heathen, and in one point worse. pag. 547, etc. Chap. IX. An Examination of the Worship and Reverence at the Reciving of this Sacrament, professed by Protestants. pag. 550, etc. And their Security in respect of Six Romish Perplexities. pag. 552, etc. BOOK. VIII. Containing the former Additionals of divers Execrable points in the Defence of the Romish Mass, and the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof by divers Synopses and General views. pag. 557, etc. Chap. I. Of the superstitiousness, p. 557. sacrilegiousness, p. 558. and idolatrousness of the Romish Mass. pag. 564. Chap. II. Of the Exceeding Obstinacy of the Defenders of the Romish Mass. pag. 566. Demonstrated in a Synopsis, wherein Baptism is paralleled with the Eucharist, by the Testimonies of Antiquity. pag. 567. Overtures of Perjuries in Defense of the Romish Mass. pag. 574. Mixtures of many old Heresies with their Defence of the Mass. pag. 581. to the End. FINIS. OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE SACRAMENT of the blessed Body and Blood OF CHRIST, etc. The first Book. Concerning the Active part of Christ his Jnstitution of the Eucharist; and the TEN Romish TRANSGRESSIONS thereof. Chap. I. That the Original of the word, ●ASSE, nothing advantageth the Romish Mass. SECT. I. DIvers of your Romish a Nomen antiquissimum, Missa, (quod quidem fides Christiana profitetur) ex Hebraica vel Chaldaica nomenclatura acceptum esse videtur, Missah, i. e. spontanea oblatio, conveniens instituto Sacrificio. Baron. Cardin. Anno 34. num. 59 Est Hebraicum. Tolet. les. & Cardin. Instruct. Sacerd lib. 2. cap. 4. Quidam, ut Reulin, Alcian, Xaintes, Pintus, Pamelius existimant esse Hebraicum. As Azor. les. reporteth. Inst. Moral. par. 1. lib. 10. cap. 18. and Master Mal●un Reply, Sect. 4. pag. 231. Doctors would have the word, MASS, first to be (in the first and primitive Imposition and use thereof) Divine. Secondly, in Time, more ancient than Christ. Thirdly, in Signification, most Religious, derived (as They say) from the Hebrew word Missah, which signifieth Oblation and Sacrifice; even the highest Homage that can be performed unto God. And all this, to prove (if it may be) that, which you call, THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. CHALLENGE. SO have these your Doctors taught, notwithstanding many other Romanists, as well jesuites as others of principal Note in your Church, enquiring (as it were) after the native Country, kindred, and age of the Word, MASS, do not only say, but also prove, first, that It is no Hebrew-borne. Secondly, that it is not of Primitive Antiquity, because not read of before the days of Saint Ambrose, who lived about three hundred seventy three years after Christ. Thirdly, that it is a plain Latin word, to wit, Mass, signifying the Dismission of the Congregation. Which Confessions being testified (in our b Latinum, non Hebraicum est, ut Neoterici studiosè exquirunt. Binius Tom. 3. Conc. p. 110. Eodem modo interpretantur complures. Durant. de Ritib l. 2. cap 2. pag. 190. 192. Magis spectat ad Latinam phrasin. Salmeron les. Epist. ad Canis. de nomine Missae. [So also Azor. the jesuit in the place abovecited.] Multò probabilius, esse Latinam; nam si vox Hebraica in usu apud Apostolos fuisset, certè retinuissent e●m Graeci, & Sylli, aliaeque Nationes, ut retinuerunt vocer● Hosanna, Allelujah, Pascha, Sabbatum, & similes voces.— Apud Graecos nulla est hujus vocis mentio; pro ea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt: est autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 munus, sive ministerium publicum. Bellarm lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 1. Melius qui Latinam— Sudrez. les. in Thom. Tom. 3. disp. 74. § 3. [where he allegeth Lindan. Thom. Hug. de Vict.] Leo primus quidem est author, apud quem legerim Missae verbum. Masson. lib. 2 de Episc. Rom. in Leon. 1. [And Ambrose is the ancientest that either Bellarmine or Binius, in the places before-quoted, could mention.] Missa à Missione dicta est. Salmeron les. Tom. 16. pag. 390. 391. [It is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Church: and with Ilicet amongst the ancient Romans.] See the Testimony following at (c.) Margin) by so large a Consent of your own Doctors, proved by so clear Evidence, and delivered by Authors of so eminent estimation in your own Church; must not a little lessen the credit of your other Doctors (noted for Neotericks) who have vainly laboured, under the word MASS, falsely to impose upon their Readers an opinion of your Romish Sacrificing MASS. ⚜ And left Any might object that the same Word, MASS, (as signifying the Dismission of the People) had no good foundation, because it was not at first prescribed by the Church, but taken up of the People; your jesuite Gordon quitteth this, saying, 1 jac. Gordonus Scotus lib. Controvers. Controu. 9 cap. 6. Quamvis appellatio Missae originem accepit à populo, tamen divinâ providentiâ factum est ut populus hanc appellationem huic mysterio tribueret: vulgo enim dici solet, quod vox populi sit vox Dei, nec dubitamus quin Spiritus instinctu hoc factum sit. Pag. 313. The voice of the People is the voice of God: and that you are not to doubt but that it was infused into them by the instinct of the Spirit of God. ⚜ That the word, MASS, in the Primitive Signification thereof, doth properly belong unto the Protestants: and justly condemneth the Romish manner of Mass. SECT. II. THe word, MASS, (by the c Missa à Missione dicta est, quoniam Catechumeni eâ susceptā foras de Ecclesia emitterentur: ut in ritibus Paganorum dici consueverat, Ilicet, quod per Syncopen idem est, ac, Ire licet. Sic nostrum verbum, Missa, Ite, missa est. Salmeron. les. in the place above cited, pag. 390. 391. Sic accipitur in jure Canonico & in Patribus etiam, atque Conciliis. Azor. les. Inst. par. 1. pag. 850. Gemina Missio; prima Catechumenorum, alia peractis sacris, Missâ completâ. Binius in the place afore cited. Esse à dimissione, per Ite, missa est, tenet Alcuin. Amalar. Fortunat. Durant quo supra. [And the other forenamed Authors, who confess the word to be Latin, do hold that it cometh of Ite, Missa est; for] jubebantur exire Catechumeni, & Poenitentes, ut qui nondum ad communicandum praeparaverant. Cassand▪ Consult. Art. 24. As also in his Tract. de solit. Missa. pag. 217. with others. (See more hereafter, Chap. 2. §. 5 where this point is discussed.) [As for the disraissing of the whole Congregation after the receiving of the Sacrament, by an Ite, missa est, it was used in the second place, after the other. See Binius above.] ⚜ This crosseth not the distinction of Penances, which were anciently in their degrees. The first was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of tears, and groans. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of them who were admitted to hear instructions. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of such as went out before Consecration, somewhat after the Catechumeni. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this was indeed of those, who were allowed to hear Mass at length, but communicated not: and this their presence, for looking on, was only for Penance-sake, to see themselves excluded from the Communion of the faithful. The last was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of them which were reconciled and communicated. ⚜ Confession of jesuites and Others, and that from the authority of Counsels, Fathers, Canon-law, Schoolmen, and all Latin Liturgies) is therefore so called from the Latin phrase [Missa est] especially, because the company of the Catechumenists, as they also which were not prepared to communicate at the celebrating of this Sacrament, after the hearing of the Gospel, or Sermons, were Dismissed, and not suffered to stay, but commanded To departed. Which furthermore your Ies. Maldonate, out of Isidore, of most ancient authors, and of all other the Liturgies, is compelled to confess to be the Most true meaning of Antiquity. Which Custom of exempting all such persons, being every where religiously taught and observed in all Protestant Churches; and contrarily the greatest devotion of your Worshippers, at this day, being exercised only in looking and gazing upon the Priest's manner of celebrating your Roman Mass, without communicating thereof, contrary to the Institution of Christ; contrary to the practice of Antiquity; and contrary to the proper Use of the Sacrament (all which * See Chap. 2. Sect. 9 hereafter shall be plentifully showed) it must therefore follow, as followeth. d Alij, ut Isidorus de divin. offic. diverunt Missam appellatam esse quasi dimissionem, à dimittendis Catechumenis antequam Sacrificium inchoaretur: quam sententiam colligo esse verissimam ex antiquiss. Authoribus.— Clambat enim Diaconus post Concionem, Catechumeni exeunto, & qui communicate non possunt: ut constat ex omnibus Liturgiis, ubi non potest nomen Missae accipi pro Sacri●icio. Maldon. les. lib. the 7. Sacram. Tract. de Euch. §. Primum. pag 335. CHALLENGE. WHereas there is nothing more rife and frequent in your Speeches, more ordinary in your Oaths, or more sacred in your common Estimation, than the name of the MASS; yet are you, by the Signification of that very word, convinced of a manifest Transgression of the Institution of Christ: and therefore your great boast of that name is to be judged false, and absurd. But of this Transgression more * See below, Cham 2. Sect. 5. hereafter. The Name of CHRIST his MASS, how fare it is to be acknowledged by Protestants. SECT. III. THe Masters of your Romish Ceremonies, and Others, naming the Institution of Christ, e Durand. Ration. lib 4. cap. 1. & Durant de Ritib. l. 2. cap. 3. So Christoph. de Capite fontium Archicp. Caesar. var. Tract. de Christi Missa, pag 34. Liturgiae veteres partes Missae Christi exactè respondent.— Missa Christi Ecclesiae Missam declarat. call it his Mass: yea (and as another 2 Dr. Heskins in his parliament, Book 3. Chap. 33. saith) Christ said Mass. And how often do we hear your vulgar people talking of Christ his Mass? Which word MASS (in the proper Signification already specified) could not possibly have been so distasteful unto Us, if you had not abused it to your feigned, and (as you now see) false sense of your kind of Proper Oblation, and Sacrifice. Therefore was it a supersluous labour of Mr. f Liturg. tract. 1. § 1. Brerely, to spend so many lines in proving the Antiquity of the word, MASS. CHALLENGE. FOr otherwise We (according to the above-confessed proper Sense thereof) shall, together with other Protestants in the * Confess: Aug. Cap. de Coena Domini. Augustane Confession, approve & embrace it; and that to the just Condemnation of your present Roman Church, which in her Mass doth flatly and peremptorily contradict the proper Signification thereof, according to the Testimony of Micrologus, saying; g Microl. de Eccl. observat. c. 1. Propter hoc certè dicitur Missa, quoniam mittendi sunt foràs, qui non participant Sacrificio, vel communione Sanctà Teste Cassand. Liturg. so 59 The Mass is therefore so called, because they that communicate not, are commanded to departed. By all which it is evident, that your Church hath forfeited the Title of Mass, which she hath appropriated to herself as a flag of ostentation (whereof more * See below, c 2. sect. 9 hereafter.) In the Interim, we shall desire each one of you to hearken to the Exhortation of your own Waldensis, saying; h Attend Missam Christi, etc. walden's. de Missa. ATTEND, and observe the Mass OF CHRIST. Of the CANON OF CHRIST his MASS; and at what words it beginneth. SECT. iv CHrist his Mass, by your own i Hoc ossicium Christus instituit, ubi dicitur, [Accepit lesus panem] Durand. Rationl. p. c. 1. p. 165. Christus instituit, Luc. 22. Accepto pane, etc. Duran●. de Rui. lib. 2 c. 3 p. 211. Confession, beginneth at these words of the Gospel, concerning Christ's Institution of the Eucharist, Matt. 26. Luc. 22. [And jesus took bread, etc.] which also we do as absolutely profess. What Circumstances, by joint Consent on both sides, are to be exempted out of this Canon of Christ his Mass; or the words of his Institution. It is no less Christian wisdom and Charity, to cut off unnecessary Controversies, than it is a Serpentine malice to engender them; and therefore we exempt those Points, which are not included within this Canon of Christ, beginning at these words; [And jesus took bread, etc.] To know, that all other Circumstances, which at the Institution of Christ his Supper fell out accidentally, or but occasionally (because of the then-Iewish Passeover, which Christ was at that time to finish; or else by reason of the custom of judaea) do not come within this our dispute touching Christ his Mass; whether it be that they concern Place, (for it was instituted in a private house:) or Time, (which was at night:) or Sex, (which were only men:) or Posture, (which was a kind of lying down:) or Vesture, (which was we know not what:) no nor yet whether the Bread was unleavened, or the Wine mixed with water: two points which (as you know) Protestants and yourselves k Antiquissimus decumbendi usus, more accumbendi nondum invento, ex Philone lib. de josepho.— judaeorum mos jacendi inter Epulas. Amos cap. 2. 8. Foeneratores super vestimenta in pignus accepta discumbunt juxta quodvis altar: ubi vestimenta pro lectis. Casaub. Exerc. 16. in Baron. [And lest any might object a necessity of representation Aquae, quae fluxit è corpore Christi, Bonavent. q 3. D. 11. clears it thus] Dicendum quòd per aquam illam non signatur aqua ista, nec è converso: sed aqua illa a quam Baptismatis signat. [Again, concerning the difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is plain, that although Azymes were used by Christ, it being then the Paschall feast, yet was this occasionally by reason of the same least, which was prescribed to the jews, as was also the eating of the Lamb.] Graeca Ecclesia peccaret consecrans in Azymo. Tolet. les. instruct. lib. 2. cap. 25. Lutheram non disputant de necessitate fermenti, aut Azymi. Bellar. lib. 4. de Euchar. cap. 7. Res videtur else indifferens in se, sed ità ut peccatum sit homini Graeco contra morem & mandatum suae Ecclesiae in Azymo: & nos in Latina Ecclesia, nisi in Azymo, sine scelere non facimus. Alan. Card. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 12. pag. 267. Error est dicere alterutrum panem, sive Azymum sive fermentatum, esse simpliciter d● necessitate Sacramenti in hac vel illa Ecclesia: tàm Graecis quam Latinis licet consuetudinem suae Ecclesiae sequi. Suarez. les. Tom. 3. Dis. 44. §. 3 pag. 523. In fermentato confici posse, Ecclesia Latina docet, nam Azymus panis fermentato non substantia, sed qualitate dissert. Salmeron les. Tom. 9 Tra. 12 pag. 75. Christus dicitur panem accepisse: ex quo intelligitur quemvis panem propriè dictum esse posse materiam Eucharistiae, sive Azymum sive fermentatum. jansen. Episc. Concord. cap. 131. pag 899. Major pars Theologorum docet, non esse aquam de necessitate Sacramenti— Opinio illa Cypriani, quod attinet ad modum loquendi— quod ad ●em attinet, non Catholicae Ecclesiae, fortasse etiam nec Cypriani. Bellar. lib. 4 de Euchar. cap. 11. §. Quinto. And of leavened Bread, Master Brerely Lit. Tract 4 § 6. pag. 413. When the Ebionites taught unleavened Bread to be necessary, the Church commanded consecration to be made in leavened Bread. grant not to be of the Essence of the Sacrament. ⚜ Whereupon I presumed to infer, that this Ceremony of Mixture was in itself a matter Indifferent, to be disposed of according to the Wisdom of the Church. This point falling in but upon the Buy, I then thought it not worthy the insisting on; and have been since called upon by a Romish Opposite, to satisfy him, why I should father this opinion on your Church: as though this Mixture of water and wine had been ordained by Christ, for his Church, under a necessity of Precept. Whereby I am occasioned to add a CHALLENGE; In Vindication of a former Assertion, against the Calumny of a Romish Suggester. LEt your 3 Bellar. lib. 4 de Euch. cap. 10. §. Porrò— Ecclesia Catholica semper credidit ità necessarium esse, aquâ vinum misceri in chalice, ut non possit id sine gravi peccato omitti. Cardinal hold it Necessary to be observed, upon necessity of some kind of Precept, if he will: yet that it is not so, by any Precept of Christ (who only can make a thing, otherwise indifferent in its own nature, to be simply Necessary in the use) we were ready to prove; but your own learned Doctors will have us to spare our pains, granting that 4 Suarez in 3. Thom. Queen 74, Disp. 45. §. 2. Nihilominus contraria sententia, sc. Hoc praeceptum esse humanum, est communis Doctorum Scoti, Durand. Ledesma, Gabr. Guil. & favet multum Tridentinum, dicens, hoc esse ab Ecclesia praeceptum. Nam licet responderi possit, esse simul ab Ecclesia et à Christo praeceptum, & Concilium dixisse, quod certius est, non tamen negâsse aliud, aut exclusisse: nihilominus tamen ille modus loquendi non solet usurpari in rebus, quae sunt jure divino praeceptae. Adjungi etiam potest Florent, quod non reprehendit Armenos omittentes mistionem hanc, tò quòd agerent contra divinum praeceptum, sedquod à communi Ecclesiae consuetudine dissentirent: undè tota ratio hujus praecepti videtur in hoc consuetudine poni. Denique Alex. Papa, & Conc. Tibur. cap. 19 solum dicunt hoc esse traditum à Patribus. Vltimò adjungi potest Conjectura, quià si hoc esset divinum praeceptum, vix potest reddi ratio, cur hoc non sit de necessitate Sacramenti: quià haec necessitas solum oritur ex institutione & praecepto Christi. Vndè u● omnibus alijs materijs Sacramentorum, quicquid ex institutione & praecepto Christi necessarium est, est etiam de necessitate Sacramenti. Et haec posterior sententia sequenda videtur, Ex qua consequenter sequitur, Hoc praeceptum esse per Ecclesiam dispensabile. [Accordingly the jesuite Vasquez using the same Reasons and Authorities, In 3. Thom. qu. 54 Disp. 177. Cap. 2. Concludeth.] Praecepto tamen solo humano, non divino, eam nos miscere debere, vera sententia est.— Haec doctrina est caeterorum omnium Scholasticorum, quos non est opus sigillatim refer: id enim omnes expresse dixerunt, ut supra notavi. josephus' Angles Flor. Theol. Qu. 1. Non est mixtio aquae ex necessitate Sacramenti, quià solùm propter significationem unionis Christi cum populo— Graeci autem verè conficiunt, tamen aquam non miscent. Idem josephus Part. 3. Tit. 4, Pag. 142. ex Aquin. part. 3. qu. 74. Art. 6. Conclu. Debet aqua misceri, probabiliter quidem creditur, quod Dominus hoc Sacramentum instituerit in Vino aquâ permixto, secundum morem istus terrae. This point of mixture of water with wine was not commanded of Christ: but afterwards enjoined by the Church. This being (as jesuites and others do witness) a Doctrine generally consented unto by your Schoolmen, and they themselves giving their Amen thereunto; as also alleging, for their own better confirmation herein, the judgement of two late Romish Councils, Florence and Trent; besides their dint of Reasons; whereof one was the ground of my Assertion (to wit) Because if it had been commanded by Christ, or ordained by necessity of a Precept of Christ, it should be likewise of the necessity, or Essence of the Sacrament; which Necessity the Church of Rome universally excludeth. The Consequence therefore is evident; for whatsoever was instituted, as the matter of a Sacrament, was ever held to be of the necessity of the Essence of the same Sacrament. Wherefore we may reckon this Mixture amongst those Circumstances of Christ's Actions, which were Occasional, by reason of the use and Custom of that Country of judaea at that time, for the tempering and allaying of their Wine with Water. 5 jac. Gordon lib. Contr. 9 cap. 7. Praetereà in calida illa regione omnes solebant miscere aquam vino: vinum autèm merum bibebat nemo pag. 320. That region being so hot (saith your jesuit) that none drank mere Wine, but mixed with water. ⚜ The Points contained within the Canon of Christ his Mass, and appertaining to our present Controversy, are of two kinds, viz. 1. Practical. 2. Doctrinal. SECT. V Practical or Active is that part of the Canon, which concerneth Administration, Participation, and Receiving of the holy Sacrament, according to this Tenor, Matth. 2●. 〈◊〉 [And jesus took Bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his Disciples, and said, Take, eat, etc. And Luc. 2●. 19 ●●. Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also after Supper he took the Cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this.] But the Points, which are especially to be called Doctrinal, are implied in these words of the Evangelists; [THIS IS MY BODY: And, THIS IS MY BLOOD of the new Testament, which is shed for you, and for many for remission of sins] We begin with the Practical. CHAP. II. That all the proper Active and Practical points (to wit, of Blessing, Saying, Giving, Taking, etc.) are strictly commanded by Christ in these words (DO THIS,) Luke 22. Matth. 26. & 1. Cor. 11. SECT. I. THere are but two outward material parts of this Sacrament, the one concerning the element of Bread, the other touching the Cap. The Acts concerning Both, whether in Administering, or Participating thereof, are charged by Christ his Canon upon the Church Catholic unto the ends of the World. The Tenor of his Precept or Command, for the first part, is [Do this:] and concerning the other likewise saying, 1. Cor. 11. ●5.] This do ye as often, etc. Whereof your own Doctors, aswell jesuites as Others, have rightly a [Hoc facite.] Alter sensus est, Facite viz. quod feci— Christus accepit panem, gratias egit, benedixit, etc. idipsumque praecepit Discipulis, corumque successoribus Sacerdotibus. Barrard. Ies. Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap ●6. pag. 82. col. 2, [which sense he also embraceth, although he excludeth not a second.] Illud [Hoc facite] posuit post datum Sacramentum, ut intelligeremus jussisse Dominum ut sub, etc. Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 25. §. Resp. mirab. Idem. [Hoc facite] illud jubet ut totam actionem Christi imitemur. Ib. c. 13. §. Quod ●lla.— Pronomen [Hoc] non tantum ad sumptionem, sed ad omnia, quae mox Christus fecisse dicitur, refertur: mandat n. facere quod ipse fecit, nempè, Accipere panem, gratias agere. jansen. Episc. Concord. c. 131. pag. 903. Again Bellar. Videtur tn. sententia johannis à Lovanio valde probabilis, qui docet verba Domini [Hoc facite] abud Lucam ad omnia referri (id est) ad id quod fecit Christus, & id quod egerunt Apostoli: ut sit sensus, Id quod n●nc agimus, Ego dùm consecro & porrigo, & yos dùm accipitls, etc. frequentate usque ad mundi consummationem. Profert n. idem Author veteres Patres, qui illa verba modò referunt ad Christi actionem, Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 3 Damas'. l. 4. de fide c. 14. modò ad actionem Discipulorum, ut Basil. reg. mor. 21. Cyril. Alex. lib. 12. in joh. c. 58. Thus fare Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. c. 25. §. Videtur.— [Hoc facite] Praeceptum hoc non potest referri ad ea, quae verbis antecedentibus in ipsa narratione Institutionis habentur. [Viz. to those circumstances, which go before that, He took bread, &c] name ea vis est Pronominis demonstrativi [Hoc] & verbi [Facite] ut praeceptum quod his duobus verbis continetur, ad eas tantum actiones referatur, quas tum in praesentia Christus vel faciebat, vel faciendas significabat: quae quidem actiones continentur in ipsa narratione Institutionis, quae incipit ab illis verbis [Accipiens panem] Greg. Valent. les. Tract. de usu alterius spec. in Euch. c. 2 §. Id manifestè— [Hoc facite] Ex tribus Evangelistis, & ex Paulo 1. Cor. 11. constat Christum sumptionem vini suo facto & praeceptione Ecclesiae commendasse. Alan. Card. de Euch. c. 10. p. 255. [Hoc facite] Pertinet ad totam actionem Eucharisticam à Christo factam, tàm à Presbyteris quàm à plebe faciendam. Hoc probatur ex Cyrillo l. 12. in joh. c. 58. ex. Basil. moral. reg. 21 c. 3. Idem Alan. ib. c. 36. p. 646. [Hoc facite.] Idem habet & Paulus 1. Cor. 11 qui na●rat id ipsum dici circa calicem, ea omnia complectens quae dicuntur de poculo accipiendo, etc. Quod Lucas complexus est, dicens, Similiter & calicem jansen. Concord. c. 131. p. 905. [& Durand. l. 4. c. 1. is of the same mind, calling this Institution of Christ, Officium Missae.] Non dicit, Hoc dicite, sed [Hoc facite.] quia mandat facere quod ipse fecit, sc. Accipere panem, Gratias agere, Consecrare, Sumere, & Dare. Cajetan. Card. lafoy Lucam pag. 304. in sine. determined with a large consent; that the words [DO THIS] have Relation to all the aforesaid Acts, even according to the judgement of ancient Fathers; excepting only the Time of the Celebration, which was at Supper: and which (together with Us) b [Coenantibus autem illis.] & [Postquam coenavit.] Non necesse est hujusmodi Sacrament● celebrationem aut coena praecedat, ●ut consequatur, nam Christus ante coenaverat, non ut exemplum praeberet, fecit, sed necessariò, quia oportebat vetera Sacramenta prius implere, quàm nova instituere (id est) agnum palchalem priùs edere, quam corpus & sanguinem suum dare. Agnus autem non al●o tempore quàm coenae edi poterat. malon. Ies. in Mat. 26 super illa verba [Coenantibus autem.] etc. you say were put in, not for Example, but only by occasion of the Passeover, then commanded to be observed. Thus you. CHALLENGE. THis Command of Christ, being thus directly and copiously acknowledged by the best Divines in the Roman Church, must needs challenge on both sides an answerable performance. Upon examination whereof, it will appear unto every Conscience of man, which Professors (namely, whether Protestants or Romanists) are the true and Catholic Executors and Observers of the last will and Testament of our Testator jesus: because that Church must necessarily be esteemed the more lovall and legitimate Spouse of Christ, which doth more precisely obey the Command of the celestial Bridegroom. We, to this purpose, apply ourselves to our business, by enquiring what are the Active Particulars, which Christ hath given in charge unto his Church by these his express words [Do this.] All which we are to discover and discuss from point to point. TEN TRANSGRESSIONS, And Prevarications against the command of Christ [DO THIS] practised by the Church of Rome, at this day, in her Roman Mass. SECT. II. We list not to quarrel with your Church for lighter matters, albeit your own Cassander forbeareth not to complain that your c Has panis Oblatas, quae nunc ad imaginem nummorum, & ad tenuissimam & levissimam formam, à veri panis specie alienam, red actae sunt, per contemptum, (ab ordinis Rom. Expositore) vocari minutias nummulariarum Oblatarum, quae panis vocabulo indignae sunt: propter quas Ecclesiasticum officium ejusque religio per omnem modum confunditur. Cassand. Liturg. fol. 66. Bread is of such extreme thinness and lightness, that it may seem unworthy the name of Bread. Whereas Christ used Solid and tough bread [Glutinosus] (saith d Panis azymus glutinosus erat, & frangebatur five manu, five cultro. Lorin. Ies. in Act. 2. v. 42. § Indicat. your jesuit) which was to be broken with hands, or cut with knife. Nevertheless, because there is in yours the substance of Bread, therefore we will not contend about Accidents and shadows; but we insist upon the words of Christ his Institution. The first Transgression of the (now) Church of Rome, in contradicting Christ his Canon, is collected out of these words, [AND HE BLESSED IT;] which concern the Cousecration of this Sacrament. SECT. III. FIrst, of the Bread, the Text saith [He blessed it:] next of the Cup, it is said [When he had given thanks:] Which words, in e Non dubium est quin apud Evangelistas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idem sit quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: nam quod Matthaeus & Marcus dicunt [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] post de chalice loquentes, dicunt [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:] & vicissim quod Matth. & Marcus de pane dicunt [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] Lucas & Paulus dicunt [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] M●ld. les. in Mat. 26. and Stapleton. Antidote. in cum locum. Promiscuè unum pro altero indefinenter accipi. Salmeron. les Tom. 9 Tract. 12. Haec duo verba idem valent, ut Cyrillus admonet, & sicut apparet ex Evangelistis, & S. Paulo. Ind est quòd Ecclesia Latina, pro eodem accipiens has voces, simul conjunxit. Idem. ibid. pag. 76. Illud verbum Benedictionis est forma ejus Sacramenti, & idem est, Benedicere, & uti verbis Consecrationis ad elementa proposita. Alan. l. 1. de Euch. cap. 15. p. 294. Et Catechismus Trident. dicit idem esse Benedicere & Consecrare res propositas. Idem. ibid. Dixit S. Paulus [Calix Benedictionis, cui benedicimus] i e. cui benedicendo Sacerdotes consecrant in altari, ut exponit B. Remigius. Salmeron. Ies. quo sup. [See also jans. Concor. c. 131. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idem valere, vide 1. Cor. 14. v. 16, 17. Marc. 8. v. 6, 7. Mat. 15. 36.] your own judgements, are all one as if it should be said, He blessed it with giving of thanks. By the which word, Blessing, he doth imply a Consecation of this Sacrament. So you. The contrary Canon of the (now) Roman Mass; wherein the Romish Church, in her Exposition, hath changed Christ's manner of Consecration. The Canon of the Romish Mass attributeth the property and power of Consecration of this Sacrament only unto the repetition of these words of Christ [This is my body,] & [This is my blood] etc. and that from the judgement (as f Communis sententia est non solùm Theologorum recentiorum, sed etiam veterum Patrum, Christum consecrâsse his verbis [Hoc est corpus meum, Hic est sanguis meus.] Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. c. 13 §. Quod attinet— Probatur ex Conc. Florentino, & Conc. Trident. sess. 13. cap. 1. Barrad. les. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 4. So also Suarez. les. Tom. 3. Disp. 58. Sect. 1. §. Dicendum— Omnes veteres his solis verbis dixerunt fieri consecrationem. Maldon. les. Disp. de S. Euch. pag. 134. Nè formae ignoratione turpissime peccetur, ab Evangelistis & Apostolis docemur illam esse formam. Catechis. Rom. de Eu●h. num 18. Tenet Sacerdos ambabus manibus hostiam, profert verba Consecrationis distinct [Hoc est corpus meum.] Missal. Rom. jussu. Pij Quinti Pont. edit. Rubrica Canonic, & Aquinas part. 3. qu. 60. Art. 8. Some say) of your Council of Florence, and Trent. Moreover you also allege, for this purpose, your public Catechism, and Roman Missal, both which were authorized by the Council of Trent, and Command of Pius Quintus then Pope (See the Marginals.) Whereupon it is, that you use to attribute such efficacy to the very words, pronounced with a Priestly intention, as to change all the Bread in the Baker's shop, and Wine in the Vintner's Cellar into the body and blood of Christ. And your *) Summa Angelica, tit. Eucharistia num. 25. de Pane. Sacerdos consecrans ex intentione Ecclesiae, unâ vice possit conficere tot hostias, quae sufficerent toti mundo, si necessitas esset Ecclesiae. Summa Angelica speaketh more largely concerning the bread (namely, if it were done conformably to the Intention of the Church) & two of your 1 ⚜ (1) Vasquez. qu. 74. Art. 3. Disp. 171. cap. 3. Veruntamen Sententia vera & communis est, Sacerdotem verè habere potestatem consecrandi quamcunque magnam quantitatem, sine termino, spectatâ solùm ipsà magnitudine secundùm rationem quantitatis. & Egidius Coninck. les. de Sacramentis. Si mille ingentes panes, & integrum vas vini consecraret, talis consecratio non est invalida. qu. 74. Art. 1. & 2. ⚜ jesuits concerning both kinds. CHALLENGE. But Christopherus your own Archbishop of Caesarea, in his Book dedicated to Pope Sixtus Quintus, and written professedly upon this Subject, cometh in, compassed about with a cloud of witnesses and Reasons, to prove g Christoph. de capite fontium Archiepisc. Caesarien. Tract. var. ad Sixtum Quint. Pont. Paris. 1586— Cap 1. Non solùm Thomas, sed omnes ante Cajetan. Theologi fatentur Christum, cùm benedixit, consecrasse. Nec ullum verbum (ut ait Alphons. à Castro) est apud Evangelistas, quo Consecratio significetur, praeter verbum [Benedixit] vel per verbum [Gratias egit] quod ibi pro eodem sumitur.— Cap. 5. Ad formam à Christo institutam observandum urget praeceptum imitationis, nempè, [Hoc facite]— D. jacobus in Missâ sua post recitationem verborum, viz. [Hoc est corpus meum] accedit ad benedictionem, quod est argumentum firmiss. non credidisse cum in sola verborum illorum prolatione Consecrationem fieri. Eodem modo Clemens in Missa suâ. Dionys. cap. 7. Hierarch. dicit, Preces esse effectrices Consecrationis. Ergo non solùm verborum istorum prolatio.— Lindanus probat ex justino, sine precibus Consecrationem nullam esse. A malcharius praef. in lib. de offic. Apostolos solâ benedictione consecrare consuevisse. Idem habet Rabanus.— & Cap. 6. Certum est, Graecos sustinere, non istis verbis, sed Sacerdotis benedictione, seu precatione Consecrationem fieri— Nullus ex antiquioribus Ecclesiae Doctoribus per sola quatuor verba Christi Consecrationem fieri dixit.— Irridet eos Scotus, qui supernaturalem virtutem, de novo creatam, verbis istis inesse putant,— Scotum sequuntur Scholasticorum turba, Landolfus, Pelbertus, Mart. Brotinus, Nic. Dorbellis, Pet. Tartaretus, Catharinus.— Lindanus de justino a●t, quòd negat Apostolos istis verbis usos ad consecrandam Eucharistam. De Basilio asserit, quod Priscos Patres dicit non fuisse contentos solis istis verbis. Greg. l. 7. Ep. 63. Morem fuisse Apostolis, ad solam Dominicam orationem oblationem consecrare. Hier. in Sophon. 3. Solennem orationem Sacerdotis precantis Eucharistiam facere. D. Ambros. Consecrationem incipere ait ex eo loco Canonis, viz. Quam oblationem tu, Deus, Benedictam, etc. Vis scire (inquit) quibus verbis coelestibus consecratur? accipe quae sint, Fac nobis hanc oblationem, etc. Idem tenet Odo Camerac.— etiam Bern. Audi quid Sacerdos in consecratione corporis Christi dicat, Rogamus (inquit) hanc oblationem benedictam fieri, etc. [And jest that any should object, that the Apostles did not observe in their narration the right order of Christ's Acts, He addeth;] Omnes nunc provoco Lectores ad Legendos Missales libros Liturg. jacobi, Clementis, Basilij, Chrysost. & Ecclesiae Latinae, & videbunt, nisi sibi occulos eruere velint, quàm constanter omnes uno ore asserant & testentur, Christum dando Eucharistiam Apostolis dixisse, [Hoc est corpus meum:] post verba [Accipite & manducate.] Hier. Epist. ad Hebdid. q. 2. Panem, quem fregit Christus, deditque Discipulis esse corpus Domini Salvatoris, dicens, [Accipite & comedite, Hoc est corpus meum.] Haec ille. Nota quod ait Christum dixisse ad Apostolos, non ad panem, [Hoc est corpus:] Ergò non per ista verba panem consecravit— Si mihi opponant authoritatem Pij Quinti in Catechis. qui post Conc. Trid. factus est, ego opponam illi non minoris authoritatis & sanctitatis, eruditionis autem nomine majoris, Innocentij tetti● sententiam oppositum sententis— Et dico, librum illum Catechismi non definiendo, sed magistraliter docendo factum esse. Hactenus ex Archiep. Caesarien. that the Consecration, used by our Saviour, was performed by that his Blessing by Prayer, which preceded the pronouncing of those words, [HOC EST CORPUS MEUM:] [This is my Body, etc.] To this purpose hec is bold to aver that Thomas Aquinas, and all Catholic; before Cajetane have confessed that Christ did consecrate in that his [BENEDIXIT, that is, He●h essed it.] And that Saint james and Dionyse the Areopagit● did not Consecrate only in the other words, but by Prayer. Then he assureth us that the Greek Churches maintained, that Consecration consisteth in Benediction, by Prayer, and not in the only repetition of the words aforesaid. After this he produceth your subtlest Schooleman Scotus, accompanied with divers others, who Derided those, that attributed such a supernatural virtue to the other form of words. After steppeth in your Lindan, who avoucheth justin (one of the ancientest of Fathers) as Denying that the Apostles consecrated the Eucharist in those words, [HOC EST, etc.] and affirming that Consecration could not be without Prayer. Be you but pleased to peruse the Marginals, and you shall further find alleged the Testimonies of Pope Gregory, Hierome, Ambrose, Bernard, and (to ascend higher) The Liturgies of Clement, Basil, chrysostom, and of the Roman Church itself; in gainsaying of the Consecration, by the only words of Institution, as you pretend. And in the end he draweth in two Popes, one contradicting the other, in this point; and hath no other means to stint their jar, but (whereas the authority of both is equal) to think it just to yield rather to the better learned of them both. Whosoever requireth more, may be satisfied by reading of the Book itself. ⚜ And yet we would be loath to pretermit the (confessed) Testimony of your jesuite Gordon, out of Saint Augustine, attesting that in this Sacrament 2 jac. Gordon. Scotus lib. Contr. 6. cap. 2. num. 6. Sacramentum hoc sit non per sumptionem, sed per consecrationem, quam alibi S. Aug. (Tom. 3. lib 3. de Trin. cap. 4) vocat precem mysticam, [His words;] Illud quod ex fructibus terrae acceptum, & prece mysticâ consecratum, ritè sumimus, etc. ⚜ The fruit of the earth is consecrated by Mystical Prayer. ⚜ It will not suffice to say, That you also use Prayer, in the Romish Liturgy: for the question is not merely of Praying, but where in the form of Benediction and Consecration more properly doth consist. Now none can say, that he consecrateth by that Prayer, which he believeth is not ordained for Consecration. We may furthermore take hold, by the way, of the Testification of M●. h Tra●tat. of the M●sse, pag. 105. Brerely a Romish Priest, who, out of Basil and chrysostom, (calling one part Calix benedictione sacratus) alloweth Benediction to have been the Consecration thereof. All this Army of Witnesses were no better than Meteors, or imaginary figures of battles in the air, if that the Answer of Bellarmine may go for warrant, to wit, that the only Pronunciation of these words [Hoc est corpus meum] imply in them (as he i Verb● haec [Hoc est corpus meum] pronunciata à Sacerdote, cùm intention con. cer●ndi Sacramentum, continent implic●è Invocationem Bellarm. lib 4 de Euch. c 1●. §. Qunt. arg. saith) in Invocation, or Prayer. Which words (as any man may perceive) Christ spoke not supplicatorily unto God, but declaratively unto his Apostles, accordingly as the Text speaketh, [He said unto them.] as is also well * See the former testimony, letter (g) observed by your foresaid Archbishop of Caesarea, out of Saint Hierome. But none of you (we presume) will dare to say that Christ did Invocate his Disciples. ⚜ This might Bellarmine have learned from Antiquity, if he had not rather affected to have been a Doctor over all others, than a Scholar to Primitive Fathers; who teach that Christ reveiled not unto any his words of * See 〈…〉 B. 7. Ch. 3 at the letters, (i. k.) Invocation by Prayer, wherewith he consecrated: which they would not have said, if they had judged these words [THIS IS MY BODY] to imply in them an Invocation. ⚜ These words therefore are of Declaration, and not of Invocation. Which (now) Romish Doctrine of Consecrating, by reciting these words [This is my Body, etc.] your Divines of Colen k Vehemens prorsus insania est, quòd nunc arbitrantur se consecrare hoc Sacramentum sine prece, quam Canonem appellamus, absque invocatione super dona, sed tantùm recitatione verborum, etc. Talis recitatio non est Consecratio.— Aliter profectò erat in Ecclesia orientali, & occidentali.— Hactenùs in Ecclesia doctu●● fuit, in prece, quâ Sacerdos sic invocat [Hanc Oblationem quaesumus, Domine, acceptab●le facere digneris, &c, Antididag. de Cath. Relig. per Canon. Eccles. Coloniens. Tract●t. de Missa, pag. 100 §. An sine prece. have judged to be a Fierce madness, as being repugnant both to the Eastern and Western Churches. But we have heard divers Western Authors speak, give leave to an Eastern Archbishop to deliver his mind. l Quod autem ille sermo Domini sufficiat ad sanctificationem, nullus neque Apostolus, nec Doctor dixisse cernitur. Nic. Cabosil. Explicat. Euch. cap 29. Latini obijciunt Chrysostomum dicentem; Quemadmodùm opifex sermo dicens [crescite & multiplicamini] semel à Deo dictus perpetuò operatur, etc. Resp. An ergò post illud dictum Dei [Crescite] nullo adhuc opus habemus adjumento, nullâ prece, nullo matrimonio? Ibid. No Apostle, or Doctor is known to affirm (saith he) those sole words of Christ to have been sufficient for Consecration. So he, three hundred years since, satisfying also the Testimony of chrysostom, objected to the contrary. ⚜ This Archbishop you 3 ⚜ Possevin. les. Apparat. Tit. Nicolaus Cabassilas Archiepiscopus Thessalonicensis, vir clarus fuit. grant was Famous in his time, living about the year 1300. to whom (as you know) the Bishop of Ephesus and the Patriarch of Constantinople did accord, saying that 4 Suarez in 3. Thom. Disp. 58. Sect. 3. Nicolaus Cabassilas & Marcus Episcopus Ephesinus, de Consecratione, & Hieremias Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus dicunt non consici hoc Sacramentum statim ac illa verba proferuntur, sed post quasdam orationes Ecclesiae. ⚜ This Sacrament is not made assoon as these words are uttered, but afterwards, by certain prayers of the Church. And why these Greek Fathers should not rather resolve us of the ancient Greek tenor of Consecration, than any of your late Italian or Latin Doctors, who will make question? As for your other Greek Patriarch Bessarion, who was made Cardinal by your Church, on purpose, that he might make some opposition unto his fellows, We make no other account of him than of an Hireling. In brief, None of the great multitude of Fathers, who have required the use of Prayer, besides these words, [This is my body] did thereby testify that they held these to be words of Invocation. ⚜ As miserable and more intolerable is the Answer of Others, who * See the Testimony before at the letter (g) towards the end. said that the Evangelists have not observed the right order of Christ his actions: as if he had first said, [This is my body] by way of Consecration, and after commanded them to [Take and eat.] Which Answer your own m Alij dixerunt, Christum his verbis semel dictis consecràsse, sed Evangelistas non seruâ le ordinem in re● gestae narratione. Sed cùm omnes Evangelistae conveniunt in hoc, ut dicant, primùm Christum accepisse panem, deindè benedixisse, terriò fregisse, & tùm dedisse, dicendo [Hoc est corpus meum] videntur non casu, sed consilio Evangelistae rem marrâsse, ut gesta est. Mald●n. les. Disp. de Euch. q. 7. p. 133. [And among them that do invert the order, is Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 15. p. 295.] Alij docuerunt, Ch●stum haec verba [Hoc est corpus meum, etc. his reperivisse: quae sententia est falsa, quia nullâ conjectu●à probari potest, Id. ibid. jesuite hath branded with the note of Falsity: yea, so false it is, that (as is further * See above lit. (g.) avouched) all ancient Liturgies, aswell Greek as Latin, constantly held, that in the order of the tenor of Christ his Institution it was first said [Take ye] before that he said [This is my Body.] Lastly, your other lurking-hole is as shameful as the former, where, when the judgement of Antiquity is objected against you, requiring that Consecration be done directly by Prayer unto God: n lustin. Apol. 2. docet, Oratione confici Eucharistiam Iren. lib. 4. c. 5. Invocatione nominis Dei. Cyril. Hier. Catech. mystag. 3. & 4. Invocatione Spiritus Sancti. Hieron. Epistol. ad Evag. Sacerdotum precibus. August. semper ferè piece mysticâ (ut lib. 3. c. 4. de Trin.) Sacramentum fieri asserit.— Respondetur, Primò quòd veteres non curabant passim exactè declarate & precisè quibus verbis conceptis consecraretur: licet Ministris secretore institutione ea tradidisse constat. Alan. l. 1. de Euch. c. 17. p 310. [To whom might be added Cyprian de coena Domini, Calix benedictione sacratus.] you answer that some Fathers did use such speeches in their Sermons to the people, but in their secret instruction of Priests did teach otherwise. Which Answer (besides the falsity thereof) We take to be no better than a reproach against Antiquity; and all one as to say, that those venerable Witnesses of Truth would profess one thing in the Cellar, and proclaim the contrary on the housetop. It were to be wished, that when you frame your Answers, to direct other men's Consciences, you would first satisfy your own, especially being occupied in soules-businesses. We conclude. Seeing that Form (as all learning teacheth) giveth Being unto all things; therefore your Church, albeit she use Prayer, yet erring in her judgement concerning the perfect manner and Form of Consecration of this Sacrament, how shall she be credited in the materials? wherein she will be found, aswell as in this, to have Transgressed the same Injunction of Christ, [DO THIS.] Nevertheless, this our Conclusion is not so to be interpreted, as (harken o It was Mr Brereley his error, Liturg. p. 101. in alleging Irenaeus lib. 5. c. 1. Quandò mixtus calix, & fractus panis percepit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia. [Here by verbum Dei, is not meant the words of Hoc est, etc. but Prayer, and the word of Blessing, commanded by the Word of Christ, who blessedit, and commanded his Church, saying, Do this: as appeareth by. Iren. lib. 4. c. 34. when he saith, Panis percipiens vocationem (for Invocationem) Dei, non est communis panis.] In the next place Ambrose l. 4. c. 4. de Sacr. Consecratio igitur quibus verbis fit? Domini jesus, etc. Ergò ●ermo Christi conficit hoc Sacramentum, nempe is, quo facta sunt omnia, jussit, & factum est. [This is the Allegation; whereas if he had taken but a little pains, to have read the Chapter following, he should have received Saint Ambrose his plain Resolution; that they meant the words of Prayer. Vis scire quibus verbis coelestibus consecratur? Accipe verba, Dicit Sacerdos, Fac nobis hanc Oblationem acceptam, etc. Then he proceedeth to the Repetition of the whole institution, as the compliment of Consecration, in the words [Take, eat, This is my body:] but not only in these words, [This is my body.] We see then that the Latin Church had this form (Fac) even as the Greek had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: both in Prayer, but neither of both without reciting the form of Institution.] Mr. Brerely) to exclude, out of the words of this Celebration, the Repetition and pronunciation of these words [This is my Body: and, This is my Blood of the new Testament.] Fare be this from us, because we hold them to be essentially belonging to the Narration of the Institution of Christ; and are used in the Liturgy of our Church: for although they be not words of Blessing and Consecration, (because not of Petition, but of Repetition) yet are they Words of Direction; and, withal, Significations and Testifications of the mystical effects thereof. ⚜ A Vindication, against the (possible) adverse Conceits of Some. For a further manifestation, harken you unto that which is written; * 1. Tim. 4. 4. Every Creature of God is good, if it be sanctified with the word of God, and with Prayer. Wherein we find a double acception of Sanctification; the one of Ordination, by The word of God: the other of Benediction, namely, by Prayer. For example, The eating of Swine's flesh is sanctified to the use of a Christian, first by Ordination, because the word of God in the new Testament hath taught us the lawful use of Swine's flesh: and secondly by Benediction by Prayer, or giving of thanks, in which respect it is, that the Apostle calleth the one part the Cup of Blessin. 1 Cor. 10. 16. Both of these are to be found in our Sacramental food, wherein we have the Sanctification thereof, both by the Word of Christ in the tenor of his first Institution, He took bread, etc. adding [Do this:] as also by public blessing in Prayer, which is more properly called Consecration. And although in our Domestical feasts, the second Course is blessed in the grace, which was said upon the first service; so the second supply of Bread and Wine (if it shall inordinately so happen) may not altogether be denied to be consecrated by the blessing pronounced upon the first: (even as the Sanctifying of the Sheafe of Corn, was the hallowing of the whole field.) Notwithstanding, our Church hath cautelously ordained, that the words of Institution [He took bread, etc.] be applied to every oblation of new Bread and Wine, for accommodation-sake, as they are referred in our Liturgy; wherein they are necessarily joined together with the words of Prayer and Benediction. Therefore, where you shall find in the Fathers the words of Christ's Institution, called Consecration; 5 ⚜ Chrys. Tom. 3 Hom. 30. dè Proditione Iud● [joc est Corpus me●●.] rubus verbis res productae Consecrantur. and Anthros. lib ● de Sacram. c. 4. Verba Christi faciunt hoc Sacramentum. Ibid. c. 5. Vis scire quibus verbis Secramentum consecratur? Sacerdos dicit: Fac, Deus, hanc nobis oblationem. [Then he repeateth the words of Institution.] (as it is in chrysostom and Ambrose) it must be understood as joined with Prayer, as the Benediction itself, which hath been * See more in the Margin above, in the beginning of this Section. ⚜ already copiously confessed; as well as it is furthermore acknowledged by your jesuit, that 6 Cressollius' les. lib 1. Mystag. cap. 19 Diaconi vocati sunt Consecrantes in gestis S. Laurentii in hunc modum, [Cui commisisti Domanici sanguinis consecrationem.] Illa etiam vox, Consecratio, reperiebatur apud S. Ambros. lib. 1. offic. c. 41. Qui locus non esse mendosus existimandus est, quia Ambrosius summa side narrationem suam texuerat ex acts S. Laurentij; neque hîc Consecratio propriè et definitè sumitur, quasi Diaconus hostiam consecraret, sed ex communi Ecclesiae usu totam sacram actionem significat. Sometime the whole sacred Action was called Consecration, insomuch that the Deacon, who doth not meddle with the words of Consecration, is notwithstanding called a Consecrator in Saint Ambrose. So he. ⚜ The second Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass; is in their Contradicting the sense of the next words of Institution, [HE BROKE IT] SECT. VI HE broke it.] So all the Evangelists do relate. Which Act of Christ plainly noteth that he Broke the Bread, for distributing of the same unto his Disciples. And his Command is manifest, in saying as well in behalf of this, as of the rest, [Do this.] Your Priest indeed Breaketh one Host into three parts, upon the Consecration thereof: but our Question is of Fraction or Breaking, for Distribution to the people. The contrary Canon of the (now) Roman Mass. p Ecce, in coena Christus fregit panem: & tamen Ecclesia Catholica modò non frangit, sed integrum dat. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 34. §. Name. p. 275. BE HOLD (say You) Christ broke it; but the Catholic Church (meaning the Roman) now doth not break it, but giveth it whole. And this you pretend to do for reverence sake, Lest (as your q A multo tempore non usurp●●r fractio, sed singuli panes seu minores hostiae consecrantur, ad evitandum periculum decidentium micatum. Lorin. Ies. in Act. 2. 42. jesuite saith) some crumbs may fall to the ground. Neither is there any Direction to your Priest to Break the Bread, either before or after Consecration, in your Roman Mass; especially that, which is distributed to the people. CHALLENGE; But now see (we pray you) the absolute Confession of your own Doctors, whereby is witnessed, first, that Christ broke the bread into twelve parts, r Fregit.] Nimirùm in to● 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, nun 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 tàm Graeca quàm Latina, quarum Liturgiae, etsi in verbis aliquandò discrepent, certè omnes in eo conveniunt, quòd parts 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. Archie●. Caesar. var. Tract. p. 27. according to the number of Communicants. Secondly, that this Act of Breaking of bread is such a principal 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 always observed the same Ceremony of Breaking the bread, aswell in the Greek as in the Latin (and consequently the Roman) Church. Fourthly, that this Breaking of the Bread is a Symbolical Ceremony, betokening not only the Crucifying of Christ's body upon the Cross, but also (in the common participation thereof) representing the Union of the Mystical body of Christ, which is his Church, Communicating together of one loaf: that as many grains in one loaf, so all faithful Communicants are united to one Head Christ, as the Apostle teacheth, 1. Cor. 10. thus, [The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? for we being many are one bread.] We add, as a most special Reason, that this Breaking it, in the distribution thereof, is to apply the representation of the Body Crucified, and the Blood shed to the heart and soul of every Communicant: That as the Bread is given Broken to us, so was Christ Crucified for us. Yet, nevertheless, your Church contrarily professing, that although Christ did break 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 do not this. A SECOND CHALLENGE. AS for that truly-called Catholic Church, you yourselves do grant unto us, that by Christ his first Institution, by the Practice of the Apostles, by the ancient and universal Custom of the whole Church of Christ, aswell Greek as Latin, the Ceremony of Breaking bread was continually observed. Which may be unto us more than a probable Argument, that the now Church of Rome doth falsely usurp the Title of CATHOLIC, for the better countenancing and authorising of her novel, Customs, although never so repugnant to the will of Christ and Custom of the truly-called Catholic Church. Howbeit we would not be so understood, as to think it an Essential Ceremony either to the being of a Sacrament, or to the Sacramental Administration; but yet requisite, for the Commandment and Example-sake. In the next place, to your Pretence of Not-breaking, because of Reverence, We say; Hem, scilicet, Quanti est sapere! As if Christ and his Apostles could not foresee that your Necessity, (namely) that by the Distributing of the Bread, and by Breaking it, some little crumbs 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 than Sacrifice. For, indeed, true Reverence is the mother of Obedience; else is it not Devotion, but a mere derision of that Command of Christ, [Do this.] The third Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass; contradicting the sense of the next words of Christ's Command, viz. [— GAVE IT UNTO THEM.] SECT. V IT followeth in the Canon of Christ his Mass, [And he gave it unto them;] even to THEM, to whom he said, [Take ye, eat ye.] By which plurality of persons is excluded all private Massing; forasmuch as our High Priest Christ jesus (who in instituting and administering of this Sacrament would not be alone) said hereof, as of the other Circumstances, [Do this.] The Contrary Canon of the (now) Roman Mass. This holy Synod (saith your a Miss●s illas, in quibus solus Sacerdos sacramentaliter communicate— probat atque adeò commendat. Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. cap 6. Council of Trent) doth approve and commend the Masses, wherein the Priest doth Sacramentally communicate alone. So your Church. CHALLENGE. But who shall justify that her Commendation of the alone-communicating of your Priest? which we may justly condemn by the liberal b Sunt qui in Miss● communionem recruirunt: sic, faceor: à Christo institutum fuit, & ita olim fieri consu vit. Eras. Concord. Eccles. vers. sinem. [Act. 2. Erant communicantes in Oratione & communicatione fractionis Panis] it est, in Eucharistia non-minùs quàm oratione. Lorinus Ies. in Act. 2. 46. Odo Cameracens. in Canonem seribit, Missas solitarias antiquitùs in usu Ecclesiae non fuisse.— Et hunc fuisse antiquum Ecclesiae Romanae morem, ut plures de eodem Sacrificio participent, doctissimi quique agnoscunt.— Itáque hac nostra aetate Rev. Pater & vir doctiss. johan. Hoffme●sterus his verbis suam sententiam declaravit. Res, inquit, clamat, tàm in Graeca quàm in Laetitia Ecclesia, non solùm Sacerdotem sacrificantem, sed & reliquos Praesbyteros & Diaconos, necnon & reliquam plebem, aut saltem plebis aliquam partem communicâsse, quod quomodò cessavit mirandum est.— Et aliquos cùm Sacerdote adfuisse, qui sacrificia laudis offerebant, & Sacramentorum participabant, Canonis (Romani) verba manifestè significant: viz. Quot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctum corpus & sanguinem filij tui sumpserimus, etc. Item, Prosint nobis divina Sacrificia, quae sumpsimus. Teste G. Cassandro Consult. Art 24. pag. 216, 217,— 223. etc. Confessions of your own Doctors; who grant, first, that this is not according to the Institution of Christ, saying in the Plural, [UNTO THEM.] Secondly, nor to the practice of the Apostles, who were Communicating together in prayer and breaking of bread, Act. 2. 46. That is (say they) aswell in the Eucharist as in Prayer. Thirdly, Nor to the ancient Custom of the whole Church, both Greek and Roman. Fourthly, c Idem joh. Hoffmeisterus; Quomodò (inquit) ordo antiquus cessaverit, mirandum est, & ut bonus ille usus revocetur laborandum Nunc verò postquàm communionis ordo à nobis observari desijt, idque per negligentiam tàm plebis quàm Sacerdotum, ut ait Hospin.— Ex Canone quodam Conc. Nannetensis, Sacerdos solus Missam celebrate vetatur: absurdum enim est ut dicat, [Dominus vobiscum: &, Sursum corda: &, Gratias agimus Deo Domino nostro] cùm nullus est qui respondeat: aut ut dicat [Oremus] cùm nullus adest qui secum oret.— Et simile D●cretum reperitur in Concilio Papiensi, ut nullus Presbyter Missam celebrare praesumat— Curio autem Canon noster [Speaking of the form of the Roman Moss] alijs in superstitionem, alijs in contemptum adductus sit, in causa potissimum est mutatio prisci ritus. Georg Cassand. quo sup. neither to Two Counsels, the one called Nanetense, the other Papiense, decreeing against Private Mass. Fiftly, nor to the very names of the true d Act. 2. 42. [Erant communicantès, etc.] Vsus suit quondam frequentandae quotidiè Eucharistiae, non minùs quàm Orationis,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sumitur pro usu istius Sacramenti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Eadem est vis etiam vocis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pro congregatione fidelium, ut interpretatur Basilius. Lorin. Ies. loco supra-citato. Sacramental Mass: which, by way of Excellency, was sometime called [Synaxis] signifying (as Saint Basil saith) the Congregation of the faithful: sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Communion, or Communicating: and sometimes the Prayers, used in every holy Mass, were called [Collectae] Collects, because the people used to be collected to the celebration of the Mass itself. Sixtly, Nor to the very * See above at (b) Canon of the now Roman Mass, saying in the Plural [Sumpsimus] we have received. And thereupon (seventhly) repugnant to the Complaints of your own men, against your Abuse; who calling the joint Communion, instituted by Christ, the Legitimate Mass; do wonder how your Priests sole-Communicating ever crept into the Church; and also deplore the contempt, which your private Mass hath brought upon your Church. Hitherto (see the Marginals) from your own Confessions. Let us add the Absurdity of the Commendation of your Council of Trent, in saying, We commend the Priest's communicating alone. A man may indeed (possibly) talk alone, fret alone, play the Traitor alone: but this Communicating alone, without any other, is no better Grammar, than to say, that a man can confer alone, conspire alone, contend, or covenant alone. Calvin saith indeed of spiritual Eating, which may be without the Sacrament (as you also g Qui dicunt Christum manducari spiritualiter à fidelibus posse, etiamsi Sacramentaliter non manducetur, atque eo cibo animam all, vera quidem asseiunt. Acosta. les. de procur. Indorum Salut. c. 7. p. 532. confess) that a Faithful man may feed alone of the Body and Blood of Christ: But our dispute is of the Corporal and Sacramental Communicating thereof. e Collectae, per figuram, dicebantue Preces, ab ipsa celebratione Missae, quùm ad eam populus colligebatur. Bellar. l. 2. de Missa cap. 16. §. Post salutationem. f Generaliter autem dicendum est, quôd illa est legitima Missa, in qua sunt Sacerdotes, Respondens, Offerens, atque Communicans, sicut ipsa precum compositio evidenti ratione demonstrat. Durand. l. 4. c. 1. pag. 174. Walfridus Strabo, etiam aliqui antiquiores Scholasticorum Interpretes solam legitimam Missam fatentur, cui intersuit Sacerdos, Respondentes, Offerentes, atque Communicantes Cossand. quo supra. * See above at the letter (a) A SECOND CHALLENGE. Against the former Prevarication, condemning this Roman Custom by the Roman Mass itself. We make bold yet again to condemn your Custom of Private Mass, and consequently the Commendation given thereof by the Council of Trent. For by the Canon of your Mass, wherein there are interlocutory speeches between Priest and People, at the celebration of this Sacrament, the Priest saying [Dominus vobiscum: The Lord be with you;] and the People answering the Priest, and saying [And with thy Spirit] your Claudius' Espencaeus, sometimes a Parisian Doctor (one commended by h Claudij Espencae● Theologi Parisiensis Tractatus de utraque M●ssa: q●arum alteram publicam, alteram privatam appellant. 〈◊〉 Gilberti. Theologi Parisiensis. Genebrard. Genebrard for his Treatise upon this same Subject of the Private Mass) albeit he agreeth, with the execrable Execration and Anathema of the Council of Trent, against them that hold Solitary Masses to be unlawful; yet after the expense of much paper, to prove that some private Mass must needs have anciently been, because Primitively Mass was celebrated almost in all Churches every day; and that Saint * See below at the letter (p) chrysostom did complain of the absence of the people: yet coming to determine of the point, i Haec & similia pro privatatum Mislarum usu & vetustate probabil●● quidem sunt, sed minus ●perta, nec n. qui oblatum dicunt, communicatum negant, etc. Espen. Tract. de utraque Missa fol. 226. [where also had been objected the complaint of Chrysoslome, so. fol 222.] This Reason (saith he) is only probable, but not evident; for although they affirm a daily celebration of the Mass, yet do they not deny a daily Communion. Afterwards he seeketh the Original and beginning of private Masses out of private k Monachos, plus alioqui jam satis gravatos invid â primos privatàrum Missarum Authores fuisse, quida●● faciunt. Espenc. ibid. fol. 227. Non est quòd ex publicarum Missarum Monachis cùm interdictione colligamus Privatarum ab●eis inventionem. Ib. fol. 228. Monasteries: yet, not able to satisfy himself there, he cometh at length to debate a Controversy, wherewith many were then perplexed, to wit, how it could be said by a Priest, being alone, [The Lord be with you;] or Answer be made to, and by the said Priest, being then alone, [And with thy Spirit?] To this end he propoundeth many l Dominus vobiscum. etc. Q●arè salutatio non Cleri modò sed & plebis fuit. Ex horum verborum occasione mota olim jam tanta quaestio, quâ non alia sit in hodiernis de religione controversijs gravior aut magis agitata.— Gratianus respondet, prè credi, Angelorum in Missa praesentiam, et nobis orantibus assistentiam: ad Angelos igitur, cum deessent homines, salucationem hîc videtur retulisse. Ecquò enim aliò melius referret? An vel ad lapides? ut videtur ante illum Odo Cameracens. Episc. ad id Canonis [Et omnium circumastantium] cùm postea, inquit, mos inolevit solitarias Missas, et maximè in coenobijs fieri, ubi non habeant quam pluraliter Collectam salutent, nec plures mutare possunt salutationes, convertunt se ad Ecclesiam, dicentes, se Ecclesiam in Ecclesia salutare, et in corpore totum corpus colloqui. Excruerat et ante hos Cardinalium Decanum à fratribus Eremitis proposita quaestio, utrum singulares in cellulis, et oran●es juxta morem Ecclesiasticum, sibimet dicere deberent [Dominus vobiscum] quando nemo sit qui respondeat? quidam etiam inter se sic rationabantur, Hoc lapidibus, aut tabulis dicendum. Respondet peculiari ●pusculo, quod et ideò inscriptum, Dominus vobiscum.— Ca 4. In his docuit servandam Ecclesiae consuetudinem, et hanc Sacerdotalem salutationem nec per traditionem permutari licere. Ecclesia siquidem Christiana tanta charitatis inter se compage invicem connectitur, ut in pluribus una, et in singulis sit per mysterium tota; et unaquaeque electa anima per Sacramenti mysterium plena esse credatur Ecclesiâ Thus fare Espen. uo sup. fol. 210. 213. & Gers. Tract. Quaestion. cum. Resp. Quià Sacerdos gerit vicem populi. Answers, which I refer to your Choice; whether you will believe, with Gratian, that the words [Dominus vobiscum: The Lord be with you] spoken by the Priest, being alone, may be thought to have been spoken to Angels: or, with ●ameracensis, unto Stones: or, with the Heremites in their Cells, unto Forms and Stools: or else, with the Dean of the Cardinals, teaching any Eremite being alone, to say, [The Lord be with you] as spoken to himself. All which imaginary fooleries are so unworthy the Conceptions of but reasonable men, that we may fear to be held inconsiderate, If we should endeavour to confute them. Only we can say no less, than that if the Apostle did condemn them, who speak with strange languages in the public assembly (although they that spoke understood themselves) because that in such a Case * 1. Cor. 14. 23. If (saith he) there be none to interpret, and there come in an Ignorant or Infidel observing this, will he not say, you are mad? how much more extreme Madness must we judge this to be, where men either talk to themselves, or else (as if they were metamorphosed into the things, whereunto they speak) unto forms, stones, stools, and the like? For Conclusion, hear the said Dean of the Roman Cardinals (from whom a m Sacerdos dicit [Pax omnibus vobis:] quoniam autem pro se-invicem precari est praeceptum Apostolicum, propterea populus quoque ei ipsam pacem precatur, dicens, [Et cùm spiritu tuo.] Nic. Cabas. Arch. Thessaly. Ann. Dom. 1350. Exposit. Liturg. cap. 25. Greek Archbishop shall not descent) speak reason, and withal tell you that the Correspondency of speech, used betwixt: Priest and People, was to unite the hearts of both Priest and People together. We say, with him, to unite them, not (as you do) to separate People from Priest by your solitary Masses; and yet to confound their speech by your [Dominus vobiscum.] And if this may not prevail with you, yet methinks the authority of Pope Gregory, surnamed the Great, might command your belief. He, upon the form of the Roman service, by an interchangeable speech between Priest and People, concludeth that n Greg. Papa. lib. Capitulari c. 7. Sacerdos Missam solus nequaquam celebret; quià sicut is●a celebrari non potest sine salutatione Sacerdotis, et responsione plebis: ità nequaquàm ab uno debet celebrari, esse n. debent qui ei circumstent, quos ille salutet, ad reducendum in memoriam illud Dominicum [Vbicunque sunt duo aut tres congregati.] Teste Cassandio Liturg. fol. 96. Therefore the Priest should not celebrate Mass alone. And yet behold a Greater Pope than he, even Soter, more ancient by 400. years, and also a Martyr, o Soter B. of Rome An. 170. [who suffered Martyrdom, made this Decree for celebrating of Mass:] Vt nullus Presbyterorum praesumat, nisi duobus praesentibus, & ipse tertius habeatur: quià cùm pluraliter ibi dicitur [Dominus vobiscum] et illud in secretis [Orate pro me] apertissimè convenit, ut ipsius respondeatur salutations. Witness M. Harding Art. 1. Divis. 2●. apud juellum. decreeing, as most convenient, (for Answer unto the Priest's vobiscum, and Orate) that there be two at least besides the Priest. An * One that of late writ to a Popish Lady, not discovering his name. Anonymus, not long since, would needs persuade his Reader, that by [Vobiscum] was meant the Clerk of the Parish. But why was it than not said, Dominus tecum, The Lord be with thee? O, this forsooth, was spoken to the Clerk in civility, according to the ordinary Custom of entitling singular persons in the plural number: and this Answer he called Salving of a Doubt. But any may reply, that if it were good manners in the Priest, to call upon the Clerk with [Vobiscum] in the plural number, for civility sake, it must then be rusticity in you● Church, to teach your Clerk to answer your Priest [Et cum Spiritu tuo: And with thy Spirit.] And again, the answer is impertinent, for where the Priest is found thus parling with the Clerk, he cannot be said to be Alone. And so the answer of this man must be indeed not Salving, but (as the rest of his manner of answering) a Quack-salving rather, and a mere Delusion. ⚜ Which also the end of the first Institution of these words [The Lord be with you] doth furthermore declare, which was (as is 7 Microlog. [Don inus vobiscum, et cùm spiritu tuo] etc. Notandum ex his verbis semper deberi esse plures respondentes, et unum salutantem. Et Hugo de S. victore ait sic dici, ut reddat populum attentum. Teste Cassa in Lepnri●urg Cap. 31. confessed) to make the People more attentive to their Prayers. ⚜ A THIRD CHALLENGE. Against the same Custom. A Custom Commendable, say your Fathers of Trent; Condemnable, say we, even from your own Consciences, because you were never hitherto able to produce either any Commendable, yea or Tolerable example, expressly recorded within the many Volumes of Antiquity, of any celebration of the Eucharist, without a Communion; no, not in that only objected place of p Chrysost. in Ephes. Hom 3. Frustr● habetur quotidiana oblatio, frustrà stamus ad altar, cùm nemo est qui participet. Ob. à Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa, cap 9 [Not that in these daily Celebrations None at all did communicate with the Priest: for he was accompanied, at least, with some Ecclesiastickes, as is employed in the words, (Stamus ad Altar) And it is no rare Hyperbale in chrysostom to use the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for, a Paucity.] chrysostom, whose Speech is not a Grant, that absolutely All were absent from his administration of the Eucharist: but certainly it is a vehement Invective against all wilful Absents. So fare was he from allowing, much more from Commending Communicating alone, who elsewhere, against such as neglected to Communicate with the poor, taking his Argument from the example of Christ, That Supper ( q Chrysost. Illa coena (Christi) communiter omnes accumbentes habuit. Tom. 4. in illum locum Pauli; Oportet Haereses esse. 1 Corinth. 11. 19 saith he) was common to All. The very Argument of Saint Hierome, saying (yet more obligatorily) r Hieron. Coena Domini dicitur, quia Dominus in coena tradidit Sacramenta. Dominica coena debet omnibus esse communis. In 1 Cor. cap. 11. The Lord's Supper ought to be common to All. Such Reverencers were the Primitive Fathers of the Ordinances of Christ. And as touching * [For again, if it should be strictly racked, so should he himself not have participated, and then was it no Mass at all. But Chrysostome's Rhecorique, in hyperbolising, is noted especially by your Senensis; as may be observed in Chrysostome's like Invective against the carnal security of men, even in the word, Nemo: Nemo divina sapit: nemo terrena contemnit: nemo ad coelum attendit. Hom. 12. ad Heb. Now, none is so senseless as to think hereby that chrysostom thought himself absolutely to be wholly alone.] [Nemo, No man] in the testimony of chrysostom, it is known to be taken restrainedly, for Few: and so s [Frustrà stamus, etc.] Ex quibus verbis apparet, in his quotidianis Missis folos ferè Ministros & Clericos, paucos verò aut nullos à populis communicâsse. G. Cassander de Liturg, Chrysost. [Yea and Espenseus durst not rely upon this Testimony.] acknowledged by yourselves in the place objected. ⚜ If all these premises cannot persuade you, we shall present unto you one, who will command your consent, Pope Innocent the third. 8 Innocent. 3. the ossic. Missae. lib. 2. cap. 20. Statutum est autem in sacris Canonibus, ut nullus Presbyterorum Missarum solennia celebrare praesumet, nisi duobus praesentibus, sibique respondentibus, ipse tertius habeatur; quia cùm pluraliter dicitur ab eo [Dominus vobiscum] & illud in secretis [Orate pro me] apertissimè convenit, istius salutationi respondeatur à pluribus. It is decreed (saith he) that because it is said by the Priest in the plural number [The Lord be with you] and also [pray for me] that none presume to celebrate without two, besides the Priest, to make answer to these Salutations. So he, even as you have heard Pope Soter to have said before him. The fourth Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass, contradicting the sense of the next words, [— SAID UNTO THEM.] SECT. VI IN the aforesaid Canon of Christ his Mass it followeth, [And he said unto Them.] Christ Saying, or speaking to his Disciples, by commanding them to Take, etc. did, doubtless, so speak, that they might hear his Command; to wit, in an audible voice. Which done, he further commanded, concerning this same Circumstance, jointly with the rest, saying, [Do this.] The contrary Canon of the Roman Mass. But your late Council of a Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiae Romanae ritum, quo submissâ voce pars Canonis, & verba Consecra tionis proferuntur, damnandum esse, Anathema sit. Concil. Trident. Sess. 22. Can. 9 Trent pronounceth him Anthema, who shall condemn her Custom of the Priest, uttering the words of Consecration in a low voice. Whereby (saith your b Quibus verbis Conc. verba Consecrationis altâ voce proferri prohibuit. Ledesima les. de Script, quavis ling. non legend. pag. 161. In inclinatione Sacerdotis, & oscultatione altaris, thurificatione secunda expletâ, Sacerdos se convertens ad populum, sub silentio dicit [Dominus vobiscum:] Et mox voce aliquantulum elevatâ dicit, [Orate pro me, fratres.] Durand. Ration. l. 4. c. 32. initio. jesuite) it forbiddeth the words of Consecration to be delivered in a loud and audible voice. So they. CHALLENGE. DO you see what your Church doth profess? See also, we pray you, notwithstanding, what your own Doctors are brought to c Christus altâ voce pronuntiabat verba illa [Hoc est corpus meum] ut audirentur ab Apostolis. Bellar. lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 12. §. Quod attinet.— In Ecclesia Orientali altâ voce recitari consuevisse non negamus Idem ibid. §. Respondo.— Certè ex Graecorum Liturgijs invenies tàm in Missa jacobi Apostoli, & Clementis Romani, quàm in illis quae editae sunt à Basilio & Chrysostomo, quòd ubi Sacerdos protulisset verba Consecrationis tam post panis, quàm post vini Consecrationem, populus acclamabat dicendo, Amen Idem etiam confirmatur ex Leone, Augustino, Ambrosio, & alijs multis Patribu●. Salmero●. les. Com. in 1 Cor. 14. Disp. 22. p. 188. Moris' enim fuit Ecclesiae primitivae, ut constat ex Leone magno, & justino Martyr, ut verbis Consecrationis altâ voce prolatis, populus responderet, Amen. Idem Tom. 9 Tract. 13. pag. 90. Col. 2. confess (namely) first, that The example of Christ and his Apostles is against this uttering those words in a low and inaudible voice. Secondly, that The same Custom was controlled by the practice of of the whole Church of Christ, both in the East part thereof (from the testimonies of ancient Liturgies, and Fathers) & in the ancient Roman Church, by the witnessing of two Popes; in whose time the People hearing the words of Consecration pronounced, did answer thereunto, AMEN. Thirdly, that the same Innovation was much misliked by the Emperor justinian, who severely commanded by his Edict (as d Novellà Constit. 123. justiniani severè praecipitur Sacerdotibus, ut in Eucharistiae celebratione verba clarâ voce pronuntientur, ut à populo exaudiantur.— [Which made Bellarmine to blaster after this manner:] Admetus Novellam responderi possit imprimis, ad Imperatorem non pe●●inere de ritu sacrificandi leges far: proinde non multum referre quid ipse sanxerit. Bellar. l. 2. de Missa. c. 12. §. ad Novellam. you know) that The Priest should pronounce the words with a clear voice, that they may be heard of the people. Whose authority you peremptorily contemn, as though it did not belong to an Emperor to make Laws in this kind. But forasmuch as the King of Kings, and the High Priest of Priefls, the Son of God, hath said of this, as of the other such Circumstances, [Do this,] who are you, that you should dare to contradict this Injunction, by the practice of any Priest, saying and speaking (yet not as Christ did, unto Them) but only to himself, without so much as any pretence of Reason, e Vtile est, ad reverentiam tanti Sacramenti (ut Basil. rectè docet lib. de Spiritu Sancto c. 27.) & multum confert ad dignitatem & reverentiam mysteriorum, ut non assuescant homines eadem saepiùs audire: vel potiùs ut non offerrentur ad aures vulgi. Et in Liturgijs Graecis Basilij & Chrysostomi praescribunt quaedam sub silentio dicenda.— In Liturgijs Chrysostomi Sacerdos orat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod non significat moderatâ vocae, sed planè secretò. In Latinis Liturgijs, Innocentio teste, praecipua pars Missae secreta erat. Bellar quo supra. [We oppose. 1. Never were any words held secret, so, as not to be heard of them that were baptised, and were allowed to be Communicants. Basil speaketh of the rites of Baptism to be kept secret, but to whom? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and how secret? by silence of voice in the Congregation? no, but, Non convenit circumferri, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And of what? of words? nay, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Neither doth Chrysostome's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor Innocentius his Secretò infer any more than such a Service, in respect of them that were not to be partakers of the Communion. Secondly, we oppose concerning the point in question; that the words of Institution were in those times pronounced with an audible voice both in the Greek an Latin Churches (as hath been confessed, and their own Writings do verify:) Bafil. Liturg. Sacerdos benedicens panem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— altâ voce dicens; Accipite, Hoc est corpus meum. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 15. Hom. 40. Vobis, qui mysterijs estis initiati (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) volo in memoriam revocate eam dictionem, etc.] secundùm Graecam Edit. which might not likewise have moved the ancient Church of Christ, both Greek and Roman, to the same manner of Pronunciation? Whereas the Catholic Church, notwithstanding, for many hundred years together, precisely observed the ordinance of Christ. THE SECOND CHALLENGE. In respect of the necessity of a Loud voice, especially by the Romish Priest, in uttering the words of Consecration. THe greatest silence, which is used by the Roman worshippers, is still in the Priests uttering, or rather muttering the words of Institution [HOC EST CORPUS MEUM: and, Hic est sanguis meus:] albeit here is the greatest and most necessary Cause of expressing them, for the satisfaction of every understanding Hearer among you. For, those, you call the words of Consecration, the just pronunciation whereof you hold to be most necessary: because if the Priest, in uttering of them, fail but in one syllable, so fare as to alter the sense of Christ's words (which as you say may happen by six manner of Defects) than the whole Consecration is void; and the thing which you adore, is in substance merely * See Book 7 c. 5. §. 2. Bread still. If therefore the People shall stand perplexed in themselves, whether the words, which are concealed, be duly uttered by the Priest to himself, how shall it not concern them to hear the same expressly pronounced, lest that (according to your own Doctrine) they be deluded in a point of faith, and with divine worship adore Bread instead of the person of the Son of God? Whereof we are to entreat at large in due * Ibidem. place, if God permit. Your fift Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass, is a second contradiction against the Sense of the former words of Christ [— SAID UNTO THEM] SECT. VII. Again, that former Clause of the Canon of Christ, to wit [He said unto them] teacheth that as his voice, Saying unto them, was necessarily audible, to reach their ears; so was it also Intelligible, to instruct their understanding: and therefore not uttered in a Tongue unknown. Which is evident by that he giveth a Reason for the taking of the Cup [Enim] For this is the blood, etc. which particle [For] (saith your f [ENIM.] Ea particula intelligitur in forma panis Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 14 Cardinal) is employed in the first part also. Now, whosoever reasoneth with another, would be understood what he saith. The contrary Canon of the (now) Roman Mass. The Council of Trent (saith your g Concil. Trident. Sess. 22 c. 8. Statuit non expedire ut divinum Officium vulgari passim linguâ celebretur. Azor. les. Inst. Moral. par. 1. l. 8. c. 26. §. Verum enimverò. jesuite) decreed, that it is not expedient that the Divine service should be celebrated in a known tongue. Whereupon you doubt not to censure the contrary Doctrine of Protestants to be h Asserere Missas celebrandas esse linguâ vulgari, consilium est Schismaticum— Haereticum— & non acceptandum,— nè Ecclesia dormitâsse aliquandò, atque adeò errâsse videatur. Salmeron. les. Tom. 9 Tract. 32. Sect. 5. p. 251. Heretical and Schismatical, and no ways to be admitted. But why? Lest (say you) the Church may seem a long time to have been asleep, and to have erred, in her contrary Custom. So you. Our Church of England contrarily thus: * Article 24. It is a thing repugnant to the Word of God, and Custom of the Primitive Church to have public prayer, and ministering of the Sacraments in a tongue not known of the people. This occasioneth a double Plea against your Church of Rome, first, in defence of the Antiquity and Universality, next for the Equity of Prayers in a known tongue, in the public service of God. I. CHALLENGE, Against the Romish Alteration of the Catholic and Universal practice of the Church, and the Antiquity thereof. IN the examination of this point, Consider in the first place your own Confessions, given by your i Tempore Apostolorum totum populum respondere soli●ū in divinis officijs— ●●t longo tempore post in Occidente & Oriente Ecclesia. Tempore Chrysostom●, & Cypriani, atque Hieronymi, eadem Consuetudo invaluit. Et Hieronymus scribit in pr●efat. lib. 2. ad Gal. In Ecclesijs urbis Romae quasi coeleste tonited audiri populum reboantem, Amen. Bellar. lib. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 16. §. Sed.— Tempore Apostolorum, cùm celebraretur Sacrificium hoc, Sacerdos dixit, [Hoc est corpus meum] & populus respondebat, Amen.— Et hic usus manavit in totam Ecclesiam usquè ad ●●lle & amplius annos. Maldon. les. Disp de Sacram. Tom. 1. de Euch Con●ect. 1. §. Vbi Scribit. jesuits, and others, acknowledging that In the days of the Apostles, and a long time after, even for a thousand years and more, the whole Church, and in it the People of Rome had knowledge of this part of Service, concerning the Sacrament, and used to say, AMEN. So you. And this is as much as we need to require, concerning the judgement and practice of the true Antiquity of this Custom. You will rather doubt (we suppose) of the Universality thereof, because you usually go no farther than your Dictates, which teach, that because there were generally but three general and known tongues, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, therefore the divine Service was celebrated throughout the Church in one of these three. And because these could not be the vulgar language of every Christian Nation, it must follow (say k Bellar. lib. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 15 & 16. and so Others also. they) that the People of most Nations understood not the public Prayers used in their several Churches. And with this persuasion do your Doctors lock up your consciences in a false belief of an universal Custom of an unknown service of God. Which you may as easily unlock again, if you shall but use, as a key, this one Observation, viz. That the three common tongues (namely) Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, although they were not always the vulgar Languages, yet were they known Languages commonly to those people that used them in Divine Service. Which one only Animadversion will fully demonstrate unto us the truth of our Cause. It is not denied but that the three Languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin were, in primitive ages, most m Tres hae hunguae universalissimae, ità ut Hebraica per totum fe●e Orientem: Omnes enim Ch●ld●●câ, aut Syriacâ 1. Hebrai●â, sed corruptè loqueb intur. Graeca per totam Graeciam, & Asiam minorem ●lim ac varias provincias latè patebat: Latin● autem per magna●● Eu opae pute●● vagabatur. Ledesina les. in defence. Bellar. universal; insomuch, that the Hebrew was spoken (albeit corruptly) throughout almost the whole Eastern Church. The Greek was currant thorough the whole Greek Church also, and in the lesser Asia. And the Latin was dispersed over a great part of Europe. It will now be fully sufficient to know, that the most of these Languages were certainly known, in public worship, unto all them of whom they were used in public Sermons, and preach. For your own Church, howsoever she decreed of Praying, yet doth she forbidden Preaching in an unknown tongue. Now therefore join (we beseech you) the eyes of your bodies and mind together, in beholding and pondering our Marginals, and you shall find, first (if we speak of the n [Concionatus est Gracè Chrysostomus apud Antiochenos, apud Caesarienset Basilius, apud Alexandrinos' Athanasius, apud Hierosolymitanoes Ciryllus.] Thus from Conslantinople to Antioch, throughout Asia, was the Greek Language universally known. Greek Language) that there was a general knowledge thereof, even among the vulgar people of the Churches of Antioch, Caesarea, Alexandria, and throughout Asia. Secondly, if of the Latin, you may behold anciently the familiar knowledge thereof in the Church of Rome, whereof Saint * See above at the letter (1) Hierome hath testified, that The people were heard in the Churches of Rome resounding and thundering out their Amen. This in Churches unmixed. Thirdly, in mixed Congregations of Greek and Latin, that the o Cum Ecclesiâ Rom. de Latinis & Graecis esset permixta, singulae lectiones de utraque lingua recitabantur: nam ab una lingua recitantes ab utriusque linguae populis intelligi non poterant. Rupertus de Divinis of ficijs. lib 3. cap. 8. Service was said both in Greek and Latin. Fourthly, your own general Confession, yielding a common knowledge of the Latin tongue to the people of a great part of Europe: and we say also of Africa, (insomuch, that Augustine doth openly teach that the p [Augustini sunt plurimi Tractatus & Sermons ad Hippone●scs suos. With whom be rather chose to speak ossum then os: to the end they should understand him] Liv. Retract ca 20. Psalmum, qui ijs caneretur, per Lattnas literas feci, propter vulgi & Id●otarum notitiam. Idem Sermon. 25. de verb. Apost. Punicum proverbium est antiquum, quod quidem Latinè vobis dicam, quià Punicè non omnes nôstis. [So well was the latin known unto them. Item Tert. ad uxorem scripsit Latinè, Ad muli●res de Habitu, ad Foeminas de cultu, ad Virgines de velo, directing the same writings to them, thus; Dei Servae, Conservae, et Sorori meae, etc. Cyprianus saepe ad Martyrs & plebem Latinè.] Latin tongue was better known to his Africans than was the Punic, although this were their native Language:) And also of q Curabant Romani, ut & in provincijs plurimi loquerentur Latinè, ita ut Hispanias & Gallias Latinas prorsus fecerint, veteribus illarum gentium linguis abolitis. Vives in Aug. de Ci. Dei lib. 19 c. 7. Nostri per totum ferè occidentem, per Septentrionis, per Africae non exiguam partem brevi spatio linguam Romanam celebrem, & quasi Regiam fecerunt— Nostra est Italia, nostra Gallia, nostra Hispania, Germania, Panonia, Dalmatia, Illyricum, & multae aliae nationes Valla praesat. in ●. Elegant. Certè testimonium ex Hilario dictum videtur omninò cogere, ut credamus in Gallia fuisse consuetudinem, ut populus et Ecclesia caneret etiam antè Ambrosij tempora. Bellar. l. 1. de bonis operibus. c. 16. §. Fortasse. France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Pannonia, Dalmatia, and many other Nations in the North and West: particularly manifested by the Latin Homilies, (that is, Sermons) and writings made to the people of Africa by Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine; and in France and Germany by the people, praying, and jointly saying, AMEN. Not to tell you of the now-Custome of the remote Christian Churches, such as are the Egyptians, Russians, Ethiopians, Armenians, and others; all which exercise their public Service in the vulgar and mother-tongues of their own so distinct and different Nations. For the which cause they can find no better entertainment with your jesuites, than to admonish you that r Certum est (inquiunt Protestants) Ruthenos, AEgyptios, AEthiopes, Armenos, & quosd●m alios celerbare divina Officia in Lingua vulgari.— Respondemus, nos non moveri Barbarorum moribus, Salomeron, Ies. Com. in 1. Cor. 16. Disp. 30. §. Septimò. You are not to be moved with the example of such barbarous people. O jesuitical superciliousness! to contemn them as Barbarous, in an example of praying in a known tongue: the contrary whereunto (as namely, praying in an unknown tongue) the Apostle condemneth as * 1. Cor. 14. 11. Barbarousness itself. With the same modesty might you scoff at, and reproach other more ancient Nations and Christians, commended by primitive Fathers, for celebrating their Oblations, Prayers, and Psalms in their Nationall tongues; so, that one repeating the words first, the whole people with joint voice and heart accorded in singing. Among whom are recorded the converted s De ludaeis conversis, Authors. in 1. Cor. 14 Aliquando Syrâ Lingrâ, plerunque H●●braeâ in oblationibus utebantur. jews, the Syrians, and All, aswell Greeks as Romans, praying in their own tongue, and with harmonical consent singing of Psalms, in the public worship: as also the t Hier. ad Eustoch. Epitaph. Paulae. Hebraeo, Graeco, Latino, Syroque Sermone Psalmi in ordine personabant. Ad finem. Grecians, Egyptians, Thebaeans, Palestinians, Arabians, Phoenicians, and Syrians. This from the Testimonies of holy Fathers. Whether therefore the tongue, we pray in, be barbarous or learned, it is not respected of God, but whether it be known or unknown, is the point. In which respect we may usurp the Similitude which S. Augustine hath; What availeth a golden Key, if it cannot open that which should be opened? or what hurteth a wooden Key; u Orig. con. Celsum. lib. 8. Graeci Graecè, Romani Romanà, singulique precentur linguâ suâ—. Non enim est Deus maximus unus corum, qui certam aliquam linguam so●titi; caeterarum iguari sunt. if it be able to open, seeing that we desire nothing, but that the thing shut may be opened? By this time you see your Novelty in your Romish Practice. Behold in the next place the Iniquity and profaneness thereof, and how after the death of Pope Gregory the first, which was about 608 years after Christ, your Roman Church degenerated as much from the (then) Roman truth, x Bas●. ad Cler. Eccles. Caesarien Quidam Psalmos causatitur, et modos Psalmodiae— Vnum hoc numeris datur, ut quod canendum sit prius ordiatur, reliqui succinunt.— elucescente die pariter omnes veluti uno ore et corde confessionis Psalmum Deo offerunt— Horum gratia si nos fugitis, fugietis simul AEgyptios, Thebraeos, Palaestinos, Arabes Phoenicas, Syros & ut semel dicam omnes apud quos vigiliae, precesque communesque Psalmodiae in pre●●o sunt. For the Sclavanians. See hereafter. 6. Challenge at (d) in this point, as she did from her Roman tongue and Language itself. We are here constrained to plead the whole cause, for the defence of a necessity of a known worship, in respect of God, of Man, y Aug. de doctr. Christ. l. 4. c. 11. Quid prodest, etc. and of Both. A SECOND CHALLENGE, Showing the Iniquity of Service in an Unknown tongue: and first of the Injury done by the foresaid Roman Decree unto the souls of Men. THe former Decree of your Council for unknown Service, how injurious it is unto man, we may learn by the Confessions, of jesuites and others, z Apostolus praecipit, ut Preces ad aedificationem fiant, quemadmodùm probatur Rom. 15.— Plus lucratur, quoad intellectum et affectum, qui non ignorat quae orat.— Qui non intelligit, non aedificatur, in quantum non intelligit in speciali, licet in generali intelligat.— Ad fructum devotionis conducibilius intelligendo orare. Aquinas in 1. Cor. 14. jubet Apostolus ut ad aedificationem abundent: melius est orare ment, distinctè intelligente ea quae orat, quàm confusè. Et ex hac doctrina habetur, melius esse ut publicae preces Ecclesiae nostrae; audiente populos in lingua Clericis & populo communi dicantur, quàm Latinè. Cajeran. Cardin. in eum locum. 1. Cor. 14. Paulus vult òmnes homines orare, etiam ment. Faber Stapulens. in eundem locum. Quid proficit populus non intelligendo ea quae orat? Lyran in 1. Cor. 14. Ne benedicons (Sacerdos) diceret, Ego quidem intelligo & gratias ago peregrinâ lînguâ: respondet Apostolus [Sed alter non aedificatur:] Id est, Indè nulla aedificatio Ecclesiae, cujus imprimis ratio habenda erat: ità ut nolit ullas preces publicas in Ecclesia celebrari igno●o prorsus Sermone,— qui non sit Graecis Graecus, Hebraeis, Hebraeus, Latinus Latinis, nam magna ex parte haec idiomata ab ijs, qui sunt ejusdem linguae, intelliguntur. Salmeron. Ies. Com. sup. eum locum. 1. Cor. 14. [which he confesseth of the Apostles times.] granting that The Apostles in their times required a known Language, Greek in the Greek Churches, and Latin in the Latin Churches: because first that this made for the Edidification and consolation of Christians. Secondly, that Mangaineth more both in mind and affection, who knoweth what he prayeth. As for him that is Ignorant, you say, He is not edified, inasmuch as he knoweth not in particular, although in general he doth understand. Thirdly, that the Apostle commandeth that all things be done to edification. Fourthly, that the known Service is sitter for Devotion: and thereupon some of you have furthermore Concluded, that It were better that the Service were used in a Language known both to the Clergy and People. And again, that People profit no whit by praying in a strange language. So your own Writers, as you may observe in the Marginals. Now what more extreme and intolerable Injury could you do to the souls of God's people, than by imposing a strange language upon them, thereby (according to your own Confessions) to deprive them, and that wittingly, of Edification, Consolation, and Devotion, the three chief Benefits that man's soul is capable off, in the service of God? Thus in respect of your Injury against Man. A THIRD CHALLENGE. Touching the Injury done, by the same Decree, against God himself. YEt all this notwithstanding, you are bend to cousin Christian people with palpable Sophistry, by your a Bellarm. lib. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 16. De Canticis Spiritualibus tempore Primitivae Ecclesiae Tert §. Porro consuevisse.— Quoniam igitur ista Cantica fiunt ad Populi consolationem, vult Apostolus, ut siant linguâ quae intelligatur: ut Idiota, etc. Ibid. §. Quoniam— Praeterea tunc, quia Christiani erant pauci, omnes simul psallebant in Ecclesiâ, & respondebant ●●nis officijs: at posteà, crescente populo, divisa sunt magis officia, & solis Clericis relictum est, ut communes preces & laudes in Ecclesiâ peragant. Ibid §. Respondeo negando.— Demque finis praecipuus illorum Canticorum erat instructio & consolatio populi,— & nisi linguâ nota facta fuissent— perijsset praecipuus fructus ipsorum. At Divinorum officiorum nec est finis praecipuus instructio, vel consolatio popule, sed cultus Dei. Ibid. §. Denique finis. Cardinal, who confesseth that the Psalms in the days of the Primitive Church, were sung jointly of the people, Because they were ordained for instruction and consolation of the people, as the chief end. But as for the Divine Service, The Principal end of it (saith he) is not the instruction and consolation of the people, but the worship of God. So he. Whom when we ask, why the people than did all join together both in Singing of Psalms, and Answering the Minister in Divine Service, and Prayer? He saith it was because of the Paucity, of the people, and rareness of the Assembly. Whereby it seemeth he meant to maintain Your Degenerate Romish Worship with Paradoxes. First, As if Psalms, publicly sung in the Church to God's glory, were not Divine duties and Service. Secondly, As if the Primitive Church, using both Psalms and other Prayers in a known tongue (as he confesseth) did not hold a necessity of the common knowledge of both, for Instruction and Consolation. Thirdly, As if the Assemblies of Christians were of such a Paucity, in the days of Tertullian; when those Psalms ordained for Instruction and Consolation were in use. And fourthly, as if People now adays had not as much need of Instruction and Consolation, as they that lived in Primitive times; yea, and more, especially such People, who being led blindfold by an Implicit Faith, have reason to crave Instruction; and having their Consciences tortured and perplexed with multiplicities of Ceremonial Laws, have as just cause also to desire Consolation. As for your objecting the Worship of God by unknown prayers, that may be sufficient, which your own Catechism (authorized by the Council of Trent) teacheth you; where answering to that question, why God, although he know our wants before we pray, yet will be solicited by our prayers? it b Cur Deus, cùm sciat quibus indigemus, vult oratione nostrâ sollicitari? Vult n●s ●●è pe tendo petere fidentiùs.— ut magis ad amorem incendantur— ac at saepiùs majori affecti laetitiâ ad cum amandum atque colendum incitemu● ardentiùs. Catech. Tried. vel Rom. part. 4. c. 2. pug. 386. saith, that he doth this to the end, that Praying more confidently, we may be more inflamed with love towards God: and so being possessed with more joy, may be exercised to a fervent worship of God. So your public and general Roman Catechism. The case than is plain. From more Edification there ariseth more Consolation; from more Consolation there issueth more Devotion; from all these proceeds more silial Love and dutiful Worship of God. Which was long since shadowed (as c Exod. 15. [Cantemus Domino] Cantabat Moses & Miriam, hempè Moses, ●d est, pars intellectus, & Miraiam, id est sensus purificatus: justum enim est intelligibiliter & sensibiliter Deo hymno● dici, utrumque instrumentum concinnè pulsari, tàm intellectum, quàm sensum, in solus Dei salvatoris laudem, & actionem Gratiarum. Hactenùs Philo judeaus. Pulcherrimus hic Tractatus moralis. Pererius Ies. in Exod. 15. Disp. 2. §. Exercitus porrò Philo judaeus allegorizeth, witnessing your jesuite) by Moses and Miriam singing unto the Lord: Moses signifying the understanding part, and Miriam betokening the Affection; both notifying, that we are to sing Hymns both affectionately and understandingly unto God. Therefore, if you be men of Conscience, recant that your now objected Barbarous Paradox, Which (contrary to all anciently professed Divinity, and express Scripture, saying, * 1 Cor. 14. 15. I will pray with my spirit, I will pray with my understanding also) doth thrust man's Understanding out of God's worship, to the utter abolishing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, his Reasonable worshipping of God; by making man (as Saint d August. Expos. 2. in Psal. 18. Merulae, Psittaci, Corvi, Picae, & hujusmodi volucres saepè docentur ab hominibus sonare quod nesciunt: scenter verò ca●tare non avi, sed homini Divinâ voluntate concessum est. Augustine noteth) no better than Ouzells, Parrots, Ravens, and Magpies, all which learn to prate they know not what. THE FOURTH CHALLENGE, Against the said Romish Decree, as jointly injurious both to God and Man; from the Text of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. IN the fourth place We are to speak of the Iniquity of your unknown language in Prayer, jointly against both God and Man; because that without the understanding of the Prayer it is impossible for a man (being of discretion) to pray unto, or to praise God as he ought: and consequently to obtain any blessing by prayer from God, according to that Apostolical Doctrine, ● Cor. 14. where he saith of the man ignorant of the language of prayer, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;] How shall he say Amen, at thy giving of thanks, seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest? To which Argument of the Apostles, taken from the Impossibility, your e Dicit Apostolus [ut instruam] Expende vocem hanc, Instruam, quòd sit de praedicatione, non de Missae celebratione. Eckius Enchirid. Queen 〈…〉 Missa Latinè, § Quod ad & Bellar. Aliqui respondent, non agi hîc de precibus. Lib. 2. de verbo Dei. cap. 16. §. Ad hanc. Eckius and some Others answer, that the Apostle speaketh of Preaching, and not of Praying. What, not of Praying, Eckius? May it not be said of this your great Doctor, and Antagonist to Luther, that this man could not see the River for water? for (as your f Imò sequitur [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] quibus verbis Apostolus significat precari, etc. Bellar. ibid. Cardinal confesseth) in the text itself the Apostle useth these three words, Pray, sing, and give thanks. Will you now seek an Evasion from Master g Master Brerely in his Liturgy of the Mass. Tract. 5. Sect. 4 ad finem. Brerely Pr. collecting (as he saith) the Contrary in the Apostle, as affirming that not the whole vulgar, but some one was especially appointed to supply the place of the Unlearned to say, Amen? Which reason he may seem to have borrowed from your h Providet sapienter Ecclesia, ut Minister vice totius populi respondeat: imò hoc est quod Apostolus ait, cùm subdit, Qui super locum Idiotae. Sixt. Senens. Biblio. lib. 6. Annot. 263. Hinc manifestè convincitur, fuisse tempore Apostoli Pauli unum, qui suppleret locum populi. Lede●sima Ies. de Scripture. non legend cap. 26. 27. §. Praeteà ex. & Sa. Ies. Comment. in hunc locum. Senensis, who saith that The Apostle by him [That occupieth the place of the unlearned] meant the Clerk of the Parish, and not the vulgar people. But this is thought of your Bellarmine, and others, to be but an unlearned answer, because that In the days of the Apostle (saith i Tempore Apostolorum nullum fuisse pro Laicis constitutum, ex Iustino constat. Et Graeca vox [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] none significat, secundùm usum Graecae linguae, vice Idiotarum, sed unum esse ex Idiotis. Bellar. lib. 2 de Verbo Dei, cap. 16. §. Sed non videtur.— Ita est secundùm phrasin Graecam, ut sit sensus: Vnus ex Idiotis. Salmeron. Ies. in 1 Cor. 14. Disp. 22, §. Illud: And the English Rhemists in their Annotations on the same place. he) There was not any such office ordained, as is the Clerk of the Parish. And if there had been any such, yet the Greek phrase [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] would not admit of any such interpretation. So he. ⚜ And how might not that Clerk be an Ignaro, seeing you do confess, that 9 Sixtus Senens. Biblioth lib. 6. Annot: 263. Verùm etiam saepenumerò nec ipsi Presbyteri nec Diaconi intelligunt quid orant. Oftentimes the Priest and Deacon understand and not what is prayed. ⚜ Lastly, it can be no less than an extreme Infatuation to oppose (as k Satisfacit Sacerdos, cùm preces etiam non intellectas absolvit: etiam meretur, modò in Dei laudes preces non intellectas peroret. Sic in Monasterijs professae, & Monachi non pauci orant, quae intellectu non modò non assequuntur. Sic enim Pueri orant, & est beneplacitum Deo. Eckius Tom. 2. Hom. 3. in festo Rogat. pag. 90. Etiam pueri orant, Ozanna, & preces eorum crant Christo gratissimae Salmer. les. in 1. Cor. 16. Disp. 30. §. Septimo. So the Rhemists in Matth. 21. vers. 16. and in 1. Cor. 19 pag. 463. do your jesuit 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, Monks, & Nuns, in praising God, may be grateful to God although they understand not that which they pray. So they. An Objection taken (as you see) from Children, or rather, as it might seem, made by Children, it is altogether so Childish. For the Apostle, as it were, foreseeing 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 Child asketh his Father's blessing only with clapping his hands together, or uttering half syllables, it joyeth the Father, because his Child now expresseth his duty, according to the Capacity of a Child: yet if the same Child, after he is come to the perfect years of discretion, should perform that duty in no better manner than by Childith babbling, would the Father hold this to be Reverence, and not rather plain Mockery? So is the Case betwixt us and God, who * 2. Cor. 3. 1●. accepteth every one according to that which he hath, and not according to that which he hath not: a Child in the capacity of a Child, but a man according to the apprehension of a man. In which consideration the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 13. 11. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, but being a man, I put away childishness. Away therefore with this your more than Childish Objection. We return to the Impossibility of praying duly in an unknown tongue, which the Apostle illustrateth by two Similitudes, the one taken from an Instrument of peace, Vers. 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 himself to the dance. The other from an Instrument of war, Vers. 8. If the Trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to battle? As if he would have said, It is impossible to know when to march forward, or when to retreat. So it is said of unknown Prayer [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;] How shall he that is ignorant of the language say Amen? that is to say, (by the interpretation of your l Populus ignotae linguae quomodò respondebit, Amen? hoc est, animae praehebit assensum, cùm more Babylonice consusionis qui dissident, nequaquam sensu aninusque conspirent. Acosta Ies. de Indorum salute, cap. 6. pag. 37. jesuit) How shall people, ignorant of the tongue, answer Amen? (that is) yield consent unto the Prayer, seeing that they who descent among themselves after a Babylonish confusion, cannot consent in mind and affection. So he. Or, as your m Quomodò dicet, [Amen?] Cùm quid boni dicas non intelligit, nisi benedicas tantùm. Aquinas in hunc locum, 1. Corinth. 14. I add Saunder. de visib. Monarch. ad A●n. 1563. [Si benedixeris spiritu, Quomodò dicat Amen?] Significatur de precibus Ecclesiasticis, fateor, quas in spiritu, hoc est, in dono linguae peregrinae dicat tari nollet, ut in Latina Ecclesia Hebraeam, aut in Graeca Persicam: quia decessent plerunque viri docti & petiti illius linguae, qui populo interpretari possent. [Thus from the Apostle he granteth, that Prayers are not to be used, where the people have not the interpretation: although he say, that Deus honorificentiùs colitur per linguam doctam, quàm per indoctam & vulgarem. As though where there is no respect of persons with God, yet there should be respect of the Tongues.] Aquinas; How shall he say, Amen, who understandeth 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 spiritual graces and Comforts. To conclude. These Premises do prove, that among many thousands of your people, assembled at a Roman Mass, 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 Worshippers the* Calves of their lips, and not (as now they make themselves) the lips of Calves. THE FIFT GHALLENGE, Out of the Doctrine of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. more copiously, in confutation of your divers Objections. IT were an easy matter to be 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 already said. But yet behold an n In his aforementioned Writing to a Lady, etc. Anonymus, having had notice of most of these points, hath form such Objections and Answers, as his prejudicated and pourblinde Conceit could reach unto. First, and most common, in answer to the places objected out of 1. Cor. 14. affirming (out of the Rhemists' Annotations) That the Apostle speaks not of the public and set prayers of the Church; but of extraordinary & spiritual exercises of Exhortations and sudden Prayers. So he. Wherein the man contradicteth your own o Alij dicunt Apostolum loqui de divinis officijs, viz. Haymo, Primasius, P. Lombardus, D. Thomas, & alij quidam ex Latinis. Teste Bellar. Lib. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 16. Schoolmen, but especially the Apostle his direct saying. Verse 23. If the whole Congregation meet together, etc. What more public that the Assembly of the whole Congregation? And (to suppose that they were extraordinary Prayers) what is more consectary and Consequent, than that if the Apostle note if for an Abuse, to practise such Extraordinary Exercises of Preaching and Praying in a tongue unknown, even because the Hearers are not thereby Edified? Doubtless the same Abuse, practised in public and ordinary Service, being more notorious and Common, must needs be so much the more condemnable: as witness both * See the sixth Challenge following. Ancient Fathers, and your own * See the former Challenges. Brethren, who have taught the use of a known Tongue, in all public and ordinary service of God, from this Text of Scripture, which (as you say) speaketh of Prayers extraordinary. Which is a full Confutation of your former Objection. Yea, but It is sufficient (saith he) that the vulgar people know, in general, although they understand not the Prayers in particular. Which again Contradicteth the Apostle, who in the sixteenth Verse will have the Private or Vulgarman to be able to give consent to the public Prayer, in saying Amen. And therefore requireth the Minister, Verse 7. as the Harper, to yield in particular a Distinction of tunes [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:] and Verse 8. as a Trumpeter, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to give a certain known sound; that which your own Doctors have also confessed. A third Instance is taken out of Bellarmine, who saith that The p Non reprehenditur oratio non intellect, sed ei anteponitur oratio quae intelligitur, ut peter Vers. 17 [Tu quidem benè gratias agis, sed alter non aedisicatur] Bellar. quo supra. Apostle reprehendeth not an unknown Prayer, but preferreth a known Prayer before the other, saying Verse 7. Thou, indeed, prayest well, but another is not edified. Flatly contradictory to the whole scope of the Apostle, throughout the Chapter, as your own * Salmer● in les. See above Challenge 2. at the let. (z) jesuite is forced to proclaim. The Apostle (saith he) would have the people to be edified, because then all things ought to have been done to the Edification and Consolation of the Assembly: and therefore he would not, have any Public Prayer used among the Hebrews, but in the Hebrew-language; nor among the Grecians, but in Greek, nor yet among the Latins, but in the Latin tongue. The meaning than is, [Thou indeed] namely, who art the Minister, and knowest the prayer, so far dost well; but in respect of others, which cannot understand, Not well, because, They are not edified. His fourth Objection he wresteth out of the fourth Verse. [If I pray with my tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit.] So he. As though that strange Tongue, here spoken off, were not understood by him that prayed. Which contradicteth the Apostle, Verse 4. He that speaketh with the tongue doth edify himself: for never did any deny●t at he, who had the miraculous gift of Speech in a strange tongue, did understand himself, although sometimes he wanted the gift of Interpreting it, for the understanding of all others. Therefore saith the Apostle, Verse 13. [He that speaketh with the tongue, let him pray, that he may interpret it.] Fiftly, by the word [Spirit] q Id est, si orem dono linguae: nimitùm, quam non intelligam, [Spiritus] id est Affectus meus orat, sed mens est fine fructu. Ergo dicit Apostolus, non Orationem, sed mentem esse sine fructu. Bellar quo sup And this answer Master Brerely borrowed from Bellar. Tract. upon the Mass. p. 452. your Cardinal would have understood the Affection, as if Affection without understanding did profit him that prayeth: which is fully contrary to the Apostles doctrine, as witnesseth your r Vox [Spiritus] à principion usque ad finem Donum Spiritus peculiare significat, quo impellebantur lingus loqui. Si Apostolus in hac voce admitteret Homonymiam aliquam, Graeci Patres nos de eo admonuissent. Salmeron. Ies. in eund. locum. Salmeron in plain terms; showing that the word, Spirit, throughout this whole Chapter, signfieth not the Affection, but the miraculous Spiritual gift of speaking in Strange tongues, as also the * Upon the same place both Ambrose, [Spiritu id est, linguâ ignotâ.] ⚜ And Chrysstome also upon Saint Paul's words [My Spirit prayeth, but my mind is without fruit] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calleth his Not knowing the Prayer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hier. in 1. Cor. 14. Omnis sermo, qui non intelligitur, Barbarus est. [Spiritus meus orat, sed alter non aedificatur] Id est, Non est legenti instructuosus sermo, sed audienti, quià ignorat— Sic igitur legendum, ut intelligant alij [Quomodò dicet Amen?] i. e. quomodò praebebit consensum. Basil. in Reg. Contract. Reg. 278. de prece audienti incognitâ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And of their translation of Scriptures into their national tongues, Chrysost. Hom. 1. in joh. Sylli, Indi, AEgyptij, Persae, AEthiopes, & innumerae aliae gentes in suam transferentes linguam, homines barbari philosophari didicerunt. Aug. l. 2. the doctr. Christ. cap. 5. Ex quo ●actum est ut Scriptura divina ab una lingua profecta— per varias interpretum linguas longè lateque diffusa innotescere gentibus ad salutem. Fathers expound it. In the next place the aforesaid Anonymus contendeth by Reason, but such as others reached unto him. Father's say (saith he) the words of Consecration should be kept secret. True, to them that were not capable of this Sacrament, but * See this proved Book 7. Chap. 3. ⚜ never to the licenced Communicants; because that Christ, and his Apostles, yea and the Universal Church primitive consecrated in an audible voice, and known language, as hath been confessed. Yet furthermore. The Church (saith he) used the said Hebrew word, Allelujah, unknown to the people. What then? know you not that in all Churches, of whatsoever language, is used also the Hebrew word, Amen? and if people do not learn one or two words of a strange tongue, it is not for that they are witless, but because they are wilful and careless. Their last Reason. Some languages (as for example that in Italy) were Roman, and corrupted by invasion of Enemies of divers languages, and in the end became Italian, etc. yet the public Service was not altered, but continued Roman as before. This Argument is à facto ad jus, all one with that Reasoning à Baculo ad angulum. Like as if some should conclude, that because Stews are allowed at Rome, they are therefore justly licenced. But we demand, are men made for languages, or rather languages for men? if the latter, then is that language to be used, which is known to serve best for the Edification and Consolation of God's people in his worship. A sixth CHALLENGE. Out of the Doctrine of Antiquity. ALthough it were preposterous to exact of us a proof, from Antiquity, of condemning the Service in a strange tongue, seeing (as hath been confessed) the Primitive practioe is wholly for us; and therefore no Abuse in those times could occasion any such Reproof: yet shall we, for your better illumination, offer unto you some more express Suffrages of the ancient Fathers, after that we shall have satisfied your Objections, pretended to make for your Defence. Saint Augustine saith of the People, that their Safety consisteth not in the vigour of their understanding, but in their simplicity of believing. So indeed doth s Aug. de Bap. l. 6. c. 24. Multi irruunt in preces, etiam ab Haereticis compositas, & per ignorantiae simplicitatem non valentes decernere, utuntur eyes, & plerunque precis vitium superat precantis affectus.— Non quià ista corrigenda non sint, ut populus ad id, quod plauè intelligat, dicat Amen. Idem de Catechizand. rudibus c. 9 Teste Cassandro in Liturg. pag. 102. Augustine forewarn the people, who although they knew the single words of the prayers of Heretics, yet might possibly be deluded with the obscurity of their Heretical Senses. The Difference is extreme. For Saint Angustines' people understood the language of those prayers, in the obscure and involved Sense whereof they were unwillingly ignorant. But your Popish people are wilfully ignorant both of the Words and Sense. The odds therefore is no less than this; they were simply, yours are sottishly ignorant: and Augustine wisheth that their Simplicity were corrected; you hold your people's blindness worthy to be commended. Secondly, Origen saith, that when Christians are exercised in reading of holy Scripture, albeit some words be not understood, yet is that reading profitable. This Sentence also is alleged for countenancing of t Origen. Hom. 20. in jos Quae nos profermus ●aepe non intelligimus, sed virtutes intelligunt. Ergo licet preces non intellectis usurpare. O● Bellar. l. 2. de verbo Dei, cap. 16. Prayer in an unknown tongue; notwithstanding, that in a man's Reading of Scripture, God is said to speak unto man: but in Praying, man is said to speak unto God. So that it may be both lawful and profitable to the Reader, to find some particular Scriptures, which God would have to excel the Capacity of the most learned, to humble them, to the admiration of his excellent wisdom, as the Fathers teach. Whereas contrarily an unknown Prayer, wittingly used, is both unprofitable and unlawful, as hath been copiously confessed by your own Divines, from the Doctrine of the Apostle. More objections out of the Fathers you have not. We will try whether we can recompense your Nominalities (that we may so call your impertinent Objections) with Realties and solid Proofs. Cast but your eyes upon the Marginals, consisting partly of the Relation of your own u johannes Billet in summa de divinis officijs, In primitiva Ecclesia (inquit) prohibitum erat, ne quis loqueretur linguis, nisi intelligerentur.— At nostris temporibus, ubi nullus aut rarus inventur legens, vel audient, qui intelligat, completum est quod à Propheta dicitur: Erit Sacerdos ut populus. Videtur potius elle racendum quam psallendum. Innocent. 3. in Conc gen. in lib. Decret. de offic. jud. Ordinar. Quoniam in plerisque partibus— permixti sunt populi diversarum linguarum.— Pontifices civitatum provideant viros idoneos, qui secundùm diversitatem linguarum divina illis officia delebrent.— AEn. Syl. Hist. Bohem. c. 13. Cyrillo Romae Episcopo supplicante, ut lingua Sclavonicâ res divina fieret— essentque non pauci qui contradicerent, andita est vox, tanquam è caelo, in haec verba missa, Omnis Spiritus laudet Dominum, & omnis lingua confiteatur ei: indeque indultum Cyrillo. Hujusq. ex Cassand Lit. fol. 101 102. Cassander, and partly of our x Cons. Aquisgranens. cap. 131. Psallentium in Ecclesia Domino mens concordare debet cum voce, ut impleatur illud Apostoli, Psalmam Spiritu, psalmam & ment. Collections, and you shall find, among the Fathers, y Ambros. in 1. Cor. 14. [Qui supplet locum Idiotae, quomodò dicet Amen ad benedictionem tuam, quià nescit quid dicis?] Imperitus enim nesciens quid dicitur, nescit finem orationis, & non respondet Amen. Verum ut confirmetur benedictio: per hos enim qui respondent Amen, impletur confirmatio precis, ut omnia dicti veri testimonio confirmentur in mentibus Audientum— ' [Sed alius non aedificatur.] Si igitur ad aedificandam Ecclesiam convenitis, as debent dici, qu● intelligant Audientes: nam quid prodest, ut quis lingua loquatur, quam solus scit? ideò tacere debet in Ecclesia, us ij loquantur qui prosunt Audientibus. Ambrose denying that He, who is the person ignorant of the Prayer, can give consent unto it, by saying Amen: and thereupon inferreth, that only Such things should be spoken in the public Congregation, which the Hebrews understand. z Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 14. [Barbarus] Et ille mihi, & ego illi, non utique ob naturam vocis, sed ob imperitiam— Et qui non intelligit quid loquatur, sibi est Barbarus. [Qui locum tenet indocti.] Indoctum promiscuam plebem intelligit, monstratque non leve impedimentum esse, si non intelligat. [Omnia ad aedificationem.] AEdifieare enim Archirecti est opus, & per omnia proximum juvare— Si enim aedificandi gratiâ non venis, quid necesse est omninò venisse? chrysostom noting a Man, Ignorant of the Prayer, to be no better than a Barbarian to himself, not in respect of the nature of the voice, but of his own Ignorance; and declaring Prayers, in an unknowen tongue, to be contrary to the Apostles Doctrine, who requireth that All things be done to edification. a Ifidor. de Eccles. offic. lib. x. cap. 10. Oportet, quando oratur, ut ab omnibus oretur. Isidore peremptorily affirming an [Oportet,] and duty, that All may be able to pray in public places of prayer. Theoplylact noting that b Theophylact. in 1. Corint. 14. [Tu gratias benè agis, sed alius non aedificatur.] Proximi utilitate rejecta, inutiles erant hujusmodi gratiae. The giving of thanks to God is unprofitable, where the edification of the people is neglected. Augustine, in his Comment upon the Psalms, often exhorting all sorts of men to sing them: and thereupon the c In the Preface of an unknown Author, before the Prologue of Saint Augustine upon the Psalms: Quo modo debite potest Deo psallere, qui ignorant quid psallat. Author of the Preface before his Comment (as it were tuning his note to Angustines') doth deny that any can sing Psalms as he ought to God, who knoweth not what he singeth. ⚜ Who so desireth more, let him cast his eye upon the 10 Mr. M●iric Casuubon Praehend. Cantuar. Transcript. Notarum Marginal. M. S. Patris sui Isaaci in Bellar. now extant in the Kings Ma. Dibrary at S. james.— Ab Bellar. (Edit. Paris. 1608. pag. 111. C. D. Adversus implissimam hujus Capitis doctrinam, memineris-veterem Ecclesiam, ●● Romana. è diametro est hîc opposita, nihil studiosiùs fecisse, quàm 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. Egypt. Indica, Persica, Aethiopian Chrysost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in joh. Earudem, & Scythicae; & Sauromaticae, Theodor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 81. ubi, nota verba: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem clamat verbis penè eisdem Aug. lib. 2. de●dect. Christ cap. 5. Add, in jure oriental Bonifid. p. 243. tractatur haec quaestio, & pronunciatur oporte●o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 linquam Arab. inter Sa●arenos. Vide juris 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 usu●● sacris, sed illud quaeritus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrae administrari, & populo proponi debeant eâ linguâ qu●●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, justini p. (1365) insignis, & p. 366 ex Paulo id ipsum probat Imperator: Loquitur autem ibide sacra E●●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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 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 [He is a Barbarian] aeprooveth 〈◊〉 philoso 〈◊〉 lib 〈◊〉 Marginals, where he may see the Transcript of a Patrizing Son of a most admirable Treasure of learning (Mr. Isaac Casaubon) relating his Notes out of Antiquity, to prove the general Consent of Fathers, both for the Translating of Scriptures into the Mother-tongues of most Nations; as also the Liturgy, or Church-service universally used in the vulgar languages of several Countries. ⚜ And, lest that this might not suffice, we have added the * See above in the beginning of the 6. Sect. letter 〈…〉 Edict of the Emperor justinian, commanding a loud voice in the Minister, that the people may understand his words. Next, a Canon of a Council, requiring a * 〈…〉 Concordance, both of voice and understanding in the singing of Psalms 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 Council, 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 own 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 speak in languages unknown to the people. ⚜ And lest you may hereafter, according to your manner, scorn our zeal, in requiring the joint prayers and thanksgivings publicly in the Church, by the voice of Men, Women, and Children, know ye that 11 Basil Hixam. Hom. 4. Immediately before the end. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Quomodo non song, 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 God's Church in his time, held this an order decent and beautiful; censuring an Unknown prayer to be unprofitable to them that pray. ⚜ When you have digested all these Premises, concerning the Equity and Necessity of known Prayers in the public and Divine Service, both in consideration of God's worship, and Man's manifold profit, so amply confirmed by so many and uncontrollable testimonies; then guess (if you can) of what die the face of your Doctor Stapleton was, when he shamed not to call this our Practice of known prayers d Quod autem omnia vernaculè siunt in Ecclesia, planè profanum est. Stapleton spec. pravit. Hae ret. p. 580. Profaneness? and to number it among Heretical pravities. As for your own People, who prefer an unknown worship, what can we say less, than that all such Ignorants are but dumb worshippers: and because of their ignorance, in praying they know not what, they are to be sent to accompany popinjays and jackdaws, accordingly as S. * See above Sect. 7. in the Challenge 3. Augustine formerly hath resembled them. ⚜ 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 Douai published a Treatise this very year of our Lord 1634. Which he calleth a Paraphrastical Exposition of the Articles of the Church of England; whose aim 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 we 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 guess, if you shall have the patience to examine such stuff. 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 unknown tongue is plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the Custom of the Primitive Church. 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. He that shall say that the Mass ought to be Celebrated only in the vulgar tongue, let him be Anathema, that is, Accursed. The English Article hath two points. 1. That Prayer in a tongue unknown to the People that pray, is Repugnant to the Word of God. 2. That it is also plainly Repugnant to the Custom 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 answer thereunto, repeateth only their old Crambe, to wit, that by Prayers, there spoken off, are not meant the public prayers in the set and solemn 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 Idiot, that is, Private or Layman (as we call him) that he understand his Prayer so, as to be able to give consent thereunto in public, 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 we name the Parish-Clerke. Both which have been * See the Challenges above throughout. Confuted by your own Schoolmen; and the Latter more especially by Bellarmine himself, in our former Sections, as you have seen. A second devise of qualifying these words of our Article, [Repugnant to the word of God] is his own, but thus: 16 Paraph. Decrevit igitur Articulus esse Repugnans Scriptures, 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 he) 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 between the word, Scripture, and Scription; the word Scripture to signify the Doctrine of Scripture, and the word Scription, to betoken Tradition of Scripture. So he, by an elegant Figure, which we forbear 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 Unwritten, 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 Paul's writings being comprehended under the name of God's word: although all that are commanded by the Apostles are not therefore the commands of Christ, as all do confess. So he. That there are in Scripture Apostolical Constitutions, namely such as are fitted to the Churches, according to the Conveniences of the times, distinguished from Divine Constitutions, which are enjoined the Church, as necessary for all times, it is true. But that (both which this Paraphrase affirmeth) either St. 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 Unknown Prayers to be Repugnant to the word of God) did not thereby understand the word and Commandment of Christ, in his Authentical Scripture, are two as strange exorbitancies as your Glosser could make. For the Apostle, to show that he 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 solemn prayers. If a Trumpet, (saith he) or a Pipe give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself either to the Battle, or to the dance? applying those Similitudes as well to praying, as to preaching in an Unknown tongue. But every one of you will grant that the same Scripture, for necessity of preaching in a known tongue, is the Divine Institution of Christ, and not only an Apostolic Constitution. Therefore (except you will separate that which Christ, by his Apostle, hath joined together) you must confess the same necessity of the Command of Christ for known Prayer. Besides, his Conclusion [How shall he 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 fare of the meaning of S. Paul, now to return to our Article. Whereas you, and all that ever read Protestant Books know, that whensoever they affirm any thing to be Repugnant to the word of God, they mean to the Scripture, as it is the express 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 unknown Prayer to be Repugnant to the Word of God] must signify, not Repugnant to Scripture, or to the Institution of Christ, but to Scription and Apostolical Tradition; must needs argue, in your Professor, some eclipse of judgement, by the which also he venteth out his Inference following. A fourth strain 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 he) that Prayers ought to be used in a tongue known to the people, therefore we properly infer, that Prayers in our Church may be in Latin, because it is a language commonly known. So he, speaking of your Romish Latin prayers, not known of your own people. As if one should argue, saying, Because the kingdom of England holdeth it necessary that the pleading of her laws be used in English, in a tongue known and understood of her Subjects: therefore may it be thence Concluded that the Pleas of other kingdoms may be exercised in Latin, a common language, although not understood of the people of any Nation. Who seethe not in his Inference an extreme want of Logic? A more full Confutation of the Glossers Qualification of the words of our English Article, viz. [Prayer unknown is Repugnant to the words of God;] by his interpreting it, as not meant strictly of the doctrine of Christ, but of the Tradition of the Apostle himself. It is most notoriously known to you all, that The same Article, against Unknown Prayers, is common to all the Churches of Protestants, in a full Accordance, to condemn the contrary Profession and practice of the Roman Church, which justifieth her Custom of praying in a Language unknown to the people, as not Repugnant to the Law of God. And (reciprocally) you are not ignorant that your Council of Trent, in her Anathema and Curse, cast upon all that should say, That the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, intended thereby to accuse all Protestants for condemning the Custom of the Church of Rome, as a transgression of the word and Commandment of God in holy Scripture. Now this your Paraphrazer, by his Moderation and qualification endeavouring to reconcile these Two Contradictory Intentions, namely, of your Romish in condemning our English Article, and of our English Article, in condemning your Romish Canon: What it is but to affirm, that one Church hath opposed against the other for Causes they know not what? Of the second part of the English Article. The Article, [Prayer in an unknown tongue is likewise Repugnant to the Custom of the Primitive Church.] The Glosser opposeth against this. HIS FIRST INSTANCE. 19 Paraph. Graeci apud omnes jurisdictioni Patriarchae Constantinopolitani subditos, licèt Graeci non sint, officia Idiomate Graeco celebrant. SOme, whose vulgar language is not Greek, yet being under the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, pray in the Greek Idiom. So he, for proof of the lawfulness of the people's praying in a language unknown. But the Instance is lame of the right leg; it showeth indeed, and we confess, that many, whose native language is not Greek, pray notwithstanding in the Greek Idiom; but that they understand and not these Greek prayers (which is the only point in question) it prooveth no more than Tenterton-steeple proveth Goodwin-sands. For we have * See above Sect. 7 throughout. manifested the contrary in a full Section, (namely) that all such People, who, being not Greeks, and prayed in the Greek Idiom, did notwithstanding understand that Greek language wherein they prayed. Was your Paraphrazer in good tune, think you, when he would not see this his mark, that he might speak to the purpose and matter in question? Next, he being destitute of any other Instance in the Greek Church, seeketh some other advantage in the Latin Church, in the days of Antiquity, from Saint Cyprian, and S. Augustine: 20 Paraph. In Africa, ut testatur Cyprianus in orat. Domin. Et Augustinus de bono perseverant. cap. 13. Missas, & reliqua faciebant Latinè, licèt lingua vulgaris erat Punica, & Latina ab inferiori plebe non intellecta. They both witness (saith he) that their people in Africa said their Mass and other services in Latin, albeit their own language was the Punic, and that the meaner people were ignorant of the Latin tongue. So he, joining his witness together; but we will take them apart, to avoid Confusion, for the better confuting of your Paraphraser, if he will yet think himself confuted. Cyprian is alleged to have said, as is premised, in his Exposition upon the Lord's prayer: where there is not one syllable of mention of the people of Africa saying of Mass, or of their vulgar Punic Language, or of their Ignorance of the Latin tongue. If this be not foul dealing, to produce a dumb witness, and to father Say upon him, which he never uttered, then will you think it fare more ugly, if the witness, being heard to speak himself, shall avouch the Contrary. Harken then unto Cyprian, in the same Exposition of the Lords Prayer, instructing his Punicks and Africans as followeth. 21 Cypr. Sect. 22. Expos. in Orat. Dom. Quandò stamus ad orationem, Fratres dilectissimi, vigilare & incumbere ad preces, toto corde debemus, nè quicquam tunc animus, quàm id solum cogiter quod precatur. Dear beloved Brethren, when we pray, we ought to be watchful, and attend our Prayers with our hearts, lest our minds in praying think of any other thing, than on that which is prayed. So he. Ergo, say We, The Africans, albeit their vulgar Idiom was Punic, yet did they understand those Latin Prayers, which you yourselves must likewise confess, except any of your Priests could accordingly instruct your rude people, ignorant of the Latin tongue, wherein they pray, by saying unto them, Beloved Brethren, We, (that is, you and I) ought to attend to our prayers, and not think of any thing but that which is prayed. If any of you should so exhort your silly people, to attend to that they understand not, might they not interpret that his Exhortation to be no better than mere Mockery; and as plain an exprobration, as if he should entreat a bald man to comb his head, or a blind man to thread a needle? We add furthermore, that this Latin Exposition of the Lords Prayer was one of the Sermons of Saint Cyprian, and so styled in the same place, Sermo sextus, his sixth Sermon, preached promiscuously to all his people of Africa then assembled. Which is a demonstrable Argument that this people of Africa understood the Latin tongue; you yourselves professing that Preaching aught always to be used in a Language which the people do understand. Saint Augustine is his second Witness, but for what? namely, that The Africans, albeit their Nationall Language was the Punic, yet did they pray in the Latin tongue, whereof they were ignorant. So he. And We answer, that in the place alleged (which is his Book de Bono perseverantiae, cap. 13.) there is no more mention of Punic tongue, or Latin Language, than there is of Welsh, or Irish. It may be that Saint Augustine hath something hereof in some other place, and so indeed he hath: for in a Sermon of his unto the Africans, he speaketh hereof as plainly, as if in direct terms he had given this your Paraphraser the word of disgrace. 22 Aug. de Verbis Apostoli. Serm. 24. Proverbium notum est Punicum, quod quidem Latinè vobis dicam, quia Punicè non omnes nôstis; Nummum quaerit pestilentia. There is (saith he, preaching unto his Africans) a known Proverb in the Punic tongue, which I will render unto you in Latin, because all of you do not understand Punic: The Proverb is this, The Pestilence seeketh money. So he, showing that the Africans understood Latin better than Punic, although this were their Nationall Language. Fare otherwise your Glosser, that the Latin was unknown to the Africans, because their native language was Panic. Whereby he bewrayeth a (Proverbially so called) Punick Faith. Flatly contradicting S. Augustine, 23 August. lib. 1. Confess. cap. 14. Latina didici inter etiam blandimenta Nurricum. who furthermore confesseth of himself, saying, I learned the Latin tongue from the fawning and flattering Speeches of my Nurses. Our Conclusion, by way of Censure of this man's Exposition of the Articles of the Church of England, and of the Romish Authorizers of the same Treatise. This one Point being the first of his Paraphrase, that fell in our way, concerning any doctrine appertaining to the Romish Mass, we have been the more Copious in Confutation thereof, that our Reader might take a just scantling of the judgement of this Paraphrazer in the rest; and of those who were the Censurers, Approvers, and Authorizers of the same: more principally Thomas Blacklous, 24 Censura Thomae Blacklouse de Libellis de Articulis Confessionis Angl.— Catholico animo conscriptis, ut Errantes ad Christi caulam reditum inveniant. who shows to what end this Tractate was writ, and approved (as he saith) To bring those that wander out of the way unto the fold of Christ, Meaning, the Church of Rome. So then we perceive it was not (as he seemeth to pretend) in the behalf of Protestants, to free them from any of the former Censures and anathemas, or from the curses and cruelties of the Romish Church against them; but only to ensnare them, if it may be, in the same Babylonish thraldom of Superstition and Idolatry, from whence by the marvelous and gracious providence of God they have been delivered. Therefore, from these our Premises, We Conclude Blacklous and his fellow Privilegers of this Book, to be guilty of all the above-manifested strange deal, in perverting of the senses of the Articles and Authors by him alleged. Besides that, which surmounteth the rest, is the heinous Crime of wilful Perjury, if they have taken the oath enjoyeth unto all Romish Priests by Pope Pius, after the Council of Trent, swearing To expound no Text of Scripture, without the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers: yet now have allowed such an Exposition of the text of the Apostle, concerning Prayer in an unknown tongue, which they were never able to justify by any one Father of Primitive times, for the space of 600, that we say not a thousand years after Christ, as hath been sufficiently proved. Before We end, We should ask your Censurers, what Church of Rome it is, whose doctrine they would reduce Protestant's unto? Is it the old and primitive Religion of Rome? Why this is that which We so constantly profess. But mean they the Religion of the new Church of Rome, in her new Creed of new Articles, conformable to the Council of Trent? We must say then of your Doctrine, as Christ said of Wine, No man drinking the Old, desireth the New, for he will say, the Old is better. Luc. 5. 39 The sixth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass, contradicting the Sense of the next words of Christ's Institution, [TAKE YE.] SECT. VIII. THus said Christ to his Disciples; by which words what is meant, your jesuite will express (to wit) that c Quia Apostoli non acciperent nisi quod ipse dabat, verbum Dandi Translationem de manibus Christi in manus Discipalorum significat. Sabneron. les. Tom. 9 Tractat. 18. pag. 126. Videtur quod Christus aut singulis in manus dederit partem à se sumendam, aut patinam tradider it propinquioribus, etc. jansen. Episc. Concord. cap. 131. Because the Apostles took that which Christ gave, the word [GAVE] doth signify a Delivery out of Christ his hands into the hands of them that did take. Here, you see, is Taking with hands; especially seeing that Christ, in giving the Cup, said, Drink you all, Matth. 26. one delivering it to another, as it is said of the Paschall Cup, Luc. 22. 17. as it is f jansen Concord. in eved. locum. Fracto pane in duodecim buccellas, singulis in manus dederit; & Calicem propinquiores sequentibus tradiderunt: sic enim dixit; Accipite, dividite inter vos. confessed. The contrary Canon in your (now) Roman Mass. Concerning this, It is to be noted (say g Notandum est quòd laudabiliter Ecclesia prospexit, ut ab isto modo olim licito, nempè accipiendi proprijs manibus Sacramentum, pro reverentia Eucharistiae, abstineant. Et rursus; Olim ex patina suis quisque manibus sumpsit suam particulam, ut moris fuit ad Sextam usque Synodum, nempè Caesar-augustanam: verum ob sacram hujus Mysterij singularem reverentiam Ecclesia instituit, nè Laici nudâ manu Eucharistiam attingerent, sed à Sacerdote in os sumentis mitteretur. Salmeron quo supra. Tract. 12. pag. 78. 79. you) that the Church of Rome hath judged it laudable, that Lay-people abstain from taking the Sacrament with their own hands: but that it be put into their mouths by the Priest; which is so ordained for a singular reverence. So you. CHALLENGE. What we may note of this your [Notandum] the h Apostoli primùm manibus suis panem sanctum acceperunt: & hujus ritus meminerunt veteres Patres. Nam Tert. lib. ad uxorem inquit; Eucharistiae Sacramentum nec de aliorum manibus, quam praesidentium sumimus. Et ex Cyprian. Serm. de lapsis, ob nonnulla exempla, quae producit, constat, Eucharistiam in manibus Communicantum Laicorum dari. Vt constat ex Council Teletano, cap. 14. & ex sexta Synodo in Trullo 101. ubi prohibentur fideles offerre vascula aurea & argentea, in quibus accipiant Eucharistiam, ut per ea communicent, sed proprijs manibus, Idem colligitur ex Epistol. Cornel. Papae, quam refert Euseb. lib. 6. Hist. c. 35. & ex Dionys. Alex. ut refert Nicephor. cap. 9 & ex verbis Ambrosij. Suarez. les. Tom. 3. In Tho. Disp. 49. Sect. 6. initio. Hoc intelligi potest ex Greg. Nazian. Morom fuisse, ut Christiani Eucharistiam, quam accepissent, ad os admoverent.— unde relictam esse credo Consuetudinem in multis locis, quando non communicant, dùm Eucharistia ostenditur, manus tendant, quasi gestientes manibus sumere. Maldon. Ies. de Euch. §. Nova creatura. pag. 283. Confessions of your own jesuites will show: first, that the Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Church, for above 500 years, was according to Christ's Institution, to deliver the Bread into the hands of the Communicants. Secondly, that the same Order was observed at Rome (as appeareth by the Epistle of Pope Cornelius.) Thirdly, that whereas Some had devised, for Reverence-sake, certain Silver vessels, by the which they received the Sacrament; yet two Counsels, the one at Toledo, and the other at Trullo, did forbid that fashion, and required that they should receive it with their hands. Hitherto from yourselves. Vain, therefore, is your pretence of Reverence, in suffering the Priest only to receive it with his hands, as being more worthy in himself than all the rest of the people: when as our Highpriest Christ jesus disdained not to deliver it into the hands of his Disciples. Or else to deny this liberty unto the people, as if their Hands were less sanctified than their mouths. But you will say that it is in Reverence, lest that the Body of Christ may (as you teach) light upon the ground, if any fragments of the Host should chance to fall. There can be no doubt, but that, in the dispensation of this blessed Sacrament, Christians ought to use due cautelousness, that it may be done without miscarriage; yet must you give us leave to retort your pretence of Reverence upon yourselves, thus: Seeing that Christ himself instituted, and his Apostles observed, and that the whole Church of Christ (for so many hundred years) thus practised the administration of this Sacrament from hand to hand, without respect of such Reverence, they therefore were not of your opinion, to think every Crumme or piece of the Host, that falleth to the ground, to be really the Body of Christ. This Aberration we may call, in respect of others, but a small Transgression, if yet any Transgression may be called Small, which is a wilful violating of this so direct a Charge of Christ, [Do this.] The seventh Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass. contradicting the Sense of the next words, [EAT YE.] SECT. IX. AS in the third Transgression, we, by these words of Christ [He gave it to them,] spoken in the plural number, have proved, from your own Confessions, a necessary Communion of the people in the public Celebration thereof with the Priest, against your (now) Profession of private Masses; contrary to the ancient Custom and Universal practice of the Church, * ⚜ For we insist not upon the fourth degree of Penance in the Greek Church, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; of such who, in poenam, stayed to see themselves deprived of that Blessing, which others enjoyed See above, cap. 1. Sect. 2. concerning All capable thereof: So now out of these words [TAKE YE, EAT YE] we observe that the persons present were Takers and Eaters of the blessed Eucharist, and not only Spectators thereof. An Abuse condemned by our Church of England in her 25. Article saying, Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon. The Contrary Canon of the (now) Roman Mass. But your Practice now is slat contrary, in your Church, by admitting people of all sorts, not as the Lords Guests, to Eat of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; but as Gazer's only to look on it, as upon a proper Sacrifice: telling the People that they, seeing the Priest eat and drink, i Synod Trideat Sess 22. c. 6. Adstantes si dices, spiritualiter communicant. In cujus (namely, the priests) persona totus populus spirituali quadam sumptione sanguinem Christi bibere gaudentèr debet credere. Ecchi●● Enchirid. de Euch. c. 10. pag. 114. and Acosta the Ies. nec above Sect. 5. let. (g.) Do spiritually eat and drink in the person of the Priest. And the only beholding of the Priest's Sacrifice, at the Elevation and Adoration thereof, is esteemed amongst you, at this day, the most solemn and saving worship, which any people can perform unto God. CHALLENGE, But Christ (you see) instituted this Sacrament only for Eaters. The Apostle exhorteth every man to Preparation; Let a man examine himself: and exhorting every one, being prepared, to Eat, saith, So let him eat. This (to use your own k Temporibus Dionysij Arcop. (ut patet ex cap. 3. Hier.) omnes invitabantur, ad singula sacra, [venite, fratres, ad communionem.] Chrys. Orat. ad Mart. Philog. Quotidianum Sacrificium in cassum fit, nemo accedit. As witnesseth Card. Alan. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 30. pag. 648. Sciendum est juxta antiquos Patres, quod soli Communicantes divinis mysterijs interesse consueverant, ●nde ante oblationem jubebantur exire Catechumeni, & Poenitentes, sc. quià nondùm se praeparaverant ad communicandum. Cossand. Consult. Art. 24. pag. 216. 217. [And he further brings in Cochla●● de Sacrificio Missae, witnessing the same 1] Quòd olim tam sacerdotes quâm Laici quicunque Sacrificio Missae non interant, peractâ cōmunicatione cum Sacrificante communicabant: sicut in Canon. Apostolorum, & libris antiquissimis Doctorum Ecclesiae perspicuè cognoscitur, Cassander Liturg. cap. 30. Nec propriè dici potest Communio, nisi plures de eodem Sacrificio participent Haec Micrologus cap. 51. de orat. ad populum Teste Espenc. Tract de privata Missa, fol. 232. col. 2. Confessions) was practised in ancient times, when as the people were thus generally invited, Come, Brethren, unto the Communion. When as ancient Fathers (as you have also acknowledged) suffered none but capable Communicants to be present at the celebration of the Eucharist. As for them that came unprepared, and as not intending to Communicate, they commanded them to be gone, and to be packing out of doors. To this purpose your own 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 justly take exception at this, seeing that in the Roman Church also (in the days of Pope Gregory the first, l Sciendum est, ju●●ta antiquos Patres, quod soli Communicantes divinis officijs interest consuverant. Microlog. de Eccles. observat. Et in Liturg. AEthiop. Si communicate non vultis discedite. In Liturg. Amen. Exeant foras. Nic. Cusan. Dico, inquit Dionys. Areop. quòd qui non parati erant ad susceptionem, expellebantur ex Ecclesia. Haec, Tesse Cassandro Liturg. cap. 26. pag. 59 which was 600. years after Christ) the office of the Deacon, at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist, was to cry aloud, saying, m Diaconus diamabat, [Si quis non communicet, det locum] Greg. Dial. cap. 23. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] etc. If any do not Communicate, let him give place. Where we see the religious wisdom of that ancient Church of Rome, which could not suffer a Sacrifice to devour a public 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 that Gregory, required that persons present should Communicate: n Calixtus P. ut habetur de Consecrat. Dist. 2. C. Peracts.— Peractâ Consecratione, omnes communicent,— Sic enim Apostoli slatuerunt, & sancta, tenot Ecclesia. Because (saith he) the Apostles had so ordained, and the holy Church observeth the same. But what have We said? have We called this Sacrament The Supper of our Lord? so (we thought) were we taught by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. before we heard your lesuite o Calvinistarum & Lutheranorum inscitia, Sacramentum hoc Coenam appellantium: atqui nullus in sacris literis locus est, ubi Coena vocatur. Vbi dicit D. Paulus. [I am non est Dominicam Coenam manducare] nullo judicio adhibito existimant illum Eucharistiam Coenam appellare— Non viderunt homines coeci quòd Luc. 22. 20. & Paulus, vers. 25. scribit [Postquam coenavit] usitatam & communem coenam, ante hoc Sacramentum, Coenam vocant. Maldo● Ies. in Matth. 626. pag. 14. Maldonate denying this, and bitterly enveying against Protestants, terming them Blind men for want of judgement, for so calling it. But he must pardon us, if we (though we should suspect our own sight) yield to the ancient Fathers of Primitive times, as to men fare more clear-sighted than that jesuite could be; who (as both your p Vetustissimi Patres, Apostolorum authoritatem secuti, coenae Christi nom he sacram Eucharistiam interdum vocârunt; quòd in illo novissimae coenae salutari mysterio à Christo Domino sit instituta. Catech. Rom. por. 2. p. 171. Coena Dominica, ex Institutionis tempore, à D. Paulo dicitur. Lindan panop. l. 4. c. 37. Roman Catechism, with Lindan, instructeth, and as your Cardinal q Constat Conn●n Domini (sic enim Pacres consucverunt institutionem sacrae Eucharistiae appellare.— Idomque eile Coenam Dominicam m●nducare, quod Eucharistiam sumere, ut Aug. demonstrat, fuisse distinctam à Coena Pasch●t. Baron. An. 34. num 45. Baronius confesseth) following the authority of the Apostles, used to call the sacred Eucharist, the Lords Supper, distinct from the Paschall Supper, which went before it: amongst whom you have r Don●s. Arcop. Higher c. 4. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Chrysost. Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oecum●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyprian. lib. institut. de Coena Domini Bern. Tract. habe● de Coena Domin. Tert. li. 2. cap 4. ad u●orem; Convivium Dominicum. Hier. in 1. Cor. Caeterum Dominica Coena debet esse omnibus communis, quia ille omnibus, qui aderant, discipulis aequalitèr tradidit Sacramentum. Anselm. in 1. Cor. Dominica coena omnibus Christanis debet esse communis. Baron. quo suprà. Dionysius Areop igita, with chrysostom, Cyprian, Augustine, Hierome, Anselme, Bernard. Whereupon (with some of them) we enjoin a Necessity of a joint Communion with those that are present. Will you suffer a Golden mouth to be Moderator in this Controversy? thus then. Whosoever thou art (saith s Obsecro, siquis ad convivium vocatus, & manus quidem laverit & accubuerit, paratusquè & dispositus ad mensam fuerit, & tamen nihil ciborum gustaverit, nun inferet Convivatori contumeliam, à quo fuerat vocatus? Nonnè satiùs erit ei, qui talis est, omninò non compravisse? ità tu quoque qui advenisti, & hymnum cecinisti cum omnibus reliquis, ex Eorum te numero esse, qui digni sunt, hoc ipso confessus es, quòd non cùm indignis abscessisti. Quomodò, cùm mansetis, de mensa ista non participas? indignus es igitur eâ communione, quae in precibus? [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Chrysost. Hom. 3. in Epist. ad Ephes. S. chrysostom) that being fit to participate of this Sacrament shalt stand only looking on, and not eat, thou dost no less 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 be a Guest. So he. And to show that it cannot be sufficient to behold it only as a proper Sacrifice (as you pretend) the same t Audi Chrysost. Hom. 61. ad pop. Antioch. & Hom. 3. ad Ephes. Frustrà hic offertur hostia salutaris & quotidianum Sacrificium; incassum Altari insistimus, cùm nemo est qui participet, nullus cui communicetur.— Quid stat, si è numero es poenitentium,— tu tamen hic interim persistis impudens? at ex ijs non es, sed inter eos, qui possunt esse participes. Espenc. de Missa privata. pag. 221. Item Chrysost. Hom. 3. ad Ephes. p. 773. Edit. Savil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Father (as you know) saith against such Bystanders; Why do we wait at the Altar, offering (meaning * See hereafter in the sixth book. 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 than you perceive is a matter of no small importance, even by reason of the nature of this Sacrament, which is a Divine Banquet; being also enjoined upon the Catholic Church by that Command of Christ, [Do THIS.] Therefore the Command and Precept coming, maketh you Transgressor's for not Eating; even as by the first Command given into mankind of [Eat not] our first Parents became Transgressor's for Eating. So justly doth our * Exhortation before the Communion. Church require, that Gazers, who Communicate not, should departed. We forbear to repeat that which we have formerly * See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. proved (to wit) that you, by not dismissing the non-Communicants from beholding the celebration of this Sacrament, are condemned by the word, Mass, whereof you have so long boasted, until that now your Glory is become your shame. The Eighth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass, by a second Contradiction of the sense of the former words, [EAT YE.] SECT. X. THis is the last Act of Christ, concerning the use of the first Element, viz. [Bread] saying, EAT YE; even as he said of the other, [Drink ye;] and of both he gave this his joint Command [Do this.] Wherefore this Act of Eating being thus prescribed, as the only bodily outward end of this Sacrament, it doth exclude all other bodily Uses of man's invention. Accordingly our Church of England, Article 25. saith, Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be carried about, but to be duly used. The contrary Canon of the Roman Mass. The holy Synod of Trent (saith your a Statu●● sacrosancta Synodus Trident. Sess. 13. cap. 5. Divinum hoc Sacramentum publicè interdum proponendum, vel circumferendum esse per vias & loca publica cum solemni pompa & veneratione. Quae est laudabilis consuetudo. Suareg. Ies. in Thom. 3. Tom. 3. Disp. 65. Sect. 1. pag. 827. jesuite) hath ordained that this Sacrament be preserved, carried abroad, and publicly proposed to the people in Procession, with solemn Pomp and Worship. Which is a laudable Custom. CHALLENGE. We do not dispute against all manner of Reservation of the Eucharist, for we acknowledge some to be ancient; but we inquire into the religious use and end of Reservation: which, we say, was not for any public Procession, or Adoration, but only for a Sacramental Eating thereof. And how unjustly you call this your Procession (only for public Adoration) Laudable, we are provided to demonstrate by the Confessions of your own jesuites and others (out of Cyprian, and other Fathers) who consulting first about Antiquity, grant that, after the Celebration of the Eucharist, anciently b Prisca consuetudo erat dandi Eucharistiam infantibus, ut ex Cypriano & aliis constat: & si aliquae particulae superessent mos erat ut pueri impuberes, qui Ecclesiam frequentabant, accerderentur, ut eas consumerent. Suarez. Ies. quo sup. Disp. 46. Sect. 6. pag. 557. In Conc. Matisconensi advocantur innocentes parvuli, ut dotur illis, si quid ex Sacramenti particulis consumendum est. Bella. lib. 4. de Euch. ca 5. §. Quarto profert— Licet Graeci antiquirùs pueris darent (ut de Consecrat. D. 2) parvuli tamen Sacramentaliter sumere non possunt, quià non utentur Sacramento, ut Sacramento, sed ut communi cibo, propter carentiam discretionis. Summa Angel. p. 148. Pueris exhibitae, sed (ut sic dicam) perfunctoriè, nè ut credo corrumperentur. Espens. l. 2. de Euch. c. 12. Reliquias comburendas esse. Hesych in Leu. cap. 8. §. Quomodo ergò. The Remainders, which were left (lest they should corrupt and putrify) were usually either given to the 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 Vestry, called the * This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Clement will Bellarmine have to be Vas quoddam, a Vessel, wherein the Sacrament was reserved: for he thought that this would make for their priest's Pixe, or Box. But he is learnedly confuted, in this, by dolor W●itaker, Praelect. de Euchar. p. 627. even out of Clement himself: who requireth that a Church should be built somewhat long, in form of a Ship, and to have on both sides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, like a ship. And the LXX in Esay. 22. do render it thus; that Esay was commanded to enter into [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;] the word coming of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thalamus, or Domus. And, in Clemens, doth signify Cubiculum Sacerdotum; wherein the Priests kept it for no other use than to Eat it. Pastophorium. Which was likewise the Custom of Rome in the Primitive age, as c Quòd si remanserint in crastinum, non serventur, sed cum timore & tremore in Sacratio consumantur. Clèmens p. apud Gratian. de Consecrat. D. 2. Pope Clement witnesseth. And although in the times of extreme persecution Christians were permitted to take the Eucharist, and carry it home to their houses, yet it was (as you d Quont●am iniminente persecutione, domum deportabant, & asservabant; cum opus esset sumpturi— Consuetudo post per Conc. Toletanum antiquata. Durant de Rit. l. 1. c. 16. num. 11. grant) to no other end but that they might eat it: and this only in the time of Persecution: After which time the same Custom was abrogated. So you. How then can you call the Reservation of the Host, for public Procession, and not for Eating, Laudable, which hath been thus checked and gain-fayed by so sincere Antiquity? Secondly, when you please to reveile unto us the first Birth of your own Roman Custom, you grant that it was not until a e Hist. Mediol An. 1404. Circumferri coeptum, etc. Quam Processionem tantà laetiuâ & consensione, ac lae à solennitate prosecuta est Latina Ecclesia. Nam de Graeca nihil mihi constat. Espenc. de Euch. c. 8. p. 47. [We may add, that there is no Extat of any such Circumgestation in the Greek Church.] Thousand four hundred years after Christ. And must it then be called a Laudable Custom, whereby (that we may so speak) beardless Novelty doth take place of sage and gray-headed Antiquity? Thirdly, in discussing the end, which was destinated by our Saviour Christ, you further grant, that f Primarius finis servandi Eucharistiam semper feat manducatio: servatur enim ad viaticum Infrimorum. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 5. §. Deinde. Sacramentum per se est dandum propter suum primarium effectum, & non aliâs. Suarez. Ies. Tem. 3. Disp. 52. Sect. 4. §. Secunda Sent. The primitive and principal end, prescribed by Christ, is for Sacramental 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 Custom, argueth what little Congruity there is between your Practice, and Christ's Institution; which 12 Origen. in Levit. 7. Hom. 5. Nam Dommus panem, quem Discipulis suis dedit, dicens, A●cipite, etc. non distulit; nec servari jussit. Origen in his time urged against Reservation till the morrow. And how much less Laudable will this appear to be, when we consider the gross and intolerable Abuses of your Processions, which are displayed by your own Authors? Noting in them the very fooleries of the g Ita Romani factitabant, ● aliae pleraeque Gentes, à quibus ad nos proculdubiò ritus hujusmodi manavit.— Nam Supplicationum nostrarum pompas solent ludicra quaedam prae edere, ubi essigies aliqua magnis malis dehiscens, dentibusque sonitum faciens, & aliae oblectationes judiciae, in quibus Prophetae representantur, al●ti pueri, & chorus inducitur foeminarum; hic Davidem agit, ille Salomonem, alij Regi●●s singu it, alij venatores judunt, Simiam, & jumenta inducentes. Sacerdotum alij Divoru●● personas agunt, eorum imagines aut reliquias ferentes. Polyd. Virgil. Lib 6. ●ivent. pag. 414. 415. Roman Pagans, by your fond Pageants, where Priests play their parts, in representing the persons of Saints; others of Queens, accompanied with Bears and Apes, and many like profane and sportful Inventions, and other Abuses: which occasioned some of your own more devout Professors to wish, that this your Custom were abrogated, h Videtur hic Circum● estationis usus etiam cu● Ecclesiae lucro omitti posse, cùm sit recens, & diu absque ea Circungestatione Sacramento suus honos constiterit; plerunque non devotiom, sed pompae & ostentationi inservit. Itaque vir summi judicij Alberus Crantzius laudat Nic. Cus●num Legatum per Germaniam, quòd abusum ejus, ●● nimis frequenti per singulas ferias Circumgestatione, sustulerit, & constituerit, quòd nisi infra tempus festi Sacramento dedicati, in publicum non deferetur: quia (inquit) ejus Sacramentum institutum est ad usua, non ad ostentationem. Cassand. Consult. At 22. Tit. the Circumgestatione. pag. 174. 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 pomp, rather than pious Devotion. So they. Lastly, lest you may object (as elsewhere) that a Negative Argument (as this, because Christ did not institute this Custom, therefore it may not be allowed) is of no effect; we add, that the Argument negative (if in any thing) then must it prevail 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 i Christus non distulit, nec servari jussit in crastinum. Orig. Hom. 5. in Levit. Panis iste recipitur, non includitur. Cyprian. de Coena Dom. col. 382. saying, Christ reserved it not till tomorrow: and the other, This bread is received, and not reserved, or put into a Box. Which Conclusion we may hold, in condemning of your public Carrying of the Host 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 k Sic sanctiss. Sacramentum ad infirmos deferendum est, ut illud sumant, non autem ut adorent tantùm; sicubi fit in aliquibus locis, quod Pius Quartus prohibuit Declaratio Rom. Cardinal. in Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 6. [Set forth by joh. Gallemart, Academiae Duac. Catechist. pag. 115.] Cardinal's report) did forbid a new-upstart Custom of Carrying the Sacrament to sick people, that they might adore it, when as they were not able to eat it. All these Premises do infer, that your Custom of Circumgestation of the Sacrament, in public Procession, only for Adoration, cannot justly be called Laudable, except you mean thereby to have it termed a Laudable Novelty, and a Laudable profanation, and Transgression, against the Institution of Christ; as now from your own Confessions hath been plainly evicted: and as will be further manifested, when we are to speak of your * In the seventh book. Idolatrous Infatuation itself. ⚜ The only one that offereth to stand in our way, as objecting any Authority from Antiquity, for Procession, is your 13 Pamel. in Tert. ad Vx. l. 2. c. 4. [Si jejunia observanda sunt, maritus (nempè Et●nicus) eâdem die convivium exerceat; procedendum erit, nunquam magis familiae occupatio adveniat.] Vnde Pamelius; Processionum ceremonias antiquas esse, vel ex hoc loco colligere potes. Gabriel Episc. Albispinae Lib. Obser. vat. Sac. Nùm illi homines ridiculi sunt, qui ex hoc loco Processionum ritus deduci fabulantur? quibus hominibus sc. vix liceret in Ecclesià convenire, eos volunt ceremonias suas vicatim et publicè exercuisse— Quapropter procedere nihil aliud apud Authorem significat, quàm domo exire alicujus officij exercendi causà; partem ut aegrotos, & indigentes visicarent, mox enim explicat se Tert. [Quis enim (inquit) sinat uxorem suam, visitandorum fratrum gratiâ, vicatim aliena, & quidem pauperiora quaeque tuguria circuire?] Pamelius; with whom we need not to contend, because your own French Bishop doth easily shoulder him out, proving that the Testimony of Tertullian (speaking of his wife's Proceeding, or going out of her house, for visiting the sick and poor) is ridiculously mistaken, for going in a public Procession, even then, when it was scarce free for Christians to meet together in Churches, for fear of persecution. We proceed therefore to the next Transgression. ⚜ The Ninth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Mass, contradicting the Sense of the words following, [IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.] SECT. XI. REmembrance is an act of Understanding, and therefore showeth that Christ ordained, the use of this Sacrament only for persons of Discretion and Understanding, saying, [Do THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.] The Contrary Canon of the Roman Church, in former times. Your jesuite Maldonate will be our Relater, ingenuously confessing, that in the days of l Augustini & Innocent● sentent● erat, quae sexcentos annos in Ecclesia viguit, Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus necessariam esse; quae ab Ecclesia j●m rejecta, Concil. Trid. statuente, non solum non necessarium esse, sed nè quidem decere Eucharistiam infantibus dari. M●ldanat. Ies. Comment. in johan. 6. 53. pag. 7191 Saint Augustine, and Pope Innocent the first, this opinion was of force in your Church, For six hundred years together, viz. that the administration of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants, Which opinion (saith he) is now rejected by the Council of Trent, Determining that the Eucharist is not only not necessary for Infants, but also that it is Indecent to give it unto them. So he. Of this more in the Challenge. CHALLENGE. IS not now this your Churches Rejecting 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 forefather Pope Innocent, and your former Roman Church from this taxation? This they labour to do, but (alas their misery!) by collusion and cunning: for the same Synod of m Sancta Synòdus docet, Parvulos, usu rationis carentes, nullâ obligari necessitate ad Sacramentalem Eucharistiae communionem— Neque ideò tamen damnanda est Antiquitas, si cum morem aliquando in quibusdam locis seruârunt, quia certè eos nullâ salutis necessitate fecisse, sine controversia credendum est. Conc. Trident. Sess. 2. ca 4. 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 Sacramental receiving of the Eucharist. This we call a Collusion; for by the same Reason, wherewith they argue that Children are not nessarily 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 Council, doubtless, knew, but was desirous thus to cover her own shame, touching her former superstitious practice of Giving this Sacrament unto Infants. In excuse whereof, your Council of Trent adjoineth, that the Church of Rome, in those days, was not condemnable; but why? Because (saith your * See the Testimony below of the letter (r.) Council) Truly and without Controversy we ought to believe, that they did not give the Eucharist unto Infants, as thinking it necessary to Salvation. Which Answer your own Doctors will prove to be a bold, and a notorious untruth, because (as your jesuite n Ecclesia tunc adducta fuit Eucharistiam Infantibus dare, argumento sumpto ex verbis Christi, [Nisi manducaverius carnem filij hominis, et biberitis sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis.] Maldon. Ios. Disp. de Sacram. Tract. de Euch. §. Nono, p. 200 Etiam credebant Infantes tunc baptizatos, nisi Eucharistiam perciperent, salvos esse non posse, Idem Com. in joh. 6. 63. p. 717. showeth) They then believed that Infants baptised could not be saved, except they should participate of the Eucharist; taking their Argument from that Scripture of john. 6. [Except you eat the flesh of the Son, etc.] and therefore held they it necessary to the salvation of Infants. That this was the belief of Pope Innocent, and of the Church of Rome under him, your Parisian Doctor o Innocent. 1. Rom. Pont. Epist. 93. ad Conc. Milever. con. Pelag. respondebat, quòd parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis, etiam sine baptismatis gratia posse donari, perfatuum est: nisi n. manducaverint carnem filii hominis, non habebunt vitam in semetipsis: qui autem hanc eis sine regeneratione defendunt, videntur etiam mihi Baptismum cassate velle, cùm praedicant nos habere, quod in eos creditur non nisi Baptismate conferendum. [Whence Espencaeus thus:] Mirum, ejus temporis Pontifices ex Eucharistiae nececessitate Baptismi & ejus praecursoris urgere necessitatem; nisi idem, & ex eodem tùm loco, tùm Innocentii argumento & authoritate, adversus eosdem hostes urgeret August. Epist. 106. cont. Pelag.— Contra Apostolicae sedis authoritatem, ubi de hac ipsâ re cùm ageretur, hoc testimonium exhibitum est Evangelicum, ne Parvuli non baptizati vitam posse habere credantur. Si autem credunt sedi Apostolicae, vel potiùs ipsi Magistro & Domino Apostolorum, qui dicit, non vitam habituros, nisi manducaverint, & biberint, etc. Espenc. de Adorat. Euch. lib. 2. cap. 12. pag. 58. [Afterwards he bringeth in many other testimonies of Saint Augustine, and Ibid. pag. 59 he proveth that he did not retract his opinion.] Ejus haud dubiè sunt contra julianum libri, quo valentiorem habuit Adversarium neminem; in quem etiam scribendo mortuus est, ac proinde sententiam non retractâsse videtur: in quibus julianum obruit Majorum praejudicio, ab Innocentio Rom. Pont. exorsus, qui parvulos (ait) definivit, nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis, vitam prorsus habere non posse. Espenc. Ibid. [And a little after he showeth the looseness of Aquinas his Solutions. Albeit Saint Augustine was not constant in this opinion, but (as may be gathered out of Bedes Collectanies in 1. Cor. 10. Nulli aliquatenùs dubitandum, etc.) that although the Child do not participate, yet by Baptism he is made partaker of that which it signifieth.] Espencaeus also proveth at large, out of the express writings of Pope Innocent. Yea, and your greatly approved Binius, in his Volumes of the Counsels, dedicated to Pope Paul the fift, p Binius Tom. 1. Conc. ex Rescriptis innocentii Papae ad Conc. Millevet. Epist. 25. Illud vero, etc. Hinc Binius: Hinc constat Innocenti sententia, quae 600. circiter Annos viguit in Ecclesia (quamque Augustinus secutus) Eucharistiam Infantibus necessariam fuisse. Conc. Trid. rectè decrevit, eam non solum non necessariam Infantibus, sed nè quidem decere ur eis distribuatur— Quidam viri non vulgariter docti existimârunt Innocentium hunc locum, [Nisi manducaveritis, etc.] in Baptismi sumptione interpretari. Sed decepti sunt, quòd vim argumenti, quo Pontifex utitur, non sunt assecuti. Ille enim ut Pelagium (qui docebat Baptismum Infantibus, Parent fideli prognatis, peccatum originale non contrahentibus, necessarium non esse) convinceret, hâc Ratiocinatione est usus: Quibus necessaria est Eucharistiae sumptio, usdem Baptismi sumptio magis esse necessaria; At infantibus omnibus esse necessariam Eucharistiae sumptionem, probatur per verba johannis [Nisi manducaveritis. etc.] Quae expositio praxi Ecclesiae nunc repugnat. [De Augustini sententia lege ipsum Augustinum, Epist. 106. Col. 148. Edit. Basil. 1543.] Haec Binius in Editione sua Colon. Ann. 1618. being omitted in his former. Printed Volume, Auno 1606. explaineth the same so exactly (See the Marginal Citation) that it will permit no evasion. And so much the rather, because that which the Tridentine Fathers allege, for cause of Alteration, doth confirm this unto us: It is undecent (say they) to give the Eucharist unto Infants. This may persuade us that Innocent held it necessary, else would he not have practised, and patronised a thing so utterly Undecent. ⚜ Besides one of your 14 jac. Gordon. Scorus lib. Contr. 8. c. 1. Prima abrogationis causa, quia frequens communio Infantium fieri non poterat nisi indecorè, & cùm periculo profanationis tanti Sacramenti. Secunda causa, quià orta est Haeresis quorundam, qui existimârunt hanc communionem esse prorsus ad salutem necessariam Infantibus. pag. 111. jesuites spareth not to make a double cause of the Alteration of that Custom; one, to avoid the Vndecencie and Profanation of the Sacrament (meaning, by the casting it up again:) and secondly, because of the Heresy of those, who thought the Reociving of this Sacrament necessary for the Salvation of Infants. Calling this opinion an Heresy. ⚜ We dispute therefore. If the Church of Rome, in the days of Pope Innocent the first, held it a Doctrine of faith, in the behalf of Infants, that they ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist; the same Church of Rome, in her Council of Trent (whose Decrees, by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth, are all held to be believed upon 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 err in the days of Pope Innocent? then is she now in an error. Or doth she not now err herein? then did she formerly err, and consequently may err hereafter, not only in determining a matter to be Necessary to Salvation, which in itself is Superfluous and Undecent, but also in opinion Heretical. Thus of the contrary custom of the Church of Rome, in elder times. The now contrary Opinion, concerning the Roman Mass, at this day. Even at this day also your jesuite will have us to understand the meaning of your Church to be, that r Non quòd Infantes sunt incapaces hujus Sacramenti, sed quià hoc nunc magis expedit ad decentiam, & reverentiam, quae aliquali utilitati parvulorum praeferenda est. Suarez. Tom. 3. Disp. 62. Sect. 3. §. Quocirca. Infants are capable of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. ⚜ And not thus only, but as unreasonably altogether, you hold that 14 Non quicunquè usu rationis carentes arcendi sunt à sumptione Eucharistiae, sed high, qui nunquam habuerunt usum rationis. Aquin. 〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉 Qu. 80. Art. 9 Madmen, when they are destitute of reason and discretion, may notwithstanding be made Partakers of the same blessed 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 Discern the Lords Body. ⚜ CHALLENGE. Whereunto we oppose the Authority of the s 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. Council of Carthage, and of that (which you call the) Council of Laterane, which denied, as you know, that the Eucharist should be delivered unto Infants, accounting them uncapable of divine and spiritual feeding: without which (say they) the corporal profiteth nothing. But we 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 Schoolmen, to make them even, we may add also Summa Angel: Tit. Eucharistia.] Schoolmen, who upon the same Reasons made the like Conclusion with us. And we further (as it were, ●resting you in the King's name) produce against you Christ his Writ, the Sacred Scripture, whereby he requireth in all persons about to Communicate three principal Acts of Reason; one is before, and two are at the time of receiving. The first is * 1. Cor. 11. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] Let a man examine himself, and so come, etc. The second [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] To discern the Lords body. The third is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] To remember the Lords death until his coming again. All which Three, being Acts of judgement, how they may agree unto Infants, being persons void of judgement, judge you. And remember, we pray you, that we speak of Sacramental 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 Mass, 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 LIKEWISE took THE CUP, AND GAVE IT TO THEM, SAYING, DRINK YE ALL OF THIS.] And adding, 1. Cor. 11. [DO THIS, AS OFTEN AS YOU DO IT, IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.] SECT. I. BY which words [Like manner of Taking, and Giving, and Saying, Drink ye All of this] we say that Christ ordained for his Guests as well the Sacramental Rite of Drinking, as of Eating; and hath tied his Church Catholic in an equal obligation for performance of both, in the administering 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 Insolency, Novelty, Folly, and Obstinacy of the Roman Church, in contradicting of this part of Christ his Canon, may be plainly displayed; that every conscience of man, which is not strangely preoccupated with prejudice, or transported with malice, must needs see and detest it. We have heard of the Canon of Christ his Mass. The contrary Canon of the Romish Church, in her Mass. She, in her Council of Constance, decreed that a Christus sub utraque ●pecie Discipulis administravit— Licet in primitiuâ Ecclesiâ sub utraque specie hoc Sacramentum reciperetur,— tamen haec consuerudo, ut à Laicis sub specie p●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 kinds; notwithstanding (say they) this Custom of but one kind 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. Council of Trent; requiring that the former Custom and Law of receiving it but under one kind be observed both by Laics, yea, and also by all those Priests, who being present at Mass, do not the office of Consecrating. Contrarily our Church of England, in her thirtieth Article thus: Both parts of the Lords Sacrament, by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment, aught to be ministered to all Christian men alike. CHALLENGE. BVtwee demand; what Conscience should move your late Church of Rome to be guided by the authority of that former Council of Constance, which notwithstanding maketh no scruple to reject the authority of the same c Respondeo, Fuit reprobatum Conc. Cō●antiens Martino Pont. quantum ad eam partem, quâ statuit Concilium fuisse suprà Papam. Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 7. §. Quintum. Council 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 Council? and that (as the d Dixit Petro Christus Cum frater in te p●ccaverit, si te non audiat, Dic Ecclesiae, Ergo Ecclesiam Papae judicem constitut. Conc. Basil. apud AEnean●i Sylvium de gest ejusdem Concilij. Council of Basil doth prove) from the authority of Christ his direction unto Peter, to whom he said, Tell the Church. We return 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 public 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 busy themselves withal, as will appear in due places. We repeat it again, [In public 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 Controversy, is by way of Comparison: as namely, First, by comparing the Institution of Christ, with the contrary Ordination and Institution of the Roman Church. Secondly, Christ his Example, with contrary Examples. Thirdly, the Apostles Practise, with the adverse Practice. Fourthly, the Primitive Custom of the Church Catholic, with the after-contrarie Custom; and the Latitude thereof, together with the latitude of the other. Fiftly, the Reasons thereof, with Reasons. Sixtly, the divers manners of beginning of the one, as also the Dispositions of men therein, with the repugnant manner and Dispositions of men in continuing the other. The discussing of all which points will present unto your view divers kinds of Oppositions. In the first, is the Conflict of Religion with Sacrilege. In the second, a sovereign Presidence in Christ, with Contempt. In the third, of Faithfulness with Faithlesness. In the fourth, of Antiquity with Novelty. In the fift, of Universality with Paucity. In the sixth, of Wisdom with Folly: as also of Charity with Injustice and Impiety. In the seaventh, of Knowledge with Ignorance; as likewise of Devotion with Profaneness. And all these marching and warring together, without any possibility of Reconciliation at all. The first Comparison is of the Institution of Christ with the Contrary: proving the Precept of Christ, for the Use of Both kinds to all lawful Communicants, SECT. II. THere is one word twice used in the tenor of Christ his Institution; once concerning the Bread, [HOC FACITE] DO THIS:] the second time touching the Cup, * 1. Cor. 11. 25. [HOC FACITE, QVOTIESCUNQVE:] DO THIS AS OFTEN, etc.] Both which whosoever should deny to have the Sound and Sense of a Precept, might be confuted by your own jesuites, Doctors, Bishops, and Cardinals, among * See all this above Chap. 2. Sect. 1. in the Margin. whom we find your Barradas interpreting it, Praecipit: your Valentian, Praeceptum: your jansenius, Mandate: your Alan, Praeceptio: your Bellarmine, jubet; each one signifying a Command. But of what? this is our next Inquisition. And it is found, that All of them acknowledge Christ's Precept, simply for the Bread: and Some of them, only, but conditionally of the Cup, whereof we are now to speak. The Acts of Christ were some belonging to Consecration, and some to Distribution, Manducation, and Drinking, Such as concerned Consecration of both kinds, being with common consent ackowledged to be under that Command of [Hoc facite,] are the Taking Bread and blessing it, etc. To the other, touching Administration of the Cup, whereof it is said, [He took it, and gave it to his Disciples] whom after he had Commanded, saying, [Drink you all of this,] he added the other Command set down by Saint Paul, saying unto them, [Do this as often as ye shall do it in remembrance of Me.] That by this Obligation he might charge them to communicate in both kinds. A Precept than it must needs be, But we are not ignorant of your Evasions. Your first Evasion. Although (say e Bellar. lib. 1. de Eucharistilia. cap. 25. §. Tertu●. you) it be said to his Disciples [Drink you all, and, Do this] yet it is spoken to them as they were Priest. And only to the Apostles; saith Master * M. Brereley Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 7. after the letter (y) and after (g.) Brerely. And again, The Apostles did represent the Priests. CHALLENGE. We answer that your own f Quorundam opinio, est Apostolos factos sacerdotes per illa verba [Hoc facite.] Sed de his verbis non constat facta consecratione facta consecratione immediatè ea dixisse, anrequàm Euchristiam ub utraque specie dedit, vel post— Quod si verba ista Christus post datam Eucharistiam illam dixit, manifestum est, illum non Sacerdotibus hinc dedisse: quod mihi ex literae decursu magis probatur. Alfon. de Castro con. Heres. 'tis Eucharist. pag. 158. Castro will not allow your Antecedent, but is persuaded rather (by the manifest Current of the Text) that The Apostles were not Priests when the Cup was given unto them. And although they were then Priests, yet we answer, that your Consequence, (viz.) Ergò only Priests are enjoined to receive the Cup, will appear to be both fond in itself, and to your own selves pernicious. First, as fond, as if one should argue thus: It was at the first said only to the Apostles, Go and baptise all Nations: Ergò none but the Apostles have Command to Baptise, which office you permit aswell to women Laicke, as to men. Next pernicious, for say (We pray you) do the words, [Drink ye all of this] command all Priests to drink? then must this condemn the contrary * See above in this Chapter at the letter (b.) Practice of your now Church of Rome, which alloweth the Cup to no Priest present, but only to him that doth Consecrate: which is directly confuted by the Example of Christ, who administered the Cup, unto all his Apostles, by your doctrine, Priests. Again, Do these words only command the Priest to receive the Cup? then likewise do you condemn your former Church of Rome, which hath sometime permitted the Cup unto Laike. Yea, and your Cardinal Alan g [Hoc facite.] Quod cùm pertineat maxime ad potestatem sacerdotalem circa consecrandum & sacrificandum, tamen Apostolus, 1. Cor. 11. resert quoque ad sumptionem sive Laicorum, sive Sacerdotum. Quod & Cyrillus facit in johan. lib. 12. cap. 38. Et Basil in Moral. Reg. 21. cap. 3. ut [Hoc facite] pertineat ad totam actionem Eucharisticam à Christo factam, & tàm à Presbyteris quàm a plebe posteà faciendam. Eodemque verbo imprimis potestas consecrandi & offerendi, deinde etiam mandatum sumendi tàm Sacerdotibus quàm alijs fidelibus detur, cùm utrumque suo modo, licet prius exactius Sacrificium, quàm sumptio memoriam mortis Dominicae ●ontineat. Alan. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 37. pag. 646. doth not stick to tell you, out of the ancient Fathers, that the Command [Do this] declared by Saint Luke, is applied by Saint Paul to the receiving in both kinds, aswell of People as of Priest. And by virtue of the same Command of Christ, The Greek Church hath always observed the use of both kinds unto this day. So he, justifying our contrary Consequence; even as also your * Laici adulti tenentur ex institutione Christi communicare, jure divino: hoc thomas probat ex Luc. 22. [Hoc facite in commemoretionem mei.] quae habent vim praecepti, non tantùm de celebrando (ait Scotus) sed etiam de administrando Sacramentum populo. Cosmus Phil. de offic. Sacerdot. Tom. 1. de Sacrific. Missae. l. 2. c. 2. Cosmus Philiarchus defendeth, and confirmeth the same by Aquinas, and Scotus, the two most eminent Doctors of your Church, holding that Laics are chargible to receive the Eucharist by virtue of the Command of Christ, in the same words of Institution, [Do this.] ⚜ And lest you may think that we seek advantage only from your private Schools, you may find the Council of Braccara (about the year 67●) decreeing the several Administration of both kinds to be Commended to the Church, by the words of Christ his Institution. Lastly, We shall * ⚜ Conc. Braccar. See the third Section following. prove, that the ancient Fathers with joint consent collected, as well as We, a necessity of the People's receiving in both kinds, by right of equality with the Priest, from the same example of Christ, in his first Institution, even because * See afterwards in this Chapt. Sect. 9 at the Christ admitted it to all his Disciples then present: which were not true, * in the Margin. if that the Disciples had had any privilege in receiving either of Both, as they were Priests, as you have fond fancied. Your second Evasion. Next, although it were (say h Nec quicquam valet quod objicitur [Similiter & Calicem:] quià non dicit Similiter & Calicem dedit, sed solùm accepit. Bellar. ibid. §. Nec quicquam. you) said, [And in like manner Christ took the Cup] namely, as he took Bread: yet the word [Similitèr, Likewise] hath Relation to his Taking, not to his Giving. CHALLENGE. THis is flatly repugnant to the Gospel of Christ, where these words of * Luc. 22. 20. Saint Luke, [Likewise he took the Cup] appear by Saint * Math. 26. 27. Matthew to have relation aswell to Christ's Giving, as to his Taking of the Cup, thus; [jesus taken the Cup and gave thanks, and gave it unto them, saying, Drink you all of this.] Yea and in Saint Luke, the text objected is so clear, that it needeth no Comment: He took the Bread, and gave thanks, and gave it unto them, saying, etc. and likewise the Cup. Where the precedent word, expressing Christ his Act, is not Taken, but Gave the Cup. And if any should seek a Comment upon these words, he could find none more direct than that of your learned Arias Montanus, and Bishop jansenius, [In like manner:] That (say i Similiter et Caheem] it est. Qualia feci● circa panem, tali● circa Calicem, Accepit, gratias egit, dividendum dedit, atque praecep●t ut biberent ab eo om●●es: Quae omnia Lucas complexus est, dicens, [Similitèr & Calicem.] jansen Episc. Concord. cap. 131. pag. 905. [Similitèr & Calicem postquàm coenavit, etc.] Id●est, accepit, et porte●● omnibus, dicens, [Hic est Calix, &c] Arias Montan. in 1. Cor. 11. 25. they) as he did with the Bread, so did he with the Cup, he took it, he gave thanks, he gave it unto them All to drink. All which Saint Luke comprised in these words; [In like manner He took the Cup.] So they. Your third Evasion. Although it be said of Drinking of the Cup, [Do this in Remembrance of me:] yet the words [Do this,] (say k Post panis consecrationem absolutè ponitur [Hoc facite] pòst Calicem verò idem repetitur, sed cum conditione, Hoc (inquit) facite quo●●escunquè bibetis, etc. Caertè non fine causa Spiri●us Sanctus modum loquendi mutavit, significans, non ut Calix debat. dari necessariò, sed modum praescribens, ut id fiat ed memoriam Dominicae Passionis. Bellar quo sup. cap. 25 §. ●am. you) are spoken Absolutely of the Bread, and but Conditional of the Cup, namely, [As often as you shall drink it.] And upon this Conceit do two jesuites raise up their Insultation, l Mirabilis est Dei providentia in sanctis literis, nam ut non haberent Haeretici justam excusationem, sustulit eis omnem tergiversandi occasionem. Nam Lucas [Hoc facite] posuit pòst datum Sacramentum sub specie panis: post datum autem Colicem non repetivit, ut intelligeremus Dominum jussisse, ut sub specie panis omnibus distribueretur: sub specie autem vini non ●em. Bellar quo sup. c. 25. §. Resp. Mirabilis. Singularis Dei provide●tia, ut intelligamus minimè expedire, ut singuli fideles sub utraquè specie communicent. Valent. les. Tract. de Euch c. 2. §. Et certè, p 483. saying; Behold here the wonderful providence of God, whereby is taken from Heretics all colour of excuse. So they, of us Protestants. ⚜ If this Providence, whereof you talk, be so Wonderful; and Notorious; it is some Wonder to us, how your own other Doctors miss the sight of it; who, in seeking most earnestly to avoid the dint of Christ's words of Precept [Drink you all of this] devised an uncouth subterfuge, saying, 1 [Bibite ex hoc omnes] Quae verba si non sint Praecipientis, sed invitantis, ut certè esse possint, tùm respondemus, etc. Petrus Arcad Corcyreut. Presb. S. T. D. de Concord Orient. & Occident. Eccles. l. 1. c. 10. These may bewords of Invitation, and not of Command. An Answer which might better become one on an Alebench, inviting his fellow to pledge him. We hasten to our Challenge, in answer to your former Objection. CHALLENGE. TO this we answer, our of the Conclusions of your own Doctors, aswell of the new, as of the old Schools; your m Praecepit igitur Christus, in verbis Lucae, ut ipsà sumptione commemoremus Passionem ejus; & non tantùm ut quoties illud sumeremus Passionem ipsius in memoriam revocaremus. Ac proindè praecepit, ut opere aliquo commemoratio fiat alicujus beneficij accepti, ex modo ipso praecipiendi. Praecepit etiam ut fiat opus ipsum, quis hoc non videat? Vasquez. les. jam 3. Thom. Disp. 113. cap. 2. At verò non est negandum, esse Praeceptum simplicitèr faciendum, alioquin non haberemus fundamentum Praecepti celebrandi in Ecclesia. Sot● in 4. Dist. 12. q. 1. Art. 12. jesuite Vasquez, for the new, Concluding, that the words, [This do ye, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me,] as they command the end of the Celebration of this Sacrament, in the remembrance of the Passion of Christ: so do they also command the Act and manner thereof, which is, by drinking of the Sacramental Cup. Which he holdeth to be so manifest a Truth, that he thinketh no man to be so blind, as not to discern it, saying, Who seethe not this? Accordingly he allegeth Solo, for the old School, concluding that the words [Drink ye all of this, as often, etc.] Do simply command the act of Drinking: or else (saith he) the Church hath no ground, for the Priest that consecrateth, to celebrate in both kinds. And this Obligation Cardinal n Credimus eos rectè oblagari, dùm militainus in hac vira, ad Sacramentum Fucharistiae, eo modo, quo perfectiùs significat Passionem: id est, sub utraqu● specie, etc. Card. Cusan. Epist. 2. ad Bohem. pag. 831. Cusanus affirmeth to lie always upon the Church; Whereby your Master o Who in his Book of the Liturgy of the Mass, standeth so much upon the no command of Christ for the use of boto kinds, that he justifieth an ancient Roman Custom (as he calleth it) of the Priest himself, receiving on Good Friday only under one kind.] Tract. 4. Sect. 4. pag 407. And Tra. 4. Sect. 7. pag. 421 [As often:] not signifying the necessity of Drinking. Brerely may see, and acknowledge his double Error. And, indeed, the Evidence is so great, that although all Romish Universities should withstand it, we might herein appeal to common Sense: for Christ having first commanded his Disciples, saying, in the Celebration of this Sacrament, [Drink ye all of this;] this is the Act: and adding further, saying, [As often, or whensoever as ye shall drink it, do this in remembrance of me,] which is the End so commanded; it doth equally imply a command of the Act of Drinking, aswell as of the End. Now the Catholic Church did always hold, that there ought to be an Often Commemoration of the Passion of Christ, even until his coming again (as saith the Apostle) by the Celebration of this Sacrament. And the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] As often, or whensoever ye receive, etc. (being indefinite, and assigning no certain days or times) giveth liberty to the Church to solemnize this Memorial at her convenient times; yet so, that Whensoever the Church celebrateth this Sacrament, she do it according to the form of Christ his Institution, by communicating in both kinds. ⚜ Yet is not this all, but if you desire an Argument of God's wonderful Providence, you may see it in this, in delivering up your own Cardinals to that Stupidity, as to be caught in their own subtlety, by the clear light of the Text, well discerned by your Divines of 2 Enchirid. Coloni●nse de Sacramen. Euch. verb [Hujus.] Divus Paulus ape●tius reliquis habet: Quotiescunque manducaveritis hunc panem, & poculum hoc bib●tis, mortem Domini annuntiabitis. 1. Cor. 11. 26. Colen in these words of Saint Paul, [As often as you do eat this Bread, and drink this Cup.] Do you mark? the [Quotiescunque,] is applied equally to both, The eating of the one, and Drinking of the other. If then their Consequence were good, that the Church, by virtue of that [Quotiescunque,] had a liberty to abstain from the Cup, it would follow that (against the universal doctrine of both sides) the Church might celebrate the Communion without distribution of either of both, whereof more in the next Section. If the Pope, sitting in the Assembly of his Cardinals, delivering unto each of them a Ring, to put upon their thumbs, should say, Do this as often as you come before me, in testimony of my love: (We demand) Are they not, as often as they come into the presence of that Pope, chargeable to put on each one his Ring upon his thumb, by virtue of the Pope's Command? [Do this] who seethe not this, that doth not wilfully blindfold and stupefy his wits? Shall we conclude? As your own Doctors infer from these words of Christ [Do this] that Laics, who be of years, are bound by the Law of God to communicate: by the same Text may we conclude, that they are likewise obliged to participate of the Cup. ⚜ And although our Argument, taken from the words of Christ [Do this as often] seem to be hereunto of no force with your two Cardinals, who spy therein a wonderful gap of liberty for a non-use of the Cup, in the celebration of this Sacrament; yet your Council of Trent pronounceth that * See afterwards Sect. 4. at the letter (a) and Sect. 6. at (m). The Priest by these words. [Do this as often as, etc.] is commanded to consecrate in both kinds; Which indeed ought to be unto us an Argument of the singular Providence of God, to see the Adversaries of his Truth, to be Babylonishly Confounded by the Contrariety of their own tongues. THE CHALLENGE, In General. DO this] are (as you have heard) words Commandatorie, and being spoken of Both kinds, aswell for Consecration, as for Distribution, do oblige the Church of Christ to perform both kinds: so that it must needs follow, that the neglect of the Act is a Transgression of the Precept of Christ. And so much the rather ought you to be persuaded hereof, because your choicest and most subtle Objecters, when, seeking to defend your Alteration, it became them to reason discreetly concerning this Sacrament (which the Fathers call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Cup of Sobriety) yet do argue so intemperately, as though they had been over-taken with some other Cup: insomuch that they are confuted by their own learned fellows, by evident texts of the Evangelists, and by common sense; Which giveth us just cause to turn their Wonderment against themselves, saying, Behold the Providence of God thus plainly to confound the wisdom of the Adversaries of his truth by themselves, in their greatest subtleness. Hitherto of the Comparison of the Ordinance of Christ with the Ordinance of the Romish Church. Our second Comparison is of the Example of Christ, with the contrary Example. SECT. III. WEre it that we had no Precept of Christ to [Do this] but only the Example of his Doing it in the first Institution, this should be a Rule for us to observe it punctually, excepting in such Circumstances, which only occasionally and accidentally happened therein, as * See above Sect 2. hath been proved; and therefore not to dare to give a Nonobstante against the Example of Christ, as your * See above in this Chapter Sect. 1. lit. (a.) Council of Constance hath done: and which p Rectè docent jurisconsulti, non exemplis sed legibus judicandum.— Quae ab exemplis ducuntur argumenta per locum sunt à simili, quae non tàm ad aliquid firmandum, quàm ad id quod firmatur illustrandum à Dialecticis esse traduntur. Salmeron. les. Tom. 9 Tract. 34. your jesuite also teacheth, as if the Example of Christ were no argument of proof at all. Which Doctrine we are now to try by the judgement of Antiquity. q Cyprian. con. Aquarios' Epist. 63. Admonitos nos scias, ut in Calais offerendo traditio observetur, neque aliquid fiat à nobis, quàm quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecerit. [And somewhat after] A divino Magisterio non recedamus. Cyprian confuteth the Aquarij (Heretics that used only Water in the Chalice) by the Example of Christ his Institution, because Nothing is to be done of us, in celebrating of this Mystery, which was not done of Christ. So he. In the days of Pope julius, Anno 337. there arose many giddy spirits, which violated the holy Institution of Christ, in this Sacrament, when as some Consecrated Milk instead of Wine: others sopped the bread in the Cup: a third sort squiezed Grapes thereinto. These, and the like, that holy Pope did condemn, but how? by pretence of Custom only? no, but by the obligation of Christ his Example, and Institution of this Sacrament, in these words following: r julius' P. apud Gratian de Consecra: Ca Cum omne. Audivimus quosdam, Schismaticâ ambitione detentos, contra divinos ordines & Apostolicas iustitutiones, lac pro vino, in divinis officijs dedicare: alios intinctam Eucharistiam populo pro complemento communionis porrigere: quosdam etiam expressum vinum in Sacramento Dominici Calicis afferre: Alijs vero pannum lincum, musto intinctum, per totum annum reservare, & in tempore Sacrificij partem ejus aquâ lavare, & sic offeire. Quod cùm sit Evangel. cae & Apostolicae doctrinae contrarium, & consuetudim Ecclesiasticae adversum, non difficilè ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur, à quo ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum mysteria processerunt. Cùm enim Magister veritatis verum salutis nostrae Sacrificium suis commendaret Discipulis, nu●● lac, sed panem tantùm & Calicem sub hoc Sacramento noscimus dedisse. Legitur enim in Evangelica veritate, [Accepit Iesus Panem & Calicem, & benedicens dixit Discipulis suis] Cesset igitur Lac in Sacrificando offerri, quià manifestum & evidens veritatis exemplum illuxit, quià praeter Panem & Vinum aliud offerri non licet. Illud verò quod, pro complemento Communionis, intinctam Eucharistiam tradunt populis, nec hoc prolatum ex Evangelio testimonium receperunt, ubi corpus suum Apostolis commendaret & sanguinem: scorsim enim panis, & scorsim Calicis commendatio ●emoratur. Because these are contrary (saith he) to Evangelicall and Apostolical doctrine, and Ecclesiastical Custom, as is easily proved from the fountain of truth, from whence the Sacraments had their first ordinance; for when our Master of Truth commended this to his Disciples, he gave to none Milk, but Bread only, and the Cup. Nor doth the Gospel mention the sopping of Bread, but of giving Bread apart, and the Cup also apart, etc. So Pope julius. ⚜ Long after this, the Council of Braccara (about the year of our Lord 675) withstood the Complemental Custom of receiving both kinds in dipped sops: but wots you why? hearken; even because 3 Conc Braccar. 3. cap. 1. Iliud verò, quod pro complemento Communionis intinctam tradunt Eucharistiam populis; nec hoc prosatum ex Evangelio recipit, ubi Apostolis corpus suum & sanguinem commendavit: seorsim enim panis, & seorsim calicis commendatio memoratur. Apud Binium, Tom. 2. It is not reveiled in the Gospel of Christ's Institution. Ponder the Testimony in the Margin, and you shall find it pointblank contradictory to your opinion and practice. Which Reasoning of the Bishops of that Council had been very lose and lavish, except they had believed that the form of Institution of Christ, concerning the Participation of both kinds, was as Commandatorie, aswell for the People, as the Priest. Those also that offered Bread and Cheese together, in this Sacrament, are confuted by the Institution of Christ, who appointed Bread, saith s Artotyritae panem & caseum offerunt: qui excluduntur per hoc, quòd Christus hoc Sacramentum instiruit in pane. Aquinas, part 3. quaest 24. Art. 1. your Aquinas. What can be more direct and absolute? yet dare your men object to the contrary. The Romish Objection answered. At Emmaus, Luke 24. Christ, meeting with certain Disciples, taking bread and blessing it, and thereby manifesting himself to them, is said immediately after the Breaking of Bread to have vanished out of their sights. Ergò, it may be lawful (saith your t Ex Luc. 24 30. Vbi Christus appatens duobus Discipulis in Emmaus, & accumbens accepit panem, & benedixit, & dedit eyes: quo facto, aperti sunt oculi comm, & evanuit ex oculis, etc. [Hence doth Bellarmine conclude thus:] Ostendit hoc exemplum, quòd minimè existimandum sit, suisse imperatum omnibus illius usum in utraque specie. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Rursus. So also Ruffensis, and others. Cardinal) to use but one kind. Because (saith * Master Brereley Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 3. pag. 402. Master Brerely) the Text showeth, that Christ vanished away, not leaving any time for Benediction, or Consecration of the Cup. CHALLENGE. THis Argumentis is still inculcated, almost, by every Romanist, in defence of the Romish Custom of but in one kind, notwithstanding it be twice rotten. First, in the Root and Antecedent. For although Christ here had begun the Celebration of the Eucharist, yet doth it not appear that he did now perfect it, in distributing either kind to his Disciples; Nor is this likely, saith your u Christum hanc Eucharistiam porrexisse, sententia est incerta, & non verisim. lis, jansen. Concord. c. 126 p. 1070. jansenius. And it is dead-rotten also in the branch and Consequence thereof, because that this Act of Christ in Emmaus is not to be urged, as an Example to be imitated in the Church; which is demonstrable by an acknowledgement, of your jesuite x Respondendum est eam actionem esse illis ipsis imperatam, per illa verba [Hoc facite.] Hoc ipso enim quod juffisunt consecrate sub specie panis, confequenter intelligi debet, eos jesses ess● consecrare sub specie vi● Nam hoc exigit necessariò natura Sacrificij, & Sacramenti: si enim una species absque altera conficiatur, sacrilegium committitur. Quamobrem in Conc. Trident. absolutè dicitur, Sacerdotes jussos esse offerre utr●mque speciem illis verbis [Hoc facite in commemorationem meam.] Quae forma verborum solùm usurpata fuit à Christo circa panem. Valent. les. de usu Eucharist. c. 3. §. Respondendum. ⚜ The words of the Synod. Sess 22. cap. 1. Corpus & sanguinem suum sub speciebus panis & vi● obtulit, ac sub earundem rerum symbolis Apostolus quos tunc novi Testamenti sacerdotes constituebat, ut sumerent, tradidit eisdem, eorumquè in sacerdotio successoribus, ut offerrent, praecepit per illa verba, [Hoc facite in memoriam mei.] Valentia. As for example. The Council of Trent hath defined that the Priest, in Consecrating, is commanded by Christ his Institution to consecrate in both kinds; Because this (saith your jesuite) both the nature of the Sacrifice and Sacrament doth exact: but by what words of Command? namely (for so he saith) by these words, [Do this as often, etc.] Accordingly your Objectour * Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 2. pag. 401. Master Brerely (as if he had meant purposely to confute, and confound himself) The reason why the Priest receiveth both kinds, is, because he is to represent the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. But Bread cannot represent Christ dead, without some sign of Blood. ⚜ Your Scottish jesuite will prompt your English Priest, to say, that there may be a 4 jac. Gordon. Scotus les. lib. Contro. 8. cap 4. In consecratione et sumptione unius speciei est perfecta memoria mortis Christi— quae imperfecta dici potest integraliter, sed non essentialiter. Num. 19 Nec videtur necessario colligi, quòd obligatur sacerdos consecrare vinum— Num. 21. Fecit Christus in Emmaus cùm unicam speciem consecrârat, fecit id quod absolutè praeceperat. Perfect commemoration of Christ's death by consecration of but one kind: and that Christ did not command the Consecration of Both, as necessary. This he fetcheth from the former Example of Christ at Emmaus; whom notwithstanding your jesuite 5 Vasques les. in 3. Thom. Disp. 222. cap. 4. per totum. Repraesentatio mortis Christi in ipsa consecratione hujus Sacramenti, non debet corpus sinè sanguine consecrari.— Cele bratio hujus Sacramenti est imago quaedam Repraesentationis Christi— Rat 1. Quià probaturhoc sacrisicium non in consecratione unius speciei, sed utriusque fuisse à Christo institutum, quià alioqui ubi duae essent Consecrationes, duo essent sacrificia in Missa.— Alteza, quià per alterius tantum speciei consecrationem non potest mors Christ commodè repraesentati— quià neutra species sola habet analogiam, similitudinem, aut p●oportionem cum ●orte Christi ptout contigit, nempe per●effusionem sanguinis ex vulneribus. Vndè rectè fequitur, unae tantum speciei consecrationem, pro sacrificio Christi cruento, non fuisse à Christo institutam. Vasquez (if peradventure he cannot reform) will surely refute, even from your own Romish Principle, which teacheth that the Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloudy Sacrifice in itself, yet Commemorative and Representative of Christ's death and Passion; which was by the Effusion and Separation of Blood from his Body. But this (saith he) cannot be represented 〈◊〉 by one kind. And thereupon he Concludeth that Christ instituted the Consecration of this Sacrament in Both kinds. If then, because Christ ministered it not in Both kinds in Emmaus, it shall be lawful for the Church to imitate him in that manner of Distribution of this Sacrament, it must as equally follow, that because he is not found there to have Consecrated in both kinds, it may be lawful for your Consecrating Priest so to do; not only contrary to your now Roman Custom; but also (in the judgement of the Council of Trent) conrary to the Command of Christ, as * See above. See also hereafter Sect. 6. hath been confessed. Twice miserable therefore is the darkness of your Disputers, First, not to see the Inconsequence of this Objection: and next not to remember that common Principle, to wit, Extraordinary Acts (such as this was) are not to be Rules for ordinary Duties. ⚜ Wherein, that the unconscionableness of all your Objectors may be made more transparent, We add out of your Schools, that Christ's Acts of Excellency, (that is, which are proper to his own Sovereignty) are neither Dispensable, nor Imitable. And such was this his abrupt not-dispensing of Both kinds unto his Disciples. Say, Father Vasquez, is not this most true? 6 Vasquez. Ies. in 3. Thom Disp 2●3. cap. 3. Supremâ authoritate coram Discipulis in castello Emmäus alteram tantùm speciem consecravit.— quod quidem eo tempore fieri maximè expedibat, cùm st●tim in fractione panis agnis is est.— Non possit Pontifex hanc obligationem Sacerdotibus relaxare. Christ (saith this jesuite) now at Emmaus consecrated but in one kind, by his Supreme authority; so proper to Christ, that the Pope himself cannot dispense with any Priest, that he should not consecrate in Both. So he. With what Conscience then could your Objectors urge this Example of Christ, for the Priest's administering the Sacrament but in One kind, which they themselves did see could not justify either your Priests, or Popes, consecrating but in One kind? A SECOND CHALLENGE. We conclude. You have seen, by the testimonies of Cyprian, and Pope julius, that it was good Divinity, in their days, to argue from the Example of Christ his Institution negatively; by rejecting such Acts, and accounting them as contrary to the Institution of Christ, which accord not with his Example, and which are not comprised within the Canon of Christ his [Hoc facite.] Which kind of Reasoning, at this day, is hissed at in your Romish Schools. What need many words? O tempora! Our third Comparison, is, by conferring Apostolical Practice with contrary Practice. SECT. iv Saint Paul having more special occasion to handle this point, than any other of the Apostles, may worthily be admitted to resolve us in the name of all the Rest. He Catechising the Corinthians, concerning the true use of the Eucharist, recordeth the first Institution, thus: * 1. Cor. 11. 23. I have received of the Lord that which I deliver unto you, that the Lord jesus, etc. And, after his Recital of the Institution of Christ, he himself addeth [ * Ibid. Vers. 26. As often as you eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, you show the Lords death until he come again. * Ibid. Vers. 28. Let therefore a man examine himself, and so eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup.] From this we seek a Proof both of the Apostolical Practice, in the use of Both kinds, in this Sacrament; and of our duty in observing the same. But we may spare our pains of proving the use of Both kinds in the Church of Corinth, because (as your a Antiqua Consuctudo temporibus Apostolorum fuit in Ecclesia, sub utraque specie communicandi. In hac assertione nulla est Controversia. Tolet. Ies. in joh. 6. pag 602. So Ecchius Hom. 36. Nullum insiciari posse, Paulum hoc praecipisse Corinthijs. Cardinal Tolet confesseth) There is no controversy thereof. As for the Proof of our necessary Conformity, we have the same Reasons, wherewith the Apostle persuadeth thereunto, [That (saith he) which I have received of the Lord, I deliver unto you, that jesus, etc.] Thereby applying the Example of Christ his Institution for a Rule of their Practice: which this conjunctive Particle of Eating [AND] Drinking; To Eat [AND] Drink, five times so coupled in this Epistle, do plainly declare. But you tell us, that in this place the Conjunctive [AND] is put for a Disjunctive, Or, thereby to teach the Church a liberty to choose whether they shall eat or Drink: notwithstanding, you yourselves have confessed that Christ spoke absolutely, and without Condition, of the Bread, Take, Eat, Do this. And again, 1 Cor. 11. 24. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And in like manner the Cup.] It is an AND Conjunctive, questionless. For seeing it cannot be denied, that the Apostles Practice was both Eating and Drinking conjunctively, it is not likely or credible that the sense of his words should be discretive; because this had been, in words, to have contradicted his own practice. Master Brerely opposeth, viz. The Apostle in the same Chapter saith v. 20 He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement; also he saith verse. 27. whosoever eateth this Bread, and drinketh this Cup unworthily, etc. So he. It is not to be denied but that [AND] is often used in Scripture for, [Or:] but Master Brerely his notions, as commonly elsewhere, so here also are too confused, by not distinguishing the divers use of [AND] namely, in Precepts, and Exhortations to an Act, from AND, in denunciation of judgement, in case of Transgression. As for example, The Precept is, Honour thy father, And thy mother, (Exod. 20.) here [AND] must needs be copulative, because of the Obligation of Precept of honouring Both. But the denunciation against the Transgressor, if it stood (as Master 7 ⚜ Mr. Brerely in his Lit. Tract. 4. §. 7. Usual it is in Scripture to use the Conjunctive, ET, And, for the Disjunctive. So it is said, he that shall strike his Father and Mother, shall die. When as both the Original, the Roman Vulgar, and our Translations have it. (OR.) ⚜ Brerely objecteth, feigning a false Text contrary both to the Original, and vulgar Latin Translation) thus, He that shall strike his father, And mother, shall die: the particle [AND] must needs be taken disjunctively for, Or, (as indeed it is expressed in the Text) because the Transgression of either parts of a Commandment inferreth an obligation of guilt and judgement, as any man of sense may perceive. Against this, albeit so evident a Truth, your Doctors will have something to object, or else it will go hard; even forsooth the contrary practice of the Apostles, Act. 2. 42 where we read of the faithful assembled and Continuing together in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers; because there is but mention only of one kind, which is Bread: whence they infer a no-necessity of using the Cup. So your b Act 2. Ita describitur com ●unicatio Eucharistiae [Erant enim persevorantes in doctrine Apostolorum, & communicatione fractionis panis, & Orationibus.] Quo in loco negari non potest quin agatur de Eucharistia. Apostoli igitur in utraque specie consecrabant: sed populis in una specie ministrabant. Bellar. l. 4 de Euch. c. 24. p. 64. Cardinal Bellarmine. And to answer, that the ministration of the Cup is understood by a figure Synecdoche, is an Answer only imaginary and groundless, saith Master * Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 3. pag 403. Brerely. But are they yet to learn that which every man knoweth, and your own jesuites have taught? that there is no Trope more familiar in Scripture than this Synecdoche of taking a part for the whole? Or could they not discern thus much in the same Chapter, ver. ●6. where it is said, They broke bread through every house; Wherein (as your jesuite c Existamo de Eucharistia non esse Sermonem, quonium de illo superiùs paulò Sermo habitus est. Lorin. les in eund. loc. And Cajetan. Card. F●ebat distributio panis— ita quod aceipiebant cibus erat. Comment in ●und. loc. Lorinus reacheth) there is not meant the Eucharist, but common food? Whereby you cannot but understand implied, in their breaking of bread, their mutual drinking together also. And yet in the like words spoken of the Eucharist, verse 42. [They continued together in breaking of Bread] you exclude the participation of the Cup. What shall we say? was your spiritual appetite weaker than your corporal, in reading these two Texts, wherein is mentioned only Bread, that you could discern but half refection in the Eucharist, and an whole in their bodily repast? ⚜ Not to trouble you with the repeating of Some * Matth. 16. The Disciples are accused for eating bread with unwashed, hands, Mark. 3. They had no leisure to eat bread Luc. 12. Christ to the Pharisees house eat bread. 2. Thess. 3. We have not eaten our bread freely, etc. few Scriptures, among many, wherein the word, Bread, alone doth by a Senechdoche necessarily unply a perfect and full Refection; else men (you know) should be clemmd, who should have Bread only, without Drink. Besides, any man may guess what spirit it favoureth of, that (in paralleling the authority of your Church with the authority of the Apostles) your jesuites do resolve, that although the Apostles had constituted the Custom of Receiving in both kinds, d Si daremus hunc ritum ab Apostolo fuisse traditum, cum tamen merè positivus sit, potuillet illum mutare, quid Ecclesia habet eumdem spiritum, & eanden authoritatem cum Paulo. Salmeron. jes. Tom. 9 Tract. 34. p. 277. Eodem modo Vasquez les. in 3. Thom. Disp. 215. 216. Nihilo minus Ecclesia & summus Pontifes poterit illud justis de causis abrogare; licet concederemus praeceptum hoc fuisse Apostolicum. Nevertheless (say they) the Church of Rome, and Pope thereof, having the same authority with Saint Paul, may abrogate it upon just Cause. And yet hardly can you allege any Cause, for abrogation of that Practice, which Saint Paul might not have assumed in his time. CHALLENGE. O Frustrà susceptos Labores nostros! may we say; for to what end is it for us to prove an Apostolical Practice, or Precept for Both kinds, when your Objectors are ready with the only names of Pope and Church of Rome to stop the mouths not only of Us Heretics (as you call us) but even of Saint Paul himself, and of the other Apostles, yea, and of Saint Peter too? By which Answer notwithstanding you may perceive how little Saint Paul doth favour your cause, by whose Doctrine the Advocates for your Church are driven to these straits: but more principally if you call to remembrance, that our Argument is taken from the Apostles Doctrine and Practice, as it was grounded by St. Paul himself upon the Doctrine and Precept of Christ. Thus, when we appeal unto the Apostles Tradidition, you, by opposing, Think yourselves wiser than the Apostles: which Irenaeus will tell you was the very garb of old e Cùm ad eam Traditionem, quae ab Apostolis, provocamus eos, dicent se Apostolis existentes superiores, sinceram ingenisse ve●ita tem. Iren. lib. 2. advers. Haeres. cap. 2. Heretics. Our fourth and fift Comparisons are of Primitive Custom with the contrary Custom, in respect both of the Antiquity and Universality thereof. SECT. V BEfore we shall say any thing ourselves of the Primitive Custom, in using Both kinds in the administration of this Sacrament, and the extent thereof, both in the longitude of Continuance, and latitude of Universality, we are ready to hear how fare your own Doctors will yield unto us, in both these points, touching the public use of Both kinds. Wherefore, harken but unto the Marginals, and you shall find your jesuites, with others, uttering these voices: f Olim per multa secula sub utraque specie 〈◊〉 gebatur Laicis, ut ex multorum Sanctorum scriptis didicimus. Alfons. à Castro in hac ipsa controversia ● pag. 158. Vsus utriusque speciei à primitiva Ecclesia comprobatus fuit: in posteriori etiam Ecclesia multi Latini et Occidentales illum retinuerunt. Graeci quoque hodiè & Orientales licitè & sanctè, quod ad ipsum ritum attinet, cum observant Salmeron. les. Tom. 9 Tract. 37. pag. 308. Minimè negamus quin utraque species frequentissimè olim etiam administrata fuerit, ut apparet ex Paulo, Atl anasio, Cyprian. Hier. Leone, & Hist. Tripart. ex Greg. & passim ex alijs veterum Testimonijs: itemque ex D. Thoma, qui etiam suo tempore in aliquibus Ecclesijs administratum Calicem fuisse significat. Valent. les de usu Euch. cap. 8 §. Alioqui. pag. 496. Ingenuè tamen & apertè confitemur, morem generalem extitisse communicandi etiam Laicis sub utraque specie, sicut hodiè fit apud Graecos, & olim erat in more positum apud Corinthios, & in Africa. De quo more loquitur Cyprian. Athanas. Dionys. Etiam probatur ex Ecclesia Latina, atque in hunc usum erant olim Calices ministeriales, & paterae ad differentiam calicum & paterarum, in quibus Sacerdotes offerebant. Salmeron. Tom. 9 quo sup. Tract. 35. §. Ingenuè p. 294. B. Gregorius, & Sexcenta hujusmodi proferri possent— Vsus utriusque speciei à Christo & Apostolis, & à Primitiva Ecclesia, qui illum usurpâ●unt, comprobatus fuit. In posteriori etiam Ecclesia multi Latini & Occidentales illum retinuer●nt: Gr●● i quoque hodiè. Salmeron. ib. Tract. 37. § Deinde. Satis compertum est, universalem Ecclesiam Christi in hunc usque diem, Occidentalem seu Romanam mille annis à Christo, in solenni praesertim & ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione, utramvis panis & vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse. Cassand. Consult. pag 166. 167. [And lest any doubt should be made of Gregory the first Pope of that name, his testimony is cited in Gratian, among the Pope's Decrees. De Consecrat. Dist. 2. Quid sit sanguis. Sanguis in ora fidelium funditur.] We must confess, We do confess; yea, We do ingenuously confess a Custom of both kinds (aswell to the Laics as Priests) to have been in the Primitive Church most frequent and general: as is proved by the ancient Fathers both Greek and Latin, among whom are Leo and Gregory (both) Popes of Rome; yea and universal also for a long time, continuing a thousand years in the Church of Rome, and in the Greek Church unto this day. So they. Where we see both the Antiquity and Universality thereof to the full, which it were easy for us to have shown Gradatim, descending down from the first Age unto the twelfth; but that when we have as much confessed as need be proved, it might be judged to be but an importunate diligence and Curiosity to labour any further. Nevertheless, if peradventure any should desire to see one or two Testimonies for the last Age, he may satisfy himself in the g Bern. Serm. 3. de ram●● palmarum, de Sacrament. corp. & sanguinis Dom.— Nemo est qui nesciat hanc tàm singularem alimoniam eâ primâ die (viz. Palm●rum) exhibitam & commendatam, & m●ndatam deinceps frequentari. Algerus lib. 2. c. 8. de Sacram. Iste mos inolevit in Ecclesia ab ipso Christo, qui corpus suum & sanguinem divisim consecravit & dedit. Vide etiam Rupertum de divin of offic. lib. 6. cap. 23. Margin at the first sight. The Romish Objections, concerning Primitive Custom. Divers Objections are urged on your side, to abate something of the Universality of the Custom of Both kinds, which we defend; but if they shall not seek to decline the Question, and to rove about, as it were, at unset marks, their Arguments are but as so many Bolts shot altogether in vain. For our defence is o●●ly this, that in the public solemnisation and Celebration of this Sacrament, in an Assembly of Christians freely met to communicate, no one example can be shown in all Antiquity, throughout the Catholic Church of Christ, for the space of a thousand years, inhibiting either Priest, or Laic, from Communicating in both kinds, who was duly prepared to receive the Sacrament. As for the examples which you usually object, they are of no force at all, being h Oh: Consuetudinem Eucharist●●m domum deferendi, etc. Sol. [By reason of persecution, and the p●●icity of Ministers: but afterwards abolished by the Church: as was the ministration thereof to Infants.] Ob: Communio olim Laicis data ●n poenam gravis delicti. Bellar. lib. 4 de Euch. cap. 24. Sol. [As if the punishment of the Laics Communion could signify Partaking in one kind.] which is confuted by Durant. lib. 2. de Ritib. cap. 55. Nonnulli crediderunt Laicam Communionem appellatam, quòd sub unica specie etiam Clerici, imò Sacerdotes ipsi non conficientes communicant, nunc sub una specie. Quare verius est, Laicam communionem dictam, quia extra sacratiorem locum, ubi Sacrificium fit, ubi Sacerdos conficiens, tùm Ministrie● nunicabant. And by Pamelius in Cyprian. Epist. 152. Laicum communicare, nihil aliud est quam inter Laicos. i e. extrâ cancellos— hoc est, extra chorum, ut hodiè loquimur. Lorinus les. in Act. 2. Reverà distinctio non in specie utraque et una esse videtur, quoniam utraque species concedebatur (nempe Laicis) sed in destinato loco, separato pro Clericis. [And there were two punishments of Priests anciently, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, privari Clericatus honore, et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Excommunicari. ⚜ Yea and Gabriel Episc. Albispinae l. 1. Observat. Sacr. 3. Confuting Bellar. by name: Si opinio Bellarmini probabilitate niteretur, Canon's illam non praetermissuri erant, quandoquidem Laici illis temporibus sub utraque specie communicabant. ⚜ Ob: Ritus erat, ut Communio praesanctificatorum esset sub una specie, die Parascevis, corpus fine specie sanguinis. Sol. [The word itself being in the Plural, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prae sanctificata, confuteth this Objection, and so do the Liturgies.] proved to be either private, or illegitimate, or false, respectively. Hitherto of the Primitive Custom. Notwithstanding all this, will your Roman Church boast of her contrary Custom of aftertimes, telling us, in her Counsels, that her Custom of administering the Eucharist but in one kind is rightly observed, as a Custom, which hath been [Diutissimè observata,] that is, of very long continuance. Many years by-passed, saith i In Conc. Constant. de usu unius speciei. Cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia & sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta, & hactenus diutissime observata sit, habenda est prolege. Eodem modo Conc. Basil. penè eisdem verbis: Deinde latam legem quamplurimis retrò annis Consuetudo jucundissima effecerat. Gasp. Cardillus apud Act. Conc. Trident. p. 220. 221. 223. your Villalpandus. But most precisely your jesuite k Secundum certum est, Ecclesiam praesentem, & quae illam praecessit per trecentos aut ducentos annos, Laicos sub altera specie in multis Ecclesijs communicate consuevisse, ut docet S. Thom. in joh. his verbis. Secundum antiquae Ecclesiae consuetudinem omnes sicut communicabant, corpore, ità & sanguine: quod etiam adhuc in quibusdam Ecclesijs servatur, ubi etiam Ministri altaris continuò & corpore & sanguine communicabant. Salmeron. les. Tom 9 Tract. 35. §. Secundum cortum. pag. 284. Salmeron: It is certain (saith he) that the Church, for these three or two hunded years, hath used to communicate to the Laity under one kind. So they. CHALLENGE. NOw after that we have proved, out of your own Confessions, the length of the Custom of Both kinds to have been in the Continuance above a thousand years, after the first Institution of this Sacrament; and for largeness thereof, in an universal consent thereunto, without any exception by any example ordinary, public, and legitimate; and that you have heard also even the Fathers of your Church opposing against it a contrary custom not above the Compass of three hundred years, and yet to call it [Diutissima] A Custom of longest continuance; what Tergiversation could be more shameless? But enough of this point. In the next place, because the same your Council hath told us, that your contrary Custom was brought in [Rationabiliter,] with good Reason, we are forthwith to discuss the Reasons thereof. Our sixth Comparison is of Reasons, for the Use of Both kinds, collated with Reasons objested to the contrary. SECT. VI A Sacrament (according to the common definition) is a Visible sign of an invisible Grace; and so fare is a Sign true and perfect, as it doth fully represent the things that are ordained to be signified thereby: Signification being the very proper nature and end of a Sign, as well in sacred, as in profane Rites. Come now and let us industriously and calmly debate this matter, which we have in hand, both in respect of the thing signified (which is the Sacrament, or spiritual Object) as of the party Communicating, who is the Subject thereof. Our first Reason is taken from the due Perfection of this Sacrament, which must necessarily be in Both kinds. The things Spiritual (as all Christians profess) are the Body and Blood of Christ, which are signified in the Sacrament of Bread and wine; These two then are not two Sacraments, but one Sacrament formally, (as you * See afterwards at the letter (m.) know) which therefore ought to be performed in Both, or else the Act will be a Sacrilegious dismembering of the Sacrament of Christ. This shall we easily prove from the Principles and Confessions of your own Schools. Your Church professeth to celebrate the Eucharist, both as it is a Sacrifice, and as it is a Sacrament. As you hold it to be a Sacrifice, you generally teach that Both kinds are necessarily to be received of the Priest, because they both belong to the Essence thereof. So your l Sed nos nullam scimus Sacramenti mutilationem, neque partem dimidiam Laicis esse substractam, siquidem duae species requiruntur necessariò ad Sacrificium, sed ad essentiam Sacramenti quaelibet ex duobus sufficit.— Proinde Sacramentum sub specle panis est verum & integrum Sacramentum, quandò sumitur per modum ●nius refectionis. Bellar. Apol. con. Praefar. Monit. pag. 102. And Alfons. à Castro de nac Controu. pag. 157. Sacerdos hac lege devinctus est, ut quotiescunque celebret, nec panem sine vino, nec vinum absque pane consecrari faciat: quoniam etsi integer Christus sub qualibet specie lateat, non tamen quaelibet species totum Christum significat, sed panis sol●m carnem significat, species vini solum sanguinem repraesentat, illiusque solius memoriam gerit. Cardinal. Consult with your m Vnum dicitur quod est perfectum: sic cùm dicitur una domus, unus homo. Est autem unum in perfectione, ad cujus integritatem concurrunt omnia quae requiruntur. Aqum. part. 3. qu. 73. Art. 12. Ex parte Sacrament● convenit, ut utrumque sumatur, scilicet corpus & sanguis, quòd in utroque consistit perfectio Sacramenti. Idem thid. quaest. 80. Art. 2. Etenim obligatio perficiendi istud Sacramentum illi solùm ex natura rei, id est, spect●tâ Sacramenti dignitate, incumbit, qui illud etiam conficit: debet enim is, quandoquidem rem tam divinam facit, non utcunque facere. Itaque tenetur inprimis utramque speciem consecrare, tùm ut huic Sacramento omnis perfectio sua substantialis, etiam quoad rationem individuam, constet. Valent. les. de usu Eucharistiae, cap. 6. §. Etenim. pag. 492. Respondendum est, eam actionem esse illis ipsis imperatam per illa verba [Hoc facite, etc.] See above Sect. 3. at (g) where Vasquez the jesult is cited in 3. Them. Disput. 215. Aquinas, your jesuits' Valentia, and Vasquez, and they will say as much in behalf of the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament; their reason is, Because both kinds, making but one Sacrament, aught to be celebrated perfectly, and therefore is the Priest bound to consecrate this Sacrament in both kinds by that command of Christ, saying, [Do this:] nor can this be omitted without Sacrilege. So they. If such be the necessity of consecrating in both kinds, under the hand of the Priest, then lieth the same obligation upon the Church likewise, for distributing it in both kinds unto the people, to whom it is to be administered, in token of Christ his Passion for them applicatorily, both in his Body and Blood: but the Bread only can no more represent the Blood of Christ in the mouths of people, in the eating thereof, than it can by Consecrating it in the hands of the Priest: and consequently the dismembering thereof, as you do, must necessarily condemn both Priest and People. A Consequence, which your figment of * See hereafterr, Sect: 8. concomitancy cannot possibly avoid. A Corroboration of the same Reason, against the Sacrilegious dismembering of this Sacrament, by the Testimony of Pope Gelasius; and a Vindication of Doctor Morton from the Traducement of other your Priests and jesuites. SECT. VII. THe Heretical Manichees forbore the use of the Cup in this Sacrament, in an opinion, that wine was not created by God, but by some evil spirit; whom Pope Gelasius did therefore condemn by his public Decree: which Heretical opinion (as once I n Appeal. lib. 2. Chap. 1. pag. 140. said) cannot justly be imputed unto the Church of Rome, in her manner of abstaining from the Cup in the Eucharist. This Saying o In his Answer to his Majesty. Master Fisher the jesuite, of late, thought good to pervert to his own use, thus. The Crime wherewith some Protestants charge us, that our receiving under the sole form of Bread is to jump in the opinion of the Manichees, we may (as Doctor Morton confesseth) reject as injurious, saying with him, that it was not the Manichees abstinence from w●ne, but the reason of their forbearance that was judged Heretical. So he. But this man's march is but slow. Master Brerely, p In his Book of the Liturgy of the Mass, Tract. 4. §. 4. pag. 407. a Romish Priest, one well esteemed among you, for his exceeding labour and pains in defending the Romish Cause, to his power, by his many Books, almost in every particular, cometh on more roundly, as followeth: Doctor Morton himself (saith he) shall plead in our behalf, who saith that the Manichees did heretically celebrate the Eucharist only in one kind, in an opinion that wine was not created by God, but by some evil spirit, and were therefore anciently condemned for Heretics: but the Romanists are not to be accused of this heresy of the Manichees, in their not distributing of both elements of bread and wine. And to object this against that Church were an accusation injurious, for it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine, but their reason thereof which made them heretical, said he. So your Priest; yet what of all this? So clearly doth Doctor Morton (saith he) clear us from the foul and false imputation urged against us by Doctor Whitaker, who noted the Administration but in one kind, now used by the Romish Church, to have had its original from the Manichees: and so clearly doth he contradict both Master Whitaker and himself, in one place accusing us, in another excusing us, in one and the same Respect: of which foul fault of Contradiction in so great a Rabbin when he cleareth himself, instead of being Bishop of Litchfield, he shall be unto me ever Magnus Apollo. Thus fare Master Brerely. Alas! what will become of the Doctor, being as you see, thus fiercely assaulted by two at once, one a jesuite, the other a Romish Priest, both conspiring together to make the Doctor ridiculous? CHALLENGE, IT is now about twenty years since the said Doctor (in Confutation of a book of Master Brerelyes, entitled an Apology) published a Treatise, called the Protestants Appeal, wherein were discovered many hundred of Master Brerelyes Ignorances', Falsities, and Absurdities: who ever since hath had Master Parson's itch, (as he himself called his own humour) which received a Salve that might have cured him of that itch, to be meddling with the same Doctor. Yet the only Exception, which hath since come to this Doctor's ears from your side, is this now objected point, concerning the Manichees: whereupon you have heard them both so urgently, and boastingly insist: and not so only, but they have also divulged this pretended Contradiction in many Counties of this Kingdom, to his reproach. Will you be so kind, as but to hear an Answer, and then either wonder at, or hisse, or applaud, or him, or them, as you shall find just Cause. Two things there were condemnable in the Manichees, one was their Act and Practice, in dismembering the Sacrament, by not communicating in Both kinds: the other was their Opinion, which they held, for so doing; which was, as you have heard, an Heretical Conceit, that Wine was the Creature of the Devil. Concerning this Heretical opinion, no Protestant (said q Protestants Appeal lib. 2. chap. 4. Sect. 3. Doctor Morton) doth charge the Church of Rome: but as for the Act of not Communicating in Both kinds, r In the same Appeal, lib. 4. chap. 22. Sect. 10. he called it Sacrilegious, and concluded the Church of Rome, in this respect, to be as guilty of dismembering the Sacrament, as were the Manichees. And both these he hath done by the Authority of Pope s Comperimus quòd quidam, sumptâ tantummodò corporis sacri portione, à Calice sacri cruoris abstineante qui proculdubiò (quoniam nescio qua supersticione docentur astringi) aut Sacramenta integra percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, quià divisio unius ejusdemque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire. Gelas●apud Gratian, de Consecrat. cap. Comper●mus. D. 2. Gelasius, who decreed, in condemning the Manichees, First against their Opinion, saying, Illi nescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi, etc. (That is) They are entangled in a kind of Superstition. Then, for the Act of refusing the Cup, Because (saith he) the diving of the same Mystery cannot be done without grievous sacrilege, therefore let these Manichees either receive the whole Sacrament, or else let them be wholly excluded from receiving. So Gelasius, Seeing then Doctor Morton, and all Protestants, clear the Church of Rome from the imputation of the Heresy of the Manichees, in respect of their opinion, and yet condemn them of the Manichean Sacrilege, in respect of the Act of dismembering the Sacrament; with what spectacles (think you) did your Priest and jesuite read that. Answer of Doctor Morton, to collect from thence, either your Church's justification from a foul fault of Sacrilege, or else the Doctors foul Contradiction to himself, and that clearly forsooth, in the same respect? who themselves are now found to have been so subtly witless, as not to discern Heresy from Sacrilege; an opinion from a fact; or a no-imputation of that, whereof neither Doctor Whitaker, nor any other Protestant ever accused them, from a practice condemned by a Roman Pope himself. Take unto you a Similitude. A man being apprehended in the company of Traitors, upon suspicion of Felony, is fully and effectually prosecuted for Felony only; if one should say of him, that he was not convicted or condemned of Treason, but of Felony, were this either a Contradiction in the party speaking, or a full justification of the party spoken of? You are by this time (we think) ashamed of your Proctors, and of their scornful insultation upon the Doctor, in the ridiculous terms of Rabbin, and Magnus Apollo: who willingly forbeareth, upon this Advantage, to recompense them with like scurrility, being desirous to be only Great in that, which is called Magna est Veritas, & praevalet. By which Truth also is fully discovered the vanity of the Answer both of Mr. Fisher, & of your Cardinal, saying, that Gelasius condemned only the Opinion of the Manichees; which is so transparent a falsehood, as any one that hath but a glimpse of Reason may see through it, by the sentence itself, as hath been proved. Our second Reason is in respect of the perfect Spiritual Refection, represented by this Sacrament. SECT. VIII. ANother Object, represented in this Sacrament, is the food of man's soul, in his faithful receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ, which because it is a perfect spiritual Refection, Christ would have it to be expressed both in Eating and Drinking, wherein consisteth the perfection of man's bodily sustenance: and therefore are both necessarily to be used, by law of Analogy between the outward Sign, and the thing Signified thereby. Two of your a Name in alterutra 〈◊〉 sive panis sive vin● significatur sufficienter refect●● animae Bellar. lib. 4. the Eucharist. cap. 20. §. Vtranuc. pag. 639. Est etiam in specie quod 〈◊〉 significatio refectionis spiritualis— quià unam & eandem resectionis gratiam spiritualem significat ●●bus & potus. Valent quo supr. de legis. usu Eucharist pag. 491. jesuites (from whom Master Fisher hath learned his Answer) seek to persuade their Readers, that the Souls refection spiritual is sufficiently signified in either kind, whether in Bread, or Wine. But be it known unto you, that either all these have forgotten their Catechism, authorized by the Fathers of the Council of Trent, and confirmed by Pope Pius Quintus, or else Those their Catechists forgot themselves in teaching, that b Optimo jure institutum est, ut separatim duae consecrationes fierent: primò enim ut Passio Domini, in qua sanguis à corpore divisus est, ●magis referatur— Deinde, maximè consentaneum fuit, ut quoniam Sacramento, ad alendam animam, utendum nobis erat, tanquam cibus & potus institueretur, ex quibus perfectum corporis alimentum constare, perspicu●● est. Ca●echis. Rom. part. 2. de Euch. num. 29. This Sacrament was instituted so, that two several Consecrations should be used, one of Bread, and the other of the Cup; to the end, both that the Passion of Christ might be represented, wherein his Blood was separated from his Body: and because this Sacrament is ordained to nourish man's soul, it was therefore to be done by Eating and Drinking; in both which the perfect nourishment of man's natural life doth consist. Aquinas, and your jesuite Valentia, with others, are as express in this point, as they were in the former; who although they (as we also) hold that whole Christ is received in either kind, (for Christ is not divided) yet do they c Hoc Sacramentum ordinatur ad spiritualem refectionem, quae conformatur corporali. Ad corporalem autem refectionem Duo requiruntur, scilicet cibus, qui est alimentum siccum, & potus, qui est alimentum humidum. Et etiam ad integritatem hujus Sacramenti duo concu●●●unt; scilicet, spiritualis cibus, & spiritualis potus, secundùm illud, joh. 6 [Caro mea verè est cibus]— Ergò, hoc Sacramentum multa quidem est materialiter, sed unum formaliter & perfectiuè. Aqui. part. 3. quaest. 73. Art 2. Etsi negandum non est, quin ejus refectionis spiritualis vis & commoditas clarius utr●que re s●nul, scilicet cibo & potu, atque adeò utraque specie significetur: ideò enim hoc Sacramentum, quod atti●●et 〈◊〉 ad relationem individualem, perfectus est in utraque simul specie, quàm in altera. Greg de Valent. les. de usu Sacr. Each. c. 6. §. Secundum. p. 491. Hoc est convenientius us● hujus Sacramenti, ut seorsim exhibeatu● fidelibus corpus Christi in cibum, & sanguis in potum. Aquin. quo sup. qu. 76. Art 2. maintain that This Sacrament, as it is conformable both to Eating and Drinking, so doth it by Both kinds, more perfectly express our spiritual nourishment by Christ: and therefore it is more convenie it that both be exhibited to the faithful severally, as for Meat, and for drink. So they. For although, in the Spiritual Receiving, Eating and Drinking are both one, even as the appetite of the Soul in hungering and thirsting is the same; as where it is written, Matth. 5. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, etc. yet in this Sacramental communicating with bodily instruments it is otherwise, as you know. d Sub specie panis sanguis sumatur cum corpore, & sub specie vini sumatur corpus cum sanguine: nec s●nguis sub specio panis bibitur, nec corpus sub specie v●● editu●: quià sicut nec corpus ●bitur, ità nec sanguis comeditur. Duraad. Ratitional. lib. 4. cap. 42. pag. 326. The blood of Christ is not drunk in the form of Bread, nor is his Body eaten as meat in the form of Wine, because the Body cannot be said to be drunk, nor the blood to be eaten. So your Durand, and so afterwards your * See hereafter Sect 10. ⚜ Who also observeth that, concerning spiritual Repast, 8 ●●aasen. 〈◊〉. cap. 59 Dominus dicit, uno●actu fidei famein tolli, & sitim: ac proindè unico actu fidei dicitur manducare & bibere. Christ saith, that by the only act of Faith both hunger and thirst is taken away: therefore we are said both to eat and drink by the same and only act of Faith. Wherefore you, in withholding the Cup from the People, do violate the Testament of Christ, who requireth in this a perfect representation visible of a complete and a full Refection spiritual; which is sufficient to condemn your Abuse, whereby you also defraud God's people of their Dimensum, ordained by Christ for their use. Concerning this second, e Answer to his Majesty. Master Fisher (one of the society of jesuites) was taught to Answer, that the Full causality (as he said) and working of spiritual Effects of the soul cannot be a wanting to the Sacrament under one kind; because of Christ his assistance. So he. We should ask, whether a greater Devotion, and a more plentiful Grace are not to be esteemed spiritual Effects, for the good of the Soul, which are f Secundum Alexandrum de Hales— Major fructus ex perceptione utriusque speciei habetur. Salmeron. les. Tom. 9 Tract. 37. § Neque benè p. 303. Per accidens tutem non est ●ubium quin usus utriusque speciei possit esse fructuosior, eò quod potest majorem devotionem commovere in percipiente. Vndè fiat, ut propter majorem dispositionem consequitur ille veriorem gratiam ex Sacramento. Valent. les. Ibid. pag. 493. §. Per accidens. confessed to be enjoyed rather by Communicating in Both kinds. ⚜ Will you have any more? know then that your Roman Pope Clement did absolutely teach that 9 Vasquez. les. in 3. Thom. quaest. 80. Disput. 215. cap. 2. Probabilior sententia mihi semper visa est eorum, qui dicunt majorem-fructum gratiae ex utraque specie, quàm ex a●●erutra percipi: & proindè illos, qui calicem sumunt, novum augmentum Gratiae consequi. Ità Alexander Cassalius, Arboreus, Clemens Pont. 6. Remandus (Et i●margine suâ; Hinc sententiam Suarez, Disp. 35. § 6. ut probabilem defendit.) Hanc sententiam absolutè secuti●s est Clemens 6. in Bullâ ad Regem Angliae 1341. in quo ill● concessit, ut in gratiae augmentum in utraque specie communicaret.— Sacramentum hoc institutum est in modum Convivij, joh. 6. [Caro mea verè est cibus, & languis meus verè est potus:] nam in Convivio nihil aliud est quàm cibus & potus, quorum quilibec suo particulari modo reficit. A greater augmentation of Grace is obtained by Communicating in Both. Which was the Cause (saith your jesuite) that He dispensed with the King of England to participate in Both. For consider (we pray you) that the Assistance of Christ doth especially concur with his own Ordinance, and therefore much rather where the form of a Sacrament, ordained and instituted by himself, is observed, then where it is (as of you) so notoriously perverted, and contemned. Yet because you may think we rest upon either our own, or yet of other your Doctor's judgement in this Defence, we shall produce to this purpose, the consona●● Doctrine of ancient Fathers. Our third proof is taken from the manifold Reasons of ancient Fathers, for Confirmation of the Necessity of the Communicating in Both kinds. SECT. IX. FOr the proof of the necessary use of Both kinds, in the solemn and public dispensation of this Sacrament, the particular Testimonies of many ancient Fathers might be produced, but your own Authors will ease us of that labour, by relating and g Satis compertum est, universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem, Occidentalem autem seu Romanam mille ampliù à Christo annis, in solenn; prae fertim & ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione, Vtramque panis & vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse— atque ut ità facerent, inductos fuisse primò Instituto exemploque Christi, qui hoc Sacramentum, corporis & sanguinis sui, duobus hisce panis & vini symbolis Discipulis suis, fidelium Communicantium personam repraesentantibus, prebuit: ●um quià in Sacramento sanguinis peculrarem quandam virtutem & gratiam hoc vini symbolo significatam esse credebant: tùm ob rationes mysticas hujus Instituti, quae à veteribus variè adducuntur, viz. ad repraesentandam memoriam Passio●is Christi in oblatione corporis, & sanguinis effusione, juxta illud Pauli, [Quo●iescunque comederitis panem hunc, & Calicem Domini biberitis, mortem Dom●● annunciatis donec venerit] Item ad significandam integram ●ofectionem sive nutritionem, quae cibo & potu constat, quomodò Christus inquit, [Caro mea verus est cibus, et sanguis meus verus est potus.] Item ad designandam redemptionem & tuitionem corporis & animae; ut corpus pro salute corporis, & sanguis pro salute animae, quae in sanguine est, dari intelligatur. Ad significandum quoque Christum utramque naturam assumpsisse, corporis & animae; ut utramque redimeret. Cassand. Consult. Art. 22. pag. 166. 167— Christus licet totus sub una specie, tamen administrari voluit sub duplici, primò, ut totam naturam assumpsisse se ostenderet, ut utramque redimeret: panis enim ad corpus refertur, vinum ad animam.— Simo in altera tantùm sumeretur,— tum mortem suam ad alterius salutem valere significaretur. Pet. Lombard. 4. Dist. 11. Hic Calix pari cuactis conditione sit traditus. Theoph, in 1. Cor. 11. In veteri Testamento quaedam Sacerdos, quaedam populus comedebat, nec poterat populus participare illis, quorum Sacerdos particeps erat: nunc autem omnibus unum corpus proponitur, & unum poculum. Chrysost. in 2. Cor. Hom. 18. Coena Domini omnibus debet esse communis, quum ille Christus Discipulis suis omnibus, qui aderant, aequalitèr tradidit Sacramenta, Hier. in Cor. 11. Quomodò ad martyrij poculum eos idoneos fecimus, si non ad poculum Domini ad●●mus? Cyprian, Epist. 54. ad Cornel. Episc. Rom. de pace lap●● danda. Etiam Lombardus lib. 4. dist. 11. ex Ambrosio ad 1. Cor. 11. Valet ad tuitionem corporis & animae quod percipimus, quià caro Christi pro salute corporis, sanguis verò pro anima nostra offertur. confessing as much, in effect, as we did intent to prove, viz. That the ancient Fathers were induced to the Continuance of the Custom in Both kinds, First, by the Example and Institution of Christ. Secondly, by some particular Grace, which they held to be signified by the Cup. Thirdly, for the Representation, that it had to the Passion. of Christ; distinctly and respectively to his Body and Blood. Fourthly, to resemble the Redemption, which man hath in his Body by Christ's Body, and by his Blood in the soul. Fiftly, To express by these Symbols the perfect spiritual Nourishments we have by his Body and Blood. Sixtly, To understand that this Sacrament doth equally belong to People, as well as to Priests: (which they with great earnestness enforce, with joint consent, as a necessary [Ius] and Right belonging to both.) Seventhly, that the Cup of the Eucharist doth animate souls to receive the Cup of bloody Martyrdom, when the time should be. ⚜ Eightly, by the Precept of Christ; 10 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Qu. 801. Disp. 216. cap. 6. justinus in 2. Apolog. pro Christianis, postquam descripsit communionem sub utraque specie, subjungit: Apostoli enim in Commentati●s suis, quae Evangelia dicuntur, ità sibi Christum praecepisse tradiderunt. Respondeo, Nullum aliud praeceptum Domini Iustinum ibi agnovisse praeter, [Hoc facite in memoriam mei.] Very well, and [Hoc facite] is as full a Command us [Hoc manducate] or, [Hoc bibite.] justine one of the most ancient Guides in Christ's Church saying plainly, that Christ commanded Both kinds to be received And the Commandment, which justine meant, your jesuite attributeth to Christ's saying, [DO THIS] And Cyprian as directly as succinctly 11 Cyprian Serm. de Coena Dom. Evangelium praec●pit, ut bibatur. Resp. Satis est si bibatur à Sacerdotibus, licet non à Laicis. [But this is refuted by the Fathers, who will admit of no Inequality among Christians, in communicating of this sacred Banquet.] The Gospel commandeth the drinking of it; yea and Saint Augustine was so peremptory for the Common use of the Cup, that he called Christian men's 12 Aug. Ser. 2. Feriae Pase●ae. Simul hoc sumimus, simul bibimus; quià simul vivimus. Teste Cassandro in Exposit. & Homilijs in Hymnum aquinatis. Nec corpus sine sanguine, nec sanguis sine corpore jure communicatur 〈◊〉 atque is communicandi ritus usquè ad Tho. Aquin●tis ●●tatem & amplius in Ecclesia Catholica obtinuerat— tandem ista antiquà Distributio non, ut an●eà, necessaria, sed ut licita tantum haberi coeperit. Ibid. [Bibere] in this Sacrament, to be their [Vivere] and that lawfully the one cannot be communicated without the other. ⚜ Whereunto may be added the Constant profession of the h Graeci dicunt esse necessariò sub utraque specie panis scilicet, & vini communicandum, adeo quidem, ut qui sub una specie tantùm communicate, etiamsi laicus sit, peccate dicatur, quod (ut aiunt) contra Christi Praeceptum agate, qui sub utraque specie communicare praecepit. Prateol. Elench. Haeret. lib. 7. tit. Graeci. [⚜ For proof that the Cause of Priest and people, in the receiving of this Sacrament, is equal, we have these, Say of Antiquity. Dominica coena omnibus debet esse communis, quià dabatur omnibus Discipulis, qui aderant. Hier. in 1. Cor. c. 11. Est ubi nihil dissert Sacerdo● à subdito, ut in tremendis Christi mysterijs: non sicut in veteri lege partem Sacerdos, partem populus, & tunc non licebat populo participare eorum, quorum particeps erat Sacerdos. Verùm nunc omnibus unum Corpus proponitur, unum poculum. Chrys●st. in 1. Cor. Hom. 27. Ille corpus aequaliter dedit, Tu autem quod commune est non communicae: etenim pro omnibus pariter factum est, & 〈◊〉 portione distributum. Cyprian. de Coena Dom. Haec mensa omnibus ex aequo proponitur. Theodoret. in 1. Cor. 11. Hic Calix pari— cunctis conditione traditus. Theoph. 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 11.] Greek Church, in obeying the Canon of Christ, and holding it necessarily to be observed of the people also, by receiving in Both kinds; and that otherwise we transgress against the Institution of Christ. All these Testimonies of Primitive Fathers, under the Confession of your own Doctors (besides our other Collections) are so many Arguments of the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity, for proof of an Obligation of Precept upon the Churches of Christ whatsoever, for the preservation of the perfect form of Christ's Ordinance, in the administering of the Sacrament in Both kinds. Upon this evidence may you justly call your fellow-Priest Mr. Brerely to account for his bold Assumption, saying, that * Liturg. Tract. 4. §. 9 pag. 425. a● Eighthly. No Doctor (speaking of ancient Fathers) can be produced either expressly, or else by necessary Consequence, affirming the necessity of the Laics receiving under Both kinds: Yourselves perceiving now not only One, but many ancient Doctors to have expressed not only One, but Many Necessity's inferring the same. And then you may furthermore question him for his next as lavish Assertion, affirming, in his fift Answer, that The Authorities objected, for the necessity of Both kinds, speak not of a Sacramental, but only of a spiritual Receiving with the mouth of their hearts. When shall we find conscionable dealing at this man's hands? Having thus finished our Assumption, we shall more expeditely satisfy such your Reasons, or rather Pretences, which you bring to disguise your sacrilegious Abuse. The Romish Pretences for their Innovation and Alteration of Christ his Institution, by the public use of but One kind. SECT. X. We hear the * Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. Cap. 2. Gravibus et justis de Causis. Council of Trent pretending (as they say) Just reasons of altering the primitive Custom and use of both kinds, but naming none, which we may well think was because they deserved not the mention: surely, such they were, that your jesuite had rather that you should believe them, then try and examine them; It being your part (as i Porrò causas, quae Ecclesiam moverunt, ut consuetudinem communicandi sub altera probaret, atque etiam pro lege observanda esse decerneret, non tàm nostrum est discutere aut inquireie, quàm ipsi Decreto simpliciter obtemperare, existimaréque omninò eas fuisse justas, ut rectissimè ex Conc. Trid. definitum est. Greg. Volent. Ies. delegit. usu Sacr. Euch c. 10. §. Porrò, p. 499. he saith) Rather to think them just, then to discuss them. But we are not bound to your Rules of blind Obedience. God will have us to use the sight, which he hath given us, lest If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the Ditch. And whether the Reasons, which are given by your Doctors, be not blind Seducements, we are now to try. Some of your Reasons are taken from extraordinary Cases, some Instances are common to all other Church's Christian, and some are made as being peculiar to the Church of Rome. The first kind of Romish Pretences, from extraordinary Cases. The first pretence is thus alleged; k Ob inopiam vini, cujus in plerisque Christianitatis partibus magna penuria. Valent. ibid. & Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 34. §. Ad quintum, pag. 279. And Rossens. in like manner. Bellar. also addeth another Reason to this: Movit Ecclesiam uniformitas, ut Concordia populi Christiani in Sacramento hoc percipiendo, quod est Sacramentum pacis & unjtatis, propter eos, apud quos vinum inveniri non potest: ut sunt, aliquae provinciae boreales, ubi vinum non invenitur, qui existimarent se Christo curae non fuisse, aut non ità ut alias provincias, quandò Sacramentum instituit. Lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 28. Many Northern Countries are destitute of Wine, and therefore one kind is to be used for Concord, and Vniformity-sake. Will you be answered from yourselves? Aquinas, making the same Objection of want of Wine, and Where in foreign Countries, l Licet non in omnibus terris nascitur vinum aut triticum, tamen ad omnes terras facilè deferri potest, quantum sufficit ad usum hujus Sacramenti. Aquin part. 3 qu. 74. Art. 1. Sufficit quòd Balsamum potest ad omnia loca transfetri, Idem. ibid. qu. 72. Art. 2. Resolveth that Notwithstanding, Wheat and Wine may be transported easily to all parts. Accordingly doth he resolve of the want of Balsam, used in your Consecration, and yet it is fare more scarce than Wine or Wheat. Yet what Northern Country almost can you name, that hath not abundance of Wine for many persons, even unto riot, and can they not as well have it in moderate measure, for a sacred Rite? But what talk you of Uniformity and Concord, in this Case of Alteration, (which are your two next Pretences) wherein notwithstanding the Church of Rome is dissenting from the Greek, and all other Christian Churches in the World? Or if this were a necessary Cause, why did not your Church allow the use of Both kinds to the Church of Bohemia, but twice raised a fierce war against them? for which your jesuite m Bis Princepes Germaniae ad Bohemos (quòd Communionem sub utraque specie communicarent) debellandos arma sump●●cre, hortatore Cardinale juliano S. Angeli, Apostolicae sedis Legato doctissimo paritèt et rerum gerendarum prudentiâ ornatissimo viro: quanquàm bellum non satis felicitèr successit. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 36 pag. 284. Salmeron seemeth to be full sorry; marry it was, because that war had not his wished success. Is their Concord in Hostility? Again, because you (thirdly) pretend Uniformity also, why then do your consecrating Priests only receive both kinds sacramentally, and all the other Priests in Communicating participate but in one? or how is it that you allow a privilege to * See a little after at (p.) Popes, Cardinals, Monks, and noble Personages, to receive in both kinds, and deny this liberty to Others? Is there likewise Uniformity in Disparity? Your fourth Pretence is, because divers are n Multi sunt abstemi●, qui vinum non ferunt. Bellar. lib. 4. the Eucharist. cap. 28. Abstemious, and have an Antipathy against Wine, and some sickly persons also can hardly receive without Irreverent casting it up again. If the particular reason, which o Dicendum, quòd vinum modicè sumptum non potest multum aegrotanti nocere. Aquinas part. 3. quaest. 74. Art. 1. Aquinas giveth, saying, That Wine moderately taken of such can do no hurt, may not satisfy, yet this being also a Cause accidental, and extraordinary, you ought to be regulated by this general Rule, That extraordinary Cases ought not to justle out ordinary Laws and Customs. For, that Command of Christ to his Apostles, Go preach to every Creature, stood good in the general, albeit many men happened to be deaf. Saint Peter requireth of every Christian of sit years, that he be prepared to give an answer of his faith to every one that asketh; which precept was not therefore alterable, because of multitudes of many that were dumb. Finally, to close up with you, he that by the rule of Hospitality is to cheer up his guests, doth not prescribe that, because some men's stomaches are queasy, and not able to endure Wine, or else some meats, therefore all others should be kept fasting from all meats and Drinks: and the Eucharist (you know) is called by Saint Paul, The Supper of the Lord, and by ancient Fathers, an holy * See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9 in the Ch●ll. Banquet. The second kind of Romish Pretences is of Such, which might have been common to other Churches. The other Causes abovementioned were common to the primitive Church of Christ, wherein the use of Both kinds was (notwithstanding) preserved and continued; except that you will say, no Northern Nations were Christians in those times: and that no stomaches of Christians were dis-affected to wine, in loathing it, etc. But two other Pretences you have, which you think to be of more speciall-force, to forbid the use of this Sacrament in Both kinds; One is Because (saith your m Primò movet Ecclesiam consuetudo recepta, & approbata consensu Gentium & Populorum. Bellar. quo sup. Cardinal) such is the now-received and approved Custom of Nations and People. So he. But first to argue, that your Church did therefore forbid the use of both kinds, because she had approved the contrary Custom, is a mere Nugacitie and Tautology; and as much as to say, She would forbid it, because she would forbid it. Secondly, saying, that the Use of but One kind had indefinitely the Consent of Nations and People, is a flat falsity, because (as hath been confessed) The Greek Church (not to mention AEthiopians, Egyptians, Armenians, and Others) have always held the Contrary Custom. Lastly, to justify your Church's Innovation, in consenting to the humour of People of latter times, what can you censure it less than a gross and absurd Indulgence? The other Motive, which the n Mover Eccleclesiam, & quidem vehementer Irreverentia & profanationes tanti Sacramenti, quae vix evitari possent in tanta fidelium multitudine, si omnibus daretur sub utraque specie. Bellar. ibid. Cardinal calleth a Vehement presumption, and which all your Objectors most earnestly urge, is the Cause of Irreverence, lest the blood might be spilt, especially in such a multitude of faithful Communicants: and also lest any particle of the Host fall to the ground, saith Master * Liturg. tract. 4. §. 6. Brerely. We have but four Answers to this mighty Objection. First, that this was not held a Reason to Christ, or his Apostles, or to the Church of Christ, for many ages, when notwithstanding the multitudes of Communicants were innumerable. Secondly, that The Casual spilling of the Cup, saith your o Vtriusque speciei usum illicitum esse atque sacrilegium aitfalsum est, quòd usui Calicis annexum sic peccatum vel sacrilegium, propter periculum effusionis: nam si haberet adjunctum peccatum, neque Christus Dominus, neque Apostoli in primitiva Ecclesia, nec Orientales modo, nec Occidentales ante Conc. Constantiense, neque denique Sacerdotes celebrantes eo uterentur ritu. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 37. §. Deinde p 308. Salmeron, is no sin, else would not Christ have instituted the use of the Cup: nor would the Apostles, or Primitive Church aswell in the West as in the East, in their communicating; nor yet the Priest in consecrating, have used it. So he. We might add, by the same reason should people be forbid the other part also, lest (as your Priest said) any particle thereof should fall to the ground. Furthermore, for the avoiding of Spilling, you (as your Cardinal Alan p Cernuntur hodiè ex antiquitate relictae quaedam fistulae argenteae & aureae velut canales, calicibus vetustioribus adjunctae, ut per eas sine effusione hauriri posset sanguis è chalice, quarum in Ordinario Rom. sit mentio. Et adhuc in Missa solenni Pontificis adhibentur, ubi ministri Cardinals, aut illustriores personae communicant sub utraque specie, posteriorem speciem fistulà haurientes: sed ista instrumenta non fuisse in usu apud plebem in parochialibus Ecclesijs planè existimo, sed tantum in sacris Cardinalium, Canonicorum, et Monachorum Conventibus. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch cap 47. p. 495. relateth) have provided Pipes of silver, which are used by Popes, Cardinals, Monks, and some other Illustrious lay-Personages. Surely, there being no respect of persons with God (as said Saint Peter) we think that he, who will be Saint Peter's Successor should have taken out with Saint Peter that lesson of Christ, of loving the whole flock of Christ, aswell Lambs as Sheep; not to provide Pipes or Tunnels for himself alone, and his Grandes, for receiving this part of the Sacrament, and to neglect all other Christians, albeit never so true members of Christ. For this we all know, that q 1. Cor. 11. Itaque fratres mei, cum conveneritis, invicem expectate.] Dominus ex aequo Tibi & pauperi mensam proprij corporis, & poculum sanguinis tradidit. Teste Salmeron. les. Tom. 14. Disp. 19 pag. 153. Our Lord Christ prepared his table aswell for the poor as the Rich, according to the Apostles Doctrine, by your own construction, answerable to the Doctrine of ancient Fathers. And that the Pretence of Reverence cannot be a sufficient Reason of altering the ordinance of Christ, we may learn from ancient Histories, which evidently declare that the opinion of Reverence hath often been the Dam and Nurse of manifold Superstitions. As for example, The Heretics called * See §. 9 Discalceati, in pretence of more humility, thought that they ought to go barefoot. The * See above Sect. 8. (g) Encratitae, in pretence of more sanctity, abhorred marriage. The r Aquarij solam aquam apponendam asserebant, sobeietatis conservandae causâ vinum vitantes. Alsons. à Caflto cont. Id eres. Tit. Eucharistia, Har. 6. Aquarij, in pretence of more sobriety, used water in this Sacrament. The Manichees wanted not their pretence of not drinking wine in the Eucharist, because they thought it was created by an evil Spirit. And yet were these judged by Pope Gelasius to be Sacrilegious. ⚜ Hence was it that your jesuite demanded, 13 Nic. Causin. Ies in his book called the Holy Court. pag. 539. How was it possible (saith he) that the Heresy of Eutyches, being nuzzled under a false zeal of Reverence towards the person of the Son of God, might not ensnare the Empress Pulcheria, a woman? Yea, and what greater defence had the Pharisees, for all their Superstitions, than that of Reverence? whom notwithstanding Christ did pierce thorough with so many Vae's, for annulling of the Precepts of God, by their Traditions, under the pretence of religious Reverence and sanctity. In brief. It was the opinion of Reverence that made Saint Peter to contradict our Lords Command, when he said, Thou shalt never wash my feet: yet how dangerous it had been for Peter to have persisted in opposition, the Reply of our Saviour doth declare: If I wash not thy feet (faith Christ) thou hast no part with me, etc. Upon which Text Saint s Discamus Christum, prout vult, venerari, honorato namque jucundissimus est honour, non quem nos putamus; nam & eum Petrus honorare putabat, cùm sibi pedes eum lavare prohibuit: sed non erat honour, quem agebac, sed contrarium Chrysost. Hom. 60. ad pop. Antioch. Tom. 1. chrysostom readeth unto you this Lecture. Let us therefore learn (saith he) to honour and reverence Christ, as he would, and not as we think meet. And sure we are, that he would that same which he commanded, saying, [Do this.] Therefore our next Difference, between our defence and yours, is no other than obedient Reverence, and irreverent, or rather irreligious Disobedience. As for your Pretence of manifesting hereby a t Si sic tanta esset degnitas Laicorum, circà sumptionem corporis Christi, quanta Clericorum? Gerson. Tract. de utraque specie. Greater dignity of Priests than of Laics; it is too fantastical for the singularity; too harsh for the novelty; and too graceless for the impiety thereof: seeing that Christ, who gave his Body and Blood an equal price of Redemption for all sorts, would have the Sacrament of his Body and Blood equally administered to People, as to Priests; as you have heard the Fathers themselves profess. The Third kind of Romish Pretences, which are more peculiar to their own Church, in two points. First, because a Movit Ecclesiam, ad hunc usum stabiliendum & lege firmandum, quòd videret, ab Haereticis, et ex errore oppugnari. Sacramentarij autem non credunt Concomitantiam sanguinis Domini cùm corpore in specie panis: undè etiam ij Lutheranorum maximè urgent utramque speciem, qui cum Sacramentarijs rident Concomita●●tiam. Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 28. §. Secundò. Heretics (saith Bellarmine, and meaning Protestants) do not believe concomitancy, that is to say, that the blood of Christ is received under the form of bread: but for this concomitancy the Church was moved to prescribe the use of the Eucharist in one kind. So he. And this point of Concomitancse is that which b In his book dedicated to K. james. Master Fisher, and c In his Liturg. of the Mass pag. 396. Master Brerely most laboured for, or rather laboured upon. And albeit your Roman d Maximè omnium ad convellendam eorum haeresin, qui negabant sub utraque specie corpus Christi contineri. Catech. Rom. par. 2. c. 4. nu. 50. Catechism judgeth this the principal Cause of inducing your Church to prefer one kind: yet we (whom you call Heretics) believe that the devout Communicant, receiving Christ spiritually by faith, is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucified, in the inward act of the Soul: and only deny, that the Whole is received Sacramentally, in this outward act, under one only part of this Sacrament, which is the present Question. And in this we say no more than your Bishop jansenius judged reasonable, who hath rightly argued, saying, e Verùm non facilè apparet quomodò apertè exterior illa sumptio dici possit bibitio: manducatio rectè dicitur, quià sumitur aliquid ibi per modum cibi: sed quomodò bibitio, cùm nihil sumatur per modum potus? non n. diceremus eum & manducare et bibere, qui panem tinctum vino sumeret, quamvis sumat quod famem tollat et sitim. Proindè, secundùm horum sententiam videtur omninò dicendum— cum dicitur manducare, & bibere, non ratione actus exterioris, qui manducationis tantùm speciem habet: sed ratione actus interioris, nempe, ratione fidei. jansen. Concord in Evang. pag. 457. It doth not easily appear how the outward receiving of Christ, under the form of Bread, should he called Drinking, but only Eating, being received after the manner of meats, as that is called Drinking only, which is received after the manner of drink. Drinking therefore and Eating are distinguished by Christ, in the outward Act. So he, even as your own * Durand Rationale. lib. 4. c. 54. una pars absque alia sumpta non est completum Sacramentum, cùm panis corpus significat, non potest sacramentaliter sumi sinè altera specie. before him had truly concluded, with whom Master * See Book 2. Cap. 2. § 4. Brerely will bear a part. Therefore your concomitancy (if we respect the Sacramental manner of Receiving) is but a Chimaera, and as great a Solecism as to say, that the Body and Bones of Christ are drunk, and his Blood eaten: contrary to the Sacramental representation, in receiving Bread and Wine, as hath been proved. Next, when we ask you, why only your Church will not reform and regulate her Custom, according to the Institution of Christ, and the long practice of the primitive Church? you answer plainly, and without Circumlocution, that the Reason is, Lest that your Church might seem to have erred in her alteration if the ancient Custom. And this your f Secunda ratio, quià qui Concomitantiam negant, ex alio pernitioso errore petunt utramque speciem: quià nimirum existimant jure divino esse praeceptum; & propterea totam Ecclesiam longo tempore in hac re turpiter enâssè. Bellar. quo. sup. §. Secundo. Cardinal Bellarmine and the jesuite g Rectissimè facit Ecclesia, quod ipsa praxi contratiâ refutat eorum haeresin, qui utramque speciem jure divino necessariam omnibus esse perperam contendunt. Quae ratio jure optimo inter caetera cosiderata est in Conc. Constant. contra Bohemos; & in Conc. Trident. contra recen●iores Sectarios. Greg. de Valent. Ies. Tract. de usu Eucharist. cap 10 §. Deindè, pag 499. Valentian use and urge as a necessary Reason, for confutation of Protestants, who held the necessity of public Communion in Both kinds. Which Reason your own Orator Gaspar Cardillo proclaimed as (in a manner) the sole cause of continuing your degenerated use, h Ego existimo, Patres, non solùm nullam legitimam causàm essè, sed neque fingi posse, cur de consensu vestro Laici calicem bibant: neque pati ullo modo velitis à more vestro quempiam decedere latum unguem.— Inprimis, quoniam Ecclesia illud praecepit, ut alteram tantùm speciem Laicis porrigamus, cut meritò nobis obtemperandum est, quià nihil agit sine magna ratione, neque in hujusmodi legibus ferendis errare potest. Denique si latam legem nullâ evidenti necessitate convellatis (Patres) suspicari multis in mentem veniet, aut vos illam temerè aulloque consilio tulisse olim suscipisseque, aut susceptam cùm ratione & servatam diutissimè in Christiana Republica, nulla vel causa vel ratione pro nihilo ducere, quo nihil sieri potest gravirate vestrâ, aut hujus amplissimi ordinis majestate indignius. G●spar Cardillo Villalpand. Orat. apud Act. Conc. Trid. pag. 219 221. 222. Lest that the Church (saith he) may seem to have erred. What can more savour of an Heretical and Antichristian spirit, than this pretence doth? For an Heretic will not seem to have erred, and Antichrist will profess himself one that cannot err: which Character of not personal erring was never assumed of any particular Church, excepting only the latter Church of Rome. Our Assumption. But the Church of Rome (which will seem that she cannot possibly err, in her not administering the Cup unto Laickes) is known to have erred 600. years together in the abuse of the same Sacrament, by administering it (in an opinion of Necessity) unto Infants, as hath been plentifully * See above Chap. 2. Sect. 11. witnessed by eminent Doctors in your own Church. Hence therefore ariseth another difference; between the profession of our Custom and yours, which is, between Christ and Antichrist. All this while you do not perceive that your opinion of concomitancy will ruinated the foundation of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation. But hereof * In the third Book. hereafter. The seventh Comparison is between the manner of Institution, and manner of Alteration thereof. SECT. XI. THe beginning of the Institution in Both kinds is known and acknowledged to have been authorized by him, who is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the new Testament, even Christ our Lord, by whom it was established and published among all his Disciples, at his last Supper. But your Custom of only One kind, How (we beseech you) came it into your Church? tell us. i Nullâ praeceptorum vi, sed consensu quodam tacito tàm populi quàm Cleri sensim irrepsit dicta consuetudo. Roffens. con Cap Babyl. Tract. de utraque Specie, f. 28. Estque hoc diligenter notandum, alterius speciei communionem non tam Episcoporum mandato, quàm populi usu & facto conniventibus tamen praesulibus, irrepsi le: populus enim ob varia incommoda paulatim à Calice abstinebat. Episcopi propter varia effusionis sanguinis, aliaque pericula tacendo hanc abstinentiam comprobabant: quae abstinentra à calice cùm tempore Constantiensis Concilij ferè per Europam universalis esset, non erat damnanda, sed contra Haereticos insurgentes defendenda. Coster. Ies. Enchirid. Tract. de Commun. sub utraque specie. pag 359. Credere par est, ex communi fidelium populorum & Orthodoxorum Praesulum tacito consensu receptam: quando autem primum inceperit, mihi non constar. Alfons. de Castro l. 6. Tit. Eucharistia, Haer. ult. It came not in by any precept, but crept in by little and little, by the abstinence of the people, and by the Tacite and silent consent of the Bishops. So your Bishop Roffensis, and your jesuite Costerus, and Friar Castro. This confessed unknown manner of Alteration of this your Custom, as it doth utterly refute your common Objection, viz. That every Doctrine and Custom must beejudged ancient and Catholic, the beginning whereof is not known; so doth it more especially put your Master Brerely to his blush, who durst make the same Objection in this very Case, in defence of the use of but One kind, to prove it to have been from the beginning, because No first knowne beginning of our Catholic practice ( * Liturg Tract. 4. §. 9 at the ead thereof. saith he) can be instanced. And yet behold here no certain beginning of this Romish Custom; yet notwithstanding confessed to be an Alteration, different from the Custom, which formerly for a thousand years was held a Catholic Custom. Was not the Church of Rome then a wise and a worthy Mistress of Churches, trow you; to suffer herself to be guided by the humour of People in a matter of this nature? what other difference can this make between our Custom and yours, but that which is between divine Ordinance and popular negligence? or as between a public Professor, and a Thievish Creeper? Heresy is certainly a disease, but wore you what? the * 2. Tim. 2. 15. Apostle noteth it to be a Cancer, or Gangrene, which is a disease Creeping by little and little, from joint to joint, until it have eaten up the vital parts; such a Cancer was this your Custom, if you shall stand to your own former Confessions. Our last Comparison is between the Contrary Dispositions of Professors, one in continuing, and distinguishing; a second in mixing; the third in rejecting Both kinds. SECT. XII. THe comparison, between the divers Dispositions of Professors, none will be more willing to show than your jesuite l Quod verò atrinet ad tempora, triplicem in coetu Christiano statum, Nicolaus de Cusano Cardinalis expendit; ferventis nimirùm, calidae, & frigentis. Initio enim fuit Ecclesia ad fundendum pro Christo sanguinem fervens, & tunc data est illi utraque species, ut sanguinem Domini bibens, sanguinem suum pro illo libenter effunderet.— In sequenti statu Ecclesia fuit calida, licèt non ità fervens, & tunc non dabatur bina species, sed panis tantùm sanguine infusus, ut ex quibusdam veterum Patrum sententiis Concilijisque colligi potest. Tertius status est Ecclesiae frigentis ac tepidae, & in ea tantùm altera species, panis scilicet, sine infusione sanguinis Laicis dispensatur, Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 34. §. Quod verò. pag. 277. Salmeron, who will have you, out of Cardinal Cusanus, to observe three States of the Church. The first is in her Fervency; The second in her Warmness; The third in her Coldness. In the first state of her Fervency, when the Christians affected Martyrdom for the Gospel of Christ, then did the People (saith he) communicate in both kinds. In the second state, which was in her Warmness (though not so hot boiling as before) They then used to dip the Host into the Chalice, and so were made jointly partakers of Both, in one. But in the third state of Coldness, the people were allowed the Sacrament only under one kind. So he. CHALLENGE, IF now Truth may be judged by the different Dispositions of Professors, then may this former Confession witness for us, that there is as much difference between the Primitive and the now Romish Custom, as there is between lively Fervency, and senseless Numbness and Coldness, that is to say, Godly zeal, and Godless Indevotion and Negligence: yet a Negligence not only approved (which is impious) but (that which is the height of Impiety) even applauded also by your Priests, among whom the m Vt nobis Iocupletissi●i testes, atque omni exceptione majores retulerunt, in Germania qui eò loci per omnia obediunt Romanis Pontificibus, non solùm (Reverendi Patres) Calicem vitae non cupiunt, aut petere audent, etc. Gasp. Card Villalp. apud Act. Concil. Trident. pag. 222. §. Accedit. abovesaid Gasper Cardillo in the Council of Trent, with exultation told their Fatherhoods (as being a matter of great joy) that they who are under the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome, in Germany, dare not so much as desire the Cup of life. So he. A GENERAL CHALLENGE, Concerning this last Transgression of Christ his Massè. SECT. XIII. IN this we are to make an open discovery of the odious Uncharitableness, the intolerable Arrogancy, the vile Perjury, the extreme Madness, and Folly, together with a note of plain Blasphemy of your Romish Disputers, in Defence of this one Roman Custom of forbidding the Cup to faithful Communicants. For what Uncharitableness can be more odious, than when they cannot but confess, that there is more spiritual grace in the receiving of the Communion in Both kinds, do notwithstanding boast, even in the open Council of Trent, of some of their Professors, who, in obedience to the Church of Rome, do not only ( * See the last testimony above. their own words) not desire the Cup of life, but also dare not so much as desire it. Which Vaunt, we think, besides the Impiety thereof, inferreth a note of profane Tyranny. Secondly, when we compare these Fathers of Trent, with the Fathers of most primitive Antiquity, they answer, n Tertio loco objiciunt Ecclesiae sapientiam, antiquitatem, atque potestatem; atque potestatem; aiunt enim, Ecclesiam primitivam, quae antiquior & scientiâ atque vitae sanctitate praestantior erat, utraque specie usam fuisse: nostra igitur illam imitari debet, praesertim eum eandem atque illa habet potestatem in ejusmodi legibus positivis sive abrogandis sive dispensandis. Respondemus, non esse dubium quin Ecclesia primitiva nostrae majore charitate, ac proindè uberiori sapientia praecelluerit, nihilominus tamen interdum contingit minùs sapientem in aliquo maliùs sapere, quâm alium absolute sapientiorem. Saepe etiam accidit, minùs perfectum hominem vitare aliquem errorem, quem melior non vitat. Salmcron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tractat. 38. §. Tertio loco. pag. 320. Although the primitive Church (say they) did exceed ours in Zeal, Wisdom, and Charity, nevertheless, it falleth out sometimes, that the wiser may in some things be lessè wise than another. Which answer, if we consider the many Reasons, which you have heard the Fathers give, for the use of Both kinds, and their consonant practice thereof, what is it but a vilifying of the authority of all ancient Fathers? and indeed (as the saying is) To put upon them the Foole. The like answer two of their jesuites made to the Practice of the Apostles, saying that your Church, having the same spirit, hath the same power to alter the Custom: whereas we have proved, that the ground which the Apostles lay, for their Custom, was the Institution of Christ. But that which the Roman Church allegeth, is merely a Pretence of Plenitude of her own Authority; It is impossible therefore that in so great a Contradiction there should be the same Spirit. And can there be a more intolerable Arrogancy than is this, which this Roman spirit bewrayeth in both these? Thirdly, upon the Consideration of this their Contempt of Apostolical and primitive Antiquity, in this Cause, we find that your Romish Priests are to be condemned of manifest perjury also; for in the Form of Oath, for the profession of the Romish Faith, every Priest and Ecclesiastic is sworn o Forma juramenti, per Bullam Pij quarti. Apostolicas & Ecclesiasticas Traditiones admitto,— Ego spondeo, & juro, etc. To admit of all Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions; as also to hold what the p Caetera omnia à Concilio Tridentino declarata & confirmata firmissimè teneo. Ibid. Romanam Ecclesiam Magistram esse Ecclesiarum credo, etc. Council of Trent hath decreed. But this Custom of administration of Both kinds, as hath been acknowledged, was an Apostolical Custom, and from them also remained in an Ecclesiastical profession and practice throughout a thousand year's space; which your Church of Rome, notwithstanding, in her Council of Trent, (whereunto likewise you are sworn) hath altered and perverted: which doth evidently involve your Priests, and jesuites in a notorious and unavoidable Perjury. Fourthly, As for the note of Foolishness, what more mad folly can there be seen in any, than to take upon them a serious Defence of a Custom, for satisfaction of all others, and yet to be so unsatisfied among themselves? so that both the Objections urged by Protestants against that Abuse, are fortified, and also all your Reasons for it are refuted, either by the direct Testimonies of your own Doctors, or by the common Principles and Tenants of your Church, or else by the Absurdities of your Consequences issuing from your Reasons and Answers; divers of them being no less gross, than was your objecting the Antiquity and Generality of the particular Roman Church, for less than three hundred years, and to prefer it before the confessed Universal primitive Custom of above the Compass of a Thousand year's continuance before the other. Fiftly, the last is the note of Blasphemy; for this name the contempt of Christ his last Will and Testament must needs deserve; and what greater contempt can there be, than contrary to Christ his [Do this] (concerning Both kinds) to profess that Sacrilegious dismembering of the holy Sacrament, which Gelasius the Pope himself had anciently condemned? or if this be not Blasphemous enough, then, supposing that Christ indeed had commanded Consecration in Both kinds, upon divine right, yet notwithstanding to hold it very probable (as saith your jesuit q Licet Gabriel, & quidam alij sentiunt divini juris esse, ut Sacerdos in utraque specie sacrificet, nihilominùs tamen opinantur authoritate Romani Pontificis fieri posse, ut in una tantum specie sacrificet, viz. in consecratione panis sine vino, quià putant multa esse juris divini, quae remittere & relaxare queat Pontifex ob publicam aliquam & gravem necessitatem: ut videmus votum, jus-j●randum, Matrimonium ratum, non consummatum, authoritate Pontificis relaxari & dissolvi. Et ità in hac questione prima puto probabilius & verius esse (ut dixi) juris esse divini, ut Sacerdos in duplici specie sacrificet. Et nihilominùs existimo valdè probabile, authoritate Pontificiâ, ob publicam & urgentem necessitatem, praedictum jus divinum relaxari posse. Sed quia nunquàm est relaxatum, ego consilium darem ut nunquàm relaxaretur. Azorius jesuit. Tom. 1. justit. Moral. lib. 10. cap. 19 §. Tertium. pag. 857. Azorius) that the authority of the Pope may dispense therewith. But because Divine right was never yet dispensed with, I (saith he) would give my Council that it never may be. O jesuite! thus to deal with Christ his Command. If he or any other jesuite had made as bold with the Pope * ⚜ Extravag. de verbo signific. Tit. 14. Cap. 4. G●ossa. Dominum Deum nostrum Papam. insituled in your public Gloss, OUR LORD GOD THE POPE) as this doth with Christ himself, saying unto him; Any of your decrees (holy Father) may be dispensed with by any jesuite of our Society: yet because no jesuite hath taken upon him hitherto so much, my council is that none of your Deerees be ever dispensed withal. The Pope, we suppose, albeit he would thank this man for his council, for not Doing so; yet doubtless, would he reward him with a welcome into the office of his holy Inquisition, for his judgement, to think it lawful so to do: namely, to leave it to the discretion of every jesuite, to dispense with his Papal Decrees. And notwithstanding the jesuites [Suppose] we may depose, that your Romish licence, for but One kind, is a dispencing, or rather a despising of the Ordinance of Christ. ⚜ And this the jesuites themselves do think, * See above in this Chapter, Sect. 3. in the Chal. 1. which may appear in that Conclusion, which your jesuite Vasquez gave concerning Christ Consecrating the Eucharist but in one kind before his Disciples at Emmaus. Where he resolved, that This was an act of Christ's Supreme authority, not imitable by the Church. And that the necessary Obligation of Consecrating in Both kinds is not dispensable by the Pope. So he. Wherefore the Act of Christ being equally an Administration in only one kind, and Both these equally done by the same Supreme Excellency, and authority of Christ; the determination and Resolution must necessarily be this. That the Administration and Consecration in only One kind are equally Indispensable. We are already wearied with citing of the manifold, vild, odious, and irreligious Positions of your Disputers and Proctors, for this your Cause; yet one Pretence more may not be pretermitted, lest we might seem to contemn the wit and zeal of your jesuite Salmeron, against the use of this Sacrament in Both kinds. The use of Both kinds (saith r Dispensandus non est utriusque speciei usus Hereticis, quia non sunt danda sancta Canibus: nec Catholicis, quia debent distingui ab Haereticis, qui communicant sub duabus. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 37. 5. His potius. pag. 411. he) is not to be allowed to Catholics, because they must be distinguished from Heretics: nor to Heretics, because holy things are not to be given unto Dogs. Now blessed be God that we are esteemed as Heretics and Dogs, to be distinguished from them, in this and other so many commanded Acts, wherein they have distinguished themselves from all Primitive Fathers, from the Apostles of Christ, and from Christ himself. An Appeal unto the ancient Popes and Church of Rome, against the late Romish Popes and Church; in Confutation of their former Transgressions of Christ his Institution. SECT. XIV. THe ancient Popes and Church of Rome were (as all the world will say) in authority of Command, and in sincerity of judgement equal, and in integrity of life Superior unto the latter Popes of Rome and Church thereof; yet the ancient held it as a matter of Conscience for the Church, in all such Cases belonging to the Eucharist, to be conformable to the Precept and Example of Christ, and of the Apostles. So, you have heard, a P. Calixtus. See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9 Pope Calixtus (Anno Christi, 218.) requiring all persons present at the Mass to Communicate. For which reason it was (we think) that Pope b P. Greg. Ibid. at (●) Gregory (Anno 60●.) commanded every one present at the Mass, and not purposing to Communicate, to Departed. There is an History related by AEneas Silvius (after, Pope Pius the Second) which showeth the reason why another c See above Chap 2. Sect 7. Chall. 6. (21) Pope of Rome, with his Consistory, yielded a liberty to the Sclavonians, to have Divine Service in their Nationall Language, and reporteth that it was thorough the sound of that voice (which is written in the Psalms) Let every tongue praise the Lord. d P. julius. See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Pope julius (Anno 336.) was much busied in repressing the Sopping of bread in the Chalice, and other like abuses of the Sacrament in his time: and the reason, which he gave, was this; Because (quoth he) these Customs are not agreeable to Evangelicall and Apostolical Doctrine: and our Church of Rome doth the same. Where he addeth, concerning the manner of Communicating, e Ibid. We read (saith he) that both the Bread and Cup were distinctly and severally delivered. As if he had meant, with the same breath, to have confuted your other Romish Transgression in distributing to the people the Sacrament, but in one of Both. And who can say but that Gregory and Leo, both Popes, f See above Chap. 3. Sect. 5. observing the same use of Christ, had the same Resolution? Sure we are that Pope g P. Gelasius. See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. r.) Gelasius (Anno 404) called the Abuse, in dismembering of this Sacrament, by receiving but in One kind, A Grand Sacrilege. We read of a Council held at Toledo in Spain, under Pope Sergius, styled h Synod. Tolet. 16. Conc. Generale, sub Sergio Papa Baron. ad An. 693. This Council, cap 6 saith. Quontam quidam non panes mundos atque integros, sed crussul●m & particulam offerunt— quod nequaquam in sacrae authoritatis historia gestum perpenditur; ubi legitur Christum benedixisse & dedisse panem, &c Apud B●nium, Tom 3. And this being, by Baroni●●, a General Council, could not conclude without the Pope's consent, in your judgements. General (Anno 69●.) reproving those Priests who offered Bread in crusts and lumps. But with what reason were they reprehended? Because (saith the Council) that fashion is not found in the Sacred story of the Evangelists. All those ancient Popes, who held the Example of Christ, in his Institution and Apostolical Customs, to be necessary Directions of Christ his Church in such points, concerning the ministration of this Sacrament, being so utterly repugnant to your now Romish Opinions and Practices; it must follow, that those former Pope's being admitted for judges, whom all Christians acknowledged to have been Apostolical in their Resolutions, the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostatical. Now, 20 30 40 from the former Actual, we proceed to the Doctrinal points. THE SECOND BOOK, Concerning the first Doctrinal Point, which is the Interpretation of the words of Christ's Institution; [THIS IS MY BODY: THIS IS MY BLOOD.] LUKE 22. The Doctrinal and Dogmatic Points are to be distinguished into your Romish. 1. Interpreation of the words of Christ his Institution; [This is my Body, etc.] 2. Consequences deduced from such your Expositions: such as are Transubstantiation, Corporal Presence, and the rest. CHAP. I. Of the Exposition of the words of Christ, [THIS IS MY BODY.] The State of the Question in General. BEcause (as a In scripture explicandà haeresis est manifesta, sicut figurata propriè accipere, ità quae sunt propriè dicta ad Tropicā locutionem detorquere: nam in verbis [Eunuchi sunt qui se castrant propter regnum coelorum etc.] Aug. and to the same purpose also, lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. Saint Augustine saith of points of faith) It is as manifest an Heresy, in the interpretation of Scriptures, to take figurative speeches properly, as to take Proper speeches figuratively (And such is the CAVEAT, which b— Hoc cavendum, nisi in manifestum Haerescos scopulum impingere velimus Salm. jes. Tom. ● Proleg. 12. pag. 227. Salmeron the jesuite giveth you) it will concern both You and Us (as we will avoid the brand of Heresy) to search exactly into the true sense of these words of Christ; especially seeing we are herein to deal with the Inscription of the Seal of our Lord JESUS, even the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. In the which Disquisition, besides the Authority of Ancient Fathers, we shall insist much upon the Ingenuity of your own Romish Authors. And what Necessity there is to inquire into the true sense of these words, will best appear in the after-examination of the divers * See hereafter Book, 3. 4. 5. 6. Consequences of your own Sense, to wit, your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Corporall, and c Gratian Sacramenta Christi suscipiendo, carnem ejus & sanguinem materialiter significamus. De consecrat. didst 〈◊〉 Quà morte. Material Presence, Propitiatory Sacrifice, and proper Adoration: All which are Dependants upon your Romish Exposition of the former words of Christ. The Issue then will be this, that if the words be certainly true, in a Proper and literal sense, than we are to yield to you the whole Cause: But if it be necessarily Figurative, than the ground of all these your Doctrines being but sandy, the whole Structure and Fabric, which you erect thereupon, must needs ruin and vanish. But yet know withal, that we do not so maintain a Figurative sense of Christ his Speech, concerning his Body, as to exclude the Truth of his Body, or yet the truly-Receiving thereof, as the Third and Fourth Books following will declare. That a Figurative sense of Christ his speech [THIS IS MY BODY, etc.] is evinced out of the words themselves; from the Principles of the Romish Schools. SECT. I. THere are three words, which may be unto us as three keys to unlock the questioned Sense of Christ's words; whereof two are the Pronoune [THIS] and the Verb [IS] not only as they were then spoken by Christ himself, but also as they are now pronounced by the Minister of Christ. And the third key is the Pronoune [MY] whereof hereafter. We begin with the word [THIS.] The State of the Question, about the word [THIS.] When we shall fully understand by your Church (which a Conc. Trident. Sess. 13. cap. 1. Verba illa à Christo commemorata, & à Divo Paulo repetita, propriam significationem prae se ferunt. holdeth a Proper and literal Signification) what the Pronoune [THIS] doth demonstrate, then shall we truly infer an infallible proof of our figurative sense. All Opinions concerning the Thing, which the word [THIS] in the divers opinions of Authors, pointeth at, may be reduced to Three heads, ( * ⚜ Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp. 201. cap. 1. Omnes opiniones ad tres tantùm calsses reduci possunt: nam quidam [Hoc] reserunt ad substantam panis: alij ad aliquod commune, quod statim post conversionem demonstret. Denique nonnulli ad id solum quod in sine prolationis verborum, quod est corpus. as you likewise confess:) namely, to signify either This Bread, or This Body of Christ, or else some Third thing different from them both. Tell you us, first, what you hold to be the opinion of Protestants? Lutherans and all Calvinists (saith your b Lutherani & omnes Calvinistae pronomen [Hoc] propane positum esse dicunt, quià panem Christus in manu acceperat, & di●it [Hoc est corpus meum.] Ma●don. Ies. in Matth. 26. §. H●c omnes.— Lutherus in verba Evangelistae. Habent hunc sensum; Hic panis est corpus meum. jesuite) think that the Pronoune [THIS] pointeth out Bread. But your Roman Doctors are at odds among themselves, and divided into two principal Opinions. Some of them refer the word [THIS] to Christ's Body, Some to a Third thing, which you call Individuum vagum. In the first place we are to confute both these your Expositions; and after to confirm our own. That the first Exposition of Romish Doctors, of great learning, (referring the word [THIS] properly to Christ his Body) perverteth the sense of Christ his Speech; by the Confessions of Romish Doctors. SECT. II. DIvers of your Romish Divines of special note, as well jesuites as Others, interpret the word [This] to note the Body of Christ, as it is present in this Sacrament, at the pronunciation of the last syllable of this speech [Hoc est corpus meum:] Because they are words * See hereafter, let. (k. n. o.) etc. Practical, (say they) that is, working that which they signify (namely) The Body of Christ. And this sense they call Most clear: and, in their judgements, there can be no better than this. So your c [Hoc] designat corpus, ut est in termino prolationis: & hic est sensus luculentissimus. Stapleton. Prompt. Cath. serm. Heb. sacra upon these words, [Hoc est corpus meum.] Stapleton, d Hoc] nihil aliud quàm corpus Christi demonstrat. Sand. de visib. Monarch. Ad annum 1549 p. 629. Sanders, together with e Demonstrat corpus ipsum, in quod panis convertitur in sine propositionis; nec est Tautologia, quemadmodum neque in illo, [Hic est filius dilectus.] B●rrad. Ies. de Inst. Euch. c. 4. Barradius, f Vrique pronomen [Hoc] quod attributi locum tenet, necessariò spectat, [Hoc est, inquit Christus, corpus meum] id est opus, quod ego panem accipiens, & benedicens, operor, & conficio, corpus meum est. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract 9 pag. 120. §. Ad hoc. [Of which last clause of Salmeron, Hoc, id est, Hoc opus, I say only that Opus erat Salmeroni medico] Salemeron, g Chavaus. jes Comment. in formam juramenti fidei, inscriptio libri est, Professio verae fidei, §. 49. pag. 468. Chavausius; these last three being jesuites; to whom you may add h In his book of the Liturgy of the Mass, pag. 138. Tract. 2. Sect. 3. Master Brerely his Answer, saying that these words Most evidently relate to Christ's Body. As evidently (saith also your jesuite i Nallou● his late Reply against Doctor V●her, pag 204. Malloun) as one pointing at his Book, should say, This is my Book. CHALLENGE. ARe not these Opinators in number many; in name, for the most part, of great esteem; their Assertion, in their own opinion, full of assurance; and delivered to their Hearers, as the only Catholic Resolution? And yet behold One, whose name alone hath obtained an Authority equivalent to almost all theirs, your Cardinal k Argumentum eorum, qui volunt Pronomen [Hoc] demonstrate corpus, est absurdum, quòd in hujusmodi propositionibus, quae significant id quod tunc fit cum dicitur, Pronomina demonstrativa non demonstrare quod est, sed quod erit. Et ponunt Exempla, ut si quis dum pingit lineam, aut circulum, dicat, Haec est linea, hic est Ciculus. Quomodo etiam exponi debet Pronomen in illis verbis Domini, joh. 25. Hoc est praeceptum meum— Haec explicatio non videtur satisfacere, propter duas causas. Primò, quià etsi Pronomen demonstrativum demonstret rem futuram, quandò nihil est praesens, quod demonstretur (ut in exemplis allatis) tamen si quis digito aliquid ostendat, dum pronomen essert, valde absurdum videtur dicere, pronomine illo non demonstrari rem praesentem. Atqui Dominus accepit panem, & illum porrigens, ait, [Accipite, Edite, H. E. C. M.] Videtur igitur demonstrasse panem. Neque obstat quod propositio non significat, nisi in fine totius prolationis: Nam etsi ità est de propositione, quae est ratio quaedam, tamen Demonstrativa Pronomina mox indicant certum aliquid, etiam antequam sequantur caeterae voces. Et sane in illis verbis [Bibite ex hoc omnes] valdè durum est, non demonstrari id quod erat, sed id tantùm quod futurum erat. Secundò si Pronomen [Hoc] demonstrat solùm Corpus, verba speculativa erunt, non practica. Bellar lib. 1. de Euch cap. 11. §. Nota secundò. Bellarmine, who, speaking of the same opinion of referring the word [This] to the Body of Christ, doth in flat terms call it ABSURD. But not without good and solid reason, and that according to the Principles of Romish Schools; to wit, because before the last syllable of the last word [Me●um] be pronounced, the Body of Christ is not yet present: and the word [This] cannot demonstrate a thing Absent, and therefore can it not be said, This is my Body. ⚜ With your Cardinal two other jesuites take part, ingenuously confessing, that 1 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp. 181. cap 12. [Hoc] non potest demonstrare nisi id quod est praesens. And jacob. Gordonus Scotus. Ies. lib. controvers. controver. 4. cap. 1. num. 4. & 9 Si rem●neret panis substanti●, pronomen, Hoc, necessario demonstraret panis substantiam quae remanet, ità ut sensus esset: Hic panis, est corpus meum: nam pronomen, Hoc, non potest non demonstrare rem praesentem. The Pronounce [Hoc, This] in Christ's words, doth necessarily demonstrate a thing present. A Reason pregnant enough in itself, & ratified by your public Roman l Hujus vocis [Hoc] ea vis est, ut rei praesentis substantiam demonstrer. Catech. Conc. Trid. Decree. cojussu pij Quinti Pontificis Edit. ut in frontispicio libri cernitur. Catechism, authorized by the then Pope, & Council of Trent: yet notwithstanding your forenamed Irish jesuite, hearing this Argument objected by Protestants, raileth downright, calling it Accursed, as judged by the Church Heretical, and indeed Abominable. So he, who with Others, if they were of fit years, might be thought to deserve the rod, for forgetting their General Catechism, & for defending an Exposition, which even in common sense may be pronounced, in your Cardinals own phrase, very Absurd; ⚜ And that the Body of Christ is not the Thing present, that can be demonstrated, your Pope Innocent proveth: Because Christ, in pronouncing of the words [This is my Body] 2 Innocent. 3. Papa lib. 3. the offic. Missae cap. 26. Quaeritur quid demonstravit Christus, cum dixisset [Hoc est corpus meum:] non corpus, quia nondum illa verba protulerat, ad quam prolationem panem mutavit in corpus. Did not as yet utter the words whereby the Bread was changed into his Body. Absurd therefore must your former. Interpretation needs be, ⚜ else show us, if you can, but the least semblance of Truth for that Opinion. Similitudes objected, for defence of their former Exposition, and confuted by their own fellows. The Similitudes which are urged, to illustrate your former Practical and operative sense, are of these kinds; to wit, Even as if one (say m Bellar. See before at let. (k) They) in drawing a Line, or a Circle, should say in the making thereof, This is a Line, or this is a Circle: or as if the Smith (say n Haec locutio [Hoc est corpus meum] habet virtutem factivam conversionis panis in Corpus Christi, ut a● Thomas.— Pro simili, quod rudi intellectui satisfacere valeat, dari potest, ut si Faber accepto ferro clavum subito motu formans, dicat, Hic est Clavus— Clavus non est cum profertur oratio, sed fieri inter proferendum, & esse per prolationem verborum. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 13. pag. 81. Col. 1. [Ex aliorum opinion,] & jansenius Concord. cap. 130— ut faber clavum, etc. Others) in making of a Nail, should say, This is a Nail; So by Christ his saying [This is my Body] it was made presently the Body of Christ, at the very pronunciation of the last word of this Sentence, [This is my Body.] But most conceitedly your jesuite Malloune, and that not without scurrility; o Master Malloune in his late Reply, pag. 105. This is a K●tle for my wife, etc. ⚜ Egid. Conineks Ies. de Sacram. qu. 75. Art. 1. n. 36 Pronomen [Hoc] demonstrated quod continetur sub speciebus, abstrahendo ab eo quod sit panis, aut corpus Christi: ità tamen quòd non referatur ad illud instans, in quo pronuntietur, sed ad illud in quo propositio sit sufficienter pronuntiata— quod est commune non solùm omnibus Propositionibus practicis, quae significant quod efficiunt: sed ijs etiam quae significant aliquid fieri, faciemus diversas figuras. Propriè dicitur [Hic est Girculus] dùm tamen non est haec sigura dùm dico [Hic.] As a Tailor making a Kirtle, and saying (we shall change only his last word) This is a Kirtle for my Mistress CONCUBINA. So they. CHALLENGE. THese kind of Subtleties are frequent in the mouths of most Romish Priests, as often as they are compelled to show what is demonstrated by the Pronou●e, This. But that these your Similitudes of making Circles, Lines, and Nails, are no better than juggling, and Gypsie-trickes of fast or lose, and fond devises forged in the brains of idle Sophisters, and uttered by your Circulary Priests, your own Authors are ready to manifest: for in these Examples of the Painters touching a Line, or a Circle (as your a Bellar. See before at the letter (k) Bellarmine showeth) making and saying, This is a Circle; Is no true Proposition, until the Circle be made. And then it is a figurative speech and not a proper, using the present Tense, Is, for the future, Shall be. So he. In like manner your jesuite b Profectò propesitio non est vera, nisi postquàm factus est Cuculus: Sed oratio accipitur pro verâ, quia id, quod futurum est, accipitur pro jam facto, per Tropum, non juxta Proprietatem fermo nis: in quem sensum Christus plerunque praesens pro futuro usurpavit: ut Matth 26. Apud te facio Pascha cum Discipulis meis, id est, confestim facio Pas●lta. Salmeron. jesuit. Tom. 9 Traclat. 13 §. Secunda.— Si [Est] propriè accipiatur, pro existere, durum est ut uniat subjectum cum praedicato pro futuro tempore, quia falsa esset propositio, non solùm in orationibus speculativis, & significativis, sed etiam in practicis & factivis: ut si quis volens facere Circulum, rogatus quid est Hoc? respondeatque, Hic est Circulus, Profesiò propositio non est statim vera, etc. Salmer. Ibid. pag. 83. Salmeron affirmeth with a PROFECTÒ and full asseveration, that the speech of him, who, in drawing a Circle, doth say, This is a Circle, cannot without a Trope or Figure, be judged true. So he. And furthermore, who knoweth not that every Operative speech doth signify not the Being of a thing; but the Making thereof, and bringing of it unto being? For although the Painter be so nimble, in drawing a Circle, that his hand may go before his tongue; yet when the Operative virtue consisteth not in working, by the agility of the hand, but in the orderly pronouncing of the words of a speech with the tongue, so that the Truth thereof dependeth upon the utterance of the last syllable; it is impossible but the Priest, in uttering distinctly these words, [Hoc est corpus meum,] must say, This is, before he come to the last syllable of Me●um: and consequently in his sense notify This to be Christ's Body, before (according to his own judgement) the Body of Christ can have there any being at all. By this is discovered the notable Vertigo and dizziness of your jesuite Maldonate; He, to prove that the pronoun, This, doth relate to Christ's Body, standeth upon the like Operative speculation; God (saith c Quum Deus ex limo terrae hominem finxit tectè verèque dicere potuiller, sumpto in manus luno, Hic est Homo. Et cum ex costa mulierem fabricavit, sumpta costâ dicere potait, Haec est Mulier; quamvis cum pronunciasset Pronomen [Haec] nondum fuisset mulier, ac significâsset cùm ita locutus fuisset, limum non esse hominem, & costam mulierem; sed limum in hominem, costam in mulierem converti. Sic cùm Christus dicit, [Hoc est corpus meum,] significat panem mucari in corpus suum. Quemadmodum si in Cana Galileae, cùm aquam in vinum, etc. Maldon. jesuit. in Matth. 26. Ita cùm Christus dicit, accepto pane [Hoc est corpus meum] quamvis illud corpus nondum ille esset, sed futurum erat, illud eo pronomine demonstrat, nee significat panem, quem acceperat, esse corpus suum, sed mutari in corpus suum. Idem in Matth. 26. pag. 635. he) in creating man of the slime of the earth, might have truly said thereof, This is man: Or in framing Woman of the Rib of man, might have rightly said, This is Woman: or Christ in working his miracle in Cana of Galilee, might have said, (showing the water) This is Wine. So he. When, notwithstanding, he is enforced in every one to alter the Verb, Is, thus; Slime is changed into man: Rib is converted into Woman: Water is made Wine, as he himself confesseth; expounding the words [This is my Body] thus, Not that it was then his Body (saith he) which as yet it was not, but was about to be: nor that he signified the Bread to be his Body, but to be changed into his Body. So he. As if any thing could be said properly to be that, which as yet it Is not. ⚜ No, and therefore your jesuite Gordon 3 Gordonus Scotus Ies. Controvers. 4. cap 3. num. 15. [Hoc] demonstrat corpus futurum. And your Angles saith directly The pronoun [THIS] demonstrateth the Body, which is about to be. As much as to say, This [Is] shallbe. Another of your own Divines will tell you that 4 Si [Hoc] demonstrat corpus sub ratione corporis, Propositio speculativa esset, non Practica. Ies. Angel's flor. Theol. quaest. Art. 10. Concl. 4. Which was also the Argument of Bellarmine. See above at the letter (k.) If the Pronoune [THIS] demonstrate Christ's Body, then cannot the speech of Christ be practical (that is) to effectuate that which it signifieth; and this will mar your doctrine of Transubstantiation quite. ⚜ Hitherto of your first Interpretation. That the second Romish Exposition, referring the Pronoune [THIS] to demonstrate a Third thing, called Individuum vagum, or Indeterminate substance, perverteth the sense of Christ his speech [THIS IS MY BODY:] proved by the Confession of Romish Doctors. SECT. III. A Third thing, differing both from Bread and the Body of Christ, which Romish Sophisters have lately invented, is that which they call Individuum vagum; by which is meant, a substance confusedly taken; as when one (to use your own example) having an Herb in his hand shall say, This herb groweth in my garden: in which speech the word, Herb, which is demonstrated by the pronoun, This, is not taken determinately, for that singular Herb in his hand, (for that doth not now grow in his garden) but is taken vagè and confusedly, for the common Species, nature, or kind of that herb. And this opinion is defended by a,b Sententia haec est, Pronomine illo designari aliquid commune Substantiae panis & corporis Christi; Commune (inquam) non secundùm Rem, (illud enim nullum esse potest) sed secundùm rationem seu denominationem, viz. sub ratione contenti, sub his accidentibus continetur corpus meum. Ita Guitmandus (where he reckons up 15 other School men:) ubi Pronomen [Hoc] substantive sumitur, & demonstrat in confuso Ens, siuè substantiam contentam sub illis speciebus— ut cùm quis dicat, Haec herba nascitur in horto meo: illud Pronomen [Haec] non significat hanc numero herbam, sed herbam huic similem Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. in Thom. Disput. 58. §. 7. pag. 755. Secundùm rationem Substantiae tùm communem tùm Individuam vagam. Greg. de Valent. lib. 1. de Present. corp. Christi. cap. 9 §. Respondemus. pag 377. Quia Sacramenta significant quod efficiunt, & non efficitur in hoc Sacramento ut corpus Christi sit corpus Christi, quia ita semper fuit, nec ut panis sit corpus Christi, id enim fieri nequit, sed efficitur, ut sub speciebus illis sit corpus Christi, sub quibus anteà erat panis: [Hoc] non demonstrat panem, vel corpus, sed contentum sub speciebus. Bellar. lib. 1. de Eucharist. cap. 11. §. Est igitur. Bellarmine, with other jesuites, and Doctors of your Church, (* Sixteen in number) as the only sufficient and conclusive Resolution of this point, touching the proper Exposition of the words of Christ, concerning the pronoun, THIS. CHALLENGE. Which Subtlety is notwithstanding discussed, disclosed, and exploded by your learned c Archbishop of Caesae. sive Christopherus de Capite fontium. var. Tract. Demonstrando corpus in genere, nescio quid— dictum velis, cùm non Individua in Generibus suis, sed Genera in individuis demonstrentur, & Pronominis natura est sola singularia demonstrare.— Ideò si generi addas Pronomen [Hoc] demonstras non in genere sed in Individuo rem ipsam,— Conceptus communis non latet sub speciebus, nec in manibus portari potest.— Propositio vera dicitur ex eo, quòd res est vera, vel non est vera: ergò non verborum dispositio consideranda venit— Rapiunt isti à rerum consideration lectorem, ut non res ipsas, sed intelligibiles formas loquendi contempletur.— Quibus dixerim, revertimini ad judicium, o viri, & duas has tantùm res, corpus scilicet, & panem considerate, quarum alterum tantùm demonstrari necesse est. Quia Pronomen vice nominis Proprij positum pro solo singulari sumi potest, cum Scriptura duarum tantùm substantiarum, quae demonstrari hîc queant, meminerit, viz. Panis, & Corporis, nescio cur fingunt Tertiam aliquam, quae nec panis sit, nec corpus. In quo magnam vim Scripturae faciunt, infarcientes illi ex suo cerebro tertiam illam rem, cujus nullam habent mentionem, & quâ positâ, propositio esset falsa. Archiepisc. Caesariens. quo supra pag. 12. Si enim Christus ita loqueretur de pane, ante illius Transubstantiationem, mentiretur.— Non enim haec dici possunt de Pane consecrando, quò sit corpus Christi. Ibid. pag. 17. Solam illam substantiam fingularem demonstrabat, quae erat in Christi manibus, quae erat aut panis, aut corpus ejus: Tertiam igitur quaerere vanissimus labor est, & absurditate plenus. Thus fare that Archbishop. Archbishop of Caesarea, and your jesuite d Vulgata opinio est, illud Pronomen [Hoc] neque demonstrare corpus Christi. Quae sententia non videtur mihi probabilis esse, quia etsi vocabula solent aliquando habere vagam & indefinitam significationem, tamen aliud est loqui de significatione verbi, aliud de acceptione, quam Dialectici vocant suppositionem. Illa quae dicuntur Individua vaga significationem habent vagam, & indeterminatam, sed suppositionem habent semper certam, & determinatam: nam etsi hoc Pronomen [Hic, haec, hoc,] quantum in se est, non magis significat hunc hominem, quàm illum, tamen cum ponitur in propositione (ut hic homo disputat) non potest accipi nisi determinatè pro hoc homine. Ergo necesse est ut illud Pronomen [Hoc] accipiatur determinatè, aut pro pane, aut pro corpore Christi— Nulla res potest esse nisi determinatè aut haec aut illa; Ergò non possunt haec Pronomina, si substantiuè accipiantur, nisi pro hac vel illâ re determinata accipi. Mald●mat. Ies. de Sacrament. Eucharist. Tom. 1. §. Tertius error. pag. 216. 217. Maldonate, as an Opinion both false and full of Absurdities. ⚜ With whom your jesuite 5 〈…〉 3. Thom Disp 201. cap. 2. Mi ●hae● sen●entia videtur d●fici●●s, licèt valde probabilis, quia [Hoc] si sumitur ●dj●ctivè, nihil potest ●l●ud demonstrare, quàm corpus, & sic e●●t Individuum determinatum, & sic non erit contentum sub speciebus, sed [Hoc] contentum. Sed si Authores intelligunt tantùm contentum sub speciebus, tanquam singulare vagum, &, ut ipsi dicunt, quid consusum, tale Individuum non potest Pronomine [Hoc] demonstrari, quia demonstrat [Hoc] rem sensui per se, aut per accidens, obvium. At vagum non potest ullo modo sensui demonstrari, sed intellectui. Quidam putant substantiuè sumi (ibid. c. 3.) licèt non in sine solù● prolationis demonstrat id de quo praedicatur. Vasquez will take part; and your Cardinal 6 Et Cajetan Opuse. Non hoc corpus meum, est corpus meum: quia sic corpus Christi converteretur in corpus Christi. Cajetan with him. ⚜ 1. Because whensoever the Pronoune [This] is used in Speech, as, This man disputeth, it is always in proper sense, as determinately taken. 2. Christ spoke of that which was in his hand, but that was no vagrant, but a singular determinate Substance. And it is gross, to say a man holdeth a confused substance in his hand. Which seemed to your e Mr. Harding in his answer to the 24. Article, saying, Learn you what they mean, and if their meaning be naugh, handle you them as you list; you shall not offend us any whit. Master Harding so uncouth and fond an opinion, that he utterly refuseth to defend the Authors thereof. This, and much more have they written to the discovering and discarding of this idle figment, wishing furthermore that the Defendants of this opinion, of Individuum vagum, may return to their wits again, and cease to offer such violence to this holy Scripture [This is my Body.] So they. And worthily, for these two words, Individuum, and Vagum, spoken of HOC, be terms as Contradictory, as to call the same thing, singular-common, or determinate-confused. As for example, Quidam home, A certain man, is in Logic Individuum vagum; as when Christ said, A certain man went from Jerusalem to Hieriche, etc. None of the Disciples hearing this, could thereupon point him out, saying; This man: or know thereby who, or what he was. We, for further manifestation of your Absurdity in this point, will instance in your own Example, for your Individuum vagum, of the Herb, which a man holdeth in his hand, saying, This herb groweth in my Garden, how can you say it is true in the proper sense? for if you take it determinately, the same Herb numero is not in the man's garden, because it is in his hand, and so it is yet Hoc Individuum determinatum. And if you speak of it in a confused Notion, no Abstract Notion can be held in a man's hand, it being the function of the brain, and not of the hand, to apprehend mental Notions, or Generals; and so it is not Individuum at all. But the Text saith of Christ his hand, [He took bread, etc.] THIS, which Christ, in so saying, pointed out with his finger, saith your a [Ho● est corpus meum.] Hoc quod Christus digito demonstrabat, cùm illa verba protulit. Sand. de visibil. Monarch. lib. 7. ad Ann. 1547. Sanders; but a man will have much ado to point out an Individuum vagum (such as is an invisible, or a confused Notion) with a visible finger. We would now conclude in the words of a Parisian Doctor, b Petrus Picherellus de Missâ. cap 3. Individui vagi commentum Authori Scoto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relinquo; but that something else is to be added. Another may be your Cardinal his own Assertion, which he once made as a snare to catch himself in; for in your c Cùm ante Consecrationem dicimus in Liturgiâ [suscipe sancte Pater hanc immaculatam hostiam] certè Pronomen [Hanc] demonstrat ad sensus id quod tunc manibus ●enemus, id autem est panis. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missâ c. 27. §. Prima proposito. Romish Mass, the Priest having the Host in his hand, prayeth thus; Receive, holy father, this immaculate Host. If you shall ask him what, in this prayer, the pronoun: This doth demonstrate, he telleth you readily and asseverantly saying; Certainly it demonstrateth unto sense that which the Priest hath in his hand, which is Bread. So he. Now why there should not be the like certainty of Relation of the Pronounce [This] to Bread in the speech of Christ, as it hath in the prayer of the Priest, none of you (we think) shall ever be able to show. Lastly, we challenge you to show, within the space of a Thousand three hundreth years after Christ, out of all the Ancient Fathers, any one Testimony that ever affirmed the Pronoune [Hoc, This] to betoken any Individuum vagum, or Common Substance; or else to confess that this your doctrine is new, extravagant, and Adulterate. Nor yet can the Defenders thereof say that this is all one, as to say, This, that is, that which is contained under the form of Bread, because this is like as when one showing his purse, shall say, This is money, meaning that which is in his purse; which is a known figure Metonymia. Yet were it granted that [Hoc] betokened an Individuum vagum, as (to use your own Similitude) when one saith of an herb in his hand, This herb groweth in my garden; so Christ should have said of bread in his hand; This (that is the like kind of bread) is my Body: yet would not this make the Speech of Christ proper, or not figurative, because Christ's Body could no more be properly predicated of the kind of wheat- Bread; than it could be of that bread of wheat then in his hand, as Christ himself hath taught us, and as we are to prove unto you. For speaking of his Body, he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grain of wheat, john 12. 24. not This grain; yet Christ's flesh is equally called improperly The grain, as This grain of wheat: whereof the ancient Father Theodoret will read you all a Lesson, in the sixth Section following. And now this so open and extreme civil war among yourselves, in confuting your own Expositions, will further and confirm peace among us in that one Exposition, which we are in the next place to defend, as followeth. The third Proposition, which is (according to the judgement of Protestants) that there is a Tropical and unproper sense, in the Pronoune [THIS.] We reason first Hypothetically; If the pronoun This demonstrate Bread, than the words of Christ are necessarily to be taken improperly and figuratively. But the Pronoune This doth demonstrate Bread. Our Conclusion will be; Therefore the words of Christ, necessarily, are to be taken figuratively. All this will be proved, confirmed, and avouched by Reasons, Authorities, and Confessions, which will admit no Contradiction. We begin at our proof of the Consequence of the Proposition. That it is impossible for Bread to be called the Body of Christ; or Wine his Blood, without a Figure. SECT. iv THe common Dictate of natural Reason, imprinted by God in man's heart, is a Maxim, and hath in it an universal Verity, which neither man nor Devil can gainsay, and is Confessed by yourselves, viz. Disparatum de disparato non propriè praedicatur; That is, nothing can be properly and literally affirmed jointly of another thing, which is of a different nature, viz. It is impossible to say properly that an Egg is a Stone or (to take your own d Disparatum de disparato non p●aedicatur, valet igitur argumentum Si ●oc est lac, non est terrum: ita etiam valebit, Si hoc est corpus non est panis; cum repugnet, u●am n●turam de alt●râ diversâ dici, ut hominem eise equum, citra tropum, vel Metaphoram. Salm Ies. Tom 9 Tract. 16. §. Primum igitur p. 109. examples) we cannot call A man an horse, without a Trope or figure, because their natures are repugnant. So Salmeron. And this he holdeth necessary. Or thus: e Ne ipse quidem Deus, qui est summa veritas, unquam efficiet, ut hae propositiones, uxor Lot est Sal, aqua est vinum, asinus est homo, in sensu composito sint verae. Archiep. Caesar. defence. fid. de Real. Praes. cap 58. God, who is perfect Truth, will never make those Propositions to be true at the same time, viz, that the Wife of Lot is Salt, or Water is Wine, or an Ass a man. So your Archbishop. Yea, to come nearer to the point: f Observandum; cum dicitur vinum est sanguis, docetur esse sanguinem per similitudinem, reipsâ autem & propriè est vinum. Et cum dicitur sanguis est vinum, intelligitur vinum e●se p●r similitudinem: nec enim reipsâ aut propriè esse potest aut vinum sanguis, aut sanguis vinum, cum res sunt ipsae diversae inter se, & termini ut vocant disparati. Beld. 2. de Euch. c. 9 §. Observand. We cannot say that this wine is blood, or that this blood is wine, but by a Similitude or Representation, because they differ in nature. So Bellarmine; adding furthermore that it is g Non potest fieri ut vera sit Propositio, in qua subjectum supponitur pro pane, praedicatum pro corpore Christi: Panis enim & corpus res diversissimae sunt. Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 19 §. Primum. Impossible the Proposition should be true, wherein the Subject is Bread, and the Predicate is taken for the Body of Christ. And, Bread and Christ's Body (saith your h Eodem tempore panis triticeus, & corpus Christi esse non possunt, quià disp●rata sunt. Sand. de visib Monarch. ad Annum. 1549. [To object De Christo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deus est homo, were vain, because that is spoken by reason of the Hypostatical Union, whereby ●●ccidit Deo ut sit homo, per hypostaticam unionem, non per mutationem, which Unity maketh God and man in Christ reciprocal. And we also mean. Disparata absoluta, not Relata, for thus the same man is father and son.] Sanders) cannot be properly affirmed one of another. ⚜ Also your jesuite 7 Estius Ies. Come in 1. Cor. 1. 14 Non intendit Christus his verbis [Hoc est corpus meum] affirmare panem quem tenebatin manu, esse corpus suum: quae affirmatio absurda & manifestè falsa effet. Estius: To affirm Bread to be Christ's body, is a Proposition false, and absurd. As false (saith your jesuite 8 jacob. Gordonus Scotus Ies. Controu. 4. cap 1. num 4. Non magis dici potest, Panis est corpus Christi, quàm aurum est plumbum, aut hic homo est bestra— non potest dispar tum de disparato verè & propriè dici, nisi quis velit contendere Christum verè & proprie dici judam, aut Deum Diabolum. Gordon) as to say Christ is judas, or God is the Devil. And indeed it is as impossible Bread should be properly a body of flesh, as a body of flesh to be Bread; which is grounded upon our first Maxim, which your jesuite Salmeron expresseth thus. i Quoties verbum [Est] res diversarum naturarum, quae à Latinis dicuntur disparata, unit & copulat, ibi necessariò ad figuram & Tropum recurramus. Salm. Ies. Tom 9 Tract 10 pag. 138. As often as the Verb [EST, IS,] joineth things of divers natures together, we are necessarily to have recourse to a Trope and Figure. Will you be content that your Gloss, as the tongue of your Church, may have the last word? Then harken to it: k Si panis est corpus Christi, ergo aliquid quod non est natum ex virgine est corpus Christi: & ità animatum est inanimatum. Gloss Decret. de Consecrat. dist. ● can. Quia. If Bread be Christ's body, than something is Christ's body, which is not borne of the Virgin Mary; and then also the same body must be said to be living, and not living, both at once. So your Gloss, confessing hereby an Impossibility of this Predication, Bread is Christ's Body, in a proper and literal sense. Our Proposition then standeth firm and infallible; our Assumption will be found as true. That the Pronoune [THIS] doth as verily notify Bread, in the words of Christ, as if he had expressly said, This Bread is my Body; proved first by Scripture. SECT. V THe Text of the Evangelist Luke 22. is light sufficient in itself; [jesus taken bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, Take, Eat, THIS, (namely) which they took, and they took THIS, which he Gave; and he gave THIS, which he Broke; and he broke THIS, which he blessed; and blessed THIS, which he himself took; and THIS, which he took, was Bread, [jesus taken Bread.] We appeal to your own Consciences, who never hitherto could say, that in all these Say of Christ there was made any Change or alteration of THIS which he took, till the last word pronounced by the Priest, which is [Meum;] nor yet can you deny, but that he took that, which was properly, and substantially Bread. At the writing of this Sorites, we light upon an Answer from one Master l M. Malloune. in his late Reply. pag. 200. His Sorites; That which the Governor of the feast in Cana of Galilee tasted, was the same which the Ministers brought him: that which they brought him was the same that others drew out: that which others drew out, was the same which others before them poured into the Pots; but that which others poured into the Pots was water. Therefore that which the Governor of the feast tasted was water. So he. [None is so witless but will easily, from the light of the Text, tell him, that the water was changed into wine, before the Governor of the feast tasted thereof: whereas, in the tenure of Christ his speech, you yourselves could never point out any former change at all, before the last syllable, Me-um.] Malloune, encountering it with another, but a false Sorites, invented by himself, to the discountenancing of this true one; only we entreat you, that at the reading thereof, you will not laugh at his foolery. (See the Margin.) Your Grammatical Objection is Childish. Cardinal m Si [Hoc] accipitur substantiuè, tum sensus erit [Hoc] i. e. Haec res: quod si de Pane dicatur, absurdissima propositio erit, non enim potest dici Hoc de Re quae cernitur, & apertè cognoscitur, nisi sit generis neutrius illa— Nemo enim demonstrans de Patre suo, diceret, Hoc est Pater meus. Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 10. §. Porrò. Bellarmine your chief Master, and also your Schoolfellow n Although the word Bread had not been expressed, yet being present in Christ's hand, and pointed unto, Hoc could not be taken substatively no more than one should say of his Father, Hoc est Pater meus M. Brerelye's Liturgy, pag. 137. Master Brerely, as if they would put Protestant's to School, tell them that [Hoc] taken for a Substantive neuter cannot agree with Panis, it being a Thing then seen and known, and not being of the neuter gender: no more than for a man to say, De Patre, Hoc est Pater meus. A strange thing, that great Clerks, when they take upon them to teach others their Grammar, should be so fare overtaken, as to need to be put in mind of their * Accedence, Quià per hanc acceditur ad Grammaticam. Accedence, (if ever they learned it) which telleth them that The neuter gender, substantively taken, will agree with any thing that hath no life, whether seen or not seen. In which respect there might be a difference between, Hoc de Patre, and Hoc de Pane. For although Priscian would cry out, if he heard one saying, Hoc lana, or Hoc lapis, wherein [Hoc] is taken Adjectively: yet if a Question being raised, concerning the lightness and heaviness of Wool, and of Stone, one showing the Wool in his hand should say, Hoc est leve; the other pointing at the Stone, should say, Hoc est grave, would any think that Priscian would be offended? for [Hoc] in Latin, neutrally taken, more than others would be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 8. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. pet. 2. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 2 13 Greek, taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Not to trouble you with that in your * Summa Angelica. tit. Eucharist. quaest. 23. Propositio esset magis propria, si demonstrando Cibum diceretur [Hoc est Corpus meum.] Summa Angelica, wherein [Hoc] neutrally taken, is made to agree with Cibus. And although Protestants be so inexpert in the rudiments of learning, yet will you not think that others, whom you call Catholics, could be so deceived; who (as your jesuite witnesseth) p Dicent Calvinistae, Pronomen illud Graecum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & Latinum, Hoc, Substantiva esse: quod & multi Catholici dixerunt, ideò opus non esse ut genere conveniat, sed posse esse, Hoc quod vobis do, est corpus meum. Teste Maldon. Com. in Matth. 26. pag. 633. were Many, that taught that [Hoc] in the words of Christ, put Substantively, may without any Inconvenience agree with Panis, in [This,] meaning [This] which I give you. ⚜ Will not this suffice? then advise you with your learned Bish. jansenius, to know why he 9 jansen. Concord. Evang. Cap. 131. in haec verba, [Bibite ex hoc omnes.] Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hic est sanguis meus, ubi pro pronomine masculino, verti potest neutrum, Hoc, ut ità sit [Hoc est sanguis meus:] quae versio magis convenit ei quod p●aecedit, Bibite ex hoc omnes— Nam si dieas, Hic est sanguis meus, videtur esse sensus, Hic sanguis est sanguis meus. Certè Cypr●●nus in Epist. ad Caecil. legit, Bibite ex hoc omnes, nec tamen malè noster vertit Interpres, qui● frequenter hoc modo [Hic] ponitur pro [Hoc] ut Exod. 16. interrogantibus de Manna, Quid est hoc? respondit, Ille est panis, cum videretur dicendum, Istud. said of the other [Hic est sanguis meus] That it had been more agreeable to have rendered it thus [Hoc est sanguis meus:] where he giveth his Reason for it, and fortifyeth it when he hath done by the same Translation, [Hoc est sanguis meus] out of Saint Cyprian. It would but vex you to tell you furthermore that 10 Gabriel. Biel. Lect. 48 pag 4 14 lit. K. Hoc est corpus meum.] Ad similitudinem, quâ diceremus, viso Angelo sub specie Bumanâ, Hoc est Angelus. Gabriel Biel durst illustrate the same [Hoc] spoken of [Panis] by this Saying, [Hoc est Angelus] spoken of an Angel in the shape of a man. Lastly, what will you think of the Scholarship of your own 11 Egid. conics jes. de Sacram. qu. 75. Art. 1. num. 36. Ibid. Loct. 48. Bonaventura dicit, Hoc, quod est subjectum, demonstrat panem. Bonaventure, who adventureth to say that [Hoc] the Subject of Christ's speech, demonstrateth Panem, Bread? Are you not yet ashamed of your Rashness? then must we now put you unto it. In your own vulgar Latin Translation, it is said of Evah, the wife of Adam, q Saluteron Ies. Tom 9 Tractat. 16. §. Nec tursus— Adam de Euâ ex costâ ejus desumptâ, Hoc nunc os ex offibus meis. Hoc est os, Gen. 2. what Insobriety then is this in your Disputers, so eagerly to reach that blow unto the Protestants, wherewith they must as necessarily buffet their own Mother Church, by which the same Translation is made Authentic; and wound their own Consciences, being themselves bound by Oath to defend it in all their disputations? Away then with these Puerilities, especially now, being bused in a matter of so great importance, wherein consisteth the foundation of all the main Controversies, concerning the Roman Mass. For, if the Pronoune [This] have Relation to Bread, there needs no further Dispute about the figurative sense of Christ's speech. ⚜ Notwithstanding, We have not yet done, but furthermore to put every one of you to his Grammar. We have heard of a Romish Priest, who, having many unconsecrated Hosts before him, used this form of Consecration: Haec sunt Corpora mea: These are my Bodies. Which Report your * See afterwards Book. 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Author, indifferently, thinketh might have been either true, or fabulous: however, it justly occasioneth us to make this serious demand, to wit, when any of your Priests, having before him on the Altar not one loaf alone (as Christ had, which he blessed, saying, [This is my Body, and after broke it into parts, distributing them to his Disciples:) but many round hosts, now to be consecrated; We ask, by what congruity he can pronounce of such a multitude of these Hosts (which he means to consecrate) This is my Body? have you (o the only Grammarians!) any Grammar for this. We return to the School of Christ, the holy Scripture, to consult (about Christ's meaning) with his Disciple Saint Paul, where he professeth to deliver nothing, concerning Christ his Institution of this Sacrament, but that which he had * 1. Cor. 11. 23. Received of the Lord. Him we desire to expound unto us the words of Christ, delivered by Three Evangelists, and to tell what he gave unto them, and what he called his Body: and he telleth us plainly, saying; * 1. Cor. 10. 16. The Bread, which we break, is it not the Communion if the Body of Christ? alluding to those words of the Evangelists, He broke it, and that was Bread. And that you may know that this was Catholic Doctrine, in the days of Antity, we adjoin the next Proposition. That it was Bread and Wine, which Christ called his Body and Blood; in the judgement of Ancient Fathers. SECT. VI FOr proof hereof, behold a Torrent of Ancient r I. Irenaeus; Accipiens panem, Corpus suum esse confitebatur Lib. 4. cap. 57 II. Tertull. Christus panem corpus suum appellat. Lib. adversus judaeos, Cap. quod incipit. Itaque. III. Orig. Nec materia panis est, sed super illum dictus sermo est, qui prodest non indignè comedenti. In Matto. 15. iv Hieron. Nos audiamus panem, quem fr●git Dominus, esse corpus Se●vatoris. Epist ad Hebdib. Qu. 2. V Ambros. Panem fractum tradidit Discipulis suis, dicens; Ac●ipite, Hoc, etc. Lib. 4. the Satrament. cap 5. VI August. judas manducavit panem Domini, etc. Tract 59 in johan. VII. Cyr. Hier. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Catech. My●lag. 4. pag. 518. VIII. Cyr. Alex. Cùm Christus ipse sic affirmat, ac dicat de Pane, Hoc est corpus meum, etc. C●tech. 4. Idem. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dial. 1. cap. 8. And again elsewhere; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. X. Gaudent. brixtens. Cùm panem consecratum Discipulis porrigebat, sic ait, Hoc est Corpus meum, Tract. de ratione Sacram. XI. Cyprian. Vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus Epist. 63. XII. Clemens Alexand. Benedixit vinum, cum dixit, Accipite. Paedag. lib. 2. cap. 3. XIII. Isid●r. Pan●s, quia confirmat corpus, ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur. Lib. 1. de officijs, cap. 18. Fathers pressing upon you; Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hierome, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Gaudentius, Cyprian, Clemens of Alexandria, and Isidore; Thirteen to the dozen, whose sayings we may best know by their own Idiom, and Tenure of speech. The first noting Christ to have confessed Bread to have been his Body. The second, Christ to have called Bread his Body. The third, that Christ's speech was spoken of Bread. The fourth, that That which he broke, was bread. The fift, that It was Bread which he broke. The sixth, that It was Bread of the Lord, and not Bread the Lord, received of judas. The seventh, that the words [My Body] were spoken of the Bread. The eighth, that Christ saith of the Bread [This is my Body.] And the same Father, as if he had studied to take away all Scales of doubtfulness from the eyes of your minds, illustrateth the matter thus: So (saith he) did Christ call his Body Bread, as else where he calleth his flesh a Grain of Wheat; [Except the Grain of Wheat die, it bringeth forth no fruit.] The ninth, that Christ gave to the Bread the name of his Body. The tenth, that Christ said of the Consecrated Bread. This is my Body.] The eleventh, that It was Wine which he called his Blood. The twelfth, that He blessed Wine when he said drink. And the last; The Bread strengthening man's Body was therefore called the Body of Christ. Yet need not this Father be reckoned for the Last, if we affected to be supersluous. All these so Learned and Ancient Fathers (sufficient Grammarians we trow) teaching the Pronoune [This] to demonstrate Bread, do as absolutely confute your Romish Exposition, to prove the speech Figurative, ●s any Protestant in the world could do, if he were permitted to plead his own Cause. CHALLENGE. We will try what a Syllogism will do, that, after your Posall in Grammar, we may encounter you with Logic. The Major. No Bread can possibly be called a Body of flesh, without a figure. (This Proposition hath had the Universal consent of all Schools, by virtue of that Maxim of Maxims, * See above §. 4. Disparatum de Disparato, etc.) The Minor. But in these words, [This is my Body,] the Pronoune [This] doth demonstrate Bread. (This hath been the general Exposition of Fathers.) The Conclusion. Therefore the words of Christ, [This is my Body] are to be taken figuratively. Except you will contradict both the General confession of your own Schools, and Universal consent of Ancient Fathers; besides the now clear light of the words of Christ. That it was Bread, which Christ called his Body, is proved manifestly from your own Romish Positions and Principles. SECT. VII. YOur first Position is this; The word [This] must either point out Bread, or the Body of Christ, or that Third common Substance, which you call Individuum vagum. But to refer to word [This] unto the Body of Christ, is (as hath been f See above §. 2. confessed) Absurd. And that the word [This] should signify your Individuum vagum, is an Exposition full of Absurdities, as hath been also t See above §. 3. acknowledged. It remaineth therefore that the Pronoune [This] pointeth out precisely, Bread. A second Principle you have, to wit; That these words [This is my Body] are words of Consecration, and Operative, so that by [This] is meant that which is Consecrated, and (as your Council u Concil. Trident. Sess. 23. c. 4. Fit Conversio totius substantiae Panus in corpus Christi. of Trent speaketh) changed into the Body of Christ. But, by the Decree of the same Council, not the Body of Christ, nor any Third thing, but Bread only was then consecrated and changed into the Body of Christ. Ergo the Pronoune [THIS] hath only Relation to the Bread. ⚜ We might add, for a third Principle, the above ingenuous * See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Confession of your jesuites, granting that the Pronoune [THIS] in Christ's words did design That thing which was then present, whereof Christ said, [This is my Body:] when as (which hath likewise been confessed) That thing was neither Christ's Body, nor any third thing differing from Bread. And therefore (say we) could betoken nothing but Bread. CHALLENGE. A New Syllogism would be had, to put the matter out of question. Major. No Sense, which is Impossible, can be given properly to the words of Christ, [This is my Body,] (This needeth no proof.) Minor. But to call Bread Christ's Body, properly, is a Sense Impossible. (This hath been your own constant * See above § 4 profession.) Conclusion. Therefore cannot this Sense be given properly to the Body of Christ. How can you avoid the necessity of this Consequence? All arising from the nature of Predication, in this Proposition, wherein the Subject is Bread; the Copula, Is; and Predicate, Body of Christ. Which because it cannot be properly predicated either of Bread determinate, as to say, This Bread in my hand is Christ's Body; or of Bread undeterminate (which you call vagum) as to say, This kind of Bread is the Body of Christ, it demonstratively showeth that your Doctors can have no greater Adversaries, in this case, than their own Consciences, which will appear more fully in that which followeth. ⚜ A Confirmation, that in the words [Hoc est Corpus Meum: This is my Body] the Pronoune [HOC, THIS] is expressly spoken of Bread; by the Analogy it hath with the other pronoun [HOC, THIS] spoken of the Cup. SECT. VIII. AS all the motions of every wheel of a Watch have their activity from the spring; so may. We say that all the Controversies, touching the Romish Mass, in the Doctrinal parts thereof, concerning Corporal Presence, Transubstantiation, Union, and divine Adoration, attributed to that which is in the hands of the Priest, depend, as on their offspring, upon the proper and Literal Sense of these words, [Hoc est corpus meum, This is my Body:] and this their Interpretation resteth upon the proper signification of the Pronoune [Hoc, This] as you have already heard. Which if it betoken Literally Bread, as all Protestants affirm, then by Universal consent, of even the Romish Doctors themselves, the speech of Christ must as necessarily be a Figurative and Tropical speech, as was that of Saint Paul, saying, The Rock was Christ. The Romish therefore, to avoid this, have devised other Interpretations of Christ's words, as you have heard. Some (for they are divided among themselves) will have the Pronoune [Hoc, This] to betoken Christ's Body, as if Christ had said, This my Body is my Body. The other Opinators holding the former to be absurd, say that by [Hoc, This] is meant not this definite Bread itself, but This (Individuum vagum) kind of Bread is my Body; which hath been condemned by their other parties (and truly) as an Exposition full of Absurdities. We now pursue this point further, by examination of the Speech of Christ, concerning the other Element, delivered Saint * Matth. 26. 27. Matthew and Saint * Mark. 14. Mark thus. He took the Cup, and gave it (the Cup) to them, saying, Drink you all of this, (viz. Cup) For this (namely still, Cup) is my Blood. And is further proved to point out the Cup by Saint * Luk. 22. Luke. and Saint * 1. Cor. 11. Paul, who both deliver it thus: This Cup is the new Testament, etc. But here in these words, [These Cup is, etc.] the Word, Cup, by Universal Consent is taken Tropically for the liquor in the Cup. Therefore did not Christ intent, in that which you call his Consecratory Words, a Proper and Literal Sense; when otherwise it had been as easy to have said either (according to the first Exposition) [This Blood in the Cup, is my Blood:] or else answerably to your second Interpretation, [This kind of Wine in the Cup is my Blood:] albeit this also be as Tropical and Figurative, as to have said, [This Wine is my Blood.] Which your Church of Rome perceived right well, and therefore, for avoiding the Trope and Figure, hath she devised a new form, thus. [Hic est calix sanguinis mei: This is the Cup of my Blood,] different from all the Evangelists, even in that which you call a Form of Consecration; as if in her high presumption she had professed to correct the form of Christ his Institution. A perfect Argument of a novel, naughty, ruinous, and tottering Cause. If any Protestant had made so bold with Scripture, O what outcries and vociferations should we have heard! and that this was done to facilitate your Answer, where you say, 12 Vasquez. in 3. Thom. Disp. 109. cap. 4. Ego existimo nullum esse Tropum in verbis essentialibus formae. The Words or form of Consecration Are without Tropes, your jesuite Vasquez collecteth. Wherein notwithstanding he forsaketh his Master Aquinas, even now when he doth Gloss and Comment upon him; for sure it is 13 Aquin. part. 3. Quaest. 78. Artic. 3. ad 1. Dico, Hic est calix sanguinis mei, est locutio figurata: uno modo, est secundùm Metonymiam, Continens pro Contento. dquinas concludeth most directly, saying of these Words, [This is the Cup in my Blood:] that It is a Figurative speech called Metonymia. Hitherto of the first Key of explication of Christ's words. CHAP. II. The Second Key in Christ's Words [Hoc est Corpus meum: This is my Body,] opening the Figurative Sense thereof, is the Verb [EST, IS.] FOr that [Est] in these words hath the same sense, as, Signifieth; as if Christ had said expressly of the Bread, This signifieth my Body: and accordingly of the Wine, This signifieth my Blood, may be proved by three Propositions infringible. Our first Proposition. The Verb [EST] being joined with a thing that is a Sign, is always figurative, and the very same with this word, SIGNIFIETH. SECT. I. FOr although the Verb (Est) be indeed so absolutely simple, in its own nature, that it cannot be resolved into any other word (as all other Verbs may be in like Case) yet doth it (albeit accidentally) necessarily infer a figurative Sense, and is as much as Signifieth, or Representeth, whensoever it joineth the Sign and the Thing signified together. As for Example, A man pointing at a sign hanging before an Inn, and saying, This is Saint George, the Verb Is can infer no other Sense than Signifieth. Why? even because the thing, whereof it speaketh, is a Sign signifying Saint George. And Bread in this Sacrament is in all Catholic Divinity a Sign of Christ's Body. Therefore the Verb [Is] can have no other Sense than [Signifieth.] The former Proposition confirmed by all like Speeches, whether Artificial, Politic, or Mystical. SECT. II. YOur own jesuites, and common Experience itself will verify this Truth. First, In things Artificial, as a Metonymia, tropus est in Scriptures frequentissimus, quâ continens pro contento, & contrà signatum pro signo usurpari solet; ut ostensâ imagine Herculis, dicimus, Hic est Hercules. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 proleg. 12. Can. 15. To say of the Picture of Hercules, This is Hercules, is a figure. Secondly, In things Politic, as when a b Testamentum saepè sumitur pro Legato, seu Re testatâ. Bartrad. jes Institut. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Legacy, given by Will and Testament, is called the man's Will. So they. And indeed what is more Common, than for a man to say of his Testament, This is my Will? Of his name subscribed, This is my hand? And of the wax sealed, This is my Seal? When as his Will (properly taken) is in his heart, his hand is affixed to his Arm, And his seal may be in his pocket. Thirdly, In Mystical and Divine Rites; as in Sacrifice, even among the Heathen, according to that Example out of Homer, which is notable. The Gree●as and Trojans, when they entered into a league, which was to be ractified by a Sacrifice of Lambs, upon which both sides were to take their Oaths, this their Act is thus expressed c Salm Ies. Tom 9 Tract. 15. §. Malè e●●m. [Idem priùs habuit noster Bez●●in Luc. 22. 20.] — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, They brought with them two Lambs, their faithful oaths. Where Lambs, the ritual signs of their faithful Swearing, are called Oaths. An Example (I say) even among the Heathen, which is as apposite to our purpose, and opposite against your defence, as can be. Our Second Proposition, answerable to the first. All the like Sacramental Speeches, in Scripture, are figuratively understood. SECT. III. IN all such like Sacramental Speeches, both in the old and new Testament, wherein the Sign is coupled with the Thing signified, the Speech is ever unproper and Figurative, and the Verb [Est] hath no other force than, Signifieth. This Truth is confirmed abundantly by the Testimonies of your own jesuites, and others, who come fraught with Examples. First, concerning the old Testament, Noting that the Sacrifice of the d Pascha significat transitum, qu●à Angelus transivit domos Israelit●rum: haec ratio nominis redditur, cum dicitur, [Transibit enim Dominus ●um viderit sanguinem in utroque post.] ●ansen. Ip●sc. Concord. in Matth. 26. [It was therefore more than boldness in Bellarmine, l. ● de Euch. cap 11 §. Quaedam to say; Agnus erat propr●è Transitus, Agnus being in the Predicament of Substance: and Transitus in the Predicament of Action. Paschall Lamb, being but a Sign, was called the Passeover, or passing-over. Secondly, that e 〈◊〉 hoc 〈◊〉 loco dicitur spiritualis, ex qua Deus eduxit per mi●●culum aquam, quià Signum 〈◊〉 è l●tgre Christi 〈…〉 Sa●meron. Ies. in 1. Cor. 10 [Petra autem erat Christus.] Id est. Petra significab ●t Christum: ubi signum appellat nomine rei significatae. Pe●●er. Ies. Com. in Dan 2. p. 85. [●●etra erat Christus.] Erat autem Christus Petra, certissima scilicet significatione. Aria's Mont. in 1. Cor. 10. & Piata. Ies. jam Is 51. The Rock, being but a Sign of Christ, was called Christ. ⚜ Albeit your Doctor Heskins, long ago ventured to confute this Sense, saying, 1 In his Parliament of Christ. B. 2. Chap. 3. Christ was the spiritual Rock, not the material: and afterwards concluding thereupon, that it is no figurative speech in the Saying of Saint Paul. A Doctor-like Conclusion forsooth! which even Petits in Common learning would easily confute by Retorsion, thus: If Christ was by the Apostle called the Spiritual Rock, than was the figuratively called The Rock, as well as he was figuratively called Vine, and Door; even because he was not a Vine, or Door Materially, but Spiritually. ⚜ Thirdly, that f Circumcisio soedus d●●tu, & signum toederis. Bellar ●●b. 1. de Ea●● 11 § Se. und●. Circumcision, being but a Sign of the Covenant, was called the Covenant. So likewise in the new Testament, both concerning g Christus cum Nicodemo spiritualutè: intelligendus. Muddon. Ies. in cum locum. ●ob. 3. Baptism, which in Christ his speech to Nicodemus (being but a Sign of Regeneration) is called Regeneration. And h Sep●●● sumus Rom 6. 4. Id est, Christum sepultum represent 〈◊〉 Tolet. jes' 〈◊〉 e●m 〈◊〉. Baptising, which being a Sign of the Burial of Christ) in the speech of Saint Paul, is called Burial: and concerning the Eucharist, the Communicants thereof are called One Bread, Cor. 10 16. Finally, that the most proper Interpretation of the Verb [Est, Is,] in such like speeches, importeth no more, than [Significat,] your jesuite i Q●ò● verò in 〈◊〉 ●is orationibus [Petra erat Christus; Semen erat verbum De●, Ego sum Ostium] verbum substantivum sit interpretandum pro Significat, aut sigurat; non ei id accidit ex n● tu●â suâ, aut per se, sed quoniam Pecta illa a●iter cum Christo conjungi non potest, quam per sig●um— Ind sit, ut parvi refer t●sivè dicas, Petra erat signum Christi, vel significabat Christum Salmeron. Ies Tom 9 Tract. 16. §. Primum igi●ur. pag. 118. Salmeron will testify for us: In these speeches (saith he) The seed is the Word, I am the Door, The Rock was Christ; the Verb [Is, and, WASPE] must be interpreted for SIGNIFIETH, or figureth; not of its own nature, but because the word, Rock, cannot be otherwise joined with Christ, than by a figure or Sign. So he. Even as Master k [Petra erat Christus] Soler ita expon●, Petra significabat Christum, id non ità accidit quòd verbum [Ess] pro significat, ex se coll●cetur, sed quontam [Petra] illa al●ter cum Christo cohaerere, quam per fimil●udinem, & signu ●●on potest. Sund de Visib. Mona●. ad Annum. 1550. pag. 141. Sa●ders also is compelled to confess in a like Case. CHALLENGE. THus have we argued from Induction and Enumeration of Texts of Scripture, in all like Sacramental Speeches: which Exposition, by Analogy of Scriptures, was ever held of all Divines the most absolute and infallible manner of expounding the Scripture that can be. The Truth whereof ariseth essentially out of the Definition of a Sacrament, which as well the whole Catholic Church, as your Romish, hath defined to be a visible Sign. But no visible Sign can be joined to any thing signified thereby, in like Predication, without a Figure, as hath been both copiously proved and confessed. Our third Proposition, viz. Eight Confessed Figures are apparently found in the words of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament. SECT. iv THat the pronoun, THIS, used aswell in these words of Christ [This is my Body] as in the other [This is my ●lood] infer a figure, * See the Sections ●●●ing before. hath been proved to the full, and so will be acknowledged by your own publicly authorized Roman * See the Sect. 6. now following. Gloss itself: which may be sufficient to muzzle our Opposites, who please themselves in nick-naming Protestants, calling them Toutists, of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the word, THIS; and Tropists, because of their professing the words of Christ to be Tropical, and figurative. But how much more confounded must they needs be, when it shall confessedly appear, that there are Eight figures moe in the words of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament? Let us begin with the word, BROKEN, thus; [This is my Body, which is Broken for you.] 1 Cor. 11 24. Say now, do you think indeed, and that seriously, Christ to have signified hereby that his Body in this Sacrament was therefore really Broken? a Si propriè loqui velimus, falsae sunt istae Propositiones, Corpus Christi mandicatur à nobis, corpus Christi teritur, corpus Christi devoratur, corpus Christi frangitur: quia ipsi modi, qui significantur his verbis, non conveniunt Corpori Christi. Maldor, de Sacrament. Tom. 1. pag. 144. Sacramentalis locutio esset, si corpus Christi diceretur frangi, a ●dertibus teri: haec enim non possunt nisi Sacramento-tenus intelligi, quia non propriè corpus Christi frangitur, sed Sacramentum Idem. Comment. in Matth. 26. Frangi cùm dicitur, est Metaphotica locutio, quia fractio propriè significat divisionem, & discontinuationem partium, quam constat non fieri in partibus corporis Christi Suarez. Ies. in Thom. Tom. 3. Disput. 47. Sect. 4. §. Exempla tertiae pag. 577. ⚜ Nay (say two of your jesuites, viz. Suarez and Maldonate) for than should the Speech of Christ be false: but it is figuratively and Metaphorically spoken. And they Will give you good reason hereof, collected out of b Aquin. part. 3. Quaest. 77. Art. 7. Non potest dici, qu●d corpus Christi verè frangatur, per quam fractionem unum fiat multa, quia impossibile esset tunc, ut totum sit in qualibet parte. Aquinas your chief Schoolman. * See afterwards, Book. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. in the Margin. Because the word, [Broken] properly taken signifieth a separation of the parts of that Body, which is said to be broken. But there is no separation, or discontinuation of the parts of Christ's Body in this Sacrament. So they. To which purpose your Bishop c jansenius. See hereafter. Book. 〈◊〉. Chap. 1. Sect. 4. jansenius will have us to observe a Reason wherefore the word [Broken] is left out of your Roman Missals (to wit) Lest that some should be so fond and silly as to conceive that Christ's Body is truly Broken. And upon this Contemplation your Bishop of Winchester Stephen Gardiner is peremptory. * Stephen Gardiner in his Explication of the Sacrament of the Altar. If one ask (saith he) if the Body of Christ be broken, I have learned to say, No, because that glorious Body cannot now be broken and divided, for it is whole in every part. What then (will some say) doth the word [Broken] signify in the speech of Christ? and your jesuite Salmeron is ready to instruct them out of the Fathers, that d Salm. ron. Ies. See afterwards, B. 6. Chap. ●. Sect. 2. It signifieth the crucifying of his Body with spear and nails upon the Cross. The like will be confessed of the Verb, EAT, in those speeches of Christ, [Take, Eat] which being properly taken, (say the abovenamed e See above in the Margin, at the l●tter (a) jesuites) would make the speech of Christ to be false: because, not the Body of Christ, but the Sacrament is properly Eaten. The Reason is expressed by your jesuite Salmeron, f Salmeron. See afterwards, Book. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Real eating (saith he) requireth a real touch and tearing of that which is eaten: but Christ's Body is not torn with the teeth, because this is Impartible. So he, Which is as plain as can be, to prove the word, Eat, (as it is applied to Christ's Body) to be absolutely figurative. In like manner, in the words of Christ's Institution, We read that he said, [DRINK you all of this:] which you refer properly to Christ's Blood, albeit you holding concomitancy (as g See above, B. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. Out of jansenius and Durand. you do) that is, that Christ's Blood is not separated out of his Body more in this Sacrament, than it is out of the Sacrament, but is still the same Body which hath its Blood in the veins thereof, therefore you cannot affirm truly that Christ's Blood is properly Drunk; Witness your great Pedagogue Mr. Brerely. * Mr. Brereley. Li●●rg. Tractat. 4. §. 8. If we should attend to the propriety of speech, neither is his Blood properly drunk in the Chalice, but only the form of Wine, seeing the Blood hath the same manner of Existing as under the form of Bread, (to wit) not divided nor separated from the Body, but included in the veins, and then in the Body. Do you not hear? Christ's Blood is not properly drunk, if not properly, then figuratively; as figuratively, as if one, swallowing the Body of Christ, should be said to Drink his Body. We ask Master Brerely, what then is that which is properly drunk out of the Chalice? and he saith, only the form of Wine, that is to say, a mere Accident. Hardly can it he said that a man properly drinketh the Air, which he breatheth, although it be a substance: and are you brought to believe mere Formalities to be truly Potable? We pass to two other Figuratives, whereof we read, for the first part, [Take, this is my Body, which is Given for you:] and of the other, [This is the new Testament in my Blood, which is Shed for you.] In both which words [GIVEN, and SHED,] as they are spoken in respect of the time, We expect from you a Confession of the figure Enallage, which is the using of the present tense for the future; your jesuite h [Corpus quod pro●vobis datur] Id est, quod offeretur pro vobis in cruse mactatum. Valent. Ies. lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 3. §. Igitur. [Of the word, Eato, literally false, so your jesuites. See Book. 5. Chap. 4. §. 2.] Valentia testifying for the first, [Given] that is (saith he) which shall be offered upon the Cross. And your jesuite Salmeron for the other [Blood which is Shed.] i Graecus Textus [Effunditur.] Non est negandum morem esse Scripturae, ea dicere jam esse, quae futura sint, u●hìc [effunditur] quià paulò post in cruse essundendus. Salmeron. Ies. in 1. Cor. 11. p. 154 & Sa. Ies. in Matth. 26. Graecè, Effunditur: praesens pro futuro. So Cajetan in Matth. 26 [Effunditur] nempè tempore passionis; jam enim inceperat effundi. It is not denied (saith he) but that it is the manner of Scripture to speak of a thing, as now done, which is after tobe done, as in this place, [Is shed] because shortly after, it was to be shed upon the cross. So likewise your jesuite Sa. And that this is among you the true and Common exposition of these words of Christ, your Bishop k jansenius. See afterwards Book. 6. Chap. 1. §. 2. at (q) jansenius doth not forbear to testify. So then, in both these words [Given, and Shed] there are two figures, in respect of the Time. We are furthermore to consider the Word, Shed; in respect of the Act, whereof your own l See Book. 6. Chap. 1. §. 4. for the three first: and Book. 4. Chap. 2. § 3. for the last. Doctors have thus determined. 1. your Bellarmine. Christ's blood, at his Institution of this Sacrament, did not pass out of his Body. 2. your Alfonsus. Christ's blood was never Shed after his Resurrection. 3. your jesuite Coster. True effusion of blood is a separating it from the Body, which in Christ was only on the Cross. 4. you may add to these the stiff Resolution of your jesuit Suarez● Christ's blood to be separated out of his Veins, who can believe? And if this be not to be believed, then to say that it is not Figuratively said to be Shed, is altogether as incredible. ⚜ Will you be pleased that your jesuite Vasquez may determine this point throughout. He 2 Vasquez Ies. in 3. Thom. Qu. 78. Art. 3. Disp. 199. cap. 1. Ego verò existimo utrumque verbum, Datur, & Frangitur, Effundetur, sen, Effunditur, quae ponuntur in additamentis formarum, multò meliùs ad passionem & crucem referri, quàm ad fractionem & effusionem Eucharistiae. (Alleging to this purpose the consent of Cajetan, Theophylact, Euthymius, Anselm, and Chrysost.) Adding, Rationes verò pro hac nostra sententia & interpretatione sunt (me judice quidem) efficacissimae— paulò post, Non est effusio sangui●is in Eucharistia, per modum Sacrificij, sed repraesentatio & sigura illius: in chalice enim Domininon separatur sanguis à corpore Christi, ac proindè reipsa non effunditur. concludeth all these words, [Broken, Given, Shed] to relute to Christ's Passion in a future sense: bringing with him Cajetan, Theophylact, Euthymius, Anselm, and chrysostom for his Authors: and will have you to know that he hath most forcible Reasons for this Interpretation, besides this his own, to wit, That the Blood of Christ cannot be said to be Shed, which is not properly separated out of his Body in the Sacrament. Aquinas will speak as confidently of Breaking, that * See above confessed. It is impossible it should be broken, which is a dividing into many parts. Now furthermore concerning the same words, [Broken, Given, Shed,] in respect of the Time, as that they signify the Future time of Christ's Passion, you * Book 6. Chap. 1. §. 2. 〈◊〉 shall have yet moe of your own Docotors averring as much, so that your Romish Suggester shall have little cause to complain of the paucity of our witnesses. ⚜ It followeth in the words of Christ's Institution, [This is the Cup of the new Testament in my blood.] Now what of this? hearken to your Bishop jansenius. m [Hic. Calix est novum Testamentum.] Non potest accipi in proprio sensu, sed in eo, quem clari●ra verba Matthaei et M●rci indicant & exigunt. Siuè enim Calix su●atur provasc●● potorio, sive Synechdochic● pro sanguine in poculo contento, non potest consistere ut in ijs verbis sit propria locutio— Nemo enim dix erit propriâ locutione vasculum illud potorium fuisse novum Testamentum, cùm incertum sit an adhùc exstet illud poculum: at novum Testamentum est aeternum Sed nec sanguis in chalice contentus potest esse novum Testamentum propria locutione, quià lex Evangelica in Epist. ad Heb dicitur novum Testamentum, & apu●l Matth. & Marcum sanguis dicitur hov● Testamenti. At unic●m est n●●um Testamentum. Ianse●. Concord in 〈◊〉 locum, pag. 910. These words (saith he) cannot not be taken properly, whether the [Cup] be taken for the vessel, used for drinking, which was a temporal thing, and therefore could not be the Testament of Christ, which is eternal: or else whether you take it for the matter in the Cup (which is a Figure called Synecdoche) for it being the blood of the new Testament, could not be properly the Testament itself. Yea, and your jesuite Salmeron pointeth out in the same words, a double Figure; h Subest in his duplex Metonymia, 1. quuà Con●in●ns pon●●ur pro Contento, id est, poculum, sive Calix, pro vino, eò quod vinum in ipso continetur. 2. est, cò quod contentum in poculo foedus, vel Testamentum dicitur novum, cùm sit ejus symbolum propter species.— Testamentum hoc in loco potest sumi prolege Evangelica, quae veteri legi opponitur, ut rem Testamento legatam testatamuè significet. Quemadmodùm haeres dice●solet, Hic fundus est Testamentum Patris me, Id est portio haereditatis à patre meo legata; in quem sensum Apostolus loquitur ad Heb. jesus est sponsor melioris Testamenti. Id est haereditatis Salm. jes. Tom 9 Tract. 15. § 3. p. 98. A double Figure (saith he) is here, the [Cup] being put for the thing contained in the Cup: and [Testament] being taken for the Legacy that is granted and given by the Testament; wi●h whom the o Testamentum sumitur pro leg●to Metonymi●è, continens Testamentum sumitur pro contento legate, s●u haereditate, quae Testamento continetur. Barrad. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 5 pag. 79. Tom. 4. jesuite Barradas doth consent. Hereunto may be added Christ's Tropical Saying in the 6. of john, where Christ calling that, which he giveth to be eaten, his Flesh, in the same Chapter he calleth his Flesh, which is to be eaten of the faithful, Bread. Which none of your side durst hitherto interpret without a Figure. And yet again, the Apostle speaking of the Mystical body of Christ, which is his Church, assembled at the holy Communion, to participate of this Sacrament, saith of them; * 1. Cor. 10. 17. We being many are one bread and one Body: for we are all partakers of that one Bread. But why? Even as one Bread consisteth of many corns, so doth one Church of Christ of many faithful persons, saith your p Sicut unus panis ex multis gran●s, etc. Aquia. in cum locum. Aquinas. But none of you will deny, that the Apostles naming the Communion of the Faithful to be one Bread, or Loaf, is altogether Figurative. CHALLENGE. COllect we now the Parcels abovementioned. First in the word [This] necessarily referred to Bread, inferring one Figure in the former Chapters: And next, in this Section, one Figure, in the word, Broken; Another in the word, Eat; A third in the word, Drink; A fourth in the word, Given; A fift and sixth in the word, Shed: A seaventh in the word, Cup: An eighth in the word, Testament: nine in all, and then your Gybes and Tants, against our Figurative Exposition of Christ's words, as so many bolts shot upwards, must fall directly upon your own pares. Of your Bellarmine's Objection of the word, Shed, hereafter, in the sixth Book, and 2. Chapter. ⚜ It is no better than Hemlock which you put into your Disciples mouths, to stupefy them withal, when you reach them to stand to the Literal words of Christ, lest that otherwise Christ's speech should be accounted a Lie. First against your own knowledge, who are not ignorant, that Truth is not opposed to Figurative, but to False speech: else all the Parables of Christ, which are altogether Figurative, should be called false; which were Blasphemy to affirm. And also against the acknowledgement, already specified, confessing that Bread cannot, in a proper and Literal sense, be truly called Christ's Body. And the general Rule is, that Truth in a Figurative sense cannot be so in a Literal; no more than a Literal Truth can be Figurative and Tropical. ⚜ That the Figurative sense of Christ's words is agreeable to the judgement of the more Ancient Church of Rome. SECT. V YOur old and public Romish Gloss saith plainly; q Coeleste Sacramentum, quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem, dicitur Corpus Christi, sed impropriè: unde dicitur suo more, sed non re● veritate, sed significante mysterio: ut fit sensus, vocatur Corpus Christi, id est, significatur. Gloss. Decret. de Consecrat. Dist. 2. Can. Hoc. est. This heavenly Sacrament, because it doth truly represent the flesh of Christ, is called the Body of Christ, but improperly, not in the truth of the thing, but in the mystical Sense, to wit, it is called the Body of Christ, that is, it signifieth his Body, So your Gloss, which you may not deny to be the gloss or Tongue of your whole Church, because it hath been confirmed by the same Authority of Pope * Gregorius XIII. Papa. In the privilege before the body of the Canon Law. Gregory the thirteenth, wherewith your Extravagants, and former Decrees of Popes have been Authorized. CHALLENGE. IF all Protestants should meet at once in one Synod, and should conspire together, as labouring to prove a figurative Sense in these words of Christ [This is my Body,] I suppose that a more exact, perspicuous, copious, and ponderous Proof could not be desired, than hitherto hath been evinced from your own Confessions; grounded aswell upon sound and impregnable Reasons, as upon direct Testimonies of holy Scriptures. That the former Figurative Sense of the words of Christ is agreeable to the judgement of Ancient Fathers of the Greek Church. SECT. VI YOu will needs defend your literal Exposition by the verdict of Ancient Fathers, and we appeal to the Venerable Senate both of Greek and Latin Fathers. The r Graeci Patres vocant Eucharistiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quae sunt apud nostros figurae, Sacramenta, Signa; & haec omnia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accepere. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 30. p. 383. Diony s. c. 1 de Eccle. Hier. Theod. Dial. 1. Macarius Hom. 27. Nazianzen. Orat. in Gorgon. vocant Eucharistiam, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 post recitationem horum verborum, [Hoc est corpus meum.] Teste Bellarmin. lib. 2. the Eucharist. cap. 15. §. Sed.— Dionys. Ep. 9 ad Titum, loquens de saris Signis, & tropicis locutionibus; dicit Christum jesum in Parabolis per typicae mensae apparatum deifica mysteria tràdere. Eodem modo Gregor. N●zianz. Orat. 11. vocat Antitypum pretiosi corporis & sanguinis Domini. Euseb. lib 8. Demonstrat. in fine: Christus Discipulos hortatur, ut sui ipsius corporis imaginum repraesentent. Teste Suarez. Tom. 3. in Thom Quest. 74. Disp. 46. §. 4. pag. 547 & ●52.— Theod. Dial. 1. cap. 8. Scis quod Deus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Ipse igitur Salvator noster 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paulò post interrogando docet; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek generally calling the Elements of Bread and Wine, in this Sacrament, Some, Types, Antitypes, and Symbols (that is) Figures and Signs: Some calling Christ his Speeches Tropical, or Figurative; and his Table Typical: Some saying that Christ would have his Disciples hereby Represent the image of his Body. And one as expressly as any Protestant can speak (even Theodoret by name) that Christ here gave to the Sign the name of his Body, as elsewhere he gave to his Body the name of the Sign. ⚜ And again, 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Origen also in Matth. 15. calleth materiam panis, Symbolicum corpus. Christ, as he called the mystical fruit of the Vine, after sanctification, the Blood of the Lord: So the fruit of the natural Vine did he call the Blood of the Vine. So he Mark, no otherwise is the Wine in the Eucharist called Christ's Blood after Consecration, than the juice of the Grape is called The Blood of the Vine. Which who knoweth not to be improperly and figuratively spoken? ⚜ You cannot deny but these Phrases of Signs and Symbols are most frequent in the writings of all the Greek Fathers, which we take to be a convincing Argument, until you can give us some reasonable Solution hereunto. To this purpose you, leaving the principal Objections, fasten only upon certain Crotchets, and thereupon you bestir yourselves. THE FIRST CHALLENGE. Against the first Romish Answer, touching the word, Type, and Antitype, used by the Greek Fathers. THree kinds of Answers have been applied, as Three wedges to dissolve this difficulty; but a knot of wood cannot be loosed with a wedge of wax, such as every of your Answers will appear to be. The first interpreting Types and Antitypes not to be taken for Signs, but for Examples, is at the first hearing rejected by your s Prima solutio; Vocem Antitypon non accipi pro Signo, sed pro Exemplari, etc. sed haec opinio facilè rejici potest, quia vox ea nunquam sumitu● pro exemplari. Bellarm. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15. Cardinal, and others. The Second, alleged out of Damaskens, and much insisted upon by some favourers of your Romish Sense: namely, that the Fathers should call Bread and Wine Antitypes; but not after Consecration. So they. And if so, then indeed we should have no cause to oppose. But this Answer is proved to be apparently false by your t Altera solutio est aliorum, Panem & Vinum Antitypon dic●, sed ante Consecrationem, non posteà; ita respondit olim joh. Damasc. lib. 4. de fide. cap. 14. Et Epi. in 7. Syn. Art. 6. Tom. 3. sed invenimus apud Basilium Eucharistiam dici Antitypon corporis, post recitationem istorum verborum, [Hoc est corpus meum]— Tamen Theod. apertiffimè eam sic vocat, Dial. 1. & Macar. Egypt. Hom. 27. imò Dion. Arcop. Eccl. Hier. c. 1. Naz. orat. in Teste Gorgon. Bellar. ibid. Etiam Clemens in Constit. Billius Com. ad Eliam Cretensem, in Orat. 11. Nazianz Hanc interpretationem (Damasceni) refellunt Bessarion Card. & Turrian. Durant. de Rit. lib. 2. cap. 39 Cardinal, and others, out of the express Testimonies of these Greek Fathers, viz. Dionysius, Areopagita, Clemens, justine, Macarius, Basil, and Nazianzene. The third Answer is your Cardinals own, yet but faintly urged, with a a Fortassis Basilius & alij Graeci Patres non vocant Typum aut Figuram, sed Antitypa, quia Antitypa non sunt quaelibet figurae, sed illa tantùm, quae nihil fere differunt à veritate. Bellar. ib. quo supra. Peradventure they called them Antitypes, but not Types after Consecration: and he is encountered by your b Negari non potest quin nonnunquam nomen Typi inveniatur in Patribus, ut ex Hieronymo paulò ante notavi. Idem reperitur apud Chrysostomum Hom. 16. ad Heb. & Billius apud Nazianz. Annot in orat. 11. in sine. Quare probabile valdè existimo vocem Antitypi in eadem significatione usurpari hoc loco, quo Typi, seu Figurae, Suarez Ies. quo supra. pag. 554. Suarez and Billius, acknowledging that the words Types and Antitypes are used of the same Fathers in one and the same signification. ⚜ Asdruball doth likewise your jesuite 4 Vasquez. in 3. Thom. Quest. 78. Artic. 1. Disput. 197. cap. 4. Noster Turtanus putat non posse hoc Sacramentum vocari Typum corporis Christi: sed benè Antitypon, quin Typus significat figuram rei, quae tem ipsam non continet: Antitypon autem figuram quae rem ipsam in se habet.— Haec tamen sententia mihi non probatur. Vasques maintain, against your jesuite Turrian. ⚜ This our Objection how strong it is, may be seen by your much, but vain struggling. ⚜ A Corroboration of the judgement of Antiquity, in naming the Eucharist Type, and Antitype. None can need any better Instructor, in this point, than was one (albeit a Protestant) most conversant in Greek Antiquity, namely Mr. Isaac Casaubon. He instanceth most especially in cyril of Jerusalem 5 Cyrillus p. 522. de Chrysmate disserens, ait fideles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Locus ille consideratione digniffimus. Sic enim docet: Quando fideles baptizantur, eos accipere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. At de isto Christo ita loquitur: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecce, opponuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sp. Sancti, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Christum in Baptismo suo accepisse ipsam essentiam Sp. Sancti in se advenientis: sed nos accipere tantùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod tamen ipse appellat Sp. Sanctum. Et sanè ita passim legimus in S. S. hos aut illos accepisse Spiritum Sanctum, quùm intelligamus non ipsam essentiam Sp. Sancti, sed vim & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sp. Sancti. Cur non idem dicemus de S. Eucharistiâ? Patres vetustissimi dicunt nos in eâ accipere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corporis Christi: ergò non accipimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: dicitur camen quod accipimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; sed eo modo, quo modò dicebamus capi Sp. Sanctum. Itaque illud etiam quod accipimus dicitur Gratia, etc. Haec Isaacus Casaub. teste filio suo pientissimo Meirico, ex M. S. Paternis. telling you that the material oil, wherewith Christians were anointed, was called by cyril the Antitype of Christ's own anointing, which was the Spirit of God itself. That The essential Spirit of God is opposed to the Antitype, which was material oil. And, notwithstanding, that the same Antitype is called by cyril the Spirit of God; and after, that the Christians are said to receive the Spirit; when nevertheless they receive not the essence, but the Energy and efficacious operation of the same Spirit. That learned man concludeth; The most ancient Fathers (saith he) said that we receive the Antitype of Christ in the Eucharist: Therefore they meant, that we do not receive it essentially. You, for want of other support, press the sentence of cyril of Alexandria. 6 Ob. Cyril. Alex. ad Coelosyr. Episc. Nè dubites an verum sit, cùm dicit manifestè [Hoc est corpus meum:] sed potens fide tene verba Christi. Doubt not (saith he) of the truth of Christ's speech, when he saith manifestly [This is my Body] but rather believe his words, This is that Testimony of Cyrill, which although it be out of an Epistle, not found in the ancient Editions, but of a latter date, and but some few years ago set forth (as your jesuite 7 Possevin. Apparat. Tit. Cyrillus Alex.— Paucos ante annos edlta est ejus Epistola ad Coelosyr. Episc. [And Bellarm. seemeth not to be so confident hereof, when in objecting this, he had rather remit his Reader to Garcetius, to see the place, than insist upon the words himself, saying; Solet citari Epistola ejus ad Coelosyrium, vide locum apud joh. Garcetium. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 26.] Possevin confesseth) yet doubt not we to embrace it in Cyrils' sense: who having now to deal with such Heretics, who taught that Christ had but a seeming Fantastical Body, doth refute them by Christ's speech of this Sacrament, saying, [This is my Body.] Which, Sacramentally spoken and understood, must needs evince, that Christ had a true natural Body in himself, because this Sacrament was instituted to be a Sign of a true, and truly-crucified Body, not a Sign of a Figure, but of a real thing: and therefore requireth in the Receiver not fancy, but faith to believe that Christ had a Substantial body, which is the very Argument of Tertullian * See Sect. ●9. following. afterwards, against the same delusion of the said Heretics. 8 Chrysost. in 1. Cor. c. 10. Hom. 24. [Quoniam unus panis, & unum corpus multi sumus.] Quid enim appello, inquit, communicationem? [Idem ipsum corpus sumus.] Quidnam est panis? [corpus Christi.] Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christi? non multa, sed [unum corpus.] Nam quemadmodum panis ex multis granis unitur, ut minimè grana appareant, sed tamen grana sunt, verum incertâ discretione conjuncta invicem: ità & nos Christo conjungimur, non enim alio corpore tu, alio ille aliter, sed eodem omnes. chrysostom, being so eminent a Doctor of the Greek Church, may in no case be left out: he comparing the Speech of Christ, calling Bread his Body; and the words of the Apostle, in calling the Company of the faithful Communicants also the Body of Christ, asketh, concerning the first, What is Bread? and answereth, The Body of Christ: and accordingly touching the second, What those faithful Communicants are made, which receive the Body of Christ? Answereth, They are made the Body of Christ. But the faithful Receivers (as you know) are not properly Christ's Body. The only Answer that your Cardinal would afford us, is, that 9 Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 22. Respondet, Loquitur Chrysostomus de pane consecrato. chrysostom spoke of Bread Consecrated, and not before Consecration. Which Answer doth fortify our Argument, to show that chrysostom held it to be Bread still after Consecration, as appeareth in his other saying concerning the same Consecrated Bread, or● Loaf (as it signifieth the mystical Body of Christ) in that As Bread is united of many grains of Corn, not discernible, but yet are still the grains of Corn, joined secretly one with another. So are we joined together with Christ his own Body. So chrysostom. Which words can in no wise be affirmed of your Romish mere Accidents of Bread, wherein there is no mixture of any Grains of Corn, or of Union one with another in one Loaf, whereby to betoken the Union of godly Christians jointly in one Christ. And therefore certainly Saint chrysostom believed the continuance of the substantial matter of Bread, after the words of Consecration. All these former Testimonies of Antiquity fight as well also by necessary Consequence against your Individuum vagum, that is, [THIS,] you know not what: even as justine, one of the ancientest of Fathers, doth declare, wherein he saith 10 justin. Quaest. & Resp. ad Graecos. Qu. 229. pag. 151. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. There is not any Thing, but it is [This same Something:] there is not a Body which is not [This same Body.] So he, according to Aristotle, denying any thing to be called [This Thing] properly, which is not absolutely and determinately This one Individual thing. Your quaintest device is yet behind. ⚜ A SECOND CHALLENGE, Against the last and most peremptory Romish Pretence, making Christ in this Sacrament to figure, and to represent himself, as a King in a Stage-play. THe Solution, which seemeth to your Disputers most persuasive, is thus set down by your Cardinal, and your jesuite Suarez, viz. c Solutio. Eucharistiam etiam post Con secrationem dici posse Antitypum corporis & sanguinis Domini, non solùm quia species panis & vini sunt figurae corporis & sanguinis Domini ibi reverâ existentium, sed etiam quià corpus & sanguis Domini, ut sunt sab illis speciebus, signa sunt ejusdem corporis & sanguinis, ut fuerunt in Cruse, repraesentant enim passionem Christi: & ideò fortassis Basilius. Et alij Patres non vocant Eucharisti●m figuram aut typum, sed Antitypum &c— Ità si Rex aliquis, gravissimo bello confecto, idem ipsum bellum ad oblectamentum populo in scenâ praesens seipsum bellantem repraesentare vellet. Bell l. 2 de Euch. cap. 15. Antitypa corporis & sanguinis Christi dicuntur, quià corpus & s●nguis Domini, ut sunt sub illis speciebus panis & vini in Eucharistia, signa sunt corporis passi, & sanguinis estusi in Cruse. Suarez. quo suprap. 554. Graeci Patres cùm passim vocant Sacramenta Antitypa,— nihil aliud sibi volunt quàm habere Sacramenta maximam similitudinem cum ijs rebus, quarum sunt Sacramenta. Bellar. lib. 1. de S●●●am. in gerere cap. 9 The Greek Fathers called Bread and Wine, Antitypes, and Signs of the Body and Blood of Christ, because the same Body and Blood of Christ, as they are in this Sacrament, under the forms of Bread and Wine, are Signs of the same his Body and Blood, as they were on the Cross. Like as a King, who having gotten a vistory in battle, should represent himself in a Stage-Play, as in a fight. So They. But without any Sentence of any Father, for countenancing so egregious a figment; so fare were the Fathers from using that counterfeit Testimony, which passeth under the name of Saint Augustine, as if he had said; The flesh of Christ is a Sacrament of his flesh: and inferring from hence, that The Body of Christ, as it is in this Sacrament, is a sign of itself, as it was upon the Cross. And they are no small Babes, who vent out this proof; by name d Billius come. in Nazianz. orat. 11. Audiamus quid Augustinus dicit in Prosperi sententijs; Caro inquit, ejus est, quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus; sanguis, quem sub specie vini potamus; Caro, viz. carnis, & sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis, carne & sanguine utroque invisibil●\i, & intelligibili, & spirituali significatur corpus Christi visibile, plenum gratiae, & divi●ae Majestatis Gardiner. Episc. Winton. Augustini verba, ut li●era sonat, intelligit. Item Claudius' Saints repetur, & allegari ait, ut corpus Christi ostenditur, quatenus in Sacramento est, seipsum significare, ut erat in cruse, suique Sacramentum esse & figuram, & figuram esse passionis suae; Eandem sententiam apertissime tuetur Roff●ns & johan. Hessell Haec Billius. Billius, Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, Claudius' Saints (one of name in the Council of Trent) Fisher Bishop of Rochester, and Hessell. But how prove They this? Out of any of the works of Augustine? No, where then? We are required to seek it in Prosper; where again e Trithemius. Ex sententijs Augustini, versibus hexametris & pentametris mixtum opus prosa pul●●erri●●um quod 〈◊〉 voluit, Epi●●●mma, sic incipit, ●um Sacris, etc. [But of the other Entitled, Sententiarum ex operibus Augustini, beginning thus, Innocentia, he maketh no mention; yea, and even in this (as it is now set out among the works of Prosper.) p●inted Coloniae Agrippinae. An. 1609. apud Arnoldum Crithum, It is not to be sound.] it is not to be found. Wither next? forsooth it is so cited by Peter Lombard, and there it appeareth that Peter Lombard had it out of his supposed Brother Gratian; we say, Gratian, whose books have been lately reproved, and condemned by one of your f Antonius Augustinus Archiepis●opus Tarracon. De emendatione Gratiani. Archbishops, for many False allegations of Testimonies of Fathers. And when all is done, if either g Lombardus. Attend his diligenter, quia Tropo quodam utitur hic Augustinus, quo solent res significantes rerum sortiri vocabula, quas significant; Visibilis species panis vocatur nomine Carnis, & species vini sanguinis, etc. Lib. 4. distinct. 10. Apud Billium quo supra. Peter Lombard or h Gratian. Caro, Id est, species Carnis, sub quo later corpus Christi,— Est Sacramentum C●ruis Christi, & sanguis, Id est, species vini, sub qua later sanguis Christi, est Sacramentum sanguinis Christi De Consecrat. dost. 2. Cap. Hoc est quod. in Glossa. Gratian, who are the Relators, may be admitted to be the Interpreters of that coined Sentence, they will say that the word Flesh, there specified, is taken for the Shape or form of flesh; and the word Blood, for the outward form of Blood; which spoileth your Play quite: wherein you will have the Flesh of Christ under the outward forms and shape, in this Sacrament, and not the outward forms and shape themselves, to be the Sign of the same Body on the Cross. So easy it is for Hunters to pursue their Game with loud cries upon a false sent. We return to your Cardinal, and to Suarez, who invented the Similitude of the Stage-Play for their Answer, which is indeed rather a Childish Playing, than Theological reasoning; yet it is but a mad sport to argue against Conscience; as this your Cardinal must needs have done, who i See above at (c) confessing that the Greek Fathers did therefore call Sacraments, Antitypes, because of the great Similitude they have with the things they represent; yet now adventureth to say, that the Body of Christ, as it is in the Eucharist, is a Sign of the same Body of Christ, as it was upon the Cross; notwithstanding the Body of Christ, as it is in the Sacrament, (according to your own faith) is so k Christi corpus, ut est in hoc Sacramento, nullo oculo humano, vel intellectu Angelico videri potest. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 53. Art. 7. §. 4. & 5. Sub singulis ut●●üsque speciei partibus Christus totus est, et integer continetur. Council Trident. Sess. 18. cap. 3. Invisible, that it cannot be seen of Angels; so Indivisible, that it cannot be parted or divided; and so Unbloody, that there is not the least tincture of Blood to be discerned therein. Wherefore to persuade your Disciples, that those grave Fathers ever taught that the Invisible, Indivisible, and Unbloody Body of Christ, as in this Sacrament, was or could be the Sign of his visible, torn, crucified and bloody Body upon the Cross; and so to note an Antitype, which is (as you call it) the l See above at (c) Greatest Similitude, is all one, as to find out the greatest Similitude in the greatest Dissimilitude. Which yet is the more intolerable, because it is against the Confessed m Billius. Eucharistiae Sacramentum dicitur Antitypon, et Typus, seu Symbolum, ratione ●pecierum pa●●s et vini, quae in oculorum sensum cadunt: et haec est communis ratio, quae à Theologis as●erri solet. Haec ille Com. in Naz. orat. 11. Common opinion of your own Divines, who have taught that The Sacrament of the Eucharist is called Type and Antitype, because of the forms of Bread and Wine. So your Billius. May you not now discern the notable perverseness of your Disputers, and that they devised this Stage-Play, ad faciendum Populum, to please and delude their Readers? thereby to fit themselves the better for the Pageant; whereof we shall be occasioned to say more in the * Book 6. c. 5. §. 7. sixth Book. That the only Objection out of the Greek Fathers, concerning the Pronoune [HOC] in the Testimony of Epiphanius, advantageth not the Romish Cause. SECT. VII. COmpare but Epiphanius his own a Epiphanius in Ancorato. Videmus quod accepit Salvator in manus, veluti Evangelista habet, quod surrexit à Coena, & accepit haec, & cum gratias egisset, dixit; Hoc meum est, & hoc: & videmus quod non aequale est, neque simile, non imagini in carne, non invisibili deitati, non lineamentis membrorum, hoc enim rotundae formae est, & insensibile quantum ad potentiam, & voluit per gratiam dicere, hoc meum est, & hoc: & nemo non fidem habet sermoni, qui enim non credit ipsum esse verum, excidit à gratia & salute. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch cap. 20. words, your Cardinal's b Cum docere vellet Epiphan. hominem verè factum ad imaginem Dei, licet non facile app●reat in quo consistat similitudo inter Deum et hominem, cum Deus incorporalis sit, immensus; et dicit multa esse ejusmodi quae aliud sunt, aliud videntur, ponit exemplum de Eucharistia, quae verè est corpus Christi, & tamen nihil minus est, quam quod appareat exterius, cum sit ●otundum et insensibile; & proinde validè dissimile corpori Christi. Hic sanè locus omninò convinci●, nam quod dicit, oporet credere ipsum esse verum, excludit Tropos, praesertim cum addat, excidere à Salute qui non credit: quod etiam addit ciedendum esse, licet sensus repugnent, apertissime testatur, non cum loqui de significatione, sed de re ipsa. [words to be observed in the Greek are these: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The last words show that Insensible is taken according to power, that is, actively.] Objection, and our Answer, and then make your own determination, as you shall think good. Man is said to be made after the Image of God. Epiphanius, not able to define what this Image consisted in, whether it be man's soul, or mind, or virtue; notwithstanding resolveth thatc All men have the Image of God in them, but yet not according to nature, (namely, that substantial nature which is in God) because God is Incomprehensible and infinite, etc. This is the main point which Epiphanius will now illustrate: but how? By something (saith your Cardinal) which seemeth to be that which it is not: And Epiphanius instanceth in the Eucharist, wherein Christ taking into his hands those things which the Evangelists do mention, he said of the one [HOC] This is mine, viz. Body; and of the other, This is mine, viz. Blood: hereby understanding (saith your Objector) The Eucharist, which is truly the Body of Christ, although it seem not to be so, outwardly, being of a round figure, and Insensible (or without sense) and therefore fare unlike to be the Body of Christ. So he. Who, thinking he hath overcome, doth raise up his Io, and Triumph, saying, This argument is throughly convincent, because Epiphanius addeth, He who believeth not the words of Christ, doth fall from Salvation: adding further, that they are to be believed, although our senses gainsay it. You have heard the Objection, which seeming to so great a Champion so greatly Convincent, you will give us licence to make a full Answer. First, by HOC ET HOC, THIS AND THIS (by the Interpretation of Epiphanius) are meant, The things which the Evangelist did mention; and the Evangelist mentioned (as you know) Bread, [He took Bread, He took the Cup,] meaning Wine in the Cup, namely, according to the * See above Chap. 1. §. 6. former general Consent of the Fathers, [HOC] signified Bread in one part of the Eucharist, and Wine in the other. But Bread neither in the Substance, nor in the Accidents can be called Christ's Body, without a Trope, as hath been * See above Chap. 1. §. 4. Confessed: which is our first confutation of your Cardinal, who concludeth that Epiphanius excludeth all Tropes out of Christ's Speech of [HOC.] Secondly c Epiphanius in Ancorato. Habent omnes id quod est secundùm Imaginem Dei, sed non secundùm naturam: non enim secundùm aequalitatem habent homines, Deus enim ment incon prehensibilis est, cum spiritus sit super omnem spiritum. All men (saith Epiphanius) have the Image of God, although not according to nature, or equality; because God, the Spirit of Spirits, is Incomprehensible. Then he seeketh a Similitude from the Eucharist, an Image of a thing which seemeth to be that, which in nature and equality it is not. Now in the Eucharist there are two things to be distinguished, the one is the Natural, the other is the Sacramental Being thereof. The Natural Being of the Elements, as of Bread and Wine, cannot make this Similitude; because, whether they be taken as Substances or Accidents, [Hoc, This] hath no proportion with the word which is called [Meum] meaning Christ's Body, because the Hoc (as Epiphanins saith) is a Round figure. But as Hoc and Hoc are Sacramental Images, representing Meum and Meum, Christ's Body and Blood: the Bread broken to betoken his Body crucified, and the Wine poured out apart, to signify Christ's Blood Shed: so will the Similitude be most Harmonical. Even as Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, although they differ in nature, yet are they representative Signs and Images of the Body and Blood of Christ. So the Image of God in man, hath a resemblance of the Godhead, although in respect of Nature and Equality it be as different as Finite and Infinite, Comprehensible and Incomprehensible. According to which Analogical, Mystical, and acramentall sense, upon the hearing of these words of Epiphanius, Whosoever will not believe Christ's words, as he said, falleth from grace, we willingly shall say Amen. The rather, because Epiphanius being an Adversary to the Marcionites, who denied Christ to have a True Body, but only Fantastical, notwithstanding whatsoever proof from men's senses, who saw and felt them; they could not digest the Faith of the Romish Church, which teacheth that that, which Epiphanius calleth Bread after Consecration, should be (contrary to the Demonstration of ●oure Senses, as of Seeing, Smelling, Feeling and Tasting) mere Accidents. Thirdly (a place as observable as any other) He saith of this, [Hoc] which is of a round figure, and differing in nature and proportion from that [Meum] which is the Body of Christ, that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Insensible: But how, Passively? as not being able to be perceived? No, for than it could not be perceived to be Round. But Actively, as not able to perceive any thing, in which respect he opposeth it to [Meum,] which is the Body of Christ. Which again manifestly contradicteth the abominable common doctrine of your Church, as you have heard, of Believing the Body of Christ, as it is in this Sacrament, to be unable either to see or hear, or exercise any faculty of sense without a Miracle; as is showed, Book. 4. Chap. 9 Sect. 2. In the last place I require justice from yourselves against a Proctor of yours. The Case is this: Bellarmine said (quoth I) that Epiphanius taught, We are to believe these words of Christ, although they be repugnant to our senses: which last words [Although they be repugnant to our senses] said I, No man of sense can find in Epiphanius. This saith the Proctor is a false Taxation. And I, for my justification, shall desire no other Advocate than Bellarmine's own words, Hic locus Epiphanij omninò convincit, quia addit etiam (nimirum Epiphanius) Hoc esse credendum, licet sensus repugnent. And now when you shall sum up the Premises, you will easily judge how the Testimony of Epiphanius will be held to be Convincent. That the same Greek Fathers have expressly unfolded their Meanings, touching a Figurative Sense. SECT. VIII. THe judgement of a whole Council of Greek Fathers may well suffice for the manifestation of the judgement of that Church; They in their Council at Trullo, alluding to these words of Christ, [This is my Body] saying, Let nothing be offered, but the Body and Blood of Christ, that is (say n In sanctis nihil plus quàm corpus & sanguis Christi offeratur, ut ipse Dominus tradidit, hoc est panis & vinum aquâ mixtum. Concil. Constant. apud Binium, [which Canon was made against the Aqua●ij (those who would use no Wine) Can. 32.] called Synodus quinisexta. They) Bread and Wine, etc. If we had not told you that this had been the speech of Greek Fathers in a Council, you would have conceived they had been uttered by some Heretic, as your Charity useth to call us Protestants. Neither may the Authority of this Council be rejected by you, as unlawful in the point of the Sacrament, because your Binius, in opposing against some things in this Council, yet never took any Exception against this Canon. We may not let pass another Testimony, used by the ancient Father o See above, §. 6. at the Let. (x). Theodoret, namely, That Christ called the Bread his Body, as he called his Body Bread, Matth. 12. saying thereof, Except the grain of wheat die, etc. insomuch that interchangeably in the one place, He gave to the Sign the name of his Body, and in the other, He gave to his Body the name of the Sign. So he. As Protestantly as either Calvin or Beza could speak. And you cannot deny, but that when Christ called his Body Bread, it was an improper and Figurative speech. And therefore, if you will believe Theodoret, you are compellable to confess, that Christ, in calling Bread his Body, meant it not in a proper & literal sense. ⚜ We were about to proceed, but that your Doctor Heskins will needs cross us in our way, by objecting the Current of Oecumenius in his Exposition of those words of the Apostle, We are all one Body, inasmuch as we are partakers of one Bread, saying: 11 Dr. Heskins in his Parliam. of Christ. Book 3. C. 28. Oecum. in 1. Cor. 11. Quid est panis? Corpus Christi: Quid efficiunturij qui participant? Corpus sanè Christi, quia ait Apostolus, [unus panis, & unum corpus sumus, quia de uno pane participamus] ex multis namque granis (ut exempli gratia loquamur) unus panis factus est; & nos multi ex uno pane participantes efficimur unum corpus Christi. What is one Bread? the Body of Christ: and what are they made that partake of this one Bread? The Body of Christ: for this one Bread is made of many grains, and we being many partakers of one Bread, are made one Body. Hence your Doctor; In my judgement this needeth no explanation: for ask a question [what is Bread?] he answereth, [The Body of Christ.] Note then (Reader) he saith not it is a Sign of Christ's Body, but the Body of Christ VERILY, where he speaketh both of the Bread partaken, which he saith is Verily Christ's Body; and also of the Partakers, who be made the mystical Body of Christ; wherein the Reader may see how rightly he confirmeth the Catholic faith. So he. And so we think he doth; but then must not your Popish, be this Catholic faith, because Oecumenmus calleth (so) Bread the Body of Christ Sacramentally, as he calleth the Partakers of the same Bread, or Loaf, the mystical Body of Christ. But the Partakers and Communicants are Christ's mystical Body only Figuratively, and by Analogy; therefore the Bread is named the Natural Body of Christ Figuratively, and as the Symbol thereof; as Christ himself calleth it, by the judgement of Antiquity, throughout the Second Book. Which therefore the Apostle here calleth Bread, after Consecration; and, as Oecumenius noteth, such Bread as consisteth of many grains of Corn; which must needs be Substantially Bread, thereby to represent the people, consisting of many Persons in one Communion. ●o but Oecumenius (saith your Doctor) speaking of Bread, called Christ's Body, nameth it VERILY Christ's Body, which is (if it be lawful to speak rudely) a very-Lye. For the words, Verè Corpus Christi, Verily Christ's Body, are attributed to the Partakers of the Bread, which are the mystical Body of Christ; and not either to the Bread, or Natural Body of Christ. Hitherto of the Greek Fathers. That the same Figurative Sense of Christ's words is avouched by the Testimonies of the Latin Fathers; more largely (now) insisted on. SECT. IX. SOme of the Latin Fathers (we confess) seem in some places to deny all Figurative sense, but this they do even by a Figure called * As is afterwards many where's discovered. Hyperbole, that is, only in the excess of Speech, thereby to abstract the minds of sensual men from fixing their thoughts upon external Rites, and to raise them up to a Sacramental and Spiritual Contemplation of the Body and Blood of Christ. But as for the direct and perspicuous Sentences of these Fathers, they clearly and exactly teach a Figurative sense in the words of Christ; (to wit) p Tertull. contra Martion. lib. 4. pag. 233. Edit Paris. Profellus est Christus se concupivisle edere Pascha ut suum: indignum enim ut aliquid alienum concupisceret Deus: acceptum panem & distributum Discipulis corpus suum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, Figura corporis mei: figura enim non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non potest. Tertullian whose words are as plain as any glass can be, saying of Christ, He distributed his Body, that is, a Sign of his Body. ⚜ The Fantastic Marcionites held, that Christ had no essential Body, but only a figurative, and Fantastical. These Heretics Tertullian confuteth by Christ his Institution of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, (as the * At the let. (p.) Margin will show you) thus: Nothing that is fantastical is capable of a figure; because this were to make a sign of a Sign, or figure. But Christ in this Sacrament gave a Sign of his Body: Therefore Christ had (namely, in himself) a Real and Substantial Body, and not fantastical. That he gave a Figure of his Body, he proveth out of the Gospel, where he is found desirous to eat his own Passeover with his Disciples, when taking Bread, he made it his Body, saying, This is my Body, that is a figure of my Body. So he, as Protestantly as can be spoken. Which our Collection, your miserable shift, how to rid yourselves of it, doth rather confirm unto us; 12 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 7. Illud Tertulliani [Hoc est corpus meum] Id est, non significat panem Eucharis●●ae esse siguram corporis Domini, sed quod fuit olim figura in Testamento veteri, nunc in veritatem corporis mutatum esse— Conjungitur enim figura corporis mei, cùm hoc, ut sit sensus, Hoc, Id est, Panis qui olim fuit figura corporis mei. The Sense is this (saith your Cardinal) THIS, that is, This Bread which was once (namely, in the old Testament) a sign of my Body. So he. O the profundity of this Answer! Is a Sign, saith Tertullian; that is, Was a Sign, saith your Cardinal. If one, saying of the Sunrising, It is in the East, and your Cardinal should comment, saying, that is, It was in the East; would you believe him? And that Tertullian meant directly that the Bread, which he now spoke of, signified not the Bread of the Old Testament, but the Bread of the Eucharist, as it was a Sign then representing the Body of Christ; two reasons may persuade us. First, because Tertullian observeth that Christ (concerning the participating of the Eucharist) said, That he desired to eat his own Passeover; meaning, the Eucharist, as distinct from the jewish Passeover. Next, because he confuteth the Heretics, who denied that Christ had a true Body, by this Sacrament, because Bread herein was a figure of a Body, And Christ's figures were not of things only imaginary; but also real and essential. And this is confessed by your jesuite 13 Maldon. Ies. de sacra Euchar. §. 13. Conjectura. pag. 295. Dicet aliquis cur Tertullianus figuram vocavit potiùs quàm veritatem. Respons. Id propositam quaellionem postulasse, volebat enim probare contra Marcionitas, Christum habuisse verum corpus, quia illi negare non poterant fuisse Eucharist●am figuram corporis. Si autem fuit sigura, fuit veritas: quia fantasma siguram non caperet. Maldonate, to have been the Argument of Tertullian, who once again showeth that Christ called Bread his Body, in saying, [This is my Body] as the Prophet jeremy called his Body, Bread, in saying, Let us put Wood upon his Bread, meaning his Body. So Tertullian, showing them both to be spoken equally in a figurative sense. These are so directly repugnant to your Romish doctrine, that one of your Church, in his Admonition before the words of Tertullian, seems to impute unto Tertullian. the Heresy (which you commonly lay to the charge of us Protestants) 14 Beat. Rhe●●n. Admonit. ante lib. Tertull. Error putantium corpus Christi esse tantùm sub sigura, condemnatur est. Of thinking the Body of Christ to be only in a figure in this Sacrament of the Eucharist. Next, Cyprian, thus; q Cyprian. Serm. de Vact. Et significantia & significata ijsdem vocabuliscenserentur. Things signifying and signified, are called by the same words. Upon the which ground he made bold to say, that Christ's Body is Created in this Sacrament: by [Body] understanding Bread, saith your Cardinal Bellarmine. Hierome, r Hier. count. jovia. Typus sanguinis. Wine, the Type of Christ his Blood. Gelasius, s Gelas. count. Eutych. Quod in ejus imagine profitemur. Apud Bibliothec. Patrum. Tom. 5. p. 475. Bread, the image of his Body. Ambrose, t Ambros. de Inst. mister. cap 9 Post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur.— Et 1 Cor. 11. Mysterium esse Typum sanguinis. After consecration Christ his Body is signified. ⚜ Whereupon we are compelled to complain against your Cardinal Bellarmine, who even there, where he professedly laboureth to extract, out of the Fathers, your Romish sense from the words of Christ [This is my Body] for a proof of the literal exposition thereof, as they sound, [This is my Body] and not as Protestants teach, This signifieth my Body; misallegeth the words of Saint Ambrose to his own purpose, thus; Before the Benediction of Christ's words This is my Body] one kind of thing is named, and after Consecration [It is the Body of Christ:] instead of these words [After the Consecration, 15 Bellar. lib 4. the Eucharist. cap 13. §. Gregor. Nyssen. Explicat Ambrose lib 4. de Sacrament. cap. 4. quae sint verba Domini, in quibus Sacramentum conficitur, recitans illa [Hoc est, etc.] Et in lib. de. Init. Myster. cap. 9 Ipse clamat Dominus jesus, Hoc est corpus meum, ante benedictionem verborum coelestium alia species nominatur, post consecraticnem corpus Christi est. the Body of Christ is signified.] Just Protestantwise, as can be. Do but now tell us, how you wish we should censure this Error; whether as a wilful Falsity? and then should you eclipse his Credit and Authority: or else only as a temereity? and then ought you to Censure as indifferently of such escapes (if any such happen) of Protestant's, according to the Law of Equity— Veniam petimusque Damusque vicissim. Saint Augustine (whom one of your profession hath of late more choicely singled out for a Patron of your Romish defence) hath unanswerably impugned your Romish Faith in this very point, proving other Sacraments to agree with this, in like of Predication, and that herein the Eucharist hath not Prerogative above the rest. u Aug. lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. Figurata locutio. Idem cont. Adimant. Manich. cap. 12. Non dubitavit dicere, [Hoc est corpus meum] cum signum daret corporis sui. Idem Epist. 23. ad Bonifac. Tom 9 Sacramenta propter similitudinem earum rerum, quas repraesentant, plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergò secundùm quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi; et Sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi: ità Sacramentum fidei sides est— Sicut de ipso Baptismo ait, Consepulti sumus per baptismum in mortem Christi: non dicit, sepulturam significamus, sed prorsus ait, Consepulti sumus.— Sacramentum igitur tantae rei non nisi ejusdam rei vocabulo nuncupavit. [And intripreting that which he called Fidei Sacramentum, he sa 〈◊〉:] Respondetur, Parvulum baptizatum credere propter fidei Sacramentum. Sacraments (saith he) for the very Similitude and likeness, wihich they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments, do often take the names of those things which they do signific, as when the Sacrament of Christ's Body (saith he) is after a certain manner called the Body of Christ. But how? He addeth (as if he had meant to stop the Mouths of all Opposites) As it is said by the Apostle of Baptism [we are buried by Baptism into the death of Christ,] He saith not we signify his burial, but absolutely saith [we are buried:] therefore hath he called the Sacrament or Sign of so great a thing by the name of the thing signified thereby. So he, even the same He, who will be found like himself in the following passages of this and other books, especially when we shall handle the Manner of eating of Christ's Body, which Augustine will challenge to be Figuratively meant. ⚜ Your Answerers are so puzzled with Saint Augustine his Testimonies, that you may doubt whether rather to pity their perplexities, or else to hate their perverseness; as you may see by another Testimony of the same Father, which we may not let pass. * Aug. con. Adimant. cap. 12. Scriptum est, sanguinem precoris animam ejus esse.— Possum interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum: non enim dubitavit Christus dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum signum dedit corporis sui. Christ doubted not to say, [This is my Body,] when he gave a Sign of his Body: even as (he saith) he might interpret that Scripture, * Deut. 12. The blood of the Beast is the life of the Beast: The blood is a sign thereof. Where his sole aim is to expound the Verb [Est,] to be no more than it Is a Sign or Signifieth. But whether (as your 16 Bell. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. [in his two last, as it were in his best Answers.] Aug. intelligere non nudum signum, sed cum re ipsa conjunctum: nec corporis absentis, ut sanguis signum, non animae absentis. 2. Sol. Signum corporis immolari in Cruse. Cardinal fancieth) it was a Sign of Christ's Body present in the Eucharist, or rather as absent after, on the Cross, Aug. regardeth not to mention, but merely to teach here (which he doth more exactly elsewhere) that wheresoever any thing is predicated and affirmed of another thing, of a different nature, (as when the Sign is called by the name of the thing signified) the speech is Figurative; as Christ by the Apostle is called Rock; 17 August. quaest. super Levit. cap. 57 Non est dictum, Petra significat Christum, sed Petra erat Christus: sic solet loqui Scriptura, res significantes, tanquàm res quae significantur, appellans. & Tract. 77. It is not said, (saith Saint Augustine) The Rock signifieth Christ, but, the Rock is Christ: which is usual (saith he) in Scripture, which calleth signs of things by the names of the things themselves, which are signified thereby. It will not be impertinent to adjoin hereunto your jesuitical Interpretation of these words of the Apostle, [The Rock was Christ,] and after to compare it with this of Saint Augustine, that thereby we may the better discern Light from darkness 18 Ia●. Gordon. Ies. lib. Controu. 3. cap. 7. num. 21. [Petra erat Christus, 1. Cor. 10.] Germanus & literalis sensus non est iste, Petra significat Christum, ut putant Adversarij, qui ex hoc loco contendunt probare, verbum sub stantiv●n, Est, aliquandò usurpari pro, significat, ut indè faciliùs ign●ris persuadeant verbum, Est, in verbis Christi idem valere quod significat. The Literal and Proper Sense of these words (saith he) is not that which our Adversaries (meaning Protestant's) do hold [The Rock signified Christ:] contending hereupon to prove that the Verb [EST] is sometime used for [SIGNIFIETH] that thereby they may the more easily persuade that the word [EST] in Christ's Speech is the same, in Sense, with [SIGNIFIETH.] So he. What Heretic could have more confronted Saint Augustine, than your jesuite hath, by denying the words [The Rock was Christ] to be in true Sense, Did Signify Christ? Secondly, that [Est] elsewhere is used in Scripture for [Significat:] in both which Saint Augustine is as absolute an Adversary; and yet no more in these than, indeed, in the whole Cause concerning the Corporal presence of Christ in this Sacrament. And the cause of Saint Augustine's interpretation is plain: For Adimantus the Manichee objected to the jew; 19 Aug. count. Adimant. quo sap. Adimantus Manichaeus ●it, secundùm intellectum judaeorum, qui dicunt sanguinem esse animam, sequi, etc. That they understood by the other Text [The blood of the Beast is the soul thereof] not that it was contained in the soul, or joined with the soul: but that it is the soul itself. This is that Literal interpretation, which Augustine declineth, and expoundeth the words as spoken Figuratively, Sign, for the thing signified, as * See above at the letter (u). he did in the speech of Christ, saying of Bread, This is my Body. And doth not 20 Cyril. Hier. Catech. Mistag. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril call Baptism the Antitype of Christ's Passion? Saint Augustine desireth to have one word more. 21 Aug. in lib. Sent. Prosperi. De Consecrat. Dist. ●● Cap.— Hoc est quod dicimus sicut ergò coelestis panis, qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum reverâ sit Sacramen. u n corporis Christi; illius videlicet quod visibile, quod palpabile, 〈◊〉 mortale in cruse positum est, vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, quae Sacerdotis manibus sit, Christi passio, mors, crucifixio: non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio. The Heavenly Bread (saith he) which is Christ's flesh, is called after a manner the Body of Christ, when as indeed it is the Sacrament of Christ's Body, to wit, of that Body which is visible, palpable, mortal: and the Immolation of his flesh, which is done by the hands of the Priest, is called Christ's Passion, Death, and Crucifixion, but not in the verity of the thing, but in a Significant mystery. So he. Which words, if they should need a Comment, can have no better, than is your own public privileged Romish Gloss upon them, saying, 22 Gl●ssa in eum locum. [Coelestis] Id est Coeleste Sacramentum, quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi, sed impropriè; unde dicitue suo modo, non rel veritate; sed signisicante mysterio, ut sit sensus, vocatur corpus Christi, id est, Significat. The Heavenly Sacrament, which truly representeth Christ's flesh, is called the Body of Christ IMPROPERLY, where it is said to be after a certain manner the Body of Christ. There are four principal Observables in this one sentence of Saint Augustine. I. Your Doctors have vilified our Sacrament, because we, judging it to be Bread, do but only account it a Sacrament of Christ's Body; Saint Augustine doth here reprove them, as directly as if he had said, Though it be but a Sacrament of Christ's Body, yet is it to be esteemed as Heavenly Bread. II. As often as you read of the Bread called Christ's Body, you strain it to your own sense, as directly demonstrating Christ's Body: Saint Augustine telleth you that it is in itself only the Sacrament of his Body. III. Yea but (say your Doctors) The Body of Christ herein is a Sacrament and agne of himself, as he was on the Cross: Nay will S. Augustine say, not so, for the Body of Christ is Invisible, and insensibl● unto us; but the Sacrament is a thing representing unto us a visible, palpable, and mortal Body of Christ. iv Your men are still instant to interpret it of Christ's Body Corporally present therein; and S. Augustine offereth to illuminate your understandings by the light of a Similitude, saying, The thing in the hands of the Priest is so called Christ's Flesh, as his Immolation of Christ's Body, herein, is called Christ's Passion: and that it is not properly, and lively so meant, but [Suo modo] that is, (as your own Gloss expoundeth it) IMPROPERLY. Can any thing be more repugnant to your Romish Doctrine of this Sacrament; than this one Testimony of Saint Augustine is from point to point? The Bp. Facundus, who lived about the year 546. (an Author much magnified by your 23 jac. Sirmundus. Ies. Epist. Dedic. ante lib. Facundi. Maximam Romanae sedis potestatem celebrat. and Baron. Ann. Chri. 546. num. 24. Prudentissimus Ecclesiasticus Agonistes Facundus. jesuit, as one who extolleth the Authority of the See of Rome; and by your Cardinal, as a most wise Champion of the Church) must needs deserve of you so much credit, as to think that he would write nothing, concerning this Sacrament of Christ, which he judged not to be the received Catholic doctrine of that his Age. He thus; 24 Facundus l. 9 defence. Trin. Cap. 5. Sacramentum Adoptionis suscipere dignatus est Christus: & quandò circumcisus est, & quandò baptizatus: & potest Sacramentum Adoptionis, Adoptio, nuncupari, sicut Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis ejus, quod est in pane & poculo consecrato, corpus ejus & sanguinem dicimus: non quòd propriè id Corpus ejus sit Panis, & poculum sanguis, sed quod in se mysterium Corporis & sanguinis continet. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, which is in the Bread and Cup, we call his Body and Blood, not that it is properly his Body and Blood, but because it containeth a mystery of his Body and Blood. Just the dialect of Protestants. Your jesuit vainly labouring to rectify this sentence, by the sentences of other Fathers, in the end is glad to persuade the Readers to pardon this Father Facundus: If Peradventure ( 25 Idem. Sirmundus Ies. Annot. in locum istum Facundi. pag. 404. Quod si durius hic fortasse & obscurius quippiam locutus videatur, dignus est veniâ, & qui à benigno interprete vicem officij recipiat, quod & alijs studisè, quorum dicta notabantur, non semel exhibuit. saith he) he hath spoken somewhat more harshly or obscurely, as one who himself having interpreted other men's Sayings favourably, may deserve the like Courtesy of others. Thus that jesuite. But what Pardon can the jesuite himself merit of his Reader, in calling the Testimony Obscure, and dark, which the Father Facundus himself, by a Similitude, maketh as clear as day, Thus; As Christ, being Baptised, received the Sacrament of Adoption: the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption; even as the Sacrament of Christ's Body is called Christ's Body. A saying which in your Church of Rome is now accounted a downright Heresy. ⚜ We shall take our Farewell of the Latin Fathers, in the Testimony of Bish. Isidore, who will give you his own Reason, why Christ called Bread his Body: * Isidor. Hispalensis. Panis, quem frangimus, corpus Christi est, qui dicit, Ego sum panis vivus, etc. Vinum autem sanguis ejus est, & hoc est quod scriptum est, Ego sum vitis vera. Sed Panis, quià confirmat Corpus, ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur: Vinum autem quià sanguinem operatur in carne, ideò ad sanguinem Christi resertut— Haec autem sunt visibilia, sanctificata tamen per spiritum Sanctum, in Sacramentum divini corporis transeunt. Lib. 1. de Offic. cap. 18. Bread (saith he) because it strengtheneth the Body, is therefore called the Body of Christ: and Wine, because it maketh Blood, is therefore referred to Christ's Blood: but these two being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, are changed into a Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. So he. ⚜ A Clear Glass, wherein the judgement of Antiquity, for a Figurative sense of Christ's words [This is my Body,] may be infallibly discerned. SECT. X. POnder with yourselves, for God's cause, the accurate judgement of Ancient Fathers, in their direct dilucidations and expressions of their understanding of Christ's meaning, in calling Bread his Body in this sense, viz. that It signifieth his Body, as a Sign thereof. The * Council of Trùllo. See above Sect 8. Council of Trullo: Body and Blood of Christ, that is, Bread and Wine. chrysostom a Greek Father, * Chrysost. See above, Sect. 6. Challenge 2. The faithful are called his Body. * Theodor. See ibid. Theodoret, He gave the name of Body to Bread, as elsewhere he gave the name of Bread to his Body. * Tertull. See above, Sect. 9 let. (p.) Tertullian, This is my Body, that is, A figure thereof. And again, 27 Tertull. advers. Martion. l. 3. p. 180. [Venite, mittamus lignum in panem ejus.] jer. 11. Vtique in corpus, sic enim Deus in Evangelio panem corpus suum appellans. Vt. & hiac jam intelligas, corporis sui figuram panem dedisse, cujus retrò corpus in panem Propheta figuravit. Christ gave his Body in a figure, as his Body, in the Prophet, figured Bread. * Cyprian. See above, Sect. 9 (q) Cuprian, Things signifying, and things signified, are called by the same names. * August. See ibid. Augustine, When he said, [This is my Body] he gave a Sign of his Body. And, * See afterwards B. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Bread his Body, as he called Baptism, a Burial. And yet again, As the Priest's Immolation is called Christ's Passion. * Facundus, Set above, Sect. 9 Facundus, Not that it is properly his Body and Blood, but that it containeth a mystery of them; being called his Body and Blood, as the Sacrament of Adoption (meaning Baptism) is called Adoption. * Isidor. ibid. (x.) Isidore, Called Christ's Body, because turned into a Sacrament of his Body. chrysostom, * See Book. 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 14. Bread hath the name of Christ's Body, albeit it remain in nature the same. And Ephraimius naming it Christ's Body, which is received of the faithful, saith, * See ibid. It loseth nothing of its Sensible Substance. (Then Bread sure, as followeth by his parallelling it with Baptism:) And Baptism being One, representeth the propriety of its Sensible Substance of Water. These are as direct, as ever Bucer or Calvin could speak. Somewhat more, for Corroboration sake. But yet by the way, if we shall consult with 18 Bertram de Corpore & sanguine Domini (after that he had cited Ambrose, Hierome, Austin, Origen, & Fulgentius) saith. Animadvertat (clarissimè Princeps) sapientia vestra. quod positis sanctarum ●rupturarum testimonijs, & sanctorum Patrum dictis, evidentissimè monstratum est, quod panis, qui corpus Christi, & Cal●s qui sanguis Christi appellatur, figura sit, qu●à mysterium: & quod non parva differe●●, 〈…〉 corpus, quod per mysterium existit, & corpus quod passum est. Quia hoc proptum Servatoris corpus ●st, nec in eo aliqua figura est, sed ipsa rei manifestatio— At in isto quod per mysterium geritur, figura est non solum proprij Christi corporis, verumetiam credentis in Christum populi. Bertram, to know what he hath observed both out of Scriptures, and Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, (by name, Ambrose, Augustine, Hierome, and Fulgentius) he doth tell his Prince, and Emperor, that They demonstrate, that the Bread which is called the Body of Christ, is a figure, because a Mystery, and that there is no small difference between the same Body, which is the Mystery, and the Body which was crucified; for that this is the proper Body of Christ, and no figure, but a manifestation. But in that which is done by a Mystery, there is a figure both of the proper Body of Christ, and also of the people that believe in him. The same Orthodox Fathers of Primitive times (thirteen in number) have told us already that Christ called * See above. B. 2. Cha●. 1 Sect. 6. Bread his Body, which hath been the overthrow of your Romish Expositions of Christ's speech, as you have heard: Saint Cyprian, saying, that Christ created his own Body, thereby (as your * ●yp jan. See Book 3. 〈◊〉. 4 Sect. 2. (in 〈◊〉 second Edition) Cardinal confessed) meaning Bread. The Fathers of the Council of Carthage, forbidding any thing to be offered in this mystery but Bread and Wine, mixed with Water, deliver their Canon thus; 29 Conc. Car●●ag. Tempare Bont●●, Can 37. Or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L●tta. apud Bin. Canon. 4. In Sacramento corporis & sanguinis Domini nihil amplius offeratur, quàm quod Dominus prodidit, hoc est, Panis & V●num aquâ mixtum. [Which is a most corrupt Transtation, and aught to be thus: Nihil amplius quàm corpus & sanguis Domini, id est, Panis & Vinum.] Which is recorded, De Consecrat. Cap. In Sacramento. [It can be no Answer to say, that they meant the Lay●●ffering before Consecration, because they call that Offering, now spoken of, The Body and Blood of Christ, which all know to be spoken Sacerdotally, before it was consecrated. That nothing in those sacred mysteries be offered more than the Body and Blood of Christ, as Christ himself hath ordained. That is (say they) than the Bread and Wine. Hereby plainly teaching, that as they are called Christ's Body and Blood, in their Sacramental and Mystical use and signification; so are they Bread and Wine, in their proper essence. The foresaid Canon is registered among the Papal Decrees. The Heretic Novatus binding some Receivers of the Eucharist to his part, by saying, 30 Euseb. lib. 6. Cap. 35. Verba Novati Eucharistiam sumpturo: jura mihi per corpus & sanguinem Domini, te nunquàm me deserturum, etc. Whereupon Eusebius; Miser ille homo non priùs degustavit,— Graec. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Here the Translator omitteth, in his Translation, the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bread. Swear to me, by the Body and Blood of Christ, not to departed from me: Hereupon Eusebius; So the miserable man did not receive that Bread, before he had said, Amen; that is, given consent to the Motion of Novatus. Where we find Eusebius calling it Bread, which had been Consecrated by Novatus, and named The Body of Christ. This our Collection may be held so much the rather of some force, because the Romish Translator, which was Christoferson, Bishop of Chichester, (according to his guise elsewhere) did fairly leave out the word [Bread,] but is a foul fault in a Translator of an History. Will you have any more? you may admit into the same Cuire these other Suffrages of Cyprian, Hierome, Eucherius, and Primasius. * See afterwards B. 6. C. 3. §. ●. Melchizedech in his Oblation of Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ, Calling that the Body and Blood of Christ, which then, before Christ his incarnation in the flesh, could be essentially nothing but Bread and Wine, because it was only a Type of the Body and Blood of Christ to come. And what will you say to the other * See afterwards B. 6. C. 5. §. 11. Fathers, who affirmed hereof in as full an Emphasis, that Christ is still Crucified, bleeding, and slain in this Sacrament? notwithstanding that our Christian Faith, generally believed, denyeth that this can happen to his glorified Body, now after his Resurrection; and therefore such Phrases were to be understood of the breaking of the Bread, and pouring out of Wine, Sacramentally and Analogically, (that is) Figuratively representing the Crucifying of his Body, and Shedding of his Blood. The Fathers, who used this accent of speech, were Alexander and Gregory, both Popes of Rome, chrysostom, Cyprian, Hierome, Cyrill of Jerusalem, Hesychius, Paschasius, Eusebius Emissenus, Enough, one would think, to silence all Oppositions of them, who are instant in nothing more than in pressing the Improprieties of the speeches of Antiquity, in a literal sense, and hereby verifying that Proverb of Solomon; Qui nimis emu●git, elicit sanguinem. Even so they, who by the same Reason, whereby they urge the say of Fathers literally, for the proof of an unbloody Sacrifice, properly so called, must be constrained likewise ●o admit, against the Catholic faith of all Christians, a Sacrifice properly slain and bloody therein. The like will be proved from their other Hyperboles and the Excessive terms of Antiquity, viz. of Tearing Christ's Body, and dying our teeth in his Blood, and the like, (in the * Book 5. throughout. fifth Book:) and from their checking their own Phrase of offering the Sacrifice of his Body, by recalling and correcting themselves immediately thus; Or rather a Memorial thereof, (in the * Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 6. sixth Book.) All these Observations are as demonstrable, for the vindicating of the judgement of Ancient Fathers, as any Child of the Catholic Church could have desired, if the same holy Fathers had been entreated to expound their own meanings. We return to our former Argument. Christ Instituting a Sacrament, and in Taking Bread and Blessing Bread, saying, [This is my Body] must necessarily be understood to have spoken Sacramentally, that is, Figuratively, as hath been proved from Scripture; as in all other Sacraments, so likewise in the several confessed Figurative words of Christ, concerning this Sacrament, by eight several Instances (in this second Book.) This one Argument of it self, hath been termed by Master Calvin [Murus ahaeneus'] that is, a wall of brass, and so will it be found more evidently to be, when you shall perceive the same * Book 3. thorrow-out. Fathers judging that, which they call a Change into Christ's Flesh, to be but a Change into the Sacrament of his Flesh; bread still remaining the same, (in the third Book.) ⚜ And now we are to withstand your paper-bullets, wherewith you vainly attempt, in your Objections following, to batter our defence withal. CHAP. III. The Romish Objections from Reasons, against the Figurative Sense, Answered. The first Objection. SECT. I. NOthing useth to be more properly and simply 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]— jam verò nihil solet magis propriè, simplicitèr, aut exquisitè explica●● quàm 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 ●acramentum. A Testament must be always taken, in a real and substantial 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 literal Sense. CHALLENGE. What is this? are Figurative speeches never used in Covenants, and Testamentary Language? or is there not therefore sufficient perspicuity in Figures? This is your rash and lavish Assertion, for you yourselves do 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 pass— Quandò sermo est de vità aeterâ, & p●aemio siliorum Dei, ●la●is rebus comparatur, per Tropos est explicandus— ut August. ait, Nullo genere l●cutionis, quod in consuetudine humanâ reperitur, Scripturae non utuntur, quia utiqué hominibus 〈◊〉. Sal●●er I●s. Pro●●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 Trinity, and some divine things, cannot but speak Improperly and siguratively. Thirdly, That Sacramental speeches, as, [The Rock was Christ,] and the like words re * See above, Chap. 2. Sect 3. let [c.] Tropical 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 own Objection. Hereto might be added the Testament of jacob, prophesying of his sons, and saying, * Gen. 49. Reuben is my strength: judah a Lion's Whelp: Issachar a strong Ass: Dan an Adder in the way. All figurative Allusions. Nay, no man, in making his Testament, can call it his Will, or say that he hath set his hand and Seal unto it, without Figures. Namely, that he 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 Seal. These Three, Will, Hand, Seale, every word Figurative, even in a Testament. The second Romish Objection, against the Figurative Sense. SECT. II. Laws and Precepts (say d Verba Legum & Praeceptorum debent este propria. Bellar lib 1 de Eucharist. cap 9 §. Sequitur. you) should be in plain and proper words: But in the Speech of Christ, [Take; eat you, etc.] are words of Command; Ergò, They may not be held Figurative. CHALLENGE. CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts, viz. of Pulling out a man's own eye, of cutting off his hand? Mat. 5. Or ye of a Penitents Renting of his heart? joel 2. Or of not hardening his heart? Psalm 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 jesus 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 Sign of the Passeover) is it taken Figuratively? You cannot deny it. And can you deny that a Commandment may be delivered under a Figurative Phrase? You can both, that is, say and gainsay any thing, like false Merchants, only so fare as things may, or may not make for your own advantage. But (to catch you in your own snare) your Doctrine of Concomitancy is this, viz. Bread, being turned into Christ's Body, is jointly 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. Drink you All of this,] that which was Drunk was the whole substantial Body of Christ, either must his Disciples be said to have Drunk Christ's Body properly, or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken. To say the first, contradicteth the universal expression of man's speech in all Languages; for no man is said to drink Bread, or any solid thing. And ●o grant the Second, that the speech is Figurative, contradicteth your own Objection. Again, Christ commanded to Eat his Body; yet notwithstanding have Three e Se● above, Ch. 2. §. 4. l.) jesuites already confessed that Christ's Body cannot be said to have been properly Eaten, but Figuratively only. What fascination then hath perverted your judgements; that you cannot but still confound yourselves, by your contrary and thwarting Languages? Your third Romish Objection. SECT. III. Doctrinal and Dogmatic speeches (say f Praecipua dogmata, &c Bellar. quo supra. §. Denota. you) ought to be direct and literal: But these words, [This is my Body] are Doctrinal. CHALLENGE. A Man would marvel to hear such silly and petty Reasons to be propounded by those, who are accounted great Clerks, and those who know full well that the speech of Christ, concerning Castrating or gelding of a man's self, is g Abulen. in eum lo●um. Christus non laudat eos, qui cast●ârunt se, sed qui se cast●am, concep●scentiam obsc●de●●do— ●ut Ch●yl Non membro●●● abscisione. sed ma alarm cogitationum inc●epatione: male dictioni nempe olnoxius, qui m●m brum sibi ●bscond● Idem habet Hieron. Addit Chrysost. super Matth. Abscissis verilibus non tollitur concupiscentia, Concupiscentia inde sit molestior. Doctrinal, and teacheth Mortification; and yet is not literally to be understood, as you all know by the literal error of h Idem. Origenes scripsum castravit, ut poslet liberius praedic●re tempore Persecution●s, & securrus este unter foeminas. Abul., uper Matth. 5. qu 250. pag. 316. Origen, who did really Castrate himself. And the same Origen, who thus wounded himself by that literal Exposition, in his youth, He in his Age, expounding the words of Christ, concerning the Eating of his flesh, said of the literal sense thereof, that, i Origen. Litera haec occidit. in Levit. Him 7. It killeth. Secondly, these words [This is the New Testament in my Bood,] they are words as Doctrinal as the other [This is my Body:] and yet figurative, by your own k See above cap. 2. §. 4. Confession. Thirdly, the words of Christ, john 6. of Eating his flesh, are Doctrinal; and yet, by your own l Verus & he ralls Sensus horum verborum non est quòd caro Christi nihil prodest, sed quod carnalis intelligentia nihil prodest, ut exponunt-Chrys. Theophyl. Euthem. Origen. Cyprian. & alij vocatur enim eo in loc, nomine carnis, humana & carnalis cogitatio, ut distinguitur à spirituali cogitation. Bella● lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Sed praeter. Construction, are not to be properly understood, but as Christ afterwards expounds himself, Spiritually. Fourthly, where Christ thus said, The Bread, which I shall give, is my stesh, joh. 6. 51. he saith also of his Body, that it is True Bread, Ver. 32. and Bread of life, Verse 48. and living Bread, whereof whosoever eateth liveth eternally, Verse 5●. All, Divine and Doctrinal Assertions, yet was his Body figuratively called Bread. Fiftly, that in those words of Christ to Peter, Matth. ●6. Upon this Rock will I build my Church; And, To thee will I give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; And joh. 21. Feed my sheep; (In which texts of Scripture you place, although most falsely, your Doctrinal foundation of Popedom itself;) yet know you all these to be Tropical Speeches. Yea, and what say you to the first Doctrinal Article, and foundation of Christian Doctrine, delivered by God unto man, in the beginning, * Gen. 3. 15. The seed of the woman shall break the Serpent's head? Is not the later part of the Article altogether Figurative, yet signifying this Doctrinal point, even the vanquishing of the power of Satan, who hath neither head nor tail, but is Metaphorically called a Serpent? Your fourth Romish Objection. SECT. iv T He Apostles (saith your m Bell. Apostoli rudes & simplices erant etc. Lib. 1. de Euch. c. 9 §. Argumentum secundum. Cardinal) were rude and simple: Therefore needed to be Instructed by Christ in plain terms, Without Figures. So he. CHALLENGE. ANd yet Christ, you know, did often speak Figuratively unto them, talking of Bread, Leaven, Seed, etc. And styling them the Salt of the earth; yea even in this Sacrament (us hath been confessed) in the words Eat, Shed, Testament. Another jesuite witnesseth, that n Apostoli à Christo edocti fuerunt, & illuminati, ut cum summâ reverē Sacramentum hoc susciperent Suarez jes. Tom. 3. Disp. 46 §. 3. The Apostles were illuminated and instructed by Christ; that they might receive thus Sacrament with all Reverence. So he. ⚜ And so also taught your Doctor Heskins before him: 1 D. Heskins in his Parliament. B. 3. pag. 53. Christ (saith he) instructed his Apostles in the Faith of the blessed Sacrament, before he instituted it. ⚜ Therefore are they but rudely, by you, termed Rude; and the rather, because They (who being commanded to prepare the Passeover, perceived that by Passeover was figuratively understood the Paschall Lamb, and thereupon prepared the Passeover, according to the Lord's Command) could not be ignorant, that in this like Sacramental speech [This is my Body] the Pronoune [THIS] did literally point out Bread, and siguratively signify Christ's Body. Doubtless, if the manner of Christ's speech in the Eucharist had not been like the other in the Passeover, they would have desired Christ to explain his meaning, as they did solicitously in other doubts. Their last Romish Objection. SECT. V We are never to let pass the Literal Sense (saith your o Nunquàm dimittamus proprium verborum sensum, nisi cogamur ab aliquâ aliâ Scriptura, etc. Bell. l. 1. de Euch. Cap. 9 §. Vltimo. Cardinal) except we be compelled thereunto by some Scripture, or by some Article of Faith, or by some common Interpretaion of the whole Church. So he. CHALLENGE. surely nor we, without some one of these; but that you may know the grounds of our persuasion to be more than one, or yet all These; And how bountifully we shall deal with you, we shall show in the Proposition following. Ten Reasons, for proof of the Necessity of interpreting the words of Christ Figuratively. SECT. VI FIrst, We have been compellable to allow a Figurative Sense, by the confessed Analogy of Scripture, in all such Sacramental Speeches of both Testaments, concerning Circumcision, Rock, Baptism; as also that speech of Christ, joh. 6. Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, as you have * See above c. 2. §. 3. heard. Secondly, We are Challengable hereunto by our p See hereafter, B. ●. Chap. ●. § 〈◊〉. Article of Faith, which teacheth but one natural Body of Christ, and the same to Remain now in Heaven. Thirdly, We are enforced, for fear of such q See hereafter, B. ●. Chap. 4. Heresies, as have followed in other Case, upon the literal sense; for it was not the Figurative, but the literal and proper sense of being borne again, by Baptism, (joh. 3.) that begat the error of Nicodemus: and the like literal sense of God's Eyes, Hands, Feet, etc. brought forth the Anthropomorphites. And so was it the literal sense of those words in the Canticles [Tell me where thou liest at noon] which deluded the Donatists; and of Origen you have heard, that he by the literal sense of these words, [Some there be that castrate themselves, &c,] did fond wrong himself. Fourthly, We are necessarily moved, to reject your literal sense, by a confessed Impossibility, taught by that Universal Maxim, r See above Chap. 1. §. 4. Disparatum de disparato, etc. showing that Bread, being of a different nature from flesh, can no more possibly be called the flesh or Body of Christ, literally, than Lead can be called Wood Fiftly, We are persuaded hereunto by the former alleged Interpretation of the Ancient Fathers, both of the Greek and Latin Church, calling the Sacrament a Figure; and expounding This is] by [This Signifieth.] Sixtly, We are urged by the Rule set down by Saint Augustine, for the direction of the whole Catholic Church; that, s S●praeceptiva locutio f●●gitium aut facinus videtur iubere, figurata est, ut [nisi manducaveritis carnem meam] facinus videtur jubere: ergo figura est, praecipiens passioni Domini est communicandum, & suaviter, ac utiliter recolendum in memoriâ, quià pro n●bis caro ejus crucifixa, & vulnerata sit. August. de Doctrina Christ. lib 3. cap. 16. Whensoever the precept (saith he) seemeth to command that which is heinous (as to eat the flesh of Christ) it is figurative. And of this Sacrament doth not Christ say, Take, Eat, This is my Body? Seventhly, A Motive it must needs be to any reasonable man, to defend the figurative sense, by observing the misery of your Disputers, in contending for a Literal Exposition thereof; because their Objections have been confuted by your own Doctors, and by Truth itself, even the holy Scriptures. Eightly, your own unreasonableness may persuade somewhat, who have not been able, hitherto, to confirm any one of your five former Objections to the contrary, by any one Father of the Church. Ninthly, For that the literal Interpretation of Christ's words was the foundation of the Heresy of the Capernaites, and hath affinity with divers other t See the last Book Chap. 2. §. the last. Ancient Heresies condemned by Antiquity. Tenthly, Our last persuasion is the consent of Antiquity, against the Literal conversion of Bread into Christ's Body (which you call Transubstantiation) against the Literal Corporal Presence, against Literal Corporall Eating, and Union, and against a proper Sacrifice of Christ's Body Subjectively. All which are fully persuasive Inducements to enforce a figurative sense, as the sundry Books following will clearly demonstrate from point to point. CHALLENGE. YOu may not pass over the consideration of these points, by calling them Schoole-subtilties, and Logical Differences, as Master Fisher lately hath done; thinking by this his fly Sophistry, craftily to draw the minds of Romish Professors from the due discovery of your Romish false Literal Exposition of Christ's words, [THIS IS MY BODY:] the very foundation of your manifold monstrously-Erroneous, Superstitious, Heretical, and Idolatrous Consequences issuing from thence, whereunto we now orderly proceed, after that we have unfolded your last Mystery. CHAP. FOUR ⚜ A Confirmation of a Figurative Sense of Christ's words, [THIS IS MY BODY] opened unto us by a Third Key, in the Pronoune [MEUM] as it is pronounced by the Romish Priest, in his Consecration; a Point as observable as any other. SECT. I. AN Objection there is, which so much perplexeth your Doctors, that both Repugnancy among themselves in Answering, and Insufficiency of Answers, may justly seem as good as their Prevaricating in the Cause. It is objected that the Minister cannot pronounce these words of Christ [This is my Body] in the same propriety of Speech, wherein Christ himself spoke them; and therefore they cannot be Consecrative words, according to your Roman Faith, as they are uttered by the Minister. For he must deliver them either, Narratively, by way of Repetition, as they are read, both in the Gospel, and in your Roman Missal saying, [And jesus took Bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying, This is my Body.] And if so, than the Minister in rehearsing of Christ's word [THIS] should consecrate the Bread, whereof Christ spoke in his saying, [THIS] at his Institution of this Sacrament, and not this Bread, which is now in the Minister's hand, made visible to the People. Or else he should pronounce the same words (according to your own term) Significatively, that is, so speaking them in the person of Christ, as if Christ himself should now pronounce them. And if so, then in the Priests saying [This is my Body,] the word [MY] should signify the Body of the Priest, and not the Body of Christ. This is a shrewd Objection, which so puzleth your Doctors, (See the 1 Bellarm. lib. 4. the Eucharist. cap. 14. §. Objicitur.— Possunt verba duobus modis dici, aut Narratiuè ac Recitatiuè, vel Significatiuè: ut exempli gratia, cùm ex Evangelio recitamus dixisse judaeos de Christo [Hic blasphemat] illa verba [Hic blasphemat] à rudaeis dicebantur significatiuè, id enim volebant, Christum esse Blasphemum; à nobis autem non dicuntur Significatiuè, sed tantum Narratiuè, non enim significare volumus Christum essè Blasphemum, sed judaeos hoc dixis●e. Hac distinctione positâ, est hoc Argu nentum: Verba illa [Hoc est Corpus mean] vel dicuntur à Sacerdotibus Recitatiuè, vel Significatiuè, sed neutro modo possunt esse forma Sacramenti, igitur non sunt●sta verba forma Sacramenti, Probatur Assumptio, Nam si ista verba dicerentur Recitatiuè, primò sequeretur per illùd [Hoc] demonstrari Panem, qui suit in manibus Christi, non istum, qui est in man●bus Sacerdotis: ac proinde non consecraretur Panis, qui consecrandus proponitur in Altari. Secundò, sequeretur non posse consecrari quidquam his verbis; Nam verba consecrant dum faciunt quod significant, ista autem nihil significant, dum dicuntur materi. litter tantùm, & non Significatiuè. Si autem dicerentu● Significatiuè, Primò, illud [Hoc est Corpus meum] demonstraret corpus Sacerdotis, non Christi, ac dicere oportet, Hoc est corpus Christi— Respondeo, verba illa dici utroque modo, & Recitatiuè, & Significatiuè, in cujus rei gratia, notanda sunt tria. Primum, Sacerdos, quando confitetur peccata sua, quando orat, quando laudat Christum, agit sine dubio personam suam, non Christi: quando dicit [Hoc est Corpus meum] agit personam Christi.— Secundum, In hac actione longè aliter Sacerdotem agere personam Christi, quàm in alijs Sacraments: nam in alijs agit ut Christi minister, tamen loquitur in personâ suâ, ut cùm dicit, Ego te baptizo: Ego te absolvo.— at in Consecratione Eucharistiae, Sacerdos non solùm agit ut Christi minister, sed induit omnino Christi personam, ac loquitur ac si ipse esset Christus: quomodò Exod. 3. Angelus dicit. [Ego sum Deus patris tui.] Tertium— Sacerdotem in actione Liturgiae, usque ad illa verba, Qui pridiè quàm pateretur, agere personam suam, non Christi: ut paret, quia cousque orat, vel laudat; ab illis autem verbis, usque ad finem Consecrationis, agere personam suam & Christi; & ideò Recitatiuè simul & Significatiuè verba pronunc●are: intendit enim recitare qu●d Christus egerit, & dixerit, & simul omnia imitari in persona Christi, ac si Christus per ipsius mysterium iterum omnia faceret & diceret. Vasquez. in 3. Thom. Quaest. 78. Artic. 4. Disput. 200. cap. 1. Nonnulli existimant ●a verba Recitatiuè sumi, Innocent 3. Durand. Major. Catharinus, Ledesma, Gabriel: Ratio, quia si Significatiuè tantùm, essent falsa, nihil significantia aliud in ore Sacerdotis, quàm in ore Christi, viz. Christum solu● dixisse Apostolis, [Sumite, Bibite, etc.] Ad haec, quod si Significatiuè, tum minister non ostenderet corpus Christi, sed suum, diceus [Meum,] quod esset falsum— Alij verò consent verba formae Consecrationis proferri à Sacerdote non solùm Significatiuè, & in persona Christi, sicut is qui in Comoedia induit personam Regis, aut alterius, assumen ejus verba, ea profert Significatiuè, & in persona illius, sed etiam Recitatiuè, quamvis non materialiter. Cap. 2. At mihi sanè prima opinio summopere displicuit, eo quod semper judicaverim nullâ ratione negari posse verba Consecrationis Significatiuè à Sacerdote usurpari; cùmque duo illi modi, nempe Recitatiuè, & Significatiuè, inter se pugnent, ut in eandem vocem, aut orationem convenire nequeant— Est igitur sententia (me quidem judice) probabilior, verba Consecrationis, quae sunt proforma, Significatiuè solùm à Sacerdote proferri, non autem Recitatiuè, hoc est, Narratiuè, tamedi in persona Christi ab eo efferantur— Atque huc spectat, quod Concilium Trident. câdem Sess. 13. cap 3. inquit, sub speciebùs panis solum esse corpus, ex vi verborum, na●● per vim verborum significationem eorum denotat. Et ita solum significent corpus, solum illud sub specie panis vi suâ const●●●unt. Add, haec duo inter se pugnant, nam Recitatiuè idem est quod referre alium illud dixisse, & eo aliquid significâsse: at qui refert verba alterius, mendacium recitando dicta ejus mentiretur, sed is falsum dixit, non mend●c●um; & deinde si Recitatiuè, tum verba non pertinerent ad materiam praesentem. Et Cap. 3— Verba praecedentia solùm dicuntur Recitatiuè, ut attentum faciant Sacerdotem ipsum, & verba Consecranonis non ex proprio sensu, sed in persona, & sensi Christi, ac si ille praesens esser, cùm reverà illius vicem serat, proximè pronuntiet: veluti si quis volens repraesentare personam Regis, historicè referat aliqua facta ipsius, ut statim nomine ejus Significat. uè incipiat loqui. Participium autem [Dicens] quod refertur etiam ad verba Consecrationis, non essicit ut illa Recitatiuè dicantur, sed & nomine illius, qui ea tunc dixit, pronuntientur; atque de hoc tantum per illud Participium [Dicens] admonemur. marginals) that they bestir themselves like as Soldiers would do, in withstanding a Battery, or defending a Breach. One company of them say, that the Priest uttereth Christ's words only Narratively by rehearsing them; A second rank answers no, but both Recitingly, and Significatively. Not so, saith the Third Troop, because this is Impossible. Thus much of the irresolute judgements of your Disputers. That the Answers given are each of them Insufficient. The first is, that the Priest pronounceth Christ's words both Narratively, and Significatively. SECT. II. BEllarmine and Vasquez perceiving that if the Minister should deliver these words of Christ [This is my Body] only as Narratively, rehearsing them, than he could not thereby consecrate the Bread, which is in his own hands, because it is not that Bread, which was then in Christ's hands, when he said [This is my Body.] And again, if they should be uttered of the Priest, as in the person of Christ, which you call Significatively, as if Christ himself should now speak them, by the mouth of the Priest; yet being Pronounced by the Priest, and not by Christ, the Priest in saying, [My Body,] should consecrate his own Body, and not the Body of Christ. They do therefore assume and conclude, that the Priest uttereth these words both Materially and Formally, that is, both Narratively, repeating them as the Minister of Christ; and Significatively, pronouncing them in the person of Christ. If they could illustrate this to be possible by any Similitudes, we should more easily believe them, but they cannot. Let us try this. Bellarmine. * See above in the former Section. It is (saith he in the Margin) as when the Angel of God, taking upon him the person of God, said, [I am the God of your Fathers.] So he. We (not to dispute now the truth of his Assertion, in saying it was God's Angel that said, I am the God of your Fathers, but to suppose it true) do reply, that the Similitude is not appliable: Because, if as the Priest repeating Christ's words thus, [jesus gave it to his Disciples, saying, [This is my Body;] So the Angel of God should have said, God speaketh unto you, saying, [I am the God of your Fathers;] Every one at the first hearing would easily discern that the Angel spoke so, only as a Minister, or (as the word, Angel, signifieth) a Messenger of God, and not as the person of God. Your jesuite Suarez will mend this, who, to show that a man may, in the same words, speak, both in his own person, and in the person of another, 2 Suarez in 3. Thom. Disp. 58. §. 4 Non tantùm Recitatiuè, sed etiam formaliter & Significatiuè proferuntur significando.— quià ut verba efficiant consecrationem praesentis materiae, oportet ut illa verba significent, alioqui non efficiunt, ut ait Thomas: ulterius dici possit, si solùm materialiter proferentur, ex veritate illorum non posset colligi, Hoc, quod nunc est in manibus Sacerdotis, esse verum corpus Christi, quià illa hoc non significant— non potest colligi ex hoc, quòd Christus ea form. litèr protulit, nec ex facto Christi— Cum dicit Conc. Tridentinum ex veritate verborum Christi colligi ejus praesentiam: non loquitur tantùm de verbis, ut à Christo prolata sunt, sed ut à Sacerdote proferuntur. Christus (ait Chrysost.) per os Sacerdotis loquitur: et Ambrose, non 〈◊〉 utitur Sacerdos verbis suis, sed Christi— Et (aliquanto post) praecedentia & subsequentia tantùm materialiter proferuntur, at illa verba etiam Significatiuè propter mysterium, possit enim quis loqui vel in persona sua, vel aliena— ut si Regium Concilium Sententiam proferat his vel similibus verbis; Nobis injunctum est, ut Sententiam proferamus, dicentes: [Ego Rex in hac causa dico.] It is (saith he) as if a Council of some King should say, It is given us in charge to pronounce Sentence, saying, [I the King do say in this Cause, etc.] So fare your jesuite, and no farther. We Reply: That the point, which is to be proved, is, that the same words may be spoken of the same man, both in his own person and in the person of another. But when the Council said, [It is given us in charge that I do say in this cause] they saying, It is given us in charge, spoke it in their own person, and not in the person of the King; for the Charge was not given to the King, but by the King to themselves. And when they said, [I the King do say in the Cause] they spoke not in their own person, but in the person of the King. What need many words? To speak the same words in a man's own person, and ●n the person of another (saith your jesuit Vasquez i● the Murgi●, and that most truly) is Impossible; and he therefore standeth only to that one Ter●●e, Significatively, which all your other Disputers held to be necessary for the Answering of the main Objection. But what need we any jesuit to plead our Cause, seeing that the Text itself will clearly evince the same? That the words of Christ, as they are pronounced by the Priest, are merely Narrative, and not Significative, is proved by the Text itself. SECT. III. IT was always held, by all Divines, to be a most necessary, exact, and securo Rule of interpreting of Scripture, to expound a Text by the Context of the words preceding, and the words following, janus' wise, looking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The words of the first Text are these, This is my Body:] of the Second these, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this is the New Testament in my Blood] as Saint Matthew hath it. Now the words which go immediately before the former Text, concerning the Acts of Christ, viz. [He (having taken Bread) when he had given thanks, broke it, saying, This is, etc.] are delivered by the Minister only Narratively, namely, rehearsing what Christ had done long since; and not any Act now in doing by the Priest, in the person of Christ. The words likewise preceding, in the Second Text, concerning the Cup, stand thus: [After He (Christ) had supped, he took the Cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Drink you all of this, etc.] which all are Narratives, repearing what Christ had done. For the words are, HE (Christ) TAKEN; and not, I, the Minister: And HE, what? [Saying,] a word Narrative, in its own proper Signification. Next mark the succeeding words of both your supposed Consecratory Say of Christ, concerning the Bread [This is my Body:] it followeth, HE (Christ) taking the Cup: as likewise secondly concerning the Cup, the words succeeding, which are [SHED, for Remission of sins] are a Narration of the virtue of Christ's Blood Shed, expressed then by Christ. We now demand, seeing the whole Contexture, whether going before, or following after the Text in Controversy, are all words, only rehearsing what Christ had done; why should you conceive the Intervenient words [This is my Body] to be uttered in a different tenure of speech, as in the person of Christ? When we should expect some warrant hereof from some one Father, you are unanimously mute. When we further inquire into your Reason, we find none more semblable than this, That (according to your familiar, and frequent Similitude of a Stage-Play) your Priest is here (as it were) Acting in a Play, and exchanging his Parts, now and then taking upon him the person of a Relator, and Rehearser only; and again, in a middle Scene, of a Significator. That the Suggested Romish Significative Sense of Christ's words was never Patronised by any Ancient Father. SECT. iv We willingly grant, that the Apostle, speaking of Absolution, 2 Cor. 2. saith, If I have pardoned any thing, I have pardoned in the person of Christ; And again, 2 Cor. 5. We are Ambassadors for Christ, exhorting you in Christ's stead. But these, and the like words of the Apostle, have no other meaning than that which your own 3 Estius Professor Theol. Duacen. in 2. Cor. 2. v. 10. [Cui quid donav● in persona Christi donavi] posset aeque verti [In fancy Christi] quasi coram Christo, & in ejus praesentia— et infia in hac eâdem Epistolà ca 4. leg●ur in [persona] ubi nos habemus [In fancy Christi] & iursus cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ubi latinè [Qui in fancy] gloriantur, id est, in his qui exterius apparent— Hoc autem in [persona Christi] nihil est aliud quam in vice, & nomine, & authoritate Christi.— Theodoret. tanquam [intuente Christo] Theoph. [coram Christo] hoc est Christo jubente, & veluti ejus loco existens, & veluti ejus personam referens. Chrysost. Id est, tanquam Christo hoc jubente. Nos sensum reddamus verborum Apostoli, facio tanquam Christi minister & Delegatus, cujus in●ea●re personam refero. Salmoron in eum locum. Vice Christi, & ad gloriam Christi. Idem in 2 Cor. 5. Pro Christo legatione fungimur, tanquàm Deo exhortante per nos: Id est, L●gatione fungunur vice Christi— Sensus est, cum nos legatione fungimur, exhortando, obsecrando vos, ut per poenitentiam reconciliemini Deo, sic accip●re debetis, ac si Deus exhortetur pernos. jesuite Estius rendereth out of the Fathers. [In the person of Christ] is no more (saith he) but in the name of Christ, and by the authority of Christ, and as Christ himself commanding me, and beholding me, I being the Minister of Christ. But the Priest, in pronouncing the words of Christ, in the Romish Significative sense, is said to do it in a fare higher strain; which your Cardinal Bellarmine will have you to consider, * See above Sect. 1. The Priest (saith he) in this Action (of Consecration) dealeth fare otherwise, than he doth in other Sacraments, where he speaketh as the Minister of God, in his own person, saying, [I Absolve thee: I Baptise thee.] Do you mark? [Fare otherwise.] And yet the Apostle, when he spoke of the Absolution, which he gave, saying to the Corinthians, If I have pardoned any, he added, [I have pardoned them in the person of Christ.] So that the word [Person,] spoken of by the Apostle, and Ancient Fathers, is to be understood [Fare otherwise] than that which the Significative Romish sense doth exact; which is, that the Priest so uttereth Christ's words, in the person of Christ, that he delivereth them Significatively, that is, as to signify the same Intention in himself, in repeating those words, which Christ himself had in the first uttering of them. As for example, (it is your Cardinal's own) Any one repeating these words spoken of the wicked jews, Saying concerning Christ [This man Blasphemeth] if he should utter them Significatively, that is, with the same Intention of noting Christ to be a blasphemer, he himself should Blaspheme: ●ut delivering them only Narratively, by way of Repetition, he doth not Blaspheme, because he meaneth not to say that Christ did Blaspheme, but that the jews said so. So he. And so say we, That the Priest, in repeating of Christ's words [This is my Body] pronounceth them Narratively only, and not Significatively. For the Romish Priest, if he should speak the words of Christ Significatively, in the person of Christ, that is, with the same Intention as Christ, when he said [This] of the Bread, then in his hands: the Priest saying, [This] should intead and mean that [This Bread] whereof Christ spoke, and not that which is in his own hands, which now he intendeth to Consecrate; and Consequently should he make no Consecration at all. And what hereupon must become of your Romish Mass, in your Transubstantiation, Sacrifice, and Adoration, you may understand in the next Section. The full Overthrow of the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Corporal Presence, Personal Sacrifice, and Adoration, Consequently, upon the former Confutation of your Romish Significative Pronunciation of Christ's words by the Priest. SECT. V TRuly hath your jesuite * See above in the Second Section. Suarez expressed the Doctrine of your Church, as followeth; Except these words This is my Body] be taken Significatively, and formally, they work no Consecration, nor can it be collected, that that which is now in the hands of the Priest, is the true Body of Christ. So he; alleging the Cou●acel of Trent for his warrant. But the words, as they are pronounced by the Priest, cannot possibly be taken Significatively, but only in the way of Rehearsing and Repeating them; No one jota in the Text, or Context; No one Testimony of Antiquity; No one Reason, or yet competent Example hath been alleged by any of your Doctors for proof of the Contrary. This point needeth no more discussion, only, for further Illustration-sake, we shall commend unto you a more proportionable Example, than was any that hitherto your Sophisters have invented; which, because your jesuites have affected the * See above in the first and second Sections. Similitudes of Historical and Comical Representations, we shall likewise borrow from that Stage. If therefore any Romish Priest should Act the part of Aäron, in imitating an operative Speech of turning and Transubstantiating a Rod into a Serpent, in saying (to suppose Aäron to have said so) [This is my Serpent] yet could not your Priest possibly deliver the same words Significatively, as in the person of Aäron; either in saying [This] because, This Rod, spoken of by the Priest, is not the same Rod, whereof Aäron said [This:] nor yet in the word [My] because that, whereof Aäron said, [My Serpent] cannot possibly be said accordingly [My Serpent] by the Priest, as yourselves well know. And therefore doth this discover your Romish Intoxication, in your Significative Exposition of these words [This] and [My] in the Speech of Christ. THE THIRD BOOK, Treating of the First Romish Doctrinal Consequence, pretended to arise from your former depraved Exposition of Christ's words. [This is my Body.] called TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Your Doctrinal Romish Consequences are Five, viz. the Corporal 1. Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ, called Transubstantiation; in this Third Book. 2. Existence of the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament, called Corporal Presence; in the Fourth Book. 3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bodies of the Communicants, called Real, or Material Conjunction; in the Fifth Book. 4. Sacrificing of Christ's Body, by the hands of the Priest, called a Propitiatory Sacrifice; in the Sixth Book. 5. Worshipping with Divine Worship, called Latria, or Divine Adoration of the same Sacrament; in the Seventh Book. After follow the Additionals, in a Summary Discovery of the Abominations of the Romish Mass, and the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof; in the Eighth Book. THese are the five Doctrinal Consequences, which you teach, and profess, and which we shall (by God's assistance) pursue, according to our former Method of Brevity, and Perspicuity; and that by as good, and undeniable Evidences, and Confessions of your own Authors, in most points, as either you can expect, or the Cause itself require. And because a Thing must have a Begetting, before it have a manner of Being, therefore before we treat of the Corporal Presence, we must in the first place handle your Transubstantiation, which is the manner (as we may so say) of the Procreation thereof. CHAP. I. The State of the Controversy, concerning the Change and Conversion professed by Protestants, which is Sacramental; And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall. First of the Sacramental. SECT. I. THere lieth a charge upon every Soul, that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament, that herein he Discern the Lord's Body: which Office of Discerning (according to the judgement of Protestants) is not only in the use, but also in the Nature to distinguish the Object of Faith, from the Object of Sense. The First Object of Christian Faith, is the Divine Alteration, and Change of natural Bread, into a Sacrament of Christ's Body. This we call a Divine Change, because none but the same * See hereafter, Chap. 4. §. 1. & 2. Omnipotent power, that made the Creature and Element of Bread, can Change it into a Sacrament. The Second Object of Faith, is the Body of Christ itself, Sacramentally represented, and verily exhibited to the Faithful Communicants. There are then three Objects, in all, to be distinguished. The First is before Consecration, the Bread merely Natural. Secondly, After Consecration, Bread Sacramental. Thirdly, Christ's own Body, which is the Spiritual, and supersubstantial Bread, truly exhibited by this Sacramental, to the nourishment of the souls of the Faithful. Secondly of the Romish Change, which you call Transubstantiation. SECT. II. But your Change in the Council of a Est conversio totius substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi, & totius substantiae Vini in sanguinem, manentibus duntaxat speciebus Panis, & Vini, quam quidem Conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissimè Transubstantiationem appellat. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 2. Trent is thus defined: Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance of Bread into the Body of Christ, and of Wine into his Blood. Which by the Bull of b Ego N. N jurò hinc Conversionem fieri, quam Catholica Ecclesia appellat Transubstantiationem— Extrà quam fidem nemo salvus esse potest. Bulla Pij 4. super formâ luram nit professionu Fidei. Pius the Fourth, than Pope, is made an Article of Faith, without which a man cannot be saved. Which Article of your Faith Protestants believe to be a new and impious Figment, and c Transubstantiationem Protestantes esse sceleratam Haeresin dicunt. Bell. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 11. Heresy. The Case thus standing, it will concern 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 plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion unto MANY SUPERSTITIONS. CHAP. II. The Question is to be examined by these grounds; viz. I Scripture. II. Antiquity. III. Divine Reason. IN all which we shall make bold to borrow your own Assertions, and Confessions, for the Confirmation of Truth. The Romish Depravation of the Sense of Christ his words, [This is my Body,] for proof of Transubstantiation. SECT. I. YOu pretend (and that with no small Confidence) as a Truth avouched by the Council of a Vt definitur in Conc. Trid. Sess. 13 Can. 4. Ex sola veritate verborum [Hoc est Corpus meum] vera, ac propria Transubstantiatio colligitur. Vasquez. les. Disp 176. c. 6 Verba tàm per se clara cogere possint hominem non proter●● Transubstantitionem admittere. Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. §. Secundò. Trent. that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole, true, and proper Signification of these words [This is my Body.] So you. CHALLENGE. WHerein you show yourselves to be men of great Faith, or rather Credulity, but of little Conscience; teaching that to be undoubtedly True, whereof notwithstanding you yourselves render many Causes of Doubting. For first you b Scotus, quem Cameracensis sequtur,— Dicunt non extare locum in Scriptures tàm expressum, ut fine declaratione Ecclesiae evidentes cogat Transubstantiationem admittere. Atque hoc non est omninò improbabile, quià an ità sit dubitari potest, cum homines acutissimi, & doctissimi, qualis inprimis Scotus fuit, contrarium sentiant. Bellar. quo supra. Cajetanus, & aliqui vetustiores audiendi non sunt, qui dicunt, panem definere esse, non tàm ex Evangelio, quàm ex Ecclesiae authoritate constare. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34 pag. 419. grant that (besides Cardinal Caejetane, and some other Ancient Schoolmen) Scotus and Cameracensis, men most Learned and Acute, held that There is no one place of Scripture so express, which (without the Declaration of the Church) can evidently compel any man to admit of Transubstantiation. So they. Which your Cardinal, and our greatest Adversary, faith c See in the former Allegation at (b) Is not altogether improbable; and whereunto your Bishop d Corpus Christi fieri per consecrationem, non probatur nudis Evangelij verbis, sine pia interpretatione Ecclesiae. Roffens. Episc. con. Capt. Bab. cap. 9 pag. 99 Roffensis giveth his consent. Secondly, (which is also confessed) some other Doctors of your Church, because they could not find so full Evidence, for proof of your Transubstantiation, out of the words of Christ, were driven to so hard shifts, as to e [Hoc est] pro Transit, Bonaventura decet. Idem ferè habet Oceam, & Haul cott, insinuat etiam Waldensis— Volunt Propositionem illam non esse, substantiuè, sed Transitive interpretandam, sc. ut sit sensus. [Hoc est Corpus] it est, Transit in Corpus.— Sed hoc corrumpit significationem verbi [Est] quod, si permittitur, nulla est vis in hujus modi verbis ad probandam realem praesentiam, nec substantiam Panis hic non manere. Et ità potuit Haereticus exponere [Hoc est] id est, Repraesentat Corpus. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. qu 78. Disp 58. Sect. 7. Art. 1. pag. 754. Change the Verb Substantive [Est] into a Verb 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 Sense, which your jesuite Suarez cannot allow, because (as he 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. ⚜ The like violence is used by your jesuit I jac. Gordon Scotus Ies. lib. Controu. 4. cap 3. n. 15. Propositiones practicae proferuntur per verba praesentis temporis, non futuri, ut certi 〈◊〉 de effectuve borum. Haec verba [Hoc est corpus meum] practica sunt, efficiunt quod significant: [Mandu●●● ex hoc, Bibite ex hoc] ubique demonstrat corpus Christi futurum, vel sanguinem ejus futorum. Similis statuitur verbis Consecrationis, alioqui ista communio esset merè speculativa, non practica. Gordon, who, to make Christ's Speech to be Practical, for working a Transubstantiation, doth enforce the words [This is my Body] and, [Eat ye this] and, [Drink ye this] being all spoken in the Present tense, to signify the future. Which, although it were true, all Grammarians know to be the figure Enallage. From these Premises it is most apparent, that the Romish Doctors cast themselves necessarily upon the horns of this Dilemma, thus: Either have these words of Christ [This is my Body] a Sense Practical, to signify that which they work, and then is the Sense Tropical, (as you have now heard them, against your Romish Literal Sense, to betoken an operative power and effect of working Bread into the Body of Christ:) or else they are not Practical; and then they cannot imply your Transubstantiation at all. We might, in the third place, add hereunto that the true Sense of the words of Christ is Figurative, as by Scriptures, Fathers, and by your own confessed Grounds hath been already plentifully * See the former Book throughout. proved, as an insallible Truth. So groundless is this chief Article of your Romish Faith, whereof more will be said in the sixth Section following. But yet, by the way, we take leave to prevent your Objection. You have told us that * See the former Book throughout. the words of Christ are Operative, and work that which they signify; so that upon the pronunciation of the words [This is my Body,] it must infallibly follow, that Bread is changed into Christ's Body; which we shall believe, assoon as you shall be able to prove, that upon the pronunciation of the other words of Christ [This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood,] Luke 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christ's Blood, or else into his Blood itself. 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) f Fateor, neque Antiquos Patres usos esse hoc nomine Transubstantiationis. Christoph. de Capite fontium, Archicpis. Caesar. lib. de real praesen. cap. 5. 9 Artic. 4. was not used of any Ancient Fathers; and that your Romish Change had not its Christendom, or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation (as your Cardinal g Concilium Lateranense sub Innocentio Tertio coactum, ut Haereticis os obthurarer, Conversionem hanc novo & valdè significance verbo dixit Transubstantiationem. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. pag. 422. As for that objected place out of cyril of Alexandria Epist ad Caelosyrium [Convertens ea in veritatem Carnis:] It is answered by Vasquez the jesuite; non habetur illa Epistola inter opera Cyrilli. Vasquez. in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. num. 24. Alan witnesseth) before the Council of Laterane, which was 1● 15. years after Christ; nor can you produce One Father Greek or Latin, for a Thousand years, attributing any word equivalent, in strict Sense, unto the same word Transubstantiation, until the year 900 (which is beyond the Compass of due Antiquity.) At what time you find, note, and urge Theophylact, who saith of the Bread, that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ. Which Phrase, in what Sense he used it, you might best have learned from himself, who in the very same place saith that Christ in a manner is h Theoph. in joh. 6. De Christo per sidem manducato: [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Trans-elementated into the Communicant: which how unchristian a Paradox it were, being taken in strict and proper Sense, we permit to your own judgements to determine. Neither yet may you, for the countenancing of the Novelty of this word, object the like use of this word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as though it had been in use before the Arian Controversy began: because the Fathers of the Council of Nice judged the Objection of the Novelty of that word Calumnious; for that the use of it had been Ancient before their times, as your Cardinal i Calumniam hanc Patres Antique aptissimè contutârunt, atque ostenderunt non inventum fuisse hoc nomen [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in Concilio Nicaeno, sed fuisse antè in usu Patrum; at illud jam vocabulum usurpari, quo sui Majores usi fuissent. Bellarm. quo supra. c. 3. Bellarmine himself witnesseth. You furthermore, to prevent our Objection (demanding why the Ancient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change, Transubstantiation, if they had been of your Romish Faith, concerning the Substantial Change of Bread into the Body of Christ) have shaped us this Answer, namely, that k Ets: veteres Ecclasiae Doctores non sint usi voce Tran substantrationis, tamen usi sunt vocibus icem significantibus, ut Conversionis, Transmutationis, Transi tionis, Transformationis, Transelementationis, & si●●libus 〈◊〉 Fort●●it. j●d Tract. de Euchari, §. Nota pro solouone A●gumentorum. sol. 117. Although they used not the very word, Transubstantiation, yet have they words of the same signification, to wit, Conversion, Transmutation, Transition, Transformation, Trans-elementation, and the like. So your Lorichius Reader of Divinity among you; who by his vast and rash boldness might as justly have inferred from the like Phrases of the Apostle, viz, [ * 2. Cor. 3. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we are transformed] that every Regenerate Christian is Transubstantiated into Christ: or, from the word [ * 2. Cor. 1. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He is transfigured] say that the Devil is Transubstantiated into an Angel of light: or from the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is changed] (used by l Quiaquid Spiritus Sanctus tetigerit, & Sanctificat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril. Hieros'. 〈◊〉. 5. Cyrill) urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctify, is Transubstantiated into another thing: or from the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nazianz. Orat. 40 pag. 943. Edit. Paris. Nazianzene, conclude that Every person Baptised is Transubstantiated into Christ. ⚜ And one of your own Doctors examining all the Phrases of the Greek Fathers, and coming to the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which doth properly express the sense of the Latin word, Transubstantiatio) he confesseth that 2 Quanvis Graeci Petres eo nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non utuntur, sunt tamen Authores aborum no 〈◊〉, quibus eam, quoac hert possit, ap 〈◊〉 & exprimunt, ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Petrus Aread de concord Orient. & Occident. Eccl. lib. 3 c. 2 Tract. de Euch. They used it not. And what the Greek Church thinketh thereof, at this day, you may learn from two Patriarches of Constantinople; the One not admitting, the Other rejecting it; as will be shown in the second Chapter. Will you have the World imagine that so many, so excellent, and so Ancient Fathers, with all that Divine and Humane Learning wherewith they were so admirably accomplished, could not, in a Thousand year's space, find out either the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Latin Transubstantiatio, and apply them to this Change, if they had once dreamt of this your Article of Faith? Will you permit us to learn a point of wisdom from your Cardinal? n Periculosa est vocum novarum Libertas in Ecclesia, cum paulatim ex vocibus novis novae etiam res oriantor, cùm cuique licet in tell us 〈◊〉 nomina singere. Bell. lib. de Sacram. in Genere. cap 7. §. Ex quibus. Liberty of devising new words (saith he) is a thing most dangerous; because new words, by little and little, beget new things. So he. Therefore may we justly place this your new word among those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Saint * 1. Tim. c. 20. Paul will have Christians by all means to avoid; else so new and barbarous a Name must needs engender a novel, and brutish opinion, such as this Article itself will appear to be; As followeth. The Novelty of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined, and shown not to have been before the Council of Laterane (namely) not until 1215. years after Christ. SECT. III. THis Article hath been decreed (as you have * See above Ch. 1. §. 2. heard) by your Church, as a necessary Doctrine of Faith; and therefore presumed to be Ancient. CHALLENGE. THe first Imposition of this Article, as of Faith, your Cardinal o Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen. Bellarmine noteth to have been in the days of Pope Gregory the Seventh. viz. 1073. years after Christ. But surely at that time this could be but a private opinion of some few, for Peter Lombard (living 67. years after this Pope, and esteemed the Master of the Romish School) when he had laboured to give Resolution to all doubts, especially in this very Question (whether the Conversion were substantial, or not) confesseth plainly, saying; p Si quaeratur, qualis sit Conversio (viz. Pants in Encharistia) an formalis, an substantialis, an alterius generis; definite non sufficio. Quibusdum videtur esse substantialis, dicentibus substantiam converti in substantiam. Lombard. Sent. lib. 4 Distinct 11 lit. (a.) Definire non sufficio: I am not able to Determine. So he. Anno. 1140. Hitherto therefore this Article was but in Conception only, which caused your learned and Subtle School-man Scotus to descend lower, to find out the Birth thereof, q Scotus dicit ante Concilium Lateranense non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem. Id ille dixit, quia non legerat Conc. Rom. sub Gregorib. 7. nec consensum Patrum, quem nos produximus. Bellarm. lib 3. the Eucharist. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen. Affirming that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Council of Lateran, under Pope Innocent the Third, viz. Anno 1215 whom therefore your Cardinal doth tax for want of reading. But either were your jesuite Coster, and Cardinal Perron as ignorant of Ancient Learning, as Scotus, or else they gave small Credit to that Council cited by Bellarmine under Gregory the Seventh. For your jesuite saith, in direct terms, that r Ante trecentos Annos in Concilio Lateranensi, ad ifrius rei tam admirabilis clariorem explicarionem, usurpatem fuit nomen Transubstantiationis: ut intelligant Christiani substantiam Panis in substantiam corporis Christi converti. Coster. Ies. Enchir. cap 8. §. De Transubstantitione. The name of Transubstantiation was used in the Council of Lateran, for a clearer explication, that Christians might understand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ. Can you say then that it was universally so understood before? But your Cardinal Perron more peremptorily concludeth, that s Si nihil planè ad Doctrinam Ecclesiasticam spectans in Concilio Lateranensi ex communi Patrum assensu decretum esset, sequeretur posse ut falsum impugnari Articulum de Transubstantiatione. Cardie. Per. en sa Harangue an tiers' Estate pag. 33. [Asdruball witnesseth our P. Presloa, alias Widdington Discuss, Concib. Latcran. part. 1. §. 1. pag. 12.] If it had not been for the Council of Lateran, it might be now lawful to impugn it. So he. A plain acknowledgement, that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Council, even as Scotus affirmed before. But we pursue this Chase yet further, to show, That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Council of Lateran, under Pope innocentius the Third. SECT. iv YOur own learned Romish t Venêre multa in Consultationem, nec decerni quicquam tamen aptè potuit, eò quòd Pontifex (quo profectus est tollendae Discordiae gratiâ) mortuus est Petusij. Platina in vita innocentij. Decerni nihil apertè potuit: edita sunt quaedam, etc. Nauclerus An. 1215. [meaning after the Council.] Ad festum Sanctae Andreae protractum, nihil dignum memoriâ actum, nisi quod Orientalis Ecclesia, etc. God. fridus Monumeter sis, & Math. paris. Histor minor. Concilium illud Generale, quod primâ fronte grandia prae se tulit, in risum, & scomma desijt, in quo Papa omnes accedentes ludisicatus est: illi enim, cum nihil in eo Concilio geri cernerent, redeundi veniam petierunt. Thus fare out of Widdrington alias Preston, in his Book above cited. Priest, a long time Prisoner, did (under the name of Widdrington) produce many Historians, viz. Platina, Nauclerus, Godfridus Monumetensis, Matthew Paris, and others, to testify as followeth: That many things fell under Consultation in that Council, but nothing was openly defined, the Pope dying at Perusium. Insomuch that some of these Authors stick not to say, that This General Council, which seemed to promise big and mighty matters, did end in scorn and mockery, performing nothing at all. We might add, that the supposed Acts of this Council were not published until more than two hundred years after. No marvel then if some u Scholastici quidam hanc Doctrinam de Transubstantiatione non valdè Antiquam esse dixerunt: inter quos Scorus, & Gabriel Biel. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 30. §. 1. Schoolmen, among whom were Scotus and Biel, held Transubstantiation not to have been very ancient. And another, that x In Synaxi serò definivit Ecclesia Transubstantiationem: diù satis erat Credere siuè sub pane, sive sub quocunque modo adesse verum Corpus Christi. Eras. in 1. Cor. 7. pag. 373. It was but lately determined in the Church. Nay, Master Brerely (if his opinion be of any Credit among you) sticketh not to say that y Mr. Brerely in his Liturgy Tract. 2. §. 11. pag. 158. Transubstantiation complete (that is, both for form, and matter) was not determined until the last Council of Trent; that is to say, not until the year of our Lord, 1560. Do you not see how much licking this ugly Bear had, before it came to be form? and yet it will appear to be but a Monstrum horrendum, take it at the best; as it is now to be proved, by the full discovering of the paipable Falsehood thereof. CHAP. III. The Definition of Transubstantiation in the Church of Rome; and of the Falsehood thereof. SECT. I. THe Council of Trent (saith your a Concil. Tridentinum dicit, fieri Conversionem totius substantiae Panis, id est, tam formae quàm materiae in Substantiam Corporis Christi. Bellarmia. lib. 3. the Eucharist. Cap. 18. §. Si objicias. Concil. Trident. Sess. 13. Cap. 4. Cardinal) hath defined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread, that is, aswell form, as matter, into the Substance of Christ's Body. Our First proof of the Falsehood of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, by the Contradictions of the Defenders thereof; whereby they bewray their No-Beleefe of the Article. THe Opinions of the Doctors of your Church, concerning the nature of this Conversion, are by you reduced into these two manners, (namely) that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread: or else by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the form of Bread. CHALLENGE. Whatsoever it is, which you will seem to profess, never shall you persuade us that you do indeed believe either of the pretended Forms of Transubstantiation. First, not by Production, because (as the same b Productio est, quando terminus ad quem non existat, & ideò vi Conversionis necessariò producitur, ut aqua in vinum. Adductiva autem, etc. Bellar. lib. 3. the Eucharist. cap. 18. §. Secundò notandum.— Productiva non est, quia Corpas Domini praeexistit. Idem. ibid. §. Ex his. Cardinal truly argueth) Conversion by Production is, when the thing that is produced is not yet extant: as when Christ converted water into wine, wine was not Extant, before it was Produced out of the substance of water. But the Body of Christ is always Extant; therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread. So he. Which Productive manner of Transubstantiation could not be believed by your jesuites, c De ratione Transubstantiationis non est, ut Substantia, in quam dicitur fieri Transubstantirio, producatur, aut conservetur per illam: imo qui hoc modo defendunt Transubstantiationem in Sacramento, ad quoddam genus Philosophiae excogitatum, potius quàm ad verum & necessarium, rem reducere videntur. Vasq. Ies. Tom. 2. Disp. 214. cap. 4. Vasquez, and d Praeter Adductivam Conversionem evidenter refutavimus omnes modos Conversionis, qui vel dici, vel singi possunt. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Queen est. 75. Disp. 50. §. 5. §. Tertiò Principaliter. [Mr Fisher in his Rejòynder talketh fond of a Reproduction, as of Carcases converted into men, in which Change any One may see, that as much as is Produced is not Extant, for Dust is not Flesh. But since he cannot apply this Reproduction to Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ, his Answe●●● impertinent, and he may be produced for an idle Disputer.] Suarez, by both whom it hath been confuted. And if the Change be not by Production, than it must follow that it is not by Transubstantiation; which is demonstrable in itself, because the next manner, which they insist upon, cannot possibly serve your turn. This Sècond manner they name to be by Adduction, which your e Si terminus ad quem Corpus Christi existat, sed non in eo loco ubi Terminus à quo (id est, Panis) tum vi Con versionis adducetur ad eum locum. Ind vocatur Conversio adductiva: nam corpus Christi praeexistit 〈◊〉 Conversionem; sed non sub speciebus Panis. Con versio igitur non fecit ut corpus Christi simpliciter esse incipiat, sed ut incipiat esse sub speciebus: non quod per motum localem è Coelo Adducatur, sed solùm quia per hanc conversionem fit, ut quod ante erat solùm in Coelo, jam sit sub speciabus Panis. Nec haec accidentalis conversio, sed substantialis dicta est, quia substantia Panis desinit esse, & substantia corporis Christi succedit Pani. Proindè Substantia in Substantiam transit. Talis est Conversio Cibi in hominem, per nutritionem; nam anima non producitur, sed tantùm per nutritionem sit, ut incipiat esse in ea materia, ubi antea erat forma Cibi. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18. Cardinal defineth to be a Bringing of the Substance of that Body of Christ, continuing still in heaven, to be notwithstanding at the same time under the shapes of Bread on the Altar: and therefore called Substastiall, because the Substance of Bread ceaseth to have any Being, ●●en the Body of Christ succeedeth to be under the outward shapes of Bread. So he. And this is of late crept into the opinion of some few, whereby you have created a new faith, flat contrary to the faith of the Council of Trent, which defined a Change of the whole substance of Bread into the Body of Christ. So that Council, as you have heard. Now by the Change of Substance into Substance, as when Common Bread, eaten, is turned into the Substance of Man's flesh, the matter of Bread, is made the matter of flesh. But this your Adduction, is so fare from bringing in the Substance of Bread, Into the Substance of Christ's Body, that it professeth to bring the Body of Christ, not so much as unto the Bread, but to be under only the Outward Accidents, and forms of Bread. Yet had this Figment some Favourers in your f Fuerunt hujus sententiae Alens. Bonavent. Marsil.— Dicunt per hanc Conversionem Corpus non accipere esse, sed accipere esse hîc; nec multum discordat Thomas. Denique moderni subscribentes contra Haereticos libenter hanc sententiam amplectuntur, quia facilitatem quandam prae se fert, ut videre licet apud job. Hessels. Claud. Gud. Paris. & Bellar. As witnesseth Suarez: quo suppra. Disp. 50 §. 44. pag. 635. Cum Panis substantialiter mutetur, ita ut desinat esse, haec Conversio est Substantialis, non Accidentalis. 2. Corpus Christi est substantia, quae succedit Pani, proinde Substantia transit in Substantiam.— & dicunt conversionem Adductivam esse, quando quod adducitur acquirit esse sub speciebus Panis— Bellar. quo supr. §. Respondeo 1.— Cedere Corpori, in ratione existendi, est propriè converti in ipsum: & per Conscquens fit vera in Carnem Transmutatio. Alan. lib. 1. de Eucharist. cap. 34. Schools. No marvel therefore if there arose some out of your own Church, who did impugn this delusion, calling it (as your g Dixi Conversionem Panis in corpas Christi esse Adductivam, quod dictum video à nonnullis esse perperàm acceptum, qui inde non Transubstantiarionem, sed Translocationem colligunt. Sed dixi corpus Christi non deseruisse locum suum in Coelo, neque incipere esse sub speciebus, ut in loco, sed ut Substantia sub Accidentibus, remotâ tamen inhurentia. Bellarmia. Recog. in lib. 3. the Eucharist. pag. 81. Cardinal himself witnesseth of them) a Translocation only, and not a Transubstantiation; and that truly, if they should not have called it a Trans-accession, or Trans-succession rather. For who will say, if he put on his hand a Glove, made of a Lambskin, which Lamb was long since dead (and consequently ceasing to be) that therefore his hand is Transubstantiated into the Body of the Lamb? yet is there in this example a more substantial Change, by much, than can be imagined to be by your Adduction of a Body under only the Forms and Accidents of the matter of Bread; because (to speak from yourselves) there is in that a Material Touch between the Substance of the hand, and the Lambskin: but in this other there is only a Conjunction of the Substance of one Body with the Accidents of another. Which kind of mere Succession of a Substance, your jesuite Suarez will allow to be no more than a h Per solum Adductiram actionem reverà non explicatur vera conversio Substantialis, & Transubstantiatio, sed tantùm Translocatio quaedam: quando una Substantia succedit loco alterius, non potest propriè di●● unam converti in aliam. Suarez. Ies. loco citato. pag. 639. Translocation. ⚜ And that justly, as Any may easily perceive, because in every true Transubstantiation there is a Change of a Substance into a Substance, as into that, which is the Terming of the Change: but in this your Adduction, there is said to be only Terminus praesentiae, of the presence of Christ's Body, instead of the Presence of Bread. Therefore it is flatly Translocation only. A word more; Transubstantiation (saith your Council of Trent) is collected out of these words of Christ, [This is my Body:] But by sole Adduction (saith your 3 AEgidius Coniax, Ies. de Sacram. Quaest. 75. Art. 4. Dubit. 4. num. 142. Ex quo pater, refutar, sententiam eam, quae docet corpus Christi adesse posse per solam Adductionem, quia hoc non potest colligi conversio Panis in corpus, ex verbis Christi. jesuite Coninx) cannot be collected a Conversion of Bread into Christ's Body out of the words of Christ. We Conclude that seeing Conversion, whether by Production, or by Adduction, are so plainly proved by yourselves to be contrary to Truth: therefore it is not possible for you to believe a Doctrine so absolutely repugnant to your own knowledge. ⚜ This last figment being discarded, ponder (we pray you) the Weight of this Argument. Every true and proper Transubstantiation is a Change into a substance that was not extant before. But the Body of Christ was, and is always extant before the words of Consecration be used. Therefore is there no true and proper Change by Transubstantiation into the Body of Christ. Observe by the way that they, who gainsay the Productive, and teach the Adductive, yet do all deny Local mutation à Termino ad Terminum. A Paradox which we leave to your wisdoms to contemplate upon. ⚜ The next Contradiction is to be seen between your Romish Popes & their Counsels, one against another: for your Pope Innocent 3. (whom your Doctors have so earnestly objected, as an high Patron of Transubstantiation) in the Council of Lateran, Anno 1560. defined 4 Innocent. 3. Papa, lib. 3. de Offic. Missae, cap. 29. Substantia convertitur in id quod fit, & non erat, ut virga in colubrum; & tunc forma convertitur cum substantia: quandoque convertitur in id quod erat, & non sit, ut Panis in Eucharistia, & tunc substantia convertitur sine forma. Transubstantiation in the Eucharist to be in matter, and not in the substantial form. And your Pope julius the Second, in the Council of Trent (as you have * See above at the Letter (a) heard even now) defined Transubstantiation in the Eucharist to be both in Matter and Form. This Contradiction is somewhat to the matter in hand (We think) to prove a spirit of Contradiction to be in your Roman Church. CHALLENGE. II. ⚜ In confutation of both the pretended Romish manners of Transubstantiation jointly. Whether you defend Transubstantiation by Production, or by Adduction, you are equally confutable in both, even by your own Principles; who hold, that if the Bread, which is to be Transubstantiated and changed into Christ's Body, be annihilated, and brought to mere nothing, it cannot be said to be Transubstantiated at all. Now whether you think the Bread, after consecration, to be Annihilated, we desire to know from yourselves. Say then (but speak out, without lisping or stammering, we pray you, that we may hear and understand you.) 5 Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. Cap. 24. Nego Panem annihilari— nam etsi Panis nihil sit, tamen id in quod ipse conversus enst, non est nihil, nec nullum, nec nusquam. Although Bread after Consecration be nothing (saith Bellarmine) yet it is not annihilated, that is, brought to nothing. 6 Lessius Ies. Opusc. lib. 12. cap. 16. Circa substantiam Panis & Vini, primum miraculum est, quòd hae substantiae vi Con secrationis funditus pereant, & veluti annihilentur, quamvis non solemus dicere eas annthilari, eò quod haec desitio ex intentione divinâ, non sistat in nihilo, sed dirigatur ad positionem Corporis Christi: verum hoc ad modum loquendi spectat, nam quod ad rem attinet, nihil omninò substantiae panis manet, non forma, non materia, non existentia, non gradus aliquis, sed totum ità funditùs perit, acsi prorsus in nihilum redactum esset, nullo positivo succedente; nam quod aliud succedat, non est ex vi illius desitio nis— substantifico influxu subtracto, necesse est Rem in nihilum relabi. And the substance of Bread and Wine (saith your jesuit Lessius) do utterly perish, and are as it were Annihilated. So they; calling this a being Nothing, and yet not Annihilated; this not annihilated, and yet utterly perishing: naming also this manner to be Miraculous, which we hold worthy rather to be esteemed Monstrous; the speech is altogether so contradictory in itself. Wherefore we desire the foresaid jesuite to play the Oedipus in unfolding this Riddle: Our saying (saith he) that Bread and Wine are not annihilated, belongeth to the formality of speech; for as concerning the thing itself, there is nothing of the Bread remaining either in form or matter. So he. But that, say we, which is nothing, either in form or matter, is surely annihilated: and therefore Bread becoming to be nothing, before Christ's Body be present, cannot possibly be said to be Changed into Christ's Body absent. And that the rather, because (as one of your 7 joh. Pallanterius de Castro sacrae Theologiae Doctor, Lectiones Aureae. Nec materia, nec forma panis manent in se, vel in Corpore, Christi post conversionem, quià vere annihilantur. Doctors more ingenuously confesseth) Bread not remaining, either in matter or form, is truly Annihilated. To this Argument (in our Apprehension Insoluble) we can receive from your great Dictator no better Answer than that, 8 Bellar. quo suprà. Pani sucredit Corpus Christi, corrumpitur, & interit quicquid definit esse: at non annihilatur, nisi ità desinat esse, ut nihil ea succedit, ità ut ejus desitio terminetur in nihil. Because the substance of Bread ceaseth to be, and the substance of Christ's Body succeedeth: Therefore the substance of Bread is said to be changed into Christ's Body. So he. Which his crotchet of Change, by Succeeding, hath been already exploded, as being but a Translocation, by his own * See above at (g) Society. And yet again, if it may be, more plainly your jesuit Vasquez; 9 Vasquez in 3. Thom. cue 75. Art. 8. Disp. 181. Cap. 2. Panis in conveersione desinit esse, & cùm dicitur panem desinere in corpus Christi, non probat ipsam desitionem terminari formaliter ad positivum in quod fit conversio.— Quocirca modus ille loquendi non formaliter sed cause litter debet intelligi, quis enim dicat defitionem alicujus rei formaliter in aliquid termanari?— Ità ut ipsa Productio, seu Adductio non sit formaliter Conversio, sed causa illius.— Est igitur Conversio formaliter Denominatio quaedam ordinis per modum Actus, in eo quod definite, relata ad id, quod fuit causa desition●. Aliquam 〈…〉. Haea duo, quae diximus, sunt necessaria & sufficiunt, ut Panis, Vinum, hoc ipso quod desinant, dicantur converti in corpus est sanguinem Christi. Neither Production, nor Adduction are formally this Conversion. Our Second Proof of the Falsehood of the Article of Transubstantiation, is from the Article of our Christian Creed, [BORNE OF THE VIRGIN MARY.] SECT. II. T Ransubstantiation (as hath been defined by your Council of Trent) is a Conversion of the substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body. Now, in every such Substantial Change, there are Two Terms, one is the Substance from which; the other is the Substance whereinto the Substantial Change is made: as it was in Christ his miraculous Change of Water into Wine. But this was by producing the Substance of Wine out of the Substance of Water, as the matter, from which the Conversion was made. Therefore must it be by Production of the Substance of Christ's Body, out of the Substance of Bread. Your Cardinal hath no Evasion, but by denying the Conversion to be by Production, which notwithstanding was formerly the General Tenet of the Romish School, ever since the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was hatched; and which is contrary to his own device of Conversion by Adduction. wherein first he i Dicta Corpus Christi ex pane fieri, non tanquàm ex materia, sed tanquàm à Termino à quo, ut mundus ex nihilo: [then confuting himself] etiam sit ex aqua vinum (that was not, ex nihilo.) In praesenti negotio, Conversio non est Productiva, Panis enim convertitur in Corpus Christi praeexistens: ergò Corpus Christi factum ex Pane, & ex Carne est idem. Bell. l. 3. de Euc. c. 24. § Ad Tertium confoundeth himself, and secondly, his opinion hath been scornfully rejected by your own learned Doctors, as being nothing less than Transubstantiation, as you have heard. Therefore may you make much of your Breaden Christ. As for us, We, according to our apostolical Creec, believe no Body of Christ, but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the Bl: Virgin Mary, for fear of k Alphonsus de Castro lib. 4 Tit. Christꝰ. Haer. 2. Manichaei dixerunt Christum non ex utero Virginis prodijsse; Et Apollinaris dixit Christum non assumpsisse carnem ex Virgin. Item. Chiliastae, Democritae, Melcluoritae, ut Procli mitae. pratcolus in Elench. Haeret. in suic quique titulis. Heresy. This same Objection being made of late to a jesuite of prime note, received from him this Answer: viz. God that was able to raise Children to Abraham out of stones, can of Bread transubstantiate the same into that Body of Christ, which was of the Virgin. And he again received this Reply; That the Children, which should be so raised out of stones, howsoever they might be Abraham's Children, according to Faith, yet could they not be Children of Abraham according to the Flesh. Therefore is there as great a Difference between that Body: from Bread, and the other from the Blessed Virgin, as there must have been between Children out of Stones, and Children out of Flesh. And this our Reason accordeth right well to the Ancient Faith professed within this Land, in the days of Edgar a Saxon King, as it is set out in an l Homily en. Easter day, pag. 35. Homily of that time, which standeth thus. Much is between the body that Christ suffered in, and between the body of the hallowed housel. The Body truly, that Christ suffered in, was borne of the flesh of the Virgin Mary, with blood, and with bone, with skin, and with sinews, in humane limbs: and his Ghostly body, which we call his housel, is gathered of many Corns, without blood, and bone, without lamb, and therefore nothing is to be understood herein bodily, but all is Ghostly to be understood. This was our then Saxons Faith; wherein is plainly distinguished the Body of Christ, borne of the blessed Virgin, from the Sacramental (which is called Ghostly) as is the Body of Flesh from the consecrated substance of Bread. A Doctrine directly confirmed by * See Book 4. cap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge. Saint Augustine. Wherefore we may as truly say, concerning this your Conversion, that if it be by Transubstantiation from Bread, than it is not the Body, which was borne of the Blessed Virgin; as your own Romish Gloss could say of the Predication: * See above, E. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread be Christ's Body, than Something was Christ's Body, which was not borne of the Virgin Mary. CHALLENGE I ⚜ In vindication of the same Truth, against the late Calumniation of a jesuite. THis Sentence I have seen lately canvassed by a jesuite, against a judicious and religious Knight, Sr. H. L. falsely imputing unto him divers Falsities; pretending especially that the English Translation, used by the Knight, is differing from the Latin. Which Exception of your jesuite must needs have proceeded either from ignorance, if he knew not that the Translation, used by the Knight, was taken out of the Original Saxon-language, and not out of the Latin; or, if he knew so much, from downright boldness, in charging him with a false Translation. I omit his frivolous Cavillations upon words. The main question, for the sense, is whether in this sentence, of the Saxons Faith, the Body, wherein Christ suffered, and his Body celebrated in this Sacrament, betoken not two kind of Bodies, essentially differing one from the other; or but only the two different manners of the Being of one Body. Your jesuite affirmeth them to signify the same Body, and he calleth the contrary opinion false. His Reason. For whereas it is said, (saith he) that the spiritual flesh (which is as much as to say, our Saviour his flesh in the Sacrament) according to the outward show, consisting of Grains of Corn, hath no Bones, nor Sinews, nor distinction of Parts, Life or Motion. Here the jesuite cryeth out against falsehood, but why? Because the Knight (forsooth) hath pretermitted (saith he) these words [According to the outward show, consisting of grains.] Whereby he would have us believe the new ●●mish Faith of a Subsistence of mere Accidents. Who if he had meant to have dealt ingenuously, he should have manifested that his Latin Translation to have accorded with the Original Saxon Copy. But to take him as we find him. If his words [According to the outward show] imply (as it needs must, if he will speak to any purpose) that the Body of Christ, in this Sacrament, although in outward show it be without Bones, Sinews, Life and Motion, yet it hath all these inwardly in itself, as it is in this Sacrament; then whilst he laboureth to confute one Protestant, he contradicteth all his fellow jesuites of the same Society, * See Book 4. Chap. ●. Sect. 2. who deny all possibility of Motion of Christ's Body in this Sacrament by any natural and voluntary Act, without a miracle. But to speak to the point; This Body, and That Body (say we) do diversify two Bodies, the one Sacramental (of Bread) called Spiritual (because of the spiritual and mystical Signification) this Bread consisting of Grains: And the other the Natural Body of Christ, consisting of Bones, Sinews, etc. In a word, This, and That, in this Saxon narration, accordeth with the Doctrine of * See Book 4. Chap. 4. in the Challenge. Bertram, taken out of Saint Augustine, (namely) That in heaven to differ as much from This on the Altar, as did the Body borne of the Virgin Mary, from the other which was not so borne. But if this Homily will not advantage your jesuite, he will wrest his prejudicated Conceit out of another Homily of AElfrick, if it be possible, where we read thus; As Christ before his Passion could convert the substance of Bread, and Creature of Wine into his own Body that suffered, and into his Blood which afterwards was extant to be shed: So also was he able in the Desert to Convert Manna, and Water out of the Rock into his Blood. So he, citing a Testimony as fully Opposite unto your Transubstantiation; in sense, as it seemeth to be absolutely for it in sound: it being just the same Doctrine, which Augustine, Anselme, and Bede * See hereafter Book 5. Chap. 3. §. 1. & 2. taught, when they said, that the faithful among the jews Ate the same spiritual meat, [Christ's Flesh] in eating Manna, and drank the same spiritual drink, that is, the blood of Christ, in drinking the water that issued out of the Rock, which Christians now do. And therefore meant not a Corporal eating of Christ, but a Sacramental. So say we, Christ could aswell then turn Manna, and Water of the Rock, into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood, for the nourishing of the souls of God's people of those times; as he doth now Convert Bread and Wine into the Sacraments of his Body and Blood, for the comfort of us Christians. This Answer preventeth the jesuits' Objection: 10 In his Book of Spectacles, p. 142. The Time (saith he) when the people received Manna in the Desert, Christ was not in his humane nature; therefore could not Manna be changed into his Body, nor Water into his Blood. So he, very truly indeed. And therefore must AElfrick his speech be understood Sacramentally, as hath been said: which because the jesuite refuseth to do, therefore is he at difference with AElfrick, denying that Christ was able to convert Manna into his Body; which AElfrick said, in express terms, he was able to do (namely) thorough his divine power, by a Sacramental Conversion; because Omnipotency is as properly necessary for the making of a divine Sacrament, as it was for the creating of the World. But was it not then kindly done (think you) of your jesuit to lend his Spectacles to another, when he had the most need of them himself? by the which he might have discerned, that as Christ Sacramentally (and therefore figuratively) called Bread his Body, and Wine his Blood; so did evermore all the faithful of Christ. This Lesson * See Book 2. C. 2. Sect. 10. hath been manifested by many pregnant Examples, in a full Section; which being once got by heart, would expedite all the like Difficulties. To conclude, the former Saxon doctrine is again confirmed by Saint * See Book 4. Chap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge. Augustine. Wherefore we may as truly say, concerning this your Conversion, that if it be by Transubstantiation, from Bread, than it is not the Body, which was Borne of the Blessed Virgin, as your own Romish Gloss could say of the Predication; * See above B. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread be Christ's Body, than something was Christ's Body, which was not borne of the Virgin Mary. And this we are now furthermore to evince out of your Pope Innocent the Third, against your Council of Trent. He (See the Margin of the former Section) taught that when the Conversion is of the form with the substance, then is the Change Into that which is now made, and was not before, as when the Rod was turned into a Serpent. So he, showing that the Serpent by that Change was therefore Made of that Rod. But your Tridentine Fathers (you know) have defined the Conversion of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body to be aswell in Form, as in Matter; whereupon by the judgement of your Pope Innocent it must follow, that the Body of Christ in your Eucharist is made of Bread; and if made of Bread, then could it not possibly be of the flesh of the Virgin: Because there cannot be a Substantial Change of a Substance into Substance, except that the Substance of that, whereinto the Conversion is wrought, have its Original and Making from the Substance of that, which was converted and changed. Nor could the Contrary be hitherto proved by any Romish Doctor, from any Example out of any conversion either natural, or miraculous, which hath been road of from the beginning of Times. Our third Reason is taken from the Existence of Bread, in this Sacrament, after Consecration; but First of the State of this Question. SECT. III. We wonder not why your Fathers of the Council of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt of m Si quis dixerit remane●● subst●ntiam Pan●s, Anathema sit. Conc. Trident. Sess. 13. Can. 2. Anathema, and Curse upon every man that should affirm; Bread and Wine to remain in this Sacrament after Consecration: which they did, to terrify men from the doctrine of Protestants, who do all affirm the Continuance of the substance of Bread in the Eucharist. For right well did these Tridentines know, that if the Substance of Bread or Wine do remain, then is all Faith, yea, and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera, and mere Fancy; as your Cardinal doth confess, in granting, that n Panis e●si non annihil●tur, tamen manet ni●●l in se; ut Aqua post Conversionem in Vinum. Neqque obstat, quòd fouè materia manserit, nam materia 〈◊〉 est Aqua. Prima ●̄oditio in vera Conversione est, 〈◊〉 quod convertitur 〈◊〉 esse. Bessur. lio 3 de Euch. c 18 〈◊〉 & cap. 24. §. Ad Alterum. It is a necessary condition in every Transubstantiation, that the thing which is converted cease any more to be: as it was in the Conversion of Water into Wine; Water ceased to be Water. And so must Bread cease to be Bread. This being the State of the Question, we undertake to give Good Proofs of the Existence, and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist, the same in Substance, after Consecration. Our first Proof is from Scripture, 1. Cor. 10. & 11. Saint Paul calling it [Bread.] SECT. iv IN the Apostle his Comment (that I may so call his two * 1. Cor. 11. 26, 27. & 10. 16. Chapters to the Corinthians) upon the Institution of Christ, we read of Eating the Bread, and Drinking the Cup, thrice: all which, by the consent of all sides, are spoken of Eating and Drinking after Consecration; and yet hath he called the ourward Element Bread. You will say (with Some) It was so called only because it was made of Bread; as Aärons' Rod, turned into a Serpent, was notwithstanding called a Rod. But this Answer is not Answerable unto the Similitude. For first, of the Bread, the Apostle saith demonstratively, This bread; and of the other, This Cup: But of Aärons' Rod, turned into a Serpent, none could say, This Rod. And secondly, it is contrary to Christian Faith, which will abhor to say, in a proper sense, that Christ's Body was ever Bread. Or else you will answer, with Others, It is yet called Bread, because it hath the Similitude of Bread, as the Brazen Serpent was called a Serpent. But neither this, nor any other of your Imaginations can satisfy; for we shall prove, that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration, but because it was Substantially, still, Bread. Our Reason is; He had now to deal against the Prophaners of this Sacrament, in reproving such as used it as Common Bread, * 1. Cor. 11. 22. Not discerning therein (Sacramentally exhibited) the Lord's Body. It had therefore concerned him to have honoured the Sacrament with Divine Titles, agreeable to the Body of Christ, hypostatically united to his Godhead, and to have denied it absolutely to have been Bread, considering that by the name of Bread the glory of the same Body might seem to be abased, and Eclipsed; if in Truth, and Verity he had not believed it to have been (then) properly Bread. This Reason, we guess, you are bound to approve off, who, in your opinion of the Corporal Presence of Christ his Body, and Absence of Bread, would never suffer any of your Professors to call it, after Consecration, by the name of Bread. Whereupon it was that the Greek o Archi●pisc. Cabasila. Latini nostros reprehendunt, quòd post illa verba [Hoc est Corpus meum] Panem & Vinum nominant, etc. Exposit. Liturg. cap. 29. Archbishop of Cabasila complained of the Romish Professors, for reprehending the Greek Liturgies: why? Because (saith he) after the words of Christ, [This is my Body] we call the Symbols and Signs Bread, and Wine. So he. Which bewrayeth, that the very naming of the Sacrament Bread, and Wine, is, in the judgement of the Church of Rome, prejudicial to their Transubstantiation; and that if Saint Paul himself should deliver the same words he did, at this day, he should by your Romish Inquisitors be taught to use his Terms in another stile. What need many words? except in the words of Christ the word [Body] be properly predicated, and affirmed of Bread, farewell Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Body. But that it is impossible the Body of Christ should be properly predicated upon Bread, hath been the General Confession of your own Doctors, and the Conclusion of our second Book. ⚜ We return again to the Text, where the Apostle having named it Bread, after Consecration, expoundeth himself what Bread he meant, saying, Bread which we break. But never durst any of your Romanists say, that the Body of Christ is truly Broken in this Sacrament: and never any Father of Primitive times (we are sure) taught the Breaking of the Accidents of Bread. And therefore it must follow, that it was still substantially Bread. The Apostle hath not yet done, but 1 Cor. 17. saith, Because it is one Bread, we being many are one Body for we all communicate of one Bread. Which chrysostom, is well as other Fathers, doth analogize thus: * See above B. 2. ●●ap. 2. Sect. 6. Challenge 1. See also Cypri●●, and S. August. B●●k. 3. Chapt. 3. Sect. 9 That as o●● loaf consisteth of many grains united together, so are the faithful Communicants joined together. So he, hereby teaching you the substantial Materials of the same Bread, Many grains of Corne. And, as though the Apostle had meant to muzzle the Adversaries of this truth with variety of proofs, he (1 Cor 10. 17.) hath these words, We participate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is, De pane hoc, Of this Bread; thus called after Consecration. And again, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let him eat [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of this Bread, which manifesteth the Eating of a part of an whole loaf of Bread; and not of the Body of Christ, which, even by the Romish faith, is not, nor cannot be divided into parts. Thus hath Saint Paul, the Scholar of Christ, concluded of Substantial Bread, agreeable to that which our Master Christ himself taught of the other sacred Substantial part of Drink, after the Consecration of this Sacrament, as is proved in the next Section. Our Second Proof of the Continuance of the Substance of Bread, is from the speech of Christ, touching the Continuance of Wine, after Consecration, Matth. ●. 29. by the Interpretation of Antiquity. SECT. V THe same is as fully verified by our Lord and Master Christ himself, in the second Element of Wine, calling it * Matth. 26. 29. This fruit of the Vine, that is, Wine, after Consecration: where the Pronoune This hath relation to the matter in the Cup of the Eucharist. For the proof of this our Exposition of the words of Christ, we have the Consent of these and thus many holy Fathers; Origen, Cyprian, chrysostom, Augustine, Hierome, Epiphanius, Euthymius, Theophylact, and Bede, as witnesseth your jesuite p Origenes, Cyprianus, Chrysost. August. Hieron. Epiphan. Beda, Euthymius, Theophylact. [Genimen Vi●s] add Sanguinem Christi referunt.— Maldon. I●s Com. in cum locum; where he addeth: Persuadere m●h●non possum haec verba ad Sanguinem esse referenda.— Hoc Patres, sed also sensu à Calvinistis, qui dicunt Christum Vinum appellâsse, quia Vinum erat: sed Patres vocâ unt Sanguinem Vanum, sicut Christus Carnem, johan. 6. vocabat Panem. Maldon. in eundem locum. Haec, nè illi Calvinistatum errori affinis esse videatur. Maldon. ibid. Maldonate (no one Father produced by him to the contrary,) Then answering; But I (saith he) cannot be thus persuaded. So he. Mark this (you great Boasters of Accordance with Antiquity!) and yet this manner of Answering the Fathers is most familiar with this jesuite. But he proceedeth, telling you that The Fathers notwithstanding did not call it Wine, as thinking it to be Wine, but even as Christ did, when he called his flesh Bread, john 6. Then he addeth; They that will follow the Exposition of These Fathers, are thus to interpret them. And gives his Reason of this his Advertisement; Lest the other Exposition (saith he) may seem to agree with the erroneous opinion of the Calvinists. So he. For which his Answer Calvinists are as much beholding to him, as are the Ancient Fathers, with whom he hath made bold not only to reject their Authority, but also to pervert the plain and evident meaning of their Testimonies; who declare that they understood Natural and Substantial Wine (as the q Novum promisit, id est, Novum quendam modum sumptionis in regno, id est, post resurrectionem, quando Cibum sumpsit corporalem. Theophyl. in Matth. 26. [Bibite ex hoc omnes:] &, [Non bibam amodò, etc.] quâ in parte invenimus Vinum fuisse, quod Sanguinem suum dixit: undè apparet Sanguinem Christi non offerti, 〈◊〉 desit Vinum Calici. Cyprian. ad Cecil. Epist. 63. paulò ante medium & Epiphan. count. Encratit. Qui aquam solùm adhibuerunt in Eucharistial, ut dicant vino quoque utendum: In hoc sermene Domini (inquit) redarguuntur [Non bibam de fructu hujus Vitis.] Epiphan. Tom. 2. lib. 2. [Non bibam de genimine hujus Vitis.] Christus post resurrectionem, nè putaretur Phantasia, comedit, undè Apostoli dixerunt, Act. 10. [Comedimus, & Bibimus cum eo.] Sed cujus re: gratiâ non Aquam, sed Vinum bibit? ad perniciosam Haeresin radicitus evellendam eorum, qui Aquâ in Mysterijs utuntur. Idem. In nuda Mysterij mensa Vino usus est. [Ex genimine Vitis:] Certè Vinum non Aquam producit. Chrysost. in eum locum, Hom. 83. Marginals do manifest) so plainly, as to affirm that It was Wine, which then Christ drank: and that hereby the Practices of the Heretics Aquarij are confuted, who would drink nothing but Water in the Eucharist. That which cometh out of the fruit of the Vine; which certainly produceth wine, and not water. So Chrysost. It was the Wine (saith r August. de dogmat. Eccles. cap. 75. Vinum fuit in redemptionis nostrae mysterijs, cùm dixit [Non bibam.] Augustine) which was used in the mysteries of our Redemption. Even that Wine, which was blessed (saith s Clemens Alex. Quòd Vinum esset, quod benedictum fuit, ostendit rursus dicens, [Non bibam de fructu Vitis.] Lib. Paedag. 2. cap. 2. sub finem. Clemens Alexandrinus.) And your own Bishop t Cùm Matthaeus, & Marcus nullius alterius Calicis secerint mentionem praeter sacri, quod dicitur [De genimine Vitis] nullus alius Calix intelligi potest ab ijs demonstratus, quàm cujus mem inerant— Et omninò videtur ex Matthaeo & Marco dictum hoc post consecrationem. jansen. Episc. Concord. in eum locum, pag. 914. Col. 2. jansenius doth confess, that these words of Christ had reference to the Cup in the Eucharist; and not (as Some say) to the Cup of the Passeover. ⚜ Yea to the Eucharist, as your Pope Innocentius did 12 Innocent. 3. de officio Missae, lib. 4. cap. 2. Quod autem Vinum in Calais consecravit, patet ex eo, quod ipse subjunxit; [Non bibam ex eo, donec, etc.] teach you: (I say Innocentius the Pope) That Christ consecrated Wine in the Cup, is evident (saith he) by that which Christ added, saying, [I will not henceforth drink of it until, etc.] Mark you furthermore the Error of the Aquarij, and the Confutation thereof. They used only Water in the Eucharist, in pretence of * See above, Book. 1. Chap. 3. §. 10. Sobriety; which Cypriaen confuted only upon this ground, viz. that this practice was not warranted by the * See above, Book. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. And here above in the Margin. Institution of Christ, wherein Christ ordained Wine, and not Only Water. And now tell us, if that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation had been an Article of Faith, in those days, whether it had not concerned Cyprian to have stood exactly upon it, for the more just condemnation of those Aquarij, to let them know, that if they would needs use only Water, than (according to your Doctrine) their Consecration should be void; and consequently their Adoration (if it had been then in use) should have been likewise Idolatrous. But we hear no more of these your Exceptions. The former Proof confirmed by Analogy between Bread and Christ's Body; both Natural, and Mystical. SECT. VI IN 1. Cor. 10. 16, 17. [The Bread which we break (saith the Apostle) is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? for we being many are one Bread and one Body, in as much as we all partake of one Bread.] In this Sentence the word [Bread] hath a double Relation, the First to Christ his Body Natural. Thus the joint Participation of the Bread is called the Communion of the Body of Christ. The Analogy, in this respect, is excellently expressed by u Panis, quià confirmat Corpus, ideò Corpus Christi nominatur: Vinum autem, quià sanguinem operatur, ideò ad sanguinem refertur. Haec autem duo sunt visibilia, sanctificata autem per Spiritum sanctum, in Sacramentum divini Corporis transeunt. Isidor. Hisp. de Offic. Lib. 1. cap. 18. See above, Book 2. Chap. 1. §. 9 at (x) Isidore: Bread (saith he) because it strengtheneth the Body, is therefore called Christ's Body; and Wine, because it turneth into Blood, is therefore called Christ's Blood. These are two Visibles, but being sanctified by the holy spirit, are turned into a Sacrament of Christ's Body. So he. This is indeed a true Analogy, not to be performed by Accidents. Can 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 Sense of the Sacramental Conversion? (for he saith, Bread is Changed into a Sacrament of Christ's Body;) or else in giving the Reason why Bread and Wine were chosen to be Sacraments and Signs of Christ's Body, and Blood, by which we are spiritually fed? (for he showeth that it is because of their Natural Effects, Bread substantially, and therefore not Accidentally, strengtheneth Man's Body: Wine turneth into Blood.) Which overthroweth your third Figment of only x Substantia Panis non pertinet ullo modo ad rationem Sacramenti, sed solùm Accidentia. Bellar. Lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 23 §. Respondeo substantiam. Accidents; as if the Substance of Bread and Wine were not necessary in this Sacrament. Say then, doth the Accident of Roundness, and Figure of Bread strengthen man's Body? or doth the Accident, Colour of Wine, turn into Blood? As well might you affirm the only Accident of Water in Baptism to be sufficient to purge and cleanse the Body, by the colour, and coldness, without the substantial matter thereof. The Second part of the Analogy is discerned in the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Congregation of the Faithful Communicants; [ * 1. Cor. 10. 17. We are all one Body, in as much as we are partakers of one Bread.] It standeth thus; As many Grains of Corn make one Loaf of Bread, and many Grapes make one measure of Wine in the C●p: So, many Christians, partaking faithfully of this Sacrament, become One mystical Body of Christ by the Union of Faith, and Love. This Exposition, as it is yielded unto by yo● C●●inall y Vnus Panis, unum Corpus multi sumus, nam omnes in uno Pane participamus. Significatum unit as fidei in unitate P●nis, ac unitate Corporis Metaphoricè, ad similitudi nem multorum granorum, ex quibus conficitur Co●tus unum. Et attulit Panem propter id, quod dixit [Panis quem frangimus.] Cajctan. Card in cum locum. pag 137 Cajetant, and authorized by your Roman and 〈◊〉 dentine z Vnum Ecclesiae corpus exmultis membris compositum est: nullâ re elucet ea Coniunctio magis, quàm Panis Vinique elementis. Panis enim ex multis granis conficitur, & Vinum ex multitudine racemo●um existit. Ità fidelis; & 〈◊〉 Catech. Roman. part. 2. d●●●ch. pag. 177. Catechsme●● so is it also confessed to be used 〈◊〉 a Augustinus. Dominus noster Christus, inquit, Corpus suum in ijs rebus command avit, quae ad unum aliquod rediguntur: ex multis enim granis Panis efficitur, ex multis racemis unum Corpus confluit; utuntur hac similitudine Sa●●cti propè omnes Doctores. Teste Bozio de Signià Ecclesiae Tom. 2. lib. 14. cap. 6. ●●most all holy Doctors. He was held a most expert and artificial Pa●nter, in Pliny, that could paint Grapes so to life, as to deceive Birds; which came to feed on them: But they are the only Sophistical Doctors, that offer in the Eucharist only Accidents, as painted Colours in stead of natural; because where there is not a Sacramental Analogy, there is no Sacrament. You may not say, that the Analogy consisteth in the matter before Consecration; because every Sacramental Analogy is between the Sacrament, and the Thing Signified: but it is no Sacrament, before it be Consecrated. CHALLENGE. SAy now, what Better Author is there than Christ? What better Disciple and Scholar, 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 Proof, that the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration in the Sacrament, is taken from the judgement 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, thorough which he seethe, as it happeneth in judging a straight Staff to be Crooked, which standeth in the Water; and in thinking a White Object to be Green in itself, which is seen thorough a Green glass; or Secondly by the unequal Distance of place, as by concelving the Sun to be but two feet in breadth; or Thirdly by some defect in the Organ, or Instrument of seeing (which is the Eye) whereby it cometh to pass that we 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 Object, which we see, is indifferent; then (say we) the judgement of Sense, being free, is True, and the Concurrence and joint consent of divers Senses, in one arbitrement, is infallible. This Reason, taken from Sense, you peradventure will judge to be but Natural and Carnal, as those Terms are opposed to a true and Christian manner of Reasoning. We defend the Contrary, being warranted by the Argument which Christ himself used to his Disciples, Luke 24. 39 [Handle me, and see.] Your Cardinal, although he grant that this Reason of Christ was available, to prove that his own Body was no Spirit, or Fancy, but a true Body, even by the only Argument from the sense of Touching; b Consequentia Christi, affirmatiuè sumpta, Hoc palpatur, hoc videtur, Ergo est Corpus, optu●a fuit, quià sensus non fallitur circa proprium Objectum: ●taque necessariò quod videtur, & tangitur Corporale est. At negatiuè, 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 ●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 he) was it not sufficient in itself, without other Arguments, to confirm it and to prove it to have been a human body, and the very same which it was. So he. Which Answer of your Cardinal we wish were but only false, and not also greatly irreligious: for Christ demonstrated hereby not only that he had a Body (as your Cardinal speaketh) but also that it was his own same Humane Body, now risen, which before had been 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 be the Same Body: Therefore would Christ have Thomas to * joh. 20. 27. thrust his hands into his sides, and feel the print of his wounds, to manifest the Same Body; as Two of your jesuites do also observe, the One with an [ c Optimè Origenes, Ostendit se Christus in vero Corpore suo resuscitatum. Tolet. les. in joh. c. 20. pag. 534. Optimè,] the Other with a [ d Probatum est, Christum idem Corpus numero demonstransse. 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 Fundamental Article of Faith, even the Resurrection of the Same Body of Christ from the dead; for how often doth he repeat, and inculcate this? * 1. Cor. 15. 5. He was seen, etc. And again thrice more, He was seen, etc. And Saint john argueth, to the same purpose, from the Concurrence of three Senses: * 1. joh. 1. 1. That which we have heard, which we have seen, and our hands have handled, declare we unto you. The validity of this Reason was proved by the Effect, as Christ averreth; * 1. joh. 20. 29. Thomas because thou hast seen (that is, perceived both by Eye, and hand) thou hast believed. The Validity of the judgement of Sense, in THOMAS, and the other Disciples, confirmed (in the second place) by your own Doctors. SECT. VIII. PErerius a jesuit confidently pleadeth for the Sense of Touch; c Illud sine dubitatione dicere non verebor, non polle ab ullo D●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, etc.] Perer. Ies. in Gen. 6. num. 78. pag. 2. I fear not (saith he) to say, that the Evidence of Sense is so strong an Argument, to prove without all doubt an humane Body, that the Devil himself cannot herein delude the touch of man, that is of understanding and consideration. As for the unbelieving Disciples, [Christ his Handle me, etc.] saith your jesuite 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, benè tamen conjuncta probari cum testimonijs Prophetarum— Ego tamen cùm Cajetano Argumentum illud Tactus efficacissimum fuisse ad comprobandum vetitatem Corporis humani in Christo. Idem. ibid. 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 g Illud Thomae [non credam, &c] pertinaciae & obdurationis vitium erat, & peccatum Infidelitatis. Optimè Orig. lib. 2. con. Celsum, ubi docet Discipulos affirmâsse illum, quem viderunt, esse Christum in Corpore vero suo, & resuscitato: nam Thomas sciebat animas interdùm apparere Corporibus, & proprias formare voces, & tamen non esse Corpora vera. Quapropter non dixit solùm [Nisi videro, non credam] sed adjunxit, [Nisi infero manum in vestigia Clavorum.] Tolet. Ies. Com. in joh. 20. Tolet another jesuite did well discern the case of Thomas to have been an extreme Infidelity, when he said, [Except I put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.] Which prooveth the efficaciousness of the judgement of Sense, in reducing so extreme an unbeliever to believe. Wherein your Authors are authorized by S. Augustine, h Aug. de tempore. Si fortè, inquit, Diceremus Thomae oculos fuisse deceptos, at non possemus dicere ma●us frustratas: de Tactu non potest dubitari. Et Greg. Pont. Plus nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem, quàm fides credentium Discipulorum prosuit: quià dubius ille Carnem palpando ad fidem reducitur, mens nostra omni dubltatione postpositâ. Teste Maldon. Ies. Com. in joh. 20. saying that Although Thomas his Eyes had been deceived, yet his touch was not frustrate. And accordingly by Gregory Pope of Rome, who sticketh not to say, that The Infidelity of Thomas made more for confirmation of Christian Belief, than did the faith of the other Apostles: Because his Doubtfulness being convinced by the Sense of Touching, we are thereby freed from all doubtfulness in the faith. And if this were not sufficient to confute your Cardinal, he may be shackled with his own Answer, who, to disable the Infallibility of the Sense of feeling, said; i See above at (b) That other Arguments were requisite for the certifying the judgement of Sense: and among these Other he reckoneth Christ his speaking, eating, and working Miracles. All which, what are they else (we pray you) but equally Objects of Sense? What Vertigo then may this be called in him, to seek to invalidate the verity of Sense, by an Argument which justifieth the Certainty of Sense? A third Confirmation of the Truth of Senses, as sufficient in Divine Causes, for discerning Objects of Sense: and particularly in perceiving Bread and Wine to continue the same in this Sacrament; by the judgement of Ancient Fathers. SECT. IX. HOw many Heretics of old were there (such as the Valentinians, Montanists, Marcionites) who denied that Christ had a True, and Essential Body? and how absolutely were they confuted of Ancient Fathers, by the Evidence of men's Senses that heard, saw, and felt the Body of Christ? Which showeth plainly, that a Demonstration by Sense standeth good and strong, even in Christian Philosophy. And to come to the point in Question, (to conclude again from the Premises in the former Section,) who can deny this Consequence, viz. By the same Evidence may a Christian man prove Bread to be truly Bread, after Consecration, whereby Christ proved his Body to be a Body of flesh, after his Resurrection? But this he did from the Infallibility of Sense. Therefore this may be equally concluded by the same Argument of Sense. And that there is the same Reason of both these, the Ancient Father Theodoret showeth in the Argument, wherewith he confuted an Heretic by Sense, thus; k Eranistes apud Theod. Quia sicut Panis desinit esse Panis post Consecrationem, sed mutatur in substantiam Corporis Christi. Ita Corpus Christi post resurrectionem desinit esse propriè Corpus, sed in Naturam divinam mutatur Orthodox. Imò verò, ut te capiam in laqueis his: Signa mystica non recedunt à naturà suâ, manent enim in priori suâ formâ, figurâ, & substantià. Theod, Dial 2. c. 24. As after Consecration (saith he) Bread remaineth the same in substance: So Christ his Body after the Resurrection remained in substance the same. Thus much of the Analogy. (As for the word [Substance] more is to be spoken thereof * See hereafter, Sect. 12. hereafter.) Yea, and Saint Augustine will not suffer the Communicant to blindfold himself, whose Testimony (digested by l Beda ex Augustino, Serm. ad Insd●●tes in cap. 10. ad Cor. fol. 139. apud Bedam. Quod vidistis Panis est, quod oculi vestri renunciant, quod autem fides vostra, etc. Sic●● ex multis granis tritici unus Panis: Ita ex multitudine fidelium, una assurgit Ecclesia. Reed) is this: That which you have seen is Bread, as your eyes do manifest unto you. And he speaketh of Bread, as this Sacrament was a Symbol, and Sign of the mystical Body of Christ, which is his Church, consisting of a multitude of Faithful Communicants, as one Loaf doth of many grains of wheat. ⚜ Give chrysostom leave to put in his suffrage, especially in that Sentence, 13 Chrysost. de Resurrect. (Objected by D. Heskins in his Parliam. Book. 2. Chap. 11.) Non est meum, meos ludificare Phantasmate, vanam imaginem visus si timet, veritatem corporis manus ac digitus exploret: Possie fortassis aliqua oculos caligo decipere: Palpatio Corporalis verum Corpus agnoscat, Spiritus non habet ca●nem & ossa, ut me sentitis habere. Quòd ostia clausa penetravi, sola est virtus divina, non sola carnis substantia. which is objected against us by your own Doctor, wherein that holy Father bringeth in Christ, as speaking to his Disciples, concerning the verity of the Sense of Feeling, and delivereth two points, especially remarkable. One is, that Although the Sight, by reason of some defect, might be easily deceived: yet the Trial by Touch, in discerning a Body of flesh, is beyond all peradventure. The Second is, that if Christ should have propounded any Object, as being a Body, wherein their Touch should be deceived, he might then be said to have mocked and deluded his Disciples. Whereunto accordeth the like Testimony of Pope Gregory, above cited, in the former Section. And is not the Touch, in discerning the bodily Creature of Bread, and Flesh, of equal efficacy? yea, and again Augustine in another place, objected by your own selves; 14 August. in joh. Tract 26. Objected by Dr. heskin's, Parl. Book. 2. Chap. 219. Our Lord jesus (saith he) commended his Body and Blood in those things, which of many are brought into one certain thing: for the one is made into one of many Grains, and so Consisteth; the other Cometh into one, of many Grapes. Consonantly S. Cyprian, and as plainly, 15 Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 6. ad Mag. Nam quando Dominus Corpus suum panem vocat, de multorum granorum adunatione congestum; Populum nostrum quem portabat, indicat adunatum: & quando Sanquinem suum v●num appellat, de botris & 〈◊〉 expressum, gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum. (luxta Edit. Pamel. Epi. 76) When Christ called his Body Bread, (saith he) which Bread was made one, by the Gathering together of many Corns; he thereby signifieth our people, whom he bore, showing them united together: and when he called Wine his Blood, which Wine is pressed out of many Clusters of Grapes, and so gathered into one; he signifieth one stock coupled together, by Conjunction of a Multitude into One. Both these holy Fathers (even as chrysostom already, Both. 3. chap. 3. Sect. 4. hath done) teach, as it were with one breath, that the Outward sacramentals, wherein Christ commendeth his Body and Blood, being Substances compounded, the one of divers Corns in one loaf, the other of divers Grapes in one liquor, do so continue the same still at the receiving thereof, (as the Analogy irrefutably proveth,) because these Both signify the mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church of his faithful, by the union of multitudes of people in one. But in your mere Accidents of Bread and Wine, you can have no union either of Grains, or of Grapes; neither can you say, that he spoke not of the things Consecrated, because the things were first Consecrated, before they were commended to his Disciples to be eaten and drank. Athanasius will be content to deliver his vote after the other other now cited Primitive Fathers; who, in confutation of the Heretical Manichees, who fancied only a Fantastical Body of Christ, observeth that ( 16 Athan. Tom. 2. Orat 2. in Assumpt. Christ.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ both did eat meat, and permitted his Body to be touched of his Disciples, that thereby they might have not only their eyes, but also their hands Witnesses of the Truth of his Body, and remove all exception of the apparition of a Ghost, yea, and that By the continued sight hereof with their bodily eyes, Christ insinuated Faith into their souls. Gladly would we know whether even any doctrine could more patronise that Heretical doctrine of a Rhantasticall Body, than this yours, of your manner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist doth where in these appeareth not so much as a Spectrum of that Body, but only (as you ●each) Accidents of Bread. ⚜ Tertullian hath a large Plea against the Academics, who denied the judgement of Sense; wherein he maintaineth the Truth of the Senses, and in proof thereof he manifesteth the Perfection of Christ his Senses in Seeing, Feeling, Tasting, Smelling; and at length he falleth upon the point now in Question, saying, that m Tertull de Animà, cap 7 ad finem. Quid agi●. Academices procacissime? totum vitae fl●tum evertis, ipsius Dei providentiam excaecas— non licet in dubium sensus istos revocare, nè & in Christo de fide eorum deliberetur: nè fortè dicatur, quòd falsò Patris vocem audicrit de ipso testificatam, aut deceptus sit, cum Petri socrum tetigit: aut alium postea unguenti senserit spiritum, quod in sepulturam suam acceptavit: a●um posteà Vin●●aporem, quod in Sanguinis sui memoriam consecr●●t. Sic enim & M●rcion Phantasma cum maluit credere, totius corporis in eo dedigna●us veritatem: Atqui nè in Apostolis quidem ludificata natura est, fidelis fuit & visus, & auditus in Monte, fidelis & gustus Vin● in nup●●js, fidelis tactus Thomae. Recita testationem johannis; Quod audivimus, inquit, quod oculis vidimus; & ma●us nostrae contrectârunt de sermone vitae. Falsa utique testatio, si oculorum & aurium, & manuum sensus natura mentitur. If we yield not to the suffrages of Senses, some may doubt whether Christ perceived afterwards another Sent of ointment, which he received (meaning another that the natural Sunt thereof) before his Burial. And immediately he addeth, (mark we pray you) One might doubt also whether Christ tasted afterwards another taste of Wine, than was that, which he consecrated for the memorial of his Blood. That then, which Christ Tasted, was first Consecrated. Next, he invadeth the Heretic Martion, for denying the Truth of Christ's Body on earth, and confuteth him by the fidelity of the Senses of the Apostles. Faithful (saith he) was their sight of Christ in the Mount, Faithful was their Taste of Wine at the Marriagè, Faithful was the Touch of Thomas, etc. (then concluding:) Which Testifications (saith he) had not been True, if their Senses had been Liars. So he in his confutation not only of the natural Academics, but also of the Heretical Marcionites, who (contrary to the demonstration of the Apostles Senses) denied the truth of the humane Body of Christ. CHALLENGE. THis Apology of Tertullian, in behalf of the verity of the Senses, doth minister to all Christians four Conclusions, First, not to conceit of Accidents without Subjects: but to discern of Subjects, and Substances, by their Accidents. Secondly, that our Outward Senses rightly constituted (more especially the Sense of Feeling) are Demonstrations of Truth, in Sensible Objects. Thirdly, that this verification of Subjects, by their Accidents, is common with Christ, his Apostles, all Christians, and with every reasonably man. And lastly, that Wine is to be discerned to be truly and naturally Wine, after Consecration, by the judgement of the Senses, because he instanceth in this very point: teaching that Christ had the same taste of Substantial Wine afterwards, which he had before in that which he consecrated; even as he had also the same Sent of Substantial Ointment after, which he had before his Burial. And all this even now, when he convinced Martion of Heresy, an Enemy to the Catholic Faith, in denying the Truth of Christ's humane natural Body, notwithstanding the Evidence of Man's Senses. Here had been a full and flat Evasion for that Heretic to say, what tell you us of the validity of the Evidence of two Senses, concerning the Truth of Christ's Body, seeing you yourselves gainsay the judgement of four Senses at once, in denying the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament? This, we say, they must needs have replied, if that the Catholics then had been of your now Roman Belief, to think that all the Senses are deceived, in judging the matter of this Sacrament to continue Bread or wine; and so might they have blown away all this Catholic Confutation of Heretics and Infidels with one and the same breath, together with the like Instances against the same Heresy, already specified, as you have heard. Come now hither all ye that say we must renounce all Verdict of Senses in this Case; and tell us whether any Protestant could have been more opposite to your Doctrine than was Tertullian, in his Defence of this Truth? whereby he also defendeth the Catholic Doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ, and was never hereof questioned by any Catholic, in, or since his days. Let none of you object that of the Disciples, in their way to Emmaus with Christ, of whom it is said, that [ * Luc. 24. 16. They could not know him:] for the same Text giveth this Cause, that their eyes were holden, lest they should see him: and after, * Ibid. vers. 31. Their eyes were opened, and they saw him. So the Evangelist, which is so fare from infringing any thing that hath been said, for the Infallibility of Sense, rightly constituted and disposed, that this thereby is notably confirmed. We call upon Hierome to witness, saying; * Hieron. ad Pammach: contra Errores johan. jerusal. Episc. Scias errorem fuisse non corporis Domini, sed oculorum fuisse clausorum: nam aperti sunt oculi eorum, & videbant. The Error of not discerning Christ, when he was in the midst between them, was not in Christ's Body, but in their eyes, because they were closed that they could not see. Apply we this unto the Eucharist. Dare any Papist say, that the Cause, why any of you cannot see Christ in this Sacrament, is not in his Body (which you believe to be in itself invisible) but in your Eyes, as being shut up; when notwithstanding you will be known, that these are open enough for discerning Colours, and forms of Bread and Wine. ⚜ It can be but a matter of merriment, to acquaint you with that which Master Malloune a jesuite reporteth in good sadness, as thus: 17 Mr. Malloun in his Reply, pag. 305. A devout Maid of the Vulgar sort, by name joane Martlesse, (a thing most admirable, saith he) was able to find out one only consecrated Host, among a thousand unconsecrated, not only by Divine revelation, but also by her natural Senses. So your jesuite (as he saith) out of Waldensis. Although we will not trifle the time, by ask how she could smell out that one Host among a thousand, or whether the Priest infused some smellable virtue into it, to give it a Sent, yet must we tell you, that when afterwards (in the seventh Book) it shall be discovered unto you, that there are incident to the Action of your Priest, in Conscrating, above five hundred possible Defects, which may nullify his whole Act, so that the thing remain still Bread (notwithstanding whatsoever his manner of Consecrating, by him performed;) You will then know how happy it were for your Church, that every Priest at Mass had the use of the Nose of joane Martlesse, to try whether there be any Hosb truly consecrated, as being (according to your Doctrine) substantially Christ's Body, lest that otherwise you fall into Idolatry, by worshipping Bread instead of Christ himself. (See the seventh Book.) ⚜. Our Fourth Proof, that the Substance of Bread remaineth, after Consecration, is taken from the Confessed Sensible Effects. SECT. X. THe Effects, which you n (I.) & (II.) Hostia magna quantitate sumpta verè nutrire potest. Aquin. part. 3. qu. 77. art. 6. Etiam Apostolus 1. Cor. 11. [Alius Ebrius, quidam esurit:] ubi Glossa notat eos, qui post Consecrationem oblationes suas vendicantes inebriarentur. Aquin. ibid. (III.) Archiepiscopus Eboracensis hausto in ipso Calais (ut aiunt) veneno obijt. Matth. Paris. Anno 1154. in vita Steph. Item, Victor Tertius veneno Callci primae Missae mixto perist. Ma●ms●●r lib. 3. cap. 39 & Volater. lib. 23. Henricus Lucelburg. Imp. cùm Eucharistiam acciperet à Fratre ordinis Praedicatorum Bernardo à Florentinis, & à Siciliae rege subornato, illicò caepit aegret●re: ferebatur Monachus sub unguibus venenum habuisse, quo & Calicem, & Hostiam infecerat: mox obi●t Imperator, & Beneventi animain Deo reddidit, Anno 1313. Cuspinian. & Volater. lib. 23. ut resert Zuingerus. (IV.) Quod vermes generantur ex Sacramento dubium non est, cùm experimentis constet. Difficultas ergo circa modum est. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. qu. 77. Art. 5. Disp. 57 pag. 427. Alij ex aëre vermes generari dicunt. Thomas refert hanc opinionem, sed dicit eam esse contrariam ei; quod ad sensum apparet: quod reverà ita est, satisque ab ipso quatuor rationibus confirmatur. Suarez ibid. (V) Generatio, & Nutritio fit ex quantitate Panis, quae divinitùs locum tenet materiae Panis, ut Thomas explicat. Greg. de Valent. Ies. lib. 2. Exam. my●tag. Calvin. p. 446. Nullam esse necessariam materiam, sed solam quantitatem sufficere, ut substet formae substantiali advenienti, sive de potentia ejus educatur, sive per nutritionem varietur. Sic Thomas, & alij. Fundamentum hujus opinionis est, quià convenienter hic modus est sine novi● Miraculis. Haec opinio videtur falsa mihi omninò, & incredibilis.— Dicendum est, necessariam esse omninò aliquam materiam, ex qua Generatio fiat, quià de ratione essentiali hujus Compositi est substantialis materia; propter quod Aristoteles dicit, Impossibile esse Substantiam componi à non substantiâ. Ergo impossibile est, ut Quantitas aleretur ad proprium munus Materiae, & substantialem Causalitatem ejus. Suarez quo supra Disp. 57 Art. 8. §. 3. p. 733. Algerus, Guitmundus, & Waldensis dicunt, ex speciebus nutritionem & generationem fieri non posse. Suarez. ibid. Vtrùm materia generationis sit eadem, quae fuit antèa sub speciebus Panis, vel alia: Thomas eandem esse negat, ne multiplicetur miraculum sinè necessitate. (VI) Mihi tamen videtur eandem numero esse.— Etiam juxtâ quorundam veterum Sententiam, Alens. Bonavent. Innocent. nec majus est miraculum, sive eandem, siuè materiam novam facere. Suarez. ibid. yourselves have discerned to be sometimes in this Sacrament, are these. First, That the Cup doth inebriate, or make drunk. Secondly, The Host taken in great Quantity doth nourish. Thirdly, That, it being poisoned, it paysoneth. Fourthly, That having been long reserved, it engendereth worms, which are bred out of it; and are also fed of the same. Fiftly, That their matter of Generation and nourishment is Substantial; and that the Contrary Opinion is false, and Incredible. Sixtly; That this matter, whereof worms are bred and fed, is the same Bread, which was taken before Consecration. So your own prime Schoolmen, Historians, and jesuites respectively. If then the Bread, now engendering worms, be the Same that was taken to be Consecrated; how say you that, being Consecrated, it is not still the same, our Senses giving Testimony thereunto? THE FIRST CHALLENGE. HEre you have nothing to answer, but that the Bread, whereof new worms are bred, whether it be the Same that was, or not, yet being Bread, it is wrought either by a o Quomodò fiat haec materia— Thomistae liquot dicunt per Conversionem aliquam in 〈◊〉 sum, Panem, A●● iterùm Crea●●; & hoc verius ●uare●● quo supra ⚜ V●●qu●z in 3 Tho. qu. 76. Art 8. Disp 184. c. 5. Probabilior sententia est, à solo Deo per creationem produci ⚜ Miraculous Conversion, or by a New Creation. What? you, who every where teach that none are to conceit of any Miracle in this Sacrament, without necessary Cause, can you possibly be persuaded that there is, or can be any necessary Cause, why God should work a Miracle, either of Conversion into, or of New Creation of Bread, for Breeding, or Feeding of worms? or of Wine, for making such men Drunk, as should taste too largely of the Cup? yea, or else to poison your Enemy, were he p See above at 〈◊〉 num. 3. Emperor, or q Platina in vita Victoris. Henrici Regisfraude (ut Martinus scribit) venend in Calicem injecto, dum sacrificat, necatur See also above at (n) num. 3. Pope? Nay, can it be less than Blasphemy, to say that God worketh Miracles, for the accomplishment of vain, wicked, and mischievous effects? Fare be it from us to imagine that the Blessed Body of our Lord Christ, who by his Touch cured so many diseases, in the time of his mortality, should now, being glorified, miraculously poison his Guests whosoever they be. Believe (if you can) that if God wrought (as you say) a Miracle to convert Accidents into Bread, to engender, or nourish vile worms, that he would not much rather work a miracle, (if any such miracle were herein to be expected) to hinder the poisoning of his faithful Communicants. In all this we appeal again to true Antiquity, and require of you to show, we say not some express Testimony of Primitive Fathers, but so much as any intimation or insinuation, were it but by way of a Dream, of a Miraculous Conversion of the Consecrated Host (when it beginneth to putrify) by being changed again into Bread; or of Mice eating the Body of Christ; or that being putrified it should bread worms; (seeing it were a miracle they should not be so bred) or any such kind of Romish Fancies, and delusions; or otherwise to confess your Objectours to be miserable Proctors of a vile, and desperate Cause. Yet lest any of you may think, that One coming into a Cellar full of new Wine, and made Drunk with the smell thereof, therefore mere Accidents do Inebriate: your jesuite will deny this, and tell you that it is the * In Cella Vi●●ria, novis vinis ●●plerà, solus Accodore infectus, me●●t. Cost. Ies. Christian. Institut. lib. 1. cap. 8. Air infected with the odour which maketh men Drunk. ⚜ And that no Incorporal thing can be nourishment to a corporal Bodily Substance, * See below in this Book, Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Gregory Nyssen doth make good: and your 18 Fra. Marin. Marsen. ord. Minim. Com. in Gen. cap. 1. v. 1. pag. 464. Angelo's nullam substantiam cre●re posse, Sc●tus probat, nisi virtue primi Agentis: quia eorum volitio, intellectio, potentia, sunt Accidents. At impossibile est Accidens osse principium formale producendi substantiam quamcunque, quia Substantia est nobilior quovis Accidentè. A SECOND CHALLENGE, with a Caution. YOur Common and most plausible Objection, to dementate vulgar people, is to persuade them that you cannot attribute Credit to your Senses in this case, without much derogation from Faith. Therefore, for Caution-sake, be it known unto you, that we have not pleaded for the Truth of Senses, as holding nothing credible, but that which may be proved by the Testimony of Senses. This we utterly abhor, as the Gulf of Infidelity, proper to the Athean Sect: for we accord to that saying of an holy Father, Fides non habet meritum, ubi Ratio aut Sensus habet experimentum; and also to that other of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. justin. Exposit. Fidei. justine. In which respect we condemn the Incredulity of Thomas, in that he would not believe, except he should See: yet notwithstanding we, with our Saviour, approve in Thomas, that by Seeing he did believe. For this is a true Tenet in Divinity, Faith may be (Supra) above right Reason, or Sense; but never (Contra) against either. It was never read that God required of any man a belief of any Sensible thing, which was Contrary to the exact judgement of his Senses. And therefore your opposition, in this Case, as it is Senseless, so it is indeed Faithless, as we have already learned from Scripture and Fathers; by whom the judgement of Sense hath been acknowledged to be, in Sensible Objects, a notable Ground of Faith. All this while we have said nothing of your professed manner of Existence of Accidents, which you may read in the Challenge following. ⚜ A THIRD CHALLENGE, Touching the Accidents of Bread and Wine, in this Sacrament. COncerning the Accidents of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament, after Consecration, some are such as were before Consecration inherent in them, as to be Visible, Savory, Solid, etc. And some are Accessary Impressions and Alterations, which accrue afterwards, as if it shall happen to be after Consecration, Hot, Cold, Sweet, or Sower, or the like. We demand, what thing you do judge that to be, which so happeneth to be hot or sweet after Consecration? None can deny but this must be either Quality or Quantity, or some material Substance. We, consulting with two of your own jesuites, hear the one maintaining that these two Accidents have 19 Bellarm. lib. 3. the Eucharist. cap. 24. §. Respondeo tractantur— Si mutatio in Pane Eucharistiae sit sola alteratio, ut calefactio, condensatio, tum non requiritur materia aut substantia pro subjecto: nam Accidentia omnia pro subjecto habent Quantitatem, quae in Sacramento maneat, unde Hostia consecrata dicitur alba, sapida, rotunda, parva. Haec enim omnia denominant Quantitatem, alioqui non possit fieri denominatio, non enim Accidentia de seipsis dicunsu● in Concreto, sed solùm de Subjecto, exceptà Quan●●tate, quae dicitur Quantitas & Quanta. Quantity for their Subject; and the other 20 Lessius Ies. Opusc. de Perfectionibus divinis. lib. 12. cap. 16. num. 112. Alterum Miraculum est circa species, quòd ita Passiones & Impressiones suscipiant aliarum quantitatum, perindè ac si Materiae Panis & Vini rema●●rent, calescunt enim Species, atque frigeseunt, similesque mutationes subeunt. Quidam putant Quantitatem sol●● esse immediate Subject●●h omnium Accidentinum, quod difficile est creditu, quid enim Quantitatis indoli cum illis Qualitatibus? non enim Quantitas haber ullam propensionem ad calorem, frigus, saporem, 〈◊〉 & similia; neque enim illa dicuntur calescere, frigescere, aut benè maleve olere. Confuting this; Because Hotness, Sweetness, and such like Qualities have no affection to Quantity: meaning, that we cannot call any Quantity Cold, Hot, or Sweet; Whereunto we willingly subscribe. As for the said Qualities, which the latter jusuite answereth to be 21 Ibiden. Mihi semper verius est visum, non solùm Quantitatem, sed & alias Qualitates hîc per se existere, nullique Subjecto niti, ac proinde calorem & frigus, & similes Impressiones extrinsecùs immissas non recipi in Speciebus, tanquam in Subjecto proprio, sed & penetratiuè, & mutuo nexu commisce●i. mingled with the other Accidents, which were inherent in the Host, before Consecration, the former jesuit gain sayeth it, because Accidents are not predicated of themselves in the Concrete; to wit, we say not of Coldness it is cold; or of Sweetness, it is sweet. but these are spoken of their Subjects, which we call either Sweet or Gold. And this we likewise approve. Seeing then, that no Accident can be predicated, but of some Subject, and this Subject of Coldness, Hotness, Sweetness, Sourness, and of other the like Accidents happening to the same Sacrament, after Consecration, cannot be so called either in respect of Quantity or Quality, it remaineth that the Subject of them must be a material substance, which, as you yourselves (we know) will swear cannot be the Body of Christ; for you dare not say of it, that it in your touch or taste is either Cold, Sweet, or Sower, You must therefore give us leave to believe it to be still the Substance of Bread. And this our Argument taketh away your Fancy of Accidents without a Subject; else must you affirm that he, or she, whosoever shall make the Host, after it be Consecrated, either Hot, Sweet, or Sour, doth in so doing make so many Miracles of Accidents, which are void of their Subjects; which unnecessary multiplication of Miracles both your old, and new Schools have ever controlled. ⚜ Our First Proof, that Bread remaineth Bread in Substance, after Consecration, in this Sacrament, is by the judgement of Ancient Fathers. First from due Inferences. SECT. XI. TEstimonies of Ancient Fathers infer a necessary Consequence, for proof of the Existence of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament, as might be proved partly by the repetition of many Arguments premised, and partly by intimation of other Arguments afterwards expressed. But we shall be content with, those few, which do more properly appertain to this present Dispute, concerning the nature of a Body. First Irenaeus, speaking of the Eucharist after Consecration, as being not now common Bread, said that r Irenaeus, lib. 4. cap. 34. Sicut Panis, qui est à tetrâ, jam non Communis Panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terren à & coelesti: Sic Corpora nostra participantia Eucharistiam jam non sunt Corruptibilia, sed spem Resurrectionis habentia. It consisteth of an earthly part, and an heavenly: how? even as the Bodies of the Communicants (saith he) are no more corruptible, having an hope of the Resurrection to come. Scan these words, by the Law of Similitude; and it must infallibly follow, that as our Bodies, albeit substantially Earthly, are notwithstanding called Incorruptible, in respect of the Glory and Immortality, in which (through ●ope) it hath an Interest; Even so the Earthly substance of this Sacrament, being Bread, is nevertheless endued with a sacred and Divine property of a Sacramental Representation of Christ's Body. Which Sacrament Origen calling Sanctified meat, saith that the s Origen. in Matth. 15. Ille Cibus, qui sanstificatur per Verbum Dei & Orationem, juxtà id quod habet materiable in secessum emittitur: And after he calleth this [M●teriale] Materia Panis, super quem dictus est sermo. ibid. Material part thereof goeth into the Draught, or siege: which no sanctified heart can conceive of Christ's Body, whereof the Fathers often pronounce, that It goeth not into the Draught. But what is meant by, Material in this place, think you M. * Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 11. Subd. 3. Brerely? namely Magnitude, and other Sensible Accidents, which in regard of their Significations, are materials. So he. Very learnedly answered forsooth! If Magnitudo, that is Greatness, be a Material thing; be you so good as tell us what is the matter thereof? for whatsoever is Material, hath that appellation from its Subject matter. Is is the Body of Christ? then must you grant (which we, with the holy Fathers, abhor to think) that the Body of Christ passeth into the Draught: or is it Bread? Then farewell Transubstantiation. Nay, will you say, but they are mere Accidents. And we Answer, that it was never heard, no not in your own Schools, that mere Accidents were called (which are Origen's words in this place) either Meats, or Materials. Yea, and Origen (that he might be known to understaud Material Bread) furthermore calleth it now, after Consecration, Matter of Bread: not of Accidents of Bread, or yet Accidents signifying Bread: for what Papist will say that the Forms of Bread and Wine, in this Sacrament, after Consecration, are Symbols, or Signs, signifying Bread and Wine; and not Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ? S. Ambrose his Comparison is of like Consequence; t Ambros. lib. 4. the Sacrament. cap. 4. Quanto magis est operatorius Sermo Christi, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud convertantur?— Tu eras vetus Creatura, postquam consecratus, nova Creatura esse coepisti. As one Baptised had been an old Creature, and was made a new one, even so (speaking of the Bread and Wine after Consecration) they being changed into another thing, remain that which they were before. But he (you know) that was baptised, remaineth after Baptism in Substance the same man, although, in respect of Spiritual Graces, he suffereth a Change. Of which Testimony more * See below, ch. 4. Sect. 2. at the let. 〈◊〉 hereafter. Cyprian is a Father much alleged and urged by you, in defence of Transubstantiation; but is now at hand to control you. u Cypria. lib. de Vnctione. Dedit Dominus noster in Mensâ, in qua ultimum Convivium cum Apostolis participavit, propris manibus Panem & Vinum: in Cruse verò manibus mili●um corpus tradidi● v●●●tandum, ut 〈◊〉 Apostolis secretiùs impressa sincera veritas & vera sincerit●s, exponeret Gentibus, quomodò Panis & Vinum Caro ejus essent & Sanguine; & quibus rationibus Causae effectis conrenirent, & diversa nomina, vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam, ut significantia & significata eisdem vocabulis conferentur. Our Lord gave in this Banquet (saith he) Bread and Wine with his own hands, when he partaked thereof with his Apostles: but on the Cross he delivered up his Body to the Soldiers to be pierced with wounds, to the end, that sincere verity, and true sincerity having an inward impression in the Apostles, he by them might manifest to the Gentiles, how that Bread and wine is his Body and Blood, and by what means there may be agreement between Causes, and Effects; and how different names and forms might be reduced to one Essence; that things signifying, and things signified might be called by the same names. So he. A Catholic Father, as all know; whom if you ask, what Consecrated thing it was, which Christ had in his hands, and gave to his Disciples, he answereth it was Bread, and Wine; and not absolutely that, which he gave up to be Crucified on the Cross by Soldiers, (namely) his Body, and Blood. If again you demand of Cyprian, why Christ called the Bread, which he had in his hand, his Body, he readily answereth saying: The things signifying (or Signs) are called by the same names, whereby the things signified are termed. ⚜ The Marcian Heretic held Bread and Wine to be unclean Creatures: Tertullian confuteth them, But how? even by the Bread and Wine used of Christ in the Eucharist; Because Christ (saith he) did not reject his Creature, wherewith he represented his own Body. In which Testimony the word, [Representeth,] being spoken of the Eucharist, it must needs note it as a thing Consecrated, else could it not be said to Represent the Body of Christ. And by calling this a Creature representing Christ's Body, he distinguisheth it from Christ's Body. And lastly, the Heretic teaching the Substance; and not the Accidents of the same Creature, Bread, to be unclean, and Tertullian disproving him by the Sacramental Bread, must as necessarily have meant a continuing of the Substance of Bread, as all the Laws of Arguing do proclaim; which teach all Answerers and Confuters to speak ad Idem. ⚜ A x Casaubon. Exercit. ad Baronij Annal. c. 38. Ignatius Epist ad Ep●es. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ad Philadelph. de Eucharistia loqueas; Panis, inquit, omnibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] comminutus est. Vox haec propriè de ijs usurpatur, quae i● m●nutas partes comminuuntur. Sunt qui eas micas vocant. August. in Epist. 59 ad Paulinum; Cum illud, ait, quod est in Domini mensâ benedicitur, & Sanctificatur, ad distribuendum comminuitur. Idem. Casaub. qua supra cap. 50. Olim in Ecclesia partes divisas vocabant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potiùs, quàm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Patres in Synod. Nicaen. Can. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [Yea and Baronius himself, Anno 57 num. 149. Euchristiae parts. Tert. de Monog. Buccellas: & August. ac Alij Particulas vocant. Cyrillas in joh. l. 4. c. 14. Chrstus dedit fragmenta Panis. Cyprianus de Coena. Buccellam de manu Domini accipere And Aug. Burcella] See 〈◊〉 5. c. 3. §. 2. Protestant of admirable learning, unfolded unto you the judgement of Antiquity, from the Testimonies of divers Fathers, in saying of this Sacrament, after Consecration, that The Bread, by being divided, is diminished: that, It is delivered by fragments: that these are so little, that they are to be called rather Bits, than Parts. Thus they spoke expressly of Bread Consecrated; but to say that you eat Bits and Fragments of whiteness, of Roundness, and other Accidents, who is so absurd among yourselves? and to affirm the same of Christ's Body, who is so impious? ⚜ Only it will be our duty to Answer the Objection of Doctor Heskins, for proof of the Corporal presence of Christ his Body; who produceth the Cautions, which Pope Clement, in his second Epistle, gave to the Priests and Deacons, concerning the Fragments, and pieces of that which he calleth Fragments of the Lords Body; Charging them, 22 Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ. That no Mice-dung may be seen among the Fragments of the Lords Portion: Nor that they be Suffered to remain rotten through their negligence. We Answer; First, by the words, Fragments of Christ's Portion, are to be understood either mere Accidents, and then are your Disputers unconscionable, to argue from Fragments of mere Accidents, for a Substantial Existence of the Body of Christ: Or else thereby you must believe they meant properly Christ's Body, and then should you be altogether blasphemous, to teach a Body of Christ rend into Fragments, and Portions; and the same pieces of the same Body to be in themselves subject unto the pollution of Mice-dung, Putrification, and Rottenness. Here, indeed, were there some use of the admirable * Below in the fourth Book. 〈◊〉 Nose of joane Martlesse, above mentioned by your jesuite, to smell out the Abomination of this your Romish Doctrine. Somewhat more of this Point when we shall appeal to the Canon of that famous Council of * See 〈…〉 c. 2. §. 10. in the Collenge. Nice. In the Interim we may well think, that that Primitive Church, which abhorred to think the Body of Christ should be Devoured, or pass into the Draught, would never have consented (as* She did) to the Burying of the Sacrament, which remained after the Communion; if they had conceived it to be Really the Body of Christ. Another Inference we may take from Antiquity, in her calling this Sacrament [Pignus] a Pledge (so y Hierom. in 1. Cor. 11. Dominus passionis suae ultimam nobis Commemorationem, & memoriam reliquit: quenadmodùm siquis peregre proficiscens aliquod pignus ei, quem diligit, derelinquat, ut possit eius amicitias, & beneficia commemorare. Hierome, and z Gaudent. Tract. 20. Christus crucifigendus istud haereditarium munus Testamenti ejus Novi, tanquàm Pignus suae Praesentiae, dereliquit. Gaudentius) of the Presence of Christ now departed from us. A perfect Argument of the Bodily Absence of Christ, by virtue of the Relation between the Person and his Pledge; And so doth also * Primasius, See-Booke 5. Chap. 9 §. 〈◊〉. Primasius. The third and last Classis of Fathers may be viewed in the Section following. A Confirmation of the same judgement of the Fathers, acknowledging in express terms, Bread to remain, after Consecration, in Substance the same. The First Father is THEODORET. SECT. XII. THeodoret maketh a Dialogue, or Conference between two Parties, being in Controversy about the humane and bodily nature of Christ; the one is named Eranistes, upon whom is imposed the person of an Heretic, for Defence of the Sect of the Eutychians, who (falsely) held, That the Body of Christ, after his Ascension, being glorified, was swallowed up of his Deity, and continued no more the same humane and Bodily Essence, as before his Resurrection it had been. The other Party and Disputer is named Orthodoxus, signifying the Defender of the Truth of the Catholic Doctrine; which Person Theodoret himself did sustain, in behalf of the Catholic Church. In this Dispute the Heretic is brought in, for Defence of his Heresy, arguing thus; Even as Signs in the Eucharist, after the words of Invocation (or Consecration) are not the same, but are changed into the Body of Christ: even so, after his Ascension, was his Body changed into a Divine [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] meaning, Substance of a Divine Essence. Which both your Romanistes and Protestants confess to have been the Doctrine of these Heretics. This was that Heretic his Objection. The Orthodox, or Catholic (which was Theodoret himself) cometh to answer, promising to catch the heretic, as he saith, in his own Snare, by retorting his Argument of Similitude against him, thus: a Theod. Dial. 2. c. 24. Non post sanctificationem mystica signa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 post. Sic illud Corpus Christi priorem habet Formam, Figuram, Circumscriptionem, & (de summatim dicam) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: etiamsi post resurrectionem immortal, & immune ab omni corruption. Nay, But as the mystical Signs in the Eucharist, after Sanctification, depart not from their former nature, but continue in their former Figure, Form and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is, Substance. So the Body of Christ, after the Resurrection, remaineth in its former Figure, Form, Circumscription, and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉], or Substance which it had before. You may perceive that the Assertion, set down in the name of a Grand Heretic, is absolutely your Romish Profession for Transubstantiation at this day, (to wit) Bread is changed after Consecration into the Substance of Christ's Body; and that also the Assertion of Theodoret, in the person of the Catholic Professor, being flat contradictory, is as absolutely the Doctrine of Protestants, defending that Bread after Consecration remaineth in Substance the same. Wherefore if ever, it now concerneth your Disputers to Free your Romish Article from Heresy: which divers have undertaken to do by their Answers, but alas! so absurdly, that any reasonable man must needs laugh at their Answer; and so falsely, as which any man of conscience must as necessarily detest. The Principal Answer is that, which your b Non loquitur de substantiâ, quae distinguitur contra Accidentia, & quam in Categori●â posuit Aristoteles; sed de Essentiâ, & naturâ Accidentium. Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 27. §. Sed me. Cardinal giveth, that Theodoret, in saying that Bread remaineth the same in Figure, Form, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; By [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] meant not Substance, properly understood, but the Essence of Accidents. So he. ⚜ Or as your 23 Gordon. Ies. lib. Controu. 4. cap. 4. num. 12. De signorum (id est, Accidentium) substantia loquitur. jesuite saith, Thesubstance of the Signs, which are Accidents. An answer (by your leave) No oriously, Ridiculously, and Heretically False. First, Notoriously false, because the Argument of Theodoret, being taken from a Similitude, and every Similitude consisting of two Propositions, the first called Protasis, and the other Apodosis, it is necessary by the Rule of Logic; (as you know) that the words and terms, betokening the same Similitude, be used in the same signification in both Propositions. But in the Apodosis of Theodoret, which is this: So the Body of Christ, after the Resurrection, remaineth the same in Figure, Form, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; by the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] was meant properly Substance, because this was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the main point in Question between Theodoret and the Heretic, viz. whether the Substance of Christ's Body continued the same, which it had been in time before his Resurrection; (the Heretic denying it, and Theodoret proving it to be absolutely still the same in Substance:) and not whether the same only in Quantities, and Accidents; for those the Apostle teacheth to be alterable, * 1. Cor. 15. 34. Corruption putting on Incorruption, Mortality Imortality, and shame Glory. Therefore in the Protasis, and first Proposition of that comparison of Theodoret, (which was this, As the Bread remaineth the same in Figure, Form, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] can have no other signification than Substance, properly taken. Secondly, Ridiculously false, because in reckoning Figure and Form, which are known to be Accidents, and adding [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] this necessarily is opposed to the former Two, as Substance to Accidents. Nor was there (we suppose) ever any so unlearned, who did add the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to Forms, and Figures, but he thereby meant to distinguish it as a Substance from its Accidents. Thirdly, Heretically false; for what was the Heresy of the Eutychians? tell us; They (say c Alphonsua à Castro, de Haeres. Eurych. Negabant Christum habuisse naturam humanam; tantùm in eo ponentes naturam divinam. you) held that Christ (namely after his Resurrection) had not an humane nature, but only Divine. Which word, Humane Nature, doth principally imply the Substantial nature of Man; and therefore in his comparison, made for the illustration of that Heresy concerning Bread, after Consecration, in Figure, Form, and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the same word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] had the same signification of Substance, as your Master Brerely afterwards is compelled to confess: who, to the end he may disgrace Theodoret, rudely and wildly taketh upon him to justify the Heretics speech to be Catholic, for proof of Transubstantiation. Wherefore Theodoret, in his Answer, Retorting (as he himself saith) the Heretics Comparison, against him, did, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, likewise understand Substance, else had he not disputed ad Idem; but by a shameful Tergiversation had betrayed his Catholic Cause unto that pernicious Heretic. Much like as if one should use this Comparison following. As the Moonshine in the water (in the opinion of the Vulgar) is truly of the same bigness with the Moon in the Firmament; so a feigned friend is equally as loving as is a Faithful. And another retorting the same, should confute him, saying; Nay, but as the Moonshine in the water, is not of the same bigness with the Moon in the Firmament; even so a feigned friend is not equally loving as is a Faithful. Here the word [Love] being taken for Loyal Affection by the Objectour, if the sense thereof should be perverted by the Answerer and Retorter, to signify Lust, the Disputers might be held to be little better than those Two in * Alter hireum mulget: alter cribram supponit. A. Gellius, where such an Objectour is compared to a man milking an Hee-goat, (or if you will, a Bull) and the Answerer to another holding under a Sieve. ⚜ Observe also that Arius the Heretic, being required to tell What is Substance (Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) answered, That is Substance, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] whereby a thing doth subsist. And 23 Athan. Tom. 1. Disput. count. A●ium, ubi Arius: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cui Athan●s●●s, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athanasius himself approved hereof, saying, Thou hast answered rightly: This could they not have said, if that the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] had not been universally taken in the Greek Church, aswell among Orthodox, as among Heretics: for that which giveth a Subsisting to other things (as you yourselves will not deny) is to be properly a Substance. ⚜ Here had we fixed a Period, but that we again espied one Master Brerely (a Romish Priest) coming against us with a full career, who after that he had been * Vid Protestants Appeal, Book. 2. ch. 2. §. 10. confuted, for urging the former Objection, notwithstanding, concealing the Answer, he blusheth not too regest the same; albeit, as one conscious to himself of the futility thereof, he leaveth it presently, falling foul upon Theodoret, as though that Father had been in some distemper, when he so, writ: d In his Liturgic of the Mass. Tract. 2. §. 2 subd. 3. p. 254. saying, first, that Theodoret used that his Retortion in his * Not so, for he was now not i●●a personal Dispute, but deliberately writing against th● Heresia of the Eutychiant. heat of Dispute. Then he taketh part with the Heretic, saying, It is not likely that an Heretic should have urged against a Catholic sentence for Transubstantiation, as for a point of Faith well known, if the same Doctrine had been then either unknown, or else condemned, as False. So he, who might aswell have reasoned, in the behalf of the Sadduces, condemned by Christ, saying: It is not likely that they would so expressly have denied that there a●e any Spirits, in their Dispute against Christ, if that Doctrine had been then either unknown or condemned as False, by the Church of God, among the jews. And yet it is certain that the Heresy of the Sadduces was judged execrable in that Church. Now if the Eutychian Heretic find such Patronage at the hands of your Priest, alas! what will become of the Father Theodoret? Harken, Theodoret being an Orthodox Bishop (saith he) could not have propounded the Heretics Argument, as grounded upon the Churches received Doctrine of Transubstantiation, had the same been then unknown, and reputed False. So he, who if he had not lost his Logic, would certainly have argued contrarily, saying; Theodoret, being an Orthodox and Catholic Bishop, would never have set down an Objection for Transubstantiation, in the name of a rank Heretic, and after himself impugned and confuted the same, except he had known it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholic Church in his time. Wherefore if you be men of Faith, and not rather of Faction, let the miserable perplexities of your Disputers, discovered both here, and throughout this whole Treatise, move you to renounce them, as men of prostituted Consciences; and their Cause, as forlorn of all Truth. For a further Evidence, take unto you an Answer of your jesuite Valentia, to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity: It is not to be held any marvel (saith * Valent. Ies. l. 2. de Transub. c. 7. Dabimus aliud breve, & simplex, & sine ullo incommodo responsum. Enimverò antequam quaestio ista de Transubstantiatione palàm in Ecclesia agitaretur, minime mirûm est si unus, aut alter, aut etiam aliqui, minùs considerarè, & rectè hac de re senserint, & scripserint; maximè cum non tractar●nt ex instituto ipsam quaestionem. he) why some Ancients have writ, and thought less considerately and truly, before that Transubstantiation was handled publicly in the Church, especially they not handling the same Question of purpose. So he; and this he calleth a Brief and plain Answer. And so it is, whereby, in granting that Transubstantiation had not been so Anciently handled in the Church, he plainly confuteth your now Roman Church, which judgeth it to have been always an Article of Faith. And affirming that the same Fathers Handled not the point of purpose, it is as plainly confuted by Theodoret, who in this Dispute did not argue against the Heretic 〈◊〉 extemporal speech personally, but deliberately and pun●●lly by writing, and therefore of Purpose. The Second Father expressly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament, after Consecration, is Pope GELASIUS. SECT. XIII. THis Author have Protestant's called Pope Gelasius, and urged his Testimony. Your Disputers civil; First at the name of the Author, calling Protestants e Non fuit hic Papa Gelasius ut Adversarij impudentèr jactant; sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus. Bellar. lib. ●. de Euch. c. 27. Impudent, for styling him Pope Gelasus. But if he were not that Pope Gelasive, what Gelasius might he be then? Gelasius Bishop of Caes●rea, saith your Cardinal Bellarmine. Contrarily your f Baronius himself intends that it was not that Pope Gelasius, Anno 496 num. 123. etc. yet coming to answer to the Sentence of Gel●siu● doth expound toe doubtful words there of by the phrases of Pope Gelasius, ex Epist. ad P●●enos, & Dardan. Episc. num. 13. 14. which Epistles he before cited, as the true Epistles of Pope Gelasius. Anno 493. num. 23. and Anno 494. num. 2. And after Anno 496. num. 17. telleth his Reader, saying, Vides, Lector, ex usu verborum Phrasiquè d●cēdi Gelasij Papae, & alia ejus sententia perspicu●, demonstratum esse, etc. Et An●o 996 num. 13. Gel● in Epist. ad Picen est, Peccato Originall substantiam hominis esse depravat●m, eum tamen eadem substantia mansit, & Accidentia; ut pote justitia originalis, & alia dona 〈◊〉. Cardinal Baronius contendeth that he is a more ancient Gelasius, Anno 47. (namely) Gelasius Cyzicenus; yet so, as confounding himself, insomuch that he is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech (as he confesseth) of Gelasius ●ope of a Rome. But what shall we answer for the Impudent Protestants, as yo● Cardinal hath called them? Surely, nothing, but we 〈◊〉 more modesty in him, who hath so called them; considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides, nor mean, to follow than these g Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutyche●em. Genad. de scriptoribus Eccles. c. 14. Anastas. de vita 〈◊〉 Margarinus de la Bigat lib. 5. Biblioth. Patrum. pag. 467. Masson de Episc. Rom. in vita ●elasij. A●p●onl. lib. de naeres. Tit. Christus, haeres. 3. in fine. Onuphrius de Create. Pontif. & Cardin Gel●sius (〈◊〉) scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem & Nessorium Fuisse Caesariensem Episcopum, non posse jure affirmari videtur. And proveth, why not. Historians, viz. Genadius, yea your Bibliothe carry Anastasiùs, Alphonsus de Castro, Onuphrius, Massonius, Margarinus la Bigne: all which have entitled this Gelasius, Pope of Rome. Howsoever, it is confessed on all sides, that he was an Orthodox Father, and very Ancient. Now then. Gelasius said that h Gelasius lib. de duab. nature. count. Eutych. Sacramenta certa, 〈…〉 corporis & sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quodper eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae, & tamen non definit esse substantia vel natura panis, & via●; & certè imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christin in Actione mysticâ celebratur. And again. Permanent in proprietate naturae. The Sacraments of the Body, and Blood of Christ, being Divine things, yet cease not to be the nature and substance of Bread and Wine. In Answer whereunto, both your foresaid i Bellar. & Baton quo supra. At dicit Gelasius. In Divinaru transcunt Spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam, permanent tamen suâ pro●●etate naturae: [By this it may be seen, indeed, that this Gelasius was a Latin Author, (but what is this to the Greek Theodoret?) when the Latin Language was not so perfect, and that he did use the word equivocally, but yet so; that the matter itself doth challenge a proper use thereo, when he speaketh of the Substancè of Bread, for confutation of the same heresy.] Cardinals here (as before) by Substance interpret Accidents: one of them labouring to prove that Gelasius somewhere else called Accidents, Substances. Were this granted, yet the Argument, which Gelasius hath in hand, will compel the understanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance. For where as the Heretic Eutyches taught that Christ his Body was changed into the Substance of his Divinity, after the Resurrection, and that the substance of his Body remained no more the same; Gelasius confuteth him by a Similitude, and Comparison, viz. That as the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration: So Christ his Bodily Substance remained after the Resurrection. Wherein if the word, Substance, be not in both places taken properly, Gelasius should have made but a mad Reason, as any reasonable man will confess. For albeit Similitudes do not amble always on four feet, yet if they halt upon the right foot, (which is the matter in Question) they are to be accounted perfect Dissimilitudes. Master k Master Brereley Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 3. pag. 259. Brerely would have you to know, that this Gelasius (whosoever he were) writeth against the same Eutychian Heresy, that Theodoret did; and thereupon useth accordingly, to his like advantage, the words Substance, and Nature, in the same sense, as did Theodoret. So he. And he saith true; and therefore must we assure ourselves of the consent of this Gelasius with us, until you shall be able to free yourselves from our former Interpretation of Theodoret. But Master Brerely opposeth against us another sentence of Gelasius, from whence he concludeth that Gelasius held Transubstantiation: so that Gelasius must rather contradict himself, than that he shall not consent to the Romish Tenet. Whereas, indeed, he saith no more than, in a mystical sense, any Protestant must, and will allow, viz. that The Sacrament is a Divine thing, and that whosoever eat spiritually the Body of Christ, are by it made partakers of the blessing of his Divine Nature, which dwelleth in Christ bodily, saith the Apostle, So Gelasius. Whereof copiously throughout the fift Book. To which Saying of Gelasius, touching the Eucharist, is answerable a like Saying of Gregory Nyssen, concerning Baptism, calling it a l Greg Nyssen. A quam per benedictionem sic mutari, ut divinum Lavacrum sit, à quo mirabiles existunt effectus. Orat. de Baptismo. Divine Laver, working miraculous effects. Yea, and Dionysius the m Dionys. Hierarch. Eccles. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. §. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Areopagite bestowed the same Attribute, viz. Divine, upon the Altar, the Symbols, the Priest, the People, and the Bread itself in the Eucharist. If therefore the Epithet [Divine] must argue a Corporal Change, what a number of Transubstantiations must you be enforced to allow? whereas by naming it Divine Bread, as he did term Priest, Divine; People, Divine; it proveth that he meant no Substantial Change. Fie upon blind boldness! This man's falsity, in alleging Chemnitius, I let pass. It is further worthy your Reflection, to observe your Disputers how earnest they have been to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius; contrary to the acknowledgement of your own Historians. May we not therefore suspect that the Testimony in an extemporal speech personally, but deliberately and punally by writing, and therefore of Purpose. The Second Father expressly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament, after Consecration, is Pope GELASIUS. SECT. XIII. THis Author have Protestant's called Pope Gelasius, and urged his Testimony. Your Disputers cavil; First at the name of the Author, calling Protestants e Non suit hic Papa Gelasius 〈…〉 Adversarij impudentèr jactant; sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus. Bellar. lib. ●. de Eu●h. c. 27. Impudent, for styling him Pope Gelasius. But if he were not that Pope Gelasive, what Gelasius might he be then? Gelasive Bishop of Caesarea, saith your Cardinal Bellarmine. Contrarily your f Baronius himself contendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius, Anno 496 num. 123. etc. yet coming to answer to the Sentence of Gelasiu● d●th expound the doubtful words there of by the Phrases of Pope Gelasius, ex Epist. ad Picenos, & Dardan. Episc. num. 13. 14. which Epistles he before cited, as the true Epistles of Pope Gelasius. Anno 493. num. 23. and Anno 494. num. 2. And after Anno 496. num. 17. telleth his Reader, saying. Vides, Lector, ex usu verborum Phrasiquè d●cēdi Gelasi● Papae, & alia ejus sententia perspicu●, demanst●●tum esse, etc. Et An●o ●96 num. 13. Gel. 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Pice● 〈◊〉, Peccato Origi●all substantiam hominis esse depravat●●m, cum tamen eadem substantiam hominis esse depravatam, cum tamen eadem substantia mansit, & Accidentia; ut pote justitia originalis, & alia dona erant 〈◊〉. Cardinal Baronius contendeth that he is a more ancient Gelasius, Anno 47. (namely) Gelasius Cyzicenus; yet so, as confounding himself insomuch that he is forced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech (as he confesieth) of Gelasius Pope of Rome. But what shall we answer for the Impudent Protestants, as your Cardinal hath called them? Surely, nothing, but we 〈◊〉 more modesty in him, who hath so called them; considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides, nor meaner, to follow than these g Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutychetem. Gena●. de scriptoribus Eccles. c. 14. Anastas. de vita Gelasij, Margari●us de la Biga● lib. 5. Bibli●th Pat●um, pag. 467. Masson de Episc. Rom. in vita Gelasij. Alp●●s. lib. 〈◊〉 Daeres. Tit. Christus, ●aeres. 3. in fine. On●plarius de Create. P●nti●. 〈◊〉 Cardin Gelasius 〈…〉 scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem & Nestorium Fuisse Caesariensem Episcopum, non posse jure affirma● vide●ur. And proveth, why not. Heslorians, viz. Genadius, yea your 〈◊〉 the carry Anastasius, Alphonsus de Castro, Onuphrius, Massonius, Margarinus la Bigne: all which have entitled this Gelasius, Pope of Rome. Howsoever, it is confessed on all sides, that he was an Orthodox Father, and very Ancient. Now than Gelasius said that h Gelasius lib. de duab. nature. count. Eutych. Sacramenta certa, qua su●●us corporis & sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod per eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae, & tamen non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis, & v●●; & certè imago & similitudo corporis & ●●nguinis Christi in Actione mysticâ celebratur. And again. Permanent in proprietate naturae. The Sacraments of the Body, and Blood of Christ, being Divine things, yet cease not to be the nature and substance of Bread and Wine. In Answer whereunto, ●oth your foresaid i Bellar. & Ba●on quo supra. At dicit Gelasius, In Divina●u transeunt Spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam, permanent tamen suâ prop●ietate naturae. [By this it may be seen, indeed, that this Gelasius was a Latin Author, (but what 〈◊〉 this to the Greek Theodoret?) when the Latin Language was not s● perfect, and that he did use the word equivocally, but yet so, that the matter itself doth challenge a proper use there●, when he speaketh of the Substa● of Bread, for confutation of the same heresy.] Cardinals here (as before) by Substance interpret Accidents: one of them labouring to prove that Gelasius somewhere else called Accidents, Substances. Were this granted, yet the Argument, which Gelasius hath in hand, will compel the understanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance. For where as the Heretic Eutyches taught that Christ his Body was changed into the Substance of his Divinity, after the Resurrection, and that the Substance of his Body remained no more the same; Gelasius confuteth him 〈…〉 That as the Substance of 〈…〉 Christ his Bodily Subst●●●● 〈…〉 ●herein if the word, So 〈…〉 perly, Gelasius should 〈…〉 reasonable man widow 〈…〉 amble always on 〈…〉 t foot, (which is the 〈…〉 d perfect Dissimili 〈…〉 Master (〈…〉 s Gelasius k Master Brereley Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 3. pag. 259. (whosoe●● 〈…〉 ●●●●●●ian Heresy, that 〈…〉 lie, to his like advantage 〈…〉 me sense, as did Theod 〈…〉 over must we assure 〈…〉 us, until you shall 〈…〉 o Interpretation o● 〈…〉 against us another ser 〈…〉 death that Gelasius he 〈…〉 st rather contradict 〈…〉 Romish Tenet. W 〈…〉 mystical sense, any 〈…〉 e Sacrament is a T 〈…〉 ally the Body of Ch●●● 〈…〉 his Divine Nat●●● 〈…〉 Apostle, So Gelas 〈…〉 ooke. To wh〈…〉 st, is answerable a 〈…〉 Baptism, calling it a l Greg Nyssen. A quam per benedictionem sic mutari, ut divinum Lavacrum sit, à quo mirabiles existunt effectus. Orat. de Baptismo. Yea, and Dionysius the m Dionys. Hierarch. Eccles. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Areopagite bestowed the same Attribute, viz. Divine, upon the Altar, the Symbols, the Priest, the People, and the Bread itself in the Eucharist. If therefore the Epithet [Divine] must argue a Corporal Change, what a number of Transubstantiations must you be enforced to allow? whereas by naming it Divine Bread, as he did term Priest, Divine; it proveth that he meant no Substantial Change. Fie upon blind boldness! This man's falsity, in alleging Chemnitius, I let pass. It is further worthy your Reflection, to observe your Disputers how earnest they have been to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius; contrary to the acknowledgement of your own Historians. May we not therefore suspect that the Testimony objected was distasteful unto them, when they so greatly feared, lest this Witness should be thought to have been a Pope and Supreme Pastor of your Church? Two other Testimonies from Antiquity, for the express acknowledgement of the Existence of Bread after Consecration, in the Sacrament; chrysostom, and Bertram: to whom is added Ephraimius. SECT. XIIII. C Hrysostome his words are these, that n Chrysost. Ante Consecrationem Panem vocamus, Divinâ verò gratiâ Sacerdotis ministerio sanctificatur, & digna appellatione Dominici Corporis habetur, etsi natura Panis in ipso permansit. Epist. ad Caesar. [See of this Doct. Usher, ad Ann. 400. in his Answer to the jesuits Challenge. pag. 64] Bread after Consecration is freed from the name of Bread, being accounted worthy of the name of the Body of Christ, albeit the nature of it remaineth therein still. Your Exception is, that this Epistle is not extant among the works of chrysostom. This your Answer might satisfy us, were it not that it was extant sometime in the Libraries of o So our Peter Martyr. Florence, and p So your Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, lib. 2. de Euch. as he is cited. Canterbury. To whom may be adjoined the Author of that Unperfect work, still standing under the name of chrysostom, and by you upon any occasion objected against us; wherein it is expressly said, that q Author operis imperfecti, in Matth. Hom. 11. Si ergò haec vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sit periculosum, in quibus non est Corpus Christi, sed Mysterium Corporis ejus continetur; quantò magis vasa Corporis nostri, quae sibi Deus ad habitandum praeparavit? The True Body of Christ is not contained within these sanctified Vessels, but the mystery of his Body. It seemeth that your later Parisian Divines were offended with others, who would have these words utterly dashed out of their last Editions, which were published in the former; as you have been admonished by one r Dr. james in his Specimen Corruptelarum, etc. Haec veba habentur in editione Antwer●●● â Anno 1537. Apua joh. Steelsium, & i● Parisiensi An. 1543. Apud joh. Roydwey, ut in Parisiensi aliâ apud Andraeam Parvum, Ann. 1557. most worthy and able to advertise in this kind. Bertram is our next witness from Antiquity, being about 800. years ago, and never noted of Error anciently, until these later times of Booke-butchery (that we may so call your Index Expurgatorius) s Bertramus Gallus circa Annum Domini 810. de Corpore & Sanguine Christi. Prohibitum est omninò à Clment octavo in postremo Indice librorum prohibitorum. Possevin Apparat. Tit. Bertram. denying altogether all liberty to all men of reading this Book. But why? what saith he? He maintaineth (saith your t Bertramus vult Eucharistiam esse Panis & Vini substantian●, quae figuram, similitud●nem, & appellationem Sanguinis Christi gerit. Senens. Biblioth. lib. 6. Anno 196. Senensis) that the Eucharist is the substance of Bread and Wine. And indeed so he doth in his u Bertramus. Secundùm Creaturarum substantiam, quod fuerant ante Consecrationem, hoc & posteà constant: Panis & Vinum priùs extitêre, in qua etiam specie consecrata sunt, permanere videntur. de Corpore Domini, pag. 38. Book dedicated to the Emperor Carolus Calvus, which also he affirmeth to be written x Animadvertat (Clarissime Princeps) sapientia vestra quod positis Scripturarum sacrarum testimonijs, & Patium dictis, etc. Idem pag. 65. According to the truth of Scriptures, and judgement of Ancient Fathers before him. This Author undergoeth also the Censure of the University of Douai, which, confessing him to have been a Catholic Priest, framed divers Answers, whereby they meant to prevent all Objections, which Protestants might peradventure urge, under the Authority of this Author Bertram. But how? Mark this Romish Profession of answering Protestant's, as often as they shall idiot in the sestmonies of ancient Writers: y julicium Vniv●sit●t●s Du●censis, Bertr●m Catholicus Presbyter, & Monachus Corvinensis— ●a C●ho●cis vere●bas ●●●larimos 〈◊〉 errores, & extenaemus, excu●emus, excogit●to Commen●●●aepè negemus, & c●nmodum e●s sensum assingamas, du●n●ob●●●acur 〈◊〉 Disp●●a●●onibus cum Ad●ers●●js. Index Ex●urg. juxta Conc. Trident. Decret. 2. Philippi 2. Reg. Hispan. Jussu Anno 1571. Let us (say they) in Disputation's with our Adversaries, objecting ancient Authors, tolerate many of their Errors, extenuate and excuse them; yea and oftentimes, by some devised Comment or shift, deny them, as also by feigning to apply some apt sense unto them. So that University. This being the guise and professed Art of your Schools, to use all their wits how to delude their Opposites in Disputation, what great confidence shall any have of their sincerity in answering? Let us leave Bertram under the Testification and Commendation of Abbot z Bertramus Presbyter. qui in divinis Scriptu●s valdè peritus, non m●●ùs vitâ, quàm doctrinâ i●signis, multa scripsit praeclara Opu●cula, de quibus ad meam noti●●m pauca pervenerunt Ad C●rolum Regem, fratrem Lotharij Imperaroris, scripsit Commendab●le opus de Praedestinatione; & libru● usuage Corpore, & Sanguine D●n●i. Trithem. Abbas. Trithemius, for his Excellent Learning in Scripture, his godly life, his worthy Books, (and by name this now-mentioned, written expressly) of the Body and Blood of Christ. ⚜ Ephraimius Bishop of Antioch, of primitive Antiquity, whose Sentence is recorded by Photius, standeth thus, 24 Photius Bibliothec. ex Ephr●mio. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pag. 415. Edit. August●ae Vindelic. 1601. The Body of Christ, which is received by the faithful, loseth nothing of its sensible substance, nor is it separable from grace; as Baptism, which is spiritual, being entirely one in itself, preserveth the property of its sensible substance, (I mean water) and loseth not that which it was. So he. Expressly reveiling unto us in what Sense Antiquity called Bread the Body of Christ; namely (as other Fathers, in good number, have already unfolded) because it is a Sacrament representing Christ's Body. For he clearly speaketh of that, which loseth nothing of its sensible substance, no more than water in Baptism doth lose aught of its sensible substance. Which Analogy of the Eucharist with Baptism will in the last * Book (in a full Synopsis) give an upshot to the whole Cause, concerning the general judgement of the Fathers from point to point. See the like Argument of cyril of jerusalem afterwards, Chap. 4. Sect. 4. CHAP. IU. Answers to the Objections of Romish Doctors, taken from the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, for Transubstantiation. Or, an Antidote to expel all their poisonsome Pretences in that behalf. SECT. I. THis our Antidote is compounded of five Ingredients, used for the Discovery of the unconscionableness of your Disputers, in their Objecting the Testimonies of Fathers under false Pretences. First, upon their terming the mystical Act A Work of Omnipotency. Secondly, their denying of the Eucharist to be Naked and Bare Bread. Thirdly, in forbidding the Communicants to rely upon the judgement of their Senses. Fourthly, in their mentioning the Change of Bread and Wine, in this Sacrament, and calling it Transmutation, Transition, and the like. Fiftly and lastly, in forcing of the speeches of Fathers, which may seem to make for Transubstantiation, as absolutely spoken of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the same Fathers do apply as well to the Sacrament of Baptism, and also to other sacred Rites, wherein you believe there is not any Substantial Change at all. The First unconscionableness of your Romish Disputers, in objecting the Father's speeches of an Omnipotent Work in this Sacrament, for proof of Transubstantiation. SECT. II. A Work of Omnipotency is attributed by divers Fathers to the Change, which is made in this Sacrament, which we likewise confess. a Ambros. Sermo Christ●, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare, quod non erant etc. De myster. i●tian●. c. 9— At omnipotentia non requiritur, ad faciendum ut res aliquid significet. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14. Ambrose ostendit multis miraculis in Eucharistia non esse id quod natura formavit, sed quod Benedictio consecravit. Idem. ibid. c. 24. §. Posterior. & Aug lib. 3. de Trinitate, cap. 4. Ambrose compareth the Change by Benediction, made in this Sacrament, unto many miraculous Works of God; yea, even to the work of Creation. b Ex Cyprian. de Coena D●mini §. Secundum.— Panis iste non effigy, sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro. Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas apparebat, & latebat Divinitas: ità Sacramento visibili divina ●●effundit essentia. Ob. Bella●. lib 2 de Euch. cap. 9 [Whereas Naturâ mutatus signifieth not the Substance, but the Condition: Et factus Caro, is no more than a Sacramental and mystical Being of the Body of Christ, as all other places of Cyprian shewe●.] Cyprian speaketh of a Change in nature, by Divine Omnipotency, c Aug. de Trinitate. lib. 3. Non sanctificat ut sit magnum Sacramentum, nisi operante spiritu Dei, quae per illos, cum haec omnia Corporales motùs sint, Deus operatur. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Sed Paulo. Augustine reckoning it among God's miracles, saith that This Sacrament is wrought by the Spirit of God. Accordingly we hear d Chrysost. hom. 83 Non sunt humanae v●tutis haec opera, quae tunc in idâ Coe●â confecit, ipse nunc quoque, operatur, ipse perficit, ministrorum nos crdinem tenemus: qui vera ●aec sanctificat atque transmutat ipse est. This is objected by Mr. Brerely, Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. a. pag. 111. Liturg. chrysostom proclaiming, that These are not works of humane power: He that changeth, and transmuteth now, is the same that he was in his last Supper. Each one of these Testimonies are principally alleged by your Disputers, as the strongest fortresses for defence of your Article of Transubstantiation, and being taken altogether, they are esteemed as a Bulwark impregnable; but why? e See above in his objecting of Ambrose. Because (saith your Cardinal) Omnipotency is not required to make a thing to be a Sign Significant. So he. We answer first from your own Confessions, and then from the Fathers themselves. There are two works observable in every Sacrament; one is to be a Sign of an Invisible grace, promised by God: the other to be a Seal and Pledge thereof, as all Protestants hold; and (as your most opposed f Calvia. Semper memoriâ repetendum est, Sacramenta nihil quàm ●ustrumentales esse confetendae nobis gratiae Causas. Antid in Conc. Trid. Sess. 7 Can. 5. Calvin teacheth) an Instrumental cause of conferring grace to the partakers of the Sacraments. In both which Respects there is required an Omnipotency of a Divine work, without which the Element cannot be changed into a Sacrament, either to signify, or yet to seal, much less to convey any grace of God unto man. And (that we may take you along with us) It is the Doctrine of your Church, with common consent (saith your Roman g Solus Deus (communi Consensu) instituere Sacramenta ex authoritate potest, quae gratiam efficiunt, aut etiam infallibiliter significant. Bellar. l. 1. de Sacram. in Gen. cap. 23. Cardinal) that God only can by his Authority institute a Sacrament, because he only can give them power of conferring grace, and of Infallible signification thereof. So he Well then, aswell infallible Signification of Grace, as the efficacious conveyance of Grace, is the work of the same Omnipocencie. To this purpose more plainly your English Cardinal Alan, speaking (as he saith) from the judgement of Divines, h Card. Alan de Sacram. in Gen. c. 17. & 18. Sacramenti Institutionem neque ad Pontificem; neque ad ullam Creaturam pertinere: nec hoc solum sed etiam, &c— propter solam significationem Gratiae, quam Sacramentis omnibus Communem diximus, d●bebant etiam vetera Sacramenta determinari per applicationem mortis Christi: quia licet quidem in Creaturis, ad signationem effectuum spiritualium, aptitudo quaedam sit, tamen ista aptitudo non nisi a divinâ institutione determina●ur ad peculiarem effectum. Habet enim Aqua ex natura sua ut munditiem significet, at ut determinatè purgationem animae à peccato originali significet, & hominis sanctificationem repraesentet; divinae tantùm institutionis est, per quam elevatur Creatura haec supra naturae consuetudinem, non solùm quoad vim operandi, sed etiam significandi. Non potest Sacramentum nisi à solo Deo Ordinari, quià habent Sacramenta Supernaturalem Effectum, ut in veteri lege, quae debant munditiem legalem. These (he saith) that he speaketh, Ex Theologorum Sententia. telleth you that Although there be an aptness in every Creature to bear a signification of some spiritual effect, yet cannot the aptness be determinately applied unto any peculiar effect, no not so much as to signify the outward Cleanness of man's Body (Sacramentally) without a Divine Institution; much less to represent man's sanctification: but being so determinated and ordained of God, the Creature (saith he) is elevated above the Custom of nature, not only in respect of the work of sanctification, but even of signification also. So he; and that as well as we could wish: for this Omnipotent Change of a Creature into a Sacrament, and this justrumentall Cause of conferring Sanctifying Grace, to the Faithful Communicant, is the General Doctrine of all Protestants. But what Change shall we think? Of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body, as you teach? No; but as * Book 2. Chap. 3. §. 6. before Isidore said, The Change of visible things, by the spirit of God, into a Sacrament of Christ's Body. So he. This being a Change from a Property natural into a Property Supernatural, which Change is Divine, albeit but Accidental: whereunto accordeth that objected place of * See above at the letter (c) Augustine, that This is sanctified by the Spirit of God to be a Sacrament. Seeing then that both Divine power and authority is required in every Sacrament, to make it either infallibly significant, or else efficaciously profitable to man; and that it is by the same Divine power that the Element is Changed, by being Elevated from a common, unto a spiritual and divine property of a Sacramental Signification, as one of your Cardinals hath said: What an unconscionableness is it then in your Disputers; from the terms of Omnipotency and Divine working, which is necessarily in all Sacraments, to conclude a Change of the Element of Bread, by Transubstantiation, as you have heard. But much more transparent will their unconscionableness be, if we consult with the Objected Father's themselves. For first Ambrose, who observeth an Omnipotency in the Change of this Sacrament, explaineth himself what kind of Efficacy he meant, viz. such, that i Ambros. lib. 4 de Sac. am c. 4. Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini, ut incipian● ess quae non erant quantò magis Operatorius est, ut sint quae erant, ●t in alod convertantur?— Tu ipse eras ver●●s homo, postquàm consecratus eras, no vus homo esse coepisti. The things changed into a divine Sacrament are still the same, which they were before (namely) according to their natural property. Which one Clause doth so strangle all conceit of Transubstantiation, that it may seem you have some reason to wipe this Testimony of S. Ambrose out of your new k These words [ut sint quae erant] are wanting in the Roman and Paris Editions, Anno 1603 as Bishop Usher 〈◊〉 nesseth in his Answer to the Tesuit. Editions: notwithstanding, by God's providence; so much of Ambrose his tongue is preserved, even in the same place, as will convince your Objectors of wilful Falsehood; telling you by a Similitude, that the Change of Bread in this Sacrament is like to the Change, whereby a Christian Regenerate l See above at (1) of an old Creature is made a new Creature: which is (as every Christian knoweth) not a change in the substantial nature of man, but in the Accidental properties. So this Bread of a common bodily Food is made Sacramental. And the same Father who said of a man, that by Baptism he is made a new Creature, saith also of this Sacrament, that m Per 〈…〉 ●or Explicative; Corpus significatur. By Benediction Bread is made another nature, (namely) of an Elemental become Sacramental, as you have heard; and as his own words import, After Consecration the Body of Christ is Signified: and that, which was Wine, Is called Blood. In the Testimony of Cyprian you applaud yourselves, for to your Lindan n L●ndan A●ea 〈…〉 Cypri●ni v●●o— ●ie 〈…〉 adv●gilate, Evang●●●, & D●vum Cyp●anum orb●s totius Doctorem, imò●n r●culum, judicem incorrupt●●l●m 〈◊〉 lib. 4 cap 6. The words of Cyprian appear Goldens and he must needs provoke, forsooth, all Gospelers to hearken unto them: which also seemeth to your o Ho● Testimon●um nullam. admit●● 〈…〉 lib 2 〈…〉 c. 9 § 〈…〉 Cardinal To admit no solution. Our Answer, first unto the Author, is to deny it to be the Testimony of Cyprian: may we no●? This Sermon of the Supper of the Lord is by us (saith your Master p Mr. 〈◊〉 Lit●rg. Praef. §. 14. pag 51. Brerely) attributed to Cyprian. Whom of your Side he mean by Us] you may be pleased to ask him; sure we are your Cardinal doth tell us that q Author illius de Coena Domi●●t non est Cyprianus. ●ed aliquis post cum. Bellar. ●● 2. de E●ch. cap 9 §. Extet. The Author of this Book is not Cyprian, but some other after him. But, not to disclaim your Author; all that he saith is that r Cyprian. de Coena D●n. Pa●s ●ste natu●à mu●●tus om●●potentia ve●b● factus est C●ro, etc. Bread is changed by God's Omnipotency not in Figure, but in Nature. This is ill; And all this hath been, but even now, quitted by your ow●e Confessions, granting a power of Omnipotency in every Sacramental Change, where the natural Element is altered from its common habitude into the nature of a Spiritual Instrument and use, both signifying and exhibiting Divine Grace; and so the word Nature doth import. The Schools, distinguishing the Nature of Accidents from the Nature of Subjects, show that there is an Accidental Nature as well as a Substantial. Theology teaching that * Ephes. 2. 3. August. Ipsam naturam a●●ter dicem: cum prop●●è loquimu● naturam hom●●s incalp●bi●s factus est. By nature we are the children of wrath; wherein Nature signifieth only a vicious Quality. This saying, viz. Indifferent things in fact Change their nature, when they are commanded, Master * Litu●g. Tract. 4. § 6. Brerely alloweth of, as for example: a Surplice being commanded by lawful Authority, the use thereof becometh necessary, so that the nature thereof is Changed, yet not in the Substance of the thing, but in the legal necessity of the use. ⚜ And what will you think of that of Saint Hilary? saying of all persons Regenerate, that 1 Hilar de Trin. lib 8 Per naturam sidei unum sumus, renati ad innocentiam & immortalitatem regenerati in umus AEternitatis naturam. By the nature of faith they are changed into Immortality, and into one nature of Eternity. In both which the Proprieties and qualities of things are called the Natures thereof. In which respect we embrace the saying of Saint Ambrose, when he affirmeth the 2 Ambros. de jis qui initiantur myster. cap. ult. Major benedictionis omnis virtus quàm naturae, quià benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur. Nature of Bread to be changed in this Sacrament. Certainly, even as it is in all other Mysteries, wherein (as Saint Augustine speaketh) 3 Aug. Tom. 9 in Se●m de Cataclysmo. Accedit verbum ad elementum, & fit Sacramentum. As much as to say, the Element (as Bread) is Changed into a Sacrament; (as * See above Book 2. cap. 2. §. 16. Isidore spoke) which is called the Body of Christ, because of the Sacramental property of speech, calling the Sign by the name of the thing signified; as the same * Father, with divers Others hath amply declared. ⚜ Butler to come nearer, Answer us but this one Question. Whereas all learning alloweth this saying, that in Baptism the nature of the Element, and the nature of the Sacrament are different, whereupon it is said; The word coming to the Element maketh it a Sacrament: when we shall say of the water in Baptism that the Nature of it, as of a Sacrament, is more excellent than, is the nature of it, as it is a mere Element; whether doth not the word, Nature, attributed to the Sacrament, justly accord unto the Phrase of Cyprian, in the case of the Eucharist? and so much the rather, because that Cyprian, in the words immediately following the Testimony objected, doth fully confute Transubstantiation by a Similitude; comparing the Humanity, and Deity of Christ with the Natural and Spiritual parts of this Sacrament, to wit; s Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur, & latebat Divinitas; ità Sacramento visibili ineffabilitèr divina se effundit essentia. Author. Coenae. Ibid. §. Quarto. As in Christ himself true humanity appeared in his flesh, and his Deity was hid: (This was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and first part of this Similitude; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and next part followeth) Even so into this visible Sacrament the Divine Essence infuseth itself. So he, which, by the law of a Similitude, must stand thus: Even so Bread in this Sacrament is seen, and the Spiritual operation of God's power therein to the Faithful is Invisible. Like as we may say of the preaching of the Word of God to the Faithful; The words are audible, and sensible, but because of the inward working of God's Spirit, for the Conversion of Man's soul, it is called * Rom. 1. 16. The power of God unto salvation: as likewise Baptism is made the Lavacre of Regeneration; whereof Gregory Nyssen affirmeth that t Greg. Nyssen. erat. de Baptism. Divinum Lavacrū magnum quid operatur per Benedictionem, & mirabiles producit Effectus. It worketh marvellously by benediction, and produceth marvellous Effects. As for Augustine, and chrysostom (not to be superfluous) every Protestant doth both believe and profess (namely) a Divine Operation of God, both by changing the Element into a Sacrament, and working by that Sacrament Spiritual Effects, to the good of Man's soul. ⚜ A Vindication of divers Testimonies of Saint Cyprian, by Romish Torturers forced, for proof of Transubstantiation. But you have not done with Cyprian, he is found saying, concerning this Sacrament, that 4 Cyprian de Coena Dom. Christus usquè hodie verissimum, Sanctissimum suum Corpus create, sanctificat & benedicit, & piè sumentibus dividit. Objected by Dr. heskin's Parl. Book 2. Chap. 8. Christ daily Createth his most true, and most holy Body, sanctifieth and blesseth it. This, in the Opinion of your Objector, must needs prove a proper Existence of Christ in the Eucharist, because Christ createth not an imaginary Body, but that which is called a most true Body. Which words, notwithstanding, in true sense, make nothing against our Defence, but against your Romish Tenets, as much as any Protestant can require. This is soon tried. The words of Cyprian are, that Christ doth Create his most true Body: the only Question is of the word [Create,] whereunto it is to be referred properly? This must be either to Bread, or to Christ's Body: and your Cardinal abhorring to say that Christ's Body is properly created in this Sacrament, 5 Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9 In verbis Cypriani illa, Creas, sanctisicas, benedicis, referuntur ad materiam, unde consicitur Corpus Christi: agimus enim gratias, quod per Christum primò panem crëet, deindè per eundem sanctificat & benedicat, convertendo in Corpus suum— Quod autem Cyprianus loquitur de vero Corpore suo non de signo, patet ex eo, quòd veracissimum illud appellat. [We grant that Christ spoke of his true body, for this Sacrament we say is a figure, not of a fantastical, but of a substantial Body.] Answereth that the words Create, Sanctify, and Bless, are to be referred to Bread, which is first Created, (saith he) before it is converted into Christ's Body. If then Cyprian by the words, Christ's Body, meant Bread, which is the Sign of his Body, is it not a wilful blindness in your Disputers, to conclude from a Sign the real presence of a Body? especially from this Father S. Cyprian, who teacheth every Christian how to interpret the sense of Christ's words, in calling Bread his Body, and Wine his Blood, viz. 6 Cyprian de Vnctione. Dedit Dominus in mensa, in qua ultimum cum Apostolis participavit Convivium, proprijs manibus Panem & Vinum, in Cruse vero manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum, ut in Apostolis exponeret quomodo Vinum & Panis corpus esset & sanguis Christi; & quibus rationibus causae cum effectibus convenirent, & diversa nomina vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam, & significata & significantia eisdem ●ocabulis censerentur. Things signifying, (as Signs) and things signified, are called by the same terms, or names. What is, if this be not our Protestant Doctrine? And were it that Cyprian could possibly have meant a Creating of Christ's Body, in this Sacrament, properly; yet could not such our Opposers have bewrayed more stupidity, or else obstinacy, than by urging this Sentence, whereby two Articles of your Council of Trent are absolutely strangled. The first is Transubstantiation, which (as you confess) is of Something Pre-existent: Whereas Creation, (as all know) is from a mere Nothing. The second Tridentine Article is, that the Body of Christ, as it is in this Sacrament, is whole in the whole Host, and in every part thereof. But Cyprian saith of that Body, which he calleth Created, that It is divided. We have light upon another sentence of Cyprian, objected out of the same place, and as vehemently pressed, as any other out of Cyprian, 7 Cyprian de Coenae Dom. (in the place objected, Ineffabiliter Sacramento visibili divina se infundit essentia, ut esset Religioni circa Sacramenta devotio, ut ad veritatem cujus corpus & sanguis Sacramenta sunt syncerior pa●eret accessus. Objected by Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ. The Divine essence (saith Cyprian) infuseth itself into this Sacrament, that we should have a religious devotion towards it, that a more sincere address may be had to be the Truth, whereof the Body and Blood are Sacraments. So he. Now that you may know our willingness to go along with you in the exposition of this Sentence, so fare as either the sense of the words will bear, or Cyprian his own direction will permit. We grant, first, that the Divine Essence, which is the divine power of Christ, is exercised in every Sacrament, by making it effectual to the salvation of the Communicants. Secondly, that by the word, Verity, or Truth, is meant the Reality of his Body and Blood. And Thirdly, that every one that approacheth to this Sacrament, aught to come with a Religious Devotion, and sincere affection. The only difference is, how Christ's Body and Blood are said to be Sacraments of the Reality of his Body and Blood, here mentioned? and your only Answer is, that Christ is a figure and sign of himself, as he is in this Sacrament; which figment is easily confuted by a Catholic and universal doctrine of all Christian Churches, which is, that every Sacrament is a visible Sign of an invisible Grace. But in this Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ, properly taken, are nothing less than Visible, by your own Confessions, who teach them to be so Invisible herein, that they cannot be discerned either by Angel, or the Bodily eyes of Christ himself. You perceive by this, that your Boast of this Place of Cyprian, is but a vain blast. Wherefore we expound the words thus; Christ's Body and Blood (that is) the outward Symbols, carrying the names of his Body and Blood, are Sacraments, and Seals of that Verity of the same Body, which was crucified, and of the same Blood, which was shed upon the Cross for man's Redemption; and are here Sacramentally exhibited to the souls of the Faithful. But you will ask, who will warrant this our Exposition of the words of Cyprian? and we Answer, that we shall need no other Interpreter than Cyprian himself, already alleged, saying, * See before at num. 6. in the Morgin. that Things signifying are called by the names of Things signified. So he there; and therefore so here are Bread and Wine called the Body and Blood of Christ, being in themselves only Sacraments and Signs: whereof you have had example in his Saying, that Christ herein created his Body; by Body meaning Bread, as your Cardinal hath confessed. Which may give you a true Pattern of the genuine Idiom of the Fathers, as often as they call the Bread Christ's Body, or Wine his Blood: and that all such Speeches are not more yours in sound, than they are ours in true and Orthodox Sense. The second unconscionableness of Romish Disputers, for abuse of the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, is seen in objecting their denial of Common and Bare Bread, in this Sacrament; for an Argument of Transubstantiation. SECT. III. TO this purpose Irenaeus, saying that a Irenaeus lib. 4. contra. Haer cap. 34. Non est Panis Communis. Bellar. Obijcit lib. 2. de Euch. per totum. It is not Common Bread: Ergo (say you) not to be properly judged by Sense. Unconscionably; knowing that b Sol. Chrysost. in Psal. 22. hom. 16. De aqua Baptismi. Non est aqua Communis. chrysostom (and also other Fathers, whom you moreover object) saith likewise of the Sacrament of Baptism, * See in this Section li●. (c. h.) We are to behold it not as common water. The second is justine Martyr, saying, d Bellamin. Oblustin. Mart. lib 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Sol. Ratio, quia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, Eucharisticatus, siuè sanctificatus Cibus. We receive these, not as Common Bread, or Common Drink. Therefore (say you) we may not judge them by Sense. Unconscionably; knowing that justine Martyr in the same place showeth his Reason, why it is not to be called Common, even because (saith he) it is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is, Sanctified meat. And so Water in Baptism is Sanctified, as you know. The third is cyril of jerusalem, saying, e Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 13. Ob. Cyril. Hieros'. Catech. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sol. I●em. Catech. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Consider these, not as Common Bread and Wine: Ergo (say you) not to be judged by Sense. Unconscionably; knowing that the same cyril, in the same place, saith the same of the water of Baptism: It is not simple Water. Yea, but he further saith (say f Oh. Cyrill. mystag. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. you) Think not of it, as of bare Bread, (adding) but the Body of Christ. Ergo (say you) not to be judged otherwise by Sense. Unconscionably; knowing that the same Father in the same place, for explanation sake, saith likewise of g ●ot Sequiturs' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem Catech. Mystag 3 Sacred Oil, viz. Even so that holy Oil is not bare and simple Oil (Adding) but the gift of Grace. And that your Authors unconscionableness may be the more notorious, in their Wresting of the Catholic meaning of the Fathers, in this kind, we must tell you that there is no speech more familiar unto ancient Fathers than to esteem, as they ought, all Sacramental Signs Sacred; and therefore no more Common, or bare Elements. Inso much that Gregory Nyssen, speaking of a Ceremony inferior to this Sacrament, which is the Altar, or Table of the Lord, he saith that h Greg. Nysson. Altar hoc sanctum, cui adsistimus, l●pis est naturâ Communis, nihil differen● ab alijs crustis lapide●s, ex quibus pavimenta nostra exornantur: Sed quoniam Dei cultui consecratur, & d●dicatur, & benedictionem accept'st, mensa facta, & Altar immaculatum est. Orat. de Sancto Baptismo. Et nè contemnas divinum Lavacrum, neque id Commune putes, etc. Although by nature it be but as other stone, wherewith the Pavements are garnished, and adorned; yet being Consecrated to God's Service, by Benediction, it is an holy Table and Altar. Adding also of Baptism, and saying; The Divine Water is not to be contemned, nor to be held as Common. Yea, and what less doth your Church say of your hallowed Balsam, Beads, and Bells, and the like, all which you distinguish from Common and bare Oils, and Metals, because of their different use, and service, without Opinion of any Change of Substance at all? The third Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers in urging, for proof of Transubstantiation, the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, forbidding men to [Discern of this Sacrament by their Senses.] And first of their abusing the Testimony of Cyril, by two egregious Falsifications. SECT. iv We may not easily pass over your Objection taken out of Cyrill, being in the opinion of your Cardinal so impregnable; Let us first here your Objector: i Cyrilli Testimonium vel solum sufficere deberet, est enim hujus Sancti, & antiquissimi, & ex opere ejus indubit●to, & clarissi●u● & apertissimum, ut nullo modo perverti possit; & est in Catechesi, in quâ solent omnia propriè & simplic●●er explicari, & deniquè nemo unquam reprehendit Cyrillum erroris alicujas circa Eucharistiam. B●●ll●r. lib 2. de Euch. cap. 13. This Testimony of Cyrill alone ought to suffice, being the Sentence of an holy man, and most ancient, out of a work which (unquestionably) was his, yea and most clear, and plain, as that it cannot be perverted. Besides it is in his Catechism, wherein the use of all things is delivered simply, properly, and plainly: Nor was this Father Cyrill ever reproved of Error in his doctrine of the Eucharist. Thus fare your Cardinal, you see, with as accurate an Oratory of Amplification, as could be invented. What Protestant would not now, if ever, expect a deadly blow from this Father to our Catholic Cause? but attend to the Issue. First, k Cyril. Pro certissimo habeas, Panem hunc, qui videtur à nobis, Panem non esse, etiamsi gustus Panem esse senserit, sed esse Corpus Christi— Rursus. Christus, cui credamus, Panem in Corpus Transmutavit— Nam sub specie Panis datur tibi corpus: sub specie Vini datur tibi sanguis. Catech. Mystag. 4. Cyril will not allow a man to credit his Taste, but although Taste saith it is Bread, yet undoubtedly to believe it to be the Body of Christ, whereinto the bread is changed. And he is brought in by your l Cyrillus apertè ponit Transmutationem Panis in corpus Christi, & solas species Panis remanere post Transmutationem: quià dicit Corpus Domini sub specie Panis sum●, distinguens Corpus à Pane. Bellar lib. 2 de Euch cap. 13. adding; Hoc est Apertissimum Argumentum. Cardinal to aver furthermore that The Body of Christ is given under the form of Bread. And so the Sentence seemeth to be most manifest, saith he. But for what we pray you? That first (forsooth) the Change is the same with Transubstantiation: and secondly that there is no more Substance of Bread, but Accidents under the form of Bread. So he, and Master * Liturg. Tractat. 2. §. 2. Subd 4. pag. 116. Brerely from him, as followeth; Cyril saith, under the form of Bread his Body is given, etc. and then dancing in the same triumph, addeth; Can any Catholic of this Age write more plainly? So he. And we answer, could any jugglers deal more falsely? For upon due examination it will appear to be a manifest Delusion, by a false Translation of Cyrils words. The Body of Christ is given (as your Cardinal doth render it) [sub specie Panis] in, or under the form of Bread; whereas it is in the Greek, m Cyril. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cate●● Mystag. 4. Russus' Mystag. 5. Non existimetis vos gustare Panem & Vinum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Under the Type of Bread: even as he saith afterwards; Think not that you taste bread, but the Antitype of Christ's Body. In both, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] not, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Type, and Antitype; not Form, or Figure of Bread. Now there is a main and manifest difference between Form, and Type. For Accidental Forms are things Real, and the determinate Objects of Sense; but Types, or Antitypes are only Relatives, and (as such) no Objects of Sense, but of Reason, and understanding only. As for example, when a judge is set in his Scarlet upon the Bench, the Eye seethe nothing but the colour, and the fashion of the Gown, and outward figurature of his Face, and so may every Child see him; for these are Outward and Visible Accidents. But to see that man, as he hath upon him the person of a judge, ordained to try Causes between Parties, is a sight of the mind, which looketh upon his Office, to discern him by his Habit from common Subjects. Even so is it in this Sacrament; As the Bread and Wine are Round, and White, and Sweet in Taste, our Bodily Senses perceive them; but as they are Types, and Antitypes, that is, Signs of the Body and Blood of Christ, so are they spiritually discerned with our understanding only. As therefore it followeth not, that the Scarlet Gown of the judge, because it is an Ensign of his Office, should be only Colour and Fashion, without the matter and Substance of the Cloth; no more can any conclude from Cyril, that because the Sacrament is a Type, therefore this Type was only Form, and outward Accidents, without all Substance of Bread. And thus your Cardinal his first [Apertissimum Argumentum] for proof of Accidents, without the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament, is proved to be Apertissimum Figmentum, void of all substance, or almost shadow of Truth. His next Observation is the Change by Transubstantiation, and the error of Sense, in judging it to be Bread. We call upon Cyril to decide this Controversy, who is best able to interpret himself. He therefore that said of the Eucharist, after Consecration, It is not Bare Bread, but the Body of Christ, affirmed as much of Consecrated Oil, saying, It is not Bare Oil. But we are answered, that n Bellar. Hoc confirmat sententi●m nostram. Nam Cyrillus non eodem modo loquitur de Chrismate, & de Eucharistia. De hac enim ait, Non esse Panem Communem, sed Corpus Christi: de Chrismate vero dicitur quidem, non esse Commune Vnguentum, sed non addit Spiritum sanctum, vel Corpus Christi: sed esse Chrisma Christi sanctificatum oleum. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 13. Cyril, in denying the Eucharist to be Common Bread, called it after Consecration Christ's Body: but in denying Oil to be Bare Oil, he called it yet still but Chrism, (that is) Sanctified Oil, after Consecration. So your Cardinal. And so are we posed for ever. But behold another jesuitical Fraud! For Cyril as he called the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body, after Consecration, so doth he call the Consecrated Oil [Charisma] that is, the Gift of the Grace of Christ; and not [Chrisma] that is, Chrism, or Ointment, as your Cardinal rendereth it. We say again he calleth that Charisma, which notwithstanding he saith was, after Consecration, still Oil, wherewith their Foreheads were anointed. This must we judge to have been a notable Falsification of Bellarmine, except you would rather we should think, that when he was now to prove that our Senses are deceived, in judging of Bread to be Bread, he meant to prove it by seeming to be deceived himself, in thus mistaking the word Chrisma, for o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril. Catech. Mystag. 3. and so utterly perverting the judgement of Cyril; by whom we are contrarily taught, that the Sight is no more deceived in judging Bread to be Bread, than in discerning Oil to be Oil. For neither was the other Bare Oil, being a Type of a spiritual Gift; nor yet was it therefore changed into the Spiritual Grace itself, because it is so called; but only is a Type and Symbol thereof. Which One Parallel of Oil with Bread doth discover the Unconscionable pertinacy and Perverseness of your Disputers, in urging the Testimony of Cyril. ⚜ All this, which I have avouched out of Cyril, I have since found exactly confirmed by our judicious 8 Not. M. S. in Bellar. formerly alleged. Isaac Casaubon, the Mirror of learning; concluding with this Epiphonema: If I (saith he) have any judgement, Cyril judged Bread to remain in this Sacrament of the Eucharist, as verily as in Oil consecrated, there remaineth Oil. As for the term of Transmutation of Bread into Christ's Body, you may have a further plentiful satisfaction in the Seaventh Section following. And we concur in judgement with the same Cyril, exacting that we regard not our Senses herein; namely, to look upon it with our natural eyes, as beholding bare Bread: but with Spiritual, to behold it to be Sacramental Bread, and in it, as in a Sign, to discern the Lords Body, as Cyril hath already expounded himself saying, that it is changed into an Antitype of Christ's Body. ⚜ The like Romish Objection out of chrysostom, and as Unconscionable. SECT. V SAint chrysostom his Testimony may in no wise be omitted, which seemeth to your Disputers to be so Convincent, that your p Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 22. Cardinal placed it in the front of his host of the Fathers, whom he produceth, as able to break through an Army of Adversaries alone; and Master q Mr. Brerelay, Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 4. Subd. 2. pag. 167. Brerely reserved it to the last of the Testimonies, which he alleged, as that which might serve for an Upshot. I will conclude (saith he) admonishing the Christian Reader with Saint chrysostom his Saying (you long to hear it, we think:) Although Christ his speech (saith r Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 8. Etiamsi sensui, & cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur quod dicit, superatque sensum nostrum & rationem sermo ipsius, quaeso, quod in omnibus rebus, sed praecipuè in mysterijs faciamus? non illa quae ante nos jacent aspicientes, sed verba tenentes? nam verbis ejus defrau dari non possumus, sed sensus saepiùs fallitur. Quoniam igitur ille dixit [Hoc est Corpus meum] nulla dubitatione teneamus, sed credamus, nihil enim sensibile traditur à Christo nobis, sed in rebus sensibilibus. Omnia verò, quae tradidit, sunt insensibilia; sicut in Baptismo per Aquam donum illud conceditur— Regeneratio intelligitur, quia est: nam si incorporeus esses, incorporea tibi tradidisset dona; quoniam verò Anima conjuncta est Corpori, in sensibilibus intelligibilia tibi tradidit. Chr●sostome) may seem absurd unto Sense and Reason, I exhort you notwithstanding that, especially in Mysteries, we look not unto that which is before us, but observe Christ's words: for we cannot be disappointed of that which he saith, but Senses may be deceived. Wherefore, because he said [This is my Body] we are altogether to believe it, for he delivereth no sensible things unto us; but all which he delivereth in things sensible are insensible: even as in Baptism the gift of Regeneration granted us is Intelligible. For if thou wert without a Body, than things only unbodily should be given unto thee, but now because thy Soul is joined with a Body, therefore in things sensible hath Christ delivered unto thee things intelligible. So chrysostom. Now what of all this? chrysostom (saith your s Bellar. Non potuisset sanè Chrysostomus loqui clariùs, si Calvinistam aliquem habuisset, quem hortari ad fidem voluisset. Ibid. quo supra. Cardinal) could not speak more plainly, if he had had some Calvinist before him, whom he meant to exhort to the Faith. So he, meaning the Faith of Transubstantiation, Which (as hath been confessed) was no doctrine of Faith until more than a Thousand years after Christ. But to return to chrysostom, whose Sentence we may compare to a Nut, consisting of a Shell, and a Kernel: The Shell we may call his Figurative Phrases; the Kernel we may term his Orthodox meaning. Of both in the Section following. Of the Rhetorical, and Hyperbolical Phrases of chrysostom. SECT. VI TO begin with the Shell. First, we are to know that Hyperbole is a Rhetorical Trope, or Figure, which may be defined to be an Excessive speech, signifying a Truth in an Untruth. As to say, Something is more dark than darkness itself; which, being strictly taken, were an Impossibility, and Untrue: but it doth imply this Truth, (namely) that the thing is wonderfully, and extremely dark. Secondly, that chrysostom was most frequent in this Figure Hyperbole, your own t Non sunt Concionatorum verba in rigore accipienda, quùm primùm ad autes perveniant, multa enim per Hyperbolen Declamatores enunciant: hoc interdum Chrysostomo contingit. Senensis Bibliotheca. Annot. 152. Senensis doth instruct you; where giving a general Caution, that Fathers in their Sermons do use to declaim Hyperbolically, he doth instance most specially, and by name, in chrysostom. ⚜ And albeit that We object plain places of chrysostom, and such wherein every word may be taken in a proper Sense; (as for Example, where he reproveth those that are only Gazers, and not Communicants at the Celebration of the Eucharist, It is better (saith he) not to be present, than not to participate) yet can we receive no better Answer, or other satisfaction from your Cardinal than thus; 9 Quod dicit Chrysostomus, melius esse non interesse Sacrificio, quàm interest, & non communica●●: D●co Chrysostomum, ut quaedam alia, per excessum esse locu●um. Bellar. lib. 2. de Missa. Cap. 10. §. Ad illud. chrysostom here, as else where, spoke in an excess. ⚜ Thirdly, that the Excessive Phrases of chrysostom, upon this Sacrament, do verify as much, viz. to tell his people, that u Dentes Carnl suae insigere. Chrys. Homil. 45. in johan. 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 he is as Hyperbolical 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 we see Bread or Wine? which is spoken in as great an exuberancy of speech, as are the next words immediately following, saying: Think not that you receive the Body from a man, but Fire from a Scraphin, or Angel, with a pair of Tongues. You will think (notwithstanding those kind of Phrases) that chrysostom thought he saw aswell Bread and Wine in this Sacrament, as he could discern either Man from a Seraphin, or Spirit; or his own Fingers from a pair of Tongues. 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 own Church is defined to be y Sacramentum est invisibilis grat●ae signum visibile. Magister Sentent. lib 4. dist. 1. Sacramentum est ●es sensibus objecta. Catech. Trid. Teste Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacram cap 11. A Sensible Sign; and also for that you yourselves confess that z Sensus non fallitur ●●cà proprium objectum Sententia vera. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. Our senses cannot be deceived in their proper sensible Objects. Sixtly, that chrysostom himself well knew he did Hyperbolise herein, who after that he had said, No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament; notwithstanding, he addeth immediately, saying of this Sacrament, that In things Sensible, things Intelligible are given unto us. Thus fare of the Rhetoric of chrysostom. Now are we to show his Theology, and Catholic meaning, as it were the Kernel of his Speech. He in the same Sentence will have us understand Man to consist of Body and Soul, and accordingly in this Sacrament Sensible things are ministered to the Body, as Symbols of spiritual things, which are for the Soul to feed upon. So that a Christian, in receiving this Sacrament, is not wholly to exercise his mind upon the bodily Object, as if that were only, or principally the thing offered unto us; No, for then indeed our Senses would deceive our Souls of their spiritual Benefit. As for Transubstantiation, and Absence of Bread, chrysostom, in true Sense, maketh wholly against it, by explaining himself, and paralleling this Sacrament with Baptism: As in Baptism (saith a Sicut in Baptismo, etc. 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 Baptism, is held commonly by ancient * See hereafter at large in the 8. Book. Fathers, to the utter overthrow of Transubstantiation. And that chrysostom believed the Existence of Bread after Consecration, * See above Chap 3. §. 13. hath been already expressly shown, and is here now further proved. For he saith of Bread after Consecration, that b Nos per hunc Panem unione conju●gimur Chrysost. in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. We are joined together one with another, by this Bread. ⚜ And yet furthermore, the same chrysostom hath already delivered his mind, touching the infallibility of the sense of Touching; declaring in a plain and literal Sense, as from the mouth of Christ, * That man's sense of Touch could not be deceived. ⚜ And now that you see the Nut cracked, you may observe how your Disputers have swallowed the Shell of Hyperbolical Phrases, and left the kernel of Theological Sense for us to content ourselves withal. Furthermore (for this is not to be omitted) the other Testimony of chrysostom 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 Baptism, Ibid. Ille non te Baptizat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Man is not to think it is the hand of the Priest, but of Christ himself, 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. ⚜ Words, you see, as Hyperbolical 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. Plain place, for proof of a proper Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament. But will this relish 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 faithful, in respect of Christ; * See above c. 3. §. 7. Thus fare concerning the judgement of Senses, which hath been formerly proved (at large) both by * Ibid. in the Chapters following. Scriptures, and * Father's. We draw nearer our mark, which is the word Transubstantiation itself. Fourthly, the unconscionableness of your Disputers, in urging other Figurative Say, and Phrases of the Fathers, of Bread Changed, Transmuted, etc. into the Body of Christ, for proof of a Transubstantiation thereof in a Proper Sense. SECT VII. Such words as these, Bread is the Body of Christ; It is made the Body of Christ; It is Changed, Translated, Transmuted, Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ, are Phrases of the highest Emphasis that you can find in the Volumes of Antity; which if they were literally meant, according to your Romish Sense, there ought to be no further Dispute. But if it may evidently appear, by the Idiom of speech of the same Fathers, that such their Say are Tropical, and sometimes Hyperbolical, then shall we have just Cause to tax your Disputers of as great unconscionableness (if not of more) in this, as in any other. For whensoever they find in any Father (as in c Eusebias' Emiss. Adest Substantia Panis, sed post verba Christi est Corpus Christi. Hom. 5. Objected by Mr. Brerely. Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 2. ⚜ And Damasc. lib. 4. the Orthod. side, cap. 14. Panem corpus suum facere. Objected by Dr. Heskins in his Parliament. Book 2. Chap. 20. ⚜ Eusebius) these words; The Bread is the Body of Christ; they object it for Transubstantiation; but Unconscionably. First, seeing that the Fathers do but herein imitate our Lord and Master Christ, who said of the Bread [This is my Body:] which hath been * See above B. 2. throughout. proved by Scriptures, and Fathers to be a Figurative and unproper speech. Secondly, seeing that they use the same Dialect in other things, as Cyril of Sacred Oil, saying, this is Charisma, the Gift of Grace; as he called also the Holy Kiss a d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cyril. sup. Reconciliation, and Others the like, as you have heard. Thirdly, seeing that you yourselves have renounced all proper Sense of all such speeches, because Things of different natures cannot possibly be affirmed one of another: for no more can it be properly said, Bread is man's Body, than we can say, An Egg is a Stone, as you have * See above, Book 2. cap. 1. §. 4. confessed. Again, Some Fathers say, Bread is made Flesh, as Saint c Ambros. De Pane; Fit Corpus caro Christi. Ob by Bellarmine, lib. 2. de Euchar cap. 14. and by others. Ambrose objected; but Unconscionably; knowing, First, that you yourselves are brought now at length to deny the Body of Christ to be Produced out of Bread. Secondly, knowing the like Idiom of Fathers in their other Speeches; chrysostom saying that f Chrysost Nos secum Christus munam, ut ità dicam, massam reducit, neque id fide tantùm, sed reipsâ nos Corpus suum effecit. In Matt 26. hom. 83. Objects by Mr. Brerely. Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 2. Christ hath made us his own Body, not only in Faith, but in Deed also. And Augustine saying that g Aug. Ipsi Christiani cum Capite suo, quod ascendit in coe●um, unus est Christus. Enarrat. in Psal. 127. Et in Psal. 26. Titulus Psalmi: Omnes ● illo, & Christi, & Christus sumus Christians themselves with their Head, which ascended into heaven, are one Christ: yea, and Pope h Leo, De homine Regenerato per Baptismum. Vt susceptu, à Christo, & suscipiens Christum, non idem sit post Lavacrum, quod ante Baptismum fuit, sed ut corpus Regenerati fiat caro Crucifixi. Serm. de passione. 14. Leo, saying of the party Baptised, that He is not the same that he was before Baptism, by which (saith he) the Body of the party Regenerate is made the Flesh of Christ crucified. Yea, and our Venerable Bede saith, i Beda in 1. Cor 10. Num & nos ipsius Corpus facti sumus, & quod accipimus, nos sumus. We are made that Body which we receive. In all which the word [Made,] you know, is fare from that high strain of Transubstantiation. We draw yet nearer to the Scope. We may not deny, but that the Fathers sometimes extend their voices higher, unto the Preposition Trans; as k See above, c. 4. §. 7. Transit, Transmutatur, signifying a Change, and Trans-mutation into the Body of Christ. Every such Instance is, in the opinion of your Doctors, a full demonstration of Transubstantiation itself; and all the wits of men cannot (saith one) Assoil such Objections. Wherein they show themselves altogether Unconscionable, as hath been partly declared in Answering your Objected Sayings of l See above c. 4. §. 2. Ambrose, In aliud Convertuntur; of m Ibid. at the Letter (r) Cyprian his Panis naturà mutatus; of Cyrils Transmutavit; and as now in this Section is to be manifested, in answering your other Objections to the full. The Father o Gregor. Nyssen. Quicquid assu●●enu conveniens est, & expertrum sit, ut Apostolus vult, qui han● mensam nobis p●apa●vit, in id commutatur, infirmorbus olus, Infantibus Lac, etc. Lib. de vita Mosis pag. 509. Gregory Nyssen, comparing the Body of Christ with Manna, which satisfied every man's Taste that received it, saith that The Body of Christ in this Sacrament is changed into whatsoever seemeth to the Receivers appetite convenient and desired. This is objected by your Cardinal, to prove Transubstantiation: but, First, Unconscionably; because it is in itself (being literally understood,) even in your own judgements, incredible. For what Christian will say that the Body of Christ is Transubstantiated into any other thing? much less into whatsoever thing the appetite of the Receiver shall desire? No. But as Manna did satisfy the bodily Appetite: so, Christ's Body to the Faithful is food, satisfying the Soul in the Spiritual and heavenly desire thereof. We say, the Soul, and not the bodily appetite, as yourselves well know, and the Council of * ●certne Council of Ni●● L. 4. c. 11. §. 3. Nice doth teach us to profess. Secondly, Unconscionably objected, because the same Father expresseth his Hyperbolical manner of Speech likewise, saying that p Greg. Niss. Corpus illud Christi in Corpus nostrum ingrediens totu n●in se transfert. Ob. by Bellar. l. 2. c. 10. §. Idem Greg. Christ's Body doth change our bodies into itself, which in the Literal Sense, according to your arguing, would prove a Transubstantiation of men's Bodies into Christ. ⚜ Were it (for these are his two Instances) into Milk, or Colewoorts. But what now? 10 Bellar lib. 2. de Euch. ca 6. Idem Gregorius in Oratione Catechetica cap. 37. multa habet expressè de veritate hujus hic locus ab Euthymio. Dicit corpus Christi immortale cum nostro corpore mortali conjungi, & immortal per illud reddi: & quoth in corpus nostrum ingrediens terum in se transfert & commutat— Deinde se explicat— Dicit hoc fieri divinâ virtute, & explicat seipsum, dicit enim, nunc Panem mutart in Carnem Christi, quemadmodum, dum adhuc in terris esset, mutabatur Panis, quo ipse vescebatur, in Carnem ipsius. Quae ●am sunt perspicua, ut non fuerit ausus ullus Adversariorum, quòd sciam, vel ad haec ●oca respondere, vel aliquid ex hoc authore nobis objicere. The same Gregory Nyssen (saith your Cardinal) in his Catechetica hat● such plain places for the changing of Bread into the substance of Christ's Flesh, as which none of our Adversaries, for aught that I know, did ever answer, or yet object out of this Author, any thing against us. So he. And good reason, for indeed, none need to busy himself with answering to these places, except you could prove that these were the words of the same Gr. Nyssen, and not of some other suborned Author, under his name. Whereof we may be persuaded both because that the objected places are only read in the 11 Bellarm. de Script Eccles. ●d Annum 380. Tit. Greg. Nyssen.— Observatio secunda, praeter libros numeratos, ex●nt ex Editione Pa●siensi, Anno 1573. Catechetica oratio, etc. after-Editions of the works of Gregory Nyssen, and also for that (as your own Author, who hath published the same catechetical Oration, confesseth of 12 Author praefat. ad E●lit. Paris. Anno 1573. Quae de Transubstantiatione in Cap. 37. & 38. habentur, in exemplaribus Manuscriptis multis non haberi. [To that of the Bodies of the Receivers to be made immortal, See an Answer, Book 5. Chap. 8. §. 3. Your Objection of Divine Power is Answered already, in this Chapter, Sect. 2. To that he Questioneth, how Christ's Body, being but one, can he, without Diminution, received of so many? it is Answered in the 4. Book. The places concerning the Eucharist, which are the same now objected) They are wanting in divers Manuscripts of Gregory Nyssen his works. And how much more suspicious may this seem to them, who are acquainted with your Booke-mints, and Booke-manglers, as well in foisting in false Sentences, as in falsifying the true? This might have been our first Answer; but lest that, if we should insist upon this, we might seem to decline your pretended answerless Objection, observe you, with us, in the same Author, that as he sayeth, The Bread is converted into the Body of Christ, so he saith of the same Body of Christ, being received, that * See above at (p.) It doth convert the body of the Receiver into Christ himself, as you have heard. Whereby he teacheth both you and us, that this word, Convert, is to be taken for a mystical and Sacramental Change, and not for a proper and substantial; except you would conclude from the same Father, by you objected, that the body of the Communicant is Transubstantiated into Christ himself. Nor this only, but by virtue of the same word [Transit,] must you be constrained to allow of a fare more strange Transubstantiation, even of the Bread, which was eaten of Christ, 13 Nyssen. in Orat. Catech. q●o supra. Corpus Dei verti ad divinam Dignitatem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— & in illo Corpore (sc. Christi.) transmutants Panis transit in divinam naturam. Into his own Deity. Are you not ashamed to urge such a proper Sense of the same words of Nyssen in one Sentence, which in another Sentence of his, (if properly taken) you yourselves cannot but abhor as Heretical. And with the same forehead doth your Cardinal say, that Protestants find nothing to object out of this Father, Gregory Nyssen; seeing that it is not Nothing to observe, where Nyssen saith, that 14 Bellar. lib. 2. the Eucharist. cap. 16. Gregor. Nyssen. de vita Mosis. Panis, qui de Coelo descendit, qui verus cibus est, qui aenigmaticè hac Historiâ (de Manna) significatur, non incorporea res est, quo enim pacto res incorporea corpori cibus fiet? res autem quae in corpore est, corpus omninò non est. The Bread, which descended from Heaven, is the true meat signified in the History (of Manna) it is no incorporeal thing, and being without a Body, cannot be nourishment to a Body. Hereupon we make bold to demand of your Answerer, what is that in this Sacrament, which giveth * See above, Chap. 3. Sect. 10. nourishment to all, whether Men, or Mice, that receive it? And the Oracle of your Schools telleth us, that not Bread and Wine, but the 15 Aqam part. 3 Qu. 77 Art. 6. Species Sacramentales— manifestum est quòd nutriunt. Accidents and Forms of Bread and Wine do nourish. Contrarily, Gregory Nyssen saith, as you have heard; [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] How can an incorporeal thing give nourishment to a thing corporal? (as thinking it impossible.) Our Argument then from thence may be this. Seeing Accidents of Bread cannot nourish, then certainly the substance of Bread, in this Sacrament, which giveth a bodily nourishment, doth remain therein. And if the Substance of Bread remain, than (by your own unanimous Confessions) Bread is not changed, and converted into the Substance of Christ's Body; and consequently must you bid your Lateran Dame Transubstantiation adive. chrysostom is found admiring these Mysteries, and is objected by Mr. q Mr. Brerely, Tract. ●. § 4. Subd. 2. pag. 164. Brerely, for proof of the wonderful Effects of this Sacrament. Why? what saith he? r Chrysost. Admiranda Mysteria— ut non solùm per dilectionem, sed reipsa in illam carnem convertamur. Hom. 45. in job. We ourselves (saith he) are converted and changed into the Flesh of Christ. Which was the former saying of Greg. Nyssen. Will your Disputers never learn the Hyperbolical Language of ancient Fathers, especially when they speak of Sacramental, and mystical things? (more especially chrysostom, who, when he falleth upon this Subject, doth almost altogether Rhetoricat:) but chief when they cannot be ignorant that such words of the Fathers, in the Literal strain, are utterly absurd. For what greater Absurdity than (as is now objected) for our Bodies to be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ? Harken unto chrysostom a word more, and he will tell you, that wicked and impenitent Communicants being 16 And again, Hom. 51. in Matth. 14. Quam Satisfactionem offeremus, si cùm nutriti hoc cibo, ipsi in lupos convertamur? Nourished with this food, are turned into Woolves. Now are we passed the limits of due Antiquity, you descend lower. Theophylact will say hard to us, who, speaking of this Sacrament, saith indeed that s Theophylact. in Marc. 14. Vocat hanc Conversionem Trans-elementationem, quae quidem vox nihil minus significat quàm Transubstantiatio: nam Trans-elementatio significat mutationem totius rei— ad ipsam materiam, quae ab Aristotele Elementum dicitur. Si mutatio solius formae, rectè dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Transformatio, & mutatio, externae figurae transfiguratio, cur mutatio substantiae non poterit rectè dici Transubstantiatio? Bellarmin. lib. 3. the Eucharist. cap. 23. §. Secundo. The Bread is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ: which your Cardinal will have to be, in the same Father's sense, Equivalent with your Transubstantiation. Unconscionably; for doth not the same Father say, likewise that t Theoph. in. joh. 6 Qui me man lucat, quodammodò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Christian is in a manner Trans-elementated into Christ? Like as Isidore Pelusiota spoke of u Isi●or. Pelusiat. lib 3. Epistol 107. De recipiente semen, ut terra bon●: Qui verbum recipit [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Trans elementing, in a sort, of the word of God into the good jearer. Again, Theophylact is objected, as saying, x Theophyl. in. Math. 26. Panis ineff●bili modo transformatur— Panis quidem apparet, sed caro est. Objected by Mr. Ererely, Laturg. Tract. 2 §. 2. Sobbed. As for [est caro] this Phrase 〈◊〉 been already answered. See above at (s.) The Bread is after an ineffable manner Transformed. It is true; He saith so: and so doth Hierome say that y Hier. in Marc. 14. Accepit Iesus Panem, & b●nedixit, fregi●, Transfigurans Corpus suum in Panem: quod est Ecclesia praesens, quae frangitur in passionibus. Christ, in breaking Bread, did Transfigure, or Transform his Body into his Church broken with afflictions: and Pope Leo sticketh not to say that 1 Leo. Non alia igitur participatio Corpous, quàm ut m●id, qu●d summus transeamus. De Passione Serm. 24 We Christians, in communicating [Transimus] turn, or are Changed into Christ his Body. So these ancient Fathers. Are you not yet out of breath with objecting Testimonies of Fathers Unconscionably, and impertinently? No, for Master Brerely, for a Close, desireth to be heard, and to try us with an Objection out of the Greek Church these latter times, as followeth. a Mr. Brereley in his Apology (of the first Edition) concerning the Faith of the ancient Greek Church. It appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines at Wittenberg, Anno Domini 1584. entitled [Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensium, & Hieremiae Patriarchae Constantinop. etc.] that the Greek Church at this day (although divided from the Latin) professeth to believe Transubstantiation. So he of the Patriarch Hierem●as; which Patriarch, if he were alive, would very hardly contain himself from answering this your Brother with some indignation, calling him both rash and precipitant; seeing that the same Patriarch expressly said that b Hier. Patriarch. Non enim hic nominus tantùm communicatio est, sed rei identitas: etenim verè Corpus & Sanguis Christi mysteria sunt: non quòd haec in corpus humanum transmutentur, sed nos in illa, melioribus praevalentibus. Which is his Answer in this Point to the Doctors of Wit●enbèrge. The Body and Blood of Christ are indeed Mysteries, which are not changed into humane flesh, but we into them. So that Patriarch. ⚜ Nevertheless another bold Romish 17 Franciscus de Sancta Clara. Exposit. Artic. Confess. Angiolella in Art. 28 Orientalis & Oc●identalis Ecclesia in hoc Articulo Transubstantiationis conveniunt. Hieremus Patriarcha in sua Censura, contra Lutherum, idem fatetur. Priest durst boast of your alliance, in this doctrine of Transubstantiation, not only with this forenamed Patriarch of Constantinople, but also with the whole Eastern and Greek Church. But behold Cyril, now Patriarch of Constantinople, ready at hand to strangle this false brag, saying (as he himself speaketh) 18 Conf●ssio fidei ● Reverendissima Cyrillo Patriarchia Constanti●op. nomine omnium Ecclesiarum Orientalium Edit. Anno 1632. In Eucharistiae Administratione Piaesentiam veram & realem Christi consitemur & pr●fitemur: at illam, quam Fides nobis offered, non autem quam excogitata docet Transubstantiatio. In the name of the East and Greek Churches: We profess a true and real Presence of Christ in this Sacrament: but that which is offered by faith, not that (saith he) which the devised Transubstantiation teacheth. So he; namely so, as we Protestants do likewise profess (as will be declared in the next Book at large.) And that the Grecians, who were present at the Council of Florence, did not yield Assent to that Article of Transubstantiation, although your jesuite 19 Gordon. Ies. Controu. 4. cap. 4. num. 25. Quod de Graecis in Concilio Florentino congregatis comminiscuntur Adversarij, eos nimirum nègâsse Transubstantiationem, apertum est Commentum,— Nam Disputatio tantùm erat, quibus verbis fieret Transubstantiatio, seu Consecratio. Gordon would qualify and mince the business, yet Binius the Publisher of that Council 20 Binius Tom. 4. Not. in Conc. Florent Sess. 25. [In vobis etc.] Cùm Pontifex egisset, ut Graeci dicerent, quid statuerent de Processione Spiritus, de Purgatorio, deque divina Transubstantiatione panis: Cumque respondissent, se admittere Purgatorium etc. De Transubstantiatione verò Panis Suorum sententiae inhaesissent confesseth that they did therein Persist in the opinion of their own Doctors. Master Brerely would think it an injury done unto himself, if we should pretermit his objected Authority of Pope Gregory: for Doctor Humphrey (saith he) doth charge Gregory the Great with Transubstantiation. So Master Brerely, who objected this in his Apology, many years ago, and had a full Answer in an * Appeal. lib. 1. Chap. 2. §. 7. [The testimony itself, cited out of Greg. by M● Brereley, is answered in the first Book, concerning EATING. Appeal, made purposely in confutation of his whole Apology. The Sum of that Answer is this: Doctor Humphrey did not speak that, as grounded upon any sentence of Gregory, but only upon the report of a Romish Legend (supposing it to be true) which in the ●udgement of Romish Doctors themselves (whose Testimonies are there cited) Is unworthy to report the memory of the fact, being in itself fond, filthy, and frivolous, the Author whereof may seem to have a face of Iron, and a heart of Lead; and the Objector, namely Master Brerely (for grounding his Objection on a Legendary History) A Falsisier of his own promise. This Answer was home, one would think, and might justly have provoked him to satisfy for himself, if he could have found any Error therein: yet notwithstanding, for want of better service, bringeth he in these Coleworts twice sod. CHALLENGE. What greater unconscionableness could your Disputers bewray, than by so torturing the Hyperbolical, Figurative, and Sacramental Say of Ancient Fathers for proof of the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ? insomuch that they must be consequently constrained, by the force of some Phrases, contrary both to the meaning of the same Fathers, and to the Doctrine of your own Romish Church, to admit of three other Transubstantiations; viz. First, of Christ his Body into whatsoever the Appetite of the Communicant shall desire. Secondly, of Christ his Body into the Body of every Christian. And Thirdly, of the Body of every Christian into the Body of Christ. As the Testimonies objected plainly pronounce. ⚜ Besides which you may add a Fourth, of Bread into the Deity of Christ. And again, a Fift out of chrysostom, of the Wicked receivers, turned into Wolves, as you have heard. As also (for a sixth, from others, of the Change of * Set the 9 §. following, Dio●ysius. Godly Receivers into God. A Seaventh out of Saint Augustine, of Changing (saith he, of Christ) * See Book. 5. cap. 8. § 1. Me into Thee, and Thee into Me. In all which Objections they do but verify the Proverb: Qui nimis emungit, elicit sanguinem. Fiftly, the like unconscionableness of your Romish Disputers is unmasked, by laying open the Emphatical Speeches of the Fathers, concerning Baptism, answerable to their Say objected, for proof of Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. SECT. VIII. COncerning Baptism we have * See above in this Chap. §. 3. etc. heard already, out of the Writings of Antiquity, as efficacious Terms, as you could object for the Eucharist. First of the Party Baptised, Changed into a new Creature. Secondly, that No sensible thing is delivered in Baptism. Thirdly, that The Baptised is not the same, but changed into Christ his flesh. Fourthly, to think that It is not the Priest, but God that Baptizeth, who holdeth thy head. Lastly, Baptism (saith the Council of * Book 8 Chàp. 2. §. 1. Conc. Nicen. Baptisma non Corpotis, sed mentis oculis considera● dum. Apud Binium lib 3. Decret. Conc. Nic. de Baptismate. Nice) is to be considered not with the Eyes of the Body. Of these already, and hereafter much more in a General Synopsis reserved for the Eighth Book. A Brief of the Collections of that judicious Inquisitor into Antiquities, the thrice memorable, * Notes extracted out of the abovementioned M. S. of Mr. Isaac Casaubon, by M. Mèiric Casaubon his son. Master Isaac Casaubon; for the better satisfaction of men of our own Protestant Profession, concerning the judgement of Antiquity. SECT. IX. THis famous learned Author telleth us of the judgement of Ancient * Verbis Christi adhae serunt [Hoc est corpus meum ● & illam locutionem retinuerunt, quae nihil juvat hodier●os Pontificios: quia aliud est usurpare loq●endi modum, quo usus Christus: aliud definire quomodò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explicandus sit ille modus.— Fateor veteres Patres aliquandò videri tale quid in Sacramento agnoscere: sed si verba eorum accuratè expendantur, planè apparebit, Praesentiam Christi eos agnovisse, absque hoc mysterio. Transubstantiationis. justinus utitur exemplo Incarnationis: sed nihil hoc ad Transub. Nam Deus, cùm assumpsit Carnem, non est muratus in Carnem, neque desijt esse quod erat.— Patres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agnovisse, sed variè expos●sse, & planè contra Rom. Ecclesiae sententiam.— Greg. Nyss. Et alij Patres, qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adstruunt, utuntur exemplis, quae Transubstantiationem destruunt: ut aquae in Baptismo: saxi in Altari: Idiotae in Sacerdotem: nostri in filios lucis, qui eramus filij tenebrarum. Accedant loca Patrum, ubi disertè negatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— Patres in Sacramento agnoverunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & rem symbolis significatam, & quae cum Symbolis exhibetur, & per Symbola.— saepe igitur cum Christo loquuntur, sed nunquam adjiciunt Interpretationem, quae stabiliat doctrinam d● Transubst. & de Accidentibus sine substantiâ.— Patres perceptionem hujus mysterij tribuerunt fidei, ità tamen ut os non excluderent proprer Symbola— Sunt qui putent, quoties inveniunt apud Patres sumi corpus Christi, aut praesentem esse Christum, aut ut loquitur Chrysost. Tom. Front. p. 43. Christum reliquisse nobis suum corpus, & id genus, ipsissimam esse doctrinam Pontificiorum, fed falluntur. Observandum enim, Patres studiose seruàlle genus loquendi, quo usus est Christus, & servavit Apost. sed modum non exposuisse.— Patres de hoc mysterio & ejus effectu cum sentirent augustissimè, multi sunt in ejus commendatione, & suis illis hyperbolis hoc in argumento habenas suas laxârunt. De effectu dixerunt, Hominem fieri Deum per hoc Sacramentum. Vide excerpta è Dionys. Areop. de scopo Sacramenti hujus, & ad Dionysium notata, p. 33. De Sacramento Eucharistiae, quod putabant esse causam Instrumentalem effectus, pari magnificentia locutisunt. Fathers, I. Touching the Exposition of Christ's words, [This is my Body.] The Fathers (saith he) used the same form of speech, which Christ had done before them: which doth no whit help the Papists, because it is one thing to use the same phrase of speech, and another thing to define how they are to be expounded. They speak of a Transmutation, and Change, but so expound themselves, that their words make plainly against the doctrine of the Church of Rome. II. Using Examples, which destroy Transubstantiation, (as namely) the Change of Water in Baptism, of Laics into the Priest. III. They acknowledged the sensible Sign with the thing signified thereby. But they never teach any thing whereby either Transubstantiation, or the being of Accidents without their substance is established. iv They attributed the Participation of this Mystery unto Faith, yet so, as not excluding the receiving by the Mouth, in respect of the Symbols. Somethinke, when the Fathers say Christ is present, And he hath left us his Body, and the like, that thereby they mean the Doctrine of the Papists, but they are deceived. V All the Fathers with one Consent teach, that there is the same Change and Transmutation of Water in Baptism, which there is of Bread in the Eucharist. VI That the Hyperboles and Excessive speeches of the Fathers are not to be pressed, no more than that of Dionysius Areopagita, saying that Man, by this Sacrament, is made a God. Thus fare that Orthodox and learned Author, justifying (in effect) as much as hitherto by Us hath been avouched from Antiquity. Sixtly, the unconscionableness of the Romish Opposites doth betray itself, by their alleging of Testimonies of the Fathers, contrary to their own Romish Principles. SECT. X. YOur Romish Positions and Principles are these; one is this: 20 josephus' Angles Flor. Theolog. qu. 5. Art. 1. Disp. 3 Conclu. 1. Panis fit corpus Christi, est falsa positio; quià non suscipit Corpus Christi formam panis. Conclu. 2. Panis mutatur in Corpus Christi, falsa est propositio, quià in hac conversione nullum subjectum manet, & nulla intervenit mutatio, (nempè Corporis Christi.) Sic ille. Aquinas, part. 3. qu. 75. Art. 8. in hoc Sacramento, factâ conversiont, aliquid idem manet, s●ilicet, (Accidentia panis) secundum quandam similitudinem harum locutionum aliquae possunt concedi scil. quod de pane fit corpus Christi, ut nomine panis non intelligatur substantia panis, sed in universali Hoc, quod sub speciebus panis continetur.— Et paulo post, ad 1. Non tamen proprie dicitur quod panis fiat corpus Christi, nisi secundùm aliquam similitudinem, ut dicitur. Vasquez in 3. Thom. qu. 75. Art. 8. Disp. 181. cap. 14. Verum cum jam à nobis notatum est, verbum [FIERI] in praedictis propositionibus non sumi propriè pro aliqua corporis, Christi productione, sed pro eo, quod est, corpus Christi adduci, seu fieri praesens in Sacramento, ex hac parte nihil difficultatis est in praedictis annuntiationibus.— Panis fit Corpus Christi melius docent Tho. Rich. Gabr. Sotus, Ledesma, hanc propositionem esse falsam, si secundùm proprietatem vocum accipiatur. Et ratio manifesta est, quià cum aliquid dicitur fieri aliud, debet esse aliquod common, saltem materia sub utroque termino Transmutationis, hic autem nihil manet commune nisi Accidentia, quae non fiant corpus Christi, sed continent. AEgidius Coninck de Sacramentis. Qu. 75. Art. 8. De pane sit Corpus Christi: Ex pane fit corpus Christi, in rigore sunt falsae, si apud Patres inve●●antur, piè explicandae sunt, Patres Catachresi usos esse. This Proposition, Bread is made the Body of Christi, is False, say your Doctors; And, It cannot agree with the Body of Christ in true Propriety; and they give reasons hereof (in the Margin.) The other is, That to affirm, that Bread is changed into Christ his Body, is a false Proposition: the reason is, because in your transubstantiation there is no Change made in Christ's Body. A third may be this, touching the Preposition, [Dè] That the Body of Christ cannot be properly said to be made [De Pane] of Bread; for so it should not be of the flesh of the Virgin. Thus can they say, and thus can they conclude; and yet notwithstanding, for defence of their Transubstantiation, thus durst they produce such Testimonies of Fathers, wherein the Bread is said to be made Christ's Body; and which speak of Changing Bread into Christ's Body; and also such, which express the Body of Christ to be made of Bread. Which one Consideration as it doth discover the unconscionableness of our Adversaries, so may it instruct us, that all such Sentences of the Fathers are to be Interpreted as spoken, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or in a Figurative Sense. CHALLENGE. Only give us leave to speer you a Question, before we end this third Book. Seeing that Transubstantiation cannot properly be, by your own Doctrine, except the Substance of Bread ceasing to be, there remain only the Accidents thereof (this Position of the continuance of Only Accidents, without a Subject, being your Positive Foundation of Transubstantiation) Why is it that none of all your Romish Disputers was hitherto ever able to produce any one Testimony out of all the Volumes of Antiquity, for proof of this one point, excepting only that of Cyril, which * See above Chap. 4. § 4. hath been (as you have heard) egregiously abused and falsified? Learn you to Answer this Question, or else shame to object Antiquity any more; but rather confess your Article of Transubstantiation to be but a Bastardly Impe. We might enlarge ourselves in this point of your unconscionableness, in your objecting Testimonies of Fathers, for proof aswell of Transubstantiation, as of the other Articles abovementioned; but that they are to be presented in their proper places, to wit; in the following Treatises, concerning Corporal Presence; Corporal Union, Corporal Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, and the Divine Adoration thereof; so plainly that any man may be persuaded, our Opposites mean no good Faith, in arguing from the judgement of Ancient Fathers. Hitherto of the First Romish Consequences. THE FOURTH BOOK, Treating of the second Romish Consequence, arising from the false Exposition of these words of Christ, [THIS IS MY BODY,] called Corporal Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. THE Sacramental Presence hath a double Relation, one is in respect of the thing sensibly received, which is the Sacrament itself; the other in respect of the Receiver and Communicant. Both which are to be distinctly considered, as well for our right discerning of the matter in hand, as also for Method's sake. The first is handled in this Book: the second in that which followeth. CHAP. I. Of the state of this point of Controversy. That notwithstanding the difference of opinion of Christ's Presence be only De modo, that is, of the manner of Being; yet may the Romish Doctrine be Heretical: and to hold the contrary is a pernicious Paradox. SECT. I. IT would be a wonder to us, to hear Any of our own profession to be so extremely Indifferent, concerning the different opinions of the Manner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament; as to think the Romish Sect therefore either Tolerable, or Reconciliable, upon Pretence that the Question is only De modo, (that is) of the manner of Being, and that Consequently all Controversy about this is but vain langling. Such an one ought to enter into his second thoughts, to consider the necessity that lieth upon every Christian to abandon divers Heresies, albeit their difference from the Orthodox profession were only De modo. As for example. First, The Gnostick taught man's soul to have its beginning by manner of Production, from the substance of God. The Catholics said nay; but by manner of Creation, of nothing. The Pelagians maintained a free will in spiritual Acts, from the grace of Nature. The Catholics nay; but by special grace of Christ, freeing the will through the efficacious operation of his holy Spirit. The Catharists held themselves pure, in a purity of an absolute perfection. The Catholics nay; but by an Inchoative, comparative, and imperfect perfection of purity. Furthermore against our Christian Faith, of believing God to be absolutely a Spirit; the Anthropomorphites conceived of God, as of one (after the manner of men) consisting of Arms and Legs, etc. Not to be tedious. We come to the Sacraments. The Cataphrygae did not Baptise in the name of the Blessed Trinity, after the manner of the Catholics. The Artotyritae celebrated the Eucharist in Bread and Cheese. To omit many others, take one poniard, which we are sure will pierce into the entrails of the Cause (to wit) the heresy of the Capernaits, in the days of our Saviour Christ: who hearing his Sermon, teaching men to Eat his flesh; and conceiving thereby a carnal manner of Eating, irreconciliably, contrary to the spiritual manner, which was believed by the true Disciples of Christ, departed from Christ, and Apostated from the Faith. ⚜ For we are to understand, that there is a double [Quomodo] How? The one Insidelitatis: as though it were impossible to be True in the Sense of the speaker. The other [Quomodo] How? Prudentiae: by enquiring into the Possible Sense of the speaker. Of the first kind was that of the Capernaits, by not believing, through their praejudicate understanding of his speech, Contra Christi Sensum. That other is of us Protestants, believing the same words, juxta Christi Sensum. ⚜ And that the Romish manner of Eating Christ his Body is Capernaitical; her manner of Sacrifice sacrilegious; her manner of Divine Adoration thereof Idolatrous; and all these manners Irreconciliable to the manner of our Church, is copiously declared in the Books following. For this present we are to exhibit the different, and contradictory manners concerning the Presence of Christ herein. The manner of Presence of Christ his Body 1. According to the judgement of Protestants. 2. In the profession of the Church of Rome. That Protestants, albeit they deny the Corporal Presence of Christ in this Sacrament; yet hold they a true Presence thereof in divers Respects; according to the judgement of Antiquity. SECT. II. THere may be observed Four kinds of Truths of Christ his Presence in this Sacrament: one is Veritas Signi, that is, Truth of Representation of Christ his Body; the next is Veritas Revelationis, Truth of Revelation; the third is Veritas Obsignationis, that is, a Truth of Seal, for better assurance; the last is, Veritas Exhibitionis, the Truth of Exhibiting, and deliverance of the Real Body of Christ to the faithful Communicants. The Truth of the Sign, in respect of the thing signified, is to be acknowledged so fare, as in the Signs of Bread and Wine is represented the true and Real Body and Blood of Christ: which Truth and Realty is celebrated by us, and taught by ancient Fathers, in contradiction to Manichees, Marcionites, and other old Heretics; who held that Christ had in himself no true Body, but merely Fantastical, as you a Marcionitae, Manichaei, & alij Haeretici putabant corpus Christi verum non esse, sed phantasticum esse. Bellar. lib. 3. the Eucharist. cap. 24. §. Resp. Argumentum. yourselves well know. In confutation of which Heretics the Father Ignatius (as your b Ignatius (citante Theodoret. Dial 3.) Eucharistia est Caro Christi, Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 2. Hoc scripsit Ignatius contra Haereticos, qui negabant Christum habuisse Carnem veram, sed tantùm visibilem & apparentem.— Observandum est, Haereticos illos non tam Sacramentum Eucharistiae, quàm Mysterium Incarnationis oppugnâsse. [True, and the Argument of Ignatius was the same which Tertullian used also against the same kind of Heretics: Lib. 4. in Martion. [Hoc est corpus meum] Id est, figura corporis mei: Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritas esset corpus. See this in the place of Tertullian at large. Cardinal witnesseth) called the Eucharist itself, the flesh of Christ. Which Saying of Ignatius, in the sense of Theodoret, (by whom he is cited, against the Heresy of his time) doth call it Flesh and Blood of Christ, because (as the same Theodoret expounded himself) it is a true sign of the true and Real Body of Christ. So your Cardinal, even as Tertullian long before him had explained the words of Christ himself, [This is my Body] that is (saith he) This Bread is a Sign, or Figure of my Body. Now because it is not a Sign, which is not of some Truth ( * See above, Book 2. Chap. 2. 〈◊〉 9 for as much as there is not a figure of a figure) therefore Bread being a Sign of Christ's Body, it must follow, that Christ had a true Body. This indeed is Theologicall arguing, by a true Sign of the Body of Christ to confute the Heretics, that denied the Truth of Christ's Body. Which controlleth the wisdom of your c Concilium dicit verò contineri Corpus in Sacramento contra Sacramentarios, qui volunt Christum adesse in Signo, & Figurâ: Signa enim Veritati opponuntur. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 2. Council of Trent, in condemning Protestants, as denying Christ to be Truly present in the Sacrament, because they say, he is there present in a Sign. As though there were no Truth of being in a Sign, or Figure; which were to abolish all true Sacraments, which are true Figures, and Signs of the things which they represent. A second Truth and Realty in this Sacrament is called Veritas Revelationis, as it is a Sign, in respect of the Typical Signs of the same Body and Blood of Christ, in the Rites of the old Testament; yet not absolutely in respect of the matter itself, but of the manner, because the faithful under the Law had the same faith in Christ: and therefore their Sacraments had Relation to the same Body, and Blood of Christ, but in a difference of manner. For as two Cherubins looked on the same Mercy-seat, but with different faces oppositely: so did both Testaments point out the same Passion of Christ in his Body, but with divers aspects. For the Rites of the old Testament were, as d Augustin. contra Fauslum, lib. 19 pag. 349. Tom. 6. Deltrat, qui dicit mutaus Sacramentis res ipsas diversas esse, quas ritus Propheticus pronunciavit implendas, & quas ritus Evangelicus annunciavit impletas.— aliter res annunciatur facienda, aliter facta. Saint Augustine teacheth, Prophetical, prenunciating and foretelling the thing to come: but the rites of the new Testament are Historical, annunciating and revealing the thing done: the former showed, concerning Christ his Passion, rem faciendam, what should be; the latter rem factam, the thing done, and fulfilled. As therefore the Truth of History is held to be more real than the Truth of Prophecy, because it is a declaration of a real performance of that, which was promised: So the Evangelicall Sacrament may be said to contain in it a more real verity, than the levitical. Therefore are the Rites of the old Law called * Heb. 10. Shadows, in respect of the Sacraments of the Gospel; according to the which difference Saint john the Baptist was called by Christ a Prophet, in that he * joh. 1. 15. foretell Christ as now to come: but he was called more than a Prophet, as demonstrating and * Ibid. 19 pointing him out to be now come. Which Contemplation occasioned divers Fathers to speak so Hyperbolically of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in comparison of the Sacraments of the old Testament, as if the Truth were in these, and not in them, as e Origen. Hom. 7. in Numer. pag. 195. Illa in aenigmate designari, quae nunc in nova Lege in specie & veritate complentur. [Calling ours Truth, yet not simply, but comparatively ● for a little after he confesseth that they received Eandem Escam; id est, Christum.] Objected by Mr. Brerely, Lirurg. Tract. 4. §. 2. Subd. 4. Origen did. Besides the former two, there is Veritas Obsignationis, a Truth sealed, which maketh this Sacrament more than a Sign, even a Seal of God's promises in Christ; for so the Apostle called Circumcision, (albeit a Sacrament of the old Law) the * Rom. 4. 11. Seal of Faith. But yet the print of that Seal was but dim, in comparison of the Evangelicall Sacraments; which because they confirm unto the faithful the Truth, which they present, are called by other ancient Fathers (as well as by f August. Tom. 4. the Catechizand. rudib. cap. 26. Signacula esse visibilia rerum divinarum. Saint Augustine) visible Seals of Divine things. So that now we have in this Sacrament the Body of Christ not only under a Sign, or Signification, but under a Seal of Confirmation also: which inferreth a greater degree of real Truth, thereby represented unto us. This might have been the reason why Saint Augustine taught Christ to be g August. Tract. 50. in Ich. Habemus Christum in praesenti ad Baptismatis Sacramentum: habemus in praesenti ad Altaris cibum & potum. Tom. 9 Present both in Baptism, and at receiving the Lord's Supper. A fourth Reason to be observed herein, as more special, is Veritas Exhibitionis, a Truth Exhibiting and delivering to the faithful Communicants the thing signified, and sealed, which Christ expressed, when he delivered it to his Disciples, saying; [Take, eat, this is my Body given for you: and, this is my Blood shed for you.] Thus Christ, by himself; and so doth he to other faithful Communicants whersoever, to the ends of the World, by his Ministers, as by his hands, through virtue of that Royal Command, [DO THIS.] Vain therefore is the Objection made by your h Athanas. apud Theodoret. Dial. 2. pag. 330. Corpus est, cui dicit, Sede à dexteris meis— per quod corpus Pontifex fuit, & dictus est, per id quod tradidit mysterium, dicens; Hoc est corpus meum. This was objected by Bellarmine. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 11. Cardinal, in urging us with the testimony of Athanasius, to prove that Christ his Body is exhibited to the Receivers. As though there were not a Truth in a mystical, and Sacramental deliverance of Christ his Body, except it were by a corporal, and material presence thereof: which is a transparent falsity, as any may perceive by any Deed of Gift, which by writing, seal, and delivery conveyeth any Land or Possession from man to man; yet this fare more effectually, as afterwards will appear. But first we are to manifest, That the Romish Disputers do Odiously, Slanderously, and Unconscionably vilify the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as it is celebrated by PROTESTANTS. SECT. III. BEllarmine, with others i Christus nihil est illis, nisi frustum panis, & vini portiuncula. Salmeron. Ies. in Epist. pauli disput. 11. §. Septimo. Eucharistian esse tantùm figuram haeresis est antiqua: haec Calvini haeresis. Bellar. de Not. Ecclesiae. c. 9 §. Quorundam. Malè cocta b●ccella, mysterium carnale, nihil divini portentat.— Refigit (inquiunt) in memoriam Christi meritum, ejusque generi nostrò collata beneficia. Augustum sanè I nihil deterius ipsa praesta oculis nostris inspecta imago Crucifixi. Westen. de. 3. hominis offic. c. 16 Purus putus panis pistorius, & merum meracum, sive vinum cauponarium. Espenc. de Adorat. lib. 5. cap. 9 p. 188. object against Protestants, saying that Their Sacrament is nothing else but a crust of Bread, and pittance of Wine. And again, A morsel of Bread ill baked, by which the Protestants represent unto their memories the death of Christ, and the benefits thereof. A goodly matter! so doth a Crucifix: and to make the Sacrament only a Sign, is an ancient Heresy. So they. But have you not heard the Doctrine of the Protestants, teaching the Eucharistical Bread to be (more than Bare Bread) a Sacramental Sign; more, an Evangelicall Sign; more, a Sacred Seal; yet more, an Exhibiting Instrument of the Body of Christ therein to the devout Receiver? And have not these outrageous Spirits read your own Cardinal? witnessing that the Protestants teach that k Docet Calvinus Symbola, & corpus Christi, licet loco inter se plurimùm disten●, tamen conjuncta esse, non solum ratione signi; quià unum est signum alterius; sed quià per signum Deus verè nobis exhibet ipsum corpus verum, & sanguinem, quo animae nostrae verè alantur. Bellar. l. 1. de Euc. c. 1. ●it Calvinus affirmat saepiùs, Christi corpus esse praesens in Sacramento quatenus ibi animis nostris verè unitur, & communicatur substantialiter: sic enim loquitur, secundum substantiam, non modò secundum effectum. Et Fortunatus Calvinista dicit, in Sacramento corpus Christi versari realissimeque percipi. Valent. Ies. Tom. 4. disp. 6. quaest. 3. punct. 1. §. 7. p. 9 Idem Sadael & Beza sentiunt. Idem ibid. Haec est eorum sententia; licet Christi corpus corporaliter & essentialiter sit in coelo, nihilominus duplici modo in hoc Sacramento verè percipi, spiritualiter, & sacramentaliter; spiritualiter quidem ore mentis, non dentis, id est, per fidem & conjunctionem, virtute Spiritus Sancti in animo communicantis: sacramentaliter etiam, ore quidem corporis sumendo, non ipsum quidem corpus ejus, sed signum corporis ejus, panem, & vinum, quae dicit esse sigilla certa, quibus promissio redemptionis in corpore & sanguine Christi fidelibus obsignatur. Valent. quo supra. Although the Body of Christ be still in Heaven, yet is it received in this Sacrament; first Sacramentally by Bodily mouths, in receiving the Bread, the sign of Christ his Body; and by which God doth truly, albeit Sacramentally, deliver unto the faithful the real Body of Christ: and secondly spiritually to the mouth of the soul by Faith, and so they truly and really participate of the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. So Bellarmine, concerning Protestants, which is so plainly professed by l Calvin, in his Book intituted, Defensio Carvini de Sacramento. Augustana Confessio [In sacra Coenâ verè dari cum Pane & Vino ipsum Corpus Christi, & Sanguinem] Huic consen●um nostrum praebemus. Absit verò ut nos vel Coenae Symbolo suam auferamus veritatem; vel plus animas tanto privemus beneficio, Defence. pag. 28. Hujus rei non fallacem oculis figuram proponi dicimus, sed pignus nobis porrigi, cui res ipsa & veritas conjuncta est, quòd scilicet Christi Carne, & Sanguine animae nostrae pascantur. Ibid. pag. 44 Sacram unitatem, quam nos habemus cum Christo, sensui carnis incomprehensibilem fatemur esse. Ibid. 45. Spiritualem cùm dicimus, fremunt, quasi hac voce realem (ut vulgò vocant) tollamus. Nos verò, si reale pro vero accipiant, ac fallaci & imaginatio opponunt, Barbare loqui mallemus, quàm pugnis materiam praebere. Scimus enim quàm non deceant logomachiae Christi servos. Ibid. pag. 46. Quasi verò nobis cum Swinkfeldio quicquam sit commune, qui nudum signum docuit. Ibid. Defence 2. pag. 35. Figuraram esse locutionem fatemur, modò non tollatur figurae veritas, hoc est, modò res quoque ipsa adlit. Ibid. pag. 43. Substantiâ Corporis Christi animas nostras bene pasci fateor, tamen substantialem praesentiam, quam imaginantur, repudio. Ibid. pag. 55. Nec aliter sanctae memoriae Bucerum sensisse, luculentissimis testimonijs probare mihi semper prompum erit. Ibid. pag. 61. In veteri Testamento nondum carnem induerat filius 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 himself, as would make any Romish Adversary blush at your former Calumnies, who hath not abandoned shamefastness itself. ⚜ 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, only because they denied it to be Transubstantiated into Christ's Body; even in the same his Book, wherein notwithstanding, he confesseth the Shewbread, delivered to David by Abimelech, to have been no Common Bread. Which, because it was before Christ incarnate in the flesh, you yourselves will swear was not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ; and yet notwithstanding, was it no Common Bread. CHALLENGE. THus may you see that we 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 propriety of a Sign, or Figure, as not to believe the thing signified to be exhibited unto us, as you have heard. With what black spot of malignity and falsehood than were the Consciences of those your Doctors defiled, think you, who have imputed to Protestants a Profession of using only bare Bread, which they notwithstanding teach and believe to be a Sacred Sign of the true Body of Christ, in opposition to Heretics; an Evangelicall Sign of the Body of the Messiah crucified, against all jewish conceit; yea, a Seal of Ratification; yea, and also a Sacramental Instrument of conveying of the same precious Body of Christ to the souls of the faithful, by an happy and ineffable Conjunction? whereof more hereafter in the * In the fift Book, throughout. Book following, where the consonant doctrine of the Church of England will likewise appear. And as your Disputers are convinced of a malicious Detraction, by the confessed positions of Protestants, so are they much more by your own 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 waxed old) should in disdain thereof call it a wooden, or rotten Block, and not account them irreligious in so calling it? but why? only because it is a sign 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 sign invented by man. And therefore how infinitely more honourable in all Christian estimation must a Sacramental Sign be, which only the God of Heaven and Earth could institute, and Christ hath ordained to his Church, fare exceeding the property of a bare sign, as you have heard? A Father delivering by politic assurances under hand and seal a portion of Land, although an hundred miles distant, and conveying it to his Son by Deed, if the Son in scorn should term the same Deed or writing, black Ink; the Seal, greasy Wax; and the whole Act but a bare sign, were he not worthy not only to lose this fatherly Benefit, but also to be deprived of all other the temporal Blessings of a Father, which he might otherwise hope to enjoy? yet such like have been 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 Mystical Presence, will not conceal from us that Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, which your Church doth so extremely dote on. CHAP. II. The Romish professed manner of Presence of Christ's Body in this Sacrament. SECT. I. Our Method 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 proof of a Corporal Presence of Christ in this Sacrament, but only a literal Exposition of Christ's words [This is my Body:] which by Scriptures, Fathers, your own Principles, and by unanswerable Reasons hath been * Book 2. proved to be most grossly false, we shall not need to insist further upon that; only we shall but put you in mind of Saint Paul's words, in teaching the use and end of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament, to wit, The showing of Christ's death until his coming again: meaning corporally, at the last day. Which word [UNTIL,] being spoken of a last day, doth exclude your coming again of Christ in his Corporal Presence every day; for the Apostles word is absolutely spoken of his Bodily Coming, and not of the manner thereof; albeit other Scripture teach, that his Coming must be in all glorious Visibility. We go 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. Council of Trent) is contained truly, really, and substantially the Body, and Blood of Christ: and they account him Accursed, whosoever shall not believe this. By all which is signified a Corporal manner of presence (excepting only Relation to place) which we say is, in many respects, impossible, as we shall prove; but first we are to remove two Millstones, for so you esteem your Objections, which you cast in our way of Demonstration of a Corporal Presence; First, de facto, from (as you say) Miracles manifesting the same. And the Second is your Pretence of Omnipotency, for the effectuating that Presence. The pretended principal Romish Demonstration of a Corporal Presence of Christ's Body and Blood, in this Sacrament, taken from pretended n Supremus jorus 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 we shall hold as God's Seals of Divine Truth: if therefore you shall allege any such, for proof of a Corporal Presence, see they be true, else shall we judge them, not to be God's Seals, but the Devil's Counterfeits. Your Bozius, one of the number of the Congregation of the Oratory in Rome (professedly studied in historical 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 Warehouses of all sorts of stuffs, having collected a packet of Apparences, useth his best Eloquence to set forth his merchandise 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 mic●bilissimum videre adhuc possint panem conversum in ipsam carnem Christi. Bozius de Sig. Eccles. lib. 14. cap. 7. that he will report only such Stories, whereby it is made Evident by God himself, that the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist, even by the Testimony of men's eyes, that have seen it. A thing (saith he) most miraculous, which every one that hath eyes may yet see. So he, even as p Coccius Thesaur. Cathol. lib. 6. de Eucharistia. Coccius before him, in every particular: and after both M. * In the place below-cited. Brerely thus prefacing; Miracles sent by God confirm the same, wherein at the breaking of the Host, sundry times great copy of blood issued out, as is testified by many Writers. We are now attentive to the Relation of your Orator and Others, and afterwards (as you shall perceive) to give that credit unto them, which the cause itself shall require. We will take their Relations according to the order of Times. I. Anno CCCC. Simon Metaphrastes (saith q Simon Metaphrastes narrat, etc. Bozius ibid. Bozius) telleth in the days of Honorius the Emperor (for the confirmation of the faith of an Eremite) that the Sacrament being propounded, presently [Infans visus est] a living Infant was seen by three old men on the Altar: and whilst the Priest divided the Bread, an Angel was seen, and seemed to divide, and cut in pieces the flesh of the Child, and so [Senex carnis cruentae apertè particeps factus est, & resipiscit,] The old Eremite being made partaker evidently of the Bloody flesh repent. II. Anno 600. A woman (as r johannes, & Paulus Diaconus in vita Gregorij narrat, etc. Bozius ibid. & Coccius Thesaur. li. 6. de Euch. art. 8. Anno 590. And Masser Brerely Tract. 4. §. 3. Subd. 1. out of Paulus Diaconus, de vita Greg. lib. 2. cap. 41. Bozius reporteth, and with him Coccius) had laughed to hear the Bread called the Body of Christ, which she herself had made with her own hands, and was observed to laugh by Pope Gregory: who thereupon fell to prayer with the people, and by and by looking aside upon the Host, behold the forms of Bread were vanished, and he saw [Veram carnem] true flesh: Then the people wondered, the woman repent, and the Host, at the prayer of the Priest [in pristinam formam reversa est] Returned into its own shape again. III. Anno 800. s Ante Annos propè octingentos, ut narrat Pascasius, quidam Presbyter, etc. Bozius ibid. & Coccius. A certain Priest called Phlegis, being desirous to see Christ in the Eucharist, not that he doubted thereof, but that he might receive some heavenly comfort [Divinitùs] from God, after prayers for this purpose, he saw (after Consecration) [Puerum jesum,] The Child jesus, in the Host, [& amplexatus est eum, & post multam deosculationem, etc.] he embraced him, and after much kissing of him, he desired to receive the Sacrament, and the Vision vanished, and he received it. So he. These two last, are also alleged by your Cardinal t Bellar. lib. 3. de Eu●●r. cap. 8. Deus non est testis menda●●, etc. Bellarmine. IU. Not many years after a fourth in Italy, u E● Guitmun lo, & Lanf●●nco, Bozius & Coccius Ibid. A Priest saying Mass, and finding [Veram carnem super Altar, verumque sanguinem in Calais,] True flesh upon the Altar, and true Blood in the Cup, fearing to receive it, forthwith reported it to the Bishop, demanding what he should do; The Bishop consulted with the other Bishops his Brethren, by whose common consent the Priest taking the Cup and the flesh, shut them up in the midst of the Altar, [Haec pro divinissimis miraculis summa cum reverentia servanda decrevit,] The Bishop decreed, that these should be perpetually reserved, and kept as most divine Relics. V Anno 1050. a Tempore quo, urgente nefando Berengario, haec in controversiam sunt adducta, ut Deus adstipulatus intellig●tur veritati, & refragatus errori, etc. Baronius Anno 1059. num. 20. ex Petro Damino. Cardinal Baronius will needs have you know, that Berengarius was confirmed by a like miracle from God, as the Bishop of Amalphi (saith he) witnesseth to Pope Stephen upon his oath; That when he was doubting of the Truth of the Body of Christ, in the Sacrament, at the breaking of the Host [Rubra & perfecta caro inter ejus manis apparuit, ita ut digitos ejus cruentaret,] Red and perfect flesh appeared betwixt his hands, insomuch that his hands were bloodied therewith. VI Anno 1192. Behold an History (saith your b Quae admiranda hoc seculo in S●lavorum Historiâ, authore Helmoldo Abbate, hujus seculi narrantur fide dignissima, accipe. His farm diebus, etc. Baron. An. 119●. num. 20. & 21. Haec de Transubstanti●●one: consutavit item idem miraculum Haeresin nuper obortam negantium aquam vino mixtam mutari in sanguinem. Baronius ibid. num. 24. Cardinal Baronius) most worthy of belief (you must believe it.) At Thuring after that the Priest had given the Sacrament to a young Girl then sick, and had washed his fingers in a pot of water, she observing it very diligently, willed them that were by to uncover the water, for I saw (said she) a piece of the Eucharist fall out of the hands of the Priest into it: which being brought unto her to drink, all the water was turned into Blood, and the piece of the Host, albeit no bigger than a man's finger, was turned [In sanguineam carnem] into a bloody flesh. All that see it are in horror, the Priest himself, suspecting his own negligence, feareth, and wisheth that it may be burned. After was this made known, and divulged to the Bishop of Mentz. This Archbishop commandeth his Clergy to wait upon this, whilst it should be carried in public procession until they came into the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, where prayers are made by the Archbishop, that God would be pleased to retransform this [in primam substantiam panis, & vini,] into the former substance of Bread and Wine: and so at length it came to pass. Thus far the Story. This (saith the same Cardinal) maketh for Transubstantiation, and confuteth the Heresy of those that deny that water mixed with the Eucharist is turned into Blood. So he. VII. Anno 1230. c Bozius' quo supra ex Filiano. A Priest in Florence looking into the Chalice saw drops of Blood divided into parts, and joining together again, in Abbess dareth the Priest a Viol to put the Blood in, which the third day after appeared to be flesh. This flesh is still reserved in a Crystal glass in the Church of Saint Ambrose in Florence; and although the outward forms thereof be somewhat dark, yet are they to be seen of all Travellers. So he. VIII. Anno 1239. d Bozius' quo supra. In the Kingdom of Valentia [Verè memorabile] a thing truly memorable; In the time of the wars between the Christians and Mahometans there was seen of the Priest in the Altar pieces of the Host enclosed in linen, and sprinkled with drops of Blood, which Host afterwards by advice was laid, with all reverence, on the back of a Mule to be carried to that place, wheresoever the Mule should make a stand. The Mule (although enticed often by Provander to stand elsewhere) never made stay until he came to an Hospital of Dorchara, where falling down upon his knees (lest he might afterwards carry any thing less noble, and worthy than that Host) [protenus expiravit] he suddenly died. IX. e Bozius' ibid. ex Villano, etc. Anno 1258. When the Priest celebrated the Mass in the King's Chapel at Paris, and was now in elevating the Host, to show it unto the people, many of them presently saw [formosissimum puerum a most beautiful Child: And out of the Eucharist [sanguis copiosus emanavit] much Blood issued; so that this cannot be imputed to the Art of the Devil. X. Anno 1261. f Bozius' ibid. and Onuphrius in Vita Vrbani Quarti. Vivus Sanguis ex Hostia manavit, & totam mappam, quam Corporale vocant, tinxi●. [Illustrissimum illud] The most famous, upon occasion whereof the Feast of Corpus Christi day was first instituted, which Panvinus mentioneth in the life of Pope Vrban the Fourth, when there issued out of the Eucharist [sanguis copiosus] Abundance of Blood. So that it cannot be attributed to the cunning of the Devil. XI. Anno 1273. g Bozius' ibid. A Miracle was seen at Picenum, where a woman reserved the Eucharist, which she should have eaten, and kept it with purpose to abuse it for recovering the love of her Huband by Magic; The Host she laid on Coals, and it presently turned into flesh: She was astonished, but concealed it by the space of seven years, at length she discovereth it to a Priest, he found this flesh being hid so long in a Dunghill [intactam, & illaesam] perfect, and entire: he published this Miracle, which moved infinite numbers to come and see it. And even now, after, it doth yet incite men to come and visit it, for the flesh is seen after so many years uncorrupt, to the eternal memory thereof. XII. Anno 1510. h Bozius' ibid. At Knobloch, a Village under the Marquisate of Brandenburg, one Paulus Formosus on a night stole the Pix wherein the Eucharist was reserved, he sold it to a jew, The jew pierced it through with a Dagger, and Blood flowed out, etc. Most of all these are related by Master i Master 〈◊〉 in his Book of the Laturgie of the Mass●, pag. 188. & 399. Brerely Priest; whereupon he maketh this Conclusion: Miracles showed by God (saith he) do forceably confirm the same, for at breaking of the Host at sundry times great copy and abundance of Blood issued out, as hath been formerly testified. So they. It were pity, when as so many Countries have been graced with such Miracles, England should be thought unworthy of like honour; nay here also we hear there was (Anno 950.) at Canterbury * Master Fox Acts and Monuments, pag. 11●. Ex O●berac, in vita 〈◊〉. a Miracle wrought for confirming divers Clergy men (then wavering) in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, by a Bloody dropping of the Host at Mass. Such as these are the Miracles, whereof your jesuite boasteth, saying, 2 Mr. malon Ies his Reply, Epist. to the Read. r. I have enlarged myself in the Article of the Real Presence, because it is a matter of great importance: in which Argument I have alleged many miraculous Demonstrations, recorded by Writers of great credit, in Confirmation of the Catholic Cause. So he. But of what credit your Historians are, who report these; what Conscience your Disputers have to object these; give us first leave to diseusse, and we shall easily permit it to the judgement of any Conscional●● man, to make his own Conclusion. ⚜ That these were not Apparitions of true Flesh, and true Blood of Christ, by the judgement of Romish Schoolmen. SECT III. YOur Bellarmine, Baronius, Bozius, Master Brerely, and Coccius have, for proof of the Corporal Presence of Christ, insisted upon Apparitions of (as they have said) true flesh, red flesh, perfect flesh of the Infant jesus; and the child jesus seen, embraced and kissed in the Eucharist: of Wine turned into blood, of Drops of Blood, sprinkling drops of Blood, issuing out, and bloodying the fingers of the Priest, that saw it. But we rather believe your Schoolmen, of whom (besides many k Revera videri Christum in specie pueri, aut carnis opi●antur, sed cum du●●tione, Alensis, G●briel, Palacius. S●●rez. Ies. Tom 3. Disp. ●5. §. 2 p. 710. that doubted) divers, together with Thomas Aquinas, with the Thomists, & other Authors, alleged by your jesuit Suarez, denied all this, saying, l Dicendum est in hujusmodi apparitione non videri Christum in se: ita Thomas, & omnes Thomistae. Suarez. ibid. Quandò app●et this species, quidam dacunt, quod est propria species Christi corporis, nec obstare dicunt, quod aliquas tautium pa●s carnis, aut quod species pueri appareat, qu●à potest Christus ● qua vult specie apparere in propri●a siv●a●ena: sed hoc est inconveniens, quia species Christi non potest in propria specie videri, nisi ● uno locò, in quo definitive continent: undè videatur in propria specie in coelis, non videtur in hoc Sacramento. Legitur quod loque multorum Episconorum Concilio in paxide reservatum, quod nefas est de Christo in propria specie feature. Aq●inas par. 3. qu. 76. art. 8. Quis facile credat, quando visus est sanguis ab hostia flucie; illud esse sangum●n Christi? vel quando Calix visus est repl●ri Christi sanguine, ibi esse, Christi sangume● extra venas corpons, ita u● rang; aut bibi possit? Et simile est, quandò appareat quasi frustum Ca●s, quod illa sit vera Christi caro: nam per se●e apparent indecenti●, five multo, sive parvo tempore 〈◊〉. Et nulla est necessitas impultiplicandi miracula. Experientia docet mutari, & tabescere id quod videbatur caro, & sanguis, quod non-potest ulla ratione carni guinem Christi, sed non elle verum sanguinem, aut veram carnem, sed colore tantùm, et figurâ Suarez. jesuit. quo supra. And the jesuite Sillivitius Seneasie, Moral. quaest. Tom. 1. Tract. 4 cap. 4. & 5. Num. 142. & 101. In istis apparitionibus non videtur caro et sanguis in se, sed tantùm figura et color illam referens. That in such Apparitions there is no True flesh, nor true Blood of Christ at all. Their Reasons: First, Becausè Christ (say they) cannot appear in his own proper form, in two places at once. Secondly, Because it were heinous wickedness to enclose Christ in a Box, appearing in his own form. Thirdly, Because Christ's Blood to issue, and sprinkle out of his veins, who can easily believe? (yea, and your jesuite Coster, with some Others, spare not to profess, as well as we, that * See the fixed Book, Chap. 1. §. 4. Shedding of Christ's Blood out of his Body, was only on the Cross.) Fourthly, Because it were Vndecencie to reserve such Relics, experience teaching that they do putrify. Thus your own Schoolmen produced, and approved by Suarez the jesuite, whose Conclusion and Resolution is, that The flesh thus appearing is not only not the flesh of Christ, but even no true flesh at all, but only a colour and sign thereof. ⚜ Fiftly, You have here before you (in the Margin) your jesuite Vasquez, denying those to be the Apparitions of true Flesh; and as though none but simple people were deceived with such Apparitions, he holdeth it sufficient that 3 Vasquez. Ies. in 3. Thom. Quaest. 76. Art. 8 Disput. 193. Cap. 2. Respondeo, Neque apparere carnem Christi, neque alterius, quae reverà caro sit, sed carnis solùm effigien.— Quod autem simplices decipiantur, & credant ibi esse carnem Christi divisibili & cruento modo, parum refert: haec enim deceptio instructione verâ Doctorum & Pastorum corrigendus est. Their Deception herein may be corrected by the true instruction of the Learned. How will your Bozius, Coccius, Bellarmine, and your many other Doctors together with their Believers, digest this; to be thus ranked by this your jesuite among the Simple and Ignorant people in this their deliration, concerning such fictitious Apparitions? ⚜ Do you not then see the different faith of your own Historians, and of your own Divines? namely that those Historians, as unclean Beasts, swallow down at the first whatsoever cometh into their mouths: but those your Divines, like more Clean creatures, do ruminate and distinguish truth from falsehood, by sound reason and judgement, and prove the Authors of such Apparitions flat liars; the Reporters uncredible Writers; and the Believers of them stark Fools. That the Romish Answer, to free their former pretended Miraculous Apparitions from suspicion of Figments, or Illusions, is Unsufficient. SECT. iv ALbeit in these Apparitions there be not true flesh (say m Quamvis non fiat, ut vera caro Christi, vel reverà vera caro (ut respondent Thomistae) sed tantum colour & figura ejus, tamen quòd sit externa species, sive imago divinitùs facta, sufficiens est ad confirmationem veritatis. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disput. 55. Sect. 2. some of your Doctors) yet such Apparitions, being miraculously wrought, are sufficient Demonstrations that Christ's Flesh is in the Eucharist. But why should not we yield more credit to those Schoolmen, who say n Alens. Gabriel. Palacius dicunt quòd miracula siunt veris, & non apparentibus signis & figuris— Asserunt talem apparitionem non esse factam virtute Dei, sed Daemonis. Suarez Ibid. [Where he addeth, Hoc ab ijs gratis dictum est.] True miracles use to be made in true signs, and not in such as seem only so to be; because seeming signs are wrought by the Art of the Devil? And we take it from the Assurance, which your jesuite giveth us, that o Potest Daemon repraesentare figuras quarum libet rerum, ut argenti, auti, epul rum, quemadmodum per●ssimi Sculprores & Pictores v●tias fo●mas, & figur● rerum ità finguam, ut interdum verae esse videantur. Sed verè & propriè miraculum id dicitur opus, quod omnis ●aturae creatae vum atque potentiam excedit. Et una differentia, quâ vera miracula possunt à falsis discerni, haec est, quòd falsa sunt phantastica, & simulata, ideoque non diturna: vel sunt planè inutilia. Perer. Ies. in Ex●. 7 Disp. 4. Num. 34. & D. 5. N. 36 38. Tertia ratio sum potest ad confirmandam veritatem Corporis, ex dignitat● personae corpus assumentis: quae cum sit veritas, non decuit ut in ejus opere aliqua sictio insit. Aquin. part 3. qu. 5. Ait. 2 Devils and Painters can make such semblances and Similitudes: and that true Miracles are to be discerned from false, in that false Miracles carry only a likeness of things, and are unprofitable. Furthermore, yourp Aquinas proveth against the Heretics, from Sense, that Christ had a true Body, Because it could not agree with the dignity of his person, who is Truth, that there should be any fiction in any work of his. Thus stand you still confuted by your own domestical witnesses. We may add this Reason, why there could be no Resemblances of Truth, because all the personal Apparitions are said to be of an Infant, and of the Child jesus; albeit Christ, at his Ascension out of this World, * Baron. A●n. 34. was 34. years of age: and yet now behold Christ an Infant 34. years old! as if your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had beheld Christ, with the Magis, in Bethelehem, at the time of his birth; and not in Bethaven, with his Disciples, at the instant of his Ascension. Of the Suggesters of such Apparitions; and of their Complices: SECT. V THe first Apparition of flesh abovementioned was not before the days of the Emperor Arcadius, which was about the year 395. The second not until 700. years after Christ; nor is it read of any like Apparition in all the days of Antiquity, within the compass of so long a time; excepting that of one Marcus, recorded by p Irenaeus adversus, Haereses lib. 1. c. 9 Marcus purpureum & rubicundum apparere facit, ut puraretur ea gratia sanguinem stillare in Calicem per invocationem per magu● illum. Irenaeus, who feigned to Make the mixed Wine in the Cup, through his Invocation, to seem red, that it might be thought, that grace had infused Blood into the Cup: which the same Father noteth to have been done by Magic; at what time there were daily Proselytes and new Converts to the Christian Religion, and on the other side divers ranks of Heretics, as namely, Valentinians, Manichees, Marcionites, and others, who all denied, that Christ had any corporal, or Bodily Substance at all. Were it not then a strange thing that so many Apparitions should be had in aftertimes, in Churches established in Christian Religion, concerning the truth of Christ's Body, and no such one heard of in these days of Antiquity, when there seemed to be a fare more necessary use of them, both for confirming Proselytes in the faith, and reducing Heretics from their Error? that Apparition only of Marcus excepted which the Church of Christ did impute to the Diabolical Art of Magic. As for the Reporters, much need not to be said of them; Simon Metaphrastes is the first, who was of that small Credit with your Cardinal, that, in Answer to an Objection from the same Author, he said; q Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont. c. 5. §. Neque. And Baronius: Si qua fides adhibenda est Metaphrasti, qui nullam hic meretur fidem. Ann. 44. num. 38. I am not much moved with what Metaphrastes saith. And if the Foreman of the inquest be of no better esteem, what shall one then think of the whole Pack: As for the testimony under the name of Amphilochius (objected by your * Coccius Thesaur. Catho. de Eucharistia. And Dr. Heskins in his Parlia, of Christ. Coccius) writing the life of Basil, and mentioning the like Apparitions of Flesh, we make no more account of it, than do your two r Sed haud dubio falsa, vel supposititia. Lib. de Script. Eccles. Tit. Amphilochius; & Cardin. Baron. ad Ann. 378. num. 10. Cardinals, by whom it is rejected as Supposititious and Bastardly. But the Suggesters of these Apparitions, what were they? (a matter observable) ordinarily Priests, together with either old men, women, and sometimes young Girls, who (wheresoever Superstition reigneth) are known to be most prone thereunto. That we say nothing of the lewd juggle of your Priests, who in other kinds have been often discovered amongst us, and in other Countries. We conclude. A true Miracle, for confirmation of Religion (we are sure) is Divinum opus, the Infidel Magicians being enforced to confess as much, saying, * Exod. 8. 19 Digitus Dei hic est. And as sure are we that a feigned miracle (although it be in behalf of Religion) is impious and blasphemous against God, who being the God of Truth, neither will, nor can be glorified by a lie: * job. 13. 7. Hath God need of a Lie? (saith holy job.) We right willingly acknowledge, that divers Miracles have been wrought, for verifying the Eucharist to be a Divine Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ: but to be itself the true and substantial flesh of Christ, not one. When a * Socrat. hist. lib. 7. cap. 17. jew, that had been once Baptised by one Bishop, betook himself to another Bishop, to be again Baptised of him, in hope of profit, The Water in the Font presently vanished away. s Aug. de Civit. lib. 22. cap. 8. Medicum podagricum non solùm dolore, quo ultrà solitum c●ue abatur: verumetiam podagrâ ca●tusse, n●c amplius quam d●● vixisset pedes doluisse. Saint Augustine telleth of a Physician, who was vexed extremely with the Gout, and at his Baptism was freed from all pain, and so continued all his life long. t Baron. An. 384. Num. 19 Baronius reporteth another of a Child fallen into a little Well, prepared for men of age to be Baptised in, and after that it was held for drowned, in the opinion of all bystanders, at the prayer of Damascus it arose from the bottom, as whole and sound as it was before. These Miracles happened not for the dignifying of the Matter, which was the water of Baptism, but of the nature of the Sacrament itself, albeit void of the Corporal presence of Christ. Not to tell you (which your u Tanta suit Evangelij authoritas, ut etiam codices ipsi miracula ediderint: ut Gregorius Tureneusis in vità Patrum narrat de S Gallo, qui Evangeliorum codice accepto, civitatis incendium tes●●it: 〈◊〉 & S Mar●●us, Ecclesià S. Anastasiae slagrante, teste Nicephoro, lib. 5. cap. 22. Durant. de Ritib● lib. 2. cap. 23. num. 22. Durantus will have you to know) of Miracles, wrought by the Book of the Gospel, for the extinguishing of F●ers. And the former Histories do in most of the premised Examples report as well the Adoration given to the former Apparitions of a No-Christ, and of his No-Flesh; as they do unto Christ himself: which, beside the Absurdity of their Opinion, doth involve them in a gross Idolatry, whereof We are to treat in the seaventh Book. ⚜ A Digression upon occasion of a late Discourse of a greatly privileged Doctor, concerning the Histories, mentioning the Blood of Christ miraculously Separated from his Body (which will be pertinent to the Point in question) wherein we may find many Observables. SECT VI. FRancis Collius, Professor of Divinity at Milan, is the Author; whose Book is Authorized (as the 4 Francisus Collius T●eologiae. Dactor, De Sanguine Christi m●raculo 〈◊〉 Anno 1618. (Cum privilegio per Rus●am. Co●●gij Ambrofiant, Praesiaem Collegarum nomine) Libri qu●que omnium Doctorum con●e su●cepri; & etiam A●●s. Consult●r Offic● pro ●ever●dissimo Inquisitore, etc. Margin showeth) With a public privilege, and Commendation of ALL the Doctors of the College of Saint Ambrose. His whole Discourse is of this only Subject, THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Out of which we have singled Three especial Points, incident to our present purpose, concerning The Blood of Christ Separated out of his Body, specified in Romish Histories. The first Separation thereof is said to be made in the miraculous Apparitions in the Eucharist: The Second out of the Images and Relics: The Third of the Blood which issued out of Christ's side at his Passion; whereof Some parts are also storied to be kept as Relics in divers Countries in Christendom. I. Of that Blood, which is reported to have Miraculously Issued out of Christ's Body visibly in the Eucharist. Of this First kind, you have heard the Romish Stories, in good number, objected by your Priests and jesuites in great earnest, for proof of a Corporal presence in the Sacrament, in the name of True Blood, and Visible, flowing out of the same Body; and thereupon the Common and solemn worship given thereunto, wheresoever the aforesaid Apparitions are recorded to have been. Now entereth in your Author Collius, speaking unto you in an higher strain (in the Margin) than this is; which we shall render unto you in English. His first General Declamation is this. 5 Idem Collius Lib. 4. cap. 3. Disp. 9 Cujus ●ures avaire non refugiunt, sanguinem Christi post gloriosam à motrus Resurrectionem è naturalibus venarum conceptaculis non semel distractum fuisse? imò quis non perhorrescit hoc intelligere— cum compertum sit diuturnitate temporis evanescere, seu ut verius dicam, contabescere id, quod ●b Alense verus sanguis Christi putatur— Cap. 4. Quanquam possit hoc Deus potenti virtutis imperio, tamen tutissime videtur asserendum, nunquam spectasse mortales oculos, verum Salvatoris nostri sanguinem, postquam Triumphator caelos penetravit— Cap. 5. Sol●●igitur sententia Thomae tenenda, juxtà concordem insignium Theologorum sententiam, cruorem, ex sacra Synaxi emergentem, non esse ex Christi venis haustum— Cap. 6. S● non est verus Christi sanguis ille miraculosus, cujus tandem conditionis et naturae est? Belluarumnè, an hominum potius? num à Deo recenter creatus, an solummodo Commentitius & fictitius sanguis?— Si per longa inter valla durat, verus est sanguis— Cap 7. Sanguis qui brevissimo tempore, vel in transcu●u cernitur, non v●us, sed adu●bratus sanguis duntaxat puta● d●s est. Whose Ears can abide to hear, the Blood of Christ, now after his glorious Resurrection, to have been separated out of the natural receptacles of his veins? Yea, who can without horror think thereof, especially seeing Experience telleth us, that the same Blood, which appeared, did vanish away, putrify, and corrupt? Wherefore, It will be our safest Resolution, according to the Consent of Divines, to affirm, that no mortal eye of man did ever behold the TRV● BLOOD of Christ, since his Triumphant piercing of the Heavens. Hitherto your public Professor, according herein with Thomas Aquinas (whom he calleth the Angelical Doctor) and with other famous Divines. But presently (whereas his cited Doctors furthermore Conclude, None of those Apparitions to have been of any True flesh at all, but only Shadows, and Representations thereof) he craveth leave to departed from them, affirming it to be, although not the True flesh of Christ, yet True flesh: and leaveth them questioning against this his Assertion, concerning these Miraculous Apparitions; What True flesh than it might be, Whether the flesh of Beast's, or of a Man; Whether newly Created, or Commentitiously obtruded? He answereth, yet so, that whereas your Stories, and all their Reporters and Worshippers of such Apparitions do equally esteem of All, as being a like Truly flesh; he teacheth them to distinguish of the Apparitions, which are said to have vanished shortly after their first show, & the other that were of a longer continuance● and to acknowledge the Existence of the True flesh, only in the Second kind. In the last place, opposing against the General Opinion of Thomas, and other of your choicest Divines (abovementioned) who held these to be merely Apparitions, without any Substance of flesh, He, albeit granting that a Fictitious Apparition may be truly Miraculous, yet to make the same Opinion Ridiculous, breaketh out, and inveigheth in this manner; 6 Quo●sunt? (C. 6. contra eos qui dicunt tantùm fictitum esse sanguinem illum, qui per long a intervalla corspicitur. Idem Author Collius. Quis sibi persuadere poterit largissimos rubri coloris liquores, qui ex sacra mensa non semel eruperunt, nulla procreata substantia, eff●uere, & vasa atque calices implerè posse? certe capiant, si liber, & istud credant alij, mihi enim uti captu, ita creditu semper difficillimum visum est— (Qui t●m●n paulò post) An credant illa Accidentia esse, qu●sia fides Catholica consecrati calicis in Eucharistia scimus esse?— Cap. 7. Ego opinor Basim ac firmamentum Accidentium sanguinis, ijs ipsis accidentibus, quae in chalice supersunt, ascribendum esse. Who Can persuade himself, that such abundance of liquour of red colour, which is said to have issued out of the Eucharist, filling the Chalices, and other vessels, should be wholly Fictitious, and Accidents without Substances? Let others understand and believe this, if they please, for my part I must confess it was always beyond my Capacity and Credulity. So your Doctor, of his supposed Miraculous Apparitions; Notwithstanding he hath no more Foundation either out of Scripture, or from any Tradition out of the Primitive Church of Christ, for Mere Accidents without Substance, in that which he saith he believeth; than he hath in the other which he believeth not, but declameth against, as you have heard. II. The same Author's Discourse upon the Romish Stories, concerning the mentioned Relics of Christ's Blood, issued out Miraculously from Images. SECT. VII. Whereas Aquinas, with Others, out of many Histories, have approved of many Apparitions of Blood in great abundance at Mantua, Venice, Rome, and elsewhere flowing out of Images: This your Doctor concludeth with himself, that 7 Idem Collius. lib. 5. Disp. 8. cap. 2. Verum Christi Sanguinem in terus esse, memoriae atque literis proditum est— Cap. 3. Quid de all●tis historiis censen●●um sit—. Sicut certam mihi elicere posse videar assertionem, non nihil istius sanguinis Christi apud nos remansisse; ita adduci non possum, ut assentiar, tantam effusi sanguinis copiam, qualis ea esse convincitu● ex iis, ●bsque certo naturae Christi rèviviscentis detrimento, absolutae corporis Christi Perfectioni repugnante.— Difficile est satisfacere ijs omnibus, qui de vero Christi sanguin● gloriantu●, cùm ●●n cui●, pulchrum sit, ut f●rt Proverb●um, ut quispiam p●udens inducet animum suum credere; tot vascula sacro Domini cruore referta, nunc etiam in terris reperiri— Si quis, credit, audiat illam infignem sententiam [Qui citò credit levis est cord.] Cap. 4. Objectis rationibus respondetur. Cap. 5. An cum fide Catholica repugnet, nihil sanguinis Christi tem ansisse in terris— Cardinalis Sancti Petri ad Vin. putat non sine haeresi negari posse.— Ex testimonio Bullae Pij Secundi Pontificis; ex Revelatione Brigittae alij; alij, ut Thomas affirmat, de sanguine Christi nutrimentali, non de vitali; sed Distinctio haec inanis.— Ob. Athanasius de passione imaginis Domini. Cap. 7. Sanguis Dominicus, etc. cujus Authoritas approbata est in septimo Synodo Nucena, Act. 4. quibus rationibus Angelicus Doctor, Quodilibet. 5. a 3. ●●dem cap. refert ad sanguinem Christi; sed ego minime subscribendum esse arbitor, Ob. Leo tertius. Respondeo, Non verum Christi sanguinem, Manituae existentem, fuisse à Leone comprobatum, sed fuit certa Inventi liquoris Approbatio, utpote qui veneratione dignus: imò etiam pium videri istum liquorem, & ut Christi sanguinem p●c colendum. Ob. Sol. Diploma Pij Secundi tantum dicit, non repugnare Fidei doctrinae, sanguinem Christi aliquem relictum, esse in terris. Ob Sol. Non solum probabilis ac vera propemodum opinio est, eam historiam de percussu Imaginis Christi, non fuisse Athanast● magni, sed alterius Doctoris ejusdem nominis— quae tamen, si ejus fuisse dicatur— tamen unius Sancti Patris authoritas ad r●m tanquam de fide stabiliendam non sufficiet.— Et approbatio Synodi Nycenae secundae non est existimanda cadere in totum, ac singulas Istius historiae parts, sed solum quadrare in historiam perfossae Imaginis, etc. Quod ad Brigittae Revelationem spectat; etsi sit e● maximi ponderis, tamen non tan● tamque efficacis censenda est, ut ab ea discedere impium ac i●●●ligiosum fuit. Albeit Some portion of the Blood of Christ might be said to remain on earth, yet can it not be thought, that such a copious measure of Blood, as is reported, should have been: Because, although each Country glory and boast of such their Relics, as being Christ's Blood (for that as the Proverb is, EVERY ONE THINKETH HIS OWN BEST;) yet could not so great Quantities of Blood, as filled whole vessels, be said to issue out of Christ's Body, without some iujury to that perfection of his glorious Body. And therefore He that shall believe that, let him hear that notable saying of Solomon, He that is of a sudden Belief, hath a light and inconstant heart.] By occasion of this Question, thus prosecuted, they start (as it were) another Hare, questioning whether it be a matter of Faith to believe the Blood, so appearing, to be the Blood of Christ? One side affirming it to be, grounding themselves, as they thought, upon Bulls of the Popes of Rome; upon a pretended Testimony of Athanasius; and upon the Divine Revelations of Saint Bridget: On the contrary side, your Doctor qualifieth the Approbations of Popes; excepteth against the pretended Testimony of Athanasius (and justly) as counterfeit; and denieth that the Revelation of Saint Bridget can be sufficient to prove it to be Impious and irreligious, not to believe the contrary. III. As for the third point, of the Blood of Christ shed at his Passion, we leave them 8 Id. Disp. 9 cap. 2. An portio aliquas de sanguine effuso in passione relicta fuerit in orbe tertarum? Affirmo, Nihil ejus sanguinis tunc effusi extra Dominici corporis venas remanfisse. Silvester contrariè colligit ex Thoma, Aliquid sanguinis in passione effusi remansisse apud mortales. Ac Vasquez in 3. Thom. Qu. 5. Disp. 36. cap. 8. Assero aliquam partem sanguinis Christi retaansisse, nec in Resurrectione totum resumptum fuisse. skirmishing together; One side affirming, and the other denying, any part of that Blood to have been at any time remaining in the world, since the time of his Passion. All this our Relation hath no other Aim, than to show the unconscionableness of your Disputers, in requiring Faith of Others, to believe such and such Apparitions of Christ's Blood, which they themselves, by their own Reasons, Contradictions, and Conclusions have made uncredible. CHAP. III. That the Romish manser of the Corporal Presence of Christ, in the Sacrament, is manifoldly Impossible. SECT. I. NO sooner do you hear Protestants talk of the Impossibility 20 30 of your manner of Presence, which your Church prescribeth, but you presently cry out upon them, as upon Blasphemous Detractors from the Omnipotency of God; as if they meant x Absit ●ut fidelis quispiam aurem accommodet impijs Sacramentarijs, qui excaecatâ ment omnipotentiam Christi in hoc Sacramento vel comprehendere detrectant: quòd tanquam pestem lethalem vitae, & intellectum nostrum in obsequium Christi cap tivare debemus. Theologi Colon. in Provinc. Cont. Tract. de Sacram. Euch. fol. 92. To tie God to the rules of Nature, as your Authors are pleased to suggest. We hold it necessary therefore to remove this Scandal, thus cast in the way for simple people to stumble upon, before we can conveniently proceed to the main matter; and this we shall endeavour to do by certain Propositions. I. That, by the judgement of ancient Fathers, some things (by reason of Contradiction in them) may be called Impossible, without the impeachment of the Omnipotency of God; yea, with the great advancement thereof. SECT. II. THis Proposition accordeth to the judgement of ancient Fathers, showing that y Aug. de Civit. lib. 5. cap. 10. Dicitur Deus omnipotens faciendo quod vult, non faciendo quod non vult: quod si accideret, nequ●quam esset omnipotens: unde proptereà quaedam non potest, quia est omnipotens: non potest mori, non peccare, non falli. Ambros. lib. 6. Epist. 37. ad Chroma●. Non posse mori, non infirmitatis est sed virtutis. Chrysost. in ●ohan. Nihil impotentius quàm hoc posse. Ad●e hereunto, Theodoret. Dial. 3. cap. 4. Impossibilia sunt Omnipotenti Deo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic posse, esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. Orat. 36.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God cannot do something, even because he is Omnipotent, as not die, not sin, not lie, because such Acts proceed not from power, but from impotency, and infirmity. ⚜ Theophylact will explain this Point, in answering this Question, Can God make that which is once done to have been not done? 1 Theophylact. in Marc. 10. Nu●quid autem dicunt Deum factum infectum facere non posse? Dicimus Deum esse veracem: factum autem infectum facere, mendacium est. Quo pacto, quaeso, verax mendacium fecerit? prius enim perderet naturam suam: Et ideò qui sic loquuntur, perindè loquuntur, ac si quae●ant, Num potest Deus non esse Deus? vides igitur quam ridicula sit quaestio. God is true of his words (saith he) but to make that not to be done, which hath been done, is a Lie. How then can he that is true, Lie? He should sooner lose his Divine nature. They therefore that speak so, talk as if they should ask whether God can be God, whence their question appeareth to be ridiculous. So he. The ancient Father justine Iusti●. Martyr. Quaest Grec. Const. qu. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinguisheth of Impossibilities; One, simple and absolute, which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other, which he saith is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: giving for his example, in the first Impossibility, a Diameter-line in a Figure to be equal unto the sides thereof. Of the further judgement of the Fathers hereafter. ⚜ So the Fathers. It is not long since you have been taught by an exceeding worthy Scholar, that in such Cases as imply Contradiction the ancient Fathers noted the pretence of God's omnipotency to have been anciently z Casaub. Exer●t. 3. ad Baron. An 91 Num. 91. Scitu● est piorum Patrum: O●nipotentiam esse As●lum Haereticorum, quo se recipiant ubi ●arionibus fuerint victi. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic Ariani ab Orthodoxis convicti, Christum Deum non esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, eò confug●iebant, ut d●cerent per omnipotentiam Dei hoc esse factum: qui error confutatur ab Augustino, qu 79. Vet. & Novi Test●●. Potentia (inquiunt) Dei hae● est, ut falsa sint vera: mendacis est, ut falsum dicat verum, quod D●o n●● competit. The Sanctuary of Heretics. And they give an instance in the Arians, who denying Christ to have been God eternal, believed him to have been created God in time; as if it were possible there should be a made God, whose property is to be eternal. Their only pretence was God's Omnipotency, to make false things true: wherein they proved themselves the greatest Liars. Take unto you a second Proposition. II. That the Doctrine of the same Impossibiity (by reason of Contradiction) doth magnify the Power of God, by the Universal consent of Romish Doctors; and their divers Examples of Impossibility, concerning a Body. SECT. III. YOur own jesuites do lay this for a ground: a Dicendum, Deum omnia posse facere, quae ullo modo fiant. Omnes Theologi dicunt, Deum esse omnipotentem, quià potest ad omne, quod non implicat contradictionem, quae ponit esse & non esse simul: & proindè si illud fieret, fieret aliquid, cujus esse esset non esse, etc. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 2. §. Alio igitur. Idem. Adversarij conveniunt in hoc, id non posse fieri, quod implicat contradictionem. Ibid Ipsa contradictio cō sistit in esse, & non esse. Si Deus haberet esse conjunctum cùm non esse, non esset Deu●: Si non esset Deus, non esset Omnipotens. Quare posse facere quod implicat contradictionem, est Deum posse non esse omnipotentem Mal●on. Ies. Tom. 1. de. Euch. qu. 1. p. 153. & Perer Ies. in Genae. 7. initio. All Divines affirm (say they) that God is Omnipotent, because he can do any thing that implieth not a Contradiction; for that contradiction both affirmeth and denyeth the same thing, making it to be, and not to be that it is. But God, who is Being in himself, cannot make a thing jointly to be, and not to be. This is a Contradiction, and were not Omnipotency, but Impotency; not an effect but a defect. To conclude. Every thing either is, or is not: take away this Principle (say you) and farewell all learning and knowledge. So you, and that, without contradiction, most truly. As your Doctors have taught the truth in Thesi, and Doctrine, so will they manifest the same in Hypothesi, by Examples of Impossibilities, because of Contradiction: namely, First, that it is b I. Impossibile est Deum posse contineri ancaliquo loco. Gregorius de Valers' Ies. ● I. Fieri non potest divinâ virtute, ut spiritus existat more corporum divisibiliter. Bellar. lib. 1. de Eu●●ap. ●1. §. Respondeo ad. III. Non potest corpus praedicari de pane, quià ita disparatum affirmaretur de disparato, quod Implic●ē con●dictionem. Bellar. quo supra. IU. Impossibile, idem esse praesens duobus temporibus simul, cum tempora sluunt. Bell Ibid. V Rem eandem producibis, aut ●er, in diversis locis, non habet duo substantialia, nec substantialiter diversa: proinde non potest tot novis productionibus produci. Vasq● Ies. in 1. Thom. Tom. 2. disp. 76. cap. 6. VI. Impossibile est per divinam potentiam quantitati, ut corpus quantum non sit aptum occupare locum. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. disp. 48. §. 1. pag. 583. VII. Fieri non potest, quòd corpus Christi, ut sit in Sacramento, ex uno in alium locum venerit, ita enim fieret, ut à coelo fid●libus abeslet, qu●niam nihil movetur nisi locum deserat è quo movetur. Catechis. Rom. de Euch, num. 32. pag. 187. VIII. Dicere Deum facta infecta reddere, quis non videt idem esse, ac dicere Deum posse facere, ut quae vera, non sint vera? Salmeron. Ies. in 2. Tim. 2. Disp. 3. Impossible for God to be contained in one place. Secondly, for a Spirit to be divided into parts. Thirdly, for Bread to be the Body of Christ, at the same instant when it is Bread. Fourthly, for the same thing to be present together at divers times. Fifty, for one thing to be twice produced in divers places at once. Sixtly, for a Body, having Quantity, not to be able to possess a place. Seaventhly, It is impossible for Christ his Body, as it is in the Sacrament, to come from one place into another. Eightly, Impossible it is to undo that which is once done; because this were to make that, which is true, to be false. ⚜ Ninthly, 3 IX. Scotus, & qui eum sequuntur, negant idem corpus posse esse in pluribus locis simul, propter sequens absurdum, quod tunc idem corpus posset esse vivum in uno loco, & mortuum in alio. Inter quos & Ledesma; Id impossibile esse per absolutam Dei potentiam Henricus, & A●●siodorensis, propter contradictionem, affirmant. Ibid. cap. 5. X. Minus corpus adaequari majori, Impossibile esse Ibid. cap. 5. XI. Impossibile est idem corpus (quamvis possit esse in pluribus locis quoad extensio●e● loci) esse tamen eo modo ubiquè, quia non potest hoc modo universum ei adaequari. Vasquez in 3. Thom. qu. 76. 〈◊〉 6. Disp. 189. Impossible for the same Body to be at one time alive in one place, and dead in another. Tenthly, Impossible for a less Body to be equal to a greater. Lastly, Impossible for a Body to be in all places. So your jesuites, with others. And all these are therefore judged Impossible, Because of Contradiction. Many Scores of the like confessed Impossibilities might be extracted out of your own Books, who notwithstanding doubt not to impute Blasphemy to Protestants, for their affirming but of one Contradiction, and consequently the Impossibility of the being of a Body in divers places at once; albeit it will be found in the after-Discourse to be an Absolute Truth. III. That the Doctrine of Calvin (who is most traduced in this point) accordeth to the former judgement of ancient Fathers. SECT IU. IT is no new Calumny, which you have against Calvin, as if he had impugned the Omnipotency of God, in this Question of the Sacrament; which Calvin himself did refute in his life-time, professing, that he is fare from subjecting the power of God to man's reason, or to the order of nature; and believing, that even in this Sacrament it exceedeth all natural principles, that Christ doth feed men's souls with his Blood. But his only Exception is against them, who will impose upon God a power of Contradiction, which is no better than infirmity itself. c Calumni●tur (Westphalus) à Nobis in dubium vocari Dei omnipotentiam— at rerum omnium conversionem fieri posse à Christ●, nos quoque fatemur; verùm inde si quae coel●m, conversum esse in terram coltigat, ridiculus erit veritatis aestimator. Calv. in Admont. 〈◊〉 Westphal.— Rursus. Nos ita addictos rationi humanae esse jactant, ut nihilo plus tribuamus Dei potentiae quam naturae ordo patitur, & ●ctat communis sensus. A tam improbis C●lumni●s provoco ad Doctrinam ipsam, quam tradid●, quae satis dilucide oftendit hoc mysterium minimè rationis modo metiri, nec naturae legibus subijci; obsecro an ex Physicis didicimus Christum perinde animas nostras ex coelo pascere carne suâ quod naturaliter non fieri omnes dicunt? Dicent; doctrina nostra fidei alis superato mundo, transcendit coelos. Cur (inquiunt) non faciat Deus, ut corpus idem plura, & diversa loca occupet, ut nullo loco contineatur? Infane, q●id a Deo postulas, ut carnem faciat non ●arnem? perinde, ac si instes, ut lucem faciat tenebras— Convertet quidem qu●ndo volet lucem in tenebras, & tenebras in lucem; sed quòd exigis ut lux teneb●ae sint, & non differant; quid aliud quam ordinem Sapientiae pervertis? & eadem est carnis conditio, ut in uno certo loco sit, & sua dimensione constet. Calv. Instit. lib. 4. c. 17. §. 24. item Beza adversus Hesshufiu●. We (saith he) are not so addicted to natural reason, as to attribute nothing to the power of God, which exceedeth the order of nature, for we confess that our souls are fed with the flesh of Christ spiritually above all Physical or natural understanding: but that one should be in divers places at once, and not contained in any, is no less Absurdity, than to call light darkness. God indeed can, when he will, turn light into darkness; but to say light is darkness, is a perverting of the order of God's wisdom. So Calvin, and Beza accordingly with him. And so say we, that it is possible for Christ, (as God) if he were so pleased, to make of Bread an humane Body, as easily as of stones to raise up Children to Abraham; for there is involved no Contradiction in this. But to make Bread to be flesh, while it is Bread, is a Contradiction in itself, and as much as to say Bread is no Bread; and therefore, to the honour of the Omnipotency of Christ, we judge this Saying, properly taken, to be Impossible. ⚜ This Consequence hath been (as you have heard) the Universal Asseveration of your Doctors, to whom, for Conclusion sake, We will add the determination of another jesuite; 4 AEgid Co●incks jes de Sacram cue 76 Art. 3. num 50 Satis est ad hoc ostendendum, non neg●ndum esse, qu●n Deo sit possibile qui●vis, modo ostendamus non p●sse contrà e●●pert●m adferri Contradictionem. It will be sufficient (saith he) for the teaching of God's Omnipotency that we deny not but that every thing is possible to him, wherein an evident Contradiction cannot be shown. So he. In the Interim you may not let slip the Contradiction of your Doctors in this very place, who confessing it to be no impeachment of God's Omnipotency, to hold Every thing Impossible, wherein any Contradiction is employed; have notwithstanding inveighed against Calvin and Beza, for denying of a Possibility of a Corporal Presence, only because of a Contradiction therein. And so, in making others seem Blasphemous, have shown themselves slanderous; as we are now to prove in our confutation of the principal Article of your Romish Church [The Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,] by reason of six more Contradictions involved therein. ⚜ CHAP. IU. That the Romish Doctrine of the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament doth, against that which Christ called [CORPUS MEUM, MY BODY] imply six Contradictions. The first Romish Contradiction, in making it Borne and not borne of a Virgin. SECT. I. THE Catholic Faith hath always taught, 20 30 concerning the Body of Christ, That it was borne of the Virgin Mary. Secondly, that this, so borne, was, and is but One. Thirdly, that this One is Finite. Fourthly, that this Finite is Organical, and consisting of distinct parts. Fiftly, that this Organical is now Perfect, and endued with all Absoluteness, that ever any humane body can be capable of. Sixtly, that this Perfect is now also Glorious, and no more subject to Vilification, or indignity here on earth. But your now Romish Doctrine, touching Corporal Presence in this Sacrament, doth imply Contradictions, touching each of these, as now we are to manifest, beginning at the first. Our Apostolical Article, concerning the Body of Christ, is expressly this; He was borne of the Virgin Mary: which is the ancientest Article of Faith, concerning Christ, that is read of in the Book of God: The seed of the Woman etc. Genes. 3. to show that it was by propagation. But your Roman Article, of bringing the Body of Christ into this Sacrament, is, that The substance of Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body, which inferreth a Body made of the substance of Bread, as we have already * See above Book. 3. Chap. 3. §. 2. 〈◊〉 proved, and as all substantial Conversions do show, whether they be natural, or miraculous. When the substance of Air is naturally changed into the substance of Water, this water is made of Air: when the substance of Water was miraculously changed into Wine, the substance of the Wine was produced out of the substance of water: when the Body of Lot's Wife was turned into a pillar of salt, the substance of that salt was made of the substance of her Bodily flesh. CHALLENGE. Do you then believe your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that it is the substantial Change (by the operative words of Consecration) of Bread into a Body, which you call the Body of Christ? then is this Body not borne, but made; nor by Propagation from the Blessed Virgin, but by Production, and Transubstantiation from Bread: which differences, Borne of the Virgin Mary, and not borne of the Virgin Mary, are plainly Contradictory, which was the cause that Augustine (as f Bartam. de corpore Domini, pag. 61. Pon●mus unum testimonium Augustini, quod dictorum sidem nostrorum ponat, in sermone ad populum: potest (inquit) animo cujuspiam cogitatio talis oboriri, Dominus noster Iesus Christus accepit carnem de Virgin Maria, lactarus est jufans, etc. Quomodo panis corpus ●ius, & calix sangui●? Ista, fratres, ideò dicuntu. Sacramenta, quia in eyes aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur: quod videtur, speci●m habet corporilem, quod intelligitur, fructum habet spiritualem. Ista venerabilis Author dicens, instruit nos quid de proprio Domini Corpore, quod de Maria natum est,— & nunc sedet ad dextram Patris, & quid de isto, quod supra Altare ponitur, sentire debemus: Illud integrum est, neque ulla sectione dividitur, Hoc autem figura, quia Sacramentum. Bertram showeth) distinguished between the Body borne of the Virgin, and that which is on the Altar, as between Aliud, and Aliud; one, and another thing. And this Argument hath been fortified * Lib. 3. Chap. 3. §. 2. before, and is furthermore confirmed by Saint Augustine * Lib. 4. Chap. 7. §. 6. afterwards. ⚜ Yet for this present the same Author, out of Saint Ambrose, to the same purpose 1 Bertram. ibid. ex Ambrosio. Vera utique caro Christi quae crucifixa est, verè ergo carnis illius Sacramentum est. Ipse cla●at Dominus jesus; Hoc est corpus meum. Hinc Bertram. Quàm diligenter, quàm prudenter facta dictincti●, de carne Christi quae crucifixa est? vera itaque caro Christi. At de illa, quae sumitur in Sacramento, verè illus carnis sacramentum est. Distinguens Sacramentum carnis à veritate carnis: quam sumpserat de Virgin, diceret cum crucifixum. Quod verò nunc agitur in Ecclesia mysterium, verè illius carnis, in quae crucidixus est diceret esse Sacramentum. observeth a distinction used by that Father, between The Flesh of Christ crucified (and therefore Borne of the Virgin) and the Sacrament of Christ's Body, whereof Christ said [This is my Body.] CHAP. V. The second Romish Contradiction, to the overthrowing of that which Christ called [MY BODY:] by making one Body of Christ, not One, but Many. SECT. I. YOur Profession standeth thus: g Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. The Body of Christ, albeit now in Heaven, yet is (say you) substantially in many places here on earth, even whersoever the Host is Consecrated. So you. Next your Master h Mr. Brerely in his Book of the Liturgy of the Mass, pag. 150. Because Calvin Institut. 4. cap. 17. §. 10. saith: Etsi incredibile videtur, ut in tanta locorum distantia penetrare ad nos possit Christi caro, ut sit nobis in cibum, etc. Brerely laboureth earnestly to draw Calvin to profess a Possibility of Christ's Bodily Presence in divers places at once, contrary to M. calvin's plain and express profession in the same Chapter; where he directly confuteth this Romish Doctrine of Madness, saying thus: i The same Calvin in the same Chap 17. §. 24. Cur (inquiunt) non faciat Deus ut caro eadem diversa loca occupet, ut nullo loco contineatur, ut modo, & specie careat? Insane, quid à Deo postulas, ut carnem simul faciat esse, & non carnem? perinde ac si instes, ut lucem simul lucem faciat, ac tenebras. Ibid. §. 26. Corpus Christi, ex quo resurrexit, non Aristoteles, sed Spiritus Sanctus finitum esse tradit, & coelo contineri usque ad ultimum diem. Et. §. 30. Cujus ergô amentiae est, coelum terrae potius miscere, quàm non extrahere Christi corpus è coelesti Sanctuario? To seek, that Christ his Body should be in many places at once, is no less madness than to require, that God should make his Body to be flesh, and not to be flesh at one time; whereas not Aristotle, but the Spirit of God (saith he) hath taught us, that this his Body is to be contained in Heaven until the last day. Afterwards Calvin, inveigheth against the folly of your Church, which will not acknowledge any presence of Christ in this Sacrament, except it be local on earth, As if (saith he) she would pull Christ out of his Sanctuary of Heaven. And at last, after that he had said, k As for the objected sentence he explicateth himself, §. 32. Christus illis presens non est, nisi ad nos descendat, qu●si verò si nos ad se evehat, non aequè ejus potiamur praesentiâ. E● §. 36. Vt Christum illie ritè apprehendant, piae animae in coelum erigantur necelle est. [As untruly also doth he allege Bucer, Beza, and Farel. pag. 237. who had the same sense with Carvin. Mr. Fox said, that Christ if he list might be on earth, but he said not so of and in the same time.] Christ his Body is united to the Soul of the Communicant, he so explaineth himself, that he meant a spiritual Union: so that it doth fully appear, that Master Brerely in this point (as usually in many others) allegeth calvin's testimony, against Calvin's sense, and his own conscience. It is irksome to see the fury, wherewith your Disputers are carried against Protestants, amongst whom we see again your Master l See in the former Alleg●ition. Brerely imposing upon Beza the same opinion of the Presence of Christ's Body in Heaven, and on Earth at one time. Although, notwithstanding, m Fi●ri posse, ut Christi corpus possit esse in plu●ibus locis simul, praet●r hunc Apostatum nemo inficiatus est, quod cum credere n●luit, tollit ab omnipotenti virtute. Salmer. Ies. tom. 9 tract. 23. p. 173. your jesuite Salmeron as bitterly taxeth Beza, for contrarily holding it Impossible for one Body to be in two places at once; whom therefore he calleth an Apostata: and whom n Beza cum Adversarijs congressus, ubi Calvini mysteria non posset defendere, in eam prorupit Blasphemiam, ut Deum neget omnipotentem: disertè enim scribit, Deum non posse officere, ut Corpus aliquod, manente substantiâ, sit absque loco, vel in pluribus locis simul; Illud enim Angeli axioma [apud Deum nihil est impossibile] non sine ex● p●ione accipiendum esse, quod factum fieri nequit infectum— O argutos Philosophos! qui Dei Majestatem ad suas Physicas regulas non erub●scunt revocare. Frateol. Elench. Haeres. lib. 2. Tit. Bezanitae. another termeth, for the same cause, Blasphemous, as if this were indeed to deny the Omnipotency of God. Whereas, according to our former Proposition, it is rather to defend it, because God is the God of Truth (which is but one) and truth is without that Contradiction, which is necessarily employed in your Doctrine of the Local presence of any one Body in many places at once, as in the next place is to be evinced. That the same Second Romish Contradiction, holding the Presence of one Body in many places at once, is proved, by the nature of Being in distinct places at one time, to be a making One, not One. SECT. II. IN the first place hearken to your Aquinas, (the chiefest Doctor, that ever possessed the Romish School) o Catholici isti cum Thoma in quartum distinct. 14. art. 2. hanc rationem, cut non possit corpus Christi localiter esse, etc.— Quod si verò non postic corpus Christi localiter esse in diversis locis, qu●à divideretur à seipso, profectò nec possit Sacramentaliter esse eadem ratione: qui licet dicat hoc non esse per loci occupationem, tamen dicit, per realem & veram praesentiam in plariribus Hostijs, sive Altaribus: quae realis praesentia in tot Altaribus, & non loc● intermedijs, non minùs tollere videretur indivisionem rei. Bel. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. pag. 491. Quidam Catholici, atque in eyes Sanctus Thomas, existimant non posse unum corpus esse simul in diversis locis localiter; quià (●mquiunt) unum est ill●d, quod indivisum 〈◊〉 quocunque alio. Bellar. quò suprà. it is not possible by any Miracle, that the Body of Christ be locally in many places at once, because it includeth a Contradictio, by making it not one; for one is that, which is not divided from itself. So he, together with others, whom you call Catholics, who conclude it Impossible for the Body of Christ to be locally in divers places at once: ⚜ Besides that his other Sentence wherein he holdeth this 2 Aquin. in Supplem. in 3. part. qu. 83. Art. 3. ad 4. Dicendum quod corpus Christi localiter in diversis locis non potest fieri der miraculum— quia esse in pluribus locis simul, repugnat individuo, ratione ejus, quod est En● individuum in se— & includit Contradictionem, sicut quòd Homo careat ratione. Et qu. 8●. Art. 2. ad 1. Corpus non potest actu esse in pluribus locis simul, hoc enim est solius Dei. Possibility, as proper only to God. Which though he speak concerning the local manner of Being; yet his Reason (as * See the former testimony. your Cardinal confesseth) doth as well concern your Sacramental manner of being on earth, to deny the Body of Christ to be really in many Hosts, and on many Altars at once. And Aquinas his reason being this, [Vnum] One (saith he) is that, which is not divided from itself: but, to be in divers places at once, doth divide one from itself, and consequently maketh it not to be One: which being a Contradiction, doth infer an Impossbility. So he. ⚜ Accordingly your jesuite Conincks; 3 AEgid Conincks Ies. de Sacram. qu. 75. Art. 4. Dub. 3. Thomas in 4. Dist. 44. qu. 2. Art. ●● ait, Per miraculum fieri non posse, ut corpus sit simul in duobus locis, sc. modo quantirativo. [Quià esse in pluribus locis repugnat Individuo, ratione ejus quod est esse indivisum per sc.] Sanè haec ratio si absolutè, n● sonat, intelligatur, corpus Christi non potest esse simul in coelo, & in hoc Sacramento. If, as Thomas saith, (saith he) a Body cannot be in two places at once Quantitaetively, no not by any Miracle of God, because the thing should so be divided from itself: then (the words being taken as they sound) cannot Christ's Body be at once locally in heaven, and on earth in this Sacrament. So he. Thus is the main Article of your Romish Faith, concerning the Corporal Presence of Christ in many places at once, wholly overthrown by the judgement of Thomas Aquinas, the Oracle of your Romish schools. But when as Protestants argue accordingly, as you have done, your Ies. 4 Vasquez Ies. in 3. Thom. Disp. 189 Cap 7. Ratio, quae ab Haereticis affertur, est, Corpus idem, si in diversis locis collocetur, esse divisum à se. Vasquez spareth not to call it the Reason of Heretics. Which bewrayeth the distorted and squint-eyed sight of our Romish Adversaries, who knowing the same Argument to be used by your own Aquinas, as well as by Protestants, do notwithstanding honour the one with the Title of Angelical, and upbraid the other with the black mark of Heretical. Earnestly have we sought for some Answer to this insoluble Argument, as we think: and your greatest Doctor hath nothing to say, but that the p Duplex est divisio, una intrinseca, in se, altera extrinseca, & accidentalis in respectu loci. Itaque cum corpus est in diversis locis, non tollitur indivisio in se, sed extrinseca, in respectu loci, ut cùm Deus sit unus, est in diversis locis, & anima rationalis est in diversis partibus corporis una. Bellar. ibid. Being in a place is not the essential property of a thing, and therefore can be no more said to divide the Body from itself, than it can be said to divide God, who is every where, or the soul of man, which is one in every part, or member of the Body. So he. We throughout this whole Tractate, wherein we dispute of the Existence of a Body in a Place, do not tie ourselves every where to the precise Acception of place, as it is defined to be Superficies, etc. but as it signifieth one space or distinct Vbi, from another, which we call here and there. We return to your Cardinal's Answer. CHALLENGE. AN answer you have heard from your Cardinal, unworthy any man of judgement, because of a Triple falsity therein. First in the Antecedent, and Assertion, saying that Being in a Place or space is not inseparable from a Body. Secondly, in the Ground of that, because Place is not of the Essence of a Body. Thirdly, in his Instances, which he insisteth upon (for Example-sake) which are both Heterogenies. Contrary to this Assertion, we have already proved the necessity of the Local Being of a Body, wheresoever it is; and now we confirm it, by the Assertion of One, than whom the latter Age of the World hath not acknowledged any more accurate, and accomplished with Philosophical learning; even q Si dicas, corpus est hîc, & ibi idem, ipsum quidem distrahas in diversa: principio ptimo per se, & immediato prohibetur corpus esse in pluribus ubi: est autem continuitas affectus consequens immediate unitatem; Contradictiones enim sunt. julius Scalliger Exercit. 5. quaest. 6. [For how can there he. Continuity in that 5. the Termi●i whereof are separated by divers places?] julius Scaliger by name, (a Professed Romanist) who hath concluded, as a Principle infallible, that Continuity being an immediate affection and property of Unity, One Body cannot be said to be in two places, as here, and there, without dividing itself from itself. So he. Certainly, because Place being the Terminus (to wit that, which doth confine the Body that is in it) it is no more possible for the Body to be in many places at once, than it is for an Unity to be a multitude, or many. Which truth, if that you should need any further proof, may seem to be confirmed in this, that your Disputers are driven to so miserable Straits, as that they are not able to instance in any one thing in the world to exemplify a Possibility of the being of a Body in divers places at once, but only Man's soul, which is a spirit; and God himself, the Spirit of Spirits, of both which * See below Ch ●. §. 2. & 〈◊〉 §. 2. hereafter. Only you are to observe, that the Cardinal's Argument, in proving Space to be separable from a Body, because it is not of the Essence of a Body, is, in itself, a Non sequitur, as may appear in the Adjunct of Time: which although it be not of the Essence of any thing, yet is it impossible for any thing to be without Time, or yet to be in two different Times together. ⚜ And for the better discovery of the weakness of this their common Objection, We add, that although [Vbi,] Place, or Space be not of the essence of a Body, to constitute it one, yet may it be sufficient to demonstrate it to be but one Body, because of Contradiction; as well as all proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or properties, as Risibility in a man; or else as Quantity to a Body, and Circumscription to Quantity; which although they be after their Substances in nature, yet are they jointly and inseparably with them in Times. But that we may argue from the very terms of Contradiction. Your asserting the same Body of Christ to be Local, according to the dimensions of Place; and not Local, according to the dimensions of Place, at one time, implies a Contradiction. But you teach the same Body of Christ to be at once (as ●n heaven) Local, according to the dimensions of Place; and (as on the Altar) not Local, according to the dimensions of Place. Therefore is your Romish Doctrine Contradictory to itself. Yet shall we be content that you may call this a Sophistical Argument, except the Ancient Fathers shall establish the same Conclusion. For this present take unto you a Reason, as we think, Impregnable. Nothing can possibly be Extrà se, without itself; but for a Body, being here, to be at the same time separated from Hear, by a Space where it is not, as on this Altar, and on the other Altar, and yet not to be in the Space between, is to be without itself; and Consequently divideth itself from itself; which no man will affirm, that is not beside himself. The same Second Romish Contradiction manifested in Scripture, by an Argument Angelical. SECT. III. M Atth. 28. 6. The Angel speaking to the woman that sought Christ in the grave, said; He is not here, for he is risen, and gone into Galilee: which is as much, as to have said, he could not be in Both places at once; an Argument Angelical. But you Answer that it was spoken Morally. How? (we beseech you) as if one should say (saith your r Loquitur ad mentem sanctarum illarum mulierum— Sed optima est solutio, moraliter intel ligi, ut si quis dicat, talis homo non sedet ad mensam, coenatus est enim. Bellar. li. 3. de Eu h. c. 4. Cardinal) Such a man sitteth not at table, for he hath supped. What fond trifling is this, and wilful perverting the Truth of God? for this your Argument, A man sitteth not at table, for he hath supped, is scarce a probable Consequence, that a man is risen from the table, as soon as he hath supped. Contrarily, the Angel's Logic is not by a Peradventure, but necessary; not imaginary, but historical; not conjectural, but dogmatic, and Demonstrative. ⚜ And so Saint 5 Chrysost. [Venite & inspicite ubi positus erat] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the words of the Evangelist. ⚜ chrysostom doth call it. For better explanation whereof, we may turn the Causal word [FOR] into an Illative [THEREFORE,] because it is all one (as you know) to say he is not here in the Grave [For ●hee is risen out of the Grave; And to say, He is risen out of the Grave, [Therefore] he is not here in the Grave. Understand then, first, that the matter subject of this Argument being no moral arbritrary Act of man's will; but the omnipotent Resurrection of Christ from the dead, (which is a fundamental Article of Christian Faith, yea, and as it were the foundation of all other Articles, without which, as the Apostle saith, * 1 Cor. 15. 14. Our Faith were vain) the Angel must necessarily be thought to have concluded dogmatically; which is the reason that he is so instant, and so urgent, saying to the woman, Come, and see the place, where the Lord was laid. Which he addeth (saith your s Videli. ad Comprobandum dictum. [Non est hîc.] Salmer. Ies. Tom. 11. Tract. 9 pag. 72. jesuite) for confirmation of that, which he had said, [He is not here.] & Seeking by their sight (saith also another 6 Maldonat. Ies. in eum locum. Nunc experientia confirmat, & ipso visu nititur fidem facere. jesuite) to make them believe. ⚜ And as much as if he had said, (saith t Quasi dicat, si verbo non credatis, vacuo sepulchro credatis. Anselm. Anselme) If you believe not my word, give credit to the empty Sepulchre, in satisfying your own sight. Therefore was it demonstrative. And again, the Angel putting them to make use both of his Saving, and their own Seeing; Go ye (saith he) and tell his Disciples: And they went (saith the Text) to bring his Disciples word. Therefore was his Argument Doctrinal, such whereby he thought so fully to persuade them, that they might inform others in an Infallible Truth. ⚜ One of your Doctors of Louvain published a Book entitled, A Confutation of Cavillations, wherein he 7 Marcus Constant. Theol. Lovan. lib. qui inscribitur; Confutatio Cavillationum, quibus Sacramentum Eu●h impeti solet. Ad ob. 6. [Surrexit, non est hîc.] Respondet Catholicus, quae est haec Consecutio? non est hîc, ergo non est in Sacramento?— adeonè illi inepti, ut id colligant, non est hîc, ergo non potest hîc esse? Arundimea sunt haec, & flaccida tela, quae librata non pertingant quo intenduntur. propoundeth the Argument of Protestants, as if it stood simply thus: The Angel said of Christ, now risen out of the grave, He is risen, he is not here: Therefore he cannot be here. And thereupon calleth them Absurd: when-as they argue from the Angels own Logical term, [For] in the Text, Matth. 28. 6. He is not here, [For] he is risen. Implying the Consequence, which you have heard, that he could not be both Risen out of the Grave, and In the Grave, at the same time of the Angel's speech. But the Causal word, [For] your Doctor omitted quite, that he might more easily impose upon them an Absurdity of his own devising. Thus have you been confuted by an Argument both Angelical and Evangelicall. ⚜ That the Romish Objection out of that Scripture, Act. 9 is frivolous. SECT. iv CHrist (Act. 9) appeared to Saint Paul, than Saul, when he was in his way to Damascus, etc. whence your Cardinal a Simul in summo 〈◊〉, & in ●ēre vieu● terrae. Bellar●ll. 3. the E●ch. c. 3. §. Secundum, etc. laboureth to prove a double presence of Christ, at one instant, (to wit) in Heaven with the Saints, and in the Air unto Saul. First, because the light in the Air Struck Saul blind. Secondly, because others in the company of Saul heard not the same voice of Christ, which he heard. Thirdly, because Saul asked saying; Lord, who art thou? and heard, and understood the voice. Fourthly, Because Saul was thereby made a witness of seeing Christ risen from the dead. And therefore (saith he) was this Apparition in the Air. Every objection may receive its opposition. To the first, thus: Did none of you ever know a man's eyes so dazzled with the brightness of the Sunbeams on earth, that he could not see for a while; and yet did not the Sun remove any whit from his Sphere? So might the glorious shine of the person of Christ in Heaven work upon Saul on earth. To the second, thus: Have you not read of a voice from Heaven, john 12. 29. which some heard articulately, and said, An Angel speaketh, and the common people said, It thundereth? because (as your b Tolet. Ies. in cum locum. jesuit confesseth) they heard it but confusedly. To the third, thus: Men hear, and hear not, so fare as God is pleased to reveal, or not to reveal himself, or his word, and voice, yea or any sight unto them; for Saint Stephen saw the Heavens opened, and Majesty of Christ, when others wanted that sight. To the fourth, thus: The eyes of Saul beholding Christ in Heaven might be as good witnesses of Christ his Resurrection, as were the eyes of Saint Stephen, Acts 7. who saw him; and so much more, because he was both made blind by the brightness of that sight of Christ, and after healed in the Name of Christ. If any desire to know the judgement of ancient Fathers, in this Case, your Cardinal leaveth him to seek it where he shall please. Sure we are that c Aug. in Psal. 54. & Tract. 1 in job. Caput in coelis, cujus membra calcabantur in terra. Augustine, d Ambros●● 1. Cor. 15. Appatuit e● primo in coelo. Ambrose, Pope e Greg. Moral. Hon●. 3●. in Evang. ad sinem. Persecutorem de coelo aliocurus. Gregory the first, and f Isil. Pelus● lib. 1. Epist. 409 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 E● Pheophylact. in Act. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Isidore Pelusiota do expressly affirm that the appearance of Christ to Saint Paul was [De Coelo] from Heaven. ⚜ And lest that any fond, by the word, Heaven, conceiving any inferior heaven, may catch at the Moon; you may observe that the Fathers understood that Heaven, wherein Christ is said to sit at the right hand of God; and that, whereby the Doctrine of Christ is entitled Celestial, and Heavenly. ⚜ And if all this were true that hath been objected, that Christ appeared in the Air, yet is your Consequence but lame, that therefore he was bodily also in Heaven, if we may believe your jesuite Lorinus: g Potuit tantisper de coelo descendisse. Lorin. Ies. in Act. 9 ⚜ And Pelufiota already, at the letter Because Christ (saith he) might for so short a time have descended from Heaven. By all which you may perceive, that your Cardinal, for all his arguing about the Air, hath been (as the Proverb is) but Beating the Air. ⚜ And lest that any of you might Object that of Acts 23. ver. 11. The next night the Lord (Christ) said (unto Paul) Bethou constant, etc. as spoken by Christ, being Corporally there present, when as notwithstanding he was also resident in Heaven, one of your own jesuites 8 Lorinus Ies. Com. in Act. 23. 11. Non audeo de omnibus aepparitionibus affirmare, factas immediatè esse à Christo ipso, cùm Posset Angelus apparere pro Christo. Not daring (as he saith of himself) to affirm all such like Apparitions to have been immediately by Christ himself, will have you to know that they might have been performed by some Angel, in the person of Christ. ⚜ And as lank and frivolous is his Confirmation of their Assertion by (as he saith) Apparitions of Christ unto divers here on earth, when as yet he was certainly in Heaven: for it is not certain, that he appeared personally to any here on earth, if the position of your Angelical Doctor Aquinas may stand for good, who held it * See above, c. 2. §. 3. Impossible for Christ to appear here on earth, in his proper shape, in two places at once: which showeth that these Apparitions of Christ were rather only Visions, without any personal appearing. We are not ignorant how much you attribute to your Cardinal Bellarmine, whom you have heard contending so urgently for proof of the visible Presence of Christ in divers places at once; and what like Esteem you have of your great Professor Suarez, who now cometh Concluding as followeth. h Concludo, Christi corpus tantùm esse in coelo & in Eucharistia; seclusoque eodem. Eucharistiae mysterio, non solùm non esset corpus ubique, s● neque etiam esset alicubi, nisi in coelo: & contrarium asserer● esset magna reme ●as sine fundamento, & contra omnes Theologos. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 1. in Thom. quaest. 14. Art. 1. Disp. 34. §. 4. ⚜ Eodem mod● Vasquez Ies. in. 3. Thom. quaest. 76. Disp. 189● cap. 5. Probatur non posse corpus secundu ●extensionem in diversis locis simul, bene tamen in uno secundùm extensionem, in alijs vero indivisibili more a Deo constitus probatur. ⚜ The Body of Christ, except it's being in the mystery of the Eucharist, is not where but only in Heaven: and to affirm the contrary were a great rashness without ground; and contrary to all Divines. So he. We leave these your two most eminent Doctors of the Chair, and both of the same Society of the jesuites, the one for Rome, the other for Spain, in this their Contradiction, that we may consult with Antiquity itself. An Additionall, for a further Confutation. Cardinal 9 Ballar. lib 3. de Euch. cap. 3. Confirmatur Argumentum e● alijs Christi Apparitionibus nom imprimi. Petro Apostolo Christum ipp●ruisse in terra, & cum eo collocutum fuisse, testantur gravissi●● Authores, ut A●bros. Orat. count. Auxent. Hegessppus lib. 3. de Excidio Hierosol. Athanas. in Apolog. Deiude Antomo app●●uisse, Athmas. in vita ejus. August. lib. de cura pro mortuis, cap. 16. proponit quaestionem, utrum cum diversis locis fiant miracula, ad memorias alicujus Martyris, sit ipse praesens uno tempore in tàm multis locis, an ista fiant ministerio Angelorum. Et respondet, hanc quaestionem esse supra ingenij vires.— Praetereà (Cap. 17.) refert historiam quandam johannis, qui cum ex Monasterio suo non discessisset, apparuit tamen adhuc vivens in somnis cuidam alteri longè posito; ac deinde dicit, dubium esse, an spiritus ejus reverà fuisset in utroque loco, an id esse factum also modo: Si is (inquit) interfuit somnianti mirabili gratiâ, id quidem potuit, non naturâ etc. Bellarmine, for proof that the same Body of Christ might appear Visibly in divers places at once, doth produce the Apparitions of other men in many places at once; and is encountered by your own 10 Vasquez Ies. in 3. Thom. qu. 76. Disp. 139. Cap. 2. Exempla superiùs adducta ex Ambrosio, Egesippo, Athanasio, Giegorio, in quibus prima opinio, de existentia coporis Christi, quoad extensionem ad locum, in diversis locis simol, probari videtur: add etiam Augustinum de cura pro mortuis Cap. 16. & respondet, difficilem esse responsionem. Verùm hoc testimonium non probat de corpore, quoad extensionem ad locum, sed de existentia animae in duobus locis simul. Neque amplius probat alterum illud Augustini de johanne Monacho, ubi agitur de spiritu. [See Vasquez, who thorough our the same whole Disputation denieth the existence of Christ in divers places at once, quoad extensionem ad locum, but only in one place so, and in many, invisibly, in the Sacrament, upon every Altar.] Ies. Vasquez (verbatim) in each one, Concluding that None of them do prove such an Existence, by extension of parts, in respect of Place. Which being joined with the former Confession of Suarez, (already cited) affirming it to be a Doctrine Contrary to all Divines, to teach the Body of Christ to be any where, but only in heaven, excepting the mystery of the Eucharist; It will be easy to discern how little credit is to be given to the Stories, which are alleged by Bellarmine of bodily Apparitions without the Sacrament. ⚜ That the Opinion of the Being of a Body, in many places at once, implieth a Contradiction, is Secondly proved by the judgement of Ancient Fathers, thereby distinguishing Christ his two Natures, Godhead and Manhood, one from another, by Circumscription and Incircumscription. SECT. V ANcient Fathers judged it Impossible for a Body to be without Determination in one only place at one time: yea (say you) they did so, but meaning Impossible, according to the course of nature, but not absolutely Impossible, as if by Divine Miracle a Body might not be in many places at once. This is your only Answer, and the Answer of every one of your Answerers, whereat we should wonder, but that they have given us so often experience, what little conscience they make, how true their Answers be, so that they may be known to have answered: otherwise they well know that the Fathers meant an absolute Impossibility; and that this is most evident by the Heresy which they did impugn, and also by their manner of confuting the same. The Eutychian Heretics (you a Alfons. de Cast. count. haeres Eutych. know) confounded the Properties of Christ's humane nature with his Godhead, pretending (as you do) the Omnipotency of Christ, for the patronising of their Heresy, As thinking thereby (thus saith b Theod. Dial. 2. Dicunt Christi carnem spiritualem, & alterius substantiae quàm sit nostra caro: imaginantur se per haec Deum magnifacere, cum tamen falsi veritatem accusant. Theodoret, out of Amphilochius) to magnify the Lord Christ: whereas this was indeed (as the same Father saith) to accuse Truth of falsehood. You may hear the same voice sound out of the Roman Chair. Pope c Leo Papa. Ep. 13. quae est ad Pulcher. Aug. Subrepsisse intelligo spiritum falsitatis, ut dum affirmat se religiosiùs de filij Dei majestate sentire, si ei naturae nostrae veritatem inesse non dicat, etc. Leo speaking of Eutyches, the Author of that Heresy, saith that He affirmed, that thereby he did more religiously conceive of the Majesty of Christ, by denying his humane nature; whom therefore that holy Pope censureth to have been seduced by the Spirit of falsity. Therefore it cannot be but that the Fathers, in confuting an Heresy founded upon a pretence of Omnipotency, did hold that doctrine absolutely impossible, which they withstood, as will now more lively appear by the Testimonies of themselves. Theodoret against this Heretic argueth thus: d Theod. Dial. 3. lib. 3. ex Euseb Emis. (Contra eos qui dicunt Corpus Christi in Divinitate mutatum esse post resurrectionem) Hos dicere necesse est vel divinae naturae manus & pedes, & alias corporis partes tributas esse, vel fateri corpus manfisse in suae naturae finibus. Atqui divina natura simplex est & incomposita, corpus autem compositum, & in multas partes divisum: non est ergo mutatum in naturam divinitatis, & quidem immortale ●actum, & divinà naturâ plenum: sed tamen corpus, quod propriam habet C●cumscriptionem. The Body of Christ, being a compounded thing, cannot be changed into a divine nature, because it hath Circumscription. This had been no good reasoning, except his CANNOT had imported an absolute Impossibility. ⚜ And this 11 Eranistes Heret. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ex job. Theod. opponit Ex●mplum impossibilium: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret: Dial. 3. Cap 4.— Et paulò post; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodoret himself doth furthermore make good, who in the same Dialogue, where (to the Heretics Objection out of job, saying, I know thou canst do all things, nothing is impossible with thee) he answereth, by instancing in examples of Impossibility, because of Contradiction, saying; It is impossible for eternity to be in time, or a thing created to be uncreated: or finite to be infinite. So he. ⚜ c Vizil. lib. 4 cont. Eutych. Circumscribitur loco per naturam carnis suae, & loco non capitur per n●turam divinitatis suae, Haec fides est confessio Catholica, quam Apostoli tradiderunt, Martyrs roboraverunt, & fideles nunc usque custodiunt. Et paulò superius. Quia nunc in Coelo est, non est utique in terra. Vigilius (anciently Bishop of Trent) might have read a Lesson to the late Bishops at Trent, who against the same Heretic, distinguishing the two natures of Christ, his Humane nature, by being Circumscribed in one place; the Divine, by being unlocable, doubted not to infer, saying of his Bodily nature; It being now in heaven is not at all on earth. And, lest that any might think this was but his own private opinion, he averreth saying; This is the Catholic profession taught by the Apostles, confirmed by Martyrs, and hitherto held of the Faithful. So Fulgentius upon the same Distinction maketh the same Conclusion, saying of his Bodily substance, that therefore f Fulgent. de persona Christi ad Trasimund lib. 2. cap 5. Vnus idemque homo localis ex human; qui est Deus immensus ex Patie. Vnus idemque secundùm human●m substantiam absens caelo, cum esset in terra; & derelinquens terram, cùm ascendisset in coelum. Being on Earth, it was absent from Heaven; and going to Heaven, it left the Earth. Damascea had to deal with the forenamed Heretic, and professing to deliver the substantial difference of both Natures, he differenceth them by these contrary Characters, g Damascen. de fide Orthodoxi, lib 3. cap. 3. E●rum naturarum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ast●umus salvari: nam c●eatum mansit creatum; increated, increatum: morrale ●maneb●t mortale; immortal, immortal: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ⚜ Paulo su●erius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Created, not Created; Capable of mortality, and not Capable of mortality; Circumscribed, and not Circumscribed; and Invisible in itself, and Visible: which notwithstanding is, in the Eucharist, by your doctrine, no● Capable of Circumscription, because whole in the whole Host, and in every part thereof, and to the very Angels of God Invisible. ⚜ And yet again, that you may further know that Damiscen is as professedly ours, in this point, as any Protestant can be; he, in confutation of the same Heretic, addeth saying; How can one and the same Nature be capable at once of two essential contrary Differences? for how is it possible for the same Nature, according to the same, to be created, and uncreated mortal, and immoral; circumscribed, and uncircumscribed? Where, by the way, you may observe, that Circumscription of a Body is accounted by Damascen to be [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is] Essential to a Body. In like manner Ephraemius (in Phot●us) sticketh to the same Argument of difference of natures, by reason of Contradiction, saying concerning the two distinct natures of Christ? That none that hath wit can say, that the same Nature is both palpable and impalpable; visible and Invisible. ⚜ Let us ascend hither to the more primitive Ages, to inquire of Fathers, who had conflict; also with Heretics, who gainsaid the Truth of either Nature. Athanasius urged Christ his Ascension into Heaven, 〈◊〉 prove that he was as truly man, as God, because his God head was never out of Heaven, being h Athanas. 〈◊〉. 2. Adversus eos q. trullum nos miraculum 〈◊〉, eo quod car●em negant: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnd●●rminate in place, and uncircumscribed; even then, when it was Hyphstatically united with the Body, being on earth●. Therefore it was his Body that ascended into Heaven from Earth. His Argument is taken from Circumscription; even as I l Nazian Epist. 1. id Cled●● Hominem & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nazianzen also doth characterise them. Cyril of Alaxandria is a Father, whose Patronage your Disputers would be thought often to rely upon; he is now about to deliver his judgement so freely and plainly, as if he had meant to stop the mouths of all our Opposites in the same Answer, which he maketh against certain Heretics, who held that God's nature is a Substance, which can received vision and partition. If God (saith m Cyril. Alex, Tom. 2. lib. de T. inir Si verè S● chohem & Partitionem, Divini nature, (ut 〈◊〉 dicunt) reciperet, & intelligeretur, ut corpus: si autem hoc, & in loco om●●nò & li quanta facta esset, non effugeret Circumscrip●● fol. 89. Cyril) should be divisible, as a Body, then should it be contained in place, and then should it have Quantity, and having Quantity it could not but be Circumscribed. Will you now say (which hitherto hath been your only Answer to other Fathers) that Cyril meant not that it was absolutely Impossible, that Quantity should be without Circumscription, but only according to the Course of nature? then might the Heretics, whom Cyril confuted, have made the same Answer, and consequently Cyril's Consequence, and Confutation (together with the Arguments of the Father's abovementioned) had been of no force. What shall we say? must still the ancient Fathers be made no better than Asses, in arguing, that your Romish Masters (forsooth) may be deemed the only Doctors, even then, when they prepare the same Evasion for Heretics, which they devise for themselves? but you must pardon us, if we believe that Cyril (seeing he durst say, that God himself, if he were a Body, must be in a place, as a thing having Quantity, and Circumscribed) would have abhorred your now Romish Faith of believing * See hereafter, Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Christ's Body consisting of Quantity, albeit not Circumscribed in place. ⚜ The Arguments, which we receive from these Fathers, in Confutation of your Romish Faith, of believing the same Humane Body of Christ, Circumscribed in Heaven, and Uncircumscribed on your Altars on Earth; are Two. The first is their denying the Possibility of Christ's Body to be Uncircumscribed, and that upon two grounds: One, because Circumscription is Essential, and as Proper to Christ's Body, as Vncircumscription is Proper to his Divine Nature; without which Difference there should follow a Confusion of his two Different natures, which was the very same Heresy which they impugned. Their second ground is from the infallible Rule of Contradiction, being the extremest Degree of Impossibility that can be imagined; namely, For the same ●ody to be, at the same time, mortal, and immortal; palpable, and impalpable. And yet your Fathers of the Council of Trent, in their wisdoms, have Canonised it for an Article of your Faith, by teaching a palpable, and Circumscriptive Body of Christ in Heaven, and impalpable, and Vncircumscriptive on Earth. It might be held a kind of Impiety not to consult with Saint Augustine, in a Question of this moment. The judgement of Saint Augustine, styled by learned Doctors, The Mallet of Heretics, to knock out their Brains. First, giving this Caution, viz. 13 Aug. Epist. 57 ad Dardan: where after this Coveat, [Cavendum ne ità Divinitatem affirmamus, ut corporis veritatem auferamus:] he hath these words. Spatia locotum tolle corpotibus, & nusquam erunt; & quià nusquam erunt, nec erunt. Idem. Tract. 31. in toh. Homo secundùm corpus in loco est, & de loco migrat, & cum ad alium locum venerit, in eo loco, unde venit, non est: Deus autem implet omnia; ubique totus, nec secundùm spatia tenetur locis; erat tamen Christus secundùm visibilem carnem i● terra, secundùm invisibilem majestatem in coelo, & in terra. To take heed lest we s● establish Christ's Deity, that we destroy not the truth of his Body; He afterwards concludeth against the Impossibility of a Body uncircumscribed, saying, Take away Space of Place from Bodies, and then shall they be nowhere; and if they be nowhere, then must they be no-what, having no Being at all. Secondly, where he concludeth, that Christ, according to his Visible flesh, was on earth, when according to his Invisible Majesty, He was both in Heaven and Earth; he laid this Ground thereof, to wit, that A Body removing from one place to another, is not in that place from whence it came. But our Catholic Article of Faith saith, that [He ascended from Earth to Heaven:] And therefore by Saint Augustine his Argument, He was not then on Earth. In the third place, Discussing the Difference of the two Natures of Christ more fully, in respect of Presence in Place, for the reconciling of a Seeming Contradiction of Christ's words, saying in one place, [I am with you unto the Ends of the World,] and another place saying, [You shall not have me always with you,] he assoileth the Difficulty, by Differencing Christ's Natures. 14 Aug. Tract. 50. in ●oh. [Pauperes semper habebitis vobiscum, me autem non semper habebitis] Potest sic intelligi▪— Accipiant & hoc boni, sed non sint soliciti, loquebatur emi● de praesentia corpo●●s sui. Nam secundum majestatem suam, secundùm providenuam, secundùm inessabilem, & invisibilem gratiam impletur ab eo quod d●ctum est; [Ecce ego vobiscum sum usquè ad consummationem seculi:] secundùm autem ●d quod de Virgin natus est, quodque in Resurrectione mani●estatus est, non semper habebitis vobiscum. Quare? Quoni●m conversatus secund● corporis p●aesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipuli● suis, & eye videntibus ascendit in coesum, & non est hîc. Ibi est enim, sedet ad dextrim Patris: & hic est, non enim recessed▪ praesentia majestatis. Secundùm praesentiam carnis. Ec. lesia modo side ten●●, oculis non videt. In that Christ said (saith he) [You shall not have me always with you,] he spoke it of the Presence of his Body; But in saying, [I am with you until the Consummation of the World,] he spoke it of his (Divine) Majesty, Providence, and Invisible grace. But according to that (nature) which was borne of the Virgin, and after was manifested in the Resurrection, [You shall not have me always with you.] So he. Your sole Answer, in the judgement of your choicest Divines, delivered by your Cardinal, is this; 15 Bellarm. l. 1. de Euchdr. cap. 14. §. Denique— Augustinus intelligit corporis Christi praesentiam visibilem, more humano inter homines conversantis: atquè ita se explicat Quare? quia conversatus est secundùm corporis praesentiam quadraginta dies, ipsis viden●ibus, modo side renet, o●ulis non videt. that S. Augustine [in denying that Christ is always with us, according to the presence of his Body] understood a visible presence thereof, after an humane Conversation with men: which he collecteth from that which followeth in the speech of Saint Augustine, That Christ was seen of the Apostles in his Bodily presence after his Resurrection, and as his ascension: But now (saith S. Augustine) We see him by Faith, and not with our eyes. So your Cardinal. Which is as raw and extravagant a Collection, and repugnant to the meaning of Saint Augustine, as can be. Because the whole scope of Saint Augustine is to show the Excellency of Christ's Divine Nature, in respect of the Humane, in regard of Presence itself, and not in respect of visibility, or any manner of Presence; Because the Divine nature, by its Omnipresency, is always with us, but the other, which was seen after his Visible Conversation upon Earth, was seen to ascend into Heaven. He enforceth directly from hence, therefore It is not here on Earth, (Thus;) It ascended into Heaven, and is not here, for he there sitteth at the right hand of God. But as for the Presence of his Majesty (which signifieth his Deity) It is here (saith Saint Augustine) and not departed from us: which is a manifest Distinguishing of the Deity, and Humanity of Christ, merely, in respect of, Hic est, & Non hic est, that is, Presence of the one, and Not-Presence of the other. As also between, Recessit, & Non-Recessit, in like Difference; whereas if according to the Popish Faith, the Distinction held only in respect of the visibility, or invisibility of Presence, (you always teaching that Christ's Body is substantially Present on Earth, Invisibly in the Eucharist) then (in respect of the manner of Presence by * Because Saint Aug. calleth the presence of his majesty and grace, Invisible. ●re the Testimony above cited. invisibility) there should be no Prerogative of Difference between Chists Divine, and Bodily Being on Earth; against the Conclusive Determination of Saint Augustine in this place▪ Which is also confirmed, by that which is further objected in opposition against us, out of the last words of Saint Augustine: The Church (saith he) Seethe not him with her eyes▪ but holdeth him by Faith; namely by believing the Presence of his Body; But where? to wit, Sitting at the right hand of God (saith he;) but not in the Pix, or on the Altar. The next Testimony of this Father may be that his Malling and braining of the Heretical Manichees, who held a Bodily Presence of Christ, both in the Sun and Moon at once; He making a flat Contrary Conclusion: ( 16 Aug. contra Faust Manich. l. 20. cap. 11. Secundum praesentiam spirituasem nullo modo 〈◊〉 pari posset; secundùm vero praesentiam corporalem, simul & in sole, & in luna, & in qu●● esse non posset. Christ's Bodily Presence could not (saith he) be in the Sun and Moon at once. Yes, will the Romish Answer; Miraculously it may. God a mercy Papist would the Heretic have said; for I likewise, when I said it was in the Sun and Moon at once, was not such a Lunatic, as to think it could be naturally so, and without a Miracle. The same holy Father, that he might show himself constant to his own Tene●, explaining the words of Christ [You have heard that I said, I go and come unto you] (●wird● He went away (saith he) according to that, wherein he was man, in one place: and he remained with them as God, and in all places▪ still opposing the Nature of Man and God, according to the Different Presences of, Onewhere, and All-wheres. More Testimonies for proof of this one point there needs not. ⚜ CHALLENGE. THese so many and manifest proofs of the ancient Fathers, concluding an Impossibility of Existence of a Body without Determination in one place; may be unto us a full Demonstration that they were Adversaries to your Romish Doctrine of Corporal Presence, and that all your Objections, out of them, are but so many forged, and forced Illusions. ⚜ Only be it known unto you, that in this whole Discourse the word, Circumscription in place, is used, in a large Acception, for every limitation of a Body in a space, or Vbi, adequate unto the thing Circumscribed. ⚜ We conclude. If Christ himself gave a Caveat, not to believe such Spirits as should say of his Bodily presence in this world, after his Resurrection; * Mat. 24 23. Behold here is Christ, and behold there is Christ: then, doubtless, much less credit is to be given to your Church, which teacheth and professeth an Here is Christ, and a There is Christ, in the same instant; as we shall furthermore confirm by like verdict of Antiquity, when we shall hear the Fathers prove both that * See Cap. 6. §. 3. Angels, and all Created Spirits are finite Creatures, and not Gods, even because they are contained in one place: and also that the * Chap 6. §. 2. Holy Ghost is God, and no finite Creature, because it is in divers places at once. But we must handle our matters in order. That the Romish Doctors (in their Objections) have no solid proof of the Existence of one Body in divers places at once: from the juagement of Antiquity. SECT. VI IT is a kind of Morosity and Perverseness in our Opposites, to object those Testimonies, which have their Answers, as it were tongues in their mouths, ready to confute their Objections. For s Chrysost. li 3. the Sacerdote; O miraculum! O Dei benignitatem! qui cum patre su●●t● sedet, & eodem tempore omnium manibus pertractatur. Obijcit. Bellar. lib 2. le Euch. cap. 22 [Not considering what went before 〈◊〉 words, in the sau●e place, where ●hrysost●● will not have his heart believe, that the Priest and people ●●●taking do no● [in tertis consi●st sed ponus in coelum transferr● then followeth, O miraculous, etc.— adust enim Sacerdos non ignem gestans, sed Spiritum Sanctum. chrysostom saith not more plainly, o Miracle, that Christ, at one and the same time, sitting with his Father in Heaven, is here handled of Communicants on earth; than he doth say of the Priest and People Communicating, o Miracle, that They do not consist or stay on earth, but are transported into Heaven. And again, a little after the words objected, The Priest (saith he) is here present, not carrying the fire, but the Holy Ghost. These and the like Say of chrysostom do verify the Censure of your * See Book 3. Chap. 4. §. 6. Senensis upon him, that he was most frequent in figurative Amplifications, and Hyperboles. Another Objection is commonly made out of t Chrysost. ad ●●ulum Antioch. hom. 2. Helisaeus M●●lotem accepit (Heliae) erat postha●c duplex Elias, sursum Eliais, deorsum Elias. Then applying this to the Sacrament; Helias nempe melotem Discipulis ●uis reliquit: filius autem Dei ascendens nobis carnem 〈◊〉: sed Elias quidem ex●tus, Christus autem & ipsam nobis reliquits & ipsam ascendens habuit. chrysostom, of a Double Elias, one above, and another below, (meaning, by Elias below, the sheepskin, or Mantle of Elias, received by Helisaeus) namely, that Christ ascending into Heaven, in his own flesh, left the same, but as Elias did his Mantle, being called the other Elias, to wit, figuratively: so the Sacrament, a token of Christ's flesh, is called his flesh. Which must needs be a true Answer, unless you will have chrysostom to have properly conceited, as a Double Elias, so Consequently a Double Christ. ⚜ And if you be not yet sufficiently acquainted with the style of chrysostom, take unto you another Saying of his, wherein he introduceth Christ, as speaking to every good Christian, and saying 18 Chrysost. ad pop. Antioch. Hom. 55 Manduca me, & te sursum haben, & deorsum tibi connector. Eat thou me, I have thee here above, and am annexed to thee there below. So he. Do you understand those words, as you did his former Speeches, literally? then must you as necessarily conclude from hence, that the Christian Communicant, Eating Christ's Body here on earth, is corporally present with Christ in Heaven. But do you grant it to be figuratively meant? then must you confess, that the Conjunction, spoken of by chrysostom, is not Corporal, but a Spiritual, and a Mystical Communication. So then chrysostom, speaking of a Sacrament, used a Sacramental style, to call the Sacrament of Christ's Body, the Body or flesh of Christ; even as Christ (according to the Interpretation of Ancient Fathers) called Bread his Body, as being a Sign and Sacrament of his Body, after the usall term of Scripture in other Sacraments also. (All which have been largely shown throughout the Second Book). No marvel therefore, if, granting that Christ taking his Flesh Personally with him into Heaven, which he left Sacramentally here on Earth; you deny, notwithstanding, that Elias, by leaving his Mantle, left not himself, because his Mantle was not a Sacrament of himself. ⚜ As for the next Testimony, it is no more than which every Christian must confess, namely, that it is the same whole, and undivided Christ, which is spiritually received of all Christians, wheresoever, and whensoever throughout the world: the same we say Objectively, although not Subjectively; as the sixth Book, Chap. 6. and Sect. 3. will demonstrate. ⚜ And furthermore understand, that the Fathers, speaking of the Eucharist, and calling it The Body of Christ: and of the Fragments, Bits, and Pieces thereof; yet, in your own construction, do mean Sacramentally, that is, Figuratively. Your jesuite 19 M●. Fisher Ies. ● his Answer to K james in hu● tract. of Transubstant. §. 4. in ●ish Whites Reply. Greg. Nyster. Orat. de Paschate. Sicut Divinitas replet mundum, & tamen una estatà m●umerabilibus locis of fertur, et tamen unum corpus est. [And the same is objected by Mr. Brerely Tract. of the Mass▪ 1. §. 4. Subd. 1. pag 149. Master Fisher would think it a slighting of him, if his Testimony might not be heard. What marvel (saith he) that Imagination fail us to apprehend the multiplied presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, which is Spiritual, Angelical, Supernatural, comparable with the Divine? whereof Gregory Nyssen sticketh not to say; As Deity filleth the World, and yet is One, so the Body of Christ is but One, and is offered in all places. So he. Our Answer, in brief, is that Master Fisher sticketh not to abuse both the Credulity of his Reader, to make him believe that which is not; and his own Conscience, to seem to believe that which he believeth not; (namely, that there is an Omnipresencie of Christ's Body) as also his Adversaries patience, to occasion him to seek that which is not to be found in the place alleged, or yet in any of the Orations of Gregory Nyssene, de Paschate. If any such Sentence had been extant in any Book of Gregory Nyssene, or else of any Primitive Father, o how every one of your Romish Disputers would have embraced it, and still harped upon it; especially it making so evidently for that, which your jesuite urgeth, The multiplied Presence of Christ's Body. But it is no news with us, to be dealt with deceitfully, and unconscionably, by your Romish Dispuputers. ⚜ That your most plausible Objection, taken out of Augustine, concerning Christ his Carrying himself in his own hands, is but Sophistical. SECT▪ VII. AVgustine in expounding the 33. Psalm, and falling upon a Translation, where the words 1. Sam, 21. are these (by interpretation) He carried himself in his own hands; a Aug. Tom. 8. in Psal 33. Conc. 1. [Esserebatur in manibus. ejus.] Hoc quomodò possit fieri in homine, quis intelligat? manibus alienis portatur quis, suis autem nemo portatur. Quomodò intelligatur de Davide secundùm literam non invenimus: in Christo autem invenimus, quando commendans ipsum corpus suum, ait, [Hoc est corpus meum:] ferebat enim corpus in manibus suis, etc. 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, etc. And therefore expoundeth them as meant of Christ, at what time he said of the Eucharist, [This is my Body.] This is the Testimony which not only your b Obijcit Bellar. Vox [Quodammodo] Signi, non propriâ spetie, sed alienâ, nec modo usitato, sed extraordinariè: satis est, quod non figuratè significatur Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. Cardinal, but all other your Disputers, upon this subject, do so ostentatively embrace, and as it were, hug in their Arms as a witness, 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 proof against all Opposites, especially seeing the same testimony seemeth to be grounded upon Scripture. Contrarily, we complain of the Romish Disputers, against this their fastidious and perverse importunity, in urging a testimony, which they themselves could as easily have answered as objected; both in taking exception at the ground of that speech, to show that it is not Scripture at all, and also by moderating the rigidity of that Sentence, even out of Augustine himself. THE FIRST CHALLENGE, Showing, that the Ground of that speech was not Scripture. Protestant's (you know) allow of no Authentical Scripture of the old Testament, which is not according to the Original, namely, the Hebrew Text; and the Church of Rome alloweth of the Vulgar Latin Translation, as of the only Authentical. But in neither of them are these words, viz. [He was carried in his own hands:] but only that David, now playing the Madman, slipped, or fell into the hands of others, as your c T●status Abulensis. [Et collabe batur inter manus eorum:] Nempè, ad modum hominis furiosi ostendebat se, ut insanum, Cor. in ●um locum. Abulensis truly observeth. So easily might the Transcribers of the Septuagints err, in mistaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and so impossible it is for you to ground the objected Sentence upon divine Scripture, even in your own judgement. THE SECOND CHALLENGE, Showing, 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 himself in his own hands, excepting Christ, as you defend, must argue either an absolute Impossibility, or not: if it intent an absolute Impossibility of any man to be carried in his own hands, in a literal sense, than 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 himself in his own hands. So that whether thus, or so, you will make Augustine contradict himself, if his words be taken in the preciseness and strictness of that which is a Literal Sense. THE THIRD CHALLENGE, Showing, that Augustine in another word following, to wit, [QVODAMMODO] doth answer Saint Augustine himself to his own formerly objected word [QVOMODO.] SAint Augustine after he had said Quomodo, How? (a word seeming to signify an Impossibility) lest that it, being taken absolutely, might imply a direct carrying of himself in his hands at his Supper, he qualifieth that his speech somewhat after saying; [Quodammodò, etc.] that is, After a certain manner Christ carried himself in his own hands. Which is a Modification, and indeed a Correction of his former sentence. Our next labour must be to find out the meaning of his [Quodammodo] and what this manner of Christ's carrying himself was, in the judgement of Saint Augustine. Whatsoever it is that a man hath really in his hands, were it a loaf of Bread, it were ridiculous to say, that he carrieth a loaf of Bread, After a sort in his hands, if the same were Properly carried therein; as will appear most plainly in the fift Challenge. THE FOURTH CHALLENGE, Showing 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 CORPUS▪ MEUM] properly, you have heard Augustine often pleading for a Figurative Sense. Secondly, against your manner of bringing in the Body of Christ, by Transubstantiation, he hath acknowledged in this Sacrament, after Consecration, the Continuance of Bread. Thirdly, against your Corporal Existence of Christ in many places at once, in this Sacrament, or elsewhere 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, he will * See the fift Book Chap. 5. Sect. 5. and Chap. 6. Sect. 3. renounce hereafter, as an execrable Imagination. Wherefore Augustine holding 〈◊〉 Impossible for Christ's Body to have any Corporal Existence in this Sacrament, it is Incredible he could have resolvedly concluded of Christ's Corporall carrying of his Body, properly, in his own hands. THE FIFTH CHALLENGE, Showing that the [QVODAMMODO] of Saint Augustine is the same Manner, which the Protestants do teach, by the acknowledgement of some Romanists. Do you then seek after the manner which Augustine believed? what need you? having learned it of Augustine himself, by his [Secundùm quendam modum, (where he saith) This Sacrament after a sort is the Body of Christ:] What, literally? Nay; but (for so he saith) * August. Sicut secundùm quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis, Corpus Christi est; ita Sacramentum Fidei, Fides est. See above § 8. at (a.) As Baptism (the Sacrament of Faith) is called Faith. And if you have not the leisure to look for Augustine judgement in his writings, you might have found it in your own Book of Decrees, set out by b Decret. part. 3. de Consecr. distinct. 2. C. Hoc est. Sicut ergo coelestis panis, qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, illius viz. quod, etc.— vocaturque immolatio carnis, quae Sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi Passio: non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio [Observe that in the words. coelestis panis, qui caro Christi est, the word Caro is by the Gloss in Gratian interpreted Species panis, at the letter (f) Caro, id est, Species panis, to avoid the absurdity of interpreting Christ's Flesh to be the Body of Christ] Gratian, where Augustine is alleged to say, that This holy Bread is after 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 sense, the Passion of Christ? or that Augustine meant any such Manner? Surely he did not, and therefore may we most aptly expound Saint Augustine's [Quodammodo] by this Saint Augustine his [Suo modo] which is clearly and evidently explained by your own Romish c Glossa ibid. [Coeleste, etc.] Coeleste Sacramentum, quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem, Christi caro vocatu●: unde dicitur suo modo, non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio, ●it sit sensus, vocatur Christi co●pus, id est, Significat. Gloss, where it saith: The heavenly Sacrament, which representeth the Flesh of Christ, is called Christ's Flesh, so said, [Suo modo] after its manner, not in the Truth of the thing, but in a significant mystery, as meaning, It is called Christ's Body, that is, it signifieth his Body. So the Gloss. ⚜ To conclude. We are in good hope, that you will give credit to that, which Many of your own Doctors shall confess, and that with the approbation of your jesuite Suarez, 20 Suar. Ies in 3. Thom. Disp. 47. § 4 Quae coveniunt co●pori Christi secundùm le, non possunt dici de speciebus, nisi valdè metaphoricè & impropriè, eo modo, quo nomen rei significatae tribuitur signo. Ratio est clara, Quia corpus Christi est res omnino distincta speciebus.— juxtà hanc Conclusionem interpretantur multi, quod alibi dixit August. Sacramentum corporis Christi [Quodammodo] dici corpus Christi. who relateth thus much, saying, that whereas Saint Augustine hath these words, viz. The Sacrament is called [Quodammodo] that i●, after a manner the Body of Christ; Many (saith he) do expound them as spoken very Metaphorically and Improperly: the reason whereof is clear, because the Body of Christ is a thing distinct from the forms. So he. Confessing that those Many yield unto us that True and Figurative Sense of Saint Augustine's [Quodammodo,] which we have all this while contended for. ⚜ In a word, rightly might d Calvin. Admonit. u●t. ad Westphol. Augustinum totum esse nostrum, omnes lib●● clamant. Calvin say, speaking of these Controversies concerning this Sacrament: All the Books of Augustine (upon this subject) proclaim that he is wholly ours. Much more, concerning Christ his not being Corporally here on Earth, will, by the judgement of Augustine and other Fathers, be found in the fifth, sixth, and seventh Books; besides that which they affirm in this Book, in the Chapters following. THE sixth CHALLENGE, In general, Concluding the main Point. BY this time, we think, you may discern between plain dealing, and false juggling: for your Disputers have usually alleged, for defence of your Transubstantiation, and Corporal Presence in the Sacrament, the Sentences of Fathers used in their Sermons, and Exhortations, wherein commonly they exercised their Rhetoric in Figurative, and Hyperbolical speeches, as hath been confessed by your own Doctors; and proved by many their like Say concerning other Sacramental Rites; but especially of the Sacrament of Baptism: whereas our proofs arise directly from the Testimonies of the Fathers, which they have commonly had in their sad and earnest Disputation, in confutation of many, and main Heresies, where indeed they were necessarily to make use both of their Logicko, for discerning Truth from Error; and also of Grammar; we mean the Exactness, and propriety of Speech, void of Amphibologies, Hyperboles, and Ambiguities, whereby the minds of their Hearers, or Readers might be perplexed, and the Truth darkened. This one Consideration we judge to be of necessary importance. And thus much concerning the judgement of ancient Fathers, touching this second Contradiction. That (thirdly) the Contradiction, and consequently the Impossibility of the Being of one Body in divers Places at once, is evicted by two sound Reasons; the first taken from Contradictory Relations. SECT. VIII. YOu have already * See above 〈◊〉 5. §. ●. heard of the Antecedent, which was granted by Aquinas, viz. It implieth a Contradiction, to say a Body is Corporally in two places at once, because this maketh that one Body not to be one. Which being confessed, your have also heard your Cardinal making this Consequence, viz. by the same reason it muct follow, that it is absolutely Impossible. But besides, there are Actions and Qualities, whereof some are Relatives, and have respect to some place, and others are Absolutes. Of the Relatives you have determined that c Vnum corpus in diversis locis positum unum habet esse substantiale, sed multa habet esse localia: ex quo fit, ut omnia multiplicari debeant, quae consequuntur esse locale: illa autem non multiplicantur, quae aliunde proveniunt, Relationes verò ad loca necessariò multiplicantur, propter dimensiones locorum. Itaque erit idem corpus sursum, & deorsum, propinqusi, & remotum, poterit moveri in locum, & quiescere in alio loco, nec tamen implicatur ulla contradictio. Illa enim dicuntur Contradicentra, quae conveniunt uni respectu eodem, eodem tempore, modo, loco. Ac nè id mirum videatur, Anima humana, quae tota est in toto corpore, & quolibet membro Corporis, certè, ut est in capite, est remota à terra, ut in pedibus propinqua, ut in brachio quiescere dicitur, & ut in altero mo● movere. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. § Ac primum. One Body (say you) as it is in divers places at once, might be below, and above, on the right hand, and on the left, behind, and before itself, may move, and not move, at the same instant, without Contradiction: because it is so said in divers Respects, namely, of divers places, as the soul of man in divers parts of the Body. So you. These are but Capricious Chimeras and mongrel fancies of addle brains, who disputing of Bodily Locality can find no Example, within the Circumferences of the University of Creatures, but only Man's soul, which is a Spirit: which point is to be discussed in the fift Chapter. In the Interim know you, that although Relations do sometimes take away Contradictions, where they are appliable. As namely, for the same Body to be high, and low, in respect of its own divers parts, to wit, high in respect of the head, and low in respect of the heel, wherein there is no comparison of any whole, or part with itself: yet if any should say as much of the same Body, whether whole, or part, as thus: The same whole head goeth before, and after itself: or, the same one finger is longer, and shorter than itself; he may justly be suspected to be besides himself: all such like speeches being as Contradictory in themselves, (and consequently Impossible) as for a man to say, he is elder, and younger than himself. ⚜ Which peradventure one of your Doctors saw, when he denied in this Sacrament any Motion at all; Because else (saith 21 joh. Paluter. à Castro. S. T. D. Lect. our. in. 4. Sect Tom. 4. Lect. 58 Christi corpus in hoc Sacramento non movetur neque per se, ne que per Accidens. Et paulò post: Si ad Hostiae motum moveretur, time ad Hostiae motum esse● sursum simùl & deorsum. At hoc ex dictis non sapit verum. he) at the Motion of the Host, Christ's Body should be both below and above at once, which savoureth not of Truth. So he. And although your 22 Gabriel. Biel. Lect. 47. Cù●n innumera sint altaria, in quibus celebratur sacrum illud mysterium, si moveretur per modios orbes coelis, & sphaeras elementares ad s●gula hujusmodi Altaria corpus Christi, esset in continuo motu, & moveretur ad contrari is positionum differentias, simul se ad ori●ntem & ad occidentem, meridianum & septentrionem, pro varietate situs Altarium; quod est Absurdum & Ridiculosum. Gabriel Biel defendeth the Corporal Presence of Christ in Heaven, and on your Altars at once yet that If should move from North and South; East and West, and all at the same time, according to the variety of Altars, This (saith he) is Absurd and Ridiculous. ⚜ You * See above Chap. 5. §. ● will say, (and it is your common Sanctuary) that Place is not essential to a Body, and therefore separable from a Body; so that a man may be in two places at once. And you may as well say, that because Time is not of the essence of a man, some man may have a Being without any time, or else in two times at once. (But enough of this hath been answered in the sixth Section.) Finally, this your Subtlety would have been judged a palpable absurdity by ancient Fathers; among whom Theodoret taught this Philosophy, to hold true in Divinity (to wit) that whosoever hath properly one thing on the right hand of it, and another thing on the left, it is Circumscribed in place. Whereby he demonstrateth the Truth of Christ's Body, because it is Circumscribed: and that it is circumscribed, because it is written of him, that f Theod Dial. 2. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Sheep shall stand on his right hand, and the ●oates on the left. Nor do you your-selves teach, nor yet can you imagine his Body to want either his right hand, or his left, as he is present in this Sacrament. One word more. The * See above ●●. §. 5. Fathers, who were many, that distinguished the nature of Christ's manhood from his Godhead, because the first is Circumscribed, and the other is not circumscribed, would never yield to either of both, that it is both Circumscribed and not Circumscribed; as you do to Christ's Body, teaching it to be at the same time Circumscribed in Heaven, when it is Uncircumscribed, as it is on many Altars upon earth. Divers other your Contradictory Relations you may find in the Sections following in this Fourth Book. That (fourthly) a Contradiction, and consequently an Impossibility of the Being of a Body in two places at once, is proved by absolute Qualities and Actions, which are void of Relation to Place. SECT. IX. Were it possible that Actions and Qualities, which have respect to Place, might avoid the Contradiction; yet of such Actions and Qualities as have no Relation to place, it will be beyond your imaginations to conceive so, as will appear by your own Resolutions. For your Cardinal, and your jesuite Suarez, with divers others, have thus g Corpus Christi, in diversis locis positum, habet unum substantiale, & quae sunt absoluta in eo non multiplicantur respectu diversorum locorum: unde quae recipluntu● à corpore, sive Actiones sint, sive Qualitates, sive quae unque alia, non multiplicantur. Ratio, quà corpus unum est, non multa; ut si corpus Christi in uno loco calefiat, in alio erit calidum: si in uno loco vulneretur, in altero erit vulnerarum. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. Actus contrarij, ut amoris, & odij, assensus, dissensus, non possunt competere uno subjecto in diversis locis, quia vitales actiones proficiscuntur ex potentiae naturali, ut à principio agente, & eadem potentia non habet vim naturalem ad efficiendum actus contrarios— Ratio; inter actus cortrarios— tantam esse repugnantiam, ut etiam per potentiam Dei absolutam non possint esse in eodem subjecto, & loco, quià sese omninò destruunt ex parte objecti. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp ●8. Sect. ●. §. Atque. determined, that Such Actions and Qualities as are real in a Body, without any relation to place, may not be said to be multiplied in respect of divers places, wherein the same Body is supposed to be: As (for example) the same Body to be hot in some Country, and cold in another, at the same time; wounded, and not wounded; passable, and not passable. And the like may be said of Love, and Hatred, which are vital Actions, proceeding naturally from the Subject. So that the Body, which in one place is affected with love, cannot possibly but be so affected in what place soever. So your Disputers. ⚜ Who might have added one of the Oracles of your Church, Pope Innocent the third, where he writes of your Roman Mass, saying that 23 Innoc. 3. the offic. Missae. lib. 3. cap. 22. Sed cùm incredibile judicatur, ut secundùm eandem naturam simul esset mortalis & immortalis. It is judged a thing incredible, that Christ should be both mortal and Immortal, according to the same nature. On whom your jesuite 24 Vasquez. in 3. Thom. Quaest. 76 Art. 6. Disput. 189. cap. 4. Qualitates, quae pendent à loco, ut telatae, quales sunt motus, actio in subjectum, & passio ab Agente, etc. At omnia absoluta à loco ita enunciantur, de corpore absoluto à loco, ut eorum enunciatio non limitetur. Verbi gratiâ, Si Petro convenit esse album, enunciabitur de illo, sive filium habet, sive non, eò quòd albedo non convenit ei respectu filij— Sequitur, perinde esse dicere, si semel Petrus supponatur esse albus in uno loco, absolutè albus erit in omni l●co. Idem dici porest de aegritudine, sanitate, etc. Vasquez will wait, holding the General Tenent, that whatsoever Quality it is, that hath no dependence of place, it cannot be limited in respect of place: Among these he reckoneth Blackness, and Whiteness. ⚜ Butler have they any reason for these Points? Yes they have, (See the Margin) For your Cardinal denying that the same Body, in respect of divers places, may be hot, and not hot at the same time, giveth us this reason: Because (saith he) it is one Body, and not many. So he. A reason Infallible. Your jesuite Suarez also denying that the same party can love, and hate, consent, and descent at the same time, in respect of divers places, yields this reason; Because (saith he) these repugnant affections, belonging to one subject, cannot by the Omnipotency of God be together in the same, because they destroy one another. So Aquinas, and other h Quicquid pertinet ad Christum secundùm quod in se est, id potest ei tribui in propriâ specie, & in hoc Sacramento existenti, ut vivere, mori, dolere, animatum esse. Aquia. part. 3. qu. 81. art. 4. Cum Thoma consentiunt Scotus, Altisidorus, Aegidius, Petrus à Soto, & huic favet Innocentius. Suar. quo sup p. 602. Schoolmen denying that the same Body can be said to grieve, and not to grieve, both at once, in respect of divers places of being, propoundeth the like Reason; Because Grief being in the same man, as he is a man, cannot be said to be together with not Grieving in him; lest we should make a man not to be himself. ⚜ Will hath your jesuit * See the precedent numb. 24. Vasquez resolved of Blackness, health, sickness, and the like, that they are not limited by any respect of place. As for example, If being in one place, Peter be Black, he shall be said to be black in whatsoever place he doth consist ⚜. Cardinal Alan 1 Putatur à quibusdam vetustioribus Theologis Christum propter varias ejus existentias simul mortalem, & immortalem, passibilem, & impassibilem se repraesentare. Alij huic se sententiae, opposuêre tempore Berengarij, quià viderunt maximè, intelligentiae repugnare, ut idem corpus sit simul mortale & immortal. Alan. Card. de Euchar. Sacram. lib. 1. pag. 451. denying that the same Body, in respect of divers places, can be said to be Mortal and Immortal, Passable, and Impassable, expresseth this Reason, which (saith he) was used of old: Because these say are most repugnant to the understanding of man. ⚜ last and most largely your 25 Aegid. Conincks Ies. de Sacram. qu. 75. Art. 4 Dub. 3. num. 110. Possibile esse corpus habere diversa accidentia, ut movere in uno, & quiescere in alio, aut contrario motu moveri, videtur omninò inconceptibile, quià quiescere dicit expressè negationem motus, atque ità moveri & quiescere sunt contradictoria. Vel responderi potest, haec dici de eodem, ratione diversorum ubi● quod nullo modo dicendum, quia frigere & calere, non conveniunt subjecto raiione loci, sed ratione sui. Confirmatur 1. quia album, dum movetur, semper secundum aliud & aliud esse album; 2. quia diversa ubi, cùm sint mera Accidentia, non magis multiplicant subjectum secundum se, quàm alia Accidentia: 3. quia diversa ubi sunt sibi mutuò modi repugnantes, non minus quàm calor & frigus— Vnde sequeretur, ut si homo, qui hoc mundo positus esset in diversis locis, virtute naturali non posset moveri, nisi utrinque locum amittat, & desinat esse in diversis locis. 4. quia haec sententia non potest deduci ex rebus naturali lumine notis. jesuit Conincks, denying the Possibity of any thing to both Move, and be still at once, because this is Inconceivable, by reason of Contradiction, which is not (saith he) to be avoided by respect of the diversity of Places: Confirming his Conclusion by other Reasons, specified in the Margin; one is, that Divers Vbi's, or Places are as Repugnant, as are Heat and Gold, and the like. But enough now. ⚜ CHALLENGE. WE have in these your Premises received as true Assertions, as sufficient Reasons, and as absolute Confessions as can be desired, which will be as so many Poniards sticking fast in the bowels of your Romish Cause, to give it a deadly wound. As first this: * See in this Book Chap. 9 § 2. etc. you teach that Christ, as he is in this Sacrament, hath no natural faculty, either of Motion, of Sense, of Appetite, or of Understanding things past, all which notwithstanding he hath in all perfection in Heaven. But to understand, and not to understand, to have, and not to have an Appetite, you will confess to be as absolute Qualities, and Acts Contradictory, as free from respect to Place, as are those which you have allowed, to wit, Grieve, and not Grieve, love; and not love, alive, and not alive: because man hath an Appetite and Desire, an Act of understanding in himself, not as he is in one Place more than in another. ⚜ A Parisian Doctor will give you his Determination, saying, that 25 Liber qui inscribitur, Olim incognitur Carmelita Doctor paris. in 4. Sent. Cùm esuries sit appetitus calidi & sicci, ille autem vel est naturalis, vel voluntarius, vel sensitivus, & velle comedere, sive sic, sive sic: Dico, quòd si appetitus satiaretur in uno loco, statim cessaret in alio loco de cibo sumpto. If the Appetite be satisfied in one Place, it doth not desire meat at the same time in another Place. So he. How much more must this hold in the Understanding part of things passed? which because they are Things passed, cannot be said to have Relation to any present place, no more than To freeze, and to be hot. ⚜ Seeing therefore you have been enforced, by infallible Principles of sound learning, to hold it Impossible for one to love, and hate, and to have contrary passions together, because they are Contradictories, and would infer, that one man should be, and not be himself: Therefore are you become necessarily Contradictory to yourselves. Can there be a stronger Argument than this, to persuade Christians, that your Doctors are men delivered up to strong delusions, to believe lies? of which kind this, of teaching a Body to be in divers places at once, is not the least; notwithstanding any Objection by you made to the contrary, as shall be shown. CHAP. VI A Confutation of the first Romish Reason, obtruded for proof of a Possibility of Existence or a Body in divers places at once, taken from the nature either of a Voice, or Colour. SECT. I. MAster a In his Book of the Liturgy of the M●sse: where he hath other as idle reasons as this. Brerely thus: The difficulty may be better conceived, rather than directly proved, by an example of the same word: the which, being once uttered, is thereupon at one instant in the several hearing of sundry persons, and that not as a distinct noise, confusedly multiplied in the Air, but as one and the same peculiar word, distinguished by the selfsame syllables wherein it was uttered. So he, and your Doctor Wright b In his Book of the Real Presence, Tract. 2. §. 4. Subd. 1. pag. 149. before him. ⚜ And one before them both, Pope Innocent the third 1 Innocent. 3. de Offic. Missae. l. 4. c. 2. Et nô ●iratis quòd verbum simul est in aurjbus diversorum?— Sic ergò Christus in singulis locis est unus, sicut in singulis partibus est totus. As the word (saith he) in the ears of divers at once; even so is Christ's Body in divers places at once. Your Louvain Doctor 2 joh G●rretius Docto. Lov in de Present. Corp. Christi in Eucharist. pag. 70. ex Guitmundo. Eadem vox ad mille aures tota pe●●ingit. Ex Thoma Graeco pag. 97. Sicut una vo●● penerrat ad multorum aures. Et pag. 102. Ex Nicela Aco●inat. Qu●m●dmodum una vox eadem manet in ere existe●s, tota auribus omnium infunditur integra— qu●mvis ipsa corpus sit: nihil enim est aliud quàm 〈◊〉 ●●cussus; nemine eorum, qui audiunt, plus minusuè recipiente. Et pag. 105. Ex Samonas Episc. Gazensi. Quisquis habet speculum in multa fragmenta comminutum in singulis tamen fragmentis umbram sui salvam videre possit. Et verbum idem, multis auditum, non est diversum, sed integrum. Et pag. 122. ex Lodulpho Carthusiand. Christus est totus in qualibet parte; ut in fracto speculo sit unius & ejusdem formae numero integrae ad quamlibet speculi fr●cturam reflexio. Garretius citeth divers Others, objecting both the manifold receiving of the same Voice in the ears of Thousands at once; and of the same Image of a man's face in the divers fractions and pieces of a Broken glass. ⚜ CHALLENGE. But the Doctor was answered, that the Example is many thousand miles remote from the Cause, for our Question is of the Presence of the same Body in divers places at once. We say, the same Body; but this your Example of Word, or Voice, which you Both call the same, is not individually the same in every man's hearing, as is here affirmed; but only the same in kind, by a multiplication of the sounds, and words uttered, as Philosophy teacheth. Like as we see in throwing a stone into the water, it maketh at the first a Circle, and circle multiplieth upon circle, till the last come to a large Circumference: Even so the * Verbum, quasi ●aërem verberans. Cicero. Word, by Voice breaking th● Air, doth make in the Air Circle upon circle, till a ●ound come to the ears of the hearers; every of the parts of the Circle being articulated, through the multiplication of the first form, from the several emanations of the Rays, the divers ears do no more receive the same individual Voice, than they do the same individual Air, whereby the Voice is conveyed. So that this Example is no more, in effect, than to prove the same Body in divers places at once, by the sound of a word in many men's ears; which is not individually the same, and serveth for nothing rather than to make the Disputer ridiculous. Thus was that Doctor answered, when he confessed of the voice of the Preacher in the Pulpit, which is received by multitudes of Hearers, and of his other Example of a colour of a red Cow, by multiplication of its forms seen of thousand men's eyes at once, that it is not Numerically the same. ⚜ And this you must grant, whether you will or no: because if (as your Doctor hath * A little above at Num. 2. confessed, See the Margin) the Voice be nothing else but Air moved; then seeing the Air, which entereth into one man's ear, is not the same with that which is received into another man's ear; the voice which is an Articulate impression of the Air, can be said to be no more the same, than are the ears of the Hearers. Which is furthermore demonstrable in this, that the voice is more and less perceived of men, according to their distances in place from the Speaker, some hearing it more, and some less, some in whole, and some in part. But more and less cannot accord to one and the selfsame thing. ⚜ Take unto you a clear Example (which is also your own) and Apposite, when in a * See the Testimony last proceeding of joh. Garietius. Looking-glass, broken into many pieces, you see many faces, (all of them being but so many multiplied and reflected Images of one face) you may see, that every Image in every broken piece of the glass is not individually the same: ⚜ For so many Apparitions in the Glass are (by the Confession of your own 3 A●uin. part. 3 qu. 76. Art. 3 Resp. Quod totus Christus est sub qu● libet parte specietum Panis, host●â ●●egrà manente.— Quidam exemplum ponunt in imagine, quae apparet in speculo: quae apparet una in speculo integro; in speculo autem fracto apparent singulae in singulis partibus. Quod autem no●●e simile, quia multiplicatio hujusmodi Imaginum accidit speculo propter diversas reflexiones ad diversas partes speculi. Hic autem●● non est nisi una Consecratio, propter quam Christus dicitur esse in hoc Sacramento. (Aquinas) so many divers Reflections. ⚜ Wherefore these kinds of Instances are but Mountebanke-trickes, devised to delude men, that Love darkness better than light. It might seem to be a superstitious diligence to confute such sottishness with the serious judgement of any grave Father; otherwise c Greg: Naz. Orat. 51. Vnius corporis locus, duorum, aut plurium non est capax: sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gregory Nazianzen is at hand, ready to tell you, that there is as great a difference between Bodies, and Voices, or Sights; as there is betwixt Bodies, and Spirits: so that whereas two Bodies cannot be in one place, yet voices, and sights [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] are by an Incorporeal manner apprehended, so that the same Ear is capables of many Voices, and the same sight of many Visibles. A Confutation of their second, and third Reasons, taken from the Similitude of man's Soul, or Presence of God, devised to demonstrate a No-Contradiction of a Bodies Being in two places at once. SECT. II. TWo other d Argumentum sumitur ab exemplis Dei, & animae rationalis. Deus est unus in infinitis locis indivisibilis, & anima humana est tota in qualibet parte corporis. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. Instances you have, whereby to maintain your supposed Bodily Presence in two places at once; one is in man's Soul, the other in God himself. First, we will inquire into the nature of the soul. Our exception against a Bodies Being in divers places at once, is by reason of the distance between place and place, for it is fare less than imaginable that one Body should in one and the same moment be at Toledo in Spain, and at Paris in France; and yet not to be in the intermediate Space between both, which divideth Toledo from Paris. But the Condition of the humane Soul is utterly different, for it is in the Bodily members, not as a Body in divers places, but as a form in its own matter, being virtually and operatively in each part, nor having Quantity and extension, (the unseperable properties of a Body) but by a formal perfection, As containing the Body, and not contained thereof, c Anima est in corpore, ut continens, non ut contenta. Aquin. 1. qu. 52. Art. 1. saith your Aquinas. For the Soul is so in the head and foot, that it is aswell in the parts and members between both; and therefore, not being possibly severed from them, cannot be said to be divided from itself. Insomuch, that if any member of the Body (as for example the hand) should be cut off, and divided from the Body, the Soul being indivisible ceaseth to be therein. So utterly dissonant is the Souls Being in divers places. Saint Augustine will tell you (in the VIII Chapter following, Section 6.) that there is, in this respect, a Greater difference between a Soul and a Body. And another Father will illustrate the like difference between Bodies, and Angelical Spirits, in the next Section. Nay, and your Cardinal having * See above Ch. 3. Sect. 3. confessed already, that It is not possible by any divine power, that a spirit should be divisible after the manner of a Body; doth hereby as fully confute himself, as if he had said, there is no comparison to be made between Body and Spirit, in respect of Local Being: how much less between it, and God the Father of all Spirits, who cannot be so in many places at once, that he is not likewise both in every intermediate space, between place and place, and also in all places without them: this being the property of his infiniteness to contain all places, and not to be contained of any. And therefore cannot this manner of Presence, without irreligious impiety, be applied to any creature; which notwithstanding, f Quòd si quis requirat esse in loco ●àm circumscriptiv● quàm definitiuè, id requirere, ut non sit a●●bi; dicere possumus dari tertium modum existendi in loco, nimirùm, per solam praesentiam, quomodò Deus est in loco Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. §. Altero. your Cardinal blusheth not to do in that manner, as was hitherto (we think) never imagined by any Divine before him, namely, a manner of being of a Body in a place, which is neither Circumscriptively, as natural Bodies are, nor Definitively, that is, so that being in one place, it is not at the same time in another, as Angels and Spirits are; but a third, how? By only presence, after the manner as God is in place. So he. O golden Divine! for who knoweth not that Existence in place only by presence is a property of Divine Infiniteness? which being attributed to any thing, that is not God, doth equal the creature with the Creator, God himself. ⚜ Not to mention the Difference of Opinions among Philosophers themselves, touching the particular Seats of the Soul of Man: One sort of them assigning the Heart; as did Hypocrates, Chrysippus, and Aristotle: Another party placing it in the Brain; to wit, Plato, Galen, and Averroës, all admitting a Determinate Seat to the Soul, do thereby gainsay the Being thereof in many parts of the Body, as properly occupying so many places. ⚜ A Confutation of the former two Romish Instances in Man's Soul, and God himself, by Ancient Fathers, in their Doctrine concerning Angels, and men's Spirits. SECT. III. ANcient Fathers (we trow) were profoundly learned both in Philosophical, and in Theological Mysteries, who notwithstanding (as your g job 1. 6. [Cum venissent et astitissent Angeli, etc.] Origen. Athanas. Greg. Nazianz. tanquàm dogma fidei tradunt, Angelos moveri localiter, neque omnibus locis praesentes, sed esse cuique locum suum, & spatium praefinitum, cùm illud necessariò requiratur, ut ab uno loco in locum alium veniant. Simili ratione confirmat hanc verita●em Tert. Apol. cap. 22. Chryso. Hom. in Heb. 1. Ambros. lib 1. de Sp. S. c. 10. Damasc. l. 2. de fide cap. 3. Nazian. Orat. 2. de Theol. Athanas. Epist. ad Scrap. Teste Pi●eds jes. in eundem locum job. jesuite witnesseth) held it as a Doctrine of Faith, that Angels, which are Spirits, have every one their own definite places and space, and that they cannot be in divers places, but by moving from one place to another, which cannot be said of any Body that (as you say) is without motion in divers places at once. Surely, if ever such strange and paraphysicall, nay, more than hyperphysical Crotchets had entered into the minds of ancient Fathers, we should have heard you allege, at least some one of them, if not for proof, yet in pretext and colour of patronising these your repugnant Paradoxes, concerning a Body taking the right hand, or left of itself, and the like, Velut aegri somnia vanae singuntur Species. For your better satisfaction, we shall allege some Testimonies, which may sufficiently declare their judgement of an Impossibility of a Spirits being in divers places at one time, whether we consider the Spirits of Angels, or of men; yea or the Humane Spirit or soul of Christ. Of Angels, Damascen; h Damascen. Orthod. fid. l. 1. c. 17 & l. 3. cap. 7. Angelus dicitur esse in loco, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Deus autem ubique existens, copora vero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They are so circumscribed in the place where they work, that they cannot possibly be in more places at once. Athanasius, i Athanas. Tom. 1 Epist. ad Serap. p. 201. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As the holy Ghost filleth all places, so Angels are contained in a certain place. Accordingly Ambrose; k Ambros. de Sp. S. lib. 1. cap. 10. Seraphim quod jubetu● exequitur, Spiritus quod vult dividit: Seraphim de loco ad locum transit, non enim complet omnia, sed ipsum repletur a Spiritu. Herein do Angels differ from the holy Ghost, which filleth all things, that the Seraphims do move from place to place. Pope Gregory would be heard speak; l Greg. Moral. lib. 2. cap. 3. Angeli, ut & nos, loco circumscribuntur: comparatione quidem corporum nostrorum Spiritus sunt, con paratione Dei incircumscripti Corpus sunt. Angels are circumscribed, being, in respect of our Bodies, Spirits: but, in comparison of the uncircumscribed God, they are to be esteemed as Bodies. So they. Our next speculation must be touching the souls of Saints departed. The Author set out by yourselves, in the name of Athanasius, unto this Objection, How do the souls of Saints so often appear at one moment of time in the Sepulchers, as they seem to have done? Answereth, that They are not the same Saints, but rather visions, and adumbrations of them, by transfigurations of Angels. He giveth his Reason, why he thinketh the other impossible, m Athanas quaest. ●l Antioch. 26. Quomodò (cedo mihi) una existens Petri aut Pauli anima, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apparere in suo monumento, & in mille templis per totum mundum, nec Angelus potest? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Edit Paris. Anno 1627. Because it is proper (saith he) to God alone to be at one moment of time in two places at once. So he. And if the Fathers shall say, in effect, as much of the humane soul of Christ, you (we should think) would require no more. Tertullian among his many divine Answers, to prove Christ to be God, he urgeth the Arian Heretics with this one, as not the least: n Tert. de Trinit. circiter medium. against the Ebionites. Si homo 〈◊〉 modò Christus, quomodò adest ubique invocatus? cùm haec non hominis natura sit, sed Dei, ut adesse 〈◊〉 in omni loco: si homo tantummodò Christus, cur & Mediator invocatur? etc. Because Christ is present in all places, where he is invocated, which is a power not incident unto man, but proper to the nature of God. So he. How like you this? And Augustine may not be thought to descent, when in arguing he took as granted, that the o Aug. Epist. 57 ad 〈◊〉 [Mecum eris in Paradiso] Non ex his verbis in coelo existimandus Paradisus, neque enim in ipso die futurus erat in coelo homo Christus, sed in inferno secundùm animam, & in sepulchro secundùm carnem. Soul of Christ, when it departed this life, could not be in Heaven, and in Hell at once. As for the Being of God in divers places at once, which was your Cardinal's instance, for proof of a Possibility of the Being of Christ's Body in many places, without Contradiction of making One not One, by dividing it from itself; we know not whether rather to censure it egregiously absurd, or extremely impious; seeing that the Being of God in divers places at once without Contradiction ariseth from the very nature of God's Infiniteness of Being in whatsoever place: which is (as your own School might have taught him) so, as p Aquinas 1● quaest. 52. Art. 2. Containing all places, and not contained in any: which the Fathers have as fully declared, in making Being in all places, as filling them with his presence, to be the property of his Deity. Such than is the impiety of your arguing; by labouring to defend the manner of the Being of a Body, by the manner of Being of a Soul or Spirit; denied by q Nazian. Orat. 51. cont. Apollinar. Obijcientem: Duo perfecta non continebat Christus, uz. divinitatem et humanitatem. Resp. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut vas unius modij non duos modios continet.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Nazianzene; and manner of the Being of a Creature, by the manner of the Being of God the Creator, exceedeth all Absurdities that can be named. The holy Fathers will have something more to * Below. Chap. 7. Sect. 2. & 4. say to you; but first we are willing to hear what you can say for yourselves. A Confutation of the Third Romish Pretence, why they need not yield to these Reasons whereby their Doctrine is proved to be so grossly Unreasonable. SECT. iv MYsteries of Faith (saith your r Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. Argumentum sumitur à mysterijs, etc. Cardinal) which exceed man's understanding, are only to be apprehended by Faith, Such as are the Articles of the Trinity, of Christ his Incarnation, of the Resurrection, of the Creation, and of Eternity itself; and so ought this, concerning the Presence of Christ his Body, notwithstanding any Objection from Reason. So you. We answer. Some of these former Mysteries we confess to be such as exceed man's understanding, yet such again they are, as are not contrary to understanding, though above it; that is to say, such (and this you will confess with us) as admit not Contradiction in themselves: for it is no Contradiction to say of the Trinity there is One God, and Three Persons, because the Essence of the Godhead is common to each person: or to say in the Incarnation there is one Person, and two natures; no more than to say, that in one man there is one person, and two essential parts, one his Body, the other his Spirit: or in the Resurrection to believe the same that was created, might be restored to life, more than to believe that one grain of Corn dying, might revive again: or in the Creation to believe that something may be made of nothing, than to say that a blind man was made to see. As for the last Objection, saying that s Aeternitas est instans Darationis, Bellar. ibid. §. Quintum. Eternity is the instant of Duration, it is a Paradox: for t Aeternitas est duratio immutabilis, principio & fine carens. Lessias Ies. Opus●. Var. de Perfect. devia l 4 c. 1. yet is it true, that Aeternitas est nunc stans, non nunc volans, ut tempus. Cap. 3. Eternity is Duration itself, without beginning, or ending; which is conceived without Contradiction. In all these your former Pretences nothing is more considerable than the miserable Exigence whereunto your Disputers are brought, whilst they are constrained, for avoiding of Contradictions in things subject to the determination of Sense, to pose us with Spiritual Mysteries, which are Objects only of Faith, by reason of the Infiniteness of their properties; and therefore may well exceed the reach of man's wit, and apprehension, without any prejudice unto Truth, by Contradiction: as if they meant to teach men to put out their eyes, and never any more to discern any sensible things, by sensible means. By which manner of reasoning all the Arguments used by the Apostles, against Infidels, for proof of the Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ's Body; all the Reasons of Fathers, against Heretics, in distinguishing of the Properties of the Divine and Humane nature of Christ in himself, and their former Testimonies in discerning Bodies from Spirits, by Circumscription, and Spirits from God by Determination in one place; and lastly your own Consequences of many confessed Impossibities, concerning Place, (as the Impossibility that God should be contained in Place, as for one Body, having Qantity, to be incapable of a Place, and the like) are all utterly made void. For to what end were any of these, if your Pretences have in them any shadow of Truth? ⚜ You other Cardinal Contarenus observed more solidly out of Dionysius Areopagita, that the * Set hereafter, Chap. 10. Sect. 6. nu. 6. Godhead differeth from all other things in that it exceedeth all apprehension of man. ⚜ CHAP. VII. The third Romish Contradiction, against the words of Christ [MY BODY,] is by making a Body Finite, to be a Body not finite. SECT. I. IF (as you have said) the Body of Christ is, or may be at one time in so many places, then may it be in more, and consequently everywhere at one instant. This Consequence your ancient Schoolmen taught, and your jesuite a Quasi non possit creatura esse ubique hoc (inquam) non obstat, nam omnipotentiam illi intellexerunt prorsus naturalem: quia si non alienâ virtute, sed suapte naturâ res existat ubique praesens, haec reverà nulli creaturae convenit. At nos altero modo non nisi per absolutam Dei potentiam ubiquitatem creaturae arbitramur. Valent. Ies. lib. 1. de vera Christi present. in Euch. cap. 12. §. Quae sanè. pag. 241. Valentia doth seem to avow, saying, What hindereth that a Body may be [Vbique] everywhere at once, not by its natural power, but by the Omnipotency of God? So he. This we say is to make a Finite Infinite, and your old Schoole-Doctors are hereunto witnesses, who have judged it b Veterum Theologorum apud D. 〈◊〉 ratio 〈◊〉 est si idem corpus ●ssit esse in ●●●●bus locis simul, potest in ●luribus, atque 〈◊〉 ubique.— Et qua ●um eodem Thoma dicunt, Haereticum esse affir●●●●e, corpus Christi esse 〈◊〉 in duobus locis simul, quia ubiqu● esse, est p●oprium Deo. Peste Su●rez tom 3. qu 7●. Artic. 1. disput. 48. Sect. 4. Heretical, to say, That the Body of Christ can be in divers places at once; because than he may be in infinite. So they. And hear you what your Cardinal Bellarmine hath publicly taught? To say ( c Dicere corpus Christi esse, vel esse posse in insinitis locis ●●nul, immensitatem divinam requirit. Bellarmin. lib. 3 de Christo cap. 8. saith he) that the Body of Christ may be in infinite places at once, is to ascribe an Immensity and infiniteness unto it, (namely, that) which is proper unto God. So he, and so also your other Doctors, to whom the Evidence of Truth commandeth us to assent. For what greater Heresy can there be against that Article of our Faith, concerning the Deity, and Godhead of Christ, begotten, not made, than to believe that there can be a made God? for so doubtless do they (whosoever they be) that think a Finite Body may be made Infinite. CHALLENGE. YOu understand the Argument, viz. To believe that christ his Body may be every where, is a flat Heresy: but to affirm that the same Body is in many places at once, doth consequently infer that it may be every where (as hath been directly professed.) Ergo your Doctrine of attributing to the Body of Christ an Existence, in many places at once, is by the confessed general grounds of Christianity plainly Heretical. And from this our Conclusion your Aquinas will in no-wise dissent, who himself concludeth d Aquinas 1, qu. 52. art. 2. Deus e●t ●lentia in●init●, ide●o non solu● in p●uribus locis est, sed unique. Angelus, quia est virtutis. sinnae; non se extendit nisi ●d unum determinatum— unde sequitur quòd non si●ubique, neque in pluribus locis, sed in 〈◊〉 loco rantum. That the Angel is not in divers places at once, because an Angel is a Finite Creature, and therefore of a Finite power and operation; it being Proper to God to be in many places at once. So he. That, by the judgement of Ancient Fathers, the Being in divers places at once inferreth an Infiniteness Proper unto God: which without Heresy cannot be ascribed to any humane Body; Proved from the manner of Existence of the Holy Ghost. SECT. II. STill you maintain the Real and Corporal Presence of Christ his Body in so many place as there are consecrated Hosts at one time in the whole World, be they ten thousand times ten Millions of Millions, or how many soever: which, say we, is to make the Finite Body of Christ Infinite. For Aquinas (as your e Vnum corpus esse ubique affirmare est Haereticum. Thomas. Quia Catholic● ex hac proprietate essendi ubique dicunt antiquos Patres sufficienter probasse Spiritus Sancti Divinitatem, ut patet ex Augustino, Fulgent. Ambros. Basil. Teste Suarez ies. Tem 3. Disp. 48. § 4. Rat. 1. jesuite witnesseth) held it Heretical, to affirm One body to be everywhere, because this is a Divine property, by which the Fathers did sufficiently prove the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, (namely) Augustine, Fulgentius, Ambrose, and Basil. So he. But how did the Fathers prove this, think you? it were good, that where your own Authors be silent, we heard some of themselves speak. f Fulgent. ad Tra. simud. lib. 2. pag. 325. Spiritus Sancti in nobis habitatio non localis est, inhabitat enim Tunitas in su●s fidelibus, sicut tota in cunctis: nec per separatos homines, & separata loca particulariter separatur Fulgentius his reason is, Because the Spirit of God dwelleth wholly in all the faithful, separated in divers places. g Basu. de Spir. Sancto, cap. 22. sub finem Reliquae virtutes omnes in loco circumscriptae esse creduntur nam Ange lus, qui●astabat Cornelio, non erat in eodem loco, quo cùm ast●●t Philippo: neque qui locutus est Zacha●iae ab Altari per idem tempus etiam in Coelo suam implebat stationem. At Spiritus (Sanctus) simul & in Abaccuc operatus, & in Dancle in Babylonia creditus, & in Cata●cta cum jeremia, & cum Ezechiele in Chobar; Spiritus enim Domini replevit orbem terrarum, [Quo ibo ●a Spiritu tuo?] Et Propheta; Quoniam ego, inquit, vobiscum sum, & Spiritus meus stat in medio vestri Basil thus: The Angel, that was with Cornelius, was not at the same time with Philip, nor was he then in Heaven, when he was with Zachary at the Altar. But the Holy Ghost was together with the Prophet Daniel in Babylon, with jeremy in the Dungeon, and with Ezechiel in Chobar. h Ambros. de Sp. Sancto, lib. 1. cap. 7. Cum igitur omnis creatura certis naturae suae circumscripta limitibus, siquidem & illa invisibilia opera, quae non queunt locis & finibus comprehendi, substantiae tamen suae proprietate clauduntur, quomodo quis audeat creaturam Sp. Sanctum appellare, qui non habet circumscriptam & determinatam naturam? Ideò cum Dominus servos suos Apostolos destinare voluit, ut agnosceremus aliam esse naturam, aliud gratiam spiritualem, alios aliòo destinabat, quia simul omnes esse ubique non poterant● dedit autem Spiritum Sanctum, qui licet separatis Apostolis inseparabilis ● gratiae munus insunderet: quis igitur dubitat, quin divinum sit quod insunditur, simul pluribus, nec videtur? corporeum autem quod videtur à singulis, & tenetur. Ambrose thus: Because the Apostles could not all be every where, Christ severed them, giving them all the Holy Ghost, which was inseparable in them: none therefore can doubt but it is a Divine Essence. S. i August. contra Maxim. Arian. Epist. lib. 3. cap. 21. Cum sic laudetis Spiritum Sanctum, ut in sanctificandis fidelibus ubique praesentem esse dicatis, tamen negare audeatis esse Deum? [The Vbique, spoken of the Faithful, hath the sense of Vbicunque, because the number of the Faithful is but finite, and their places distinct, here and there, and not absolutely every where.] Augustine confuteth an Arian Bishop thus: You that praise the holy Spirit, in sanctifying his faithful wheresoever they are, how can you deny him to be God? ⚜ Saint Hilary, to evince Christ to be a Divine Spirit, useth this Argument: 1 Hilarius in Ps. 124. in illo verba Christi, [Ecce ego vobiscum sum, usque ad consummationem seculi.] Spiritus namque adest omnia penetrans & continens. Non enim secundùm nos corporalis est, ut cùm alicubi adsit, absit aliunde. The Scripture (saith he) saith, He is with his Church unto the end of the World; but not as a Corporal nature, which is, when he is present in one place, to be absent from another. Accordingly, for proof of the Godhead of the same Holy Ghost, 2 Athana●. de ●●umana Christi natura. Planè eadem a Davide de Sp. Sancto tradita sunt, Psal. 138. [Quo ibo a Spiritu tuo?] quibus verbis nos edoctos voluit, Sp. Sanctum esse qui omnia replet: & à fancy tua quo defugiam? S●alcende●o in coelum, tu illi● praestoes: si descendero in infernum, tu ibi ades. Athanasius argueth out of the same Psalm, [Wither shall I go from thy presence?] Concluding that The Holy Ghost filleth all things, and is therefore infinite in Essence. But how is this Infiniteness of Being in all places proved? The Reason followeth, in the same place, from the Instances of Being in divers places at once: If I go into Heaven, Thou art there, If into Hell, Thou art there also. So that still the Argument, for the Godhead, is taken from Being both There, and There ⚜ Didymus of Alexandria (whom Hierome acknowledgeth as his Master, for the understanding of Scripture) thus: k Didymus Alex. lib. 1. de Spirit. Sanct. Hieronym. interpret. (●xtatin Bibliotheca: S. Patrum. Tom. 6. pag. 679.) Ipse Spiritus Sanctus, si unus ellect de creaturis, saltem circumscriptam haberet substantiam— Spiritus autem Sanctus cùm in pluribus sit, non habet substantiam circumscriptam sicut universa quae facta 〈◊〉. [And ●ee proveth 〈…〉 pluribus 〈◊〉 in Prnphetis & Apostolis etc.] The Holy Ghost, if it were a Creature, should have its Substance circumscribed; which because it is in many places at once cannot be circumscribed, as all things that are made. Upon the same ground Cyrill of Alexandria, maketh the same Conclusion l Cyril. Alex. de Spiritu Sancto (quod non est Creatura.) Cum in loco & circum scriptione intelligant quae facta sunt, Spiritus autem sancti non sit, de quo psallit David, Quo ibo a Spiritu tuo? The Spirit of God is no Creature (saith he) because things Created are in one place, but of the Spirit of God it is written, whither shall I go from thy presence? ⚜ Let us fall to Reasoning. The Enthymem● of the Father's being this; The Holy Chost is in divers places at once, Therefore is he God: The Major Proposition, you know, by the Rule of Art must needs be this: Whatsoever is in divers places at once, is God. So then the Syllogism or form of Argumentation must necessarily stand thus: Ma. Whatsoever is in divers places at once, is God. Mi. But the Holy-Ghost to in divers places at once: (The Conclusion necessarily following is this,) Con. Therefore the Holy Ghost is God. So these holy Fathers, every one Catholic without exception, pleading for the Godhead of the Holy Ghost. By whose judgements we are taught that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth Infallibly infer a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and that therefore the Contrary Profession of a Being of a Creature, in divers places, or spaces at once, is Heretical; because the aforesaid Fathers Disputed against the Heretics (named by 3 Epiphan. Haeres. 69. Contra Ar●omanita, qui dicunt Spiritum Sanctum esse creaturam creaturae. Epiphanus the Ariomanitae) who, as Pneumatomachi, madly oppugned the Godhead of the Holy Ghost. Now lest when we seek to plead our own Cause, We might seem to desert them, whom you call Lutherans, We held it a part of Brotherhood to take with us an excellently learned Doctor of Wittenberg, john Gerhard: who producing Bellarmine's Objection against them, to prove them them to be Heretics, in the opinion of the Presence of Christ's Body, thus: If you give Divine Attributes to Christ's Body as Essentially, then are you Eutychians: and if you give them accidntally, then are you Nestorians. The same Gorhard argueth thus: 4 joh. Gerhard. Confess. Cathol. lib. 1. part. 2 cap. 19 pag. 887. In hunc modum bellar. lib. 3. de Christo, cap 1. contra nos tale producit Argumentum. Eutherani docent carnem Christi habere Attributa Divinitatis: ex quo sequitur eos vel esse Eutychi●nos, vel Nectorianos▪ vel Monstrum ex utraque Haeresi. Si enim dixerint ea esse communicata essentialiter, erint Eutychiani; si Accidentaliter, erint Nestoriani, Respondet Gerhardus— Nec Essentiaiiter, nec Accidentol●●er ea communicata dicimus, sed Personaliter. We (saith he) give not Divine Attributes to the Body of Christ either Essentially, or Accidentally, but Personally. So he, which hath in it a true and Orthodox Sense. ⚜ CHALLENGE. Again, another Syllogism from these Premises will set all strait. To ascribe to a Body an Omni-presency, and power of Being everywhere, is Heretical. But to say that a Body is in divers places at once, doth consequently infer a power of Being in every place (as it doth, in demonstrating the Holy Ghost to be a Divine Spirit.) Therefore to attribute to a Body a Being in divers places at once, is a Doctrine Heretical, and implieth a Contradiction, by affirming that a Finite thing either is, or possibly may be Infinite. Add but hereunto the former * See above, Chap. 5. & 6. Testimonies of Fathers, who have distinguished the humane nature of Christ from his Godhead, and their denying of all Possibilities of Existence of Angels in two places at once; and your Consciences must needs tell you, that it was Impossible for the Fathers to have believed your Romish Article of a Corporal Presence in every Host Consecrated at one time, on divers Altars, in your several Churches. What shall we then furher say concerning the Being of a Body in divers places at once? surely (that which hath been plentifully proved already) that such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or without Place, is egregiously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and absurd as well in Divine, as natural Philosophy, because (as this whole Discourse showeth they have verified that saying of Aristoile; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ⚜ A Vindication of Truth, against an egregious Infatuation of the jesuite Lessius, in framing an whole Army consisting of but one man. SECT. III. AMong other multitudes of Absurdities, take unto you the Assertion of your jesuite Lessius, (wherein notwithstanding he is not alone) which we propound unto you, not for your Instruction, but for your Recreation. 5 Lessius Ies. Opusc. de perfect. divin. lib. 12. cap. 16 nu. 199. Existentia rei non impedit quo minus secundò, tertiò, quartò centies, millies, eadem res produci possit— Vnde sequitur ex uno homine effici posse integrum exercitum. [And this multiplication by production is descended by johannes Lot●us the ●esuit in his Epistle to Conradus Verstius; Secundò, tertiò, quartò & Iohann●m product posse, etc. The Existence of a thing (saith he) hindereth not, but the same thing may be produced once, twice, thrice, an hundred, or a thousand times, so that an whole Army and Host may consist of one man. Do you hear your Jesuit telling you of an Army of a Thousand, or (and if you will) a thousand thousands of one man? which Army, if you shall range into certain Quarters, you shall have in one, a Squardon of five thousand of a Horseman; in another, Five thousand of a Pikeman; in a third Five thousand of a Musketier; in a Fourth, Five thousand of a Pyoner: Insomuch that upon such a multiplicity of Productions of this one man, the said one man should be said to be furnished with all the different thousands of Armour and weapons, of Pikes, Muskets, Pickaxes, or Shovels, as might belong to so many thousands of men. Although this Idle and dreamish Fiction deserve no other answer than laughter, yet seeing that Doctors of his Profession, and Jesuits also of his own society are at hand, we may not deny them Access; Bellarmine, Suarez, and Vasquez, these three Jesuits have * See Book 3. Cap. 3. §. 1. concluded, that Production cannot be but of a thing, that hath no Being before; but Christ (say they) had a Being, before any Priest could make his Consecration. So they. How then could this jesuite soberly feign to himself a thousand Productions of a man, that could have but one Production an being at all. Again, you have neard, from your Doctors, two other Conclusions, One, That if we consider the Bodily presence of Christ, as he is out of the Sacrament visible, * See above cap. 3. §. 3. It is not possible for him (say they) to be in more than one place at once. And so Lessius his great Champion must have no Being at all. The second, that if we understand Christ's Bodily Presence, as it is in the Sacrament, * See belew cap. 9 §. 2. It is Invisible (say they) and cannot exercise any faculty of Sense or Motion. And then must Lessius his imaginary man of Arms be such a Captain, as can neither see any enemy, nor yet be seen of any: or if seeing, yet, as a man bound hand and foot, hath no power to pursue his Foe, or if he should make an encounter, yet is he not able to strike one stroke, Who will not now say that your Jesuit had no other harness upon himself than pertinacy in this Impugnation and resistance of Truth. ⚜ CHAP. VIII. Of the (fourth) Romish Contradiction against the words Of Christ [MY BODY,] by teaching it to be Organical, and not Organical; Divisible, and Indivisible. SECT. I. THE Question is not now of the Mystical Presence of Christ his Body in the Sacrament, which we with the Fathere, especially a Greg Nyssen in Orat. Catech. 6. 37. Per totum orbem fideiium i●llibus uno die impertitur, totumque cujusque per partem evadat, & in seipso totum permaneat, etc. Objected by Mr. Brereley Liturg. Tract. 2. Subdiv. 2. [Answered before ● Chap. 4. Sect. 7.] Gregory Nyssen, confess, to be whole, as well in a part of Bread consecrated, as in the whole loaf; even as the Image of the King may be as perfect in a penny, as in a shilling. But neither he, nor any Father ever said that a little Host, (which Host you call Christ) is equal with a great Host; No, for the Fathers in the Council of * See below, ●. 11. Nice absolutely denied this: nor yet is Christ wholly represented in the least part of the Host, as your Fathers of * See. 3. following. Trent have taught, because no such part can resemble Totum Christum, whole Christ Sacramentally, which is not of sufficient bigness to be sensibly eaten in the nature of nourishment; thereby to resemble the Spiritual nourishment of our Souls, which is the Body of Christ. So that all you have said maketh just nothing for the Corporal, and material Presence of Christ's Body, which we further impugn. That it is necessary the Body of Christ (wheresoever) consist of distinct members and proportions of a Body. SECT. II. THE Body of Christ (as we profess) had perfect Dimensions and Distinctions of parts, an head exposed to pricking with thorns, a Face to buffets, a Back to scourges, Eyes to visible noddings and mockings, Ears to blasphemies, Hands and Feet to piercing with Nails. This is that Body which we confess to be the Body of Christ, and which we celebrate in the use of this Sacrament, in Remembrance that he had a Body consisting of proportion of divers parts, distinct one from another. Two of your b Magnitudo & figura unitae sunt corpori Christi naturaliter & inseperabiliter— & Christus corpus suum carnem vocat. joh. 6. At certè substantia sinè quantitate et complexione quadam accidentium, caro dici non potest— Denique in corpore Christi ejus anima inest: atque anima in corpore esse nequit, nisi disposito & organizato. Secundò extensum esse in se, & partem habere extra partem, & proinde situm quendam intrinsecum & ordinem habere, & dispositionem partium, omninò essentiale magnitudini est. Quid enim linea nisi extensio in longitudinem? etc. Si tollas igitur extensionem, & parts, tollis paritèr magnitudinem Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Tollere partium distinctionem ponit monstrosam corporis consusionem, ut ibi sit nasus, ubi oculus; & manus, etc. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 3. pag. 444. Cardinals do both answer that Quantity,! Magnitude, Proportion, and Extension of parts are unseparably united to the Body of Christ in this Sacrament: or else (saith one) If the Nose should stand where the Eye is, and the Eye where the Nose is, it should be a confused Monster. So they. So necessary it is, even in your own faith, that the Body of Christ consist of Organical parts, distinct one from another. That the Romish Church hath decreed a doctrine of Corporal Presence of a Body of Christ, with all the parts thereof in the least Indivisible point of the Host. SECT. III. THE Canons of that c Totus & integer Christus sub specio panis, & sub qualibet ejus speciei perte inest. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. Can. 3. Sub quavis particula. Ca tech. Romde Euch. num. 29. Council of Trent decreed, as a Doctrine of Faith necessary to salvation, to believe, That the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part of the Host; whereby is meant (saith your d In singulis partibus continuis, quantumvis minimis, & ●●●●dem quantitatis. ●●●rez. Ies. Tom. 3. D. 5●. § 2 pag. ●79. Jesuit) The whole Body of Christ is in every albeit the least part of the Host. So he. But we demand; how then shall the Body of Christ but want proportion of distinct parts, which you say are Unseparably united to a Body? Your distinguish, that the e Respondeo, quod est difficilimum, ob 〈…〉 imbecilitatem. Dico corpus Domini habere partem extra partem, si vox [extra] dicat habitudinem ad subjectum, non si dicat habitudinem ad objectum, non si dicat habitudinem ad locum. Resp. nego consequentiam, quia distinctio partium in subjecto est essentialis: at distinctio quoad locum non est essentialis, sed impediri potest. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 7. Negatur este impossible, corpus quantum in indivisibili puncto. collocari: quin potius impossibile est corpus Christi esse totum in toto, quùm sit etiam in punctis & terminis, quibus partes specierum Sacramentaliam continuantur. Suarez. quo supra. pag. 683. Body of Christ being in this Sacrament hath extension of parts of a Body distinctly in itself; but in respect of the Place, or of the forms of Bread, under which it is, the whole Body is without distinction in every least Part and Indivisible Point thereof. CHALLENGE. THis is the common Resolution of the now Church of Rome. The exact discussion of this one point will in itself illumnate the Eyes of any Reader, to discern between the Spirit of Truth, and of Error; namely, to know, that there cannot be a greater Contradiction (and consequently Impossibility) than for a Body, consisting of proportionable dimensions of Parts, such as are Hands, Legs, Eyes, and other Organical members, to have Being any where without Extension, Commensuration, and distinct Proportion of the same to the space, wherein it is, as the Propositions following will prove. That the former Romish Tridentine Article is new, and contrary to the nature of an Organical and Humane Body, in the judgement of Romish Doctors of later times. SECT. iv ALbertus, Scotus, Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned, and ancient Schoolmen, who (as your a Totum Christi corpus in partibus indivisibilibus specierum panis esse, nega●●● Albertus, Scotus, Aegidius— quia videtur impossible, in se corpus extensum, & magnae molis cum tota organizatione & figura in puncto collocari Suarez. quo supra. pag. 683. Jesuit testifieth) Though it impossible, that a Body, that hath Extension of parts, should be contained in an indivisible point. The same opinion is ascribed by your Jesuits (as ancient) unto b Opinio antiqua, quae fuit Durandi, dixit corpus Christi in Eucharistia non habere quantitatem. Fundamentum hujus opinionis fuit, quod essentia quantitatis est habere partes extra partes distinctas inter se, sieri autem non possit, ut si corpus Christi habeat partes distinctas, in Euch. sit totum in qualibet parte. Teste Maldonat. Ies. Tom. 1. de Euch cap. 8. Arg pag. 180. & Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Durand and c Occam, & alij dixerunt quidam esse magnitudinem corporis Christi in Eucharistia: sed ita, ut nulla sit figura, nec distinctio partium. Sic Occam. Bellar. ibid. §. ●t. Occam. Now what greater injury can there be, than, after that it was lawful for a thousand and four hundred years since the Ascension of Christ, for any Christian to profess (with your ancient Schoolmen) an Impossibility, that The Body of Christ is whole in every the least part of the Host; to impose upon men's consciences, as an Article of Faith, so found and so palpable a figment? That which seemed to the abovenamed Durand, Occam, and other 1 Suarez Ies. in 3. Thom. disp. 48. Sect. 1. De Distantis partium Nominales concedunt in corpore Christi, existentem in Eucharistia, pedem non distare magis à capite, quam collum. Ità Occam. & Ailliaco. Nominals such an Opinion, whence (as they thought) it must needs follow, that the Eyes must be where the Nose is, the hand confouded with the legs: which (as your Cardinal Alan truly said) were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos, and altogether * See above in this Chapter, Sect. 2. monstrous. ⚜ And it may be that divers of you are of the mind of that Doctor of the Seraphical order, who teacheth you to 2 Corpus Christi non est nisi sub specie Panis, & partibus ejus: ipsum esse sub quolibet indivisibili ipsius Hostiae per se, negandum est. Magister de media villa, S●raph. Ord. in 4. Sent. Tom. 4. Deny that the Body of Christ is in any indivisible part of the Host. ⚜ That the Organical parts of the Body of Christ must be proportionable to the Dimension of the places, wherein they are; is proved by the confessed Romish Principle itself. SECT. V THE reason, which your * See above, § 2. Cardinal layet down to prove it necessary, that Christ his Body should have in itself (according to the nature of a Body) distinct parts of head and eyes, and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soul, he taketh from Magnitude, which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length, breadth, and depth: This saith he is inseparably united to Christ his Body in its own intrinsical disposition, in itself; but not so (saith he) in regard of the place. CHALLENGE. THis your own Reason may we justly retort upon yourselves, proving, that if the natural disposition of the Body of Christ be thus proportionably extended in itself, it must be so likewise in respect of Place and Space; because the three dimensions of the Body of Christ (as you have confessed) stand thus, that one is an extension in Length, another in Breadth, the third in Depth, and each of these three are distinct one from another. Well then, the Arm must be here, and thus fare longer than the Foot, the Leg here, and thus fare thicker than the Finger, the Hand here, and thus fare broader than the Toe, and accordingly distinctly in other parts. But Hîc, and Huc●sque; Here and There, thus fare and so fare, being Relatives of Space, and Place, do demonstratively show that that Extension of distinct parts of the Body, which they have in themselves divisibly, the same they must necessarily have in respect of the Vbi, Place, or Space, wherein the Body is. If therefore you will not Heretically teach a Mathematical, or Fantastical Body o● Christ, you must deny the Article of Trent, until you can believe, and make good, that a part of a divisible Body, longer or shorter, broader or narrower, can be (and that equally) in one indivisible point. This is confirmed by the Essence of Christ his glorified Body, (as you confess it to be) now in Heaven, possessing a Real place in the said proportion of Spaces of length, and breadth, as it had here upon earth, which it doth by the natural Magnitude, or Quantity thereof. But the said natural Magnitude, or quantity of the said Body of Christ is (according to your won general Doctrine) in this Sacrament. Therefore must it have the same Commensuration of Space, although not of the same Space which is one earth. We should be loath to trouble your wits with these speculations, if that the necessity of the Cause (by reason of the Absurdities, of your Romish profession) did not enforce us hereunto; Therefore must you suffer us a little to sport at your trifling seriousness, who writing of this Divine Sacrament, and seeing it to be round, solid, broken, moulded, in the one kind; and liquid, frozen, and souring in the other, do attribute all these to Quantities, and Qualities, and Accidents, without any other subject at all. So then by the Romish Faith we shall be constrained to believe, in effect, that the Cup is filled with Mathematical lines, the Mouse eating the Host is said with colours, and forms: that it is Coldness that is frozen, and Roundness which weigheth down, and falleth to the ground; as if you should describe a Romish Communicant to be a creature clothed with Shadows, armed with Idaea's, fed with Abstracts, augmented with Fancies, second Intentions, and Individual Vagues, and consisting wholly of Chimaeras. That your Romish Doctrine is contrary to the judgement of ancient Fathers. SECT VI. IF this your profession had been a Catholic Doctrine, doubtless S. Augustine (who is so devout in his fervent Meditations upon this holy mystery) would not have oppugned it, as he did, when unto that Question of Volusianus (whether the Body of Christ before his Birth did fill the Body of the Blessed Virgin) he answered, d Aug. Nullum corpus potest esse ubique totum, quantumcunque corpus, vel quantulumcunque corpusculum loci occupet spacium, eundemquè locum sic occupet, ut in nulla ejus parte sit totum necesse est: longè alia natura est animae, quàm corporis, quanto magis Dei? Lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Volusian: [Whose question to S. Augustine was; Vtrum Christus intemeratae foeminae corpus impleverit?] That every Body, be it greater or less, wheresoever it is, must needs fill that space wherein it is, so that the same, Body cannot be the whole in any part thereof. So he: which is directly Contradictory to your Article of Trent, for here is express mention of Relation to Place and Space. And whereas for usual colour of a Possibility, that the whole Body of Christ is in every part of the Host, you have objected the Example of Man's Soul, which is said to be whole in every member and part of the Body: Saint Augustine (as if he had foreseen your mystery of Error) pre-occupateth, saying, a In eo quod dicitur Deus ubique, carnali cogitationi resistendum est, & mens acorporis sensibus amorenda, ne quasi spaciosa magnitudine opinemur Deum per cuncta diffundi, ut aër, aut lux: omnis enim hujusmodi magnitudo minor in sua parte, quà in toto: sed ita potius, ut est magna sapientia etiam in homme, cujus corpus est parvum— N●m si duo sint homines aequal●er sapientes, quorum alter est corpore grandi●r, non plus sapiunt ambo, quam singuli; sic in minore corpore non minor est sani tas, cum minora, & majora corpora tam san● sine— Disp●r est profecto in membrorum molibus quantitas: sed par est in disparatis sanitas— quae non quantitas, sed qualitas est. Non pot●●t ergo obtinere quantitas corporis quod qualitas. Aug. Epist. 57 ad Dardan. The nature of a Soul is fare different from the nature of a Body. And again the same holy Father, seeking to find out some Similitude, whereby wholly to resemble the Existence of God, in respect of Place, in the end saith, that Quality hath a prerogative to make some Similitude hereof: and he doth instance in Wisdom, which (saith he) is as great in a little man as in a great man; but denyeth that Quantity hath any such Privilege, for speaking of Quantity and Magnitude, In all such Quantity, or Magnitude (saith he) there is less in the part, than there is in the whole. And by this same Maxim (concerning Whole in respect of Place) he distinguisheth the Godhead from the Manhood, by which you have confounded them. And yet again elsewhere (as though he thought this your delusion could never be sufficiently contradicted, or rather derided) he will further have you not to be so Childish, as not to know, that b Idem. Minor est unus digitus quam tota manus, & minor est digitus unus quam duo; & alibi est iste digitus, alibi ille, alibi coetera manus— Nec solùm immobilibus corporis articulis— sed etiam aëris partes suos implent locos— Lucisque pars alia infunditur per hanc fenestram, alta per aliam, & major per majorem, per minorem autem minor. Idem Tom, 6. 〈◊〉 fundament cap. 1●. The little finger is less than the whole hand, and one finger is less than two, and that one finger is one where, and the other another where. Upon which where, and where, being notes of distinct places; we may ask, where are your Disputers now? Nay yet furthermore, passing from grosser Bodies, he saith as much of Air; yea, and of the most subtle of subtills, the light of the Sun; one part whereof (saith he) cometh in at one window, another at another window, yet so, that the less passeth through the less, and the greater through the greater. Moreover, if Saint Gregory once Bishop of Rome had believed that Christ his Body is whole in every least indivisible part of the Host, he would never have condemned the Eutychian Heretic for believing c Au●ungebat (Haeretious) omne illud, quod in Domino 〈◊〉 potuit, post resurrectionem in so●●itatem aliquam esse redactam. Greg. Exposit. Moral. lib. 14. cap. 31. The Body of Christ to have been brought into such a subtlety, that it cannot be felt. But a greater subtlety there cannot be, than for a divisible Body to be enclosed in every the least indivisible point. Show us this Doctrine taught by any Catholic Doctor in the Church, within the compass of the twelve hundred years after Christ, and then shall we conceive better of your Cause. And lest you may talk (as you use) of one Body penetrating another, we lay unto you, as Damascen said unto his Reader, that d Damasien. l. 1. de Orthodox 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is impossible, but that either the one or the other must be divided asunder. We say furthermore, that though this were granted, yet would you your selves deny that the other must follow, as you may discern in Angels, who are Spirits, and moe of them may be naturally in one singular place, yet no one, can be naturally in two places at once. That the Romish Objections, against our former Tenet, taken from Miraculous Penetrations, are feeble and vain. SECT. VII. IT is ordinarily in the mouths of every one of you to object the Miraculous entrance of Christ into the house, the doors being shut; his coming out of the grave, when it was covered with a sto●e (as some think;) his Birth from his mother, her womb being shut; besides the miraculous passing of a Camel through the eye of a needle, spoken of by Christ; all Miraculous indeed, as we, with many holy * Chrysost. Nazian●●. Aug. Ambros. Fathers, do willingly Confess. What therefore? Therefore (say you) the Body of Christ did pass through the substantial dimensions of the Body of the Doors, Stone, and womb; and consequently confuteth all this, which hath been spoken of the Organical proportions of a Body, in respect of Space, or Place. So you. We grant unto you as much as these Fathers speak, in noting each of these to have been the Acts, and works of Omnipotency, but yet without any penetration of Dimensions at all, or yet Alteration of the just proportion of Christ's Body. Which penetration of Dimensions seemed to your e Durand Disp. 14, qu● 6. [Whom you therefore reject.] Tes●e Su●rez. Tom. 2. Disp. 48. quaest. 54. Art. 4. §. 5. Durand as incredible, as unto us; and is 3 Impossibil●m etiam 〈◊〉 hac putat esse opinionem probibilem Teste Lo●ino 〈◊〉 in Act. 5. 19 Impossible. The principal Testimony, which is insisted upon, concerning the passing of Christ through the Doors, is the saying of Chrysostom, viz. f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. Hom. ●7. in joh. 21. [but according to the Latin Edition, Hom. 86. super joh. 20. This testimony was objected against P. Mar●● in the Disp. at Oxo●. fol. 60.] Christ's Body was thin, or small, changed from [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is, it's thickness, impalpable unto mortal man's hand, but only by Divine permission and dispensation. So he. And this is alleged for proof of a Possibility of his now Corporal Presence in the Sacrament, void of palpability: never considering the Ordinary and confessed Hyperboles, wherewith chrysostom embellisheth his Sermons; insomuch that we may oppose chrysostom against chrysostom, even in the point in question: who elsewhere speaking of this Sacrament, saith that Christ herein * Book 3. cap. ●. Sect. 6. Giveth his Body both to be felt and seen; whereas every Priest's hands and eyes can testify the contrary. ⚜ Would ye understand the judgement of 4 Chrysost. de Resurrect. Hom. 9 Non est meum ludificare meos phantalmate, etc. See this Testimony above Book. 3. Chap. 3. §. 9 chrysostom indeed? then leaving his Amphibologies, consult with him in his plain and direct Assertions, where he doubteth not to say, that If Christ at his Resurrection had offered his Disciples only an Image of his Body, to the deceiving of their eyes, it had been a Delusion. Next that, Howsoever the sight of his Disciples might have been deceived, yet their touch could not err, in discerning a true Body. And is it not then a marvellous Infatuation in your Professors, who whilst they Taste, See, and Touch Bread in the Sacrament, believe contrary to their senses, that they are mere Accidents? Thirdly, in Conclusion, he saith that his Passing thorough the Door was not in his Humane Substance alone, but by his Divine virtue. What can this mean, but that the Penetration made was not by extenuation of his Body, but by the Omnipotent power, constraining the place to make a passage to his Bodily Substance? ⚜ For what? that Christ his Body, in passing through the Door, should not always have been palpable in itself? The Fathers of the General Council at Ephesus would have protested against this, whose Resolution is, that g Conc. Ephes. Tom. 5. Cap. 1. Anathem. 3. Non alien●u esse ab illo corpus, quod sibi univit, quod ubique palpabile, & aspectabile existit. The Body which Christ united to his God head is palpable: but you will ask then, how could it pass through either Stones, or Doors, without penetration of Dimensions, or else by an extreme tenuity of the Body itself? We answer, that the Divine power constrained the Stone and Doores to yield a passage, the Thickness of his Body continuing the same. We have Hierome for the first part teaching, h Hier. Creatura cessit Creatori. The Creature (saith he) yielded to the Creator? and ancient justine, for the second, most aptly, and exactly, i justin Martyr quaest. ad Orthodox Quest. 117. pag 363. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. As Christ did tread the Water, not by changing his Body into Spirit, but by his Divine power: So he passed thorough both Doors and Sepulchre being shut, by his Divine power, above nature, in his unaltered Body. He proceedeth, showing how; even as was his walking, by his Divine power working upon the water, without any Alteration of his Body, more than was of the Body of Peter, who was enabled by the same power to tread the water. ⚜ The Alteration than was not in his Body, but in the other things, such as were the Doors, thorough which he passed: 5 Cyri●. Alexandr. in johan. lib. 12. cap. 53. Clausis foribus Dominius omnipotentiâ, suâ, superatâ naturâ rerum, intravit. The nature of things being overcome by Christ's Omnipotency, he made his entrance, as saith Cyrill of Alexandria. And why should not the Creature yield 〈…〉 Creator, rather than the Creator to the Creature? Will you give you Jesuit Lessius licence to interpose his judgement, who maintaining a Possibility of a manner of Penetration of a Body by a Body, yet discussing the manner [How, will tell you that 6 〈…〉. Ex quibus patet, juxta hanc sen●●●● 〈◊〉 penetr 〈◊〉 ponere in ip●s beatis, nisi potentam quindam mor●●●, quae in eo consisti●, quod Deus 〈◊〉, ipsis volentibus, assistere ad hunc effectum. Lib. 7. cap 9 It is done not by the Quality, whether natural, or Supernatural in a glorified Body; but by Gods immediate Assistance: and that the Saints themselves (who are said to penetrate other bodies with their bodies) have no other power than that which may be called moral, which is to be willing to pass thorough any body: and God, according to their wills, assiteth to work the effect. ⚜ Each of which Say of the Fathers, professing a Body of Christ palpable, (whether Thin with chrysostom, or Thick with justine) do confute your Tridentine Faith in believing a Body of Christ whole in the whole, and whole in every least part of the Host, as unpalpable to man, as you have said it is invisible to the Angels themselves: which is to bring it to such a Subtlety, as will draw you whether you will or no into a kindred with the Eutychian Heretics, who (as your k Aquinas par. 3. quaest: 54. art. 2. Respondeo. Vide corpus Christi non habuisse partes corpo●●s naturales, pertinet id errorem Eutychij qui dicebat corpus nostrum in illa resurrectionis gloria impalpabile, & ventis. ●eque subtilius: et quòd Dominus post confirmata corda Discipalorum palpantrum, omne illud, quod in eo palpari potuit, in aliquam subtilitatem redegit, ut Greg. exponit, Mor●●. lib. 14●. ●ap. 31. Aquinas will have you know) held the Body of Christ to have been as subtle as the Air, and as the wind impalpable; as did also the l Pratent. Elench. Haeret. Tit. Eunomiani— Diceb in corpus nostrum post Resurrectionem impa●●●bile esse & invisible; imò aëre & vento subtilius: de qua heraesi Gregorius Eutychium convincit. Eunomians, and were therefore condemned by Pope Gregory surnamed the Great. Some more difficulty you suppose to be in the manner of Christ his Birth, whereunto when we answer, that Christ in his Birth opened the Womb of his Mother, although without violation of her Sacred Vessel, we are therefore presently branded by your m Bellar. lib de notis Eccles. cap. 9 Saunder. de visib Monarch. lib. 7. pag. 321. Ma●don. Ies. Com. 〈◊〉 Luc. 2. 23. Disputers with the black mark of the Heresy of those wicked Spirits, who taught the Corruption of her Virginity. Which objection nothing but personal malice could make, or Impudence defend, as the Objecters themselves well knew, one of them confessing, that divers Fathers, in interpreting that Scripture, which is by the Evangelist applied to the Virgin Mary, and Birth of Christ, viz. Every Male child that openeth the Womb shall be holy unto the Lord; Luk. 2. did teach that n Docuerunt— solum Christum aperuisse vulvam. Mald. in Luc. 2. Christ alone did properly open the Womb of a Woman, who only found it shut. He reckoneth for this opinion these holy o Origen. in hunc locum Hom. 14. Tert. de carne Christi. Ambr & Greg. Nyssen. in Testimonijs ex vet. Testamento collectis. Epiph●n. Haeys. 78. Higher lib. 2. cont. pelag. Theophylact. &. Euseb. [That which he addeth of their pius sensus is frivolous, even as his Impuration to Protestants, saying that they deny that Mary the Mother of our Lord was a Virgin in her birth, is standerous:] and Ianseni●● Conco. cap. 13.— Alij Patres hanc legem aperiundi vulvam ad solum Christum properiè pertinu●●e asserunt. Theophyl. & Ambr. Non enim virilis coitus virginalis secreta reseravit. Similia habet Origenes Hom. 14▪ In Luc. Aed Beat●● Rhenanus in Tert. de carne Christi (before that he fell into the hand of Inquisitors, and their Index Expurgat.) durst say; Tert. contra Recentiorum placita dixit; Mariam patefacti coporis lege peperiss. Fathers, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Gregory Nyssen, Epiphanius, Hierome, Theophylact, Eusebius. So he. A fair company of fellow Heretics with Protestants, we trow: to whom the same Jesuit joineth divers Doctors of your Romish Church, whom he calleth Docti & Catholici. Thus your own spirit of Contradiction, whereas two words might have quit the Heresy, maintained the Miracle, and defended the Integrity of that sanctified Womb of the Blessed Virgin, (to wit) that the Virginal cell might be said to open itself, which was shut in respect of other Women (who necessarily suffer violent rapture by the Birth) being preserved from all hurtful violence, either from within or without; which could not be without a perfect Miracle. Furthermore harken to the Answer of some other Doctors of your Church, and you shall find your own Doctrine to smell rank of the Heresy of the Marcionites, in the opinion of the forecited ancient Fathers; for your forenamed a Apud Maldon. Ies. in Luc. ● Id Patrea dixisse ardore abreptos disputationis contra Marcionitas, ne Christum corporeum phantasma facere viderntur, si dixissent matris uterum non aperuisse. Jesuit telleth you of some Doctors in your Church (whom he himself approveth) who taught that The Fathers, who said that Christ did open the Matrix of his Mother, spoke it in the heat of Dispute against the Heretical Marcionites, who denied that Christ had any true Body; because that else the said Fathers should seem to make Christ his Body to be no better than an Incorporeal, and only imaginary thing. So they. Which proveth, that in the judgement of those Ancient Fathers, all your defence, in this Case, is at least Fantastical. Let Isiodore Pelusiota his suffrage be aded to the rest, who in an Epistle calmly, and as it were in cool blood, teacheth that b Ibid. Pelusiot. lib. 1. Epist. 23. Apelike vulvam (Luc. 2.) non dicitur de quovis primogenito 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ is the only he, who by his Birth opened his Mother's Womb, and left it shut and sealed up again. And maketh bold to term them Unlearned, that think the contrary: who living above a thousand years ago, is therefore so much the more competent a witness of the Catholic truth. ⚜ Yet that you may know this Father not to be alone, in this Doctrine, peruse the 7 The Fathers in their places above cited. Origen. Non sic quisquam aperuit vulvam matris absque coitu. Ambros. in eum locum. Non virilis coitus vulvae secreta reser●vit— hic solus ape●u●t sibi vulvam Hieron. Solus Christus clausas portas vulvae virginitatis aperuit, quae tamen clausae vigiter permanserunt. Theoph. ineum locum. In Christum solum hoc propri● 〈◊〉— is enim virginis vulvam aperuit, cum reliquis mattribus vir aperuit. Tert. Dei filius— quis prop●tè vulvam matris suae aperuit, quam qui clausam patefecit. ●bio. Tert. Virgo quantum à viro, non quantum à partu Leo ad Flaviam cap. 4. pag. 36. Quiâ inviolata virginitas concupiscentiam nescivit. Aug. de Symbolo. cap. 5. Quae virum nesciens sibi portat.— Erasmus Annot. in Luc. 2. Certe Ambrose ab Originis sencentia non abhorruit, janscinius Concord in Luc. 2. Christum matris vulvam propriè adaperuisse, est sententia Theophylacti in hunc locum, Ambrosij, & Originis. As for the Entrance of the * Matt. 19 24 Camel, which is said by Christ, to pass through the eye of a needle; the subtlty of your Objection is not so needle-sharpe, but that it may be easily blunted: for Christ spoke by way of comparison, and employed as well an Impossibility, as a Possibility. Thus; as it is simply Impossible for a Camel (be it Rope, or be it Beast) to pass through the eye of a Needle, retaining the same Dimension and Property: so is it Impossible for a Rich man, so long as he hath on him a great Bunch or grossness of confidence in his riches, and worldly affections, to enter into the Kingdom of God. Although otherwise, as it is possible for God, by his miraculous power so to contract the Camel, that it may pass through the Needle's eye; so is it as possible to him, by his Omnipotent power of Grace to abate the swelling bunch of worldly Confidence in the heart of the Richman, that he, being truly mortified, may repose his whole trust in God himself, and at length enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. ⚜ This you might have learned from Saint Hierome, who saith that in this Similitude 8 Hieron. advers. pelag. lib. 2. Vndè difficultas difficultati, imo impossibile impossibili comparatur, quià nec Camelus potest intrare per foramen acus, nec divites in Regnum Dei. Impossibility is compared with Impossibility, because as a Camel cannot pass through the Needle's eye, no more can rich-men enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. So he, speaking of the Richman, in Sensu Compositio, so living and dying, as making Mammon their God; and not using them unto works of Piety and Charity; for so the same holy Father expresseth himself, 9 Hieron. in Matth. 19 v. 24. Sed si legamus Esaram, quomodo Cameli Madiam & Epha veniant Hierusalem cum donis atque mu●●●bus: & qui p●ius curvi erant, & vitiorum pravitate distot●i, ingrediantur port●s Jerusalem: videbimus quomodo ●sti Cam●li, quibus Divites comparantur; cum dep●●●●● grave in Sarcia●●● peccatorum, & totius corporis privitatem intrare possint per a●gustam portam. As the Camel's Beasts to whom the rich are resembled) could pass through the strait gate of Jerusalem, as soon as they were disburdened of their loads; So Rich men, casting off the load of their sins, may enter in at the strait gate that leadeth unto life. A Vindication of Truth against an Objected Testimony under the name of Pope Hilary, for proof of the Being of the whole Body of Christ in every part of the Host SECT. VIII. WE are to insert in this place the (forgotten) Objected words, which pass under the name of Pope Hilary, and recorded in your Papal decrees, 10 Decret. de Consecratione Dist. 2. [Vbi pars.] ex Hilario Papa. Vbi pars est corporis est & totum: eadem est ratio in corpore Domini q●ae est in Manna, quoth in cjus figura praecessit; de quo dicitum, Qui plus collogerat' non habuit amplius: neque qui minus 〈◊〉 hab●●● minus. Non enim est quantites visibilis aestimanda in hoc mysterio, sed virtus 〈◊〉 spiritualis 〈…〉? Non est quantitas aestimanda, ut sub minori quantitate minus sic Corpus Christi, & sub 〈◊〉. where there is part of Christ's Body, (in the Sacrament) there is the whole: there being the same reason of this as there was of Manna, whereof it is written, He that gathered much had no more than others: and he that gathered not so much had no whit less. Which your Romish Gloss applieth to the Sacrament, to signify that There is no less quantity of Christ's Body, under a less quantity of the Sacrament; none greater, under a greater. Our Answer is threefold. I. That your Doctors could never yet prove the writings, which go under the name of Pope's * Legat qai velit nostri Roberti Coci Censuram Scriptorum. Decret all Epistles to have been truly theirs, whereof many of themselves have doubted, and which some also have denied. II. That the Comparison fighteth mainly against your professed Roman Faith in this very point, which you contend for. For you teach Body of Christ to be whole in the whole, and in every the least imaginable part of the Host, without all manner of situation therein, so, as not having the Head above, and the Feet below. This you cannot deny to be your own positive Tridentine Sense. But the Manna, which was diminished and augmented in Quantity by God's providence, had notwithstanding a certain determinate Quantity, expressly mentioned in the same Text: Every man a Gomer, according to their families namely every one an equal, but yet a several measure and Quantity; for one man's Manna was not the same which another had. This agreeth not with your Corporall eating of one, and the same Body of Christ. Next, the Grains of the same Manna (for it was like Coriander-seed) had their several situations and distinct places in every Gomer, some lying above, and some below, some on the right side, and some on the left side of the Measure; which differences you absolutely deny to accord with the manner of Christ's being in this Sacrament. III. The Comparison will fare better suit with the Spiritual souls receiving of the Body of Christ: Every Faithful one indeed participating the same whole Christ, by Faith, whether in a Greater or lesser Host, without all proportioning of his Bodily Dimensions. ⚜ CHALLENGE. SHall not then the Novelty of your Romish Article, which was not so much as believed of Romish Doctors of this last Age of Christianity? Shall not your Contradiction to your own Romish Principle? Shall not the express Testimony of Saint Augustine, who as he was universally acknowledged to be a Catholic Father; so was he never condemned by any other Catholic Father for this his Doctrine concerning the Existence of Bodily parts according to proportionable Dimensions of Space? Finally, shall not the affinity, which your opinion hath with damnable Heresies, persuade you of the falsity of this your Romish Faith? CHAP. IX. Of the fift Romish Contradiction against the words of Christ [MY BODY] as the same Body is now considered to be most perfect, by making it most Imperfect. SECT. I: NOne will think we need to impose any absurd Doctrine upon your Church; the Absurdities which we have already heard professed therein, under the testifications of your own Disputers, having been so marvellously and palpably absurd, as hath been shown. Among which we may reckon this, that followeth, as not the least prodigious Consequence of your Romish Corporall Presence (to wit) That your Church of Rome alloweth a Doctrine, teaching a Body of Christ, now glorified, to be destitute of natural and voluntary motion of Sense, and of Understanding. SECT. II. Catholic Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ, after the Resurrection, but that he was able naturally of himself, as he was man, to perform the perfect Acts, which other men can, who are of right constitution of Body, and of sound understanding; such as are the functions of judgement, and reason, and of appetite, sense, and motion, according to the liberty of his own will. This Doctrine was above a thousand years Catholic. But your now Roman Faith is to believe, as followeth in the Conclusions set down by your Jesuit a Suarez. Ies. Dico secundò corpus Christi, ut est in hoc Sacramento, potest per se moveri localiter à Deo: loquor de potentia Dei absoluta, Nam juxta legem statutam suppono corpus Christi nunquam separari à speciebus, nec moveri nisi motis illis— neque in hac conclusione invenies Theologum ullum aperte contradicentem. In tertiam Tho. qu. 76. Art. 7. Disput. 32. Conc. 2. & Conclus. 3. Corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento non possit naturaliter moveri localiter ab intrinseco à propria anima, & interna virtute motiva natural, neque per se, neque per accidens. Loquor de naturali virtute, non ut est instrumentum verbi operans per virtutem miraculorum effectricem. Ratio, quia non potest anima movere corpus suum nisi per membra organica, quae habent extensionem in locum: Sed membra corporis Christi non hoc modo existunt in hoc Sacramento— multo minus potest movere species Sacramentales, quas nec physice contingere possit, neque ad motum voluntatis movere. Ibid Conclus. ult. Potest ut est in hoc Sacramento virtue extrinseca moveri per Accidens, quia possunt Sacramentales species moveri, ut a Sacerdote, Elevando. Sect. 3. De sensibus exterioribus Nominales citati dicunt posse Christum, ut est in hoc Sacramento, ut Deum audire, etc. Alij hoc negant. Sunt nonnulli, qui negant id fieri posse de Potentiâ Dei absolutâ, ut corpus in extensum à loco aut seipsum videat, aut alia. Dico, non potest naturaliter exercere actus sensuum exteriorum. Ita tenet Thomas & Alij Authores— quia sensus ejus non potest recipere has species ab objectis externis, quia hic actus est materialis, & extensus suâ naturâ— Quamvis potentia absoluta potest— Idem dicendum de sensibus interioribus & apetitu sentiente, quia non uti phantasmatibus, nec actum secundum elicere, quia hic actus est materialis, & nisi à materiali & extenso principio non potest intellectus ejus secluso miraculo— acquirere novas species, nec prius exquisitis uti quia intellectus hoc non potest facere, nisi simul phantasia operetur cum intellectu: non loquor de speciebus infusis. Haec Suarez in 3. Thom. quaest. 76. Art. 7. Disp. 53. §. 4. So also Vincentius Silivitius Senes. Ies. Moral. quaest. Tom. 1. Tract. 4. 5. num. 139. & 141. Motus localis non convenit corpori per se, non possunt actiones sensum convenire Christo naturaliter, quia hae exercentur per species in substantia divisibili. At Christi corpus est in Sacramento indivisibiliter, etc. Suarez, and other Romish Doctors: First, that Christ, as he is in this Sacrament, hath no power naturally of himself to move himself. And this your own daily experience hath brought you unto; whilst believing Christ's Corporal Presence in the Host, you shut him up in a Box, where you still find the same lying as destitute of power of motion, as any other unconsecrated Bread; which being put together with it lieth so long, until they both equally wax mouldy, putrify, and engender worms. Secondly, that Christ in himself, as being in this Sacrament, hath no natural faculty of sense, nor ability (without a miracle) to hear or see, etc. Thirdly, That he is void of all sensible appetite. Lastly, that (without some miraculous power) he cannot possibly apprehend in his understanding any thing present, nor yet remember any notions past. So he. ⚜— josephus' Angles Florent. in 4. Sent. Qu. de existentia corporis Christia in Euch. Dissio. 1. & 2. A●t. 9 & 12. Corpus Christi, ut est in hoc Sacramento, nec potest tangi nec per se, nec per Accidens; & quatenùs est in Eucharistia, non potest ullam sensationem accipere. Ratio, quia omnis receptio specierum, quae est sensatio, fit in organo quantitativo, nec agere nec pati potest, nec actionem transientem agere. Communis opinio est Scoti, Christus non potest aliquam operationem potentiae merae naturalis, ut est nutriendi & sentiendi, habere. Ratio, omne agens positivum agit per contactum, quod est modo quantitativo. And Art. 12. Oculus Christi non videt suum corpus, ut est in hoc Sacramento, proptereà quod est inextensum, & oculus est inextensus. Scotus in 4. Sent. Dist. 10. quaest. 5. Nulla sensatio potest esse in Christo, ut est in Eucharistia. Petrus de Aquilia, in doctrina Scoti spectatissimus in 4. Sent. Dist. 10. quaest. 1. Christi corpus in Eucharistia non potest uti aliquâ potentiâ actiuâ. (See Palenterius above Chap. 4. Sect. 9) Similter Aegidius conics de Sacramen. Quaest. 76. Art. 6. num. 91. Yet so, that he is not alone: For he allegeth, for this opinion, your Aquinas, and concludeth it, as being without Contradiction. Which your Doctor * See the Marginals immediately preceding. Angles calleth a Common Opinion, noting Scotus your subtlest of Schoolmen, to be a Patron thereof. Which they founded upon your other general, but yet vast and wild Paradox of an Existence of Christ's Body in this Sacrament without a Quantitative manner of Being, by way of Extension of Parts. It were well that you would take the Testimonies of your other two Jesuits for a supplement: as namely of 1 Vasquez Ies. in 3. Thom. qu 76. Art. 7. Disp. 191. c. 5. Opposita sententia vera est eo ipso, quòd caret corpus Christi extensione in Sacramento, neque agere, neque pati posse, prout est in hoc Sacramento, corporeâ actione, neque passione— neque tangere aliquid, neque ab alio tangi— nec posse intelligere quantum per conversionem ad phant●smata— nec sensus omnes operari posse operationes suas immanentes. [And therefore the Externall much less.] & Disp. 190. c. 3. Citat Thomam, & alios Scholasticos, de non posse moveri per se. Vasquez, denying to Christ's Body all Possibility of either doing, or suffering, as it is in this Sacrament. And of 2 Gordon. Sco●●● Ies. Controu. 8. cap. 4. ●. 19 Corpus Christi 〈◊〉 specie pa●●● est modo planè 〈…〉 mortem in cruse & sepulchro: neque enim videt, audit, aut loquitur, aur alias corporis 〈◊〉 actiones exercet, prout est in hoc Sacramento, cum in eo sit modo indivisibili et spirituali. Gordon, affirming the Body of Christ, as it is in this Sacrament, to be Plainly after a deadly manner, as he was in the grave, neither hearing, nor seeing, nor exercising any virtual Act ⚜ That this is a new, brutish, and barbarous Doctrine, destitute of all ancient Patronage either of written or of unwritten Tradition; but against Both. 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 soul in judgement, and Capacity. Nor can you show any Father in the Church of Christ, within the Circumfrence of 1400. years after Christ, who held this your doctrine so much as in a Dream; 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 un-christian, and false faith. ⚜ No, no; your own 3 Fran. Collius lib. 5. De sanguine Christi, Disp. 5. cap. 1. Athanasius Serm. 2. in illa verba ad Philip. 2. [Propter quod Deus eum exaltavit] Hic solus è mortu●s integer resurrexit. Et libro de Incarnate. verbi, Cum omni integritate surrexit: quae est Patrum omnium doctrina. Et Leo Papa Tract. explicans illud. 2. Cor. 5. [Cognovimus Christum secundum carnem.] Christi corpus post Resurrectionem factum. est Impassibile— nihil in eo enim infirmum remansit. Doctor of Theology will tell you, out of Athanasius, (of many surnamed the Great) and out of Pope Leo (whom you yourselves instiled Great, Both so entitled for their singular worthiness) who taught that Christ risen again Perfest in his Body, So Athanasius. And that No infirmity remained in him. So Leo. And addeth of himself, that All the Fathers were of the same judgement. If so, then were they directly Adversaries to your prodigious Belief, except you will dare to say that Blindness, Deafness, and Senselessness are no Infirmities. We return to the written word of God. When the Apostle, for the magnifying of the perfection of Christ's glorious Resurrection, as the Head, by Analogy with the promised Corporal Glory of faithful Christians, as his Members, by the virtue of Christ's own Resurrection, saith of these, Phil. 3. He shall transform our vile Bodies, and make them conformable to his own glorious Body, (namely) according to those Celestial Dotes and Endowments, set down 1. Cor. 11. Incorruption, Immortality, Glory, Power. By all which the excellency of the Corporal state of the Saints is delineated; whereby to excite all the faithful to possess their bodies in sanctity, and to prepare them to Martyrdom, for the hope-sake of the glory, whereof it is said; The afflictions of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed. We suppose the Apostle could not then dream of a Body of Christ, without faculty of Sense, or power of Motion. ⚜ You must therefore derive this from him, whom Christ calleth the Father of lies. We shall give you good reason for this our Declamation. That this Romish Doctrine is Blasphemously Derogatory from the Majestical Body of Christ. SECT. iv WHat 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 understand or imagine any thing done? not the power of a Mole, or Mouse; which is to hear, or see? not the faculty of a little Ant, so as to move itself? as if this were not an Antichristian Blasphemy against that all-Majesticall Body, and humane nature of Christ: which being once * 1. Cor. 15. 44 Sown in Infirmity, is (as the Scripture saith) since risen in power. Do you hear? In power, saith the Spirit of God, showing that Infirmity is changed into Potency, in the Body of every Christian: and you have turned Power into infirmity, even in Christ himself, whom you have now transformed into an * Psal. 116. Idol having eyes, and seethe not, ears, and heareth not, feet, and walketh not, heart, and imagineth not: and yet this you profess to adore, as the person of the Son of God. O the strength of Satanical Delusion? That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your own Principle. SECT. V REmember your * See above, 〈…〉 former general Principle, which we acknowledged to be sound and true, viz. All such Actions and Qualities, which are real 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 joy, and grief, 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 itself, and not to any thing else: it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be only one, the same Jesuit cannot be sick in japan, and sound and in health at Rome, in the same instant. ⚜ Take you, for a Conclusion, the Confession of your much approved Doctor, who doubteth not to call the opinion, which holdeth that [The Body of Christ is imperfect] to be 4 Petrus Arcad. Corcyren. de Concord. Eccles. Occid. & Orient. Anno 1626. (Approbantibus Episcopo Bargi, Episc. Zacinth. Andraea Eud●emone joh. & Doctoribus Facult. Parisien. Tract. de Eucharistia. Dicere corpus Christi esse quandoque imperfectum, est mira blasphemia. Blasphemous, Nor may you deny the disability of Motion in Christ's Body to be an Imperfection, seeing that, as the Head of your Church taught (that which all Christian, Churches ever professed) to wit, 5 Innocent 3. Papa de offic. M●ssae. lib 3. cap. 22. Quatuor sunt corporis glorificati propriae qualitates, Claritas, subtilitas, Agilitas, & Impassibilitas. Agility is a proper 〈…〉 of every glorified Body, wheresoever it is. And you may call to mind the Conclusion of your jesuite Conincks abovementioned, (Cap. 4. Sect. 10.) Showing that for the Same Body to be said to move in one place, and stand still in another, is as flat a Contradiction, as to say, It is frozen and warm both at once. Which he confirmed (in the Margin) with several Reasons, which do accordingly confute your Doctrine of Possibility of the voluntary Motion of Christ's Body in Heaven, and the Impossibility thereof, as it is in this Sacrament. ⚜ CHALLENGE. NOw say (we beseech you) is there not the like Contradiction to make the same Christ, at the same time, as he is in Heaven, Intelligent, and Sensitive; and as on earth, Ignorant, and Senseless? Or Powerful to move of himself on the Throne of Majesty; and absolutely Impotent, as he 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 profess a senseless, ignorant, and feeble Christ. O come out of Babylon, and be no more bewitched by such her Sorceries. CHAP. X. The sixth 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 ugliness of the Romish Doctrine in this point, we are willing to hear your a In his book of the Liturgy of the Mass Tract. 2. §. 4. Subd. 1. M. Brerely his preface in your defence: The carnal ma● (saith he) is not for all this satisfied, but standeth still offended at sundry pretended, absurd, and undecent indignities: Calvin saying, That he rejected them as unworthy of the Majesty of Christ; And Doctor Willet saith, That they are unseemly, and against the dignity of the glorious and impassable Body of Christ. So he, at once relating, and rejecting their opinions. That the Indignities, whereunto the Body of Christ is made subject, by the Romish Doctrine, are most vile, and derogatory to the Majesty 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 Jesuit Suarez delivereth it in the general Doctrine of the Romish Divines; d Suarez. Ies. Dicendum tamdiu conserva●i Christum praesentem sub speciebus, quamdiu species illae ibi ita permanent, ut sub ijs possit substantia panis, & vini conservari. Haec conclusio fere colligitur ex omnibus Theologis, & Catholicis Scriptoribus, D. Thoma, etc. Sequitur falsam esse sententiam illorum, qui dicunt corpus Christi recedere, si in lutum cadant species. In tertiam Tho. quaest. 75. Art. 1. Disp. 46. §. Dicendum, Sect. 8. Rursus q 76. Disp. 54. §. 2. Christus non receditx hoc Sacramento donec in Accidentibus talis fiat Alte●atio, quae ad corrumpendum panem & vinum sueceret §. Dico secundò. Rursus, Quòd Christus recedat statim ut Species deglutiantur, antequam alterentur, ffist contra generale principium. §. Tertio. That the Body of Christ remaineth so long under the forms of Bread and Wine, whersoever, as the same forms remain in the same plight, as that the same forms of Bread and Wine might be preserved. And this he calleth a General Principle in your Romish profession. Insomuch that the Body of Christ is moved, wheresoever the forms of Bread are moved, be it into the dirt, or into the Dunghill. Secondly, that according to your e Potest corpus Christi per accidens moveri ab eo, qui potest especies consecratas secundùm locum mutare. Suarez Tom. 3. quaest. 76. Disp. 2. Art. 7. And, Ad motum specierum movetur Christus. Bellar. lib 3. de Euch. c. 19 Si per negligentiam aliquid de sanguine stillaverit in terram, etc. Decret. D. 2. Cap. Si per negligentiam. Nunquid cadente Sacramento cadit corpus Christi? Dic quod sit. Glossa ibid. [And Bozius lib. 14. de signis Eccles. cap. 7. telleth of a woman, that hide it in a Dunghill. See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2.] Romish Decrees, and public Missals, the same Body of Christ is vomited up by the Communicant; yea, and you have f A Nauseabundis expuituir. Suarez. quo supra. Si quis stomacho evomit illas species, corpus Christi evomit— si species possint discernab alijs, debent cum reverentia sumi, & cremari, & cineres juxta Altare recondi. Gloss. Decret. quo supra, & Summa Angel. Tit. Eucharistia n. 5. pag. 147. Cases about the vomiting of it, whether upon weakness of g Si fiat● usea Sacerd●● p●r m●scam ●ciden 'em— si aliquid venen●sum ●●●deret in calicem, vel quod provocaset vomitum, tum etc. Missal. Rom. Decreto. & juss● PijV. Pont. edit. in instruct. ante Miss●m. pag. 35. In hac parte distinctionis, ponitur poenitentia corpus Christi vomentibus. Decret. de Conse●rat. quo supra. Stomach, or of h Si quis per ebrictatem, vel voracitatem Eucharistiam evomuerit 40. diebus poeniteat. Decret. ibid. Dicunt isti, quod corpus Christi non intrat ventrem, quod falsum est, cum species intrant: quamdiu enim species manen●, Christus latet integer sub ijs, & sic potest evomi. Drunkenness. Next that it is devoured of i A muribus com●ditur, quia Denomin●tiones, qua tan●ùm indicant motum localem perterminum ejus, propriè tribuuntur corpori Christi, à quocunque fiant, huju smodi est commestio. Suarez Tom. 3. q●aest. 76. Disp. 54. pag 706. Mice, and blown away with Wind: for we read of your Church-Cases also, for these, in your * Si hostia consecrata disparea● vel casu aliquo, vel vento, vel à mure accepta, ut nequeat reperiri, altera consecretur. Missal Rom. quo supra. pag. 32. Missals. Nor are you satisfied with these, but as if you had some hoggish Appetite, delighted with dirt, you will have it known, that as you have * See above in this Book, Chap. ●. Sect 2. found the Body of Christ Hid for many years in a Dunghill; so will you * See Book 5. Chap. 11. Sect. 1. hereafter prove it to be found in Man's Siege and Draught. That the Romish foresaid Indignities are contrary to holy Scriptures, and judgement of Ancient Fathers. SECT. III. HOly Writ teacheth us, that there is as great differerence between the Humiliation of Christ, when he was on Earth, and his now Exaltation in glory, in Heaven, as there is between shame, and Glory, it being now * 1. Cor. 15. Philip. 2. 8. 9 [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] A Body of Glory. Now for you to believe and profess the personal burning, devouring, regorging, yea and the hiding of that glorious Body of Christ in a dunghill, and the like, are such execrable speeches, as that we stand astonished with horror to hear them, thinking that we have heard, in these, the scoffs, reproaches, and blasphemies of some Pagans against Christian Religion, rather than the opinion of any, that take to themselves one syllable of the name of Christians, If this had been the ancient Faith, some Fathers doubtless upon some occasion, by some one sentence or other, would have revealed their Judgement therein: from whose divers and copious Volumes neither do you allege, nor we read any one word of man's spewing up, or Mice eating, or so much as the Wind blowing away the Body of Christ, much less of the other baseness spoken of. But contrariwise l Origen. in Matth. 15. 27. Id quod materiale est in ventrem abit, & in secessum suum eijc●tur. Origen and * Cyril. Hier. Catech. Mystag. 5. pag. 542. Panis hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Chrysost. Hom. de Euch. in Lucam: Num vides panem? num vides vinum? sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt? absit, sic ne cogites [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Cyrill, distinguishing between the spiritual Bread, which is the Real Body of Christ, and the Bread Sacramental, say That not that Body, but this Bread goeth into the Draught. Which to affirm of Christ's Body, were an Assertion abominable. ⚜ Suffer us to ask you a question. When in the days of old (as you * See above Book ●. Chap 2. §. 10. in the Challenge. know) the Remainders of the Sacrament were committed to the fire, tell us what that was, which was burned? was it only Bread and Wine? or yet the Accidents of them only? This you cannot say, whose Universal Doctrine is, that so long as the Forms of Bread and Wine are uncorrupt, the Body and Blood of Christ are Existent under them. Or e●se was it the Body and Blood of Christ which was cast into the fire? who will not abhor to conceive such an Abomination to have been willingly committed by Sacred and Primitive Antiquity? and Consequently you ought to execrate all belief of a Corporal Existence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, within the ●●●●●dents thereof. ⚜ That the Romish Answers, for defence of this their vile and beastly Opinion, are but false and fond. SECT. iv IT was said of Philosophers of old that nothing was so absurd, but some one or other of them would take in hand to defend it: the like may be said of our Romish Opposites, whereof we have given you divers Instances throughout this whole Treatise, as in the most particulars, so for the point now in Question. And although many of your Disputers have for modesty's sake passed by it, yet have two among you (as it were putting on Vizards on their faces) come in with two fanatical m Card. Bellar. and Master Brereley in places abovecited. Answers. Both which are taken from the condition of Christ his humane Body, whilst he was in the World: n No●nulli vix ferre possunt Christum quoquo modo includi in pa●vâ pixide, cadere in terram, commburi, rodi à best●a— Anon credunt Christum parvulum inclusum in angustissimo utero? eundem potuisse in via ca● ere, humi jacuisse, & remoto miraculo à bestia morderi & combu●i potuisse? si ita pati potuit in propria specie, cur mi●um videtur si illa sine laesione in specie aliena eidem accidere posse dicamus? Bellar. l. 3 de Euc. cap. 10. §. Deniquè. Many (saith your Cardinal) can scarce endure to hear that Christ is included in a Box, fallen to the earth, burnt, or eaten of Beasts: as though we do not read, that Christ was included in the Womb of the Virgin, lay upon the Earth, and might without any Miracle have been eaten of Beasts, why may not such things now happen unto him, but [sine laesione] without any hurt at all. So he. Join with this the Determination of your o Aquinas. Etiamsi ca●is hostiam consecratam manducet, substantia corporis Christi non definit esse sub speciebus. part. 3. quaest. 80. art. 3. School; That the Substance of Christ his Body remaineth still, although the Host be eaten with Dogs. But Master Brerely more cunningly, that he might not only disguise your opinions, but also make Protestants odious, (if it might be) for their exceptions against them, doth readily tell us, that Pagans, jews, and Heretics conceived Indignities against some mysteries of Christian Religion, as against Christ his Incarnation, and his Crucifying. So he. Both which Answers are but mere tergiversations, by confounding the two most different conditions of Christ: That, then in the state of his humiliation, with This, which is Now in the highest exaltation of Glory. We therefore rejoin as followeth. Your Disputers have so answered, as if Christ his Incarnation in the Womb of a Virgin, his Conversation upon earth, and his Passion upon the Cross were not objects of Indignity, notwithstanding the Spirit of God, hath blazed them to the world to have been the Indignities of all Indignities, Thus: * Philip. 2. 6. Who being in the form of God, and thinking it no robbery to be equal wi●h God, yet [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] made himself of no reputation but took upon him the form of a servant (such was his Incarnation) and became obedient to death, even (spoken for aggravating the Indignity thereof) The [shameful] death of the Cross. Than which never any thing could make more either for the magnifying of God's grace, and mercy, or for the dignifying of Christ his merit for man, as it is written, * joh. 3. 16. God so loved the World, that he sent his Son, (namely to suffer) that whosoever should believe in him should not perish, but have life everlasting. How could your A●swerers but know, that it was not the observation of the Indignities, which Christ suffered, that wrought to the condemnation of Pagans, jews, and Heretics: but their faithlessness, in taking such scandal thereat, as to deprive themselves, by their Infidelity, of all hope of life by Christ crucified. Harken furthermore. That the state of Christ his Humanity cannot be now obnoxious to bodily Indignities; and that the Comparing both the Estates (in your answering) is unworthy the learning of very Catechumenists and Petties in Christian Religion. SECT. V THis Disproportion between Christ his estate in the days of his flesh in this World, and his now present Condition at the right hand of God, is as extremely disproportionable as is * 1. Cor. 15. Mortality and Immortality, Shame and Glory, Misery and Blessedness, Earth and Heaven; that being his state of Humaliation, and this Contrariwise of his Exaltation, as all Christians know, and profess. And although the Body of Christ, now in eternal Majesty, be not obnoxious to Corporal injuries, yet may Moral and Spiritual abasements be offered unto Christ, as well in the Opinion, as in the Practice of men. Of the Opinion we have an Example in the Capernaites concerning Christ, whensoever he should give his Flesh to be eaten carnally: for the Practice you may 〈◊〉 before you the Corinthians, who abusing the Sacrament of the Lord did thereby contemn him, and were made guilty of high Profanation against the glorious Body of Christ. And what else soundeth that Relative injury against Christ, by murdering his Saints on earth, complained off by his voice from Heaven; * Act. 9 4. Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Your Cardinal, in answer to the Objection of Indignity offered to Christ, by putting him in a Box, and of being Eaten with Worms, and the like; opposed (as you have heard) saying, Why may not such things now happen unto him but [sine laesione] that is, without any hurt? We answer, that if he should suffer nothing in his humanity passively, to the Laesio corporis, that is, hurt of the Body; yet should there be thereby, in the opinion of men; Laesio dignitatis, that is, a lessening and obscuring of that his Dignity, which is set forth in Scripture, and which our Article of faith, concerning his Bodily sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven, teacheth us to be in all Celestial glory and Majesty. This your Aquinas well saw, when in regard of Indignity he judged it a Nesas nunc esset Christum in propriâ specie in pixi●le includi putare. A. quin. part. 3. quaest. 76. art. 8. An heinous wickedness for any to think Christ should be enclosed in a Box, appearing in his proper form. And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another form, more than when that one, and the same Person is known to be imprisoned, whether open-faced, or covered, whether in the day, or in the night, it mattereth not much, for still the same person is shut up in prison? Again, if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity, why do your Jesuits, in a point of Opinion, deny that Christ's Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant, because of the * See hereafter Book 5. Chap. 7. §. ●. Indignity against his Majesty? Come we to the point of Practice. Let this be our Lesson; when there is Reverence in the use of a thing, then there may be Irreverence, and Indignity in the abuse thereof. But your Church hath provided that the Priests Beards be shaved, and that the Laics abstain from the Cup, in a pretence of Reverence. The first, lest some part of the Host (which you believe to be the Body of Christ) should hang on the Priest's Beard; the second, lest any whit of Christ's Blood in the Cup should be spilt. But how much more Indignity must it needs be, to be devoured of Mice, Worms, and sometimes (as your own * See above in this Book C. 2. Sect. 2. stories have related) kept close in a Dunghill? One word more. If these seem not sufficiently indigne, because there is not Laesio corporis, Hurt to the Body, (this being your only Evasion) what will you say of your framing a Christ unto yourselves, who as he is in this Sacrament, Is (you say) without power of motion, of sense, and of understanding? Why, my Masters, can there be Lameness, Blindness, Deafness, and Impotency itself, without Hurt of the same party so maimed? etc. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill. ⚜ A Vindication of the former Truth, against the palpably-Absurd (albeit amongst you, most plausible) Defence of your seeming Romish Absurdities, in Master Fishers Answer to KING JAMES, of Blessed and ever surviving Memory. SECT. VI HIs Tractate upon Transubstantiation, so greatly magnified of the Romish Professors, is very large; we shall draw his principal Points into a Compendium, which consisteth of two Generals, and of divers Particulars. His two Generals are his Position, and Supposition. Master Fisher his General Position, for Defence of Romish Absurdities, the Consequences of your Transubstantiation. Numb. 1. A Christian Catholic (saith he) Seeing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, many seeming Absurdities that press carnal Imaginations to the ground, grows more and more strong to believe them, embracing these difficulties, as signs of that doctrine which was believed of the Primitive Church.— And again, The seeming Absurdities should rather incline a Christian to believe this mystery. Our Reply in General, to prove that his former Assertion may truly be termed FISHERS FOLLY. For if the Absurd a thing be, it shall deserve a more belief; then the Pagans (of whom Tully could say, There is nothing so Absurd, which is not taught of some Philosopher, even to the affirming of Snow to be Black,) should be held to be more faithful, than the best of Christians: and Heretics, who have turned their Fantastical dreams into Articles of Faith, should be judged to be more true Believers, than are true Catholics. And sure we are that, by this Position, the Jewish Rabbins, who taught the people to believe (in an implicit Faith) all their Doctrines, albeit it were to hold, his Left hand was his Right, should be esteemed no less Faithful, than the Papist, who by like Doctrine of blind Obedience have professed that Christ his Body, being in divers Hosts, taketh the Right hand and left hand of itself. And by the same Assertion shall Master Fisher think himself to be a better Catholic than were any of the ancient Fathers, or yet any Romish Doctor, yea or than is M. Fisher himself, as will appear in the sequel of our Reply. The second General is, Master Fisher his Supposition. Numb. 2. Master Fisher his Supposition is, That although the Absurdities, which are imputed by Protestants to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, seem to be such, Because they are not apprehensible by reason, yet are they therefore (saith he) the rather to be believed, notwithstanding whatsoever Impossibilities that can be pretended. So he. Our Confutation must be accordingly twofold: The first in respect of Impossibilities, and the next of Indignities. Our Reply, displaying the Absurdity of Master Fisher's Supposition in respect of Impossibilities, by the General Doctrine of Fathers, Consent of Romish Divines, and by his own particular Prevarication. First the Ancient Fathers, of the Primitive age, have unanimously professed a Doctrine of an Absolute Impossibility in all such things which imply any Contradiction, as you have * See above in this B. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 2. & 3. heard; and maintaining this Doctrine of granting an Impossibility in such Cases to be a Truth greatly magnifying the Omnipotency and Almighty power of God; even by reason of Contradiction in them, which is an affirming and denying of the same thing. Concluding furthermore that gainsaying of Impossibility, in things contradictory, hath been anciently The Sanctuary of Heretics. So the holy Fathers. Secondly, all the Doctors of the Romish Schools, of whatsoever Age, Sect, Society, or Denomination, have subscribed to the judgement of those Ancient Fathers, in the same point of Impossibility, but why Impossibility? Because, say they, that such things are unconceivible in man's reason, and that they seem Absurd, because of Contradiction. And hereupon have concluded of many Impossibilities touching a Body: as for example, * See above c. 3. Impossible for a Body to be produced in divers places at once: Impossible for a quantity of a Body not to possess a place: Impossible for Christ's Body, as in this Sacrament, to go from one place to another: Impossible for the same Body to be equal with a greater quantity: and many other more Impossibilities have they reckoned upon the same ground, that the Reason of man could apprehend nothing in such points but an implication of Contradiction. And now all these great pillars of Christianity, as well in the Universal Church, Primitive, as in the now Romish, must, by Master Fishers former Assertion, be held to have been no better than underminers of the Christian Faith, in that they did not Rather believe those things to be possible, even because they seemed Impossible, by reason of Contradiction. Lastly, to come to Master Fisher his own Prevarication: * Mr. Fisher in his Answer to the 〈◊〉 upon the seventh point, which is the communion in both kinds. How can the Body of Christ (saith he) be without either Blood or Soul unless it were dead, and so should Christ be massacred in this Sacrament, and that Eucharist be a Bloody Sacrifice; and Christ glorious in Heaven, cannot say truly, that a Body void of Soul, Blood, and Sense is his Body: Yea as (Calvin himself confesseth) It is an Absurd manner of speech to term Christ, the mere Body of Christ. So he. Whereupon he will be found so implicated within the hor●es of a Dilemma, that he cannot expedite himself: For say, good Master Fisher, should a Christian man (as you have said) the rather believe a Doctrine because it seemeth to be Absurd? (we speak of sensible Objects) why then do you not believe these Absurdities, which you yourself now do so utterly therefore condemn? But do you indeed condemn them, because they seem impossible and Absurd? why then have you broached a Doctrine of Rather believing things, because of their seeming Impossibilities? So easy it is for a Patron of Absurdities to prove himself notably Absurd. Master Fisher his General Supposition, in respect of Seeming Indignities, happening to the Body of Christ, from the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Numb. 3. As he said of Absurdities in respect of Impossibility, so doth he also argue from Seeming Indignities, condemning Protestants for arguing against Transubstantiation, because of Seeming Indignities: As in not conceiving Christ's Body (saith he) to be combined unto the Consecrated forms of Bread, and not to be polluted with such Indignities and Obscenities. So he. Our Reply. As though no other Indignities might be imputed to Romish Doctrine, except it were in such like Cases, wherein the Body of Christ should receive some Corporal hurt or pollution. There were, and are amongst the Romish * See Book 5. cap. 7. Sect. 1. Professors, (and that no small Babes) who have taught a properly Mingling of Christ's Flesh, with the flesh of him that Communicateth of this Sacrament: and have been Confuted by your own Jesuits for the same Opinion, judging it to be Rash, Absurd, and Repugnant to the Majesty of the Sacrament. Your Aquinas (as you have * See the former section. heard) held it an Heinous wickedness for any man to think that Christ should be enclosed in a Box, appearing in his proper form. Nevertheless Master Fisher (as the Cat that covereth her excrement with dust) meant by this his former Answer to cover, or at leastwise colour your Romish Barbarous Indignities, in professing the * See Book 5. cap. 7. Cleaving of Christ's Body unto your guts, the vomiting of it, and a passable transmitting thereof unto the Siege, and other the like execrable Romish Indignites against the Body of Christ, so as the holy Fathers abhorred the very thought thereof. But we chose rather to confute Master Fisher, by Master Fisher himself; who, in his Answer to Saint Augustine, (who called the Capernaitical manner of Eating Christ's Flesh Flagitious) saith, that Saint Augustine excluded the gross imagination of Eating Christ's Body in his proper Shape, tearing it in pieces with their teeth. Do you not hear? The opinion of Tearing Christ's Flesh with men's teeth in his Proper Shape, he termed Gross, or Absurd. Do you but now compare this his Confession with his former Assertion, which was, that we are Rather to believe a doctrine, because it seemeth Absurd; and then try him when you please how he will avoid this Dilemma. Either ought Master Fisher to believe the Eating of Christ's Flesh, in its Proper Shape, or he ought not: If he say he ought, then must he turn Capernaite, to believe the Body of Christ to be eaten with tearing it in pieces with men's teeth in its Proper Shape, which he himself disliketh as Gross and Absurd; and Saint Augustine abhorred as Flagitious. And if he Answer that he ought not, then is his former Position both Flagitious, Gross, and Absurd, in affirming that A doctrine is the rather to be believed, because it seemeth Impossible. From these Generals, we pass to his Particulars and specials: to wit in his particular Exposition, Reasons, Inferences, and Confirmations, etc. Master Fisher his Particular Exposition of Christ's words [This is my Body] as the Foundation of the former seeming Romish Absurdities, and Indignities. He thinking to qualify all the Absurdities and Indignities, which necessarily follow upon your Romish Exposition of Christ's words, as being the foundation thereof, in the First place insisteth upon Christ's speech [This is my Body,] Why should Catholics fear (saith he) any hard Sentence in respect of their prompt Credulity of God's word taken in a plain and proper Sense? So he. Our Reply, revealing the Absurdities both of the Romish Exposition, and of their Deduction of Transubstantiation from thence. His Defence is, that the Speech of Christ is to be interpreted in its plain and proper Sense. Now whatsoever Relation the word [THIS] hath in Christ's Speech, it cannot, without Absurdity, be taken in a proper and literal Signification, even by the Confession of your Romish Doctors themselves; as hath been * See Book 2. cap. 1. plentifully proved. For if (as some of them affirm) the Pronoune [This 〈◊〉 be referred to Christ's Body; as if Christ had said [This my Body is my Body:] This Exposition hath been exploded by some Romish Doctors, of best note in your Church, expressly calling it an Exposition very absurd in Tautology. And if the same [This] should betoken a Third thing, named an Individuum vagum, or confused Substance, (which is your Second Romish Exposition) this likewise hath been scornfully rejected by other of your jesuits and Doctors, as an Interpretation full of Absurdities. And lastly, if it shall be said to relate to [Bread,] as to be said [This Bread is my Body in a proper and literal Sense; All your Romish Disputers, with one Consent, abandon this also, as no less false, than for to say a Man is an Ass, or (as one of them feared not to write) to affirm Christ to be judas. And were it that Christ's Speech [This is my Body] were taken properly, yet the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, which you do erect upon this foundation, would prove to be truly Absurd and Impossible, even by the Confession of your own Romish Doctors themselves, who are, in their patronising of your Article of Transubstantiation, distracted into two contrary Opinions; some saying that the Change, called Transubstantiation, is made by Production of Christ's Body out of Bread: Not so, saith the other Party, holding this manner of Change as * See above, Book 3. Chap. ●. §. 1. Absurd, as to affirm Christ's Body to have had any Existence, before Christ had spoken these words. The Second manner maintained by a later sort is a Change of Bread into Christ his Body, by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto Bread: No, saith the Former; Because this Change is but the changing of one Substance into the place of another, and therefore a Translocation only, and no Transubstantiation. Now all these Three Interpretations (and Three are all) together with your Two manners of Change of Christ's Body thereby, being thus utterly rejected by your own Divines; let us argue the Point with you upon these Premises. Either all your other Doctors, who have cashiered all the former Senses of Christ's Words, even because of Absurdities, had been Faithless; or else your jesuit Master Fisher (which consequently followeth thereon) in concluding that your Romish Doctors are Rather to be believed, because they seem to be Absurd, was no better than Fantastical. Master Fisher his Particular Reason, for Defence of his former Exposition, as the Ground of Transubstantiation. Numb. 6. The Primitive Church (saith he) preaching to jews and other Infidels the rest of the other Mysteries, as of the Trinity, and Incarnation; yet kept secret as much as might be the Knowledge of the Mysteries of the Eucharist: yea the Catechumenes and Novices before Baptism were not fully instructed therein. And their Reason was, lest one should be scandalised, and the other mocked. This supposed, I infer, etc. Our Reply, noting a double Error in Mr. Fisher's Reason. His first Error is, that he supposeth that The Primitive Church did absolutely conceal the Eucharist from Pagans and Catechumenists, and that more precisely than any other Mysteries; each of which are * See Book 7. cap. 3. proved to be false. For neither could the Mystery of the Eucharist be said to have been wholly concealed, which the Fathers both preached in their Sermons, and expressed in their public Writings (as is to be seen in the Books of justine, Cyprian, and other Fathers:) nor yet can it be truly affirmed that they more precisely kept secret this Sacrament than the other Mysteries, seeing the same Primitive Fathers professed as strictly, that They durst not reveal the Sacrament of Baptism either to Pagans or Catechumenists, as they did the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as will be proved at large in the Seventh Book. His Second Absurdity is to be seen in his Comparison (common to him with his fellows) reasoning thus, that the Articles of the Trinity and of the Incarnation of Christ, are above man's Capacity and Reason, being only to be apprehended by Faith, and therefore ought men to enthral their Reason to believe what the Romish Church teacheth, concerning the Eucharist, and not examine their Mysteries of Transubstantiation, which implieth an Absolute Absence (in this Sacrament) of the Substance of Bread, and an Existence of the Natural Body of Christ. Whereas, indeed, there cannot be a more absurd Comparison; because the Mystery of the Trinity, and manner of Hypostatical Union of the Godhead and Manhood of Christ, are Objects transcendently spiritual, and matters of Infiniteness in themselves: but the matters of all Sacraments, are Corporal Objects of Sense, and therefore discernible thereby, and subject to the Examen of Reason, according to the Practice, and * See Book 3. Conclusions both of Primitive Fathers and Romish Doctors; Among whom your Cardinal 1 Contarenus' Cardinal. Tractat. de officio Ep. lib. 1. Dei cognitionem Summam appellat scientiam divinae ignorationis— Dei namque naturam longissim● distare ab omni eo, quod intellectus noster cogitat, necesse fuit quaedam de Deo credenda his proponi, quae omnino mentis aciem superaret. Contarenus teacheth you out of Dionysius Areopagita, that our chief Knowledge of God is our Ignorance of him: because the knowledge of those things, which ought to be believed concerning God, differ from the knowledge of all other things, in this, that they exceed all apprehension of man's mind. Master Fisher his Inference, upon his former Supposition. Numb. 7. This being supposed, (saith he) I infer that the Seeming Absurdities of Catholic Real Presence should encourage a true Christian mind to believe it, as to that which was believed in the Primitive Church, although accompanied with so Seemingly Gross Absurdities: as being of things above our Imaginations. So he. Our Reply, noting the Absurdity of his Inference upon his false Supposition. The Supposition having been proved to be false, concerning the Doctrine of Primitive Fathers, his Inference from thence cannot be Really true: which we shall now confute by the Say of your own Doctors. For if Romish Doctrines, concerning the Eucharist, were therefore the Rather to be believed, because that they were accompanied with Seeming Absurdities; then was it either Faithlesness or extreme Folly in your own Romish Divines, who reasoned Contrariwise (to give you Five Examples instead of fivescore.) I. Gabriel Biel against the Motion of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, from one place into another; and so to East and West both at once; which (saith he) were * See above, Chap. ●. Sect. ●. Absurd and Ridiculous. II. Your jesuit Coninks against the Possibility of Christ's Body to move and to be still, in the same Instant, gain-sayth it; * Ibid. cap. Because that is (saith he) altogether unconceivable. III. Pope Innocent against the Possibility of Christ's Body to be Mortal and Immortal at once; * See Book 4. Chap. ●. Sect. ●. Because (saith he) it is Incredible. And iv (as other of your * Ibid. See the Marginells. Theologues in the same place do affirm) Because it is Repugnant to the Understanding of man. V Your Collius, Declaiming against pretended Miraculous Issues of Christ's Blood out of the Eucharist, and sometime out of Images, impugneth it, saying, * Book 4. Ca 2. Sect. 6. & 7. Whose ears can abide to hear such a Copy and abundance of Blood of Christ to be separated out of his Veins now after his Resurrection? yea, who without horror can think thereof? He that believeth this, let him hear that notable Saying of Solomon [He that is sudden (or easy) of Belief is of a light and unconstant heart.] Nor could such Copy of Blood issue out, without some injury to the Perfection of his Glorious Body. So they. Which Sentence of Solomon, if Master Fisher had truly had by heart, he could never have held your Romish Doctrines to be the Rather Credible, because of their Seeming Absurdities. Master Fisher his particular Romish Instances of Seeming Absurdities. Numb. 8. As for Example, I. That a Body so big should be in so little an Host. II. That a Body so Glorious should be subject to such Indignities and Obscenities. III. That the same Body should be in innumerable places at once. iv That Bread being converted into the Body of Christ, the sole Accidents should remain, performing the office of the Substance even to the nutrition of man's Body. These Difficulties scandalise Protestants, and thereupon they hold the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be Absurd and Ridiculous, but we must not depend upon our Senses. So he. Our Reply, especially out of the Fathers, for Discovery of Master Fisher's Falsehood in pretending the Patronage of Antiquity, for Defence of these Particular Romish Absurdities. Master Fisher, in his former Inference, pretended the Belief of the Primitive Church, as holding of Seeming Absurdities, as being things above Imaginations: and now insisteth upon your particular Romish Seeming Absurd Tenants, if they should be judged by our Senses; as though this had been the Doctrine of Primitive Antiquity, whereas indeed he could not have done a greater injury to the Church Primitive, which is ready to Contradict him in each Particular. The First objected Seeming Absurdity of the whole Body of Christ in so little an Host; or (as your Tridentine Fathers said) In every least part thereof, was contradicted by Saint * Book 4. cap. 8. Sect. 6. Augustine, holding it Incredible, as well as by some of your Schoolmen, who judged it Monstrous; and as much as to make the Nose of Christ to stand together with his Heel; and so to make his Body a Confused * See Book 4 c. 8. Sect. Chaos. The Second, That a Body so glorious should be subject to such Indignites and Obscenities, was contradicted by all these holy * See Book 5. throughout. Fathers, who have gain-sayd The Eating of Christ with Teeth, The devouring with the Throat, and abhorred the passing it down through the Entrails into the Draught, as vile and execrable Indignities. The Third, which is The being of the same Body of Christ in innumerable places at once. A Doctrine unanimously contradicted by * See Book 4. cap 6. Ancient Fathers teaching: I. Circumscription to be Inseparable from a Body: II. Proving thereby Christ's Humanity to be a creature, and not God, because Circumscribed in one place: And III. The Holy-Ghost to be God, and no creature, because not Circumscribed in one place. The Fourth, That Sole Accidents should remain and nourish man's Body; which one Instance followeth two falsehoods: One is, to believe that Sole Accidents do remain, without all Substance of Bread; contradicted by * See Book 3. cap 3 12. Theodoret, your Pope Gelasius, and by other holy Fathers. The other Falsehood is your professing, that Sole Accidents do nourish the Bodies, whether of Man or Mouse, (as you teach) But expressly contradicted by the Ancient Father Gregory Nyssen, who held it Impossible for any thing which is not a Substance to nourish a Substance. Lastly to his Additionall; That we are not in the discerning of the matter of this Sacrament to depend upon our Senses; which is most Contradictory to the Doctrine of Antiquity; For the Fathers (besides these their Assertions * See Book 3. throughout. that we see Bread and Wine: the Bread which consisteth of grains of Corn, and Wine of Grapes) have justified the Judgement of our Senses in sensible Objects; and not this only, but by the same Argument taken from our Senses, have furthermore confuted and confounded both the Heathen Academics, and Heretical Marcionites, Manichees, Eunomians, Eutychians, and others the most grossly Absurd Heretics of those Primitive Ages. So that now you must conclude, that either those Ancient Fathers ought to have submitted their Faith to those Absurd and damned Heretics, or else Master Fisher ought to recant this his pernicious and Heretical Paradox of Believing Doctrines the Rather, because they seem to be Absurd. Master-Fisher his Particular Confirmation of one of his Former Instances of a Body being in divers places at once, by a acquaint example of his own. Numb. 9 The Body of Christ (saith he) being glorious, is as swift in operation as any Thought, but a man's Thought is so quick, that one may be by Thought in two disjoined places at once, for example, in London and at Rome. Our Reply, detecting the Stupidity of this Objection. We (to omit that which is more * He useth the Common Objection of Man's soul, and God himself, which hath been confuted formerly. See above, cap. 6. Sect. 2. common) note in Master Fisher, now Objecting his own fancy, not so much a Seeming Absurdity, as a palpable Stupidity in this his exemplifying the Possibility of the Being of a Body in divers places at once, as namely at London and at Rome. If Master Fisher thinking of Rome, at his being in London, should say that even then his Thought was Really at Rome; it were easy for any man to guess in what place of London he himself was; because that every Sober man will believe that Master Fisher, in thinking of Rome, had his Thought then in his own Brain, and not at Rome. And though it should be possible for him to think both of Rome and London at once, yet could not this any way exemplify the Possibility of the Being of one and the same Body in two places in one moment. For his Thought of London and of Rome are not one and the same Thought, but as distinct and different about the subject matters of his Thoughts, as namely the plotting of Treason in Rome, and practising and executing the same in London should be. Master Fisher his Particular Confirmation of the Possibility of Accidents to nourish a Substance, from a rare example of his own. Numb. 10. It seemeth difficult (saith he) to conceive that Accidents can perform the office of any Substance, as to nourish a man: But we should perchance find as great a difficulty to believe (did we not see it) Glass to be made of Ashes: A Bird to be bred out of the rotten Bark of a Tree, etc. Our Reply, manifesting his Absurd Exemplification. This his Comparison of Likeness (as any one may discern at the first sight) consisteth merely of unlikelihoods, and Dissimilitudes; for he laboureth to prove it to be an equal Difficulty for an Accident to nourish a Substance (as it is in his Examples) as for a Substance to nourish a Substance. The Absurdity whereof is no less, than for any to argue, that because the Body of a man doth beget a Body; So the shadow thereof can also beget a Body. It is irksome unto us to have stayed so long in Master Fisher's Absurdities, we hasten to our General Challenge. ⚜ THE GENERAL CHALLENGE, THese above specified Six Contradictions so plainly and plentifully proved by such forceable Arguments, as the light of Divine Scripture hath authorized, the profession of Primitive Fathers testified, Confessions of Romish Doctors acknowledged, and the Principles of your own Romish learning in most points confirmed; your Abrenunciation of your so many Gross Errors may be as necessary, as your persisting therein will be damnable. Before we can end, we are to consult with the Fathers of the Council of Nice, especially seeing that as well Romanists as Protestants will be known to appeal to that Council. CHAP. XI. Of the Canon of the Council of Nice, objected for proof of a Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and against it. SECT. I. THis (as it is delivered by your a Concilij verba. Iterùm etiam hic in divina mensa nè humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem & calicem, sed attollentes mentem fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mensa agnum illum Dei tollentem peccata mundi incruentè [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] à Sacerdotibus immolatum; et pretiosum ejus corpus & sanguinem verè nos sumen●es, credamus, haec esse nostrae resurrectionis symbola. Proper hoc enim neque multum accipimus, sed parum, ut sciamus, non ad sa●i●tatem, sed ad sanctificationem offerri. Vt refert Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 10. Cardinal, taken out, as he saith, of the Vatican Library) standeth thus: Let us not here in this Divine Table, bend our thoughts downwards upon the Bread, and the Cup, which is set before Us, but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lamb of God, set upon that Table; The Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the World, offered unbloodily of the Priest. And we receiving truly his Body and Blood, let us think these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection. For this cause do we receive not much, but little, that we may understand this is not to satisfy, but to Sanctify. So the Canon. The General approbation of this Canon by Both sides. SECT. II. SCarce is there any one Romish Author, handling this Controversy, who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice, for the countenancing of your Romish Mass. Contrarily Protestant's (as they are set down by our b Hunc cano nem Conc. Niceni probatum fuisse Marpurgi Luthero, & alijs.— Martinus Bucerus dixit; Ità in Domino senrio: & in hac sententia opto venire ad Tribunal Dei. Manu meâ scripsi. Teste Hier. Zanchio Miscell. de Coena Domini, pag. 152. He himself assenting unto the same. Zanchy, and your c Hoc testimonium Niceni Conc. primi in acts ejusdem Conc. in Vaticana Bibliotheca his verbis, etc. Hoc testimonium agnoscunt etiam Adversarij, ut Oecolampadius, Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap 17. §. 36. Petrus Boquinus, Klebitius: & nituntur hoc testimonio ad gravissimam suam haeresin stabiliendam, ●. c. Bellar. ibid. ⚜ [●● Greek thus] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ⚜ Bellarmine) in great numbers (among whom are Luther and Calvin) with joint consent approve of this Canon; one of them (Bucer by name) subscribing unto it with his own hand, in these words: So I think in the Lord, and I wish to appear in this mind before the Tribunal seat of God. So they. The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our pains. ⚜ Where any man may discern an Allusion of the Fathers to the words of Saint Paul, Colos. 3. Seek those things that are above, and not on Earth: and that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] referreth to things on Earth, and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to the things above, in Heaven: and that the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] spoke of the Table, opposite to that Table whereof it was said; [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.] as much as There, to Here. ⚜ The state of the Difference, concerning this Canon. SECT. III. THis (as is propounded by your Cardinal) standeth thus. d Per Agnum omnes intelligunt Christum, ut distinguitut contra symbo la, Bellar. quo supra.— Illi (Protestants) quasi admoneant, nè quaerendum Christum in Altar's lapideo. Sed monte conscendamus ad coelum, in coelo sisum Agnum.— At vult Concilium, ut ad sacram ipsam mensam attendamus; sed in ipsa non tam Symbola, quàm quae sub illis latent consideremus. Ibidem per totum. All (saith he) by the Lamb understand Christ as he is distinguished from the Symbols and Signs upon the Altar. Next, But the Protestants think (saith he) that the Council admonisheth not to seek Christ on the Altar, but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith, as sitting at the Right hand of God. But we all say (saith he) that the Council would have us to attend unto the holy Table (meaning the Altar below) yet so, that we see in it not so much the outward Symbols, and Signs, as that which lieth hid under them, viz. The Body and Blood of Christ. So he. The difference then between him and us is no less than the distance between Aloft and Under, that is, between Heaven above, and Earth below. Let us set forward in our progress, but with easy, and even paces; to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofs, and rottenness of your Objections. That the Nicene Council is marveilously prejudicial to your Romish Defence: proved by divers Observations; Three here. SECT. iv FIve Points are chief observable in this Canon. First is the nomination of Bread. Secondly, the mention of two Tables. Thirdly, the admonition to lift up our minds. Fourthly, the expression of the Reason thereof. Fiftly, the Confirmation of the same Reason. First, That, which the Council would that men be not too intent unto, they call Bread after Consecration; for the Error, which they would have avoided, was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament (according to your Cardinal's e jubet Concilium ut non inhaereamus speciebus panis & vini; quasi ibi nihil sit, nisi quod oculi renuntiant. Bellarm. quo supra. Gloss) and then was it after Consecration; because they needed not to have persuaded any to have too mean an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated; (which you yourselves hold to be a common and profane thing:) or else the Error must have been, as indeed it was, too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread, which must needs be so, because it was Consecrated, and notwithstanding it being so Consecrated, in the Canon it is called Bread. Which your Fathers of the Council of Trent would not have endured, especially seeing that we find that your f Nic. Cabas●las. Latini dicunt eos, qui panem & vinum nominant, & tanquam nondum sanctificatis precantur sanctificationem post illa verba [Hoc est Corpus meum,] rem supervacuam facere. Expos. Liturg. c. 29. Latin Church was offended with the late Greek Church, for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the terms of Bread and Wine, after the pronunciation of these words [This is my Body,] by you called the words of Consecration. Besides they so call them Bread and Wine, as they name them Symbols and Signs, which properly they could not be, until after Consecration. Secondly, the g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &c— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Conc. Nicen. Canon expressly noteth and distinguisheth two Tables, in respect of place; the one, as Here; being as much as to say, The Table: and the other opposed hereunto is instiled, That Table, I say. And now be it known, that [The Table here] which is not to be represented by the Antithesis of [But that Table] must necessarily infer two distinct Tables; as, Here, and, There, do prove two distinct Places: except one can make congruity of these words [That Table Here.] Which I note, in Confutation of a vain and crotchetive Objector. And, of this Table Here, the Council forbiddeth Christians to look Too attentively to the thing set before us: But contrarily, concerning That other Table, they command men to Lift up their minds aloft. And not thus only, but they also distinguish them, in respect of their different Objects. The Object of the First Table, Here, they name Bread, and the Cup, the Objects of Sense: And the other Object, opposed to this, is that on the other Table, expressed to be the Lamb God, the Object of our minds. Thirdly, the Admonition or Caution, which the Council giveth concerning the Bread, is, not to be too intent to it: but touching the Lamb Christ, they command us to lift up our minds aloft; for so the world h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] doth signify; not to be used (we think) for an inward looking into the sublimiy of the mystery of the matter before us, as your Cardinal fancieth: but for looking up aloft unto the Lamb of God in Heaven, according to the Catholic Sense of those words, * See hereafter, Book. 7. Chap. 4. §. 2. SURSUM CGRDA. The next two Proofs out of the same Canon of Nice, to manifest our Protestant profession touching the Question in hand. SECT. V Our next two Proofs out of the Canon are these. First is their Reason of the former Caution: The Second, the Confirmation of that Reason: Both are expressly set down in the Canon itself. Why then did those holy Fathers admonish us, not to be too intent to the Bread and Wine set before us? It followeth; Because they are not ordained to satisfy our Natural man, namely, by a full Eating and Drinking: but for a Sacramental participation of the Body, and Blood of Christ, to the sanctifying of our Souls: whereas your Church doth attribute to that, which you eat in this Sacrament, a power of sanctifying the Body by its Bodily touch. But much more will the next Proof undermine your Defence. To confirm their Reason, why the Sacrament was not ordained for the satisfying of the natural man, they add saying; For this cause we receive not much, but little. Which one Clause most evidently proveth it to be spoken of Bread and Wine; and not of the Body, and Blood of Christ: as your general Roman Catechism (if you have not already learned it) will now teach you to believe, saying that i Catechis. Rom. Christum Dominum esse in hoc Scramento non dicimus, ut parvus aut magnus est, sed ut substantia est. Tract. de Eucha●. num. 36. Christ is not great or small in this Sacrament. And indeed none ever said of the Eucharist, that he eaten a little of Christ Body, or a little Christ; but yet the Sacrament eaten is sometimes more, sometime less Nor this only, but the Canon furthermore speaketh of taking a little of that, whereof if much were taken (saith it) it might satiate the natural man. So the Canon. But that the outward Sacrament can truly satisfy the natural man, you yourselves will testify in your Bookcases and Missals, * See Book, 3. chap. 3. §. 10. Chap 6. §. 1. & 2. acknowledging men Drunk with the Sacrament, even unto vomiting with the one part thereof, and also making mention of Men, and Mice being fed and nourished with the other. So then the natural man may be satiated with this Sacrament; but with what therein? The Body and Blood of Christ? you abhor to think that, with Accidents? You may be ashamed to affirm it, as from the Judgement of Antiquity, seeing you were never able hitherto justly to produce one Father for proof of the Existence of Accidents without their Subjects: or of nourishing a Substance by mere Accidents. Wherefore until you can prove some one of all these, give us leave to believe, that all were of the mind of that one k Gregor. Nyssen. Quomodò enim res incorporea corpori cibus fiat? In Orat. de vita Mosie, p. 509. Father, who held it Impossible for an Incorporeal, or not-Bodily thing to be food to a Bodily substance. And so much the rather, because the Fathers have manifoldly * See above, Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. & 10. etc. acknowledged in this Sacrament, after Consecration, the substance of Bread. Wherefore the Reasoning of the Council, touching the Eucharist, was like as if one should say of Baptism; We take not too much, but little, lest it might be thought to have been ordained not for a Sacramental means of sanctifying the Soul, but for the cleansing of the Flesh. None is so stupid as not to understand, by Much and Little, the substance of water; and not only the Accidents thereof. And if you shall need a further Explication of the same sentence of the Fathers of Nice you may fetch it from the Fathers in another Council held at Toledo in Spain, Anno 693. who show this Reason, why they l Conc. Tolet 16 Anno 693 Can 6. Integrum panem esse sumendum— neque grande aliquid, sed modica tantum oblata, secundum id quod Ecclesiastica consuetudo retentat: cujus reliquiae aut ad conservandum modico loculo absque aliqua injuria Sacrificijs confecrotur; aut si sumendum fuerit necessarium, non ventrem illius, qui sumpserit, gravis farciminis onere premat, nec quid indigesticè vadat, sed animum alimoniâ spirituali resiciat. Take little portions of the Host, (namely say they) lest otherwise the belly of him that taketh this Sacrament may be stuffed, and over charged, and lest it may pass into the Draught, but that it may be nourishment for the Soul. Hereby plainly teaching, concerning the consecrated matter, that were it so much as could burden the belly, it would through the supersluity thereof go into the Draught: whereas, if Less, it would serve as well, or better for a Sacramental use, to the replenishing of our souls in the spiritually receiving of the Body of Christ. But never was any of the Primitive Age so fare bereft of his wits as to imagine that Much, which stuffeth, and after passeth into the Draught, to be Christ's Body: and you may swear that the Fathers meant not mere * See above Book 3. Chap. 3 §. ●●. Accidents; For mere Accidents have not the property of Substance, through the Muchness thereof, either to satiate the natural appetite, in feeding, or to overcharge the belly by weight, in prossing it down to the Draught. Never did any Father father such an Imagination. What can be, if this be not true reasoning, and consequently a full confutation of your Roman Faith. Therefore this one Canon of Nice being thus undoubtedly gained, concerning he not seeking Christ, Here, on this Table, is sufficient of itself to batter down your Assertion by a fivefold force. First, by proof of no Transubstantiation of Bread; Secondly, no Corporal Presence of Christ's Body; Thirdly, no Corporal Conjunction with the Bodies of the Communicants; and (consequently) Fourthly, no Proper Sacrifice thereof; and Lastly, no Divine Adoration due unto it. Therefore ought you to bid all these your Romish Doctrines and Delusions avaunt. Your Objections, from the former Canon, answered. SECT. VI FIrst, you m Ob. 1. Cum dicit agnum Dei situm esse in sacra mensa, & eundem agnum opponit symbolis, declarat agnum proprié esse in mensa: & non solùm ut per symbola reprae sentatur. 2. Agnus dicitur à Sacerdotum manibus immolari, quod non fit in coelo: neque enim tàm longas manus habent Sacerdotes, ut ad coelum pertingant. 3. Dicimur verè sumere corpus Christi, & quòd non solùm corde sed & corpore sumitur, probatur: quia corpus & sanguis Dom●ni dicuntur esse nostrae resurrectionis symbola, quia cùm nostris corporibus conjunguntur. Si autem sol● esset animorum conjunctio, solus animus resurrecturus signific 〈◊〉. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 10. Object, that The Lamb is said to be placed on the Table, mistaking what Table is meant; for the Canon specifying two Tables, one Here, which is of the Eucharist, and another That Table, namely in Heaven, saith that Christ is placed on That Table, according to our Faith of his sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven. Secondly, he is said (say you) to be Sacrificed by the hands of the Priest; which cannot be done, as he is in Heaven. The words of the Canon, truly resolved, to cashier this Objection, as thus: The Lamb of God set as that Table (namely in Heaven) is sacrificed by the hands of the Priest Here, to wit, on the Table below (representatively) as hereafter the Catholic Fathers themselves will show. And these two may easily consist, without any necessity of the Priest reaching his hands as fare as the highest Heavens; as your Cardinal objecteth. ⚜ The Priest (saith he) hath not so long hands as to reach it in Heaven. So he, delicately, and like a Romish Cardinal, carnally conceiting only a Touch, by the Finger, of Flesh, never regarding the Primitive Doctrine of Touching Christ by Faith, whereof first Saint Ambrose: 1 Ambrose in Luc. 24. Paulus docuit ubi te reperire possi●●●, ubi ait; Si consurrexistis cum Christo, quae sursum sunt sappy, non super terram. Ergo non quae supra terram, nec in terra, nec secundum carnem te quaerere debemus, si volumus invenire. Nunc enim secundum carnem jam non novimus Christum. Denique Stephanus non supra terram quae 〈◊〉, qui stantem 〈◊〉 ad dextram Dei vidit. Maria autem quae quaerebat in terra, tangere non potuit. Stephanus te●igit, quia quaesivit in coelo. Many (saith he) sought Christ on Earth, but could not touch him; But Stephen touched him, who sought him in Heaven. Consonantly Saint Augustine; who to this Question, If Mary touched not Christ on Earth, what mortal man shall touch him in Heaven? Answereth, 2 Aug. tom. 10. de Temp. Serm. 152. Sin in torra positum Christum (Maria) non tangio, in coelo sedentem quis mortalium possit tangere? Sed ille tactus fidem significat. Tangit Christa●, qui credit in eum. There is a Touch by Faith; he that believeth in Christ, Toucheth him, ⚜ Thirdly, you allege; We are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ. As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramental, that is Figurative Receiving; and more especially (which * See above c. 1. Sect. 2. hath been both proved, and confessed) a Real, and true participation of Christ's Body a●d Blood spiritually, without any Corporal Conjunction. But it is added (saith he) that These (namely, the Body and Blood of Christ) are Symbols of our Resurrection; which is by reason that our Bodies are joined with the Body of Christ: otherwise if our Conjunction were only of our Souls, only the Resurrection of our Souls should be signified thereby. So he, that's to say, as successesly as in the for●er. For the word, HAVE, These, (which are called Symbols of our Resurrection) may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ, immediately spoken of, and placed on the Table in Heaven (which we Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament) and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies: because, * See below Book 5. Cap. ●. §. 1. If Christ be risen, then must they that are Christ's also rise again. Or else the word, These, may have relation to the more remote (after the manner of the Greeks') to wit, Bread and Cup on the first Table; because (as immediately followeth) they are these whereof not much, but little is taken; as you have heard. Which other * See below Book 5. Cap. ●. §. 1. Fathers will show to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection, without any Consequence of Christ's Bodily Conjunction with our Bodies, more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptism; which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection, as doth also your Jesuit m Ad futuram Resurrectionem, per Baptismi Sacramentum, jus & pignus accepimus. Coster. institut. Christ. lib. 4. c. 4. [See more in the Book following. c. 8. Sect. 6.] Coster call it The pledge of our Resurrection. (But this our Conjunction with Christ is the Subject matter of the fift Book.) Lastly how the Eucharist, was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice, is plentifully resolved in the * See Chap. 5. Sect. 4. 5. & 6. sixth Book. THE FIFTH BOOK Treating of the Third Romish Doctrinal Consequence, arising from your depraved Sense of the words of Christ's Institution [THIS IS MY BODY] concerning the manner of the present Union of Christ's Body with the Bodies of the Receivers by eating, etc. CHAP. I. The State of the Question. SECT I. A Christian man consisting of two men, the Outward, or bodily; & the Inward, which is, Spiritual: this Sacrament, accordingly, consisteth of two parts, Earthly and Heavenly: as Irenaeus spoke of the bodily Elements of Bread & Wine, as the visible Signs and Objects of Sense; and of the Body, and Blood of Christ, which is the Spiritual part. Answerable to both these is the Double nourishment and Union of a Christian; the one Sacramental, by communicating of the outward Elements of Bread and Wine, united to man's body, in his Taking, Eating, Digesting, till at length it be Transubstantiated into him, by being Substantially incorporated in his Flesh. The other, which is the Spiritual, and Souls food, is the Body and Blood of the Lord, (therefore called Spiritual, because it is the Object of 〈◊〉) by an Union wrought by God's Spirit, and man's Faith; which (as hath been professed by Protestants) is most Real and Ineffable. But your Church of Rome teacheth such a Real Union of Christ his Body and Blood with the Bodies of the Communicants, as is Corporall; which * See below Ch. ● Sect. ●. you call [Per contactum] by Bodily touch, so long as the forms of Bread and Wine remain uncorrupt in the Bodies of the Receivers. Our Method requireth, that we first manifest our Protestant Defence of Union to be an Orthodox Truth. Secondly, to impugn your Romish Union, as Capernaitical (that is) Heretical. And thirdly, to Determine the Point by comparing them both together. Our Orthodox Truth will be found in the Propositions following. That Protestants profess not only a Figurative and Sacramental Participation and Communion with Christ's Body; but also a Spiritually-Reall. SECT. II. IN all the Books of our Adversaries written against Protestants, they are most especially vehement, violent, and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries, as though we professed no other manner of feeding and Union with Christ's Body, than only Sacramental and Figurative. For Confutation of which Calumny it will be most requisite to propose the Apology of a Calvin. in hi●s libris, viz. Consensio in re Sacramentaria● & Di●ensio contra 〈◊〉 et Explicatio de vera participate. coenae Dom. I. F●teor me abhorrere ab hoc crasso commento localis praesentiae. Substantiâ Christi animae nostrae pas●untur: sed secundùm Virtutem, non secundùm Substantiam. II. Signum tantum p●●rigi, centies contrà. Quasi vero cum Swinck●●ldio qui●quam nobis commune— III. In Catechismo disserui, non solùm beneficiorum Christi significationem habemus in coena; sed substantive participes, in nam cum eo vitam coalescimus— Figurata locutio, fateor, modò non tellatur rei veritas. iv Neque enim tantùm dico, applicari merita, sed ex ipso Christi corpore alimentum percipere animas, non secùs ac terreno pane corpus vescitur. Vim carnis suae vivisicans spiritus sui gratiâ in nos transs sundit. Spiritualem dicimus, non carnalem, quamv●● realem, ut haec vox, provera, contra fallacem sumitur: non secundùm substantiam, quam vis ex ejus substantia vita in animas nostras pros●uit. V Ergò in coena miraculum agnoscimus, quod & naturae sins, & sensus nostri modum ex supo●at; quod Christi caro nobis sit com nwis, & nobis in alimentum datu●— Modus incomprehensibilis. VI Si nos in consesu, quem continet Augustana confessio, complexos esse dixi, non est quod quis me astutiae insimule●. Verbulum in ea Confession (qualis Ratisbonae edita fuit) non extat doctrinae nostrae con trarium. De Philippo Melancthone, ejus Authore, viro spectatae pietatis, dico, non magis me à Philippo, quàm à proprijs visceribus divelli posse, Et quidem non aliter sanctae memoriae Bucerum sensisse, luculentis testimonijs probare mihi semper promptum erit. Lutherus, meae sententiae non ignarus, propriâ tamen manu non gravatus est me salutare. Quum Marpurgi essem, diconciliatio facta est: ab eo conventu digressus affirmat codem, quo ante, loco, Oecolampadium & Zuinglium habere, quos illic fratrum loco posthàc fore sancte pollicitus est. Hacten●● Calvinus. Him, who hath been most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause, to show, first, what he held not; and than what he held. If you shall ask Calvin what he liked not, he will answer you, I. I do abhor your gross Doctrine of Corporal Presence. And II. I have an hundred times disclaimed the receiving only of a Figure, in this Sacrament. What then did he hold? III. Our Catehisme teacheth (saith he) not only a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein, but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our souls. And with Swinckfeldius, maintaining only a Figurative perception, we have nothing to do. If you further demand what is the Feeding, whereby we are united to Christ's Body, in this Sacrament? he tells you, IU. that it is Not Carnal, but Spiritual, and Real; and so Real, that the Soul is as truly replenished with the lively virtue of his flesh, by the powerful work of the Spirit of God, as the Body is nourished with the Corporal Element of Bread in this Sacrament. If you exact an expression of this Spiritual Union, to know the manner, he acknowledgeth it to be V above Reason. If further you desire to understand, whether he were not Singular in this opinion, he hath avouched the judgement of other Protestants, professing not to descent one syllable from the VI Augustane Confession, as agreeing with him in judgement herein. Accordingly our Church of England (in the 28 Article) saith, that To such as worthily, & with faith receive this Sacrament. The Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, which Body is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a spiritual and heavenly manner, the mean whereby as Faith. That the Body of Christ, by this Sacrament, was ordained only for food to the Christian man's Soul. SECT. III. WHat need we seek into the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, which are many, in this Point of Dispute, having before us the judgement of your b Summus Salv●tor hoc Sacramentum voluit esse tanquam spiritualem animarum cibum, quo alamur, & confortemur, viventes vita illius, quo dixit, [Qui mand ucat me, etc.] Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. ca 2. Fathers of the Council of Trent, and of your c Sacramento utendum ad alendam animam: Catech. Trid. de Euch. num. 29. Roman Catechism, authorized by the same Council? both which affirm that Christ ordained this Sacrament to be the Spiritual food of man's Soul. In which respect the Body of Christ is called Spiritual in your Pope's d Decret. ex Ambros. de mysterijs. Corpus Christi est Corpus Spirituale. Dis●. 2. ca In illo. Decree. The Consonant Doctrine of the Fathers will be found in the last Chapter, and last Section of this Fift Book. That the Spiritual feeding and Union with Christ's Body is more excellent and Real than the Corporal Conjunction can be. SECT. iv THe soul of man being the most Essential and Substantial part of man (because a Spirit immortal;) and the flesh of Christ being the most Substantial of all food; and theréfore called, as of ancient e Ambros. lib. 5. de Sacram. cap. 4. Fathers, even so by your Fathers of f Conc. Trident. Panem illum supersubstantialé frequenter accipiant. Sess. 13. ca 8. Trent, supersubstantial Bread; it must necessarily follow, that as it is named by Christ * joh. 6. 32. The true Bread, and the Life thereby (which is the Effect of the Spiritual eating thereof) is the most true and Real Life, because Everlasting: So the Union Spiritual, which a Christian hath in his souls feeding, is the most Real and true Union, as may sufficiently appear by Analogy. To wit, that Bread and Wine being the most vital nourishments, for the conservation of man's bodily Essence, are therefore chosen (as the Fathers teach) to represent and exhibit unto him (although, in themselves, but Signs and Symbals) the very Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ are our Real nourishments in this Sacrament. And such as is our food, such must be our Union, by feeding thereon; which we say is by Faith, in this Sacrament; and you may not gainsay it, who, to comfort your Disciples, are g Alanus & alij ex citatis Authoribus dicunt, quando reipsa non potest suscipi hoc Sacramentum, ad perficiendam hanc unionem, sufficere quod hoc Sacramentum in voto suscipiatur, quia hoc satis est, ut homo fiat membrum Christi vivum, & uniatur illi. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 64. §. 3. p. 824. Satis est si spiritualiter manducatur in voto, etiamsi non Sacramentaliter. Aco●●a Ies. de. Indorum Salute. lib. 6. cap. 7. Vere & Spiritualiter sumunt, qui fide tenent, sub iltis speci●bus verum esse corpus Christi, & simul ipsum desiderio recipendi ardeant. Tolet. Ies. Instruct. Sacerd. lib. 21 cap. 29. taught to instruct them, that even without this Sacrament the Spiritual Union may be presented to the Soul of man, with the Body of Christ; and that as a sufficient means of uniting him to Christ, by a Spiritual manner of Eating. And this (you say) is To receive Christ his Body truly; albeit this be to receive him only by faith and desire. So you. Whence you perceive our Inference, viz. If our Spiritual Union with Christ his Body may be really and truly made by Faith, and Desire, without this Sacrament; then, in our Sacramental Eating thereof, may the Communicant be much more made partaker thereof by Faith and ardent Desire; the Sacrament itself being a S●●le of this our Christian Faith. CHAP. II. That only the Godly-faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ; and thereby united to Christ; in the judgement of Protestants. SECT. I. Our Church of England in her 28. and 29. Article saith thus; The Body of Christ is given to be eaten in this Sacrament only after a Spiritual manner, even by faith; wherein the wicked, and such as are void of faith, eat it not: although they do visibly press with their teeth the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet are they in no wise Partakers thereof. But your Romish Church flatly otherwise, as you all know; and therefore hath your Sympresbyter Master h Mr. Brerely Tract. 2. §. 5. Sub 2. Brerely endeavoured to assume some Protestants to be on your side, whom he hath alleged with like faithfulness, as he hath cited Master Calvin: than whom he could not have, in this case, a greater Adversary. For although Calvin grant, with all Protestants, that the wicked and faithless receive truly, by way of Sacrament, the Body of Christ; yet doth he deny that they have in their Bodies any Corporal Conjunction or Union with Christ, because the Union, which we have i Calvin Epist. 372. yet in the same Epistie he saith of Papists, Damnantur qui dicunt non minus corporis Christi participem fuisse judam, quam Petrum. In his Institut. lib. 4. cap. 17. Non alia quam fidei manducatio. Sect. 8. Cordis sinum tantùm protendant, quo praesentem amplexentur▪ §. 12▪ Vinculum con junctionis est spiritus Christi. §. 13. Non 〈◊〉 §. 16. Non contactu. §. 33. Impij & scelerati non edunt Christi corpus, qui sunt ab eo alieni, quia ipsa caro Christi in mysterio coenae non ramus spiritulis res est, quàm salus aeterna. Vnde colligimus, quod quicunque vacui sunt spiritu Christi, carnem Christi non pos●e edere magis quam vinum bibere, cui non conjunctus est Sapor— Aliud tamen est offerri aliud recipi— Spiritualem ●ibum omnibus porrigit Christus, etiam indignis; at non absquè fide recipitur. §. 34. Saepius, fateor, occurrit apud Augustinum ista loquendi forma, Comedi Corpus Christi ab infidelibus, sed seipsum explicat, etc. Haec Calvinus. saith he) is Only Spiritual; only with the soul; only with the heart; only by faith; and although it be offered to the wicked, to be really received, yet do they not receive it, because they are Carnal. Their only Receiving therefore is but Sacramental. So Master Calvin. It had been good that your Priest had suspected his own judgement, and (as well in this case, as others) by doubting his own eyesight, had borrowed your k Sextum eorum pronunciatum est, Improbos non suscipere Corpus Christi, licet Symbola suscipiant. Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 17. §. 33. & Beza. Teste Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 1. §. Porro. Cardinal his Spectacles: then would he have clearly perceived that (together with other Protestants) Calvin held that The wicked, although they receive the Symbols and outward Signs of Christ's body, yet the Body itself they do not receive. So your Cardinal of the Doctrine of Protestants. For although, indeed, Calvin said that The wicked eat the Body of Christ; yet, explaining himself, he added these two words [In Sacramento, that is, Sacramentally;] which in Calvin's style is taken for Symbolically only. As for the Consent of Protestants herein, we put it to your great Cardinal and Champion, their greatest Adversary, to express. l Ex Vbi quitistarum opinione sequitur corpus Christi non posse vere manducari ore corporali, sed solum ore spirituali per fidem; est ipsisima sententia Sacramentariorum. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 17. §. Secundo ex. He joineth Lutherans to the Calvinists in one Consent, for denying the Oral and Corporal Eating thereof; and for believing the Eating of it Only by Faith. Yet lest any may say, that, in receiving the same Sacrament, he doth not receive the thing signified thereby; you may have a Similitude to illustrate your Judgements, as thus: The same outward word, concerning Justification by Christ, cometh to the ears of both unbelievers and Believers. But the Believers only are capable of Justification. That the wicked Communicants, albeit they eat not bodily Christ's Body, yet are they Guilty of the Lord's Body, for not receiving Spiritually, (namely) through their Contempt, in not receiving the Blessing offered thereby. SECT. II. THe Apostle, 1. Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever (saith he) Eateth this Bread, and Drinketh this Cup unworthily, he shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the lord And (vers. 29.) eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords Body. Your Remish Professors (men not the least zealous for your Romish Cause) objecting this against the Protestants, call upon you, saying first m Rhemists Annot. in 1. Cor. 11. vers. 27. Here upon mark well, that ill men receive the Body and Blood of Christ, be they Infidels, or ill livers, for else they could not be guilty of that which they receive not. Secondly, That it could not be so heinous an offence for any to receive a piece of Bread, or a Cup of Wine, though they were a true Sacrament; for it is a deadly sin for any to receive any Sacrament, with will and intention to continue in sin, or without repentance of former sins; but yet by the unworthy receiving of no other Sacrament is man made guilty of Christ's Body and Blood, but here, where the unworthy Receiver (as Saint n Chrysost. Hom 60. & 61. ad Pop. Antioch. chrysostom saith) do vill any to Christ's own Person, as the jews and Gentiles did, that crucified him. Which invincibly proveth against the Heretics, that Christ is herein really present. And guilty is he, for not discerning the Lords Body, that is, because he putteth no difference between this high meat and others. So your Rhemists. Your Cardinal also, as though he had found herein something for his purpose o Bellar. Obijcit Cyprian. Sterm. de Lapsis, de ijs qui post negatum Christum, sine poenitententia, accedunt; plus eos jam manibus atquè ore delinquere, quam cum Dominum neg●runt. Deinde Cyprianum recensere miracula facta in vindictam eorum, qui corpus Christi tantum violant. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9 [See this answered in the 7. Section following.] fasteneth upon the sentence of Cyprian, who accounted them, that after their denial of Christ presented themselves to this Communion, without repentance, to offer more injury to Christ, by their polluted hands and mouths, than they did in denying Christ▪ and besides he recordeth Examples of Gods miraculous vengeance upon those, who violated the Body of Christ in this Sacrament. So he. All these points are reducible unto three heads. One is, that Ill men might not be held guilty of the Body of Christ, except they did receive it, as being materially present in this Sacrament. Next is the Gild of profaning this Sacrament, which being more heinous than the abuse of any other Sacrament, therefore the injury is to be judged more personal. The last, that the Examples of Gods vindicative judgemeuts, for Contempt hereof, have been more extraordinary: which may seem to be a Confirmation of both the former. Before we handle these points in order, take our next Position for a Directory to that, which shall be answered in the sixth Section. That some Fathers understood the Apostles words, 1. Corinth. 10. Spiritually, (namely) as signifying the Eating of Christ's Flesh, and drinking his Blood; both in the Old Testament and in the New. SECT. III. Upon those words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. verse 4. [They eaten of the same Spiritual meat▪ etc.] The jews received the same Spiritual meat p Aug. Tract. 26. in joh. sup. illa verba Apostoli, 1. Cor. 20. de fidelibus Iudaeis. [Omnes candem spiritualem escam (in Manna.) edebant; & bibebant eundem potum spiritualem, etc.] Corporalem escam diversam, illi Manna, nos aliud, spiritualem sed candem: aliud illi, aliud nos bibimus, sed aliud specie visibili, idem autem significante virtute. Item. Eandem quam nos escam; sed Patres nostri, (nèmpè fideles) non Patres illorum. Aug. Ibid. saith Saint Augustine; namely they who were faithful. Yea (saith your q At eandem inter se; non nobis. cum candem Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Quia. Cardinal) the jews received the same among themselves, but not the same with us Christians. So he. Albeit the words of Augustine are plainly thus; The same which we eat: so plainly, that divers on your own side do so directly and truly acknowledge it, that your Jesuit r judaeos candem escam spiritualem edisse nobiscum; exposuit hunc locum de Manna Augustinus, & qui eum secuti sunt multi; ut Beda, Strabo, & Author Glossae ordinariae— reprobatum hoc esse a posterioribus. Ego persuasum habeo, Augustinum, si nostra aetate fuisset, longè aliter sensurum fuisse, omni genti Hereticorum inimicissimum, cum videret Calvinistas ad eundèm ferè modum hunc locum interpretari. Maldon. Ies. in joh. 6. vers. 50. col. 706. Maldonate, not able to gainsay this Truth, pleaseth himself notwithstanding in fancying that If Augustine were alive in this Age, he would think otherwise, especially perceiving Heretical Calvinists, (and s Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. Cap. 14. Sect. 23. Eandem nobiscum— contra Scholasticorum dogma, quo docent, veteri lege tantum adumbrari gratiam, & nouâ praesentem conferri. Calvin himself) to be of his opinion. So he. Was it not great pity that Augustine was not brought up in the School of the Jesuits! surely they would have taught him the Article of Transubstantiation, of the Corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and Corporal Union; against all which there could not be a greater Adversary than was Augustine; whom Maldonate here noteth to have been the Greatest enemy to all Heretics: whom t Bertram. de Corp. Dom. pag. 20. Quaeres, fortasse, quam eandem? nimirum ipsam, quam hodie populus credentium in Ecclesia manducat. Non enim licet— diversa intelligi, quoniam unus, idemque Christus, qui populum in mare baptizatum carne suâ pavit, eundem que potum, in Petra, Christum sui sanguinis 〈◊〉 populo praebuisse.— Vide nondum passum Christum esse, etiam tamen sui corporis & sanguinis mysterium operatum fuisse: non enim putamus ullum fidelium dubitare, panem illum Christi corpus fuisse effectum, quod discipulis Dominus dicit [Hoc est Corpus meum.] Bertram followed in the same Exposition: and by your leave, so did your u Eandem escam spiritualem id est, Corpus Christi in signo spiritualiter intellecto: idem, quod nos, sed aliam escam corporalem, quam nos. Aquinas in 1. Cor. 10. Aquinas also; The same (saith he) which we eat. Yea and Anselme embraceth the same exposition, in the very words of Saint Augustine, The same which we eat. Thus much by the way. We go on to our Answers. That the wicked Receivers are called Guilty of Christ's Body; not by properly Eating of his Body unworthily, but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament thereof Symbolically. SECT. iv THE Distinction used by Saint Augustine (who is still a resolute Patron of our Cause) hath been always as generally acknowledged, as known, wherein he will have us to discern, in the Eucharist, the Sacrament from the thing represented, and exhibited thereby. Of the Sacrament he saith that * Aùg in joh. Tract. 26. Sacramentum ●umitur a qui●●●dam ad vit●●m 〈◊〉 quibu●dam 〈◊〉 exitium: Re● vero ipsa, cujus est Sacramenttum, omni homini ad vitam, null● 〈◊〉 mortem, quicunquè ejus particips ●uer●●. It is received of some to Life, and of some to destruction: but the thing itself (saith he) is received of None, but to Salvation. So he No Protestant could speak more directly, or Conclusively for proof; First, That, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Body of Christ is as well tendered to the Wicked, as to the Godly. Secondly, That the Wicked for want of a living faith, have no Hand to receive it. Thirdly That their not preparing themselves to a due receiving of it, is a Contempt of Christ his Body and Blood. Fourthly, and Consequently that it worketh the judgement of Guiltiness upon them. ⚜ If it shall be proved that the like judgement followeth upon the Wicked, for absenting himself from receiving of this Sacrament, in Contempt thereof; as well as it doth upon the unworthy Receiver, it Determinateth the Point in question, to prove the inconsequence of your reason, whereof you conclude, that the Guiltiness of Judgement ariseth from unworthy Corporal participation of Christ's Body, Now Saint Augustine's words are, that 1 Aug de Necessitate poeni●e●tiae. Tom 10. Hom. 50. Verset ante oculos Imago futuri Iudici●, ut cum alij a●cedunt ad aliare Dei, quô ipse non accedit, con●●git quàm sit contremiscenda illa poena, qua percipi●ntibus alijs vitam aeternam, alij in mortem praecipitentur aeternam. Item 〈◊〉 Tom 6. contra 〈◊〉 Manichaeum lib. 13 c. 6. Qui autem manduca●● contemnit, non habet in se vitam, & ideo non perven●●t ad vitam aete●nam. He that contenineth to eat this, hath no life in him, and shall be deprived of life eternal. Which is by his Contempt, not in the Receiving, but in the Not-Receiving thereof. All which both the Evidence of Scripture, and Consent of Antiquity do notably confirm. For the Text objected doth clearly confute your Romish Consequence, because Saint Paul's words are not; He that eateth the Body of Christ, and drinketh his Blood unworthily, is guilty of his Body and Blood: but, He that entreth the Bread, and drinketh the Cup of the Lord unworthily, &c, Which we have proved throughout the second Book to signify Bread and Wine, the Signs and Sacraments of his Body and Blood, after Consecration. And (to come to Antiquity) All the Fathers hereafter cited, who deny that the wicked Communicants are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ (albeit knowing, as well as you, that all such unworthy Receivers are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ) will thereby sufficiently confute your Consequence, which is, that because the Wicked are guilty of Christ's Body; Ergo his Body is Corporally present in them. But we pursue you yet further. That a Guiltiness of Contempt of Christ's Body and Blood is to be acknowledged in all Profane Neglect, even in not communicating thereof, by whatsoever person capable of this Blessed Sacrament. SECT. V GVilty of the Lords Body:] that is, Guilty of the Contempt thereof, as you well know. Now because Contempt of a good thing is as well seen in a wilful refusing to receive, as in a Contemptuous manner of Receiving; the Guiltiness by the same Contempt must needs be against the thing offered, whether it be Corporal or Spiritual; and Consequently against the Giver himself. In which respect Christ compareth the Refusers of the promises of the Gospel of Salvation unto beastly Hogs, which trample under their feet Pearls of highest price, even because they would not believe them: Believing being our Spiritual Receiving. From the same Gild of Contempt followeth the obnoxiousness to punishment, denounced by our Saviour; * Luc. 9 5. To shake off the dust of their feat for a testimony against them, in not receiving the Gospel of Peace. Therefore is that saying of Hierome common to every Sacrament, * Below Sect. 6. Contempt of a Sacrament (saith he) is the Contempt of him whose Sacrament it is: As also that other of Rupertus, saying; y Rupertus in joh. 6. Si quis existimat illo Sacramēto se non egere, in eo ipso, quod manducare & bib●ere contemnit, quantumvis Catholicae professionis homo sit, a Societate membrorum Christi, quae est Ecclesia, se praecidit etc. The not receiving the Eucharist (if it be in Contempt) doth separate the Contemner from the society of the members of Christ. Hence it was, that whereas a Quemadmodum enim accedere frigidè [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉]— sic non communicare de istis [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪] Chrysost. in 1. C●●. ●0. Hom. 24 chrysostom called man's Indevotion in receiving the Eucharist Dangerous, he named the Contempt of Not participating thereof, Pestilence, and death itself. But not to press you further with other such like speeches of the Fathers, we shall refer you to your Divines of Collen, who in their Council censured those, who Contemptuously refused to Communicate of this Sacrament, to be but b Conc. Provinciate Coloniense fol. 29. Cap. 14. Qui non 〈◊〉 hunc panem vitae, qui de coelo descendit, accipere deside●ant, homines solo nomine Christiani sunt, Capernaitis deterio●es, etiam voluntariè in filium Dei peccantes, 〈◊〉 Co●pori Dominico & sanguini contumeliam inferentes terribilis quaedam expectatio j●dicij manet. only in name Christians, worse (say they) than the Capernaits, offering Contumely (mark we pray you, against your Rhemists) to the Body and Blood of Christ; and are made thereby Obnoxious to the terrible judgement of God. A Conclusion, whereby is satisfied, from your own Doctors, your own main Objection, even in Terminis terminantibus, as the School speaketh: professing both man's Guiltiness of Christ's Body in not receiving this Sacrament, and obnoxiousness thereupon unto God's judgement; as also hath been evinced by the Judgement of S. Augustine, in the former Section. As for the objected speech of Saint * Objected by Bellarmine above §. 2. Cyprian it is of ●asie digestion, because Comparisons of Magis, and Minus, (as learning teacheth) are altered upon all different respects. Some in persecution denied Christ, in the extremity of their fear; and some in their wilfulness profaned the Sacrament of the Eucharist, instituted by Christ. This latter is the greater sinner before God, who judgeth sin not only Secundum actum, aut effectum, according to the wicked deed done; but Secundum Affectum, that is, but much more according to the Depraved Affection▪ and Disposition of the mind of the Doer. In which respect we may well think that judas his traitorous, and scornful Kiss was more heinous than Peter's perjury. Have you not read what the Apostle hath written against such as Apostate from their Faith, and vow of Baptism, saying, * Hebr. 6. 6. They Crucify unto themselves the Son of God? which is much more than Cyprian spoke of the Guilty Receiver of the Eucharist; yet dare not you conclude that therefore there is a Corporal presence of Christ in the Water of Baptism. And as in the Gild of sin; so is it in the Gild of punishment also, which followeth sin, as a shadow doth a Body. In which consideration Augustine doth parallel Baptism, and the Eucharist together, saying, c Aug. lib ●ontra Fulgent. 〈◊〉 Sicut qui mandu●●t, & bibit sanguinem Domini indignè, judicium sibi manducat & bibit. Sic qui indignè accipit Baptis●a, judicium sibi accipit, no● salutem. As he that drinketh the Blood of the Lord unworthily drinketh his own judgement: So doth he who receiveth Baptism unworthily. By these Premises you will furthermore easily discern, that you other Romish Doctors have been no less ignorant than they were arrogant, in concluding it to be an Infallible Consequence, that because Christ receiveth an injury in his Body and Blood, by the abuse of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; therefore his Body and Blood is Corporally present therein. As if they would teach, by the like Inference, that because the Empress d Contumelia illata imagini, ad personam repraesentatam pertinere censetur. Nota est historia Theodo si●, de vindicta quam in Antiochenos exercuit, propter dejectam Imperat●cis imaginem Niceph. lib. 13. Hist. c. 43. Teste Suarez jes Tom. 1. in 3. Thom. Disp. ●4 §. 3. Eudocia was (as is confessed) reproached by the Citizens of Antioch, in their despite wrought upon her Image; therefore was she personally present in the same Image. Yea and yourselves, when you plead for the Reverend use of Images, can be content to take your reason from the e Non enim levem injuriam seculi Principes sibi putabunt illatam in quolibet numismate a Subjectis despici noverint & calcari. Speculum antiquae devot●onis circa Missam, a joh. Cocl●o, ex Walfrido. Cap 8. Example of Kings or Princes; as being injured by the abuse of their pictures. You seem to be zealously bend against all unworthy usage of this ●oly Sacrament; it is well; yet were it better that you saw your own Guiltiness to repentance: Forasmuch as every one is an Unworthy Receiver (in the judgement of Saint f Ambros. in 1. Cor. 11. Indignus est Domino, qui aliter mysterlum celebrat, quam ab ●o traditum est. Ambrose) who doth celebrate it otherwise than was appointed by Christ himself. Your Ten Transgressions of Christ his Institution in this Sacrament (discovered in the First Book) convinceth you of a Tenfold Guiltiness of the Unworthy Receiving of this Mystery. Your last Objection of Guiltiness hath been taken from the Executions of God's punishments. We therefore rejoin. That the Examples of Gods Vindicative Justice have appeared against the Contemners of many holy things, without respect to the Corporal presence of Christ therein. SECT. VI COme we to the open judgements and punishments of God, upon the Contemners of this Sacrament, The visible Testimonies of his Justice, and Arguments of the preciousness and holiness of this Mystery. These we believe to be true, And the Apostle hath made it manifest, where (speaking of the great plague, which fell upon the Corinthians, who had profaned this Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ) he pointeth this out as their sin, saying, * 1. Cor. 11. verse▪ ●0. [Ob hanc causam] For this cause are many sick among you, and many sleep, etc. Yet was not this for no Discerning the Body of Christ to be Corporally in the Eucharist (as your Disputers pretend:) but (to use Saint g Hier. in 1. Cor. 11. Reus erit Corporis & sanguinis Christi, qui tanti mysterij Sacramentum pro vili despe●etit. Hieromes words) They were guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, because they despised the Sacrament of so great a Mystery; (namely) by their profane behaviour at their receiving thereof, as if they had been at the Heathenish Bacchanals: or, as Primasius yields the Cause, h Primas. in ●und. locum. Quia acciperent quasi cibum communem. For that they took it as homely, as their common bread. ⚜ And why should you conceive that to be singular in this one Sacrament, which Saint Hierome teacheth to be common in all other? 2 Hier. Com. in Malach. c. 1. Dum Sacramenta violantur, ipse cujus sunt violatur. When the Sacraments (saith he) are violated, he, whose Sacraments they be, is violated and vilified. ⚜ All can point at the doleful Example of God's vengeance upon judas, the first unworthy Receiver; and therefore the subject of the first Document of God's judgement, notwithstanding that he received but the Sacrament only, and not the very Body of Christ, as Saint Augustine observed, saying; * See after in Sect. 10. He received not the Bread, the Lord, but the Bread of the Lord. And how justly may we think, did God punish certain k Optatus lib. 2. Donatists, who casting the holy Sacrament to Dogs, were themselves devoured of Dogs? Neither have these kinds of God's judgements been proper to the Abuse of this Sacrament only, as you have instructed men to believe; for look into the sacred story, and you shall find the men of * 1. Sam. 5. Ashdod, for modling with the Ark of God, afflicted with emrod's: the men of * 1. Sam. 6. Bethshemesh smitten with a great slaughter, for but peeping into God's Ark. Also * 2 Sam. 6. Vzzah, no Priest; doth but touch the same Ark, (albeit with a good intent, to support it) and he is suddenly struck dead. * Levit. 10. Nadab and Abih● profaned the Altar of the Lord with offering strange fire thereon; and both of them were immediately burnt with fire from Heaven, and perished▪ * Dan. 5. Belshazzar will needs carouse in the sacred boles of God's Temple, in the Contempt of God, and of his Law; and behold a Writing upon the wall, signifying that his Days were at an end, as it came to pass. And yet was there not any peculiar existence of God in these Things. * 2 King. 2. Boys are mocking God's prophet in Bethel, by noting him for a Bald pate, and are devoured by Bears. Th● * Numb. 11. People loathing Manna, are choked with Quailed. If sacred stories will not prevail, peradventure your own Legends will relish better with you: so the● your l Quidam, qui sancti Anthonij Imaginem abolere cupiebant, non tulerunt illud scelus impune, sed è vestigio peste illa, quae dicit●o Antoniuses, correpti interierunt. Bozius de signis. Eccles. lib. 15. c. 12. ex Lindano. Bozius will tell you of them, who were suddenly struck with the plague, called Saint Anthony's plague, one by for seeking to pull down and demolish Saint Anthony's Image. Have you faith to believe this? and can you not conceive a like right Judgement against the Prophaners of the Sacramental Image of Christ himself? Be it therefore furthermore known unto you, that the Sacrament, which is celebrated by Protestants, although▪ it contain no Corporal Union of the Body of Christ, yet is it not so Bare Bread, as your Doctors have calumniously suggested unto you, but that God hath manifested his Curses upon profane Communicants and Contemners of this holy Mystery, which hath in it a Sacramental Union of the Body and Blood of Christ. One example, whereof we read, is of one that being afflicted in Conscience for his abuse of the Sacrament, in receiving it but in one kind, m Manlius locorum Communium Collect. Minister cujusdam Sartoris Lipsiae, Anno 1553. Ob temeratam institutionem divinam quâ praecipitur & species utraque administretur, unicam tantum recipiens, conscientiae crimine oppressus, exclamavit, o (inquit) Ego sum etc. Did cast himself headlong out of a window, and so died. The other is that which he (who now writeth these things) saw and can testify, viz. n Sir Booth of S. John's Coll. in Cambridge. A Bachelor of Arts, being Popishly affected, at the time of the Communion, took the Consecrated Bread, and forbearing to eat it, conveyed and kept it closely for a time; and afterwards threw it over the walls of the College: but a short time after, not enduring the torment of his guilty Conscience, he threw himself headlong over the Battlements of the Chapel, and some few hours after ended his Life. That only the Godly Christians are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ, and thereby United unto him, is not Contrary to the judgement of Ancient Fathers, as is Objected. SECT. VII. YOur Doctor hath performed great diligence in collecting Sentences of Ancient Fathers, sounding to the Contrary, out of 3 Dr Heskias in his Parlia. of Christ. Book 3. cap. 48. f●l. 367. out of chrysostom. Hom. 30. de proditione judae. chrysostom, Speaking (saith he) of the traitor judas his Receiving Christ's Body; and what satisfaction (saith chrysostom) shall we give, if after we have been nourished with this Lamb, we shall be turned into Wolves? And again, 4 B. 2. c. 55. Out of his Hom 51. upon Marc. 14. B. 3. c 46▪ out of the Hom. in Matth. 26. I will suffer rather than deliver Christ's Body to the unworthy Receiver. Thirdly, 5 ●ooke 3. c. 54. out of Hom. 3. in Ephs. Thou art bold with unclean hands and lips to touch the Body of Christ, thou wouldst not kiss the King with a stinking breath. Fourthly, out of Basil 6 Book. 3. c. 47. out of Basil. The ungodly handleth the Body of Christ. Fiftly, out of Theodoret 7 Book. 3. c. 52. out of Theodoret. That Christ gave to judas his precious Body. And Lastly out of Saint Augustine 8 In 1. Cor. 11. Aug. lib. contra fulgent. Donatist. Dr. Heskins in his parliament of Christ. Chap. 48 fol 369. That he that drinketh the Blood of the Lord unworthily, drinketh judgement unto himself. So your Doctor. We shall help him with another Testimony of 9 Aug. lib. 5. de Baptismo. Chap. 8. judas peccavit, corpus Domini non malum accipiendo, sed mal●. & pag 369 Tract. 6. 〈◊〉 Apostolus ait, [Qui edit indigne, Reus est corporis Domini.] de ijs dictum, qui corpus Do mini velut quem libet cibum sumebant, etc. Augustine, that judas sinned in wickedly receiving the Body of Christ. But (not to usurp in this place the Answer of your own Doctors unto the Ordinary speeches of chrysostom in his Homilies noting his Rhetorical Hyperboles) we answer directly from Saint Augustine himself, who hath already told you, that the calling Bread the Body of Christ, is not spoken in the strictness of the truth of the thing, but in a Mystical Signification, that is (said your own Romish * See above ●. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. Gloss) unproperly. The same Answer may serve for the Objected place of 10 Cypri●n de Coena D●m Sacramenta quidem quantum in se sunt, sine propria virtute es●e non possunt, nec ullo modo divina majetas absentat se mysterijs, sed quamvis ab indignis se sumi & contingi Sacramenta permittant, non possunt tamen spiritus esse participes quorum infidelitas tantae sanctitudini contradicit. And a 〈◊〉 after; Sicut corporea natura substantiâ potus & esu●: ita vita spiritus hoc proprio alimento nutritur A little before; Haec m●●er● alijs odo vi●ae in vitam, alijs mortis in mortem, quia om●no justum ut tanto priventur beneficio gra●●ae contemptores Objected by Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ. B. 3. c. 49. Cyprian, wherein furthermore we find a clear Distinction, between the Being of Christ's Body Sacramentally in the Eucharist, (together with the Receiving thereof) and it's Being Spiritually; Concerning the Sacramental virtue (namely the thing signified) which is ministerially offered to every Communicant, in every Divine Sacrament; but that this should be effectual to any Communicant, it is necessary that his Receiving be Spiritual. For Grace is the virtue of Baptism to every Person baptised; yet (according to the terms of Schools) He, who either by his Infidelity, or Impenitency shall Obicem ponere, that is, set a Bar, and resist that Grace, he doth not receive it. A man that receiveth with his hand a politic Instrument, and Scale offered unto him, yet if he yield not his Consent to accept of the Gift itself, thereby conveyed, and in the manner that he ought; it may well be said, that the thing thus bequeathed is really tendered, yet in respect of the Parties Contemning it, although it be touched and taken after the public and Civil touch, yet notwithstanding is he not partaker thereof: For which Cause it is added in Cyprian, that These are therefore the Savour of Life unto Life, to some; and the Savour of Death unto the Contemners of them; which, as the Scripture teacheth, is common to the preaching of the Word of God likewise. Besides, do you not mark tha● Cyprian speaketh of [Sacramenta, Sacraments,] in general: But you have * See above ●. 1. c. 3. §▪ 6. at 〈◊〉 told us, that the two parts of the Eucharist, make but One Sacrament, and then may you, by the same Alchemy, as well extract a Corporal Presence of Christ out of Baptism, as out of the Eucharist. That the ungodly do not Communicate of Christ's Body in Receiving the Eucharist, is the Determinate judgement of Antiquity, and Consequently argueth a No-Corporall presence of Christ, as an Union with him in the Eucharist. SECT. VIII. AFter that you have heard the Symbolical Phrases of the Fathers, so Dissonantly objected for proof of a Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; Harken, I pray you, to their accurate and Determinate Resolutions, to the Contrary. The Fathers (in the Margin) deliver their Judgements sometime in an Affirmative locution, concerning each true Communicant and partaker of Christ's Sacred Body and Blood, saying of every such a one, that 11 Irenae● adversus Haeres▪ lib. 5. confesseth, Caro sanguine Christi nutrita membrum ejus est. He is a member of Christ. So Irenaeus. And 12 Cyrill. Alex. in joh lib. 11. c 26. Vnio haec, per quam nos inter nos, & omnes cum Deo conjungimur. Et l. 4. c. 10. Qui edunt panem vi●ae immortalitatem consequuntur Et lib. 10. c. 13. Christum in nobis habitatu●um. He that eateth this Bread of life is joined with Christ, and Christ dwelleth in him. So Cyrill. And 13 Origen. in Matth 15 Verbum ca●o factum est, quem ●●bum qui comedit vivet i● aeternum, quem nullus malus potest comedere, alioqui scriptum non esset, qui edit, vivet in aeternum. Whosoever eateth of this meat shall live for ever. So Origen. And 14 Ambrose de ijs qui myster. initiant. c. 8. Est panis iste vivus— quem qui comedit vivet in aeternum. It is living Bread, which who so eateth, liveth everlastingly. So Ambrose. 15 Chrysost. Hom. 61. ad. Pop. Antioch. Tradit un●onem ratione cujus dicuntur membra Christi. The Union is that whereby the Eaters are said to be the members of Christ. So chrysostom. Sometime more Emphatically, in a Negative style, 16 Origen. vide paul● sup. Origen, No wicked one can eat this meat. As also Hierome, 17 Hi●ronym. in Malac. Sordidi mundum sanguinem bibunt. [namely Sacramentally, for the sign of his Body, who himself, in lib. 1. contra ●ovianum calleth it, Typus sanguinis; And again in Isai●●● 66. speaking conclusively, saith, Omnes qui non sunt sancti spi●itu & corpore, non comedunt carnem nec bibunt sanguinem eius. All that are not holy, do not eat Christ's Flesh or drink his Blood. We reserve Saint Augustine for a peculiar Section, and our reason is, because your Disputers do so earnestly struggle to draw him to your part; but yet most vainly and unconscionably, as will appear in the Section following. Now whether side, yours, or ours, can more satisfactorily reconcile the seeming Contradictions of the Fathers, in saying and gainsaying the Eating of Christ's Flesh by the Wicked, it will stand with equity and good Conscience, that they may carry the Cause. Your All-answer, and the Answer of you All, is by Distinction, saying, that The wicked eat the Body of Christ Corporally in this Sacrament, by a Bodily Touch; but they eat it not Spiritually: for they eat it not worthy, and in that respect are said not to eat it. So you. As if the Fathers, in denying the Wicked to be partakers of Christ's Flesh, must have meant that they Eat it not worthily. But this Distinction cannot possibly accord with your own Romish Faith, which teacheth a Bodily Eating, with a Bodily Touch by a Bodily. Union of the Eater with the Body of Christ, common as well to judas, as to Peter; to the Profanest miscreant, as to the Godliest Saint: yea to the very Beasts, as really as to Men. If this had been the ancient Catholic Faith, then could not these Fathers so peremptorily and precisely have denied, that any Wicked is joined and united with Christ's Body, and especially when they mention in express terms a Natural and Corporal Conjunction of Christ's Body with the Bodies of the Communicants, by this Sacrament; which you yourselves interpret to be spoken of your Corporal Union by a Bodily Touch; nor would Origen give this his absolute [Non posse,] The Wicked cannot (saith he) be partakers of the flesh of Christ, which is employed in the Say of the rest of the Fathers, when they speak so universally of the True Eater of Christ's Body, * See above in this Sect. n. 11. etc. That every such are joined with him to Immortality. Whereof somewhat more hereafter. But our Protestant Distinction, for reconciliation-sake, is, that the Fathers, in affirming The Wicked to eat the Body of Christ, spoke only Symbolically, to wit, as they called the Sacrament of Christ's Body, the Body of Christ, Sacramentally and Figuratively (as hath been * See Book 2. throughout. copiously and convincingly proved;) So do they affirm the Body of Christ to be Eaten of the Wicked, that is to say, Symbolically, by eating only the Sacrament of his Body: But in affirming that the Godly only eat Christ's flesh, they spoke of the Spiritually-Real Eating by Faith, which was the manner and means Spiritual of being truly United to Christ's flesh, and so to his person, God and man; and so, as his lively members, made Capable of Immortality itself, as well in Body, as in Soul. This our Distinction, we have received from Saint Augustine, for whom both you and we strive, as for the Homer of his age, and Patron of our Faith in this Point, which is to be tried in the Section following. In the Interim, you (who so earnestly plead against this privilege of the Godly to be partakers of Christ's Body, by making the Wicked to be as Capable thereof, as any Sanctifyed member of Christ can be) think but with yourselves, how that Satan is said to have entered into the heart of judas, after his receiving of this Sacrament; and then tell us, if the Wicked be really partakers of Christ's Body, and not to Contradict that Scripture, which denyeth that there can be any Communion with Christ and belial; yet will you infer (in judas,) a Communion between Christ and Satan. That Saint Augustine (to whom both sides appeal) is a Direct Patron of our Protestant Cause, for proof, that the Wicked eat not the Body of Christ: And Consequently an Adversary to the Romish Faith of a Corporal Presence in this Sacrament; noting also an egregious Depravation of a Testimony of Saint Augustine, by a Romish Doctor. SECT. IX. YOu allege, and we as willingly acknowledge, that Saint Augustine said, that the Wicked, (and among others, even judas,) do eat the Body of Christ; which he meant (say we) Metonymically and Figuratively, in as full a sense as if he had flatly said, The Wicked eat only the Sacramental Sign of his Body, because he spoke so, only [Sacramento tenus] that is Sacramentally. Which Distinction, as oft as it is seriously used by us, is as scornfully rejected by you: and therefore it will be requisite, that we produce some Author hereof; who may be beyond all exception: And none, think we, rather than Saint Augustine himself, especially seeing that your Disputers do collect Testimonies out of him, in prejudice of this our defence; which is, that Saint Augustine denied, that the Wicked receive the Body of Christ properly but only the Sacrament thereof. There were Profane Spirits in the days of Saint Augustine, who pampering themselves in their vices, notwithstanding presumed of Salvation, because of their professing of the Catholic Faith, and of their being the Members of Christ's mystical Body, which is his Church, and Concluded thereupon, That they, in communicating of this Sacrament, eat not only the Sacrament, but indeed the Body of Christ. These Saint 8 Aug. lib. 21. de Civitate Dei. cap. 25. Respondemus ijs, qui salutem promittunt ijs, qui Baptismate abluti & corporis & sanguinis Christi participes facti, quomodolibet vixerint, in quacun que haeresi & impietate ●uerint. Respondendum est etiam ijs, qui hanc liberationem polli centur, solis Catholicis, quamvis malè viventibus; qui non solo inquiunt Sacramento, sed reipsa manducaverunt corpus Christi, in ipso scilicer eius corpore constituti, de quo dicunt Apostoli, unus panis, unum corpus, multi sumus. [At the end of the Chapter he concludeth against these from the nature of Truly Eating this Sacrament] Nec ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt, quia non possunt esse membra Christi, & membra meretricis: Christus dicit, Qui manducat meam ●arnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, in me mane●, & ego in eo, Ostendit, quid sit, non Sacramento tenus, sed revera manducare Corpus Christi, manducare, hoc est, in Christo manere— non autem in eo manet, qui non est membrum Christi. Augustine confuteth at large, instancing in the Eating of Christ's Body, saith First, that They cannot be said to eat the Body of Christ, who are not to be reputed the members of Christ: But are then the Wicked to be esteemed, by Saint Augustine, the Members of Christ's mystical Body? Saint Augustine himself saith not, and proveth as much from the Apostles words, [You cannot be the members of Christ, and the members of an Harlot.] How then are they said, in the beginning of that Chapter of Saint Augustine, To eat, and now in the end thereof, Not to eat Christ's Body? This [How] is the very Birds eye, let therefore our aim and level be at this. Those foresaid Profane livers took to themselves this presumption for their Pillow to lean and sleep upon, in indulging themselves in their wickedness. We (say they) do eat, no only the Sacrament, but indeed we eat Christ's Body itself, because we are members of his mystical Body. S. Augustine answereth directly, that Christ by saying [He that eateth my flesh abideth in me,] showeth what it is to Eat Christ's Body [non Sacramento tenus] that is, Not only as concerning the Sacrament, but [Indeed,] So he. Where we have a flat opposition, between that which is called [Revera] a Real eating, against Eating only Sacramentally. So that the Antithesis falling between these Terms, of Eating Christ's Body [Revera, Indeed] by the Godly; and of Eating it only [Sacramento tenus] as much as to say, Not indeed, by the Wicked: It must necessarily follow, that the Wicked do not eat, Indeed, the Body of Christ; and Consequently, that there is [not Indeed] in this Sacrament, the Corporal Presence of Christ, which your Profession teacheth to be Eaten as well of a Wicked man, or of vile Mice, as it can be of the most Faithful member of Christ. Again Saint Augustine once told us, That the Sacrament is called the Body of Christ, not in the Truth of the thing, but in a Significant mystery, which your own Romish Gloss expoundeth to mean, that It is called Christ's Body Improperly. The Second Assertion of Saint Augustine will accord to our former Conclusion, 9 Aug. Tract. 26. in joh. [Qui manducat carnem meam, in me manet.] Qui non manet in Christo, proculdubio non manducat Spritualiter carnem Christi, nec bibit ejus sanguinem, 〈◊〉 carnaliter & visibiliter prem at dentsbus Sacramentum corporis— Tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat. He that abideth not in Christ (saith he) although he press with his Teeth, the Sacrament of Christ's flesh; yet doth he not Eat the Spiritual flesh of Christ. The Observable is, that he saith not, They eat not Spiritually the flesh of Christ; But [They eat not the Spiritual flesh of Christ:] therefore called Spiritual, because it is Hypostatically united unto his Deity. So then, that which they properly Eat, is not Christ Body, but only the Sacrament thereof: allowing no Corporall Touch with the Teeth, but only of the Sacrament itself. Compare we now this Doctrine of Saint Augustine of Pressing only the Sacrament of Christ's Body, and not Christ's Body itself; with your Pope Nicholas his Profession of Tearing of Christ's Body with men's Teeth, * See below Ch. 5. Sect. 1. (above mentioned) and then will it be easy for any man of but ordinary Capacity to collect, that Pope Nicholas, by his Affirmation, meant as directly to proclaim your Romish Article of the Corporal Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament; as S. Augustine, by his Denial, meant utterly to disclaim and abandon it. In the thire place, Saint Augustine, for your better instruction, and apprehension of his meaning, exemplifyeth it by two notable Instances and Comparisons; the First, between two different kinds of Communicants, at our Lords own Table, namely Christ's faithful Apostles, and the Reprobate judas, saying, 10 Aug. Tract 59 in joh. Illi manducarunt panem, Dominum; judas autem panem Domini. They received the Bread, the Lord; (meaning the Body of Christ) But judas, What? He received but the Bread of the Lord (which was but the Sacramental Bread.) The only Answer which your i Resp. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Eucharist●. cap. 13. judas inutiliter edebat, sicut qui comedit et rejicit ●●●sus, dicitur non comedere. Cardinal vouchsafeth is, that Saint Augustine spoke so, because judas eaten the Bode of Christ Unprofitably: as if the Difference of Eating, and, Not Eating, Christ's Body had been between the Different effects, Eating Profitably, and Not Profitably, which you call Spiritually, and not Spiritually, which is the Evasion of others: when as indeed the Comparision is expressly between the divers Subject matters of Eating; The one being Bread, the Lord, which is Christ's Body; the other being the Bread of the Lord, which is the Sacramental Bread; as any, 〈◊〉 but an Halfe-eyed man, may easily discern. Another Comparision remaineth, whereabout we are to have 〈◊〉 Conflict with your Doctor Heskins. A Vindication of a Special Testimony of Saint Augustine, in the same point, against the notorious Falsification of his words, by Doctor heskin's. SECT. X. DOctor Heskins, before that he deliver the Sentence itself, as a man but about to put on his Harness, and yet sounding a Triumph before the victory, prefaceth saying; This place of Saint Augustine presseth our Adversaries so hard, that they have no refuge. So he. The words of Saint Austin (speaking of Moses and other Faithful, in the Old Testament, who in eating Manna, eaten Christ Spiritually, and therefore although they died in Body, yet died not Spiritually in their souls) are these 11 Aug. To. 9 Tract. 26. in joh. Illi manducaverunt Manna, & mor●● non sunt: Quare? quia visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt, nam & hodiè visibilem cibum accipimus; Sed aliud est Sacramentum, Aliud virtus Sacramenti. Quàm multi de Altari accipiunt & moriuntur? unde dicit Apostolus judicium sibi manducant. [Multi manducaverunt Manna & mortui non sunt, Quare? quia visibilem cibum Spiritualiter acceperunt— nam & hodiè visibilem cibum accipimus; sed aliud est Sacramentum, Aliud virtus Sacramenti. Quàm multi de Altari accipiunt & moriuntur?] That is, Many of them (the Jews) eaten Manna and died not; (namely in Soul) But why? Because they understood it Spiritually; For we also, at this day, do receive the visible meat: But the Sacrament is one thing, and the Virtue of the Sacrament another thing. How many do receive from the Altar and do die, and eat damnation to themselves. So he. Namely (say we) Because they eaten only the Sacrament, as the visible meat, and not the Virute, that is the Body of Christ signified thereby: And by this our Paraphrasis Saint Augustine is fully Protestant, professing with us, that the Wicked Communicants do not eat the Body of Christ. Your Doctor, to make Saint Augustine as flatly a Papist as himself, hath framed 12 Dr Heskins in his parliament of Christ. Book 3. c. 48. fol. 368. & 369. The place of Saint Augustine presseth our Adversaries so strictly, that they have no refuge, Saying, Manducaverunt multi qui Domino placuerunt, & mortui non sunt; Quare? quia visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt— Nam & hodie nos accipimus visibilem cibum; [Scd aliud est Sacramentum, aliud virtus Sacramenti, quam multi de Altari accipiunt & mòriuntur. Note here (saith he) the Distinction that Saint Augustine maketh betwixt the Sacrament, and the virtue of the Sacrament, Saying: that the Sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the Sacrament another. Then of the virtue of the Sacrament, he saith, that many do receive it at the Altar and do die. Meaning according to the Saying of the Apostle, that receiving, it unworthily they Die in the Soul, eating and drinking their own Damnation. Now would it be learned of the Adversary, how he will understand Saint Augustine in this word [Virtue.] First certain it is, that it is not taken for the Sacramental Bread: For, that is the other member of the Distinction. Then must it either be taken for the virtue of the Passion of Christ, or for the Body of Christ itself. For in the Sacrament be no more but these three to be received, The Sacrament, The Body of Christ, and the virtue of his Passion. It cannot be taken for the virtue of Christ's Passion, for that is not, nor cannot be Death and Damnation to the Receiver in the receiving, but Life and Salvation. This virtue that Saint Augustine speaketh of is such, that many do die in the receiving of it. It remaineth then, that by this virtue of the Sacrament, is understood the Body of Christ, which many by unworthy receiving do wickedly abuse, and so receiving kill their souls, and Die the Death that judas did. See the Margin) a false Allegation, by depraving the latter part of the Sentence of Saint Augustine, alleging them thus: Nam & multi hodie de Altari accipimus cibum visibilem: [Sed aliud est Sacramentum, aliud Virtus Sacramenti? quam multi accipiunt & moriuntur.] that is, Many now rèceive from the Altar the visible meat; [But the Sacrament is one thing, and the Virtue of the Sacrament another thing, which, many eating die.] And thereupon taking a full Career in a large Discourse (See the margin) argueth thus. By the word [Virtue] (saith he) is meant the Body of Christ: And by [Dying] is meant the death of the Soul; But Saint Augustine affirmeth that the Wicked do eat of this [Virtue] or Body of Christ. So he; Pointblank Contrary to our Interpretation as can be, not but that we confess, that Saint Augustine by this word, Virtue, meant the Body of Christ; and that by Dying, is understood the Death of men's Souls; but that his Assertion affirming Saint Augustine to teach herein That the Wicked Receivers that Dye in their Souls, do eat the Virtue which is the Body of Christ; is a plain Imposture by a Grossly false Construction and Composition of Saint Augustine's words thus: [Aliud est virtus Sacramenti. Qudm multi etc.] wherein you see a full point, as a deep Ditch, to sever virtus from the immediately following word, Quàm, which your Doctor joineth together, whereby the word, Virtus, is Viciously abused. Then is he injurious to Quàm, which being an Adverbe, and carrying the adverbial Accent above-head, as a Badge of Distinction, he notwithstanding turneth into a Pronoune-adjective, Quam; And thirdly, He wrongeth the Construction of them both, in matching, as it were in marriage, a little ᵘ in Virtus, with a great Q in Quàm, whereas every Grammarian, by all the rules of Syntaxis, would forbid the Banes. We know you (Romish Priests) to be reasonable men, and will therefore demand; whether he had not reason, by some other Edition of Saint Augustine, to justify his Allegation, and thereby his own Conclusion, as if Saint Augustine had meant, That the wicked do Dye in their Soul, by unworthy Eating of the Real Body of Christ? We answer, no: It is Impossible he should evade by any such excuse, and lest we may seem to speak partially, we shall offer unto you a witness hereof, without all exception, and that shall be the Author Saint Augustine himself, the Expositor of his own meaning in the very same Tractate, and in his words a little after expressly concluding the Contrary, saying: that 13 Aug. Tom. 9 〈◊〉 joh. Tract. 26. Hic est panis qui de coelo descendit, ut si quis manducaverit ex ipso, non moriatur. Sed quod pertinet ad virtutem Sacramenti; non quod pertinet ad visibile Sacramentum; Qui manducat intus, non foris, qui manducat in cord, non qui premat dente. [He that eateth of this, so fare as concerneth the virtue of the Sacrament, cannot Die; albeit otherwise in respect of Eating only the visible Sacrament, he do die.] Where you see, that none that eat the Virtue, which is (as hath been confessed) the Body of the Lord, die the Death of the Soul. And for better explanation, he distinguisheth, affirming that the Manner of Eating of the virtue of this Sacrament, is, Eating it, [Intus cord, Inwardly in the heart:] and the Eating of the other Sacrament itself, is Eating outwardly, and with the Teeth. Now then, that your Doctor's Error is found to be so palpable, and our Cause so Justifiable, even by the Judgement of Saint Augustine, will you, (as you are reasonable) be also so Conscionable to permit us, upon so great advantage, to retort that Epiphonema, wherewith your Doctor concludeth against us, after his Discourse of this and other Testimonies of Saint Augustine, already Answered, viz. Thus have you received the mind of Saint Augustine, as the Catholic Church teacheth, and not as the malignant feigneth. ⚜ CHAP. III. Of the Capernaitical Heresy, concerning the Bodily Union with Christ by Eating, What it was. 1. That the Error of the Capernaites, john 6. was an Opinion of the Corporal Eating of the Flesh of Christ. SECT I. MAster Brerely, the Author of the Book of the Liturgy of the Mass (lately published, and largely applauded by all of your profession) doth bestow a whole a Mr. Brerely. Lituig. Tract. 2. §. 3. Section in explicating the Error of the Capernaites, so that it must wholly reflect (forsooth!) upon the Protestants. It is not needful we should deny, that in this Chapter of Saint john, Christ doth speak of the Eucharist, which if we did, we might be assisted by your own Bishop b jonsen. Concord. in joh. 6. per totum. jansenius together with divers * There are reckoned by some these Authors, Biel, Cusanus, Cajcian, Tap per, Hesselius, to whom way be added peter Lombard. l. 4. Dist. 8. lit. D, others, whom your Jesuit c Maldonat. in joh. 6. vers. 53. Scio Doctos, scio Catholicos, scio religiosos & prohos viros: sed impediunt nos quo minus in Haereticos acriter invehamur, qui hoc capite de Eucharistra non agi contendunt. Maldonate confesseth to have been Learned, Godly, and Catholic; yet fretteth not a little at them, for so resolutely affirming that In this Chapter of Saint john, there was no speech of the Eucharist, because by this their opposition he was hindered (as the c Maldonat. in joh. 6. vers. 53. Scio Doctos, scio Catholicos, scio religiosos & prohos viros: sed impediunt nos quo minus in Haereticos acriter invehamur, qui hoc capite de Eucharistra non agi contendunt. ) Jesuit himself saith) That he could not so sharply and vehemently inveigh against Protestants. Let it then be supposed as spoken with a relation to a Sacramental Eating with the mouth, as some of the Father's thought; but yet only Sacramentally, and not Properly, as by them will be found true. We return to the Discourse of your Romish Priest, * Above at (a) Christ having spoken (saith he) of Eating his Flesh, and the Capernàites answering [How can he give us his Flesh to eat?] They understood eating with the mouth, yet were (a special observation) never reproved of Christ for mistaking the meaning of his words, a strong reason that they understood them rightly; but for not believing them: and Christ often repeating the eating of his Flesh, and drinking of his Blood, and requiring them to believe, and when he saith [The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth] it is not spoken to exclude the Real Presence, or to qualify his former say, but to admonish them not to judge things by carnal reason, and yet more evidently in the words following [There are some of you that believe not] He said not (saith Saint Augustine) there be some among you that understand not: so plainly did he hereby instruct them not how to understand, but how to believe; for had he, for their better understanding, intended hereby to have qualified, or corrected his former say, as to be meant Eating Spiritually by Faith, he would have explained himself in plain terms, and so have satisfied the jews. Upon which premises I do conclude, that because our Saviour did reprove his Scrupulous hearers not for want of understanding, but for want of belief, it doth from thence, and from other premises abundantly follow that his foresaid promise was not obscure, and Figurative, but plain and literal for our receiving of him without our bodily mouths. Thus fare your celebrious Priest, namely so, as in almost all other his Collections, not understanding the Truth of the matter. His Inferences stand thus. First, Christ reprehended the Capernaites, for not Believing his words concerning Eating his Flesh: but not for not understanding them. Therefore it followeth that they understood his words, of Eating his Flesh, right well. Secondly, They understood his Speech: Therefore Christ, in saying, The Flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth, did not thereby qualify his former speech, to instruct their understanding: Thirdly, They needed no instruction of their understanding; Therefore Christ's words of Eating his Flesh, were not Figurative. Fourthly, these his words were not Figurative: Therefore his words of Eating his Flesh, teach a Corporal Presence thereof in the Sacrament. Each of these Consequences are delivered as ignorantly; as confidently. For common learning teacheth, that there is a double consideration of Truth, in every True speech; the one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is True; the second is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is the Truth, or true sense thereof? To the apprehending of the first is required Belief, whereupon Aristotle gave that Rule to every Scholar, that intendeth to learn the principles of any Art (to wit) Oportet discentem credere: A Scholar is bound to believe. The other point, touching the Truth, or true sense, what it is, is the Object of man's understanding; so that there is a great difference between both these in the case of a Reprehension. As for example; the Master teaching the definition of Logic, saying; It is an Art of Disputing rightly, may justly reprove his Scholar for his not believing it, because his not believing is wilful: so can he not for his not understanding it, for that he therefore learneth, because he doth not understand; except it be, that being taught he either through careless negligence, or else affected ignorance will not understand. This agreeth with the Current of Scripture john 6. verse 38. Christ being the Oracle of Truth, which descended from Heaven to reveal the will of his Father, might justly exact Belief, that whatsoever he spoke to the sons of men was most true: as it is written, The will of God is, that whosoever believeth in me, etc. verse 40. viz. That they must Eat his Flesh. But his hearers could not understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What was the true sense of these words, which caused them to say, This is an hard saying. Therefore (like Scholars of preposterous wits) would they not believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, namely That they were True: hence it was that Christ reproved them for not believing only verse 64. and not for not understanding. Because it was as lawful for Christ's Disciples to be ignorant of his dark say and Parables (which were therefore so spoken, that his Scholars might more earnestly labour to know them) as it was after lawful for them to seek of their Master, (whose precept is to * Matth. 7. 7. Seek, and promise to Find) how to understand them. As it is written; * Matth. 13. 36. His Disciples said unto him, Declare unto us the Parable of the Seed: and Christ answered them, He that soweth, etc. That admirable Doctor of God's Church Saint Augustine will show himself herein an understanding Scholar of Christ (see his Testimony) requiring of all the Disciples of Christ, in the first place, Belief of Christs-words, that they are True, before they did understand what was the Truth thereof: confirming his Rule by that Scripture; Except you believe you shall not understand. O, but) the Capernaites (saith Master Brerely) did understand Christ's words right well. And Saint d Aug. in joh. 7. Tract. 27. [Sunt quidam in vobis, qui non credunt.] Non dixit, sunt quidam in vobis qui non intelligunt sed causam dixit quare non intelligunt, nempè quia non credunt— ut Propheta, nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. Aliquanto superius. Illi putarunt illum erogatu●um corpus suum— Ille autem dixit, se ascensurum in coelum— Certe tunc intelligetis, quia eo modo, quo putatis, non erogat corpus— [Caro non prodest quicquam.] Sicut illi intellexerunt carnem, spiritualiter intellectum vivificat. And Master Brerely out of Augustine in Psal. 98. [Nisi quis manducavetit.] Dixerunt, durus hic sermo; accep●unt illud stultè carnaliter illud cogitaverunt. Augustine contrary to Master Brerely, expressly answereth, They did not understand the Truth of Christ his Speech, but apprehended it foolishly and literally; nor was there ever any Father, or Author, no not in your own Romish Church (we think) before one Master Brerely, that thought otherwise. We are willing your Bishop jansenius may moderate this Difference. (See the 1 jansenius Concord. cap 59 upon the very words of Saint Augustine. [Non dixit, sunt quidam in vobis qui non intelligunt, sed causam dicit quare non intelligunt.] Advertenda differentia inter credentes & non credentes: non credentes ob verba non intellecta offendebantur, credentes verò verba non intellecta humiliter susceperunt, & admirabantur. Margin.) His second Assertion, touching that speech of Christ, [The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit that quickeneth,] That it was not spoken by Christ to Qualify his former terms of Eating his flesh, is very like also to be his own, being flatly contrary to the same Father, whom he avouched; for Saint Augustine saith that Christ, by these words, taught the Capernaites to understand his other words of Eating Spiritually; a Truth which Master Brerely's own great Master, Cardinal f Sed verus & literalis sensus eorum verborum est, carnalis intelligentia nihil prodest, ut exponunt Chrysost. Theophyl. Euthem. nec non Origines. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 14. Bellarmine, hath published, alleging for proof thereof the Testimonies of other Fathers, saying; chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthemius, and also Origen so expoundeth it. So he. ⚜ Who notwithstanding should not have balked Tertullian, where speaking of these Carnal Hearers, he saith, that 2 Tert. de Resurr. Quia durum & intoler abilem sermonem ejus exis●imarunt, quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasset, subjunxit: [Caro nihil prodest] sed ad vivisicandum exequitur quod velit intelligi, spiritum [verba quae locutus sum, sunt spiritus & vita.] They thought that speech of Christ to be hard and intolerable, as if Christ had determined to deliver his flesh to be (Mark) truly Eaten: therefore Christ added, saying The flesh profiteth nothing,] But for giving of Life, is required the Spirit, [The words which I speak are Spirit, and Life.] What can be more plain to prove that the Truly proper Eating must needs signify an Eating Carnal, and Capernaitical. ⚜ Master Brerely his third Inference is; Therefore the words, speaking of Eating his flesh, are not Figurative; which indeed is the main Controversy, for never any but an Infidel denied the speech of Christ to be true; nor yet did ever any, but an Orthodox, understand the Truth of the speech, what it was, that's to say, whether the Truth be according to a Literal sense, (as Master Brerely would have it) or else in a Figurative; which hath been our defence and proof throughout the Second Book, from all kind of Evidences of Truth. Here therefore we are only to deal with Master Brerely, and with his pretended witness Saint Augustine, to whom he would seem to adhere. Notwithstanding (that we may believe Master Brerely himself) h Mr. Brerely Liturg Book 4. §. ●. at Fourthly. If we should attend to the properiety of Speech, Christ's Blood is not properly drunk. So he; albeit Christ his speech was as expressly for drinking his Blood, as for Eating his Body. And he (we suppose) will confess, that every speech, which is Unproper, is Figurative. As for Saint Augustine, he standeth as a sworn witness against the proper and literal sense of Eating Christ's Flesh, calling it * See afterwards, Chap 6. § 3. in the Challenge. Flagitious. Besides, rather than we should want witnesses, to aver this Truth, Divers Jesuits will be ready (in the * See afterward c. 5. Sect. 2. following Chapter) to tell Master Brerely flatly, that if he say the words, Eating Christ's Flesh, are properly spoken, he speaketh False. II. Proving the Objected Saint Augustine to Contradict the Romish Doctrine of Corporal Presence, as Protestantly as can be. SECT. II. MAster Brerely his Conclusion, taken from Christ's speech of Eating, is to infer a Corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament. ⚜ But Saint Augustine upon these words of Christ, john 6. 3 Aug Tract. 27 〈◊〉 joh. [Si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius] quid est ●oc● 〈◊〉 sol vit quod illos moverat? hinc aperuit unde fuerant Scandalizati? Hinc planè, 〈◊〉 in●lliger●nt Illi enim pu●abant cum erogaturum corpus suum, Ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum, utiquè integ●●● Cum 〈…〉 hominis ascendentem ubi erat p●ius, cer●è vel tunc videbitis, qui non eo modo, quo pu●atatis, 〈◊〉 corp●s suum: certò vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia ejus non consumitur 〈…〉. [When you shall see the Son of man ascending into Heaven where he was first] saith that Christ by those words, assoileth the doubt, which troubled and scandalised the Capernaites, who thought that Christ should give them his Flesh to eat; by saying, that he was to ascend into heaven, doubtless with his perfect Body; and that therefore they were not to think that his Body was to be given unto them, in the manner which they conceived, by eating it by Bits and Morsels. ⚜ Wherein you may plainly discern the Argument of Saint Augustine to be, that Christ by his Bodily Ascension would show to the world, that he being Bodily absent from the Earth, his Flesh could not be here Eaten by Bodily Tearing asunder. Thus he against the Capernaites, which must as necessarily Confute the Romanists Corporall Eating his Flesh, whether it be by Chewing, or Swallowing; whether Visibly, or Invisibly it mattereth not; because it being the same Body that ascended, were it Visibly, or Invisibly, it is equally absent from Earth. ⚜ As for the Remainders of that which is eaten of in the Sacrament, the * See above Book 3. c. 3. §. 11. Fathers (as we have heard) have called them Fragments, and Bits. And that which judas received from the hand of Christ, Saint Augustine himself calleth 4 Aug. Tract. 26. in job. 6. Nun Buccella Dominica venenum fuit judae? & tamen accepit; sed non quia male, sed quia male malus. Buccella, a Morsel. If then by the judgement of Saint Augustine, Christ his Bodily Ascension into Heaven, proved that he was not to be Eaten by Morsels here on Earth; then must it thereupon necessarily follow, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, given to judas, which Saint Augustine calleth a Morsel, was not the Body and Flesh of Christ. ⚜ We have no list, after so plain a discovery of Master Brerely his manifold ignorances', to play upon his Person, but rather do pray that at the sight of his Errors he may be reduced unto the Truth, now, after his (fond miscalled) Strong Reasoning to the Contrary. CHAP. IU. That the now Romish manner of Union, and Bodily receiving of the Body of Christ, is sufficiently Capernaitical in Five kinds. SECT. I. TEll us not that no Doctrine of your Church can be called Heretical, before that it be so judged by some General Council: no, for Rectum est Index sui & Obliqui, and therefore an evident Truth, written in the word of God, doth sufficiently condemn the Contrary of Heresy, as well as Light doth discover and dispel Darkness. And this is manifest by the example, which we have now in hand, of the Capernaites, old Heretics, (as all know) even because they are set down in Scripture to have perverted the sense of Christ his words of Eating his Flesh; and thereupon to have departed from Christ, john 6. Your Romish particular manner of Corporall Receiving of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament, is Five-fould. to wit in the 1. Hand, by Touch, for Eating. 2. Mouth, by Eating. 3. Throat, by Swallowing. 4. Belly, by Commixture. 5. By Union in the Inferior parts, unworthy to be named. ⚜ That the First manner of Romish Corporall Union of Christ's Body with the Bodies of the Communicants, by Bodily Touch, is Capernaitical, and the Testimonies of the Fathers are unconscionably urged to the Contrary. SECT. II. Union of Christ his Body, by a Bodily Touch, in general, is the Adequate and Proper Subject of this whole Question, concerning Christ his Conjunction with the Bodies of the Receivers, in this our present Discourse; whether it be Touch by Hand, or Mouth, or Throat, etc. and therefore we begin with the First degree of Touch, as it were by Hand; which, in the generality thereof, may imply all the other Touches. Your Objected Testimonies are, either our of cyril, talking of bringing our Earthly Bodies, by participation of this Sacrament to a 1 Cyril. Alex. lib. 4. in joh. cap. 14. Vnde ut hoc corpus 〈◊〉 cibo sibi cognato gustu, tactu, ad immortalitatem reducetur? Objected by Bell. lib. 2. de Euchar. c. 25. Kin-like Touch of Christ's Body; or from Saint chrysostom, where speaking of this Sacrament, 2 chrysostom, Multi desiderant Videre formam Christi: Ipsum vides, 〈◊〉 Objected by Doctor Heskins in his Parliament of Christ. book 3. c. 54. out of Chrysostom's Hom. 3 in Eph●●. tous; Imput●s manibus ausus es ipsius Corpus attinge. ●. Many (saith he) desire to see the form of Christ, and here Christ yields himself (in this Sacrament) not only to be seen, but also to be felt and Touched. And this will your Doctors needs enforce upon us, for proof of a Corporal Touch, and Consequently a Corporal presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist. But do you not see, in this Testimony, the word [See,] as well as the word [Touch?] and are you now to learn that which you all teach, that Christ's Body, as it is in this Sacrament, is altogether Invisible beyond man's Imagination, and not to be seen of men; no, nor yet to be discerned by the very Devils. Besides, that All men's eyes, by Contemplation, can avouch it to be nothing less than Seen. So that the word [Seen] being so Unproperly and Figuratively spoken, might have given you reason to discern, that he used the same Impropriety of Phrase in the other word [Touch.] Yea, and chrysostom himself will tell you, that hath Rhetoricated as fully in the word Touch; when in an Homily he willed the People 3 Chrysost. in Mart. 14 (To people that were to be baptised.) Tenete pedes Salvato●s To hold Christ our Saviour by the feet. But what need many words, your own Doctor and Dictator of Romish Profession, Aquinas affirmeth also 4 Aquinas part 3. quaest 76. Art. 7. Corpus Christi, à nullo in hoc Sacramento videri potest, corporali oculo, quia ibi est per modum substantiae— neque accidentia Corporis Christi habent immediatam habitudinem ad hoc Sacramentum, neque corpora quae circumstant eum ad modum substantiae, quae non subjacet alicui sen sui, sed nec etiam imagin itioni, sed soli intellectus— Imo nec Daemones possunt videre Christum per intellectum, ut est in hoc Sacramento. That the Body of Christ, as it is in this Sacrament, is not subject to any sense at all. And more particularly, for the sense of Touching, your Vasquez speaking with Assurance, 5 Vasquez Ies. in 3. Tho quaest. 76. Ant. 7 Disp. 191. c. 3. Christus, ut est in hoc Sacramento, neque alium tangere, neque ab allo tangi protest, non incerta ratione dicimus. Christ, (saith he) as he is in this Sacrament, can neither touch, nor be touched of any thing. And your* School again giveth reasons hereof. Therefore can it be no less than a blind Boldness, to urge the word [Touch,] as Properly spoken by these Ancient Fathers, which you have learned, by your Fathers, of the Romish Profession, cannot properly agree with the Body of Christ. What evasion have you now? Forsooth 6 Idem Ibid. quaest. 75. Art. 2. Disp. 180. cap. 9 Tangi dicitur sub pa nis speciebus remote, sicut Christus Luc. 8. [Quis me tetigit] cum tamen nullus ipsum proxime, sed tetigit vestem ejus. The Cause (saith the same Vasquez) is, as it was with Christ when he said Who Toucheth me] when men touched him, but not immediately, but by Touching his garment. So he. But soft Sir, you yourself have already affirmed, That Christ cannot possibly either Touch or be Touched of any thing in this Sacrament, according to the Doctrine of Aquinas, who giveth this reason, for * See the Testimony of Aquinas, here above cited, at (4). That the sense of Touch hath no habitude at all to Christ's Body herein, not so much as by the Accidents, or forms of Bread and Wine, neither mediately nor immediately; which showeth the Dissimilitude of the Comparison taken from Touching Christ's Vestment, (and thereby his sacred Body, which was touched by the same Vestment immediately) and here Touching Christ's Body by the Accidents of Bread, which you grant, do neither Touch Christ's Body, nor are Touched by it; because Christ's Body is therein Simply as a Substance without Accidents. From the Manual Touch, by Handling, we proceed to the Oral, by Eating. ⚜ CHAP. V. Of the Second Romish Bodily manner of Union with Christ's Body by Eating. That the Second Romish Bodily manner of Union with the Body of Christ, which is by Oral Eating, once professed in the Church of Rome, was both Capernaitically-Hereticall, and is also still no less, in the Profession of divers in the same Church. SECT. I. THe first member will appear by the Faith of the Church of Rome, in the Days of Pope Nicholas, whose Faith (about the year 1509.) may be best known by the Oath, which was prescribed by him unto Berengarius, concerning the Eating of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament. Which Oath (as your a Baron. An. 1059. num. 11. Eodem Anno Concilium celebratum est sub Nicolao secundo Generale Romae in Laterano, ad quod reus dicturus causam Berengarius Archidiaconus Andegavens. praesente Nicolao, & coram centum tredecim. Episcopis Confessionem jurejurando firmavit.— Quibus verbis conceptum fuit ejusmodi Berengarij jusjurandum, cum in pleno Concillo detestatus est errorem▪ fidemque Catholicam professus— Ego Berengarius— ore & cord profiteor me eam fidem tenere, quam venerabilis Papa Nicolaus, & haec sancta Synodus tenendam tradidit. Panem & vinum post consecrationem non solùm Sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem Domini nostri jesu Christi esse, & sensualiter non solùm Sacramento, said in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri— Hoc jusjurandum, ab Humbreto Episcopo ●a●d. scriptum, ab ipso Papa, universoque Concilio recognitum atque approbatum antea fuerat. Haec ex Lanfranco— Nicolaus Papa scriptum Ius●irandum inisit per omnes urbes Italiae, Galliae, Germaniae, & ad quaecunque loca, quo fama Berengari● pervenire potuit. Hactenus Baronius. Cardinal Baronius doth certify you from the Stories of those times) Pope Nicholas and a General Council held at Rome revised, approved, and prescribed to Berengarius to take, for the abjuration of his Error, concerning the manner of Eating the Body of Christ; and the same Oath was after published by the Pope's authority throughout all the Cities of Italy, France, and Germany; and wheresoever the Report of Berengarius should come. So he. You cannot now but expect such a form of an Oath, which must be as truly Romish, as either Roman Pope, or Roman Council could devise. Mark then the enjoined tenor of the Oath. I Berengarius Archdeacon, etc. do firmly profess, that I hold that Faith, which the Reverend P. Nicholas and this holy Synod hath commanded me to hold, (to wit) That the Body of Christ is in this Sacrament, not only as a Sacrament, but even in truth is sensibly handled with the hands of the Priest, and broken and torn with the Teeth of the faithful. So the Oath. The same form of Abjuration is registered in the public Papal b Ad perpetuam rei memoriam, etc. Bulla P. ante Gratian. Extat in Decret. de Consecrat. Dist. 2. C. Ego Berengarius. Decrees: and the Body of these Decrees hath been lately ratifyed by the Bull of Pope Gregory the thirteenth. The same Faith was embraced afterwar●●●ds of some c Waldensis, Ruardus, Scotus sine ulla distinctione has locutiones protulerunt, nempe, ita contrectari, manibus frangi, dentibus teri, propriè dici de Corpoit Christi, dicere visi sunt. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 47. Sect. 4. §. Prima quae. Schoolmen, who, without any Distinction, used the same Phrase of Tearing with Teeth. Secondly, of aftertimes, your d Quod si corpus Christi in Eucharistia editur, certe frangitur, dentibusque fidelium teritur; utrumque enim cibo, quem edimus, & conjunctum & proprium. Can. loc. Theol. lib. 5. ca ult. sub finem. Canus asseverantly inferreth of the Body of Christ, that If it be eaten, then certainly it is broken and torn with the teeth. But most Emphatically your Cardinal e Tam miro modo corpus Christi connectitur speciebus, ut unum ex ambobus fiat Sacramentum— Ex hoc sequitur, sicut antea per eadem panis, ita nunc corpus Christi à nobis contrectari, manducari, carni nostrae immisceri, dentibusque teri; & hoc vel illo loco & vase collocari. Quae omnia sive per se, sive pe● Accidens corpori Christi in Sacramento competant, nihil refert, modo certa fide credamus haec tam vere & propriae fieri ac dici circa corpus Christi, quam si in propria specie esset, & non minus quam si in ipso panc fi●rent, non minus quam Crucifixio, etc. attribuuntur Domino Deo in Scriptura, propter conjunctam humanitatem in eadem Hypostasi. Alan. Cardin. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 37. pag. 435. Alan. It is said (saith he) to be torn with the teeth of the faithful, no less properly, than if it should be said so of the Bread, if it were eaten. ⚜ Flat Contradictory to the Determination of your own Pope Innocent the third, teaching that 1 Innocent. lib. 3. de offic. Missae. cap. 21. Dicamus ergo quod forma panis frangitur & ●atteritur, sed corpus Christi sumitur & comeditur. Ea quae notant corruptionem, referentes ad formam panis: ea vero quae notant acceptionem, ad Corpus Christi. Not the Body of Christ, but the forms of Bread are said to be broken, because this notifyeth a Corruption (meaning) of that which seemeth to be Broken and Torn. ⚜ Yea and your Cardinal g Hoc Concilium Generale fuit.— Et haec Abjuratio apertissime significat rem à Concilio definitam sub Anathemate: nec anathematizantur nisi Haereses damnatae ab Ecclesia. Bellarmin. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 21. §. Primum, Bellarmine, for proof of Transubstantiation, hath recourse unto the same Roman Council, which he styleth General, and noteth the thing defined to have been the judgement of the Church; and that the same judgement was Delivered under the Censure of an Anathema and Curs● against the Gain-sayers: and therefore He, with his Disciple Master h In his rejoined. pag. 270. Fisher (who also allegeth the same) are Challengeable to hold it according to the literal sense thereof; because it will not admit any qualification, by any Trope or Figure that can be devised. First, because the words are purposely set down, as a Form of Recantation and Abjuration of Heresy: but (as i Nullae sunt exactiores formulae loquendi, in materia fidei, quam eae quibus utuntur ij, qui Haeresin abiurant. Bellar. lib. 2. de Imag. Sanct. cap. 21. §. Secundo nulla. you confess) There are no forms of speech more exact and proper in phrase, concerning the matter of faith, than such as are used by them that abjure Heresy. And Secondly, for that this Form of words, of Tearing with the teeth the flesh of Christ, was also made purposely for Abjuration, and abandoning all Figurative sense, for the Defence of the literal Exposition of the words of Christ [This is my Body, etc.] therefore was it taken literally: But what (think you) will Calvin say to this your (then) Romish form of Profession, in the literal sense? k Calvin. lib. 2. Defence. Sacram. Nun centum potius mortes prae optandae sunt, quam ut quis tanti Sacrificij monstro se implicet? pag. 25. A man should rather wish to die on hundred times (saith he) than once to entangle himself in a Doctrine, so monstrously sacrilegious. Which Censure of his we now endeavour to make good. That the foresaid Roman Faith, of Properly Eating the Body of Christ, is Capernaitically-Hereticall; as is proved by some of your own Doctors of the now Romish Church. SECT. II. YOu have heard of Berengarius his Abrenuntiation of Heresy, according to the faith of the (then) Roman Church, in Breaking the Body of Christ, and tearing it sensibly with their teeth. Harken now a little, and you shall hear, in a manner, an Abrenuntiation of that (then) Roman faith, by denying it to be either properly Broken or yet really Torn, even by the Jesuits themselves. l Caro Christi, dum in hoc Sacramento manducatur, non dentibus atteritur, quia tangi nequit, estque immortalis & impartibilis. Manducatio autem realis requirit contactum rei edendae, ut possit dividi & transmutari. Quod hic de Corpore Christi fieri nequit. Salme●on. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 20. pag. 136▪ Real Eating (saith your Salmeron) requireth a real touch and tearing of the thing which is eaten: but the Body of Christ is not torn with teeth, or touched by them that eat him, because he is herein impartible. So he. Your Jesuit and Cardinal Bellarmine is as it were in a maze, saying and gainsaying, as you may perceive: yet notwithstanding, whether he will or no, must perforce confess no less, when he saith that m Si de ratione manduc●tionis esset attritio dentibus facta, Dico, Christi corpus vere & proprie manducati, etiam corpore in Eucharistia, non quod attritio est necessaria ad manducationem, satis est enim transmissio in stomachum deglut●endo Sin verò attritio dentibus facta sit de ratione manducationis: Dico Christi Corpus proprie manducari, non tropice: non enim dicimus corpus Christi, absolute manducari, sed manducator sub specie panis: quae sententia significat species manducari visibiliter & sensibiliter, ac promde dertibus atteri. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euch. ca 11. §. Respon. Corpus. The Body of Christ is not absolutely eaten, but eaten under the forms of Bread: and that is to say (saith he) the forms of Bread are sensibly and visibly eaten. So he. If this imported a literal manner of Eating, then might your Cardinal have said as literally of himself; My Clothes are torn, therefore my Body is rend in pieces. Not to trouble you with the Cardinal's Philosophy, that talketh of Eating and Tearing of Colours. But to the point. If only the Accidents of Bread be (as he saith) sensibly eaten, then was Pope Nicholas his Prescription of Eating Christ's Body sensibly, in your Cardinal's opinion, not True. And upon the same Ground it is, that your jesuit n Frangi, metaphorica, & non propria locutio est, colligitur ex Thoma, qu. 77. Art. 7. & patet, quia fractio proprie & in rigore significat divisionem & discontinuationem partium: quae constat non fieri in partibus corporis Christi, Suarez in Thom. qu. 75. Disp. 47. Art. 1. §. 4. Suarez, out of Thomas, and other Schoolmen, affirmeth the word [Broken] to be a Metaphorical phrase, not properly belonging to the Body of Christ; because it requireth that there should be a Separation of the parts of that which is properly broken. So he, as also your * Canus, see in the former Section. Canus hath concluded. And your o Si propriè loqui velimus falsae sunt hae propositiones, Corpus Christi manducatur a nobis, Corpus Christi devoratur, Corpus Christi frangitur, quia ipsi modi, qui his verbis significantur, non conveniunt Copori Christi, quod est in hoc Sacramento: sed hae sunt verae, Recipitur à nobis, sumitur à nobis. Maldon. Ies. Tom. 1. de Sacram. Tract. de Euch. pag. 144. Verè sumitur, sed non atteritur. Ibid. pag. 143. jesuite Maldonate is so bold as to tell you, that these Propositions, The Body of Christ is Eaten, is Broken, Torn with the Teeth, or Devoured of us (properly taken) are false. Thus your jesuites, as if they had expressly said, that to think the Body of Christ to be eaten, torn, or devoured (properly taken) is a Carnal, Capernaitical, and (as your own p Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarij, in majorem Haeresin incides quam Ipse fuerit. Igitur omnia referas ad species ipsas, etc. Gloss. apud Gratian. de Consecrat. Dist. 2. c. Ego Berengarius. Gloss in Gratian concludeth) an Heretical opinion. Will you have any more? It is but the last day, in respect, when q Ob. Scoto-Britannus: Apud Pontificios— corpus Christi Cyclopum dentibus teri. Resp. Dansqueius Theolog. Canon. in Scuto B. Mariae Aspricollis. An verò mortales artus Corporis Christi dentibus teri ore blasphemo, ment nequissimâ potes comprobare? non magis id facias quàm Caiphas, cùm tunicam à pectore laceravit. one of your grave Critics so much abhorred the conceit of proper Tearing Christ's Body, that he called the Objecting hereof against your Church, in his blind zeal, Blasphemy: and answereth, that you do no more Tear Christ's Flesh, than Caiphas tore his, when he rend his Clothes. The case than is plain enough, for Confutation of your more ancient Romish Faith. That the former Romish and Popish Faith, for the Manner of receiving of the Body of Christ, is at this day but somewhat altered; yet miserably inconstant and Faithless. SECT. III. Protestant's may have in this place just matter of insultation against your Romish Professors, to prove their Infidelity in that which they seem to profess. As first, that the Ground of your Doctrine of Corporal presence is the literal and proper interpretation of the words of Christ, when he said [Take, eat, this is my Body:] yet now are you compelled to say, that Properly eaten, is no proper, but a false sense. Your Second Doctrine is, that the Judgement of a Roman Pope, in a Roman Council, in a matter of Faith, is Infallible. Notwithstanding Pope Nicholas, with his Roman Council, is found to have grossly erred in a tenor of Abjuration, which of all others (as hath been confessed) is most Literal, and was therefore purposely devised against a Figurative Sense of the words of Christ; and forthwith published throughout Italy, France, Germany, etc. to direct men in the Faith of sensual Eating, breaking, and tearing the Flesh of Christ with their teeth: yet notwithstanding, your common Judgement being now to reject such phrases, taken in their proper Signification, and in a manner to abrenounce Berengarius his Abrenunciation, what is, if this be not an Argument that either you say, you care not, or else you believe you know not what? Let us go on, in pursuit of your Doctrine of the Corporal manner of Eating, which you still maintain, and it will be found to be Capernaitical enough. And lest that you may evade, by pretence of Not- Chewing, we add as followeth. That the Oral Eating of the Sacrament, was anciently by Chewing. SECT. iv CHewing the Sacrament with the Teeth was the form of Eating, at the time of Christ his Institution, as is proved by your own * Suarez. See above, Book 1. Cap. 1. Sect. 4. Confession, in granting that the unleavened Bread, which Christ used, was [Glutinosus,] that is, gluish, clammy, and such as was to be cut with a knife. But that the same manner of Eating, by Chewing, was altered in the Apostolical or Primitive times, is not read of by any Canon; yea or yet Admonition of any one Father in the Church, whether Greek, or Latin: among whom, Saint Augustine called the manner of eating, a * See above, cap. 2. Sect. 9 Pressing the Sacrament with the Teeth. That also Chewing continued in the Romish Church till a Thousand and fifty years after Christ, is not obscurely employed in the former tenor of the Recantation of Berengarius, prescribed by the same Church; which was to eat (as you have heard) By tearing it with teeth. And lastly, that this hath since continued the ordinary Custom of the same Church, is as evident by your Cardinal Alan, and Canus, * See above in the former Section. who have defended the manner of Eating, by Tearing. Nor was Swallowing prescribed by any until that the queasy stomaches of your r Hostiam saliuâ reverenter liquefactam in corpus dimittat: non est enim dentibus terenda, vel palato admovenda, sed ante ablutionis sumptionem deglutienda. Coster. Ies. Institut. lib 1 cap. 5. Jesuits, not enduring Chewing, persuaded the Contrary. Which kinds of Eating, whether by Chewing; or Swallowing of Christ's Flesh, being both Oral, none can deny to have been the opinion of the s Nimis carnaliter intelligebant (Discipuli Capernaitae) credentes ejus carnem comedi 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 sixth Chapter following, in its due place. That the Corporal and Oral Eating of Christ's Flesh is a Capernaitical Heresy, is proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers. SECT. V SOmetime do Ancient Father's point out the Error of the Capernaites, set down john 6. concerning their false interpreting the words of Christ, when he speaketh of Eating his Flesh, which they understood literally. But this literal 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 [He that hath not a Sword, let him buy one: etc.] but this latter is altogether Figurative, as you know, and hath a Spiritual 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 Capernaitical conceit of Corporall Eating of Christ's Flesh, will have us to observe, that Christ after he spoke of his Flesh, did forthwith 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. ⚜ His Reason, Reduced into Logical form, must have been this, against the Capernaites (who imagined a Carnal Eating of Christ's Flesh.) That which was to ascend into Heaven, could not be eaten Corporally on Earth: But Christ said that his Body should ascend into Heaven. And therefore signified thereby that he could not be eaten upon Earth; which ought to have been a Satisfactory reason and Answer to the Capernaites themselves. ⚜ Tertullian likewise giveth the reason of Christ's saying, [It is the Spirit which quickeneth] because the Capernaites so understood the words of Christ's 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 Error to dream of a truly Corporal Eating. d Aug. in job 6. [Non moritur] Non qui panem premit dente, sed qui man ducat in Cord. 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 sixth of john, bringeth in Christ expounding his own meaning of Eating his Flesh, and saying, You are not to eat this flesh which you see, I have commended unto you a Sacrament, which being Spiritually understood shall revive you. Plainly denying it to be Christ's Body which is Eaten Orally; and then affirming it to be the Sacrament of his Body: and as plainly calling the manner of Corporall Eating, A pressing of Bread with the teeth. We say Bread, not the Body of Christ. For, when he cometh to our Eating of Christ's flesh, he exempteth the Corporal Instruments, and requireth only the Spiritual, saying, e Aug. apud Gratian. de Consecrat. 〈◊〉 2. Vt quid. Quid pa●● dentem & ventrem? crede & manducasti. Ex Aug. de remed. 〈◊〉 §. ut quid. Why preparest thou thy Tooth? It is then no Corporall Eating: and he addeth; Believe, and thou hast eaten. Saint Augustine goeth on, and knowing that Corporall Eating of any thing doth infer a Chewing, by dividing the thing eaten into parts (as your own jesuit hath * See above, Book 5. cap. ●. §. 2. confessed) lest we should understand this properly, he teacheth us to say f Idem rursus apud Gratiam ibid. Christus manducatus vivit; quia resurre●t it occi●us: nec, quando mandu●●us, parts de illo facimus, & qu●dem Sacramento id ●it: no●ut fideles quemadmodum manducent carnem Christi, per parte● manducatur in Sacramentis m●net integer c●●lo & in cord. Ex Aug. Serm. de verbis Evangeli●. Christ is not divided into parts. Contrarily, when we speak Sacramentally, that is, Figuratively, and improperly, he will have us to grant that Christ his Body is divided in this Sacrament, but remaineth whole in Heaven. Say now; will you say that Christ's Body is Divided by your Eating the Eucharist, in a literal sense? your own jesuits have abhorred to think so. And dare you not say that in Eating this Sacrament you do Divide Christ's Body, in a literal sense? then are you to abhor your Romish Literal Exposition of Christ's speech, which cannot but necessarily infer a proper Dividing of the flesh of Christ. ⚜ We may not conceal the Evasion, which your Disputers have devised, for blunting the Di●t of this notable Sentence. You see not the same Body (saith Saint Augustin) 1 Bellarm. lib. 2, de Eucharist cap. 24. ●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 manner (namely) not in a visible and mortal 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? He addeth, I have commended to you a Sacrament to be eaten. Therefore the Opposition used by Saint Augustine, is to Distinguish between Christ's Body, and the Sacrament of Bread; as between Substance, and Substance; for he said not to eat his Body As you see it, to signify the manner of Eating invisibly: but you are not to eat That which you see; as denying Christ's Body to be the matter of their Sight; even as Saint Augustine doth often express himself, as well in that place where he called his Body, The Bread, the Lord: and the Sacrament, The Bread of the Lord: like as your own 2 Gabriel Bi●l, Lect. 80. lit. n. Non, cum manducamus, parts de illo facimus, & quidem in Sacramento id fit: intelligit nos non partem corporis Christi sumer●e, sed Sacramenti. Schoolmen discerned his meaning in the other words, of Eating▪ as yet not making parts of his Body, but of the Sacrament of his Body. ⚜ Lastly, do but call to mind Saint * See above Chap. §. 2. 〈◊〉 Augustine's Observation (just the same with the now-Cited Testimony of Athanasius) to wit, Christ's mention of his Ascension in his Body from Earth, lest that they might conceive of a Carnal Eating of his flesh; and these Premises will fully manifest, that Saint Augustine's Faith was fare differing from the now Romish, as Heaven is distant from Earth. We still stand unto Christ's Qualification of his own speech, when he condemned all Carnal sense of Eating his flesh, saying thereof, The flesh profiteth nothing, etc. For Conclusion of this Point, you may take unto you the Commentary of Saint i Chrysost. in johan. 6. (Gracè) Homi. 47. (Latinè) Homil. 46. [Verba, quae ego locutus sum, Spiritus & Vita.] Su●ritus, hoc est, Spiritus alia, hoc enim nihil carnale, nullam consequentiam carnalem habentia: [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 to non prodest quicquam.] Quid hoc? nunc de ipsa carne dixit? absit, sed pro carnaliter● audite de ijs, qui carnaliter accipiunt quae dicuntur— Quomodo non prodest quicquam caro, sine qua nemo potest rivere? vide quod non de carne, sed de carnali auditione dictum est. chrysostom, as followeth; Did not Christ therefore speak of his flesh? fare be it from us (saith he) so to think! for how shall that flesh not profit, without which none can have life? but in saying [The flesh profiteth nothing] is meant the carnal understanding of the words of Christ. And that you may know how absolutely he abandoneth all carnal understanding of Christ's words, of Eating his flesh, he saith, They have no fleshly, or natural Consequence at all. So he. Ergo, say we (to the Confutation of your Romish Belief) no Corporall touch of Christ in your mouths, no Corporall Eating with your teeth, no Corporall Swallowing down your throat; how much less any Corporal mixture in your Bellies or Guts, as your Roman * See Chapt. 6. Sect. ●. following. Church professeth. CHALLENGE. WHether therefore the Capernaites though to eat Christ's Flesh raw, or roasted; torn, or whole; dead, or alive; seeing that every Corporall Eating thereof, properly taken, is by the Fathers held as Carnal and Capernaitical, it cannot be that the Romish manner of Eating should accord, in the Judgement of Antiquity, with the Doctrine of Christ. Notwithstanding you cite us to appear before the Tribunal of Antiquity, by objecting Counter-Testimonies of Ancient Fathers; and we are as willing to give you Answering. The Extreme unconscionableness of Romish Disputers, in wresting the Figurative Phrases of Ancient Fathers to their Oral manner of Receiving the Body of Christ, proved by just evidences out of the Fathers themselves. SECT. VI IT is a miserable thing to see how your Authors delude their Readers, by obtruding upon them the Sentences of Fathers in a literal sense, against the evident Expressions of the same Fathers to the Contrary. I. k Origen. Hom. 5. 〈◊〉 divers. Script. Loca. Sub tectum tuam ingreditur, imitare Centurionem, & dic non sum dignus, Domine, etc. Objic. Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 8. Non vidi Adversariorum Responsum ad hoc. [Yea Resp. Orig. ibid.] Intrat nunc Dominus sub tectum credentium duplici figurâ seu more; quā●● enim sancti Ecclesiarum A●●istites sub tectum tuum 〈◊〉, tunc ibidem Dominus per eos ingreditur, & tu sic existimes, tanquam Dominum suscipiendum. [The● followeth the other figure.] Cum hic sanctus cibus, & incorruptibile epulum, etc. Origen (say you) will have the Communicant to think himself unworthy, that the Lord should enter under the roof of his mouth. Right, he saith so, but in the same sense wherein he equivalently said, that He who entertaineth a Bishop and Spiritual Pastor, must know that now Christ entereth under his roof, namely, Christ, Figuratively. II. chrysostom (who speaketh in the highest strain) saith that l Chrysost. Hom. 60. ad Pop. Antioch. Mul●i dicunt se velle videro ejus formam, ipse concedit, non tantum videre, sed & tangere, & monducare, & dentibus terere. So Chrys●t. ibid. Lingua rubescit sanguine Christi. Et lib. 3. de Sacerd●●io, & ●om. 47. in joh. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Spiritualia sunt. We see, touch, eat, and tear with our teeth the Flesh of Christ. True, but, to note that he spa●e it in a Rhetorical & Figurative sense, he equivalently saith also in the same place; Our tongues are made red with his Blood. And elsewhere, to put all out of question; * See his testimony in the former Section at (i) These (saith he) are Spiritual, and contain no Carnal thing. Yet what need you our Comment? Your Josuit Maldonate would have gladly prevented us, 3 Dentibus teri, quemadmodum Chrysost. locu●us est, haec non postunt nis● Sacramento tenus intelligt, non propri●. Maldon. Ies. in Matt. 26. 26. The words of chrysostom (saith he) of tearing the Flesh of Christ, cannot be otherwise understood, than Sacramentally. Even he, which concluded but now, that to say * See above, Ch. 4. Sect. 2. We eat Christ's Flesh, properly, is a false proposition. ⚜ And touching the other Phrase, S. Augustine as Emphatically of Baptism, 4 Aug. in joh. Tract. 11. Vnde rubet Baptismus, nisi Christi sangu●e consecratus? It is red with the Blood of Christ. ⚜ III. Gaudentius (say you) saith o Gaudent Promisit corpus suum; por●igit tibi corpus suum, corpu● accipis, De pane fecit corpus proprium, etc. Obj. Bellar lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 21. [Albeit a little after upon these words. Nist manducaveritis:] Volu●t Christus animas nostras precioso suo sanguine sancti●icari● per imaginem pretiosae passionis, qu● omnes fideles populi exempla passio●s ant oculos h●bentes quotidie gerentes in manibus, & o'er sumentes ac pectore, redemptionis nostrae opas indelebili memo●â teneamus. Gandent. Tract. 2. de Ratione Sacramentorum. We receive the Body which Christ reacheth, making of Bread his Body. We grant he said so, but he interpreteth himself, saying; Christ would have our souls sanctified with the Image of his Passion. Again, scan but his former words, Christ made his Body [de Pane, of Bread] in the literal Sense, and it will infer a Body of Christ not made of the flesh of the Virgin. IU. But p Aug lib. ● Con. adver. Legist Proph. cap. 9 Christum sanguinem dantem, fideli corde ac ore suscipmus. Ob. Bella●. quo supra cap. 24 §. In Sexto. Augustine teacheth that We receive the Body of Christ both with heart and mouth. Which your q Notandum, non corde tantum, sed etiam ore dici— Bellar. Ibid. [yet it followeth immediately in S. Augustine, giving this general Rule for such Say●ngs●] Agi in omnibus Scripturis secundùm sanae fidei regulam, ●igurativè dictum vel factum si quid exponitur de quibus●ibet rebus & verbis, quae in sacris paginis continentur, expositio illa du●atur, etc. [Teaching in all other Scriptures (as in this) a figurative sense, wherein any matter of Horror, or Turpitude may seem to be contained] Objector noteth, as being very not able for the Oral Receiving, Corporally; albeit the same S. Augustine immediately expresseth, that this, & all other such speeches are to be understood figuratively; and unproperly. V But Pope Leo is brought in, saying [ r Leo Ser● 14. de passione Christi. Ipsum per omnia & spiritu & catne gustemus. Ob Bellar. quo supra, cap. 28. [Gustemu●●, pro Gestamus; for he speaks of Baptism lawfully administered, where by we are said to put on Christ, Gal. 3. By which, saith he, Corpus regenerati fiat caro Crucisixi. Other places objected out of Leo we grant, as Serm. 6. de 〈◊〉. 7. Hoc ore sumitur, quod cord●. creditur: And so say we; Ore, Sacramentally] Gustamus] We taste with our Flesh the Flesh of Christ. Nay, but you have corrupted his Saying, for his word is [Gestamus] We bear or carry it, (namely) by being Baptised (as there is expressed) whereof the Apostle said; You have put on Christ. VI But Pope Gregory (say you) saith; s Greg Papa Hom. 22. in Evang. Qui sanguis super ●●●que postem ponitur, quando non solum ore corpous, sed etiam ore cordis hauritur. Ob. Rollar. lib 2 de Euch. cap. 23. [But Gregory a little after of Baptism,] Et in superlim nare domus agni sanguinem po●imus, quia crucem illius passionis in front portamus. The Blood of Christ is sprinkled upon both Posts, when we receive it both with heart and mouth. Which (we say) he spoke with the same Impropriety of speech, wherein he addeth equivalently, that The Blood of Christ is sprinkled upon the upper posts, when we carry in our foreheads (by Baptism) the Sign of the Cross. VII. But t Isych. l. 6. in Levit. c. ●2 Per ignorantiam percipit, qui nescit quia corpus hoc & sanguis est secundùm veritatem, etc. Ob. Bellar quo supra [Yet the same Isych. lib. ●. in Levit. cap. ●. Carnem aptam cibo feclt post passioned: si enim non fui●●et crucifi●us, sacrificium ejus corporis minime concederemus, comedimus autem nunc cibum su●ences memoriam passionis. None receiveth (saith Hesychius) save he that perceiveth the truth of his Blood. But how? even as he himself there addeth, By receiving the memory of his Passion. ⚜ In all the former Sentences of Saint Augustine, Pope Leo, and Pope Gregory, all that we read of is, that the Body of Christ is Received in the Sacrament, not only with the heart, or by Faith; but also with the mouth. And so will any Protestant affirm, not only in the same words of the Fathers, but also in their own genuine Sense: if Saint Augustine, who is objected in the first place, may interpret his other Contests, who (in a Section before) says, as you have heard, that Bread is called Christ's Body, not in the Truth of the things, namely, of propriety of speech, according to the letter, but in a Significant mystery, or Mystical Signification. To signify unto us that Christ's Body is in our heart Really, and in our mouths Sacramentally. ⚜ VIII. But Optatus tells us u Optat. Milevit. lib. 6. contr. Parmen. In Altaribus Christi membra sunt portata— Altar sedes est corporis & sanguinis Christi— Immane facinus quando fregistis calices sanguinis Christi. Obijcit Bellarm. quo supra. Albeit the same Optatus paulò post; judaeos estis imitati, illi injecerunt manus Christo, à vobis passus est in Altari. Idem. Ibidem. Altaria, in quibus membra Christi portata sunt.— Paulò post; Dum impiè persequimini manus nostras illic, ubi corpus Christi habitabat, fecistis & vestras. Hoc modo judaeos imitati estis, illi injecerunt manus Christo in cruse, à vobis passus est in Altari. that The members of Christ are upon the Altar: And that The Altar is the Seat of his Body and Blood: and that it is an bainous thing to break the Chalices of the Blood of Christ, etc. We grant these to be the Phrases of Optatus, indeed, which you have objected: but, alas! my Masters, will you never learn the Dialect of Ancient Fathers, after so many examples, as it were lights, to illuminate your judgements? Wherein (as other Fathers have done) Optatus will instruct you in his own language, who presently after inveighing against the same Donatists, saith; Christ is now beaten by you on the Altar. So he; by the Hyperbole making Christ to be beaten, wherewith he said Christ was seated on the Altar. Yea and that the Members of Christ are carried also on the same Altars: meaning thereby the Faithful Communicants, as is confessed by your own * Gabriel. Albispin. Episc. Aureliens. Not. in illud Caput [Membra Christi.] Praeter corpus Christi, quod in Altari offertur, fideles etiam qui cum eo corpore uniti & adunati sunt, offeruntur. [〈◊〉 nostras.] Id est, Sacrificia nostra. [Fecistis & vestras.] Id est Sacrificia vestra. Bishop (in the margin.) Namely in the same Rhetorical sense, wherewith x Aug. Vos estis in Calais, vos estis in mensa. Teste Beda in 1. Cor. 10. Augustine said of all the Faithful Christian Communicants: You are on the Table; you are in the Cup. IX. Augustine doubted not to say of this Vi●●● word, the Sacrament of Christ, y De Consecrat. Dist. 2. Can. Cùm frangitur.— Dum sanguis de chalice in or● fidelium funditur. Aug. The Lord's Blood is po●●ed out into the mouths of the faithful. And Hierome is as bold to say of the audible word of God, that when it is preached z Hier. in Psal. 147. Quando audimus sermonem Dei, 〈◊〉 Christi & sanguis ejus in auribus fidelium sunditur. The Blood of Christ (by it) is poured into the ears of the Hearers. Master a Master Brerely. Cyprian. de Coena Dom. Christus pincerna porrexit hoc p●culum, & docuit, ut non solùm exterius hoc sanguine frueremur, sed & inte●ius asp●isione omnipotenti animâ muniremur. Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 4. Brerly would think much not to be suffered to put in his Vie, in the name of Cyprian; We are joined with his Blood, not only outwardly, ' but also inwardly our souls are fortified with the Sprinkling thereof. So Cyprian. What meaneth this? not only outwardly, meaning in Body (saith Master Brerely, and addeth) which convinceth our Bodliy Receiving thereof So he. From the same Cyprian, who, in the same place, saith in the same style, b Cyprian, paulò post. Cruci haeremus, sanguinem sugimus, & intra ipsa Redempptoris vulnera figimus linguam, etc. We cleave to his Cross, suck his Blood, and fix our tongues within the wounds of our Redeemer, which are all Sacramental, Allegorical, and Tropological Phrases; as Cyprian will clearly express himself, in respect of our outward man, and spiritually of the inward. We shall desire Cyprian to be Moderator between us in this question, before we come to an end of this Book. CHALLENGE. BY this time it may appear that all your so serious and exquisite Collections out of the Fathers, for proof of a Corporal presence of Christ in this Sacrament, and Union with the Partakers thereof, are found by this Encounter of just Parallels, to be indeed the idle imagination of your Teachers, and the erroneous Intoxications of all their Disciples, who yield assent unto them. For to interpret the Figurative speeches of the Fathers literally, is all one, as to stick Goose-feathers in their Caps, and plainly to befool them; by making them of all others the most egregiously absurd (as you have already heard,) and no less fond in the outward letter, than are these others that follow; (to wit) of Gaudentius; c Gaudent. Tract. 2. Jubemur Caput Divinitatis ejus cum pedibus Incarnationis manducare. We are commanded to eat the head of Christ's Deity, with the feet of his Incarnation. Or the saying of Saint Hierome; d Hier. in Psal. 147. Ego corpus jesu Evangelium puto— Et cum dicit [Qui bibit sanguinem meum] licet in mysterio possit intelligi, tamen verius sanguis ejus, sermo scripturarum est. When Christ said, He that drinketh my Blood, although it may be understood in a Mystery, yet the truer blood (saith he) is the word of Scripture. Or as before him, Origen; e Origen. in Numb. 23. Hom. 16. Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi, non solum Sacramentorum ritu, sed cum Doctrinae ejus verba recipimus, in quibus vita consistit: sicut ipse dicit, joh. 6. Verba mea Spiritus sunt & vita. We drink the Blood of Christ (saith he) not only by the rite of a Sacrament, but also in receiving his word, whereof it is said, My words are Spirit and Life. So they. And so just Cause have we to complain of the unconscionableness of your Objectors, by their so often abusing the Testimonies of these holy Fathers; insomuch that you had need of the often Admonition of your own Senensis: f Saepe monuimus non esse Concionatorum verba semper in rigore accipienda: multa enim Declamatores per Hyperbolen enunc●t & inculcant vel occasione persona●um inducti, vel affectuum impetu, vel orationis cursu rapti, Hoc interdum Chrysostomo contigit Sixtu● Senenfis. Biblioth. lib 6. Annot. 152. I have often given warning (saith he) that the Say of Fathers be not urged in the rigidness of their words, because they use to speak many times HYPERBOLICALLY, and in excess, being either transported by the vehemency of their Affections, or carried with the Current of their Speech. So he. ⚜ Thus have we satisfied the objected Testimonies of the Fathers, by the Fathers own Equivalent Phrases and Expressions; All which challenge your Objectours of unconscionableness, for alleging them contrary to their own Sense. Our next Section of unconscionableness will pierce deeper, by proving that you have alleged the foresaid Testimonies of the Fathers against your own more direct, and free Confessions. The unconscionableness of the Romish Disputers, in Objecting the former Testimonies of Ancient Fathers: from the Confessions of the Romish Doctors themselves. SECT. VII. THis Section is to be divided into two Classes of Authors: One is of the Say of the Fathers, which you have earnestly objected: And the other must be of the Confessions of your own Doctors, as well jesuites as others, by whom the literal sense of the same Say and Phrases of the Fathers, are as liberally and expressly rejected. The Terms of the Fathers, which have been alleged in the two former Sections were of these kinds; to wit, Christ's Body, received in this Sacrament, is Tasted, Divided, Broken, Torn with the Teeth; And his Blood Sprinkled, and Poured into our mouths, and Drunken. If any Protestant should say that these speeches of the Fathers, are all Improper & Figurative, and therefore prove not your Conclusion (which is, that they meant Really a Corporal presence of Christ in this Sacrament) you would say that he interpreted the say of the same Orthodox Fathers falsely & Heretically, according to your manner of phrasing and en●tyling Protestants, to make their Answers seem Odious. Wherefore we now crave leave of you that we may believe your own Doctors themselves, from their own Confessions, (See the Margin:) we mean such, who, without exception, are privileged in your Church. By name, Lombard, Aquinas, Alphonsus de Castr●, together with your Jesuits Bellarmine, Suarez, Maldonate, Salmeron, Sa, Vasquez, Costerus, and others, all which tell us * See these in the margin following Lu●bard. lib 4. Dist Dist 12. lit. (c) Ve●a fractio non fit in corpore Christi, sed in specie & forma panis. Maldonat. de Euch. To. 1. Sect. Secundum genus Argumentor. Rat. 2. p. 243. Corpus Christi non vere atteritur, nec vere frangitur. Maldon. de Euch. lib. 1. cap. 11. Si a●●ritio actu sit de essentia manducantis, dici Christi Corpus non proprié mandueari, sed Impropr●e & Tropice. Salm●ron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 20. Dici Christum non de●●tibus atteri, est enim impartibilis, manducat●o autem realis requirit, ut posset Dividi. Su●rez Ies. in 3. Tho. qu. 75. Disp. 47. Art. 1. §. 4. Frangi metaphorica, non propria locutio est, ut colligitur ex Tho. qu. 77. Art. 7. quià fractio propriè significat divisionem et discontinuationem partium, quam constat non fieri in corpore Christi. Maldon. Ies. Si proprie loqui velimus, falsae sunt istae propositiones, Corpus Christi manducatur a nobis, teritur, frangitur, quia non convenire corpori Christi, sed Sacramento teri— intelligi, quia non proprie Christus frangitur, sed Sacramentum. So he. Lib de Sacramento in genere To. ●. §. Qua propter. Vasquez Ies. in 3. Tho 〈◊〉. 76. 〈◊〉. 7. Disp 193. Cap. 2. Hae 〈◊〉 ratione Specierum Christo per figuram tribuuntur, quae referuntur ad aliquem sensum, vel etiam ad manducationem, quae etiam in 〈◊〉 gu●us consistit— Rursus, Ratione specierum manducari dicitur, nequè enim manducare solum denotat actionem secundum motum quoad locum, sed etiam peculiarem actionem sensut gustus— mand●catio est quaed●m actio praevia quae idem videtu●, arq●cibum dentibus premere. See lib. 6. cap. 1. §. 4. Bellor. Costet. Ies. Alphonsus. Mr. Brereley. See above Book 2. Cap. 2. §. 4. Dansqueius. See above, Book 5. Cap. 4. Sect. 2. Dicere immortales artus Corporis Christi dentibus teri, oris Blasphemi est, & mentis nequissimae. Dansquelu●. pag. 2. 〈◊〉. Respectively. I. Of [Taste.] We cannot say that one doth Taste of Christ's Body properly, but by a Figure. II. Of [Dividing.] Christ, in this Sacrament, is whole in every part thereof, and cannot be Divided; because he is impartible. III. Of [Broken.] Christ's Body is not said to be Broken in itself, but only in the Sacrament of Bread; and to say that Christ's Body is properly Broken, were a false speech, and not agreeable to Christ's Body. iv Of [Tearing.] Christ's Body (say they) cannot be said to be Torn, but only Tropically, because it is not Divisible: and to say that your Church of Rome holds that Christ's Body is Torn with the teeth of the Communicants, is Blasphemous. V Of [Eating.] The Body of Christ is not absolutely Eaten, because if absolutely Eaten, then should it be torn with the Teeth, and if so, then also divided into parts: It is therefore said to be torn, by a Figure, because the forms of Bread are torn with the Teeth. Of the VI, and VII. [Sprinkling, and Pouring out of Blood.] Those are not to be attributed to Christ's Blood in the Sacrament; because these betoken a Shedding thereof, which is a Separation of it from his Body, which was never but once on the Cross; nor is it properly Drunken. So they. That is to say; So have they Objected the Sentences of the Fathers: and So have they answered: and consequently So have also confuted themselves. ⚜ CHAP. VI. The Third Romish Corporal Union of the Body of Christ, with the Bodies of the Communicants, is with Swallowing it down. SECT I. YOur General Tenet is, That the Body of Christ is present in the Bodies of the Receivers, So long as the forms of Bread and Wine do continne. Nex that a Satis est ut transmissio fiat in stomachum, deglutiendo. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euc. cap. 11. It is swallowed down, and transmitted unto the Stomach: Yet further, that your Priest in your Roman Mass is enjoined to pray, saying; b Missale Roman. authoritate Concilij Tridentini, & Papa Pij Quarti. Ordinarium Missae. Corpus tuum Domine, quod sumpsi, & sanguis quem potavi adhaereat visceribus meis. O Lord, let thy Body which I have taken, and Blood which I have drunk, cleave unto my Guts, or Entrails. And a less c Missale par 〈◊〉 pro Sacerdotibu● in Anglia jussu Paul's Quint● Papae editum. Deus, qui humani generis utramque substantiam praesentium munerum alimento vegetas, & renovas Sacramento, tribue quaesu●us ut 〈◊〉 & corporibus nostris subsidium non desit, & mentibus. Missal (but yet of equal Authority) teacheth all you English Priests to pray, saying; O God who refreshest both our Substances with this food, grant that the supply and help hereof may not be wanting either to our Bodies, or Souls. ⚜ Insomuch that your Aquinas concludeth, 1 Aquin● in 3. qu. 7●. Art, 6. ed 3. Subst 〈◊〉 Corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus pa●is, quamdi● species illa manet. That the Body of Christ ceaseth not to be in this Sacrament, so long as the form of Bread continueth in the Eater thereof. So he. Not excepting any Eater, whether it be Man, or Beast; thereby embracing this Opinion; namely, 2 josephus' Angles Quest. de Susception. Euch. Art. ●. Dist. Contraria. Opinio est Communis. Conclusio. Brutum comedens Sacramentum, verum Corpus Christi divotat, fuit expressè definita per Gregorium undecimum, Testo nostro Riv●to Pictavio, in Academ. Battaviae Prosessore in lib. Orthodox. Cathol. Tract. 3. qu. 18. That a Beast eating this Sacrament, thereby doth Devour the true Body of Christ: which you call The Common Opinion of your Church, taught and defined by Pope Gregory the Eleventh. ⚜ That this former Doctrine is fully and filthily Capernaitical SECT. II. IN this Romish Profession every one may see, in your Corporal presence, two most vile and ugly Assumptions; One is, of your Devouring of Christ, and feeding bodily on him. The other is a Possibility of (saying your presence) passing him downward Into the Draught and Siege; that being as ill, this peradventure worse, than any Capernaitical Infatuation; for which cause it was that your Jesuit Maldonate, although granting that you do Corporally receive it into your stomaches, yet * See above, cham. 4. §. 2. denied, for shame, that you are Devourers thereof. But, I beseech you, what then meaneth that, which your Romish Instructions, Decrees, and Missals (as we have * Ibid. §. 1. heard) do teach you to do with the Host, in case that any either through Infirmity, or by Surfeit and Drunkenness, shall cast up the same Host out of his stomach? We demand, may your Communicants be [Vomitores,] to cast it up again, and can you deny but that they must first have been [Voratores,] to have devoured that which they do so Disgorge? Will you believe your Jesuire f 〈◊〉 Ies. Tom. 2. Cont. 2. in joh. ●. 〈◊〉 mea ve●os est cibus etc.] votare, est ●ine masticatione glutire. Osorius? To Devour a thing (saith he) is to swallow it down by Chewing. Say now, do you Swallow the Sacrament by Chewing it? then are you Capernaitical Tearers of Christ's Body. But do you Swallow it without Chewing? then are you Capernaitical Devourers thereof. Say not, that because the Body of Christ suffereth no hurt, therefore he cannot be said by Corporall Swallowing to be Devoured: for his Body was not corrupted in the G●ave, and yet was it truly Buried; and his Type thereof, even jonas without Mastication was Swallowed up into the Belly of the Whale, and yet had no hurt. Notwithstanding, he was first caught and devoured, who was afterward cast up and vomited. That the same Romish manner of Receiving it down into the Belly, is proved to be Capernaitical, by the judgement of Antiquity. SECT. III. TTheophylact g Theoph. in joh. 6. p. 304. Capernaitae putabant, quod Christus cogeret eos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, voratores carnis suae esse: nos hic spiritualiter intelligimus, neque carnium voratores sumus. noted the Capernaites Opinion to have been, that the Receivers of the Body of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Devourers of flesh, where as the words of Christ (saith he) are to be understood Spiritually, and so will it be known that we Christians (what?) are not Devourers of Christ. So he. But, that Swallowing (properly taken) is a Devouring, hath been proved: and, if Devoured, then why not also (that which is the Basest of all Baseness) passed down, by Egestion, into the Siege? whereof the Ancient Fathers have thus Determined. Origen, that h Origen in Matth. ca 15 [Quod si quicquid in os ingreditur, in ventrem abit, & in secessum eijcitur.] Et ille cibus sanctificatus verbo Dei, juxta id quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit, & in secessum ●ijcitur. Caeterum juxta precationem pro proportione fidei factus sit utilis, efficiens ut perspicax sit animus. Nec materia panis, sed super eo dictus sermo prodest non indigne comedenti. Et hae● quidem de Symbolico corpore: multa porro & de verbo dici possunt, quod factum est caro, verusque cibus, quem qui comederit vivet in aeternum. The material part of this meat, Sanctified by prayer, passeth into the Draught: which (saith he) I speak of the Symbolical Body, etc. Here will be no place for your i Bellar. Ista omnia recte intellig● possunt de Eucharistia— at materiale, quoth in secessum abit, sunt accidentia, non respectu formae naturalis, sed sanctificationis & magnitudinis: nam magnitudo ad materiam potius pertinet quam ad formam— Et per hoc quod Symbolicum corpus vocat, intelligit corpus Christi, ut est hic Symbolum & signum sui●psius, ut ●rat in cruse. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. ●. Cardinal's Crotchets, who confessing Origen to have spoken all this of the Eucharist, would have us by Materials to understand Accidents in respect (saith he) of Sanctification, which they had, and of Magnitude, which belongeth rather to the matter of a thing, than to the form: and by Symbolical Body, to conceive, that this was meant of the Body of Christ itself, as it is present in this Sacrament, a Sign, or Symbol of itself, as it was on the Cross. So he; as if he meant to Cross origen's intention throughout every part of his Testimony. For first, That which he called Bread, he calleth also meat Sanctified. Secondly, That Meat he termeth Material. Thirdly, This Material, he saith, passeth into the Draught. Lastly, concluding his speech, concerning the Sacramental Body, and saying; Hither have I spoken of the Symbolical Body; immediately he maketh his transition to speak of the Incarnate Body of Christ, as it is the True Souls meat. But first, merely Accidents were never called, by Ancient Fathers, Meats. Secondly, never Materials. Thirdly, never Magnitude in itself, without a Subject, was judged otherwise than Immaterial. Fourthly, never any Immaterial thing to have Gravity, or weight in pressing the guts, to make an egestion into the Draught. If every one of these be not, yet all may make up a fourfold Cord, to draw any Conscionable man to grant, that Origen was of our Protestants Faith. ⚜ And although Obstinacy itself should struggle with us, touching the former sentence of Origen, yet his words immediately following, should (we think) challenge a Consent: Because cause, after he had spoken of Sanctified meat, meat Material, meat which goeth into the Belly, Meat whose matter doth not profit the Eater, Meat passing into the Draught, Meat named the Symbolical Body; (which your Cardinal teacheth to betoken Christ's own natural Body:) He immediately after maketh a Transition from this Meat, to that which he calleth the True meat, and saith; 3 Sequ●tur apud Orig. in Matth c. 15. Haec quidem de Symbolico corpore, multa porro de ipso verbo di●i possunt, quod factum est caro, ve ●usque cibus, quem qui comederit, ommino vivet in aeternum, quem nullus malus potest 〈◊〉; nam si malus ederet verbum carnem factum, cum sit panis vivus, nequaquam scriptum 〈◊〉 Quisquis ederi● hunc panem viv●t in ae●ernum. Further more many things might be spoken of the word, which was made Flesh, even the True Bread, which, whosoever shall eat, shall live for ever: which no wicked man can eat, else should he live for ever. Directly opposing this Word made Flesh, to that which he had called the Symbolical Body. Ergo say we, Origen (your Cardinal must pardon us) taught the Symbolical Body, and Christ True and proper Flesh to be two different Subjects. And again, for better manifestation, he distinguisheth in their effects; the one to be insufficient to give life, the other to be salvifical in itself, even to Life everlasting. And Thirdly he differenceth them in their Eaters, intimating, that The wicked may be partakers of the former Symbolical Body; because, of this flesh, whereof the Scripture saith, [The Word was made flesh,] called the True meat, he testifieth and professeth, that No wicked man can eat this. If, in imitation of origen's discourse upon the Eucharist, one should say of the Baptism of a man of years and growth, thus; Water in Baptism, is in itself a Liquor, although profitable to the Receiver, according to the proportion of Faith, yet doth it cleanse only the flesh, and is afterward cast out of the Font into the Channel: (adding immediately) Thus much be spoken of the Symbolical Water: and should furthermore say many things of the True Water, which is the virtue and grace of the Holy Ghost, which whosover shall partake, shall live for ever: but whereof, No wicked man can be partaker: What man can be so silly, as not to apprehend a plain distinction, made bet●●●●ene the Symbolical Water, and the Truly Spiritual, which is the Grace of the Holy Ghost, as differing in respect of their Essences, Effects, and in the Persons capable thereof? ⚜ As for your Cardinal's Pageant of Christ's Body in this Sacrament, as being a Sign and Symbol of itself, as it was on the Cross, it * See Booke●. Chap. 2. Sect 6. hath once already, and will the * Book 6. c. 5. Sect. 7. second time come into play, where you will take small pleasure in this figment. Again concerning the Body of Christ itself, l Cyr●l. Hierosol. Catech Mystag ● Panis hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. cyril Christianly denyeth it to go either into the Belly, or into the Draught; and m Chrysost. de Euch. in Encaen. Non sicut reliqu● cibi in seces●um vadunt: absit● ne sic cogites. chrysostom (as judging the very thought thereof Execrable) denyeth it with an [Absit!] Finally, n Ambros. l. 5. de Sacram. ca 4. Non iste panis est, qui vadit in corpus, sed panis vitae 〈◊〉, qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit. Ibid. supersubsta● 〈◊〉. Ambrose is so far from the proper Swallowing of Christ in this Sacrament, that Distinguishing between Corporal Bread, and the Body of Christ, (which he calls Super substantial Bread, and Bread of everlasting life, for the establishing of man's Soul) he denyeth flatly that this is that Bread which goeth into the Body. If any Mouse (which, you say, may run away with the Host) be wholly fed thereon for a month's space, the Egestion of that Creature will be as Absolute a Demonstration as the world can have, that the matter fed upon, after Consecration, is Bread. And why may you not as well grant a power of Egestion, as confess (which you do) in that Creature a Digestion thereof? Two false Interpretations fell upon the Catholic Profession, concerning the Doctrine of the Eucharist, in the days of S. Augustine; both which that holy Father did utterly explode. The first was by the Manichees, who teaching, that o August● 〈…〉. ib. 20. cap 1●. Ex fabula vest●â de Sp. Sancto cerra concipiens gign●t patib●●em jesum, qui est salus omnium hominum suspensus ex ligno, &c Cap. 12. Cui non totum 〈◊〉 unus Christus, si propter unam substantiam, 〈◊〉 in a●bor●bus Christus, & in persecutione judae orum Christus, & in sole, & in luna Christus, etc. Cap. 13. In uva agnoscunt Deum suum, in cup● nolunt, quasi aliquid eos caleatus & inclusus offenderit: noster autem panis & calix, non quilibet, quasi propter Christum in 〈◊〉 & sarmentis ligatum, sicut Illi desipiunt, sed cer●â consecratione mysticu●● fit nobis, non nascitur: proinde quin ita fit, quamvis sit panis & cali●, alimentum refectionis est, non Sacramentum religionis, nisi quod be●●dicimu●, gratiasque agimus Domine in omni mun●re ejus, non solum spirituali▪ yerum etiam corpotali Vobis autem per fabulam vestram in e●●is omnibus Christus ligatus opponitur, adhuc ligandus vestris visceribus, solvendusquè ructatibus: nam & 〈◊〉 manducatis, Dei v●stri defectione vos reficitis, & cum digeritis, illius refectione defici●tis— Quomodo ergo comparas panem & calicem nostum, & parem religionem dicis, ●rrorem lo●ge 〈◊〉 veritate discretum pejus enim decipimus quam nonnulli, qui nos propter panem & calicem Cererem & Liberum colere existimant.— Sicut enim a Cerere & Libero Paganorum Dijs longe absumus, quamvis panis & calicis Sacramentum, quod ita laud 〈◊〉, ut in eo nobis pares esse volueritis, ●itu nostro amplectamur, etc. [Edit Pa●i●ijs. Anno. 1555.] Christ was Hanged on every tree, and tied unto all meats which they eat, would needs have their Religion to be somewhat agreeable to the Catholic Profession. An Imputation which Saint Augustine did abhor, namely, that it should be thought that there was the same reason (concerning Christ's Body) of the opinion of Mystical Bread, among the Orthodox, which the Manichees had of their Corporall Bread. As for example, that Christ should be fastened or tied to men's guts, by eating, and let lose again by their belching. Which Heretical Doctrine how shall it not accord with your Romish, which hath affirmed a passage and Entrance of Christ's Body into, and Cleaving unto men's * See Chap. 7. Sect. 1. Guts by eating? and a Repasse again by Vomiting, albeit the matter, so fast and so lose, be (in the judgement of Saint Augustine) Bread still, after Consecration? The Second Calumniation against the True Professors, was by others, who testified that Catholics in the Eucharist adored Ceres and Bacchus, after the manner of the Pagans. What answer, do you think, would a Romish Professor have made in this Case? doubtless (according to your Doctrine of Corporal Presence) by saying thus: Whereas some affirm that we do adore Bread and Wine in this Sacrament, yet the truth is we adore that, whereunto Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated, (to wit) the Body and Blood of Christ the son of God. But Saint Augustine, as one fancying nothing less; We (saith he) are fare from the gods of the Pagans, for ●ee embrace the Sacrament of Bread and Wine. This is all, and all this he spoke after Consecration. Whereupon we are occasioned to admonish our Christian Reader to take heed of the fraudulent practice of the Romish Sect, because of their abusing of the Writings of ancient Fathers, whereof take unto you this present p Editio Paris Anno 1614 Noster panis— mysticus fit nobis [Corpus Christi] non nascitui [Whereas the direct sense is that Bread Consecrated, is not naturally bread (as it were the spicae, that is Eared of Corn, spoken of by the Mani cheese) but made My sticall; and Sacramental by Consecration.] Example. The Paris Edition An. 1555. hath the Sentence of Saint Augustine thus: Noster panis— Mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur. But the last Paris Edition Ann. 1614 hath foisted in and inserted [Corpus Christ;] albeit the sense be full without this Addition, to signify that Common Bread is by Consecration made Mystical or Sacramental (according to Saint Augustine's own Exposition, saying that we embrace the Sacrament of Bread and Cup;) and also the Phrase of [Panis fit Corpus Christi; Bread is made Christ's Body] be repugnant to a common Principle of all Christianity, which never believed a Body of Christ made of Bread. So that the aforesaid Addition is not a Correcting, but a Corrupting of the Text. ⚜ The miserable straits of Romish Disputers, in answering the Definitive Sentence of Saint Augustine, concerning Christ's words, of Eating his flesh; and of the Romish Shift in saying, they do but Swallow it. SECT. iv SAint q Aug. de Doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16. Si praeceptiva locut●o flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere figurata est, ut [Nisi mand●● averitis ca●nem meam] facinus videtur jubere; Ergo figura est, praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter & utiliter recondendum in memora, quia pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa, & vulneata sit. Augustine's Determination is set down in that his one famous Sentence, for the expounding of those words of Christ [Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, etc. joh. 6.] thus: Whensoever we find in Scripture any speech seeming to forbid any laudable good thing, or to command any heinous evil Act, the speech is Figurative; Vt cum aicitur [Nisi manducaveritis] that is, As when it is said [Except you eat my flesh:] which seemeth to command some heinous Sin, therefore it is Figurative, commanding us to communicate with Christ's passion, and sweetly and profitably record in our memory, that his flesh was crucified and slain for us. So Saint Augustine; which one Sentence hath been always held, of Protestants, to be convincent, for strangling of your Romish Cause. Which your Cardinal seeing as it were gasping, hasteneth to give it some short breath. r Bellar. lib. 1 de Euch. cap. 7. Non vult Augustinus dicere, carnem Christi Tropice manducari, si essentiam manducationis spectemus, quae solum requirit, ut verus cibus ab ore traijciatur in stomachum, per instrumenta vitalia; sed vult dicere Tropice manducari quoad modum, nam Ordinanus & proprius modus manducandi est, ut caro visibiliter secetur in parts, & particulatim sumatur: & cocta, non creda: Caro autem Christi sumitur integra, & invisibiliter, et sine ulla laesione sui, qua manducatione figurate significamus & representamus passionem Christi. 1. probatur, quia non est scelus carnem Christi spirituali modo sine fuilaesione sumere. 2. quia per scelus intellig●● modum edendi Capernaiticum, nempe tatnem lan●ando. Augustine (saith he) meant not to say that Christ's flesh is eaten Tropically, in respect of an Essential Eating, wherein is required only, that True meat be let down from the mouth into the stomach, by vital Instruments: but called it a Tropical Eating, in respect of your ordinary and proper manner of Eating, by a visible dividing of Christ's flesh into parts and morsels, and that it be sod, and not raw. But Christ's flesh in the Eucharist is received whole, invisibly, and without any hurt, by which manner of Eating we represent the Passion of Christ; which is thus proved: because First, It is no heinous sin to eat Christ's flesh Spiritually, and without hurting it; and Secondly, because Saint Auigustine understandeth by an Heinous offence, the Capernaitical manner of eating thereof, namely by Tearing it in pieces. So he. We must take this whole Answer in pieces, for Confutation of each particular point, lest otherwise a General and Brief Answer might breed Obscurity. Your Cardinal thinketh to evade, by multiplicity of Distinctions. Ob. 1. He meant not Eating with Teeth, but a passing of it from the Mouth into the Stomach. Sol. This is False, because the Apostles in their receiving of it, did use Chewing, your own Jesuit Suarez confessing that the Sacramental Bread in Christ's time was * See Book 1. cap. 2. §. 2. Glutinosus: And that this manner of Tearing with Teeth had been continued many Ages in the Church of Rome, as also used among some of your Church at this day, as hath been * See above Cap. 5. Sect. 4. proved. And lastly that Saint Augustine himself meant Eating by Tearing with Teeth, who (as the 4 Bellar lib. 1. de Euch. Cap. 7. Qui manducat cord, non qui premit dente, etc. Vbi de Sacramento loquitur, non qui premit dente, nimirùm, solo. Cardinal himself confesseth) mentioneth the * See above, Cap 5. Sect. 5. Pressing of the Sacrament with Teeth. Secondly, Ob. But the manner of Tearing (saith he) is not essential to eating, but only the pressing of it down into the Stomach. So he. Sol. Notwithstanding Pope Nicolas in his Roman Council expressly required the Sensible Tearing of Christ's flesh (as hath been showed * See above, Cap. 5. Sect. 5. ) whereof you have also heard your jesuite * See above, Cap. 5. Sect. 2. Salmeron confess, saying, that Proper Eating requireth a Proper Tearing, even as your Cardinal himself, calling Eating, by Dividing into Parts, a Proper manner of Eating. Ob. 3. Augustine spoke of a visible Eating of Christ, and not as ours is, Invisible. Sol. As if a blind man could not eat meat as perfectly as he that seethe. Ob. 4. But Saint Augustine understood Christ's flesh Sod, and not Raw. Sol. As though the Eating of man's flesh Raw, or Sod, could distinguish a Cannibal. Ob. 5. But Saint Augustine spoke of Eating Christ's flesh with hurting him, which appeareth by this, that he called the manner of Eating, which he spoke of, an Heinous offence. Sol. As though your * See above; Book 4. Cap. 10 Sect. 5. Aquinas had not as well judged it an Heinous offence to put Christ in a Box, appearing in his visible shape, notwithstanding Christ's No-sensible-heart thereby. Ob. 6. But he spoke against the Capernaitical manner of Eating, which was Tearing it in pieces, and requireth a Spiritual order in eating; and ours is Spiritual. Sol. First as if your Eating were not Capernaitical in any degree, which is False. Because as the Capernaites interpreted Christ's words in a literal sense of Eating it perfectly, so did they also conceive a Real Swallowing of it after it had been Eaten. And doth not your Cardinal plead here wholly for Swallowing of Christ's Body? or hath not also your jesuite Coster defined Devouring to be a Swallowing of meat without Mastication, or Tearing? Or can you deny but the Primitive * See before, in this Chap. 6. Father's Detested the very conceit of Devouring Christ's flesh? And Secondly, where Saint Augustine opposeth Carnal manner of Eating to the Spiritual, could he possibly mean your Romish kind, which you profess to be a taking it into your Mouths, and by your Corporall Swallowing and Transmitting through the Throat into your Stomach, whether Visibly, or Invisibly, whether Sod, or Raw? No no, nothing less, but the flat Contrary, a mere Spiritual manner of Communicating of Christ's passion (saith he) and by * See 〈…〉 Sweetly recording in our memories his flesh once crucified for us. Establishing this latter Eating with Mind and Heart, that he might exclude the other of Eating with Mouth and Teeth. ⚜ CHAP. VII. The Fourth Corporal manner of Union of Christ his Body, by a Bodily Mixture with the Bodies of the Communicants (professed by some Romanists at this day) is Capernaitical. SECT. I. We hear your jesuit reporting that a Multi Catholici his temporibus, in odium Haeresis, veram praesentiam corporis Christ in hoc Sacramento— Sumptione ejus fieri unionem inter Corpus Christi & suscipientem, quam real●m, naturalem, & substant●dem, atquè e●am corporalem vocant Sic Algerus, Turrecremata, Rossensis, Hosius, Turrianus, Bellarminus, Alanus. Suarez. Ies Tom 3 qu. 79. Disp. 64. Sect. 3. Many latter Divines in your Church, have been authorized in these days to write, labouring to bring the Roman Faith to so high a pitch, as to persuade a b Denique Recentiores omnes, qui de hoc Sacramento contra Haereticos scribunt, hoc fere modo loquuntur. Suarez in 3. Tho. Disp. 64. §. 3. pag. 822. Real, Natural, Corporal, and Substantial Union of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants: even almost all of late (saith he) who have written against Heretics. So he. Among others we find your Cardinal c Card. Alan. Cùm comedimus Eucharistiam, corpore Christi vere vescimur, ex qua manducatione per naturae instrumenta real●●● recipitur intra nos, atque substantiae nostrae permiscetur, sicut caeteri cibi, nisi quod mutationem in carnem nostram non patiatur. De Euch. lib. 1. cap. 28. Alan, who will have it ●eally mingled with our flesh, as other meats, Transubstantiation only excepted; as did also Cardinal d Fe●tur Mendozam Cardinalem Burgensem in lib. quem de union scripsit, docuisse Christum Sacramentaliter mandu●atum non solum fieri praesentem in loco, quem species possent Sacramentaliter occupare, sed quod immodo du●●undi per totum corpus hominis, ut toti illi in omnibus ejus partibus uniatur; seque illis immisceat: sed haec cogitatio non solum improbabilis, sed etiam absurda, & plusquam temeraria est. Suarez quo supr. pag. 822. Mendoza. And what else can that sound, which we have heard out of your Roman * See above, Chap. 6. §. 2. Missal, praying that the Body of Christ eaten may cleave unto your Guts? just Manichean-wise, as you have heard even now out of Saint Augustine. ⚜ And it may be you have Faith also to believe your own Legendae, telling you of the 1 In libro qui inscribitur. Speculum exemplar:— V●onem Archiepiscopum Magdoburgensem Capite multatum fuisse, ex cujus visceribus & one, antequam plectetetur capite, Virgo Maria hostias desumpsisse dicitur, & in calicem misisse. Referente Christiano Franken, quondam Iesuit●, Tract. de Bestialissima Adoratione panis & vini in Eucharistia. Host taken out of the Guts of a Malefactor, by the Virgin Mary, before his Execution. ⚜ The Confutation and Expulsion of this Foggy Mist of Error, by your own more Common Confessions. SECT. II. THis first opinion of mingling the Body of Christ, Corporally with man's Bodily parts, what think you of it? Your jesuite calleth it f Suarez in 3. Tho. qu 79. Disp. 64. Sect. 3. Nihilominus haec sententia improbabilis, & aliena dignitate & majestate hujus Sacramenti, quod non propter corporalem conjunctionem, sed propter spiritualem institutum est, dicente Christo [Mea verba spiritus sunt & vita. joh. 6.] p. 822. Improbable, and as repugnant to the dignity and majesty of this Sacrament: * See above in the first § at the letter (D) Rash, and Absurd. justly, because if this Doctrine were true, you must likewise grant that the same Body of Christ, which you say is eaten of Mice and Rats, is mingled within their guts, and entrails; and so such vile Creatures should be as really Capable of the Communion of Christ's Body, as the most sanctified among Christians can be: for which the Beasts themselves, if they could speak, would (as the Ass unto Balaam) condemn the foolishness of your Prophets, namely those, of whom you have * See above at (B) heard your jesuit confessing, that this is the Doctrine of Almost all late Divines; which is to add one Capernaitical Absurdity to another. It only remaineth to know with what Spirit these your New Divines have thus written; your * See above his Testimony cited at the letter (A) Suarez. telleth us, saying, That they spoke so in hatred of Heretics (meaning Protestant's) against whom they writ. Who would not now magnify the Profession of Protestants, to observe their Adversaries to be so fare transported with the Spirit of malignity and giddiness against them, that by the just judgement of God they are become so strake blind in themselves, as that they fall into opinions not only (as is confessed) Rash and Absurd: but also Capernaitically-Hereticall? And indeed they who imagined a Corporall Eating, how should they not as well have conceived a Corporal fleshly Commixtion? CHAP. VIII. Of the Romish Objections out of the Fathers, for proof of an Union of Christ's Body by a Bodily Commixture with the Bodies of the Communicants. SOme of their Objections are taken from the Sentences of the Fathers, Some from their Similitudes, and Some from their Historical Reports. We begin with their Sentences. That the Objected Sentences of Fathers make not for the Romish Corporall Union; but are proved by their own Dialect to be unconscionably alleged. SECT. I. THe express Testimonies of the Objected Fathers you may read in the Margin, as they are marshaled by your own jesuit a Suarez Ies. in 3. Tho. Disp. 64. §. 3. recenset. I. viz. Irenaeum. Quandò mixtus calix, & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia. Lib. 5 contra Heres. cap. 2. II. Chrysostom. Nos secum in unam massam reduxit, nequè id fide solum, sed reipsa nos suum corpus effecit. Hom. 88 in Matth. Vt non solum per dilectionem, sed re ipsa in illam carnem convertamur. Hom 5. in joh. III. Cyril. Alex [Qui mandu●at meam carnem in me manet, & ego in illo.] Sicut si quis iquefactae cerae aliam ceram insuderit, alteram cum altera commisceat, necesse est— ita qui carnem ecipit, cum ipso conjungitur, ut Christus in ipso, & ipse in Christo inveniatur. Lib. 4. in joh. Cap. 17. Rursus. Christus vitis, nos palmites, qui vitam inde nobis acquirimus. Audi Paulum, Omnes unum Christi corpus, qui de uno pane participamus— quae cum ita fiat, nun corporaliter facit, communicatione carmis ejus, Christum in nobis habitare? Lib. 10. cap. 13. IV. Greg. Nyssen. Sicut parum fermenti assimulat totam massam aspersione, ita Corpus Christi, cum fuerit intra nostrum, ad se transmutat & transfert. Orat. Catech. Cap. 37. V Leo Papa. Vt accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi, in carnem ipsius, qui caro nostra factus est, transeamus. Epist. 23. VI Hilarius. Not vere verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus, quo modo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est, & naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub Sacramento nobis communicandae carnis admisevit. Lib. 8. de Trinit. [He might have added justin Martyr, and others.] Docet Apostolus ex natura Sacramentorum esse hanc fidelium unitatem, ad Galatas scribens: Quotquot Baptizati estis in Christo, Christum induistis— Quod unum sunt in tantâ gentium, conditionum, Sexuum diversitate nunquid ex assensu voluntatis, an ex Sacramenti unitate? quia his & Baptisma sit unum, itaque qui per candem rem sunt unum natura unum sunt● Hilar. de Trinit. lib. 8. Suscipiens Christum non idem sit post javacrum, qui ante Baptismum fuit, sed corpus regenerati fiat caro crucifixi. Leo. Serm. 14. de Passione Demini. Suarez, to wit, Irenaeus, chrysostom, Cyril Alexand. Greg. Nyssen, Pope Leo, and Hilary. The sum is, The mixture of Christ's Body with ours, by a Corporal and Natural Union indeed, and not only in faith or affection. Two kind of Semblances are to be Observed, one in their like Hyperbolical Phrasing, concerning Baptism; and the other touching our Conjunction with Christ. Of Baptism, Hilary the VI objected, saith, Christians by Baptism, which is one, are made one, not only in affection, but also in nature. Leo the V objected, saith also that By Baptism the Body of the Regenerate is made the flesh of Christ crucified. And furthermore mark what your Cardinal Tolet hath collected from Augustine, namely that b Tolet. Com. in job. ● A●not. 26. D●cet Augustimus lib. 1. de Pec● merit. Parvulos per B. p●●smum participes fieri hujus Sacramenti (Eucharistie) quoth nac 〈…〉 nam per Baptismum sunt de corpore mystico Ecclesiae, ad unitatem Christi pertinent; hoc Sacramentum hujus unitatis corporis signum est, & ideo hoc Sacramento aliquo modo participant, nempe quantum rem significatam, & dici possunt carnem Christi manducare & bibere sanguinem. Infants, by being Baptised, are made partakers of the Eucharist, because they are Members of the Mystical Body, and are so made in a sort partakers of this Sacrament, (that is to say) of the thing signified, Eating his flesh, and Drinking his Blood. So he. By which your Objectour must be enforced to admit a like Real Conjunction, and Consequently of a Real presence of Christ in Baptism, as they have for the Bodily Union and Presence of Christ in and by the Eucharist. Yea, and the Fathers with the like accent and Emphasis of speech say as much of other things: c Isidor. Pelus. Verbum Dei [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] l. 2. Epist. 281. Item Greg. Nyssen de soncto Stephano; Gratiâ spiritus sancti permixtus est & contemperatus. Isidore Pelusiota of the word of God, that It feedeth men's souls, and is in a manner mingled therewith. Of the Baptised, that by Baptism d August. apud Gratian. de Consecrat. Dist. 4. Ad hoc. Ad hoc Baptismus valet, ut Baptiza●i Christo incorporentur. They are incorporate into Christ, saith Augustine: And that thereby e Chrysost. in Ephes. Hom. 20 (de Baptismo.) Facti sumus os ex ossibus, & caro ex carne ejus in lavaero. They are made bone of Christ's bone, and flesh of his flesh, saith chrysostom. Of the Eucharist, f Domase. Epist. ad Zachar. Episc. D●arorum. Quod accipitur, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Teste Casaub. in Baron. Exercit. 16. cap. 39 It is mingled with our souls. So Damascen. Of the participation of the Bread of Idolaters, with the participation of the Sacramental Bread of the Lords Supper, that g Primasius in 1. Cor. 10. Sicut salvator dixit [Qui manduc●at carnem meam, in me manet]— Sic Idolorum panis Daemonum participatio est. Et ut multi de uno pane participantes, unum corpus sumus: Sic si de eodem pane manducamus, unius Idololatriae, unum cum illis corpus efficimur. As by the one Christians are made partakers of Christ's flesh, so by that other are men made partakers with Devils. So Primasius. Wherefore your Disputers, by comparing these Sentences of the Fathers with the former, if they shall take them as spoken properly, and not Sacramentally and Figuratively, shall be compelled to allow proper Commixtures and nourishing of man's soul, by the word. First, a proper Mingling of God's spirit with Man. Secondly, a proper Incorporating of man into Christ; and a proper Mixture of Man with Devils. And again upon due Comparison of the Testimonies of Fathers, objected by you, with these now alleged by us, concerning the Eucharist itself, it will necessarily follow, that by the same reason, wherewith you have sought to prove one kind of Proper presence of Christ's Body, and Transubstantiation, and Unions you must allow h August. Confess. lib. 7. cap. 10▪ Munducabis me, Tu me in te mutabis, & Tu mutaberis in me. Theophyl. in joh. 6. Qui manducat me, vivet propter me, & quodammodò miscetur mihi, Cyril. in joh. 11. cap. 26. Suo corpore Christus credentes per Communionem mysticam benedicens nos secum & inter nos unum corpus fecit. Suarez in 3. Tho. quaest. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 64. §. 3. Vnionem hanc Pati●● dicunt non esse solum inter Christum & nos, sed etiam inter no●metipsos, quarenùs sumus membra Christi. [Primisius his Testimony is at the letter (g) immediately before] Four more: One of Christ's Body into the Body of the Communicant; a Second of a Christian Communicant into Christ Body; a Third of a Natural bodily Union of Christians among themselves. And Fourthly (which is Damascens) of Christ's Body into men's souls. All which kind of Presences, Unions, Mixtures, and Transubstantiations, taken in a proper sense, you cannot but condemn as Atheological and senseless, in your own Judgement; notwithstanding all the former alleged Phrases of ancient Fathers, for your Corporal Conjunction. ⚜ The Romish Objections out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers, more vehemently (and as unconscionably) insisted upon for a Proper Corporal Mixture out of the Testimonies of Cyril. Alexand. and Hilary Pictav. SECT. II. We have therefore singled apart the Testimonies of these two i Cyrillus. 〈◊〉 10. cap. 13. in joh. Filius per benedictionem mysticam, ut homo unitur; spiritualiter autem ut Deus; sui spiritus gratia nos ad novam vitam & divinae naturae participationem redintegrans. Et lib. 11. cap. 26. Fortasse etiam corporali unione conjungimur; licet Disparati sums.— Nam si Petrus & Paulus unum unitate in Christo sunt, Petrus tamen Paulus non est: age igitur, cum Trinitas unum natura sit, consideremus etiam quod nos inter nos corporaliter, & cum Deo spiritualiter unum simus. Et lib. 9 cap. 47. Christus etiam nos in seipso habet, quoniam naturam nostram assumpsit, & corpus nostrum corpus unum sactum est, propterea divinae naturae participes facti sumus, & filij etiam naturales— Ita ego in Patre sum, quia ex ipso natus, & sic vos participes facti divinae naturae, cum spiritum meum in vobis habitate sciverim. Christus enim per spiritum in nobis est, corruptibilitatem nostram, ad incorruptibilitatem permutans. Et cap. 39 opus est nos participes naturae suae fieri, & in novam vitam transformari, quod a litter quam per participationem spiritus fieri ne quit. Et. c. 38. Nullus ambigit, cum ad coelos asconderit, quin virtute spiritus semper adfuerit, 'em praesentia tamen carnis abfuerit. Et l. 11. cap. 3. Cum post passionem in coelum ascenderit, spiritum misit, non enim cum Apostolis conversari poterat, cum ad Patrem ascenderat. Dialog. 2. in Trin. Si verè sectionem, & partitionem divina natura receiperet, intelligeretur ut corpus; si autem hoc & in loco, omnino & in magnitudine, & in quantitate, non essugiat circumscriptionem. Lib. 11. cap. 26. in illa verba [ut & ipse in vobis sit, sicut ego in Patre] considerandum est, si ad unionem consensus et voluntatis, naturalem etiam invenire possimus, per quam nos inter nos et omnes cum Deo conjungimar. Lib. 12. cap. 58. in joh. Christus omnibus apparet visibiliter et invisibiliter, Invisibiliter ut Deus, visibiliter ut humo, praebet etiam nobis carnem suam tangendam. Lib. 4. cap. 14 Quommodò non vivemus, cum carnem illam vivificatricem gustamus & manducamus. Et lib. 11. cap. 22. Caro non prodest quicquam, spiritus est qui vivificat, ad sanctificandum et vivificandum nihil prodesse carnem ostendit, in quantum scil. humanae naturae caro est, cum igitur Deitati salvatio tribuitur, non debetis carnis praesentiam propter hoc desiderare. Idem Cyril. de Trin. Qui mysticae benedictionis participes, unum cum Christo corpus sunt, unionem cum illo por fidem sortiti. Et lib, 4. cap. 17. in joh. Sicut, si quis liquefactae cerae aliam ceram infuderit, alteram cum altera per totum permisceat; ita qui carnem & sanguinem Domini recipiat, cum eo ita conjungitur, ut Christus in ipso, & ipse in Christo inveniatur. Hilarius in Psal 137. Tollit etiam stultissi nam eorum temeritatem, qui frustrato falsoque corpore Domini in carne visum esse contendunt, non recordantes post resurrectionem corporis spiritum se videre credentibus; palpate & videre dicitur, si corpus Christi incircumscriptum, simul in multis locis emitteretur. Lib. 8. de Trin. Panis qui de coelo descendit, non nisi ab eo accipitur, qui Christi membrum est. Idem lib. 8. de Trin. Quomodo in his non naturalem intelligis unitatem, qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt, omnes enim renati sunt ad innocentiam & immortalitatem— cessat in his ascensus unitas, qui unum sint in ejusdem regeneratione naturae— Docet enim Apostolus ex natura Sacramentorum esse hanc fidelium Dei unitatem. Quotquot (inquit) Baptizati estis, Christum induistis— quod unum sunt in tanta gentium & sexuum diversitate numquid ex assensu voluntatis est, aut ex Sacramenti unitate, quia his Baptisma unum est, unum Christum indati sunt— Itaquè qui per rem eandem unum sunt, natura etiam unum sunt, non tantum voluntate— Cum dicit Christus ut sin● illi unum, sicut ego & tu Pater unum sumus— quaero ut rumne per naturae veritatem hodie Christus in nobis sit, an per concordiam voluntatis: si enim vere verbum caro factum est, & nos vere verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est, qui naturam carnis nostrae inseparabilem sibi assumpsit— nos qui vere sub mysterio carnem sumimus, per hoc unum erimus— De veritate carnis non est ambigendi locus, nunc enim ex Domini nostri professione, & fide nostra, vere earo est, & vere sanguis: et haec accepta, et haec exhausta, nobis Id efficiunt, ut & nos in Christo, & Christus in nobis sit.— Est ergo in nobis per carnem, & sumus in eo, dum secum hoc quod nos sumus in Deo est; quod autem in eo per Sacramentum communicatae carnis & sanguinis sumus, ipse testatur dicens, ego in patre meo, & vos in me, & ego in vobis; non tantum voluntatis unitatem intelligit, sed ut ille in Patre per naturam Divinitatis esset, nos autem in eo per corporalem ejus nativitatem, & ille contra in nobis per Sacramentorum in esse mysterium crederetur— ut nos in eo naturaliter in essemus ipso in nobis permanente. Fathers, as being, in your Choice, More special, because that all your Disputers, whensoever they produce them, for proof of your Romish Doctrine of Corporal Union, they esteem them Insoluble above all others; Insomuch that one of your Doctors, after he had objected the Sentences of Irenaeus, Greg. Nyssen, Damascen, Leo, and Saint Augustine, no sooner nameth the Sentence of Hilary, but prefaceth of it, saying; This is a more notable Place. Another concludeth the Doctrine of Cyril to be so absolutely Romish, that he accounteth Protestants no better than Men sold over to the Devil, for not assenting to your Common Interpretation of him. But this Flash of your Doctor will appear to be but an Ignis fatuus, or a Blind Zeal without knowledge, when we come to this Particular. In the Interim, that you may know we mean to deal clearly, we First grant unto you the Scope of either of these two Fathers, in their Discourses. Hilarius sought to confute the Arian Heretics by defending a Natural Union of the Godhead of Christ, the son of God, with God the Father. Cyril intended to convince the Nestorian Heretics, for proof of an Hypostatical Union of the two Natures, Godhead and Manhood, in one person of Christ. Secondly, we grant that both the Fathers, together with that General Council at Ephesus, call the Flesh of Christ, which Christians participate in this Sacrament, [Vivificatricem,] that is, vivifical, or giving life to the Receivers, even unto Immortality. Thirdly we grant, that they name our Conjunction of Christ by this Sacrament to be, not only an Union in Affection and Concord, but also a Natural and Corporal Conjunction of the Body of Christ with the Body of the Communicants. And Lastly we grant, that one of them addeth a Similitude of the Union of Waxemelted with Wax. And yet notwithstanding all these our Acknowledgements and Grants, we presume to affirm, that all these Testimonies teach, indeed, a Mystical, not your Romish Missaticall Union, by a properly Corporal Touch of Christ's own natural Body, with the Bodies of the Receivers. Our ground is the same, which we have often laid in our former Confutations (to wit) by paralleling this Union of the Eucharist (as it is to be seen in the Margin) with other Unions mentioned by both these same Fathers, in as Equivalent and Equipollent terms (equally named by them both) Natural and Corporal; albeit void of any Corporal Touch of the Body of Christ, as you yourselves will grant. For the Instances, used by these Fathers, are divers, Some consist only in Relation, and some in Application also. The Instance given in the Relative only, is in respect of the Incarnation of Christ, when he took the same nature of our flesh upon him; which Relation of a Christian man's flesh with the Humane flesh of Christ, is universally in all persons, at all times (even without this Sacrament) called by Hilary, [Vnio Corporalis Nativitatis Christi] that is, an Union wrought by Christ his Incarnation in our flesh, being the same Specifically with his; and notwithstanding it is called by him an Union Natural and Corporal, and not only the Union of Will and Affection, albeit void of all Bodily Touch. Next of the Unions made by Application, some are Spiritually only, and some are Sacramental also. Of the Spiritual Union (which is also free from all Bodily Touch) they say of Christ, and of True Christians, that they are United by the Unity of Faith; which notwithstanding is likewise called by him, a Corporal Union, and not only in Will and Affection. I come to the Sacramental Union. Some of this kind are found in other Sacraments, and some in the Eucharist itself. Of others it is indefinitely here said, that Christians are united by the Sacraments, and namely (as is confessed) The Regenerate, by Baptism, have an Union Corporal with Christ, and not only in Affection and Concord: albeit this also be (as you know) exempted from all Bodily Touch. Accordingly of the Unions made by the Eucharist; Some are of Christians among themselves; and some of Christ with us. Of the former, the Union of the faithful Communicants, as the Members of Christ, is named by them a Natural and Corporal Union, and not only in Concord, although (as you know) this can be no coincident Corporall Touch of their Body reciprocally. Thus these holy Fathers. And now that you may understand, from them, Four several Unions, One Relative; Another Spiritual; A third Sacramental in General; And a Fourth (as I may say) Eucharistical; (peculiar only to the Sacrament of the Eucharist) all of them equally named of these Father's Corporall and Natural Unions, and not Unions of Affection and Concordonely; notwithstanding each one of the former Three exclude all Bodily Touch. We demand therefore why all these Four, being named Natural and Corporal, Improperly, only the last should infer a Real Corporall Touch of Christ's Body, by the virtue of the same words, Natural, or Corporall? Your Cardinal giveth his main reason; 2 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 12. Aliud esse, apud Hilarium, aliqua esse unum naturaliter, aliud autem, unum esse in alio naturaliter. Nam ut aliqua sint unum naturaliter, satis est, si verè participent naturam ipsius rei, in qua sunt unum: & hoc modo dicit ipse omnes fideles esse unum naturaliter per fidem— sed ut unum sit in alio naturaliter— necesse est, ut natura unius, merè sit in alio: & hoc modo— Christum esse in nobis per carnem naturaliter; quia natura carnis ejus nobis vere unitur per Eucharistiam. It is not the same thing with Hilary (saith he) Some things to be one Naturally; and to be one in another Naturally: For things to be one Naturally, it is sufficient, if both of them partake truly of the Nature of the thing wherein they are one; and so he calleth all Christians one Naturally by Faith. But to be one Naturally [In] another, it is necessary that the Nature of the one be merely within the Nature of the other: and so (in the meaning of Hilary) is Christ's Body said to be Naturally within ours by the Eucharist. This is your Cardinal's Ground of Assoilement, whereupon he relieth as on a Rock, immovable; which will instantly prove as wavering as a Reed; both False and Fond; (as you may find in the marginals.) For Hilary speaking of one of the other Unions, which he calleth Natural, by reason of Christ's Incarnation, in taking our nature of Flesh upon him, saith that we are [In him.] Therefore is your Cardinal's Distinction False. Next of the very Sacramental Union, whereof it is said, that Christ is [Naturally In us,] it is also as expressly said, that we are likewise [Naturally In Christ.] But none can affirm, that We, in true propriety of speech, are Naturally in the Body of Christ. Therefore is his Answer most Absurd. But you will ask, how then can this stand with the scope of the same Fathers, for the Confuting of the two former Divers Heresies, by an Only Symbolical and Mystical Conjunction with the Body of Christ? First thus; By our Eating and Drinking in this Sacrament (according to Christ's Institution) is professed a vivifical flesh of Christ, giving eternal life unto the world; which (as these Fathers truly teach) it could not do, if it were the Flesh of a mere man: And therefore he is, by Nature, God; one with God the Father. Ergò Avant! Thou Arian-Heretike. The Second thus; The same Humane flesh of Christ would not have the same divine Vivifical power and virtue, except it were perfectly United to his Godhead; and therefore is Christ both God and Man; and that not by Relation of two different Persons only, but by an Hypostatical Union of two Natures. Ergo thou Nestorian Heretic Recant. The meaning of these holy Fathers is transparent enough, by their own Sentences, as is now proved; which if it needed any further Illustration, might be manifested by the like Testimonies of that Great Athanasius, who, from this Article, of Christ his Incarnation only, whereby his Godhead assumed our nature of flesh, spared not to say: 3 Athanasius Tom. 1. Orat. 4. Contra Arianos, pag 487. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that By his flesh, thus assumed of the word, (God) we men are Deified and made Gods. So he; without any Relation to the Sacrament at all. And again, when he spoke of the same Article of Christ's Incarnation, he hath Relation to a Sacrament, and saith as much of Baptism, as either Hilary or Cyril did of the Eucharist. 4 Ibidem. pag. 486. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We, (saith he) being borne again of water and the holy Ghost, are all made alive by Christ; and our flesh is no more Earthly, but now by that [word, God] Wordifyed, and made the same by him, that for us was made flesh. So he. And so, according to the Romish presumption of Arguing, from the like words of the Fathers, concerning the Eucharist, Athanasius must be said to have judged of Baptism. I. That the Substance of water is changed. II. That by it, there is a Corporal Union properly with the Bodies of the Baptised. III. That by the same, the Flesh of the Baptised is made the Word, God. Which nothing but Stupidity could conceive, or Impudency utter, or else Obstinacy defend. The miserable unconscionableness of the Romish Objecturs made clearly Discernible, by their own Confessions, in granting that the Formerly alleged Testimonies of the Fathers are Not to be taken in a Literal Sense. SECT. III. ALl the Questions between your Romish Disputers and Us (concerning the Speeches of the Fathers, objected by them, through the whole Treatise of the Mass, for proof of a Bodily Presence) is, whether they are to be taken Literally and Properly, as they sound to the ear; or Improperly and Figuratively, as they are to be apprehended by our understandings, in a qualifyed Sacramental and Mystical Signification. And whether you can conclude from them a Properly (so called) Corporal Union with his sacred Body; whether by a Corporall Touch and Taste, Mixture, or Nutrition and Augmentation thereby, or no. You have heard your Doctor's object against Us the naked and Symbolical Phrases of the Fathers: will you be so good as hear them again, both relating the Expositions, which the Protestants make of the words of the Fathers objected, and afterwards enforced, by good evidence, to interpret the Fathers accordingly. These you Doctors certify you (see the Margin) that Calvin indeed Expoundeth each phrase as spoken by an excess and exuberancy of speech, for extolling, and commending the Dignity of the Sacrament. So he, of Calvin. Likewise of your own Romish Doctors (saith your Vasquez) Some of the University of Complutum in Spain, did interpret the words of the Fathers, as spoken Hyperbolically. And if you shall reject these, as the meaner Some; we shall inquire into other Some, of better eminency. As namely your Bellarmine, and Tolet, both Cardinals: your Suarez, and even Vasquez himself, all jesuits in their Times. Let them (we pray you) make their own Answers in order, as they have been Cited. First Bellarmine; 5 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4 §. Secundo Respondeo. (Wherein also he expoundeth the like words of justin.) Non est novum apud Itenaeum, Hilarium, Nyssenum, Cyrillum, & alios, ut Eu charistia dicatur alere corpora nostra, sed non intelligunt Patres, cum hoc dicunt, Eucharistiâ nutriri vel augeri mortalem substantiam corporis nostri; sic enim facerent Eucharistiam cibum ventris, non mentis, qu● nihil absurdius fingi possit. It is ordinary (saith he) with these Fathers, to wit, Irenaeus, Hilary, Nyssen, Cyril, and others, to say that the Eucharist nourisheth our Bodies: But they did not understand a Substantial nutrition, or augmentation of our Bodies; for so they should make it to be meat for the Belly, and not for the soul, than which nothing could be feigned more Absurd. So he. Cardinal Tolet is the Second, we desire to hear his Judgement. 6 Tolet. in joh. cap. 6. Annot. 29. Cum dicunt Hilar & Cyril nostra corpora habere unionem corporalem & naturalem cum corpore Christ, Doctores ●i non sunt ita intelligendi, ut velin● ex Christo sumpto & sumen●e fieri unum Ens naturale, indigna est illis Doctrina) sed hoc dicere voluerunt, praeter unionem, quae ratione charitatis & fidei sit, adesse intra nos ipsos verè & realiter Christum ipsum, qui causa est fidei ejusdem. These Fathers (saith he) Cyril and Hilary, when they tell us, that we have a Corporal and Natural Union with Christ's Body in the Sacrament, are not to be understood, as if our Bodies and Christ's Body were made one, in Entity: this were a Doctrine unworthy of them; but they meant of the Union of Faith and Affection, Christ being within us Really, as the Cause thereof. So he. Observe that Cardinal Tolet noteth the Fathers to have said, that the Bodies of the Communicants and the Body of Christ, by this Sacrament, have One natural Being; because of their other Say, that by eating of this Sacrament our Bodies are Nourished and Augmented by Christ's Body. All which are spoken in a Sacramental tenor of speech, and not properly, as you hear. Francis Suarez his Course is next; 7 Suarez. in 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Nihilominus haec sententia improbabilis, & aliena dignitate & majestate hujus Sacramenti, quod non propter corporalem conjunctionem, sed propter spiritualem institutum est, dicente Christo, Mea verba spiritus sunt & vita. joh. 6. [See above, Chap. 7. Sect. 2. at the letter f.] Suarez. Damascen. lib. 4 cap. 14. Hoc Sacramento— nos Christi concorporei existimus— & animo & voluntate copulamur. Cyril. Hierosol. Catechis. 4. Mystag. Sumpto corpore & sanguine Christi efficimur comparticipes corporis & sanguinis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,— cum ejus sanguinem & corpus in nostra membra receperimus, arquè ita (ut B. Pe●ius dicit) Divinae naturae consortes efficimur. [Hinc Suarez:] Vbi propter Sacramentalem susceptionem, non agnoscit aliam unionem praeter spiritualem per gratiam, etc. In 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp. 64. quo supra. I say (saith he) that Cardinal Mendoza is reported to have taught (namely, as out of the Fathers) that Christ's Body is so united with our Bodies, that they are both jointly mingled in parts, one with another. Which is an Opinion Improbable, and unworthy of the Majesty and Dignity of the Sacrament, which was instituted by Christ, not for a Corporal, but for a Spiritual Conjunction: and the other Conjunction is False and Absurd. So he. Gabriel Vasquez is now to take his turn, first to make his Preface, and then to deliver his Opinion. 8 Vasquez in 3. Thom. quaest. 79. Art. 2. Disp. 204. cap. 2. Tametsi Antiqui Ecclesiae Patres in exponendis mysterijs nostrae fidei, insolita, & pa●um in Scholis usitata ratione dicendi interdum utantur, ita tamen eorum verba & sententias accipere debemus, ut licet primo aspectu aliquid Absurdi continere videantur, nihil tamen contra ipsos; nisi maturo consilio & examine, aliorumque patrum, aut conciliorum testimonijs nixi pronunciemus. Ibid. cap. 3. Aliqui omnia Patrum Testimonia, quae allegavimus, per figuram Hyperbolen interpretantur; ut ita Patres virtutem jujus Sacramenti eximiè commendare viderentur: non quôd revera fieret ita. Ex Haereticis hoc modo testimonia Hilarij & Cyrilli interpretatus est Calvinus.— Neque defuerunt Complutenses aliqui, qui eodem modo per Hyperbolen illa explicarent— Ibid. cap. 4. Quidam putarunt, si sine Hyperbole explicarentur, sequi, ut caro Christi per omnem partem corporis nostri dissunderetur, ut cera cerae lique facta— at non sic dissunditur— Cyrillus usus est hac similitudine ad ostendendam veram & realem mixtionem corporis nostri cum corpore Christi, non tamen quoad dissusionem eam similitudimen locum habere putabat— Nec enim est Physics unio carnis nostrae cum carne Christi, sicut ex duabus ceris, neque fieri unam carn●m per conversionem unius in alteram, sicut fit in nutritione animalis naturali, neque id ullus sanae mentis, ullo modo assereret. Although the Ancient Fathers, in expounding these mysteries of Faith, use words not so usual in our Schools, yet ought we to interpret their speeches so, that although at the first sight they contain some Absurdity, yet not to take them contrary to their meaning without due advice, and that relying upon Testimonies of Antiquity. So he. And for Instances he bringeth divers, and more particularly that Similitude of Conjunction, already objected out of Cyr●l; As wax with wax melted are joined together. And this (if it be taken in the Rigidity of the words) he denyeth to note either Diffusion of Christ's Body into the parts of man's Body, or else a Substantial Conversion into them. All these acknowledgements being so plain and ingenuous, and delivered with so full an Assurance and Resolution of your own Doctors, of most exquisite judgement above Others in your Church, do minister unto us matter of Astonishment, to wonder with what Consciences they could urge us with these Sentences of the Fathers, as they go under a Literal habit and propriety of Speech; seeing that now, after some Deliberation, they find the same to be so glowing hot, that they themselves, not daring to touch them with their bare fingers, take hold of them with a Distinction, as it were with a pair of Tongues, saying, that 9 Suarez. in 3. Thom. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 64. Sect. 3. Existimo omnino certum, praeter contactum corporis nostri & Christi, medijs speciebus Sacramentalibus, non intervenire materialem aliquam unionem physicam & veram. Because there is no Natural Conjunction between Christ's Body and ours, excepting only a Touch of the one by the other, under forms of Bread: The Union, spoken of by the Fathers, is not Physical, or Natural, but Spiritual. So Suarez. Not Physical, or Natural, but Metaphorical. So Vasquez. But yet how Mystical it is, this will be handled in the next Section. Can there then be any thing more Odious or unjust, than for your Disputers to proclaim their Adversaries Heretics, for expounding the aforesaid Sentences of the Fathers, in an unproper Sense; which liberty, They themselves both now have practised, and also instructed Others to do the like by their own words and examples? wherein as they are generally found Contradictory to themselves, so are they more particularly one to another. For Doctor Heskins objecting the Say of chrysostom and Cyril, concerning the Conjunction of Christ's Body with ours, to be like as when Wax is melted with wax in one Union, He himself waxed wroth with Protestants so fare, as to judge them Men given over to the Devil, because they did not believe them according to the outward letter. Notwithstanding your own Vasquez (as you have heard) taught that the same words cannot be admitted in the strictness of the Terms; as also your Suarez and Tolet in saying, that to Interpret them Literally, were to detract from the Wisdom of those Fathers, and from the Dignity and Majesty of the Sacrament itself. Lastly, albeit your * Vide Bellar. quo supra de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 13. supra citat. Bellarmine presseth much this Testimony of Cyril, wherein the Christian Communicants are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Carrier's of Christ; yet your Suarez expounding this, and that other of Damascen, calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, joint Bodies with Christ, and so partakers of the Divine Nature; alloweth no more in the Continuance of this Carrying of Christ's Body, and Union therewith, but only a Spiritual, that is, of Grace and Affection. That the Former Objected Testimonies of the Fathers, make flatly against the Romish Faith of a proper Corporal Conjunction and Mixture of Christ's Body with the Bodies of the Communicants, in two more especial Points. SECT. iv ALl the Bodily Conjunction of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants, which your Romish ●aith teacheth, consisteth only in a Mutual Contactus or Touch of his Body with theirs, as your jesuites every where teach. Our Observables hereupon, at this present, are especially two. One in respect of the Time of Continuance of the same Union: The other in respect of the Persons united together. Of the former, you profess by your 10 Vasquez. in 3. Tho. qu 7●. Art. 2. cap 4 Disp. 204 Christus tamdiu est in nobis, quamdiu speci●s in nobis incorruptae perseverant, atque extra eas non est, antequam corrumpantur. Jesuit, that Christ is but only so long in the Bodies of the Receivers, as the forms of Bread and Wine do continue uncorrupt. And, concerning the Persons, you hold of this your Bodily Union (as your 11 Suarez. in 3. Tho qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 64. Sect. 3. Quoad hoc, unio haec communis est peccatoribus indignè manducan●ibus Corpus Christi. Suarez relateth) that It is common to the wicked, and to the faithful Communicants of the Body of Christ. So you. And now (O you great pretenders of Antiquity!) behold a Torrent of Ancient Fathers against you, both in respect of Continuance of Time, and of the Difference of Persons: to wit, Irenaeus, Origen, chrysostom, Hierome, Ambrose, Augustine, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria (under the Confession of your forenamed Jesuits, to whom we may adjoin both Basil, and Theodoret) acknowledging, that whereas the Union which you believe to have with Christ's Body in this Sacrament, only by Bodily Touch, is Transient, during 12 Suarez. quo supra. Sancti (Patres) non loquuntur de union Transeunte, ut sic dicam, cum speciebus Sacramentalibus, sed permanente & Durabili. no longer, than the forms of Bread and Wine, eaten and transmitted into the stomach of the Eater, are uncorrupt, (this Conjunction being indeed momentary,) They, I say, do contrarily teach a Conjunction absolutely Permanent, even to Immortality itself. And again, your Romish Conjunction being Common to the wickedest of men, and this Conjunction, spoken of by the Fathers, being 13 Vasquez. in 3. Tho qu. 79. Art. 2. Disp. 204. cap 3. Vnio quam Patres constituunt inter nostram carnem & carnem Christi, tamdiu manet, quamdiu a Charitate Christi non separamur. Proper only to the Godly and Faithful, who are joined together in Faith with Christ, and in Charity with all Christians (which therefore you yourselves call a 14 Suarez quo supra. Non est haec unio corporalis aut Physica, sed spiritualis & Mystica. Et Vasquez. quo supra. Neque aliam quam moralem & mysticam, Paties, inter carnem nostram & carnem Christi, intelligi voluerunt. Moral and Mystical Union:) It followeth in both these Respects, that you may easily deserve in your Romish Faith notable degeneration from the Judgement of Antiquity. The seeming Contradictions of the former Speeches of the Fathers will be reconciled in the next Chapter, and the Third Section. CHAP. IX. Of the Second kind of Objections out of the Fathers, from their Similitudes, especially insisted upon by Romish Sophisters, because of their calling Christ both Feast and Guest, and the Eucharist Viands and Pledge; Confuted by the like language of the same Fathers, in respect of other things. SECT. I. LEt us look down to the Idiom and language of the Fathers, and compare their Say together, and we shall find these Testimonies no less vehemently, than violently and unconscionably objected. 1 Higher Epist. 15. ad Hebdidiam, objected by Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 23. and Doctor heskin's cap. 53. and others. Dominus jesus, ipse est conviva, & convivium: ipse comedens & qui comeditur:— illius bibimus sanguinem, & sine illo potare non possimus— & quotidie in Sacrificijs ejus ex genimine verae vitis, & vineae Sore●, quae interpretatur electa, rubentia musta calcamus, & novum ex ijs bibimus vinum— in ecclesia, quod regnum patris est. Hierome is alleged, as calling Christ both Feast and Guest, (namely) by giving this Sacrament to be Eaten of others, and Eating it himself: which you (for proof of his Corporal Presence in the Eucharist) Interpret to be Properly understood. But we say not Properly, but Figuratively and Unproperly, even as well as are his words following, where he nameth our Drinking Christ's Blood, the Pressing out, with the feet, the elect and chosen Vines: as also, in calling the Church of Christ, the Kingdom of the Father. Might not these his latter Improper Phrases of Speech have been clear Spectales unto you, to Discern the like Impropriety in the former? The same Answer may be given to the like objected speech of chrysostom, concerning Christ's 2 And chrysostom also by Doctor Heskins (See in the Section following.) Eating themselves, which is, together with the former, to be Discussed in the next Section following. In the Second place, the Eucharist is called in the Greek 3 In Liturgijs, ut patet ex Casaubon. Exerc. 16. cap. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Liturgies, and in the Council of * Conc. Nicen. can 13. Si quis egreditur de corpore, ultimo & necessario viatico non privetur, etc. Nice, the Viaticum, that is Viand, or Provision for our Travel in our way to Life everlasting. A word objected by your 4 Aquinas part. 3. quaest. 73. Art. 4. Hoc Sacramentum est praefigurativum fruitionis Dei, quae erit in patria, ideo dictum via●icum quia hic praebet nobis viam illu● perveniendi. Aquinas and others, which notwithstanding can prove no more for your (properly) Corporall Receiving the Eucharist, than it can for receiving the same Corporally in Baptism, which is called by 5 Basil. Exhort. ad Baptismum, De Baptism sic monet juvenem; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil and 6 Nazian. Orat. 40. de Baptismo, vult morientem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gregory Naxianzene our Viaticum. (See the 7 Gahrie●. Albispin. Episc. lib. Observat. 11. Qui hoc viaticum in omnibus Canonibus Eucharistiam interpretantur, non mious labantur— cum tot sint genera viatici, quot sunt modi & viae ad Ecclesiae communionem obtinendam— Consideres nihil aliud dici viaticum, nisi quod in morte sumitur, & in alteram vitam proficiscenti prodesse potest. At Baptismus & Absolutio, quando morientibus impartiuntur, quid ni viatica censeri possint? Margin.) The Third is the Title of Pledge, which your 8 Bellar. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 cap. 17. ex Optato. Optatus vocet Eucharist●●. 〈…〉 fidei, et spem Resurrectionis▪ Cardinal hath urged out of Optatus, naming the Eucharist, the Pledge of Salvation, help of Faith, and hope of our Resurrection. Which are (say we) delivered in the same Te●or, and sense of speech, wherein 9 Basil exhort. ad Baptis. Baptismus namque ad resurrectionem facultas quaedam et a●●abo, etc. Basil, and 10 Theodoret. in Divinorum Decretorum Epitome de Baptismo. Baptismus est pignus et A●●a futurorum bonorum, et futurae Resurrectionis. Theodoret termed Baptism, the Pledge and Earnest of Blessings to come, and of our future Resurrection. The Common Idiom of Antiquity being so frequent and familiar, equally for Baptism, as for the Eucharist; who can but admire the Boldness of our Adversaries, in their so instant pressing and inculcating of those former Sentences, which cannot be more earnestly Objected for the one, than they may be easily Confuted by the other; as will be more conspicuous in our Relation in the next Section following. That the former Objected Sentences of Antiquity, concerning Feast and Guest, etc. Viand and Pledge, do, in themselves, altogether Confute your Romish Pretence, to the further manifestation of the unconscionableness of your Romish Disputers. SECT. II. CHrist, by Saint Hierome (as you have heard) is said, in receiving this Sacrament at his first Institution thereof, to have been both Convivium, and Convivam, that is, both Feast and Guest, Eating his own Body. And your Doctor Heskins Instan●eth in the like speech of chrysostom, saying: that 11 Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ. Book. 2. cap 55. objected out of chrysostom in Matth 26. Hom. 83. Ipse quoque orbit ex eo, ne 〈◊〉 ●●●bis illis dicerent; Quid 〈◊〉 sangui●●m bibimus et carnem 〈◊〉 ac ideo per●urbarentur— Ne igitur tunc quoque id accideret, primus ipse 〈◊〉 fecit, ut Tranqu●lo animo ad communicationem mysteriorum induceret. Christ himself drank thereof in the behalf of his Disciples, lest they should be troubled with his words of [Eating his Flesh, and Drinking his Blood] therefore did he himself first receive, that he might induce them to take it with a Quiet Mind. So chrysostom; whom your Doctor allegeth for proof of a Corporal Presence of Christ; and then applying himself to his Reader, Now you have heard (saith he) the mind of chrysostom upon the words of Christ, and by the same also, you may know, both how He, and how also the Apostles (who first received the Cup at Christ's hand) did believe. So he. And we shall as willingly subscribe to the Orthodox meaning of Hierome and chrysostom (for they Both agree in one.) Thus then, Christ must have been a Guest and Feast himself unto himself, in Eating his own Body, either Naturally, or Spiritually, or Romishly, or else Sacramentally. But not Naturally, to have his Body fed by the same his own Body; for this Conceit, in your * See above. own Judgement, is Absurd. Nor Spiritually; Because he needeth not any Spiritual help of any Sacrament, for nourishing or augmenting any Grace in his Soul. Nor yet Romishly, by a Bodily Touch (which is your Professed Corporall Union;) Because it was never heard, that any man was fed and feasted by an only Touch. A Bullet, (for example) transmitted into the Belly, doth Touch, not feed: Nutrition and Feeding being, Properly, a Substantial Change of a thing Nourishable, into the Substance of the Body Nourished. And again, what can be more gross, than to imagine (albeit but in a Dream) of a man Eating with his Mouth, his own Mouth; Swallowing with his Throat, his own Throat; Digesting with his Stomach, his own Stomach? All which Consequences follow upon a man's wholly Eating his own Body. Therefore must we apprehend such Speeches of the Fathers in a fourth sense, to wit, Sacramentally, by attributing the name of the Thing unto the Sign, as we teach; which sense the Objected Testimony of chrysostom doth confirm unto us: who saith not, that Christ Drank or Ate himself; but that he drank of the Passeover, lest they that heard him should say, What shall we drink his Blood? which is as much as if chrysostom had directly said, that Christ therefore drank of the Cup, that they, seeing him drink, might thereby understand, that He did no more drink his own Blood, than He, in Eating, did appear to Eat his own Flesh. He therefore Drank (saith chrysostom) lest they should be troubled to think; what? what, but that he Drank his own Blood? which sense of Chrysostom's the sentence itself doth evince: lest that (saith he) they should say within themselves, Shall we drink his Blood? Such Interrogative speeches (as your own School teaches you) have Vim Negationis, that is, imply a Negation, and import as much, as to think that Christ did not Drink his own Blood. Will you have any more? chrysostom explaining the words of Christ, joh. 6. of Eating his Flesh, and Drinking his Blood, giveth all Christians a Caveat, not to understand them Carnally; 12 Chrysost. in joh. 6. Hom. 46. Quid est carnaliter intelligere? simpliciter ut res dicuntur, neque aliud quippiam excogitate. And what is it (saith he) to understand them Carnally? even to understand them simply, as they are spoken, and not conceive any thing else. The Attribute of Viaticum is next, which having so great Consanguinity with the Communion by feeding, may afford us the same Reason of Retorting the same Argument (borrowed from the same word) upon your Objectors themselves, which we permit to your own wits to examine, that with more Brevity we may descend to the last Adjunct, which is, a Pledge of our Resurrection to Immortality, which hath been applied by your Cardinal as peculiar to the Eucharist, to prove a Corporal presence of Christ therein; It being a Term taken from the mouth of the Father Optatus, whom we have answered out of two Fathers, Basil and Theodoret, who have as well given the same word [Pledge of our Resurrection to Immortality] unto the Sacrament of Baptism. From whom it may be your * Costerus. See above, Book 4. ca 10. §. 5. Jesuit Coster borrowed his Assertion, where he also nameth Baptism, the Pledge of our Resurrection to life everlasting; which one word [Pledge,] now Objected by you, will prove as good as Bellerophon's Letters to confute yourselves, and to vanquish your Romish Defence, even from the nature of a Pledge, as it is applied to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, by three Fathers. I. Hierome, 13 Hieron. See above, Book 3. Ca 3. §. 11. Christ (saith he) left this his last memorial of his Passion, like as one that is travailing into a strange Country, leaveth a Pledge with his friend for a memorandum of his benefits. II. Gaudentius thus: 14 Gaudent. See above, Book 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 1●. at (●). Christ (saith he) being about to be crucified, left that Hereditary gift of the new Testament, as a Pledge of his Presence. And III. Primasius, concerning the Institution of this Sacrament saith, that 15 Primas. in 1. Cor. 11. Salvator Deus exemplum dedit, ut quotiescunquè hoc facimus in ment habeamus, quod Christus pro nobis mortuus est, ideo nobis dicitur Corpus Christi, ut cum hoc recordati fuerimus, non simus ingrati gratiae ejus. Quemadmodum si quis moriens relinquat ei, quem diligit, aliquod pignus, quod ille post mortem ejus quandocunque viderit, nunquid potest lachrymas continere si perfectè dilexerit? Christ left us an example, that as often as we celebrate this, we should call to remembrance that Christ died for us. And therefore is it called the Body of Christ, (saith he) that, as often as we remember, we be not ingrate and unthankful to his graciousness; like as when one, Dying, leaveth a Pledge of remembrance unto his friend. All these holy Fathers (you see) interpret this Sacrament to be unto us as a Present Pledge of a Friend Absent, whether he be a living Traveller, or one departed this life. Primasius his Observation of the [Pledge] is very remarkable, when he saith of this Sacrament (thus called a Pledge) that It is Therefore called the Body of Christ, giving the name of the Thing to the Token thereof; than which Similtude what can be more pregnant and pertinent for the Confuting of your Tridentine Faith, concerning the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Seeing now that the Ancient Fathers have shown themselves Patrons and Favourers of our Cause, it will become us, as true Children, to do them right. To which purpose we add, and show That the Seeming Contradictory Sayings of the Fathers are Reconcilable in themselves; and yet Repugnant to the Romish Profession. SECT. III. FOr our making good of this Section, it will be required that we perform it so, that the Doctrine of the Fathers (notwithstanding this Reconciliation) may appear to be both Adverse to the Romish Corporall Conjunction; and also agreeable to our Protestant sense, as well in respect of the Sacramental, as of the Spiritual Conjunction, which the Receiver of this Sacrament hath with the Body of Christ. The Repugnancy of the Fathers to the Romish Corporall Conjunction. Sometimes the Fathers are found, in this Sacrament, to speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is Exactly and precisely, and sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Improperly. When they speak of a Corporal Conjunction with Christ's Body, Exactly and simply so taken, so often they appear to deny it absolutely from point to point. As I. by their 16 Ambros. Serm. 58. in illud Christi ad Magdalen. [Noli me tangere.]— Ergò eum non super terram, nec in terra, nec secundum carnem, debemus quaerere Salvatorem. No Bodily Touch of Christ after his Resurrection. So Ambrose. II. 17 Aug. Non dentis cibus. Idem. Serm. 33. de verbis Dom. Nolite parare fances, sed cor. No me●t for Teeth. So Augustine. Nor For the jaws. So the same Father. III. 18 Attalas Martyr. See above. Not to be devoured with Throat. So Attalas the Martyr. IU. 19 Cyprian de Coena Dom. Non ventris cibus. Not for the Belly. So Cyprian. V. 20 Idem de Coena Dom De union nostra cum Christo in hoc Sacramento. Ad participationem spiritus, non usque ad Consubstantialitatem— nostra & ipsius conjunction, non miscet personas, neque unit substantias, sed affectus consociat, & confoederat voluntates. Not for Bodily Conjunction of Persons, nor for Union of Substances. So also the same Father. VI 21 Cyril. Hierosol. See above, Book 4. cap. 10 § 3. Not to be cast into the Draught. So cyril of Jerusalem. Whereunto you may add, as the Complexion and Comprehension of all the rest, that of chrysostom concerning this Sacrament. * Chrysost. See above. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, Having no fleshly thing, nor yet that hath any Natural Consequence thereof, namely of fleshly Union. In which you have all as ●●at Negatives to your Romish Corporall Union, by your Bodily Touch, whether by Hand, Mouth, or Belly, as the Ancient Fathers could have given, if they had concluded their Judgements in a Synod. But how then (will you say) did they speak so expressly of an Union, by Touching, Eating, Tearing, and of your Corporal Conjunction, even unto the Feeding thereby▪ This is the next Doubt, which we are now to assoil, in the next Section. The meaning of the words of the Ancient Fathers is fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestants. SECT. iv THe Sacramental Union, which Protestants teach, (besides that which they call Spiritual) consisteth wholly in the Resemblance, which is between the Body of Christ, and the Substance of Bread and Wine, and this is Analogical: which was the Ground of all the Father's former Speeches, concerning a Bodily Union with Christ's Body in every Degree. First then the Fathers, in their Symbolical language, have called Bread the Body of Christ, only Sacramentally; because it is a Sacrament and Sign of Christ's Body; which was the Conclusion of our Second Book. II. They have not spared to call the Change of Bread into our Bodies, a Change of Christ's Body into ours, in a like Sacramental signification, as hath been showed in the Third Book. III. Upon the same Sacramental and Analogical reason, they have used to say, that we See, Touch, Taste, and Eat Christ's Body, albeit Improperly, as hath been plentifully declared, and confessed in this Fift Book. iv (Because Eating produceth a Nourishing and Augmentation of the Body of the Eater, by the thing Eaten,) they have attributed like Phrases of our Bodily Nourishment and Augmentation by Christ's Body; which you yourselves have confessed to be most Improperly spoken; in the same Book. V Almost all the former Unions Corporal of our Bodies with Christ, have been ascribed by the same Fathers unto the Sacrament of Baptism; wherein there cannot Properly be any Corporal Touch, or Conjunction at all. As for example, in saying; I. That We, in Baptism, hold the feet of Christ. II. Are Sprinkled with his Blood. III. Do Eat his flesh, have Union with him in Nature and not only on Affection. iv Being made Bone of his Bone, and Flesh of his Flesh. V Thereby have a Pledge of our Resurrection to Life: And a Pledge (as you have now heard) is of that, which is Absent. Each one of these, and many other the like, are abundantly alleged in the Eighth Book of this Treatise of the Mass. The sum of all these Premises is, that we are to acknowledge in the Objected Testimonies of Fathers, concerning the Symbol and Sacrament of Christ's Body, their Symbolical and Sacramental, that is, Figurative Meanings. And lest you may Doubt of the reason hereof, we adjoin the Section following. The Divine Contemplations, which the Holy Fathers had, in uttering their Phrases of our Natural and Corporal Conjunction with Christ's Body, and Nourishment thereby to Immortality; for the Elevating of our minds to a Spiritual apprehension of his Body and Blood. SECT. V YOur Jesuits, Bellarmine, Tolet, Suarez, and Vasquez, have already instructed you, not to take such Say of the Fathers as they are uttered, lest the Fathers might be held to be Absurd in themselves, or Derogatory to the Dignity and Majesty of this Sacrament. And they say well. But it had been better if they had furthermore unfolded unto us the Father's true Mystical meaning therein; which we must endeavour to do out of the premised Sentences of the same Fathers; to the end that you, and we, may make an holy and comfortable use of their Divine meditations upon this Sacrament. They have said, I. That Christ hath a Natural Union by his Godhead with God the Father. II. That this Godhead of Christ, by his Incarnation, is united Hypostatically into our Nature of Manhood in him; whereby we have with Christ our Natural and Corporal Conjunction. III. That by the same Hypostatical Union of his Divine and Humane Nature together, his Bodily Flesh is become the Flesh of God, his Blood the Blood of God. IU. That these being the Flesh and Blood of God, are become thereby to be vivifical, that is, giving Life, Bliss, and Immortality, both to the Bodies and Souls of the Faithful in Christ. V That the Faithful, by Reason of the Specifical Union of their Humane nature, with the Humane Nature of Christ, are made partakers the reby of his Divine Nature, and of all the Infinite Vivification and power of grace, in this world; and of Glory and Immortality, in the world to come, wrought by his Death and Passion. VI Both by Baptism, and by the Eucharist, we have a Natural and Corporal Union with the Body of Christ, mystically; in as much as the Sacrament of Bread and Wine (the Choicest Refections of man's Bodily Life) are Touched, Tasted, Eaten, and Sensually mixed with our Flesh to the nourishing and augmenting the same, until it become of the Essence of our Bodily Substance unseparably. Therefore hath this Sacrament most aptly been called a Pledge of an unspeakable Union of Christ's Body with ours unto Immortality, and an Earnest of our Resurrection. Lastly, from this Sacrament there resulteth a Spiritual Union, continuing in the Faithful after the Receiving of this Sacrament, even all their life long; and notwithstanding called by the same Father's Corporal and Natural, that is, (as they interpret themselves) from the Nature of Faith, by believing that Christ had truly a Natural and Bodily flesh, the same Specifically with ours: Which Union, your Jesuits have been enforced to acknowledge, to be in itself not Properly a Corporal and Natural Union, but Spiritual and Mystical, wrought only in the Soul. But how? This indeed is worthy our knowledge, as a matter full of Christian Comfort. Thus then: The Disposition of the Body, in Christian Philosophy, followeth the Disposition of the Soul: For when the Souls of the Faithful, departing this life in the state of Grace, and the Souls likewise of the ungodly passing but from hence into the thraldom of Sin, shall resume their own Bodies; by virtue of that Resumption, shall be made possessors of Life and Bliss both in Body and Soul; and the Wicked (contrarily) of Curse and Damnation in both, according to that General Doom, Come you Blessed, unto the one, etc. and Go you Cursed, to the other, etc. Nor will your learned Suarez deny this. 22 Suarez in 3. Tho. qu 79. Disp 64. §. 2. Gloria corporis respondet gloriae animae, sicut beatitudo animae respondet gratiae & charitati: ut sicut hoc Sacramentum, neque habet, nequè haberé potest aliam efficaciam circa gloriam animae, praeter eam quam habet circa gratiam & charitatem, itaque neque aliter p●●est efficere gloriam corporis, quam gloriam animae (Condudit;) Hoc Sacramentum non aliam conferre vitam & immortalitatem corporis, quam nutriendo & conservando charitatem & gratiam. The Glory of the Body (saith he) dependeth upon the Glory of the Soul, and the Happiness of the Soul dependeth upon Grace therein; neither doth the Sacrament any otherwise confer Immortality to the Body, but by nourishing and preserving grace in the Soul. Which is Divinely spoken. And yet we have a more Ancient than your Jesuit, even Cyprian, one of the Ancientest of the Primitive Fathers, whose words may serve us for a Comment upon the former objected Sayings of other Fathers. He, in his Discourse of the Supper of the Lord, the Blessed Sacrament of our Union, which the Faithful Communicants have in receiving it; 23 Cyprian de C●na Dom. Potus & Esus ad eandem pertinent rationem, quibus sicut corporea nutritur substantia, & vivit, & ●●colum 〈◊〉 perse●erat; ita vita spiritus hoc prop●io alimento nutritur: & quod est es●a 〈◊〉, hoc animae est fides; quod cibus corpori● est verbum spiritui, excellentiori virtute peragens aeternaliter, quod agant alimenta carnalia temporaliter. As by meat and drink (saith he) the Substance of our Bodies is nourished and liveth, in health; so the life of the Spirit is nourished with this Aliment. For what Meat is to the Flesh, that is Faith to the Soul: and what Food is to the Body, that the Word is to the Spirit working by a more excellent power for Eternity, than can our Carnal Nutriments for our Temporal life and Being. So he. Nothing now remaineth but the last exercise of Faith, which is by Application in Special, taught by our Saviour, in saying to his Disciples, [Take ye, Eat, this is my Body, given for you, and This is my Blood of the New Testament shed for you.] Hereby (although it be spoken, as hath been proved, Sacramentally and Figuratively) to instruct every of his Disciples in taking thereof, to apply those words [Body given for you, etc.] as verily spoken to himself, as if he had said, Take thou john, and Take thou Peter, My Body given for thee john, and for thee Peter, etc. in a Sacramental Analogy. So then as my Bodily hand taketh the Sacramental Bread, the Sign of Christ's Body; and my Bodily mouth eateth, and my Bodily stomach digesteth, and turneth it, as nourishment, into my flesh; so my Soul saith that I believe that the Body of my Saviour was crucified, and his Blood shed for me, whole man, Body and Soul: And that thereby I have an Interest in the power of his Passion, both for Redemption, and for Everlasting Salvation; whereof I have a Sacramental Pledge, by the converting of Bread into the Substance of mine own Flesh: According to the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity, set down in the last Chapter of this Fift Book. ⚜ CHAP. X. Of the Romish Historical Objections Chiefly insisted upon, out of justine, concerning the Slander raised against Christians of Eating man's flesh, sprung (as is pretended) from the Catholic Doctrine of Eating Christ's Body in the Eucharist; which is their First Argument. SECT. I. MAny leaves are spent by M. a Mr. Brerely in his Liturgy Tra. 2. §. 2. Subd 4. p. 121. Where in his Margin he citeth Vadian, whom he nameth a Zuinglian: [And if so, how far●e he was from confessing a Corporal Presence, the Romish Authors, who condemn him for the contrary opinion, do prove.] See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Brerely in pressing this Objection; the strength of his Enforcement standeth thus: justine Martyr, in the year 130. writing an Apology to the Heathen Emperor, when he was in discourse of the Eucharist (The reported Doctrine whereof, concerning the Real Presence, was the true and confessed Cause of this Slander;) and when he should have removed the suspicion thereof, did notwithstanding call the Eucharist, No common Bread, but, after Consecration, the food wherewith our Flesh and Blood is fed, etc. Then he proceedeth in urging his other Argument (as followeth) borrowed from the b Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. Cardinal, to wit, justine his comparing the Change in the Eucharist to be a work of Omnipotency, and for his not expounding the words of Christ Figuratively. Then is brought in * In the Margin of Master Berely. Ibid. Attalas the Martyr, whilst he was under the Tortures, and Torments of his Persecutors, saying, Behold your Doing, [Hoc est homines devorare] This is a Devouring of men: we Christians do not Devour men. To whom is joined Tertullian, making mention of the same Clamour of Sacrificing a Child, and Eating his flesh, [Ad nostrae Doctrinae notam:] To the infamy of our Profession. At length Master Brerely concludeth as followeth; So evidently doth this Slander, thus given forth by the jews, argue sufficiently the Doctrine of Real presence, and Sacrifice: and for as much as the Slander went so generally of all Christians, it is probable that it did not arise from any sort of one or other Christian in particular. So he. ⚜ And so, long before him, Doctor Heskins; 1 He●kins in his Parliament, B. 2. Cap. 42. fol. 156. This fame among the Infidels being grounded upon the same faith of Christians, proveth the Presence. Meaning the Corporal Presence and Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist. That the Romish Objection is, in itself, most Slanderous against the Historical Truth taught by the Ancient Fathers; and Confessed by the Romish Doctors themselves. SECT. II. What? That the Catholic Doctrine of Ancient times, concerning our Eating of Christ's Body in this Sacrament, should have been the Cause; yea, or yet the Occasion to the Heathen and jews, of imputing to the Christians a Capernaitical Eating of Man's flesh? This is the first Argument, which your Objectors, from Historical Relations, use for proof of a Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, out of this Ancient Father justine Martyr; In Confutation whereof we produce (see the Margin) the Testimonies of these Ancient Fathers 2 Aug. Haeres. 26. Cataphryges' Sacramenta perhibentur funes●a habere. Nam de infanti anniculi sanguine, quem de toto ejus corpore minutis punctionum vulneribus extorquent, quasi Eucharistiam suam conficere perhibentur, miscentes eum fari●ae, panemquê inde facientes; qui p●er si mortuus fuerit, habent illum pro Martyr; sin vivus pro Magno Sace●dote. Augustine, 3 Irenaeus. lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum, (Haereticorum) omnes nos blasphemant, & avertunt aures a praeconio veritatis. Irenaeus, 4 Ter●ull. ad uxorem. Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante cibum gusts. [Agapae verò non nisi Vespere.] Tertul. Apolog. 16. Alij Asini caput, & per ludibrium Christiani appellabantur Asinarij, etc. Tertullian, 5 Epiphan. Haeres. 26. Foelum jam natum detractum pistillo ●undunt, & omnes contusi pueri participes facti esu peracto, etc. Epiphanius, and 6 Origen. testatur opera judaeorum has calum●ias adversus Christian●s di●●igatus. lib. 1. contra Celsum. 〈…〉. Origen; together with the Confessions of your own Romish Authors, 7 Ma●donat. lib. 7. de Sacramentis. Tom. de Eucharislia. §. Sexta Questio— Montanistae, Peputiani (ut Author est August. lib. de Haeres. c. 27. & Epiph. in Haeres. 49.) Infantem conspersum farinâ solebant compungere, & sanguinem ab illa expressum miscere farinâ & ex eo panem conficere ad Eucharistiam. Vnde credo natam fuisse illam notam, quam Gentiles inurebant Christianis, quod infantes occiderent. Maldonat, 8 Baronius Anno 120. num. 22. usque ad numerum 36. Quae Gnostici agebant in occulto, palam facta convertebant in Christianos: nam Epiphanius Haeres. 26. Foetum jam natum detractum pistillo tundunt, & omnes contusi pueri participes facti, esu peracto etc. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum (Haereticorum) omnes nos blasphemant, & aver●unt aures a praeconio veritatis. Origenes testatur opera judaeorum has calumnias adversus Christianos divulgatas. lib. 1. con. Celsum.— Caecilius Ethnicus apud Minutium Felicem obijcit in Octavium. Baronius locis supra notatis. Sic jam de initiandis tyronibus, fabula tam detestanda, quam nota est etc. Lorinus Ies. in Sap. cap. 12. v. 5. Striges & Magi nostri puerorum sanguinem lambunt & carnem devorant. Euchitae & Gnostici olim hoc factitârunt, ea etiam ab Ethnicis in Catholicos derivata calumnia est, ut Apologiarum pro Christianis meminerunt Scriptores. Baronius, and ⁹ Lorinus, men of chiefest note in your Church; witnessing concerning that loud and lewd Slander cast upon Catholic Christians, by both jews and Gentiles, that it was occasioned by Heretical, and Fanatical Christians, in the Primitive Age of the Church; such as were the Montanists, the Cataphryges' and Gnostics, who did indeed and Really eat Humane flesh. So they. But most especially is this Romish Figment confuted by the Story itself, which by the Relation of the foresaid Fathers, Confessions of the former Romanists, and Tenor of the Histories themselves, was, The Eating of a Child or Infant; which maketh the falsehood of your Objections to seem, in a manner palpable unto us; because Christ being crucified by both Jews and Gentiles, when he was above thirty years of Age, and the whole Church of Christ professing as much, it was not possible that the Eating of an Infant only, should produce an opinion of Eating a Man of growth; much less could it be credible, that they imputed the Eating thereof in the Eucharist, if (as your French 10 Gabriel Episcop. Albispin. lib. 1. Observat. 18: Eucharistia non nisi mane sumebatur. Te●t. ad uxor. Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante cibum gusts. Agapae non nisi vespere. Item quae de Convivio, quod Gentiles infamabant, habent Patres, cum ea omnia de Agapis, non de Euchatistia accipienda sunt, ut in Apologet. Tert●l. cap. 7. 8. 9 & in fine, quod non animadvertentes plerique perperam de Eucharistia explicarunt. Similiter apud Minutium de inhumanis cibus, de infante farte contecto, quod coeunt solenni die, & quae hisce objectionibus respondet, Minutius, de Agapis intelligere necesse est, eo apud Euseb. Imper. justin. Gretzerus. Ies. de cruse, lib. 1. cap. 51. Ethnici aliqui mentiebantur Christianos A sinum pro Deo colete. Bishop teacheth) This their Eating the flesh of a Child, was not practised in the Feast of the Lord's Supper, but at their Love-Feasts, called Agapae. So he. And consequently so sandy and boggy is this foundation of your main Objection, for proof of the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Second Romish Argument out of Justine, termed Insoluble before all others, is, because when he called the Eating of the Eucharist, the Eating of the Body of Christ, he wrote to an Heathen Emperor. SECT. III. IVstine writeth an Apology unto Antoninus Pius, an Heathen Emperor, at what time the Slander of Eating Humane flesh fell upon the Orthodox Christians, Originally from the impious Practice of Heretical Christians, as you have heard; and now are you to hear the Insoluble Argument forsooth, which your Cardinal Bellarmine extracteth from thence. 11 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. Insolubi●e manet hoc Dilemma; Aut poterat Iustinus vere dicere, carnem Christi a Christianis solum in signo manducari; aut non poterat; si poterat, P●aevaricator fuit causae Christianae: Nam odiosissimam reddidit fidem, & auxit criminum supicionem, cum posset unto verbo, & fidem probabilem facere, & crimen diluere: Si non poterat, certè id eo non poterat, quia verè, & none in signo tantum datur nobis comedenda Christi caro. This Dilemma (saith he) remaineth Insoluble. Either could justine truly have said, that the flesh of Christ is Eaten of Christians only in a Sign: or he could not have so said. If he could, then did he play the Praevaricator in betraying the Christian cause, by making the Christian Profession most odious, to the increasing of the suspicion; when as in one word he might have made it probable, and so have blotted out the Infamy conceived against Christians. And if he could not say that Christ is Eaten in the Eucharist, only as in a Sign; doubtless the reason why he could not, must have been because the flesh of Christ is not given to be Eaten therein as in a Sign only. So he, Ostentatively of his own Argument, insigned by himself Insoluble, as you see; Notwithstanding this may admit divers and sundry Solutions. That the Horns of your Cardinal's Dilemma are easily blunted by a threefold Solution. The Firs is by showing the Cause to be Impertinent. SECT. iv IVstine 12 justin. Apolog. 2. Refert praescriptum Antonini Imperatoris, ad populos A siae. Sententiam corum (Christianorum) ve●uti impiorum & nullorum Deorum sugillatis et alia quaedam obi●citis crimina, quae non potestis probate. shown to the same Emperor, that no Impiety at all (upon any Inquisition formerly made) could be laid to the charge of Orthodox Christians, in this Case, by good proofs. First justine propoundeth the Letters of the Emperor Adrian, Father to Antoninus, who, upon experience of the extreme malice of his Heathen people against Christians, required, that his Officers should not prosecute against any Christian without proof of some Impiety. As also the Epistle of Marcus, Emperor before his Father, who became both a Patron to justify the Case of Christians, in respect of such Crimes objected against them; and a Protector of their Persons; commanding that whosoever should accuse a Christian 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Only for being a Christian (that is for his Profession sake only) should be burnt Quick. And should not the Sacrificing of Infants (if any such had been practised by the Christians) have been held Capital Crimes with those Emperors, trow ye? Besides this justine allegeth unto this Emperor Antoninus himself, his own Epistle, whereby he testified in the Behalf of Christians, 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that None of those Crimes and Impieties, whereof they were accused, could be proved against them; which proveth, that notwithstanding all the Inquisition that Malice itself could make into the Mysteries of Christians, concerning the Eucharist, either in Word, or in Act, was not held offensive unto those Emperors, upon any Information, made by their Adversaries, against them. The Second Solution, to prove their Dilemma Insufficient. SECT. V Our next Reason of the Insufficiency meeteth with the Cardinal's Reason, enforced by the First Horn of his Dilemma, thus: * See above, Sect. 3. If justine (saith he) could have said that Christ's flesh is eaten in the Eucharist, only in a Sign; then did he prevaricate in the Case of Christians, and make their faith most odious, in increasing the Suspicion of the Crime objected against them. We Answer, that although he might have said, that Christ's flesh is eaten Bodily, only in a Sign, yet was not this necessary for the freeing of the Christian Faith from that Suspicion of Eating a Child. One Reason may be, Because nothing was more familiar, even unto the Heathen themselves, than to use the like language, in calling their Sacramental and Mystical, Signs, by the names of the Things signified thereby, whereof you have heard a Memorable example out of * See above, Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Homer; where, even as Christ said of Consecrated Bread, [This is my Body;] So those Heathen, in Sacrificing of Lambs, for Ratification of their Oaths and Covenants, called those Sacrifices their Oaths. And that nothing was more familiar among the Heathen, you may know by that Proverbial speech; Sine Cerere & Libero friget Venus: without Ceres and Bacchus' Lust doth languish: where they give to Bread the name of the Goddess Ceres, and the name of God Bacchus to Wine. Secondly, and more especially may this appear out of justine, immediately after the place now objected, thus: 15 justin. Loco supracitat [Hoc est sanguis meus] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Christ (saith justine) receiving Bread, saith [This is my Body:] and taking the Cup, said [This is my Blood:] and delivered them only in those words; the which also even the wicked Devils, by Imitation, have taught to be done in the Mysteries of their Mithra, (namely) for that Bread and a Pot of Water is put in the Sacrifices of him that is initiated unto their Communion, in the Sacrifices, by Addition of certain words, as you either know, or might have known. So justine, To the Heathen Emperor. Do you not see how the Devils in their Sacrifices and Mysteries (as 16 Tertul. de Cor●na 〈…〉) Agnoseamus ingenia 〈◊〉 ideuco quaedam de divims assectantis, ut nos de suoru● fide confundat, et ●ud●cet. Idem. de Praes●ription. Ipsus res Sacramentorum. devinorum in Idol ●rum myster●●s aemulatur. Ti●git & ipse quosdam,— celebrat et panis oblationem; et imaginem Resurrectionis inducit. Tertullian witnesseth) affect Divine Rites; And by Imitation play Christ's Apes, as other Father's use to speak; And that not only in their Material Ceremonies, such as are Bread and Cup, but also in their Verbal, by Addition of words, as justine showeth. Where you may perceive how justine argued with those Heathen out of their own Mysteries, and (that we may so call them) Sacraments: even as Saint Paul did with the Athenians out of the Inscription of their own Altar. It happened not above a quarter of a year, after that had set down this Observation, that in reading a Book of that never too worthily Commended Mirror of Learning, Master Isaac Casaubone, I found this my Opinion fortified, and as it were animated with his most accurate Judgement, showing out of his most exquisite Reading; that 17 Isaac Casaub in 〈◊〉 exercitat. 16. justinus in Apologia altera narrat, malos Daemonas in Mith●ae mysterijs S. Eachar●●liae aemulationem quandam tradidisse. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ecce panem et poculum; sed aquae, ut dixi, non vin● 〈◊〉 verba solemnia super Symbolis proferri solita: id enim significat isto in loco vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. q●d. super dicta: qua voce utuntur juris. consulti. Etiam Arrianus, loco paulo ante indicato, sacras mysteriorum voces commemorat, quas magnà cum reverentiâ excipi solitas ostendit: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum Eucharistia et sit et d●catur Communio, sicut ante est expositum: in●●dem Mithr●● mysterijs Communio quae est omnibus animantibus inter se, miro Symbolorum genere expri●●ba●ur. The Devils did, in emulation of Christians, use in their Mysteries of Mythra, Symbols of Bread and Cup, adding solemn Mystical words. He furthermore showeth out of Porphyry, that in their Religious Communion, they had certain Enigmatical expressions; Calling their Communicants, if Men, Lions; if Women, Hyenas; and if Ministers, Crows. Still (as you see) using Mystical and Figurative Appellations in their Ceremonial Rites. Upon which evidence we may easily encounter your Cardinal's Dilemma with this that followeth. Either the Emperor and the Heathen people did perceive that the words of Christ, now published by justine, were spoken Figuratively, signifying the Outward Eating of his Body, Bodily, in a Sign only; or they did not. If they did know so much, then could they not be offended with Orthodox Christians, or Scandalised thereby. And if they did not know that they were Figuratively and Mystically to be understood, then would not those Emperors have absolved Christians from all blame (as you see they did) but punished them for Sacrificing of Infants; which Act, among these Heathen, was held to be Criminal and Capital. And that justine did not Prevaricate by concealing his Figurative sense of Christ's words, it is as manifest by that he Instructed them therein out of their own Phrases, used in their Ceremonies of their God Mithra. The Impossibility that any Heathen could be offended at the former words of Justine. SECT. VI NO Heathen, that heard of the Catholic Faith of Christians, concerning the Body of Christ, in those Primitive times, published by Ancient Fathers, and by justine himself, could, except it were against their Consciences, impute unto Christians a Corporall Eating of the Body of Christ. For, first, the Articles of Christian Faith (for which so many Armies of Martyrs conquered the Infidelity of the world, by Martyrdom) being this; that Christ, the Saviour of the world, God and Man, ascended into Heaven, and there now reigneth in the Kingdom of everlasting Blessedness, adored of all Christians with Divine worship. Another Article, universally held of those Catholic Fathers (as hath been * See Book 4. c. 5. §. 5. proved) that the Body of Christ was ever, notwithstanding his Resurrection and Ascension, Circumscribed in one place. And thirdly, All knowing that this Principle was universally and infallibly believed of all the Heathen (namely) To think it Impossible for one Body to be in many places at once. Therefore was it Impossible for the Heathen to conceive that the Christians taught a Corporall Eating of that Body on Earth, which they believed was Circumscribed, and contained in Heaven. Fourthly, That this was the Faith, which the same Ancient Father justine did profess and publish at that time, is now to be tried out of the Books of justine himself. That justine himself did accordingly argue against the Possibility of Christ's Bodily Presence on Earth; And that Attalas (objected) condemneth the Romish Capernaitical Swallowing of Christ's Body. SECT. VII. IVstine, in the same Apology, now objected, and by him directed unto the Heathen Emperor Antoninus surnamed the Godly, before his words of Eating Christ's flesh, setteth down the Christian Article of his Ascension into Heaven, saying 18 justin. in Apologia second pag. 64. Deus, Christum post Resurrectionem illaturus coelo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. adversantes Daemones percutiat, et bonorum numerum expleatur, propter quos nondum extremum Decretum et consummationem fecit. that God the Father assumed Christ, after his death, into Heaven, there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, To detain him, until he vanquished the Devils, and filled up the number of the Godly. An Argument (as Athanasius, and Augustine observeth) which was used by Christ himself, as that which ought to have persuaded the very Capernaites, that Christ was not to be Bodily Eaten upon Earth (as hath been * See above, B. 5. cap. 3. Sect. 2. proved.) The same justine in his Resolution of Questions, made by Orthodox Christians, shown that Christ denied to have a Continual Conversation with men, after his Resurrection, which he had before his Passion: Namely that 19 justin. Quaest. & Resp. ad Orthodox●●. pag. 327. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. adding that after his Resurrection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He would by little and little disuse and unaccustome them with his sight and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Presence. Do you hear his withdrawing his Presence? That is, will you say, his Visible Presence. Nay, but whatsomever Local Presence, which he had among them formerly; whether (saith justine) of Being Seen, or of Not being Seen among them. This is plain. Of Averro his Imputing to Christians the Devouring of their God. SECT. VIII. We are not ignorant what some of you would Reply, by Instancing in Averro his upbraiding of Christians with Devouring of their God, which we may justly conceive he spoke in the spirit of malignancy, and against his own knowledge, as the Premises have proved, and against the express Profession of Ancient Fathers, detesting the same Conceit of Devouring Christ's flesh (as you have formerly heard.) Just like as our Romish Adversaries deal with us, who, as often as they labour to confute our Doctrine of justification only by Faith, do inveigh against Protestants, as professing a justifying Faith without Good works and Repentance. And notwithstanding the same Objectors themselves, expressing the very words of Protestants, confess that their justifying Faith, which they teach, is a Living Faith always joined with Contrition of heart for sin, and purpose of Amendment of Life, and that this justification by Faith can be no more separated from Sanctification of Life, than can the Light in the Fire from the Heart thereof. How be it the Observation of some other is very probable; to wit, that Averragës' understanding of the Decree of Pope Nicolas (above 20 Pope Nicolas the Second, living Ann. 1059. Averro (ut a●t Possevinus Biblioth lib 13. c. 23.) fuit à Nativitate Christi, anno 1150. discussed) in his Roman Synod, and imposed upon the Faith of all Christians within his Romish Jurisdiction, teaching them to believe, that The Body of Christ is sensually Eaten and Torn with the Teeth of all the Communicants of this Sacrament: Which tenor of Speech hath been abandoned by your own Doctors; some censuring it as harsh and false, and some as Heretical. It can be no marvel (say we) that Averro●s hearing of this, Then professed by Papal Christians, did deride and detest all such Eaters of their God, and that most Justly. Because that Devouring (as hath been confessed by your Jesuit) is nothing else but a Transmitting without mastication, or Tearing, into the stomach▪ else could not Scriputre have said, that jonas was devoured of the Whale. Which your Corporall Swallowing of Christ's Body, if it had been held Christian in the Days of Antiquity, then could not Attalas (as hath been objected) have upbraided the Heathenish Persecutors at the time of his Martyrdom, saying, * See above Sect. 1. This (your persecuting of Christians to death) is a Devouring of men, We Christians do not Devour men. Such is the Vnluckinesse of your Objectors to urge most vehemently and eagerly, still, that which maketh most against them. And indeed the Romish must needs be said to Devour that which they profess to Eat, Swallow, and sometime to pass into their Bellies, and after into the Draught. CHAP. XI. Of the Fift, Last, and Basest Romish manner of Union with Christ's Body, in the Inferior parts of your Communicants. HItherto have your Romish Disputers laboured to bring the Body of Christ into your Bellies and Entrails: Now, as if they thought this not a sufficient Vilfication of the Blessed Body of Christ, they proceed to depress it lower, into the Basest place of Baseness, which is the Draught and Siege itself: so vile, that the very Ink may seem to blush, in setting down the Sordidity thereof; which (in respect of other Readers, than yourselves, who teach this) we may not further adventure to mention without Preface of Reverence; under our Readers patience therefore we proceed, as followeth. Showing the Romish Doctrine of an Union of Christ's Body with the Basest parts of Man's Body, to be more Beastly than the Carnal and Capernaitical conceit of Eating Christ's Body is read of ever to have descended unto. SECT I. CApernaites, when they were offended at Christ's words, concerning the receiving of Christ's flesh, are not read to have proceeded further in the grossness of their Imagination, than to a Proper Eating thereof. Our Saviour showing the Ordinary Course of meat, in the superfluity thereof, above that which is turned into nourishment, and changed in the Substantial parts of man's Body, saith that Coming into the Belly, it descendeth into the Draught. A Saying which holdeth true, as well in meat Sacramental, as Natural; as Manna, for example (called Angels food) and the Paschall Lamb, neither of both were privileged from the ordinary course of Nature. And as for the material part of this Sacrament, Origen saith as much of it, that * Origen. See B. 4. cap. 9 § 3. & B. 3. cap. 3. § ●1. & B. 5. cap. 6. §. 3. Going into the Belly, it passeth into the Draught. But what now is your Romish Doctrine? The general learning of your Schools is, that The Body of Christ is under the forms of Bread wheresoever, so long as they remain uncorrupt. Which is so verily your Roman Faith, that one of your Cardinals in his Catechism, telleth his Catechumenist, that 21 Contarenus' Cardinal. Catechests Christiana. Interrog. 14. Remanetne corpus Christi▪ & sanguis, in Eucharistia, donec species illae remanent? Resp. Quis sanus ment posset de hoc ambigere. Vis enim Consecrationis durat semper, donec res consecrata duraverit. No man, that hath his wits, can doubt thereof. This Ground being thus laid, we propound unto you the Consequences hereof, as we find them divulged in print by your own Authors, and in their privileged Books, Antoninus was (as 22 Anton Possetia. Apparat. Tit. Antoninus— Antoninus Florentinus, deinceps Archiepiscopus Patriae suae, in Sanctorum numerum à Pontifice Clemente Septimo relatus. you know) an Archbishop living, and being dead, Canonised a Saint by Pope Nicolas. He shall be our Relater of the Doctrine of Paludanus, whom your Jesuit 23 Possevin. Apparat. Tit. Petrus de Palude.— Inter Theologos celebris, & postea Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus. commendeth for a Famous Divine, and sometime a Patriarch. This Petrus Paludanus, from your former General Principle, argued, saying that 24 Antonini Summae, parte tertia, Tit. 13. cap. 6. §. 3. de Defectibus Missae Petrus de Palude. Non potest evomi nisi quod in stomachum est trajectum. Et quod dicit 〈◊〉 illa Glossa, quod in secessum non emittitur, sed per sudorem aliter emanat, fatuum est fingere, qui & per secessum taliter emitti possunt species, sicut emitteretur substantia panis & vin, & non aliter. Illa autem quanquam non corrupta emituntur, ut in habentibus fluxum▪ ergo & species, propter quod non est danda Eucharistia habenti talem fluxum, quia se emittit integrum quod sumit, sicut nec habenti vomitum, 〈◊〉 istud magis cederet in irreverentiam Sacramenti, quam illud. Igitur, Corpus & Sanguis Christi, tamdiu manet in ventre, & stomacho vel vomitu, & quocunque alibi, quamdiu species manet, sicut substantia conversa mansistet, & si species incorruptae evomuntur vel egrediuntur, ut ibi verè Corpus Christ. The forms of Bread and Wine do as verily go into the Stomach, and so after into the Draught, as could the Substance of either of them, if they were there, and yet sometimes pass out uncorrupted, in Bodies infirm, and especially those that labour of the Flux: Because some so diseased persons do let pass from them that which they eat, as uncorrupt as they received it, whether it be by Vomit, or by Egestion into the Siege. So he. Which again is a Doctrine so verily Romish, that your own Casust, in his Book enstiled Moral Resolutions, propoundeth two Cases; and afterwards mannerly (saving your presence) resolveth them thus: 25 johannes Baptista de Bertis. Qu. 5. Art. 6. Dub. 5. Quid agendum sit, si post sumptionem sanguinis patiatur Sacerdos vomitum, vel ex infirmitate emittit per secessum, quod sumpsit. Et idem johann. Baptista. Qu. 5. Artic. 3. Dub. 5. Quid agendum, si quis post sumptionem sanguinis Christi statim patiatur vomitum. Resp. Reverenter colligantur species panis, si decerni possunt, & reponantur in sacrario, vel sumantur ab aliquo, si saltem adsit aliquis ad sumendum dispositus absque nausea, & ea, in quibus inventae fuerunt species, comburantur, & cineres in Sacrario recondantur; & idem dicendum est, si ex infirmitate statim emittat per secessum. that If any, after the receiving of the Body of Christ, shall be provoked by Vomit, upward; or else by Egestion to cast them out, then, that the forms of both may be Reverently licked up, if any can perform this without loathsomeness. So he. Might this be Possible! We return to your Relater Antoninus, out of Plaudanus, giving you an example of a Devout man much commended by one 26 Antoni●● quo supra. Et siquidem homo esset tanti fervoris quod hujusmodi non horreret, sed sumeret, commendandus esset; si tamen esset jejun●s. Sic Beatus Hugo. Cluniacus commendavit Goderanum sumendo partiunculas Hostiae, quas leprosus cum vilissimo sputu evomuerat, dicens Cratuculam Laurentij esse tollerabiliorem. Nec puto eos sibi contrarios, sed dictum Thomae videtur intelligendum, cum jam videtur species Sacramenti alierata, scilicer, quod debet comburi animal. Dictum verò Petri, cum factum est ita recens, quòd adhuc creditur species Sacramenti permanere in stomacho, & tunc debet exenterari. Hugo For Licking up the Host vomited; and after affirming that the suffering on Saint Laurence his Gridiron had been more tolerable than this. So they. How like you this? For mislike it you may not, it being the natural Brat and Offspring of your General Romish faith, Believing (as hath been said) that the Body and Blood of Christ is under the Consecrated forms of Bread and of Wine wheresoever, so long as the same forms remain uncorrupted. This Theme will not permit much Discussion, for, as the Saying is, Omne Coenum ma●è olet, commove, & senties odorem. We hasten to the next Section. That the very Imagination of this Former Romish Beastly Doctrine would have been held of the Ancient Fathers most Abominable. SECT. II. THe Holy Fathers (if they had been of your Romish Faith, concerning the Corporal Presence of Christ's Body in this Sacrament) must have held also your Romish Conclusion, of a Possibility of Egestion; the Conceit whereof they did greatly abhor. For * Cyril. Hierosol. See above, Book 4. cap ●●. §. ●. Cyril of jerusalem, to the end that he might abstract men's minds from all such monstrously-prophane and Base thoughts and conceptions, concerning the Body of Christ, denied peremptorily, that Christ's Body can pass into the Siege. Which also seemed to be so unsavoury and loathsome to * Chrysost. Ibid. chrysostom, that he spit at the first thought thereof, with an Absit! as much as to say [Fie upon it!] in execration thereof. Some Creatures are said, for keeping Hunters from pursuing them, to cast Dung and Filth backward in their faces: and so it falleth out (in a manner) here, where the Turpitude and Beastliness of your Doctrine forbiddeth us to enlarge our Confutation, and therefore we hasten to a Conclusion. That the Institution of this Sacrament was ordained to be Food only for the Soul, and not for the Body, according to the judgement of Antiquity. SECT. III. THis Proposition hath been already * See above ch. 2. § 3. confessed by your Council of Trent, and Roman Catechism, and confirmed by the Consent of * See above ch. 10. §. 5. Antiquity itself; where it was manifested, that albeit they sometime make mention of its being Food and Life to the Body also; yet was not this (as your Jesuits have * Ibid. confessed) so said in respect of any immediate Bodily preservation thereof, in this Life, but in the Everlasting Life of Glorification, in the Day of Resurrection, after it be reunited to the Soul, according to that Promise of Christ, joh. 6. excepting only the Analogical and Sacramental manner of Feeding, which we defend (that is to say) As the Body Feedeth Corporally on the Sacrament, Bread; so is the Soul nourished Spiritually with Christ's Body and Blood. Otherwise the Ancient Fathers maintained a sole Soule-feeding on Christ's Body; in which respect (as one of your 27 Casaub. Ex. ermit. 16. cap. 39 Vocant Graeci Patres hoc Sacramentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. own learned Authors hath informed you) The Greek Fathers called that which we receive [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] that is, supersubstantial Bread. 28 Tertull. de Orat. Aug. Epist. 121. Isidor. Hisp. de ●ffic. lib. 1. cap. 5. Ambros. lib. 5. de Sacramentis. Non est iste cibus, qui vadit in corpus: sed qui animae substantiam fulcit. Bertram de Corpore Domini. Vbi loquitur Ambrosius de Corpore Domini. Origen. in Genes. cap. 24. Christus est panis vitae, & pascit animas es●rientes. Tertull. de Resurrect. de Carne Christi. Panis coelestis auditu devorandu●, intellectu ruminandus, fide digerendus. Aug. Tract. 26. in joh. Panis iste quaerit esurlem interioris hominis. Basil. in Psalm. Est & quiddam interni hominis os, quo pascitur, recipiens verbum vitae, qui panis descendit de caelo. We add the particular accordant Testimonies of divers Fathers, of whom if you ask, What the Meat is, which you must believe to Eat in this Sacrament? They will tell you, Not of the Body, but of the Soul. If Who must be the Eater? Not the outward, but the Inward man. If What it is that hungreth for this? The Inward Soul. If What must taste it? The Soul. If with What mouth? That, whereof Tertullian said (speaking of Christ's Flesh) It is to be devoured with the Ear, ruminated with the Mind, and digested with Faith. If How? Let Saint Augustine make up the whole harmony; Eat his Flesh▪ * See above ch. 6. §. 4. This (saith he) is a Figurative Speech, commanding us to communicate of his Passion; and sweetly and profitably close up in our memories, that his Flesh was wounded and crucified for us. So the Fathers. Besides many other like Say, by us already related in the former Sections, wherein hath been opposed out of the Fathers, against your Corporal Touch, saying of Christ, Touch me not: against your Oral Eating thus, Not meat of the Tooth; but of the Mind: against your Swallowing thus, We Devour not Christ's Flesh: against your Corporal mixture therewith thus, We mingle not the Persons and Substances: And against your Corporall Transmitting the same Body down by Egestion thus, It descendeth not into the Draught. We therefore (according to the genuine sense of Primitive Fathers, answerable to the Doctrine of Christ) conclude; that such as is our Feeding of Christ's Body in this Sacrament, such also must be our Eating, because Eating is ordained for Feeding. But by the universal Consent of all Christian Professors, of all ages, whether Primitive, or Successive, Greek or Roman, Protestants or Papists; our Spiritual Feeding of Christ Body, in this Sacrament, is devoid of all Corporal Instrument, or effect. Therefore our Spiritual Eating is no way Corporall. ⚜ CHALLENGE. THrice therefore, yea four times unconscionable are your Disputers, in Objecting the former Sentences of holy Fathers, as teaching a Corporal and Natural Union of Christ's Body with the Bodies of the Communicants; once, because they, in true sense, make not at all for your Romish Tenet: next, because they make against it: then, because the Corporal Conjunction, though it be of the Body of Christ, and Bodies of Christians, in respect of the Object, yet for the Matter and Subject, it is of Sacramental Bread united with our own Bodies, in a Mystical Relation to the Body of our Redeemer; and lastly, and that principally, because they meant a Spiritual Conjunction properly, and perpetually belonging to the Sanctifyed Communicants, and herein consonant to the profession of Protestants. Wherefore Primitive and Holy Fathers would have stood amazed, and could not have heard without horror of your Corporal Conjunction of Christ his Body in Boxes and Dunghills, in Maws of Beasts, in Guts of Mice, Worms and Dogs, and at length into the Siege, as you have taught. Fie, Fie● Tell it not in Gath, nor let it be once heard of in any Heathenish Nation, to the Blaspheming of the Christian profession, and Dishonouring of the Broad Seal of the Gospel of Christ, which is the Blessed Sacrament of his precious Body and Blood. ⚜ Thus much of the Romish Consequence, from their Proper and Literal sense of Christ's words [This is my Body] so fare as concerneth Corporal Union. The next Consequence will be touching the Proper Sacrificing thereof; whereunto we proceed, nothing doubting but that we shall find your Romish Disputers the same men, which hitherto they have appeared to be; Peremptory in their Assertions, Unconscionable in their Enforcements of the Sentences of Antiquity, Contradictory to themselves; and Vain and Absurd in their Inferences and Conclusions. ⚜ THE SIXTH BOOK, Entreating of the fourth Romish Consequence, which concerneth the pretended proper Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Romish Mass, arising from the depraved Sense of the former words of Christ; [THIS IS MY BODY:] and confuted by the true Sense of the words following, [IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.] The State of the Controversy. WHo soever shall deny it (say your Fathers of a Si quie dixerit. non offerri Deo verum & proprium Sacrificium, aut non es●t Propitiatorium, Anathema sit. cone. Tri● Sess. 22. Cap. 1. & 3. Visibile. cap. 1. Sacramentum verè propitiatorium. cap. 2. Trent) to be a true and proper Sacrifice, or that it is Propitiatory: Let him be Anatherna, or Accisrsed. Which one Canon hath begot two Controversies (as you b Prima Controversia est, 〈◊〉 Missa verè & propriè dictum Sacrificium. Se●und●, sit nè Propitiatorium. Bellar. Praf●●●● Tract. de Missa. know.) One, Whether the Sacrifice in the Mass be a proper Sacrifice. 2. Whether it be truly Propitiatory 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 Deniers, 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 four Trials: 1. By the Scripture. 2. By the Judgement of Ancient Fathers. 3. By Romish Principles; and 4. By Comparison between this your Mass, and the Protestants Sacrifice, in the Celebration of the holy Eucharist. CHAP. I. Our Examination by Scripture. SCriptures alleged by our Disputers, for proof 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 Gospel of Christ, and some out of other places. We beginning at the Gospel, assuredly affirm that if there were in it any note of a Proper Sacrifice, it must necessarily appear either from some special word, or else from some Sacrificing Act of Christ, at his first Institution. First of Christ's words. That there is no one word, in Christ his first Institution, which can probably infer a Proper Sacrifice; not the first and principal words of Luc. 22. [Hoc FACITE: DO THIS.] SECT. I. WHen we call upon you for a Proof, by the words of Christ, we exact not the very word Offering, or Sacrifice, in the same Syllables, but shall be content with any Phrase of equivalency, amounting to the sense or meaning of a Sacrifice. In the first place you object those words of Christ, [Hoc facite: Do this.] from which your Council of a [Hoc facite] Tunc, utà Sancto Synodo definitum est, Christus Sacerdotes instituit, praecepirgue ut & ipsi & qui 〈…〉 eye essent, corpus ejus immolarent. Catechis. Trid. de Euch. Num. 58. Trent hath collected the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ: which your Cardinal avoucheth with his b Cerium est, probari Sacrificium Missae his verbis, [Hoc facite] etc. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 12. Certum est, as a truth without all exception; as if [Do this] in the literal sense, were all one with [do you Sacrifice,] But why? because, forsooth, the same word in the Hebrew Original, and in the Greek Translation is elsewhere so used, Levit. 15. for do, nor Make, spoken of the Turtledove prepared for an Holocaust, or Sacrifice: and 1 King. 18. 23. where Elias (speaking of the Priests of Baal, and telling them that he meant to have a Sacrifice,) said, Do, or Make. So he, together with some other jesuites. But vainly, ridiculously, and injuriously. I. Vainly, because the word, Do, in those Scriptures did not simply in itself import a Sacrifice, but only consequently (to wit) by reason of the matter subject then spoken of, which was a matter of Sacrifice: and are so explained by just circumstances, as may appear in the places objected, Leu. 15. where was speech of a Turtledove, appointed for a Sacrifice. And so likewise in 1 King. 18. 23. was there mention of a Bullock to be ordained for a Sacrifice. Whosoever, having spoken of his Riding, shall command one servant, saying, Make ready: and after, being an hungry, and having spoken of meat, shall command another, saying likewise, Make ready, None can be so simple as to confound the different senses of the same word Make, but knoweth right well that the Significations are to be distinguished by the different subjects of speech; the first relating to his horse, and the other to his meat, and the like, wherein the different Circumstances do diversify the sense of the same word. II. Ridiculously. For if the Hebrew and Greek c Gnaschah, Heb. the same in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Latin, Facio jud. 6 29. Ios. 5. vers. ul. job. 13. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Marc. 11. 3. Si quis dixerit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Editions, which signify Do this, do necessarily argue a sacrificing act or Sacrifice, then shall you be compelled to admit of strange and odd kinds of Sacrifices; one in Gideon his destroying of the Altar of Baal: another in Moses his Putting off his shoes. A third in Christ's washing his Disciples feet. A fourth (to go no further) in the Man's Losing of his Colt. In all which Instances there are the same original words now objected, by interpretation, Do, or Make. Even as it was also in Christ's words to judas, then, when that Monster was plotting that heinous Treason, saying. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] That which thou dost, do quickly. Can your Alchemists possibly extract a dram of Sacrifice, as offered by judas, either from the word, Do, or Dost, in that place? III. Injuriously. First, to the Text of Christ, wherein the word is not indefinite, Do, but determinate, [Do this.] Next, Injurious to your own many Authors: for the words, [Do this] (by the * See above Book. ●. Chap. 2. §. 1. confessions of your own jesuites and others) have reference to all the former Acts of Christ his Celebration, then specified; as namely, Blessing, Breaking, Eating, etc. Yea, and if your Cardinal's Answer were held so Certain among yourselves, than would not your jesuite Maldonate have so fare slighted it, as to say, d Maldon. Non quòd contendam illud verbum [Facite] illo loco significare idem quod sacrificare. Lib. 7 de Sacra. Tom. 1. part. 3. de Eucharist. I will not contend, that in this place the word [Do] signifieth the same with, Do sacrifice. ⚜ If you think this be not opposite enough, then behold your jesuite Estius flatly contending against it. 1 Estius Ies Come in 1 Cor. 11 vers. 24. Non quòd verbum [Facere] sit idem quod [Sacrificare] quomodò nonnulli interpretati sunt, praeter mentem Scripturae. The word [Facere] saith he, is not the same with [Sacrificare,] as some do expound it, besides the meaning of Scripture ⚜. Next, Injurious to antiquity, which (as is confessed) e Qùod olim dicimus, Missas facere, Veteres quoque dixerunt Divina mysteria celebrare. Hilar. etc. Ex Cassand. Liturg cap. 16. called Doing Mass the Celebration of the Sacrament. Besides, Injurious to your own Mass, in the Canon inserted by f Alexander Papa & Martyr, Passionem Domini inserens Canoni Missae, ait, [Hoc quoticscunque feceritis,] Id est, Benedixeritis, Fregeritis, Distribueritis, etc. Id. Cassander ibid. cap. 29. Alexander Pope and Martyr, of the Primitive age, in these words; [Do this as often] that is, Blesseit, Breakeit, Distributeit, etc. A plain and direct Interpretation of the words [Do this.] Lastly, Injurious to S. Paul, who, in his Comment upon the words of Christ his Institution, doth put the matter out of question, 1 Cor. 11. where, after the words [Do this, as often as you do it, in remembrance of me,] vers. 25. immediately expounding what was meant by Doing, expresseth the Acts of Doing, thus; As often as ye shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, etc. Which his Command of Doing, by Eating and Drinking, was spoken generally to all the faithful in Corinth; that you may not imagine it was wholly restrained to the sacrificing Priests. Other Romish Doctors also, if they had been so sure of the force of the word [FACITE,] as your Cardinal seemeth to be, then surely would they not have sought to prove it from Virgil's Calf, where it is said; Cùm faciam Vitulâ— and were therefore noted by Calvin and Chemnitius of bold Ignorance. But these two Protestants, for so saying, have been since branded by your g Operae-pretium erit imposturam Adversariorum refutate. Calvinus fingit Catholicos ità probare Propositionem nostri argumenti ex Virgilii verbis, Cùm faciam vitulâ, etc. Et Kemnitius ridet Catholicos.— sed errand, nee bonâfide referunt argumenta Catholicorum. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 12. Cardinal with a mark of Imposture, as if they had falsely taxed your Romish Authors of such fondness. But now what shall we say to such a Gnostick, who, as though he had known what all the Doctors in the Church of Rome had then written and vented, durst thus engage his word for every one? It may be, he presumed, that none of them could be so absurd. But your jansenius will quit the report of Calvin and Chemnitius from the suspicion of Falsehood, who witnesseth, concerning some Romish Authors of his time, saying; h Sunt qui ex verbo [Facite] Sacrificium ostendere conantur, quia aliquandò accipitur pro Sacrificare, ut cum Vitgilius dicit— Cùm faciam Vitulâ profrugibus, ipse venito. jansen Concor. in cum locum cap. 131. p. 904. There are some who endeavour to prove the word [Facere] to be put for [Sacrificare] by that saying of Virgil,— Cùm faciam vitulâ. So he. And why might not they have been as absurd, as some others that came after, yea (by your leave) i Et Poeta, Cùm faciam vitulâ, etc. Valent. Ies. lib. 1. de Sacrif. Missa, c. 4. §. Fatentur. p. 519. Eam vim habet verbum Faciendi, ut cum Poeta dicit, Cùm faciam Vitulà, etc. Salmer. Ies. Tim. 9 Tract. 27. pag. 205. §. Septi●●. jesuits' themselves, of your Bellarmine's own Society, who in like manner have consulted with the Poet Virgil about his Calf; but as wisely (according to our Proverb) as Walton's Calf, which went etc. For the matter Subject of the Poet's Sacrifice is there expressed to have been Vitula, a Calf. You have failed in your first Objection. That a Proper Sacrifice cannot be collected out of any of these words of Christ's Institution; Is GIVEN, Is BROKEN, Is SHED. SECT. II. THe Text is Luc. 22. 20. [Which Is broken, Is given, Is shed] in the Present Tense; and This Is the Cup of the new Testament in my Blood; wherein, according to the Greek, there is a varying of the Case: whereupon your Disputers, as if they had cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are commonly more Instant in this Objection than in any other: some of them spending eight full leaves in pressing this Text, by two Arguments, one in respect of the Case, and another in regard of the Time. Of the Grammar point, concerning the Case. This is the new Testament in my Blood: ● Now what of this? a Bellarm. de Missa, lib. 3. cap. 12. In Graeco Textu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dicit, Calix qui funditur, non hic est sanguis qui funditur: itaque indicant sanguinem fundi, ut erat in Calais. It is not said (saith your Cardinal) This is the Blood shed for you, but, This is the Cup shed for you: Therefore is hereby meant. The Blood, which was in the Chalice, because wine could not be said to be shed for us for remission of sins. But how gather you this? Because in the b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greek (saith M. c M. Breerly Liturg. tract. ●. c. 3. subd. 2. Brerely) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This Cup shed for you, varieth the Case from the word [Sanguine] and the Genus from the word [Testamentum,] and agreeth evidently with Calix: so that the Cup being said to be shed, proveth the Blood spoken of to be shed verily in the Cup: which drives Beza unto a strange Answer, saying that this is a Soloe cophanes, or Incongruity of speech. So he; which Objection he learned peradventure of the d Rhemists' Annot. upon Luc. 22. 20. Rhemists, who are vehement in pressing the same: their Conclusion is, This proveth the Sacrifice of Christ's blood in the Chalice; as also your jesuite 2 Gordonus Scotus Ies. l. 1. Controvers. 3. c. 12. nu. 6. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] est nominativi casus necessariò referendum ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non dativi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut pertineatad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gordon hath done. In which one Collection they labour upon many ignorances'. 1. As if a Soloecophanes were a profanation of Scripture, by Incongruity of speech; which (as one e Rodolph. Goclenius Professor Marpurg Problem. Gram. lib ●. Demosthenes' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cic. 2. de Orat. Bene dicere antem, quod est perite loqui, non habet definitam aliquam regidnem, cujus terminis septa teneatur. Vo● [Septa] non congruit cum ●● Bene dicete, sed referenda est ad voccm Eloquentiae Ne observeth the like in Plato, Virgil, Homer, pag. 232, 233, 261, 262. Protestant hath proved) is used as an Elegancy of speech by the two Princes of Orators, Demosthenes for the Greek, and Tully for the Latin; and by the two Parents of Poets, among the Greeks Homer, and by Virgil among the Latins. 2. As though these our Adversaries were fit men to upbraid Beza with one Soloecophanes, which is but a Seeming Incongruity, like a Seeming Limping, who themselves confess f Sixtus Senensis Biblioth. lib. 8. pag. ult. Nos ingenuè fatemur nonnullas mendas in hac nostra editlona inveniri, etiam Soloecismos, & Barbarismos, hyperbata, etc. Ingenuously, that in their Vulgar Latin Translation (which is decreed by the Council of Trent to be Authentical) there are mere Solecisms, and Barbarismes, and other faults, which we may call, in point of Grammar, down right halting. 3. As if a Truth might not be delivered in a Barbarous speech, or that this could be denied by them, who defend Solecisms, and Barbarismes, which had crept into the Translation of Scriptures, saying that g Rhemists' Preface before the New Testament. Ancient Fathers and Doctors have had such a religious care of former Translations, that they would not change their Barbarisines of the Vulgar Latin Text, [as unbent, & unbentur] and the like. 4. As if there were not the like Soloecophanes of Relatives not agreeing with their Antecedents in case, whereof you have received from h D. Fulke against Greg. Martin. D. Fulke divers * Apoc. l. 4 & 8. 9 & 3. 12, etc. Examples. 5. As if this Soloecophanes now objected were not justifiable, which is defended by the Mirror of Grammarians i joseph. Sciligeri Nota in novum Testamentum. Luc. 22. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Mera est Antiptósis, pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Beza rectè exponit, & ait duplicem esse Metonymiam. joseph Scaliger, by a figure Antiptôsis; and Beza (saith he) doth truly expound it. Besides it is explained anciently by k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Basil. Reg. Moral. 21. Basil a perfect Greek Father: referring the Participle [Shed] unto the word Blood, and not unto the Chalice; which marteth your Market quite. And that this is an undeniable Truth, will appear in our Answer to the next Objection of Time: for if by Given, Broken, and Shed, is meant the time future, than these words Shed for you, for remission of sins, flatly conclude that hereby is not meant any proper Sacrifice of Christ's Blood in the Cup, but on the Cross. ⚜ Lastly, if we shall answer, that the Cup, indeed, is taken for the Liquor in the Cup, which is called Christ's Blood, per Metonymiain, that is, Figuratively, the signo for the name of the thing Signified (whereof you have heard plentiful examples throughout the second Book) you shall never be able to make any Reply. One word more. Seeing that it is the universal Confession of all your Doctors, yea, even of the Objectors themselves, that * See Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and in this Sect. in their own words. Christ's blood is not perfectly shed in the Eucharist, how then can it stand with common modesty, to pretenda Proper Sacrifice in the word [Shed? ⚜] Let us proceed therefore to that point, that you may know that Beza needed not a Soloecophanes, to assoil this doubt. Of the Time signified by the Participles Given, Broken, Shed. These words being of the Present time, Therefore it plainly followeth that Breaking, Giving Christ's Body, and shedding his Blood, is in the Supper, and not on the Cross: So your l Bellarm. lib. 1. de ●●iss. cap. 12. Datur, Frangitur, Funditur, in Praesenti tempore, docet apertissimè non fusum esse in Cruse sanguinem, sed in Coena. Cardinal: most invincibly say your m Rhemists upon Luc. 22. 20. Rhemists, and Mr Breerly, as dancing merrily after their Pipes; n M. Breerly, Liturg. Tract. 3. §. 3. subd. 1. p. 319. This point (saith he) is clearly determined by the Evangelists themselves, in their own original writings, Broken, Given, Shed. And o Ibid. subd. 3. p. 319. The Evasions, which our Adversaries seek, whereby to avoid this, are enforced, racked and miserable shifts. And again, for corroboration-sake. p Ibid. subd. 1. p. 317. The word Broken also, spoken in regard of the outward forms, which are in time of Sacrificing, is more forcible, because not meant of the Cross: for when they saw he was dead, fulfilling the Prophecy [A Bone of him shall not be broken] they broke not his legs, joh. 19 33. ⚜ And will you see your jesuite Gordon, frisking and keeping the same measure; urging the present-Tense of the word, Broken, Given, Shed; calling this the Chief reason, and most evident for proof of a Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Mass? and censuring Protestants for saying that in the same words the Present Tense is put for the Future; and that Broken doth signify the Renting of Christ's flesh with whips and nails: which he termeth a seeking of refuge in Tropes and Figures, as that which cannot be proved by any Scripture. So he, with these others, most ostentatively, as you have heard ⚜. Alas! what huge Anakims and Giants have we to deal withal! no Argument can proceed from them but most Evident, Forcible, and Invincible; yet may we not despair of due Resistance, especially, being supported by your own Brethren, as well the sons of Anak, as were the other: besides, some better aid, both from Fathers and Scriptures, for proof that these words Broken, Given, Shed, spoken in the Present time do signify the Future time of Christ's body being Broken, and Bloodshed; and both Given up as a Sacrifice instantly after upon the Cross. What Authors on your side may satisfy you? whether your * See above Book. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and the rest in our Additionals to this Section. choice jesuites, Salmeron, Valentia, ⚜ Suarez, Vasquez Barradas, and our Countryman Sà; together with 3 Also Maldonate de Sacram. Euch. Sect. Primi generis Argumentorum, Institutio Sacramenti. pag. 230. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] Fusum, at propriè verti poterit, Fundendum. ⚜ Maldonate, [Shed] (saith he) may be properly rendered, Shall be Shed ⚜; or will you be directed by most voices, whereby it is confessed (namely) that q jansenius referring it to the Cup, yet saith: [Qui effunditur] communiter intelligitur de effusione factâ in Cruse, & rect●. Concord 131▪ By Bloodshed is commonly understood of it shed upon the Cross. But what need have we of the several members, when as the whole Body of your Romish Church is for us, rendering the word, Shed, in the Future Tense [Fundetur] shall be shed, as referred to the Cross? What think you by this? say M. Breerly. * Liturg. Tract. ●. §. 3. subd. 1. Our Adversaries are in great straits, when they are glad to appeal from the Original Greek Text which they call Authentical, unto the Latin Vulgar Translation, which they call old, rotten, and full of corruptions. This were well objected indeed, if that Protestants should allege your Vulgar Latin Edition, as a purer Translation, and not as a true Interpretation of the words of the Text; to teach you that it is meant of the Future Time: and that this were urged by them, as a ground of persuasion to themselves, and not rather (as it were by the Law of Arms) an Opposition, and indeed conviction upon their Adversaries, who by the Decree of your Council of Trent, are bound * See hereafter Book. ●. Not to reject it upon any pretence whatsoever. And to have this your own Authentical Translation to make against you, is to be in straits indeed, because all the Decrees of that Council, by the Bull of Pope Pius 4. are put upon you to be believed under the bond of an Oath. Is it possible for you to shake off these shackles? Yes, M. Breerly can, by an admirable trick of widow: r Li●urg. in the place above cited. Nevertheless (saith he) I answer in behalf of the Vulgar Interpreter, that as he translateth in the Future Tense, [which shall be shed] so doth he use the Present Tense in the other words, Given, and Broken, to signify that it was then given in the Sacrament, and afterwards to be given upon the Cross, both together. As if you should tell us in plain English that your Church in her Vulgar Latin Text doth equivocate, teaching that It shall be shed, in the Future, doth signify also the Present Tense, Is shed, that is, It is, shall be, both together. A fit man (forsooth) to inveigh against a Soloecophanes. ⚜ Your jesuite Vasquez doubtless would have laughed at the ridiculousness of this man's defence of the Vulgar Translation, 4 Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. Quest. 78. Disp. 199. Cap. 1. Art. 3. In Vulgata noster Interpres semper utitur verbo Futuri, cum de effusione sanguinis est sermo.— Et quoties de corpore loquitur, utitur praesenti [Datur] tamen in Paulo utitur verbo Futuri, 〈◊〉 [Quod pro Vobis ●●●detur.] Nempè quòd putaret Praesens pro Futuro sumi. Sà jes. Annot. in Mat. ●6. [Effundetur in 〈◊〉.] who contrariwise, that he might prove the Vulgar, in using the Present Tense in [Datur, Is given] to understand thereby the Future Tense, [Dabitur, shall be given] doth observe with us, that the same Vulgar Translation useth the Future Tense not only concerning the Blood, in [Fundetur,] but also concerning the Body, in [Tradetur. ⚜] But how then can Protestants interpret the Present to signify the Future? We tell you, because you have in Scriptures, and other Authors, thousands of Examples of the Present tense put for the Future, to signify the certainty or instancy of that which is spoken: but it was never heard nor read, that the Future Tense was taken for the Present Tense, because there is no Course nor Progress to the time past. And if, Shed, be taken not in true sense, then shall it be lawful for every petty Romish Priest at every Masse-saying to correct your Romish Missal, authorized by the same Tridentine Fathers, which hath it, s Missale Rom. Cali● Sanguinis— qui effundetur. Shall be Shed. ⚜ If this will not serve, we refer you to your own other 5 Vasqu. Ies. in 3. Thom. Quest. 78. Art. 3. Disp. 199. Cap. 2. [Effundetur] Effusionem in Cruse significat— Add quod dicitur [In remissionem peccatorum] quod idem est atque in redemptionem: Redemptio autem non est nisi in cruento sacrificio Crucis.— Optimè confirmatur testimonio Chrysost. in 1 Cor. 11 [Effundetur] ostendit passionem.— Et Cap. 3. Frangi dicitur in Cruse, quia clavis confixus est. Refortur reverand Calicem, Relativum Qui: Verùm quia effusio non propriè convenit Calici, Ideir●ò estratione sanguinis, qui effundetur in Cruse, Barradas Ies. Tom. 4. in Evang. lib. 3. cap. 5. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Adjoining a second opinion in confuting this. De effusione in Eucharistia interpretantur jansenius, Bellarminus, Maldonasus. Verum (Ob. Sol.) Cali● effunditur: Continens pro contento sanguine, qui effundebatur in cruse. Ob. Pro multis, dicit, & pro vobis. Sol. Omnes multi sunt, ut Ent●ymius, & Theophylactus ex Mat. 10. jesuites, Vasquez, and Barradas, both contending as absolutely for the sense of the Future Tense, by both reasons and Fathers, and out of them confuting the opinion of Bellarmine by name. Each one of which our Premises might be sufficient to free us out, and to ensnare you in the [Great Straits] which your Brother M. Breerly, pleasantly talks of. ⚜ One word more with M. Breerly, as only desirous to know of him, if he allow of the Tense either Present or Future, whether it was straightness or looseness, that occasioned him to deliver it in the Preterimperfect Tense, t Liturg. Tract. 3. c. 3. subd. ● p. 145. Was shed. But he will expect that we answer his reason. He urged the word, Broken, that because this could not be meant of Broken on the Cross, for that His Legs were not there broken, (according as it was prophesied) therefore it must infer it to have been Broken at his Supper, when he uttered the word Broken. Which is like his other manner of Reasons, blunt, and broken at the point, as it became one not much conversant in Scripture: else might he have answered himself by another Prophecy, teaching that the word, Broken, is taken Metaphorically by the Prophet Esay, Chap. 53. speaking of the crucifying and Agonies of Christ, and saying, He was Broken for our iniquities▪ (namely, as two of your u Sa●●●ron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 3. c. 3. p. 90. Frangituri. ● Clavis, Lanc●â, Flagellis ●aniandum est. Barradas Tom. 4. in Concord c. 4. è Chrysost. in 1 Cor. hom. 24. Quod frangitur, hoc est, quod Clavis frangitur. jesuites acknowledge) By nails, spear, and whips; and is to be applied to the Breaking of his sinews, nerves, and veins, as your x Bellarm. V●cunque possit fractio, etc. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 12. §. Ad quartum. Cardinal confesseth. That the words of Christ, [Given, Broken, Shed,] are taken for the Future Time; proved by the same Text of Scripture, and consent of Ancient Fathers. SECT. III. AS for ourselves, 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 judas, * Luc. 22. 2●. He that betrayeth me; and again, Christ of himself, * Vers. 22. I go my way, both in the Present Tense, but both betokening the Future: because neither judas, at that instant, being then present, practised any thing, nor did Christ move any whit out of his place. Even as Christ, speaking of his Passion long before this, had said in the Present Tense, * 〈◊〉 it is in the Greek Text, 〈◊〉 rendered by your jesuites Maldonate and Tolet, upon that 〈◊〉. I lay down my life, joh. 10. 17. spoken of the Future Time of his death. Lastly, if ancient Fathers may be held for indifferent and competent a Origen. Hom. 9 in Levit. [Effundetur.] Teste Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 8. Tertull. l. 5. in Marc. [Tradetur] Teste Bellar. ibid. c. 7. Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. [Confringetur.] Athanas. in 1. Cor. 11. [Tradetur.] Missa Basilj [Effundetur.] Isidor. Comment. in Exod. 1, 50 [Effundetur.] Theodoret. in eundem locum, [Tradetur.] Alexand. Epist. 1. Decret. [Tradetur], Fundetur.] Teste Greg. Valent. Ies. lib. 2. de Sacrific. Missae, c. 5. p. 627. Chrysost. [Dabitur.] in 1. Cor. 11. Expositors, we have Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose, Theodoret, Isidore, Pope Alexander, and chrysostom; 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, do utterly overthrow the pretended Sacrifice in the Romish Mass. SECT. iv AMong the words of Institution, the first which offereth itself to our use, is the formerly-objected word, BROKEN; which word (said your jesuite * See above Book 2. Chap. 2. Suarez) is taken unproperly, because in the proper and exact acception it should signify a dividing of the Body of Christ into parts. So he, and that truly. Else why (we pray you) is it, that your Roman Church hath left out of her Mass the same word [Broken] used by Christ in the words, which you term Words of Consecration? But although you (peradventure) would be silent, yet your Bishop a Ex qua intellige, ea verba [Quod pro vobis frangitur] non esse ad Consecrationem necessaria: sed consultò a Latinis praetermissa, ne esset locus absurda● intelligentiae, quà quis existimare possit vere frangi Corpus Christi. jans. Concord. c. 131. in Matth. 26. jansenius will not forbear to tell us, that It was left out, lest that any man might conceive so fond, as to think the Body of Christ to be truly Broken. So he. It is well. The word, [Shed] is the next, which properly signifieth the issuing of blood out of the veins of Christ; But, That Blood of Christ (saith your b Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa; c. 12. §. Ad secundum. Sanguis Christi reipsa non egreditur de Corpore. Cardinal, speaking of the first Institution) did not pass out of his Body. Even as * See above Book 4. Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Aquinas had said before him. But most emphatically your Alphonsus. c Alfonsus' lib 6 adversus Haeres. Tit. Eucharistia. haeres ult. Cum Sanguinem pro nobis semel in ara Crucis effusum, post resurrectionem nunqun eum fu●urus sit: convincitur inde etiam, nunquam sanguinem verum illius integrè alicubi esse sine ejus corpore vero.— Sol. Ob. Quamvis sub specie vini totus Christus lateat, non tamen species illae totum Christum significant, sed solùm sangumem effusum in Cruse, & à corpore separatum. Christ his Blood was once Shed upon the Cross, never to be Shed again after his Resurrection, which cannot be perfectly separated from his Body. And accordingly your Jesuit d Coste●. Enchirid c. 9 de Sacrificio. §. Ex quibus. Christus veram sanguinis effusionem passus in cruse, sanguine ipso à Corpore separato. Hic vero tantum illius mortis repraesentatio. Coster; The true effusion of his Blood, which is by separating it from the Body, was only on the Cross. So they. Harken now. These words, Blood shed, and Body broken, were spoken then by Christ, and are now recited by your Priest either in the proper Sense of Shedding, or they are not. If in a proper Sense, 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 Sense of Christ his words to be properly called deceitful Sophisters, as men who speak not from conscience, but for contention: who being defeated in their first skirmish, about Christ's words, do fly for refuge to his Acts, and Deeds, whither we 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 own Confessions. SECT. V THere are six Acts, which your Proctors, who plead for a proper Sacrifice, do pretend for proof thereof, as being ascribable to the Institution of Christ, and are as readily and roundly confuted by their own fellows, as they were by others frequently and diligently sought out, or vehemently objected: which the Marginals will manifest unto you, in every particular, to be no essential Acts of a proper Sacrifice. 1. Not a Sotus cum alijs hanc Elevationem ut Oblationem pertinete aliquo modo ad substantiam hujus Sacrificij existimant. Sed dico, esse tantùm Ceremonialem actonem, ab Ecclesia institutam, nec semper fuisse in Ecclesia. Suarez Ies. tom. 3. disp 75. §. 3. Per hanc primam actionem negandum est Christum sacrificare. Bellarmin. lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 27. & 29. Elevatio & vocalis oblatio non ad essentiam pertinent. Alan. de Euch. lib. 2. cap. 15. & Alij. Elevation, because it was not instituted by Christ. 2. Not the b Non consistit in fractione, quia non est haec necessaria. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 29. pag. 222, 223. Breaking of Bread, because (you say) it is not necessary. 3. Not Consecration, although it be held, by c Pro sola Consecratione facit omnis nostra superior Explicatio Alan. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15. And Lessius. Ies. Opus●. var. l. 12. c. 13. Consistit Sacrificium in Consecratione— & juxta hunc modum peragitur hoc Sacrificium, non gladio materia. 〈◊〉, sed gladio verbi. your Cardinal Alan, The only essential Act; yet (as * Quorundam opinio est, non esse de essentia hujus Sacrificij ipsam Consecrationem. Suarez. quosupr. pag. 966. joseph. Angel's ●lor. Theol. Quaest. 6. Art. 4. Neque Hostiae Consecratio est de ratione Sacrificij, neque sanguinis sumptio: quia in seria sexta majoris Hebd. non sumitur sanguis, sed hostia. Some think) It is not of the Essence of a Sacrifice. And why should not they so judge? (say we,) for many things are Sacrata, that is, Consecrated, which are not Sacrificata, that is, Sacrificed. Else what will you say of Water in Baptism, yea of your Holy-water sprinkle? 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, than Bread and Wine being only consecrated, they alone should be the Sacrifice in your Mass, against your former Assertions. 4. d Post Consecrationem oblatio vocalis, his verbis, [Memento Dom●ne.]— Alij dicunt esse de essentia. Sed dieo, tam certum esse hanc oblationem non esse de essentia, quam illam alteram Oblationem ante Consecrationem,— I. quia Christus non adhibuit eam in coena. II. Quia non constat Ecclesiam eam semper adhibuisse: nec est de Institutione Christi, sed Ecclesiae. Suarez. Ies. quo sup. p. 964. Non est de essentia, quòd Dominus nec Apostoli in principio eâ usi sunt, nec sit in persona Christi, sed Ministri & Ecclesiae. Bellar. lib. 1 de Missa. cap. ult. §. Quinta Prop. Not Oblation, whether before, or e Oblatio praecedens Consecrationem non pertinet ad essentiam: nec oblatio quae consequitur. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 27. §. Quarta, & Quinta. after Consecration. 5. f Immersio in chalice— Hanc tenuit Canus. Sed constat Christum, per illam actionem non sacrificari. Suarez quo sup. Not dipping of the Host in the Chalice. 6. Yea and (although your g Consumptio utriusque speciei per o● Sacerdotis, quatenus est immolatio victimae oblatae. Bellar. quo sup. Cardinal preferred this before all others) h Consumptio non videtur pertinere ad Essentiam, quia Scriptura discernit inter Sacrificium & participationem ipsius. 1. Cor. 10 Nun qui edunt hostia● participes sunt Al●aris? Salmer. Tom. 9 Tract. 29. p. 233. Not the Consumption of the Host by the Priests eating it. Which your jesuite Salmeron, Cardinal i Non in Consumptione, quia aliud est Immolare, aliud de Immolatis participare, & rationem potiùs habet Sacramenti quàm Sacrificij.— Et frequenter reservatas ad populi communionem, non esse perfectè sacrificatas, vel saltem tum, quando conc●luntur à populo sacrificari. Alan. l. 2. de Euch. c. 17. Alan, together with your jesuit k Suarez. Sumptionem Sacerdotalem non esse de essentia, tenent Thomas, Bonaventura, Major, & ex modernis Alan, Cassalius, Catharinus, Palacius, Turrian, In 3. Thom Disp 75. §. 5. And Suarez himself: Sola Consecratio esst sufficiens, ut in qua tota essentia constat. Ibid. ⚜ Aegid. Conincks Ies. de Sacram. qu. 83. art. 1. num. 90. Consumptio Hostiae facta non est pars essentialis Sacrificij— quia Sacerdos in Ordinatione nullam talem potestatem directam accipit,— quia consumendo nihil Deo offerimus. Num. 92 ⚜ Suarez, who is accompanied with his fellow-Iesuite Conincks, and seven other of your Schoolmen do gainsay; because this is Rather proper to a Sacrament, than to a Sacrifice. And for that also (if it were essential) the People might be held Sacrficers as well as Priests. ⚜ If you shall give your jesuite 6 Vasquez Ies. in 3 Th●●. qu●● 83. 〈…〉 Immolandi Opinio prima corum, qui volu●● consisted in oblation— qui non dicunt eam in Consecratione esse 〈◊〉, q●●a haec tan●●● praeparatio ad ●●●●ficium.— At non in oblatione, ●●st Consecrationem;— 〈◊〉 Christus non potest affirmari, tum se obtulisse 〈◊〉 Cap. 2. Opinio secunda, In fractione.— At fractio ante Consecrationem non pertinet ad Sacrificium post: per Christum 〈…〉 3. Op●n 3. Contump●ione facta à Sacerdo●e. Et 〈◊〉 non minus istud consumunt, quam Sacerdotes. Cap. 4.— Et sequeretur tunc hoc Sacrificium fieri non in Altari, sed in Stomacho Sacerdotis domi, fort●ssis ad mensam. Cap. 5. Op. 4. In sola Consecratione tota Sacrificij estentia est posita— non unius solù sed utriusque speciei Cap. 6. Sed eorum, qui hanc Opinionem sequuntur, Alij aliter ea explicant Expl. 1. Quatenùs mutatur pants in caruem— At ita Corpus non esset jam sacrific● tum, sed sacrificandum— Contra Explic. 2. quasi si 〈◊〉 in ovem converteretur, verè sacrificium esse●. Explic. 3. Ideò, quia Panis mutatio fit in corpus Christi. At contra, sic non tam Christus quam panis Sacrificium erit, Quod est Absurdum. Explic. 4 Quia ex●re profana 〈◊〉. sacra. Contra, sic Calicis Consecratio erit Sácrificium. Tandem in Cap. 7. Eatenus solùm in Consecratione esse posicam estentiam Sacrificij, quatenus Sacrificium Crucis in ea repraesentatur cùm verâ Christi praesentiâ ibi contenti, testimonijs Patrum ostenditur. Vasquez but leave to crowd into this Press of Opinators, he will shoulder them all out; not only those, who stand for Fraction, Oblation, or Consumption, or any thing else, excepting the Sole Act of Consecration: but he will also exempt the Explications of all Others, he himself standing wholly for his own opinion of Sole Consecration: who ordereth the different sorts of Expositors (whom he calleth Modern Divines) into four Ranks, proving all their Expositions to be Absurd. The first so Absurd, as to make that the Sacrifice, which is not now Sacrificed, but only about to be Sacrificed. The second so, as if Wood, changed into a Sheep, should be therefore held a Sacrifice. The fourth so, as if they would make Bread, and not Christ, a Sacrifice. The last so, as if the Chalice should be therefore accounted a Sacrifice, because it is Consecrated. And having thus as it were, cashiered all his fellow-soldiers, that stood in his way he placeth instead of all other the whole and sole Act in Consecration, by way of Representation. So they of these Particulars, which are afterward discussed at large. ⚜ CHALLENGE. COnsider now, we pray you, that (as you All k Tota Essentia Sacrificij pendet ex Institutione Christi. Suarez & Salmeron supra. confess) The whole Essence of a Sacrifice dependeth upon the Institution of Christ. And that l Non est in potestate Ecclesiae instituere Sacrificium. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 28. pag. 2●9. Idem alibi, vide sup. at (h) It is not in the power of the Church to ordain a Sacrifice. Next, that if any Sacrifice had been institued, it must have appeared either by some Word, or Act of Christ, neither of which can be found, or yet any shadow thereof. What then (we pray you) can make more both for the justifying of your own Bishop of Bitontum, who feared not to publish in your Council of Trent, before all their Fatherhoods, m Quidam Bitontinus Episcopus in Conc. Trid. (ut Canus & alij referunt) tentavit defendere, Christum in nocte Coe●ae non obtulisse Sacrificium. Suarez quo supra Disp. 74. Sect. 2. pag. 949. That Christ in his last Supper did not offer up any proper Sacrifice? As also for the condemning of your own Romish Church for a Sacrilegious Depravation of the Sacrament of Christ? Upon 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 wit, not Acts 13. 2. of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉]. SECT. I. ACTS 13. 2. Saint Luke reporting the public Ministry, wherein the Apostles with other devout Christians were now exercised, saith [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] which two of your a Baronius in An. 44. num. 83. Ministrantibus, Graecè est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est, Sacrificantibus. Bellarmin. lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 13. Hac voce Sacrificium probatur, quia non significat publicum munus, quia non potest significare ministerium Verbi, aut Sacramentorum, quia haec non exhibentur Deo; at hic ministrantibus & Domino; & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cum ad sacra accommodatur & absolutè ponitur in Scriptures semper accipitur pro ministerio Sacrificij. Vt Luc. 1. de Zacharia. Et Claudius de Sanctes praef. in missas Graecorum. Cardinals translate, They sacrificing. But why Sacrificing, say we, not some other ministerial Function, as Preaching (in which respect S. Paul called himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 15. 16.) or administering the Sacrament, seeing that the words may bear it? They answer us, because 1. This Ministry is said to be done To the Lord, so is not Preaching. 2. For that the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] whensoever it is applied to sacred Ministry and used absolutely, it is always taken for the Act of Sacrificing. So they. When we should have answered this Objection, we found ourselves prevented by one, who for Greeke-learning hath scarce had his equal in this our age, namely, that b Casaubon Ex●ercitat. 16. cap. 41. Vocem hanc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usus Ecclesiae aptavit ministerio & cultui Dei publico, sed diversimodè. Apud Dionysium Areop, Diaconi dicuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: in patrum libris fit mentio Liturgiae matutinae & vespert●ae●: & in Acts Concilij Ephes notat Balsamon Liturgiam constare sola oratione sine ulla Sacramentorum administratione, peculiariter interdum ad celebrationem Eucharistiae, cujus Partes duae sunt, Recitatio Scripturarum, & Administratio Coenae. justiniani novella 7. Quod Bellarminus ait, quoties haec vox ad sacra accommodarur, & absolute ponitur, pro ministerio sacrificij sumitur, insignis est error, nam in exemplo quod subjungit Luc. 1. 23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non est Sacrificium, sed vox generalis omnia ministeria Sacerdotalia & Levitica complectitur. Zachariae autem, ut Lucas ait, contigerat sors suffitus offerendi, non autem sacrificandi— Nec minus errat, quod scilicet vix aliter hanc vocem à Patribus accipi, quàm pro ministerio sacrificij, quae observatio quàm sit aliena, satis ex dictis constat. Phoenix M. Isaac Casaubon. Look upon the Margin, where you may find the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to have been used Ecclesiastically for whatsoever religious ministration, (even for sole Praying, where there is no note or occasion of Sacrifice) and he instanceth in the Fathers, mentioning the Morning and Evening 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church. But you will not say (we think) that there was any proper Evening Sacrifice in use in those times. What can you say for your Cardinal his former lavish assertion, who is thus largely confuted? Nay, how shall you justify yourselves, who are bound by Oath not to gainsay in your Disputations the Vulgar Latin Translation, which hath rendered the same Greek words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Ministrantibus eyes, that is, They ministering, and not, They sacrificing? which might be said as well of preaching, praying, administering the Sacrament; all which (to meet with your other Objection) being done according to the will of God, and belonging to his worship and service, might be properly said to have been done unto God. ⚜ Even as well as it might be said of him, that eateth his common food with Giving God thanks, that he Eateth to the Lord, Rom. 14. 6. else was chrysostom fare wide, when he, commenting upon the same words [Ministering to the Lord,] to the question, What is meant there by [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] answereth; 1 Chrysost. in Act: 13. Hom. 27. Quid est [Ministrantibus?]— Praedicantibus. Preaching. ⚜ That the Second objected place out of the new Testament, to wit, 1. Cor. 10. cannot infer any Proper Sacrifice. SECT. II. 1. Cor. 10. 18. BEhold Israel— are not they who eat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar? then vers. 20. 21. 22. But that which the Gentiles offer they offer to Devils, and not unto God, and I would not have you partakers with Devils: ye cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils: you cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and the Table of Devils. Hence Bellarmine; a Postremum Argumentum ex Scri●turis habetur, 1. Cor. 10. Vbi primò mensa Domini comparatur cum Altari Gentilium. Ergo, Mensa Domini est quoddam Altar, & proinde Eucharistia Sacrificium. ●. Ita vult Sacrificium Deo oblatum in Eucharistia, sicut sunt Sacrificia à Iudaeis Deo, vel à Gentilibus Daemonibus suis oblata. 3. Dece●●ita manducantem Eucharistiam participem esse. Altaris Dominici, ut manducans Idolothyta particeps erat Altaris Idolorum, per Sacrificia. Ergo Eucharistia est Sacrificium. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 14. Here (saith he) the Table of the Lord is compared with the Altar of the Gentiles: Therefore is the Table of the Lord certainly an Altar, and therefore it hath a Sacrifice. 2. Because the Eucharist is so offered, as were the Sacrifices of the jews. And 3. Because he that eateth the Eucharist is said so to be partaker of the Lord's Altar, as the Heathen of things sacrificed to Idols are said to be partakers of the Idols Altar. So he; following only his own sense, and not regarding the voice or judgement of any other. If we should say, in Answer to his first Objection, that your Cardinal wanted his spectacles, in reading of the Text, when he said that the Apostle compareth the Table of the Lord, whereon the Eucharist is placed, with the Altar of the Gentiles (which was the Altar of Devils) it were a friendly answer in his behalf; for the words of the Text expressly relate a Comparison of the Table of the Lord with the Table of Gentiles, and Devils; and not with their Altar. ⚜ Can you then guess what Spirit it was that moved your Cardinal thus to falsify the sacred Text, to the end that he might conclude the Romish Sacrifice from the Altar of Devils? Even that wherewith the Fathers of the Council 2 Conc. Trident. Sess. 22. cap. 1. Quam oblationem non obscurè innuit Apostolus Paulus Corinthiis scribens, cum dicit: non posse eos, qui participatione mensae Daemoniorum polluti sunt, mensae Domini participes fieri: per mensam, Altar utrobique intelligens. of Trent, when they (although to the Confutation of Bellarmine's error) acknowledged the words of the Apostle to be, Table of the Lord, and Table of Devils, yet do they impose upon you a Belief, that The Apostle doth in both, by Table, understand Altar, thereby turning a Table into an Altar; albeit these two differed no less than Offering (which was only upon the Altar) and Eating of things offered, which was never but upon a Table; and as much as Priest, (who only did minister at the Altar) differeth from Common people, who did jointly communicate of Idolothytes by eating them upon a Table, as will be more fully manifested, in Chap. 5. Sect. 15. ⚜ And although the Heathen had their Altars, yet (which crosseth all the former Objections) their common Eating of things sacrificed unto Idols was not upon Altars, but upon Tables, in feasting and partaking of the Idolothytes, and not in Sacrificing, as did also the * Aenaeid. 8. post Sacrificium Aenaeas invitatus est ad Epulas. Gentiles, as is to be seen * Chap. 5. Sect. 15. hereafter. The whole scope of the Apostle is to dehort all Christians from communicating with the Heathen in their Idol-solemnities whatsoever; and the sum of his Argument is, that whosoever is Partaker of any Ceremony, made essential to any worship professed, he maketh himself a Partaker of the profession itself, whether it be Christian, vers. 16. or jewish, vers. 18. or Heathenish and Devilish, vers. 20. And again, the Apostle's Argument doth as well agree with a Religious Table, as with an Altar; with a Sacrament, as with a Sacrifice, and so it seemeth your b Aquinas. Non potestis Calicem Domini bibere & Daemoniorum simul.] Quoad sacramentum fanguinis, Non potestis mensae Domini participes esse: quoad Sacramentum corporis, & mensae Daemoniorum. In 1. Cor. ●0. Aquinas thought, who paraphraseth thus upon the Text; You cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, in respect of the Sacrament of the Lords Body, and of the table of Devils. To an Objector, who avoucheth no Father for his Assertion, it may be sufficient for us to oppose, albeit but any one. Primasius therefore, expounding this Scripture, maketh the Comparison to stand thus: * See above Book 5 Chap. 8 Sect. ●. at the letter (●). As our Saviour said; He that eateth my flesh abideth in me, so the eating of the Bread of Idols is to be partakers of the Devils. But this participation of Devils must needs be spiritual, and not corporal; you know the Consequence. CHAP. III. That no Scripture in the old Testament hath been justly produced, for proof of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist. THe Places of Scripture, selected by your Disputers, are partly Typical, and partly Prophetical. That the first objected Typical Scripture, concerning Melchisedech, maketh not for proof of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist. SECT. I. The State of the Question. WE are loath to trouble you with Dispute about the end of Melchisedech his ministering Bread and Wine to Abraham, and his Company; whether it were as a matter of Sacrifice unto God; or (as 1 ⚜ Others have been alleged for this Exposition, viz. josephus and Cajetan in Gen. 14. & some Fathers, who in the very phrase of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and, obtulit, said that it was offered to Abraham. Epiphan. Hom. 55. August. in Quaest. utriusque Testam. Tom. 4. Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 4. Cap. 3. Tertull. adversus judaeos Cap. 3. But [obtulit ei] which was to Abraham, in the proper acception of Sacrificing, had been Sacrilegious, as you very well know. ⚜ Divers have thought) only for refreshing the weary Soldiers of Abraham; because the Question is brought to be tried by the judgement of such Fathers, who have called it a Sacrifice. Wherefore we yield unto you the full scope, and suppose (with your * Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. Cardinal) that the Bread and Wine brought forth had been sacrificed by Melchisedech to God, and not as a Sacrifice administered by him to his Guests. Now, because whatsoever shall be objected will concern either the matter of Sacrifice, or else the Priesthood and office of the Sacrificer, we are orderly to handle them both. That the Testimonies of the Fathers, for proof of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, from the Type of Melchisedech's Sacrifice, are Sophistically, and unconscionably objected out of Psalm. 110. and Heb. 5. SECT. II. SOme of the objected Testimonies (See the a Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. ex Ambrosio. Panem & Vinum obtulit. De Sacram. lib. 5. cap. 1. Quod toto orbe celebratur. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. & 6. August. lib. 17. de Civit. Dei, cap. 17. & alibi. Primum apparuit Sacrificium, quod nunc offertur Deo toto orbe terrarum, quod protulit Melchisedech. Et Epist. 95. ad Innocent. Prolato Sacramento mensae Dominicae. Chrysost. Hom. 36. in Gen. Panem & Vinum attulit. Primas. in cap. 5. ad Heb. Panem offerens Deo, non lauta animalia. Similiter. Cassiod. in Psal. 109. & Oecum. in 5. ad Heb. Theophyl. in 5. ad Hebr. Hic solus Melchisedech, in morem illius, Pane & Vino sacrificabat. Rabbi Samuel, Sacrificans Panem, & Vinum sacrificans. Rabbi Phinëes, Tempore Messiae omnia Sacrificia cessabunt, sed Sacrificium Panis & Vini non cessabit. Haec Bell. loco supra citato. M. Brereley citeth August. de Civit. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 19 Visibile Sacrificium. In his Liturgy, Tract. 3. Margin) comparing the Sacrifice of Melchisedech to the Eucharist, in the name of a Sacrifice, do relate no further than Bread and Wine, calling these Materials, The Sacrifice of Christians: such are the Testimonies of Ambrose, Augustine, chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and Cassidore, together with two jewish Rabbins; promising that at the coming of Christ all Sacrifices should cease, Except the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist. This is your first Collection, for proof that the Eucharist is a Proper Visible Sacrifice. But first Unconscionably, knowing and * See hereafter Chap. 5. Sect. 1. confessing it to be no better than a jewish Conceit, to think the Bread and Wine to be properly a Sacrifice of the new Testament. Wherefore, to labour to prove a Proper Sacrifice, in that which you know and acknowledge to be no Proper Sacrifice, do you not blush? How much better had it becomne you to have understood the Fathers to have used the word Sacrifice in a large sense, as it might signify any sacred ministration, as Isidore doth instruct you? Who, if you ask him what it is, which Christians do now offer after the order of Melchisedech? he will say, that it is Bread and Wine. b Isidor. Victimas jam, non quales judaei, sed quales Melchisedech offerunt credentes: id est, Panem & Vinum. id est, Corporis & Sanguinis Sacramentum. Lib. de Vocat. Gent. cap. 26. That is (saith he) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood. Even as Hierome long before him; c Hiero. Epist. ad Evag. Pane & Vino simplice, puroque Sacrificio Christo dedicaverit Sacramentum. Melchisedech in plain Bread and Wine did dedicate the Sacrament of Christ: distinguishing both the Sacrament from a Proper Sacrifice, and naming the thing, that is said in a sort to be offered, Not to be the Body and Blood of Christ, but the Sacrament of both. ⚜ And as well might you have produced Augustine, who is as express as any, teaching that the Church now, as well as Melchisedech then, 2 Aug. contr. Advers. Leg. & Proph. lib. 3. cap. 20. Tom. 6. Noverunt, qui legunt, quid protulit Melchizedech, quando benedixit Abraham: & jam hic participes ejus vident tale Sacrificium nunc offerri Deo toto orbe terrarum. Idem de fide ad Petrum cap. 19 Tom. 3. Sacrificium Panis & Vini Ecclesia per universum orbem nunc offerre non cessat. Et Tom. 4. Quaest. 83. & quaest. 61. Christus obtulit holocaustum pro peccatis nostris, & ejus Sacrificij similitudinem celebrandam in suae passionis memoriam commendavit, ut illud quod Melchizedech obtulit Deo, jam per totum orbem terrarum in Christi Ecclesia videamus offerri. Offereth the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. ⚜ Your second kind of objected Sentences of Fathers do indeed compare the Bread and Wine of Melchisedech with the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. In this Rank we reckon the d Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 3 ad Cecil. Christus idem obtulit quod Melchisedech Panem & Vinum, se. suum Corpus & Sanguinem. Euseb. Caesar. lib. 5. Demonst●. cap 3. Sacerdotes Vino & Pane, & Corporis & Sanguinis ejus mysteria repraerentant, quae 〈◊〉 mysteria Melchisedech tanto ante Spiritu divino cognoverat. Hieron. Ep●● ad Marcel. Melchisedech in Typo Christi Panem & Vinum obtulit, & Mysterium Christianum in Salvatoris Sanguine & Corpore dedicavit Et Quaest. in Genes. Melchisedech oblato Pane & Vino, i.e. Corpore & Sanguine Domini. jesus. Eucher. Lugdun lib. 2 cap. 18. in Gen. Vt oblationem Panis & Vini, i. e Corporis & Sanguinis ejus Sacramentum in Sacrificium offeramus. Primasius. Christus instar illius [Melchiz.] offerens Panem & Vinu●, Carnem viz. & Sanguinem suum. Haec Bellarm. lib. 1 de Missa, cap. 6. Testimonies of Cyprian and Hierome, as also of Eusebius, who doth only make an Analogy between the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, and the Bread and Wine, which Melchisedech brought forth, and wherein He, as in Types, saw the Mysteries of Christ's Body and Blood. Eucherius and Primasius both say, that Christ offered Bread and Wine, that is, his Body and Blood, like as Melchisedech did, or according to the order of Melchisedech. which Body and Blood of Christ you will All swear (we dare say) was not the proper Subject matter of the Sacrifice of Melchisedech, who performed his Sacrifice many thousands of years before our Lord Christ was incarnate in the flesh, to take unto him either Body, or Blood. And therefore could not the Fathers understand, by the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood, any thing but the Type of Christ his Body and Blood; these being then the Object of Melchisedech's faith, as the cited Sentences of Hierome and Eusebius do declare. Which is a second proof of the unconscionable dealing of your Disputers, by enforcing Testimonies against common sense. But will you see furthermore the Vnluckinesse of your game, and that three manner of ways? First, your ordinary guise is to object the word Sacrifice out of the Fathers, as properly used, whereas your Allegations tell us, that they used it in a greater latitude, and at liberty. Secondly, and more principally, wheresoever you hear the Father's naming Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ, o then behold Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ his Body; and behold it's Corporal presence, and that most evidently! this is your common shout. And yet behold in your own objected Sentences of Fathers, that which was most really Bread and Wine of Melchisedech, was notwithstanding by the forenamed Fathers called the Body and Blood of Christ. A most evident Argument that the Fathers understood Christ's words, in calling Bread his Body, figuratively. ⚜ A Vindication of the Truth of my former Allegations, against a Calumnious Romanist. MY Lord of Durham (saith he) cries out against Bellarmine, that his former Testimonies are unconscionably alleged; and yet half of them he skippeth over without any show of Answer. To the rest he answereth two things; First, that some of their Testimonies relate no further then to Bread and Wine, making these Materials the Sacrifice of Christians. To this purpose he quoteth many Testimonies, whereof no one doth justify his Pretence, but many of them do plainly confute and directly contradict it. Answer. To have cried out of unconscionableness against any man, without just Cause, had been Injurious; To have skipped over any Testimony, which might be thought not sufficiently answered in the Confutation of the other Testimonies cited, had been Diffidence; To have quoted them, and not to the purpose, had been mere Childishness. But so to have quoted them, that they should contradict my purpose, had been stark madness. The first point of my Vindication must be, to set down the other Testimonies, which (he saith) have been skipped over. This is now 3 Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. Theod. in Psal. 109. Invenimus Melchisedech offerentem Deo Sacrificia non ratione carentia, sed Panem & Vinum. Arnobius in Psalm. 109. Christus per mysterium Panis & Vini, factus est Sacerdos in aeternum. Eusebius Emissenus de Paschate. Melchisedech in oblation Panis & Vini, hoc nimirum quod in Eucharistia celebratur, Christi Sacrificium figuravit. Cassiodorus in Psalm. 109 Quem ordinem (inquit) Melchisedech per mysticam similitudinem instituit, quando Panis & Vini fructus obtulit. Remigius & Euthymius non dissimilia scribunt. As they are cited by Bellarmine. performed in the Margin. The next Exception is, that they make nothing to my purpose, my purpose being to show that the Testimonies objected speak not of Christ's. Body and Blood, but only of the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. These are fully to this purpose, how then do they Contradict this Pretence? Give you me but leave to Appeal to the Testimonies themselves, which are here (and in the former Section) cited out of your own Cardinal, visible before you in the Margin, and I shall desire no other judge than the most partial among your Romish Priests, to determine whether these Testimonies go any further than was alleged, to wit, Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine, which is now offered. Item, He sacrificed in Bread and Wine, wherein he dedicated this Sacrament of Christ. (But yet in Bread and Wine.) Item, In Bread and Wine, which the whole world now celebrateth. Item, In the same Bread and Wine now celebrated in the Eucharist, and the like. And in the last place I made good my Outcry against Bellarmine and other Objectors, for their unconscionableness in concluding a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, from the Testimonies of Fathers, * See this Treatise of the Mass, Book 6. Chap. 5. §. 1 which mentioned only the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine herein; which Sacrifice of Bread and Wine the Romish Objectours themselves do absolutely deny to be any Proper Sacrifice. Than which manner of Arguing, what can be more Unconscionable, and less to the purpose? A second Vindication of my second kind of Allegations and Exceptions, against the Calumnies of the same Romish Seducer. Hear your Romanist. His second Pretence is, that the other of the Father's Testimonies say that Melchisedech offered the Body and Blood of Christ, which yet is not said to be offered or continued by any of them, but only by Saint Cyprian and Saint Hierome. So he. Answer. There needeth no more, for my discharge, than to apply the Sentences of the Father's abovecited to the point in Question. Christ (saith Cyprian) offered up the same which Melchisedech offered, to wit, his Body and Blood. Plaine. Again, Bellarmine in his Chapter concerning Melchisedech produceth Hierome saying of this Bread and Wine offered, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ. This is as Plain. Eucherius and Primasius do both say, that Christ offered Bread and Wine, that is the Body and Blood of Christ, even as did Melchisedech. As plain as the former. Now for any Romanist to reprove all this, without any Proof to the Contrary, bewrayeth both Impotency in not effecting, and Impudency in attempting his pretended Confutation. ⚜ That the Apostle to the Hebrews, in comparing Melchisedech with Christ, did not intimate any Analogy between the Sacrifice of Melchisedeth, and of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. SECT. III. But, a Bellar. Non videtur posse negari, etc. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. § Accedit. you preoccupate, viz. The Apostle, speaking of Melchisedech, saith, [Of whom I had much to say, and that which is uninterpretable, because you are dull of hearing.] Chap. 5. vers. 11. Whence it may seem (saith your Cardinal) a thing undeniable, that the Apostle meant thereby the Mystery of the Eucharist, because it was above their capacity, and therefore he purposely forbore to mention either Bread or Wine. So your Answerer. To whom you may take, for a Reply as in our behalf, the Confession of your much-esteemed Jesuit Ribera, who telleth you that b Ribera Ies. Id non ideò dixerat, quod sermonem illum tracere vellet, erat enim id, id quod in hac Epistol● agit, valdè accommodatum, sed ut magis illos excitatet studio audiendi, & intentiores redderet— Non desperate Paulus quae scripturus est posse ab illis percipi, si animum attendant, aut certè à nonnullis eorum, qui eruditiores erant, per quos caeteri etiam paulatim intelligerent. Cancrone. in Heb. 6. num. 1. Where also he hath these words: Cum illorum & imbecillitatem & tarditatem accusat, idcirco facit, ut pudore ad melius intelligenda incitarentur: [Missa nunc faciamus rudimenta, & ad perfectionem seramur.] H●c est, Date operam ut mecum intelligatis, quae perfectis dici solent. The Apostle naming it a thing Inexplicable, and calling them Dull, meant not thereby to conceal the matter employed (which was so pertinent to that he had in hand) from them, because of the want of their Capacity: but did, in so saying, rather excite them to a greater Attention; showing thereby that he did not despair, but that they were capable of that which he would say; at least the learned among them, by whom others might have learned by little and little. So he, proving the same out of those words of the Apostle, [Passing by the Rudiments, etc. Let us go on unto perfection:] that is, (saith he) Do your diligence in hearing, that you may attain unto the understanding of these things, which are delivered unto those that are perfect. This is the Brief of his large Comment hereupon. ⚜ We may here take up the Argument commonly used by all Protestants, to prove that although Christ be, in many respects, resemblable to Melchisedech, in his Priesthood most properly; yet that in the manner of his Sacrifice not so: because then the Proper Sacrifice of Christ and Christians should be in Bread and Wine, as was that of Melchisedech. But the Sacrifice of Christ and Christians is not offering Bread and Wine. Therefore cannot Christ be resembled to Melchisedech in the matter and nature of the Sacrifice. This Argument we formerly forbore to urge, because we wanted the Assent of any of your Romish Doctors herein. But now we have found, among your Jesuits, one confirming our Consequence, and saying, that Christ being considered to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, in respect of the matter of the Sacrifice, 4 jac. Gordon. Scot Ies. Controvers. Contr. 9 Cap. 3. num. 1. Melchisedech non solùm erat typus Christi, sed etiam Christus ipse fuit verè Sacerdos secund●u ordinem Melchisedech, non secunduùm ordinem Aaron. Neces●e igitur est ut Christus, praeter illud cruentum sacrificium, quod in cruse obtulit, obtule rit etiam incru●●●●m Panis & Vini in ipsa ultima coena; alioqui non fuisset Sacerdos secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. It is necessary that Christ, besides his bloody Sacrifice on the Cross, should offer an unbloody Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. Nor can you justly oppose against our Assumption, which is, that the Proper Sacrifice of Christ and Christians is not the offering of Bread and Wine; because this is the universal, absolute, and constant Consequence of your Romish Doctors, judging and censuring the Contrary Assertion of this Jesuit to be jewish and Absurd, as you may find in the fift Chapter following, Sect. 1. ⚜ Notwithstanding, what our Opposites fail of, in the point of Sacrifice, they intent to gain from the Title of Priesthood. Of the Priesthood of Melchisedech, as it is compared with the pretended Romish Priesthood, out of the Epistle to the Hebrews. SECT. iv The State of the Question. Aaron's Priesthood (said your a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. ex Epiphanio. Sacrificium crucis peractum est, ergo aliud Sacrificium esse opportet, quod jugiter offeratur— Igitur necesse est in Ecclesia veram Sacrificandi actionem admittere, quae Christo summo Sacerdoti per Ministros suos tribuatur, qualis actio nulla erit, si Missae Sacrificium auferutur. Ibid §. Est etiam. Ad aeternum Christi Sacerdotium necesse est ut Christus saepiùs offerat per se, vel per suos Ministros, jam quidem cruentè, etc. Ibid §. Respondeo quod— Sacerdos verè & propriè non est, qui Sacrificium proprium offerre non potest. Ibid. §. Respondeo autem. Propriè tamen non dicitur Sacrificium aeternum, quod semel factum est, nec dicitur aeternum Sacerdotium cum non jugiter sacrificatur. Ibid. §. Secunda Causa. Cardinal) is translated into the Priesthood of Melchisedech, and this into the Priesthood of Christ, [A Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech:] which, because it is perpetual and eternal, cannot be performed properly by Christ himself, and therefore must be executed by his Ministers, as Vicars on earth. So he, accordingly as your b Concil. Trident. Sess. 22. Ca 1. Christus Sacerdos secund● ordinem Melchisedech; & si semel obtulic in cruse, ut aeternam redemptionem operaretur: quia tamen per mortem ejus Sacerdotium estinguendum non erat &c Council of Trent hath decreed. Insomuch that Master Sanders will have the whole Ministry of the new Testament to issue c Novi Testamenti ministerium jam unde à Melchisedech petitum, jam & Christus voluit secundum ejus ordinem dici Sacerdos, & Presbyteri sunt Minist●● Christi, i.e. ejus, qui 〈◊〉 Sacerdos secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. Sand. de 〈◊〉 Monarch. lib. 1. pag 20 §. Quae 〈◊〉. Originally from Melchisedech. This is a matter of great moment, as will appear; which we shall resolve by certain Positions. The foundation of all the Doctrine, concerning Christ and Melchisedech, is set down in the Epistle to the Hebrews. That the Analogy between Melchisedech his Priesthood, and the eternal Priesthood of Christ in himself, is most perfect, and so declared to be, Heb. 5, 6, 7, Chop. SECT. V THe holy Apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, comparing the Type Melchisedech with the Arch-Type Christ jesus, in one order of Priesthood, showeth between Both an absolute Analogy, although not in equality of Excellence, yet in similitude of qualities and offices. As first in Royalty, Melchisedech is called * Hebr. 7. 2. The King of justice and Peace. So Christ (but infinitely more) is called * Rom. 3. 26. Our justice and Peace. Secondly, Melchisedech, in respect of Generation, was without Generation from Father or Mother (according to the formality of Sacred Story:) so Christ, according to the verity of his Humanity, without Father; and, in his divine nature, without Mother: of whom also it is written, Who shall declare his Generation? Thirdly, in Time, Melchisedech a Priest for ever, having neither beginning nor end of days (according to the same Historical Tenure:) so Christ an eternal Priest, Chap. 5, 6. Fourthly, in Number, only One, who had no Predecessor, nor Successor. So Christ, who acknowledged no such Priest before him, nor shall find any other after him for ever. Fifthly, Christ was universally King and Priest, as the Apostle noted, Chap. 7. 4. saying, That the Priesthood was changed from Aaron and Levi to Christ, in juda. That is, that Christ's Power might be both Regal, and Sacerdotal, saith a Mutatum Sacerdotiu●● de Sacerdotali an Regalem, ut eadem ipsa sit Regalis & Sacerdotalis. Chrysost. in Heb. 7. Hom. 13 Fuit in Melchisedech singularis dignitas, quod Sacerdotium administrabatur per Regem. Tes●e Greg. Valent. l. 1. de Missa. cap. 4. chrysostom, which was a singular dignity, as your Jesuit well observeth. That the nature of every other Priesthood (be it of your Romish Highpriest) dissenteth as much from the Priesthood of Melchisedech, as the Priesthood of Melchisedech agreeth with the Priesthood of Christ. SECT. VI IF Comparison might be made of Priesthood, whom would you rather that we should instance in, than in your entitled Summus Pontifex, that is, the Highpriest, your Pope: who notwithstanding cannot be said to be a King, as Melchisedech, much less as Christ, a Bellar. Regnum spirituale Christo proprium:— item Regnum divinum universale, ratione Hypostaticae Vnionis; item gloriae in Beatitudine. Temporale terrenum Christo conveniebat. Lib. Recog. pag. 28. Everlasting. Secondly, much less a King of Peace, who hath been reproved by Antiquity for being b Victor, Pacis perturbator. Irenaeus apud Euseb. hist. lib 5 cap. 24. A Troubler of the Peace of Christ's Church: And generally complained of by others, as being c Non tantùm contra Barbaros, sed etiam ejusdem patriae, sanguinis, & fidei principes Domini nostri Dei pacis minus pacifici Vicarij. Espenc. in 1. Tim. digress. lib. 2. cap 6 pag. 273. Nothing less than the Vicar of the God of Peace, because of his raising hostile wars against Princes of the same Nation, Blood, and Faith: And for d Leodiens. Epist. ad Paulum 2. de Greg. Septimo; Novello schismate Regnum & Sacerdotium scindebat. Teste Espencaeo quo supra. Distracting the Estates of Princedom and Priestdome. Thirdly, not King of justice, because some Popes have excited Subjects and Sons to rebel against their Liege Sovereigns and Parents. Fourthly, not Originally without Generation, by either Father or Mother; some of them having been borne in lawful Wedlock, and of known honest Parents: albeit of othersome the Mother's side hath been much the surer. It will be no Answer to say, as Pope e Non secundùm c●dinē Aaron, cujus Sacerdotium per propaginem sui seminis in ministerio temporali fuit, & cum Veteris Testamenti Lege cessavit: sed secundùm ordinem Melchisedech, in quo aeterni Pontificis forma praecessit. Leo papa Serm. 2. in Annivers. die Assumpt. ad Pontif. Leo in effect did, viz. that, as Priests, you are not as were the levitical, by natural Propagation; but by a Spiritual ordination: because a Spiritual propagation is no proper, but a metaphorical Generation. Fifthly, not without Succession; seeing that Succession, as from S. Peter, is the chief tenure of your Priesthood. Nor will that of Epiphanius help you, in this Case, to say that f Nunc sanè non amplius semen secundùm successionem eligitur, sed forma juxta virtutem quaeritur. Epiphan. count. Haeres. 55. You had no Succession by the seed of Aaron: because although this may exempt you from the levitical Priesthood, yet will not it associate you with the Priesthood of Melchisedech, or of Christ, whose Characters of Priesthood was to be Priests solely, individually, and absolutely in themselves, without Succession by another. And this the words of the Apostle [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is, Christ had an Intransmissible Priesthood, do fully signify. As little can your ordinary Answer avail, telling us that you are not g Salmeron. Ies. Nos in Christo Sacerdotes sumus tanquam Vicarij— Satis est nobis illum Principem semper vivere. Com. in Heb. cap. 10. Disp 19 Successors, but Vicars of Christ, and Successors of Peter; because, whilst you claim that the Visible Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ is still in the Church, which is perpetuated by Succession, you must bid farewell to the Priesthood of Melchisedech. But if indeed you disclaim all Succession of Christ, why is your Jesuit licenced to say, that your h Ribera. Successor quidem Christo Petrus, & reliqui post eum Pontifices in officio gubernandi Ecclesiam, & p●scendi oves Christi Verbo praedicatinis, & Sacramentorum administratione. At non successit in officio redemptionis, & Pontificis per se Deum ir●t●m placantis,— in quo non sunt Successores, sed Ministri Christi. In Heb. 10. num. 8. Roman Popes do succeed Christ in their Pastorship over the Church, although not in their Priesthood, by offering Sacrifices, expiating sins by their own virtue? Are not the Titles of Pastor and Priest equally transcendent in Christ? Again, if you be Vicars of Christ, then are you not after the Order of Melchisedech, who is read to have had no more any Vicar, than that he had either Father or Mother. Sixtly, not in respect of the no-necessity of a Succession, which was * Heb 7. 23. Immortality, because the Popes shown themselves to be sufficiently mortal, insomuch that one Pope maligning another, after death hath dragged the Carcase of his Predecessor out of his i Platin●● in Vitis Sergij 3. Formosi, ●tephani, Christophori. Grave; to omit their other like barbarous outrages. ⚜ In respect of which Mortality, Athanasius is as contradictory to your Romish Doctrine as can be who resolveth, saying; 5 Athanas. con. Arian. Orat. 3. pag. 380. Aaroni quidem Successores dati, & omninò legale Sacerdotium mortis & temporis progressu alios atque alios Sacerdotes accepit: Dominus autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aaron indeed had Successors, and in the Legal Priesthood, in process of time, by reason of death one succeeded another: but our Lord had a Priesthood without Transition and Succession, being himself always a faithful Highpriest. From the same law of Mortality Theodoret concludeth likewise that Christ in the New Testament 6 Theod. in Heb. 7. Quemadmodum non habuerit Melchisedech Successores, ità nec hic ipsum ad alios transmittit.— Item. Qui ex lege Sacerdotes sunt, quia mo●talem habent naturam, eâ de Causâ habent filios Successores: hic autem quia immortalis non transmitur ad alium munus Sacerdo●●j. Transmitteth not his Priesthood to any other. Wherein we may say, that Theodoret was Scholar to chrysostom, 7 Chrysost. in Hebr. 7. Hom 13. Quia semper vivit, non habet Successorem. Ostendit novum Testamentum praestantius esse Veteri, inductâ comparatione de Sacerdotibus: quod illud quidem homines habuit Sacerdotes: hoc autem Christum. who likewise maketh the excellency of the New Testament, in comparison of the Old, to consist in this, that they had many Priests successively, for that (by reason of Mortality) they were but men: in the New Testament, we have Christ a Priest. So he. This one Observation might satisfy any reasonable man, for the confutation of your Romish Doctrine of Proper Priesthood; the rather because you were never able to prove, out of any Father, that Distinction of yours, to wit, of one being the Vicar, albeit the Successor of Christ. No, no this Distinction, now after a thousand years since Christ his Incarnation, hath been the adulterate Coin of your own Romish forge. ⚜ Seventhly, not Personal Sanctity, * Heb. 7. 26. Holy, impolluted, and separated from sins. For whosoever, being merely Man, shall arrogate to himself to be without sin, the holy Ghost will give him the * 1. john 1. 8. Lie. As for your Popes, we wish you to make choice of whatsoever Historians you please, and we doubt not but you shall find upon record, that many of them are noted to have been as impious and mischievous in their lives, and in their deaths as infamous and cursed, as they were contrarily Bonifaces, Innocents', or benedict's in their names. Can there be then any Analogy between your High Roman Priest and Christ, the Prototype to Melchisedech, in so manifold Repugnancies? yet notwithstanding, every one of you must be (forsooth) a Priest after the order of Melchisedech. Nay, but (not to multiply many words) the Novelty of your Pretence doth bewray itself from k Lambard. de Ordinat. Presb. Accipiunt etiam calicem cum vino, & patinam cum Hostijs, ut sciant se accepisse potestatem placabiles Deo hostias offerendi Hic ordo à filijs Aaron sumpsit initium, etc. Lib. 4. Distinct. 24. 〈◊〉 I. Peter Lombard, Master of the Romish School, who Anno 1145. taught (how truly look you to that) that every Priest at his Ordination, in taking the Chalice with Wine, and Platter with the Host, should understand that his power of Sacrificing was from the order of Aaron. Nor may you think that this was his private opinion, for He (saith your l Pet. Lombardus collegit sententias Theologoorum, & Magister Theologotum scholasticorum dici meruit. Lib. de Script. Eccles. Tit. Petrus Lombardus. Cardinal of him) collected the Sentences of Divines, and deserved to be called the Master of Schoolmen. Thus fare of the Person of Christ, as Priest; in the next place we are to inquire into his Priestly Function. Of the Function of Christ his Priesthood, now after his Ascension into Heaven; and your Cardinal his Doctrine Sacrilegiously detracting from it. SECT. VII. BY the Doctrine of your Cardinal, in the name of your Church, a Bellar. Crucis Sacrificium non est perpetuum, sed effectum ejus— nec dicitur aeternum quod non jugiter sacrificatur— non in caelis jam Sacerdos per solam orationem, nec mediante oblatione Victimae, quià tun. necesse est eum semper offer:— Ergo Eucharistia & Sacrificium quod jugiter offertur— Oblatio in coelis non est propriè dictum Sacrificium— Ergò non est verè ac propriè. Sacerdos, cùm verum ac proprium Sacrificium offerre non potest Lib. 1. de Missa. c. 6 sparsim. And— Christus non sacrificat nunc per se visibiliter, nisi in Eucharistia. Bell. ibid. c. 25. § Quod autem. And, Sacrificium c●●cis, respectu Christianorum. ●b. c. 20. And, Per Ministros suos perpetuò sacrificat seipsum in Eucharistia: hoc enim solummodo perpetuum habet Sacerdotium. Bellar. ibid. cap. eod. ad finem. The old Priesthood of Aaron was translated into the Priesthood of Christ: Every Priest (saith the Apostle) must have something to offer, else he were no Priest. Thus his Priesthood is called Eternal, and must have a perpetual offering, which was not that upon the Cross. Nor can that suffice, which the Protestants say, That his Priesthood is perpetual, because of the perpetual virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Cross; or because of his perpetual Act of Intercession, as Priest in Heaven; or of presenting his passion to his Father in Heaven, whither his Priesthood was translated. No, but it is certain that Christ cannot now properly sacrifice by himself, He doth it by his Ministers in the Eucharist, Because the Sacrifice of the Cross, in respect of Christians, is now invisible, and seen only by Faith: which although it be a more true Sacrifice, yet it is not, as our Adversaries say, the only Sacrifice of Christian Religion, nor sufficient for the Conservation thereof. And again, His sacrificing of himself in the Sacrament, by his Ministers, is that by which only he is said to have a perpetual Priesthood. Accordingly your Cardinal b Alan. Christus in 〈◊〉 coelo 〈◊〉 aliquid Sacerdotal● facit. nisi respectu nostri Sacramenti, quod ipse per nostrum ministerium efficit continuò & offered. Lib. 2. ● Euchar. ca 8 §. Reliqua. Alan; Christ (saith he) performeth no Priestly Function in Heaven, but with relation to our Ministry here on earth, whereby he offereth. So they, for the dignifying of their Romish Mass, as did also c Rhemists. Christ his Priesthood consisteth in the perpetual offering of Christ his Body and Blood in the Church. Annot. in Heb. 7. 17. your Rhemists; but with what Eclipse of judgement and good Conscience, is now to be declared. If we take the Sacrifice of Christ for the proper Act of Sacrificing, which is destructive; so was Christ his Sacrifice but One, and Once, Heb. 7. and 8. But understanding it as the subject matter of the same Sacrifice, once so offered to God upon the Cross, and after his Ascension entered into Heaven, and so is it a perpetual Sacrifice presentative before God. For as the Highpriest of the Law, after the Sacrifice was killed, entered into the Holy place once a year, but not without Blood, Heb. 9 7. so Christ having purchased an eternal redemption, by his Death upon the Cross, went into the Holy place (of Heaven) with the same his own Blood. Vers. 12. To what end? Always living to make supplication for us. Chapt. 7. Vers. 3. and 25. Hence followeth the continual use, which the souls of the faithful have, of his immediate Function in Heaven: Having a perpetual Priesthood, he is able continually to save them that come to God by him. Vers. 24, 25. Whence issueth our boldness and all-confidence, always to address our prayers to him, or by him unto God: We having an Highpriest over the house of God, let us draw ne'er with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil Conscience. Chap. 10. 22. The evidence of these Scriptures hath drawn from your jesuite Ribera (even then, when he professeth himself an earnest defender of your Roman Mass) these Acknowledgements following d Ribera. Ies. in his Comment upon the places. alleged, Chap. 7. 23. Chap. 8. 2. & 3. Chap. 9 23. His Book is familitar with you, where you may peruse the places. viz. upon the Chap. 7. 23. That Christ is a true Priest, and all other do partake of his Priesthood, in offering Sacrifice, only in remembrance of his Sacrifice: And that he did not perform the office of Priesthood only upon earth, but even now also in heaven: which Function he now dischargeth by the virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Cross. He proceedeth. No man (saith he) will deny this Position (namely) that Christ now ever exerciseth the office of a Priest, by presenting himself for us. So he. Another Theological Professor, of Bellarmine's own Society, in the place where he noteth Bellarmine to walk in his own opinion alone, proceedeth further, 8 Vasquez. Ies. in 3. Thom Disp. 225. c. 2. Nullus quic em ex Doctoribus, quos recentiores Theologi pro hac sententia allegarunt, praeter nostrum Bellarminum, qui expressè asserit Christum esse principalem offerentem in hoc Sacramento— Dicunt Patres Cyprian. Ambros. & alij, Nos Sacrificia offerre vice Christi— Signifitant nos esse Christi Ministros in hoc Sacrificio, non quod Christus hoc Sacramentum offerat— Vt Christus verè dicatur Sacerdos secundùm ordinem Melchisedech, non indiget Sacrificio usque ad finem mundi, siquidem post mundi finem remanebit Sacerdos, & tamen nullum propriè dictum sactificum habebit. affirming that Christ needeth not a Sacrifice to continue to the ends of the world, to the intent he should become a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech; because he is to continue a Priest for ever, even after the end of the world, when he shall not have any proper Sacrifice at all. Yet lest this jesuite might seem but to lisp it, by mentioning an Eternity of the Priesthood of Christ, only in respect of his person, your jesuite Estius cometh off roundly, 9 Estius Ies. Com. in Heb. cap. 7. vers. 17. Ex quibus omnibus intelligitur, Christum vocari Sacerdotem in Aeternum ratione Personae, ratione Officij, & ratione Effectus. Personae quidem ratione, quoniam nullus ei Successurus. Officij ratione, quià semper in coelis interpellat pro nobis, quod est Sacerdotis Officium. Nec caret hoc Sacrificium sua oblatione, qulà seipsum hominem, & vulnerum signa, quae passus est, exhibet, & offered Patri pro salute Electorum. Denique ratione Effectus, quià per Sacrificium pro nobis oblatum factus est nobis Causa redemptionis & salutis aeternae. confessing a Priesthood of Christ both in Person, Office, and Effect, from the Concurrence of the Text, as followeth. From all these we may understand (saith he) that Christ is called a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedech, First in respect of his Person, because there is none to succeed him. Secondly in respect of his Office, by making supplication in heaven for us. Nor doth he want an Oblation, which is the presenting of his Body that suffered to the Father for our Salvation. And thirdly in respect of the Effect, being made for us, by his Sacrifice of the Cross, the cause of our Redemption. So he, as just Protestantiall as can be. ⚜ This is still Christ's Function of Priesthood, whereunto this Apostle exhorteth all Christians, at all times of need, to make their address; which Saint john propoundeth as the only Anchor-hold of Faith in his Propitiation, 1. john 2. If any sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, jesus Christ the righteous, and he is (what?) The Propitiation for our sins. The which every faithful Christian doth apply, by faith, unto himself, as often as he prayeth to God, in Christ's name, for the remission of sins, saying, Through jesus Christ our Lord. How therefore can this his Function of Priesthood, without extreme sacrilege, be held Insufficient to his Church, for obtaining pardon immediately from God, who seethe not? As for other your ordinary Objections, taken from two sentences of the Apostle, speaking of the Examples of things celestial, and of Purging sins now with better Sacrifices, you should not have troubled us with them, knowing them to be satisfied by your own Authors e Ribera Ies. Thomas Expositionem alteram praefert, nempè per [Coelestia] appellari ipsum coelum, cujus ●igura erat tabernaculum. Et emundari dicitur, quia homines per Christum emundati sunt, qui in illud ingredientur. Thomam secutus est Lyranus.— Mihi etsi Emundatio ista non placet, placet tamen [Coelestia] appellari coelum ipsum, quià ita Vocabulum propriè accipitur. Et cogit quod sequitur, [Non enim in manufacta sancta Iesus est ingressus, sed in exemplaria verorum:] nempè, Coeli, quod cap. 8. dicitur Tabernaculum verum, quod Deus fixit & non homo. Etiam coelum polluebatur ab hominibus. In eum locum. Ribera, and f Aquinas. [Melioribus hostijs] Id est, meliori sanguine. Ob. Illa erat, una hostia. Resp. Licet non sit in se, tamen pluribus hostijs veteris Legis ●igurabatur. In Heb. 9 [〈◊〉, that the Apostle used the Plural number, because he was now in Speech of Multitudes of Sacrifices.] Aquinas long-ago. That the former Romish Sacrilegious Derogation, from Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven, is contradicted by ancient Fathers; first in respect of Place, or Altar, and Function. SECT. VIII. THeodoret is a Theod. in Psal. 109. Sacerdos nunc est Christus, non ipse aliquid offerens, sed vocatur Caput Offerentium, quandoquidèm corpus suum Ecclesiam voca●. Objected by Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. alleged by you, as denying that Christ now offereth any thing by himself, but only in the Church: albeit he saith not so, simply; but, that he offereth not in the Church personally, which all confess: for otherwise Theodoret presently after b His words immediately following are these: Et propterea Sacerdotio fu●gitur ut homo: recipit autem ea quae offeruntur ut Deus. Offered autem Ecclesia Corporis & ejus sanguinis symbola. So Theod. expresseth, that Christ exerciseth his Priesthood still as man. As for the Church, his words are not, that She offereth the Body and Blood of Christ in Sacrifice, but, The Symbols of his Body and Blood: Therefore is this his Testimony unworthily and unconscionably objected. But we will consult with the direct speeches of Antiquity. First if you ask the Offering, Ambrose answereth you, that c Ambros. Nunc Christus offertur, his in Imagine, ibi in veritate, ubi apud Patrem Advocatus pro Nobis. Lib. 1 de offic. cap. 48. sub finem. The offering of Christ here below is but in an image: but his offering with the Father is in truth. If of the Priest, Augustine telleth you, d Aug. in Psal. 94. Imponimus in a●a Sacrificium, quando Deum laudamus● at verò Sacerdotem si requiras, super coelos est, inter pellat pro te, qui in terris mortuus est pro te. The Priest is to be sought for in heaven, even He, who on earth suffered Death for thee. There is some difference then sure. As little reason have your Disputers to object that one and only Testimony of Augustine, f Aug. lib. 20. de Civit. cap. 10. Episcopi & Presbyteri (inquit) sunt propriè Sacerdotes. Bellarm. obijcit. lib. 1. de Missa, cap 17. Sed erunt omnes Sacerdotes Dei & Christi, & regnabunt cum eo mille annis. Apoc. 20. Non utique de solis Episcopis & Presbyteris dictum, qui propriè jam Vocantur Sacerdotes: sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus, propter mysticum Chrisma: sic omnes Sacerdotes, quoniam membra sunt unius illius Sacerdotis. Presbyteri propriè Sacerdotes: which he spoke not absolutely, but comparatively (namely) in respect of Lay-Christians, who in Scripture are otherwise called Priests. (As your own * Duplex Sacerdotium, alterum Interius, omnium fidelium, qui aquâ salutari abluti sunt, Apoc. 1. 16.— alterum Exterius tantùm eorum, qui externo Sacramento ordinis ad aliquod proprium sacrumque ministerium ascribuntur. Catechis. Rom. par. 2. de Ordine, num. 22. Bellarmine, and Roman Catechism distinguish, calling the former the Inward, which only the Faithful have by the Sacrament of Baptism; the other Outward, by the Sacrament of Orders.) And with the like liberty doth Saint Augustine call the Sacrifice of the Old Testament (although most proper) but a Sign, in respect of the Spiritual Sacrifice of this work of mercy; which he g Aug. ibid. in Apoc. 20. 6. [Sed erunt Sacerdotes Christi, & regnabunt cum Eo, etc.] Non utique de solis Episcopis aut Presbyteris dictum est, qui propriê jam vocantur in Ecclesia Sacerdotes: sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus propter mysticum Chrisma, sic omnes Sacerdotes, quià membra unius Sacerdotis, etc. [For there is a double Reason of naming Christian's Priests; one is in general, because of their offering up spiritual Sacrifices of prayers and Praises to God, 1 Pet. 2. 5. And another is in special, by public Function, commending the same spiritual Sacrifices, in public Service, in the name of the Church. ● And so, according to the same liberty of terming them properly Priests, wherewith before (as you have heard) in comparing Alms with the jewish Sacrifice, he called Alms the true Sacrifice, and the other but The sign of it; notwithstanding the bodily Sacrifice of the jews was, in propriety of Speech, The true Sacrifice, and the other but Analogical.] calleth True, namely in the Truth of Excellency, although though not of Propriety, as you may see. And lastly, here you have urged one, than whom there is scarcely found among Protestants a greater Adversary to your fundamental Article of your Sacrifice, which is the Corporal existence of Christ in the Eucharist. All which notwithstanding, the dignity of our Evangelicall Function is nothing lessened, but much more amplified by this Comparison. If furthermore we speak of the Altar, you will have it to be rather on earth below, and to that end you object that Scripture, Hebr. 13. 10. We have [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is, an Altar (saith the Apostle) whereof they have no right to eat, that serve at the Tabernacle. This h Rhemists in their Annot. upon the Place: and M. Breerly in his Book of the Liturgy Tract. 3. Sect. 3. Subd. 4. some of you greedily catch at, for proof of a proper Sacrifice in the Mass, and are presently repulsed by your i Aquinas. Istud altare vel est crux Christi, in quâ Christus immolatus est, vel ipse Christus in quo, & per quem prèces nostras offerimus: & hoc est Altare aureum, de quo Apoc. 8. Com. in hunc locum. Aquinas, expounding the place to signify Either his Altar upon the Cross, or else his Body, as his Altar in Heaven: mentioned Apocal. 8. and called The golden Altar. If we ourselves should tell you, how some one affirmeth that This Altar, spoken of by the Apostle, is the Body of Christ himself in Heaven, upon which, and by which all Christians are to offer up their spiritual Sacrifices of Faith, Devotion, Thankfulness, Hope, and Charity; you would presently answer, that This one certainly is some Lutheran or Calvinist, the words are so contradictory to your Romish Garb: notwithstanding you may find all this in the k Antididag. Coloniens. de Missae Sacrificio. §. Posthac— [Habemùs Altar] Heb. 13. & Apoc. 8. [Aureum altar,] in quo, & per quod omnes Christiani universa Sacrificia spiritualia fidei, devotionis, gratiatum actionis, spei, & charitatis Deo Patri debent offer.— Atque ità sit, ut Christus sit altar, Sacerdos, & Sacrificium. August. lib. 10. de Trinitate: Antididagma of the Divines of Collen. Besides your Argument drawn from the word Altar, in this Scripture, is so feeble and lame a Soldier, that your l Bellarm. Quia non desunt ex Catholicis, qui interpretantur hunc locum vel de Cruse, vel de Christo ipso, non urgeo eum. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 14. Cardinal was content to leave it behind him, because Many Catholics (saith he) interpret it otherwise. ⚜ And, indeed, who is of so shallow a brain, as not to discern the notorious unconscionableness of your Disputers; who confessing that the Apostles, in their times, did * See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 15. Abstain from the words Sacrifice, Priest, and Altar, do notwithstanding allege the word, Altar, in the Text to the Hebrews, for proof of a proper Altar in the Mass? Will you be contented to permit the decision of this point to the judgement of your jesuite Estius? 10 Estius Comment. in 13. ad Hebr. [Habemus Altate.] Thomas Altar hoc interpretatur Crucem Christi, vel ipsum Christum, de quo edere, inquit, est fructum passionis percipere, & ipsi tanquam Capiti incorpocari. Crucem Christi proprie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est. Vnde Ecclesia vocat Aram Crucis— Arbitror Expositionem Thomae magis esse germanam, quam innuit Apostolous, cum paulo post dicit [jesum extra portam passum esse,] i.e. in ara Crucis oblatum. Vt taceam, quod toties in hac Epistola, atque ex instituto per Antithesim comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernaculo, cum Christo seipsum offerente in Cruse.— Sanè cum nullam facere voluerit mentionem Sacrificij incruenti novae legis, non multum verisimile est, eum nunc aliud agentem, velut ex abrupto voluisse de Sacrificio incruento sermonem jungere; Sed potius cruenti in cruse oblati memoriam ex antedictis renovare.— Huc pertinet quod Corpus Christi in Cruse oblatum, Panis vocatur, fide manducandus. Vt joh. 6. Pan●s quem ego dabo. He adhereth to the Interpretation of Aquinas, which is, that here, by Altar, is meant the Cross of Christ's sufferings: which he collecteth out of the Text of the Apostle, where he saith of the Oblation of Christ's Passion, that It was without the gate; and observeth, for Confirmation-sake, that the Apostle often, of purpose, opposeth the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross to the Bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testament, so fare, as never to make mention of the Sacrifice of the New Testament. So he. What is, if this be not our Protestantiall profession, concerning this word, Altar, to prove it to be taken Improperly for the Altar of Christ's Cross; and not for your pretended proper Altar of the Mass? ⚜ But we are cited to consult with the Ancient Fathers, be it so. If then we shall demand where our Highpriest Christ jesus is, to whom a man in Fasting must repair, m Origen. I●junans debes adire Pontificem tu●● Christum, qul utique non in terris quaerendus est, sed in coelis: Et per ipsum debes offerre Hostiam Deo. In Levit. Cap. 16. Homil. 10. Origen resolveth us, saying, He is not to be sought here on earth at all, but in Heaven. If a Bishop be so utterly hindered by persecution, that he cannot partake of any Sacramental Altar on earth, Gregory Nazianzen will fortify him, as he did himself, saying, n Gregor. Nazianzen. Si ab his Altaribus me arcebunt, at aliud habeo, cujus figurae sunt ea, quae nec oculis cermmus, super quod nec ascia, nec manus ascendat, nec ullum Artificum instrumentum auditum est: sed mentis totum hoc opus est, huicque per contemplationem astabo, in hoc gratum immolabo Sacrificium, oblationes & Holocausta, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] tantò praestantiora, quantò Veritas umbrâ. Orat. 28. pag. 4●4. I have another Altar in Heaven, whereof these (Altars) are but Signs; a better Altar, to be beholden with the eyes of my mind, there will I offer up my Oblations: as great a Difference (doubtless) as between Signs and Things. This could not he have said of those Altars, if the Sacrifices on them both were, as you pretend, subjectively and corporally the same. If we would know how, what, and where the thing is, which a Christian man ought to contemplate upon, when he is exercised in this our Eucharistical Sacrifice? o Chrysostom. in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. Illud sanè tremendum Sacrificium, ut cum concordia ad illud accedamus, ut Aquilae facti ad ipsum coelum evolemus: ubi enim cadaver, ibi aquilae. Cadaver Domini corpus, propter mortem: Aquilas autem non oportet ad inseriora trahi aut repere, sed ad superiora volare, & solemn justitiae intueri oculo mentis acutissimo. Aquilarum enim haec mensa est, non Graculorum. chrysostom is ready to instruct him, Not to play the Chough or jay, in fixing his thoughts here below, but as the Eagle to ascend thither where the Body is, namely (for so he saith) in Heaven. According to that of the Apostle, Heb. 10. Christ sitting at the right hand of God. Vers. 12. What therefore? Therefore let us draw near with an Assurance of faith. Vers. 22. If we would understand wherein the difference of the jewish Religion and Christian Profession especially consisteth, in respect of Priesthood, p Aug. advers. judaeos, ca 9 Name & Aaron & Sacerdotium jam nullum est in aliquo templo, & Christi Sacerdotium est aeternum in coelo. Augustine telleth us that They have no Priesthood; and the Priesthood of Christ is eternal in Heaven. And the holy Fathers give us some Reasons for these and the like Resolutions. For if any would know the Reason why we must have our Confidence in the Celestial Priest, Sacrifice, and Altar; q Oecumen. in Heb. 10. supper haec verba, [Cum certitudine ●idei.] Cum deinceps nihil visible supersit, neque Templum, hoc est coelum; neque Pontifex, id est, Christus; neque Hostia, quae Corpus illius est, fido deinceps opus est. Oecumenius and r Ambros. in Heb. 10. Cum ●iducio, nit Apostolus: nihil enim hic visible, neque Sacerdos, neque Sacrificium, neque Altar. Ambrose will show us that it is because Here below there is nothing visible; neither Temple, ours being in Heaven; nor Priest, ours being Christ; nor Sacrifice, ours being his Body; nor yet Altar, saith the other. Hear your own Canus: f Canus loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. Oblatio, quam Christus in coelis incruentum fecit. pag. 421. Christ's offereth an unbloody Oblation in Heaven. ⚜ chrysostom will not be behind his disciple Oecumenius, in expressions, who differenceth our Christian Religion from the jewish, for that 11 Chrysost. in Hebr. Hom. 11. in Moral. Quantum est inter Aaron & Christum, tantum est inter judaeos & nos: quip nos habemus Sacrarium in Coelis, Sacerdotem in coelis, & hostiam, etc. Talia igitur nos offeramus Sacrificia, quae in illo Sanctuario possunt offerri. And then explaining what they were, viz. Sacrificium laudis, justitiae, Spiritus contribulati; haec sacrificia offeramus. Our Sanctuary, Priest, and Sacrifices is in Heaven. And if Christians intent any other Sacrifice than that, he admonisheth that they may be such, which may be accepted of in the Heavenly Sanctuary; as namely The Sacrifice of justice, Praise, and of a Contrite Spirit, and the like, all merely Spiritual (as you confess) and therefore but Metaphorically called Sacrifices: And 12 Hierom. in Epist. ad Hebdeb. quaest. 2. Ascendamus igitur cum Domino coenaculum magnum stratum, & accipiamus ab eo sursum Calicem novi Testamenti, ibique cum eo Pascha celebremus, inebriantes inebriemur ab eo Vino Sobrietatis. Saint Hierome, also inviteth us To Celebrate our Passeover with him above. ⚜ Thus in respect of the place of Residence of Christ our Highpriest, and his Function, which hath been already confirmed by the Fathers of the first Council of Nice. And thus fare of the place of this Altar, the Throne of Grace; something would be spoken in respect of Time. That the former Sacrilegious Derogation, from Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven, is contradicted by Scriptures, and Fathers, in respect of the Time of the execution thereof. SECT. IX. CHrist his Bodily existence in Heaven (as we have * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 9 heard) is set out by the Apostle in these terms: He abideth a Priest for us. He continueth a Priest. He having a continual Priesthood. He, without intermission, appeareth before God for us. Thus the Apostle. But what of this, will you say? Do but mark. Are you not All heard still proclaiming, as with one voice, that your Romish Sacrifice of the Mass is the only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and a Barradas. Quod singulis diebus Christus offered incurrentè. Hoc judge Sacrificium est Ecclesiae. Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap. 15. Salmer. Effusio sanguinis semel facta semper prodest, modo jugiter offeratur. In Heb. 10. Disp. 19 Beccanus. juge Sacrificium Veteris Testamenti fuit figura Missae in novo, ratione determinationis temporis: sicut ille offerrebatur mane & vespere, ita Christus à principio mundi usque ad finem. Apoc. 13. Agnus occisus— Lib. de analog. utriusque Testam. cap. 13. num. 14. juge Sacrificium, that is, the Continual Sacrifice; Continually offered: Whereof the [judge] and Continual Sacrifice of the Law was a Sign. So you. But it were strange that the judge 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 judge Sacrificium (for so some Fathers have termed it:) Yet, they no otherwise call it judge, or Continual, than they call it a Sacrifice, that is, Unproperly; because it cannot possibly be compared for Continuance of Time to that Celestial of Christ in the highest Heaven, where Christ offereth himself to God for us day and night, without Intermission. Whereupon it is that Irenaeus exhorteth men to pray often by Christ at his Altar, b Irenaeus. Nos quoque victimas offerre ad altar frequenter. Est ergò Altare in coelis, illuc etiam preces nostrae & orationes dirigendae; & templum— ut ex Apoc. apertum est. Li. 4. cap. 34. Which Altar (saith he) is in Heaven, and the Temple open. Apocaly p. 11. 19 c Greg. Sine intermissione pro nobis Holocaustum Redemptor immolat, qui sine cessatione Patri suam pro nobis incarnationem demonstrat. Moral. lib 1. cap. 24. in job. Where (saith Pope Gregory) our Saviour Christ offereth up his burnt Sacrifice for us without Intermission: And whereupon your jesuite Coster, out of Ambrose, affirmeth, that d Coster. Enchirid. contro. cap. 9 Solut. ad Object. 1. ex Ambros. Sicut in coelis Christus corpus suum, olim in cruse vulneratum, & occisum, tanquam juge Sacrificium paternis oculis perpetuò pro nobis exhibet: ità hîc in terris per Ministerium Sacerdotum idem Corpus in specie mortur & exanguis offered. [That is objectively; for it is the Bloody Body, that is presented by us in the Eucharist.] Christ exhibiteth his Body wounded upon the Cross, and slain, as a [juge Sacrificium] that is, a Continual Sacrifice, perpetually unto his Father for us. And to this purpose serve the forecited Testimonies of Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, chrysostom, and Occumenius; some pointing out the Altar in Heaven, as the Truth; some by Exhortations, and some by their Examples instructing us to make our Continual Approach unto the Celestial Altar. CHALLENGE. NOw you, who so fix the hearts and minds of the Spectators of your Mass upon your sublunary Altars and Hosts, and appropriate the judge Sacrificium thereunto (in respect of Time) during only the hours of your Priestly Sacrificing; allow your attention but a moment of Time, and you will easily see the Impiety of that your Profession. The judge Sacrificium of Christ, as it is presented to God by him in Heaven, hath been described to be Continual, without Intermission, Always (that is) without any Interruption of any moment of Time: to the end that all sorts of Penitents and faithful Suitors, soliciting God by him, might find (as the Apostle saith) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Help 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 himself, ever executing his Function. Whereas, contrarily, you will confess, (we dare say) that the Doors 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 sleep: yea, and even when he is acting a Sacrifice, may possibly nullify all his Priestly Sacrificing Act, by reason of ( * See hereafter Book 7. Cham 5. Sect. 5. Confessed) Almost infinite Defects. Therefore the sacrilegiousness of the Doctrine of your Mass is thus fare manifested, in as much that your own Ministerial Priesthood doth so prejudice the personal Priesthood of Christ, as it is in Heaven, as the Moon doth by her interposition eclipse the glory of the Sun: by confounding things distinct, that is, (as we have * In the two former Sections. learned from the Fathers) Image with Truth; The state of Wicked Partakers with the Godly; Matters Visible with Invisible; Signs with Things; Worse with Better; jays with Eagles, and the like. A SECOND CHALLENGE, ⚜ Against your Cardinal Bellarmine his principal Grounds; out of the Confession of your own jesuit, both from Scriptures, and from ancient Fathers. CHrist (saith the Apostle) is a Priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. This [for ever] your Cardinal 13 Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, Cap. 6. Quod si Sacerdotium Christi durat usque ad consummationem mundi (id enim Scriptura aeternum vocat) certè Sacrificij ritus durate debet— at Sacrificium Crucis semel tantùm peractum est, nec repeti potest, ergò aliud esse debet quod jugiter offeratur. Et post aliquot paginas Quod ad aeternum Christi Sacerdotium attinet, necesse est ut saepius offerat, vel per se, vel per Ministros, vel per Ministros, non quidem cruentè, sed aliquo alio modo. Idem Paulus docet, cum dicit: Omnis Pontifex ad offerendum hostias constituitur— nec dicitur aeternum Sacerdotium, quod non jugiter Sacrificatur: nec sufficit aeternum quoad effectum. So he, [His other Reasons have been alleged in the former Sections.] Bellarmine restraineth to the time of Mortality, only to the end of the world, and that Christ's Priesthood can have no further Extent; concluding thereupon, that (for the preserving of the Priesthood of Christ) He, either by himself, or by some other, must necessarily offer some sacrifice unto the end of the world, because it cannot be that that, which was but once done, can ever again be repeated, namely, his bloody Sacrifice upon the Cross. So he, Concluding it must therefore be the unbloudy Sacrifice in your Romish Mass. Although this Argument deserve no other Confutation, than what hath been given out of the Confessions of your own jesuit. Yet because another of the same Society, and of singular estimation in your Church, namely Vasquez (who often expresseth his reading of the works of Bellarmine) may seem as it were to offer his service unto us, as being desirous to oppose against the judgement of your Cardinal, we may not deny him our due Attention. He both out of Scriptures and ancient Fathers (alleged in the Margin) concludeth. 14 Vasquez. Ies. in 5. Thom. Disp. 85. cap. 1 num. 1. Thomas non al●o modo explicuit perpetuitatem Sacerdotij quàm ratione effectus, nempe Redemptionis nostrae, qui est permansurus in aeternum. Post.— Quod autem dicunt praedicti Theologi, non posse esse aeternum Sacerdotium, quod non habet juge Sacrificium, falsum est, ostendemus enim mansurum Sacerdotium sine ullo Sacrificio. Num. 5.— Modus, quo recentiores expliant aeternitatem Sacrificij, mihi nunquàm placuit, atque non solium Scriptura, sed etiam manifestâ ratione refelli potest: in primis autem ex illo ad Hebr. 7. ubi Paulus de Christo, [Hic autem eo quod maneat in aeternum, perpetuum habet Sacerdotium] vers. 24. Vnde Chrysostom. Homil. 13. Sacerdotium verè esse sine fine, eo quòd Christus manet immortalis in aeternum— Pontifex, sicut alij multi quia mortales, ita hic unus quia immortalis. Eadem verba habet Ambrosius in eum locum— Clariùs Theophylactus. Videas quemadmodum legis Sacerdotes hic praestat, quantum quod mortale est immortal— praedicti Patres exponunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 utroque modo in commutabile & successione carens. Post. cap. 2. Sacerdotium Christi aeternum 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 Ambrose & Anselmus, non de Sacrificio incruento, sed de cruento, quod in Cruse 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 offer— 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, etc. that Christ is called a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, not in respect only of the time, to the end of the world, but everlastingly beyond all worlds: and this not only in respect of any Sacrifice to be made hereafter, but of that his Bloody Sacrifice once and only offered upon the Cross. Professing, that the contrary Assertion is repugnant to Scripture, even By the Exposition of ancient Fathers, expressly teaching, that Christ's Priesthood is called Eternal, because it reacheth beyond all mortality. And your Cardinal objected that out of Hebr. 5. Every Priest must have something to offer: Ergo, Christ, being a Priest, must not be without a present and continual Sacrifice, which can be no other than that in the Eucharist. Against which the same Jesuit replieth; But all the Greek Fathers upon this Text (saith he) and some of the Latin Fathers also, interpret this not of the unbloody, but of the bloody Sacrifice of Christ: which may be sufficient for his eternal Priesthood, by reason of the unity of his Humanity and Divinity, which is eternal. Nor is there any one (saith he) of all the Fathers, whom we have cited in Confutation of Heretics, that expound that Scripture to exclude the Sacrifice of the Cross. So he, and much more, in the place quoted against the particular and petty Reasons objected to the contrary. What Confutation can be more convincent then that, which is warranted and fortified by the confessed Evidences of Scriptures, and Testimonies of Ancient Fathers? ⚜ Of the second Typical Scripture, which is the Passeover: showing the weakness of the Argument taken from thence, for proof of a proper Sacrifice in the Mass. SECT. X. FIrst, it is meet we hear your Objector speak, 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 joh. 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 Scriptures, 1. Cor. 5. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus: itaque epulemur in Azymis Veritatis.— Dicent Adversarij impletum fuisse hoc in Cruse— 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. Cardinal, who albeit he confesseth the Paschall Lamb to have been the figure of Christ on the Cross, yet did it in the Ceremonies thereof (saith he) more immediately 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 Cross; but it is evident that the Apostle did eat this true Paschall Lamb, the flesh of Christ, at his Supper: and this Apostle exhorteth us to this Feast, in saying, [Let us therefore keep our Feast, etc.] So he, bestowing a large Chapter of Arguments, wherewith to blear our eyes, lest that we should see in this Scripture [Our Passeover is offered up] Rather the Immolation of Christ on the Cross, than in the Eucharist. We willingly yield unto his alleged Testimonies of ancient Fathers, who by way of Allusion, or Analogy, do all call the Eucharist a Paschal Sacrifice. But yet that the words of this Scripture should more properly and principally mean the Eucharistical Sacrifice (as if the Jewish Passeover did rather prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass, than on the Cross) not one. It were a tedious work to sift out all the dross of his Argumentations; Nevertheless, because he putteth Protestants unto it, saying as followeth, b Bellar. quo supr● §. Dicent etc. Dicent Adversarij Apostolum loqui de Immolatione in cruse facta: at nos probabimus ●iguram illam propriè impletam fuisse in coena. 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 Cross: but we will prove that this figure was properly fulfilled at his Supper. (So he.) We will now show you, that other Adversaries, than Protestants, are ready to encounter this your Champion. First, the choicest Chieftain of his own side, armed with the Authority of Christ himself▪ Joh. 13. 1. [Before the day of the Passeover, jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he must pass out of the world unto the Father.] Now when was this spoken? Even then, saith c joh. 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 ejus ex hoc mundo ad Patrem. Tolet. Ies. Com. in cum locum. Tolet your Cardinal & Jesuit, 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 jewish Passeover (saith he) in signification of his own passing over by death to his Father. So he. So also your Jesuit d August. in Psalm. 68 Cum Venit Dominus ad Sacranientum Sangoinis & Corporis sui, 〈…〉 venit, ut 〈◊〉 ad Patrem d●mundo.] Q●bus ve●bis express●● 〈◊〉 Paschae. Testep●rerio Ies. in Exod. cap. 12 Disp. 8. Pererius, out of Augustine. Secondarily, to the Scripture objected, 1. Cor. 5. [Our Passeover is offered up, Christ▪] that is, As the figurative paschal Lamb 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 e 1. Cor. 6. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus, orgò epulemur Azymis 〈◊〉, & veritatis! [Aquinas assignat 〈◊〉, quare fideles 〈◊〉 esse Azymi: quae quidem Ratio sumitu● ex mysterio Passionis●]— Sicut Agnus figuralis i●mola●us est 〈…〉 Israel, ut populus liberaretur— ità Christus occisus ab Israëlitis, ut populus liberare●●r à servitute Diaboli, Christus enim per passionem trans●it ex mundo ad patrem. joh. 13. Haec Aquin. Com. in 1. Cor. 5. And Tollet in his Testimony before cited. So Becanus Ies. Aquinus. [Our Passeover.] Namely, By his Sacrifice in shedding his Blood on the Cross. So your Jesuit. f [Pascha nostrum. 1. Cor. 5.] Nempè per immolationem in cruse, & effusionem sanguinis illius, liberatum est genus humanum. Analog. utriusque Testam. cap. 13. pag. 313. Becanus. And, By this his Passeover on the Cross was the Passeover of the jews fulfilled. So your Bishop g Impleta erat figura Paschalis, quando verum nostrum Pascha est immolatus Christus jesus, & hos per ejus sanguinem liberat●●eramus. I●●sen. Concord. Evang. cap. 13●. pag. 895. jansenius, as flat diameter to your Cardinal's Objection as can be. A third Scripture we find, Joh. 19 [They broke not his legs, that the Scripture might be fulfilled which is written, A bone of him shall not be broken:] which your h joh. 19 [Crura non confregerant, ut impleretur quod scriptum est, Os non comminuetis ex eo.] Bellar. quo supra, yet gain saith with his, Tamen, etc. §. Illud. Cardinal himself confesseth to relate only to Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross; and notwithstanding dare immediately oppose, saying, Nevertheless the Ceremony of the Paschall Lamb did more immediately and properly prefigure the Eucharist than Christ's passion: wherein, whether he will or no, he must be an Adversary to himself. For there is no Ceremony more principal in any Sacrifice than are these two, viz. The matter of Sacrifice, and the Sacrificing Act thereof. Now the matter of the Sacrifice was a Lamb, the Sacrificing Act was the killing thereof, and offering it up killed unto God. Whether therefore the Paschall Lamb did more principally prefigure the visible Body of Christ on the Cross, or your imagined Invisible in your Mass, whether the slain Paschall Lamb bleeding to death, did more properly and immediately prefigure and represent a living and perfect Body of Christ, than that his Body wounded to death, and bloodshed, Common sense may stand for Judge. The Ancient Fathers, when they speak of the Sacrifice of Christ's passion, in a precise propriety of speech, do declare themselves accordingly. If in general, then as i Origen Sacrificium, pro quo haec omnia Sacrificia in typo & figura praecesserunt, unum & perfectum immolatus est Christus. Hujus Sacrificij carnem quisquis tetigerit, sanctificabitur. In Levit. cap. 6. Hom. 4. Origen: All those other Sacrifices (saith he) were perfigurations of this our perfect Sacrifice. If more particularly, then as k Chrysostomus de 〈◊〉 & Latrone 1. Cor. 5. Pascha ●ostrum immolatus est Christus: sestivitas ergò, etc. Vide crucis intuitu porceptam laetitiam? in cruse enim immolatus est Christus: Vbi immolatiòtiò, 〈◊〉 peccatorum; ubi ampucatio peccatorum, reconciliatio Domini— novum Sacrificium— nam ipse Sacrificium erat, & Sacerdos; Sacrificium secundùm carnem, Sacerdos secundùm Spiritum, offerebat secundùm Spiritum, offereb●tur secundùm carnem— & Altar Crux fuit. Chrysost. Tom. 3. pag. 826. chrysostom, from the objected Text of the Apostle. 1. Cor. 5. [Our Passeover is offered up, Christ, Let us therefore keep our Feast, etc.] Dost thou see (saith he) in beholding the Cross, the joy which we have from it? for Christ is offered upon the Cross, and where there is an Immolation, there is Reconciliation with God: this was a new Sacrifice, for in this the flesh of Christ was the thing sacrificed, his Spirit the Priest and Sacrificer, and the Cross his Altar. Insomuch, that elsewhere he teacheth every Christian how, as a spiritual Priest, he may l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem. Tom. 5. Ser. 88 Edi●. Savil. pag. 602. Always keep the Passeover of Christ. ⚜ And yet again the same Father, as if he had thought this point deserved to be got by heart of every Christian: ⚜* Idem in joh. ●. Homil. 13. Vt de passione incipiamus, quid dicit figura? Sacrificate Agnum Christus autem nihil hujusmodi praecipit, sed ipse sactus est Sacrificium, & oblationem offereos seipsum. ⚜ That we may speak of Christ's Passion (saith he) what saith the Figure? [Take unto you a Lamb:] but Christ commandeth no such thing, for he himself (namely at his Passion) offered up himself to the Father. So he. ⚜ What greater plainness can be desired? and yet behold, if it be possible, a greater from m Socrat. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 22. Origenes Doctor valdè sapiens cum animadverteret Legis Mosaicae praecepta ad literam non posse intelligi, praeceptum de paschate ad divinam contemplationem traducit: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Origen, calling the Sacrifice on the Cross, the Only true Passeover. Which saying his Reporter Socrates embraceth, as a Divine Contemplation. ⚜ That the third objected Typical Scripture out of Exod. 24. [The Blood of the Testament] is not justly objected for proof of a Proper Sacrifice in the Mass. SECT. XI. THis Text Exod. 24. speaking of the Sacrifice of the Old Testament [This is the Blood of the Testament] being so consonant to the words of Christ, delivered in his Institution of the Eucharist [This is the Blood of the New Testament] in the Gospel, seemeth to your Cardinal to be an Argument of great force, and therefore doth he dart it against us with all his strength of Arguing, saying; 15 Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 8. Terrium nostrum Argumentum sumitur ex Exod. 24. et Heb. Hic est sanguis Testamenti, quod mandavit ad vos Deus. De quo Marc. 14. Hic est sanguis Novi Testamenti— Sic argumentamur. Sanguis Testamenti veteris erat sanguis victimae jam immolate et verè sacrificatae, Exod. 24. Ergò sanguis novi Testamenti apud Christum est sanguis victimae verè & propriè sacrificatae: Est autem sanguis ille Christi, ut ipse dicit, Hic est sanguis meus, Ergo ipse fuit victima in coena immolata et sacrificata. The Blood of the Old Testament was the Blood of an Host truly sacrificed; Therefore the Blood of the New Testament mentioned in the Eucharist (whereof the other was a figure) must needs be the Blood of Christ properly sacrificed therein. So he, heaping up Reason upon Reason, as it were to make a mountain; and presently after his much working and heaving, cometh one of his own family of the jesuites, Vasquez by name, and kicketh all down with his heels, as it had been but a Molehill, saying; 16 Vasquez. Ies. in 3. Tho. Disp. 190. num. 15. [Novum Testamentum in sanguine meo] apud Evangelistas' & Paulum, in sanguine Christi, prout est in hoc sacramento, non convenit. Nam quamvis sacramentum Eucharistiae sit sacramentum Novi Testamenti, & hac ratione dici posset Novi Testamenti— tamen longè alio sensu dicitur Novi Testamenti, aut Novum Testamentum, quòd sit confirmatio & consummatio Novi Testamenti, hoc est, gratiae, quam Christus promeruit generi humano; de quo Hebr. 9 [Testamentum in mortuis confirmatum est] hoc est morte Testatoris,— undè sequitur [neque vetus Testamentum sine sanguine dedicatur] jude colligit, Novum sanguine Christi confirmari— Et rursus, [ubi Testamentum ibi mors intercedat Testatoris necesse est] & tandem sic concludit Caput Apostolus: [sic Christus semel oblatus est, ad multorum exhaurienda peccata] constat igitur sanguinem Testamenti dici eatenus, quatenus est effusus in confirmatione illius, sicut hac ratione sanguis hircorum & vitulorum essusus est. Exod. 24. [hic est sanguis Testamenti] nam sacrificium incruentum in Eucharistia non erat causa universalis Redemptionis— illud ergo [Effundetur in Remissionem peccatorum] significat futuram Effusionem in Passione. That it is called [The Blood of the New Testament] by Christ, not as it is in this Sacrament, but as it referreth to the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion. Which he confirmeth by the most Authentical kind of proof, even from the Scripture, out of one Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in several places. One from these words [A Testament is confirmed in men dead.] The next, Heb. 9 [Where a Testament is, there doth necessarily intervene the death of the Testator.] And again; [Christ was once, sacrificed to take away the death of many.] He might have added a fourth vers. 15. Christ is the mediator of the New Testament, that death coming between, for Redemption. etc. Each one of these pointing out Christ's Bloody Sacrifice on the Cross, teacheth us to deal with you, by law of Retortion thus: The Old Testament was confirmed by the Death and Bloodshed of the Creature sacrificed: And so (according to the Apostles Comparison) was the New Testament confirmed by the Death and Bloodshed of Christ our Testator. Therefore could not the Bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testament be a Figure of an Unbloody Sacrifice in the New. That your Cardinal Bellarmine hath Contradicted the Doctrine of the Ancient Church of Rome, taught by Pope Leo the First. SECT. XII. POpe Leo is he, whom the Church of Rome will be thought to esteem as equal with the best of Popes, and therefore, hath honoured him with the singular Title of Magnus, (Ob insignem sanctitatem, doctrinam & eloquentiam, saith your jesuit * Possevin. Apparat. Tit. Leo. Possevin) who lived above a thousand years since. Him doth your 17 Bellar Lib. 1. de Missa, Cap. 7. Leo Sermone 7. de Passione Domini. Vt umbrae cederent Corpori, & ce●●arent imagines sub praesentia veritatis, antiqua observantia novo tollitur Sacramento, hostia in hostiam transit, sanguinem sanguis excludit, & legalis festivitas dum mutatur, Impletur. 〈◊〉 infra de sacramenti institutione loquens, vetus Testamentum consummabat, & Novum Pascha condebat. Cardinal object for proof of the Sacrifice of the Mass, from the Sign of the Paschall Lamb, in a Sentence, which in itself is sufficient to tell us what was the Faith of the Church of Rome in his days; and to direct you in the point now in Question: in manifesting that your Cardinal hath egregiously abused his Testimony, for proof of an Unbloody Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Eucharist; which Leo spoke so evidently and expressly of the Sacrifice of his Passion, that your jesuite Vasquez was enforced to 18 Leo Papa de Passione Domini, Serm. 7. In solemnitate Pasch li exercendi furoris sui Iudaei acciperent potestatem! Opportebat enim, ut manifesto implerentur effectu, quae diu fuerant figurato promissa mysterio: ut ovem significativam ●vis vera removeret, & ut uno explere●ur Sacrifi●ro varsarunt differentia victimarum. Nam omnia illa, quae de Immolatione agni divini●us per Moysen fuerant praestituta, Christum prophetarunt, & Christi occisionem propriè nunciarunt. Vt ergo umbrae cederent corpori, & cessarent imagines sub praesentia veritatis, antiqua observantia novo tollitur sacramento, hostia in hostiam transit, & sanguinem sanguis excludit, & legalis festivitas dùm mutatur, impletur. Teste Vasquez jes. in 3. Tho. Disp. 223. Quest. 83. Cap. 6. Again. Solet ex Leone probari Missae sacrificium unicum esse ex Sermone 7. de Paschate. Opportebat, etc. Verùm ibi loquitur de sacrificio cruento Christi, subdit enim [omnia illa Christi occisionem pronuneiârant] per occisionem planè intelligit cruentum sacrificum. Eadem ferè verba habit Chrysostomus in Psalm. 95. [Jest the word, [Sacrament] in the Sentence of Leo, may move any to conceive that it is spoken of the Eucharist, or yet of any other Sacrament of the Church of Rome, It is to be observed, that nothing is more familiar with Leo, than to call every Mystery and Christian Article, Sacramentum. As for Example, in the beginning of this Sermon, he calleth the Feast of Easter, Sacramentum Salutis. De Festo Nativitatis Serm. 2. Reparator nobis salutis nostrae annua revolutione Sacramentum. Et Serm. 16. De voce Christi, [Transeat Calix iste]— quod non sit exaudita, magna est Expositio Sacramenti.] confess thus much, even then, when he sought to defend the Romish Sacrifice of the Eucharist. The words of Leo are general. All those things which were performed, concerning the Sacrificing of the Lamb by Moses, from God's command, were prophesied of Christ, and did properly declare the Slaying of Christ. So he. Ergo he spoke of 〈◊〉 bloody Sacrifice. And if these Prefigurations of the Old Law, in the Sacrifice of the Lamb, do properly point at the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ, then were they not properly Types of any Sacrifice in the Mass. And lest you might think that Leo was singular In this Opinion, your jesuit will have you know that chrysostom hath also the same words. Now whether you are bound rather to believe an Ancient Roman Pope, or a late Roman Cardinal; judge you. In the last place we are to remove an Objection. An Objection taken from the Comparison between the figure of the Old Testament, and the thing figured in the New; earnestly insisted upon, and as easily refuted. SECT. XIII. THe Brief of your Reason is this. 19 Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 3. [De figuris veteris Testamenti.] Sumitur hoc Argumentum— Figurae necessario inferiores esse debent rebus figuraris— Sed veteris Testamenti Sacramenta, panis Melchisedech, panis Propositionun— Agnus Paschalis, Manna, erant figurae Eucharistiae simplici pani aequales, vel praestantiotes. Ergo Eucharistianon est simplex panis, significans corpus Christi, sed et ipsum corpus Christi Majorem et Minorem probam ex Patribus. Figures are necessarily inferior unto the Things prefigured. But, In the Old Testament, the Bread of Melchisedech, the Shewbread, the Bread of Manna, and the Paschall Lamb were figures of the Eucharist in the New Testament; Therefore the matter in the Eucharist is not simply Bread, but the Body of Christ. Thus your Cardinal. Your Dr. heskin's also playeth his descant upon this Base, and runneth voluntary in a large discourse from the 20 Dr. Heskins in his parlam. lib. 3. chap. 14. Brazen Serpent on a Pole, the figure of Christ Crucified: From jonas in the Belly of the Whale, a figure of Christ's Resurrection; and from the Paschall Lamb, a figure of Christ offered in the Eucharist. Now the Thing being better than the Sign, therefore Christ herein offered is better than the Lamb: But if (as the Sacramentaries say) the Eucharist be but a Sign, than was the Paschall Lamb but the figure of a Piece of Bread, wherewith there is no Similitude. But that the things prefigured are more excellent than their Signs, is proved out of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in preferring the New Testament before the Old. Whereby I may Conclude (saith he) that the Paschall Lamb being a Sign of this Sacrament, this is not Bread, but the Body of Christ. So he. The Answer is easy, by a Distinction of Things prefigured. Some are Figures Principal, which are called Arche-types, and some less principal, called only Antitypes. We shall make the matter plain by Authentical Examples, 1. Cor. 10. 2. We are Baptised into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. Hence all Expositors (aswell as your 21 Aquinas upon the same place. Aquinas) teach that The Sea, thorough which the Iraelites passed under Moses, was a Sign of Baptism: by which Baptism we are buried into Christ's death, Rom. 6. This Exposition standeth firm without any Contradiction. Whereby you may perceive, that the Archetypon, or thing Principally prefigured by that Sea, is Christ's burial: and Water in Baptism, is but as the Antitype, or thing less principally prefigured thereby. If then you shall compare the Type, or Figure, with the Thing prefigured, as Archetype, or Principal thing figured or prefigured, we are bound by Christian verity to believe your Proposition to be most true, (to wit) Christ's burial is infinitely more excellent than either the Type in the Old Testament, which was the Sea they passed thorough; or yet than Water in Baptism in the New Testament, as the Antitype thereof. But if you compare the Type of the Old Testament with the Antitype or figure of the New, then can nothing be more false than is this your general Proposition, affirming that Figures and Signs are inferior to the thing prefigured, as you may see in the Apostles Example. The Sea under Moses, a figure of Baptism under Christ. 22 Athanasius Interpret. Parabol. de Baptismo post quaest. 103. Tom. 2. Baptisma secundum erat Mare rubrum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For as the Sea was there (saith Athanasius) so is Water here. Yet was not the Element of Water in the Sea of less worth in Substance, than is the Element of Water in the Font of Baptism; both having equally in them the Substantial Properties of Water. Our next Example, in the same Chapter, is this: They (to wit, the Jews) eaten of the same spiritual meat, and drank of the same spiritual drink; (namely) Christ's Body and Blood; the one whereof was prefigured by Manna, the other by the Water out of the Rock in the Old Testament. Even as the same Body of Christ is configured by Bread; and his Blood by Wine in the Eucharist, which is the Sacrament of the New Testament; as hath been proved from Fathers, and Others, in a full * See above B. 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Section. And for this cause Gregory Nazianzen, 23 Greg. Nazian. Orat. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I dare say (saith he) that the Legal Passeover was a Figure of a figure; but somewhat more obscure. So he. Which scarce any of your Doctors dare say, lest that the Eucharistical Oblation should be judged a Figure of Christ's Sacrifice, and not the Proper Sacrificing of Christ. Now then, Compare Manna and Bread with Christ's Body; and the Water of the Rock, and Water of Baptism, with his Blood, and your Consequence is most Divine: viz. The Thing prefigured excelleth, beyond all Comparison, the Signs thereof. But yet again Compare the Signs and Antitypes, viz. Manna with Bread, and the Water of the Rock with Wine in the Cup: and in their Natures and Substances, the one doth not exceed the other. You will then ask, If the Sacraments of both Testaments were in this manner joint Antitypes, that is, Correspondent Signs of the same Body and Blood of Christ; wherein then consisteth the Excellency of the Sacraments of the New, if it be not in respect of their natural and substantial properties? We were about to tell you, namely, that Although these former Sacraments of both Testaments be but Corporal food, and drink; yet have the Sacraments of the Gospel a threefold Privilege above the other. The First is in respect of the Efficacy of the Signification. Signs of the Old being Prophetical, and darkly promising Christ's Body and Blood to come. But, Signs of the New are Historical, pointing out, unto life, Christ already come, and crucified in his Body, and his Blood shed. The Second, in respect of the Efficacy of Application, and Exhibition of both these, arising from the former Ground. For Saint Paul said more effectually, Christ, who died for me, and gave himself for me; than any Israelite under the Law could say, Christ, who shall die for me, and shall give himself for me. The Third is the Excellency of Duration, for those Signs as Shadows, had an end long since: Whereas the Evangelicall Symbols, as Images, are to be perpetual to the end of the world, as Saint Paul did intimate in his speech of the Eucharist, You show the Lord's death until his coming again, 1 Cor. 11. Now than that you see what is, indeed, the Betterness between the figure and thing figured, may you not say it had been better that your Disputers had forborn their Objection? From Typical Scriptures we descend to Prophetical. ⚜ CHAP. IU. That the objected Prophetical Scriptures of the old Testament are by your Disputers violently wrested, for proof of a Proper Sacrifice in the Mass. The first Text is Malachy chap. 5. vers. 1. THe first, Mal. 5. 1. is objected by your Cardinal in this manner: [From the rising of the Sun to the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place shall Sacrifice, and Oblation be offered to my name.] This, saith your Cardinal, * See the Testimony following. Is a notable Testimony for the Sacrifice of the Mass. The State of the Question. BE so good, as to set down the State of the Controversy yourselves, a Insigne testimonium pro Sacrificio Missae, Mal. 5. 1. in his verbis [Ab ortu solis usque ad occasum magnum est nomen meum in Gentibus, & in omni loco sacrificatur & offertur nomini meo oblatio munda: quià magnum est nomen meum in Gentibus, dicit Dominus.] Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. Tota controversia est, An Malachias loquatur de Sacrificio propriè dicto, quale est in Ecclesia Eucharistia, an verò de Sacrificio impropriè dicto, quales sint laudes, & Orationes, etc. Bellarm. Ibid. Argum. 1. Propheta utitur voce Minhhah, quod est Sacrificium absolute, absque adjuncto, ut cum dicitur, Sacrificium laudis, etc. Argum. 2. Vox [Munda] opponitur immundis oblationibus judaeorum, quae non dicuntur immundae ex parte offerentium tantùm, quià opponit illis oblationem: non enim Munda diceretur in omni loco, cum in pluribus sint mali Ministri. Argum. 3. Dicitur [Non acciptiam munus a manibus vestris.] Hinc colligimus, non solùm mundam esse hanc nostram, sed & novam— Argum, 4. ex antithesi. Contemptus Hebraeorum erat in publicis Sacrificijs, non in privato cultu tantùm. Ergò gloria oblationum apud Christianos erit in publico Sacrificio. Argum. 5. Opponit Malachias non omni populo, sed Sacerdotibus tantùm veteris Legis, non omnes Christianos, sed certos homines, qui Sacerdotibus succedunt. Ergò non loquitur de spirituali, sed de Sacrificio proprie dicto. The whole Controversy is, whether this Scripture spoke of a Sacrifice properly so called, or of an Unproper Sacrifice, such as are Prayers and Thanksgiving, etc. So you. You contend for a Proper Sacrifice, and We deny it: and now that we are to grapple together, we shall first charge you with alleging a corrupt Translation, as the ground of your false Interpretation. That the Romish Objection is grounded upon a false Text, which is in your Romish Vulgar Translation; even by the judgement of Ancient Fathers. SECT. I. YOur Romish Vulgar Translation (which was decreed in the Council of Trent to be the only Authentical, and which thereupon you are enjoined to use in all your Disputations; and not this only, but bound also thereunto by an Oath in the Bull of Pius Quartus, not to transgress that Decree) doth deliver us this Text [In every place is sacrificed and offered to my name a pure Oblation, etc.] without any mention of the word Incense at all: whereas (which your Cardinal b Bellarm. In Hebraea, & Graeca Editione sic Legimus [Incensum offertur nomini meo, & Sacrificium mundum.] Quo supra. confesseth) Both the Hebrew and Greek Text hath it thus; [Incense is offered in my name, and a pure offering, etc.] and that More plainly, saith your c Septuaginta apertiùs. Valent. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 4. pag. 526. Valenta. Which warranteth us to call your Vulgar Translation false, as we shall now prove, and you perceive, without any fare Digression. For we meddle not now with the general Controversy, about this Translation, but insist only upon this Particular, that as A Lion is known by his claw, so your Vulgar Translation may be discerned by this one Clause, wherein the word, Incense, is omitted quite. If ye will permit us, without being prejudicated by your Fathers of Trent, to try the Cause by impartial judges, which are the Ancient Fathers of Primitive Times; especially now, when you yourselves are so urgent in pressing us with multitudes of their Testimonies, for Defence of your Romish Sacrifice, even in their Expositions of this Text of Malachy: Look then upon the d Bellar. Vocem illam [Incensum] interpretatur Tertull. Orationem, ut & ante eum Iren. lib. 4. cont. Haeres. cap. 33. Incensa autem Iohannes vocat orationes Sanctorun. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. §. In altero.— Hieron. Thymiama, i.e. Sanctorum orationes Deo offerendas. In Mal. 1. Chrysost. in Psal. 95. Thymiama putum vocat Preces, quae post Hostiam offeruntur, ut Psalm. 140. Oratio mea dirigatur tanquam Incensum, etc. Euseb. Caesar. demōst. Evang. lib. 1. cap. ult. De Orationibus Propheta: Oratio mea fiat incensum, Psal. 140. Aug. In omni loco Incensum nomini meo, Graecè Thymiama. Apoc. Orationes L. 1. contr. Advers. Legis & Prophet. cap. 20. marginals, and you shall find mention of the word, Incense, (according to the Hebrew and Greek Texts) in the very same objected Testimonies of Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hierome, chrysostom, Eusebius, and Augustine. Notwithstanding, we should not be so vehement, in condemning your Romish Translation in this point, if the matter, now in hand, did not challenge us thereunto: the word, Incense, being sufficient in itself to satisfy all your Objections taken from the Sentences of Fathers, and urged by virtue of the word, Sacrifice, and Oblation, as will appear. That the Text of Malachy doth not imply a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, by the Expositions of Ancient Fathers. SECT. II. TWo words we find in this Prophet, concerning the new Testament: One is, Incense, in the Text now alleged; the other is the word, Levites. The first in Chap. 1. vers. 3. [In every place there shall be an Offering of Incense, and a Sacrifice, etc.] You All affirm of Prayers, Praises, and holy Actions, that they are Spiritual, and no proper Sacrifices. But the Fathers, by you objected, (to wit, Tertull. Irenaeus, Hierome, chrysostom, Eusebius, and Augustine) do * See the preceding marginals. Expound Incense to signify these Spiritual Duties, which are unproperly called Incense. Therefore may we as justly conceive, that the word, Sacrifice, used by them, and applied to the service of God in the New Testament, was meant Improperly; and that so much the rather, because your Cardinal hath no Objection out of the Fathers for his advantage in the word, Sacrifice, which he loseth not by the word Incense, from point to point. For to the first Objection we oppose, saying, The word Incense, is likewise used without a See in the Testimonies above cited, for it is called absolutely Incense, and not Incense of Prayer, etc. Addition. To the second, We accordingly say, Incense was meant also to be Pure: for you will not imagine, that God would promise to his faithful in Christ Impure things. To the third, It is as well said concerning Incense, as of Sacrifice (against the jews, verse 10.) I will not receive any offerings at your hands: * Isaiah 1. 13. Incense is an abomination unto me. To the fourth, The same Godless jews did jointly contemn God's worship made by Incense, as by Sacrifice, except you shall think it credible, that the same men should be both devout and profane in one prescribed Service of God. To the last, Malachy in the same Sentence (and as it were with the same breath) equally taketh exceptions to the jewish Priests, in both Sacrifice, and Incense. Therefore, as the word, Incense, so accordingly the word, Sacrifice, was used Improperly of the Fathers. Do you not now see what reason your Cardinal had, to make choice of a corrupt Text, wanting the word Incense? which he peradventure foresaw would prove as bitter as Coloquintida in his Pottage. The second word in Malachy is [Levite,] I will purge the sons of Levi; which was spoken (as your Cardinal b Bellar. Postquam dixerat Malachias [Offertur nomini meo oblatio munda] Exponit ca 3. à quibus offerenda sit munda oblatio: Purgabit, inquit, F●lios Levi: ubi, per Filios Levi, non possunt intelligi Levitae veteris Testamenti— sed nostri Sacerdotes. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. §. Quintum. confesseth) of the Ministers of the New Testament. Well then, did the Prophet call the Ministry and Service of the New Testament, Pure Sacrifice? And did he not in the like manner call the Ministers of the New Testament Purged Levites? as also some of the Ancient * Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, Leo. Fathers (you know) used to do: and as your Church, in degrading of Archbishop Cranmer from his order of c Mr. Fox Acts and Monuments pag. 2117. Levitico ordine te privamus. Deaconship once did. Therefore both alike were used Improperly, in imitation of this Prophet, and also of that in * Isa. 66. Isaiah, I will send them Priests and Levites. That the Text of the Prophet Malachy doth confute the Romish Pretence of Sacrifice, even by the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers. SECT. III. PErmit you us, for brevity-sake, to contrive this Section into Ob. and Sol. your Cardinal's Objections, and our Solutions or Answers. I. Ob. Sacrifice is called pure always, and in all places, Ergo, Christ's Body. Sol. And chrysostom (who is a Chrysost. in Psal. 95. (objected) Malachias appellat Thymiama ●urum, 〈◊〉 pieces. objected) termeth Prayers, Pure Incense (meaning when, or wheresoever.) II. Ob. The word, Sacrificè, is spoken of in Malachy, without an Adjunct, as to say the Sacrifice of praise, etc. for these are improperly called Sacrifices, Ergo, etc. Sol. Yet First, b Tertul. Ob. by Bellarm. lib. 3. contr. Martion. ex Psalm. 57 In Ecclesijs benedicite Dominum Deum, ut pariter concurreret Malachiae prophetia, In omni loco Sacrificium mundum: Gloriae silicet relatio, & Benedictio, & Laus, & hymni. [Which words Bellarmine restraineth to Prayers and Praises only, in the Mass, whereas Tertullian speaketh of Prayers in general.] Again, Lib. 4. advers. Marc. a little after the beginning. Dicente Malachia, Sacrificium mundum, scilicet, simplex oratio de conscientia pura. [Where he expoundeth Pure Sacrifice to be Prayer.] Tertullian (objected) expounded the same word, Sacrifice, to signify Benedictions, and Praises. And Secondly, c Euseb. Demonst lib. 1. cap 6. [In omni loco Incensum & Sacrificium, etc.] Quid aliud significat quàm orationis Incensum, & Sacrificium, quod [mundum] dicitur? est enim non per cruores, sed per pias actiones summo D●o offerendum. Eusebius (objected) calleth this Pure Sacrifice, Pious Actions and Prayers. Which your Cardinal could not Answer, but with a marvellous and miserable Illusion. III. Ob. By the word, d Bellar. Resp. Non quasi Oratio sit ipsum Incensum, seu Sacrificium, sed illud quod per Orationem, id est, per verba Consecrationis perficitur. Solent enim Patres verba Consecrationis orationes, seu mysticas preces interpretati. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. [First, fond, for the words of Consecration contain in them no term of Prayer: And secondly, falsely, for the Fathers did not call these words Prayer. Both which have been amply discussed.] Sacrifice, were not meant Spiritual Sacrifices, etc. Sol. Yet e Hieron. (objected) Malach. 1. Vt sciant Iudaei carnalibus Victimis spitituales successuras. Thymiama, hoc est, Orationes Sanctorum offerendas, Oblationem mundam, ut est in ceremonijs Christianorum. Bellar. Licet per Incensum intelligat orationem, tamen per Sacrificium intelligit Eucharistiam: dicit enim offerri in Ceremonijs Christianorum. [Be it so, but the Question is, whether the Action of the Eucharist be not called spiritual, that is (as is confessed) an Unproper Sacrifice.] Hierome (objected) expressly nameth the Sacrifice, in Malachy, Spiritual. To come to your Cardinal's principal Reason. IV. Ob. The jewish Sacrifices were called Unclean, not in respect of the Offerers only, but of the Offerings; intimating thereby, that this Offering in the new Testament can be no less than the very Body of Christ. Sol. Irenaeus (objected) plainly putteth the difference to be made, by Malachy, between the Sacrifices, as they were the Offerings of the wicked jews, and the Sacrifices of godly Christians; and he giveth this Reason, because f Irenaeus (ob.) advers. Haeres lib 4. cap. 34 speaking as well of Sacrifices in judaico populo, as in Ecclesia, saith; Non Sacrificia sanctificant hominem, sed Conscientia pura ejus, qui offered, etc.] Then of Eleemosynae, Which the Apostle calleth Hostiam acceptabilem▪ [Opportet nos oblationem Deo facere in sententia pura. And then, Ecclesia offert oblationem hanc Fabricatori puram, offerens ei cum gratiarum Actione ex creatura ejus. judaei autem non offerunt, quia manus eorum plenae sanguine, etc. The jews (saith he) offered up their Oblations with wicked hearts, but the Christians perform theirs with pure Consciences. And that the jewish Sacrifices were not rejected for themselves, but for the impiety of their Sacrificers; your own jesuit g Ribera Ies. Ad loca Scripturae adducta respondere Apostoli. Apud S. Clementem. lib. 6. Const. Apost. C. 22. in hunc modum. Recusabat Deus populi Sacrificia saepenumero in eum peccantis, atque existimantis Sacrificijs ●um, & non p●enitentiâ placatum i●i. Idem docet Iraeneus lib. 4. c. 33. In Hos. 6. num. 24. Ribera confirmeth both by the Constitutions of Pope Clement, and also by this Testimony of Irenaeus. A Truth so evident to your Divines of Collen, that they presume h Antididag. Colon. Tract. de Sacrif. Missae §. De Consecratione. Quis ignorat vetera Patrum Sacrificia, quae Christum sigurabant, vel ob id quod Deus ea praecepisset, per se munda fuisse? Nihilominus tamen frequentius immunda vocantur in Scriptures, non ratione sui, sed propter malam voluntatem offerentium. None to be ignorant, that the Sacrifices of the old Testament were all clean and pure, because God hath ordained them, and they became impure by the wicked hearts of the Offerers. And Tertullian giveth the same Observation for the Reason, why God, in rejecting them, said, i Tetull. li. 3. advers Ma●cion. Sacrificia rejecta, quià non secundùm Dei religionem celebranda, sua jam, non Dei secerant. pag. 160. And, Sacrifica spiritualia accepta, which he nameth above, Cor contribulatum, laudem, etc. Lib. adversus judaeos. I will no more of [your] Sacrifice, and not of [my] Sacrifice. But you will say, Some of the Fathers spoke directly of the Proper Sacrifice of the new Testament. We answer, that as they apply it to the Eucharist, they meant no proper Sacrifice, as the Subject, but only as the Object therein, which was that of the Cross. In which respect k Chrysost. (objected) in Psal. 95. Ex hostia prima mensa mystica coeleste Sacrificium, summéque venerandum. Est autem in nobis varia differentia: Lex multas habet Hostias, Gratia nova unam— Vis scire Victimas, quas Ecclesia habet?— quando fit Sacrificium mundum & immaculatum? audi Scripturam Tibi palàm exponentem hanc differentiam. Et Sacrificium, quod antea dixi spirituale, illud mysticum donum, in quo Apostolus Ephes. 5. Christus tradidit se ipsum pro Nobis Deo Sacrificium. chrysostom (objected) calleth it that Sacrifice, whereof Saint Paul writeth, saying, [Christ gave himself up a Sacrifice for his Church.] Ephes. 5. Lastly, Cyprian (objected) calleth it the l Cypr. (object:) ex ●ib. 1. cont. judaeos cap. 16. Novum Sacrificium, Sacrificium Laudis. New Sacrifice of Praise: which is, you know, a Spiritual, and no Corporall or Proper Sacrifice. The second Prophetical Text (as is pretended) is Psal. 72. 16. concerning a [Handful of Corn in the Top of the Mountains:] objected to prove a Sacrifice in the Romish Mass; but yet as very Romishly, as were the rest. SECT. iv OF this Corn your a Psal 7●. juxta Heb. [Et erit pugillus frumenti in summitatibus montium] vulg. Lat [Et erit fitmamentum in terra in summis Montium.] Galatinus de Arcani● Cath. Veritatis, li. 10. cap. 5. Hoc est, dicit Chaldae a Translatio Rabbi jonathae, Et erit sacrificium panis in summis montium.— Cum ergo ait, Erit placenta frumenti in terra, in capite montium, vult dicere, quod placenta panis ●●et Sacrificium in capitibus Sacerdotum, qui sunt Ecclesia. Haec ibi— Nec mirum de sapientibus an iquis Judaeorum Messiam placentam frumentï, & frustum panis futurum dixisse. The same hath Cocciu● Thesaur. Cath. lib. 6. Art. 4. pag. 679. He addeth other Authors, to wit, P. Galatinus, Claud. Sanctesius, & Genebrard. in hunc Psal. Coccius ibid. Art. 16. pa. 763. Disputers Coccius, Duraeus, Sanctesius, Genebrard, out of Galatinus, and He out of the Chaldee Translation, and other his supposed jewish Rabbins, have observed a Cake on the top of the Mountains. But what of this? This Cake, forsooth, was by their Doctrine a Prophetical prediction of the Romish Wafer-Cake, which is heaved up over the head of the Priest for a Sacrifice. And this is called, by Master Brerely, b Master Brerely in his Protestants Apol. noting Duraeus the jesuit to have urged the same out of Galatinus. A most strong Argument, in behalf of the said Doctrine. ⚜ Yea, and your Jesuit 1 Suarez in 3. Thom. Disp. 74. § 2. Adduci solent verba illa Psalmi 71, ut in Hebr. erit Placenta— qui Psalmus fine dubio de Messia scriptus est. Suarez seemeth to like this Cake, for he also will needs have a lick at it. ⚜ Butler we must tell you, that your Galatinus is too credulous, and that his rabbinical Abstracts are no better than the Gibeonites old torn Shoes, and mouldy Bread, seeming to have come from fare, even from old Rabbins, when as they were invented and brought from their latter Rabbins and Glozers, as it were from the next bordering Countries: because your Author Galatinus (who produceth the foresaid Rabbinish prediction of that Cake) is branded, for such like his Conceits, with the mark of a Vain man, by your judicious c Senensis Biblioth. lib. 2. §. Traditiones. Non possum satis mirari studium Petri Galatini, qui— in eam Vanitatem devenit, ut doceret opera Thalmudica in Latinum ver●i opo●●●re, & public● in Scholis Christianorum explica●i. Senensis. And the Chaldee Paraphrase, which talketh of your Sacrificed Cake, is rejected, as being a Corrupt Puddle of jewish Fables; and fabulous in this very Point, by your great Roman Dictator d Bellar. in Psal. 71. ver. 16. Scio quod Paulus Burgensis ex Paraphrasi Chaldaica adferat ad probandum hoc in loco Sacrificium Missae: sed scio etiam quam multis fabulis judaicis Pharaphrasis illa scateat, ideò piget ex lacunis Expositionū judaicarum haurire, etc. Bellarmine. Which we speak not, as being offended to hear any Rabbi calling that, which is in the hand of your Priest, and above his head, A Cake, which in your Romish Phrase is called, a Wafer-Cake: for if it be indeed and truly a Cake, then is not it Accidents only, but hath still in it the Substance of Bread. And so farewell your Helena of Trent, called Transubstantiation. Now because the Sacrifice can be no better than the matter thereof will permit it, it followeth that the Sacrifice is not Properly the Body of Christ, but the Element of Bread. And thus your Authors (after their laborious kneading and moulding, their greedy longing, and their sweetly chewing hereof) are at length in a manner choked with their own Cake. CHALLENGE, ⚜ By way of Vindication of the truth of our Allegation of the words of Master Brerely; against a late slanderous Romish Traducer. SECT. V A Bold Romanist of late, as it seemeth, not well digesting this Cake, hath in his dispersed * As I received it from a Right Honourable Person, the Lord C●●: Papers divulged me in this manner: MY Lord of Durham saith of the former Reason, that it is called of Master Brerely a [Most strong Argument;] but is most untruly said, as will appear to any one that reads the Protestants Apology. Pag. 156. So he. Flatly and sharply, as you see, charging me with a palpable untruth, and for Trial referring himself to the Book itself; and I Subscribe, saying, Sit Liber judex. The Book is Master Brerely his Apology in his Treatise 1. Sect. 4. Subd. 12. Pag. (as the Romish Seducer himself hath truly quoted it) 156. where Master Brereley his words (for I hope they are not flown out of the Book since) are expressly these: This therefore so plain foresaid Prediction, made by the ancient Rabbins before Christ's time in behalf of Catholic Doctrine, concerning Real presence, demonstrating itself so evidently to have proceeded, not from any Secondary cause, but only from a Divine instinct; yields hereby a [MOST STRONG ARGUMENT] in behalf of the said Doctrines. So he. Therefore do not I know what to impute unto this Romanist, because of his denial of these words, A most strong Argument, rather than the spirit of a Strong Delusion, issuing from the worst kind of malice, whereof the Adage speaketh, Veritas Odium parit. Yet shall this piece of Falsehood be accounted scarce a Venial Sin among you, being spoken to the disgrace of a Protestant, and in Defence of a Romish Priest. The best is, that the Seducer seemeth to be ashamed of the Absurdity of this your Rabbinish Objection, which he was so loath to acknowledge. A Second Vindication, against another Sinister Romish Detraction; showing that the other Scriptures, which are said to be Prophetical, are not judicially objected by your Cardinal. SECT. VI YOur Cardinal hath 2 Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 9 In 1. Reg. cap. 2. Sacrificium successurum Aäronico, interpretatur Sacerdotio & Sacrificio Christianorum. Prov. 9 Sapientia posuit hostias, miscuit Vinum, De Sacrificio Domini. Isaiae 19 Aegyptij colent Deum in hostijs, id est, Gentiles vero Deo Sacrificia offerent. Isaiae 66. Assumam ex eis Sacerdotes & Levitas; de Sacerdotibus Christianis: & jere. 33. De Sacerdotibus & Levitis. Dan. 8. 12. Vbi Antichristus tollet juge Sacrificium, de Antiocho, ut gerebat figuram Antichristi, qui Apoc. 13. Kemnitius respond. Intelligi posse de Sacrificio Spiritual, & praedicatione verbi, & administratione Sacramentorum. Sed ista omnia vanissima sunt. Scriptura nusquàm appellat Sacrificium absolutè, & praesertim in numero singulari, quod non est propriè dictum Sacrificium. Quarè Daniel cum vocat juge Sacrificium, loquitur de vero & propriè dicto Sacrificio. collected divers Texts of the Old Testament, which the Fathers apply to the Eucharist under the name of Sacrifice, thereby concluding, that they judged the Encharist to be a Proper Sacrifice. These places have been thought to an importunate Romanist worthy the Answering, which I purposely passed by, as superfluous, and such as were effectually enough satisfied in the Confutation of your other Objections, made out of the Figure and Type of Melchisedeth, and Prophecy of Malachy. Now our Task must be, to show the injudiciousness of your Cardinal, in urging such Testimonies of the Fathers, as if they were necessarily Concludent, for a Proper Sacrifice; who considered not, that most of such like Applications, used by the Fathers, as Proper Interpretations, were no other than Allegorical Allusions, and Assimulations. Wherein we durst Appeal to your Cardinal himself, who if he had thought these kinds of Applications to be Argumentative, might have made five more Chapters of the like Allusions. This our Answer may be exemplified and illustrated by the like liberty and liberality of Speech used by the same Fathers in their Witty and Elegant Allusions to Baptism, whereof your own Lauretus 3 Hieron. Lauretus' Sylva Allegoriarum Tit. Aqua. Citeth ten Fathers. Aquae Marah, quae per Lignum factae sunt dulces. Exod. 15. Baptismus. Aquae usque talos. Ezek. 47. Baptismus mundans 〈◊〉. Aqua in pelvi. jud. 6. Baptismi gratia. Aqua contradictionis. Psalm. 80. Est Baptismus ijs, qui fictè accedunt. Aqua, in quam missi sunt pulveres vituli, Exod. 32. Est Baptismus, ubi omne peccatum conteritur. Potest etiam Aqua significare Baptismum, & Spiritualia dona gratiae. [And he citeth above 40. Texts in the old Testament.] giveth you divers Instances from the testimonies of Ten Fathers, applying the Water of Marah, Exod. 15. The Water which took men up to the Ankles, Ezek. 24. The Water in a Basin, jud. 6. The Waters of Contradiction, Psalm. 80. The Waters wherein the dust of the Golden Calf was thrown, Exod. 32. Each one of which Waters they apply unto Baptism. And, being not contented with these, he referreth you unto above Forty places moe of the Old Testament, which may have the like Relation to Baptism; none whereof can be properly called a Literal Explication, but only an Allegorical Application of Scriptures. The Second Argument of his injudiciousness is discernible in this, that all that is alleged proveth no more than that which Protestants confess, to wit, that the Eucharist may be called a Sacrifice, either Eucharistical, or Latreuticall, in a Spiritual Sense, as the Fathers do after expound themselves. Thirdly, to come to that wherein your Cardinal is most peremptory, saying that the [juge Sacrificium, that is, Continual Sacrifice] prophesied of, should be taken away by Antichrist, cannot mean any Spiritual and improper Sacrifice. but the Real and Proper Sacrifice of the Mass. But we say that the Fathers understood it of the proper Spiritual worship of Christians. Now whom would you wish to be Moderator between us? We guess some Romish Doctor should be the man; and above all, some one out of the School of the jesuites; and of these, such an one must be most fit, who is known to be of a more moderate Temper than the most of them. Behold the man, even your jesuite 4 Pererius Ies. in Dan. 12. Anti-Christus tollet juge Sacrificium, vel, ut est Graecè, Endelechismum, quod vocabulum sonat Continuitatem, nimirum Divini cultus, qui in Ecclesia Dei omni tempore exhibetur: sic enim interpretatur Hieronymus, Theodoretus. Et hunc Dei continuum cultum appellavit Angelus juge Sacrificium— QVANQVAM id nominis praecipuè refersi potest ad sanctissimum Missae Sacrificium— & hoc r●tè nominatur Sacrificium juge. Nam non uno duntaxat in loco, nec bis tantum per singulos dies, manè & vesperi, ut illud judaicum, sed in omni loco & omni tempore Deo offertur. Idem Lib. 9 in Dan. Cap. 8. Gregorius tricesimo Moralium, Cap. 12. Omnia verba, de Antiocho, explicamus de Antichristo— juge Sacrificium tollit, quià studium sanctae conversationis Ecclesiae in eyes quos caeperit, interrumpit. Pererius, who coming to explain this [juge Sacrificium] out of the Fathers, granteth that indeed these Fathers, Hierome, and Theodoret, understood thereby the Divine worship of Christians, in general. And that Pope Gregory expoundeth it of the Christian Conversation of Life, which shall be interrupted by Antichrist. So he. But yet the same Jesuit, perceiving that this reached not home to the Sacrifice of your Mass, straineth courtesy with the Fathers, and without any their Authority, or rather against it, cometh in with his [QVANQVAM:] Notwithstanding (saith he) this name of, Continual Sacrifice, may be referred to the Sacrifice of the Mass, because that is not as the Sacrifice of the jews; in one place only, or at morn and night, but continually in all places, and at all times. So he. Which any jew (if he heard it) would think were unadvisedly spoken, saying of their jewish Continual Sacrifice, that it Continued to be offered both in their Morning and Evening worship; whereas the time of your Romish is prefixed but in the Morning Service only, and therefore cannot be so justly called [juge] or Continual, as the Jewish was; because nothing can be called [juge] in respect of Place, but only in respect of Time. ⚜. CHAP. V. Of our Second Examination of this Controversy, by the judgement of Ancient Fathers, showing that they never called the Eucharist a Sacrifice, Properly. Our General Proposition. The ancient Fathers never called the Eucharist, Properly, a Sacrifice: proved by many Demonstrations. THe Demonstrations, which we are to speak of, are many; some taken from the proper, and some from the pretended Subject of the Eucharist; some from the parity of like speeches of Fathers, as well in other Sacraments, Acts, and Adjuncts, as in these which are belonging to the Eucharist. The first Demonstration, That the Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice; (but Improperly) as being the Subject matter of the Eucharist. SECT. I. THat Ancient Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice, even before Consecration, we have it confessed asseverantly by your own a Maldonat. Ob. Irenaeum lib 4. cap. 32. & 34. Scribit Christianos Deo offer primitias creaturarum panem & vinum— Dicebatur etiam sacrificare homo profanus, qui Sacerdoti tradebat victimam, ut eam pro se sacrificaret: non quòd illa traditio esset Sacrificium. Ita locuti sunt etiam Christiani antiqui, ut constat ex verbis Cypriani in Serm. de Eleemos. Locuples matrona sine Sacrificio in Dominicum venien●. Nec necesse est (ut Irenaeus loquitur) de proprio Sacrificio, quia nefas est credere Ecclesiam obtulisse rem ullam corpoream & terrestr●m Deo post abrogata omnia hujusmodi Sacrificia terrena. Maldon. loco citato. Accipiendo Sacrificium pro re, quae sacrificatur, negari non debet, panem & vinum aliquo modo in Missa offerri, & proinde pertinere ad rem praesentem: nam cùm ante Consecrationem dicimus [Suscipe, Sancte Pater, hanc tuam immaculatam Hostiam] certè pronomen, Hanc, de monstrat ad sensum id quod tunc manibus tenemus, id autem panis est. Et similes sunt in Liturgia non paucae sententiae, quae panem offerri apertè sanè demonstrant. Denique veteres Patres passim idem tradunt. Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32. dicit Ecclesiam offerre Sacrificium ex creaturis. Et Cyprian. lib. 2. Ep. 3. Christum obtulisse Calicem vino & aqua mixtàm. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Respondeo ut. jesuite, where he will have you furthermore to observe, that Bread and Wine, before Consecration, is called an Immaculate Sacrifice, even in your Roman Mass. And that the Primitive Fathers called Bread and Wine, Sacrifice, after Consecration also, we have likewise proved in two full * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 2. Sections: which your Cardinal is bound to acknowledge, who, to prove that Melchisedech Sacrificed Bread & Wine, produced the Testimonies of Ambrose, August. Chrysost. Oecumenius, and Theophylact, to conclude them to have been Figures of the Eucharist, which we desire you to carry still in mind, until we end this Section. Hereupon we demand, whether you think that Bread and Wine, in the Eucharist, can be called of Christians a Sacrifice Properly, either before, or after Consecration? No (saith one b Valent. Ies. objicienti Melchisedechum obtulisse panem & vinum tantùm. Resp. Sacerdotium Christi secundum ordinem, Melchisedech— Etiam ratione rui oblatae, non quatenus oblatione illius substantiae determinatae, scilicet panis & vini, exercebatur. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 4. jesuite) because it is not agreeable to our Priesthood. No (saith a c Bellarmin. respondens quaestioni; An cum solus Panis mutatur, si propri● sacrifica●etur? Inquit, Id absurdissimum esset: tum haberet Ecclesia Sacrificium inanimum, & vilius multo quàm habuerint olim. Hebraei. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Sed haec. Second) because it were most absurd that the Church of Christ should have a liveless Sacrifice, and consequently more vile than was the jewish. No (saith a d Nefas est, cr●dere Ecclesiam obtulisse rem ullam corpoream & terrestrem Deo post abrogata omnia hujusmodi Sacrificia terrena. Maldonat. Lib. de 7. Sacram. Tom. 1. de Eucharist. part. 3. §. Primum Argumentum. Third) because it were an heinous impiety now, after the abrogation of the terrene Sacrifices of the jews, to believe that the Church of God should profess an Offering of Corporall and earthly Sacrifices. No (saith a e Salmeron. Communis sensus est omnium Christianorum, non esse aliud Sacrificium quàm Corpus & Sanguinem Christi— At si panis esset Sacrificium, sequeretur, quòd res inanimata sacrificaretur— Et quòd summa Lattia esset circa panem & vinum. Tom. 9 Tract. 12. § Quinta. Fourth) for it is the judgement of all Christians, that there is no Sacrifice in Christian Religion, but the Body and Blood of Christ: because otherwise the Act of Sacrificing thereof, being a Divine worship, should be exercised upon Bread and Wine. So they. We would be glad to take the Apostle of Christ to be our Guide, for our better security, he (as is likewise f Bellarmin. Apostolus declarat, non esse terrenum aliquid quod offert Christus, si esset super terram, ex Heb. 8. 4. Et ostendit nunc meliores hostias offer Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. sect;. Resp. quid. [See above Chap. 3. Sect. 2.] confessed) teacheth, that God now is not to be worshipped, by way of Sacrifice, with any outward thing. Oh that your Divines would exercise their quills in publishing such sound Truths as this is, we then would wish them Good speed in all their Writings. Notwithstanding, upon consideration of the Premises, we are enforced to complain of the unconscionableness of your Cardinal, who, to prove a proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, did (as you may remember) produce the Testimonies of five Fathers, wherein that, which they called a Sacrifice, they expressed to be Bread and Wine; which by the joint and consonant Confession of the Cardinal himself, and other prime jesuites of his own society, cannot be held to be Proper Sacrifices, without Absurdity and Impiety. And the like obliquity of judgement you may find in your Rhemish Divines, in * Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22. 19 alleging the Testimonies of Irenaeus, for proof of the Sacrifice of your Mass, which your jesuite Maldonate hath truly observed to have been spoken of Bread and Wine, even * See above at (a.) before Consecration. One word more. By this you may perceive another proof of the Idiom of Ancient Fathers, in Extending the word [Sacrifice] beyond its literal sense: which (beside the former) the last annexed Testimony of g To these former, we add another objected Testimony of Augustine, Lib. de side ad Pet. Diac. cap. 19 Null●tenus dubites unigenitum Dei filium obtulisse hostiam Deo pro nobis, cui nunc cum Patre & Spiritu Sancto offerimus Sacrificium panis & vini, in side & charitate, in Catholica Ecclesia per universum mundum. Augustine confirmeth, showing, that now there is in this our Sacrifice no other Subject but Bread and Wine. This may serve for the present, concerning the true and proper Subject of the Eucharist, Bread and Wine. We in the next place are to examine the pretended Subject, which your Church will have to be the Body and Blood of Christ. Our Second Demonstration, That the Ancient Fathers held not the Body and Blood of Christ to be the proper Subject matter of the Eucharist, in calling it a Sacrifice. SECT. II. HOw cometh the Body and Blood of Christ to be a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist? Your Cardinal will tell us, to wit, Bread and Wine are consecrated, and by Consecration made the Body and Blood of Christ: so that now a Bellarm. lib. 1 de Missa, cap. 27. §. His igitur— In Missae Sacrificio requiritur ut res profana sit sacra: sic hic, ubi panis convertitur in corpus Christi— §. Respondeo, etc. Non panis, sed quod expane factum propriè sacrificatur. [For still the Question is that of Lombard's; Quaeritur si quod gerit Sacerdos, sit propriè sacrificium. Lombard. lib. 4. Dist. 12. lit. G. Not Bread (saith he) but the Body of Christ is the thing sacrificed. This is plain dealing, and as much as if he had said, If there be in the Eucharist no Transubstantiation of the Bread into Christ's Body, by Consecration, then cannot Christ's Body be a proper Sacrifice. But that there is no such Transubstantiation, or Corporal Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, hath been proved to be the judgement of Ancient Fathers, by many Demonstrations throughout the third and fourth Books. A stronger Argument there needeth not. Our Third Demonstration is, Because the objected places of Antiquity, for proof of a Representative Sacrifice, Properly so called, do not point out anywhere the Body of Christ, as the proper Subject, but only as the Object of the Sacrifice spoken of. SECT. III. The necessary use of this Distinction. Our Distinction is this. These words, The Body and Blood of Christ, as they are applied to the Eucharist, in the name of Sacrifice, may admit of a double Acception; one is to take them Subjectively, as being the proper Material Subject of this Sacrament; the other is to understand them Objectively, that is, to account the Body and Blood of Christ, as they were the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, to be only the proper Object of a Christian Celebration, according to the Direction and Institution of Christ, saying, Do this in remembrance of me. Your Romish Church professeth the Body and Blood to be the proper Subject; We nay, but the proper Object of our Celebration. This Distinction, well learned, will be unto our Reader as an Ariadne's thread, to wind him out of the Labyrinth of all Obscurities, and seeming Repugnancies of Ancient Fathers; out of all the confused Subtleties, and equivocal Resolutions of your Romish Disputers; and out of the Perplexities, wherewith some Protestants also may seem (in some sort) to have been entangled. The Demonstration itself, Because the Eucharist, being only Commemorative and Representative, cannot be a Proper Sacrifice: answering the Romish Objection taken from the Sacrifices under the Law. SECT. iv THat it cannot be called properly a Sacrifice, which is only for Commemoration and Representation, is the Conclusion of your own a Bellarm. Si sola repraesentatio Sacrificij crucis, tùm non potest dici oblatio in hunc modum: Offero tibi Pater, etc. ac à Patribus Oblatio dicitur. Lib 1. de Missa, cap. 15. §. Quartò. Cardinal; although it cannot be denied, but that Improperly it may be so called, aswell as you may call the Image of Christ crucified, the Crucifix. But, to come to your Objection, your b Rhemists A●notat. in Luke 22● and Bellarm. Finis erat Sacrificiorū praecedentium repraesentare Sacrificium Crucis, ut futurum, & sicut vetera Sacrificia non amittebant veram & propriam rationem Sacrificij, ex eo quòd essent repraesentativa: ita nec Sacrificum Eucharistiae, amittit propriam Sacrificij rationem, propter Commemorationem. Lib. 1. de M●ssa. cap. 12. §. Quoth verò. Rhemish Divines and Romish Cardinal are very earnest and instant in proving, that because the jewish Sacrifices, being Representations of the Passion of Christ, were notwithstanding True and proper Sacrifices: Therefore the Being Representative can be no hindrance that the Eucharist should be a proper Sacrifice. So they. But yet so, as if they had meant to say nothing to the purpose, because the jewish Sacrifices, albeit they were Representations of Christ's Passion, yet were they not only Representations thereof, as the Eucharist is, but were also, beside that, Sacrifices in themselves, and so ordained to be by God; first in their matter, as Bulls, Sheep, Goats; next in their Sacrificing Act, which was Destructive, as to be slain; and lastly, in their proper and peculiar end, which was (as your c Bellarm. Sacrificia illa Levitica non culpam. & poenam aeternam, sed immunditiem legalem, & poenam temporalem expiabant.— Patet ex Dei promissione de remissione peccatorum; ex mensura Sacrificij majoris & minoris pro majore & 〈◊〉 delicto. Levit. 6. & 4, & 5. At pro peccatis gravioribus, ut blasphemia, homicidio, etc. nulla videmus instituta Sacrificia. Lib. 4. de poeaitent. cap. 15. §. Respondeo. & §. Ex his. Non quoad culpam & poe●am Gehennae, nisi quatenus signa erant protestantia fidem in Christum, ut docent communiter Theologi. Idem l. 2. de effect. Sacram. c. 17. Et omnia illa erant Sacrificia vera, & signacula promissionis Christi venturi & morituri. Idem lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 24. Cardinal witnesseth) For expiation of legal Pollutions, and remission of temporal Punishments. Each one of these may satisfy your Objection: ⚜ And (as your 1 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp. 222. cap. 8. Discrimen inter Reprae sentationem mortis Christi in hoc Sacramento, & in Sacrificijs antiquae legis est, quod illa non erant ideo Sacrifica, quia mortem Christi repraesentabant; sed quia Immolatione Rei oblatae denotabant Deum, authorem vitae & mortis. Vasquez will say) for The acknoledgment of God's Sovereignty over life and death. ⚜ The Confirmation of the former Demonstration out of the Fathers; first Explaining of themselves. SECT. V SAint Ambrose setting forth two kind of Offerings of Christ, here on Earth, and above in Heaven, he saith that a Ambr. Vmbra in Lege, imago in Evangelio, veritas in coelestibus: antè agnus offerebatur, nunc Christ▪ offertur quasi Homo, quasi recipiens passionem, & offered seize ipse quasi Sacérdos, ut peccata nostra dimittat, hîc in imagine, ibi in veritate, ubi apud Patrem pro nobis quasi Advocatus intervenit. Lib. 1. de Offic. Cap. 48. Christ here is offered as one suffering, and above he himself Offereth himself an Advocate with the Father for us. And this our offering of him he calleth but an Image; and that above he calleth the Truth. Clearly showing that we have, in our Offering, Christ's Body only as it is Crucified, which is the Object of our Commemoration; But the same Body, as it is now the personal subject of a present Time, and Place, they behold it in Heaven; even the same Body, which was once offered on the Cross by his Passion, now offered up by himself to God, by Presentation in Heaven; here in the Church only by our Representation Sacramentally on earth. Saint Augustine dealeth as plainly with us, where distinguishing three States of Offerings up of Christ, he b August. Hujus Sacrificij caro & sanguis antè adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur; in passione Domini per ipsam Veritatem: post Ascensum per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur. Cont. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 21. Tom. 6. Nun semel immolatus est Christus, & tamen in Sacramento quotidiè immolatur? He addeth, Nec tamen mentitur, qui dicit Christum immolari: si enim Sacramenta non haberent similitudinem rerum ipsarum, quas repraesentant, non essent Sacramenta. Ex qua similitudine nomina eorum accipiunt. Aug. lib. Epist. 23. [See of this above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. And yet again, more plainly in his 20 Book against Faust●●, cap. 21. it followeth;] Vt Baptismus dicitur sepulchrum; sic, Hoc est corpus meum. saith first, that under the Law Christ was promised In the Similitude of their Sacrifices: meaning, his bloody death was prefigured by those bloody Sacrifices. Secondly, in the offering at his Passion he was Delivered up in Truth, or proper Sacrifice, this was on the Cross. And Thirdly, after his Ascension, The memory of Him is celebrated by a Sacrament, or Sacramental Representation. So he. For although the Sacrifices of the jews were true Sacrifices, yet were they not truly the Sacrificing of Christ. Note you this Assertion. Again, speaking of his own Time, when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was daily celebrated, he saith, That Christ was once sacrificed (namely upon the Cross) and is now daily sacrificed in the Sacrament; nor shall he lie (saith he) that saith Christ is sacrificed. So he. No, holy Augustine, shall he not lie, who saith that Christ, as the personal Subject of this Sacrament, is a Proper Sacrifice in the Literal Sense? (for, whether Proper or Unproper, are the two Seals of this Controversy.) Now interpose your Catholic Resolution. Say first, why is it called a Sacrament? tell us; * See above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 8. out of his Epist. 23. ad Bonifacium. If Sacraments had not a similitude of things, which they represent, they were no Sacraments, from which similitude they have their Appellation and name of the things (to wit) The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is called his Body, as Baptism is called a Burial. Be so good as to explain this by another, which may illuminate every man, in the point of Sacrifice also, although otherwise blinded with prejudice. c Epist. 23. add Bonifac. Paulò ante verba superiora, nempè, Pascha appropinquante, saepè dicimus crastinam Domini passionem, cum ille ante multos annos passus sit, nec omninö nisi semel ista passio facta sit, nempè isto die: (dicimus) Christus resurrexit, cum ex quo resurrexit tot Anni transierunt, cum nemo ita ●eptus sit qui nos ita Ioquentes arguat nos esse mentitos— ut dicatur ipse Dies, quia non est ipse, sed similis— none semel immolatus est Christus? etc. As when the day of Christ's Passion (saith he) being to morrow, or the day of his Resurrection about to be the next day but one; we use to say of the former, To morrow is Christ's Passio; and of the other, when it cometh, it is Christ's Resurrection, yet will none be so absurd as to say, we lie in so saying, because we speak it by way of Similitude: even so when we say, this is sacrificed, etc. So Saint Augustine. Who now seethe not, that as the Burial of Christ is not the Subject matter of Baptism, but only the Representative Object thereof; and as Good-Friday, and Easter-day, are not properly the days of Christ his Passion, or Resurrection, but anniversary, and Represensative, or Commemorative Resemblances of them: So this Sacrifice is a Similitude of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and not materially the same. ⚜ Lastly hear Augustine again: 2 Aug. lib. 1. Con. advers. Leg. & Proph. cap. 18. Mors Christi unum & unicum verum Sacrificium. The death of Christ (saith he) is the only true Sacrifice. ⚜ We omit Testimonies of other Fathers, which are dispersed in other Sections. Although this one Explanation might satisfy, yet shall we adjoin others, which may satiate even the greediest Appetite in the Demonstrations following. The fourth Demonstration, From the Father's Explanation of their meaning, by a kind of Correction. SECT. VI ANcient Fathers in good number call that, which is represented in the Eucharist, and which we are said to offer, The same Host, not many; the same Oblation, no other; the same Sacrifice, and none but it: but they add by a Figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, a Correction of the excess of their speech, or rather for Caution-sake, (lest their Readers might conceive of the same Sacrifice herein as properly present) saying in this manner; We offer the same Sacrifice, or rather the Remembrance thereof; alluding sometime expressly to the Institution of Christ, [Do this in remembrance of me.] The Fathers are these, viz. a Chrys. ●●. Heb. 10. ●om. 17. pa. 1171. [Christus semper suo sanguine intra●] Ipse Sacrificium, Sacerdos, & Hostia: si hoc non esset, multa oportebat etiam Sacrificia offerri, saèpiùs oportebat crucifigi.— Eandem ipsam Hostiam, quam Christus immolabat, offerimus, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:] vel potiùs Recordationem ipsius, etc. chrysostom, b Theophylact in Heb. 10. pa. 885. 886. Nunc & ipsi sine sanguine immolamus? Ita quidem, Sed Christi tunc reminiscimur obitus: & una nobis est immolatio, non multae, quandoquiden & ille semel immolatus est. Eunden sempe● offerimus, quin potiùs Oblationis illius memoriam facimus, perinde a●si esset hoc tempore immolatus. Quocirca unum esse hoc nostrum Sacrificium constar.— Vnicum est & semel oblatum— nam & unus est sanguis, & semel fusus. Theophylact, c Theod. in Heb cap. 8. Cum essecit ut alia Sacrificia non essent necessaria, cur novi Testamenti Sacerdotes mysticam Liturg●●m seu Sacrificium peragant? sed clarum est ijs, qui sunt in rebus divinis cruditi, nos non aliud Sacrificium offer, sed unius illius salutaris memoriam peragere— Dixit enim, Hoc facite in memoriam mei. Theodoret, d Ambros. in Hebr. ●0. Osterimus quidem, sed Recordationem salutaris mortis ejus, & una haec Hostia, non multae. Ambrose, e Euseb. Demonst. Evangelic. lib. 1 cap. 10. Sacrificamus & incendimus, aliâs autem magni Sacrificij illius memoriam, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eusebius, and f Primasius in Heb. cap. 10. Quod Deus etc. Offerunt quidem S●cerdotes nost●i, sed ad recordationem mortis ejus— sicut ipse dixit, Hoc facite in Commemorationem mei.— una hostia, non multae— Corpus unum cum illo, quod suscepit in utero virginali, non autem multa Corpora, nec nunc quidem aliud magnum, aliud minus. Primasius. Your only Answer is, that their Exception, here used, was not to note that it is not the same Body of Christ here Corporally present, which was offered upon the Cross; but that it is not offered in the same manner by effusion of Blood, as that was; which is indeed a Part, but not the whole Truth. For survey the marginals, and then tell us! If that your Sacrifice were the same Body of Christ Corporally present, why should Theophylact apply his qualification not to the manner, whether Bloody or Unbloody, but to the person of Christ? saying, We offer the same Christ, who was once offered, or rather a Memorial of his Oblation. And Theodoret applying it directly to the thing, [Non aliud] We offer not another Sacrifice, but a memorial thereof. Why Eusebius? We offer a Memorial in stead of a Sacrifice. Why chrysostom? The same Sacrifice or rather a Commemoration of it: every one directly requiring that the Thing, which we offer, be the same crucified Bloody Sacrifice of Christ's Death, (which S. Augustine but even now named The only true Sacrifice of Christ, (in the former Section) but that they plainly notified unto us, that they meant the same very Body, which was the Subject of the Sacrifice on the Cross, to be the now proper Object of our Remembrance in the Eucharist, but not the Subject therein. Which agreeth with that which in the former Section was said by Ambrose, Our offering up of Christ in an Image; and Augustine his celebrating of this Sacrament of Remembrance. Semblably, as Hierome speaks of the Priest, who is said to take the Person of Christ in this Sacrament, so that, He (saith g Hier. Tom. 5. lib. 13. Com. in Ezec. cap. 44. Qui offerat Deo Sacrificium, ita ut verus Sacerdos sit, imò Imitator ejus, qui est Sacerdos secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. Idem Tom. 9 lib. 4. cap. 26. in Matth. Sicut Melchisedech panem & vinum offerens, ipse quoque veritatem corporis & sanguinis sui repraesentat. Hierome) be a true Priest, or rather an Imitator of him. But a Priest, and an Imitator, is not Identically the same that is represented. Master Brerely is not Christ. ⚜ Yea, and Saint Hierome will speak as directly of the Differences of the two Sacrifices, as he doth of the two Priests; for distinguishing between them, 3 Hier. in Levit. & extat in Decret. de Consec. dist. 2. Can. De hac— De hac quidem hostia, quae in Christi commemorationem mirabiliter fit, edere licet: de illa verò, quam Christus in ara crucis obtulit secundùm se, nulli edere licet. In this Sacrifice (saith he) which is marveilously done in commemoration of Christ, one may eat: but that which he offered of himself upon the Cross, no man may eat. Where he noteth two Sacrifices, One Here, and another on the Cross: the first offered by Another, and the second by Himself. And he separateth them (in respect of the Subject) as THIS, from THAT; which if they were subjectively, really, and personally the same, than the Eating of the one should be the Eating of the other, which S. Hierome denyeth: Of THIS one may eat, (saith he) but not of THAT. ⚜ Lastly, The same (said * See the former marginals at the letter (f.) Primasius) in all places, which was born of the Virgin, & not now great, & now less. So he. But have we not heard you number your many Hosts on one Altar, at one Time? and yet the Fathers say, We offer not many, but the same, which must needs be the same one, as Object; else show us where ever any Father denied but that upon divers Altars were divers Breads; or that but, according to their outward Dimensions, they were now greater, now less; which no way agreeth with the Body of Christ, as hath been proved in discussing the * See above B. 4. Chap ●●. Sect. 5. Canon of the Council of Nice. The fifth Demonstration, Because the Body and Blood of Christ, as they are pretended by the Romish Church to be in this Sacrament, cannot be the Representative Sacrifice spoken of by Ancient Fathers; against your vain Instance in a Stage-play, being the last refuge of your desperate Disputers wherein their whole Defense consisteth. SECT. VII. THat the Subject matter of this Sacrament (by you called the same Sacrifice, which Christ offered up upon the Cross) ought to be Representative, and fit to resemble the same Sacrifice of his Passion, is a matter unquestionable among all. In which respect the Fathers have so often called it a Sacrifice of Commemoration, Representation, and Remembrance; and that the thing to be represented is his Body crucified, and his Blood shed in that Sacrifice of his Passion, is a point as questionless: which accordeth both to the words of Christ his Institution [Do this in remembrance of me,] and too the Exposition of Saint Paul, to be a [showing forth of the Lords death until he come:] yea and is also consonant to the last mentioned Doctrine of the Fathers, calling it A Sacrifice of Christ, or rather a Remembrance thereof. The only Question will be, how This, which you call The same Sacrifice, meaning the Body of Christ, subjectively in the Eucharist, being invisible, can be said to represent, figure, and resemble the same Body, as it was the Sacrifice on the Cross? We yielding unto you a possibility, that one thing, in some respects, may be a Representation of itself. Your Tridentine Fathers to this purpose say, that a Concil. Trident. Christum reliquisse Sacrificium Ecclesiae suae visibile, quo cruentum istud in Cruse peragendum repraesentaretur. Ses. 22. ca 1. Christ left this visible Sacrifice to his Church, whereby his Body sacrificed on the Cross should be represented. So they. From whom (it may seem) your Rhemists learned that Lesson, which they taught others, that b Rhemists' Annot. in Luc. 22. Christ's Body, once visibly sacrificed upon the Cross, In and By the self same Body is immolated and Sacrificed under the shapes of Bread and Wine, and is most perfectly thereby resembled: and therefore is most properly Commemorative; being called the same Sacrifice by the Ancient Fathers. And again, This nearly and lively resembleth that. So they. But this we utterly deny, because although a thing may in some sort be represented by itself, yet (say we) there is no Representative quality of any Body and Blood of Christ (as it is said by you to be in the Eucharist) of his Body and Blood sacrificed upon the Cross. And upon the Truth or Untruth of this our Assertion dependeth the gaining or losing of the whole Cause, concerning the Question of Sacrifice, now controverted between Vs. Two of your jesuites have undertaken to manifest your Representation (by a more fit example than do your Rhemists) thus; c Barradas Ies. En tibi stupendam Dei adinventionem notam facimus. Animo concipiamus Regem aliquem post reportatam de Hostibus Victoriam, etc. Sic Christi corpus veluti in scena personatur, id est, speciebus panis & vini velatur, etc. Tom. 4. Concord. Evang lib. 3. cap. 13. §. Optimus. And Bellarmine. Even as a King (say they) having got a victory, should represent himself, after his war, in a Stage-play in fight, etc. ⚜ Or as your Cardinal Peron is said to have fancied; As David might have represented his own Combat with Goliath in a Theatre. ⚜ So they, even in earnest, which hath been as earnestly, yet easily, confuted by us * See above Book. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. there answered.] Corpus & sanguis Domini sub specie panis & vini signa sunt corporis ejus passi, & sanguinis effusi, etc. See above also in the same place, Chap. 3. already; although, indeed, the Play deserveth but laughter. And that so much the rather, because the Representative part (as your Council of * See hereafter, Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Trent hath defined) is in your Mass a visible Sacrifice, whereby the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross might be represented, as you have heard. ⚜ For here is no visibly-represented person, but the Priest; no visily-represented, or crucified Body, but the Bread Broken. But no more is the Bread Christ's Body, than the Breaking thereof is his Crucifying; or yet the Priest, Christ. ⚜ CHALLENGE. Displaying furthermore the Stolidity of this your only Romish Defence, concerning an Unbloody Representative Sacrifice of Christ's Body sacrificed on the Cross; from another Romish Principle, and from the Absurdity of the Defence itself. ALl Christians, be they Protestants, or Romanists, whensoever they allow of the name of Sacrifice, whether in a large and common, or in a strict and proper Sense, they evermore profess it to be the Representative and Commemorative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. But how it is Representative, is become the main hinge of the whole Controversy. Protestant's hold and teach this to consist only in the Analogy between the Consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine, and the use thereof in the Eucharist; and the Body and Blood of Christ on the Cross. But you Romish maintain a Representation of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross by Analogy with his Body and Blood, as it is in this Sacrament. The Analogy of Representation, held by Protestants, is such as your own Doctors will grant to be true in every part and point. First, for the End of the Celebration of the Eucharist, it is confessed, that 4 Vasquez Ies. in 3. Thom. Disp. 220. Vt finis Sacrificij veteris legis erat repraesentare Sacrificium Crucis, ut futurum: sic finis est Sacrificij Eucharistiae repraesentare Sacrificium Crucis, up praeteritum. The end thereof is to represent the Sacrifice on the Cross. Secondly, Nor will any of you deny, but the forms of Bread and Wine do Represent the Body and Blood of Christ. Nor (thirdly) will you gainsay, that the Separation of Bread from the Wine, in the Eucharist, doth represent the Separation of Christ's Body and Blood on the Cross. Which are the three summary Points of Representation, held by Us, contrary to your professed Representation made (as you have said) by Christ's Body and Blood, in the Eucharist, of the same his Body and Blood separated on the Cross, as it were in a Stage-play. ⚜ You therefore (except you will be Players, and not Disputers) must tell us, where ever it was seen or heard of a King, as Conqueror, or yet of any other, of what condition soever, acting himself, and that Visibly, Perfectly, and Truly (as you have said) yea or else any way semblably Representing himself, when as yet the same King, or party, was to all the Spectators altogether Invisible? If You can, then show where this was Acted, whether it were not in Utopia? And who was the Actor, if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? and of what Disposition the Spectators were, whether not like the Man of Argos, who is said daily to have frequented the Theatre and Stage alone, void of all Actors, yet seeming to himself to see all Varieties of Actions; occasioning him to laugh, and applaud at that which he saw represented to himself only in his own fantastical Brain? Now have you nothing else to Answer, but (which you have already said) that The Body and Blood in the Eucharist are visible, by the visible shapes of Bread and Wine. Whereas it had been much better you had answered, indeed, nothing at all, rather than not only to contradict that, which was said by your Fathers of Trent, (decreeing the Representation to be made By the Sacrifice on the Altar itself; and more expressly by your * See above at (●) Rhemists, In and by the same Body in the Eucharist:) but also to expose yourselves to the reproof of your Adversaries, and Scorn of any man of common Sense; as if you would persuade him his money is Visible to any that will use his eyes, which he hath therefore locked close up in his Coffer, lest any man might see it. ⚜ Besides, this your Romish Principle and Doctrine of concomitancy is not unknown unto you, which is, that notwithstanding whatsoever Consecration of Bread severally from the Wine, yet the Body and Blood of Christ are continually in the Eucharist, as Veseparably united together; his Blood being in the veins of the same Body, as verily as it was before his Passion. Hence we argue, that this Inseparation of Christ's Blood from his Body, which you believe to be in this Sacrament, can no more possibly represent the Separation and Shedding of Christ's Blood from his Body (which all Christians believe to have been in his Sacrifice on the Cross) than Crookedness can resemble Straightness; or Light, Darkness. Therefore is not the Romish Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, Representative of his Body and Blood on the Cross, notwithstanding that (as hath been confessed) this Representation be the end of the Celebration of the Eucharist. ⚜ The Sixth Demonstration Of the No-Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, because divers Epithets objected, as given by Fathers to this Sacrifice, are used also by them where there is no Proper Sacrifice. SECT. VIII. IT is objected by your Cardinal, that Ancient Fathers gave certain Epithets, and Attributes to the Eucharist. I. Some calling it a Full & Pure; II. Some, Terrible Sacrifice; III. Some termed it in the Plural number Sacrifices and Victimes. His Argument (in the Margin) is this: If the Fathers had held the Sacrifice of the Eucharist to be but only Representative, They would not have called them in the Plural number Sacrifices. So he, a Bellar. lib. 1. de Miss. cap 15. §. Quintò— Patres ad nomen Sacrificij Epitheta saepè addunt, quae soli vero Sacrificio conveniunt, & quae ineptè dicerent de sola repraesentatione Cyp. l. 2. Epist. 3. Plenum & verum Sacrificium. Chrysost. Hom. ad Pop. Antioch. et omnes Graeci, Passim terribile Sacrificium & horroris plenum. Aug. lib. 10. de Civit. Dei, cap. 20. Summum verumque Sacrificium. Euseb. lib. 1. Demonst. Evang. cap. ult Sacrificium Deo plenum. [This last is not undoubtedly spoken of the Eucharist.] Ibid. §. Secondo.— Si Patres putâssent Sacrificium Eucharistiae non esse Sacrificium nisi epraesentativum, nunquam dixissent in numero multitudims offeri Deo Victimas, & Sacrificia. concluding from each of these, that they meant thereby a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist. We encounter all these four kind of Instances with like Epithets given by the same b August. de Civit Dei, lib. 10. cap. 6 Verum Sacrificium omne opus bonum, ut Deo adhaereamus, factum. Tertull. In omni loco Sacrificium mundum, gloriae scilicet & rogatio, benedicto, laus, hymni. Lib. 3. advers. Marcionem. Rursus, Sacrificium mundum oratio simplex de purâ Conscientiâ Ibid. lib. 4. paulò post initium. justin. Dialog. cum Tryphon. Preces & Gratiarum actiones, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Fathers to other Things (in your own judgement) Improperly called Sacrifices; as namely to Prayers, Praises, Giving Thanks, and Hymns, instiled True, Pure, and Clean, and the only perfect Sacrifices, by Primitive Fathers. Secondly, they are as zealous concerning the second c Cyril. Apol. Lectio Scripturarum terribilium. Testae jewello, art. 17. Chrysost. in 1. Corinth Hom. 40 De Baptismate paulò post initium, Post pronunciationem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Point, in terming holy Scriptures Terrible; the Rules touching Baptism, Terrible Words, and Horrible Canons; and the Christian, duly considering the nature of Baptism, One compassed about with Horror and Astonishment. Whereof more * See Book 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. hereafter. And indeed what is there, whereby we have any apprehension of God's Majesty, and Divine Attributes, which doth not work a holy Dread in the hearts of the Godly? And the third Instance is as idle as any of the rest, because the holy d Euseb. lib. 1. Demonst. Evang. cap. 10. Porrò has rursus incorporeas & intelligentia praeditas hostias prophetica nunciant oracula. Immola Deo Sacrificium laudis, & Orationes sanctas, etc. Iust. Martyr. Dialog. cum Triphon. pag. 269. Suppicationes & gratiarum actiones solas esse charas Victimas Deo. Fathers named Prayers, Giving of Thanks, and other holy Actions and Commemorations themselves, Sacrifices and Hosts, in the Plural number. And is not there in the Eucharist Prayers, Hymns, and Thanksgivings? Nay, but know, that inasmuch as the Fathers have called the Eucharist in the Plural number Hosts, and Sacrifices, it proveth that they were not of your Romish Belief of concomitancy, to think (with you) that Bread being changed into Christ's Body, and Wine into his Blood, make but one Sacrifice; for there can be no Identity in Plurality. ⚜ A Vindication of the Truth of an Answer, concerning the objected Testimony of Eusebius, against a Romish Seducer. EVsebius is objected (in the Margin) as naming the Eucharist, Sacrificium Deo plenum. My Answer there is, that these three words Are not undoubtedly spoken of the Eucharist. Which a Romish Seducer of late traduced, as untruly answered: but yet giveth no Reason of his Exception; but as blindly as bluntly telleth me that my Answer is False. But if I be mistaken, then hath Eusebius himself seduced me, who, before the same words, speaketh of [Hostias incorporeas, & intelligentiâ praeditas:] specifying the Sacrifice of a contrite heart, and Sacrifice of Praise. And again immediately after; [At Sacrificium Deo spiritus contritus.] Then, after this he adjoineth [Memoriam magni illius Sacrificij;] The Memorial of that great Sacrifice; Meaning, the Eucharistical Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross, as any that looketh not asquint upon the place will easily perceive. Besides, all the Sacrifices of the New Testament, by him mentioned, he calleth Incorporeal, and endued with Understanding. But you do as truly grant the Eucharist to be a Corporal Substance, as you wickedly * See above Book 4. c. 9 §. 2 say, that Christ's Body therein is Without Understanding. A Second Vindication of the Truth of our Answers to the former objected * See above in this 8. Sect. Epithets, out of Ancient Fathers, against the said late Calumnious Romish Seducer. His words are these: Bellarmine lib. 1. de Missa, Cap. 15. To prove that the Fathers, when they called the Eucharist a Sacrifice, meant a Proper Sacrifice, useth eight usual Epithets, which the Fathers in this Case give to the word Sacrifice. My * Treatise of the Mass, Book. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 8. Lord of Durham undertakes to encounter him with the like, given to the word Sacrifice, when they manifestly speak of improper Sacrifices. This he undertakes, but performs nothing, for he allegeth no saying of any Father, where any thing of this nature is called [Sacrificium Terribile, Plenum Horroris, Sacrificium Summum, Sacrificium Verissimum, Sacrificium Singular, Sacrificium Deo Plenum.] So he. That which should have been performed by me, in this Treatise, was to show that there were none of these Attributes, which Bellarmine collected out of the Fathers, as proper to your Romish Sacrifice of the Mass, but have been as effectually applied by Ancient Fathers unto Prayers, Praises, Baptism, and other the like holy and pious Actions. Which the same your Bellarmine himself confesseth to be No proper Sacrifice. Notwithstanding have I lately been Challenged by one, who saith (as becomes an egregious Seducer) that I have performed hereof nothing at all. Do you hear? Flatly, Nothing at all: Meaning, that none of the Epithets, abovementioned by Bellarmine (out of the Fathers) were at any time attributed by them to any other thing but to your Sacrifice of the Mass. But what? Nothing at all? I. Not the Epithet [Terrible?] False. For I proved that the Fathers called Baptism a 5 Treatise of the Mass, Book 6. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 3. Sacrifice, and inscribed it [ 6 Ibid. Sect. 8. Terrible] II. Not the Epithet [Summum] that is, Chief? False. For the Father 7 See Book 6. Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Pelusiota is alleged, naming a Pure mind and chaste Body the Best Sacrifice. III. Not the Epithet [Truest?] False. For there is produced Saint 8 August. See Book 6. cha. 7. Sect. 2 Augustine not only enstiling Every pious work a True Sacrifice (& Vero nihil verius, saith the Philosopher) but also nothing that, Where God saith, I will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice; Mercy (saith he) is a Sacrifice most Excellent, and whereof the other are but Signs. IU. Not the Epithet [Deo Plenum?] False. For it was proved effectually enough, in that the Preaching of the word, which is called of the Apostle, The Power of God unto Salvation, is termed of 9 Chrysost. See oak. 6. Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Bo chrysostom, a Pure and immortal Sacrifice; And what would you say to your Divines of Collen 10 Enchiridion Coloniens. fol. 107. Hic Ecclesia (quae Corpus Christi mysticum est) se totam Deo consecrat, adeò ut Cyprianus tale Sacrificium, verum, et plenum Sacrifi●um non dubitaverit appellare. who will have you observe Cyprian naming the Church of Christ, as his Mystical Body, consecrated to God, a pure and full Sacrifice? Lastly, Not the last Epithet, which is [Singular Sacrificium?] whereof your Romish Seducer boastingly saith as followeth: [Singular Sacrificium, a Singular Sacrifice] which is the most convincing Epithet of all the rest, proveth the Eucharist not only to be a Sacrifice, but also to be the only Sacrifice of the Church; whereas there be many improper Sacrifices. This the Lord Bishop passeth over with Silence, and shutteth out for a Wrangler. So he. Who might think it happened well to himself, if he should be but only Shut out for a Wrangler, and not called in Question for a false and presumptuous Traducer and Seducer, for denying that to be performed at all, which I did discharge with an Advantage, alleging that Ancient Father 11 See Book 6 Chap. 7. Sect. 2. justine naming Prayers, and Thanksgivings [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The perfect and only Sacrifices well pleasing unto God.] Can there be any thing more Singular than that which is Only? The voice of Saint Augustine is full as loud, for the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion: The Death of Christ (saith 12 August. See 〈◊〉, Chap. 5. & Sect. 5. he) is the only Sacrifice, which being the only true Sacrifice must necessarily exclude the Host in your Mass from the property of a true Sacrifice. If therefore this Epithet be an Argument most convincing above all the rest, (as is here objected) then must it follow that Bellarmine thus amply confuted, in this one, is in effect convinced of Rashness and Weakness in his arguing; aswell as this Seducer is of Falsehood and Malice in his detracting in all the Rest. ⚜ The Seventh Demonstration, Of No-Proper Sacrifice in the Euchrist: Because the Principal Epithet, of Unbloody Sacrifice, used by the Fathers, and most urgently objected by your Doctors, for proof of a Proper Sacrifice, doth evince the Contrary. SECT. IX. IT hath been some pains unto us, to collect the objected Testimonies of Fathers, for this Point, out of your divers Writers, which you may peruse now in the Margin with more ease, and presently perceive, both what maketh not for you, and what against you; but certainly, for you, just nothing at all. For what can it help your cause, that the Celebration of the Eucharist is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, An unbloody Sacrifice, a Reasonable and unbloody Service or Worship? In the first place three b Basil in his Mass, ob. by Salmeron, Tom. 9 Tractat. 30. §. Sed confutans: and by Lindanu● Panop. lib. 4. cap. 53. Nos appropinquantes Altari tuo suscipere, & dignissimos offerre hanc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (Lindanus, non carnis, sed mentis) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Salmeron Ies. Absque sanguine hostiam: & admittee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [And not till long after the words of Consecration, beginning at [Respice, Domine.] Missa Chrysost. Ob. ab eisdem quo supra. Hanc nostram supplicationem, tanquam ad altar, admittere non recuses, & fac nos idoneos qui Tibi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nostris pro peccatis offerimus. Idem Salmeron. Offetimus Tibi rationabile & incruentum obsequium. [Which words are in the body of your Liturgies put before the words of Consecration (Edit. Antuerp. ex offici●a Plantin. 1560. cum pri vilegio Regis) but which Lindan will have to be set after Consecration.] The Liturgy of S. james: Pro oblatis, sanctisicatis, pretiosis, immaculatis donis divinis oremus Dominum— acceptis eyes in supercoeleste, mentale, spirituale Altar, in odorem spiritualis fr●grantiae, etc. Paulo post: Deus Pater, qui oblata tibi dona mera, frugum oblationes accepisti in odorem suavitatis. [And after follow the words of Consecration: Sancto, qui in Sanctis, etc.— Suscipe incorruptum Hymnum in sanctis & incruentis Sacrificijs tuis.]— Liturgies, (or if you will Missals) are objected, to prove that by Unbloody Sacrifice, and Reasonable and unbloody Worship, is betokened the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood in the Mass; one of Basil, another of chrysostom, and (by some others) the Mass of Saint james of jerusalem. In which Epithet of Unbloody (say we) could not be signified Christ's Body. Our Reasons; because (as the Margin showeth) the word, Unbloody, hath sometime Relation unto the Bread and Wine (both unbloody) before Consecration, called in Saint james his Liturgy, God's gifts of the first fruit of the Ground: who also reckoneth Hymns among Unbloody Sacrifices; (But Christ's Body is the fruit of the Womb) or else sometime it is referred to the Acts of Celebration, in Supplication, Thanksgiving, and Worship of God (all Unbloody) naming that A Reasonable and Unbloody Service, which they had termed an Unbloody Sacrifice, as Lindan your Parisian Doctor hath truly observed. Which chrysostom also styled Spiritual (mark you) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Service, or Worship. Was ever Christ called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who is himself rather the Person to be worshipped? Secondly, Reasonable, could this point out Christ's Body in the Sense of the objected Fathers? Suffer chrysostom to resolve us. c Chrysost. Hom. 11. Quid est rationabile obsequium? quod per animam, quod secundùm Spiritum offertur: quicquid non indiget corpore; quicquid non indiget instrumentis, neque locis, in quibus ipse quidem est Pontifex, ut mansuetudo, pationtia, etc. Sacrificium laudis, justitiae, spiritus contribulati. Reasonable Service, (saith he) is that which is performed with the mind, without Bodily help. ⚜ The which Athanasius attributeth to Baptism: 13 Athanas. count. Macedon. Dial. 1. de Baptismo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. This (saith he) is a Reasonable and living Worship; whereof the Apostle saith, Yield up your Bodies an holy lively Sacrifice, etc. ⚜ Thirdly, The Unbloody Sacrifice is called Spiritual (as you hear) how shall this be properly applied to the Body of Christ? You will say, not in its natural Essence, but in the manner of being Invisible, Impalpable, and the like. But we demand; the same head of a man's Body, is it more Spiritual in the dark than in the light? Lastly, all these terms in these Liturgies of Unbloody Sacrifice, Reasonable Service, and Spiritual, are spoken before Consecration, when the Body of Christ, even in your own Faith, as yet can have no being in the Eucharist; and therefore cannot be the Unbloody Sacrifice here meant by you. Will you have the full substance of all these Reasons? The word, Unbloody, whether it point out Bread and Wine, or the Act of outward Worship in this celebration, called a Reasonable Service, and Spiritual Sacrifice, it must betoken a thing void of Blood, which not Christian Professor dare attribute to the Body of Christ. We proceed. Eusebius saith indeed, g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Caesar. lib. 4. De Vita Constant. cap. 45. de Euchar. Alij sacras literas interpretantur: Alij 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & mysticis consecrationibus divinum numen placabant, & supplices preces pro communi pace offerebant. Et Demonst. Lib. 1. Cap. 6. Sacrificium mundum. We offer an Unbloody Sacrifice; but what he meant thereby, he doth not express, whether the Signs of Bread and Wine, which he elsewhere, with others, (as you have heard) called Sacrifices: or whether, as Basil and chrysostom have done, he understood together the Public Service in celebrating the Memory of Christ's Death. This then concludeth not for an Existence of the Body of Christ, as of the Unbloody Subject herein. But whereas furthermore your may observe, that Eusebius (objected) calleth h Non per cruores, sed per quas actiones summo Deo offerendas. After, there followeth an Oration of Constantine, Ad Sanctorum coetum. Tale Sacrificium peragitur, vacuum sanguine, & ab omni violentiâ. [As 〈◊〉. Dadraeus Doctor Paris● translateth it.] Godly Actions a pure Sacrifice, and opposeth this against Bloody Sacrifices; and also termeth i Again, Demonst. Evang. li. 1. ca 10 Has rursus [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] i. e. materiae expertia Sacrificia, intelligē●●â praeditas hostias, Prophetica nuntiant ●racula? Immola Deo Sacrificium laudis— Hymnos & sanct●● Orationes celebrantes, And again; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. E●od. lib. Holy Prayers [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is, Without Material Substance, as he did the Celebration of the Sacrament [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is, Unbloody: And yet again of this Sacrament; A Memorial, saith he, instead of a Sacrifice. These show that Eusebius meant a Sacrifice void of Blood; which neither the word of God will permit us; nor your Council of Trent will suffer you to impute to the Body of Christ, and therefore must needs wound your Roman Oblation of Body and Blood to the very heart. Nazianzen (objected) is as directly opposite to your Mass, as East is to West, and will strike the matter dead, calling it k Nazian. Invect. 1. advers, julian. ante med [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] i. e. Vt ab incruento Sacrificio manꝰ elueret, per quod nos Christo, ipsiusque passionibus, & divinitate communicamus. [Mark, Incruentum, per quod, is distinguished from, Christo, therefore was not Christ the Incruentum, objected by the Rhemists, Angotat. in Luc. 22. 19] The unbloody Sacrifice, whereby (saith he) we Communicate with Christ. Flatly differencing the unbloody Sacrifice, whereby, from Christ himself, with whom the Faithful docommunicate in this Sacrament. Ambrose (objected) prayeth to God, l Ambr. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. Sacerdos dicit, Ergo memores gloriosissimae ejus passions, offerimus. Tibi immaculatam hanc hostiam incruentani, & hunc panem sanctum, & hanc oblationem salutis aeternae. To accept of this immaculate, and unbloody Host, which are the very words of your Roman m Suscipias in sublimi Altari●uo perimentis 〈◊〉 lorum, sicut accipere dignatus es munera Abel, etc. [To be expounded, as Bellarmine doth 〈◊〉 the same words in the Roman Mass] Mass, and which your Cardinal seeketh to justify by Saint Ambrose. But this he cannot do, except their meaning be both the same. Let then your Cardinal but tell us the meaning of the Canon of your Mass, and you will soon apprehend the judgement of Saint Ambrose. In our Mass (saith your n Accipiendo sacrificium pro re, quae sacrificatur, negari non 〈…〉 & 〈…〉 in Missa offerri, ac proinde, pertinere ad rem, quae sacrificatur. Nam cùm autè Constrationem dicimus [Suscipe, Pater, have immacu●●tam Hostiam] certè Pronomen, Hanc, demonstrat ad sensum id quod manibus tenemus, id autem panis 〈◊〉 Bellarm. 〈…〉 de Missa cap. 27. §. Respondeo it. [Because the Cardinal doth often in this and other Chapters justify the Roman term of Mass, by the 〈◊〉 in Ambras●●] Cardinal) it is said, Receive, holy Father, this immaculate Host; where the Pronounce This (saith he) doth domonstrate Bread and Wine, because spoken before Consecration. So he. And the Body and Blood of Christ (you know, are not Bread and Wine. Let Athanasius put a Period to this Section, who saith that o 〈◊〉 Melchisedech dedit, Abrahamo vinum meracum addito panis [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] frusto— hic typus fuit offerendi Sacrificium [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] incruentum, sanctam oblationem. Hist. de Melchizedech. ad sinem. Tom. 2. Melchisedech, in giving Bread and Wine, was the first Type of an unbloudy Sacrifice. But Melahisedeches was Unbloody, negatively, having no Blood at all in it. So was never the Body of Christ; since his Resurrection, according to our Christian Belief. CHALLENGE. WHat a fair piece of service (do you think) have these Objectors done, for the patronising of your Roman Sacrifice, out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers? whilst they, alleging their words, citing their Books, and quoting their Chapters, have so handled the matter, as if they had meant, by prevaricating in their own Cause, to betray it: seeing that it is apparent, that they have delivered unto us the worship, in stead of the thing worshipped, out of the Council of Ephesus, Basil, chrysostom, and Eusebius. Next by the word, Unbloody, being spoken before Consecration (and therefore concerneth not the Unbloody Body of Christ) they have obtruded the thing, Distinguished from Christ, in stead of Christ, in the Testimony of Nazianzen. But especially, because in the most of the * [Do but examine the places again, and you shall find Basil to have spoken of Service before Consecration: chrysost Of Blood and Wine, before Consecration: Eusebius in one place is interpreted (by your own Doctor and Translator) to have spoken of a Sacrifice void of Blood; Nazianzene speaketh of something in the Eucharist, differing from Christ: to whom you may join Athanasius.] Sentences, the word Unbloody, must needs be taken negatively for want, or absence of Blood: and so you may bid your Corporal Presence adieu. All which may be strong Arguments unto us, both of the deplorable Consciences of your Doctors, and of the desperateness of your Cause. Other Testimonies, wherein there is mention of Christ's Body and Blood, come now to be discussed. A Confirmation of the former Demonstration, from the use of the word, Unbloody, in the objected Sentences; wherein the Fathers make mention of the Body and Blood of Christ. SECT. X. THis Objection seemeth to be of better moment than the former; but only seemeth. Clemens Bishop of Rome, the first of that name, calleth (indeed) the Eucharistical Celebration a Clemens Rom. Const. lib. 6. cap. 23. Pro Sacrificio cruento, Rationale & incruentum ac illud mysticum Sacrificium corporis & sanguinis Christi, quod in symbolum mortis ejus celebratur. Et lib. 7. Co●●●. cap. 26. Adhuc agimus tibi grarias, Pater noster, pro prer●oso corpore & sanguine effuso, cujus haec Antitypa celebramus, ut mortem ejus denunciaremus, per ipsum enim tibi gloria. Amen. An unbloody Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. In which sentence the Unbloody Sacrifice is plainly distinguished from the Body and Blood, whereof it is a Sacrifice, even as both the Act and Service of Commemoration have been oftentimes above, and are hereafter called of the Fathers a Sacrifice, in respect of the Object thereof, which is the Body and Blood of Christ on the Cross. This is manifest by two especial Reasons; the first, because that which he calleth Unbloody, he termeth also a Reasonable Service. Secondly, Clemens calleth the same Unbloody Sacrifice the Sign and Type of Christ's Body and Blood, thereby distinguishing them from that Body and Blood whereof they are but Types. You will then ask, what is this Body and Blood, whereof they are said to be Types? Yea marry, This being known will set all strait. And Clemens telleth you, that it is his Precious Body, and his Blood shed, which (properly taken) all Christians profess to be Proper to his Body crucified, and Blood shed on the Cross, for the proper Object of our Typical Remembrance, as we have formerly * See B. 2. Ch. 2. § 4 and this B. 6. Ch. 1. § 2. proved, and you yourselves have confessed already. c Cyril. Hierosol. Mystag. 5. Postquàm consecimus [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Aliquanto post, Obsecramus Deum pro, etc. Et Christum [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Ob. ● Salmerone Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 30. Cyril of Jerusalem doth attend upon Pope Clemens, and in a sort treadeth in his steps. The manner of our Celebrating the memory of Christ's death, he calleth a Spiritual Sacrifice, and an Unbloody worship; wherein, against the jewish Sacrifice, he opposeth Spiritual against Corporall, as he doth Unbloody against Bloody. But, by Spiritual, he meant that which wanteth a Body. Therefore, by Unbloody, he meant that which was properly void of Blood. So fare was Cyril from signifying thereby the Unbloody Body of Christ, as the Subject matter in the Eucharist. As for the Body & Blood of Christ itself, which he calleth Propitiation, Cyril expoundeth himself to mean (for so he nameth it) Christ slain for our sins, which still we say, and you cannot deny, is only the Object of our whole Spiritual service of Remembrance and Commemoration. Both these former Witnesses have delivered their Testimonies, as spoken under a form of Prayer, whereunto whether You or Protestants may more justly say Amen, judge you. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria accordingly * See below Sect. 15 acknowledgeth a Sacrifice Unbloody, Spiritual, and Mental. The eighth Demonstration Of the no-Proper Sacrifice of the Mass; Because the Ancient Fathers called the Eucharist a Bloody Sacrifice, which all you will confess to be Unproperly spoken. SECT. XI. TAke but unto you your own Allegations (set down in the a Sa●mer. Tom. 9 Tract. 29, pag. 225. Hesychius lib. 2. c. 8. in Levit. Dicit Christum, cum coenaret, seipsum occidisse. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. Hom 24. In Eucharistia Christum pa●i & occidi? Rursus Tract. 31. pag. 238. 〈◊〉 decent in Eucharistia offenri eruentum Sacrificium. Alexander Papa. Epist. 1. Cy●r. lib. 2. Epist. 3. Passio Domini est Sacrificium quod offerimus. Hieron. in Dialog. advers. Lucifer. Christum pluries passum confitemur. Pascasius de ●orpore & Sanguine Domini: Sacrificium Crucis iteratur. ⚜ Euseb. Emissen. Sabba●o post Domin. 2. To ties tamen occiditur, & à fidelibus comeditur, quoties in hoc Altaris Sacramento 〈◊〉. ⚜ Margin) of the Sentences of Antiquity, and you shall find how the Ancient Fathers doubted not to say that Christ suffereth, is slain, slayeth himself, suffereth often in this Sacrament: and that His Passion and Bloody Sacrifice is offered herein. ⚜ And again; As often as Christ is offered on the Altar, so often is he slain and eaten of the faithful. Do you mark 〈◊〉 even so eaten, as he is slain, but only so, as slain; which not living man will say, can be spoken Properly of Christ's Body, after his Resurrection. ⚜ These are Say of the highest Accent, as you see, and of no fewer nor meaner Fathers than these, Alexander, chrysostom, Cyprian, Hierome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hesychius, Pascasins, and Eusebius Emissenus. ⚜ Unto this holy Assembly Gregory Nyssen joineth himself, who, although last in place, yet will appear to be as forward in sense as the foremost. He speaking of the Body of Christ, as it was a Sacrifice eaten of his Disciples in his last Supper, held the crucified Body of Christ to have been even then so necessary an Object for his Disciples Eating thereof, that he saith: 14 Greg. Nyssen. Orat. 1. de Resurrect. Christi. Pro ineffabili arcanoque, & qui ab hominibus cerni nequit, Sacrificij modo suâ dispositione & administratione praeoccupat impetum violentum, ac sese oblationem ac victimam offert pro nobis Sacerdos simul & agnus Dei, qui tollit peccatum mundi. Quando hoc accidit? Cùm corpus suum ad comedendum, & sanguinem bibendum praebuit. Cuilibet enim hoc perspicuum est, quòd ore vesci homo non potest, nisi comestionem mactatio praecesserit. Qui igitur dedit Discipulis suis corpus suum ad comedendum, apertè demonstrat jam perfectam agni immolationem. Non enim ad edendum idoneum esset corpus animatum. It was even then eaten as a perfect Sacrifice of Christ. But how? to wit, saith he, as slain. His Reason; for a Body having life (saith he) cannot be fit to be eaten. So he. Than which nothing can make more against your Eating of Christ's Body, as Corporally Present; or yet against a Proper Sacrifice therein. ⚜ What think you of such Say? Can Christ be said properly to be Dead in this Sacrament? b Quis unquàm Catholicꝰ dixit Christum rursùs mori? Ribera. Ies. Com. in Heb. 10. num. 25. Never any Catholic said so (saith your jesuite Ribera.) What then could be the meaning of such words? If you should be ignorant, your Cardinal Alan would teach you, & he would have you c Observandum est, Christum licet modo impassibili existat in Sacramento, tamen dici à Patribus mortalem, imomortuum & passum in Sacramento, eatenus quidem, quatenùs ox modo Consecrationis, ipsaque vi significationis Sacramentalis mors, & passio Domini commemorantus atque repraesentantur. Alan. Card. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 38. sub finem. Observe what he saith: Christ is said by the Fathers to suffer (saith he) and to die in this Sacrament only so fare as his Death and Passion is commemorated and represented herein. And so speaketh also your Roman d Glossa de Consecrat. Dist. ●. Quid fit. Hoc est, ejus Mors repraesentatur. Gloss. What now hindereth but that whensoever we hear the same Fathers affirming that the same Body and Blood of Christ are Sacrificed in the Eucharist, we understand them in the same impropriety of Speech, that they meant only Representatively? especially when as we see your other Grand Cardinal coming somewhat home towards us, and to confess as followeth; e Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 29. §. Respondeo si, etc. Si Catholici dicerent in Sacrificio Missae vere Christum mori, argumentum Calvini haberet aliquid virum; sed cum dicunt omnes eum non mori, nisi in Sacramento, & signo repraesentante mortem ejus, quam uliquando obij●, tantùm abest, ut Missa obl●●eret Christi mortem, ut potiùs efficiat ut nunquam obliteretur. If Catholics should say that Christ doth truly die in this Sacrament, this Argument might be of some force: but they say he dyeth not, but in Sacrament and Sign representing. So he; which yet alas is too little a crevase for so great a Doctor to creep out at. First, because there is aswell a Figurative, as there is a Literal Truth; for, If I should say of Easter day (said * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Augustine) it is the day of Christ's Resurrection, I should not lie, and yet it is but the anniversary day, betokening the other. When Christ said of one part of this Sacrament, [This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood] he spoke by a double Figure, said your jesuite * Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Salmeron, yet truly. Secondly Christ, who is Truth itself, in saying of Bread, This is my Body, or Flesh, spoke a Truth, as you all profess; and was it not likewise a Truth, when he called his Flesh Bread? yea, and also * joh. 6. The true Bread. Thirdly, the Fathers, as they said that Christ is Dead, and suffereth (as you now object) in this Sacrament in a Mystery: so have they also said of his Body, in respect of the Eucharist, It is Sacrificed in an * Ambrose, Aug. above, Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Image, in a Sacrament, or Mystery; according to that their general Qualification, saying, It is the same Sacrifice which Christ offered, or * Above, Chap. 5. Sect. 6. rather a Remembrance thereof. And Lastly, the Fathers, who named Baptism a Sacrifice aswell as the Eucharist, doubted not to stretch Baptism up to as high a note as they have done the Eucharist, saying, f Chrysost. in Epist. ad Heb. Hom. 16. Baptismus est passio Christi. Baptism is the Passion of Christ: and g Ambros. de Penitent. lib. 2. cap. 1. In Baptismo crucifigimus in nobis filium Dei. In Baptism we crucify Christ. To signify, that the Body of Christ is the Represented Object, and not the Representative Subject of this Sacrament. An Elucidation of the Premises, by a Similitude of a Stage-play, manifesting how the same Unproper Sacrifice might furthermore have been called both Bloody and Unbloody, by Ancient Fathers. SECT. XII. A Similitude, for explanation-sake, would be had; give us leave to borrow one from the Stage-Play, for manifesting a Truth, aswell as * Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 7. you have done another from thence, for palliating a Falsehood. You may recognize with us that Tragical end of the Emperor Mauritius, by the command of one Phocal, (once his Slave) that Grand Patron of the Popedom, by Privileging the Church of Rome, to be the Head of all Churches, as divers of your own Historians do relate. But to the Point. By the commandment of this Phocas (as you * See Baron. Anno 602. etc. know) were slain two of Mauritius his Sons, three Daughters, and his Wife; and all these before his own eyes, and at last the Emperor Mauritius himself was also murdered. Were now this doleful Spectacle acted on a Stage, might not any Spectator say (at the horrid sight thereof) This is a Bloody Tragedy, namely, in respect of the Object represented herein? And might he not also say as truly, This is an Unbloody Tragedy? to wit, in respect of the Representative Subject, Action, and Commemoration itself, seeing that there is not here shed any one drop of man's Blood? And from the same Evidence it will be easy to perceive, that the Greek Fathers used to term the Eucharist [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and the Latins Tremendum, that is, a Terrible and Dreadful Sacrifice, (namely) for the Semblance-sake, and Analogy it hath with Christ's Death: even as one would call the Act, representing the cruel Butchering of the Emperor Mauritius, an Horrible and Lamentable Spectacle. This is a clear Glass, wherein any may discern the open visage of Truth, from the feigned Vizard of Error. The ninth Demonstration, Because Ancient Fathers likewise called the Sacrament of Baptism a Sacrifice, for the Representation-sake which it hath of Christ's Death; which is Argumentum à paribus. SECT. XIII. We shall not urge the Antecedent of this Argument, taken from Baptism, before that we have made known the force of the Consequence thereof. First one of your Cardinals thus; a Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 15. Si Patres existimarunt Eucharistiam solùm esse Sacramentum, & non etiam Sacrificium, nulla esset causa cur aliter loquerentur de Eucharistia, quàm de Baptismo. Nusquam autem Patres Baptismum vocant Sacrificium, nec dicunt Baptizare esse Sacrificare, vel immolare. Quo modo igitur possibile est Patres in modo loquendi nobiscum, in sententia cum Adversarijs convenisse? §. Hic igitur. Rursus Baptismus est Sacramentum Repraesentationis mortis Christi, Rom. 6. Et tamen nulli veterum Baptismum Sacrificium Deo oblatum unquam appellaverunt: non igitur sola repraesentatio causa esse potuit, cur actio Coenae Sacrificium appellaretur. Ibid. §. Tert. bapt. If the Fathers had held the Eucharist to be only a Sacrament, and not also a Sacrifice, there had been no cause why they should not have called Baptism a Sacrifice, it being a Representation of Christ's death: But the Fathers do no where call Baptism a Sacrifice. So he. Another Cardinal thus, b Card. Alan. Patres abusos esse nomine Sacrificij— quis possit cum Haereticis vel tenuiter suspicari, cum hoc solum eo nomine appellent, nec alteri fetè Sacramento unquam tribuunt? Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14. Who can so much as suspect that the Fathers spoke abusively, in calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice, seeing this is the only Sacrament, which they call a Sacrifice, and no other. Next, take your learned'st jesuite with you, who would be loath to come behind any in vehemency and boldness, thus; c Suarez Ies. In multis Conc. vocatur hoc Sacrificium incruentum— Solum est observandum, propter Haereticos, qui hoc etiam ad metaphoram detorquent nomen, Sacrificium. Sanctos Patres nunquam vocâsse Ministerium Baptismi, aut alterius Sacramenti nomine Sacrificij, cum tamen Sacrificium Metaphoricè sumptum in eo conveniet. Cum ergo Eucharistiam simpliciter & absolutissimè Sacrificium vocant, signum est eos propriè de Sacrificio loqui. Tom. 3. D●sp 74. Sect. 2. pag. 952. Ancient Fathers never called Baptism or the Ministry thereof a Sacrifice; albeit they might have so called it Metaphorically: which we note (saith he) because of the Heretics, who pervert the speeches of the Fathers, as if they had called the Eucharist a Sacrifice Metaphorically, and Improperly. So they, to omit * M. Fisher, for one. Others. Now than if there be any sap or sense in these your Objectors, it is as much as if they had reasoned against us thus; If you Heretics (for so they call Protestants) could show that the Ancient Fathers did any where name the Sacrament of Baptism a Sacrifice, which we confess to be only but a Representation of Christ's death, then should we need no other Reason to persuade us that the Fathers called the Sacrament of the Eucharist a Sacrifice also, Improperly, only because it representeth the Body and Blood of Christ sacrificed on the Cross. Thus for the Consequence confessed by your own chiefest Advocates. The Assumption lieth upon us to prove, to wit, that the Fathers called Baptism a Sacrifice, even from the words of the Apostle, Hebr. 10. 20. where, speaking of Baptism, he saith; To them that sin voluntarily, there remaineth no Sacrifice for sin. Saint Augustine testifieth of the Doctors of the Church Catholic, before his time, that d Hebr. 10. 26. [Voluntariè peccantibus non relinqu●●ur Sacrificium pro peccato.] Qui dili, 〈◊〉 pertractant hunc locum Apostoli, intelligunt de Holocausio Dominicae passionis, quod eo tempore offert quisque pro peccatis suis, quo ejusdem passionis fide baptizatus. Vt sit sensus, [Non relinquitur Sacrificium pro peccatis] hoc est, non potest denuò baptizando purgari. August. Tom. 4. Expos. ad Rom. Col. 1185, 1186, 1187. They, who more diligently handled this Text, understood it of the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion, which every one than offereth, when he is baptised into the faith of Christ. So that holy Father, who is a Witness without all Exception; yet if, peradventure, we should need any testimony our of your own Schools, the witness of your Canus may be sufficient, confessing and saying, e Milchior Canus. Quaeris quid Causae plerisque Antiquorum fuerit, ut Baptismum Hostiam appellaverint, ideoque dixerint non superesse Hostiam pro peccato? (Heb. 10.) quia Baptismus repeti non potest— Et quia per Baptismum applicatur nobis Hostia crucis. Hinc illi Baptisma translatitiè hostiam nuncuparunt. Loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. pag. 424. That most of the Fathers, by Sacrifice, in this place understood Baptism, which they so called Metaphorically, because by it the Sacrifice of the Cross is applied unto us. So he. Is not this enough for the understanding of the Dialect, and of the speech of Ancient Fathers; both in calling Baptism a Sacrifice, and of the Reason thereof, to wit, for Representation and Application-sake only; and Consequently, that the Body and Blood of Christ are not the representing Subject, but the represented Object of his Sacrifice? What better satisfaction can the greatest Adversary desire, than to be (as now your Disputers are) answered according to their own Demands? The tenth Demonstration, Because the Fathers called the Eucharist a Sacrifice, in respect of divers such Acts as are excluded by the Romish Doctors out of the Definition of a Proper Sacrifice. SECT. XIV. THe Acts excluded by your Cardinal out of the number of Proper Sacrifices, are a Bellarmin. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Sed omissa.— Omne Sacrificium est Oblatio, sed non omnis Oblatio Sacrificium, hoc fit cùm 〈◊〉 oblata consumitur. Oblations, or Offerings of any thing that is not Consecrated by the Priest, such as is the Offerings of Bread and Wine by the People, before it be Consecrated. Next b Bellarm. Opera virtutum non sunt propriè dicta Sacrificia. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Haec. Non quae in sola actione consistant, ut Psalmodia, genuflexio, & opus quodlibet ad honorem Dei factum. Ibid. §. Secundum. Non quae in sola oblatione sita, ut aurum, argentum, etc. Ibid. §. Secundo. Non Non decimae aut primitiae. §. Sed in. Nec Patres appellant Sacrificium, id quod solum est figura, & commemoiatio Sacrificij. §. Tertio. Non pia voluntas, quia invisibilis. §. Secundò. Non Eleemosynae, quia non soli Deo oblatae §. Tertiò. Nulla reverentia externa, ut genuflexiones, precs, quia actiones transeuntes. §. Sextò Passiones Martyrum, & alia omnia bona opera; largo modo— non autem propriè & in rigore, Sacrificia dici possunt. Ibid. cap. 3 §. Resp. Martyrum. All works of Virtue are unproperly called Sacrifices. All works which consist in Action, being transient, as Bowing, singing of Psalms, or the sole Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross: together with all such Acts performed to God, which otherwise are yielded to man, as the Gesture of Uncovering the head in God's Service, Bowing the knee, and all outward signs of Reverence, yea and all inward and invisible Acts of man in his will and understanding. All these spiritual Acts are esteemed by him to be unproperly called Sacrifices. But that all these kind of Acts, so fare forth as they are exercised in the holy worship of God, are called Sacrifices by the Ancient Fathers, can never be denied by any that ever was acquainted with their Writings. Now our Demonstration is this, that most of these Acts, which are here confessed to be Unproper Sacrifices, being used in the Celebration of the Supper of our Lord, occasioned the Fathers to call the Eucharist itself a Sacrifice; and therefore they meant thereby no Proper Sacrifice. As first (by your own c Cassand. Liturg. cap. 22. Ordo celebrandi Missam, secundùm Romanos, celebrante Pontifice, extractus ex varijs libellis— Ibid. cap. 27. Populus dat Eleemosynas suas, id est, Panem & vinum, tam masculi quàm foeminae. Ibid. De veteri ritu oblationis panis & vini. I Euch. cap. 14. Who can so much as suspect that the Fathers spoke abusively, in calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice, seeing this is the only Sacrament, which they call a Sacrifice, and no other. Next, take your learned'st jesuite with you, who would be loath to come behind any in vehemency and boldness, thus; c Suarez Ies. In multis Conc. vocatur hoc Sacrificium incruentum— Solum est observandum, propter Haereticos, qt Isidorus, dictum quasi sacrum factum, quia prece mysticâ consecratur. Cassand. ibid. Non ignoramus veteres Theologos appellâsse Eucharistiam Sacrificium laudis: Moldonat: lib. de 7. Sacrament. Tom. 1. part. 3. §. Praeter haec. pag. 322. Confession) that the Fathers called The Oblations of Bread and Wine, made by the People before Consecration, Sacrifices; the Alms, and Collections for the poor, Sacrifices; Our Praises and Thanksgiving to God (whereof the Eucharist hath its name) Sacrifice: and that many other Circumstantial Acts are called Sacrifices, even the Sole Act of our Commemoration, as will appear in our last Examination concerning the Doctrine of Protestants. ⚜ But yet some of you (among others your Pamelius) are so greedy of a Sacrifice in the Mass, that they will force Tertullian to speak for it, even where (as is confessed and proved) he speaketh of such Offerings, which belonged to the 15 Gabriel. Episcop. Albispin. Not. in Tertull. lib. ad Vxorem, cap. 9 Sacrificia sine serupùlo, etc. Pamelius exponit de Missae Sacrificio— At patiantur me liberè dicere, haec ad Sacrificium Missae non pertinere, sed de his mielligi, quae in Ecclesia, sive in Pauperum, sive in Sacerdotum alimenta: cum enim Vxores sine consensu Maritorum non possunt erogare, ait maritatam Christiano sine scrupulo liberalem esse posse, quòd maribus illud concedat. Relief of the poor; and which was to be ministered by a Woman the Wife of a Christian. ⚜ Our Eleventh Demonstration, Because the Relatives of Sacrifice, which are Altar and Priest, Objected as Properly taken, are used Unproperly of Ancient Fathers. SECT. XV. YOur Cardinal his Objection is this; that Priest, Altar, and Sacrifice, are Relatives, and have mutual and unseparable Dependence one of each other. So he, and truly. But you ought to take with you a necessary Caution, observed by the same a Bellarm.— Sunt Relata, ità ut Sacrificium propriè dictum Sacerdotio propriè dicto; & Sacrificio impropriè dicto impropriè dictum sacerdotium respondeant. Lib. 1. de Missa, ca 2. §. Quintum. Cardinal, that An unproper Sacrifice cannot infer a proper Priesthood: nor an unproper Priesthood a proper Sacrifice, etc. otherwise, your jesuite can tell you of a b Maldonat. Ies. Serpens aeneus suit Sacrificium commemorativum futuri Sacrificij Christi, sed tamen non habuit altar. Lib. de 7. Sacran. Tom. 1. de Euch. §. Quintum genus. Sacrifice without an Altar, and your c Abulens. in Ios. 22. Altar hoc non fuerat ad Sacrificium offerendum. Quaest. 9 Bishop can point you out an Altar without a Sacrifice. Wherefore to take one of these improperly, and the other properly, were as wild Sophistry, as from a wooden Leg to infer a body of Flesh. Now what if we shall say of this Point of Appellations, that It was not so from the Beginning? Hereunto we claim but your own common Confessions, viz, d Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 17. § Neque.— Neque obstat quod Ministri Ecclesiastici non dicebantur Sacerdotes, aut utebantur nominibus templi, sacrificij. Altaris, & similib, quia tempore Apostolorum vigebat Sacerdotium judaicum, ideò abstinebant abijsdem vocibus, ne viderentur eosdem illos ritus innovare. That the Apostles did willingly abstain from the words of Sacrifice, [Sacerdos,] and Altar. So your Cardinal, and e Eodem modo Durantus de Ritibus, lib. 1. cap. 1. num. 7. Durantus, the great Advocates for your Roman Mass: whereby they have condemned not only other your Romish Disputers, who * See above Cham 3. Sect. 8. have sought a Proof of a Proper Sacrifice in your Mass from the word Altar, used by the Apostle Paul, Heb. 13. but also themselves, who from Saint Luke, Act. 3. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] * See above Chap. 2. Sect. 1. concluded a Proper Sacrifice. As if the Apostles had both abstained and not abstained from the words of Priest and Sacrifice. ⚜ And again your jesuite Lorinus; 16 Lorin. Ies. in Act. 14. 22. de Sacerdote. Ab hoc abstinet novum Testamentum, ut magis proprio antiqui legis Sacrificij, vel Idolorum, concedo. The New Testament (saith he) abstained from the word [ * Graecè, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sacerdos] as from that which is more Proper to the Old Testament. So he. Wherefore this and the English word, Priest, having a different Relation, one to a Sacrificing Minister (which is proper to the Old Testament) the other as it is derived from the word [ * Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Presbyter,] in the New Testament, which is Senior, and hath no Relation to any Sacrificing Function: It must follow, that your Disputers seeking to urge the Signification of a Sacrificing Office, proper to the Old Testament, for Proof of a Sacrificing Act, proper to the New, perform as fond and fruitless a labour, as is the patching of old Vestments with new pieces, whereby the rent is made worse. ⚜ But the Apostles did indeed forbear such terms in their speeches, concerning Christian worship, whereof these your forenamed Disputers can give us a Reason, f See the former Testimony at (d.) Lest that (say they) the jewish Priesthood being as yet in force, Christians might seem, by using jewish Terms, to innovate jewish Rites. Which is enough to show, that you are persuaded they abstained from the use of these words for some Reason. Yet that this could not be the Reason, you may be sufficiently instructed in the word, Baptism, this being as fully jewish, as was either the word Priest, Altar, or Temple: and yet used of the Apostle without danger of Innovation of the jewish manner of Baptisms. Yea, and if the Apostles had thought the Altar, Priest, Sacrifices, to be essential parts of Christian Religion, they neither would nor ought to have concealed the words and names, lest thereby they might have seemed to have abhorred the proper Characters of our Christian Profession. We descend to the Fathers. It is not unknown unto you, how the Fathers delighted themselves, in all their Treatises, with jewish Ceremonial Terms, only by Allegorical Allusions, as they did with the word Synagogue, applying it to any Christian assembly; as Ark, to the Church; Holocaust, to Mortification; Levite, to Deacons; Incense, to Prayers and Praises; and the word Pascha to the day of the Resurrection of Christ. But if any should say, that these Fathers used any of these words in a proper Signification, he should wrong both the common sense of these Fathers, and his own Conscience. It were superfluous to urge many Instances, where one will serve. The word, Altar, applied to the Table of the Lord (which anciently stood in the g Euseb. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 4. Ex Orat. Danegyr. Paulino Tyriorum Episcopo dedicata, qui Basilicam ibi construxit. Sanctuario hoc modo absoluto & perfecto, sellisque quibusdam in, altissimo loco ad Praesidum Ecclesiae honorem collocatis, & subsellijs ordine dispensatis— Altarique denique tanquàm Sancto Sanctorum (Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in medio Sanctuarij sito, etc. Cocclus Tom. 2. Tract. de Altari, & Athanasio in vita Antoniuses. Altar Domini multorum multitudine circumdatum. Chrysost. (de visione Angelorum) lib. 6. de Saerdotio.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. & Dionys. Hierarch. Eccles. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. August. de Verbis Dom. Serm. 46. de eo quod scriptum, [Qui mandueat.] Christus quotidie pascit: mensa Ipsius est illa in medio constituta. [These Testimonies verify the same Assertion of Doctor Falke against Gregory Martin, cap. 17. The Table stood so, that men might stand round above it.] Midst of the Chancel; so that They might compass it round) was more rarely called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks', or Altar of the Latins, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Mensa, that is, Table; which they would not have done, if (Altar) had carried in it the true and absolute property of an Altar: nay but they used therein the like liberty, as they used to do in h August. quaest. super Exod. lib. 2. cap. 9 Altar est populus Dei. Lib. 1. de Serm. in monte. Altar in interiore Dei templò, id est, fides. Lib. 10. de Civitat. Dei, cap. 4. Ejus est Altare cor nostrum. And other Fathers ordinarily. applying the name, Altar, to God's People, and to a Christian man's Faith and Heart. ⚜ All this notwithstanding, you are not to think that we do hereby oppugn the Appellation of Priest and Altar, or yet the now Situation thereof in our Church, for use as Convenient, and for order more Decent; but only the Romish Opinion and Doctrine, whereby you hold them, in the very propriety of words, and not as the Fathers did, only by way of Allusion. For your better Apprehension of this Truth, if you will be pleased to observe that Christ, in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sacrament, propounded it, in the place where he, with his Disciples, gave it unto them to be Eaten and Drunken; then tell us where it was ever known, that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking? In God's Book we find, Levit. 9 that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eat their Oblation On, but, Besides the Altar. Neither may you think it any Derogation to this Sacrament, that the place, whereon it is Celebrated, is not called an Altar of the Lord, seeing the Spirit of God, by his Apostle, hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes; for the Apostle, as he called this Sacred Banquet purposely The Supper of the Lord, and the Vessel prepared for the Liquid, The Cup of the Lord; so did he name the place whereon it was set, The Table of the Lord, and the Contemners thereof, Guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord; and thereupon did denounce the Vengeance and Plague, which fell upon profane Communicants, The judgement of the Lord: and all these in one Chapter, 1. Cor. 11. The like Difference may be discerned between your manner of Reverence, in Bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist only: and ours in Bowing aswell when there is no Eucharist on the Table, as when there is, which is not to the Table of the Lord, but to the Lord of the Table, to testify the Communion of all the Faithful Communicants thereat; even as the People of God did, in Adoring him before the Ark his Footstool, Psal. 99 5. and 1. Chron. 28. 2. as daniel's Bowing at Prayer in Chaldea, looking towards the Temple of jerusalem, where the Temple of God's Worship was, Dan. 6. 10. And as David would be known to have done, saying, Psal. 5. 7. I will Worship towards thy holy Temple: Will you suffer us to come home to you? The Father Gregory Nazianzen, for his soundness of judgement Surnamed the Divine, comparing this Inferior Altar, and Sacrifice on earth, with the Body of Christ seated in Heaven, faith that the Sacrifices, which he offereth in his Contemplation at the Altar in Heaven, are i Nazian. orat. 28.— Esto, ego pellor ab. Altari in Ecclesia: at novi aliud Altare mentis & contemplationis in coelo, ibi adstabo, & Deo offeram Sacrificia, quae sunt tanto acceptiora, quàm ea quae offerimus ad Altar, quanto pretiosior est veritas quàm umbra. More acceptable than the Sacrifices, which are offered at the Altar Below, as much as Truth is more excellent than the Shadow. So he. Therefore (say we) the Sacrifice of Christ his Body and Blood are subjectively in Heaven, but objectively here in the Eucharist; here Representative only, as in a Shadow, but in Heaven presentatively, in his Bodily presence. So vainly your Disputers hitherto (whilst that we required Materials) have objected against us bare words, phrases, and very shadows. Lastly, Cyril of Alexandria k Cyril. Alexand. count. julian. lib. 9 (julian. Ob.) judaei sacrificant,— vos autem invento novo Sacrificio— quare non sacrificatis?— illud commune nobiscum habent, etiam Templa, Altaria, etc. (Resp. Cyril multò post,) Vitae honestas, & ad meliora propensio est Sacrificium fragrantissimum— Et Paulus hortatur nos exhibere corpora nostra Sacrificium sanctum, rationalem cultum nostrum Deo.— Igitur etsi Iudaei sacrificarent, ut in umbris praecepta implerent, nos tamen latâ viâ euntes, ad id quod rectum est veniemus, nempè spiritualem & immortalem cultum proficientes. (julian.) Mosi dicitur, septem diebus azymis vescemini: vobis parum est abstulisse. (Cyril. Resp.) Impletur Lex à nobis in azymis, maximè fide justificatis in Spiritu, mentalemque cultum praeponentibus tali modo.— Vnde scribit D. Paulus, ut diem agamus in azymis sinceritatis & veritatis. (Rursus, julian. ibid. lib. 10) Offer Sacra in Altari, & sacrificare cavetis. (Resp. Cyril.) Adhibemus Sacrificia spiritualia, scilicet, & mentalia: nam illi ex sanguine offerebant boves, & oves,— Et ex fructibus similam, ol●as, etc. hos tamen tam crasso ministerio relicto renew & subril●, at spirituale perficimus: offerimus enim in odorem suavitatis fidem, spem, charitatem, justitiam, laudes, Sacrificium enim secundùm naturam incorporèum decet Deum. (julian.) Et Cain obtu●●t Sacrificium de fructibus terrae? Abel de carnalibus. (Cyril. Resp.) Offerimus melius quoddam quàm illi— Sacrificamus enim mentaliter & spiritualiter virtutum fragrantias. (Rursus julian. Ob.) Non circumcidimini, non Azyma, non Pascha servatis. Non possumus, inquiunt, (viz. Christiani:) pro nobis enim semel immolatus est Christus, & prohibuit Azyma— non Abraham imitantes Altaria etigitis Deo, nec Sacrificatoria aedificatis. (Resp. Cyril.) Circumcisionem habemus Spiritos— In A●ymis spiritual●a quae habemus. (Et ad pascha Resp.) Affulsit veritas, Immolatus est pro nobis Christus A●nus verus. made an Answer to the Objections, then published by julian the Apostate, against the Truth of Christian Religion. By this conflict between these two wits, as it were by the clashing of a Stone and Steel together, such a flash of lightning will appear, as may sufficiently illuminate every Reader, for the understanding of the judgement of Antiquity throughout the whole Cause, concerning Bodily Sacrifice. The Apostate objecteth (See the Margin) as an Exception against Christians, that they are not Circumcised, that they use no Azymes, nor keep the Passeover of the jews: albeit, Cain, Abel, and Abraham before the Law, and the Israelites under the Law, and Heathenish Grecians always without that Law, offered Sacrifices unto God. But they (saith julian, writing of Christians) erect no Altars unto God, offer no such Sacrifices as were of old, nor invent any new, but say that Christ was once offered for them. This Objection (you see) is pertinent to our Cause in hand, and as consonant will the Answer of the holy Patriarch Cyril be; who to the other points held it Satisfaction enough to say (see again the marginals) That we Christians have the spiritual Circumcision of the heart: That we observe the spiritual Azymes of Sincerity and Truth: And as for the Passeover, Christ our Passeover was offered up, namely upon the Cross (for so is it answerable to the words objected by julian.) And to the Objection of not erecting Altars, Cyril saith not a word. But what for the point of Sacrifice? Harken, (we pray you) Although (saith he) the jews Sacrificed to fulfil God's Precepts in shadows, yet we doing that which is right (meaning the Truth opposite to Shadows) perform a spiritual, and mental worship, as namely, Honesty, and an holy Conversation. And again, The jews offered in Sacrifice Bulls and Sheep, first-fruits of the Earth, Cakes, and Frankincense: but we offer that which is spiritual, to wit, Faith, Hope, Charity, and Praises; because an unbodily Sacrifice is fit for God. And yet again, We Sacrifice to God spiritually, and mentally, the perfumes of virtues. This is the sum of Saint Cyril his Answer, void of all mention of any Offering of the Body of Christ, as either Corporally present in the Eucharist to be Sacrificed by the Priest, or yet of any Corporall Touch thereof (by eating) with the Bodies of Communicants; no nor any intimation of any Proper Sacrifice professed by Christians. Here will be no place for your Answer, to tell us that the Question was of Bloody, and not of Unbloody Sacrifices: No, for Cyril in his Answer handleth as well the unbloody Sacrifice of Cain, as the Bloody Oblation of Abel; and expresseth as fully the unbloody Sacrifice of Cakes and Frankincense, as he doth the Bloody of Sheep, and Oxen. Nevertheless, we should confute ourselves, for objecting this Testimony, seeing that the Custom of the Primitive Church being then professedly not to reveal the Mystery of the Sacrament of Baptism, or of the Eucharist, either to infidels or Catechumenists, and therefore this silence of Cyril, in not so much as mentioning the Sacrifice of the Mass, might seem to have been purposely done, to conceal it from julian, the Patron of Heathenish worship. So indeed we should have thought, but that then julian and Cyril both would as readily confute us; julian, because he himself had been more than a Catechumenist in the Church of Christ, even (as namely Gregory Nazianzene witnesseth) once l Greg. Nazian. Orat. 3. advers. julian. (De Gallo et juliano) Quinetiam in Clerum seipsos ascripserunt, ut divinós quoque libros plebi lectitarent: non minus id sibi amplum & honorificum existimantes quàm aliud quidvis, etc. A Reader of Scriptures to the people, not thinking it any Derogation unto him so to do; therefore was he not ignorant of the (then) Christian Doctrine, concerning the Eucharist. And (which is a point as observable) when he objecteth against Christians want of Sacrifices, by and by, as if Christians had nothing to say for themselves, but that Christ gave up himself once; he expresseth this their Answer, as that which he held not to be sufficient. And Cyril also would control us, who in his whole Answer (opposing Spiritual to Corporall) defendeth no Sacrifice at all among Christians, but that which he called Spiritual and Mental; as for Example, Godly Conversation, Faith, Hope, Charity, Praises, etc. All which are * See Chap. 5. Sect. 14 excluded out of your Definition of Proper Sacrifice. The Case than is plain. If that the now Romish Doctrine of a Proper Bodily Sacrifice of Christ's Body, offered up in the hands of the Priest, by an Elevation, and after in Consummating the same by eating it with his Mouth, which you call a Sacrificing Act, had been Catholic learning in that Age, then assuredly could neither julian have challenged Christians for No Sacrifice, nor Cyril have defended them, by confessing indeed No Sacrifice among Christians, but only Spiritual and Mental. ⚜ And undoubtedly if Material Altars (properly so called) had been in use in Christianity at that time, the holy Fathers would not have then concealed this, especially when as the want of Altars was objected against them, as a note of 17 Origen. count. Celsum. lib. 7. Ob. Celsi. Non sustinent Altaria Scythae, neque Seres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arnob. lib. 6. Consuestis crimen nobis maximum impietatis affigere— quòd non Altaria fabricemus, non Aras. See also Arnobius, lib. 6. contra Gentes. Atheism. ⚜ CHAP. VI. Our third Examination, which concerneth your Profession of the Romish Mass, by your Romish Principles. The State of the Question. WEll have you discerned of the twofold acception of a Proper Sacrifice, which (as a Bellarm. Sacrificium Missae accipitur proprie pro●re, quae sacrificatur: & etiam accipitur propriè pro actione sacrificandi. Lib. 1. de Missa, Cap. 27. §. Resp. ut. you say) Is sometime taken for the thing sacrificed, and also for the proper sacrificing Act. So your Cardinal: and indeed, both these are necessary in a Proper Sacrifice, yet neither of these can possibly be found in your pretended Sacrifice of your Romish Mass. That the Thing, pretended to be Sacrificed, is not Properly in the Roman Mass. SECT. I. THe things, which your Romish Belief professeth to be Sacrificed in your Mass, is the Body and Blood of Christ, corporally extant therein, as the proper Subject thereof. But that there is no Corporal Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, was the Conclusion of our second, third, and fourth Books. And that the same Body and Blood of Christ is not the proper subject matter of the Sacrifice, used in your Mass, is our Conclusion throughout this whole Book. Of both which you may have a Synopsis and general view in the last Book. Thus of the thing Sacrificed, now that which followeth, concerning your Romish Sacrificing Act, is a Point briefly expedited by two Propositions. I. That no Act, now used in the Roman Mass, can truly be called a proper Sacrificing Act: proved by your own Principles. SECT. II. Whatsoever Sacrificing Act your Advocates have held, as Proper to a Sacrifice; and assumed, as belonging to the Sacrifice of your Mass, have each one been * See above Chap. 1. Sect. 5. Confuted by Doctors of your own, Church of singular estimation; and rejected as utterly insufficient to prove any Proper Sacrificing Act in the Institution of Christ: to wit, not Elevation, not Fraction, not Oblation, not Consecration, and lastly, not Consumption of the Eucharist by the mouth of the Priest. Non licet actum agere, said one, and Non libet, say we. But now are we to discuss such Properties, as are yet wanting in your Romish Execution. II. That that, which is properly a Sacrificing Act, is wanting in the Roman Mass; proved by your own Principles. SECT. III. THree Properties are required of you, as necessary to a properly Sacrificing Act, the first is, that the Action be exercised upon a thing a Concil. Trid. Christus tradebat visibile Sacramentum sub specie panis & vini. Sess. 22. et Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Secundo. Visible. Secondly, that the thing sacrificed be of b Septimò, ritu mystico consecratur: nam debet res illa, quae Deo offertur, ex profanà fieri sacra. Idem significat Sacrificare, quod sacrum facere. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. ⚜ Maldonat. de Eucharist. pa. 353. Nostra Sententia est. In eo tantum consistit Sacrificium, quod ex re prophana fiat sacra. ⚜ Profane, made sacred by the Act of Consecration. Thirdly, that the Act be a c Bellar. Octauò, transmutatur, quià ad verum Sacrificium requiritur, ut id, quod offertur Deo, plane destruatur, id est, ita mutetur, ut desinat esse id quod antè erat. I● quo differt à simplici oblatione, quae interdum mystico ritu elevabatur coram Deo, sed non destruebatur, nisi quando verè sacrificabatur. Ratio duplex, 1. ob significationem mortis Christi. 2. ad protestationem subjectionis nostrae corùm Deo— Ideò requiritur, ut non solum usus, sed etiam substantia consumatur.— Sacrificium requir●●. Consumptionem. Patet, 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mactare, Math. 22. Altilia dicuntor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occisa, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Exlialatio, in quo diffent ab oblatione: Item 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consumo. Probatur ex Scriptura, ubi omnia Sacrificia destruenda erant, si viventia, per occisionem; si inanimata Tolida, per combustionem; si liquida, per effusionem. Ex inanimis solidis per immolationes, sic dictas à mola, vel molendo, quamvis vox, Immoltare, pro sacrificare suma●ur. Lib. ●. de Missa, ca 2. per totum. Et idem ibid. cap. 4. § Nunc. ⚜ Gordon. Ies●●. Controu. 9 cap. 1. nu 25. In Sacrificio propriè dictò necesse est ut adsit res visibilis & permanens, quae offeratur. Et post num. 26. Requirit etiam Interitum & destructionem ejus rei, quae Deo offertur, ut post Thomam bene notat Bellarminus. ⚜ Destructive Act, whereby the thing offered be truly destroyed, and cease to be in substance that which it was. According to your own objected words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying a Consumption; and therein answerable to the Sacrifices of the Old Law, all which suffered Destruction; things living by slaughter, things without life, if solid, by burning; if liquid, by pouring out, and shedding, etc. So you in Thesi, we descend to the Hypothesis. But before we enter into this Disquisition, we shall desire you to take unto you the spirits of reasonable men, whilst we reason the matter with you in few words. First, it cannot be called Properly Visible, which is not Visible in itself. But the Body of Christ, which you call the thing sacrificed, is not Visible in itself, but only (as your Council of d Conc. Trid. and Bellarm above cited, §. 3. at (a.) Trent hath taught) In the form of Bread; and then, how invisible it is, only blind men can be ignorant. Nor will we think All, among you, to be so blind, seeing that we hear one (and that a jesuite) acknowledging his eyesight, and plainly, without Parables, saying, that e Salmeron. Christus cruentus, & incruentus, non differunt, sed quod ille visibilis, hic invisibills. Tom 9 Tract. 29. § jam de. Christ in the Eucharist is invisible. So he. Therefore the first Property of a proper Sacrificing Subject is wanting in your Roman Mass. Secondly, we will not judge any of you so blasphemous, as to say, that the Body of Christ, by your Consecration, is of a Profane thing made sacred, which we are sure your ancient Romish School did deny; which concluded that f Aquinas. Benedictio sacerdotalis fertur super terminum à quo, non super terminum ad quem, i. e. super corpus Christi. In 1. Cor. 10. It is not Christ that is made sacred, by benediction of the Priest, but that which the Priest first taketh in his hands to bless. And so your Act of Consecration, by defect of the second property; is no proper Sacrificing Act of the Body and Blood of Christ. Thirdly, it will be as incredible even in your own judgements, that the Body of Christ should be properly Destroyed. We say, in your own judgements, who therefore are constrained to say, g Bellar. Corpus Christi per consecrationem accepit formam cibi, & ad comestionem & destructionem ordinatur: & licet nullam laesionem patiatur in se, neque amittit suum esse naturale, sed amittit. Sacramentale Esse, & proinde desinit esse realiter in Altari, & desinit esse cibus sensibilis. Lib. 1. de Missa. Cap. 27. §. Tertiò. that The Body of Christ indeed suffereth not herein any natural Destruction, but only Sacramental, that is, Metaphorical. Ergo, your Romish Mass is destitute of the proper Sacrificing Act of Destruction. And again, whereas the word, Immolation, is taken of h Lombardus cum quaeritat, quid Sacerdos gerit, sit dicendum Sacrificium aut Immolatio, accipit nomen Immolationis pro occisione: respondet autem rectissimè, Christum semel tantùm immolatum, id est, occisum fuisse, non autem immolari, id est, occidi in Sacramento & repraesentatione. Bellorm. lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 15. Rursus paulò superius. § Ad hanc.— Cruenta Immolatio semel tantùm verè & propriè facta est, nunc autem non propriè, sed p●r Repraesentationem. Lib. 4. Dist. 12. §. Post haec. Lombard for being Slain, or suffering by Death; It was most truly said by him (saith your Cardinal) that Christ is not properly immolated, meaning not slain, but only in Representation. Well then, the State of the Question, as your Cardinal himself hath set it down, is (seeing that every Proper Sacrifice requireth a Proper Destruction, and, if it be a living Sacrifice, a Destruction by death) Whether Christ be properly Sacrificed, or no. Mark, we pray you, your Cardinal's Resolution. His bloody Sacrifice was but once truly and properly done, but now it is not properly done, but by Representation. O Spirit of Contradiction! For, that which is but once only properly offered, can never be said to be again properly offered; and that which is a Bloody Oblation, by your own learning cannot be Unbloody. And as great an Intoxication is to be seen in your Disputers, in respect of the other part of the Sacrament touching the Cup: For your Cardinal Alan defendeth a Real Destruction in this manner; i Alanus de Eucharist. lib. 2 cap. 13. In carnis & sanguinis separatione (undè propriè in animalibus mactatio) consistit vis hujus mysterij, ut in eo solo cernatur divinae mortis repraesentatio— sequitur Christum esse praesentem, modò immolatio— quod sunditur in remissione peccatorum: ergo per modum Victimae praesens est, imò Christus hic praesens induit eum modum, quem habuit ut se offerens in Sacrificio Crucis. (Aliquantò post haec.) Propter concomitantiam, de qua superius diximus, in seipso non moritur. In creatures living (saith he) the thing sacrificed must be slain, and in this slaying by the separation of blood from the Body doth consist all force and virtue of this Mystery, because Christ is herein, after the manner of Sacrifice, taking upon him the manner of Sacrificing, which he had in offering himself upon the Cross, by separation of his Blood. So he. All which doth infer a Real and Proper separation and effusion of Blood; yet immediately after standeth he to the Defence of concomitancy, which teacheth an Union of Body and Blood together, in as full a manner as it was in Christ his most perfect estate. But Blood Separated, and United, are as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary as can be. How much better would it beseem you to confess plainly and truly with your Costerus, that k Costerus Christian. Institut. lib. 1. cap. 10. Christus in cruse solus seipsum obtulit per veram sanguinis effusionem & mortem: hic per Sacerdotem, tanquam ministrum, se offert sine Sanguinis effusione & morte, sed per utr●usque repraesentationem. Christ is not offered herewith effusion of Blood, but by a representation thereof. Thus still we see your own Doctors come in your most controverted points towards us, albeit as Rowers, looking backwards to their own purposes and conclusions. CHALLENGE. A Syllogism will quit the Business; as for Example. Every proper Sacrifice is properly Visible, of Profane is made Sacred, and properly suffereth Destruction. (This is your own Proposition in each part.) But the Body of Christ, in the Eucharist, is neither properly Visible, nor properly of Profane made Sacred, nor suffereth any proper Destruction. (This is also your own Assumption.) Therefore the Body of Christ, in this Sacrament, is not a proper Sacrifice, nor properly Sacrificed. This (except men have lost their brains) must needs be every man's Conclusion. And that so much the rather, because it cannot be sufficient, that Christ's Body be present in the Eucharist, to make it a Sacrifice, without some Sacrificing Act. A Sheep is no Sacrifice whilst it remaineth in the Fold, nor can every Action serve the turn, except it be a Destructive Act: for the Sheep doth not become therefore a Sacrifice, because it is shorn, nor yet can any Destructive Act be held Sacrificing, which is not prescribed by Divine Authority; which only cun ordain a Sacrifice, as hath been confessed. But no such divine ordinance hath hitherto been proved. Is it not then a miserable case which you are in, to suffer yourselves to be deceived by such Mountebanks, who pretend to direct men's Consciences in the Mysteries of Christian Faith, and particularly concerning this high point of Proper Sacrifice? and in the end give no other satisfaction than by mere Riddles of a Visible, not Visible, Consecrated, not Consecrated, Destroyed, and not Destroyed, with Blood separated, and not separated from the Body; and each one spoken of the same Body of Christ. Our last point concerning a proper Sacrifice followeth. CHAP. VII. Our Fourth Examination is of the Doctrine of PROTESTANTS, in the point of Sacrifice. IN discussion whereof, we are to consider first the Acts, which are incident unto the Celebration of this Sacrament: and then the Object thereof, which is the true and real Body of Christ, as it was Sacrificed upon the Cross. In respect of the Acts we say, I. That Spiritual Sacrifices, albeit Unproper, are in one respect more true, and do fare excel all merely Corporal Sacrifices, according to Scripture. SECT. I. WHen Christ called himself the True Vine, the True light, the True Bread; in respect of the Natural Vine, Light, and Bread; He taught us to distinguish between a Truth of Excellency, and a Truth of Propriety, by their different Effects. That which hath the natural property of Bread (although Manna) preserveth but the temporal life, for * john 6. See above Book 5. Sect. 6. They eaten Manna, and died: but the Bread of Excellency, which is Christ's Body, preserveth to * Ibid. Immortality. It is a good Observation, which your Canus hath, that a Canus. Quià per Sacrificia legis externae res quaedam spirituales potiores praesignabantur, has omninò res, Sacrificia, holocausta, hostias sacrae literae appellant: ut mactationes brutorum animalium figurae erant mortificationis. Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. In secundo. Many spiritual things are called Sacrifices, in Scripture, because they were prefigured by the outward bodily Sacrifices of the Lamb: as the kill of Beasts were signs of mortification, which is a kill of sin. So he. And the thing Archetypally prefigured (you know) is always held more excellent than the figure thereof. First, the Sacrifice of Contrition, Psalm. 51. 17. The Sacrifice of God is a Contrite heart. Secondly, of Righteousness, Psalm. 4. 5. Offer the Sacrifice of Righteousness. And Rom. 12. 1. by Mortification and Vivification, Present your Bodies a living Sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable Service. Thirdly, the Sacrifice of Prayer and Praise, Hosea 14. 2. We will render the Calves of our lips. Fourthly, of Almesworkes, Heb. 13. 16. With such Sacrifices God is well pleased. Fifthly, Sacrifice the fruit of Preaching, Rom. 15. 16. That I ministering the Gospel, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the holy Ghost. Sixthly, the Sacrifice of Martyrdom, Phil. 2. 17. Yea, and if I be offered up upon the Sacrifice and Service of your faith, etc. Next we say, II. That all these Spiritual Acts, although Improperly called Sacrifices, yet are they more excellent than all merely Corporal and Proper Sacrifices; in the judgement of Ancient Fathers. SECT. II. Upon this Contemplation Ancient Fathers have breathed out many divine Ejaculations, for the expressing of the excellent Prerogatives of Spiritual Sacrifices, in respect of Corporall. Of the Sacrifice of Contritition, thus: a Non terrenis, sed spiritualibus est Deo litandum. Tertull. adversus judaeos. God's wrath is to be appeased with Spiritual Sacrifices. And b Erant tum Sacrificia pro delicto, quae nunc sunt Sacrificia poenitentiae de delicto. Ambros. lib. 3. Epist. 28. They were then Sacrifices for sin, which are now Sacrifices of Repentance for sin. And c Spiritus contribulatus.— Ostendit Deus, se velle Sacrificium, non trucidati pecoris, sed contriti pectoris. Aug. de Civit. Dei. lib. 20. cap. 5. God showeth he will not have the Sacrifice of a slain beast, but of a contrite breast. Of the Sacrifice of Righteousness, thus; d Mundo moriens, ipse est Sacrificium. Idem. He that dyeth to the world, is for himself a Sacrifice. And e Tunc corpora pro corporibus; nunc non corpora, sed vitia corporis perimenda. Arnob. count. Gentes. Then were Creatures slain to cleanse men's Bodies: but now are men to mortify their vices: f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Isid. Pelus. lib. 3. Epist. 75. Every one being made a Priest over his own Body, to overrule vices. And g Illi offerebant oves & boves: nos tam crasso praeterito Sacrificio subtile offerimus, virtutes omnigenas: Sacrificium enim minimè carnale, secundùm naturam incorpoream, decet Deum. Ambros. [The same which he hath translated word for word out of Cyril. Alex. count. julian. See above, towards the end of Chap. 5.] They offered those gross Bodies of sheep: but we the more subtle and pure of virtues, because unbloody things best agree with God. And h Chrysost. in Gen. Hom. 60. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is a new and admirable Sacrifice. And i Pelusiota. lib. 3. Ep. 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The best Sacrifice is to have a pure Mind and a chaste Body. Of the Spiritual Sacrifice of Prayer and Praises unto God, thus; k Preces & Gratiarum actiones factae Deo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. justin. Dial. cum Tryphone judaeo. And another upon that Psal. 68 of David [Canticum laudis plus placet Deo quam novella] observeth in the Hebrew an elegant Allusion, as if it had been said, Deo magis placet Schir, quàm Schior, id est, Canticum, quàm vitulus. Bellar. ibid. These are most perfect and only Sacrifices acceptable to God. Of Preaching the Word of God, thus; l Gladio verbi mactans ultia. Higher & rursus in Psal. 26. Hostia jubilationis, hostia praedicationis. We slay vices with the sword of the Word. And of The Function Evangelicall, m Chrys. in Psal. 95. Munus Evangelicum Sacrificium mundum & immaculatum. It is a pure Sacrifice, and immaculate. And n Sacrificium praedicationis omnibus aromatibus praestantius. Aug. A Sacrifice sweeter than all Spices. Of Almesworkes, thus; o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt, vel quòd eâ Deus prae Sacrificijs placere sibi testatur: haec sancta vestis aromata Sactorum est. Chrysost. These God testifieth to be more pleasant unto him, than all the Sacrifices. And p Vbi scriptum est, [Misericordiam magis volo quàm Sacrificium] nihil aliud quàm Sacrificium Sacrificio praelatum intelligi opportet: quoniam quod ab hominibus appellatur Sacrificium, signum est veri Sacrificij. Aug. lib. 10. de Civit. cap. 5. This is a true Sacrifice, whereof the other Sacrifices are but Signs. Of Martyrdom, thus; r Nos templum Dei sumus omnes, cor nostrum altare Dei, cruentas victimas caedimus, quando usque ad sanguinem pro veritate certamus. Aug. ibid. cap. 4. We are God's Temple, our hearts his Altars: we then offer up our bloody Sacrifice, when we contend for the Truth with our Blood. In brief, s Verum Sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur, ut Deo in sancta societate haereamus: relatumque ad illum sinem, ut beati esse possimus, Idem. lib. 10. de Civit. cap. ●. Every good work done, to the end that we may enjoy God, is a true Sacrifice. ⚜ Your Cardinal Bellarmine lighting on this Sentence, wherein Saint Augustine defineth a Sacrifice to be every good work wrought, that we may in an holy Society adhere unto God: 1 Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Vnum.— Sanctus Aug. lib. 10. de Civit. Dei, cap. 6. Sic definit Sacrificium: Sacrificium (inquit) est opus omne quod agitur, ut sanctâ societate inhaereatur Deo, relatum ad illum sinem, ut beati esse possimus. Respondeo, Vocat Opus tale Sacrificium verum, ratione dignitatis & effectus, quod sit praestantius: non ratione formae & essentiae Sacrificij propriè dicti. This Saint Augustine spoke (saith your Cardinal) not properly, according to the essence of a Sacrifice, but in respect of the dignity and effects of every such work. So he. ⚜ Hitherto of our Proposition, by the Determination of holy Fathers. In the next place we say, for the Assumption, III. That Protestants profess, in their Celebration, divers Sacrifices of chief Excellency. SECT. III. COrporall and Spiritual Sacrifices are by you distinguished, calling the first, Proper, and the other Improper; but the Spiritual excelleth by infinite Degrees, as you have heard. In which kind Protestants, in their Celebration, profess four sorts of Sacrifices. For proof hereof, we may instance in our Church of a In the English Liturgia. England, most happily reform and established. First, the Sacrifice of Mortification in Act, and of Martyrdom in Vow, saying, [We offer unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls, and bodies, to be an holy, lively, and reasonable Sacrifice unto thee.] Next, a Sacrifice Eucharistical, saying, [We desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept of our Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving.] And why may we not, with the Scripture, call this a Sacrifice? seeing that your Bishop jansenius held it for an Argument of proving Christ to have offered a Sacrifice, even b jansen. Christum in coena Sacrificium obtuli●●e, primum quidem satis est significatum, cum dicitur Gratias egisse: Gratiarum enim actio est quoddam Sacrificium, à qua Christi actione Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Domini nomen illud ab initio Ecclesia accepit. Concord. cap. 131. Because he gave Thanks: giving of Thanks being a kind of Sacrifice. So he. Thirdly, a Sacrifice Latreuticall, that is, of Divine worship, saying, [And although we be unworthy to offer up any Sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept of our bounden duty and service, etc.] This performance of our Bounden Service is that, which * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 5 Ancient Fathers called an Unbloody Sacrifice. Nor is our Church of England alone in this Profession: this Truth we refer unto the Report of your c Bellarm. Melancthon Eucharistiam Sacrificium esse vult,— & Calvinus non solùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse vult, sed etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Ac primum, & §. Expendamus. Cardinal, and of d Canus. Lutherani in Apologia Augustana perperam Sacrificium definiebant esse opus à nobis Deo redditum, ut cum honore afficiamus. Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. ca 12. §. Quibus rebus. Bellar. Melancthon dicit, Missam dici posse Sacrificium, quaetenùs sumptio Eucharistiae fieri potest ad laudem Dei, sicut caetera bona opera. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Ac primum. Et Calvinus dicit, Sacrificium generaliter acceptum complectitur quicquid Deo offertur. Ibid. §. Expendamus. Kemnitius dicit, Sacrificium à Patribus dici Oblationem, Immolationem, & Sacrificium, quia est commemoratio & repraesentatio veri Sacrificij Christi. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 15. §. Alter modus. Canus, by whom you may understand the agreement between them, whom you name Lutherans, in their Augustane Confession, and of Calvin; by acknowledging not some one Act, but the whole work of this Celebration (according to the Institution of Christ) both in Communication, Commemoration, and Representation of his Death, with Praise and Thanksgiving, to be a Sacrifice Eucharistical: And also (to use the words of Calvin) Latreuticall, and Sebasticall, that is, a Sacrifice of Worship and Veneration; which every Christian may and must profess, who hath either eyes in his head, or faith in his heart: the Celebration of this Sacrament, in Remembrance of his absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption, being the Service of all Services that we can perform to God. Now wherein, and in what respect we may furthermore be said to offer to God a Sacrifice propitiatory, improperly, will after appear, when we consider Christ's Body as the Object herein. That Protestants in their Commemoration offer up the same Body and Blood of Christ, which was Sacrificed on the Cross, as the Object of Remembrance, and most absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption: which is partly justified by the Romish Mass itself. SECT. iv NOw we are come to the last, most true, and necessary Point, which is the Body and Blood, as the Object of our Commemoration. Still, still do you urge the Say of Fathers, where they affirm that we offer unto God The same Body and Blood of Christ, on this Altar, even the same which was sacrificed on the Cross; which therefore you interpret as being the same subject matter of our Commemoration, As is a King acting himself upon a Stage, as hath been * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 7. shown. We as instantly, and more truly, proclaim that we offer (Commemoratively) the same, undoubtedly the very same Body and Blood of Christ his All-sufficient Sacrifice on the Cross, although not as the Subject of his Proper Sacrifice, but yet as the only adequate Object of our Commemoration; (as the Emperor Mauritius is said to be represented in a Stage-play) wherein we cannot possibly err, having Truth itself for our Guide, who said, Do this in remembrance of me, namely, of the same [Me;] meaning Christ, as crucified on the Cross, as the Apostle commenteth, saying, Hereby you show the Lords Death till he come, even the Same Body, as the Same Death; whereunto bear all the Father's witness, throughout this Treatise. We say again, for your better Observation, the Same Body, as the Same Death: but it cannot be the Same Death, but objectively only. Ergò, can it not be the Same Body, but only Objectively. Whereby it will be easy for us to discern the subject Sacrifice of Christ from ours, his being the Real Sacrifice on the Cross, ours only the Sacramental Representation, Commemoration, and Application thereof. ⚜ For your better satisfaction, We exhibit unto you the ancient Practice of your Romish Church, in the Service of the Mass, celebrated every Saturday in the Passion-weeke; wherein (as your 2 Bellar. Recog. Librorum de Missa. Feriâ sextâ majoris hebdomadae non celebratur Missae sacrificium: quamvis in illa Actione dicat Sacerdos, [Orate, Fratres, ut et meum et vestrum Sacrificium etc.] Et paulò antè; [Sic fiat Sacrificium nostrum in conspectu tuo, ut placeat Tibi, Domine Deus.] In his duobus lotis vox, Sacrificium, non videtur propriè accipienda, sed largo modo pro tota ista Actione. Et quòd in ista feria Missa non propriè celebretur, legimus in Ordine Romano antiquissimo. etc. Cardinal doth certify you and us) the Priest, in your Missal, Prayeth twice to God to receive [His Sacrifice:] although it be, properly, but only a Sacrament, the whole Action thereof being called a Sacrifice. So he, even as directly for our purpose, as we could wish; hereby justifying our Calling the Whole Celebration of the Eucharist (albeit Properly a Sacrament only) a Sacrifice, in a Large and qualified Sense, according to the Practice of ancient Fathers; as we have proved throughout the whole sixth Book, by Eleven Demonstrations. ⚜ CHAP. VIII. Of the Second Principal part of this Controversy, which concerneth the Romish Sacrifice, is as it is called Properly Propitiatory. THis part is divided into an 1. Explication of that which you call Propitiatory. 2. Application thereof, for Remission of Sins. The State of the Question of Propitiatory, what it is. SECT. I. THe whole Difference standeth upon this, whether the subject matter of our Representation in the hands of the Priest be Properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice, or no. Now Propitiatory is either that which pacifieth the wrath of God, and pleaseth him by its own virtue and efficacy, which (as all confess) is only the Sacrifice of Christ in his own self; or else a thing is said to be Propitiatory and pleasing to God, by God's Gracious acceptance and indulgence. The Romish profess the Sacrifice of their Mass to be such, in the proper Virtue of that which the Priest handleth. For the Tridentine Faith, concerning your Propitiatory Sacrifice, is this, viz. a Synod. Trid. Sacrificium verè propitiatorium— Hujus oblatione placatur Deus, gratiam & donum poenitentiae concedens dimittit peccata, una enim eademque hostia est, idem nam offerens Sacerdotum ministerio, qui seipsum in cruse obtulit. Sess. 22. cap. 2. It is that whereby God being pacified doth pardon sins. And lest that there might be any ambiguity, how it doth pacify God, whether by his gracious Acceptance, or the Efficacy of offering, your general Roman Chatechisme, authorized both by your Council of Trent, and the than Pope Pius the fift, for the direction of your whole Church, instructeth you all, concerning your Sacrifice of the Mass, that b Catechis. Rom. (Jussu Conc. Trident. & Pij Quinti Pont. editus.) Vt Sacrificium est, non solum merendi, sed & satisfaciendi quoque efficaciam habet. De Euch. num. 55. Oserius Ies. Conc. Tom. 4. de Missae Sacrificio, in Psalm. 4. [Sacrificare Sacrificium.] Vnicum hoc Sacrificium est Sacrificium laudis, gratiarum actionis, expiatorium & satisfactorium pro peccatis, & impetratorium pro vivis & defunctis Ita tradit Conc. Trid. As it is a Sacrifice, it hath an Efficacy and Virtue, not only of merit, but also of satisfaction. So they, as truly setting down the true nature of a Propitiatory Sacrifice, as they do falsely assume and apply it unto the Sacrifice of your Mass; which Protestants abhor and impugn as a Doctrine most Sacrilegious; and only grant the Celebration to be Propitiatory (Improperly) by God's Complacency and favourable acceptance, wherewith he vouchsafeth to admit of the holy Actions and Affections of his faithful. Trial of all this is to be made by Scriptures, and Fathers, by your own Romish Principles, and by the Doctrine of Protestants. In the Interim, be it known that our Church of England in her 31. Article, saith of your Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, as it is taught by you, that it is A Blasphemous Fable, and Dangerous Deceit. That the Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice hath no foundation in the Institution of Christ. SECT. II. YOur only Objection is, that Christ, in the words of his first Institution, said, Take, this is the New Testament in my Blood, shed for you and for many, for the Remission of sins. Hear your Cardinal, a Bellarm. Secundum Argumentum sumitur ex his verbis Institutionis, quae apertissimè docent, Christum obtulisse in coena pro peccatis Apostolorum Lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Secundum. These words do most evidently teach, that Christ now in his Supper offered up his Blood for the sins of his Apostles. So he. But if this his Exposition of Christ's word's be most evident, alas! what a number of other blind Guides, of great estimation among you, hath your Church favoured, pampered; privileged, and authorized, who could see nothing in the words of Christ, but the flat contrary▪ (namely) that they were Spoken in the Present Tense (Tropically) For the Future, not that it was then shed, but that it was to be shed on the Cross immediately after; among whom have * See above. Chap. 1. Sect. 2. been reckoned Gregory de Valentia, Salmeron, Barradas, Vasquez, and Suarez, five prime jesuites, your Bishop jansenius, yea and the Author of your Vulgar Translation, and the Authorizers thereof. And that you may the better discern, how hard the foreheads heads of your Cardinal, of your Rhemists, of Master Brerely, and of such others are, who have made that Objection, you have been likewise advertised, that in the very tenor of your own Romish Mass itself, the word is expressly [ * In the 〈◊〉 place. Effundetur] It shall be shed: We say in the Tenor of your Romish Mass, published by the Authority of Pope Pius the fift, repeated by every one of yourselves, (you being Romish Priests) and accordingly believed of all the Professors of your Romish Religion. Which Interpretation was furthermore confirmed by * See above, 1. Sect. 3. Fathers, and by Scripture (in the places objected) and by a Reason taken from your own General Confession, granting that Christ his Blood was not Really shed in his last Supper. This is that which we had to oppose unto that your Cardinal's Most evident Argument, as Sunshine to Moonlight. That many things are said to pacify and please God, which are not properly Propitiatory, by their own Virtue, according to criptures and your own Confessions. SECT. III. IN Scripture, our Mortification of the flesh is called a Sacrifice wellpleasing to God. Rom. 12. 1. Alms, Works of Charity, are likewise called Sacrifices, wherewith God is delighted, Heb. 13. 16. Comforting, and cherishing the Ministers of God, is called A Sacrifice acceptable, and wellpleasing to God, Phil. 4. 18. So the Scripture. And that spiritual Sacrifices are more pleasing unto God, than all the Hecatombs of Corporals could be, is a Confession, which we will take from the quill of Valentia the Jesuit, saying that a Valent. Omnes actiones rectae rectè propitiare Deum aliquâ ratione censeri debent. Lib. 2 de Missa, cap. 5. Idem. Peculiari ratione Precibus propitiandi vis in Scriptura tribuitur, quatenꝰ beneficia divina ex misericordia Dei, per illas impetramus. Ibid. All right and just Actions may be said, in some sort, to be Propitiatory, and to pacify God. As likewise of Prayer; Scripture (saith he) attributeth a Propitiatory force unto Prayers, so fare forth as we obtain many Blessings of God, through his mercy, by them. So he. Which confirmeth our former Distinction of Propitiatory, by the merciful Acceptation of God, distinct from your Propitiatory, which is of meritorious Satisfaction by its own 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 Controversy 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 Millstone: Notwithstanding, we would be loath 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 Spiritual Acts therein, without any Conceit of a Proper Virtue of Propitiation itself. SECT. I. A Propitiatory in Gods merciful acceptance we defend, but not in Equivalency of Valour and Virtue in itself. First, as it is an Act commanded by Christ, in which sense your jesuite * See above, Chap. 8. Sect. 3. Valentia saith, that Every right Act is in a sort Propitiatory. Secondly, as it is a godly Act, whereby we do affiance our soul to God, Every good work, (as * August. See above, Cham 5. Sect. 8. Augustine saith) which is done that we may adhere unto God, is a True Sacrifice. Thirdly, as it is an Act serving peculiarly to God's worship, for religiousness is that (said * Chrysost. ibid. chrysostom) wherewith God testifieth himself to be well pleased. Fourthly as it is an Act of Commemoration and Representation of that only properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, we must grant to your Cardinal, that Commemoration alone hath not any Propitious Efficacy in itself: But yet by the Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ, resembled thereby, God vouchsafeth to be Propitious unto us; in which respect a Origen. in Levit. Hom. 13. Si redeas ad illum quem Deus proposuit Propitiatorem per fidem, & si respicias ad illam commemorationem, de qua dicit Dominꝰ, Hoc facite in commemorationem mei; ista est sola commemoratio, quae propitium facit hominibus Deum. 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, Do this in remembrance of me: This (saith Origen) is the only Commemoration which maketh God propitious. If any would say, how then shall we not make Commemoration to be Propitiatory in itself? We answer, as a man holding in his hand a precious jewel, which is enclosed 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 jewel; and yet we say, the Ring is the only means to us, which maketh the finger capable of that Virtue. So say we, Christ his own Sacrifice, which was the only precious Subject matter of our Redemption, is made now, by our Remembering, the Object of our Commemoration and Application of it, for our Remission and justification. Nor is Origen alone in this, but all they (who were * See Chap. 5. Sect. 11. many) whom you have heard saying that Christ's Death and Passion, yea his Bloody Body is offered herein. Your own jesuit Salmeron is witness unto us (for the Council of Ephesus, Eusebius, and Saint Augustine) that b Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 31. §. Postremò superest. pa. 238. Quidan Patres judicant inprimis hâc hostiâ expiari peccata, quòd cruentum memoret Sacrificium. Hanc dicendi rationem sequitur Concil. Ephes. in Ep. ad Nestorem, Euseb. in Demonst. Evang. lib. 1. cap. 10. August. in Psal. 75. They declared us to have expiation of our sins by this Sacrifice, because the bloody Sacrifice of Christ is remembered and commemorated herein. That we say nothing of our Supplications and Prayers, by which, through the same Virtue of Christ's Propitiation, we obtain pardon and Remission of sins (whether for Quick and Dead, belongeth not to this Dispute, because whether so or so, they are but Supplicatious still) together with many other saving 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 spiritual Sacrifices most acceptable unto God, for which cause * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 8 justine Martyr called it, by the way of Excellency, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, The only grateful Sacrifices. Lastly, in respect of our Application itself, 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 Cross, made by the faithful in Celebration of the Memory thereof. SECT. II. WHen it was asked, why the Ancient Fathers called Baptism a Sacrifice, it was answered, * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 13. at the Letter (c). Because the Sacrifice of Christ's Death was applied unto us thereby. Yet that Death, truly and only properly Propitious, is but only objectively offered in Baptism. The same may be said of the Eucharist, whereof your own great Schoolman, and Bishop a Canus. Satis est ut vere & propriè sit Sacrificium, quod mois Christi ita nunc ad peccati remissionem applicetur, ac si nunc ipse Christus moreretur, id quod Scriptorum veterum testimonijs confirmatur.— August. Semel immolatus in seipso Christus, & tamen quotidiè immolatur in Sacramento. Paschasius: Quotidiè Christus mysticè pro nobis immolatur, & passio ejus in mysterio traditur. Et Cyrillus in Conc. Ephes. Athanas. ad Antioch. Theophyl. in Hebr. cap. 10. Greg. demum Nazian. (ut caeteros omittam) hanc incruentam Immolationem vocant. Loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. Illud. pag. 422. Canus saith, that It is sufficient that the Eucharist be called a proper and true Sacrifice, because the Death of Christ is applied thereby, as if he were now dead. Mark, 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 b Cyril. Mystag. 5. Christum mactatum offerimus, ut Deum propitium reddamus. Ob. per Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 2. Greg. Nyssen. orat. 1. de Resur. & Theoph. in Matth. Dicunt inactationem esse in hac oblatione, etc. Suffering, being slain, and dying in the Eucharist; We Protestants subscribe to their judgements with a full faith, in acknowledgement that Christ's Death, the proper work of our Propitiation, is the only Object of our Remembrance and Faith: which say of the Fathers (saith your c Salmeron. Quod benignè interpretandum— nimirùm, mactationem antiquam Christi in cruse inveniri, non novam & realem ab eâ distinctam. Si in coena mactatus erat, quomodo ad nonam horam diei usque sequentis vixit? absurda haec sunt, & aliena à veritate. Tom. 9 Tract. 31. §. Quartò. jesuite) must be understood Sacramentally, to signify the real slaughter of Christ offered by him upon the Cross. So he. Which again proveth our Conclusion, that they understood a Propitiatory Sacrifice only objectively in the Eucharist. We will end with the objected Testimony of Ambrose, thus, d Ambros. Hic imago, veritas in coelestibus, nunc Christus offertur, sed offertur quasi homo, quasi recipiens passionem. Offered se ipse, quasi Sacerdos, ut peccata nostra dimittat, hic in imagine, ibi in veritate ubi apud Patrem. Lib. 1. de offic. cap. 48. Here is an Image offered [Quasi, that is] as it were a man, as it were suffering a Passion, offering himself as it were a Priest, that he may forgive our sins. And of his now being * See above, Cham 3. Sect. 8. at the letter (c). 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 Corporal presence, and to make fully for our Distinction and Defence thereby. Enough of the judgement of Antiquity. Our third Examination followeth. CHAP. X. Of the pretended Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice, confuted by Romish Principles, as destitute of four Properties of Propitiation. THe first is the Imperfection of the Sacrificer. The next, the no- proper Destruction of the thing sacrificed. The third, the Vnbloodinesse of the same. And the last, the but- finite Virtue and value, which you attribute unto it. I. Confutation, from the confessed Imperfection of the Sacrifice. SECT. I. FIrst the Reason, why you account your Propitiatory Sacrifice to be but of finite Virtue, is a Bellar. Ratio 2. Quare Sacrificium Crucis sit tanti valoris, hoc autem siniti, sumitur ex parte offerentis: nam Sacrificio Crucis ipse osterens est fillus Dei per se 3 at in Sacrificio Missae est ipse offerens per Ministrum.— Illa actio immediatè producta à divino supposito, ipsa ab humano. Lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 4. Because it is not immediately offered up by Christ himself, as that was of the Cross, but by his Minister. And the Reason of this, you say, is, b Salmeron. Ies. Modò Christus in Eucharistia personam induit rei oblatae: & quamvis Christus offerat per Sacerdotes, ut Administros ejus, tamen virtus & causa universalis pro ratione causae secundariae operatur. Sacerdos igitur ejus nomine induit personam offerentis. Tom. 9 Tract. 33. pag 266. de Missis privatis. Because the Universal Cause worketh according to the limitation of the second Causes. So you. Understanding, by Sacrifice, not the Object of your Remembrance, which is the Body of Christ, as crucified; but the Subject matter, in the hand of the Priest. From whence this Consequence must issue, whether you will or no, (namely) that Perfection of the Sacrifice being a necessary property of a true Propitiatory Virtue and efficacy, in prevailing with God for man, it is impossible for any of your Priests (because All are imperfect) to offer up Properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice unto God. None may hereupon oppose unto us the Propitiatory Sacrifices under the Law, because they also were twice imperfect; once in respect of the Sacrificer, who was but a mere man: and secondly, in respect of the matter of Sacrifice itself, which was some unreasonable beast, and had no Virtue of Propitiation in itself, for remission either of guilt, or of the eternal punishment of sin, as hath been * See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 4. Confessed; and therefore not Properly Propitiatory, but Figuratively; only as Types of the Sacrifice of Christ. II. Confutation, from the Romish Definition of a Propitiatory Sacrifice. SECT. II. SEcondly, in your c Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. See above, Chap. 6. Sect. 3. Romish definition, it is required that the Thing propitiatorily sacrificed suffer a Real Destruction, (so that it cease to be in the substance thereof) and a Bodily Consumption. Notwithstanding you are absolutely free from the Blasphemy, to say that Christ his Body doth in the Eucharist suffer properly a Real Destruction. Ergo, say we, by your own Principle there cannot be herein a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory. III. Confutation, from the Apostles Position, against the Vnbloodinesse thereof. SECT. III. THe Apostles Position is this, that Without the shedding of Blood there is no Remission, Heb. 9 22. Your Romish Assumption is; The Sacrifice of the Romish Mass is unbloody. Our Conclusion necessarily followeth, which is this; Ergo, say we, your Masse-Sacrifice cannot be properly Propitiatory. Your Cardinal, in Answering first that the d Loquitur Apostolus de Sacrificijs veteris Legis,— Potest etiam absolutè & genetatim ●ccipi, quod quotiescunque fit remissio; fit sangumis effusio: sed non nisi virture effusionis sive nunc facta, sive post futura. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 25. §. Ad illud. Apostle spoke this of the Sacrifice of the Old Law only, standeth twice convicted of a foul Tergiversarion; first, by the Apostles Explication of himself, who although he spoke from the observation of the Old Testament, Heb. 9 22. yet doth he apply it to the state of the New Testament, in the same Chapter, vers. 13, 14. But much more by his own Conscience, who having spent some Chapters, in proving that the Sacrifices of the Law were Types of the Sacrifice in the Mass, doth now deny that this Proposition of [No Remission of sins without sheedding of Blood] is to be applied to the Eucharist. He is glad therefore to add a second Answer, given by your Maldonate, who finding no security in the former Refuge, betaketh himself to another, saying that e Si accommodemus ad Evangelium, dicendum est, peccata nunc remitti, non propter praesentem effusionem, sed per prae eritam. Maldon. Ies. lib. de 7. Sacram. Tract. de Euch. immediatè ante exitum. Tom. 1. Remission of sins is not now for any present effusion of Blood, but for that effusion which had been. Which Answer (if we may so interpret it) is a plain Prevarication. The Reason may be this; because there was never Bloody Sacrifice (Christ on the Cross excepted, which only was of infinite virtue, as well to times past, as to come) but it was always actually by the Effusion of Blood at the time of Sacrificing. These kinds of so ordinary Doubling and Turn, which your Disputers use, as men in a maze, do plainly Demonstrate either their irresolute judgements, or else their dissolute Consciences; and in either of both their desperate Cause. We have not done yet, but give you further to understand, that as you could find no proper Sacrificing Act, to make your Mass properly a Sacrifice, so neither can ye show any propitiating Act, to make it properly a Sacrifice propitiatory. This we prove out of your Council of Colen, which f Si respicimus corpus Christi, quod continetur in Euch. quis negat esse propitiatorium, non ratione oblationis, quam Sacerdos facit, sed ratione Oblationis factae in cruse? Conc. provinc. Colon. de Missa. fol. 105. And a little after, Non propitiatorium, ratione Sacrificij, quod est situm in actione Sacerdoris, seu Mislae communicantum, aut Ecclesiae: sed ratione Sacrificij, quod in cruse oblatum. Concludeth, that your Masse-Sacrifice cannot be called Propitiatory, in respect of any Act of Oblation of the Priest, or accommodation of the Communicants, or yet of the Church: but only of the Oblation once made by Christ himself on the Cross. Which oblation how absent it is, who seethe not, that is present with himself? Thus were those Divines driven to an Objective Act of Oblation. iv Confutation, from the Romish Disvaluation of that which they call Christ's Sacrifice. SECT. iv THe last is in respect of the value, for Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross you do Christianly esteem to have been of a Mi●um non est, si cum Christus infinitus extitit, ejus hostia suit infiniti meriti & satisfactionis. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 33. pag. 265, 266. Infinite merit and satisfaction, because it was offered by himself, God and man: and that otherwise b Erat infiniti valoris: nec enim aliter potui● compensari injuria Deo facta. Ribera Ies. in Heb. 10. num. 19 He could not have made satisfaction to an Infinite and Divine Majesty. So you. But of the Sacrifice of the Mass, what▪ The common opinion of our Church (saith your c Valour Sacrificij Missae est ●initus. Haec est communis sententia Theologorum: in quo distinguitur à Sacrificio Crucis— quod infinitae virtutis erat, & nunquam rep●titur. Bellarm. Lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 4. §. Quarta Prop. [And yet it is known that Cardinal C●●jetane, Canus, and Scotus were of a contrary opinion:] To this last Testimony of Bellarm●●e add also Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 33. §. Tertiò. Cardinal) is that it is but of finite value. So he. Notwithstanding it be impossible for any thing of finite virtue to have power in itself of remission of an infinite guilt against an infinite Majesty. CHALLENGE. A More palpable betraying therefore of a Cause there cannot be, than (as you have hitherto done) by defending Positions repugnant to your own Definition, and by obtruding things as proper, which are void of all due Properties. This being all one, as if you, in the Case of Miracles, would deliver unto us a jannes' and jambres, in stead of Moses; in Art, Sophistry for Logic; in Commerce, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, adulterate Coin for current; and in warlike stratagems, instead of a natural, a Trojane Horse. Oh what a misery it is to reason with such unreasonable (to speak mildly) men! Thus much of your Romish Sacrifice, according to your own Explanations thereof. CHAP. XI. Of the Romish Application of their Sacrifice. The State of the Question. THat the Eucharist was ordained of Christ, for the Application of remission of sins Sacramentally to all Communicants, is the profession of all Protestants. That the Sacrifice of Christ's Cross is therein offered up Objectively, by Commemoration and Supplication, for all Conditions of men, hath an universal Consent among them, without Exception. But that any substantial Body, as Subjectively contained in the Mass, can be the Sacrifice of applying the merits of Christ for remission of sins, (which is your a Conc. Trid. Vt visibile Sacrificium— quo cr●enti Sacrificij virtus in remissionem peccatorum applicaretur. Sess. 22. cap. 1. Tridentine faith) hath been hitherto impugned and infringed throughout our whole former Dispute. Furthermore our present Opposition is threefold; First, concerning the sins that are said to be remitted. Secondly, touching the parties, who have Remission. Thirdly, in regard of your Priests, by whom Application of Remission of sin is made. I. That the Church of Rome is not yet resolved of the Extent of the Virtue of her Sacrifice of the Mass, for remission of sins or Punishment. SECT. I. NEver can there be any true Application of the Passion of Christ for remission of sins (say we) which is not absolute, but only partial. Your jesuit b Ribera. Ies. Quoniam quotidiè peccamus, quotidiè virtutem passionis Christi participamus, quod Conc. Trid. docuit, quo cruentum illud, semel in cruse peragendum, repraesentaretur, atque saluta●is ejus virtus in remissionem peccatorum ●orum, quae quotidrè à nobis committuntur, applica●etur. Et h●c Catholicis quidem hominibus manifestissimum est, Haeretici negare non possunt, quoniam Scripturae v●rbis apertissimè comptobatur de virtute passionis, ad omnia peccata tollenda, Rom. 3. & 5. [Apoc. 1 1. joh. 2. Com. in Heb. 1. 10. num. 16. Ribera seemeth to come on roundly towards us, and friendly to join hands with us in this point of Application of an absolute Remission of sins, pretending that this was decreed in the Council of Trent, as indeed it seemeth to have been, and that from the Authority of Scripture; and he addeth, that Protestant's (whom he is pleased to grace with the name of * See the last Testimony. Heretics) do not deny this manifest Truth. So he. Do you mark? a Truth, a manifest Truth, a Truth said to be confirmed by your last Council, and a Truth consented unto by the Heretics, as being a manifest Truth. Who would not now look for a Truth universally professed in your Church without all exception? But behold (even since that Council of Trent) your greatly approved Melchior Canus steppeth forth with a peremptory Contradiction, saying, that to hold c Opinio prima. Omnes culpas mortales, & omnia peccata (post Baptismum commissa) per Sacrificium Altaris— sic vult Catharinus— Haec opinio non vera, nisi omnes Theologi fallantur. Canus loc. Theol. lib. 12. pag. 432. 433. All mortal sins to be remitted by the Application of the Sacrifice in the Mass, is false, except all Divines be deceived. So he, speaking of the Divines of the Romish Church. And so may every Papist receive as much remission of his sins by holy Water sprinkled at the Church door, as he can by the Sacrifice at your Mass. Your jesuit Valentia noteth, among you, another sort of Doctors, maintaining that your Masse-Application serveth only for d Valent. Ies. Itaque sunt, qui censeant hoc Sacrificium valere tantùm ad relaxationem poenarum, quarum culpa prius condonata ●uit. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 5. §. Itaque sunt. pag. 542. Remittuntur ve●alia. Costerus Christian. Institut. lib. 1. cap. 8. Remission of such temporal punishment, the guilt whereof was formerly pardoned. So he. CHALLENGE. IF any shall but recollect the Contradictions of your own Doctors, throughout all these former points of Controversy already handled, he will think himself to be among the Fencers called Andabatae, who first blind-folding themselves fell a slashing one another, not knowing whom they hit; therefore we leave them in their broils, and ourselves will consult with Antiquity. That the Ancient Fathers never taught any Application of Christ's Passion, but that which is for a Plenary Remission of sins. SECT. II. Cardinal a Alan. Card. Pro●ijs peccatis, pro quibꝰ Christus mortuus est. Lib. 2. de Eucharist. cap. 35. [Wherein he bringeth the Testimonies of Chrysost. Cyprian, Theoph. and Origen, expounding them of all sins, adding also;] Ego ver● nunquam invenio hujus Sacrificij usum à Patribus ad pauciora restringi peccata, quam ipsa immolatio crucis. Ibid. pag. 626. Alan hath put into our hands a consent of some Fathers, for proof of an Application for remission of all sins, for which Christ died. The Fathers whom he produceth, are these, chrysostom, Theophylact, Cyprian, and Origen. If these will not suffice, you may take unto you these b Calix— sive medicamentum & holocaustum ad sanandas infirmitates, & purgandas iniquitates. Cyprian. de Coena Domini. Vt cum Deo acceptum fuerit peccata dimittantur. August. de Civi●. lib. 20. cap. 25. Omnis nocumenti est reparatio, omnis sortis purgatio. Damasc. lib. 4. de ●ide, cap. 14. Omne crimen Iu●. Papa apu● Gratian de Consecrat.▪ Dist. 2. Vt peccata nostra dimittat. Ambros. lib. 1. de O●●ic. cap. 48. [There might be added ●ustine Martyr, Dial. cum Triphone, Chrysost. Hom. 13. in Ephes. Orig. Hom. 13. in Levit. besides the Liturgies of Basil, and others that are extant.] other, julius' Pope of Rome, justine Martyr, Augustine, Cyril, and Basil. Do you require any more? What needeth it? seeing that the same Cardinal further saith, There is found no Father to the contrary. Thus much of the Application, which is to be made by this Sacrament; the next is, For whom. That the Romish Use of a singular Application of the Sacrifice of the Mass to Non-Communicants, because of their present Attendance, is repugnant to the Doctrine of Antiquity. SECT. III. THe Greek and Latin Churches anciently made up the whole Catholic Church. The Greek pronounced an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Begun, to all Non-Communicants: the Latin Church also ordained, that the Deacon should Proclaim all Not-Communicants to Departed. From which Custom afterwards the word Mass had its Original; namely from the words, [Ite, missa est] as * See above Book 1. Chap. ●. Sect. ●. ●. hath been confessed. But now the Case is so altered, that if any Non-Communicant, being present shall in Devotion apply himself to your Romish Mass, your c Canon Missae (De Applicatione)— & omnium Circumstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est, & nota devotio, pro quibus Tibi offerimus etc. Canon of the Mass provideth that Application of your Sacrifice be made unto him for Remission of sins. And that, as your jesuite teacheth, d Hinc. Suarez Ies. Quia oblatio hujus Sacrificij est fructuosa ex opere operato: ergò rationi consentaneum est, ut omnes, qui ad illum verè concurrunt, vel per proprium actum, seu concursum moralem, participent hujusmodi fructum talis oblationis. In 3. Thom. qu. 83. Art. 1. Disp. 79. §. ●. The Fruit of the Sacrifice [Ex opere operato] redoundeth unto him; and not this only, but also to be e Costerus Christian. Institut. lib. 1. cap▪ 8▪ de sacro Missae officio quotidi● audiendo. Quotquot adsunt & dignè se parant, spiritualiter corpore Domini reficiuntur per os Sacerdotis. Spiritually refreshed by the mouth of the Priest. Be you therefore entreated to lend your Attention, but for an Instant of time, and then tell us whether we speak Reason unto you▪ or no. All Antiquity Catholic (as hath been generally * See Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9 confessed by yourselves) never admitted to that part of the Mass, which you call a Sacrifice, any but such as were prepared to Communicate, by receiving the Sacrament, but shut all others out of Doors; which, we say, they neither would nor could lawfully have done, if they had been of your now Romish Faith, to believe that it is a Sacrifice Propitiatory for all such as devoutly attend to behold it. For, wheresoever there was a Sacrifice of Expiation among the jews, under the Law, all persons had liberty to partake thereof. We think that this Argument sticketh fast in the Bowels of this Cause. That the Romish Church lesseneth the due estimation of Christ's Passion, in her Applying of it to others, for the increasing of falsly-devised and unjust Gain, in behalf of the Priest; without all warrant of Antiquity. SECT. iv HItherto we have expected some Reasons, which might move your Church so to lessen the proportion of Christ's Passion, in the Application thereof for Remission either of sins or punishments. And now at length your jesuite Salmeron cometh to resolve us, saying, a Salmeron Ies. Si hoc esset infiniti valoris, & celebrata esset Missa pro redemptione omnium animarum, quae in expiatorio carcere contiventur, totum evacuaret Purgatorium: quod non est credendum, quia frustrà tot Missae pr●o uno defuncto celebrarentur. Tom. 9 Tract. 33. pa. 268. De Missis privatis. If the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood were of infinite value, than one Mass being said for all the souls in the Dungeon of Purgatory would evacuate and empty the whole place, and then should it be in vain to say many Masses for one soul. So he. We may not so fare digress, as to enter into this Controversy of Purgatory, because we are to finish that which we have now in hand. Else were it easy to show, that the infinite gain, which your Alchemists work out of your forge of Purgatory-fire, hath occasioned this Heterodoxe and graceless Doctrine of disannulling the infinite efficacy of Christ's Blood: which is so utterly forlorn of all Approbation from Antiquity, that your Disputers have not alleged so much as one jota, out of any Father, for warrant thereof. Next, in the Sacrifice of your Mass, there is (say b Valent. Ies. Quaedam portio remissionis competit Sacerdoti ministranti, quaedam ei, cui Sacerdos vult peculiari intentione applicare— Quae intentio non tantum valet pro pluribus, ac si pro uno solo celebretur. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. ult. §. Ac primum. Et Alan. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. Vt qui Sacrificium pro Petro o●●eit, ratione stipendij. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 79. §. 9 pag. 1021. you) a Portion thereof appropriated to the Priest alone, which is a power to apply, by his Memento, the same Sacrifice to whom he will, so fare forth that he extend his Memento upon any one, to whom he shall be pleased to intent it, upon Condition to receive money therefore: insomuch, that It will be more available for that one, than if it were extended to many. So you. Very well, but by what Law came your Priests to this peculiar power of dispensing a Portion for their own advantage? Cardinal c Alan. In certarum personarum Causis certam Sacrificij aestimationem, ●c fructus quantitatem desinire, non tam certa loquimur, quia ad ista particularia nec Scripturae, nec Patres quicquam conferunt. Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. pag. 635. Alan (your Advocate) is ready to answer for you, and we are attentive to hear what he saith; There is not either any Scripture (saith he) or Father showing any such thing, for such a manner of esteeming the fruit of Christ's Sacrifice. So he. In the third place, whiles we are in this speculation, we hear one of you putting this Case. If the Priest shall receive a stipend of Peter, upon Condition that he shall apply his Memento and Intention upon the soul of john, departed this life, and he notwithstanding doth apply it unto the good of the soul of Paul, whether now the Priest's Memento should work for the good of the soul of john, according to the Priest's Obligation upon the Condition made with Peter, or else for the good of the soul of Paul, according to the Priests immediate Intention. Here, although some of you stand for the justice of the d Inquiri potest, an tenetur Sacerdos ex justitia applicare Sacrificium Petro, ratione ab eo accepti stipen●ij; nihilominus applicat Paulo: vel cum jubetur offerre Sacrificium pro tali Defuncto, offered pro se. Quidam dicunt Sacrificium operari in hujusmodi casibus non secundùm voluntatem Ministri, sed secundùm obligationem, quâ tenetur pro hoc vel illo offer. Ali● volunt obligationem tenere— Sed operatur secundùm intentionem Ministri, quatenùs est Christi Minister. Suarez. quo supra. [But your Cardinal,] Sed injustè facere. Alan. quo supra, cap. 35. pag. 640. Priest's Obligation, yet some others Resolution is, that the Priest's intention (albeit unjust) must stand for good. We have done. CHALLENGE. Whereas it is now evident, that your Romish Mass serveth so well for your no small gain, by appropriating of a Priestly portion to be dispensed for some one or other soul for money, as it were the Cook's fee, and that but only for the pains of a Spiritual intention; yea, though it be to the Injury of the Purchaser: It can be no marvel, that we hear so often, and as loud shouts for your magnifying of the Roman Mass, as ever Demetrius, and his fellow Craft-mates made for Diana, the Goddess of the Ephesians. It remaineth, that we deliver unto you a Synopsis of the Abominations of your Romish Sacrifice, which we have reserved to be discovered in the eighth Book. We hasten to the last Examination, which is of Protestant's. CHAP. XII. That the Protestants, in their Celebration, offer to God a Spiritual Sacrifice, which is Propitiatory, by way of Complacency. SECT. I. CAll but to mind our former * See above Chap. 〈…〉. Distinction of a double kind of propitiousness; one of Complacency, and Acceptation, and the other of Merit, and Equivulencie; and join hereunto your own definition of propitiousness by way of gracious acceptance, when you confess that Every religious Act, whereby man in devotion adhereth entirely unto God, in acknowledgement of his Sovereignty, mercy, and bounty, is propitious unto God. Now then, Protestants celebrating the Eucharist with Faith in the Son of God, and offering up to God the Commemoration of his death, and man's Redemption thereby (a work fare exceeding in worth the Creation, if it so were, of a thousand Thousand worlds) and thereby pouring out their whole spirit of Thankfulness unto God (in which respect this Sacrament hath obtained a more singular name than any other, to be called Eucharistia, that is, A Giving of Thanks, and that most worthily, forasmuch as the end and efficacy of Christ's Passion is no less than our Redemption from the eternal pains of hell, and purchase of our everlasting salvation:) All these (I say) and other essential Duties of holy Devotion being performed not according to Man's Invention, as yours; but to that direct, and express Prescript, and ordinance of Christ himself [Do this,] It is not possible, but that their whole complemental Act of Celebration must needs be through God's favour Propitious, and wellpleasing in his sight. Take unto you our last Proposition, concerning the second kind of propitiousness. That the Protestants may more truly be said to offer to God a meritoriously Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of Sin, than the Romish do. SECT. II. BEfore we resolve any thing, we are willing to hear your Cardinal's Determination. The Death of Christ (saith a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 3. Mors Christi est Sacrificium prop iè dictum, & perfectissimum. he) is a proper, and most perfect Sacrifice. So he, most Christianly: But after noting the Profession of Protestants, to hold that the same Most perfect Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross is the only proper Sacrifice of Christian Religion, he denyeth this, because (saith b Bellarm. Ibid. cap. 20. §. Probatur.— Sublato Sacrificio Missae, nullum restat in Ecclesia Sacrificium propriè dictum. Nam si ullum esset, id esset Sacrificium 〈◊〉, illud enim unum▪ Adversarij assignant unicum esse Christianae religionis Sacrificium. At hoc commune omnibus veris Religionibus, sed semel poractum mane●, quoad essectum, & virtutem. he) This is common to all true Religions, and being but once done, ceaseth to be any more, but only in the virtue and efficacy thereof. And all this he doth for establishing of another properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Romish Mass, by the hands of the Priest. But we, believing that That Sacrifice of Christ's death was but once offered as (according to our other distinction) the only subjective, meritorious, and properly- Propitiatory Sacrifice, therefore it ceaseth to be so any more; but yet is still objectively perpetual in the Church of God, as the object of our Remembrance of his Death, Representatively and Commemoratively, both in our Acts of Celebration, and in our Prayers and Praises offered up to God, in the true apprehension of the Efficacy and Virtue thereof. In which respect (as Christian Belief professeth) Christ is called * Apoc. 5. 12. The Lamb slain from the beginning of the world: so is he the same still, and ever will be until the end thereof; for which cause our Celebration is called of the Apostle A showing of the Lords Death till he come. So that as by the Bodily Eye, beholding the * john 3. Serpent on a pole in the Wilderness, they that were stung with the deadly poison of Fiery Serpents were healed; even so All, who by Faith, the Eye of the soul, behold the Son of God lift upon the Cross, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. But what is that propitiousness of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body (will you say) which you Protestants will be said to offer more truly to God, than that we Romanists do, and wherein doth the difference consist? Be you as willing to hear as to ask, and then know, that first although the whole Act of our Celebration, in Commemoration of Christ's Death, as proceeding from us, be a Sacrifice propitious, as other holy Acts of Devotion, only by God's Complacency and Acceptance; Yet the object of our Commemoration being the Death and Passion of Christ, in his Body and Blood, is to us, by the efficacy thereof, a truly and properly propitiatory Sacrifice, and Satisfaction, for a perfect Remission of all sins. Thus concerning Protestants. As for you, if we consider your own outward Acts of Celebration, (wherein in Ten Circumstances we ●inde Ten Transgressions of the Institution of Christ, and therefore provocatory to stir up God's displeasure) we think not that it can be Propitiatory so much as by way of God's Acceptance. Next, when we dive into the mystery of your Mass, to seek out the subject matter of your Sacrifice in the hands of your Priest, which according to the faith of your Church is called a Proper propitiatory Sacrifice in itself; it hath been found (besides our Proofs from Scriptures, and your own Principles) by * See a Synopsis hereof, Book 8. Ten Demonstrations out of Ancient Fathers to be Sacramental Bread and Wine, and not the Body and Blood of Christ. Wherefore the Subject of your Sacrifice can be no more properly (that is, Satisfactorily) in itself Propitiatory, than substantial Bread can be Christ. Lastly, in examining the End of the Propitiation by the Mass, We perceive your Doctors in suspense among themselves, whether you be capable of Propitiation for Remission of sins, or else of Temporal Punishments due to such Sinners; or if of Sins, whether of Mortal sins, or else of Venial sins only: to wit, such as you think may be washed away by your own Holy-water-sprinckle. Mark now, we pray you, these three: First, what you offer, namely not Christ, but his Sacrament. Secondly, by what Acts of Celebration, to wit, most whereof are not Acts of Obedience, but of Transgression. Thirdly, to what End, viz, not for a Faithful, but for a doubtful; not for an absolute, but for a partial Remission, and that also you know not whether of sins, or of punishments: and then must you necessarily acknowledge the happiness of our Protestants profession, concerning the Celebration of the Eucharist, in comparison of your Romish. How much more, when you shall see discovered the Idolatry thereof, which is our next Task. A Vindication of certain Testimonies, alleged in the II. III. IV. and V Books of the preceding Treatise; against the unjust Imputations of one (whosoever). Popishly inspired: To the greater Disadvantage of the Romish Cause, wherein he hath so much laboured. THese kind of Vindications ought not to seem unnecessary to any Reader, who would wish either estimation to the Author, or just advantage to the Cause, when he shall perceive extreme diligence joined with an unstanchable malignancy, in sifting every corner, and weighing every grain. Howbeit that these Exceptions (such as they are) may work both for the Correction of the Print, where it is requisite, and further Confutation of Romish Cavillers; yet I must say unto this Objector (as unto others of his kin) Etiamsi gratiae causâ nihil facis, omnia tamen grata sunt quae facis. Only I wish these his Exceptions had come in due time to my hands, (before the fift, and part of the sixth Book had been reprinted, in this second Edition) that my Answers unto them might have been inserted in their proper places. But now to the objected Testimonies, of which (that in Epiphanius being altered in this second * Pag. 121. Edition) We will take the rest in due order. The first Passage concerneth a Testimony of S. EPIPHANIUS. Alleged in the * Edit. 1. pag. 92. Pag. 120. of this second Edition. TO leave the Objectors verbal Exceptions, because (now) satisfied in the second Edition; and to try that which he thinketh material. His OB. Bellarmine cannot be guilty of that falsity which you impute unto him, of adding to Epiphanius, and making him say: This is to be believed, although it be repugnant to our Senses: for these words [Although they be repugnant to our Senses] he allegeth not as the words of Epiphanius, because he hath them in a different Character. ANSW. It will be sufficient to set down the words of Bellarmine his own, thus; ETIAM ADDIT, (Epiph.) ID ESS● CREDENDUM, LICET SENSUS REPUGNENT; that is, HE (speaking of Epiphanius) ALSO ADDETH, THAT IT IS TO BE BELIEVED, ALTHOUGH IT BE REPUGNANT TO OUR SENSES. How then can it be denied that Bellarmine delivered those words, REPUGNANT TO OUR SENSES, as the words of Epiphanius, hearing Bellarmine himself affirming that they were ADDED by Epiphanius? If I had denied this, I would have given my Objector leave to say, I had been out of my Senses. The Second Passage. Book. 2. * Edit. 1. pag. 95. Pag. 129. TERTULLIAN. OB. I. THe words of Tertullian are these; [Christum corporis sui figuram panis dedisse;] you, instead of [Panis] have Panem, for your Advantage, contrary to the faith of that Edition which you follow of Laur. de la Bar, pag. 180. ANSW. A sore Taxation, which pincheth upon my Fidelity; I shall then give a summary Answer, after that I have received my full Charge. O●. II. Bellar. lib. 2. de Enchar. cap. 7. argueth against Protestants for the words of Tertullian thus; [Those words, saith he, do not signify that Christ gave a Sign of his Body, and not his Body itself.] otherwise he would not have said that Christ [Corporis sui figuram panis dedisse.] How then should it have been, I pray you? OB. III. It should have been [Panis,] or rather [Pani,] as Pamelius (upon that place) hath it. ANSW. So then the Objector hath chosen Pamelius, a learned Commentator, upon the same words of Tertullian, and Romishly professed, for his Arbitrator; and I shall not gainsay his own choice. Pamelius therefore in the very * Edit. Paris. 1580. Edition and page cited by the Objector, ingenuously confesseth saying; TERTULLIANUS DICENS CHRISTUM CORPORIS SVI FIGURAM PANIS DEDISSE; SUBAUDIT, MORE SVO, ACCUSATIVUM. By which words of Pamelius we have gained four Advantages. I. A justification of the sense of the Accusative [PANEM,] as Pamelius showeth. II. A Condemnation of the Objector his Falsehood, who said that Pamelius had it [PANI.] III. A Consutation of Bellarmine, who, because the word was PANIS, and not PANEM, would needs infer that Christ gave not only a Sign of his Body, but the Body itself; whereas Tertullian (saith Pamelius) used the Genitive-case, PANIS, instead of the Accusative, PANEM; how? MORE SVO; that is, AS TERTULLIAN, USED To Do: which plainly showeth that Bellarmine was either ignorant of the style of Tertullian, or rather (if he knew it) guilty of Dissimulation herein, namely, More suo. The Last is a Manifestation of an egregious fondness in them Both, by insisting upon Tertullian's style so rigidly, in the Genitive-case, which in English must needs stand thus: Christ to have given a Sign of his own Body of Bread; which is plainly a Nonsense, as any may perceive; so that I may well conclude, o felix error! of changing the word, PANIS, into PANEM; although it were but by chance, and only to make true Latin, according to ordinary Construction. By occasion whereof, so much Ignorance and Perverseness of the Adversary hath been displayed. The Third Passage. Book. 3. * Edit. 1. pag. 107. pag. 151. CARD. BELLARMINE. IT was affirmed that the first Imposition that Bellarmine could find of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, as a matter of Faith, was about the year 1073. by Pope Gregory the Seventh. OB. Bellarmine said that he would prove against Scotus, that the Fathers taught the same Doctrine. ANSW. Were his proof as faisible, as I hold it Impossible, yet was my Assertion, notwithstanding, most true, because I only spoke of the Imposition of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, as an Article of Faith, upon men's Consciences, not to have been before that forenamed Pope Gregory the Seventh. The Contrary whereof neither he, nor any for him, can show out of any Ancient Father. The Advantage he giveth us, is the bewraying of his own precipitancy. The Fourth Passage. Book. 3. * Edit. 1. pag. 113. Pag. 162. N. CABASILAS. THe Greek Archbishop Cabasilas hath told us, that the Latins of the Romish Church would not endure the Greeks to call the Eucharist, after the Romish Consecration, Bread. The OB. Roman Catholics do commonly allow that it be called Bread, after Consecration. ANSW. I proved from Cabasilas, that they will not endure it: he telleth me, without any proof at all, they do. But if he should eat no bread, until he could find in Romish writers the Commonly naming of the Eucharist Bread, after their Consecration thereof, he within a short time, would be found felo de se. After this the Objector telleth me (which I had taught him before in the first Book) that Cabasilas and the Greeks' hold that the words of Christ's Institution, to wit [HOC EST CORPUS MEUM] are not words of Consecration, and therefore called the Romish Eucharist Bread; and Concludeth, OB. Therefore doth not Cabasila's Testimony avail you. ANSW. It proveth as much as I there assumed to prove: That the Romish would not allow their Eucharist to be called Bread after their Consecration. Our Advantage is to observe your proneness to quarrel, you know not for what. The Fifth Passage. Book. 3. * Edit. 1. pag. 125. pag. 177. IRENAEUS. OB. I. YOu translate it [Even as] to make it a Similitude. ANSW. When I was but a Boy, I then learned to translate SICUT, SIC (which are the words of Irenaeus) EVEN As, So. OB. II. But the Similitude is only for the Change, and not for the manner of the Change. ANSW. Can there be a Change with a SICUT, EVEN As, without a manner of Similitude of Change? One Advantage herein may be this our further Observation, that Irenaeus, as he said of the BREAD Consecrated, that it is NO MORE A COMMON THING, BUT CHANGED INTO AN EUCHARIST (a Sacrament:) saith likewise of the other part of the Similitude, that THE BODIES OF THE COMMUNICANTS ARE INCORRUPTIBLE IN HOPE OF RESURRECTION: meaning, that they are therefore not to be esteemed of in the common Condition of natural Bodies. Our other Advantage will be, to learn the language of the Fathers, as here of Irenaeus, calling the Bodies of the Faithful INCORRUPTIBLE; even here in this life, but meaning, because of the hope of their future Resurrection, when they shall be changed indeed, yet not in Substance, but only in Qualities, from Incorruptibility and Baseness. Even as he meant of the change of this Sacrament, consisting of an Earthly, and an Heavenly part; the Earthly being the Bread Natural; and the Heavenly being the same Sacramental, as betokening and signifying the Body of Christ. The Sixth Passage. Book. 3. * Edit. 1. pag. 124. pag. 178. S. AMBROSE. OB. I. IN citing of Ambrose, you join both his Sentences in one. ANSW. Which is no more Advantage to my Cause, than if I should give this Objector two Sixpences for one Shilling. OB. II. You add [Even as] to make it a Similitude. ANSW. This needed not to have been added, because Ambrose his words cannot be understood of any Reader, but as implying a Similitude. OB. III. Bat your Translation is this [Things changed, remain what they were before:] whereas they should have been rendered verbatim, thus: That those things, which were, be still, and changed into another thing. ANSW. I call for an Oedipus to unriddle this, to say that there is a differencet sense between THE THINGS THAT WERE BE STILL; AND THEY BE STILL THAT WHICH THEY WERE BEFORE, ALTHOUGH CHANGED INTO ANOTHER THING. That is to say, Of Common Elements made Sacred and Sacramental. The Seventh Passage. Book. 3. * Edit. 1. pag. 134. pag. 190 S. AMBROSE. OB. ETiam, A word of great Asseveration, omitted. ANSW. What needed any more Asseveration than the words set down, IPSA NATURA MUTATUR, which I understand to be as asseverantly spoken, as if he had sworn them. OB. II. You say that Ambrose interpreteth his naming of Bread, Christ's Body; by saying afterwards, Corpus Christi Significatur, which is long after. ANSW. It is in the same Chapter, and not long after neither. But this man is as good an Objector as he is an Observer; who doth not know that which is common to all Writers, that what the Author hath spoken somewhat more obscurely before, he explaineth it with words more intelligible, albeit long after. OB. III. But Ambrose said elsewhere [Panis dicitur, sed Corpus appellatur;] It is said to be Bread, but it is called the Body of Christ. So saith he here, Before Consecration it is named Bread, but after Consecration the Body of Christ is signified; here [Significatur] is the same with [Nuncupatur;] Signified is the same with named, or called. ANSW. NAMED AND CALLED are only Appellations of the outward words, whereas [SIGNIFICATA] always import the sense of the same words, whether spoken or read; so that I shall need, for Confutation, no more but to appeal unto the Objector himself to distinguish the office of his cares & eyes, whereby he apprehendeth only words, from the Function of his Brainpan, in judging of their sense and signification. A further Advantage upon this occasion may be had first from another Allegation, of the Objector himself, out of Saint Ambrose lib. 5. de Sacrament. cap. 4. Dixi ante verba Christi panis dicitur; post deprompta Christi verba, non panis dicitur, sed corpus appellatur. We hear that Saint Ambrose proveth, that that, which is called the Body of Christ, was before Consecration that which was called Bread: so that [Hoc] in Christ's speech, must signify Bread, which marreth and dasheth your Romish and literal Exposition of Christ's words (the foundation of all your other errors, concerning Corporal Presence:) to note in Saint Ambrose his judgement, that [Hoc] in Christ's speech betokened Bread, which, in the universal judgement of all Romish Doctors, cannot be attributed to Christ's Body in a literal sense. And Secondly to recognize the Art of Bellarmine (See Book. 2. pag. 125.) in his misalleging the same words of Ambrose, thus; [Post Consecrationem corpus Christi est,] instead of [CORPUS CHRISTI SIGNIFICATUR.] If that there were no more force in the word [SIGNIFICATUR] than in NOMINATUR, why did your Cardinal bogle and startle at it, and utterly dash it out? The Eighth Passage. Book. 3. * Edit. 1. pag. 135. pag. 191. S. CYPRIAN. OB. [NOn effigy sed] is not set down in the Latin sentence of Cyprian, and [Caro Factus est] is left out in the English: both of purpose, as will be thought. ANSW. Neither, I dare swear, on purpose, because both of them are alleged: the first [NON EFFIGY, SED] translated in the English, and [CARO FACTVS EST] expressed in the Latin. Our Advantage now is this, to call to our Readers Remembrance, that he must interpret these words of Cyprian by that his other Saying; namely, that Things signifying are called by the same names, by which things signified are called. The Ninth Passage. Book. 3. * Edit. 1. pag. 135. pag. 191. M. BRERELY. CYprian said: Things Indifferent change their nature after they be commanded. OB. He meant not simply, but after a sort, as the Testimonies show, which he alleged. ANSW. He meant as simply as any Protestant can do, saying a little before the words, A thing of Indifferency, being determinated by the Church, if it be violated, is a sin. What is, if this be not a Change of the Nature, to become (by reason of the Church's Decree) of a thing Indifferent and not sinful, a thing sinful, and therefore not Indifferent. The Tenth Passage. Book. 3. * Edit. 1. pag. 136. pag. 194. JUSTINE MARTYR. OB. YOu make justine say, that he called the Eucharist therefore no common Bread, because it was [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] that is, Sanctified meat. ANSW. And that, I say, millions of Popish Doctors, at the first hearing, would swear, to wit, that the Church of Rome accounteth the matter of the Eucharist, COMMON BREAD, and WINE, before it be Consecrated. Our Advantage is, that the Objector hath brought an whole house, the Church of Rome itself (which you call the house of God) upon his head, by this Exception. The Eleventh Passage. Book. 3. * Edit. 1. pag. 136. pag. 195. S. CYRIL. of JERUSALEM. OB. BEllarmine is taxed of unconscionableness for concluding out of Cyril that the Sacrament is not to be judged by sense; when as the words of Cyril, in the same place, are expressly saying, [It is the Body of Christ; although thy sense tell thee not so, yet let thy faith confirm thee, etc.] ANSW. I have taxed him most justly, not for any mistaking of the words of Cyril, but for wresting and abusing his meaning, Bellarmine believing it was so said of Cyril, as absolutely denying that there can be any trial of the natural Substance of Bread, after Consecration, by the verdict of any of man's senses; whereas Cyril spoke only of the Sacramental nature thereof. This was evidently proved out of Cyril, who affirming Sacred Oil to be no more Bare Oil, after Consecration, as he said of the Eucharist, It was no more mere Wine after it be Consecrated; thereby taught us to judge of both alike. Even as we may say, upon the same reason, that the water of Baptism is, during the use thereof, no mere Water. But why? even because it is Sacramental; and that accordingly we are not to believe our Senses, when we are in Contemplation of this Sacrament, to think it now to be mere Water, but believe it to be of another nature: else our natural eyes and senses shall deceive our Spiritual sight of Faith, in discerning the Spiritual and Mystical meanings thereof. Yea, and in this respect I might have taxed Bellarmine, for inferring from such speeches an absolute denying of the trial, by sense, of the natural part of the Sacrament, because he might have been instructed▪ By the * See Book 2. cap. 1. Sect. 7. Council of Nice, of the meaning of such speeches of the Fathers; that Council saying as much of Baptism, thus, Baptism is not to be considered with the eyes of our Bodies, but of our Minds. All which is to abstract the thoughts of Christian men from all Earthly conceits, when they are conversant in the Celebration of such sacred Mysteries. This we have noted, Book. 3. pag. 207. This also hath occasioned another Advantage against your Roman Faith, by observing in the same place of Cyril another Sentence concerning this Sacrament: Celestial Bread (saith he) sanctifying both Body and Soul. But how both? it followeth, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:] As the Bread is congruous to the Body, so is the word (meaning Christ in his Body) convenient for the soul. What other can be meant hereby, but that calling the Sacrament [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] after Consecration, he acknowledged not any Substantial change thereof; and more demonstrably, because of the Comparison he hath of the Sacramental applying of the Body of Christ to the food of the Soul, as he doth the Sacramental Bread to the nutriment of the Body, and Sanctification thereof, in hope of Resurrection to life, as the Fathers have Commented. The Twelfth Passage. Book. 3. * Edit. 1. pag 132. pag. 298. S. chrysostom. OB. chrysostom is said to be placed in the front of the host of Bellarmine's Fathers, whereas Bellarmine in his Catalogue of Father's De Euchar. lib. 2. citeth twenty Fathers before him. ANSW. If Bellarmine have had other Treatises, in his Controversies against K. JAMES of blessed memory, wherein chrysostom was made the Champion, was this fondness in me to say as I have said, and not rather rashness in this Objector, in thus gainsaying? OB. II. But you have furthermore omitted the words of chrysostom, which in English should be these [Although these things exceed our sense and reason, yet let us hold them without doubting.] ANSW. He telleth me what was omitted, looking directly upon that, but forgot to acknowledge what was expressed out of chrysostom, looking askew and asquint at it. My Translation out of chrysostom delivered his words, in the first part, thus; [ALTHOUGH THE SPEECH OF CHRIST MAY 〈◊〉 STRANGE TO SENSE AND REASON:) which is 〈◊〉 to that which is omitted; Christ's speech exceeds our sense and reason. In the other part was set down these words of chrysostom, [YET LET US BELIEVE HIS WORDS;] Fully equivalent with those which were omitted, [YET LET US RECEIVE CHRIST'S WORDS WITHOUT DOUBTING;] except the Papists will think us to be of their degenerate Faith, Of Believing with doubting. Where you may perceive that your Objector considered not how easy it had been for me (by not omitting some words) to have been superfluous. The Thirteenth Passage. Book. 3. * Edit. 1. pag. 140. pag. 199. SIXTUS SENENSIS. OB. IT is alleged out of Senensis, that he maketh chrysostom to have been the most frequent in Hyperbolising of all the Fathers; But Senensis only saith, that chrysostom did [Interdum] use Hyperboles. ANSW. And I say, Aliquando [seu, INTERDUM] dormitat Homerus: Esto igitur, [INTERDUM:] Although I made it good in the same Section, that he often Hyperbolized, yea even in this very point of the Eucharist. OB. II. Elsewhere Senensis, you say, giveth us a caution against Chrysostome's Rhetoric in this point. ANSW. It is certain that Senensis doth there most especially and by name note chrysostom to Hyperbolise, and his Caution being general, to take heed of his Hyperboles, may be justly applied as well to this, as to that point, there specified in Senensis, according to the Law of Schools; where General rules are appliable to other examples, besides that which is in the Author specified and adjoined to the same Rule. But this man had rather cavil inordinately, by the example of Romish Adversaries, than to be regulated by any rule of reason and moderation. OB. III. Behold you mention Bellarmine, saying that our senses are not deceived in their proper sensible objects; But you forbear to show the many Limitations which he giveth. ANSW. I never held it seasonable to show a man any thing when he would not see it; otherwise the Objector, who hath sought into every corner of all my Say, with purpose to traduce them, could not but have found the same Limitations of Bellarmine punctually set down. Book. 3. cap. 3. Sect. 7. The Fourteenth Passage. Book. 3. * Edit. 1. pag. 141. pag. 200. S. chrysostom. OB. TO the words of chrysostom, [As in Baptism, Regeneration, the thing Intelligible, is given by water, the thing Sensible] you add these words, [The Substance of Water remaining] which are not in the Text; whereof your Lordship is conscious, and therefore most unsufferable. ANSW. I must first say, mala mens, malus animus; or as it is in the English, As you muse, so you use: else would not this Objector have accused me to be Conscious of this, whereas any might have thought, that the words should have been (if the Printer had not mistaken) in a different Character, to distinguish them from the words of chrysostom; because, in the Margin, he was directed to another place, where the full Text of chrysostom was perfectly alleged, without that Addition now objected. ANSW. II. Yet there is no reasonable man, pondering the words of chrysostom, but must justify the Addition of those words of to be most consonant to the meaning of chrysostom (there) speaking of the Water of Baptism. For is there any one of sound brains, that will deny the Water of Baptism, after Consecration, to remain in Substance the same? Besides there hath been produced another Testimony, as out of chrysostom, that Bread, even in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, after Consecration, remaineth in Substance the same. These should the Objector have ruminated upon, before he laid down this Accusation, but that he found they were not for his distemperate palate. The Fifteenth Passage. Book. 3. * Edit. 1. pag. 14●. pag. 201. EUSEBIUS EMISSENUS. OB. YOu refer us to Master Brerely his Liturgy, Tract. 2. Sect. 2. Subd. 2. in the Margin, curtailing the words which should make for Transubstantiation; and making him argue from these words, [Post verba Christi, est Corpus Christi:] And putting upon him so weak an Argument, when as he doth there but only mention the name of Eusebius, referring us to a fuller Sentence, which he citeth out of Eusebius in some few pages following. ANSW. If the Objector had been so courteous as to have looked back to Master Brerely's Allegation of the said Testimony of Eusebius, some few leaves before, pag. 160. as he was curious for (Contention-sake) to urge the words following in some pages after, which he saith are omitted, and concern Transubstantiation, he might have found that Allegation of Master Brerely as I delivered it, Tract. 2. Sect. 2. Subd. 2. [SUBSTANTIA PANIS POST VERBA CHRISTI EST CORPUS CHRISTI.] As for the words following, which corcerne Conversion of Bread, it was beyond the scope which I had then in hand, which concerned only the Enunciative Speeches of Christ (namely of calling Bread his Body) and not the manner of Change thereof; which point notwithstanding is afterwards handled at full in the same Section. Our Advantage from this man's Cavillation is this: That he calleth this manner of Arguing out of the Sentences of the Fathers, Bread after Consecration is the Body of Christ: Ergo, it is meant to be really and Substantially Christ's Body, as it was in the Manger, to be but a [WEAK ARGUMENT,] to the Confutation, and (if the Person of the Objector were of sufficient Authority) to the Confusion of all the Doctors of the Church of Rome, who have held their Arguments taken from the words of Christ, after his taking Bread saying [THIS IS MY BODY] to be the foundation of all their Arguments, for proof of Transubstantiation. ANSW. II. Yet I was much to blame, I confess, in not Answering at all to the objected Testimony of that so bastardly a Book of Homilies, attributed to Eusebius, which the Romish Doctors themselves, of best judgement and estimation, could not until this day tell upon whom to Father it: All confessing that it was not the Book of that Euseb. whose name it beareth: Some affirming, that the Author was Faustus the Frenchman; Some Caesarius; Some Eucherius. And as for the Book itself, they have likewise put upon it the brands of two great Heresies, Arianisme & Pelagianisme. Which taxation and hallucination of our Adversaries may be to themselves, without our Answer, their own Satisfaction, not to think it worthy of Answering. The Sixteenth Passage. Book. 3. * Edit. 1. pag. 143. pag. 202. GREG. NYSSEN. A Summary Answer to this Objection, out of the Testimony of Gregory Nyssen. Although Bellarmine doth not produce the words of Nyssen, yet doth he direct his Reader to Nyssens Treatise of Manna, where the Sentence is, which is alleged by others. Nor can he be excusable, in that, having read the Testimony now objected, he did not thereby perceive that the Father's Sacramental speeches are not to be taken in the rigidity of the words. Our Advantage upon this occasion is, that, our Objectors referring us to the Arguments of Bellarmine, out Greg. Nyssen, it hath caused us to light upon and to examine this which followeth, urged by your Cardinal, for Transubstantiation; where speaking of the [Bread which came down from heaven, and was prepared for us without seed, without tilling, without man's work: Th●s (saith Nyssen) is signified in this Mystery, nor is this an uncorporeall and unbodily thing: for how can a thing uncorporeall and without a Body, be food unto a Body; But that thing which is not uncorporeall, is altogether a Body] Now let us but try the Romish Faith by this Lydian Stone, and we shall find it to be merely counterfeit and base. For ask any of the Romish Disputers, what it is, which in this Sacrament is known to nourish, whether man or mouse? And they answer us that the Accidents of Bread, void of the substance of Bread, is that which is Nutritive. But Greg. Nyssen saith just the ●lat Contrary, [NOTHING CAN NOURISH A BODY BUT THAT WHICH IS A CORPOREAL SUBSTANCE,] which being so spoken, in respect of the Eucharist, proveth infallibly that the Substance of Bread remaineth in this Sacrament after Consecration; if so, then, in the universal judgement of all the Doctors of the Church of Rome, there can be no Transubstantiation. The Seventeenth Passage. Book. 4. * Edit. 1. pag. 149. pag. 212. TERTULLIAN. OB. I. THe word [Bread] is added. ANSW. No, but truly related, and that by the Authority of Tertullian himself, whose former words are, Christ distributed [PANEM, BREAD,] to his Disciples, faciens [ILLUM, that is, making IT, his BODY, THAT IS, A FIGURE of his BODY.] There is no Schoolboy, that knoweth his Grammar, which will not say that the Relative, IT, must be referred to the Antecedent, BREAD. And of this, IT, do depend all the words following. OB. II. The words of Tertullian being these [Christ said▪ This is my Body, that is, a figure of my Body:] you put in, [IS,] saying That is, It [IS] a figure of my Body, which will be complained of. ANSW. I answer therefore, not to trouble his brains with Grammar-learning, which teacheth the Particle [IS] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to agree with that which followeth; but to deal with him by an example, to make his fondness more palpable. Can any man at the first sight of an Ivy-bush, say, This is a Tavern, THAT IS, A Sign of a Tavern, and not mean that it [IS A SIGN] of a Tavern? OB. III. Your Adversaries will complain of this, seeing they are persuaded that this is not spoken of a figure actually present, but perfectly passed. ANSW. God send me always such Adversaries, who in their greatest subtleties bewray their extremest ●o●tishnesse, in complaining of my [IS] in the Present-●ense, and in requiring the sense of the time perfectly passed; as if Tertullia● had said thus, Christ said this is my Body, [THAT IS, IT WAS] a figure of my Body. Here have we just reason to reflect upon this Objector with that Saying, Risum teneatis amici? Yet the Objector (lest we might think him not to Insanire cum ratione) yieldeth this Reason, why it should be meant of the time passed, before the coming of Christ. OB. IU. Because of the words immediately following, [Figura autem non fuisset, nisi esset veritatis corpus:] show that the word, [Figure,] was not taken representatively, but Typically. ANSW. When Tertullian spoke only narratively, by repeating the words of Christ, he must needs speak in the tense and time when Christ uttered them, when he said [IT IS MY BODY, THAT IS, IS A FIGURE OF MY BODY,] But after speaking Enunciatively, with the Relation from his own time when he wrote, to the time of Christ's Speech, which was the distance of three hundred years, he could not but use the time perfectly passed, saying, [It had not been a figure] namely, when Christ called it his Body, [except, etc.] The Argument of Tertullian, taken from those words of Christ, stands thus: Christ in the Sacrament gave a figure of his Body; But a figure is not a figure of a figure, therefore Christ gave a figure of a True Body. Let us consult again with Tertullia's words of Exposition, [IT HAD NOT BEEN A FIGURE, EXCEPT THERE HAD BEEN THE TRUTH OF HIS BODY:] But Christ's Body had no TRUTH of BEING before his Incarnation and time of his existence in the Flesh; and therefore [FVISSET] extended not unto any Type, which had been before Christ's being on earth. Wherefore this [HADDIT] of Tertullian, I hope, will put this Objector to his Non putabam, or Had I witted. Our Advantages occasioned by this Accusation are great, and divers: One is to discern more clearly the then-Catholike Doctrine in the days of Tertullian. Next to observe the stupid insatuation of our Romish Adversaries. The Last will be to display an Heresy in the Article of the Church of Rome, that teacheth an absolute absence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament. For if it were condemned by Tertullian, in the Marcionites, to teach that Christ had no true, but a Fantastical Body, notwithstanding all the Demonstrances of sense, Eating, Weeping, Sleeping, Bleeding; and of the Apostles feeling him: How shall not the Romish Doctrine of a No-Existence of Bread in the Eucharist, notwithstanding the Contradiction of Smelling, Seeing, Feeling, and Tasting it, be a welcome Patronage and Sconce to the former Heresy of denying the Verity of Christ's Body? THE SEVENTH BOOK, Concerning the last Romish Consequence, derived from the depraved sense of the words of Christ, [THIS IS MY BODY;] which is your Divine Adoration of the Sacrament; contrary to these other words of Christ, [IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.] CHAP. I. We have hitherto passed thorough many dangerous and pernicious Gulfs of Romish Doctrines, which our instant haste will not suffer us to look bacl upon, by any repetition of them. But now are we entering upon Asphaltites, or Mare mortuum, even the Dead Sea of Romish Idolatry; whereinto all their Superstitious and Sacrilegious Doctrines do empty themselves: which, how detestable it is, we had rather prove, than prejudge. The State of the Question, concerning Adoration of the Sacrament SECT. I. IN the thirteenth Session of your Council of Trent, we find a Decree commanding thus, a Concil. Trid. Cultum Latriae; qui vero Deo debetur, in veneratione huic Sacramento exhibeant. Sess. 13. cap. 5. Let the same divine honour, that is due to the true God, be given to this Sacrament. After this warning Piece, they shoot off a great b Si quis dixerit in hoc Sacramento unigenitum Dei filium cultu Latriae non esse adorandum, Anathema sit. Ibid. Can. 6. Canon of Anathemae, and Curse against every one that shall not herein worship Christ (namely, as corporally present) with Divine honour. That is to say, c Suarez Ies. Adoratione Latriae absolutà, & perfectâ, quâ per se adoratur Christus— Non solùm Christum sub speciebus, sed totum visibile Sacramentum unico Latriae cultu, quia est unum constans ex Christo & speciebus— sicut vestis— Magna est differentia inter has species & crucem, quae reipsa disjuncta est à Christo. In 3. Tho. q. 79. Disput. 65. §. 1. & 2. To adore with an absolute divine worship the whole visible Sacrament of Christ, in the forms of Bread and Wine, as your jesuit expoundeth it; A worship (saith he) fare exceeding that, which is to be given to the Crucifix. Whereupon it is that your Priests are taught, in your d Missale Rom. Sacerdos prolatis suis verbis [Hoc est corpus meum, etc.] hostiam elevat, eamque adorat— adorandamque ostendit— post genu flexo ad terram usque ipsam veneratur. Ritus celebrandi Missam. Post genuflectu, inclinatur Sacramento pectus ter percutiens, dicit, Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi miserere nobis, etc. Canon. Missae. Roman Missal, to elevate the Consecrated Host, and to propound it to the people to be adored; and adoring it themselves, in thrice striking their breast, to say, O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. ⚜ Besides your other Precations, as thus: 1 Cornel. Loose Calli●ius Duel. Fid. & Rat. in sine. Adhibetur Precatio coram venerabili Sacramento Eucharistiae, ex Thuribulo aureo Sanctarum Precationum, lib. 2. cap. 7. Catholicâ Fide coram te, Domine jesu, prostratus, Te sub consecrati Panis specie latentem, sed verè & corporaliter sub eadem existentem, adoro.— Hic igitur Te Deum adoro, quem sub corporis tui praesentia subsistentem credo. Da mihi Domine. jesus, qui omnis gratiae Fons es. I, in a Catholic faith, being prostrate before thee (Lord jesus) adore thee God, whom I believe to be corporally present under the forms of Bread and Wine. ⚜ So you. But what do they, whom you call Sacramentaries, judge of this kind of worship, can you tell? e Bellarm. Omnes Idololatriam appellant hujusmodi adorationem. Lib. 4. de Eucharist. cap. 29. §. Porrò. All of them (saith your Cardinal) call it Idolatry. But they, whom you call Lutherans, are they not of the same judgement? say, f Gregor. Valent. Lutherani nos Idololatras vocant, seu (ut ipsi nugari solent) Artolatras. Lib. 1. de Idololat. cap. 3. §. Sed. They call us (because of this worship) Artolaters, that is, Bread-worshippers and Idolaters, saith your jesuite. As for our Church of England, She accordingly saith, that The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. Our Method must now be to treat first of Christ's Institution, or Mass; next of the Profession of Ancient Fathers; then of your Romish Mass in itself; and lastly we shall return again to our own home, to demonstrate the happy Security, which our Church hath in her manner of worship. So that these contradictory Propositions, This Sacrament is to be adored with divine worship, and, Is not to be adored with divine worship, being the two different scales of this Controversy, the one will preponderate the other, according to the weight of Arguments, which shall be put into either of them. Of the Institution of Christ; showing that there was therein neither Precept for this Adoration of the Sacrament, nor Practice thereof. SECT. II. NO outward Adoration of the Sacrament was practised of the Disciples of Christ (say we) at the Institution thereof, which you confess with us; and take upon you to give a reason thereof, to wit, that g Caster Ies. Nec opus erat ut genu slexo significationem novam honoris darent, sumentes corpus dominicum, quià eundem habebant praesentem, & corpus suum porrigentem, quem ment semper colebant. Enchir. de Euch. Tit. Adoratio, Answering this Objection: Apostoli in ultima coena hoc Sacramentum non adorabant. There was no need that the Apostles should use any outward signification of honour to the Sacrament, because they had then Christ present and visible before them So your jesuite, which contradicteth your own Objection, of therefore adoring Christ in receiving the Sacrament, because than he * See hereafter Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Cometh under the roof of your mouths; for the nearer our approach is to any Majesty, the greater useth to be our outward humiliation. But well; no Practice of outward Adoration by the Apostles at that time can appear, much less have you any Evidence of any Precept for it. If there had been in the words of Christ, or in the volume of the New Testament any syllable thereof, your Cardinal would not have roaved so fare as to Deuteronomie, in the Old Testament, to fetch his only defence out of these words of God, h Bellarm. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 29. Scriptum est Deut. 6. Dominum tuum adobis, etc. §. His praemissis. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God; (supposing that the Bread which is worshipped is indeed the Son of God:) which is, as it were, mere Canting being the basest kind of Reasoning that can be, and is therefore called of Logicians, A begging of the point in Question. We contrarily adhere to the Institution of Christ in all points necessary, and essential thereunto, and knowing that the Apostle promised to deliver * 1 Cor 11. Whatsoever he had received of the Lord, concerning this Sacrament (which you hold to be the principal part of your Romish Religion) we are persuaded that h●e in expressing the other Commands of Christ, touching Consecration, Administration, and Communication of this Sacrament, never taught that your Article of divine Adoration, whereof he gave not so much as the least intimation. The Apostolical times fail you. We shall try if the next, called the Primitive Age, can any whit advantage your Cause, which is our second Station. CHAP. II. Of the Doctrine of Antiquity, concerning the Adoration of the Eucharist. SECT. I. THe judgement of Antiquity is objected by you, and the same is opposed by us against you. Let both be put to the Trial; First, by answering of your Objections out of the Fathers against us: and then by opposing their direct Testimonies against you. Your Objections are partly Verbal, and partly Practical; the Verbal are of three kinds, two whereof are specified in the next Proposition. That neither the objected manner of Invitation to come with Fear, nor of Association of Angels, spoken of by the Fathers, imply any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist. SECT. II. Out of a Chrysost. in Homaed Cor. 24. Cum horrore accedamus ad Deum. Ob. Harding, etc. Item Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 22. Citatis locis quibusdam Chrysostomi, ad haec Adversarij neque respondent, neque respondere possint: Sienim Angeli ad altare astant capitibus inclinatis, & cum horrore ac tremore vix audent intueri, propter splendorem indé emicantem, quis negare potest aliud ibi esse quam panem? Et si angeli adorant, quis homines reprehendere potest si adorent? Paulò superius ex Hom. 41. ad Corin. Accedimus ad agnum illum jacentem, & peccata mundi tolentem deprecantes: ubi apertissimè dicit vocari agnum jacentem, etc. Et Hom ad Ephes. 3. Hostiam quam Angeli cum 〈◊〉 more suscipiunt. chrysostom is objected his Exhortation, that Christians in their approach to this Sacrament, Do come with horror, fear, and reverence. Next, is their talking of the Angels, being present at this Celebration, holding down their heads, and not daring to behold the excellency of the splendour, etc. and to deprecate the Lamb lying on the Altar. These seem to your Cardinal to be such invincible Testimonies, to prove the Adoration of Christ as Corporally present, that he is bold to say, They never hitherto were answered, nor yet possibly can be. So he; taking all Chrysostom's words in a literal sense; whom notwithstanding your own * See above B. 3. Cham 4. Sect ●. in the Challenge. Senensis hath made to be the most Hyperbolising Preacher of all the Fathers: and therefore hath given unto all Divines a special Caution against his Rhetoric, in the point of this Sacrament, lest we understand him literally. Of which kinds you may have some Instances out of the very places objected, where b Chrys. Orat. in Philogon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem paulò superius. chrysostom saith indeed, That we see that Lamb lying on the Altar. And said he not also, even in the same Oration, We see here Christ lying in the Manger, wrapped in his clouts; a dreadful and admirable spectacle? So he. But (say) do you see herein either Cratch or Clothes? or can you talk of Christ's lying on this Altar, who teach, that as he is in this Sacrament, he hath no local Site, Posture, or Position at all? It is also true of the Angels, he said [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] they stand in dread, and the sight is fearful. And he saith no less of the Festival 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 Corporal Presence of Christ, in respect of the day. This Answer, taken from chrysostom, may satisfy for chrysostom. We grant furthermore to your c Bellar. lib 2 de Missa, 〈◊〉. 15. § Quinto— Omnes Graeci Patres passim vocant terribile Sacrificium, & horroris plenum. Cardinal, That all the Greek Fathers call the Eucharist terrible, and full of dread. But what? As therefore implying a Corporal presence of Christ, and Divine Adoration thereupon? This is your Cardinal's scope; but to prove him an ill marksman, take unto you an answer from yourselves, * See above, Book 5. Cham 2. Sect. 4. who teach with the Apostle, that All profane comers to this Sacrament make themselves guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ; in which respect we do acknowledge it to be Dreadful indeed, especially to the 〈◊〉 yet making no more for a Corporal presence, than the contempt of Baptism, whereby a man maketh himself obnoxious to God's judgements, (as * See above B. 5. Chap 2. Sect 3 Augustine hath compared them) can 〈◊〉 same. Another answer you may receive from Ancient Fathers, who, together with the Eucharist, have * See above B. 6. Chap 5 Sect 8. called the reading of Scriptures Terrible; and so were the Canons of Baptism called Terrible, even by * Ibidem. chrysostom himself. 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 Faithful, and Baptism will plead for the same honour: your Durandus granting of the first, that d Durand Angeli ad●uur semper nobis orantibus. Lib. 7. cap. 12. The Angels of God are present with us in our Prayers; and for the second, Divine Nazianzen teacheth that e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 40 de Baptismo The Angels are present at Baptism, and do magnify (or honour) it with their presence, and observance: notwithstanding none of you ever defended either Corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Baptism, 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 baptised, f August. de meritis & de 〈…〉 Christum portantur. They (saith he) with fear are brought unto Christ their Physician, that is (for so he expoundeth himself) unto the Sacrament of eternal Salvation. Which one Saying of so Orthodox a Father doth instru● us how to interpret all your objected Testimonies; to wit, that Whosoever come to the receiving of the Sacrament of Christ, they ought to come with fear, 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 lose tow. Now to your third Objection. That the most earnestly-objected Phrase [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and Adoration, used of the Fathers, doth not necessarily infer any Divine Worship of the Eucharist. SECT. III. We find not your Disputers more pressing and urgent in any Argument, than in objecting the word, Reverence, Honour, and especially Adoration, for proof that Divine Honour is due to the Eucharist, as to Christ himself, whensoever they find the use of that Phrase applied by Antiquity unto this Sacrament. Our answer is first in general; 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 hear yourselves speak. a Mr. Brerely. Pontificales vestes, & calices coeperunt esse honorandi, Sacramenti causâ. Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 8. Subd. 2. The Pontifical Vestments, Chalices (and the like) are to be honoured, say you, but how? with divine honour? you will nor say it; nor will you hold our ancient Bede worthy of Divine worship, albeit you entitle him Venerable, in a Religious respect. Yea (under the degree of Divine worship) we ourselves yield as much to the Eucharist, as b August. Epist. 164. Baptismum Christi ubique veneramur. Augustine did to Baptism, when he said, We reverence Baptism wheresoever. Accordingly of the word, Adoration, your Cardinal and other jesuites are bold to say, that c Ribera Ies. in Apoc. 19 Item Viegas Ies. in eundem locum. Nec nos moveat verbum hoc [Adorare] cum vulgatum sit hoc creaturis tribui, ut Loth cum vidisset Angelos surrexit, & adoravit eos pronus in terram. 3. Reg. 1. Inclinabat se & adorabat Bersheba Regem prona in terram. Rectè igitur Iohannes adoravit Angelum laeta nunciantem; Cur Angelus recusavit? Gregor. Hom. 8. in Evan. Angelo's antè adventura Christi adoraton, post assumptam humanitatem adorationem recusasse. Eodem modo Glossa, Hugo, Rupertus, & alij nonnulli, etc. So Suarez Tom. 1. Disp. 54. & Bellarm. Hieronymus non ignorabat Adorationis multa genera, & aliam soli Deo, aliam rebus deberi sacris. Apol. c. 1. § Primum. [And hereckoneth Adoration of Relics, Tombs of Martyrs, etc.] 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 conceal this Truth, yet would the Fathers themselves inform us in what a Latitude they used the same word, Adoration. Among the Latin Fathers, one, who knew the propriety of that Language as well as any, viz. Tertullian, saying, d Adoro plenitudinem Scripturarum. Adversus Hermog. post medium. pag. 350. I adore the plenitude of Scriptures; and Gregory Nazianzene, among the Greek, for his excellency in divine knowledge, e Greg. Nazian. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 40. surnamed the Divine (and therefore may not be thought to apply words belonging to Divine worship preposterously or improperly) instructed the party baptised to say thus to the Devil, Fall down [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and worship me. Thus much in General. Let us proceed, You to your particular Objections, and We to our Answers. I. Ob. Ambrose saith, that f Ambros. lib. 3. de Spirit. sanct. cap. 12. tractans illum locum Psalm. 98. [Adorate Scabellum pedum ejus.] Per Scabellum terra intelligitur, per tertam autem caro Christi, quam hodiè quoque in mysterijs adoramus: & quam Apostoli in Domino jesu adoraverunt. Ob. 1. per Bellarm. Apol. cap. 8. pag. 107. Hic locus nullam admittit solutionem. Item lib. 2. de Euchar. cap. 14. We adore in these mysteries the flesh of Christ, as the footstool 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 mystical 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 Godhead, which all Christians profess as well as you, yea even in Baptism also. II. Ob. g August. in Psalm. 98. Nemo illam earnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit. Ob. Bellarm. Alius locus insignis. Lib. 2. de Euchar. cap. 24. §. Alius. 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 judgement of Saint Augustine, who hath everywhere distinguished between the Sacrament and Christ's Flesh, as between Bread and Christ's Body, as hath been often demonstrated. His meaning therefore is no more but this, that whosoever shall communicate of this Sacrament, the Symbol of Christ must first be a true Christian, believing that Christ is not only 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 h 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edit. Paris. 1027. 〈…〉, speaking of Baptism, saith that The Catechumenists do adore the Father and the Son, but they are not perfect before they are baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So Athanasius. Consider the words well, the Catechumenists are said not to be perfect, before they are baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whom they adore. Therefore did they first adore the Persons, in whose names they were baptised: except some will feign a Christian Catechumenist to be admitted to holy Baptism before he believe and profess that he believeth; which is the Adoration of the Blessed Trinity. And is there any of your Priests so unchristian, as not to adore Christ, before he come to the Communion? A plain Case. ⚜ Notwithstanding, were it that the Adoration, above objected out of Saint Augustine, should refer to the time of the Celebration of the Eucharist; yet will he not admit of any other Veneration therein, then what may be held as well in the Sacrament of Baptism; he requring that in both these the 2 August. de doctrine Christia lib. 3. cap. 8. 〈…〉 intelligit, non hoc veneratur quod videtur & transit, sed illud portius, quô 〈◊〉 cuncta referenda suit— Paulo post; Sicut est 〈◊〉 Sacramentum & celibratio Corporis Christi, quae un●squisque cûm percipit quo referantur imbutus agnoscit, ut ea non cornali servitute, sed spirituali 〈◊〉 libertate ven●●etur.— Vt 〈…〉 & sign 〈◊〉 significatis 〈…〉. Veneration be not applied to the Sacrament itself, but to the things signified thereby. Which Doctrine of Saint Augustine may serve for an 〈◊〉 as against all other Idolatrous infections, so against your Objection, taken from the false conceits of Pagans; as if they had approved of the false Adoration used by Christians, thinking that they had adored the Sacrament, as they themselves * See above Book 5. Chap. 6. Sect. 3. adored Ceres and Bacchus. But those godly Christians (you know) did not adore the Bread and Wine: Therefore could not this be appliable to the matter in Controversy. ⚜ Will you have any more? The places alleged out of Saint Augustine, by you, are like Bellerophon's Letters, to confute you; for lest Saint Augustine's Reader might misconstrue the meaning of Christ's words, by perverting them to a Corporal and Oral eating of his Flesh, a August. in 〈◊〉 98. Non hoc corpus quod videris munducaturi estis— spiritual ter intellectum vivisic wit. Saint Augustine addeth (bringing Christ speaking to the jews, concerning the eating of his ●lesh) You are not to eat this flesh, which you see: he saith not, You are not to see the flesh which you shall eat, (which is your Romish juggling:) But thus, You are not to eat the flesh which you see, namely that, which then was visible when Christ was in the world. This one Testimony of Augustine may satisfy for the present, until another shall be delivered from him absolutely * See 〈◊〉 Chap. 4. Sect. 2. confuting your Tridentine Faith of the Divine worship of the Host, to prove it Idolatrous. ⚜ II. Ob. Ambrose furthermore requireth, that the Communicant come with Fear, and a mind knowing that 3 Dr. Heskins in his Parlium Book 3. Chap. 57 out of Ambrose. Devoto animi & cum timore accedendum ad Communionem docet, ut sciat mens reverentiam debere ei, ad cujus corpus ●umendum accedit. he oweth reverence to him, whose Body he cometh to receive. Which words your Doctor calleth Plain terms. Sol. And so indeed they are, for proof of an Adoration to Christ, who is spiritually received in our receiving this Sacrament: ●ut not to the Sacrament itself, as unto the very person of Christ. Yea, and the same Reverence we also profess to be likewise due unto Christ, even in the hearing of his holy word. ⚜ III. Ob. Theodoret seemeth unto you to come off roundly, saying that b Theod. Dial. 2. Signa mystica post sanctificationem manent in priore substantiâ, figurâ, & formâ, sicut prius: Intelliguntur autem ea, quae facta sunt, & creduntur: [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] adorantur. Ob: Bellarm. lib. 2. de Euchar. cap. 27. § Sed apertissimè— As●●●t praesentiam Domini in Eucharistia, quia panis consecratus est verè id quod intelligitur, creditur & adoratur. Symbols and Signs are believed and adored, whereby he most evidently teacheth the presence of Christ's flesh (as saith your Cardinal:) even so, as commonly he useth to do in alleging of other Testimonies, both unconscionably against his knowledge, and unluckily against his Cause. For with what Conscience can he urge the word Adoration here, as most evidently noting a Divine worship of the Sacrament, seeing that he hath before confessed the same word, Adore, to be used of the Fathers, sometimes for worship communicable to Angels, & Saints, and to their Tombs? yea, and when as also Theodoret (which proveth your Cardinal's Objection luckless) doth expressly say, that The substance of Bread remaineth, meaning absolutely the proper substance of Bread (as hath been * See this discussed to the full. Book 3. copiously proved) whereunto no Divine worship can be lawfully given, not only in the Faith of all other Catholic Fathers; but even in the belief of the Roman Church at this day? And although the Symbols, and Signs (as you fancy) were mere Accidents, yet dare not you yourselves say that they are to be properly adored with Divine Worship. Hitherto have we insisted upon the words objected out of the Fathers, by you, with more eagerness, than either with good judgement or Conscience. Your next Objections are taken from their Acts, whereunto we address our Answers. CHAP. III. That not objected Act out of the Fathers, for proof of an Invocation by Divine Adoration of the Eucharist, is conscionably alleged; not the first, which is their prescribed Concealment of this Mystery. SECT. I. ACts insisted upon by you, for proof of Adoration; are these; The Father's enjoining a Concealment of this Mystery from some others: their Elevation of the Host after Consecration: their cautelousness in administering it, without letting any part thereof fall to the ground: their Bodily Gesture in token of Humiliation; and their pretended Invocating on it. We acknowledge (that we may begin with the first) how strictly often times the Ancient Fathers generally prescribed to others, (which they observed themselves) that this Mystery should be kept secret from all persons, who were not initiated by Baptism, and incorporated thereby into the visible Church of Christ, were they Infidels or Catechumenists (that is) unbaptised Christians. Upon this our Confession, as the Base, harken what a discant your Doctors can chant, saying as followeth; a Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 2. ciiat Augustin Serm. 10. de verbis Apostol. viz. Quod corpus dixit escam, & sanguinem potum, Sacramentum fidelium agnoscunt fideles— Be hanc phrasin [nôrunt fideles] habet in locis infinitis: at profectò non est fidelibus tantùm notum, quòd corpus Christi fide percipiatur. Idem. Objicit Claudius de Sanctes ante lib. de Liturgijs patrum. Rursus Bellar qui sup. cap. 15. At certè nulla reddi potest causa, cur Eucharistiam ne videri quidem permitterent Infidelibus, vel etiam Catechumenis, si nihil est nisi signum. The Fathers said of this mystery of the Eucharist that only [Fideles nôrunt] the Faithful know it: and therefore we must be persuaded they understood a Corporal Presence of Christ herein; and consequently a Divine Adoration due unto it. Master Brerely swelleth big, in amplifying this Objection; take a brief of the whole. The Father's professing to write more circumspectly of this Sacrament, so as not daring to explain it, as Theodoret, Origen, Augustine, chrysostom; this were causeless, if the Fathers had thought Christ's words figurative: nor had it been more necessary in this than in Baptism, had the Fathers acknowledged no other presence in this, than in Baptism, etc. So he; and so also your Irish 1 Mr. M●llon in his Reply, pag 221. jesuite. Well then, by your own judgement, if it may be found that the Eathers observed a like Circumspection in the manner of uttering, and cautelousness in concealing the Sacrament of Baptism from Infidels and Catechumenists; then must you confess that this your Argument maketh no more for proof of a Corporal Presence in the Eucharist, as you would have it, than in Baptism, where you confess it is no. And now behold the Fathers are as precise in concealing the Mystery of Baptism, from all persons unbaptised, even in as express terms as was spoken of in the Eucharist; chrysostom saying, (against such Persons) b Chrysost. in Gal. 4. Non natura, sed Dei promissio Sacramentum fecit: sic renascentia nostra natura quidem nulla est, caeterum verbum Dei, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The faithful know this. And again, entering into a discourse of Baptism, he prefaceth saying; c And again in 1. Cor. Hom. 40. about to entreat of the words of S. Paul, [Quid facientij, qui baptizantur pro mortuis? [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ⚜ And yet again, in joh. 85. Hom. 33. joining that Contemplation of Baptism and of the Eucharist together, he saith; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. id est, Initiati. ⚜ I would indeed speak this plainly, but I dare not, because of them that are not initiated, or Baptised. ⚜ Basil also, speaking of the Rites of Baptism, saith that 2 Basil. de Spir. Sanct. Cap. 27. Consecrare oleum unctionis, hominem ter mergi, renuntiare Satanae, & reliqua etiam in Baptismo, unde habemus? nonnè ex antiqua traditione? nonnè ex doctrina, quam Patres in silentio, quod curiosos & otiosoes submovet, seruârunt? The Ancient Fathers (before his time) left them in silence; and preserved them from curious and idle men. ⚜ And Dionysius, the supposed Areopagite, d Dionys. Hierar. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let none that is not a perfect Christian be admitted to the sight of the signs of Baptism: even as the Council e Con●. Arau●●●n. 1. Catechumeni non sunt ad Baptismum admittendi. Can. 19 Arausicanum also decreed. Which Cautions are long since antiquated by disuse in Churches Christian, because all are now baptised that come to behold this Sacrament. If hereupon any Protestant shall infer a Corporal Presence of Christ in Baptism, and consequently an Adoration of Christ in the same Sacrament, you yourselves (we know) would but hisse at him, in detestation of his Consequence, as judging it Idolatrous. But do you ask, why then the Fathers did teach Christians not to speak of these Mysteries in the hearing of the Catechumenists? Saint Augustine himself (whom your Cardinal hath brought in for defence of Corporal Presence) will resolve us, and witness against him, telling him, not that the reason was the sublimity of the matter, as though they could not apprehend it, but because f Aug. Tom. 9 Tract. 〈◊〉 in joh. Quid si eis fidelium Sacramenta non producuntur, non ideo fit, quod ea ferre non possent, sed ut ab 〈◊〉 tantò ardentiùs concupiscantur, quantò honorabilius eis occultantur. [Speaking of the Catechumenists.] The more honourably the Sacraments are concealed (speaking in general) the more ardently they would be coveted and desired. As for their not revealing them unto Infidels, the reason is evident; Infidelity is a mocker, and they meant to preserve Christ's Sacrament from contempt. Thus your most specious Objection serveth for nothing more than to prove your Disputers to be wonderfully precipitant in their Arguing. That the objected Elevation, or lifting up of the Host, and preserving of it from falling, are no Arguments of Divine Adoration. SECT. II. SEcondly, the Elevation of the Host over the head of the Priest is your ordinary Objection, for proof of a Divine Adoration; although you have * Suarez. See above Book 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 5. at (a.) confessed, that this was not of prime Antiquity. But supposing Elevation to have been so ancient, yet was it not to the end it should be adored, no more than was the Book of the Gospel, in the Roman Church, when it was (according to the Rite then a Durant. de Ritib. lib. ●. cap. 23 num. 7 In ordine Romano Diaconus osculans Evangelium, levat in manus codscem, & partem ejus in dextro humero ponens, vadit ad Ambonem. Lift up by the hands of the Deacon, and carried on his right shoulder. What else will you say of the Priest's elevation? you would persuade (in the b Idem de Ritibus l. 2. cap. 40. in Psal 71. In capite montium: hoc est (ait Rabbi jonathan) Sacrificium in capitibus Sacerdotum. Durand. Rational. lib. 4. cap. 42 num. 54. Elevatu●. ut populus congreslus consecrationem factam esse, & Christum super Altare venisse reverenter prosternatur in terram, & illum ore adóret. Et Durant. quo supr. Adorationis ergo Eucharistiam in altum attolli, Durandus & Ivo asserunt, Probabile est. Margin) by some, that the Priest lifting the Host over his head, was prophesied of by the Psalmist; And, that the Rite of holding the Host up was chief, that the people knowing it to be now consecrated, should understand that Christ is on the Altar, whom they are to adore by falling down on the ground. Whereof albeit some of you speak more confidently, yet the most principal searcher into Antiquity dare say no more, than only This is probable. We contrarily conceive, 1. that that Rabbinish interpretation can be no good ground to rest upon, which * See above, B. 3. hath been rejected by Bellarmine, as being idle and frivolous. 2. That the Ceremony of Elevation (as hath * See above, B. 6. Chap. 4. Sect. 5. been confessed) was neither instituted by Christ, nor yet always in use in Christ's Church. 3. That the same Elevation, albeit used after Consecration, doth not so much as Probably prove it was for Adoration-sake, because it was aswell in use in your lifting up of the Host before Consecration; as your objected c Missals published by Claudius saints a Parisian Doctor, before Consecration, in the Missal of S. james, Attollens: In the Mass of Basil. Exaltans panem. Missals of Saint james, and Basil do manifest. Lastly, that where Elevation was practised after Consecration, the objected Authors confute your Assertion, for in chrysostom (if we should grant unto you the whole Liturgy to be his, which the best learned Grecians at this day do * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. deny) it is read, d After Consecration in the Mass of chrysostom. Modicum attollens Sacerdos, dicit Sancta sanctis. That the Priest did take a portion out of the dish, and held it up but a little: this is not lifting it over the head, or very high, as your reason for Adoration would require. And in your objected S. e In Dionys. Areoprelating the form of their Moss, objected by Durantus de Ritib. lib. 2. cap. 40. Mysteria, quae ante laudaverat Sacerdos, venerandis operta 〈◊〉 in conspectum agit, divinaque munera reverenter ostendens, ad sacram Communionem convertitur. Wherein there is no one word of, Venerandis, or Reverenter, but this.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Dionys. Areopag. cap. 3. Denis there is no more, but that The sacred celebrated Symbols were brought into light, which after Consecration he termeth uncovered Bread, divided of the Priest into many parts. Bread (we say) broken after Consecration; which is the breakneck of your whole Defence. ⚜ And why may not we think the Elevation, for Adoration of the Host, to be an after-Invention, aswell as was the Elevation of the Chalice for the same end? whereof it is confessed by your own Ritualist, that 3 Barthol. Gavant. Com. in Rubr. Missae. Tunc se erigens Sacerdos, quan●●● commode potest, in altum elevat, & intentus in eum oculis, populo reverenter ostendit adorandum— Rubrica Missae: [Sacerdos genuflectens reverenter adoret, & calicem disco opertam cum sanguine elevet, & erectum quantum potest ostendet populo adorandum.] Hinc Author, Non autem sub praecepto haec Blevatio calicis ante Sanct. Thomam, ex Soto in 4. Dist. 13. Quaest. 2. Art. 5. Vnde neque Thomas meminit illius, ubi minute omnes ritus Missae ponit. part. 2. Tit. 8. pag. 108. The elevation of the Chalice, that the people might adore it, was not commanded until after the days of Thomas Aquinas. So he; and that (you know) was a thousand and some hundreth of years after Christ his Institution of this Sacrament. It were strange, if the Romish Faith had then been, that the Blood of Christ, being Corporally in the Sacrament, and Consequently adored of the people, that the Primitive Church should not have used an Elevation of the Cup, for better Accommodation-sake, aswell as your new Romish Church hath ordained so many Ages since. Not to tell you of the Church under Prester-Iohn, which (as is 4 Cassand. in Liturg. cap. 11. Sacerdos sublevet, Id ipsum quoque facit in Calais, sed non elevat. confessed) used no Elevation. ⚜ Your third Objection is the diligent Caution given by Ancient Fathers, to take heed f Tertull. in lib. de Corona milit. Calicis aut panis aliquid in terram discuti, anxiè pa●mur. Ob. by Mr. Brerely, Lit●●g. Tract 2. Sect. 8. Sub. 4. pag. 286. And out of Origen. Hom. 5. in Levit. Take heed no little crumb fall to the ground. Tract. 4. Sect. ●. And, Pius Bishop of Rome ordained that the consecrated Bread and Wine falling to the ground should be left to the Sacrificer, and the rest remaining should be burnt with fire unto ashes. So great a Reverence was then prescribed. Ibid. Tract. 2. Sect 8. Subd 4. ⚜ Bell. li. 2. de Euch. ca 7. Tertul. de corona milit. inter alios Christianos ritus ponit summam cautionem, quam adhibebant Christiani, ne aliquid Eucharistiae in terram caderet: Calicis (inquit) aut Panis nostri alquid in terram decuti anxiè patimur. ⚜ Lest that any Crum should fall to the ground, and if any little part thereof should fall, it should be left to the Priest, and the Remainder of the Sacrament after the Mass (say you) should be burnt to ashes, and the ashes laid up. So you. Pharaoh his Butler and Baker, we are sure, would have been loath to miscarry in spilling, or letting fall any part of their carriage, when they were to present their service unto their King; much more carefully ought every Christian, in executing his sacred Function, to observe the Laws of Decorum. Mark we, by the way, Master Brerely durst not call the part falling any thing but a Part, not A part of Christ's Body, that were Impious, not a part of Accidents, that were absurd: what meaneth the childish Fabling trow we, but that if they should speak out, they should betray their Cause, in calling that little part a part of Bread, as your objected Dionysius spoke? And when all is said, we hear no proof of Divine Adoration of the Host. But we leave you to take your Answer from your Salmeron, who hath told you that * See above, B. 1. Chap 3. Sect. 10. in Answer to the second pretence. Casual spilling of the Cup is no sin. ⚜ Howbeit, we ask you, whether it were a Venial sin in your Cardinal, to allege the words of Tertullian, as spoken of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, which, by the judgement of your own 5 Gabriel Epis●. Albisp. lib. 2. Observat. 35. in lib. Tert. ad uxorem [Calicis & panis nostrialiquid in terram decuti anxiè patimur.] Pameliusin eum locum. Quod addit (inquit) panis nostri, facit ad distinctionem Bucharistiae Sacramenti, in quo non calix & panis communis proponu●tur. And the Bishop himself; Tertul. laudat aetatis suae morem, quo aegrè ferebant si casu communis panis & vini aliquid in terram exciderit. Authors were spoken of Common and ordinary Bread and Wine? It were well that this kind of oversight both in Cardinal Bellarmine and Master Brerely were not in them a fault Common and ordinary. Howsoever we could tell you, that if the hazard were so great, as your Objections imply, namely, that any subject matter of Adoration had been believed to be in it, than was the holy Bishop Exuperius (whom notwithstanding Saint Hierome commendeth) much unblamable for 6 Hier. add Rustic. cap. 4. commending the Bp. Exuperius. Nihil de illo dicimus, qui corpus in canistro, & sanguinem portabat in vitro. Carrying it in a Glass. And much more condemnable should that godly Pope Zephyrinus have been 7 De Consec. D. 1. C. Vasa.— Zepherinus Episcopus patenis vitrcis Missas celebrare constituit. Who ordained that the Mass should be celebrated in Chalices of Glass; which the more brittle they were, the more solidly they confirm unto us this Truth, that Antiquity harboured not your belief of a Corporal Presence of Christ in this Sacrament. ⚜ Only we must again insist in the former Observation, to wit, the frequent speeches of the Fathers, telling ●s of Crumbs, Fragments, little parts of this Sacrament; and of Burning them into ashes, after the Celebration ended. Now answer us, in good sadness; was it ever heard of, we say not of ancient Fathers, but of any professing Christianity, were the Catholics or Heretics, who would not have judged it most execrible for any to say, or think that A crumb, or little part of Christ's Body falleth? or that by a dash of the Cup, the Blood of our Lord is spilt or that the Primitive Fathers, in the Remainder of the Sacrament, Burned their Saviour? Yet these must they both have thought, and said, if (as you speak of Eating, Swallowing, feeding Corporally on Christ's Body) the Body of Christ were the proper Subject of these accidental Events. That the Objection taken from any Gesture, used in the days of Antiquity, doth not prove a Divine Adoration of the Eucharist. SECT. III. GEsture is one of the points, which you object, as more observable than the former, but how? because chrysostom will have the Communicant take it with a Chrysost: in Liturg Posteà similiter Sacerdos sumit sanctum panem, inclinato capite ante sacram mensam orans. Inclining his head down before the holy Table. Cyril, by b Cyril. Hieros'. Mystag. 5. Accede. ad calicem sanguinis illius pronus [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Bowing after the manner of Adoring. You will be still like yourselves, insisting upon H●terogenies, and Arguments which conclude not ad idem. For first, the Examples objected speak not of Bowing down to the Sacrament, but of our Bowing down our heads to the ground, in signification of our Unworthiness; which may be done in Adoring Christ with a [Sursum corda] that is, Listing up our hearts to Christ above. And this may become every Christian to use, and may be done without Divine Adoration of the thing before us. Nay, and that no Gesture, either Standing, Sitting, or Kneeling, is necessary for such an Adoration, your greatest. Advocate doth show out of Antiquity, and affirmeth this as a Point (as c Espencaeus. Nec disputatio super Adorandi gestu, cum de Adorationis substantia inter omnes semper convenerit, ac etiamnum convenit, stantes aut sedentes, proni aut supini, erecti aut geniculati, Christum in Eucharistia praesentissimum adoremus, per se non refert— cùm Adoratio non tam in externo cultu, quàm intimo mentis affectu cernitur. Lib. 2. de Adorat cap. 16. initio. he saith) agreed on by all; adding that Divine Adoration consisteth not in the outward Gesture, but in the Intention of the mind. For, indeed, there is no one kind of outward Gesture, which (as you have confessed) is not also communicable to man: so that although that were true, which is set down in that Rubric of * The Latin is, Inclinantes Altari: but since I find it in the Greek (before Consecration) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and so thrice the like. After Consecration; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [Behind the Table bowing down his head.] And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysostom's Liturgy, that the Ministers did use to Incline their Bodies to the holy Table, yet none can be so simple to think that they did yield Divine honour unto the Table. Nay, your own great Master of Ceremonies d Durant Peractâ thurificatione, Sacerdos levites incurvescit ante Altar— dum autem inclinat Sacerdos, humilitatem Christi significat.— Sacerdos reflexus ad Altar, cum paratur Consecratio. Lib. 2. de Ritib. cap. 25. Durantus hath observed the like Bewing down of the Priest in the preparation of this Sacrament, even Before Consecration; and one of your jesuites witnesseth that the (objected) e Vasquez. Ies. Graec● Ecclesia antè Consecrationem reverenter adorat, etiam si non sit ibi Christus. De Adorat. lib. 2. c. 11. [Falsely commenting that this was Divine honour, and just.] Greek Church at this day doth Reverently adore, before Consecration of the Bread and Wine, albeit Christ be not therein. And lest you may think your Posture of Kneeling to be absolutely necessary, we refer you, for your ample satisfaction, to your own learned French Bishop * Gabriel Episc. Albisp. Observat. sacr. lib. 1. Observ. 12. professedly discussing this Point. This being known, how can you in any credibility conclude, as you have done, a Corporal presence of Christ in this Sacrament after Consecration, from a Reverence which hath been yielded to the same Sacrament, before it was consecrated? In which consideration your Disputers stand so much the more condemnable, because, whereas they show some Examples of a Bodily Inclining to the Sacrament, done before Consecration, yet after Consecration they have not produced any one. But what news now? We blush, in your behalf, to repeat the Instance which you have out of your Legends, of a f Mr. Brerely Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 9 Subd. 3. [Out of Bellarm. and Bellar. out of Antoninus.]— When (not unlike to the reproof which God miraculously gave to Balaam by the speech of an Ass) a bruit-beast for our instruction did prostrate himself in reverence before the blessed Sacrament. Brute Beast prostrating itself before the Host, and doing Reverence unto it. We would have concealed this, but that you seem to glory herein, as being for your Instruction, like to the reproof given miraculously to Balaam by his Ass. Well might this Legend have become that latter time of darkness, wherein it was first hatched, but not these clear days, wherein your mysteries of Delusions have been so often revealed, and when all Christians almost in all Countries have taken knowledge of an * BANKS HIS HORSE; according to his Masters own Relation. Horse taught by Art to kneel to any person at his Master's command; and once in France, when, by the Suggestion and Instigation of Romish Priests, his Master was called into question for Sorcery, he for vindication of his credit with them, commanded his Horse to kneel before a Crucifix, and thereby freed himself from suspicion of Diabolical familiarity, according to the Principles of their own superstition. And for any one to conclude this to have been Gods miraculous work in that Horse, (as the other was in that Ass) would seem to be the reason of an unreasonable man; because all Miracles always exceed all power both of Art, and Nature; else were they no Miracles at all. Thus to your fourth Objection from outward Acts, we pass on to Examples. That no Example of Invocation, objected out of Antiquity, can infer the Divine Honour of the Sacrament, as is pretended. SECT. iv YOur Instances are Three; the principal in Gorgonia, the Sister of Gregory Nazianzen, in whose Oration, at her Funeral, we find that a Greg. Nazian. Orat. 11 de Gorgonia. Soror Gorgonia adversà corporis valetudine laborabat— eratque prodigiosum morbi genus, quod nec medicorum arte, nec parentum lachrymis, nec publicis precibus sanari potuit: desperatis omnibus alijs auxilijs intempestà nocte captatâ ad Altare cum side procumbit, eumque qui super isto honoratur ingenti clamore invocans, cum caput suum part cum clamore Altari admovisset, & deinde hoc pharmaco (i.e. Lachrymarum, ut exponit Elias Cretensis) perfudisset, & si quid uspiam [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Antityporun preciosi Corporis & Sanguinis manu recondrderat, ad lachrymis admiscursset (o rem admirandam!) statim se morbo liberatam sentit. She having been troubled with a prodigious disease, after that neither the Art of Physic, nor tears of her Parents, nor the public Prayers of the Church could procure her any health, went and cast herself down at the Altar, Invocating Christ, who is honoured on the Altar, saying that she would not remove her head from the Altar, until she had received her health: when (Oh admiable event!) she was presently freed from her d●sease. This is the Story set down by Gregory Nazian●en. Hence your Cardinal concludeth, that Gorgonia invocated the Sacrament, as being the very Body and Blood of Christ, and calleth this An hot and stinging Argument; and so indeed it may be named, yet only in respect of them, whose consciences are scorched, or stung with their own guiltiness of in forcing and injuring the Story, as will now appear. For first, why should we think that she invocated the Sacrament? Because (saith your b Bellar. Procumbens ante Altare coram venerabili Sacramento— Quid autem super altare colatur, dubium esse non potest, cum nihil ibi ponatur nisi Panis & Vinum, mutanda in corpus & sanguinem Christi— Petium Martyrē valdè ussit pupugitque hic locus. Lib. 2. de Euch cap 14 Cardinal) she prostrated herself at the Altar, before the Sacrament; which words [Before the Sacrament] are of his own coining, and no part of the Story. His next reason; Because she is said to have invocated him, who is honoured on the Altar. As though every Christian praying at the Table of the Lord, to Christ, may not be justly said to Invocate him, who is used to be Honoured by the Priest, celebrating the memory of Christ thereon. Nay, and were it granted, that the Sacramental Symbols had been then on the Altar, yet would it not follow, that she invocated the Sacrament, as betokening a Corporal presence of Christ (as your Disputers have fancied) no more than if the said godly woman upon the same occasion presenting herself at the sacred Font, wherein she had been baptised, could be thought to have invocated the water therein; because she was said to have invocated him, who is honoured in the Administration of Baptism. And furthermore it is certain, that the Remainders of the Sacrament in those days were kept in their Pastophorium, a * See above, Book 4. Chap. 1. Sect. 10. As further also appeareth in the Liturgy of pope Clement; Accipiant Diacont reliquias, & portent in Pastophoria (Doubtless from the Altar to a place remote.) Teste pamelio Tom 1 Missal. Patrion Latin. pag 118. place severed from the Altar, especially at this time of her being there, which was in the Night, as the Story speaketh. O! but she was cured of her disease at the Altar. And so were other miraculous Cures wrought also at the Font of * See above, Book 4. Chap. ● Sect. 5. Baptism. But, for a Conclusion, we shall willingly admit of Gregory Nazianzen to be Umpire between us. He, in relating the Story, saith of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 11. quo supra. If she at the time of her invocating had laid up any part of the Antitypes (or Symbols) of the precious Body and Blood of Christ, that she mingled with her tears. So he, calling the consecrated Sacrament Antitypes, or Signs of Christ's Body: thereby signifying, that the Sacrament is not the Body and Blood of Christ, as hath been * Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. proved unto you at large out of Nazianzen, and other Greek Fathers, Whereas if indeed he had meant that the Body and Blood of Christ had been there corporally present, as that which was Invocated; then now (if ever) it had concerned this holy Father to have expressly delivered his supposition thus, viz. If she had at that time of her Invocating laid up any whit of the precious Body and Blood of Christ. We say of the Body and Blood of Christ, and not (as he said) of the Antitypes, or Signs of his Body and Blood. Thus is your hot and stinging Reason become chilly, cold, and altogether dronish. Your second Instance is in Dionysius the Areopagite, who writing of the Sacrament c Bellar. Dionys. Areop. Hier. cap. 3. part. 3. O divinissimum & sacrosanctum Sacramentum, obducta tibi significancium signorum operimenta aperi, etc. Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 3. Item ipsum invocat Sacramentum, & petit ab ipso, quae à solo Deo rectè peti possunt. And, Durant. de Rit ib. lib. 2. cap. 11. And indeed who not? said, O must divine Sacrament, reveal union us the mystery of thy signs, etc. which in the ears of your Disputers ringeth a flat Invocation of the Sacrament: ⚜ And that 10 malon. Ies. in his Reply. Nothing could be said more plainly. ⚜ Contrariwise we confidently affirm, that your Teachers have taken a figure Prosopopoeia for Invocation; like men who take Moonshine for Daylight, as we shall manifest by Examples, Confessions, yea and the very Instance of Dionysius himself. Prosopopoeia then is a figure, when one calleth upon that which hath no sense, as if it had sense; as when in Scripture the Prophet said, Hear o Heavens, and hearken o Earth, Isa. 1. In like manner, among the Ancient Fathers, one called upon his own Church Anastasia, whence he was to departed, and saying thus, d Nazian. Orat. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oh Anastasia, which hast restored our Doctrine, when it was despised! Others of the Element of Baptism, thus: Oh water that hath washed our Saviour, and deserved to be a Sacrament! or thus, e Ambros. in Luc. lib. 10. cap. 22. O aqua, tu aspersum sanguine (Christum) lavisti, Sacramentum Christi esse meruisti, etc. Oh water which once purged the world, yea (as another) and naming it f Optat. lib. 6. cont. Parmē. O aqua, quae & purum feceras orben, & terram lavisti. Greg. Nyssen. Divinun lavacrum, See above, Book 3. C. 3. §. 13. A Divine Lavacre, etc. Nay, you yourselves can sing, & chant it to the Cross, g O salve Crux, spes unica! auge piis justitiam, etc. Est Prosopopoeia. Vasquez. Ies. lib. 2. de Adorat. Disp. 9 cap. 4. pag. 445. Oh Cross our only hope, etc. and in expounding the same, allow no more than a Prosopopoeia and figurative speech, lest that otherwise your Invocation may be judged Idolatrous. And whereas in another Romish Anthem it is sung of the Eucharist, Oh holy Feast! This Saying (saith another h O sacrum convivium! quod omni Sacramento convenit. Tolet. Ies. Instruct. Sacerd. lib. 2. cap. 15. pag. 366. jesuite) agreeth to every Sacrament. Thus have you heard both from Fathers, and from yourselves the like Tenor of Invocation; Oh Church! Oh Water! Oh Cross! Oh Feast! nothing differing from Dionysius his Oh Divine Sacrament! yet each one without any proper Invocation at all. And that you may further understand, that this Dionysius his OH! is as in voice, so in sense the same which we judge it to be, what better Interpreter can you require of this Greek Author Dionysius, than was his Greek Scholiast Pachymeres? who hath given his judgement of this very speech directly, saying that i Pachym. in locum Dionys. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ex Orat. 42. It was spoken as of a thing having life, and that fitly, as did Nazianzen, saith he; O great and holy Pascha, etc. And how should this be otherwise? seeing Dionysius, at the writing hereof, was not in any Church or place, where the Eucharist was celebrated, but privately contemplating in his mind upon this holy Mystery. The due consideration of these your former so frivolous, and so false Objections provoketh us to cry out, saying, Oh Sophistry, Sophistry! when wilt thou cease to delude the souls of men? In which manner of speech, notwithstanding, we do not Invocate, but rather detest, and abominate your Romish Sophistry. And lest any of you should stumble upon the Attribute, which Dionysius giveth to the Eucharist, in calling it a Divine Sacrament, as if it should imply a Corporal Presence therein, read but one Chapter of the same Author, and he will teach you to say as much of many other things, wherein you will not believe any Corporal Existence of Christ, we are sure: for there he equally nameth the place of Celebration, * See above Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect 13. Divine Altar; the Sacramental Signs, Divine Symbols; the Minister, Divine Priest; the Communicants, Divine People; yea and (which may muzzle every Opponent) the matter of this Sacrament, Divine Bread. In the third place is objected this saying of Basil; When the Bread is shown, what holy Father hath left in writing the words of Invocation? Thus that Father, whence your Father Bellarmine thus; k Basi●i de Spir. sanct. cap. 2● [Verba Invocationis, cùm ostenditur, quis Sanctorum in scripto nobis reliquit?] Hunc habemus morem veteris Ecclesiae, ut post consecrationem ostenderetur populo Eucharistia, quod nunc fieri videmus, & conceptis verbis invocaretur. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2 de Euch. cap. 25 §. Alterum. And Durant. de Ritib. lib 2. cap. 11. Planè ab ipsis Ecclesiae incunabilis post Consecrationem Eucharistiam in altum tollere, Dionys. & Basil. de Spiritu Sancto, cap. 27, etc. Hence know we the Custom of the ancient Church, namely, that the Eucharist is shown to the people after Consecration. And that Then (as we see now done among us) it was Invocated upon, even plainly after Consecration, saith your Durantus also, and indeed almost who not? But do you first, if you please, admire the wit of your Cardinal in so framing his Consequence, and after abhor his will to deceive you, when you have done: for he applieth the words, spoken by Basil of an Invocation before Consecration, (when as yet, by your own Doctrine, Christ is not present) as spoken of an Invocation of the Eucharist after Consecration; for proof of a Corporal Presence of Christ therein, and the Divine Adoration thereof, as will most evidently appear. For first it is not unknown to you, that the Greek Church differeth from your Roman in the form of Consecration at this day, they consecrating in words of prayer, and Invocation, and you in the repetition of Christ's words [This is my Body] wherein there is * Broved above, Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. in the Challenge. no Invocation at all. And Basil was of the Greek Church. Secondly, your l Archiep. caesarians. seu Christoph. de Capite fontium, Tractat. var. Sacerdos invocando Deum panem consecravit: Hanc alij, ut Tertull. Iren. justin. Gratiarum actionem hujusmodi Invocationem seu benedictionem vocant. pag. 34. Alicubi Theodoret Basil. Cyril. Hierosol. Iren. Damascen. Theoph. Alex. vocant Eucharistiae formam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Invocationem. Ibid. pag. 33. And he allegeth your Lindanus for a Suffragator in this point. Archbishop of Caesarea, for proof that Invocation by prayers was a form of Consecration used primitively in the Greek Church, citeth the two most ancient Fathers, Tertullian and Irenaeus; and of the Greek he allegeth justine, Cyril, Damascen, Theophilus Alex. yea, and (by your leave) Basil himself too: and that Basil was an Orthodox Greek Father you will not deny. Thirdly, therefore (to come home unto you) we shall be directed by the Objected words of Basil himself, appealing herein to your own consciences. For your Lindanus was, in the estimation of your Church, the strongest Champion in his time for your Roman Cause; he, to prove that the form of Consecratio, of the Eucharist standeth not in any prescribed words in the Gospel, but in words of Invocation by prayer (as * See Book 1. Chap. 2. hath been confirmed by a Torrent of Ancient Fathers) saith, m Paulus non tradidit formam Consecrationis, quod Basilius ità illustrate, ut sano capiti nihil ad haec sit ullo modo requirendum amplius, cap. 42. de Spir. sancto; Verba, dùm ostenditur panis (inquit) & poculum benedictionis, quis Sanctorū nobis reliquit? Lindan. Panop. lib. 4. cap. 41. That the same is illustrated by these words of Basil, saying, What Father hath left unto us i● writing the words of Invocation, when the Bread is shown unto us? adding, That no man of sound Brains can require any more, for the clearing of the point concerning●th form of Consecration. So then, Invocation was an Invocation by Prayer unto God, for the Consecration of the Bread let before them, and not an Invocation of Adoration unto the Eucharist, as already consecrated; which your Cardinal unconscionably (we will not say, unlearnedly) hath enforced. Look upon the Text again, for your better satisfaction; It speaketh expressly of an Invocation, when Bread is shown: but you deny that Bread is Invocated upon, until after Consecration. And Basils' demanding [What Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocation?] is, in true and genuine sense, as if he had expressly said, what Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocating God by Prayer of Consecration of Bread, to make it a Sacrament? as both the Testimonies of Fathers above confessed manifest, and your objected Greek Missals do ratify unto us. For, in the Liturgy ascribed to Saint n Liturg. jac. [Sancte Domine, etc.] james the Apostle, the Consecration is by Invocating and praying thus, Holy Lord who dwellest in holiest &c. The Liturgy of o Liturg. Chrysost. [Adhuc offerimus— mitte Spiritum, etc.] Chrys●stome Invocateth by praying; We beseech thee, O Lord, to send thy Spirit upon these Gifts prepared before us, etc. The Liturgy under the name of p Liturg. Basil. [Respice Domine.] Basil consecrateth by this Invocation, when the Priest lifteth up the Bread, Look down, O Lord jesus our God, from thy holy habitation, and vouchsafe, etc. All these therefore were according to the Example of Christ) Invocations, that is, Prayers of Consecrating the Sacrament; and therefore could not be Invocations of Adoration of the same Sacrament. ⚜ Which Invocation, in Consecrating by Prayer, 10 Cyril. Hiero. sol. Mystag. Catech. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril calleth an Invocation of the holy Trinity. ⚜ And as for any express or prescribed form or prayer to be used of All, well might Basil say, Who hath set it down in writing? that is, It was never delivered either in Scripture, or in the Books of any Author of former Antiquity; and this is that which is testified in your own q Decret. part. 1. cap. 11. Ecclesiasticorum. Aug. ex Basilio; Quae scripta nobis, quibus verbis sit Consecratio, commendavit? Books of Augustine, out of Basil, saying that No writing hath delivered in what words the form of Consecration was made. Now then, guess you what was in the brains of your Disputers, in objecting this Testimony of Basil, contrary to the evident Sense; and accordingly judge of the weakness of your Cause, which hath no better supports than such fond, false, and ridiculous Objections to rely upon. Such as is also that your r 〈…〉 Bellar. lib 2. de Euch. cap 8. §. Alt●rum. Cardinal his objecting the words of 〈◊〉, concerning the receiving of this Sacrament, saying, Lord I am not worthy thou shouldest come under the roofe of my mouth: which hath been confuted, as unworthy the * See above B. 5. Chap 5. Sect. 6. mention in this case. If you would have some Examples of Adoring Christ with Divine worship, in the Mystery of the Eucharist, by celebrating the manner of his death, (as Hierome may be said to have adored at jerusalem, Christ in his Cratch; or as every Christian doth in the Mystery of Baptism) we could store you with multitudes: but of Adoring the Eucharist, with a proper Invocation of Christ himself, we have not as yet received from you any one. ⚜ A Vindication of the Testimonies of Dionysius, Pachymeres, and Nazianzen, against the late vain Calumniations of a Romish Seducer. SECT. V IN the former Section was objected the Testimony of Dionysius, saying of the Eucharist [o Divine Sacrament!] as if it had been spoken to the Sacrament, by invocating of it; and implying therein a Divine Adoration, because of that Corporal presence of Christ under the Former's of Bread and Wine. The Insufficiency of this Consequence was manifested (besides divers other Instances) by the Testimony of Pachym●res your Greek expositor of Dionysius, referring us to Nazianzen his like words, when he said [o great and holy Pascha.] A late Romish Seducer (to omit his verbal wranglings, which are now removed in this second Edition) falleth foul upon me in an invective Conclusion, saying [So we see that Bellarmine, Dionysius, Pachymeres, and Nazianzen all agree: and that only my Lord of Durham hath dealt injuriously with them all.] So he. Even so, as it became an egregious Seducer to say, as will now appear. The parties, which are said to be injured, are no less than four; Bellarmine the Objector of Dionysius, Dionysius the Author objected, Pachymeres the Expositor of the same Dionysius, referring us to the like Saying in Nazianzen, and lastly Nazianzen himself; unto whose sentence we were so referred. Whose words are these [o great and holy Pascha:] which words, said I, were spoken to the Feast of Easter, and not to the Eucharist, and consequently not to Christ as Corporally present therein. Nay (saith the Seducer) by [Pascha] was not meant the Feast of Easter, but the Eucharist, and that by [o great and holy Pascha] Nazianzen declareth his Invocation of Christ therein. So he. As soon then as we shall understand the words of Nazianzen aright, we shall easily discern the Exposition of Pachymeres, and by him the meaning of Dionysius, and consequently the mere Sophistry (as I called it) of your Cardinal Bellarmine. The words of Nazianzen, truly translated, are these; [But o Pascha, the great and holy, the purification of the world, for I will speak unto thee as to that, which, as it were, hath Life.] The last words, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] will assoil the whole doubt, which are spoken only by way of a Metaphorical Similitude, thus; [As to that, which, as it were, hath Life:] thereby implying, that it is in itself without Life, as both your Billius the Translator of Nazianzen, and Nicetas his Commentator and Expositor; and lastly, Nazianzen himself will manifest. I. Billius (being he whom the Romish Seducer himself hath attested, and whom we now assume for our Proctor) translateth Nazianzen's words thus; [ 11 Billius in Orat. 42. Nazianz. To enim quasi vitâ praeditum alloquar. For I will speak unto thee, even as having Life: or, to that, which, as it were, hath Life:] We demand then, would any but an Antichristian say of Christ, that he is but a [Quasi] one who, as it were, hath Life? Secondly Nicetas, Metropolitan of Heraclea, is a professed and privileged Expositor of Nazianzen, him we desire to be our Advocate in this Cause. [ 12 Nicetas in locum ipsum Nazianz. [O Pascha magnum & sacrum Pascha, etc.] Haec verba Nazianzeni ad Festum ipsum perinde ac vitâ praeditum refert. These words of Nazianzen [o great Pascha, I say, o sacred Pascha] Nazianzen (saith he) referreth unto the Feast itself, as if it were endued with Life.] So he. Do you not see how the words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that is [As it were having Life] compelled this learned Bishop to expound the words of Nazianzen as meant properly of [The Feast itself] called in Greek and Latin Pascha, and by us Pace or Easter, and not to the Eucharist? which was that my Conclusion, against which the Romish Seducer hath reveled, and thereupon in a manner reviled me, to make me a Falsificator like himself. Lastly Nazianzen is he, whom we reserve for our Patron in this Cause. The subject matter of the whole Oration of Nazianzen, now mentioned, is (as all know that have read it) the Celebration of the Great and holy Feast of Easter, of the which Feast, some few lines after his entrance into his Oration, he hath these words; [Pascha of the Lord, Pascha, and (in honour of the Trinity) I say the third time Pascha. This is the Feast of Feasts, and Celebrity of Celebrities;] expressly speaking not of Christ the Lord, nor of the Eucharist, but of that which he calleth The Feast of Feasts: namely, that, which he as expressly named The Pascha of the Lord: which words in the beginning of Nazianzen's Oration most harmoniously accord unto his words now controverted in the end of the same Oration with Echoing as it were to the Former saith [o great and holy Pascha] namely, in respect of the same Pascha, the Feast of Feasts, and Celebrity of Celebrities. But this Romish Seducer, never considering these Premises, peremptorily posteth on, objecting only the words of Nazianzen immediately following, which unto a Cursory Reader, might seem to make, for him, some show of Confutation; for thus he proceeds: [o word of God, and Light, and Life, and Wisdom, and Power, for I am delighted with all thy names, etc.] Which words we confess are spoken of Christ, and not of the Feast, whereupon your Seducer concludeth, that the former words [o Pascha] refer likewise to Christ. Which his Erroneous conceit hath been long since confuted by the forenamed Bishop Nicetas, expressly affirming of these words that They were spoken of the * See above a● [12] Feast, and these last words [o Word of God and Light, etc.] are spoken indeed to Christ the spiritual Pascha. But how? by Invocation? no: but by Acclamation (saith he) nothing being more Familiar to Orators, than to use Apostrophe's, by Transition from the Sign to the Thing signified: as here, from the Sign, which was Christ's day of Resurrection, to the Contemplation of the person risen again. Notwithstanding, were it that this had been an Invocation of Christ, yet except it had been an Invocation of him, as he was then in the Eucharist, it maketh nothing at all for Bellarmine's Conclusion, which was thus, Ergò Christ is corporally is this Sacrament, and to be Divinely adored therein. By all which you may clearly discern the true meaning of the first objected Author Dionysius from his Expositor Pachymeres. II. The judgement of Pachymeres, by his Reference to the Sentence of Gregory Nazianzen. III. The exact Understanding of Gregory Nazianzen, by the Commentary of the Bishop Nicetas. And iv the truth of that Commentary by the Tenor of Nazianzen's Oration itself, as you have heard; and consequently that there is still just Cause for us to exclaim both against the Sophistry of your Bellarmine, and rashness and impotency, if not impudency rather, of this frivolous Seducer and Calumniator. ⚜ CHAP. IU. That the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice Repugnant to the judgement of Antiquity. First by their Silence. SECT. I. YOu are not to require of us, that we produce the express Sentences of ancient Fathers, condemning the Ascribing of Divine honour to the Sacrament, seeing that this Romish Doctrine was neither in Opinion nor Practice in their times. It ought to satisfy you, that your own most zealous, indefatigable, subtle, and skilful Miners, digging and searching into all the Volumes of Antiquity, which have been extant in the Christian world for the space of six or seven hundred years after Christ, yet have not been able to extract from them any proof of a Divine honour, as due to this Sacrament, either in express words, or practice; insomuch that you are enforced to obtrude only such Sentences, and Acts, which equally extend to the honouring of the Sacrament of Baptism, and other sacred things, whereunto (even according to your own Romish Profession) Divine honour cannot be attributed without gross Idolatry: and nevertheless have your Disputers not spared to call such their Objections Clear Arguments, piercing, and unsoluble. We therefore make bold hereupon to knock at the Consistory door of the Conscience of every man, endued with any small glimpse of Reason, and to entreat him, for Christ's sake, whose Cause it is, to judge between Rome and Us, after he hath heard the case, which standeth thus; Divine Adoration of the Host is held to be, in the Romish Profession, the principal practice part of Christian Religion. Next, the ancient Fathers of the Church were the faithful Registers of Catholic Truth, in all necessary points of Christian Faith, and Divine worship. They in their Writings manifoldly instructed their Readers by Exhortations, Admonitions, Persuasions, and Precepts how they are to demean themselves in the receiving of this Sacrament; not omitting any Act, whereby to set forth the true Dignity, and Reverence belonging unto it; many of the same Holy Fathers sealing that their Christian profession with their Blood. It is now referred to the judgement of every man, whether it can fall within his capacity to think it Credible, that those Fathers, if they had been of the now Romish Faith, would not have expressly delivered, concerning the due Worship of this Sacrament, this one word consisting but of two syllables [viz. Divine] for direction to all Posterity, to adore the Sacrament with Divine honour, even as it is taught in the Church of Rome at this day: and to have confirmed the same by some Practice, not of one or other private man or woman, but by their public form of Prayer, and Invocation in their solemn Masses; or else to confess, that Antiquity never fancied any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist. Yet two words more. You press the point of the Invocation of the Sacrament more urgently and vehemently than any other: and we indeed believe that the ancient Fathers (if they had held, according to the now Roman Church, a Corporal presence of Christ) would never have celebrated any Mass, without an express Invocation of the Sacrament, as in your now-Romane Mass, we find it done, saying, O Lamb of God, etc. or some other like form. Yet know (now) that your own learned Pamelius hath published two large Tomes of all the Masses in the Latin Church, from Pope Clemens down to Pope Gregory (containing the compass of six hundred years) we say, Latin Missals above forty in number; in all which, upon our once reading, we presume to say that there is not one such tenor of Invocation at all. This our first Reason, taken from so universal a silence of ancient Fathers, in a case of so necessary a moment, may be (we think) satisfactory in itself to any man of ordinary Reason. Our second Objection out of the Fathers followeth. That the Ancient Father's gain-sayd the Corporal presence of Christ in this Sacrament, and the Adoration thereof, by their Preface, in their presenting the Host, saying, [Lift up your Hearts.] SECT. II. IT was the general Preface of Antiquity, used in the Celebration of this Sacrament, for the Minister to say, [Lift up your Hearts,] and the People to answer, [We lift them up unto the lord] This [Sursum Corda] Calvin a Calvin. Instit. lib. 2. c. 17. §. 36. Nec alia cau●â in antiqua Ecclesia fuisse institutum, ut antè mysteriotum celebrationem diceretur, [Sursùm corda.] hath objected against you; and your Cardinal confessing that this Preface b In omnibus Liturgiis Graecis jacobi, Basilij, Chrysost. et omnibus Latinis habetur id, quod etiam hoc tempore nos facimus. Bellar lib. 1. de Euch. ca 14. §. Respondeo si. was in use in all Liturgies of Antiquity, aswell Greek as Latin, and continued in the Church of Rome unto this day; Then answereth, that c Respondeo [Sursùm corda] non significare elevationem ad locum corporalem, sed elevationem à rebus terrenis & curis hujus vitae, ad Deum & res aeternas. Non respondetur, Habemus ad firmamentum, sed [Habemus ad Dominum.] Et certè qui Christum quaerebant in praesepi, in templo, in sepulchro, Sursùm corda habebant, quia illum quaerebant, qui est super omnia, Deus benedictus in secula.— Et fieri potest ut qui terram intuetur, cor dear 'em— Sic qui in Eucharistia Christum quaerunt & venerantur, cor sursum habent, si de ipso Christo, non de negotiis hujus vitae interim cogitent. Bellarm. Ibid. He that seeketh Christ in the Eucharist, and worshippeth him, if he think of Christ, and not of the Cares of earthly things, he hath his heart above. So he. As though the word [Above] meant, as the Subject, the person of Christ in the Eucharist, and not his place of residence in the highest Heavens; contrary to the word in the Greek * Liturg. Graec. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Liturgies, which is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Above, wherein the Church alludeth to that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] of the Apostle, Coloss. 3. 1. Seek the things that are above, where Christ is at the right hand of God, as your own d Monet ergo Sacerdos populum [Sursùm] i. e. super seipsum elevare corda ad Dominum, juxtà exhortationem Apostoli, Col. 3. Quae sursùm sunt quaerite, non quae super terram. Durand. Ration. lib. 4. cap. 33. Durandus, the Expositor of the Romish Mass, doth acknowledge. Saint Augustine saying, e Aug. in Psal. 148. [Laudate Dominum in excelsis.] Primò de coelo dicit, posteà de terris: laudatur enim Deus, qui fecit coelum & terram. Nos adhuc in imo sumus, sed cum cogitamus quomodo illic laudetur Deus, cor ibi habeamus: & non sine causa audimus [Sursùm corda.] It is not without Cause, that it is said, Lift up your hearts; He showeth the Cause to be, that we, who are here at the Bottom, might (according to that of the Psalmist) Praise God in the highest. This, one would think, is plain enough, but that is much more, which we have already proved out of the Fathers, by their Antithesis, and Opposition between the Altar on Earth, and the other in Heaven; where we have heard * See above, Book 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. etc. chrysostom distinguishing them that fasten their thoughts upon this Below, from Them that seek Christ in Heaven, as he doth Choughs from Eagles. Ambrose, as they that behold the Image, from them that contemplate upon the Truth. * Ibid. Nazianzen, as they that look upon the Signs, from them that see the Things; and to contemplate upon the Better Altar in Heaven. And the Council of * Book 4. Chap. 11. Sect. 4. Nice, as they that stoop down, from them that look up aloft. And we may not forget the Observation which * Book 5. Chap. 5. Sect. ●. Athanasius made of Christ, in his discourse of Eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood; purposely making mention of his Ascension into Heaven, thereby to draw their thoughts from earthly Imaginations, and to consider him as being in Heaven; as did also Saint * Aug. See above B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. Augustine. Cyril of Jerusalem is a Father whom you have often solicited to speak for your Cause in other Cases, but all in vain; shall we hearken to him in this? He interpreting these words [Lift up your Hearts,] will not have it only to signify a sequestering of your thoughts from earthly Cares to spiritual and heavenly (which you say was the meaning of the Council of Nice, as if that Lifting up their Hearts had been only an exercising of their thoughts upon that in the hands of the Priest, or on the Altar beneath;) No, but he saith that it is f Cyril. Hier. Catech. Mystag. 5. Ob hanc causam clamat Sacerdos [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] quià oportet sursùm habere cor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & non ad terrena negotia deprimere. Paulò post, 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To have our hearts in heaven with God the lover of mankind: even as did also Saint g Aug. in Psal. 85. Certè rectè admonet ut Sursùm corda habeant: audiant igitur & faciant, levent ad coelum quod malè est in terrati●i enim non putrescit cor, si levetur ad Deum. Teste Pamel. Tom. 1. Missal. in Missa Aug. 〈◊〉. pag. 527. Augustine interpret this Admonition to be A lifting up of hearts to heaven. Whom as you have * See above, B. 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. heard leaving our Eucharistical Sacrifice on this Altar, so would he have us to seek for our Priest in heaven: namely, as Origen more expressly said, Not on earth, but in heaven: accordingly Oecumenius, placing the Host and Sacrifice where Christ's Invisible Temple is, even in heaven. ⚜ Agreeable to this are the words of Hierome, whom notwithstanding your own 1 Dr. heskin's Parliam. Book 2. Ch. 53. out of Hier. Epist add Hebdib. qu. 2. Doctor hath objected as a Patron, for defence of your Romish Mass; 2 Higher ad Hebdib cap. 2. Ascendamus igitur cum Domino ad coenaculum magnum, stratum, & accip●amus ab eo sursum Cal●cem Novi Testamenti: Ibique cùm eo Pascha celebrantes, inebriemur ab eo Vino sobrietatis. Let us ascend with our Lord into the great Chamber prepared and made clean; and let us receive of him the Cup of the new Testament: and there keeping the Passeover with him, let us be made drunk with the wine of Sobriety. All, as plain as plainness itself. ⚜ Will you suffer one, whom the world knoweth to have been as excellently versed in Antiquity as any other, to determine this Point? He will come home unto you; h Tempore veters Ecclesiae Romanae populus non cursitabat ad videndum id quod Sacerdos ostendit, sed prostratis humi corporibus, animis in coelum erectis, gratias agebant Redemptori. Eras. lib. de amab. Eccles. Concord. In the time of the ancient Church of Rome (saith he) the people did not run hither and thither to behold that which the Priest doth show, but prostrating their Bodies on the ground, they lift up their minds to heaven, giving thanks to their Redeemer. So he. Thus may we justly appeal, as in all other Causes of moment, so in this, from this degenerate Church of Rome, to the sincere Church of Rome, in the Primitive times; like as one is reported to have Appealed from Caesar sleeping to Caesar waking. Our difference then can be no other than was that between Mary and Stephen, noted by Ambrose, i Ambros. in Luc. cap. 24. Maria, quae quaerebat Christum in terra, ●angere non potuit: Stephanus tetigit, qui quaesivit in coelo. Mary, because she sought to touch Christ on earth, could not; but Stephen touched him, who sought him in heaven. A third Argument followeth. That the ancient Fathers cendemned the Romish worship by their Descriptions of Divine Adoration. SECT. III. ALl Divine Adoration of a mere Creature is Idolatry; hereunto accord these say of k Aug Tom. 2 Epist. 44. ad Maxim. Christianis Catholicis nihil ut numen adoratur, quod conditum est a Deo. Idem Tom. 8. in Psalm. 98. Timeo terram adorare, ne me damnet qui fecit coelum & terram. Nazianz. Orat 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Antiquity: No Catholic Christian doth worship, as a Divine Power, that which is created of God. Or thus, I fear to worship earth, lest he condemn me, who created both Heaven and earth. Or thus, If I should worship a Creature, I could not be named a Christian. It were a tedious superfluity, in a matter so universally confessed by yourselves, and all Christians, to use Witnesses unnecessarily. We add the Assumption. But the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament is an attributing of Divine Honour to a mere Creature, the Consecrated Bread. For that it is still Bread, you shall find to have been the Doctrine of Primitive Fathers, if you shall but have the patience to stay until we deliver unto you a * See Book 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Synopsis of their Catholic judgement herein; after that we have duly examined your Romish Doctrine by your own Principles, which is the next point. CHAP. V. An Examination of the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament in the Mass, to prove it Idolatrous, by discussing your own Principles. The State of the Question. IDolatry, by the Distinction of your jesuites, is either Material, or Formal. The Material you call that, when the Worshipper adoreth something in stead of God, in a wrong persuasion that it is God; otherwise you judge the Worship to be a Formal Idolatry. Now because many of your seduced Romanists are persuaded that your Romish worship, in your Mass, cannot be subject either to Material or Formal Idolatry, it concerneth us in Conscience, both for the honour of God, and safety of all that fear God, to prove Both. We begin at that which you confess to be a Material Idolatry. That the Romish Adoration of the Host, in the hand of the Priest, is necessarily a Material Idolatry, by reason of many hundred confessed Defects: whereof Seven concern the Matter of the Sacrament. SECT. I. IT is a point unquestionable among you, that if the thing, in the hand of the Priest, be not duly Consecrated, than the Matter Adored is but a mere Creature; and your Adoration must needs be, at the least, a Material Idolatry. The Seven defects, set down in your Roman a Missal. Rom. pag. 31. Vbi debita materia deficit, non conficitur Sacramentum.— Si non sit panis triticeus, vel si alioqui corruptus. Et pag. 32. Si Vinum sit factum acetum, vel penitùs putidum, vel de uvis acerbis & non maturis expressum, vel admixtum aquae, ut sit corruptum, non conficitur Sacramentum. Missal, and by your b Dico, species consecratae perfectè misceri possunt cum liquore specie distincto, & tum non manet sub eis sanguis Christi. Ità Thomas. Teste Suar. jes. in 3. Thom. Disp. 67 Sect. 4. § Dico. Et Durand. Si plus apponatur Aquae quàm Vini, erit irritum Sacramentum. Lib. 4. cap. 42. jesuite, are these; First, If the Bread be not of Wheat; or secondly, Be corrupt; or thirdly, the Wine be turned Vinegar; or fourthly, of sour; or fifthly, unripe Grapes; or sixthly, be stinking, or imperfectly mixed with any liquor of any other kind, the Consecration is void: so that neither Body or Blood of Christ can be there present; seventhly, yea, and if there be more Water than Wine. So you. All which Defects how easily they may happen, beyond the understanding of every Consecrating Priest, let Bakers and Vintner's judge. That there are Six other c Missal. Roman in Can. Miss●e. Sex modis contingere potest formae variatio (nun●rùm) per Additionem, detractionem, alicujus vocis mutationem, vel si una pon●tur loco alterius, corruptionem vocis alicujus, detrahendo, vel mutando syllabam aliquam, transpositionem, id est, ordinis dictionum variatione, ac deinde per interruptionem, ut pronunciando unam partem formae, ac quicscendo per aliquod spacium, vel loquendo aliquid impertinens. Minima variatio destruit integritatem substantialem, si pereat sensus. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacrament. in Gen. cap. 21. §. Secunda Prop.— Sacramenta rata non sunt, si dum conferuntur unum tantùm verbum, quod ad substantiam pertinet, omittatur: imò si unius syllabae omissio sensum verborum mutaverit, aut corruperit, collatum Sacramentum non valet: ut si Sacerdos dixerit, Hoc est Cor meum, pro [Corpus meum.] Azor. Ies. Institut. Moral. Tom. 1. lib. 5. cap. 28 §. Animadvert.— [Hoc est, etc.] Si quis diminueret aliquid, aut immutaret de forma Consecrationis, vel aliquid addat, quod significationem mutaret, non consiceret Sacramentum. Missal. Rom. pag. 33. Haec sunt necessaria necessitate Sacramenti, quibus sublatis, tollitur Sacramentum, ut nimirum non peccet Sacerdos corrumpendo verba Consecrationis. Item Alan. de Sacram. in Gen. cap. 21. confessed Defects, incident to either Element in the Eucharist, which may hinder the Consecration; and necessarily infer an Idolatrous Adoration, in respect of the Form of Consecrating. SECT. II. AS thus; If the Priest fail in Pronunciation of these words, [Hoc est corpus meum:] or in these, Hic est calix sanguinis mei: novi, & aeterni Testamenti: mysterium fide●● qui pro vobis, & pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Which your Roman Missal and Doctors say may happen, in either of both, six manner of ways: first, by Addition; or secondly, by Omission; thirdly, by Mutation and Change of any one Syllable, which may alter the sense of the speech; fourthly, by Interruption of voice, and by too long pausing in uttering of the words; fifthly, by Corruption of any word; sixthly, by some Interposition of words between, which are impertinent. Each one of these faults, (say you) concerning either Element, doth so disannul the Consecration, that The thing adored is still but Bread and Wine, and therefore the worship thereof must be a Material Idolatry. So you. And how easy it is for the Priest (that we may use your own Examples) to say, Hoc est Cor meum; or, Hoc est Cor-pus; or, Meum corpus est; or, Hic erit Calix; or, as the Tale goeth of a Priest, who (having many Hosts before him to be consecrated, lest he might err in his Grammar, in using the singular number for the plural) Consecrated in these words, d Agrippa. Sicut narratur de Sacrificulo, siuè verum, siuè fabula sit, qui cùm plures haberet Hostias, ne Grammaticam omitteret, in haec verba consecravit, Haec sunt corpora mea. De vanit. Scient. cap. 3. Haec sunt corpora mea; These are my Bodies: we say for the possibility of these and the like Lapses (beside this last from the want of wit) the manifold infirmities of man's speech, either upon Amazement, or Temulencie, or Temerity and Negligence, or Imperfection of a Stammering tongue, can give you a shrewd guess. That there are Four other confessed kind of Defects, in respect of the Priest's Intention, whereby the Consecration being hindered, the Romish Adoration must needs be materially Idolatrous. SECT. III. AS for Example, first, c Bellarm. Si Sacerdos fingit se consecrare, cum non consecrat, Christus abest.— Nisi intentio Ministri fit ●altem virtualis, animo faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, non est Consecratio. De Sacram. in Gen. cap. 27. Si quis non intendit conficere, nisi delusoriè aliquid agere. Missal. Rom. Pag. 33.— Velure ex oblivione, cùm hostia aliqua lateat, cùm non intendit consecrare nisi quas videt. Vel si habens coram se undecim hostias, & intendat consecrare decem, non determinans quas decem intendit, non consecrat, quia requiritur Intentio. Missal. Ibid. If the Priest in Consecrating (saith your Cardinal) have no intention to consecrate at all; or (to speak from your Romish Missal itself) secondly, If his virtual Intention in Consecrating be not to do as the Church doth; or thirdly, If he should consecrate but in mockery; or fourthly, He having more Hosts before him than he is ware of; if he intent to consecrate fewer than there are before him; and yet not knowing which of them all to omit. Of the Easiness of all these Defects, the possibility of retchlessness, of infidelity, of mockery, and of obliviousnesse in some Priests may sufficiently prognosticate; each of which inferreth a confessed Material Idolatry. That there are Six other Defects able to frustrate the Consecration, by reason of the person of the Priest himself, as being Incompetent for want of due Baptism. SECT. iv FOr first you have a a Decret. li. 13. tit. 43. cap. 3. Vehiens add gradum Sacerdotij comperit tandem quod non sit baptizatus, ritè fecimus ipsum baptizari. Case of one being a Priest, who had not been baptised; and next concerning Defects of Baptism, you resolve (as before of pronunciation of the form of the Eucharist) b Bellarm. Vel una litera. De Sacram. in Gen. cap. 25. §. Secunda Prop.— Haec sunt necessaria necessitate Sacramenti, ut nimirùm non peccet Sacerdos corrumpendo verba Consecrationis: ut in Baptismo si quis dicat, Baptizo te in nomine Matris, etc. Alan. Card de Sacran. in Gen. cap. 21. And Azorius, See above, Sect. 2. lit. (c) that if in pronunciation of the words of Baptism [Baptizo te in nomine Patris, Filij, & Spiritus Sancti] the Minister (whether man, or woman) shall vary one word, which may corrupt the true sense of the words, although but in one Syllable, or Letter, be it either by adding, removing, changing, or by any of the six Defects, (already spoken of) as in saying, Ego te baptizo in nomine Patriae, etc. or the like, than the whole Consecration is of no effect. The possibility of women's erring in their ministry of Baptism, Cardinal Pole may seem to teach in that his Article, whereby it is inquired, c M. Fox his Acts and Monum. pag. 1969. Whether Parsons, Vicars, and Curates be diligent in teaching women to baptise Children after the manner of the Church. Take with you another Case, supposed by yourselves, the d Cosmus Philiarch. de offic. Sacerd. Tom. 1. lib. 1. cap. 14. Potest dari casus, sicut audivi datum esse, quòd filius alicujus nobilis sit à levatrice baptizatus aquà ●osaccâ, quia est filius nobilis, etc. Author delivereth it at length, the brief is this: The woman baptizeth an Infant, because it is the Child of a noble man, in Rosewater, the Baptism is void; the Child is afterwards ordained a Bishop, & he is after that sent by the Pope into divers parts of the world, and by him innumerable Priests are ordained; after the death of the Bishop, the case is made known, but who they were that had been ordained cannot possibly be known, whose Ordinations are all invalid, and their Ministry and Consecrations of no effect. What remedy now in this Case? None (saith the Author) at all, except there be a Privilege in the Pope to constitute all them Priests, who had been so irregularly ordained, only by his word, Dicendo, sint Saderdotes, saying, Be they all Priests. So he, who notwithstanding had rather think the Case could not possibly happen, than to trust to this Remedy. However it might be in this one, the possibility of the other Six Defects neither man nor woman can deny, every one concluding a Material Idolatry. That there are manifold confessed possible Defects; disabling the person of the Priest to Consecrate, in respect of his undue Ordination; whereby is occasioned a Material Idolatry. SECT. V YOu have furthermore * See (as before) so also in the next Sect. at the letter (a). confessed, that, for want of due Ordination of the Priest, the Sacrament remaineth in his former nature only of Bread, and Wine; as if he be an Intruder, and not ordained at all: or else of the form of Ordination, viz. [Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium: Et Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, quorum peccataremiseris, remissa, etc.] As if it hath been corrupted, by missing so much as one Syllable, or Letter, by Addition, Detraction, or any of the Six Errors before rehearsed; as Accipe Spiritu Sancto, for Spiritum Sanctum; or, Accipe potestatem ferendi Sacrificium, for Offerendi, or the like; ⚜ to the 1 Bellarm. lib. 4. de Euchar. cap. 16. §. At— Semper in Ecclesia pro indubitato habitum est, ità necessariam esse ordinationem Sacerdotalem, ad Eucharistiam conficiendam, ut sinè eo confici nullo modo possit. Et lib. 1. de Sacrom. in Gen. cap. 21. Verba Sacramentorum determinata sunt, ut non liceat quicquid immutare, etc. Altering of the Sense of the Speech. ⚜ That there are many hundred confessed Defects, which may nullify the Consecration, to make the Romish Adoration Idolatrous, in respect of Insufficiencies, which might be incident unto the Prae-ordainers of that Priest, whosoever he be, that now Consecrateth; for causing a Material Idolatry. SECT. VI IF the a Si deficit ordo Sacerdotalis in consiciente, non conficitur Sacramentum. Missal. Roman. pag. 31. Bishop that ordained this Priest, which now consecrateth, were not a true Priest himself, truly ordained, or duly baptised; or else the next Bishop before him, or yet any one in the same line of Ordainers, until you come to Saint Peter, for the space (now) of a thousand six hundred years, whereof your jesuite saith; b Multae sunt causae propter quas potest accidere, ut Christus non sit praesens: ut si Sacerdos non sit Baptizatus, vel non fit ritè ordinatus, quod pendet ex multis aliis Causis, quibus ferè in infinitum progredi possumus; ut ex parte materiae saepè accidit defectus. Suarez. Ies. in. Thom. quaest. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 65. §. 2. The Defect of Ordination is seen in many Cases, wherein, Progredi possumus ferè in Infinitum (that is) we may proceed almost infinitely. So he. Thinking belike that if we should in this number of years allow unto every Bishop ordaining the continuance of twenty year's Bishop upward to Saint Peter, the number of them all would amount to fourscore Bishops; among whom if any one were an Intruder, or Vnordained, than this Priest faileth in his Priesthood. Now of these kinds your c Plena sunt illa tempora Ordinationibus Paparum, Exordinationibus, Superordinationibus. Baron. Ann. 908. num. 3. & Ann. 897. num. 6, & 8. & Ann. 900. num. 6. Platina in vita joh. 10. fol. 146 & in vita Sergij 3. fol. 148. Historians afford us Examples of your Popes, some dissolving the Ordinations of their Predecessors, even to the cutting off of one d Platina in vita Steph. 6. de Formoso; Abscissis duobus dextrae illius digitis, potissimum eyes, quibus Sacerdotes in Consecratione utuntur. Pope's fingers, wherewith he had used to consecrate. ⚜ You may also read of One, who consecrated an huge number of 2 Non diù est quòd Episcopus, adhuc in Gallia, plusquam duo Prebyterorum millia consecràrat, quorum omnium Ordinationes nullae judicabantur: attamen isti decem vel duo decim annos celebraverant. Quâ igitur fide adorata fuit Hostia ab iis elevata? Teste Riveto nostro Sum Controu. Tract. 3. qu. 25. Priests, Whose Ordinations were all void, albeit they had exercised their functions of Consecrating, in the Mass, for ten or twelve year's space. ⚜ Yet is not this all, for unto these are to be added the other Defects, to wit, want of Baptism, whether for want of due Intention, being three; or undue Pronunciation, being six; or the Errors either of Intention, or Pronunciation in Ordination, all which make eighteen: and these being multiplied by fourscore (which is the number of Bishop-ordainers from this Bishop to Saint Peter) the total, we suppose, will at the least amount unto a Thousand possible Defects, each one whereof, if it happen, doth quite frustrate and annul the Consecration of this Priest, whosoever he be, that now saith Mass; and leaveth to the people nothing but the Substance of the Creatures of Bread and Wine to be Adored, in stead of Christ jesus, the Son of God. And yet in this Sum are not reckoned the foresaid Defects concerning the Matter, or Form of Consecration, or of the Priest's Intention therein, or else of his possible Intrusion into this Function of Consecrating of this one Priest, now supposed to be ordained; every Defect being of force in itself to infer necessarily a Material Idolatry in your Romish Mass. Now rather than you shall call these our Instances odious, or malicious, you must accuse your own Romish Church, because we have alleged no Testimony, but out of your own publke Romish Missal, Cardinals, jesuits, and other Authors privileged in your Church. We are now in the high point of Christian Religion, even the principal part of God's Royalty, Divine Adoration, not to be trifled withal. Therefore now, if ever, show yourselves conscionable Divines, by freeing your Romish Mass from a Formal Idolatry in these forenamed Respects, concerning your confessed Material Idolatry; and do it by some grounds of Truth, or else abandon your Profession, as most damnably Idolatrous. CHAP. VI That the Romish Masse-worship is a Formal Idolatry, notwithstanding any Pretence that by your Romish Doctors hath been made to the Contrary. The State of the Question. SECT. I. Upon this occasion, oh! how your Summists, Theologues, and Casuists do bestir themselves, for the vindicating of your Church from the guilt of Formal Idolatry? The Brief of your Defence is this: a Bellar. Vbi deest vera Consecratio, nullum est periculum in eo, qui bonâ side Sacramentum adorat, adoratio enim potissimum ex intentione pendet: quare sicut is, qui panem non consecratum injuriâ assiceret, putans consecratum esse, gravissimè peccâsset in Christum: sicetiam contra qui panem eundem adorat, quòd certo credat non este panem, sed Christum, is propriè & formaliter Christum adorat, non panem. Lib. 4 de Euchar. cap. 30. Vbi quis simpliciter adorans Sacramentum non consecratum est actus Latriae, & actus moraliter bonus, procedens ex motivo honesto.— Sicut quando quis dat Eleemosynam homini petenti nomine Christi, ex misericordia infusa operatur, si prudenter existimaverit illum esse pauperem, quamvis speculatiuè decipi contingat. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 65. pag. 829. col. 1. Omnis fidelis rectè adorans hostiam consecratam, adorat sub eâ conditione, si perfecta sunt circa ipsam ea, quae ad Consecrationem sunt necessaria, secundùm divinam institutionem, & sic nunquam decipitur, neque errat. Bonavent. in. 3. Dist. 24. Art. 1. quaest. ●. ad ult. Teste Suarez quo supra, pag. 828. [And in them, who require it Actual, albeit Tacitam, Azor. jes. reckoneth from Gabriel in Can. Missae, Thom. Bonavent. Albert. Richard. yea and Canonistas Theologos, excepting Cajetan. Hassel. Claud. Saints, qui simpliciter & sine conditione adorandum monent. Azor. Instit. Tom. 1. lib. 9 cap. 9 §. Decimo.] Dicendum est, quod per se loquendo, ac seclusis specialibus circumstantijs per Accidens occurrentibus, absolutè adorandum esse hoc Sacramentum, nullâ in actu appositâ conditione. Ita sentit D. Thom. in 3. Dist. 9 quaest. 1. Art. 2. q. 6. ad. 2. ubi solùm dicit, non requiri conditionem explicitam, sed satis esse si habitu retineatur: Habitu autem illam retineri, nihil aliud esse videtur, nisi ment & animo habere intentionem adorandi verum Christum, verumque Sacramentum, & non adhibendi adorationem, nisi cum hac pendenti existimatione. In eadem sententia est Richardus, ubi (inquit) licet fides credit Christum esse sub speciebus, sub conditione si omnia sunt facta, quae ad consecrandum sunt necessaria, tamen ad adorandum non oportere, ut fideles hanc conditionem adhibeant in actuali cogitation. Idem Gabriel. Marsil. & communiter Summistae, verbo, Adoratio. Ità Suarez Tom. 3. quaest. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 6●. pag. 828. col. 2. Nihil obfuit jacob, cum Laban sibi ignoranti pro Rachel in concubitu substituerit Leam, quia bonâ fide se cum propria uxore dormire putaret. Ita non est Artolatra, qui adorat Christum in pane non consecrato, quem bonâ fide putat consecratum, etc. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 33. pag. 181. Although (say they, in the Margin) there be no true Consecration, by reason of divers Defects, yet in him who upon a Moral certainty, with a sincere mind and good intention, doth adore Bread, it is but Material, and no Formal Idolatry, so that he have an Habitual condition, as being so disposed in his mind, not to give a Divine honour unto it, if he knew it to be but Bread. As for Example; He that giveth an Alms to a Rich man, being probably persuaded that he is not rich, the Act proceedeth from a pious Intention. And, As it was no Sin in jacob to lie with Leah, because he thought her to be his wife; so in this case it is no formal Idolatry to worship Bread, being Morally persuaded that it is Christ. Thus they. Your Pretences herein are three; Moral Certainty, Good Intent, and (at least) Habitual Condition. But alas! all this is but Sowing Fig-leaves together, which will never be able to cover your foul shame of gross Idolatry. To begin first with that which you call Moral Certainty. That the Pretence of Moral Certainty of worshipping of Bread, instead of Christ, cannot free the Romish Church from Formal Idolatry. SECT. II. Our Confutation is grounded upon divers impregnable Reasons, one whereof is taken from the jealousy of God in his worship; the second from the Faith required in a true worshipper; the third from the nature of an Oath; and the last from the Uncertainty of that, which you call Moral Certainty. First then, although Moral and Conjectural persuasions might excuse men's Actions in divers Cases, yet in an Object of Divine Worship it is utterly condemnable, even because of the jealousy of the Almighty, who expresseth himself to be a jealous God, Exod. 20. signifying, as b [Ego sum Deus tuus fortis zelôtes, Exod. 20. 5.] Dicitur Deus Zelôtes, id est, zelum tenens: zelus autem est amor privatus, nolens habere consortium in amato. Et sic viri dicuntur habere zelum de uxoribus suis, quia volunt quòd uxores suae solos illos ament, & solis illis copulentur. Sic etiam Deus volebat quòd Idaei eam solum colerent, & eum ut Deum cognoscerent: & quando alius coleretur ut Deus, dolebat, tanquam si vir videat uxorem suam amantem alium virum. Et sicut cùm mulier alteri quàm viro suo copulatur, fornicari dicitur: ita qui alterum quàm verum Deum colebat, fornicari dicebatur in Scriptura cum Dijs alienis. Abulens. in Exod. 20. pag. 273 col. 2. you know, that He will not endure any consort in his worship; his Motto being this, I am, and there is no Other. Even as in the Case of mortal Majesty, when as a subject, building upon a Moral Certainty only, shall question the Title and Right of his Sovereign established in his Throne, he becometh guilty of High Treason. Secondly, all Divine Worship must be performed with a Divine Faith, which is an Infallible persuasion of the Godhead of that which we honour as God, as it is written: He that cometh to God, must believe that God is, Heb. 11. 6. and again, You must ask in Faith, nothing doubting, jac. 1. because this is the nature of Faith, as the Apostle describeth it; Faith is the Hypostasis of things not seen. Heb. 11. That is, (to take your c Graeci optimè interpretantur Hypostasin per substantiam, quia fides essicit ut ea, quae credit, non minùs certa habeamus, quàm si subsisterent. Ribera Ies. Com. in Heb. 11. pag. 514. own Comment) Faith takes those things, which are believed, no less certain than if they did subsist: whereby we are taught both the nature and necessity of Faith in Divine Worship. But Moral and Conjectural Certainty is not an Hypostasis, which implieth an Infallibility of Truth, but an Hypothesis, and supposition of that which may be otherwise, and hath in it nothing but Uncertainty at all; of which more * Chap. 9 Sect. 4. hereafter. Thirdly, God himself commandeth his People by his Prophet, saying, Thou shalt worship me, and (in * Septuagiots. Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) shalt swear by my Name. Swearing then is an Adoration, by Invocating of God; and his own peculiar Prerogative. Harken now. By this Law of God, none may swear by any thing as God, which he dare not swear is God: But your Romish Professors, in your Mass, Invocate this Sacrament thus, d Sacerdos inclinatus Sacramento, junctis manibus, & ter pectus percutiens, dicit, Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. Et rursus, Agnus Dei, etc. Missal. Rom. pag. 24. Rursus. Inclinato capite versus Sacramentum, dicit intelligibili voce, Da nobis pacem: Et rursus secretè, Domine jesu Christ, etc. Missal. Rom. ibid. O Lamb of God, which takest away the Sins of the world, have mercy upon us. And what Romish Professor is there who sweareth not By the Mass (meaning the Consecrated Host) as by Christ himself? Notwithstanding, no one of your Romish Priests (by reason of the manifold Defects incident thereunto, as you have heard) durst ever swear that this, which is now Consecrated by him on the Altar, is not substantially Bread, or that it is the Body of Christ. It must therefore follow, that your Adoration having no better Certainty, than (as you have confessed) to adore it with an [If it be Christ,] is a faithless profanation of the name of the Son of God, and of his Worship. This Point, concerning Faith in every Worshipper, will be confessed * Throughout the 7. Chapter. afterwards. In the last place (that we may ruinated the very foundation of your Excuse) your Pretence of Moral Certainty cometh to be examined, which you have exemplified by one giving an Alms to a poor man, who peradventure hath no need: and of jacobs' lying ignorantly with her that was not his wife. These, say we, are Cases fare different from this which we have in hand, because God's Almoner (you know) is not bound to inquire of a man, whom he seethe to appear to be miserable and poor, whether he be a Counterfeit or no; for Charity is not suspicious, saith the Apostle Saint Paul. jacob, indeed, was bound to know only his own wife, but if he had had any probable or Moral Cause of doubt, would that holy Patriarch (think you) have been so deluded, or overreached a second, and a third time, to defile his body by an unchaste Bed? But the Causes of your Doubtings are see forth and numbered by three, Six, Twenties, Hundreds, until you come to a Thousand, and (as your jesuite hath said) Almost infinite Defects. For indeed if there be (as appeareth) a Thousand hazards in every Mass of any one Priest, then in two Priests, as many more, and so forward; so that if one should hear in his time the Masses of Ten, and Twenty Priests, what multitudes of Thousands of Defects would the reckoning make? But we need say no more, than hath already been confessed of Almost infinite, and (consequently) as many Doubts of an Idolatrous worship; wherein there cannot be so much Moral Certainty, as that, in any one generation of men from Christ's time, each one of that offspring hath been chastely borne, whereunto what Christian is there that dare be sworn? CHALLENGE. COnsider (we beseech you, for God's Cause, for we are now in the Cause of God) whether our God, who will be known to be transcendently jealous of his own Honour, would ever ordain such a worship of a Sacrament, whereby men must needs be still more obnoxious to that, which you call a Material Idolatry, by many hundred-fold, than possibly any can be to any material Parricide, or material Murder, or material Adultery, or any other heinous and material Transgression, that can be named under the Sun. Thus much of your first Pretence, for this present, until we come to receive the * See Chap. 7. throughout. Confessions of your own Doctors in this very point. That the Second Romish Pretence, which is of a Good Intent, cannot free your Adoration of the Host from Formal Idolatry. SECT. III. LEt us hear your Cardinal; a Bellar. Sicut is, qui panem non consecratum injuriâ afficeret, etc. See above, Sect. 1. (a). Honour (saith he) dependeth upon the Intention, so that as he, who should contemptuously abuse the unconsecrated Bread, thinking it to be Consecrated, should grievously offend Christ; contrariwise he, who certainly believing the Bread to be Christ's Body, shall Adore the same, doth principally and formally Adore Christ, and not the Bread. So he, even with the same Sophistry, from only such a seeming Contrariety, wherewith you use to plead for Merits: (to wit) if evil works deserve damnation, then good works deserve eternal life. But will you be pleased to hear the same Cardinal speak in earnest, from the Principles of true Logic? b M●la intentio vittat opus: sed perperam inde colligitur opera mala ex intentione bona justificari. Nam opus bonum nascitur ex integra causâ, malum autem ex quovis defectu oriti potest. Bellar. de amiss. Grat. lib. 2. cap. 4. §. P●●mum enim. Although an evil Intention doth 〈◊〉 and corruptiun Act otherwise good, yet it followeth not that a good Intent should justify an evil Act, because no Act is good, except all the Causes thereof be good; but any Act is evil upon any one Defect. So he; which his Conclusion is held as universally true in all Schools, whether Christian, or Heathen, as any point of Morality can be. Wherefore it followeth not, that because a man doth something to the contempt of Christ, in abusing that which he thinketh to be Christ, that therefore the honour, which he doth to that, which he falsely believeth to be Christ, should be an Adoration of Christ: as all Heathenish Idolatry, in worshipping stocks and stones, in an opinion of adoring the true God, do witness to the world, as your own * Chap. 7, and 8. Confessions will confirm. ⚜ It may not seem a thing superfluous to apply to our former Answer the Testimony of your jesuite Lessius, judging it 1 Incredibile videtur, Deum tanti aestimare amorem, quo eum amo, quanti peccatum, quo eum offendo: quis enim eum, qui Principi facit injuriam, vel ejus legem violavit, ità ut mereatur mortem, dicat satisfacere ex aequo, si illum amet, & doleat de suo facto, & promittat emendationem? quis dicat ex natura rei tanti debere aestimare dolorem illum ex amore profectum, quanti injuriam, & legis violationem? nec jure posse Principem injuriam retinere, & pro meritis punire? hoc ipso enim quod quis meritus est amittere vicam & bona sua omnia, etiamsi millies amet, millies doleat, & emendationem promittat, censebitur ullo modo aequivalens offer, quod mereatur condonationem; multò minùs possit homo compensationem Deo reddere. Lessius Ies. Opusc. lib. 13. de justice. cap. 27. A thing incredible, for God to equal man's love unto him (in the good) as he would do Sin, wherewith he is offended: for who will say (saith he) that a man injuring his Prince, and violating his Laws so, as to deserve death, shall equally satisfy it, after he shall be sorry for his offence, and love him, and promise amendment? will any affirm, if the nature of the thing be duly considered, that the Prince is bound to be aswell pleased with the grief of that man, for his offence, proceeding from love, as he was offended at the injury, and that he ought not to punish him? nay, but the man hath deserved to lose both Land and Life, although he be a thousand times sorry for his offence: much less possible is it for man to return an equal Compensation unto God. So he, which showeth sufficiently that there is a Disproportion of Contraries, in their divers respects. ⚜ CHALLENGE. DO you not perceive what a patched Cloak of Sophistry your Cardinal cast upon your Good Intent, in your Adoration, to cover the filthiness thereof, if it might be? and how by another Position he rend the same in pieces, when he had done? Again, you stand thus fare, furthermore, condemnable in yourselves in this Point, whilst as you seek to free your Adoration from Idolatry, by Pretence of a Good Intent; and notwithstanding hold a Good Intention not to be sufficient thereunto, except it be qualified and form with an Habitual Condition, which is your Third and last Pretence; as fond and false as either of the former, whereof hereafter. That the Third Romish Pretence of an Habitual Condition, in the Worshipper, excuseth him not from formal Idolatry; proved first by Scripture. SECT. iv Habitual Condition you have interpreted to stand thus; * See above Sect. 1. at the letter (a) ad finem. If he that chanceth to worship only Bread be in that Act so disposed in himself, that he would not worship the same Bread, as Christ, if he knew it were but Bread, and not Christ; and by this you teach, that the Act (which you call a Material Idolatry) is made not only excusable, but (your * Ibid. own words) honest and commendable also. So you. What execrable Doctrine is this that we hear? which cannot be justifiable except you will justify the Murderers of the members of Christ; and of Christ himself? First, of the members of Christ, we read of one Saul, afterwards Paul, breathing out threaten, and slanders against them, Act. 9 1. and persecuting the Church, 1. Cor. 15. & Galath. 1. and drawing both men and women to death, Act. 22. 4. And all this, not maliciously, but (as you hear himself say) Ignorantly, 1. Tim. 1. 13. and with a good Conscience, Act. 23. 1. and in zeal, Phil. 3. 6. A fairer expression of a Good Intent, in a wicked practice, cannot be, than this was: and as much may be said for his Habitual Condition, namely, that if he had then (as afterwards) known Christ to have been the Lord of life, and those murdered Christians, to have been his mystical Members, he would rather have exposed himself to Martyrdom, than to have martyred those Saints of God. This Consequence directly appeareth, first by his Answer, in his miraculous Conversion, saying, * Acts 9 5. Who are thou, Lord? next by his detestation of his Fact, * 1. Cor. 15 9 I am unworthy to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church, etc. then by his Acknowledgement of God's especial mercy, * 2. Tim. 1. 13. But God had mercy on me. Afterwards by his Labour for winning souls to the Faith: I have laboured more abundantly than they all. And lastly, in that he was one of those Actors, of whom Christ himself foretold, saying, * joh. 16. 2. They shall draw you before judgement seats, and when they shall persecute you, they will think that they do God good service. Which also plainly argueth, that their and his persuasion of so doing proceeded from a Moral Certainty, Good Intent, and Habitual Condition. From these Members let us ascend to our Head, Christ the Lord of Glory; what think you of the jews? of whom Saint Peter said, You have murdered the Prince of life. Act. 3. 15. But did they this Voluntarily, and knowingly, as understanding him to have been the Redeemer of the world, and indeed the Prince of life? they did not, for the same Apostle testifieth in their behalf, saying, I know you did it ignorantly, as did also your Rulers. Act. 3. 17. If this be not sufficient, hear the voice of the person that was slain, Christ himself, who did so fare acquit them, saying, They know not what they do. Luk. 23. 24. Ignorantly then, in a Conjectural Certainty, but yet with Good Intent; of whom Saint Paul witnesseth in these words, I bear them witness, that they have the Zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. Rom. 10. But what for Habitual Condition? were they not bend in their own minds (if they had understood what Christ was) to have abhorred that so heinous a guilt of the death of the Son of God? questionless, for so saith the Apostle: If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. 1. Cor. 2. 8. We conclude, seeing these jews, notwithstanding their Moral Certainty, (being seduced by their Priests) or else their Good Intent of doing God good service therein; or yet their Habitual Condition, not to have crucified Christ, if they had truly known him, were nevertheless by Saint Peter condemned, yea and of themselves, as Formal and verily Murderers of Christ; then (o you Romish worshippers of the Host) must it necessarily follow, that in your Masses you are equally all Formally Idolaters, notwithstanding any of the same three Pretences to the contrary. Wherefore, as Solomon speaketh of an Adulterous woman; * Prov. 30. 20. She eateth, and wipeth her mouth, saying, I have done no wickedness; so may we say of Idolatrous Worshippers, and their Proctors: for what else are these your three Romish Pretences, but like such mouth-wipes? or as Anodyna, and stupifying Medicines, which take away the Sense of the diseased person, but do not cure the disease? So do you delude miserable people with false Pretences, lest they, discerning the grossness and ugliness of your Idolatry, might abhor that worship, and abandon your Romish worshippers. That the former Romish Pretences have no warrant from Antiquity. SECT. V THe number of Ancient Fathers, whose works are yet extant (who lived within Six or Seven hundred years after Christ) are recorded to have been about 200. out of whose monuments of Christian learning your chiefest Disputers could never hitherto produce anyone that justified your Romish worship, by so much as in distinguishing of Material and Formal Idolatry; nor yet by qualifying any Idolatry under pretence of either Moral Certainty, or Good Intent, or yet Habitual Condition; and therefore must we judge that they never gave Assent to this your Sorcery. For we may not be so injurious to the memory of so many, so famously learned, and Catholic Doctors of the Church of Christ, that they could not; or of persons so holy, and zealous of God's honour, and of men's Salvation, that they would not satisfy men's Consciences, to free them out of thus many and miserable perplexities, wherewith your now Romish Profession of Adoration of the Host is so * Confessed above, Chap. 5. Sect. 6. by your jesuit Suarez. Almost infinitely entangled. CHAP. VII. That the Romish Adoration, notwithstanding your former Pretences, is Formally Idolatrous; proved by four Grounds of Romish Profession. The first is your Definition of Idolatry. SECT. I. DIvine honour (saith your jesuite a Honour est testimonium excellentiae, quod continetur verbo vel facto, quae de excellentia alicujus convenientem existimationem illi gignit. Sic honor divinus est quicquid verborum aut officiorum omninò accommodatum est ad gignendam existimationem hujusmodi, quae in divinam majestatem propriè conveniat. Hoc duplici modo, I. ut opus sit naturâ suâ ità praeclarum, ut quis illud naturali lumine rationis solum Deum tali honore dignum esse judicet, quale est Sacrificium. Alterum, ut tale sit intentione ejus, qui vult de persona, quam honorat, talem existimationem excitare, quae in divinam majestatem conveniat, licet honor iste alioqui indifferens sit. Gregor. Valent. lib. 2. de Idol. cap. 3. Valentia) is a Testimony of excellency, whether in word or outward office, that a man doth perform, whereby he doth intent to beget in others such an estimation of God, unto that which he honoureth, as is proper unto the Majesty of God. So that Idolatry is an Error in the understanding (saith your jesuite b Est Idololatria divini cultus erga falsum Deum exhibitio: colere enim pro Deo eum, qui non est Deus, aut ipsum laudando, aut ei aliquo modo prosternendo, Idololattare est.— Idololatria (quae est falsa Adoratio) non est nisi error in intellectu, quo dignum honore judicamus Deum falsum, cui Idololatra se prosternit. Tolet. Ies. Instit. Sacerd. lib. 4. cap. 24. §. Est igitur. Tolet) in yielding divine worship to that which is not God, whether by praising, invocating, sacrificing, or prostrating ourselves to that which is not God. In a word, Idolatry comprehendeth all religious superstition (saith your jesuite c Idololatria comprehendit omnem superstiosam religionem, quâ quaelibet res colitur pro Deo. Lorinus Ies. in Acts 17. 16. Lornus) in worshipping of any thing as God, which is not God. So they, most Theologically and truly. CHALLENGE. NOw apply you these points of your Definition unto your Host, in the hand of the Priest, which by your own Confessions may possibly be, and by our proofs cannot possibly but be (after Consecration) Bread still, whereunto notwithstanding he prostrateth himself, sweareth, by, and invocateth upon, as being in itself the person of Christ; the Priest himself saying, d Nos visibili Sacramento invisibile Corpus Christi praesens, adeoque Christum ipsum invocamus, & quasi divinum quoddam adoramus, & quasi vivum quiddam rationabile alloquimur, rogamus [O salutaris Hostia, etc.] Espenc. lib. 5. de Adorat. cap. 8. fol. 185 & ibid. lib. 1. cap. 9 fol. 25. O holy Host, etc. O Lamb of God, etc. whereby also, according to your Definition of Idolatry, you yourselves do seek to profess, and thereby to beget in others an opinion of a Godhead in the Sacrament, as whereunto Divine honour doth properly belong. How then can you free yourselves from the Crime of formal Idolatry, by pretence of Ignorance, and error of true knowledge of the thing falsely adored, seeing that Idolatry (as you yourselves have also defined) is an Error and Ignorance in the judgement of the Worshipper? This were, as if one, defining a disease to be a Distemperature of Humours, should notwithstanding therefore deny a man to be sick, because his humours are distempered. II. That Romish Worship is proved to be Formally Idolatrous, by Consequence taken from a Romish Principle, concerning Coadoration, or joynt-worship of Christ with Bread. SECT. II. Coadoration is when any thing is worshipped jointly with God in a Divine Worship, which worship by the Law of God (which saith, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me) is perfectly Idolatry, by your own e Idololatria est, non solùm cum adoratur Idolum, relicto Deo, sed etiam cùm adoratur idolum simul cum Deo. Exod. 20. [Deos aureos, & Deos argenteos non facietis mecum.] Bellarm. lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 24. §. Praetereàa. Confessions; and for fear of this kind of Idolatry, your Claudius Saints f Ne Idolatria committeretur, ait, (nempè Claudius Saints) cum Christo in Eucharistia debeatur summus divinusque cultus, non est eo Adorationis genere colendum sensibile conntinens, quo contentus jesus. Teste Vasquez. Ies. de Adorat. lib. 2. Disp. 8. c. 11. pag. 389. taught that The signs in the Eucharist are not to be adored with the same honour as Christ is. And that therefore g Panis substantiam, post Consecrationem, abesse probatur, quia si unà cum Domini substantia panis sub eisdem Accidentibus contineretur, periculum esset nè populus simpliciter ●doraret panem Bellar lib. 3. le Euch cap 22. initio. Et Alanus lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 34. Non posse, ait, in Eucharistia duplicem existere substantiam, quià Ecclesia esset in summo periculo Idololatriae, etc. Ratio est, quià cùm adoramus id, quod delitescit sub speciebus panis, si esset ibi adoraremus. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 16. pag. 109. Contendit Claudius Saints, ex unitate Adorationis absentiam substantiae panis colligere: Etenim si duplex maneret substantia in Sacramento, una panis, altera Christi, non posset citrà Idololatriam unica Adoratio in utramque referri. Vasquez. Ies. quo supra. Bread is not to be adored in the Sacrament with Christ's Body, lest that the people, being not able to distinguish the Body of Christ from Bread, should fall into Idolatry. And the person communicating Orally (as you say) the Body of Christ, now in his mouth, is not to be adored Regularly, but why? h Sacramenta haec in sument homine, quià quamdiù in eo Sacramentaliter sunt incertum est, nec regulariter, nec ordinariè solent adorari.— Praeceptor meus D. joh. Benedictus, Magnum Dominicani ordinis ornamentum, docuit, majus esse Idololatriae periculum, si Christus adoraretur in homine, quià homo est subjectum rationis capax (honour est autem praemium virtutis) sign a verò sacra non propter se, sed propter res, quas figurant & exhibent, sunt veneranda, in ijs rantum periculi non inest, quàm si homines peculiari hoc honore propter sumptum sacramentaliter, & sic aliquandiù Christum in eyes habitantem prosequeremur. Sic enim homines paulatim Deos esse putaremus. Espenc. de Euch. lib. 1. cap. 6. fol. 14. Because (say you) man being capable of honour, it might fall out, by little and little, that he should be honoured as God. So your own jesuites and Others. Yet (not to do you wrong) in this Contemplation Christ, by reason of the Hypostatical Union of his Godhead (being no mere Creature) is wholly excepted: whom we are taught by the Fathers of a General i Conc. Ephesin. Tom. 1. c. 12. §. Pari. Neque hominem cum verbo adorandum dicimus, sed unum eundemque, nè illud cum verbo aliquam divisionis imaginationem meriti objiciat. Et Tom. 4. c. 26.— Adoratione verò non seorsim Deum, nec seorsim hominem, sed unum Christum. Council to adore, not in both his distinct natures, but whole Christ. CHALLENGE. We suppose that there is not any of your own Romish Sect, albeit most superstitious, who would worship with Divine Worship either the Signs, or the Appearance of flesh, or the Priest, whiles the Sacrament is in his mouth, without at least a Moral Persuasion, viz. that he may so do; nor without a Good intent, viz. that it is well done; nor without habitual Condition, viz. not to do so, if he knew they were but Signs, Appearance of flesh, or he merely a Priest. If therefore there be any Idolatry, in adoring any of these things with Christ, then certainly much rather (which is your Case) is it Idolatry to worship with Divine honour, Bread, it being without Christ. III. That the Romish Worship is proved to be Formally Idolatrous in your Mass, by a Consequence from Romish Doctrine, touching Canonization of Saints. SECT. III. COncerning your Pope's Canonising of Saints (see the a Ambros. Catharinus Compsae Archiepisc. Annot. advers. nova dogmata Cajet. Card. Tit. De Veneratione & Canonizatione Sanctorum. pag. 126. Ob. Ecclesiam in Canonizatione Sanctorum errare posse. Catarrh. Quòd errare non potest, docet Turr. dicens, hoc esset fidei fundamentum evertere. pag. 127. Adduxi X●sta Qu●●ti sententiam ●n Decreto Canonizationis Bonaventurae, ubi confidens de Spiritus Sancti supremà directione, considenter illum Sanctum esse pronunciat, & sidel●ter ab omnibus teneri praecipit— Quod arroganter fecisset, si haec res ad fidem non attineret. p 128. Bonaveniuram protuli, qui docet horribilissimum esse, Ecclesiam in hujusmodi errare posse, & periculosum esse in re sidei, eò quòd si unus Sanctus vocatur in dubium, etiam caeteri vocari possunt, & ità periculosum esset invocare Sanctos. pag. 129. Adduxi iterùm testimonium Hieronymi in Epist. ad Phil. Hom●●em non sanctum Sanctorum jungere societati, esset Christum violare, cujus membra sumus. Ibid. Ob. Sat erit in universali credere, Canonizationem Sanctorum veram esse: at Canonizationem hujus aut illius credere non tenemur, quià an Sanctus sit, pendet ex facto, utrùm nimirum talis fuerit, & talia fecerit, in quo Ecclesia eriare potest: quià non est error fidei, sed facti. pag. 132. Resp. Numquid Canonizatio Sanctorum sit in genere, & none in particulari de quolibet Sancto? pag. 135. Ob. Nihilominus piè credendum est, eam errare non posse. Resp. At ego crederem pietatem fidei esse divinae revelationis & authoritatis, non hominum. pag. 142 Ob. Certa autem humanâ certitudine suadet credere pietas fidei, certa verè divinâ certitudine jubet credere necessitas fidei. pag. 142. Resp. Credere vivum esse membrum Christi, quod est putridum, fidem laedit: quare est error perniciosus. pag. 144. Et Thomas, si per cultum exteriorem aliquod falsum significetur, est cultus perniciosus. pag. 147. A cultu divino abesse debet omne mendacium, quià in eo fidem nostram protestamur, & cum Deo agimus & loquimur, qui omne falsum, fictum, vanum abhominatur. Haec Catharinus ibid. pag. 149. Marginals) you shall find that the Common opinion of your Church directeth you to think, that your Church cannot err in this Function, and that all Christians are bound to believe the same; but how? upon a Moral and Conjectural persuasion only? No, upon a Divine and infallible Certitude, and why? Because (say they) if one Saint may be doubted of, then might also the Canonization of others be called into Question, so that it would be dangerous to worship any Saint, lest that we should worship a dead and a rotten, instead of a lively member of Christ: which were an Error pernicious, seeing that every lie, figment, and falsehood in religious worship must needs be abominable unto God. So your Archbishop, with others. You will ask, what, maketh all this to the question in hand? give▪ us leave to tell you. CHALLENGE. THe same Archbishop Catharinus b Catharin ibid. quo supr● Ob. Doctrina haec suadetur exemplis hostiae non consecratae, quam Sacerdos exhibet adorandam, ubi ●ulla Idololatria, quià sides Ecclesiae non ad has aut illas specie● panis refertur, sed ad hoc, quod corpus Christi cont●etur sub speciebus panis, quando fuerit rite benedictum. Putas tu quòd minùs potest errare Ecclesia in adoratione hostiae non consecratae, quam in cultu Sancti? p. 132. 133. Resp Catharin. Petrus de Palude asserit, nullo modo esse dandam Hostiam simplicem pro consecrata, quod esset Idololatria: quoniam cum ministratur, etiam adoranda proponitur. Et Hier. Ferrar. cui quidam objectabat, quod Hostia, per quam jurabat, non erat consecrata; Cui respondet, si ita suisset, fecisset populum Idololatrare, atque ideò tanto magis provocaret in seiram Dei— Audi, in hostia consecrata a●oratur Christus ut Deus, non simpliciter, sed ut existens sub his speciebus. Cùm igitur ibi non existat Christus, sed creatura pro Christo invenitur, cui exhibetur Latria, atque ideò Idololatria est. Idòlolatrae enim etiam hâc errant ratione, qùi coelum (puta) aut aliquid aliud adorabunt, putantes se ibi adorare Deum, quem animam Mundi dicebant, juxta Varronis Theologiam. Non igitur excusantur ab Idololatria, quòd arbitrarentur se unum Deum colere, sicut verè erat unus Deus: sed quod illum ibi adorabant, ubi non erat eo modo, quo esse existimabant. Ibid. pag. 134. 135. deduceth a necessity of an infallible assurance of the Canonization of every Saint, from the Infallibility which ought to be had, concerning the Consecration of the Eucharist, Thus; If the Worshipper may be deceived in adoring the Host, by mistaking Bread for the Body of Christ, then should it be Idolatry (saith he) aswell as in the Heathen, who adored Heaven instead of God. So he. Do you mark? aswell Idolatry, as that of the Heathen; whom neither Moral Certainty, nor Good Intent, or Habitual Condition could ever free from a formal Idolatry. Our Argument, from your own Confessions, will be this. Whosoever may be mistaken, in adoring Bread instead of Christ's Body, may therein be held as Formal an Idolater as any Heathen. (This is your Bishop's Proposition.) The Assumption. But any man among you may manifoldly be deceived, in taking Bread for Christ's Body. (Which hath been your general Confession.) Our Conclusion must be; Therefore any of you, in adoring Bread for Christ, in this Sacrament, may be a Formal Idolater. iv That the Romish Worship is proved to be a Formal Idolatry, by the Consequence used from the Consecration of your Popes. SECT. iv SAlmeron, a jesuite of prime note in your Church, endeavoureth to c Fides divina est, quâ credimus jesum, eâdem credimus hunc esse Paulum Quartum Pontificem etc.— Non tantum humanâ fide, cui subesse possit falsum. Salmeron. Ies. in Epist. Pauli part. 3. Disp. 2. pag. 183. 184. Alioqui eam adorare formidarem. pag. 185. prove that all men are bound to believe the new Pope, whensoever he is Consecrated, to be the true Pope, not only with a Moral or Humane Assurance, but with a Divine and infallible Faith; as were the jews bound to believe Christ jesus, at his coming, to be the true Messiah: that is (saith he) with a Faith that cannot possibly be deceived. We have nothing to do with your jesuits Position in this place, concerning the Infallibillity of Belief of the Creation, and Election of your Popes, which we have elsewhere proved to be a * See the Grand Romish Imposture, etc. Gross Imposture. But we are to argue from his Supposition, as for Example. CHALLENGE. YOur jesuite d Si enim fides nostra penderet ex externa intentione Ministri, commodum nobis esset repetere Baptismum in ea forma, quam instituit Alex. 3. Papa, [Si baptizatus es, ego non baptizo te, etc.] cumque non magis constet nobis de secundo hoc Baptismo, quam de priori, esset tertiò, quartò, & quintò Baptismus repetendus. Salmeron. ibid. pag. 188. Et proinde liberum erit, an ista consecrata sit hostia, & debito adorationis cultu adoretur, & ad salutem percipiant, & an verè sint Ministri Christi. Ibid. pag. 187. Signanter dixi, sub fidem divinam. pag. 184. § Vt ergò. grounded his Assertion of an Infallible faith due to be had, touching the Creation of your Popes, upon a Supposition; and his Conclusion upon the like infallible Belief, which men ought to have, concerning the Consecration of the Eucharist, wherein (saith he) if there should be any Uncertainty, so that our Faith should depend upon the Intention of the Priest, in like manner might every one doubt, whether he may adore the Sacrament, as being not truly consecrated; as also make doubt of the Priest himself, as being not rightly ordained. So he; who therefore in all these requireth a Faith infallible. All these forecited Confessions of your own Divines, as first concerning your Definition of Idolatry; next in the point of Coadoration of the Creature together with the Creator; thirdly, in your Belief of the Canonization of Saints; and lastly, in the Creation of the Pope, which are but humane Institutions, do enforce much more a necessity of Infallibility, in every Adoration instituted by God. Now among all the Schisms of Anti-popes', sometimes of two, sometimes of three at once, and that for forty or fifty year's space together, if any one of those Popes, in his time, had heard any Papist saying to him: you may not be offended, although I hold your Adversary (as for example Vrbane) to be the true Pope, and yield to him all Fealty and Obedience, for I do this to a Good Intent, in a Moral Certainty, that he is truly elected Pope; and in an habitual Condition, not to acknowledge him, if I knew him not to be Pope, wherein if I err, it is but a Material Disloyalty; would not the Pope, notwithstanding all these Pretences, judge this man to be Formally an Anti-Papist, and pierce him with his Thunderbolt of Anathema, as Popes have often dealt with Cardinals, Princes, and Emperors in like Case? yet what is this Glow-worms slimy shine to the glory of Divine Majesty? ⚜ An Answer to a Conceited and Deceitful Impious Objection of a bold Spectacle-maker, a jesuite; Showing his Spectacles to be but Counterfeit. SECT. V YOur jesuit, in his Book of Spectacles, made in Confutation of a judicious and Religious Knight, among many other of his Paradoxes and Absurdities (as if concerning our present Question he had meant to excel himself, in the same kind) after his most diligent search into every Corner, where to find an Evasion, by the help of Spectacles of his own making, yet could spy no other, than that poor little Crevise, specified in his words following: If Christ (saith he) be not there, (in the Sacrament after Consecration) we are in danger to worship him, where he is not; and if he be there, then are you in danger, in not worshipping him, where he is. How then are you Protestants more safe than we? So your jesuite. But most Sophistically. In Answer whereunto, the Protestants can say no less, than that this Objection is Fallacious, Impious, and Impudent. The notable Sophistry whereof appeareth in this; because of an Extreme Disparity between your Romish Term of Worshipping by a Conjectural Supposition, as, [I adore thee o Christ, if thou be here,] and the Protestants Resolution of [not adoring with Divine honour] at all, that, which you yourselves do not infallibly believe to be God. For that there ought to be no performance of Divine worship, where there can be any danger of Idolatry, as is both proved by your own Confessions, and illustrated by your own Similitudes. Your Confessions stand thus. I. Although there should be a possibility of Existence of the Body of Christ with the substance of Bread; * See above, Ch. 7. Sect. 2. yet not to adore it, for fear of Idolatry. Item, Although Christ be in the mouth of the Communicant, * See in the same place. yet not to adore it there, for fear of Idolatry. Item, Although it be possible Christ is there at all, * See ibid. Sect. 3. & 4. in the Challenge. yet not to adore absolutely, because of the Possibility, that one may be deceived. Next, do but also Recognize your own Similitude of * See above, Chap. 6 § ●. jacob lying with Leah, instead of Rachel: and, that you may make a more joint Application, suppose that both these Sisters had been presented before jacob, masked and unknown; would your jesuite judge it to be a like security and safety in jacob, to have taken either of them to his bed, because it was possible he might have made choice of his own wife, as it had been to have abstained from admitting of either at that time, lest he might have made choice of not his own wife? We have furthermore in the title of this Section called this an Impious Answer and Evasion; which we are to prove from the Resolution, which Christ gave in his Answer to the woman of Samaria, when she boasted of the worship of the Samaritans, and preferred it before the Religion of the jews, a Religion which was then approved and professed by Christ himself: You Samaritans (saith Christ) worship you know not what; But we (jews) know what we worship, joh. 4. 22. where, our Lord, who is Truth and Life, determineth the Cause itself, namely, that if the Case so stand, in point of God's worship, The worshipping of not knowing what, is damnable; and only, the worshipping of knowing what, is justifiable. And this was always Catholic learning, in all Ages, until your Romish Tyranny brought in this Samaritan kind of [Worshipping you know not what.] Wherein your worshippers fail most blindly both for matter, for manner, and for sense; as may be proved by the Ignorance of your worshippers; both concerning the Objects, Language, and Ceremonies of their worship. Nor could this objection be made by this jesuite, without some tincture of Impudency, forasmuch as he, by a seeming Case of Indifferency, seeketh to excuse his Romish Sect from Idolatry, for fear of [Danger of not adoring Christ where he is,] when as notwithstanding, he, with all his Complices, would condemn Protestants for arrant Heretics and Contemners of Christ in [not adoring him (according to the Romish Religion) where (peradventure) he is.] And this they do against all warrant of Antiquity; or else show us, if you can, when ever any, that had the Title of a Father in the Church of Christ, allowed of any thing to be adored, with Divine Worship, without an Infallible persuasion of the Deity thereof. Not to repeat the above specified Confessions of your own Doctors against this very Delusion. But what talk we of Christian learning? Do but get by heart the Contents of the next Sections following, and then you will perceive, how much it importeth us to be zealous, in oppugning your thus professed Romish worship. ⚜ CHAP. VIII. Of the Romish manner of Adoration, in Comparison with the Heathen. That the Romish Adoration, by your former Pretences, justifieth the vilest kind of Idolatry among the Heathen. SECT. I. THere is a double kind of Worship, the one is Direct, and terminate, which pitcheth immediately upon the Creature, without Relation to the Creator, whereof your Cardinal Alan hath resolved, saying; a Dicimus ad plenam resolutionem, cùm cultus terminatur ad ipsas creaturas, Idololatriam esse injustam. Alan. de Sacram. in Gen. cap. 23. The terminating and fixing of Divine Honour upon any Creature, is a notorious Idolatry. The second kind is Relative Honour, having Relation to Christ; whereof your Cardinal Bellarmine hath determined, saying, b Latria est cultus Deo proprius, nec per se deferendus imagini, ratione Relationis. Bellar. lib. 2. de Imag. ca 24. §. Tertio.— Hic cultus, si exhibetur imagini propter se, est vera Idololatria. Ib. §. Dicet.— Si idem cultus exhibetur imagini propter aliud, ut aequè colatur creatura atque Deus, certè est Idololatria: nam Idololatria est non solùm cum adoratur Idolun, relicto Deo, sed etiam cum adoratur simul cum Deo. Ibid §. Praetereà.— Imagini non convenit cultus internus verus Latriae, nec externus proprius, qualis est Sacrificium. Ibid. §. Quarta.— Qui colebant Imaginem Christi divinis honoribus, inter Haereticos numerantur ab Epiphanio, Augustino, & Damasceno. Atque isti cum Christum colerent, sine dubio imaginem ejus propter ipsum colebant: non igitur Imagines licet divinis honoribus colere, i.e. cultu latriae, etiamsi quis dicat, id esse facere propter Deum, vel Christum, non propter imagines. Ibid. §. Sexta ratio. Haec Bellarminus. When [Latria] or divine worship is given to an Image, because of the Relation it hath to Christ, this is Idolatry, although it be given for Christ, or God, whether it be internal, or else external, as Sacrifice. So he. This we say, first to put you in mind of c Sunt benè multi, qui imagines colunt, non ut signa,— sed magis eis sidunt quàm Christo. Polydor. Virgil. Invent lib. 6 cap. 13. Very many of your Romish People, who adore Images Idolatrously; which although you would cloak, yet the Complaints and out-cries of your own Romish * Manifestius est, quàm ut verbis explicari possit, cultum nimium invaluisse, ità ut ad summam Paganorum adorationem nil à nostris reliqui sit factum. Cassander Consult. Art. 21. Dici non poorest, quanta superstitio, ne dicam Idololatria alatur apud rudem plebem. Agrippa de Vanit. cap. 57 Superstitiones in populo, dùm Imaginibus exhibent Latriae cultum. Gerson. de probat. Spir. lit x. Authors will not suffer it to be concealed, One of them saying, that this your worship is more manifest than can be denied; even immediately and terminately given by your people to the thing itself, which they see and adore, and which all Christian learning teacheth to be Heathenish, in an high Degree. And also note infinite numbers of your Worshippers, who adore Idolatrously, in the same manner of Relation, that which is here condemned by your Cardinal. But to the point, your own jesuites d Fuerunt ex Ethnicis, qui simulachra adorabant, quià ea animata esse credebant divinis spiritibus. Greg. Valent. lib. 1. de Idol. cap. 2. pag. 6●0. Idololatria quintupsex apud Gentiles: I. Adoratio ipsorum simulachrorum materialium, vel Daemoniorum illis affixorum. II. Aliarum Creaturarum, ut Coeli, Terrae, etc. III. Hominum mortuorum. iv Mundi, tanquam animati. V Substantiarum immaterialium, etiam pierce, ut Daemoniorum, sive malorum Angelorum. Lorin. Ies. Com. in. Act. 17. 20. Quatuor ob causas movebantur Ethnici credere Idola esse Deos: I. quià sic edocti à Pontificibus suis. II. Q●●à videbatur totus mundus id credere. III. Quià operâ Diaboli Idola loquebantur, & movebantur. iv Quia humana formâ praediti essent. Bellar. lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 13. §. Quartum. report that some Heathen Idolaters did worship Idols, believing that They were inspired with a Divine Spirit; next that they had sour kind of persuasions for this their Belief, to wit, the Instructions of their Paganish Priests, the Example of the whole world in their times, the power of Devils, speaking in the Images; and lastly, an humane shape, which was presented unto them: nevertheless so, that they sometimes honoured not the things themselves, but the Spirit which they thought them possessed withal. Will you permit us to compare this with that which you have called but your * See above. Material Idolatry? To this end, we are to try whether there hath been any Pretence, for justifying your Romish, which might not as truly excuse and warrant that Heathenish Worship; which notwithstanding no Christian will deny to have been most Formally, and properly Idolatrous. Your Moral, and Conjectural Certainty would be compared in the first place. This the Heathens might pretend by the Reasons, by you already confessed, to wit, the Prescriptions of their Priests, their Idols speaking, and the Example of almost the whole vast world adoring them. Secondly, you please yourselves with your Good Intent, that, in worshipping the Bread, you think to adore Christ; and the Pagans (which also the whole world of Idolaters professed of themselves, and you yourselves have confessed of them) in their most Formal Idolatry, were persuaded they worshipped a True God. Thirdly, you rely upon an Habitual Condition, namely, that although the thing which you adore, be Bread, yet your inward Resolution is not to give Divine Honour unto it, if you knew it were but Bread, and not Christ. But inquire you now into your own Bibles, and you shall find that the Heathen were not inferior unto you in this Modification also; for in the History of Bell and the Dragon it is read, that the King of Babel, and other Babylonians worshipped Bel with Divine honour, thinking it to live, until such time as Daniel had discovered it to be but an Idol: and no sooner had the King perceived the Delusion, but presently he commanded it should be demolished. The Case than is plain. He, and they, who abhorred, and utterly destroyed that Idol, assoon as they knew it not to be God, were therefore, before that, habitually in their hearts resolved not to honour it, if they could have been persuaded it had not been a God. In such just Equipage do these your Romish, and those Heathenish walk together, that from these your own Premises, you may take your Conclusion out of the mouth of your own Archbishop, whom you have heard affirm, that * See above, Ch. 7 Sect 2. at (a). If in the worship of this Sacrament (saith he) we may be deceived, in mistaking Bread, instead of Christ; then is this worship as merely Idolatrous, as was that of the Heathen. So he. Which showeth your Cause and theirs, in these Respects, to be all one. We proceed a step further. That the Romish Worship of that, which may possibly be Bread, may seem to be in one respect worse than almost the worst of the Pagans. SECT. II. ALthough the very Title of this Section may seem unto you fully odious, yet let Truth (in what apparel soever it shall appear) be gracious unto you. Costerus is a jesuite much privileged by your Church, who doubted not to affirm, that a Talis error est, quo in orbe terrarum nunquàm vel visus, vel auditus fuit— tolerabilior enim est error eorum, qui pro Deo colunt statuam auream, aut alterius materiae imaginem, quomodò Gentiles suos Deos venerabantur, vel pannum rubrum in hastam elevatum, quod narratur de Lappis, vel viva animalia, ut quondàm Aegyptij; quàm eorum qui frustum panis. Coster. Ies. Enchirid▪ de Sacram. Eucharist. cap. 8. §. Decimo. If Christ be not in this Sacrament, but Bread only, the Error (saith he) is more intolerable than was the Error of the Heathen, in worshipping either a golden Statue, or a Red Clout. So he. What reason he had to speak so broad Language, we refer to your Inquisitors, to question him for it. But what Cause we have for the confirming our Title of this Section, we shall not forbear to impart unto you. It is the profession of your Church to Adore that which may be Bread in the Eucharist with Divine Worship, notwithstanding whatsoever Uncertainty of the presence of Christ therein, by reason of (as your jesuite Suarez * See above. Chap. ●. Sect. 6. speaks) almost infinite Defects, which may possibly happen to cause the same. Contrariwise the Heathen Idolaters, touching the things which they worshipped, * See in the former Section at (d). Credebant (said your jesuite) They believed them certainly to have been Gods. For although some Heathen would sometime make some doubt of a [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] or, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] what, or who the God was, whom they did adore, as they that said, Sive tu Deus es, sive tu Dea es; Whether thou be God or Goddess; And the Athenians had an * Act. 27. 23. Altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To an unknown God, yet hardly shall you ever find any Example of the Heathen, doubting [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Whether it were a God, which they worshipped as God; those of Calecute, and such like Devilish Nations excepted, who are said knowingly to have Adored Devils, but (as some people sometime do homage to Tyrannous Usurpers, knowing them not to be their lawful Sovereign's) only Nè noceant, for fear of hurt. So abominable is your Masse-worship, being both contrary to express Scripture, which exacteth of every man * Heb. 11. ●. That cometh to God, that he must believe, what? [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] If he be? no, but [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] That he is God; and also against the light of grace in all Christians, before the darkness of Popery began; yea and against the light of nature in the very Pagans. For although you do but seem to symbolise with them in that one part of Idolatry, thus described by the Prophet; * Esay 44. 15 &c He taketh wood, burneth it, maketh Bread, and of a part thereof maketh a God, and falling down before it, prayeth, Deliver me, for thou art my God: (Like as is the taking a lump of Doughty, baking it, and with part of it to feed our Bodies, of another part to make a God, worship it, and invocate upon it, according to your own vulgar Rhymes: Non est Panis, sed est Deus, Homo liberator meus: fit cibus ex pane, caro Deus ex elemento: Qui me creavit sine me, creature mediante me;) yet notwithstanding do you fare exceed them, by adoring only in an Habitual Condition, If the thing be God, which you worship; Therefore shall they be your judges. CHAP. IX. Our Examination of the Reverence professed by Protestants, and the Security of their Profession therein; First, defining and distinguishing the Properties of Reverence. SECT. I. REverence is a due Respect had unto things or persons, according to the good qualities that are in them. This is either inward, or outward. The inward is that our Estimation of them, according to their Conditions and Properties: the outward is our open Expression of our said Estimation, whether by words or Acts. First of the inward Estimation, whether Natural, Politic, Religious, or Divine. Children (for Example sake) are taught by Scripture to honour their Parents, Wives their Husbands, Husbands their Wives, Subjects their Sovereigns, People their Pastors; And all, above all, to honour God. Our outward Manifestation of these, be it either in word, or deed, or Gesture, is to be discerned and distinguished by the Inward, as the honour to Parents to be called Natural; of Subjects to Governors, Politic; of People to their Pastors, Religious; of All to God, Divine, which is transcendently Religious, and Spiritual. And the Outward is common to each Degree; three only outward Acts excepted, Sacrificing, Vowing unto, and Swearing by: Homages appropriated to the Majesty of God; Sacrifice to betoken his Sovereignty; Vowing to testify his Providence; and Swearing for the acknowledging of his Wisdom in discerning, justice in condemning, and Omnipotency in revenging all Perjury, be it never so secret. That the Reverence used by Protestants, in receiving this Sacrament, is Christianly Religious. SECT. II. THeir Inward, is their religious Estimation of this Sacrament, in accounting the Consecrated Elements to be in themselves Symbols and Signs of the precious Body and Blood of Christ, a Memorial of his death, which is the price of man's Redemption, and to the Faithful a Token of their spiritual Union with all the Members of Christ; and by the incorporation of them, in their flesh, a Pledge of their Resurrection unto life. Secondly, their outward Application, for testifying their inward estimation, consisteth not essentially in any one peculiar Gesture in itself, as you will a Conc. Carth. 6. Can. 20. Quoniam sunt quidam, qui die Dominico slectunt genua in diebus Pentecostes: placuit sanctae & magnae Synodo cunctos— stantes Deum orare debere. Durant. de Ritib. lib. 3. cap. 2. num. 21. Hoc ipsum diebus quinquaginta à Pascha usque ad Pentecosten observari consuetum veteres Patres testantur. Ratio ex Ambrosio Serm. 21. de Pentecoste, quia Resurrectionem Domini celebremus: & ut Hieron. Proem. in Epist. ad Ephes. Non ●lectimus genua, non cu●vamur in terra, sed cum Domino surgentes ad alta sustollimus. confess from Antiquity, whether it be in Standing, Bowing, Kneeling, or the like; even because the Gestures of Uncovering, Bowing, and Kneeling, are outward behaviours communicable to other persons besides God, according to their Natural, Moral, Politic, and Religious respects. Howbeit, any of these outward Gestures, which carry in them a greater respect of Reverence, may be enjoined by the Church (whereunto obedience is due) according to the just occasions inducing thereunto. And where there is no such necessary occasion, there the public observation of the Rites of Communicating, commanded by Christ in his first Institution, performed (namely) by Supplications, and Praises, is a plain profession of Reverence; and more especially that Invitation, used in most Churches Christian, of the Priest to the People, Lift up your hearts; and their answerable Conclamation, We lift them up unto the Lord. It will be objected by Some, who pretend to have some Patronage from Calvin, that Kneeling at the receiving of the Communion is Unlawful. Every such One is to be entreated to be better acquainted with Calvin, where, speaking of the Reverence of kneeling, he saith, b Calvin. Institut. lib. 4. §. 37. jam verò longius prolapsi sunt (viz. Papistae) ritus enim excogitârunt prorsùs extran●os, in hoc, ut signum divinis honoribus afficiant. At Christo (inquiunt) hanc venerationem deferimus. Primùm si in coena hoc fieret, dicerem eam esse adorationem legitimam, quae non in signo residet, sed ad Christum in coelo sedentem dirigitur. It is lawful, if it be directed not to the Sign, but to Christ himself in Heaven; which is the resolute profession of our English Church, in the use of this Gesture. ⚜ And the use of Bowing towards the Lord's Table hath in it no other nature or meaning than Daniel his Kneeling with his face towards jerusalem and the Temple. For as this was a Testification of his joynt-Society, in that religious worship, which had been exercised in the Temple and Altar thereof at Jerusalem: so ours is a Symbol of our union in profession with them, who do faithfully Communicate at the Table of the Lord. ⚜ Butler to return unto you, who think it no Reverence, which is not given by Divine Adoration of this Sacrament, we ask, Do not you use the Sacrament of Baptism Reverently? you do, yet do you not adore the water with that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which you yield unto the Eucharist. All this notwithstanding, Calvin his estimation of this Sacrament seemeth but profane to many of you: but the Reason is, you would rather condemn him, than judge him, lest that his Doctrine, if it come to examination, might condemn you. For albeit he abhor your Divine Adoration of the Host, yet doth he also c Calvin. de●ens. Sanct. Doct●. advers. Westphal. Sive utilitas nostra spectetur, sive dignitas & reverentia, quam Sacramento deferri par est. pag. 25. Rursus, Profani, quià sacrae communicationis pignus, quod reverenter suscipere decebat— non mirum si corporis & sanguinis Christi rei censeantur. Ibid. pag. 39 condemn every Profane man, who shall partake thereof in the state of Impenitency, To be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. Your next Question will be, after this our Discovery of the manifold Perplexities, wherein you, by your Romish Doctrine, are so miserably plunged, how Protestants can avoid, in many of them, the like Entanglements. That Protestants, in their Profession and Practice, stand secure from the first two Romish Perplexities, in respect of Preparation of the Elements, and undue Pronunciation of the words of Consecration. SECT. III. Our Church commandeth that the best Bread and Wine be provided for this best of Banquets, the Supper of our Lord; yet doth it believe, that Christ the Ordainer thereof will not deprive the souls of his guests of their desired spiritual Blessings, for the negligence of his steward, in being defective to provide the Material Elements, if so be that there be therein (according to Christ his Institution) the substance of Bread and Wine. As for Pronunciation, you know, Protestants make their Celebration in a tongue known unto all the people communicating, and in a loud voice, according to the universal Practice of the Church of Christ in primitive times, as * See above, Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. 7. hath been confessed. So that the People's ears may be their own witnesses, whether the words of Consecration, either by Prayer, or together with the form of Repetition of the words of Institution, be truly delivered: which freeth them from your Romish perplexity of not knowing whether the Priest hath truly Consecrated, by his muttering of the words in an unaudible voice. The Protestants Security, in respect of the third Romish Perplexity, of Adoring in a Moral Certainty. SECT. iv Our Profession is to adore Christ with an infallible faith, and not with a conjectural Credulity, or Probability, as we are taught by the holy Scripture, the Canonical foundation of Christian faith; defining Faith to be an * Heb. 11. 1. Evidence of things not seen; namely, a more infallible apprehension of the mind, than any perception of sight can be; a faith required of every one, which shall approach in supplication to God: * Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh to God must believe that God is. Infallible faith than must usher Prayer, yea and preaching also any fundamental doctrine of belief, as it is written, * Psal. 116. 10 & 2. Cor. 4. 13. I believed, therefore I spoke. Yea, without divine Faith, it is impossible to use any religious Invocation: * Rom 10. 14. How shall they invocate on whom they have not believed? So incredible and faithless is your Romish Conjectural Faith of your worshipping, and Invocating Christ on the Earthly Altar, whereas according to our Christian Creed of his sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven) we, because faithfully, do * See the Consent of Fathers above Chap. 4. Sect. 2. catholicly, and comfortably adore him, where he infallibly is upon his Throne of Majesty in Heaven. That the Protestants stand secure, in respect of the Fourth Romish Perplexity, by defect in the Priestly Intention. SECT. V FOr the necessity of the Priests due Intention, in consecrating, your a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 27. §. Quantum ad.— Nova haeresis orta est hoc tempore, cujus Author Lutherus, non requiri interiorem ●tention● Ministri ad perfectionem Sacramenti: non tàm inquit in Conferentis quàm suscipientis fide sita est virtus Baptismi: & si Minister joco absolveret, sitamen credat se absolutum, verissimè est absolutus. Et §. Johannes Calvinus— Vt si Minister totam actionem intùs subsannans, coenam Christi ri●u legitimo administ●et, non dubitem panem & vinum mihi esse verissima Christi corporis & sanguinis pignora. Sic e●●●m Protestants alij— Catholicorum sententia est, quae est Concil. Trid. Requiri intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia. Et pau●ò post. §. Ad hanc.— Ad hanc Haereticorum sententiam accessit Ambros. Catharinus: quo excepto, in hac doctrina, mi●si●è conveniunt Catholici Doctores. Cardinal allegeth the Authority, addeth the consent of your Doctors, (except Catharinus) produceth the opinion of Luther, and Calvin (condemning this Romish Doctrine) and condemneth their Censure as Heretical. But we permit it to your discrete judgements, whether to yield to this ostentative flourish of your Cardinal, or to the exact and accurate discourse of your b Salmeron. Ies. Intentio duplex, publica, in observando formam publicam in pronunciatione verborum, etc. Altera verò privata & particularis ipsius Ministri, qui aut nihil credit eorum, quae facit, aut derisoriè facit, aut contrariam habet intentionem non conferendi Sacramenta.— At ejus Intentio non est absolutè necessaria. Rat. I. Quià cùm intentio intima sit latens in cord ejus insensibilis, sequeretur hominum animos torqueri scrupulis & dubitationibus, an verum suscipiant Sacramentum: quod sanè Scripturis et Patribus contrarium est, qui nos firmâ fide Sacramentum suscipere adhortantur. II. Rat. Quia sic hominum salus ex hominum aliquotum arbitrio penderet: et sic homines plus nocere possent quam Christus juvare. III. Quià plecterentur Innocentes propter hominum malitiam, quod remotum est à divina bonitate. iv Quià sic liberum erit Omnibus dubirare an Baptizati sint, et an Eucharistiam adorent. V Quià hoc dogma proximum erit Donatistarum haeresi, contra quos disputat Augustinus, docens per malos ministros conferri salutaria Sacramenta. VI Mirum est olim Ecclesiam, in controversia Novatianorum & Donatistarum, asserentium Baptismū ab haereticis collatum nullum esse, de debita illa intetione Ministri nihil disputâsse. Ergo satis est publica Actio, nisi Minister contra protestetur, aut aliquo modo vitiet formam Sacramenti. Sufficit eatenus publicus Actus, ut Notarius publicum conficiens Instrumentum, nec potest intentione sua internâ, licet derisoriè agate, illud validum reddere. Pro hac sententia stant multi Patres. Aug. lib. 1. cont. literas Petil. oppugnans illud Donatistarum. Conscientia dantis abluit conscientiam accipientis. Salmer Ies. in Epist. Pauli Disp. 2. pag. 186. Jesuit Salmeron, to the contrary; grounded upon sound Reasons, (among others, this) that this Perplexity, and doubt, whether the Priest hath a Due intention in consecrating, worketh to the tormenting of men's Consciences, injury to God's exceeding bounty and goodness, contrary to the judgement of Antiquity, and in special, against that of Saint Augustine; Saepè mihi ignota est Conscientia aliena, sed semper certus sum de divina misericordia. And lastly, because of the Affinity, which it hath with the heresy of the Donatists. So he. All which turneth to the condemnation of your Doctrine (teaching a necessary Priestly intention) of Novelty, Impiety, and relish of Heresy. We add to this that saying of the Apostle, * Phil. 1. 18. If the word be preached, whether of envy, and vain glory, or of good will, I rejoice, and will rejoice; which proveth that the evil Intention of the Messenger cannot impeach the Benefit of the message of Salvation, and embassage of God. Now there is the like Reason of the word visible (which is the Sacrament) as there is of the Audible. Take unto you a Similitude, in the marginal Testimony of your jesuite Salmeron, of a Notary public making a true Instrument, according to the form of Court, in the time when he was distracted in his wits; nevertheless the same Instrument is of use, and for the benefit of the party who hath it, not through the Intention of the Scribe, but by the will of the Ordainer, and willingness and consent of the Receiver. Our fifth Security from your Romish Perplexity, touching Ordination. SECT. VI TO pass over matters not controverted between us, whether the Minister that consecrateth this Sacrament ought to be consecrated by Ecclesiastical Ordination to this Function (a matter agreed upon on both sides) the only question is, if he that ministereth happen to be an Intruder, and no consecrated Minister, whether this his Defect do so nullify his Consecration of the Eucharist, that it becometh altogether unprofitable to the devout Communicant. Your Church in this case sendeth you to inquire after the Godfathers, Godmothers, Priest, or Midwife that baptizeth, to know whether he have been rightly baptised; and this not satisfying, she will have you seek forth the Bishop, by whom he was ordained, and so to the Odainer of that Bishop, and so to speere further, and further, until you come to Saint Peter, to see whether each of these were rightly consecrated a Priest, and then to search into so many Church-bookes, to know the Baptism of each one, without which the Act of this Priest now consecrating is frustrate, and your Adoration Idolatrous. Contrariwise we, in such an indeprehensible Case, (observe that we speak of an extraordinary Case) wherein the Actor or Act hath no apparent Defect, are no way scrupulous, knowing that things do work Ad modum Recipientis: as you have heard in the Example of preaching the word of God, were it by judas, or if you will a transformed Devil, yet the seed being Gods, it may be fruitful, (whatsoever the Seed-man be) if the ground that receiveth it be capable. Therefore here might we take occasion to compare the Ordination Romish and English; and to show ours, so fare as it consenteth with yours, to be the same; and wherein it differeth to be fare more justifiable than yours can be, if it were lawful, upon so long travelling, to transgress by wand'ring into bypaths. Our last Security from the Romish Perplexity of Habitual Condition. SECT. VII. Habitual or virtual Condition (as it is conceived by your Professors) standeth thus; I adore this which is in the hands of the Priest, as Christ, if it be Christ; being otherwise not ●illing so to do, if it be not Christ. What my Masters, Iffs, and Ands in divine worship? These can be no better in your Church than leaks in a ship, threatening a certain perishing, if they be not stopped; which hitherto none of your best Artificers were ever able to do. For as touching your profane Lecturer c Suarez. Ies. Simpliciter adorandus est Christus in Eucharistia, & aliud exigere ex iis esset superstitiosum, & vanis scrupulis, & superstitionibus expositum: neque enim est consentaneum ibi trepidare, ubi non est vel probabilis ratio timendi, sed potiùs periculum nè dubitatione devotio animi minuatur. Tom. 3. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 65. Sect. 2. Suarez, labouring to persuade you to Adore Christ in the Eucharist simply, without all scrupulizing, saying, It is not fit to fear where no fear is; When as he himself (as you have heard) hath told us that there are possibly incident * See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 6. at (a). Almost Infinite Defects, and consequently as many Causes of doubting, which may disannul the ⚜ whole Act of Consecration: ⚜ Every Moral Certainty (as your other i Lessius Ies. Opusc. Tract. de Praescien conduit. cap. 21. §. Sed contra.— Moralis certitudo non est absoluta, sed secundùm quid, qualis nimiùm per conjecturas possit haberi ex signis, cum quibus non necessariò conjungitur veritas rei signatae. jesuit, and you all confess) being but conjectural. ⚜ Therefore there needeth none other Confutation, than this, of his own shameless Contradiction, which (as you may see) is palpably gross. So impossible it is for any of you to allay the detestable stench of plain Idolatry. Certainly, if S. Augustine had heard that a Worship of Latria (which he everywhere teacheth to be proper to God) were performed to Bread and Wine, as the matter of Divine Adoration, he neither would, nor could have said, in defence thereof, as he did of the Celebration of the Eucharist in his own time, viz. d Aug. contr. Faust. Manich. lib. 20 cap. 21. Nos à Cerere & Libero Paganorum Diis longè absumus. We are fare from your Paganish worshipping of Ceres and Bacchus. But as for us Protestants, we profess no Divine worship of God, but with a Divine, that is, an Infallible Faith, that * ⁎ * it is God, whom we worship; who will not be worshipped, but in spirit and truth. What furthermore we have to say against your Romish Mass, will be discovered in the Book following. THE EIGHTH BOOK, Of the additionals; by a Summary Discovery of the manifold Abominations of the Romish Mass; and, of the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof. THese may be distinguished into Principals, which are Three; the Romish superstitiousness, sacrilegiousness, and idolatrousness of your Mass: and Accessories, which are These; Obstinacies, manifold Overtures of Perjuries, Mixture of many ancient Heresies, in the Defenders thereof. CHAP. I. Of the peremptory superstitiousness of the Romish Mass; in a Synopsis. SECT. I. MAny words shall not need for this first point. Superstition is described by the Apostle in this one word, * Coloss. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Man's will-worship; as it is opposite to the worship revealed by the will of God. What the will of Christ is, concerning the Celebration of the Sacrament of his Body, and Blood, we have learned by his last Will and Testament, expressly charging his Church, and saying, [Do THIS:] pointing out thereby such proper Acts, which concerned either the Administering, or the Participating of the same holy Sacrament. But now cometh in Man's will-worship, ordained in the Church of Rome; as flatly contradictory to the same Command of Christ, by Ten notorious Transgressions, as if it had been in direct Terms countermanded thus, [Do not This,] (as hath been * Book 1. throughout. proved:) notwithstanding the former direct Injunction of Christ, or conformable Observation of the holy Apostles, or Consent, and Custom of the Church Catholic; and that without respect had to the due Honour of God, in his worship; or Comfort, and Edification of his People. And then is Superstition most bewitching, when it is disguized under the feigned vizard of false Pretences (which have been many) devised by the new Church of Rome, in an opinion of her own wisdom, to the befooling & vilifying of the Ancient Catholic Church of Christ: which never esteemed the same Reasons reasonaable enough, for making any Alteration; but (notwithstanding such imaginations) precisely observed the Precept, and Ordinance of Christ. But that, which exceedeth all height of Superstition, is, when upon the will-worship of man are stamped counterfeit Seals of forged Miracles, as if they had been authorized by the immediate hand of God; whereof your Legendaries have obtruded upon their Readers * Book 4. Ca 2, 〈◊〉. Thirteen Examples, to wit, of Fictitious Apparitions of visible Flesh, and Blood of Christ, in the Eucharist: which maketh your Superstition Blasphemous, as if God should be brought in for the justifying of Falsehood; a Sin abhorred by holy job, saying to his Adversaries; * job 13. 4, & 7 You are Forgers of Lies: will you speak deceitfully for God? And furthermore how Sacrilegious, and Idolatrous your Romish Superstition is, you may behold in the Sections following. Of the sacrilegiousness of the Romish Mass, and Defence thereof, in the point of Sacrifice; comprised in this Synopsis. SECT. II. SAcrilege is whatsoever Violation of any sacred Person, Place, or Thing. Now omitting to speak of your Dismembering the Eucharist, by administering it but in One kind (which your Pope a Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. in the Challenge. Gelasius condemned for a Grand Sacrilege) or of the like points formerly discovered in the first Book; we shall insist only in your Church's Doctrine of Sacrifice, wherein your Sacrifice is found to be grossly Sacrilegious in the Tractate of the Sixth Book. I. By Creating a new Sacrifice, as Proper, and thereby assuming to herself that b Book ●. Cham ●. Sect. ● Excellency of Prerogative, which is proper to Christ alone the High Priest, and Bishop of our Souls (namely) the power of ordaining Sacraments; or (if need were) Sacrifices in his Church. Which Guiltiness we may call a Counterfeiting of the Seal of Christ. II. By making this Sacrifice, in her pretence, Christian; but indeed c Book. 6. Cham 5. Sect. 1. Earthly, and jewish. III. By dignifying it with a Divine property of d Ibid. Chap. 10. Meritorious, and Satisfactory Propitiation. iv By professing another properly Satisfactory and c Ibid. and after, etc. Propitiatory Sacrifice, for Remission of Sins, besides that which Christ offered upon the Cross. As if after one hath paid the Debts of many at once, upon condition that such of those Debtors should be discharged, whosoever submissively acknowledging those Debts to be due, should also profess the favour of their Redeemer; It cannot but be extreme folly for any to think, that the money once paid should be tendered, and offered again, as often as One or Other of the Debtors should make such an acknowledgement, the Surety having once sufficiently satisfied for all. So Christ having once for all satisfied the justice of God, by the price of his Blood, in the behalf of all penitent Sinners, who in Contrition of heart and a living Faith apprehend the Truth of that his Redemption; it cannot but be both injurious to the justice of God, and to the merit of Christ, that the same satisfactory Sacrifice, as it were a new payment, ought again, by way of Satisfaction, be personally performed and tendered unto God. V By detracting from the absolute Function of Christ his f B. ●●. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. Priesthood now eminent, and permanent before God in Heaven; and thereupon stupifying the minds of Communicants, and (as it were) pinioning their thoughts, by teaching them so to gaze, and meditate on the matter in the hands of the Priest, that they cannot (as becometh Spiritual Eagles) soar aloft, and contemplate upon the Body of Christ, where it's infallible Residence is, in that his heavenly Kingdom. VI By transforming (as much as they can) the Sacrament, ordained for Christians to eat with their own mouths, into a g Ibid. Theatrical Sacrifice, wherein to be fed with the mouth of the Priest. VII. By abasing the true value of Christ his Blood, infinitely exceeding all valuation, in making it but h Ibid. Chap. 10. Sect. 4. finite; whereas Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God and Man in one person, every propitiatory work of his must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore of a infinite price, and power. VIII. By denying the Effect of his * Ibid. Chap. 11. Propitiation for sin to be plenary, in the Application thereof. IX. There hath been noted (by the way) the Portion appropriated to the Priest, out of your Sacrifice, and to be applied to some particular Soul for money: being an Invention, as hath been confessed, void of all i Ibid. Chap. 11. Sect. 4. Warrant, either by Scripture, or by Ancient Tradition. To say nothing of your fine Art of cheating men's Souls, by Priestly Fraud; whereof, as also of the Rest, we have discoursed at k Book 6. throughout. large. A New Instance, for proof of Romish sacrilegiousness, in the Prayer set down in the Liturgy of their Mass. SECT. III. IN your Missal, after Consecration, it is prayed thus: a Missal. Rom. Offerimus Majestati tuae, Domine, immaculatam Hostiam sanctum panem vitae aeternae, & Calicem salutis perpetuae— supra quae propitio vultu respicere digneris, sicut dignatus es munera justi pueri tui Abel. And in the next place. jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli in sublime Altar tuum coeleste. We offer unto thy Majesty, O Lord, this immaculate Host, this holy Bread of eternal life, this Cup of everlasting salvation, upon which vouchsafe to look with a propitious and favourable Countenance, as thou didst accept the gifts of thy holy servant Abel, and command these to be carried up into thy celestial Altar, etc. So the Canon of your Mass. Some Protestants, in their zeal to the glory of Christ, impute unto you hereupon a Sacrilegious Profaneness, whilst you believing That Host, and That Cup to be the very Body, and Blood of Christ, and a Propitiatory Sacrifice in itself, yet do so pray God to be propitious unto it, and to accept it, as he did the Sacrifice of Abel; yielding thereby no more estimation to Christ, than to a vile sheep, which was offered by Abel. At the hearing of this, your Cardinal (See the b Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 24. Facilis est responsio: Non petimus pro Christi reconciliatione apud Patrem, sed pro nostra infirmitate: etsi enim oblatio consecrata ex parte rei, quae offertur, & ex parte Christi principalis offerentis semper Deo placebat, tamen ex parte Ministri & populi astantis, qui simul etiam offerunt, fieri potest ut non place at— Paulò post. Comparatio non est inter Sacrificium nostrum, & Sacrificium Abelis, sed tantùm ratione fidei, & devotionis offerentium, ut nimirùm tantâ fide offerant, quantâ Abel— quod Sacrificium Abelis non haberet in se, quod Deo placere, eumque placare possit, qua●e dicitur Heb. 11. per fidem obtulit Abel Deo Sacrificium melius— Ratio. Gen 4. Respexit Deus ad Abel, & Sacrificium. post. §. Porrò.— Deferii Sacrificium per manus Angeli nihil aliud est, quàm intercessione Angeli commendari Deo nostrum obsequium, & cultum. So also Suarez Tom. 3. Disp. 83. Art. 4. jube haec, id est, Vota nostra. Et Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9 Tract. 32. sub finem. Margin) 1. Prefaceth, 2. Answereth, 3. Illustrateth, 4. Reasoneth. First of his Preface. The Answer (saith he) is easy. As if that Objection, which seemeth to us a huge log in your way, were so little an obstacle, that any might skip over it. But have you never seen men, in trusting too much to their nimbleness, to overreach themselves in their leap, stumble, fall, and break their limbs? Semblably he in his Answer (which is the second point) The meaning of our Church (saith he) is not to pray for Christ's reconciliation, who was always well pleasing to God, but in respect of the infirmity of the Priest and people, that the offering may be accepted from them. So he. But whatsoever the meaning of the Priest in his praying is, sure we are this cannot be the meaning of the Prayer; for the matter prayed for is set down to be Holy Bread of life, and Cup of Salvation, which you interpret to be Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament; and the tenor of prayer expressly is, [Upon which Lord look propitiously;] we say, upon which, not upon whom; which point is confirmed in that which followeth. Thirdly therefore he illustrateth. The Comparison (saith he) is not absolutely between the Sacrifice of Abel, and of Christ, but in respect of the faitb and devotion of the Priest, and people, that they with like faith may offer, as Abel did. But this piece of Answer is that, which is called in Music Discantas contra punctum; for the prayer is directly: [Look down propitiously upon these, as thou didst upon the gifts of Abel.] The Comparison than is distinctly between the Gifts, and not between the Givers. Yea but not absolutely so meant (saith he:) be it so, yet if it be so meant but in part, that Christ, who is Propitiation itself, shall be prayed for to be propitiously, and favourably looked upon by God, the prayer is Sacrilegious in an high degree. Fourthly his Reason. It is known (saith he) that the Sacrifices of Sheep and Oxen had nothing in themselves, whereby to pacify, or please God, the Scripture saying, that Abel offered a better Sacrifice than Cain. And again, God had respect to Abel, and to his Gifts. So he. Which is the very Reason that persuadeth Protestants to call that your Prayer most Sacrilegious, because whereas the Gifts of Abel were but Sheep, etc. you, notwithstanding, compare them with the offering up of Christ, saying, [As thou didst the Gifts of Abel.] For although it be true, that the Gift of Abel was accepted for the Faith of the Giver, and not the Giver for his Gift; yet if you shall apply this to the point in Question, than your Gift (in your Opinion) being Christ, and your Givers but simply men, (whom you have called Priest, and People) it must follow that Christ is accepted for the Faith of the Priest, and People; and not the Priest and People for Christ, which maketh your Prayer fare more abominably Sacrilegious. And not much less is that which followeth, praying God to command his Angel to carry (if the Gift be He) Christ into heaven; contrary to the Article of our Catholic Faith, which teacheth us to believe his perpetual Residence in heaven, at the right hand of the Father. He answereth: c Bellarm. sup. And so Doctor heskin's (out of Hugo de sancto victore) in his Parliament of Christ, Book 3. Chap. 395. It is not meant, that God would command his Angel to carry Christ's Body, but our prayers and desires, by the intercession of the Angel unto God for us. So he. Which is as truly a false Gloss, as the former; for, in the Tenor of your Mass, the Subject of your prayer is [Holy Bread of life, and Cup of salvation.] The prayer is plainly thus; Upon which, O Lord, look propitiously: and immediately after, Command [These] to be carried by thy Angel. Mark, [These] viz. That Bread of life, and Cup of salvation; even that, which you call, The Body, and Blood of Christ, as Corporally Present: which maketh your prayer to be Sacrilegious still, and your Expositors (that we may so say) miserably Radiculous. That the former Romish Prayer, as it was Ancient, doth in the (then) true meaning thereof condemn the now Romish Church of the former Sacrilegious Innovation. SECT. iv FOr to think that it should be prayed, that God would be propitious to Christ, were an Execrable opinion, even in the judgement of our Adversaries themselves; who for avoidance thereof have obtruded an Exposition, as fare differing from the Text, as doth This from That, or Christ from the Priest, as you have heard. But whither will he now? Your Cardinal telleth you, that the words of your Romish Canon are ancient, such as are found in the a Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa, cap. 24. Super quae propitio, etc. habentur apud Ambrosium post consecrationem Lib 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. Rursus Bellar. ibid. Haec verba posita sunt post consecrationem apud Ambrosium lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. in Liturgijs jacobi, Clementis, Basilij, Chrysostomi. Missals of Saint james, of Clement Pope of Rome, of Basil, of chrysostom, and of Ambrose. You will hold it requisite that we consult with these Liturgies, set out by yourselves, for the better understanding of the Tenor of your Romish Mass. The Principal Quaere will be, whether Antiquity in her Liturgies, by praying to God for a propitious Acceptation, and admittance into his Celestial Altar, meant (as your Cardinal answered) propitiousness towards Priest, and People, in respect of their Faith, and devotion; and not towards the Things offered distinctly in themselves? In the pretended Liturgy of b Liturgia jacobi antè Conjecrationem. Diaconus. Oremus pro sanctificatis tremendis donis— ut Dominus acceptis eye in supercoeleste spirituale Altare suum in odorem suavitatis mittat nobis divinam gratiam. Tum Sacerdos. Deus, ac Pater Domini Dei, & Servatoris— qui tibi oblata munera frugum oblationes accepisti in odorem suavitatis— sanctifica animas nostras. Post Sacerdos censecrans, verba Consecrationis adhibet: Sancte qui in sanctis requiescis— suscipe hymnum incorruptum in sanctis & incruentis Sacrificijs tuis. Saint james (before Consecration) the prayer to God is, To accept the Gifts unto his celestial Altar; even the Gifts, which he called The fruits of the earth. And then after, for the Parties, aswell Priest, as People, To sanctify their souls. In the Liturgy of c Liturgia Bafilij ante Consecrationem. Pontifex— Suscipe nos, ut simus digni offerre rationabile illud absque sanguine Sacrificium— & vide super servitutem nostram: ut suscepisti munera Abel, sic ex manibus nostris suscipe ista ex benignitate tuâ. Et rursus Diac. Pro oblatis, sanctificatis, & honorificentissimis muneribus Deum postulemus, ut qui accepit ea in sancto & supercoelesti Altari suo, in odorem suavitatis, emittat gratiam & spiritum nobis, etc. Post, sequitur Consecratio. Pontifex: Respice Domine jesu. Et post Consecrationem; Gratias agimus. Basil (before Consecration) it is prayed to God, that he Receiving the Gifts into his celestial Altar, would also (concerning the Parties) send his Grace, and Spirit upon them. And no less plainly Pope d Clement. Constitut. lib. 8. cap. 16. called, Constitutio jacobi, apud Binium. Tu, qui Abelis Sacrificium suscepisti— And after, Pro omnibus tibi gloria, etc. cap. 17. Benignè aspicere digneris super haec dona proposita in conspectu tuo— & complaceas tibi in eyes, in honorem Christi, & mittas spiritum super hoc Sacrificium, testem passionum ejus— ut ostendas hunc panem corpus ejus, etc. Post Consecrationem, cap. 19 Etiam rogemus Deum, per Christum suum, pro munere oblato Domino, ut Deus, qui bonus est, suscipiat illud per Mediatorem Christum in coeleste Altare suum in odorem suavitatis pro hâc Ecclesiâ, etc. Clemens, teaching (before Consecration) to pray God, who received the Gifts of Abel graciously, to behold these Gifts propounded to the honour of his Son Christ; expressly differencing this Sacrifice, done in honour of Christ, from Christ himself, who is honoured thereby. And, after Consecration, to Beseech God through Christ to accept the Gift offered to him, and to take it into his Celestial Altar: where the prayer to God is not to accept of Christ, but of the Gift for Christ's sake, and to the honour of Christ, in whom God is Propitious unto us: we say again, the Gift for Christ, and not Christ for the Gift, (what can be more plain against all Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament?) and to receive it into his Celestial Altar, but how? by intercession of Angels? No, but expressly thus: By Christ the Mediator. In the Liturgy of e Missa Chrysostomi antè Consecrationem. Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile, & incruentum hoc obsequium. Deposcimus ut mittas Spiritum sanctum super nos, et super apposita munera Sequitur Consecratio. Fac Panem istum preciosum Corpus, etc. Post Consecrationem. Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile hoc obsequium pro fideliter do●mientibꝰ, etc. Post. Dominum deprecemur, ut qui suscepit ea in sancto et coelesti Altari suo, mittat nobis proprerea gratiam, et donum Spiritus sancti. chrysostom (before Consecration) God is prayed unto, and supplicated thus: We beseech thee to send thy Spirit upon us, and upon the Gifts set before us. Even as f Ambros. de Sacram lib 4. cap. 6. post Consecrationem. Offerimus tibi hunc Papem sanctum, et Calicem, et perimus ut hanc Oblationem suscipias in sublimi Altari tuo per manus Angelorum, sicut accipere dignatus es munera pueri tui Abel, etc. Ambrose explaineth his Supplication (after Consecration) for God, To accept this Oblation, namely that, which he called Holy Bread, and Cup. If therefore these former Forms may interpret your Roman Liturgy, as it was Ancient, the prayer therein to God, desiring him to be Propitious, must have relation to the things above specified called Holy Bread of life, and Cup of Salvation, as distinguished from Priest, and People. Wherefore your Roman Missals being so Ancient in this one point, in praying God (after Consecration) to be Propitious to that, which is called the Bread of life eternal, and Cup of everlasting salvation; lest it might carry a Sacrilegious Sense, to wit, that the Body of Christ is here the proper Subject of the Eucharist, and consequently to need a Propitiation to God, by virtue of men's prayers (thereby greatly derogating from the meritorious Satisfaction of Christ:) you ought to reduce this your Roman Canon to the Orthodox meaning of Ancient Liturgies above mentioned; and to understand it Sacramentally only, (namely) our Objective Representation, Commemoration, and Application thereof by us, which is our Act of Celebration. To the former vast heap of Sacrilegious Positions, and Practices, we may add your other many vile, and impious g Book 5. throughout. Indignities offered to the all-glorious Son of God, in making his sacred Body, in your own opinions, obnoxious to the Imprisoning in Boxes, Tearing with men's Teeth, Devouring, Vomiting it by the Communicants, and the Transmittance into your guts, yea and into the parts inferior, together with the Eating, and Feeding thereupon by Dogs, Mice, Worms; and (which transcendeth, if it may be, all your other Absurdities) to be deprived of all natural power of Motion, Sense, and Understanding. O Abominable! Abominable! A Synopsis of the idolatrousness of the Romish Mass, and Defence thereof; by many Evidences from Antiquity. SECT. V Our first Argument is against the foundation thereof, which is your Interpretation of the Article [HOC] by denying it to have Relation to Bread; contrary to the verdict of an Inquest of Ancient Fathers, showing, that the same pointeth out Bread, as you have a Book 2. Cham 1. Sect. 6. heard: whereby the monstrous Conception of Transubstantiation is strangled in the very womb. Insomuch that sometimes they expressly * Ibid. interpret it thus; Christ's Body, and Blood, that is, (say they) The Bread, and Wine. Item, He gave the name of the Sign to the thing signified. Item, Bread the Sign of his Body. And lastly, Bread is called Christ's Body, because it signifieth his Body. Secondly (in the point of Transubstantiation itself) They calling the Eucharist (which you dare not) b Book 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 5. & 11. & Sect. 14. in Chrysost, and by Cyprian his Confutation of the Aquarii, ibid. Sect. 5. & Book 1. Cham 3. Sect. 3. Bread and c Book 3. Cham 3. Sect. 5. Wine, after Consecration, and naming them * Ibid. Sect. 13. Earthly materials, and Matter of Bread: and also (as you have heard out of the Ancient Liturgies) d Above in this Book, Ch. 1. Sect. 4. Fruits of the Earth; and yet more plainly, by way of Periphrasis, describing them to consist of e Book 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Divers grains, and Divers grapes. After, by approving the Suffrage and judgement of our f Book 3. Cham 3. Sect. 8, 9, etc. Senses, in discerning all Sensible things; and in special the Eucharist itself; and at length affirming that there remaineth therein the g Book 3. Cham 3. Sect. 11. Substance of Bread, and Wine, which are the Subject matter of your Divine Adoration. All which are other Three Demonstrations of their meanings, every singular point being avouched by the Suffrages of Antiquity. Thirdly against your Faith, concerning the manner of Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; because so fare were the Fathers from believing that the Body of Christ could be in h Book 4. throughout. divers places (as you say in Millions) at one time, that by this property of Being in many places at once, they have discerned Angels to be Finite Spirits, and not God. They have distinguished the Godhead of Christ from his Manhood; and they have proved the Holy Ghost to be God, and no Creature by the same Reason. Than which Three Arguments none can be more Convincent. Whereunto you may add the Father's speeches, contradicting your Dream of a Body whole in every part, in whatsoever space; or place; by judging it Impossible, and also concluding Christ his Ascension into Heaven to argue his Absence from Earth; all which have i Ibid. Chap. 7. Sect 6. and Book 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. been discussed from point to point. Our Fourth General Argument is, that whereas your Corporal Presence must needs infer Corporal Eating thereof by the Communicants, notwithstanding you have heard the contrary Sentences of Ancient Fathers, against k Book 5. throughout. Tearing, and Swallowing of Christ's Body, and Bodily Egestion. Next concerning the Eaters, that only the Godly faithful are partakers thereof; insomuch that even the Godly under the old Testament did eat the same. Then, of the Remainders of the Consecrated Hosts, that they were l Book. 1. Cham 2. Sect. 10. Earen (by the ordinance of the Church) by Schoolboys, and sometimes Burnt in the fire. Besides they called them m Book 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. and Book 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. Bits, and Fragments of Bread broken (after Consecration) and diminished. And lastly, in respect of the End of Eating. n Book 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. They held the thing present to be a pledge of Christ's Body absent: and also o Book 5. Chap. 9 Sect. 2. allowed such a Touch of his Body by Faith that whosoever so toucheth him is Sanctified. Which Observations, concerning our Fourth General Argument, do minister unto us five particular Reasons, which make our Defence to be Impreinable. Fifthly, forasmuch as you teach the Subject matter of the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ, as a proper Sacrifice propitiatory; we, upon due inquisition into the doctrine of Antiquity, have p Book 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. throughout, and elsewhere. found the Ancient Father's I. Nothing that, which they called Sacrifice herein, to be Bread, and Wine, saying thereupon that Melchisedech, in that his Bread and Wine, offered the Body and Blood of Christ. II. Such a Subject, which being taken in great Quantity doth q B 3. Chap. 13 Sect. 10 nourish and satiate man's Bodily Nature. III. Such, as needeth prayer to God, that it may be r In this Book 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Acceptable to God, as was the Sacrifice of Abel's sheep. iv So naming it an Unbloody Sacrifice, as meaning thereby s Book 6. throughout, more especially Chap. 5. Sect. 9, & 10. void of Blood, which cannot agreed to the Body of Christ now risen from death. V So qualifying their other Exuberances, and Excess of speech (wherein they named it The same Sacrifice of Christ once offered) by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 correcting it thus; t Book 6. Cham 5. Sect. 6. A Sacrifice, or rather a Memorial thereof. VI By placing the Sacrifice of Christ his Body, as now Presentative only in Heaven, and the thing offered, on Earth but a Sign. VII. In all your objected Testimonies, for proof of the same Body of Christ in the Eucharist, which suffered on the Cross, they understood the same as the u Book 6. Cham 5. Sect. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Object of our Remembrance, and not as the Subject of Offering, which make up so many Arguments moe. VIII. By paralleling x In this Book, Chap. 2. Sect. 2, & 3. Baptism with the Eucharist, in like tenor of speech, from point to point. IX. By praying God to be y Above in this Book, Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Propitious to that which is offered. Sixthly, upon the same Doctrine of Corporal Presence you have erected and fastened the roof of all your Building, which is, Divine Adoration of the Host: yet notwithstanding have you not been able, by the Testimonies of any ancient Father, to free yourselves from Formal Idolatry, by any of your z Book 7. throughout. Pretences (devised for your excuse) either of Good Intent, Moral Certainty, or of Habitual Condition: especially seeing that the Fathers, by that their universal Invitation, [Lift up your hearts] abstracted still the thoughts of the Communicants from contemplating of any Subject present here Below, that they might be drawn to the meditation of the Body of Christ, as it is in Heaven. Lastly, in your own Romish Mass, praying (after Consecration) God to be propitious to the things offered, as to Abel's Sacrifice, which was but a sacrificed Sheep. Compute all these Particulars, and you shall find about sixteen Arguments, to prove you to be absolutely Idolaters. We having thus reveiled these Three Principal, and Fundamental Abominations, do now proceed to their Concomitants and Consequences, which are Mixtures of Heresy in many, Overture of Perjury in some, and Obstinacy in all. We begin at the last. CHAP. II. Of the exceeding Obstinacy of the Romish Disputers, made palpable by their own Contradictions; and of the Defence thereof, as being Contradictory in itself. SECT. I. ALl your Disputers show themselves in nothing more zealous, than in maintenance of your Romish Mass, which they contend for by objecting Scriptures, Fathers, and Reasons: notwithstanding their Expositions of Scriptures, their Inferences out of the Fathers, their devised Reasons, and almost all their Confutations are confuted, rejected, and contradicted by their own fellows, as the Sections throughout this whole Tractate do plainly demonstrate. We cannot therefore otherwise judge, but that as Prejudice is the chief Director, so Obstinacy is the greatest Supporter of your Cause. How much more when the Defence itself is found to consist upon mere Contradictories, whereof you may take a Taste out of your Doctrine of Corporal Presence, and of a proper Sacrifice. In the first, by obtruding on men's Consciences a Belief (upon due Consequence) of a Body of Christ Borne, and not Borne of the Virgin Mary; One, and not one; Finite, and not Finite; Divisible, and not Divisible; Perfect, and not Perfect; and also Glorious, and not Glorious, as hath been a Book 4. throughout. proved in each point. II. In a point of properly Sacrificing of Christ's Body, your Music stands upon the same kind of Discords, of b See Book 6. throughout. Teaching a Body Broken, and not Broken; a matter visible, and not visible; of Blood shed, and not shed; and of a suffering Destruction, and not suffering Destruction. Evident Arguments of Obstinacy one would think, and yet behold a plainer, if it may be. One Example, instead of many, of a stupendious Obstinacy, in urging the judgement of Antiquity, for Defence of your Romish Mass, in the chiefect parts thereof; proved by instancing only in their like Say concerning Baptism. SECT. II. THree chief jesuites, besides others, have been (as you may c Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 13. remember) extremely urgent, and important with Protestants to show, if they could, the like Phrases of the Fathers in Baptism, as were used of them concerning the Eucharist, in the question of Sacrifice: as if the just paralleling of these Two might be a Satisfaction unto themselves, concerning that one point. We are to deal more liberally with them, and whereas they assume unto themselves the suffrages of Antiquity; 1. For a Literal Exposition of Christ's words [This is my Body:] 2. For a Change of Bread, by Transubstantiation into his Body: 3. For a Corporal Presence of the same Body in the Sacrament: 4. For a Bodily Union with our Bodies: 5. For a Proper Sacrifice of the Eucharist: And lastly, for a Divine Adoration thereof; we answer them from the Fathers, in their like Say concerning Baptism, throughout every particular. A Synopsis of the Speeches of Ancient Fathers, objected throughout this whole Treatise, for proof of a Corporal Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist; and assoiled and satisfied by the Parallels and like Equivalent Say of the same Fathers; to the manifold and manifest Conviction of all Romish Deliration, in this their Controversy of the Mass. SECT. III. We shall pursue your Objections, and our Solutions, according to the Order of the Books, wherein they are cited. BOOK II. I. Kind of Romish Objections, for proof of the Corporal Presence of Christ's Body OB. I. The Fathers call the Eucharist an Antitype of Christ. Basil, and others. Ergo, is Christ Corporally therein. B. 2. c. 2. §. 6. SOL. Nay; for Baptism is the Antitype of Christ's Passion. Cyril. Ibid. OB. II. The Fathers call Bread the Body of Christ. Cyprian. and others. Ergo, they understood his Corporal Presence therein. B. 2. c. 2. §. 9 SOL. Nay; for as Baptism is called by the Apostle a Burial: So is the Sacrament of his Body called his Body. Augustine. And Baptism, the Sacrament of Adoption, is called Adoption. Facundus. Ibid. BOOK III. II. Kind of Objections, for proof of a Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, are found in this third Book. OB. I. THe Fathers say of the Eucharist, that It is no Common Bread. Irenaeus, and justin Martyr, etc. B. 3. c. 4. §. 3. SOL. Nor is Water, in Baptism, Bare Water. Cyril. Ibid. OB. II. We must not judge hereof by sense, for no sensible thing is herein given unto us. chrysostom. B. 3. c. 4. § 5. Ergo. etc. SOL. In Baptism no sensible thing is delivered. Chrysost. Ibid. Nor are we to consider Baptism with the eyes of the Body. Council of Nice. B. 3. c. 4. Sect. 8. OB. III. By Divine working is Bread made Christ's Body. Ambrose. Ergo, It is present. B. 3. c. 4. Sect. 7. SOL. Nay; for by Baptism is man made a new Creature. Ambrose. By which the Baptised is made the flesh of Christ. P. Leo Ibid. OB. IU. Bread is changed into Christ's Body. Greg. Nyssen. B. 3. c. 4. Sect. 7. Ergo, etc. SOL. Not so; for of the Eucharist so, as of Baptism: It preserveth the propriety of its sensible Substance. Ephraimius. Book 3. c. 3. Sect. 14. BOOK. iv III. Kind of Romish Objections, for proof of a Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, are found in this Fourth Book. OB. I. CHrist is present in the Sacrament. So Fathers. Book 4. Ergo, etc. SOL. We have Christ present in Baptism. Aug. B. 4. c. 1. Sect. 2. OB. II. Think not that the Priest, but Christ reacheth it unto thee. chrysostom. Ergo, etc. Book 3. c. 4. Sect. 6. SOL. Even as it is said of Baptism; It is not the Minister, but God that Baptizeth, and holdeth the head of the person Baptised. Chrysost. B. 3. c. 4. Sect. 6. OB. III. Miracles have been wrought by this divine Sacrament of the Eucharist. Socrates. Ergo, etc. B. 4. cap. 2. Sect. 5. SOL. Miracles have been wrought at the Font. August. Book 4. cap. 2. Sect. 5. And, The Divine Water of Baptism produceth marvellous effects. Greg. Nyssen. Book 3. cap. 3. Sect. 13. BOOK V. IU. Kind of Romish Objections, for proof of a Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, are found in this Fifth Book. I. By Tovc●. OB. I. We touch him, and he is held by the hand of the Priest. Chrysost. Ergo, etc. Book 5. cap. 4. Sect. 2. SOL. As well is it said by him, of parties Baptised, that They hold the feet of our Saviour. Chrysost. Ibid. OB. TWO By the Eucharist, Christ's Blood is sprinkled upon us, when he is received both with mouth and heart. Pope Gregory. Ergo, etc. B. 5. c. 5. §. 6. in the Margin. SOL. Accordingly of Baptism. Christ's Blood is sprinkled on the Foreheads of the Baptised. Pope Gregory. Ibid. II. BY EATING. OB. I. We eat Christ's flesh in the Eucharist. Divers Fathers. Ergo, etc. B. 5. c. 5. Sect. 2. SOL. And Infants are partakers of his flesh by being Baptised. August. B. 5. c. 8. Sect. 1. OB. II. Our Tongues, in receiving the Eucharist, are made red with his Blood. Chrysost. Ergo, etc. Book 5. cap. 5. Sect. 6. SOL And Baptism is red with his Blood. August. Ibid. Sect. 6. III. By our manner of Union with Christ's body, through this Sacrament. OB. I. We have a natural Union with Christ hereby, and not only in affection. Cyril and Hilary. Ergo, etc. Book 5. cap. 8. Sect. 2. SOL. So likewise Christians by Baptism are made one with Christ, not only in affection, but also in nature. Hilary. Ibid. We are incorporate in Christ. Aug. Ibid. Sect. 1. Made Bone of his Bone, and flesh of his flesh. Chrysost. Ibid. OB. II. We are Christopher's, or Carriers of Christ hereby. Cyril. Ergo. B. 5. c. 8. Sect. 3. SOL. So also, by Baptism, We put on Christ. Pope Leo. B. 5. c. 5. § 6. iv By the Effects which are ascribed to the Eucharist. OB. I. The wicked eating are made guilty of the Lords Body, and do injury to Christ. Cyprian. Ergo. B. 5. c. 9 §. 1. SOL. He that receiveth Baptism unworthily, is guilty of judgement. August. B. 5. c. 2. § 5. And, when any Sacrament is violated, the author thereof is violated. Hierome. Ibid. Sect. 6. OB. II. The Eucharist is our Viaticum, in our way to Heaven. Fathers in their Liturgies. Ergo. B. 5. cap. 9 Sect. 1. SOL. And Baptism is our Viaticum. Basil, and Nazianzen. Ibid. OB. III. The Eucharist is a Token and Pledge unto us of our Resurrection. Primasius, and Gaudentius. Ergo. Book 5. cap. 4. Sect. ●. SOL. Well, And Baptism is an Earnest of our Resurrection to life. Theod. & Basil. Ibid. OB. IU. By the Eucharist we are nourished unto Immortality. Cyril. Ergo. B. 5. c. 8. Sect. 2. SOL. So likewise of Baptism; By it we are made alive, as being no more earthly. Athanasius. Ibid. BOOK VI. V Kind is in the point of Sacrifice, whereof in this sixth Book throughout. OB. I. THe Fathers call the Eucharist a Sacrifice of Christ. chrysostom, and others. B. 6. throughout. Ergo. SOL. And what of Baptism? It is the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion; and every one offereth, when he is Baptised in the faith of Christ, as others before us (saith S. August.) have taught. B. 6. c. 5. Sect. 13. OB. II. The Eucharist is an unbloody Sacrifice, and a reasonable service of God. The Fathers. Ergo. B. 6. c. 5. Sect. 9 SOL. Baptism is our reasonable worship of God. Athanas. B. 6. c. 5. Sect. 9 BOOK VII. VI Kind of Romish Objections for proof of Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, arise from this their Pretence, that the Fathers gave Divine Adoration unto it. OB. I. THis Sacrament of the Eucharist is dreadful, whereunto men should come with fear. Chrysost. Ergo, to be Adored with divine worship. Book 7. cap. 2. Sect. 2. SOL. So the Canons of Baptism are terrible words. Chrysost. B. 6. c. 5. §. 8. And We are to be brought with fear and horror to Baptism. August. Book 7. cap. 2. Sect. 1. OB. II. Angels of God are present at the Eucharist. Chrysost. Ergo, etc. B. 7. c. 2. Sect. 2. SOL. And, The Angels magnify Baptism by their presence. Greg. Nazian. Ibid. OB. III. The mystery of the Eucharist is to be kept secret from Infidels and Catechumenists. And Only [fideles nôrunt.] August. and Others. Ergo, etc. Book 7. cap. 3. Sect. 1. SOL. Let none but perfect Christians see the signs of Baptism. Dionys. Areop. and Only [fideles nôrunt.] August. Ibid. OB. IU. None eateth the flesh of Christ before he adore. August. Ergo, etc. B. 7. c. 2. Sect. 3. SOL. The Catechumenists adore, before they be baptised. Athanasius. Ibid. OB. V. We adore these mysteries. Ambrose. Ergo, etc. Book 7. cap. 2. Sect. 3. SOL. And, We Reverence Baptism wheresoever. Aug. Ibidem. Baptism is worshipped. Idem ibidem. OB. VI Of the Eucharist, O Divine Sacrament. Dionys. Areop. Ergo, etc. B. 7. c. 3. Sect. 4. SOL. Just so of Baptism; O water, that etc. Optat. Divine Lavar. Greg. Nyssen. Book 7. cap. 7. Sect. 4. So many Parallels, so pregnant and punctual, in so main points, assoiling Romish Objections in their Instances of greatest weight and urgency; what, but Obstinacy itself, could possibly oppose to this Evidence? CHALLENGE. SO many Testimonies of Fathers, so mainly insisted upon by your Doctors, for warrant of such Erroneous, Superstitious, Sacrilegious, and Idolatrous Romish Doctrines, and each one not more vehemently objected, in the Question concerning the Eucharist, than easily retorted, and confuted, by instancing in Baptism; what greater Evidence can any desire to be made of a wilful Obstinacy (that we say not madness) than this of your Disputers appeareth to be? but how much more, if we should point at the other manifold Instances, which we have prosecuted at large throughout this whole Volume, wherein their unconscionableness hath been manifested in all passages to the Conscience of every indifferent Reader. Yet were this their Gild not so heinous, if such their Obstinacy were not infected with some contagion of Perjury. A Synopsis of manifold Overtures of Perjuries, in Defence of the Romish Mass. SECT. iv EVery Perjury presupposeth an Oath; which you have in the a Bulla Pii Quarti super forma juramenti— Profiteor omnia declarata in Concilio Tridentino: & hanc esse sidem veram Catholicam, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest. Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth, imposed upon every Ecclesiastic, subject to the See of Rome, for the ratifying of the Belief of the many new Romish Articles contained therein, as True, Catholic, and without which none can be saved. The due proof that the same Oath, almost in each new Article, maketh the Swearer obnoxious to Perjury, is a Subject which would require a full Treatise; for the which we are not altogether unprovided. But we are to confine ourselves to the Observations promised in our former Discourse, in four special points. I. Overture of Perjury is in Swearing unto that, which is called The Vulgar Latin Translation. THis is decreed in the Council of a Synod. Trid. Sess. 4. Decretum de Editione statuit, ut haec Vulgata editio, quae tot saeculorum usu approbata in Ecclesia, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, & expositionibus pro Authentica habeatur, ut nemo illam rejicere quovis praetextu audeat— statuit & decrevit ut haec vetus Editio quàm emendatissimè imprimatur. Trent to be Authentical, and not to be rejected upon any Pretence whatsoever. Whereunto (together with all other Decrees, and Declarations of the same Council) you are sworn by the form of Oath set down in the foresaid Bull of the Pope. The same Vulgar Translation, professed by you to be Authentical, and that (as you expound it) it is b Sacrobos. Defence. Decreti Trid. part 2. cap. 4. Quandò in hac Disputatione Authenticam dicimus versionem, nihil aliud volumus, quam eam esse omninò conformem suo fonti, sive fidelem esse, ac synceram, etc. Possevin. Biblioth. part. 2. lib. 12. cap. 16. Sanè Authenticam pro re certae ●idei pon● constat. Greg. Valent. Anal. lib. 8. cap. 5. Esse Authenticam, nihil aliud est hoc in loco quàm conformem esse Originali. Consonant unto the Original, the Hebrew, and Greek Texts, hath notwithstanding been rejected by your c Book 6. Cap. 1. Sect 2. Cardinal, and the Greek Translation urged for proof of a Proper Sacrifice. Even as it hath been frequently excepted against by other learned Doctors in your Church, after the Council of Trent, noting Errors therein not only by fault of Print, but also such as happened by the Negligence, or Ignorance of the Author thereof, as is d Azorius Moral. Tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 3. §. Quartò. etc. Quaeritur an Vulgata in reliquis extra fidem & mores (in quibus pro certo habendum, Eam omni vacare errore,) errorem aliquem contineat. Inter Catholicos dubitatum est, quibusdam asserentibus eam esse à Concilio approbatam, tanquam immunem ab omni errore in fide & moribus, non tamen ab aliis, & proinde aliqua in ea esse vitia: item aliqua, quae significantiùs, proptiùs, veriùs, & meliùs verti potuerint: aliqua esse in contrarium & alienum sensum conversa, idque probant testimonio Catholicorum virorum, quipost Concilium Tridentinum scripserant, viz. Vega, lib. 15. cap. 9 super Conc. Trid. Senensis lib. 8. ad finem. Canus loc. Theol. lib. 2. cap. 13. Andradius Payva Dese● Trid. lib 4 Lindanus de optimo gen. interp. lib. 3. cap. 10. etc. Hi omnes fatentur aliquos esse errores non solùm vitio Scriptorum, sed etiam incuriâ & negligentiâ ipsius Interpretis. confessed; notwithstanding that Inhibition in that Decree, viz. Not to reject it upon any pretence whatsoever. Who, to free themselves from Perjury, make this Comment upon it, that this restraint of Not rejecting it is only in matter of Faith, and good manners. Which is also your e Bellar. lib 2 de verbo Dei, cap. 12. Ecclesia tantùm hanc versionem appellavit, non ita tamen ut asseruerit nullos Librariorū errores in ea reperiti, sed certos nos reddere voluit, in iis praesertim quae ad fidem & mores pertinent, nulla esse in hac versione Interpretum errata. Eodem modo Sacrobos● Defence. fid. Tried & Salmeron. Tom. 1. Prolegom. 3. Cardinal his Evasion; but is no better than a lurking hole, and so seemeth it to be to your two jesuits f Azorius quo supra. Mihi verò verior videtur eorum esse sententia, qui opinantur vulgatā Editionem non solum in rebus fidei, & morum, sed in caeteris quoque omnibus omni errore career: quia licet aliquando aliqua significantius, proprius, ac latius reddi potuerit; non tamen verius, aut simpliciter certius. Azorius, and g Greg. Valent. Analys lib. 8. c. 4. §. Etenim, etc. Quod autem Ecclesia addit: Ne ullus illam quovis praetextu audeat rejicere, id profecto evidenti argumento est, in omnibus omninò locis, & quod attinet ad omnes scripturae sententias esse hanc ut Authenticam (i. e. Conformem Scripturae Originali) à Concilio approbatam. Secus enim praetextus aliquis superesset, quò, non obstante hac definitione Concilii, posset aliquandò ea Editio in Disputationibus rejici, nempè si diceretur in hoc certè aut in illo loco, non esse hujus Authorem Editionis Spiritus Sancti mentem assecutum— In omnibus igitur locis vult Concilium Eam haberi pro Authenticâ, exceptis erroribus Typographorum— (Vt judic. 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 two, 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 think that Oath to be violated, if the Vulgar Latin be rejected at all, as less 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 Latin, or other be further allowed than as it agreeth with the Originals, they fair 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 Council of Trent it is not lawful to reject the same Translation upon any pretence whatsoever. ⚜ Accordingly your jesuite Lorinus (in a matter concerning neither faith nor manners) 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 lawful for us (saith he) to follow an Exposition differing from the Vulgar Edition, which is now corrected. ⚜ So they. And so fare unsatisfied are your Doctors, in taking this Oath. We are furthermore not destiture of matter for a large Confutation (first) of your assuming Saint Hierome as the Author of your Vulgar Latin Translation; to manifest that it is no more the Translation of Hierome, or yet of any one Author, than the divers habits of a man's Body, from head to foot, can be called the work of one singular workman. Secondly, concerning the Authority thereof, you profess it to be Authentical (that is, as you have defined) Conformable to the Original Hebrew and Greek: 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 been so thoroughly battered and pierced, that at last the keel and bottom thereof did only remain, which could be called the Same. But passing by all further Dispute, we shall refer you to the judgement of the Patroness of the former Rule (so insolently contemned by the Spanish Inquisitors, as you have heard) by one Instance, which may be sufficient in itself for trial of the Case now in hand. The Text of Scripture is Ephes. 1. 14. in the Latin 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, quàm 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 Greek 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 he that giveth a Pledge taketh it again, 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 Error of Print, and not of Doctrine, may be rejected by you without Prejudice to your Oath; no, for Error 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 Press thus; This is a fond Reason.) But between Pignus, and Arrhabo, there is no more Symphony than between an Horse, and a Saddle. Nor will it avail you to say that the Original Greek was corrupted, for it is the same Greek word, which Hierome himself (who as you know used the perfectest Greek Text) doth here avow to be True. II. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the Romish Expositions of Scripture. THe Tenor 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, etc. 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 elsewhere we have proved to be a GRAND IMPOSTURE, in a full Tractate, from the Doctrine of the Apostles, of General Counsels, of several Catholic Churches, and from such Primitive Fathers, whose memories are at this day registered in the Romish Calendar 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 she had not Held in more Ancient Times. We, for Trial hereof, shall for this present seek 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, joh. 6. Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, you cannot have life. The word [Except] was extended unto Infants in the days of Pope Innocent the First, continuing (as hath been b Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. ●1. confessed) six hundred years together, when the Church of Rome thereupon Held it necessary for Infants to receive the Eucharist. Contrarily the now Roman Church Holdeth it Inexpedient to administer the Eucharist unto Infants, as you have heard. Secondly, Luk. 22. Take, Eat, etc. Your Church of Rome, in the days of Pope Nicholas, in a Council at Rome, Held, that by the word, Eat, was meant an c Book 3. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Eating, by Tearing the Body of Christ sensually with men's teeth, in a Literal sense. Which your now Roman Church (if we may believe your jesuites) doth not Hold, as hath appeared. Thirdly the Tenor of the Institution of Christ, concerning the Cup, was Held in the days of Pope d Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. Gelasius to be peremptory, for the administration thereof, to prove that the Eucharist ought to be administered in both kinds to all Communicants, and judging the dismembering of them a Grand Sacrilege, as you have heard: whereas now your Romish Church Holdeth it not only lawful, but also religious to withhold the Cup from all, but only Consecrating Priests. Upon these (omitting other Scriptures, which you yourselves may observe at your best leisure) 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 Proverb must needs be verified upon you, viz. You hold a Wolf by the ear: 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. Hear 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 Council, where the major part of voices conclude the less; for Council never writ Commentaries upon Scriptures, but from Scriptures collect their Conclusions. And although the word [unanimous] doth literally signify the universal Consent (which would infer an Impossibility, because that all Fathers have not expounded any one Scripture, and very few (All) yet that you may know we press 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 aver, that your juror by this Oath is sworn to a flat Falsity, because you cannot deny but that the Fathers, in their Expositions, descent among themselves, insomuch that you yourselves are at difference, among yourselves, 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. joc. 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 dream of an Unanimity in Disparity? Sometime there is a Non-Constat, what is the judgement 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. jesuite) 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 we call Popery, which is devising and obtruding upon the Church of Christ new Articles of Faith unknown (for aught you know) to Ancient Fathers. And is it possible to find an Unanimity of Consent in an Individual Unity, 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 appear that this Article, touching the unanimous Consent of Fathers, is a mere Ostentation and gullery, and no better than that Challenge made by the wise man of Athens of all the Ships, that entered into the Road, to be his own: as if you should say, All the Fathers do patronise your Romish Cause. We shall give you one or two Examples, among your jesuites, as patterns of the Disposition of others in neglecting, slighting, and rejecting the more General Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures. One Instance may be given in your Cardinal, who, in his Commentaries upon the Psalms, dedicated to the then Pope, professeth himself to have composed them, e Bellar. Epist. Dedic. Paulo Quinto entè Comment. in Psal. Psalmorum ego tractationem magis propriâ meditatione, quam mul●â librorum lectione composui. Rather by his own meditation, than by reading of many Books; whereas he that will seek for unanimous Consent of Fathers, must have a perusal of them all. In the second place hearken unto the Accents of your jesuite 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, quem omnes, praeter Hilarium, quos legisse memini, Authores putant. Iten in Mat. 11. 11. Variae sunt Patrū 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 joh. 6. 62. Sic quidem expono, & licet Expositionis hujus Autorem nullum habeo, hanc tamen magis probo, quam illam Augustini, caeterorumque alioqui probabilissimam, quia hoc cum CALVINISTARUM sensu magis pugnat. So indeed said the Fathers, but I believe the Contrary. Item, This seemeth not to me to be the Sense of this place, which All, whom I have read, except Hilary, do think. Item, Their Opinions are divers, I rest upon of them all. Item, All Ancients almost do so expound this Text, but this is no fit Interpretation. Item, Thus I expound this Scripture, and albeit I have no Author of this Exposition, yet I do approve it rather than that of Augustine, or of Others, although otherwise most probable, even because it is repugnant to the Sense and Exposition of the CALVINISTS. So he, and that usually. (O dura ilia!) With what Stomach could this man swallow that Oath? Salmeron the jesuite may stand for the Third upon that Text, Rom. 5. In whom all have sinned, which teacheth the universal Gild of Original Sin of mankind. What the Sense of the Fathers was from this Text, your Canus will certify you; g Canus 〈◊〉 Theol lib. 7. cap. 3. Sanct omnes qui in ejus rei mentionem incidôre, uno ore asseruerunt B. Virginem in originali peccato conceptam fuisse. And then he rechoneth, adding: Et si nullos contravenerit; infirmum tamen ex omnium autoritate Argumentum. All they (saith he) who have formerly fallen upon this subject matter, have confessed, as it were with one mouth, that the Virgin Mary was conceived in Original sin, no one contrarying this Opinion. So he, of the judgement of Antiquity, which notwithstanding he durst contradict. But we return to your jesuite, who premising that this Question doth belong to Faith, propoundeth h Saloteron. Ies. in Rom 5. Disp. 49. In quo omnes peccaverunt.] Mariam conceptam in originali peccato, etsi non sit haeresis damnata, nempè tamen ad fidem spectat. Item Disp 51. A qua multitudine Patrum, locum ab autoritate infirmum, &— Pauperis est numerare pecus— Exod. 13. In judicio plurimorum non acquitsces sententiae, ut à vero demas: & multitudinem multitudini opponimus. At Devoti erga D. Virg. Resp. Totam Devotionem erga illam non consistere in Patribus, ut in Bernardo, etc. At Antiqui. Resp Quilibet senex laudator temporis acti●sed & illud asserimus, quo juniores, eo perspicactores Doctores esse [After he wrangleth, and wresteth some say of Fathers to his part,] In celeberrimâ Pansiensium Academâ nullus in Theologia titolo Doctoris dignus habetur, qui non primum jusjurandi religione se adstrinxerit ad hoc Virginis privilegium tuendum. Objections made out of the Fathers, for proof that the Virgin Mary hath the same Original defect in her own natural Generation, and shapeth Answers full of regret, and reluctancy. For, first, To this Objection; The Fathers did consent: He answereth thus; The Argument from Authority is infirm. II. To this; The Fathers were Ancient: Thus; The younger Divines are more quick of understanding. III. To this; The Fathers were many: He answereth; He is but a poor man that can number his Cattles. And again, confronting the Ancient Fathers, and preferring novel Divines, he saith; We oppose multitude to multitude. IU. But The Fathers were Devout: he answereth; Yet all Devotion towards the Blessed Virgin resteth not in the Fathers. And when one of the Devoutest of them (Bernard by name) is objected, who had said of the point now in Question, i Bernard. Epist. 174. Hanc prolis praeroga●ivam B. Mariae tribuere non est honorate Virginem, sed honori detrahere, Et Paulò antè.— Nunquid Patribus doctiores, aut devotiores simus? To ascribe the prerogative of the Son to the Blessed Virgin, is not an honouring, but a dishonouring her: wherein the same holy Bernard appealeth to Antiquity, saying, Are we either more Learned, or more Devout than the Fathers? Your jesuite answering to him by name, casteth him off with the Rest. Here we see an Oath exacting a Consent to the unanimous Expositions of Fathers, and hear notwithstanding as plain a Dissent of your jesuites opposition unto unanimous Consent of Fathers, which is the ordinary guise of your Disputers in their expounding of Scriptures: and yet behold you (forsooth) the native children, and heirs of the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers. Your Fathers of the Council of Trent have set it down for a Canon, whereunto you are also sworn, that the words of Christ his Institution, concerning the giving of his Body and Blood, * Book 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Have a plain, and proper signification without Tropes: which notwithstanding, the same words of Christ have been evinced to be Figurative, not only by the unanimous Consent of k Book 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. and Chap. 2. Sect. 6. & 7. Antiquity, but also by the express l Book 2. Cham 2. Sect. 4. See also B. 3. Ch. 3. in the words, [The fruit of the Vine.] Sect. 5. Confessions of your own jesuites, in the words [Eat, Break, Cup, etc.] and wherein yourselves have acknowledged divers Tropes. Besides, the whole former Treatise is but a displaying of your unconscionable wresting of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers. Ponder you these Observations with yourselves, and then judge whether your Swearing be not Perjury itself. iv Overture of Perjury, in the Defenders of the Romish Mass, is in respect of the pretended Necessity of their Doctrine. IN the last Clause of the Oath, prescribed in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth, you are sworn that every Article therein is the a See above in this Sect. 4. Initio, at the letter (a.) True Catholic Faith, without which none can be saved; among which is the Article already mentioned, swearing to whatsoever was declared in the Council of Trent, by which Council your now Roman b Synod. Trident. Sess. 15. Missal, or Mass-book is approved. Now take a Taste of your Oath in every Epithet. First, [True:] and hereby are you sworn that in the days of Pope Innocentius the third, the Administration of the Eucharist to Infants was not held necessary; which your own Authors have c Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 11. confessed, and proved to be false. Secondly, that the presence of them, who, at the administration of the Eucharist, do not communicate, is * Ibid. Sect. 5. & Sect. 10. Commendable, and held a Doctrine Catholic (that is) anciently Universal: which was generally condemned by Ancient Fathers; and, even in the Church of Rome itself, abandoned by two d Book 1. Cham 2. Sect. 9 Popes. Lastly, in the point of Necessity to salvation; To swear that whosoever believeth not that one may be said to c Book 1. Cham 2. Sect. 5. Communicate alone, is damned; that whosoever believeth not that the Priest in the Mass, being alone, can duly say, The Lord be with you, he is damned; or that the f See Book 4. Body of Christ may not be run away with Mice, and be blown away with the wind, he is damned; and a number other like extreme foolish Crotchets, set down in your Missals, which we willingly omit. The Sum of all these is, that the same your Oath, made to damn others, doth serve chief to make the Swearers themselves most damnable. If peradventure any of you shall oppose, saying that none of you within this Kingdom (which never admitted of the Council of Trent, nor of the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth) are yet bound to that Oath, let him know that although this may excuse him from an Actual Perjury, yet can it not free him from the Habitual, which is, that he is disposed in himself to take it, whensoever it shall be offered unto him in any Kingdom, that doth embrace and profess the same. Our last Advertisement followeth. Of the Mixture of many old Heresies with the former Defence of the Romish Mass. SECT. V THe more odious the Title of this Section may seëme to be, the more studious aught you to show yourselves in examining the proofs thereof; that so you may either confute, or confess them, and accordingly reassume, or renounce your Romish Defence. Heresy hath a double aspect: One is when it is direct, having the express terms of Heresy; the Other is obliqne, and by consequence, when the Defence doth infer or imply necessarily the same Heretical Sense, even as it may be said of Treason. For to say that Caesar is not King, is a Treasonable speech Directly, in a plain Sense; and to say that Tribute money is not due to Caesar, is as Treasonable in the Consequence. Thus much being premised, we are now to recognize such Errors, wherein your Disputers may seem to have accordance with old Heretics, which point we shall pursue according to the order of the Books. BOOK I. Wherein your Church is found altering almost the whole form of Christ his Institution, and the Custom of the Catholic Church, descended from the Apostles; which Presumption Pope a Book 1. Cham 3. Sect. 3. julius condemned in divers, who sopped the Bread in the Chalice, and squeezed Grapes in the Cup, and so received them: even as did the * Ibid Artotyritae, in mingling Bread with Cheese, censured for Heretics by your Aquinas. In which Comparison your Aberration from Christ's example is so much greater than theirs, as you are found Guilty in defending b Book 1. throughout. Ten Innovations, for one. 2. Your Pope Gelasius condemned the Heretical Manichees, for thinking it lawful not to receive the Cup in the Administration of the Eucharist, judging it to be c Book 1. Cham 3. Sect. 7. Greatly Sacrilegious: notwithstanding your d Ibid. Church authorizeth the same Custom of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants. 3. As c Book 1. Cham 3. Sect. 10. you pretend Reverence, for withdrawing the Cup; so did the f Ibid. Sect. 10. Aquarij forbear wine, and used only Water, under a pretence of Sobriety. 4. Sometime there may be a Reason to do a thing, when as yet there is no right, nor Authority for him that doth it. We therefore exact of you an Authority for altering the Apostles Customs, and Constitutions; and are answered that g Book 1. Cham 3. Sect. 4. your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts. jump with them, who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions, replied that h Ibid. They were herein above the Apostles, whom therefore Irenaeus reckoneth among the Heretics of his Time. BOOK II. It is not nothing, which hath been observed therein (to wit) your Reasoning, why you ought not to interpret the words of Christ [This is my Body] i Book 2. Cham 3. throughout. literally; and why you urge his other Saying [Except you eat my flesh] k Ibid. for proof of Bodily Eating; so that your Priest may literally say in your Mass, that The Body of Christ passeth into your Bellies and Entrails, because (forsooth) the words of Christ are l Book 2. Cham 3. Sect. 2. Doctrinal. And have you not heard of one Nicodemus, who hearing Christ teach that every man must be * joh. 3. Borne again, who shall be partaker of God's Kingdom; and that he, expounding them in a Literal Sense, conceited a new Entrance into his Mother's womb, when as nothing wanted to turn that his Error into an Heresy, but only Obstinacy? But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers, you have received a full m See above in this Book, Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Synopsis. BOOK III. After followeth your Article of Transubstantiation. I. Your direct profession is indeed to believe no Body of Christ, but that which was Borne of the Virgin Mary. But this your Article of Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ's Body, generally held, according to the proper nature of Transubstantiation, to be by n Book 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. Production of Christ's Body out of the Substance of Bread, it necessarily inferreth a Body (called, and believed to be Christ's) which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin, as Saint Augustine hath plainly o Book. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. taught; diversifying the Bodily thing on the Altar from the Body of Christ borne of the Virgin. Therefore your Defence symbolizeth with the Heresy of Apollinaris, who taught a p Book 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 2 Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary. Secondly, You exclude all judgement of q Book 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9 Senses, in discerning Bread to be truly Bread, as did the r Manichaei dicebant Christum non esse verum hominem, sed phantasma quoddam. Pr●teol. Elench. Haeret. Manichees in discerning Christ's Body, when he was here alive, which they thereupon held not to have been a True, but a Fantastical Body. Tertullian also challengeth the Verity of Sense, in judging of Wine in the Eucharist, (after Consecration) in Confutation of the same Error in the Marcionites. Thirdly, for Defence of Christ his invisible Bodily Presence, you profess that (after Consecration) Bread is no more the same, but changed into the Body of Christ: which Doctrine in very express words was bolted out by an Eutychian Heretic, and instantly coudemned by s Book 3. Cham 3. Sect. 12. Theodoret, and as fully abandoned by Pope t Ibid. Sect. 13. Gelasius. BOOK IU. Catholic Fathers were in nothing more zealous, than in defending the distinct properties of the two natures of Christ his Deity, and Humanity, against the pernicious Heresies of the Manichees, Marcionites, Eutychians, and Eunomians; all of them diversely oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body, sometime in direct terms, and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences; whether it were by gainsaying the finiteness, or Solidity, or else the complete Perfection thereof: wherein how fare ye may challenge affinity or kindred with them, be you pleased to examine by this which followeth. I. The Heretics, who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily finiteness, said that it was in divers places at once, (as is u Book 4. Chap. 4. Sect. ●. & Chap. ●. Sect. 3. & Chap. 6. Sect. 1. confessed) even as your Church doth now attribute unto the same Body of Christ, both in Heaven, and in Earth, yea, and in Millions of distant Altars at the same time; and consequently in all places whatsoever. Now whether this Doctrine of Christ's Bodily Presence in many places at once was held of the Catholic Fathers for Heretical, it may best be seen by their Doctrine of the Existence of Christ's Body in one only place; not only Definitively, but also Circumscriptively: both which do teach an absolute Impossibility of the Existence of the same in divers places at once. And they were as zealous in professing the Article of the manner of Christ's Bodily Being in place, as they are in instructing men of the Article of Christ's Bodily Being, lest that the denial of its Bodily manner of being might destroy the nature of his Body. ⚜ So fare, that the Ancient Father Vigilius * Vigilius. B. 4. C. 5. §. 5. testifieth, that to believe The Body of Christ, wheresoever it was, to be Circumscribed in one place, was the Ancient Catholic Doctrine of those Ages. ⚜ To which end they have concluded it to be absolutely but in one place, sometime in a x Chap. 4 throughout. Circumscriptive finiteness, thereby distinguishing them from all created Spirits; and sometime by a Definitive Termination, which they set down first by Exemplications, thus: y Ibid. Sect. ●. If Christ his Body be on Earth, than it is absent from Heaven; and thus, Being in the Sun, it could not be in the Moon: Secondly, by divers Comparisons, for comparing the Creature with the Creator God, they a Ibid. conclude, that The Creature is not God, because it is determinated in one place; and comparing the humane, and divine Nature of Christ together, they b Cham 4. Sect. ●. conclude, that they are herein different, because the humane and Bodily Nature of Christ is necessarily included in one place: and lastly comparing Creatures with the Holy Ghost, they c Cham ●. Sect ● conclude a difference by the same Argument, because the Holy Ghost is in many places at once; and all these in confutation of divers Heretics. A thing so well known to your elder Romish School, that it confessed the Doctrine of Existence of a Body in divers places at once (in the judgement of Antiquity) to be d Ibid. Heretical. ⚜ Yea and so Heretical, that it openeth a Sluice for the old raucid Heresy of the Ariomanitae, (by interpretation, Maddish-Arians) to ●low in upon us, who denied the Holy Ghost to be God, as not being every where; whom the Primitive Fathers did Confute, ( * See B. 4. C. 7. §. 2. Seven in number) by proving the Holy Ghost to be every where, and therefore God, because He is in divers places at once. Which was likewise * B. 4. ●. 6. §. 3. Tertullia's Argument, to prove the Godhead of Christ. II. The property of a Solidity likewise was patronised by Ancient Fathers, in confutation of Heretics, by teaching e Chap. 7. Sect. 6. Christ's Body to be necessarily Palpable, against their Impalpabilitie; and to have a Thickness, against their feigned subtle Body, as the Air. ⚜ A whole * Book 4. c. 8. §. ●▪ General Council of Ephesus determining that The Body of Christ is palpable wheresoever it is: ⚜ and furthermore controlling these opinions following (which are also your Crotchets) of a Bodies f Cham 7. Sect. 6. Being whole in the whole space, and in every part thereof; and of Christ's Body g Cham 4 Sect. 9 taking the Right hand, or left, of itself. III The property of Perfection of the Body of Christ, wheresoever, in the highest Degree of Absoluteness. This (one would think) every Christian heart should assent unto, at the first hearing; wherefore if that they were judged Heretics by Ancient Fathers, who h Prateol. Elench. haeres. Tit. Philoponus Alexandrinus. Statuit mortuorum resurrectionem esse, viz. rationalium animarum cum corruptibili corpore indissolubilem unionem. taught an Indivisible Union of men's souls with their Bodies naturally, still subject to corruption after the resurrection; who can imagine that the holy Catholic Fathers would otherwise have judged of this your general Tenet, (viz. to believe a Body of Christ, now since his Glorification, which is destitute of all power of natural motion, sense, appetite, or understanding) otherwise than of a senseless, and Antichristian Deliration, and Delusion? ⚜ Fie, no! for they believed no Body of Christ, after his Resurrection, but such as is * Book 4. Cham 9 §. 3. void of all infirmity, and in all integrity most perfect. ⚜ Yea and that which is your only Reason you allege, to avoid our Objection of Impossibilities in such cases, (to wit) i Book 4. Ch. 5. Sect. ●. The Omnipotency of God, the same was the Pretence of Heretics of old, in the like Assertions; which occasioned the Ancient Fathers to term the Pretence of Omnipotency, k Ibid. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. The Sanctuary of Heretics: albeit the same Heretics, (as well as you) intended (as a Father speaketh) to magnify God thereby; namely, inbeleeving the Body of Christ, after his Ascension, to be wholly Spiritual. To which Heretics the same Father readily answered, (as we may to you) saying, l Chap. 4. Sect. ●. at (b & c.) When you will so magnify Christ, you do but accuse him of falsehood: not that we do any whit detract from the Omnipotency of Christ, (fare be this Spirit of Blasphemy from us!) but that (as you have been instructed by Ancient Fathers) the attributing an Impossibility to God, in such Cases of Contradiction, is not a diminishing, but an ample advancing of the m Ibid. Omnipotency of God. BOOK V Your Oral Eating, guttural Swallowing, and Inward Digestion (as you have n Book ● throughout. taught) of the Body of Christ into your Entrails, and from thence into the Draught, hath been proved out of the Fathers to be in each respect sufficiently Capernaitical, and termed by them a Sense both o Book 5. Cham 6. Sect. 4 Pernicious, and Flagitious. Besides you have a Confutation of the Heretical Manichees, for their p Book 5. Ch. 6. Sect. 3. Opinion of Fastening Christ to men's guts, and losing him again by their belchings: Consonant to your Romish Profession both of Christ's q Book 5. Ch. 6. Sect. 1. Cleaving to the guts of your Communicants, and r Book 5. Cham 6. Sect. 2. Vomiting it up again, when you have done. ⚜ Besides the same Fathers condemned the Heresy of the same Capernaites * See Book 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 5. & Chap. 3. ● 2. & Changed 8. §. 2. for not discerning Christ's words, after his speaking of Eating his flesh: He made mention of his Ascension into Heaven; saying, When you shall see the Son of man ascending where he first was, they did not understand that they therefore could not Eat him on Earth, as they imagined, because he should ascend to Heaven. ⚜ BOOK VI This is spent wholly in examining the Romish Doctrine of Masse-Sacrifice, and in proving it to be sacrilegiousness itself, as you have seen in a former s See above in this Book, Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Synopsis. BOOK VII. This containeth a Discovery of your Masse-Idolatry, not only as being equal with the Doctrine of some Heretics, but in one respect exceeding the infatuation of the very t Book 7. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. Pagans; besides the General Doctrine of the power of your Priest's u Cham 5. Sect. 3. Intention, in consecrating, hath been yoked, by your own Jesuit, with the Heresies of the * Cham 9 Sect. 5. Donatists. When you have beheld your own faces in these divers Synopses as it were in so many glasses, we pray to God that the sight of so many and so prodigious Abominations in your Romish Mass may draw you to a just Detestation of it, and bring you to that true worship of God, which is to be performed in Spirit and in Truth, and to the saving of every one of your souls, through his Grace in Christ jesus. AMEN. * ⁎ * ALL GLORY BE ONLY TO GOD. AN INDEX Of the Matters contained in the Eight precedent Books, against the ROMISH MASS. A ABSTEMIOUSNES, No sufficient reason for Altering Christ's Ordinance in the use of the Cup. pag. 79. ABSURD to hold with many Romish Doctors, Production to be the means of Transubstantiation. p. 153. Absurdities expostulated by Master Brerely. p. 286. Absurdities of the Romish Doctrine concerning Transubstantiation, and the Bodily Being of Christ in the Eucharist; with the palpable Absurdities of the jesuites defence thereof. p. 291. unto p. 301. ACCIDENTS.] No Substance engendered out of mere Accidents, Confessed. p. 174. Not Accidents, but Air maketh drunk. pag. 175. Accidents newly happening to the Sacrament cannot be without their Subjects. p. 178. 179. This Figment never dreamt off by Ancient Fathers. Book. 3. chap. 3. throughout. Accidents nourishing Substance, absurdly confirmed by the jesuite Fisher, from Substances nourishing Substances. p. 296. num. 6. ADDUCTION pretended to be the sole manner of Transubstantiation by some jesuites, and confuted as false by others. pag. 153. unto p. 156. ADORATION.] Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is the Romish Profession. pag. 504. Not proved by Christ's Institution. p. 505. Nor by Antiquity, either in their objected Verbal speeches: p. 506. unto p. 511, Nor in their Real Objected Practices. Ibid. c 3. throughout. p. 511. unto pag. 524. Nay, it is repugnant to Antiquity. pag 524. unto pag. 528. Proved by their own Principles to be Materially Idolatrous. pag. 528. unto p. 533. Because of the many hundred defects in their Consecration (in six Sections) that it is Formally Idolatrous. pag. 533. & 534. Notwithstanding their Three Pretences. p. 534. unto 539. The Impious jesuitical Evasion and Delusion, to make the Romish worship seem tolerable. p. 539. Which is as ill as any Heathen. p. 540. In one respect worse. p. 541. Divine Adoration ought toprocede from an Infallible Faith in the Godhead of him, whom we Invocate, contrary to the Romish Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist. Ibid. AELFRICK King, his Faith objected for Transubstantiation, untruly. pag. 160. ETERNITY What it is. p. 263. ALTAR called Table by the Council of Nice. p. 303. Altar, Priest, Sacrifice, and Temple (properly so called) on Earth; all dissolved by Ancient Fathers. pag. 415. unto pag. 418. Our Altar in Heaven. pag. 418. The word Altar (in the Mass) not used with the Apostles. p 461. & 462. confessed. Ibid. Allusions of Fathers in their terms [Pascha etc.] Ibid. It is properly a Table. Ibid. throughout the Sections. AMBROSE Against Prayer in an unknown Tongue. p. 35. He teacheth that [Hoc] in Christ's speech demonstrateth Bread. p. 103. and a Figurative sense therein. 125. Corruptly objected by Bellarmine for proof of a proper sense therein. Ibid. His say, Ob. [Of Bread is made Christ's Body] p. 202. Item [They are the same that they were] p. 178. Ob. [Work of Omnipotency.] pag. 188. Ob. [Nature is Changed] pag. 190. Ambrose corrupted in some Romish Editions. Ibid. He granteth something to be Impossible to God, even to the advancement of God's Omnipotency. pag. 229. Proveth the Holy Ghost to be God, by its being in divers places at once. 239. & 262 Holds that Christ at his Birth opened the Coll of the Blessed Virgin. p. 278. And that Angels have their definite place and space. 262. He is objected for penetration of the doors by Christ's Body. 275. Apparitions of some in two places at once, Objected and Answered. p. 262. Of Christ's Bodily Presence only in Heaven. p. 306. That the Eucharist is nourishment for the soul, 310. & 385. Holdeth that the Godly only are Partakers of Christ's Body. p. 321. See Guilty. He is wrongfully urged for proof of a proper Sacrifice in the Mass. pag. 404. He granteth Christ's exercising of his Priesthood now in heaven. 415. He disclaimeth all (properly called) Altars, Priesthood, and Sacrifice here on earth, p. 417. The Sacrifice on the Cross, our judge Sacrificium, pag. 419. That [Christ is only offered in an Image here, but in Heaven in Truth▪] p 441. He nameth the Eucharist a Sacrifice of Christ, or rather a Remembrance thereof, p. 443. He called the Bread before Consecration an [Unbloody Sacrifice.] 453. and calleth Baptism a Sacrifice, p. 457. His words [Here Christ offereth himself,] Objected 479. And [We adore in these mysteries the flesh of Christ, as the footstool of his Deity.] p. 508. [To reverence him whose Body we come to eat,] Objected. Ibid. His Liturgy for praying God propitiously to receive the Gift, 563. Calumniously objected. 494. See Guilty. ANGEL'S cannot possibly be in divers places at once, by the judgement of Antiquity. pag. 261. & 262. Their objected Association (at the receiving the Eucharist) is no Argument of Divine Adoration thereof, 506. & 507. Angels present also at Baptism. Nazian. Ibid. p. 507. ANNIHILATION of Bread is a necessary Consequence of the Romish manner of Transubstantiation. pag. 156. ANSELME his saying [Jews eaten the same spiritual meat with Christians.] p. 314. ANCIENT Fathers their wisdom contemned (professedly) by Romish Disputers, in respect of their own. pag. 85. & 86. ANTITYPE used of the Greek Fathers, concerning the Eucharist, proveth Christ's speech to be Figurative, pag. 115, The use of this word Antitype, pag, 454. & 455, APOSTLES not made Priests by those words of Christ [Hoc Facite.] p. 57 Apostolical authority contemned in respect of the now Papal, by Romish Doctors, pag, 86, & 87, They are rudely called Rude, pag. 135. APPARITIONS of Christ unto Peter out of Egesippus and other Fathers; Objected, and Answered by your jesuite Vasquez. p 240, & 241. Apparitions of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, manifoldly objected by the Romish Disputers, for proof of a Corporal Presence therein. p. 218, 219, & 220. Acknowledged by their own Schoolmen, to be no True flesh or Blood, but feigned. p. 221. & 222. The Suggesters thereof, of what disposition they were. p. 223, & 224. APPLICATION of the Sacrifice of Christ, in the Romish, Partial. p. 483. The Father's Doctrine herein. Ibid. Repugnant to the Romish. p. 484, & 485. And that this is for false Gain. p. 486. AQVARII Heretics, what they were. p. 62. 81. ARMY Consisting of one man. pag. 268. ARNOBIUS. [That Melchisedech, as Christ offered Bread and Wine.] pag. 406. ATHANASIUS against the Heretical Manichees, for the Certitude of the Sense of Touching. p. 170. That Angels are but in one place. p. 262. So the Holy Ghost is in all places. Ibid. He is against the Apparitions of souls departed, in divers places at once, because that this is proper to God. Ibid. The Body of Christ is to rise in all Perfection. pag. 283. Apparitions of some in two places at once objected out of Athanasius: and Answered. pag. 261, & 262, etc. His Saying that [Christ mentioned his Ascension, to prevent the Capernaitical sense of Eating his flesh.] pag. 340. And [We by the Incarnation of Christ are Deified.] p. 361. And [Bianca Baptism are made alive with Christ, and our flesh no more Earthly, but made the same word, which was made flesh.] Ibid. His Saying, That [Christ transmitteth not his Priesthood to any Successor.] p. 411. And that [Bread and Wine of Melchisedech were a sign of an unbloody Sacrifice.] p. 453. ●ine. And that [We adore the Trinity before we be baptised in their names.] p. 509 ATTALAS the Martyr denyeth the Devouring of Christ. p. 375, & 382. AVERRO his Imputing unto Christians the Devouring of their God, because of the Romish false Profession. p. 381. AUGUSTINE against Prayer in a Language Unknown. p. 29. Unconscionably objected to the Contrary. p. 34. He is for Consecration by Prayer: p. 11. And is against the Communion but in one kind. p. 77. He teacheth [Hoc] in Christ's words to demonstrate Bread. p. 103. Corruptly and Unconscionably alleged by many Romanists for making Christ, in the Eucharist, a Figure of himself, as he was on the Cross. p. 118, & 119. He dignifyeth the Bread, as it is Sacramental, with the arm of [Heavenly Bread] p. 127. And teacheth a Figurative sense in Christ's words [This is my Body] & [Eat my flesh] p. 127., & 136. His Saying [That which you see is Bread] pag. 169. [That on the Altar, not borne of the Virgin Mary.] p. 158, & 233. He expoundeth the [Fruit of the Vine] Math. 26, 29. to signify the Eucharistical Wine. pag. 164. His Saying [Of the Sacramental part, one consisteth of many Grains.] p. 170. His Saying [That which is distributed on the Lord's Table is to be diminished. p. 179. I. He is against the Being of a Body in two places at once. p. 245. TWO▪ That Christ's Body removing, cannot be in the place from whence it is removed. Ibid. III. He is not always with men here on earth because ascended. Ibid. IU. Christ's Body cannot be both in Sun and Moon. p. 246. V The Divine abideth still on Earth; & the Humane is in one place in Heaven. Ibid. He is objected for Christ's carrying himself in his own hands. p▪ 249 His Saying that [The Soul of Christ could not be in Heaven and Hell both at once.] p. 262: Ob. For Penetration of the Doors by Christ's Body: Answered. p. 275. He is against the Romish Article of any Bodies Being in every part of the space of its Existence. pag. 274. He saith that Christ●s Bodily Presence is to be sought after only in Heaven. pag. 306. That jews eaten the same Spiritual meat with Christians. 314. That only the Godly participate of Christ's Body. p. 315. The wicked (saith he) receive the Sacrament, but not the virtue thereof, by [Virtue] signifying The Body of Christ. 324, 325, & 326. He saith that The ●apernaits understood not Christ's meaning. p. 330. And that Christ confuted them by mentioning his Ascension. Ibid. He is against the Manichees their belching Christ out. p. 351. And against them that imputed to Christians a worship of Ceres and Bacchus. Ibid. His Testimony [Fit Panis mysticus.] Corrupted, by adding [Corpus Christi,] p. 352. His Saying [You eat not the Body which you see. 340. We receive with mouth and heart] fond Objected. p. 343. And [Christ's Blood is poured out into our mouths.] Ibid. His Saying [By Baptism we are incorporated into Christ.] pag. 357. He is for only the Soule-eating of Christ's Body. p. 385. He is wrongfully urged for a Proper Sacrifice, from the Act of Melchisedech. pag. 404. He is for Christ's exercising his Priesthood now in Heaven. pag. 415. How [Presbyteri] are Priests. Ibid. [Sacrifice] is called, as Easter day is called Christ's Passion. p. 442. The Death of Christ the only True Sacrifice. Ibid. He (and other Doctors before him) held Baptism to be a Sacrifice of Christ's Passion. p. 459. But Metaphorically. Ibid. [Every Good work is a True Sacrifice p. 471.] The Blood of Christ reveiled herein (that is) Objectively. pag. 478 Baptised are brought thither by fear. p. 507. To reverence Baptism wheresoever it is. pag. 508. None Eateth Christ's ●●esh before he adore it. Ibid. We are to Reverence the Sacrament of Baptism and Celebration of the Eucharist without carnal sense. p. 509. He is for Prostrating of the Body, & lifting up of the mind to Heaven. p. 526 AUGUSTANA CONFESSIO, or the Confession of Auspurge, consented unto by all Protestants. p. 310. See LUTHERANS. B BAPTISM is called a Burial, as Bread is called Christ's Body. p. 125 As Baptism, the Sacrament of Adoption, is called Adoption: so Bread is Christ's Body, p. 128. Euphramius his comparison of Water of Baptism with Bread in the Eucharist. p. 129 It is paralleled with the Eucharist almost in all the Say of the Ancient Fathers, which the Romish Disputers allege for proof of either a Literal Exposition of Christ's words [This is my Body,] or for Transubstantiation, or Corporal Presence, or Bodily Union, or Proper Sacrifice, or Divine Adoration: to the Confutation of the Objectors in each one. p. 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, & 573. in a General Synopsis. BASIL against Prayer in an Unknown Tongue p. 36. He is for Consecration by Prayer. p. 10. He is for an Audible voice in the Priest. p. 23. He calls the Eucharist a Viand. p. 366. and Baptism the Pledge and earnest of Blessing to come. p. 367. He calleth the Eucharist an Unbloody Sacrifice. p. 451. His Liturgy for offering a Reasonable Service, Objected and Answered. Ibid. & pag. 452, etc. He saith that the Mysteries of Baptism were kept secret. p. 512. His saying that [No Father left in writing the words of Invocation.] 519. Bellarmine absurdly mistaken in the word Invocation. 518. proved 520. Basil's Liturgy in praying to God propitiously to receive the Gift, doth confute the Romish Doctrine of a Corporal Presence, and Sacrificatory Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. p. 562. BEASTS to Eat and Swallow the Body of Christ, is the Beastly and Capernaitical Romish Doctrine. p 348. A Beast adoring the Host, absurdly objected by Bellarmine. p. 516. BEDA expoundeth the [Fruit of the Vine] to signify the Eucharistical Wine. p. 163. BERENGARIUS' his form of Recantation. p. 335. BERTRAM his saying [The Body of Christ in Heaven differeth from that on the Altar, as much as that which was borne of the Virgin Mary, and that which was not.] pag, 159. His saying [Bread remaineth in the Eucharist after Consecration.] pag. 186. The Romish Profession is to delude the Testimonies of Antiquity. Ibid. & pag. 187. His saying [Jews eaten the same Spiritual meat with Christians.] p. 314. B●ZA unjustly charged with denying God's Omnipotency. p 231. BLASPHEMY of a Romish jesuite, Teaching the Pope to dispense with the express Command of Christ. pag. 87 BLESSED IT.] was Christ's Consecration. p. 9 BLOOD.] A Discourse of Fr. Collius, a Romish Doctor, of the miraculous Issue of Christ's Blood in the Eucharist. p. 225, etc. [Blood of the Testament. Exo. 24.] objected for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and Confuted by their own jesuite. 424. Not infused in the Eucharist. pag. 469. How the Fathers call the Eucharist both a Bloody and Unbloody Sacrifice. p. 455, 456, 457, etc. BODY of Christ changed into whatsoever the Receiver desireth, vainly Objected out of Greg. Nyssen. pag. 202. He saith [So doth Christ's Body change our Bodies into itself.] Ibid. And Chrysost. [Christ hath made us his own Body, not by Faith, but in deed also.] Ibid. An Objected Possibility of a Bodies being in divers places at once, from the like existence of Voice and Colour: and of the soul of a man in the parts of his Body. p. 259, 260, & 261. Romish Objections against our using of Natural reason, to disprove the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. p. 263. A Body cannot take the right hand and left hand of itself. pag. 254. The entrance of Christ's Body miraculously through the doors. p. 275, etc. The Body of Christ opened the Cell of the Blessed Virgin. p. 2777punc; & 278. In the Body of Christ (by Popish Doctrine) his head is not distant from his feet. pag. 272. Body of Christ is held by the Romish Sect to be void of all sense and understanding, as he is in this Sacrament. p 282. Christ's Body is the Spiritual and supersubstantial food of the Soul. p. 310. Eaten in vow and desire. Ibid. Christ's Body united to the Bodies of the Communicants. See UNION. See EAT. Christ's Body not suffering Destruction. 467. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. BREAD Sacramental (albeit Bread) is dignifyed by Saint Augustine with the name of Celestial. p, 127. That Bread remaineth after Consecration, is proved by Scripture. p. 162. Consisting of Grains. p. 163. Proved by Antiquity. p. 163, & 164. By Sense. 169. By the Analogy of Bread consisting of multitudes of Grains of Corne. Ibid. & 165. Bread remaineth the same in Substance by the judgemen of Antiquity. p. 169 Proved by the Council of Nice. p. 303. Bread and Wine called a Sacrifice by Ancient Fathers, but Improperly p. 404, 405, etc. BREAKING of Bread used by Antiquity, Contrary to the now Romish Practice. pag▪ 15. [Breaking] in Christ's speech is Tropical. Ibid. Broken in the Present tense for proof of a Sacrifice: and yet confessed by the Romish to bet●ken the future. pag. 397. C CABASILAS Gr: Archb: for the form of Romish Consecration, calumniously Objected, 493. CAKE upon the Mountains] Objected out of the Psalms, and confuted by Popish Doctors. pag. 433. CALVIN unjustly charged with denying God's Omnipotency. pag. 231. CANON of the Mass [Dominus vobiscum] contradicteth the Private Mass, p. 19 CANONIZATION of Saints fallibly is the ground of superstitiousness, p. 542. 543. CAPERNAITICAL Eating of Christ's flesh. 329. etc. The Romish Eating of Christ's Body is Capernaitical, p. 335. 336. etc. See Union. See Eating, See Swallowing. Mr. CASAUBON his large discourse teaching the universal practice of Antiquity, to understand the tongue wherein they prayed, p. 36. His Satisfaction to the Objected Testimonies of Antiquity for Transubstantiation and Corporal Presence. p. 207. His judgement upon the Fathers, in the point of Fragments. p 179. And upon the Objected Testimony of cyril of jerusalem. pag. 177. His Answer to the Obcted Testimony of ●ustine, concerning the Sacrifice to [Mithra] among the Heathen. pag. 379. His Exposition upon the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] 400. CASSIODORE wrongfully urged for proof of a proper Sacrifice in the Mass, from the act of Melchisedech. p. 406. That Melchisedech, as Christ, offered Bread and Wine, Ibid. CATECHISM of TRENT saying All Baptised, are [Sacerdotes] and so August. p. 314. CAUTION of Antiquity, in not suffering any part of the Eucharist (in solid or liquid) to fall to the ground. Objected and Answered. pag. 514. CH●WING, the Continual manner of Eating of the Sacrament. p. 339. CHRIST'S Acts of Excellency not to be imitated of any: such as was his not complete Sacramental communicating in Emmaus. pag. 63. & 64. etc. chrysostom against Prayer in an unknown tongue. pag. 35. He is vainly objected for the Private Mass of the alone Communicating Priest. pag. 21. He is for Consecration by Prayer, p. 14. He is vehement against the Romish Custom of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist. pag. 47. [Reverence to Christ is our Obedience.] pag. 81. He is against the Communicating but in one kind. p. 77. He is for the Figurative sense in Christ's words [This is my Body] and for the Continuance of Bread after Consecration. p. 116. 117. etc. His Question [What is Bread? The Body of Christ: as the faithful Communicants are the Body of Christ,] pag. 117. He expoundeth the fruit of the Vine. Matth. 26. 29. to signify the Eucharistical Wine. pag. 163. & 164. He saith [If Christ had given only an Image of his Body at his Resurrection, he had deluded his Disciples.] p. 169. And that in things sensible the Substance remaineth, p. 198. And that [Christ hath made us his own Body not only in faith but in deed also.] p. 202. Ob [Think not that it is the Priest that reacheth it, but God.] Sol. [Not the Priest, but God holdeth the head of the Baptised]. p. 200. [Bread unworthy of the name of Christ's Body; albeit the Nature of Bread remaineth still.] pag. 186. His Testimony blotted out by the Parisian Doctors. p. 186 [Changed by Divine power] 189. [Our senses may be deceived, we are altogether to believe it.] 198. His Hyperbolical manner of speech confessed. 199. He saith [Something is Impossible to God, even to the advancement of God's Omnipotency. p. 229. He is objected for Christ's Corporal Presence, both in Heaven and in Earth, unconscionably, pag. 247. Answered. Ibid. His Hyperbolical speeches. Ibid. Ob. [He left his flesh, as Elias his Mantle.] Ibid. He holdeth that Angels have allotted unto them a prescript place or space. p. 261. He is objected for the Romish Penetration of the Doors by Christ's Body: Unconscionably. 275. He is against the Impalpability of Christ's Body. p. 276. and against the Passing of Christ's Body into the Siege. p. 287. He is objected, that Godless Communicants partake of Christ's Body. pag. 313. Yet saith that the Godly only are partakers of Christ's Body. p. 320 & 321. that [Our Tongues are made red with his Blood.] pag. 342. and [We tear him with our teeth.] Ibid. His frequent Hyperbolical speeches confessed. Ibid. He is objected for Christ's bodily nourishing of our bodies. pag. 356. 357. And for Corporal union by Mixture with the bodies of the Communicants. Ibid. By Baptism we are made Bone of his Bone. Ibid. And Christ received first himself of the Passeover, to induce others to take it with a quiet mind. pag. 367. His saying [To understand Christ's words carnally, is to understand them literally.] p. 368. He is urged for proof of a Proper Sacrifice in the Mass, from the act of Melchisedeth. pag 404. That Christ transmitted not his Priesthood to any Successor. 411. But exerciseth it now in Heaven. 417. Not to play the jay. Ibid. That all the Lambs, sacrificed under the Law, prefigured the death of Christ p. 426. The Passeover was a sign of Christ's Passion. p. 424. He is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word [Sacrifice] in Malachi 5. pag. 431. Confuteth their Objections. pag. 433. He nameth the Eucharist the same Sacrifice (with this Correction) or rather a Remembrance thereof. pag. 443. Ob. He saith of the Eucharist, [a Terrible Sacrifice.] Sol. So of Baptism, Terrible Baptism. pag 448. He calls it an unbloody Sacrifice. p. 452. Ob. That Christ's Body is an unbloody Sacrifice, yet slain on the Cross. pag. 455. Sol. Baptism is is Christ's Passion. p. 457. His saying [We see Christ lying on the Altar.] Objected, and Answered. pag. 506. And his calling of the Sacrament, Dreadful. Ibid. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] Objected. p. 512. Answered by the like saying of Baptism. Ibid. His saying that [The Priest did take a little piece, and held it up a little] p. 513. His saying of the [Priests inclining towards the Eucharist.] p. 515. His Liturgy, to receive propitiously the Gift. 562. & 563. etc. CHURCH of Rome long time in an error of Administering the Eucharist to Infants. p. 51. Her Authority contradicted by the now Romish. Ibid. CIRCUMSCRIPTION and Vncircumscription the distinct differences of the Godhead and Manhood of Christ. 243 244. etc. CLEMENS ALEX. Against Prayer in an unknown tongue. p. 36. He expoundeth the fruit of the Vine, Matth. 26. 29. to signify the Eucharistical Wine. p. 164. etc. CLERK of the Parish, was no office in the Apostles times. p. 30. CLOUD in the Sea compared with Baptism. p. 427. COADORATION is Idolatrous. p. 541. 542 p. 543. & 544. COLOUR. The Nature hereof to be perceived in divers places at once. Objected by the Romish, and confuted by themselves. 258. COMMEMORATIVE Sacrifice used by Protestants, how, p 440. & 441. etc. COMMUNICANTS, only were anciently admitted to the Eucharist, and Gazers on excluded. p. 45. 46 etc. COMMUNION in both kinds commanded by Christ, both to all Priests, and People that are present at the Communion. p. 56. Evasion Romish, against the perpetual custom of the Greek Church. p. 57 Against the precept of Christ. p. 56. Against the Example of Christ. pag. 62. Against Apostolical Practice p 65 Against Primitive Custom. p. 68 Against Theological Reasons. p. 70, 71, etc. Against the ancient Fathers. pag. 76. Ob. from Christ at Emmaus Answered. p. 65. Romish Pretence of Alteration answered. pag. 78, 79. A Comparison between the Alterations and Observations, and between the Alterers and Observers. p. 83. More Perfection, more Spiritual Grace and Refection is obtained by Receiving in both Kind's. p. 75. CONCEALMENT of the words of Christ's Institution, by the Fathers, from the Catechumenists and Pagans; Objected for Corporal Presence. pag. 511. And, [Fideles norunt:] the same said they of Baptism. 512, etc. COUNCIL OF AQVISGR: Against Prayer in an Unknown Tongue. p. 35. — of BRACARA, Against any Alteration of the Institution of Christ in the Eucharist. p. 63. — of CARTHAGE Against Administering the Eucharist to Infants. pag. 53. Which expoundeth the words of Christ in the Eucharist, to be taken Tropically. 130. The words of the same Council corruptly translated by Binius. Ibid. — of COLON saith, that Contempt in not Receiving of this Sacrament offereth violence to Christ. p. 316. — of CONSTANCE, Against Communion in both kinds. p. 55. — of EPHESUS. [The Body which Christ united to his Godhead, as palpable and unpalpable.] pag. 276. Holds that we have expiation in the Eucharist, by the Blood of Christ, as remembered herein, that is, Objectively. p. 478 — of LATERAN. The first that invented the word Transubstantiation. p. 149. As also the Article itself, as is Confessed. p. 151. It taught only a Transubstantiation in Matter, and not Form; The Council of Trent, both. p. 153. — of NANATENS: Against Private Mass. p. 18. — of NICE: [Baptism is not to be beholden with the eyes of our Body, p. 207. This Council is objected by both Protestants and Papists, for the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. p. 301. Calling the thing Eaten Bread, after Consecration. pag. 302. and the Place, a Table. Ibid. [Much of the Sacrament would satiate and press down;] An Argument that the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration. pag. 304. It useth [Lift up your hearts aloft.] pag. 202. Romish Objections Answered. p. 203, & 204, etc. It calleth the Eucharist, Viand. pag. 366, etc. — of PAPIENS: Against Private Mass. pag. 18. — of TOLEDO is for the Receiving of the Eucharist with Hands. pag. 44. Forbiddeth Innovations in receiving of the Eucharist, which are repugnant to the Institution of Christ. p. 89. [Take a little, not much, les t the Belly be overcharged, that it may be food for thy Soul.] p. 305 — of TRENT Against Christ his Institution of the Eucharist, in Form of Consecration. p. 9 And in Private Mass. p. 17. And in muttering the words of Christ. pag. 22. And in prescribing of a strange Tongue. p. 24. And in Inviting Non-Communicants to gaze upon the Eucharist. p. 45. And in reserving the Eucharist for Procession. p. 48. And in Administering the Eucharist to Infants. p. 51. And in withdrawing the cup from the Communicants. p. 55, etc. It defineth a Proper Sense of Christ's words [This is my Body.] p. 95. Falsely imposed Transubstantiation, as collected out of these words [This is my Body] pag. 147. Transubstantiation complete, was not defined before the Council of Trent. p. 152. And that the same Council of Trent held Transubstantiation, contrary to the Council of Laterane. Ibid. It Defined the whole Body of Christ to be in every least part of the Host. p. 270. Which is confuted by Romish Doctors, p. 271, & 272. And by Saint Angustine, p. 274. [Eucharist is food for the Soul] p. 310. In Expounding, 1. Cor. 10. 18. turneth a Table into an Altar. p. 402. — of TRULLO is for receiving the Eucharist with Hands. pag. 44. It interpreteth Christ's words [This is my Body] Tropically. pag. 122. concomitancy.] The pretence hereof no just cause to withhold the Cup from the Laity. pag. 81. 82. This Romish Conceit spoileth their Stage-play of Representing Christ's Body on the Cross by his Body in the Mass. pag. 447. CONSECRASION of the Eucharist was anciently by Prayer. p. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. etc. Romish Prevarications herein. Ibid. A Distinction of Consecration, the one by Ordination, the other by Benediction, p. 14. Consecration of both kinds by the Priest, confessed to be necessary. pag. 62, 63, 64, etc. Consecrative and Operative words, viz. these, [This is my Body] cannot be as they are pronounced by the Priest, by reason of the pronoun Meum. p. 138. Words of consecration of the Eucharist, are not delivered by any ancient Father (saith S. Basil) of the Primitive times. p. 520. Words of Consecration, in the Greek Liturgies, are by prayer to God. Ibid. called of Cyril of jerusa: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. And Augustine confirming the same out of Basil. Ibid. Consecration of Popes not Infallible. pag. 530. The Romish consecration made frustrate by seven defects, concerning the matter of the Eucharist. p. 528. Six more, by not consecrating. p. 529. Four in the Intention. pag. 530. Six more for want of due Baptism and Ordination. pag. 530, 531, & 532, etc. CONTEMPT of the Eucharist and holy things revenged by God: Examples thereof. p. 318. & 319. CONTRADICTION is an absolute Argument of Impossibility. p. 229. & 230. Six Romish Contradictions, in the defence of the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. pag. 232, etc. First is in making one not one, but many. 235. Second is in contradictory Relations of one Body, being on the right side and left side of itself. 252. Third by making Christ's body finite and not finite. pag. 264. Fourth in absolute Qualities, having no Relation to place, as to have Understanding and not Understanding. p. 255. etc. Fift, by making it perfect and imperfect. p. 281. Sixth, by making it glorious and inglorius. 282. CUP.] joint use of the Cup, both in the Priest and people, necessary, by the precept of Christ's practice, judgement of Apostles, and primitive Fathers: notwithstanding any Romish pretence. p. 54. 55. 56. etc. The word [Cup] in Christ's speech taken Figuratively. p. 112. See Communion in both kinds. See Innovation. CUSTOM of 300. years preferred (by the Romish) before a more ancient of a thousand. p. 68 & 69. CYPRIAN is against Reservation of the Eucharist, by the example of Christ. p. 50. Against the Alteration of the Institution. p. 62. He is against Communion but in one kind. p. 77. Christ commandeth drinking. Ibid. He teacheth that [Hoc] in Christ's speech [Hoc est corpus] demonstrateth Bread. p. 103. And a Figurative sense in Christ's speech [This is my Body] p. 125. He interpreteth Christ's words, Matth. 26. 29. of the fruit of the Vine. p. 163. His saying, [Bread changed by Nature] Objected. p. 202. And again calumniously objected. p. 495 His calling the Bread Christ's Body, after Consecration, the Bread which is collected into one, of many grains. pag. 170. His saying [Christ doth create his more holy Body now.] pag. 192 [As his humanity was flesh.] p. 188. [Things signifying and signified.] p. 193. [Change in Nature by Omnipotency. p. 188. Objected. As also [Divine Essence infuseth itself.] p. 193. [Christ at the Table gave Bread and Wine to his Disciples, but on the Cross he gave his Body to the Soldiers to be wounded.] p. 178. Ob. [We make bits of it] pag. 179. Ob. That the Godless Communicants are partakers of Christ's Body. p. 313. Ob. [We are joined with Christ inwardly in soul and outwardly.] pag 344. albeit he standeth for the only Soule-eating. Ibid. [Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine, that is the Body and Blood of Christ.] pag. 405. Of the word [Sacrifice.] Malachi 5. pag. 433. A pure and full Sacrifice. pag. 450. Of Christ's bloody Sacrifice slain in the Eucharist. p. 456. meant of the Passion of the Cross. Confessed p. 479. etc. CYRIL ALEX. Objected for the proper sense of Christ's word [This is my Body.] p. 116. defendeth Circumcision in one place to distinguish Christ's Manhood from his Godhead. pag. 243. saying, If God were a Body he should be circumscribed. Ibid. He proveth the Holy Ghost to be God, because in divers places at once. Ibid. Against Penetration of the doors by Christ's Body. p. 176. Objected unconscionably for corporal Union by Christ's bodily nourishing of our bodies. p. 363. And at large, for a corporal conjunction of Christ with our bodies, as Wax with Wax. Ibid. Confessed to be abused. Ibid. His Answer to julian the Apostate, who upbraided Christians with the want of all Sacrifice, as well as want of Circumcision; and how he called the Eucharist unbloody. p. 464. CYRIL HIGHER. Teacheth that [Hoc] in Christ's speech [Hoc est corpus] demonstrateth Bread. p. 103. Calling the Eucharist, Type and Antitype, yields to a Figurative sense of Christ's words. pag. 116. His saying that Christians received the spirit, when they received only the Operation thereof. Ibid. His saying [Although it taste Bread, yet believe it to be the body of Christ under the forms of Bread,] egregiously abused by Bellarmine. p. 195. etc. This is again calumniously objected. pag. 496. His calling the Bread Christ's body, as he calleth holy Oil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gift of grace p. 197. His [not bare Oil and Wine.] Objected, 195. Bread remaineth in the Eucharist after consecration, proved from him, p. 196. [The body of Christ goeth not into the Draught.] 370. His [We are carriers of Christ] 363. His calling the Eucharist spiritual and unbloody Sacrifice. p. 455. And [Christ's body is a bloody Sacrifice, and slain in the Eucharist.] Ibid. His Bowing before the Eucharist. Objected and Answered. p. 520. CYRIL of CONSTANTINOP. This CYRIL now Patriarch of Constantinople (in the name of the whole East and Greek Churches) saith thus; We profess not Transubstantiation. p. 205. D DAMASCEN his error upon the use of the word [Antitype] p. 116. He defendeth Circumscription in one place, to distinguish Christ's Manhood from his Godhead, pag. 243. And that every Angel hath its prescript place or space. p. 261. That they cannot possibly be in more than one place at once. p. 262. Is likewise against Penetration of bodies. pag. 275. His saying [It is mingled with our souls. p. 357.] DEVOURERS of Christ's body by Swallowing, such are the Romish. p. 347. who say that Beasts devour it. pag. 348. Who, if by Chewing, are made capernaitical Tearers. Ibid. Devouring of their God, imputed to Christians by Averro, was occasioned by the than Romish Doctrine of tearing Christ with their teeth in the Eucharist, from the days of Pope Nicholas. p. 381. Attalas the Martyr denied all Devouring of Christ. p. 382. DIDYMVSAL●X proveth the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, by its being in divers places at once. pag. 267. DILEMMA of Bellarmine to prove justine to have held a Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. pag. 377. His Insoluble Dilemma answered and requited with two other Dilemmas. p. 377. 378, 379. etc. DIONYSIUS AREOP. Standeth for Consecration by Prayer. pag. 10. He is against the Romish Custom of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist. pag. 46. His calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype, noteth a Figurative sense of Christ's words [This is my Body.] pag. 115. His naming the Eucharist Divine Sacrament, as he did Divine Altar, Divine Bread, Divine Table, etc. pag. 185. Is against the Comparison of the Inapprehensiblenesse of other things in respect of the nature of God. pag. 297. His Testimony for Veneration at Elevation, notably corrupted by D●●●ntus. pag. 513. His [O Divine Sacrament reveal unto us, etc.] properly objected for proof of Divine Adoration of the Eucharist. p. 518. DISPENSE.] the blasphemous Romish Dispensation against Christ's command of Communion in both kinds. pag. 87. DISTINCTION of Consecration, one of Ordination, and another of Benediction. pag 14. A Distinction of the Presence of Christ's Body as a Sacrifice, namely as an Object, and not as a Subject of the Celebration pag. 440. DIVINE. This word applied anciently by Dionys. the Areop. to divine and consecrative things. p. 185. & pag. 518. DOCTRINAL words may be Figurative. pag. 134. DOMINUS VOBISCUM] in the Romish Mass, condemneth the now Romish Private Mass. p. 19 DRAUGHT.] That which is eaten, if it enter into the Mouth, it is said to pass into the Draught, by the Council of Nice and Toledo. pag. 305. By Origen, pag. 287. & 340. But the Body of Christ is denied to pass into the Draught by chrysostom and Cyril of Alex. pag. 287. & 349. & 350. Ambros. Not into the Belly. Ibid. pag. 350. DRINK YOU ALL OF THIS] not spoken of the Priest only. pag. 54. [Drink,] in Christ's words of Institution, to be taken Tropically, as meant of his Blood pag. 111. E EATERS only, and not Gazers were Anciently admitted to the Eucharist. pag. 46. & 47. Eating and Drinking are both required of all Communicants for a Sacramental Refection. Confessed, against Communicating in one kind. pag. 74. & 75. Eat in Christ's speech of Institution, taken Figuratively. pag. 111. Eating Christ's flesh only in Vow and Desire, pag. 311. in the judgement of Protestants. Ibid. Only Godly and Faithful are Partakers of Christ's Flesh, pag. 311. & 312. They of the Old Testament eaten Christ's Flesh. pag. 314. Eating only is Capernaitical. pag. 328. How the wicked Communicants are Guilty. pag. 315. Eating with the Mouth delivered in the Church of Rome, in the days of Poge Nicholas, was professedly Capernaitical. pag. 335. Eating Christ's Body, properly taken, is condemned of ancient Fathers. p. 349. Eating it Capernaitically by tearing, with teeth, was taught as an Article of Faith, by Pope Nicholas. pag. 335. which is yet defended by some Romanists. Ibid. Which is against the Faith taught by Pope Innocent. pag. 336. That Pope Nicholas his doctrine is Capernaitically haereticall, 337. That the manner of the eating of Christ's Body in the Church of Rome, is yet as faithless amongst themselves. p. 336. & 337. Romish Objections out of the Father's most unconscionably urged, for proof of a corporal eating, as is proved by the Fathers themselves. pag, 349. 350. 351. And out of other confessions of the Romish Disputers themselves. pag. 352. Against either Presence, Touching, Tasting, Breaking, Eating of Christ's flesh, or sprinkling of his Blood. p. 353. Union with Christ's Body by a bodily commixture is Capernaitically Romish. pag. 355. See Union. See Orall. See Capernaits. See Swallowing. ELEVATION of the Host objected for adoration of it. p. 513. Confessed not to have been Instituted by Christ, and not to have been always in use. p. 513 Elevation of the Chalice not before the days of Tho. Aquinas. Ibid. EUPHRAIMIUS proveth first, that Bread is called Christ's Body figuratively, and that the Substance of Bread remaineth. p 187. EPIPHANIUS Objected most impertinently for the proper sense of Christ's speech [Hoc est Corpus] p. 120. And again, p. 491. He expoundeth the fruit of the Vine to signify the Eucharistical Wine. p. 163. He standeth for Christ's bodily opening the Cell of the Blessed Virgin at his birth. 277. EPITHETS of Sacrifice attributed by the Fathers to the Eucharist, Objected, although ascribed to things that are not properly called Sacrifices p. 448. 449. etc. ERROR.] Pretence of Not-erring the cause of the Romish Error, in continuing the withholding the Cup from the Laity. pag. 78. 79. etc. EST] in the speech of Christ [Hoc est Corpus.] See Figurative. EUCHARIST.] The Remainders hereof after the Consecration were anciently given to Children. p. 48. 49. etc. Called anciently the Supper of the lord p. 47. Anciently burned, p. 48, & 287. They are Symbols of our Resurrection. p. 307. It is food only for the soul. pag. 309. 310. 311. etc. EUCHERIUS. [Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine, that is the Body and Blood of Christ.] p. 405. EUSEEIUS, by calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype, yields to a Figurative sense of Christ's words [This is my Body.] pag. 115. His words [Bread is the Body of Christ] Objected. pag. 201. He taught the blessed Virgins opening her Cell, and is against Heretics that denied the truth of his body. p. 278. He is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word [Sacrifice,] Malachi 5. and confuteth the Objector. p. 432. His saying [The same Sacrifice] (with this correction) or rather a Remembrance thereof. p. 443. His saying [A Sacrifice full of God] objected. pag. 448. and Vindicated, 449 [Holy Prayers are Incorporeal & Understanding Sacrifices.] 449. and calling Actions that are Godly, a pure Sacrifice, and opposeth them to a Bloody Sacrifice. p. 453. That we have Expiation here in the Eucharist by the Blood of Christ, as remembered herein. p. 478 which is objectively. EUSEBIUS EMISSENUS, saith that Christ's Body is a bloody Sacrifice, and slain in the Eucharist. p. 445. He is calumniously objected. pag. 449. That Melchisedech, as Christ, offered Bread and Wine. p. 405. EUTHYMIUS expoundeth the fruit of the Vine, Matth. 26. 29. to signify the Eucharistical Wine. pag. 163. EXPOSITIONS of Scripture according to the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers, falsely pretended and perjuriously transgressed by Romish Disputers. p. 576. 577. etc. Exposition of Scripture according to the Tenet of the Church of Rome, perjuriously sworn unto. Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and juge Sacrificium, not rightly applied to the Romish Mass, pag. 418. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 22. 20. The word objected and discussed. p. 363. etc. F FACUNDUS teacheth a Figurative sense of Christ's words [This is my Body] as plainly as any Protestant. p. 128. FAITH Infallible required in every divine worship. p. 535. etc. FIGURATIVE speech of Christ in the word [Hoc] which, without absurdity, can neither refer to Christ's Body, as is confessed. p. 93. Nor to any Individuum vagum. p. 96. The same Pronoune, Hoc, as demonstrating Bread, cannot possibly be without a Figure. Confessed p. 99 That, Hoc, demonstrateth Bread, is proved by the Text, and is to be taken Neutrally according to Grammar. p. 100 & 101. etc. Proved to point out Bread; by an Inquest of ancient Fathers. pag. 103. and by a Romish Principle. p. 104 The same is confirmed by the other [This] expressly spoken of the [Cup] which demonstrateth the very Cup, and not Christ's Blood. p. 105. & 106. That the Verb [Est] hath the sense of [Signifieth.] p. 107. A Figurative speech in other Sacramental words, in Scripture. p. 108. Eight words Tropically understood in the very speech of Christ's Institution, p. 110. 111. 112. etc. A Glass or Synopsis of the Exposition of the Fathers upon the words of Christ [This is my Body] to prove them to be Tropical. p. 129. etc. Romish Objections for a proper sense of Christ's words, answered by Reason, p. 132. That Testamentary words may be Figurative. Ibid. Words of Precept Figurative. p. 133. Words Doctrinal Figurative. p. 134. When the Figurative sense is to be held. p. 135. Ten Reasons for the Figurative sense of Christ's words. p. 136. Third Key for opening the Figurative sense in the Pronoune Adjective [Meum] as it is pronounced by the Priest. pag. 138. Figures of the old Testament objected to be better than the signs or Sacraments in the new, for proof of a material Presence of Christ, but is confuted. pag. 426. etc. The Cloud in the Sea compared with Baptism, and Manna with the Eucharist. Ibid. FINITE and Infinite do diversi●ie the two Natures of Christ. p. 204. 205. 206, etc. FRAGMENTS and Bits of the Eucharist. p. 179. FRANCIS DE St. CLARA, his Paraphrastical Reconciliation, is but Fantastical. p. 37. 38. 39 etc. FULGENTIUS proveth the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, to be in divers places at once. p. 266. He defendeth Circumscription in one place, to distinguish Christ's Manhood from his Godhead. p. 243. G GAUDENTIUS teacheth [Hoc] in Christ's speech to demonstrate Bread. p. 103. His saying [Christ reacheth his Body.] unconscionably objected, p. 343. Answered. p. 345. Objected, calling the Eucharist a pledge. p. 369 GAZERS only at the Eucharist were commanded anciently to departed. p. 46. & 47. GESTURE of the Body used in the days of Antiquity proveth not a divine Adoration of the Eucharist. p. 515. GHOST. The Holy Ghost proved to be God by Antiquity, from its being in divers places at once. p. 266. & 267. Against Heretics that denied the Godhead of Christ. Ibid. GIVEN, in Christ's speech of Institution, taken Figuratively. p. 11. It is objected to be in the Present tense for proof of a Sacrifice, and yet confessed by themselves, to betoken the Future. p. 393. 394. 395. etc. A GLASS wherein to discern the Consonant judgement of Antiquity, for a Figurative sense in Christ's words [This is my Body] p. 129. 130. etc. GLASSE-CUPS used anciently in the Eucharist. p. 514. GLOSS in the Pope's Decrees, granteth that [This is my Body] is in sense [This signifieth my Body.] 114. GODLY only Partakers of Christ's Body, so Protestants. p. 311. & 312 Wicked notwithstanding guilty of the Lords Body. p. 313. That the Godly only are Partakers, in the judgement of Antiquity. 320. And not the Wicked. p. 321. S. Augustine accordeth hereunto. p. 323. GORGONIA her Example idly objected for Divine Adoration. p. 517. GRAMMAR in the Particle [Hoc] Neutrally with [Panis] and the like. pag. 100 GREEK FATHERS for the Consecration by Prayer. p. 12. & 13. GVEST and FEAST, Christ is so called anciently. p. 366. etc. GVILTY of the Lords body, not by receiving it, but by contemptuous receiving of the Sacrament thereof. pag. 313. yea and Guiltiness of Contempt, even by not receiving it. p. 316. Guilty of Gods Vindicative judgement in all contempts of holy things. pag. 318. and Fathers opposed. p. 319. 320. etc. H HABITVALL CONDITION cannot free the Romish Adoration of the Host from formal Idolatry. p. 538. The Protestants security herein. pag. 555. HERESIES in great number mingled with the doctrine of the Romish Mass, in their Affinity, and sometimes Consanguinity with ancient Heresies. p. 581. etc. HANDS] Anciently the Eucharist was received with Hands. p. 43. HEGESIPPUS objected for Apparitions of some in two places at once. pag. 241. and answered by Vasquez. Ibid. HESYCHIUS calleth the Eucharist a bloody Sacrifice, and the slaying of Christ. p. 455. HIEREMIE Patriarch of Constantinople denying Transubstantiation, said [These Mysteries are not changed into a humane body] p. 205. S. HIEROME against the pretended privileging of the Romish Priest, in his only participating in both kinds. pag. 76. Teaching [Hoc] in Christ's words to demonstrate Bread p. 103. And the Figurative sense of Christ's words [This is my Body] p. 125. He expoundeth the fruit of the Vine, Matth. 26. 29. to signify the Eucharistical Wine. p. 163. He is against the Romish manner of Christ's passage through the Doors. pag. 276. He standeth for Christ's bodily Opening the Cell of the blessed Virgin at his Birth. p. 278. Interpreteth the Camels passing through the needle's eye. 279. That the wicked are not partakers of Christ's body. pag. 321. His calling Christ [Feast and Guest] unconscionably objected for a Corporal union. pag. 366. His calling the Eucharist a Pledge. p. 369. He said that Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine, that is, the Body & Blood of Christ. p. 404. He is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word [Sacrifice] Malachi 5. and confuteth the Objector. pag. 432. He is against the Romish sense of juge Sacrificium. p. 435. To show that this on the Altar, is not the same subjectively with that on the Cross, saith that [Of this one may eat, but not of that.] p. 444. Of the Minister [a true Priest, or rather an Imitator.] Ibid. He is objected that Christ's Body is a bloody Sacrifice, and slain in the Eucharist. pag. 455. That anciently they carried the Blood in a Glass. 514. That the Cup was a Glass. Ibid. He saith, [Let us keep our Passover above with Christ.] p. 527. HILARY proveth the Holy Ghost to be God, because it is proved in Scripture to be in divers places at once. p. 266. He is Unconscionably Objected for a Corporal Union, by Christ's Bodily nourishing our Bodies. p. 359. That he spoke of a permanent Union. p. 365. Objected to say [We are made one with Christ, not only in affection, but also in nature:] He saith the very same of Baptism [We are one with Christ, not only in affection, but also in nature.] p. 356. That he, speaking of the nourishment of men's Bodies by the Sacrament, meant not any Substantial nourishment thereby, where were Absurd, as is Confessed. p. 362. Objected at large for Natural and Corporal Conjunction of Christ's Body with the Bodies of the Communicants. p. 359. Hoc] in Christ's words [Hoc est Corpus] is Figurative. p. 99 See the word Figurative. Hoc FACITE] Do this.] No proof of Romish Sacrifice. pag. 390. etc. HOLY-GHOST. See the word Ghost. HOLY things contemned. See Contempt. HYPERBOLES of chrysostom. pag. 199. and of other Fathers. p. 342. 343. I JACOB his taking Leah for Rachael objected profanely and absurdly for Material Idolatry. p. 533. 534. etc. IDOLATRY, what it is. p. 528. Romish Adoration of the Eucharist is Materially Idolatrous, as is confessed by many hundred manner of ways, because of so many defects of due Consecration. Ibid. & pag. 533. That it is Formal Idolatry. pag. 534. etc. notwithstanding any Pretence. p. 553. either of Moral Certainty. pag. 534. As ill as the heathen. p 547. In one respect worse. p. 549. The same is formally idolatrous, p. 540. this is proved by Romish Principles. p. 541. By Coadoration. Ibid. By Canonization of Saints. p. 542. By Consecration of Popes. pag. 544. The false Scales which a Romish Seducer maketh for weighing the difference between Protestants Not-Adoring, and Papists Adoring of Christ in the Sacrament, pag. 545, etc. The idolatrousness of the Romish Mass Epitomised in a General Synopsis. p. 568, 569, etc. JEALOUSY of God ought to deter us from Adoring the Eucharist. pag. 534, etc. JEWS eaten the same Spiritual meat with Christians. pag. 314. jewish Rabbins Objected concerning the Sacrifice of Melchisedech. pag. 404. jewish Sacrifices, how proper in themselves, and yet Representative, which nothing advantageth the Romish. p. 440, 441, etc. IMPOSSIBLE] Something so called even to the Advancement of God's Omnipotency by the judgement of Antiquity. pag. 229. Pretence of Omnipotency was the Sanctuary of Heretics, as of the Arians. Ibid. Acknowledgement of the same Impossibility by the Romish Doctors upon the same Reason, because of Contradiction. p. 230. Impossibility of Christ's Body to be in divers places at once: Confessed by Aquinas, Vasquez, and other Schoolmen. pag. 240, & 241. Impossibilities by reason of Contradiction, as for the same Body to be hot and cold (and the like) at once. p. 255, 256, etc. IMMOLATION of the Priest is called by S. Augustine [Christ's Passion] as Bread his Body: that is Improperly saith the Romish Gloss. p. 127. INDIGNITIES most vile attributed by the Romish faith to the supposed Body of Christ in the Eucharist. p. 286. Contrary to Antiquity. p. 287. Romish Answers to this. pag. 288. Master Fishers most absurd Answer for Defense of all seeming Absurdities and Indignities of Romish Doctrine, concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist. pag. 291, 292, 293, 294, etc. INDIVIDUUM VAGUM,] Romishly taught Confessed to be a sense full of Absurdities. pag. 96, 97, etc. INFANTS made Partakers of the Eucharist in the days of Pope Innocent, erroneously. p. 51. Their flesh eaten of Heretics occasioned the slander thereof by the Heathen, upon the whole Christian Church, pag. 375, etc. INNOVATIONS Ten in the Church of Rome against the Command of Christ [DO THIS:] repugnant to both the Apostolical and Primitive Traditions, concerning Christ's Institution of the Eucharist. p. 9 10, 11, etc. Novelty preferred before sage Antiquity by the Church of Rome in her Alienation of the Cup from the the Laics. pag. 68 The Innovation of the Church of Rome in Altering Christ's Ordinance is maintained by her Advocates, with an Odious Uncharitableness, in preferring a means of Less Grace before a means of More; with Arrogancy in attributing more Wisdom to the now present, than to the then Ancient Church of Rome: By Perjury in swearing to maintain the Apostolical Traditions, and protesting to disclaim them: By Blasphemy, in teaching the Pope to dispense with the express Command of Christ. p. 85, 86, 87, etc. INSTITUTION of the Eucharist where it beginneth. p. 4. What Circumstances excepted. p. 5. It is violated by Ten Romish Transgressions. pag. 9 10, etc. It Containeth neither Precept nor Practice of any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist. p. 504, & 505. See TRANSGRESSION. INTENT.] Defects of this in the Priest, is cause of Romish Idolatry. p. 530. Intent (though good) cannot free the Romish Adoration of the Eucharist from Formal Idolatry. pag. 536, etc. INVOCATION used by Gorgonia, perversely Objected for Divine Adoration of the Eucharist. pag. 516, 517, etc. JOAN MARTLESSE, A miraculous wench, Discerning by her Smell one Consecrated Host out of a thousand Vnconsecrated. p. 173. IRENAEUS teacheth that [Hoc] in in Christ's Speech demonstrateth Bread. p. 103. His Saying [It Consisteth of an Earthly part and an Heavenly.] p. 177. And [It is no Common Bread.] p. 104. Calumniously Objected. p. 493. That the Godly are only Partakers of Christ's Body. pag. 321. Objected Unconscionably for Union with Christ's Body, by a Bodily Commixture, and nourishing the Bodies of the Communicants. p. 365. Confessed. p. 356. That they spoke of a Permanent Union, Confessed p. 365. That speaking of the Nourishment of men's Bodies, by the Sacrament, he meant not any Substantial Change thereby, as is Confessed. p. 362. He is Objected for the Romish Exposition of the word Sacrifice, Malach. 5. Which place Confuteth the Objector. pag. 432. He is Unconscionably Objected by Bellarmine for Proof of a Proper Sacrifice in the Mass. p. 439. His Saying [The Altar in Heaven.] pag. 419. ISYCHIUS His Saying [We perceive the truth of his Blood.] pag. 343. And that Christ's Body is a Bloody Sacrifice, and slain in the Eucharist. p. 455. Meant of the Passion of the Cross. Confessed. p. 479. ISIDORE HISP. Against Prayer in an Unknown Tongue. p. 35. He teacheth [Hoc] in Christ's words [Hoc est Corpus] to demonstrate Bread. p. 103. He teacheth a Figurative Sense of Christ's words [This is my Body] p. 128. He saith, [Bread is called Christ's Body] because it strengtheneth man's soul. p. 165. He saith also, It is Changed into the Sacrament of Christ's Body. Ibid. And that Melchisedech offered the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. p. 404. ISIDORE PE LUSIOTA is for the Blessed Virgins opening her Cell at the birth of Christ, against Heretics that denied the truth of his Body. p. 278. JUDGEMENT of God upon Contemners of Holy things. p. 318, 319, etc. JULIAN the APOSTATE Objecting the No-Altar and Sacrifice among Christians, as a note of Atheism. p. 464. JUSTINIAN the Emperor against Prayer in a Tongue Unknown. p. 36. and against an Vnaudible Voice. p. 23, etc. JUSTINE is for Consecration by Prayer. pag. 13. His calling the Eucharist a Type and Antytipe, doth yield a Figurative sense in Christ's words [This is my Body.] p. 116. And is against Individuum vagum. 118. He is Objected, in saying [It is no Common Bread.] p. 194. He is against the Romish manner of Christ's Bodily Penetrations of the Doors. p. 276. (as is there Confessed) His saying [We are made one by Baptism, not only in affection, but also in nature.] pag. 356. His Apology to the Heathen Emperor, concerning a slander against Christians, for Eating the flesh of an Infant. p. 374. Where a mere Slander is vehemently and unconscionably Objected by the Romish, for proof of the Orall-Eating of Christ's flesh in the Eucharist. Ibid. Bellarmine's Dilemma thereupon p. 377. And a Dilemma against him pag. 378. Two Testimonies out of justine against the Romish Corporall Presence. pag. 380, & 381. He saith that [Giving of thanks and Praise is the only perfect Sacrifice,] p. 445. His [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Calumniously objected. p. 496. K KNEELING Confessed by Romanists not to be Absolutely necessary in Reverence performed at the Receiving of the Eucharist. pag. 515. Which cannot conclude it not to be expedient with us. Ibid. L LIFT UP YOUR HEARTS] used of the Council of Nice. p. 303. Used also of the Fathers, against the Conceit of Corporal Presence. p. 525. LITURGIES Anciently against the Romish Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist in the Mass. p. 46 etc. They Confute the Romish sacrilegiousness in their Mass. p. 562, & 563. S. james, S. Basil, S. chrysostom, Pope Clement. Ibid. LUTHERANS Opinion touching Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, agreeth with the Augustane Confession. p. 310. See Augustane Confession. M MACARIUS His Opinion concerning the word Antitype. p. 116. MADE.] We are made the same Body which we receive. So Chrysost. and Bede. pag. 202. MADMEN made Capable of the Eucharist is a Romish Innovation. pag. 53, etc. MALACH: 5. [In every place shall Sacrifice be offered in my name] Objected for proof of a Proper Sacrifice in the Mass, but upon a false foundation. p. 429, 430, etc. It maketh against the Romish Sacrifice, by the Exposition of the Fathers. p. 434. Other Prophetical Scriptures constrainedly applied to the Mass. p. 435, etc. MANNA A Spiritual meat to the jews p. 159. It is compared with the Eucharist. p. 426, & 427. MANNER.] Although the Controversy be only De modo of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, yet may the Romish Doctrine be Heretical. pag. 210, & 211. There is a double Quomodo: the one Prudentiae, the other Infidelitatis. p. 211. MASS.] The word Mass is derived from the Latin word [Missa est.] pag. 2. It Confuteth the Romish practice of Non-communicants seeing Mass. p. 3. Private Mass a Transgression of Christ's Institution. pag. 17. Against Antiquity. p. 19 The Romish Mass is destitute of whatsoever is pretended to be Properly a Sacrificing Act therein. p. 466. MELCHIZEDECH his ministering of Bread and Wine to Abraham, not justly Objected for proof of a Type of a Proper Sacrifice in the Mass. pag. 404, etc. Father's forcedly Objected for that purpose▪ See Priesthood. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not used of the Greeks' concerning the Change in the Eucharist. pag. 150. MEUM] in Christ's words [Hoc est corpus meum] as uttered by the Priest, is Figurative. pag. 138. That they cannot be Consecratory and Operative words as they are uttered by the Priest. Ibid. See Figurative. MIRACULOUS Penetrations of Christ's Body Objected. p. 275. Thirteen miraculous Apparitions of the true Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist, falsely pretended for proof of a Corporal Presence. p. 218, 219, 220, etc. MORAL CERTAINTY No sufficient excuse against the Imputation of Formal Idolatry in the Romish Mass. pag. 534, 535, etc. Protestant's security in this respect. p. 553, N NATURE IS CHANGED.] This Phrase cannot infer a Corporal Change in the Eucharist. pag. 191. Christ's two different Natures. pag. 242, 243, etc. NAZIANZEN by his calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype, yields to a Figurative sense of Christ's words [This is my Body.] p. 115. He noteth something to be Impossible, even to the Advancement of God's Omnipotency. p. 229. He holdeth it as a Doctrine of Faith, that Every Angel hath allotted unto him a prescript place or space. p. 261. His Answer to Apollinarius denying Christ to be God and man; for than two Natures should be in one: The reason (saith he) of two being in one, and of Godhead and Manhood in one, are not Comparable. p. 263. He is Objected for the Penetration of the Doors by Christ's Body. pag. 275. One place is not Capable of many Bodies. pag. 259. He called the Eucharist a Viand. pag. 366. His saying [I have another Altar in Heaven, whereof these are but signs.] pag. 417. His saying [The Legal Passeover is a more obscure figure than the Eucharist,] p. 427. He calls the Eucharist an Unbloody Sacrifice. pag. 453. He differenceth the Altar below from the Altar in Heaven, as the Less and more acceptable to God. pag. 463. His saying, Angels are present at Baptism. pag. 507. His Oration of Gorgonia vainly Objected for proof of Divine Adoration of the Euchrist. p. 517. His saying of Gorgonia, That she mingled her tears with the Antitypes of Christ's body and blood. Ibid. His Pastophorie. Ibid. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. pag. 518. His saying of [o Pascha] Vindicated; as spoken of the Feast of Easter, and not of the Eucharist. pag. 521, 522, etc. NORTHERN People not utterly destitute of Wine. pag. 78. NICETAS is an Expounder of the words of Nazianzen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 522. GREG. NYSSEN is Objected in his Catech. Oration saying, [The Body of Christ is changed into whatsoever the Receiver will.] And, Christ's Body doth change our Bodies into it self. pag. 202. He saith [No Incorporcall thing can be Meat to a Corporal thing.] pag. 305. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seemeth nothing for Transubstantiation. pag. 208. He calleth Baptism a Divine Lavar, working merveilous effects. pag. 185. And [Divine not common Water.] pag. 195. He is objected for Corporal Presence in divers places at once, but unconscionably. pag. 248. He affirms the Blessed Virgins opening of her Cell, at Christ's Birth. pag. 277. He is Objected unconscionably for Corporal Union of Christ, by Bodily nourishing our Bodies. pag. 362. Confessed that he spoke of a Permanent Union. pag. 365. That he, speaking of the nourishment of men's Bodies by this Sacrament, meant not any Substantial nourishment thereby, which were Absurd, as is Confessed. Ibid. pag. 362. He is again Objected. pag. 500 He saith that [Christ offered himself to his Disciples, but was first slain.] pag. 456. All such Say, as this, are Confessed to mean Commemoratively and Representatively only, and in a Sacrament, or Mystery. Ibid. Suffering in a Mystery; Ergò, Eaten in a Mystery. Present in a Mystery. He called Baptism Blood in a Mystery. Ibid. O OBSTINACY of Romish Disputers made Palpable in a full Synopsis. p. 568, 569, etc. OECUMENIUS wrongfully Objected for a Proper Sacrifice in the Mass, from the Act of Melchisedech. pag. 404. He disclaiming all (Properly) called Altar, Priesthood and Sacrifice. p. 417. OMNIPOTENCY is required in making a Sacrament. pag. 188, 189, etc. Omnipotency attributed of the Fathers to the Eucharist, no Argument of Transubstantiation. pag. 188. Calvin and Beza Vujustly charged with Denying God's Omnipotency. pag. 231. Omnipotency Falsely pretended, for Defence of the Eutychian Heresy. pag. 267. & 277. OMNIPRESENCY of God impudently Objected, to prove a Possibility of a Bodily Presence in divers places at once. pag. 260, & 261. Confuted by Ancient Fathors. pag. 262. OPTAT●S his Saying [The Members of Christ are upon the Altar. And the Altar is the Seat of Christ's Body. And it is an heinous thing, etc.] Unworthily Objected pag. 344. And his Saying of the Eucharist, that [It is a Pledge of our Salvation,] unconscionably Objected for our Corporal Union with Christ in the Sacrament. pag. 367. ORALL-EATING is Capernaitical. p. 399, 340, etc. ORDINATION.] Want of this in the Priest is cause of Romish Idolatry. pag. 531. Much more in respect of the same want in the Ordainers, by many hundred Possible Defects. pag. 532. Protestant's Security in their Belief, in respect of this. pag. 554. ORGANIZATION of Christ's Body Denied by the Romish. pag. 269, 270, etc. See Body of Christ. ORIGEN Objected untruly for an Unknown Prayer. pag. 35 He is against Reservation of the Eucharist to any other end but Eating. pag 49. He Teacheth [Hoc] in Christ's words to demonstrate Bread. pag. 103. He expoundeth the Fruit of the Vine (Matth. 26. 29.) to Signify the Eucharistical Wine. pag. 163. His Saying, [The Material goeth into the Draught. pag. 177, & 187. He holdeth it as a Doctrine of Faith, that Every Angel hath allotted unto him a prescript place or space. pag. 261. He standeth for the Blessed Virgins opening her Cell, at Christ's Birth. pag. 277. He saith, that Only the Godly are Partakers of Christ's Body. pag. 321. He calleth the Sacrament, after Consecration, Bread, and material meat. pag 349, & 350. And [No wicked man can eat Christ's flesh, else he should live for ever.] pag. 350. He is against the Literal Eating of Christ's flesh. pag. 339. His Saying [Christ entereth under the roof of his mouth] Unconscionably Objected. pag. 342. His Saying [We Drink Christ's Blood by Receiving his Word.] pag. 345. The Natural (Sanctified and Symbolical Body) meat eaten may go into the Draught. pag. 349. He saith [Christ is the only true Passeover.] pag. 423. And, Christ (our Priest) not to be sought here at all, but in Heaven. pag. 417. And that [The Passeover was only Sign of Christ's Passion.] p. 443. He saith [The only Commemoration is a Proper Sacrifice.] pag. 477. His Saying [I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter into my mouth] Objected fond for Adoration of the Eucharist. pag. 521. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Properly taken for Substance in Theodoret. pag. 180, 181, 182, etc. And among the Grecians, as well Catholics as Heretics, Substance falsely interpreted Accidents. Ibid. P PACHYMERES upon the words of Dionysius [O Divine Sacrament.] pag. 518. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. Which is vindicated again against a late Calumnious Seducer. p. 521. PAMELIUS his Abuse of the Testimony of Tertullian, for Procession with the Eucharist. p. 50. PAPAL Authority equalled with the Apostolical, and opposed unto it. pag. 65, 66, etc. PARALLELS Answering by Parallels and equivalent terms and phrases of the Fathers, is justifyable and necessary. pag. 366. PASCHATIUS saith that Christ's Body is a Bloody Sacrifice, and slain in the Eucharist. p. 455. That he meant it of the Passion of the Cross is Confessed. p. 456. PASSE-OVER a Figure of the Old Law Objected as a Type of the Mass, which was a Type of Christ upon the Cross. p. 422, 423, etc. Proved out of the Fathers. Ibid. PASTOPHORIUM was wherein the Sacrament was reserved, in a Chamber, not in a Box. p. 49. PENETRATION of Dimensions denied by Damascen. p. 275. PERIVR●●S of the Romish Disputers and Instances thereof. pag. 574, 575, etc. In Translations and Expositions of Scripture. pag. 576, 577▪ etc. In affirming Consent of Antiquity, and in their supposed necessity of their Doctrines. pag. 580, 581, etc. PERPLEXITIES of Romish Worship in the Adoration of the Eucharist, in respect of their Pronunciation of Christ's words. pag. 552. Of Moral Certainty. pag. 553. Priestly Intention. Ibid. Of Ordination. Ibid. p. 554. from Habitual Condition. p. 555. PHILO JUDAEUS Against Prayer in a Language Unknown. pag. 29. PLACE.] A Body in two Places at once. See Body. See Angels. And see Circumscription. PLEDGE.] So was the Eucharist called. pag. 366. Objected and Answered. Ibid. POPE.] A Pope of Rome against Prayer in an Unknown Tongue. pag. 35. Pope's fare from being Priests after the Order of Melchisedech. pag. 410, 411. etc. PO. ALEXANDER saith that Christ's Body is a Bloody Sacrifice, and slain in the Eucharist. pag. 455. meant of the Passion of the Cross, Confessed. p. 479. PO. GALIXTUS against the Romish Custom of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist in the Mass. pag. 46. POPE CLEMENT by his Calling the Encharist Type and Antitype yieldeth to a Figurative sense of Christ's Words [This is my Body.] pag. 116. He saith also [We divide it into Fragments.] pag. 179. And nameth [Haec Antityppa,] speaking of the Body and Blood of Christ shed. pag. 454. PO. CORNELIUS standeth for the Receiving of the Eucharist with Hands. p. 44. POPE GALASIUS is against the Communion but in one kind. pag. 71, etc. Speaking also of Bread and Wine Consecrated saith, [They cease not to be in substance the same.] pag. 148. That the same Gelasius was indeed Pope. Ibid. He is Objected for calling the Eucharist Divine: but as did Gregory Nyssen call Water of Baptism Divine, and Dionysius other sacred things. pag. 185. POPE GREGORY is against the Romish Private Mass of the Priests Communicating alone. pag. 20. And against the Romish Custom of Gazers on the Celebration of the Eucharist in the Mass. pag. 46. He saith that the Infidelity of Thomas was Convinced by Touch. pag. 68 And affirmeth that Angels are Circumscribed in place. pag. 262. He writeth against the Heretics, who taught the Body of Christ to be brought into an airy substance. pag. 274. Against the Eunomians, who held the Body of Christ to be Impalpable. His Saying [Christ's Blood is sprinkled on our Posts,] Unconscionably Objected. pag. 343. And taught that Christ exercised his Priesthood in Heaven. p. 419. POPE INNOCENT the Third is against Prayer in a Tongue Unknown. pag. 35. And against the Romish Private Mass. pag. 21. His Error of Administering the Eucharist to Infants. pag. 51, & 52. Pope Innocent and Pope julius Repugnant in the point of Transubstantiation. pag. 155. And Expoundeth the fruit of the Vine Matth. 26. 29. to signify the Eucharistical Wine. pag. 164. He held Transubstantiation only in matter; and the Council of Trent both in matter and in form. pag. 155. His Similitude of a Bodies being in divers places at once from Voice. pag. 258. He saith [that Christ's▪ Body should be Mortal and Immortal] it is Incredible. pag. 256. And of Vasquez his Blacks and Whites. Ibid. He saith that Agility is one of the Endowments of a Glorified Body. pag. 285. POPE JULIUS is against the Alteration of the Institution of Christ in the Eucharist. pag. 62. And, in reproving Innovations concerning the Eucharist, he challengeth all to follow Christ's Institution, who allowed the use of both Bread and Cup. pag. 88 He held Transubstantiation to be both in matter and form. p. 155. POPE LEO said of the Baptised, [He is not the same he was, but made the flesh of Christ.] 202. And [the Regenerate is made the Body of Christ crucified.] Ib. He is against the abominable Romish Doctrine of an Imperfect Body of Christ in the Eucharist. p. 283. His saying [Gustamus Carnem Christi;] Corruply alleged for [Gestamus.] p. 343. He is Objected for Corporal Union of Christ's Bodily nourishing our Bodies. pag. 356. And that he spoke of a Permanent Union. pag. 365. His saying [By Baptism the Regenerate is made the Body of Christ crucified.] pag. 357. He is also Objected to prove the Paschall Lamb to have prefigured Christ in the Mass: and therein egregiously abused. pag. 425. POPE NICHOLAS his Decree and Romish Doctrine of Eating Christ's flesh Corporally, by Tearing it with Teeth, the Occasion of Averro his imputing to Christians the Devouring of their God. p. 381. PO. PIUS the Fourth forbade the Eucharist to be carried to the Sick, only for Adoration-sake. p. 50. POPE ZePHERINUS Ordained that the Chalices should be Glasses. pag. 514. PRAYER in an Unknown Tongue Condemned by Antiquity. pag. 24, 25, 26, etc. The Practice of Unknown Prayer in Divine Service, in the Romish Mass, is Sacrilegiously derogatory to the Dignity of Christ. pag. 558, 559, etc. Their Praying for propitiousness towards Christ, as towards a Sheep. p. 560, 561, etc. PRECEPT.] Words of Precept may be Figurative. p. 133. PRESENCE.] How Christ's Body may be said to be present in the Eucharist of Protestants, in a fourfold Truth. pag. 212, & 213. That the Presence of Christ's Body Corporally is the Romish manner. p. 217. PRETENCE of Reverence is often cause of Disobedience. pag 80, 81. See Reverence. PRIESTS bring present at the Communion ought to Communicate. pag. 57, 58, etc. A Priest hath no more Privilege for the use of the Cup, by the judgement of Antiquity, than any other Faithful Communicant. Ibid. The word [Priest] as [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] was not used of the Apostle, as is Confessed. pag. 461. And that Priest, as from Presbyter, cannot relate to a Proper Sacrifice. Ibid. And that Sacerdos is more proper to the Old Testament. Ibid. PRIESTHOOD of Melchisedech is agreeable to the Priesthood of Christ. pag. 409. And as Disagreeable to the Romish Priesthood. pag. 410, 411, etc. It is denied to be now exercised in Heaven, which is Confuted by Scripture. pag. 412, & 413. Bellarmine his Sacrilegious detracting from it. Ibid. Proved by Ancient Fathers. pag. 415. The Priesthood of Christ for ever, Confessed by a learned jesuite out of the Fathers. pag. 418. See Melchisedech. PRIMASIUS by terming the Eucharist a Pledge, held a Continuance of Bread therein. pag. 180. He is fond Objected, for calling the Eucharist a Pledge. pag. 369. He saith that Christ, as Melchisedech, offered Bread and Wine, that is, his Body and Blood. pag. 404. His expounding of 1. Cor. 10. 18 [Partakers of Devils.] pag. 401. He nameth the Eucharist The same Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross (with this Correction) or rather Remembrance thereof. pag. 442. And that which was borne of the Virgin, not now great and now less. Ibid. PRIVATE MASS is a Transgression of Christ's Command. pag. 17, & 18. And repugnant to Antiquity. p. 19, etc. PROCESSION with the Sacrament for Adoration is Contrary to Antiquity. pag. 48, 49, etc. And defended by Pamelius out of Tertullian. pag. 50. PRODUCTION pretended to be the sole manner of Transubstantiation by divers Romanists, and Confuted as Absurd by some others of them. pag. 153, 154, 155, etc. PROPITIATORY Sacrifice cannot be properly Attributed● to the Eucharist● pag. 474, 475, etc. Our Distinction. Ibid. The Romish Sacrifice hath no foundation in Christ's Institution. pag. 475. Divers Acts unproperly called Propitiatory. pag. 476. That it is Propitiatory, because of the Remembrance of the bloody Sacrifice, and by Application of that, Confessed. pag. 480. Not Propitiatory without Relation unto the Cross. pag. 481. That only Bloody is Propitiatory. Ibid. The Romanists Propitiatory of Finite Virtue. Ibid. 482. The Church of Rome not yet resolved of the value of their Propitiatory Sacrifice. pag. 483. The Romish Application for lucre-sake. pag. 486. The Priest's Portion therein. Ibid. Protestant's Application, for a Propitiatory Sacrifice, more true. pag. 487. And absolute. pag. 488. etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] The word not justly objected for Divine Adoration of the Eucharist. pag. 507. 508. etc. PROTESTANTS do all agree with the Augustane Confession in the point of Union of Christ's Flesh with the Bodies of the Receivers. pag. 310. Their Security from the Romish Perplexities in Adoration of the Eucharist. pag. 550. PROVIDENCE of God admired by two Cardinals, in these words [Quotiescunque Biberitis.] p. 56. 57 etc. Their three Evasions; which are, by God's Providence, confounded by the contrariety of their own tongues. Ibid. PSALMS vulgarly sung in the public worship of God, Primitively. p. 28. 29. etc. PUNIC Tongue not so well known to Punicks as the Latin. p 42. PURGATORY.] The place of Romish Purgatory, lest it should be evacuated, they devised the Sacrifice of Christ to be but of a finite virtue in the Mass. p. 486. Q QVANTITIE can be no Similitude for resembling the Being of God in Place, but Quantity. p. 255. QVOMODO.] There is a double Quomodo: the one Prudentiae, the other Infidelitatis. pag. 211. & 250. R RABBINS of the jews wrongfully urged for proof of a proper Sacrifice in the Mass, from the Act of Melchisedech. p. 404. REASON.] Romish Objections against our Natural Reasons, in Confutation of the Romish Corporall Presence of Christ's Body. Answered, pag. 263. REASONABLE Service in the Liturgies, what it signifieth. p. 451. Reasonable Sacrifice attributed to the Eucharist, objected for a proper Sacrifice, although ascribed by other Fathers to unproper Sacrifices, by chrysostom of Praises, by Athanasius, to Baptism. p. 452. RELATIONS.] Contrary Relations fond attributed to the same body of Christ, as to be above and below itself. 245. although denied by others. Ibid. REMAINDERS of the Eucharist were anciently burnt. p. 514. Confessed. REMEMBRANCE and Discretion required in the Communicant. p. 51. REPRESENTATIVE Sacrifice of the old Law, how, p. 442. The Eucharist only Representative. Ibid. The Romish after a manner of a Stage-play. p. 445. See Commemorative. RESERVATION of the Eucharist, for Romish Procession, contradicted by Antiquity. p. 48. With whom, the end of Reservation was still to be eaten. Ibid. REVERENCE most due to Christ is our Obedience. p. 81. etc. That it is no sufficient Reason to withhold the Cup from the Laity. Ibid. What Reverence is lawful in receiving the Eucharist. pag. 551. The reverence of Kneeling justifiable. Ibid. ROMISH Doctors divided about the word Mass. p. 3, And about Consecration, that it was by Prayer. p. 9 In the ancient Roman Church Consecration was by Prayer. Ibid. And did Br●ake Bread. Ibid. They gainsaid Private Mass. pag. 17. 18. etc. And the uttering of Christ's words in an unaudible voice. pag. 22. 23. etc. That a known Tongue was used in God's Service. pag. 24. Their Objections for the Communion but in one kind from Antiquity; Answered. pag. 68 That there is a more spiritual grace and refection from receiving in both kinds. pag. 71. That the ancient Roman Church had their Communion in both kinds. p. 68 The now Romish do alter the form of Christ's words of Institution, called by them the words of Consecration. pag. 138. Romish Objections of the Say of the Fathers, for proof of Orall-Eating, even against the Confessions of the same Doctors. pag. 342. 343. etc. Romish Church. See Innovation. S SACRAMENT is to be instituted only by God. pag. 189. Confessed. Ibid. The Sacrament of the Eucharist is no Sacrament, but in the Sacramental use of Eating it Sacramentally. and that it was delivered to boys to be eaten only as Holy Bread, and not as a Sacrament. p. 48. 49. etc. SACRIFICE.] The Question discussed. pag. 389. No word of Christ's Institution that can imply a Sacrifice. pag. 390. No act of proper Sacrifice pretended in the Romish, that can be evinced out of the Institution of Christ: No not by their own Customs. pag. 398. Not that in Act. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 400. Not that of 1. Cor. 10. 18. [Are Partakers of the Altar.] pag. 401. Nor out of the old Testament concerning Melchisedech: The Father's speaking often of the Sacrifice of Christians in Bread and Wine. pag. 407. & 408. But improperly; as is confessed. pag, 438. The Bread and Wine cannot be the Sacrament of the New Testament by the general confessions of the Romish Doctors. Ibid. Proof of a No-Transubstantiation disproveth the Romish Sacrifice in the Mass. p. 439. A Distinction, that the word Sacrifice of Christ's Body is taken of the Fathers Objectively, and not Subjectively. The necessity and verity of this Distinction. p. 404. A Sacrifice only Representative. pag. 441. How the Sacrifice may be called the same which Christ offered. pag. 443. Epithets of the Fathers added to the word Sacrifice, unconscionably, by Romish Disputers. p. 448. and in the Vindication following. How it is called of the Fathers a Bloody Sacrifice. pag. 455. 456. etc. The word [Sacrifice] attributed by the Fathers to many acts, which are confessed not to be proper Sacrifices. p. 459. Nothing properly sacrificed in the Romish Mass. pag. 467. Sacrificing Acts there be three, Visible, Sacred, and Destructive: All wanting in the Romish Mass. Ibid. The Sacrifice professed by Protestants. The Spiritual more excellent than any Corporall, except Christ's on the Cross. p. 470. Proved out of the Fathers. p. 471. Their different kinds. p. 472. They offer the same Sacrifice of the Cross Objectively. p. 473. See Commemorative, and Propitiatory. See Priesthood and Melchisedech. See Stage-play. See Unbloody and Representative. SACRILEGIOUSNESSE of the Romish Mass shown in a full Synopsis. p. 558. & 559. Instances thereof. p. 562. and of Prayers. Ibid. SAXONS Faith in the days of King Edgar is contrary to the now Romish, in the point of Transubstantiation. p. 158. A Vindication thereof against a late Romish Calumniator Ibid. SENSE.] judgement of sense is able to prove that Bread is not Transubstantiated. p. 467. Resurrection of Christ's Body proved thereby, Ibid. By the Act of Thomas. pag. 478 Argument of Sense, is justified by Ancient Fathers. pag. 479. That not to believe Sense, in sensible Objects, is as faithless as senseless. pag. 173. See Touch, and Smell. SHED in Christ's speech of Institution is taken Figuratively, pag. 110. The word is objected in the Present tense for proof of a Sacrifice, and yet confessed by themselves to be token the Future. pag. 392. 393. etc. See Blood. SICK prayed for in the Church, was anciently used for the sick in particular, as for Gorgonia, pag. 517. SIGNIFICATIVELY.] A term used for the Romish Defence of the Priests Operative Consecrating of the Bread, to turn it into the Body of Christ, altogether in vain: which the jesuites with all their wits, have not been able to make good. p. 138. 139. etc. SIMILITUDES used of the jesuites for showing that the words of Christ are spoken Significatively and Operatively by the Priest, for Conversion of Bread into Christ's Body, by saying [This is my Body] are all lame. As their Similitude of saying [This is a Circle] is the making thereof and the like, is confessed to be fond and extravagant. pag. 94. Their Similitude of a Stage-play to illustrate Christ's Representing of himself in the Eucharist, urged by the Romish, shown to be most Absurd. pag. 118. Their Similitude of Voice and Colour, objected for proof of the Being of a Body in divers places at once most fond. pag. 258. & 274. Their Similitude of Man's soul and of God, to prove the Presence of Christ's Body in divers places at once is silly and senseless. Ibid. Their Similitude of Christ's being called Feast and Guest, Viand and Pledge of Ancient Fathers, fond and falsely objected by the Romish Doctors for proof of a Corporal Presence in the Eucharist. pag. 366. and that it plainly confuteth it. pag. 367. Their Similitude of a Stage-play again not rightly applied, to show that the same may be called a Blood and Unbloody Sacrifice. pag. 457. Their Similitude of jacobs' taking to him Leah instead of Rachael, for Defence of the Romish Idolatry. pag. 533. & 545 SLANDER against the Christian Church in Primitive times, as if they had eaten an Infant in the Celebration of the Eucharist, falsely objected by Romanists. pag. 334. SMELL miraculous of joane Martlesse in discerning one Consecrated Host amongst a thousand Vnconsecrated. pag. 173. SOCRATES.] Miracles have been wrought by the Eucharist. pag. 223. etc. SOLOE COPHANES is no Error in Scripture. p. 393. etc. SOULE of man objected as being in many parts of the Body for proof of the possibility of a Bodily presence in divers places at once. pag. 261. etc. Souls of Saints departed have not their Apparitions in divers places at once. Ibid. The soul of Christ could not be in Heaven and Hell both at once, saith S, Augustine. Ibid. SPIRITVALL Sacrifices of six kinds, mentioned by the Fathers. pag. 471. STAGE-PLAY. The Romish Manner of Christ's Body on the Cross, by the same Body in the Eucharist, after a Manner of a Stage-play, displayed to be most false and contradictory to itself. pag. 445. etc. See Similitude. STATIONS Anciently what they were. pag. 515. in the Margin. SVESTANCE is falsely interpreted Accidents. pag. 181. SUPERSTITIOUSNESSE of the Romish Mass seen in a full Synopsis. pag. 557. SUPPER of the Lord so commonly called by Antiquity. pag. 45. 46. etc. SURSUM CORDA] used of the Fathers to signify the not-intending the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. pag. 525. Cyril of jerusalem, [To have our hearts in Heaven.] S. Augustine, [Not to Earth but Heaven, where the heart cannot putrify.] The same is confessed concerning the Custom of the Primitive Church, that it was a Prostrating of the Body, and a lifting up of the mind to Heaven. Ibid. Which should not need if they had believed they had had Christ on Earth. Hieron. Let us ascend up with Christ into the great Chamber. Ibid. SWALLOWING of the Body of Christ, taught in the Church of Rome, is Capernaitically Heretical. pag 347. & 348. etc. Proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers. Ibid. See Devouring. T TABLE turned into an Altar by the Council of Trent, expounding the 1. Cor. 10. 18. pag. 401. It was Anciently placed so, as to stand round about it. pag. 462. See Altar. TERTULLIAN fond objected by Pamelius, for the Romish carrying of the Eucharist in Procession. pag. 50. He interpreteth [Hoc est corpus] with [Id est figura Corporis.] p. 124. And Calumniously objected afresh. pag. 492. And Bellarmine's gross error confuted by Pamelius. Ibid. He, in confutation of the accademics and Heretics, pleadeth for the faithfulness of each sense, urging that Christ had the same taste of Wine after Resurrection, which he had in the Wine which he had consecrated. pag. 171. And saith, [We make Bits of it.] pag. 179. He holdeth it as a Doctrine of Faith, that every Angel hath allotted unto him a prescript place or space. pag. 261. Against the Ebionit●●: Christ is God, because he is in all places where he is invocated upon. pag. 262. He standeth for the blessed Virgins opening her Cell at Christ's Birth. pag. 277. He standeth also for only the Soule-Eating of Christ's Body. pag. 385. He is objected for the Romish Exposition of the word, Sacrifice, Malachi 5. And confuteth the Objector. pag. 432. He calleth Blessings and Hymns [Pure Sacrifices] pag. 448. His speech of a Woman's Act of Offering, egregiously perverted by Pamelius, to prove a Sacrifice in the Mass. pag. 460. His speech of, No common Bread and Wine, perverted and objected for Adoration of the Eucharist. pag. 514. TESTAMENT in Christ's speech of Institution taken Figuratively. pag. 129. Testamentary words may be Figurative against Bellarmine. pag. 132. THEODORET is against the Communion but in one kind. pag. 77. And teacheth that Hoc, in Christ's speech, Hoc est Corpus, demonstrateth Bread. pag. 103. By his calling the Eucharist Type and Antitype, yieldeth a figurative sense of Christ's words [This is my Body.] pag. 116. He saith Bread remaineth the same in Substance after Consecration, pag. 169 He noteth something to be Impossible, even to the advancement of God's Omnipotency. pag. 229. And defendeth Circumscription in one place to distinguish Christ's Manhood from his Godhead. pag. 242. He is objected that the wicked are Partakers of Christ's Body, unconscionably pag. 220. He saith that Christ transmitted not his Priesthood to any Successor. pag. 411. and that he exerciseth it now in Heaven. pag. 415. He is against the Romish judge Sacrificium. pag. 436. He names the Eucharist the same Sacrifice (with this Correction) or rather a Remembrance thereof. pag. 443. He is objected also for Adoning the Symbols. pag. 510. THEOPHYLACT is against Prayer in an unknown Tongue. pag. 35. And against the Communion but in one kind. pag. 77. He expoundeth the fruit of the Vine, Matth. 26. 29, to signify the Eucharistical Wine▪ pag. 163. His saying [Bread is trans-elementated into Christ's Body] vainly Objected. pag. 204. He taught the blessed Virgins opening of her Cell at Christ's Birth, against Heretics that denied the truth of his Body. pag. 277. His saying. [We are not Devourers of Christ's Body.] pag. 349. He is wrongfully urged for proof of a Proper Sacrifice in the Mass, from the Act of Melchisedech. pag. 404. He nameth the Eucharist the same Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross (with this Correction) or rather a Remembrance thereof. p 443. THIS, and MINE. See Hoc, & Meum. THOMAS his Touch is a perfect Evidence of Christ's Resurrection. pag. 168. THOUGHT is objected for the proof of the Being of a Body in divers places at once. pag. 300. TONGVE unknown, in God's Service, is against Antiquity in General, pag. 34. A known Tongue was used of all Ancient Churches, both Greek and Latin. pag. 25. And in after-Churches of remote Nations. Ibid. The Iniquity of an unknown Language, against men, pag. 27. Against God. pag, 28. And against God and Man. pag. 29. And against Antiquity. pag. 34. TOUCH Corporal cannot happen to the Body of Christ in the Eucharist. pag. 333. See Thomas, and see Sense. TRANS-ELEMENTATION, Transmutation, and the like, do not necessarily imply Transubstantiation. pag. 149. TRANSGRESSIONS of Christ's Institution of the Sacrament by the Romish Church are ten. pag. 7. etc. The first in the word [Blessed it] pag. 9 The second in [Breaking] pag. 15. The third against the word [Them] pag. 17. Fourth against the word [Said] pag. 22. Fift against the same word [Said] pag. 24. sixth against the word [Take] pag. 43. The seventh against the word [Eat ye] p. 45. Eight against the word [Eat.] pag. 48. Ninth against the word [In Remembrance] pag. 51. The Tenth is against the words [Drink you All of this] by depriving the people of the Cup, pag. 54. TRANSLATION of Scripture in all Nationall tongues, Anciently. pag. 37. See Vulgar. TRANSMUTATION, Trans-elementation, and such like words, used Figuratively of the Fathers. pag. 20. TRANSUBSTANTIATION, What it is in the Romish Doctrine. pag. 146. That it is not proved sufficiently by that Scripture [This is my Body.] p. 147 Confessed not to be necessarily collected from the words of Christ's Institution. Ibid. The Novelty of the Name p. 149. That it was not before the Council of Late●ane. pag. 151. Nor thorrowly before the Council of Trent. pag. 152. It is proved to be a false Article by the Romish manner of Defence; because neither by Production▪ nor by Adduction; which, by their own Confessions, are the two only means of Transubstantiation. pag. 153. Confuted by the Remaining of the Substance of Bread, contrary to the Change thereof into Christ's Body. pag. 157. It contradicteth our faith of Christ's Body, Borne of the Virgin Mary. Ibid. An Argument why Bread ceasing altogether to be, it can be but Succession only, and no Transubstantiation. pag. 163. Objections out of the Fathers. pag. 188. Yea against their own Romish Principles. pag. 27. Terms objected out of the Fathers, unconscionably, are these: It is Christ's Body. Made Christ's Body. Translated. Trans-elementated into Christ's Body▪ which all are Figurative. pag. 199. 200. etc. TYPE, used of the Greek Fathers concerning the Eucharist, proveth Christ's speech to be Figurative. pag. 115. (See Antitype.) Types of the old Testament, how they are said to be Inferior to the Signs in the New. pag. 426. 427. etc. V VIATICUM, that is, Viands, is applied by the Fathers to the Eucharist, ineptly Objected. pag. 366. Baptism and Absolution, imparted to men dying, are Viatica, Viands also, for the soul. Ibid. VIGILIUS defendeth Circumscription in one place, to distinguish Christ's Manhood from his Godhead. pag. 242. He proveth the Holy Ghost to be God, because he is in divers places at once. pag. 265. VINDICATION.] Whereof are many already set down in the Contents before the beginning of this Treatise. VIRGIL's [Cum faciam Vit●lâ] foolishly Objected for proof of a Proper Sacrifice. p. 392. Bl. VIRGIN.] The Closure of her sacred Cell of Virginity, at the Birth of Christ, Objected against Antiquity. p. 272. UNBLOODY] Sacrifice Objected, as attributed to the Eucharist by Ancient Fathers. pag. 451. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used for void of Blood by Antiquity, to the Confutation of the Objectors Ibid. The Father's calling things utterly void of Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, unbloody. Ibid. Basil, and Eusebius call Godly Actions a Sacrifice, and oppose them to Bloody. pag. 452. Nazian. calleth the Eucharist, an Unbloody Sacrifice (not which is Christ) but whereby we communicate with Christ, pag. 453. Ambrose called Bread and Wine an Unbloody Sacrifice. Ibid. and Athanasius, [Bread and Wine of Melchisedech were a sign of an Unbloody Sacrifice.] Ibid. and Cyril● Alex. calleth them Unbloody, Spiritual. pag. 464. UNIFORMITY is no reason of withholding the Cup from the Laity. p 78. UNION, (Romish) of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants. pag. 308. Romish Objections for this Unconscionably alleged. pag. 358. The Romish Sophistry discovered. pag. 365, 366, etc. The same unconscionableness discovered from their own Confessions. Ibid. The Objected Testimonies are proved to make against them. pag. 367. Union with Christ's Body, by Touch, is Capernaitical. pag. 333. And by Swallowing also. Ibid. & pag. 347. That the same Union in men's Bellies is Capernaitical. pag. 349. The Romish Union, by Commixture with men's Bodies, is also Capernaitical. pag. 354. And the Romish Objected Sentences of the Fathers Answered. pag. 356. Out of their Similitudes. pag. 366. The basest Manner of Romish Union of Christ's Body, in the Inferior parts of man's Body, by egestion into the Draught, pag. 382. The abominableness thereof. pag. 384. VOMITERS of Christ's Body; such are the Romish. p. 348. VOICE.] Not audible, in uttering Christ's words of Consecration, is in the Romish Church, a Transgression against Christ's Institution. pag. 22. The nature of a Voice to be perceived in divers places at once, Objected by the Romish, and confuted by themselves. p. 258. WLGAR Translation against [Fundetur] in the future tense, confuteth the Romish Objection of the Present tense in a proper signification. pag. 392. The Vulgar latin Translation corrupted, leaving out the word [Incense] pag. 430. Condemned by the different Translations of other Fathers. Ibid. The Objected Fathers confute the Romish Exposition of Malachi 5. Ibid. The vulgar Translation perjuriously sworn unto and rejected by Romish Disputers. pag. 574. A special Instance out of the Fathers to confute the Vulgar Translation, in the words of the Apostle; Ephes. 1. 14. which rendereth the Greek word [Arrhabo] in Latin [Pignus] but according to the Original, should be translated in Latin, Arra, that is Earnest. p. 576. W WATER mixed with the Wine in the Eucharist, was not commanded by Christ. p. 5. WINE may be had for a Sacramental use in all Countries: which is confessed. pag. 78. WORMS engendered in the H●ast. pag. 174. FINIS. AN INDEX Of the Principal places of Scripture, Opposed by Us; and Objected against us, throughout this whole Controversy. PSALM. 72. 16. [There shall be an handful of Corne.] Object. to prove the Romish Sacrifice. pag. 4▪ 3. MALAC. 5. 1. [In every place shall Sacrifice and Oblation be offered in my name.] Ob. for a proper Sacrifice, but vainly pag. 429, etc. MATTH. 19 14. [It is Easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a Needle, etc.] Ob. for the manner of Christ's Presence. pag. 275. MATTH. 26. 26. & LUC 22. 19, 20. [And he Blessed it.] Op. p. 9 [Brake it.] Op. pag. 15. [And gave it to them.] Opp. pa. 17. [And said unto them] Opp. p. 22 And again, Opp. pag. 24. [Take ye] Opp. pag. 43. [Eat ye] Opp. pa. 45 And again, Opp. p. 48. [In Remembrance of me] p. 51. [Drink ye All of this] p. 54. [In like manner he took the Cup.] Ibid. & 1. COR. 11. 25. [As often as you shall do it.] Ibid. THIS IS MY BODY.] The word [This] pag. 91. The Verb [Est, Is.] p. 107. That they are Figurative, & do not make for Transubstantiation. p. 146. [My Body] Is fare different from that which is in the hands of the Priest. p. 210. DO THIS.] Ob. for Sacrifice. pag. 390. [Is shed, Is broken, Is given,] Ob. for Sacrifice. p. 392. Both unreasonably. Ibid. [Shed for remission of sins.] Ob. for a Sacrifice Propitiatory. pag. 475. MATTH. 26. 29. [Fruit of the Vine.] Opp. against Transubstantiation. pag. 163. MATTH. 28. 6. [He is not here; for he is risen.] Opp. against Being in two places at once. pag. 237. LUK. 24. 16. [Their eyes were holden. pag. 172. [Known at Emmäus by Breaking of Bread.] p. 63. IO. 6. 54. [Who so eateth my flesh] Opp. pag. 339. And vers. 63. [It is the Spirit that quickeneth.] p. 340. And vers. 53. [Except you eat the flesh, etc.] p. 352. JOH. 19 33. They broke not his legs.] p. 394, & 423. ACT. 2. 42. [They continued in fellowship, & Breaking of Bread.] pag. 66, & 67. ACT. 9 3. (Concerning Christ's Appearance to Saul) Ob. p. 239. ACT. 13. 2. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Ob. p. 400. 1. COR. 5. 7. [Our Passeover is Sacrificed.] Ob. p. 422. 1. COR. 10. 4. [The same Spiritual meat] Opp. pag. 314. Ib. [And that Rock was CHRIST.] pag. 126. And verse 16. [The Bread which we break] Opp. Against Transubstantiation. pag. 165, & 166. Ibid. vers. 18. [They which eat of the Sacrifices, are Partakers of the Altar.] Ob. pag. 401. (for proof of a Proper Sacrifice.) 1. COR. 11. 25. Quotiescunque biberitis] p. 54. & 56. And vers. 27. [Whosoever eateth or drinketh unworthily, etc.] p. 320. And vers. 28. [So let him eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup. Opp. Against Communion but in one kind. pag. 65. And Opp. for proof that it remaineth Bread after Consecration. p. 161. And 1. COR. 14. 16. [How shall he say Amen?] Opp. against Unknown Prayer. p. 22, & 23. HEBR. 5. Concerning Melchisedech. Ob. for Sacrifice. p. 404. And Chap. 9 22. [Without shedding of Blood.] Opp. pag. 481. And Chap. 13. 10. [We have an Altar, etc.] Ob. 413, & 461. FINIS. FAULTS escaped in this Second Edition, thorough the absence of the R. Author; The Corrector's Negligence, and the Printers precipitancy. PAg. 15. lin. 13. Read, SECT. IV. Pag. 53. lin. 28. in the Margin, Read Aquin. part. 3. Qu. 80. Art. 9 Conclus. Pag. 54. lin. 6. Read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pag. 61. at (*) in the Marg. R. See the next Sect. 3. at the letter (x.) Pag. 64. lin. 29. Read— be represented by— (without the word, but.) Pag. 67. lin. 24. Read, Synecdoche. Pag. 81. lin. 4, 5. Read,— used only water— Pag. 83 lin. 27. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 115. lin. 29. in the Margin. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 120. lin. last but 3. in the Marg. R. Epiphanius his words to be— P. 123. l. 30. R. ●nd not to either the— P. 124. lin. 3. for Gloss R. Gloss. P. 159. lin. 30. in Marg. R. Chap. 4. Sect. 1. P. 180. lin. 10. in the Marg. R. Chap. 9 Sect. 2. P. 200. lin. 47. in the Marg. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— P. 209. lin. 19 R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 288. l. 10. instead of Antecedents, R. Accidents. P. 295. l. 40. R. had not any existence— P. 302. in the Marg. lit. c. lin. ult. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 343. l. 45. For Isychius Read Hesychius [whose Testimonies in the Index ought to be under one title of Hesychius.] P. 360. l. 27. R.— of their Bodies— P. 361. Marg. at num. 4. lin. 3. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 377. l. 24. For Cause— R. Case. P. 426. lin. 2. R— of a bloody Sacrifice. P. 443. in the Marg. at let. (c) lin. 2. R. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Other Errors typographical, which have got into the small and obscurer Character of the Margin, the Greek especially; an Ingenuous Reader (however otherwise affected) may equally pardon and correct, as they shall come to his view.