The Lords Supper or, A vindication of the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ according to its primitive institution. In eight books; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abomination of the Romish Master. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By Thomas Morton B.D. Bp. of Duresme.

OF THE INSTITVTION OF THE SACRAMENT of the blessed Body and Blood OF CHRIST , &c.

The first Booke . Concerning the Active part of Christ his Jnstitution of the Eucharist ; and the TEN Romish TRANSGRESSIONS thereof .

Chap. I.

That the Originall of the word , ●ASSE , nothing advantageth the Romish Masse . SECT. I.

DIvers of your Romish a 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 , MASSE , first to bee ( 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 bee performed unto God . And all this , to prove ( if it may bee ) that , which you call , THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASSE .

CHALLENGE .

SO have these your Doctors taught , notwithstanding many other Romanists , as well Iesuites as others of principall Note in your Church , enquiring ( as it were ) after the native Countrey , kinred , and age of the Word , MASSE , doe not only say , but also proove , first , that It is no Hebrew-borne . Secondly , that it is not of Primitive Antiquitie , because not read of before the dayes of Saint Ambrose , who lived about three hundred seventie three yeares after Christ . Thirdly , that it is a plaine Latine word , to wit , Masse , signifying the Dismission of the Congregation . Which Confessions being testified ( in our b 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 Iesuit in the place above-cited . ] Multò probabilius , esse Latinam ; nam si vox Hebraica in usu apud Apostolos fuisset , certè retinuissent e●m Graeci , & Syri , 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 alleageth 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 Greeke Church : and with Ilicet amongst the ancient Romanes . ] See the Testimonie following at ( c. ) Margin ) by so large a Consent of your owne Doctors , prooved by so cleare Evidence , and delivered by Authors of so eminent estimation in your owne Church ; must not a little lessen the credit of your other Doctors ( noted for Neotericks ) who have vainely laboured , under the word MASSE , falsely to impose upon their Readers an opinion of your Romish Sacrificing MASSE .

⚜ And left Any might object that the same Word , MASSE , ( 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 Iesuite Gordon quitteth this , saying , 1 1 Iac. Gordonus Scotus lib. Controvers. Controv. 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 , MASSE , in the Primitive Signification thereof , doth properly belong unto the Protestants : and justly condemneth the Romish manner of Masse . SECT. II.

THe word , MASSE , ( by the c 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 fore-named Authors , who confesse the word to be Latine , do hold that it commeth of Ite , Missa est ; for ] Iubebantur 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 teares , and groanes . 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , of them who were admitted to heare instructions . 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , of such as went out before Consecration , somewhat after the Catechumeni . 4. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , this was indeed of those , who were allowed to heare Masse at length , but communicated not : and this their presence , for looking on , was onely for Penance-sake , to see themselves excluded from the Communion of the faithfull . The last was 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , of them which were reconciled and communicated . ⚜ Confession of Iesuites and Others , and that from the authoritie of Councels , Fathers , Canon-law , Schoolmen , and all Latine Liturgies ) is therfore so called from the Latine 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 depart . Which furthermore your Ies. Maldonate , out of Isidore , of most ancient authors , and of all other the Liturgies , is compelled to confesse to be the Most true meaning of Antiquity .

Which Custome 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 onely in looking and gazing upon the Priests manner of celebrating your Romane Masse , without communicating thereof , contrary to the Institution of Christ ; contrary to the practise of Antiquity ; and contrary to the proper Vse of the Sacrament ( all which * * See Chap. 2. Sect. 9. hereafter shall bee plentifully shewed ) it must therefore follow , as followeth . d 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. de 7. Sacram. Tract . de Euch. §. Primum . pag 335.

CHALLENGE .

WHereas there is nothing more rife and frequent in your Speeches , more ordinary in your Oathes , or more sacred in your common Estimation , than the name of the MASSE ; 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 , Cha. 2. Sect. 5. hereafter .

The Name of CHRIST his MASSE , how farre it is to bee acknowledged by Protestants . SECT. III.

THe Masters of your Romish Ceremonies , and Others , naming the Institution of Christ , e 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 Masse : yea ( and as another 2 2 Dr. Heskins in his parlament , Book 3. Chap. 33. saith ) Christ said Masse . And how often doe we heare your vulgar people talking of Christ his Masse ? Which word MASSE ( in the proper Signification already specified ) could not possibly have beene so distastfull unto Vs , if you had not abused it to your fained , and ( as you now see ) false sense of your kind of Proper Oblation , and Sacrifice . Therefore was it a supersluous labour of Mr. f f Liturg. tract . 1. § 1. Brerely , to spend so many lines in proving the Antiquity of the word , MASSE .

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 Romane Church , which in her Masse doth flatly and peremptorily contradict the proper Signification therof , according to the Testimony of Micrologus , saying ; g 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 Masse is therefore so called , because they that communicate not , are commanded to depart . By all which it is evident , that your Church hath forfeited the Title of Masse , which shee hath appropriated to her selfe as a flagge of ostentation ( whereof more * * See below , c 2. sect. 9 hereafter . ) In the Interim , wee shall desire each one of you to hearken to the Exhortation of your owne Waldensis , saying ; h h Attende Missam Christi , &c. Waldens . de Missa . ATTEND , and observe the Masse OF CHRIST .

Of the CANON OF CHRIST his MASSE ; and at what words it beginneth . SECT. IV.

CHrist his Masse , by your owne i i Hoc ossicium Christus instituit , ubi dicitur , [ Accepit lesus panem ] Durand . Rationl . p. c. 1. p. 165. Christus instituit , Luc. 22. Accepto pane , &c. Duran● . de Rui. lib. 2 c. 3 p. 211. Confession , beginneth at these words of the Gospell , concerning Christs Institution of the Eucharist , Matt. 26. Luc. 22. [ And Iesus tooke bread , &c. ] which also we doe as absolutely professe .

What Circumstances , by joynt Consent on both sides , are to be exempted out of this Canon of Christ his Masse ; or the words of his Institution .

It is no lesse Christian wisedome and Charitie , 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 Iesus tooke bread , &c. ] 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 custome of Iudaea ) doe not come within this our dispute touching Christ his Masse ; whether it be that they concerne Place , ( for it was instituted in a private house : ) or Time , ( which was at night : ) or Sexe , ( which were onely men : ) or Posture , ( which was a kind of lying downe : ) or Vesture , ( which was wee know not what : ) no nor yet whether the Bread was unleavened , or the Wine mixed with water : two poynts which ( as you know ) Protestants and your selves k k Antiquissimus decumbendi usus , more accumbendi nondum invento , ex Philone lib. de Iosepho . — Iudaeorum mos jacendi inter Epulas . Amos cap. 2. 8. Foeneratores super vestimenta in pignus accepta discumbunt juxta quodvis altare : ubi vestimenta pro lectis . Casaub . Exerc. 16. in Baron . [ And lest any might object a necessitie of representation Aquae , quae fluxit è corpore Christi , Bonavent . q 3. D. 11. cleares it thus ] Dicendum quòd per aquam illam non signatur aqua ista , nec è converso : sed aqua illa a quam Baptismatis signat . [ Againe , concerning the difference of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , it is plaine , 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 Iewes , as was also the eating of the Lambe . ] 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 . Iansen . 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 inferre , that this Ceremony of Mixture was in it selfe a matter Indifferent , to be disposed of according to the Wisedome of the Church . This point falling in but upon the Bye , I then thought it not worthy the insisting on ; and have beene since called upon by a Romish Opposite , to satisfie him , why I should father this opinion on your Church : as though this Mixture of water and wine had beene ordained by Christ , for his Church , under a necessity of Precept . Whereby I am occasioned to adde a

CHALLENGE ; In Vindication of a former Assertion , against the Calumnie of a Romish Suggester .

LEt your 3 3 Bellar. lib. 4 de Euch. cap. 10. §. Porrò — Ecclesia Catholica semper credidit ità necessarium esse , aquâ vinum misceri in calice , ut non possit id sine gravi peccato omitti . Cardinall hold it Necessary to be observed , upon necessitie 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 it's owne nature , to be simply Necessary in the use ) wee were ready to proove ; but your owne learned Doctours will have us to spare our paines , granting that 4 4 Suarez in 3. Thom. Qu 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 mistionē 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 Iesuite 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 referre : id enim omnes expresse dixerunt , ut supra notavi . Iosephus 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 Iosephus 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 enjoyned by the Church . This being ( as Iesuites and others doe witnesse ) a Doctrine generally consented unto by your Schoolmen , and they themselves giving their Amen thereunto ; as also alleaging , for their owne better confirmation herein , the judgement of two late Romish Councils , Florence and Trent ; besides their dint of Reasons ; wherof 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 Necessitie the Church of Rome universally excludeth . The Consequence therfore is evident ; for whatsoever was instituted , as the matter of a Sacrament , was ever held to bee of the necessitie of the Essence of the same Sacrament . Wherefore wee may reckon this Mixture amongst those Circumstances of Christs Actions , which were Occasionall , by reason of the use and Custome of that Countrey of Iudaea at that time , for the tempering and allaying of their Wine with Water . 5 5 Iac. 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 Iesuit ) that none dranke meere Wine , but mixt with water . ⚜

The Poynts contained within the Canon of Christ his Masse , and appertaining to our present Controversie , are of two kindes , viz. 1. Practicall . 2. Doctrinall . SECT. V.

PRacticall or Active is that part of the Canon , which concerneth Administration , Participation , and Receiving of the holy Sacrament , according to this Tenour , Matth. 2● . 〈◊〉 [ And Iesus tooke Bread , and blessed it , and brake it , and gave it to his Disciples , and said , Take , eat , &c. And Luc. 2● . 19. ●● . Do this in remembrance of me . Likewise also after Supper he tooke the Cup , and gave thankes , and gave it to them , saying , Drink ye all of this . ] But the Points , which are especially to be called Doctrinall , 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 sinnes ] We begin with the Practicall .

CHAP. II. That all the proper Active and Practicall points ( to wit , of Blessing , Saying , Giving , Taking , &c. ) are strictly commanded by Christ in these words ( DOE THIS , ) Luke 22. Matth. 26. & 1. Cor. 11.

SECT. I.

THere are but two outward materiall parts of this Sacrament , the one concerning the element of Bread , the other touching the Cap. The Acts concerning Both , whether in Administring , or Participating thereof , are charged by Christ his Canon upon the Church Catholike unto the ends of the World . The Tenour of his Precept or Command , for the first part , is [ Doe this : ] and concerning the other likewise saying , 1. Cor. 11. ●5 . ] This doe ye as often , &c. Whereof your owne Doctors , aswell Iesuites as Others , have rightly a a [ Hoc facite . ] Alter sensus est , Facite viz. quod feci — Christus accepit panem , gratias egit , benedixit , &c. idipsumque praecepit Discipulis , corumque successoribus Sacerdotibus . Barrard . Ies. Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap ●6 . pag. 82. col. 2 , [ which sense hee also embraceth , although he excludeth not a second . ] Illud [ Hoc facite ] posuit post datum Sacramentum , ut intelligeremus jussisse Dominum ut sub , &c. 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 . Iansen . Episc. Concord . c. 131. pag. 903. Againe Bellar. Videtur tn . sententia Iohannis à Lovanio valde probabilis , qui docet verba Domini [ Hoc facite ] a●ud 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 , &c. 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 Ioh. c. 58. Thus farre 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 goe before that , He tooke bread , &c ] nam 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 Ioh. 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 , &c. Quod Lucas complexus est , dicens , Similiter & calicem Iansen . Concord . c. 131. p. 905. [ & Durand . l. 4. c. 1. is of the same minde , 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. la 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 onely the Time of the Celebration , which was at Supper : and which ( together with Vs ) b 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 . Mallon . Ies. in Mat. 26 super illa verba [ Coenantibus autem . ] &c. you say were put in , not for Example , but onely 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 . Vpon examination whereof , it will appeare unto every Conscience of man , which Professors ( namely , whether Protestants or Romanists ) are the true and Catholike Executors and Observers of the last wil and Testament of our Testator Iesus : 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 Bride-groome . Wee , to this purpose , apply our selves to our busines , by enquiring what are the Active Particulars , which Christ hath given in charge unto his Church by these his expresse words [ Do this . ] All which wee are to discover and discusse 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 Romane Masse . SECT. II.

WEe list not to quarrell with your Church for lighter matters , albeit your owne Cassander forbeareth not to complaine that your c 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 extreame thinnesse and lightnesse , that it may seeme unworthy the name of Bread . Whereas Christ used Solid and tough bread [ Glutinosus ] ( saith d d Panis azymus glutinosus erat , & frangebatur five manu , five cultro . Lorin . Ies. in Act. 2. v. 42. § Indicat . your Iesuit ) which was to be broken with hands , or cut with knife . Neverthelesse , because there is in yours the substance of Bread , therefore we will not contend about Accidents and shadowes ; 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 concerne 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 thankes : ] Which words , in e e Non dubium est quin apud Evangelistas 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 idem sit quod 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 : nam quod Matthaeus & Marcus dicunt [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] post de calice loquentes , dicunt [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 : ] & vicissim quod Matth. & Marcus de pane dicunt [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , ] Lucas & Paulus dicunt [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . ] M●ld . les . in Mat. 26. and Stapleton . Antidot . 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 . Inde 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 Ians . Concor . c. 131. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 idem valere , vide 1. Cor. 14. v. 16 , 17. Marc. 8. v. 6 , 7. Mat. 15. 36. ] your owne judgements , are all one as if it should be said , Hee blessed it with giving of thankes . By the which word , Blessing , he doth imply a Consecation of this Sacrament . So you .

The contrary Canon of the ( now ) Romane Masse ; wherein the Romish Church , in her Exposition , hath changed Christs manner of Consecration .

The Canon of the Romish Masse 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 ] &c. and that from the judgement ( as f 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 distincte [ Hoc est corpus meum . ] Missal . Rom. jussu . Pij Quinti Pont. edit. Rubrica Canoni● , & Aquinas part . 3. qu. 60. Art. 8. Some say ) of your Councell of Florence , and Trent . Moreover you also alleage , for this purpose , your publique Catechisme , and Romane Missall , both which were authorized by the Councell of Trent , and Command of Pius Quintus then Pope ( See the Marginals . ) Whereupon it is , that you use to attribute such efficacie to the very words , pronounced with a Priestly intention , as to change all the Bread in the Bakers shop , and Wine in the Vintners 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 ⚜ (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. ⚜ Iesuits concerning both kindes .

CHALLENGE .

BVt Christopherus your own Archbishop of Caesarea , in his Booke dedicated to Pope Sixtus Quintus , and written professedly upon this Subject , commeth in , compassed about with a clowd of witnesses and Reasons , to prove g 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. Iacobus 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 Iustino , 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 Iustino 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 , &c. Vis scire ( inquit ) quibus verbis coelestibus consecratur ? accipe quae sint , Fac nobis hanc oblationem , &c. Idem tenet Odo Camerac . — etiam Bern. Audi quid Sacerdos in consecratione corporis Christi dicat , Rogamus ( inquit ) hanc oblationem benedictam fieri , &c. [ And lest that any should object , that the Apostles did not observe in their narration the right order of Christs Acts , He addeth ; ] Omnes nunc provoco Lectores ad Legendos Missales libros Liturg. Iacobi , 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 CORPVS MEVM : ] [ This is my Body , &c. ] To this purpose hec is bold to averre that Thomas Aquinas , and all Catholike ; before Cajetane have confessed that Christ did consecrate in that his [ BENEDIXIT , that is , He●h essed it . ] And that Saint Iames and Dionyse the Areopagit● did not Consecrate onely in the other words , but by Prayer . Then he assureth us that the Greeke Churches maintained , that Consecration consisteth in Benediction , by Prayer , and not in the onely repetition of the words aforesaid . After this hee produceth your subtilest Schooleman Scotus , accompanied with divers others , who Derided those , that attributed such a supernaturall virtue to the other forme of words . After steppeth in your Lindan , who avoucheth Iustin ( one of the ancientest of Fathers ) as Denying that the Apostles consecrated the Eucharist in those words , [ HOC EST , &c. ] and affirming that Consecration could not be without Prayer .

Be you but pleased to peruse the Marginals , and you shall further find alleadged the Testimonies of Pope Gregory , Hierome , Ambrose , Bernard , and ( to ascend higher ) The Liturgies of Clement , Basil , Chrysostome , and of the Romane Church it selfe ; in gain-saying of the Consecration , by the onely words of Institution , as you pretend . And in the end hee draweth in two Popes , one contradicting the other , in this point ; and hath no other meanes to stint their jarre , but ( whereas the authority of both is equall ) to thinke it just to yeeld rather to the better learned of them both . Whosoever requireth more , may be satisfied by reading of the Booke it selfe . ⚜ And yet wee would be loath to pretermit the ( confessed ) Testimonie of your Iesuite Gordon , out of Saint Augustine , attesting that in this Sacrament 2 2 Iac. 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 wordes ; ] Illud quod ex fructibus terrae acceptum , & prece mysticâ consecratum , ritè sumimus , &c. ⚜ The fruit of the earth is consecrated by Mysticall Prayer . ⚜

It will not suffice to say , That you also use Prayer , in the Romish Liturgie : for the question is not meerely of Praying , but where in the forme of Benediction and Consecration more properly doth consist . Now none can say , that he consecrateth by that Prayer , which he beleeveth is not ordained for Consecration . We may furthermore take hold , by the way , of the Testification of M● . h h Tra●tat . of the M●sse , pag. 105. Brerely a Romish Priest , who , out of Basil and Chrysostome , ( calling one part Calix benedictione sacratus ) alloweth Benediction to have beene the Consecration thereof .

All this Armie of Witnesses were no better then Meteors , or imaginary figures of battailes in the aire , if that the Answer of Bellarmine may goe for warrant , to wit , that the only Pronuntiation of these words [ Hoc est corpus meum ] imply in them ( as hee i i Verb● haec [ Hoc est corpus meum ] pronunciata à Sacerdote , cùm intentione 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 spake 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 fore-said Arch-bishop of Caesarea , out of Saint Hierome . But none of you ( wee 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 Scholler 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 , wherwith 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 therfore are of Declaration , and not of Invocation .

Which ( now ) Romish Doctrine of Consecrating , by reciting these words [ This is my Body , &c. ] your Divines of Colen k 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 , &c. 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 bee a Fierce madnesse , as being repugnant both to the Easterne and Westerne Churches . But wee have heard divers Westerne Authors speake , give leave to an Easterne Archbishop to deliver his mind . l 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 , &c. Resp. An ergò post illud dictum Dei [ Crescite ] nullo adhuc opus habemus adjumento , nullâ prece , nullo matrimonio ? Ibid. No Apostle , or Doctor is knowne to affirme ( saith he ) those sole words of Christ to have beene sufficient for Consecration . So he , three hundred yeares since , satisfying also the Testimonie of Chrysostome , objected to the contrary .

⚜ This Archbishop you 3 3 ⚜ Possevin . les . Apparat. Tit. Nicolaus Cabassilas Archiepiscopus Thessalonicensis , vir clarus fuit . grant was Famous in his time , living about the yeare 1300. to whom ( as you know ) the Bishop of Ephesus and the Patriarch of Constantinople did accord , saying that 4 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 assoone as these words are uttered , but afterwards , by certaine prayers of the Church . And why these Greeke Fathers should not rather resolve us of the ancient Greeke tenor of Consecration , than any of your late Italian or Latine Doctors , who will make question ? As for your other Greeke Patriarch Bessarion , who was made Cardinall by your Church , on purpose , that he might make some opposition unto his fellowes , We make no other account of him than of an Hireling . In briefe , None of the great multitude of Fathers , who have required the use of Prayer , besides these words , [ This is my body ] did thereby testifie 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 Answere your owne m m Alij dixerunt , Christum his verbis semel dictis consecràsse , sed Evangelistas non servâ 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 , &c. his reperivisse : quae sententia est falsa , quia nullâ conjectu●à probari potest , Id. ibid. Iesuite 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 Greeke as Latine , constantly held , that in the order of the tenour of Christ his Institution it was first said [ Take yee ] before that he said [ This is my Body . ]

Lastly , your other lurking-hole is as shamefull as the former , where , when the judgement of Antiquitie is objected against you , requiring that Consecration be done directly by Prayer unto God : n 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 bee added Cyprian de coena Domini , Calix benedictione sacratus . ] you answere that some Fathers did use such speeches in their Sermons to the people , but in their secret instruction of Priests did teach otherwise . Which Answere ( besides the falsity thereof ) Wee take to be no better than a reproach against Antiquitie ; and all one as to say , that those venerable Witnesses of Truth would professe one thing in the Cellar , and proclaime the contrarie on the house-top . It were to be wished , that when you frame your Answeres , to direct other mens Consciences , you would first satisfie your owne , especially being occupied in soules-businesses .

Wee conclude . Seing that Forme ( as all learning teacheth ) giveth Being unto all things ; therefore your Church , albeit shee use Prayer , yet erring in her judgement concerning the perfect manner and Forme of Consecration of this Sacrament , how shall shee be credited in the materialls ? wherein shee will bee found , aswell as in this , to have Transgressed the same Injunction of Christ , [ DO THIS . ]

Neverthelesse , this our Conclusion is not so to be interpreted , as ( hearken o o It was Mr Brereley his error , Liturg. p. 101. in alleaging 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 , &c. but Prayer , and the word of Blessing , commanded by the Word of Christ , who blessedit , and commanded his Church , saying , Doe 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 Iesu , &c. Ergò ●ermo Christi conficit hoc Sacramentum , nempe is , quo facta sunt omnia , jussit , & factum est . [ This is the Allegation ; whereas if hee had taken but a little paines , to have read the Chapter following , hee should have received Saint Ambrose his plaine Resolution ; that they meant the words of Prayer . Vis scire quibus verbis coelestibus consecratur ? Accipe verba , Dicit Sacerdos , Fac nobis hanc Oblationem acceptam , &c. Then he proceedeth to the Repetition of the whole institution , as the complement 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 Latine Church had this forme ( Fac ) even as the Greeke had their 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 : both in Prayer , but neither of both without reciting the forme of Institution . ] Mr. Brerely ) to exclude , out of the words of this Celebration , the Repetition and pronuntiation of these words [ This is my Body : and , This is my Bloud of the new Testament . ] Farre be this from us , because wee hold them to bee essentially belonging to the Narration of the Institution of Christ ; and are used in the Liturgie of our Church : for although they bee not words of Blessing and Consecration , ( because not of Petition , but of Repetition ) yet are they Words of Direction ; and , withall , Significations and Testifications of the mysticall effects thereof .

⚜ A Vindication , against the ( possible ) adverse Conceipts of Some .

For a further manifestation , hearken 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 wee finde 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 Swines 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 lawfull use of Swines 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 Sacramentall food , wherein wee have the Sanctification thereof , both by the Word of Christ in the tenour of his first Institution , Hee tooke bread , &c. adding [ Do this : ] as also by publike 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 tooke bread , &c. ] be applyed to every oblation of new Bread and Wine , for accommodation-sake , as they are referred in our Liturgie ; wherein they are necessarily joyned together with the words of Prayer and Benediction . Therefore , where you shall finde in the Fathers the words of Christ's Institution , called Consecration ; 5 5 ⚜ Chrys. Tom. 3 Hom. 30. dè Proditione Iud● [ Ioc est Corpus me●● . ] ●ubus 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 Chrysostome and Ambrose ) it must be understood as joyned with Prayer , as the Benediction it selfe , which hath beene * * See more in the Margent above , in the beginning of this Section . ⚜ already copiously confessed ; as well as it is furthermore acknowledged by your Iesuit , that 6 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 actis 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 Masse ; is in their Contradicting the sense of the next words of Institution , [ HE BRAKE IT ] SECT. VI.

HE brake it . ] So all the Evangelists doe relate . Which Act of Christ plainely noteth that hee Brake the Bread , for distributing of the same unto his Disciples . And his Command is manifest , in saying as well in behalfe of this , as of the rest , [ Doe this . ] Your Priest indeed Breaketh one Hoast 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 ) Romane Masse .

p p Ecce , in coena Christus fregit panem : & tamen Ecclesia Catholica modò non frangit , sed integrum dat. Salmeron . Ies. Tom. 9. Tract . 34. §. Nam . p. 275. BE HOLD ( say You ) Christ brake it ; but the Catholik Church ( meaning the Romane ) now doth not breake it , but giveth it whole . And this you pretend to doe for reverence sake , Lest ( as your q 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. Iesuite saith ) some crummes may fall to the ground . Neither is there any Direction to your Priest to Breake the Bread , either before or after Consecration , in your Romane Masse ; especially that , which is distributed to the people .

CHALLENGE ;

BVt now see ( we pray you ) the absolute Confession of your owne Doctors , whereby is witnessed , first , that Christ brake the bread into twelve parts , r 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 , nonne communicatio corporis Christi Domini ? in qua fractione pulchrè representatur Passio corporis Christi . Idem . Ies. Tract . 35. §. Vocat . pag. 288 [ In fractione Panis , Act 2. ] Indicat fractionis nomen antiquam consuetudinem partiendi pro astantibus sive manu , sive cultro ; quià panis azymus glutinosus it à facilius dividitur . Lorinus Ies. in eum locum p. 138. col . 2. Benedictionem sequitur hostiae fractio , fractionem sequitur Communio — Hunc celebrandi morem semper Ecclesia servavit tàm Graeca quàm Latina , quarum Liturgiae , etsi in verbis aliquandò discrepent , certè omnes in eo conveniunt , quòd partes has omnes Missae Christi exactè repraesentent , nihil de essentialibus omittentes . Vsus autem Ecclesiae & ejus celebrandi ordonos docent , qualis fuit Christi Missa , & quo illam ordine celebravit . Archie● . Caesar . var. Tract . p. 27. according to the number of Communicants . Secondly , that this Act of Breaking of bread is such a principall Act , that the whole Celebration of this Sacrament hath had from thence this Appellation given to it , by the Apostles , to be called Breaking of Bread . Thirdly , that the Church of Christ alwayes observed the same Ceremonie of Breaking the bread , aswell in the Greeke as in the Latine ( and consequently the Romane ) Church . Fourthly , that this Breaking of the Bread is a Symbolicall Ceremonie , betokening not only the Crucifying of Christs bodie upon the Crosse , but also ( in the common participation thereof ) representing the Vnion of the Mysticall body of Christ , which is his Church , Communicating together of one loafe : that as many graines in one loafe , so all faithfull Communicants are united to one Head Christ , as the Apostle teacheth , 1. Cor. 10. thus , [ The bread which wee breake , is it not the Communion of the bodie of Christ ? for we being many are one bread . ]

Wee adde , as a most speciall Reason , that this Breaking it , in the distribution thereof , is to apply the representation of the Bodie Crucified , and the Bloud shed to the heart and soule of every Communicant : That as the Bread is given Broken to us , so was Christ Crucified for us . Yet , neverthelesse , your Church contrarily professing , that although Christ did breake bread , yet ( BEHOLD ! ) she doth not so ; what is it else , but to starch her face , and insolently to confront Christ his Command , by her bold Countermand ( as you now see ) in effect saying ; But doe not this .

A SECOND CHALLENGE .

AS for that truly-called Catholike Church , you your selves do grant unto us , that by Christ his first Institution , by the Practice of the Apostles , by the ancient and universall Custome of the whole Church of Christ , aswell Greeke as Latine , the Ceremony of Breaking bread was continually observed . Which may bee unto us more than a probable Argument , that the now Church of Rome doth falsly usurpe the Title of CATHOLIKE , for the better countenancing and authorizing of her novell , Customes , although never so repugnant to the will of Christ and Custome of the truly-called Catholike Church . Howbeit wee would not bee so understood , as to thinke it an Essentiall Ceremonie either to the being of a Sacrament , or to the Sacramentall Administration ; but yet requisite , for the Commandement and Example-sake .

In the next place , to your Pretence of Not-breaking , because of Reverence , Wee say ; Hem , scilicet , Quanti est sapere ! As if Christ and his Apostles could not fore-see that your Necessitie , ( namely ) that by the Distributing of the Bread , and by Breaking it , some little crummes must cleave sometimes unto the beards of the Communicants , or else fall to the ground . Or as though this Alteration were to be called Reverence , and not rather Arrogance , in making your-selves more wise than Christ , who instituted ; or than all the Apostles , or Fathers of primitive times , who continued the same Breaking of Bread .

Therefore this your Contempt of Breaking , what is it but a peremptory breach of Christ his Institution , never regarding what the Scripture saith ; * * 1 Sam. 15. 22. Obedience is better then Sacrifice . For , indeed , true Reverence is the mother of Obedience ; else is it not Devotion , but a meere derision of that Command of Christ , [ Doe this . ]

The third Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse ; contradicting the sense of the next words of Christs Command , viz. [ — GAVE IT VNTO THEM . ] SECT. V.

IT followeth in the Canon of Christ his Masse , [ And he gave it unto them ; ] even to THEM , to whom he said , [ Take yee , eate ye . ] By which pluralitie of persons is excluded all private Massing ; forasmuch as our High Priest Christ Iesus ( who in instituting and administring of this Sacrament would not be alone ) said hereof , as of the other Circumstances , [ Doe this . ]

The Contrarie Canon of the ( now ) Romane Masse .

This holy Synod ( saith your a a Miss●s illas , in quibus solus Sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat — probat atque adeò commendat . Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. cap 6. Councell of Trent ) doth approve and commend the Masses , wherein the Priest doth Sacramentally communicate alone . So your Church .

CHALLENGE .

BVt who shall justifie that her Commendation of the alone-communicating of your Priest ? which wee may justly condemne by the liberall b 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 cōmunicantes in Oratione & communicatione fractionis Panis ] id 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 . Iohan. Hoffme●sterus his verbis suam sententiam declaravit . Res , inquit , clamat , tàm in Graeca quàm in Latitia 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 , &c. Item , Prosint nobis divina Sacrificia , quae sumpsimus . Teste G. Cassandro Consult . Art 24. pag. 216 , 217 , — 223. &c. Confessions of your owne Doctors ; who grant , first , that this is not according to the Institution of Christ , saying in the Plurall , [ VNTO 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 Custome of the whole Church , both Greeke and Romane . Fourthly , c c Idem Ioh. 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 — Cur autem Canon noster [ Speaking of the forme of the Romane Mosse ] alijs in superstitionem , alijs in contemptum adductus sit , in causa potissimum est mutatio prisci ritus . Georg Cassand . quo sup . neither to Two Councels , the one called Nanetense , the other Papiense , decreeing against Private Masse . Fiftly , nor to the very names of the true d d Act. 2. 42. [ Erant communicantès , &c. ] 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 . Sacramentall Masse : which , by way of Excellencie , was sometime called [ Synaxis ] signifying ( as Saint Basil saith ) the Congregation of the faithfull : sometimes 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Communion , or Communicating : and sometimes the Prayers , used in every holy Masse , were called [ Collectae ] Collects , because the people used to be collected to the celebration of the Masse it selfe . Sixtly , Nor to the very * * See above at (b) Canon of the now Romane Masse , saying in the Plurall [ Sumpsimus ] wee have received . And thereupon ( seventhly ) repugnant to the Complaints of your owne men , against your Abuse ; who calling the joynt Communion , instituted by Christ , the Legitimate Masse ; do wonder how your Priests sole-Communicating ever crept into the Church ; and also deplore the contempt , which your private Masse hath brought upon your Church . Hitherto ( see the Marginals ) from your owne Confessions .

Let us adde the Absurditie of the Commendation of your Councell of Trent , in saying , Wee commend the Priest's communicating alone . A man may indeed ( possibly ) talke alone , fret alone , play the Traytour alone : but this Communicating alone , without any other , is no better Grammar , than to say , that a man can conferre alone , conspire alone , contend , or covenant alone . Calvin saith indeed of spirituall Eating , which may be without the Sacrament ( as you also g g Qui dicunt Christum manducari spiritualiter à fidelibus posse , etiamsi Sacramentaliter non manducetur , atque eo cibo animam ali , vera quidem asseiunt . Acosta . les . de procur . Indorum Salut. c. 7. p. 532. confesse ) that a Faithfull man may feede alone of the Body and Blood of Christ : But our dispute is of the Corporall and Sacramentall Communicating thereof . e 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 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 Romane Custome by the Romane Masse it selfe .

WEe make bold yet againe to condemne your Custome of Private Masse , and consequently the Commendation given thereof by the Councel of Trent . For by the Canon of your Masse , wherein there are interlocutorie 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 Doctour ( one commended by h 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 Masse ) albeit he agreeth , with the execrable Execration and Anathema of the Councel of Trent , against them that hold Solitarie Masses to be unlawfull ; yet after the expence of much paper , to prove that some private Masse must needs have anciently beene , because Primitively Masse was celebrated almost in all Churches every day ; and that Saint * * See below at the letter (p) Chrysostome did complaine of the absence of the people : yet comming to determine of the poynt , i i Haec & similia pro privatatū Mislarum usu & vetustate probabil●● quidem sunt , sed minus ●perta , nec n. qui oblatum dicunt , communicatum negant , &c. Espen . Tract . de utraque Missa fol. 226. [ where also had beene objected the complaint of Chrysoslome , so . fol 222. ] This Reason ( saith he ) is onely probable , but not evident ; for although they affirme a dayly celebration of the Masse , yet doe they not deny a daily Communion .

Afterwards he seeketh the Originall and beginning of privat Masses out of private k 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 satisfie himself there , he commeth at length to debate a Controversie , wherewith many were then perplexed , to wit , how it could bee 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 l Dominus vobiscum . &c. 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 farre Espen . uo sup. fol. 210. 213. & Gers . Tract . Quaestion . cum . Resp. Quià Sacerdos gerit vicem populi . Answers , which I referre 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 Celles , unto Formes and Stooles : or else , with the Deane of the Cardinals , teaching any Heremite being alone , to say , [ The Lord be with you ] as spoken to himselfe . All which imaginarie fooleries are so unworthy the Conceptions of but reasonable men , that wee may feare to be held inconsiderate , If wee should indeavour to confute them . Onely wee can say no lesse , than that if the Apostle did condemne them , who speak with strange languages in the publike assemblie ( although they that spake understood themselves ) because that in such a Case * * 1. Cor. 14. 23. If ( saith hee ) there be none to interpret , and there come in an Ignorant or Infidell observing this , will hee not say , you are mad ? how much more extreame Madnesse must wee judge this to be , where men either talke to themselves , or else ( as if they were metamorphosed into the things , whereunto they speake ) unto formes , stones , stooles , and the like ?

For Conclusion , heare the said Deane of the Romane Cardinals ( from whom a m 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. Thessal . Ann. Dom. 1350. Exposit. Liturg. cap. 25. Greeke Archbishop shall not dissent ) speake reason , and withall tell you that the Correspondencie of speech , used betwixt : Priest and People , was to unite the hearts of both Priest and People together . Wee 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 prevaile with you , yet me-thinks the authoritie of Pope Gregorie , sirnamed the Great , might command your beliefe . He , upon the forme of the Romane service , by an interchangeable speech betweene Priest and People , concludeth that n 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 Masse alone . And yet behold a Greater Pope than he , even Soter , more ancient by 400. yeares , and also a Martyr , o o Soter B. of Rome An. 170. [ who suffered Martyrdome , made this Decree for celebrating of Masse : ] 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 . Witnes M. Harding Art . 1. Divis. 2● . apud Iuellum . 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 perswade his Reader , that by [ Vobiscum ] was meant the Clerke of the Parish . But why was it then not said , Dominus tecum , The Lord be with thee ? O , this forsooth , was spoken to the Clerke in civility , according to the ordinary Custome of entitling singular persons in the plurall number : and this Answer hee called Salving of a Doubt .

But any may reply , that if it were good manners in the Priest , to call upon the Clerke with [ Vobiscum ] in the plurall number , for civilitie sake , it must then be rusticitie in you● Church , to teach your Clerke to answer your Priest [ Et cum Spiritu tuo : And with thy Spirit . ] And againe , the answer is impertinent , for where the Priest is found thus parling with the Clerke , hee 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 meere 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 7 Microlog . [ Don inus vobiscum , et cùm spiritu tuo ] &c. 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 Custome .

A Custome Commendable , say your Fathers of Trent ; Condemnable , say wee , even from your owne Consciences , because you were never hitherto able to produce either any Commendable , yea or Tollerable example , expresly recorded within the many Volumes of Antiquitie , of any celebration of the Eucharist , without a Communion ; no , not in that onely objected place of p p Chrysost. in Ephes. Hom 3. Frustr● habetur quotidiana oblatio , frustrà stamus ad altare , 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 hee was accompanied , at least , with some Ecclesia-stickes , as is implyed in the words , ( Stamus ad Altare ) And it is no rare Hyperbale in Chrysostome to use the word , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , for , a Paucitie . ] Chrysostome , 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 wilfull Absents . So farre was hee from allowing , much more from Commending Communicating alone , who else-where , against such as neglected to Communicate with the poore , taking his Argument from the example of Christ , That Supper ( q 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 r Hieron . Coena Domini dicitur , quia Dominus in coena tradidit Sacramenta . Dominica coena debet omnibus esse communis . In 1 Cor. cap. 11. The Lords Supper ought to bee common to All. Such Reverencers were the Primitive Fathers of the Ordinances of Christ . And as touching * * [ For againe , if it should be strictly racked , so should he himselfe not have participated , and then was it no Masse at all . But Chrysostome's Rhecorique , in hyperbolizing , is noted esp●cially by your Senensis ; as may be observed in Chrysostome's like Invective against the carnall 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 senselesse as to thinke hereby that Chrysostome thought himselfe absolutely to bee wholly alone . ] [ Nemo , No man ] in the testimony of Chrysostome , it is knowne to be taken restrainedly , for Few : and so s s [ Frustrà stamus , &c. ] 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 your selves in the place objected .

⚜ If all these premises cannot perswade you , wee shall present unto you one , who wil command your consent , Pope Innocent the third . 8 8 Innocent. 3. de 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 plurall number [ The Lord be with you ] and also [ pray for mee ] that none presume to celebrate without two , besides the Priest , to make answere to these Salutations . So hee , even as you have heard Pope Soter to have said before him .

The fourth Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse , contradicting the sense of the next words , [ — SAID VNTO THEM . ] SECT. VI.

IN the aforesaid Canon of Christ his Masse it followeth , [ And he said unto Them . ] Christ Saying , or speaking to his Disciples , by commanding them to Take , &c. did , doubtlesse , so speake , that they might heare his Command ; to wit , in an audible voice . Which done , he further commanded , concerning this same Circumstance , joyntly with the rest , saying , [ Doe this . ]

The contrary Canon of the Romane Masse .

But your late Councell of a 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 condemne her Custome of the Priest , uttering the words of Consecration in a lowe voyce . Whereby ( saith your b 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 . Iesuite ) 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 professe ? See also , we pray you , notwithstanding , what your owne Doctours are brought to c 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 Iacobi 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 , & Iustino Martyre , ut verbis Consecrationis altâ voce prolatis , populus responderet , Amen . Idem Tom. 9. Tract. 13. pag. 90. Col. 2. confesse ( 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 Custome 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 Romane 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 Emperour Iustinian , who severely commanded by his Edict ( as d d Novellà Constit . 123. Iustiniani severè praecipitur Sacerdotibus , ut in Eucharistiae celebratione verba clarâ voce pronuntientur , ut à populo exaudiantur . — [ Which made Bellarmine to blaster after this manner : ] Ad Novellam responderi possit imprimis , ad Imperatorem non pe●●inere de ritu sacrificandi leges ferre : 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 cleare voice , that they may bee heard of the people . Whose authoritie you peremptorily contemne , as though it did not belong to an Emperor to make Lawes in this kind . But forasmuch as the King of Kings , and the High Priest of Priefls , the Sonne 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 himselfe , without so much as any pretence of Reason , e 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 baptized , and were allowed to bee Communicants . Basil speaketh of the rites of Baptisme 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 inferre any more than such a Service , in respect of them that were not to be partakers of the Communion . Secondly , wee oppose concerning the poynt in question ; that the words of Institution were in those times pronounced with an audible voyce both in the Greeke an Latine Churches ( as hath beene confessed , and their owne Writings doe verifie : ) 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 , &c. ] secundùm Graecam Edit . which might not likewise have moved the ancient Church of Christ , both Greeke and Romane , to the same manner of Pronunciation ? Whereas the Catholike Church , notwithstanding , for many hundred yeares together , precisely observed the ordinance of Christ .

THE SECOND CHALLENGE . In respect of the necessitie of a Lowd voice , especially by the Romish Priest , in uttering the words of Consecration .

THe greatest silence , which is used by the Romane worshippers , is still in the Priests uttering , or rather muttering the words of Institution [ HOC EST CORPVS MEVM : and , Hic est sanguis meus : ] albeit heere is the greatest and most necessarie Cause of expressing them , for the satisfaction of everie understanding Hearer among you . For , those , you call the words of Consecration , the just pronuntiation whereof you hold to be most necessary : because if the Priest , in uttering of them , faile but in one syllable , so farre as to alter the sense of Christs words ( which as you say may happen by six manner of Defects ) then the whole Consecration is void ; and the thing which you adore , is in substance meerely * * See Booke 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 himselfe , how shall it not concerne them to heare the same expresly pronounced , lest that ( according to your owne Doctrine ) they be deluded in a point of faith , and with divine worship adore Bread instead of the person of the Sonne 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 Masse , is a second ●ontradiction against the Sense of the former words of Christ [ — SAID VNTO THEM ] SECT. VII .

AGaine , that former Clause of the Canon of Christ , to wit [ He said unto them ] teacheth that as his voyce , Saying unto them , was necessarily audible , to reach their eares ; so was it also Intelligible , to instruct their understanding : and therefore not uttered in a Tongue unknowne . Which is evident by that he giveth a Reason for the taking of the Cup [ Enim ] For this is the bloud , &c. which particle [ For ] ( saith your f f [ ENIM . ] Ea particula intelligitur in forma panis Bellar . l. 4. de Euch. c. 14 Cardinall ) is implyed in the first part also . Now , whosoever reasoneth with another , would be understood what he saith .

The contrarie Canon of the ( now ) Romane Masse .

The Councell of Trent ( saith your g 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 enim-verò . Iesuite ) decreed , that it is not expedient that the Divine service should be celebrated in a knowne tongue . Whereupon you doubt not to censure the contrarie Doctrine of Protestants to be h 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. Hereticall and Schismaticall , and no wayes to be admitted . But why ? Lest ( say you ) the Church may seeme a long time to have beene asleepe , and to have erred , in her contrarie Custome . So you . Our Church of England contrarily thus : * * Article 24. It is a thing repugnant to the Word of God , and Custome of the Primitive Church to have publicke prayer , and ministring of the Sacraments in a tongue not knowne of the people . This occasioneth a double Plea against your Church of Rome , first , in defence of the Antiquitie and Vniversalitie , next for the Equitie of Prayers in a knowne tongue , in the publicke service of God .

I. CHALLENGE , Against the Romish Alteration of the Catholicke and Vniversall practice of the Church , and the Antiquitie thereof .

IN the examination of this point , Consider in the first place your owne Confessions , given by your i 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 . Iesuits , and others , acknowledging that In the dayes of the Apostles , and a long time after , even for a thousand yeares 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 wee need to require , concerning the judgement and practice of the true Antiquitie of this Custome . You will rather doubt ( wee suppose ) of the Vniversalitie thereof , because you usually goe no farther then your Dictates , which teach , that because there were generally but three generall and knowne tongues , Hebrew , Greeke , and Latine , therefore the divine Service was celebrated thorowout 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 k Bellar. lib. 2. de verbo Dei , cap. 15 & 16. and so Others also . they ) that the People of most Nations understood not the publike Prayers used in their severall Churches . And with this perswasion doe your Doctors locke up your consciences in a false beliefe of an universall Custome of an unknowne service of God . Which you may as easily unlocke againe , if you shall but use , as a key , this one Observation , viz. That the three common tongues ( namely ) Hebrew , Greeke , and Latine , although they were not alwayes the vulgar Languages , yet were they knowne Languages commonly to those people that used them in Divine Service . Which one onely Animadversion will fully demonstrate unto us the truth of our Cause .

It is not denied but that the three Languages , Hebrew , Greeke , and Latine were , in primitive ages , most m 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 defens . Bellar. universall ; insomuch , that the Hebrew was spoken ( albeit corruptly ) thorowout almost the whole Easterne Church . The Greeke was currant thorow the whole Greeke Church also , and in the lesser Asia . And the Latine was dispersed over a great part of Europe . It will now be fullie sufficient to know , that the most of these Languages were certainly knowne , in publicke worship , unto all them of whom they were used in publicke Sermons , and preachings . For your owne Church , howsoever shee decreed of Praying , yet doth she forbid Preaching in an unknowne tongue .

Now therefore joyne ( wee beseech you ) the eyes of your bodies and minde together , in beholding and pondering our Marginals , and you shall finde , first ( if wee speake of the n n [ Concionatus est Gracè Chrysostomus apud Antiochenos , apud Caesarienset Basilius , apud Alexandrinos Athanasius , apud Hierosolymitanos Ciryllus . ] Thus from Conslantinople to Antioch , throughout Asia , was the Greeke Language universally knowne . Greeke Language ) that there was a generall knowledge thereof , even among the vulgar people of the Churches of Antioch , Caesarea , Alexandria , and thorowout Asia . Secondly , if of the Latine , you may behold anciently the familiar knowledge therof 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 thundring out their Amen . This in Churches unmixt . Thirdly , in mixt Congregations of Greeke and Latine , that the o 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 Greeke and Latine . Fourthly , your owne generall Confession , yielding a common knowledge of the Latine tongue to the people of a great part of Europe : and wee say also of Africke , ( insomuch , that Augustine doth openly teach that the p p [ Augustini sunt plurimi Tractatus & Sermones ad Hippone●scs suos . With whom be rather chose to speake 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 latine knowen 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 , &c. Cyprianus saepe ad Martyres & plebem Latinè . ] Latine tongue was better knowne to his Africans than was the Punicke , although this were their native Language : ) And also of q 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 , Spaine , Italy , Germany , Pannonia , Dalmatia , and many other Nations in the North and West : particularly manifested by the Latine Homelies , ( that is , Sermons ) and writings made to the people of Africke by Tertullian , Cyprian , and Augustine ; and in France and Germany by the people , praying , and joyntly 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 publike Service in the vulgar and mother-tongues of their owne so distinct and different Nations . For the which cause they can finde no better entertainment with your Iesuites , than to admonish you that r r Certum est ( inquiunt Protestantes ) 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 Iesuiticall superciliousnesse ! to contemne them as Barbarous , in an example of praying in a knowne tongue : the contrarie whereunto ( as namely , praying in an unknowne tongue ) the Apostle condemneth as * * 1. Cor. 14. 11. Barbarousnesse it selfe .

With the same modestie might you scoffe at , and reproach other more ancient Nations and Christians , commended by primitive Fathers , for celebrating their Oblations , Prayers , and Psalmes in their Nationall tongues ; so , that one repeating the words first , the whole people with joynt voyce and heart accorded in singing . Among whom are recorded the converted s s De ludaeis conversis , Authors . in 1. Cor. 14 Aliquando Syrâ Lingrâ , plerunque H●●braeâ in oblationibus utebantur . Iewes , the Syrians , and All , aswell Greekes as Romanes , praying in their owne tongue , and with harmonicall consent singing of Psalmes , in the publicke worship : as also the t 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 , wee pray in , bee barbarous or learned , it is not respected of God , but whether it be knowne or unknowne , is the point . In which respect we may usurpe the Similitude which S. Augustine hath ; What availeth a golden Key , if it cannot open that which should bee opened ? or what hurteth a wooden Key ; u 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 wee desire nothing , but that the thing shut may be opened ? By this time you see your Noveltie in your Romish Practice .

Behold in the next place the Iniquitie and prophannesse thereof , and how after the death of Pope Gregorie the first , which was about 608 years after Christ , your Roman Church degenerated as much from the ( then ) Romane truth , x 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. Chalenge at (d) in this point , as she did from her Romane tongue and Language it selfe . Wee are here constrained to plead the whole cause , for the defence of a necessitie of a knowne worship , in respect of God , of Man , y y Aug. de doctr. Christ . l. 4. c. 11. Quid prodest , &c. and of Both.

A SECOND CHALLENGE , Shewing the Iniquitie of Service in an Vnknowne tongue : and first of the Injury done by the foresaid Romane Decree unto the soules of Men.

THe former Decree of your Councell for unknowne Service , how injurious it is unto man , we may learne by the Confessions , of Iesuites and others , z 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. Iubet Apostolus ut ad aedificationem abundent : melius est orare mente , 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 mente . 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 knowne Language , Greeke in the Greeke Churches , and Latine in the Latine 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 generall he doth understand . Thirdly , that the Apostle commandeth that all things be done to edification . Fourthly , that the knowne 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 knowne both to the Clergie and People . And againe , that People profit no whit by praying in a strange language . So your owne Writers , as you may observe in the Marginals .

Now what more extreame and intolerable Injury could you do to the soules of Gods 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 chiefe Benefits that mans soule is capable off , in the service of God ? Thus in respect of your Injurie against Man .

A THIRD CHALLENGE . Touching the Injurie done , by the same Decree , against God himselfe .

YEt all this notwithstanding , you are bent to cozen Christian people with palpable Sophistry , by your a 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 , &c. 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 popul● , sed cultus Dei . Ibid. §. Denique finis . Cardinall , who confesseth that the Psalmes in the daies of the Primitive Church , were sung joyntly of the people , Because they were ordained for instruction and consolation of the people , as the chiefe end . But as for the Divine Service , The Principall end of it ( saith hee ) is not the instruction and consolation of the people , but the worship of God . So he . Whom when wee aske , why the people then did all joyne together both in Singing of Psalmes , and Answering the Minister in Divine Service , and Prayer ? He saith it was because of the Paucitie , of the people , and rarenesse of the Assembly . Whereby it seemeth hee meant to maintaine Your Degenerate Romish Worship with Paradoxes . First , As if Psalmes , publikely sung in the Church to Gods glory , were not Divine duties and Service . Secondly , As if the Primitive Church , using both Psalmes and other Prayers in a knowne tongue ( as hee confesseth ) did not hold a necessitie of the common knowledge of both , for Instruction and Consolation . Thirdly , As if the Assemblies of Christians were of such a Paucitie , in the dayes of Tertullian ; when those Psalmes ordained for Instruction and Consolation were in use . And fourthly , as if People now adayes 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 blind-fold by an Implicite Faith , have reason to crave Instruction ; and having their Consciences tortured and perplexed with multiplicities of Ceremoniall Lawes , have as just cause also to desire Consolation .

As for your objecting the Worship of God by unknowne prayers , that may be sufficient , which your owne Catechisme ( authorized by the Councel of Trent ) teacheth you ; where answering to that question , why God , although he know our wants before we pray , yet will be sollicited by our prayers ? it b 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. T●id . vel Rom. part . 4. c. 2. pug . 386. saith , that he doth this to the end , that Praying more confidently , we may bee more inflamed with love towards God : and so being possessed with more joy , may be exercised to a fervent worship of God . So your publike and generall Romane Catechisme .

The case then is plaine . From more Edification there ariseth more Consolation ; from more Consolation there issueth more Devotion ; from all these proceeds more siliall Love and dutifull Worship of God . Which was long since shadowed ( as c 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 Iudeaus . Pulcherrimus hic Tractatus moralis . Pererius Ies. in Exod. 15. Disp. 2. §. Exercitus porrò Philo Iudaeus allegorizeth , witnessing your Iesuite ) by Moses and Miriam singing unto the Lord : Moses signifying the understanding part , and Miriam betokening the Affection ; both notifying , that wee are to sing Hymnes both affectionately and understandingly unto God . Therefore , if you be men of Conscience , recant that your now objected Barbarous Paradoxe , Which ( contrary to all anciently professed Divinity , and expresse Scripture , saying , * * 1 Cor. 14. 15. I will pray with my spirit , I will pray with my understanding also ) doth thrust mans Vnderstanding out of Gods worship , to the utter abolishing of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , his Reasonable worshipping of God ; by making man ( as Saint d 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 Mag-pies , all which learne to prate they know not what .

THE FOVRTH CHALLENGE , Against the said Romish Decree , as joyntly injurious both to God and Man ; from the Text of the Apostle , 1 Cor. 14.

IN the fourth place Wee are to speake of the Iniquity of your unknowne language in Prayer , joyntly 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 hee ought : and consequently to obtaine any blessing by prayer from God , according to that Apostolicall Doctrine , ● Cor. 14. where hee saith of the man ignorant of the language of prayer , [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; ] How shall hee say Amen , at thy giving of thankes , seeing hee knoweth not what thou sayest ? To which Argument of the Apostles , taken from the Impossibility , your e e Dicit Apostolus [ ut instruam ] Expende vocem hanc , Instruam , quòd sit de praedicatione , non de Missae celebratione . Eckius Enchirid. Qu 〈…〉 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 f Imò sequitur [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] quibus verbis Apostolus significat precari , &c. Bellar. ibid. Cardinall confesseth ) in the text it selfe the Apostle useth these three words , Pray , sing , and give thankes . Will you now seeke an Evasion from Master g g Master Brerely in his Liturgie of the Masse . 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 Vnlearned to say , Amen ? Which reason hee may seeme to have borrowed from your h 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 cōvincitur , fuisse tempore Apostoli Pauli unum , qui suppleret locum populi . Lede●sima Ies. de Scriptur . 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 Clarke 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 dayes of the Apostle ( saith i i Tempore Apostolorum nullum fuisse pro Laicis constitutum , ex Iustino constat . Et Graeca vox [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] non 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 Clerke of the Parish . And if there had beene any such , yet the Greeke phrase [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] would not admit of any such interpretation . So he . ⚜ And how might not that Clerke be an Ignaro , seeing you do confesse , that 9 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 lesse than an extreme Infatuation to oppose ( as k 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 Iesuit Salmeron , Eckius , and the Rhemists ) the example of Children , because the Children crying Hosanna , and not understanding their prayers , were notwithstanding ( say they ) accepted of Christ . Ergò the Priest , Monkes , & Nunnes , in praysing 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 seeme , made by Children , it is altogether so Childish . For the Apostle , as it were , foreseeing that this might possibly bee fancied by some fond and obstinate Opposers to the Spirit of Truth , doth in the very same Chapter 1 Cor. 14. 20. purposely prevent it , saying , Brethren , be not children in understanding . For although , when a Childe asketh his Fathers blessing onely with clapping his hands together , or uttering halfe syllables , it joyeth the Father , because his Childe now expresseth his duty , according to the Capacitie of a Childe : yet if the same Childe , after hee is come to the perfect yeares of discretion , should performe that duty in no better manner than by Childith babling , would the Father hold this to be Reverence , and not rather plaine Mockerie ? So is the Case betwixt us and God , who * * 2. Cor. 3. 1● . accepteth every one according to that which hee hath , and not according to that which hee hath not : a Childe in the capacitie of a Childe , but a man according to the apprehension of a man . In which consideration the Apostle saith , 1 Cor. 13. 11. When I was a childe , I spake as a childe , but being a man , I put away childishnesse . Away therefore with this your more than Childish Objection .

Wee returne to the Impossibilitie of praying duely in an unknowne tongue , which the Apostle illustrateth by two Similitudes , the one taken from an Instrument of peace , Vers. 7. Hee that knoweth not the distinct sound of the Pipe [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] How shall he know what is piped ? that is , it is impossible for him to apply himselfe to the daunce . The other from an Instrument of warre , Vers. 8. If the Trumpet give an uncertaine sound , who shall prepare himselfe to battell ? As if hee would have said , It is impossible to know when to march forward , or when to retraite . So it is said of unknowne Prayer [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; ] How shall hee that is ignorant of the language say Amen ? that is to say , ( by the interpretation of your l l Populus ignotae linguae quomodò respondebit , Amen ? hoc est , animae praehebit assensum , cùm more Babylonice cōsusionis qui dissident , nequaquam sensu aninusque conspirent . Acosta Ies. de Indorum salute , cap. 6. pag. 37. Iesuit ) How shall people , ignorant of the tongue , answer Amen ? ( that is ) yield consent unto the Prayer , seeing that they who dissent among themselves after a Babylonish confusion , cannot consent in minde and affection . So he . Or , as your m m Quomodò dicet , [ Amen ? ] Cùm quid boni dicas non intelligit , nisi benedicas tantùm . Aquinas in hunc locum , 1. Corinth . 14. I adde Sander . 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 hee granteth , that Prayers are not to bee used , where the people have not the intepretation : although hee 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 hee say , Amen , who understandeth not what good words thou speakest , but onely knoweth that thou blessest ? Thus in one Transgression you commit a double Sacriledge , to wit , by Robbing God of his due Honour , and Men of their spirituall graces and Comforts .

To conclude . These Premises do prove , that among many thousands of your people , assembled at a Romane Masse , and being ignorant of their Service , not any such an one ( a miserable Case ! ) can justly be held to bee a true Worshipper of God , who requireth of his Worshippers the* Calves of their lippes , 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 easie matter to bee superfluous in the prosecuting of this Argument , by proving the truth of this Doctrine out of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers , if it were imaginable that any Reply could bee made to that which is already sayd . But yet behold an n n In his aforementioned Writing to a Lady , &c. Anonymus , having had notice of most of these points , hath formed such Objections and Answers , as his prejudicated and pourblinde Conceit could reach unto . First , and most common , in answere to the places objected out of 1. Cor. 14. affirming ( out of the Rhemists Annotations ) That the Apostle speaks not of the publike and set prayers of the Church ; but of extraordinary & spirituall exercises of Exhortations and suddaine Prayers . So he . Wherein the man contradicteth your own o 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. Schoolemen , but especially the Apostle his direct saying . Verse 23. If the whole Congregation meete together , &c. What more publique that the Assembly of the whole Congregation ? And ( to suppose that they were extraordinarie Prayers ) what is more Consectarie and Consequent , than that if the Apostle note if for an Abuse , to practise such Extraordinarie Exercises of Preaching and Praying in a tongue unknowne , even because the Hearers are not thereby Edified ? Doubtlesse the same Abuse , practised in publike and ordinarie Service , being more notorious and Common , must needs bee so much the more condemnable : as witnesse both * * See the sixt Challenge following . Ancient Fathers , and your owne * * See the former Challenges . Brethren , who have taught the use of a knowne Tongue , in all publique and ordinary service of God , from this Text of Scripture , which ( as you say ) speaketh of Prayers extraordinarie . Which is a full Confutation of your former Objection .

Yea , but It is sufficient ( saith he ) that the vulgar people know , in generall , although they understand not the Prayers in particular . Which againe Contradicteth the Apostle , who in the sixteenth Verse will have the Private or Vulgarman to bee able to give consent to the publique Prayer , in saying Amen . And therefore requireth the Minister , Verse 7. as the Harper , to yeeld in particular a Distinction of tunes [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 : ] and Verse 8. as a Trumpeter , [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] to give a certaine knowne sound ; that which your owne Doctors have also confessed .

A third Instance is taken out of Bellarmine , who saith that The p 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 unknowne Prayer , but preferreth a knowne Prayer before the other , saying Verse 7. Thou , indeed , prayest well , but another is not edified . Flatly contradictorie to the whole scope of the Apostle , throughout the Chapter , as your owne * * Salmer● in les . See above Challenge 2. at the let . (z) Iesuite is forced to proclaime . The Apostle ( saith hee ) would have the people to be edified , because then all things ought to have beene done to the Edification and Consolation of the Assembly : and therefore hee would not , have any Publike Prayer used among the Hebrewes , but in the Hebrew-language ; nor among the Grecians , but in Greeke , nor yet among the Latines , but in the Latine tongue . The meaning then 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 hee wresteth out of the fourth Verse . [ If I pray with my tongue , my spirit prayeth , but my understanding is without fruit . ] So hee . As though that strange Tongue , here spoken off , were not understood by him that prayed . Which contradicteth the Apostle , Verse 4. Hee that speaketh with the tongue doth edifie himselfe : for never did any deny●t at hee , who had the miraculous gift of Speech in a strange tongue , did understand himselfe , although sometimes he wanted the gift of Interpreting it , for the understanding of all others . Therefore saith the Apostle , Verse 13. [ Hee that speaketh with the tongue , let him pray , that hee may interprete it . ] Fiftly , by the word [ Spirit ] q 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 answere Master Brerely borrowed from Bellar. Tract . upon the Masse . p. 452. your Cardinall 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 r Vox [ Spiritus ] à principiō usque ad finem Donum Spiritus peculiare significat , quo impellebātur lingus loqui . Si Apostolus in hac voce admitteret Homonymiam aliquam , Graeci Patres nos de eo admonuissent . Salmeron . Ies. in eund. locum . Salmeron in plaine termes ; shewing that the word , Spirit , thorow-out this whole Chapter , signfieth not the Affection , but the miraculous Spirituall gift of speaking in Strange tongues , as also the * * Vpon the same place both Ambrose , [ Spiritu id est , linguâ ignotâ . ] ⚜ And Chrysstome also upon Saint Pauls 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 nationall tongues , Chrysost. Hom. 1. in Ioh. Syri , Indi , AEgyptij , Persae , AEthiopes , & innumerae aliae gentes in suam transferentes linguam , homines barbari philosophari didicerunt . Aug. l. 2. de 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 . Fathers say ( saith hee ) the words of Consecration should be kept secret . True , to them that were not capable of this Sacrament , but * * See this proved Booke 7. Chap. 3. ⚜ never to the licensed Communicants ; because that Christ , and his Apostles , yea and the Vniversall Church primitive consecrated in an audible voice , and knowne language , as hath beene confessed . Yet furthermore . The Church ( saith hee ) used the said Hebrew word , Allelujah , unknowne 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 doe not learne one or two words of a strange tongue , it is not for that they are witlesse , but because they are wilfull and carelesse .

Their last Reason . Some languages ( as for example that in Italie ) were Romane , and corrupted by invasion of Enemies of divers languages , and in the end became Italian , &c. yet the publike Service was not altered , but continued Romane 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 Stewes are allowed at Rome , they are therefore justly licensed . But wee demand , are men made for languages , or rather languages for men ? if the latter , then is that language to be used , which is knowne to serve best for the Edification and Consolation of Gods people in his worship .

A SIXT CHALLENGE . Out of the Doctrine of Antiquitie .

ALthough it were preposterous to exact of us a proofe , from Antiquity , of condemning the Service in a strange tongue , seeing ( as hath beene confessed ) the Primitive practioe is wholly for us ; and therefore no Abuse in those times could occasion any such Reproofe : yet shall wee , for your better illumination , offer unto you some more expresse Suffrages of the ancient Fathers , after that wee shall have satisfied your Objections , pretended to make for your Defence . Saint Augustine saith of the People , that their Safetie consisteth not in the vigour of their understanding , but in their simplicitie of believing . So indeed doth s s Aug. de Bap. l. 6. c. 24. Multi irruunt in preces , etiam ab Haereticis compositas , & per ignorantiae simplicitatem non valentes decernere , utuntur eis , & 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 forewarne the people , who although they knew the single words of the prayers of Heretikes , yet might possibly be deluded with the obscuritie of their Hereticall 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 oddes therefore is no lesse than this ; they were simply , yours are sottishly ignorant : and Augustine wisheth that their Simplicitie were corrected ; you hold your peoples blindnesse 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 t Origen . Hom. 20. in Ios 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 unknowne tongue ; notwithstanding , that in a mans Reading of Scripture , God is said to speake unto man : but in Praying , man is said to speake unto God . So that it may be both lawfull and profitable to the Reader , to finde some particular Scriptures , which God would have to excell the Capacitie of the most learned , to humble them , to the admiration of his excellent wisedome , as the Fathers teach . Whereas contrarily an unknowne Prayer , wittingly used , is both unprofitable and unlawfull , as hath beene copiously confessed by your owne Divines , from the Doctrine of the Apostle .

More objections out of the Fathers you have not . Wee will try whether wee can recompence your Nominalities ( that wee may so call your impertinent Objections ) with Realties and solid Proofes . Cast but your eyes upon the Marginals , consisting partly of the Relation of your owne u u Iohannes 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 audien● , 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. Iud. 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 x Cons. Aquisgranens . cap. 131. Psallentium in Ecclesia Domino mens concordare debet cum voce , ut impleatur illud Apostoli , Psalmam Spiritu , psalmam & mente . Collections , and you shall finde , among the Fathers , y 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 Hee , who is the person ignorant of the Prayer , can give consent unto it , by saying Amen : and thereupon inferreth , that onely Such things should be spoken in the publike Congregation , which the Hebrewes understand . z 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 ? Chrysostome noting a Man , Ignorant of the Prayer , to be no better than a Barbarian to himselfe , not in respect of the nature of the voice , but of his owne 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 a Ifidor . de Eccles. offic. lib. x. cap. 10. Oportet , quando oratur , ut ab omnibus oretur . Isidore peremptorily affirming an [ Oportet , ] and duety , that All may be able to pray in publike places of prayer . Theoplylact noting that b b Theophylact. in 1. Corint . 14. [ Tu gratias benè agis , sed alius non aedificatur . ] Proximi utilitate rejecta , inutiles erant hujusmodi gratiae . The giving of thankes to God is unprofitable , where the edification of the people is neglected . Augustine , in his Comment upon the Psalmes , often exhorting all sorts of men to sing them : and thereupon the c c In the Preface of an unknowne Author , before the Prologue of Saint Augustine upon the Psalmes : Quo modo debite potest Deo psallere , qui ignorant quid psallat . Authour of the Preface before his Comment ( as it were tuning his note to Angustines ) doth deny that any can sing Psalmes as hee ought to God , who knoweth not what hee singeth .

⚜ Who so desireth more , let him cast his eye upon the 10 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. Iames. — 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. AEgypt . Indica , Persica , AEthiopi●● Chrysost. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Ioh. Earudem , & Scythicae ; & Sauromaticae , Theodor. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , p. 81. ubi , nota verba : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Idem clamat verbis penè eisdem Aug. lib. 2. de●dect . Christ cap. 5. Adde , in Iure oriental Bonifid . p. 243. tractatur haec quaestio , & pronunciatur oporte●o 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 linquā Arab. inter Sa●arenos . Vide Iuris orient Leuncla . p. 365. Vellem doctiss : Bellar . statum Quaestiones rectè concepisset initio hujus Cap. non enim quaeritur , An lingua latina fuerit olim sub Imp. Rom in 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 , Iustini 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 , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Refer eodem locum aureum Chrysost. 〈…〉 falsco Scripture obscuritatem legi non deberi quia scripta non Rom: hon Heb. linguâ oliâ Casu [ Clem 〈…〉 same words of the Apostle [ Hee is a Barbarian ] aeprooveth 〈◊〉 philoso 〈◊〉 lib 〈◊〉 Marginals , where hee may see the Transcript of a Patrizing Son of a most admirable Treasure of learning ( Mr. Isaac Casaubon ) relating his Notes out of Antiquity , to prove the generall Consent of Fathers , both for the Translating of Scriptures into the Mother-tongues of most Nations ; as also the Liturgie , or Church-service universally used in the vulgar languages of severall Countries . ⚜

And , lest that this might not suffice , wee have added the * * See above in the beginning of the 6. Sect. letter 〈…〉 Edict of the Emperour Iustinian , commanding a lowd voice in the Minister , that the people may understand his words . Next , a Canon of a Councell , requiring a * * 〈…〉 Concordance , both of voice and understanding in the singing of Psalmes as that which ought to be , by that Doctrine of Scripture [ I will pray with my spirit , and I will pray with my understanding . ] Then , a Decree of one Pope , in his Councell , that provision be made , where people of divers Languages dwell in the same cities , that their * * Ibid at of the letter 〈◊〉 Servioe may be done according to their Different tongues . After , the Resolution of another Pope , to grant unto the * * Ibid. Sclavonians , at their conversion to the Faith , that Divine Service might be used in their owne tongue ; moved thereunto , as by a voice from heaven , sounding out that Scripture ; Let every tongue praise the Lord . And lastly , a * * Ibid Prohibition in the Primitive Church , that None should speake in languages unknowne to the people . ⚜ And lest you may hereafter , according to your maner , scorne our zeale , in requiring the joynt prayers and thankesgivings publikely in the Church , by the voice of Men , Women , and Children , know yee that 11 11 Basil Hixam . Hom. 4. Immediately before the end . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Quomodo non songe , pulchliis est , cùm in Ecclesia par 〈◊〉 , sonitus ( qua 〈◊〉 jusdam littus percellentis undae ) virorum , mulierum , & infantium ex orationibers ad Deum nostium refusat ? And in Reg. Contract . Qu. 278. Linguâ ignorâ , nihil utilitatis redit ad precantem . Saint Basil , delivering the judgement of Gods Church in his time , held this an order decent and beautifull ; censuring an Vnknowne prayer to be unprofitable to them that pray . ⚜

When you have digested all these Premises , concerning the Equity and Necessitie of knowne Prayers in the publike and Divine Service , both in consideration of Gods worship , and Mans manifold profit , so amply confirmed by so many and uncontrolable testimonies ; then guesse ( if you can ) of what dye the face of your Doctor Stapleton was , when hee shamed not to call this our Practice of knowne prayers d d Quod autem omnia vernaculè siunt in Ecclesia , planè profanum est . Stapleton spec. pravit . Hae ret. p. 580. Profanenesse ? and to number it among Hereticall pravities . As for your owne People , who preferre an unknowne worship , what can wee say lesse , than that all such Ignorants are but dumbe worshippers : and because of their ignorance , in praying they know not what , they are to be sent to accompany Popinjayes and Iack-dawes , accordingly as S. * * See above Sect. 7. in the Challenge 3. Augustine formerly hath resembled them .

⚜ A SEAVENTH CHALLENGE , For Vindication , against Francis de Sancta Clara , a late Reconciler of our English Articles with the Doctrine of the Romish Church .

A Romish professor at Doway published a Treatise this very yeare of our Lord 1634. Which hee calleth a Paraphrasticall Exposition of the Articles of the Church of England ; whose ayme is not to draw the Romish professors to the English , but the English to the Romish ; and by his seeming Reconciliation to put upon our Church ( as wee use to say ) the Gull : albeit his whole Paraphrase be , indeed , nothing but a Farrago of his selfe-fictions , and Opinations , whereof his Paraphrasis or Exposition , upon this Article , will give you a shrewd guesse , if you shall have the patience to examine such stuffe .

Our English Article 12 12 Franciscus de S. Clara Professor Disac . Exposit. Artic. Confess . Angl. Art . 24 Linguâ populo non intellectâ preces peragere , & Sacramenta administrare , verbo Dei , & primitivae Ecclesiae consuetudini planè repugnat . saith , that To pray or administer the Sacrament in an unknowne tongue is plainely repugnant to the Word of God , and the Custome of the Primitive Church . The Article of the Church of Rome Contrarily : 13 13 Concil. Trid. Sess . 22. Can. 9. Si quis dixerit , tantùm linguâ vulgari Missam celebrari debere , Anathema sit . Hee that shall say that the Masse ought to be Celebrated onely in the vulgar tongue , let him be Anathema , that is , Accursed . The English Article hath two points . 1. That Prayer in a tongue unknowne to the People that pray , is Repugnant to the Word of God . 2. That it is also plainely Repugnant to the Custome of Primitive Antiquity .

First of the Repugnance to the word of God .

The Romish Expositor , Paraphrasing upon these words [ Repugnant to the word of God , ] supposeth in the first place that thereby is meant the Doctrine of the Apostle , 1. Cor. 14. concerning Prayer in a Tongue not understood of him that prayeth : and then for answere thereunto , repeateth onely their old Crambe , to wit , that by Prayers , there spoken off , are not meant the publike prayers in the set and solemne service of the Church of Corinth ; but other their 14 14 Paraph , Crediderim Sanctum Paulum vel de privatis conventibus , vel de privatis colloquiis , post omnia officia habitis , ibi agree . Private Convents and Colloquies . And whereas , the Apostle requireth of the Idiote , that is , Private or Lay-man ( as wee call him ) that hee understand his Prayer so , as to be able to give consent thereunto in publike , saying , Amen ; he 15 15 Paraph. Idiota apud Apostolum i. e. Ille cui incumbit respondere . expoundeth this as understood of Him , who by office answereth Amen for the rest of the People , whom wee name the Parish-Clerke . Both which have beene * * See the Challenges above thorowout . Confuted by your owne Schoolemen ; and the Latter more especially by Bellarmine himselfe , in our former Sections , as you have seene .

A second devise of qualifying these words of our Article , [ Repugnant to the word of God ] is his owne , but thus : 16 16 Paraph. Decrevit igitur Articulus esse Repugnans Scripturis , id est , non Doctrinae Scripturae , sed Scriptioni , seu Traditioni Scripturae , quae fuit Corinthijs in Lingua communi . The Article decreeth it to be repugnant to the Scriptures , that is , ( saith hee ) not to the Doctrine of Scripture , but to the Scription , or tradition of Scripture , which among these Corinthians was in praying in a common tongue . Here you have a dainty Distinction betweene the word , Scripture , and Scription ; the word Scripture to signifie the Doctrine of Scripture , and the word Scription , to betoken Tradition of Scripture . So hee , by an elegant Figure , which wee forbeare to name , but wish there were some sense in it . For was it ever heard off , that there was a Scripture without Scription ? that is to say , a Writ without writing ; or when as all Divines ever distinguished of Traditions into 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Written , which are the Scriptures themselves , and Vnwritten , which are without the same written word of God ; Was it possible for them to conceive of a Tradition in Scripture , which was not Scripture or word of God ? If so , then whereas all Creatures are distinguished into Sensible and Insensible , it shall be possible to point out a Sensible Creature void of Sense .

His third Crotchet . 17 17 Idem . Dum. dicit esse Repugnans verbo Dei , intelligi deberent Institutioni D. Pauli , non Christi , cujus scripta sub nomine verbi Dei comprehenduntur : omnia tamen ab Apostolis demandata non sunt mandata Christi , ut ab omnibus concessum est . When the Article saith [ Repugnant to the word of God ] It is to be understood as meaning , Repugnant to the Institution and Ordinance of Saint Paul , not of Christ , Saint Pauls writings being comprehended under the name of Gods word : although all that are commanded by the Apostles are not therefore the commands of Christ , as all do confesse . So hee . That there are in Scripture Apostolicall Constitutions , namely such as are fitted to the Churches , according to the Conveniences of the times , distinguished from Divine Constitutions , which are enjoyned the Church , as necessary for all times , it is true . But that ( both which this Paraphrase affirmeth ) either 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 Vnknowne Prayers to be Repugnant to the word of God ) did not thereby understand the word and Commandement of Christ , in his Authenticall Scripture , are two as strange exorbitancies as your Glosser could make .

For the Apostle , to shew that hee taught a Doctrine which concerned all the Churches of Christ , and at all times , useth Similitudes to Illustrate his meaning , universally fitting all ages and Congregations of Christians in their solemne prayers . If a Trumpet , ( saith hee ) or a Pipe give an uncertaine sound , who shall prepare himselfe either to the Battell , or to the daunce ? applying those Similitudes as well to praying , as to preaching in an Vnknowne tongue . But every one of you will grant that the same Scripture , for necessitie of preaching in a knowne tongue , is the Divine Institution of Christ , and not onely an Apostolique Constitution . Therefore ( except you will separate that which Christ , by his Apostle , hath joyned together ) you must confesse the same necessitie of the Command of Christ for knowne Prayer . Besides , his Conclusion [ How shall hee that understandeth not , say Amen ? ] being as true of all Prayers , in all subsequent ages of the World , as it could be to the Church of Corinth , it prooveth the truth of the Divine Ordinance of Christ therein . Thus farre of the meaning of S. Paul , now to returne to our Article .

Whereas you , and all that ever read Protestant Bookes know , that whensoever they affirme any thing to be Repugnant to the word of God , they meane to the Scripture , as it is the expresse Command and Ordinance of God , and of Christ ; and that notwithstanding your Glosser should dare to tell us that the meaning of our Articling . [ An unknowne Prayer to be Repugnant to the Word of God ] must signifie , not Repugnant to Scripture , or to the Institution of Christ , but to Scription and Apostolicall Tradition ; must needs argue , in your Professor , some ecclipse of judgement , by the which also hee venteth out his Inference following .

A fourth straine he hath in his Inference from our English Article , as followeth . 18 18 Idem . Vi hujus verbi probabiliter inferri potest , debere Ecclesiae officia apud nos hodiè celebrari in lingua Latina , quià per se loquendo est lingua communis , & communites intellecta : solùm autem asseritur in Articulo , Preces publicae fiant linguâ à populo intellectâ , quod sine dubio debet intelligi de lingua per se communi , non per Accidens loquendo . The Article affirmeth ( saith hee ) that Prayers ought to be used in a tongue knowne to the people , therefore wee properly inferre , that Prayers in our Church may be in Latine , because it is a language commonly knowne . So hee , speaking of your Romish Latine prayers , not knowne of your owne people . As if one should argue , saying , Because the kingdome of England holdeth it necessary that the pleading of her lawes be used in English , in a tongue knowne and understood of her Subjects : therefore may it be thence Concluded that the Pleas of other kingdomes may be exercised in Latine , a common language , although not understood of the people of any Nation . Who seeth not in his Inference an extreme want of Logicke ?

A more full Confutation of the Glossers Qualification of the words of our English Article , viz. [ Prayer unknowne 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 himselfe .

It is most notoriously knowne to you all , that The same Article , against Vnknowne Prayers , is common to all the Churches of Protestants , in a full Accordance , to condemne the contrary Profession and practice of the Romane Church , which justifieth her Custome of praying in a Language unknowne to the people , as not Repugnant to the Law of God . And ( reciprocally ) you are not ignorant that your Councell of Trent , in her Anathema and Curse , cast upon all that should say , That the Masse ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue , intended thereby to accuse all Protestants for condemning the Custome of the Church of Rome , as a transgression of the word and Commandement of God in holy Scripture . Now this your Paraphrazer , by his Moderation and qualification indeavouring to reconcile these Two Contradictorie 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 affirme , 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 unknowne tongue is likewise Repugnant to the Custome of the Primitive Church . ] The Glosser opposeth against this . HIS FIRST INSTANCE .

19 19 Paraph. Graeci apud omnes Iurisdictioni Patriarchae Constantinopolitani subditos , licèt Graeci non sint , officia Idiomate Graeco celebrant . SOme , whose vulgar language is not Greeke , yet being under the Greeke Patriarch of Constantinople , pray in the Greeke Idiome . So hee , for proofe of the lawfulnesse of the peoples praying in a language unknowne . But the Instance is lame of the right legge ; it sheweth indeed , and wee confesse , that many , whose native language is not Greeke , pray notwithstanding in the Greeke Idiome ; but that they understand and not these Greeke prayers ( which is the onely point in question ) it prooveth no more than Tenterton-steeple proveth Goodwin-sands . For we have * * See above Sect. 7 thorow-out . manifested the contrary in a full Section , ( namely ) that all such People , who , being not Greekes , and prayed in the Greeke Idiome , did notwithstanding understand that Greeke language wherein they prayed . Was your Paraphrazer in good tune , thinke you , when hee would not see this his marke , that he might speake to the purpose and matter in question ?

Next , he being destitute of any other Instance in the Greeke Church , seeketh some other advantage in the Latine Church , in the dayes of Antiquity , from Saint Cyprian , and S. Augustine : 20 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 witnesse ( saith he ) that their people in Africke said their Masse and other services in Latine , albeit their owne language was the Punicke , and that the meaner people were ignorant of the Latine tongue . So hee , joyning his witnesse together ; but wee will take them apart , to avoid Confusion , for the better confuting of your Paraphraser , if hee will yet thinke himselfe confuted . Cyprian is alleged to have said , as is premised , in his Exposition upon the Lords prayer : where there is not one syllable of mention of the people of Africke saying of Masse , or of their vulgar Punicke Language , or of their Ignorance of the Latine tongue . If this be not foule dealing , to produce a dumbe witnesse , and to father Sayings upon him , which hee never uttered , then will you thinke it farre more ougly , if the witnesse , being heard to speake himselfe , shall avouch the Contrary . Hearken then unto Cyprian , in the same Exposition of the Lords Prayer , instructing his Punicks and Africans as followeth . 21 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 . Dearely beloved Brethren , when wee pray , wee ought to be watchfull , and attend our Prayers with our hearts , lest our mindes in praying thinke of any other thing , than on that which is prayed . So hee . Ergo , say Wee , The Africans , albeit their vulgar Idiome was Punicke , yet did they understand those Latine Prayers , which you your selves must likewise confesse , except any of your Priests could accordingly instruct your rude people , ignorant of the Latine tongue , wherein they pray , by saying unto them , Beloved Brethren , We , ( that is , you and I ) ought to attend to our prayers , and not thinke of any thing but that which is prayed . If any of you should so exhort your seely people , to attend to that they understand not , might they not interpret that his Exhortation to be no better than meere Mockerie ; and as plaine an exprobration , as if hee should entreate a bald man to combe his head , or a blind man to thred a needle ?

Wee adde furthermore , that this Latine Exposition of the Lords Prayer was one of the Sermons of Saint Cyprian , and so stiled in the same place , Sermo sextus , his sixt Sermon , preached promiscuously to all his people of Africke then assembled . Which is a demonstrable Argument that this people of Africke understood the Latine tongue ; you your selves professing that Preaching ought alwaies to be used in a Language which the people do understand .

Saint Augustine is his second Witnesse , but for what ? namely , that The Africans , albeit their Nationall Language was the Punick , yet did they pray in the Latine tongue , whereof they were ignorant . So he . And Wee answer , that in the place alleged ( which is his Booke de Bono perseverantiae , cap. 13. ) there is no more mention of Punick tongue , or Latine 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 plainely , as if in direct termes hee had given this your Paraphraser the word of disgrace . 22 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 hee , preaching unto his Africans ) a knowne Proverbe in the Punick tongue , which I will render unto you in Latine , because all of you do not understand Punick : The Proverbe is this , The Pestilence seeketh money . So hee , shewing that the Africans understood Latine better than Punick , although this were their Nationall Language . Farre otherwise your Glosser , that the Latine was unknowne to the Africans , because their native language was Panick . Whereby hee bewrayeth a ( Proverbially so called ) Punick Faith . Flatly contradicting S. Augustine , 23 23 August . lib. 1. Confess . cap. 14. Latina didici inter etiam blandimenta Nurricum . who furthermore confesseth of himselfe , saying , I learnt the Latine tongue from the fawning and flattering Speeches of my Nourses .

Our Conclusion , by way of Censure of this mans Exposition of the Articles of the Church of England , and of the Romish Authorizers of the same Treatise .

This one Point being the first of his Paraphrase , that fell in our way , concerning any doctrine appertaining to the Romish Masse , wee have beene the more Copious in Confutation thereof , that our Reader might take a just scantling of the judgement of this Paraphrazer in the rest ; and of those who were the Censurers , Approvers , and Authorizers of the same : more principally Thomas Blacklous , 24 24 Censura Thomae Blacklouse de Libellis de Articulis Confessionis Angl. — Catholico animo conscriptis , ut Errantes ad Christi caulam reditum inveniant . who shewes to what end this Tractate was writ , and approoved ( as he saith ) To bring those that wander out of the way unto the fold of Christ , Meaning , the Church of Rome . So then wee perceive it was not ( as he seemeth to pretend ) in the behalfe of Protestants , to free them from any of the former Censures and Anathema's , or from the curses and cruelties of the Romish Church against them ; but onely to ensnare them , if it may be , in the same Babylonish thraldome of Superstition and Idolatry , from whence by the marvailous and gracious providence of God they have beene delivered .

Therefore , from these our Premises , Wee Conclude Blacklous and his fellow Privilegers of this Booke , to be guilty of all the above-manifested strange dealings , in perverting of the senses of the Articles and Authors by him alleged . Besides that , which surmounteth the rest , is the hainous Crime of wilfull Perjurie , if they have taken the oath enjoyeth unto all Romish Priests by Pope Pius , after the Councell of Trent , swearing To expound no Text of Scripture , without the unanimous consent of ancient Fathers : yet now have allowed such an Exposition of the text of the Apostle , concerning Prayer in an unknowne tongue , which they were never able to justifie by any one Father of Primitive times , for the space of 600 , that wee say not a thousand yeares after Christ , as hath beene sufficiently proved .

Before Wee end , Wee should aske your Censurers , what Church of Rome it is , whose doctrine they would reduce Protestants unto ? Is it the old and primitive Religion of Rome ? Why this is that which Wee so constantly professe . But meane they the Religion of the new Church of Rome , in her new Creede of new Articles , conformable to the Councel of Trent ? Wee must say then of your Doctrine , as Christ said of Wine , No man drinking the Old , desireth the New , for hee will say , the Old is better . Luc. 5. 39.

The sixt Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse , contradicting the Sense of the next words of Christs Institution , [ TAKE YEE . ] SECT. VIII .

THus said Christ to his Disciples ; by which words what is meant , your Iesuite will expresse ( to wit ) that c c Quia Apostoli non acciperent nisi quod ipse dabat , verbum Dandi Translationem de manibus Christi in manus Discipalorum significat . Sabneron . les . Tom. 9. Tractat. 18. pag. 126. Videtur quod Christus aut singulis in manus dederit partem à se sumendam , aut patinam tradider it propinquioribus , &c. Iansen . Episc. Concord . cap. 131. Because the Apostles tooke that which Christ gave , the word [ GAVE ] doth signifie a Delivery out of Christ his hands into the hands of them that did take . Here , you see , is Taking with hands ; especially seeing that Christ , in giving the Cup , said , Drinke you all , Matth. 26. one delivering it to another , as it is said of the Paschall Cup , Luc. 22. 17. as it is f f Iansen Concord . in eued . locum . Fracto pane in duodecim buccellas , singulis in manus dederit ; & Calicem propinquiores sequentibus tradiderunt : sic enim dixit ; Accipite , dividite inter vos . confessed .

The contrary Canon in your ( now ) Romane Masse .

Concerning this , It is to be noted ( say g g Notandum est quòd laudabiliter Ecclesia prospexit , ut ab isto modo olim licito , nempè accipiendi proprijs manibus Sacramentum , pro reverentia Eucharistiae , abstineant . Et rursus ; Olim ex patina suis quisque manibus sumpsit suam particulam , ut moris fuit ad Sextam usque Synodum , nempè Caesar-augustanam : verum ob sacram hujus Mysterij singularem reverentiam Ecclesia instituit , nè Laici nudâ manu Eucharistiam attingerent , sed à Sacerdote in os sumentis mitteretur . Salmeron quo supra . Tract. 12. pag. 78. 79. you ) that the Church of Rome hath judged it laudable , that Lay-people abstaine from taking the Sacrament with their owne hands : but that it be put into their mouthes by the Priest ; which is so ordained for a singular reverence . So you .

CHALLENGE .

WHat we may note of this your [ Notandum ] the h h Apostoli primùm manibus suis panem sanctum acceperunt : & hujus ritus meminerunt veteres Patres . Nam Tert. lib. ad uxorem inquit ; Eucharistiae Sacramentum nec de aliorum manibus , quam praesidentium sumimus . Et ex Cyprian . Serm. de lapsis , ob nonnulla exempla , quae producit , constat , Eucharistiam in manibus Cōmunicantum Laicorum dari . Vt constat ex Concil Teletano , cap. 14. & ex sexta Synodo in Trullo 101. ubi prohibentur fideles offerre vascula aurea & argentea , in quibus accipiant Eucharistiam , ut per ea communicent , sed proprijs manibus , Idem colligitur ex Epistol. Cornel. Papae , quam refert Euseb. lib. 6. Hist. c. 35. & ex Dionys. Alex. ut refert Nicephor . cap. 9. & ex verbis Ambrosij . Suarez . les . Tom. 3. In Tho. Disp . 49. Sect. 6. initio . Hoc intelligi potest ex Greg. Nazian. Morom fuisse , ut Christiani Eucharistiam , quam accepissent , ad os admoverent . — unde relictam esse credo Consuetudinem in multis locis , quando non communicant , dùm Eucharistia ostenditur , manus tendant , quasi gestientes manibus sumere . Maldon . Ies. de Euch. §. Nova creatura . pag. 283. Confessions of your owne Iesuites will shew : first , that the Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Church , for above 500 yeares , was according to Christs Institution , to deliver the Bread into the hands of the Communicants . Secondly , that the same Order was observed at Rome ( as appeareth by the Epistle of Pope Cornelius . ) Thirdly , that whereas Some had devised , for Reverence-sake , certaine Silver vessels , by the which they received the Sacrament ; yet two Councels , 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 your selves .

Vaine , therefore , is your pretence of Reverence , in suffering the Priest onely to receive it with his hands , as being more worthy in himselfe than all the rest of the people : when as our High-Priest Christ Iesus 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 lesse sanctified than their mouthes .

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 Hoast should chance to fall . There can be no doubt , but that , in the dispensation of this blessed Sacrament , Christians ought to use due Cautelousnesse , that it may be done without miscarriage ; yet must you give us leave to retort your pretence of Reverence upon your selves , thus : Seeing that Christ himselfe instituted , and his Apostles observed , and that the whole Church of Christ ( for so many hundred yeares ) thus practised the administration of this Sacrament from hand to hand , without respect of such Reverence , they therefore were not of your opinion , to thinke every Crumme or piece of the Hoast , that falleth to the ground , to be really the Body of Christ .

This Aberration wee may call , in respect of others , but a small Transgression , if yet any Transgression may be called Small , which is a wilfull violating of this so direct a Charge of Christ , [ Doe this . ]

The seventh Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse . contradicting the Sense of the next words , [ EATE YEE . ] SECT. IX .

AS in the third Transgression , wee , by these words of Christ [ Hee gave it to them , ] spoken in the plurall number , have proved , from your owne Confessions , a necessary Communion of the people in the publike Celebration thereof with the Priest , against your ( now ) Profession of private Masses ; contrary to the ancient Custome and Vniversall practice of the Church , * * ⚜ For we insist not upon the fourth degree of Penance in the Greeke Church , called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; of such who , in poenam , staid 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 YEE , EATE YEE ] wee observe that the persons present were Takers and Eaters of the blessed Eucharist , and not onely 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 ) Romane Masse .

But your Practice now is slat contrary , in your Church , by admitting people of all sorts , not as the Lords Guests , to Eate of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ; but as Gazers only to looke on it , as upon a proper Sacrifice : telling the People that they , seeing the Priest eate and drinke , i 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. ) Doe spiritually eate and drinke in the person of the Priest . And the onely beholding of the Priests Sacrifice , at the Elevation and Adoration thereof , is esteemed amongst you , at this day , the most solemne and saving worship , which any people can performe unto God .

CHALLENGE ,

BVt Christ ( you see ) instituted this Sacrament onely for Eaters . The Apostle exhorteth every man to Preparation ; Let a man examine himselfe : and exhorting every one , being prepared , to Eate , saith , So let him eate . This ( to use your owne k 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 hee 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 doores . To this purpose your owne Relator telleth you , from other Authors , of the practice of Antiquity , and of other succeeding Churches , in not suffering any to be present , but such as did Communicate ; and of removing and expelling them that did not .

Nor can the Church of Rome justly take exception at this , seeing that in the Romane Church also ( in the dayes of Pope Gregory the first , l l Sciendum est , ju●●ta antiquos Patres , quod soli Communicantes divinis officijs interesse 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. yeares after Christ ) the office of the Deacon , at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist , was to cry aloud , saying , m m Diaconus diamabat , [ Si quis non communicet , det locum ] Greg. Dial. cap. 23. [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] &c. If any do not Communicate , let him give place . Where wee see the religious wisedome of that ancient Church of Rome , which could not suffer a Sacrifice to devoure a publike Sacrament , and to exclude a Communion . Whereunto the Scriptures gave the name of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , a Gathering together , and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , a Communion ; as also of The Supper of the Lord : Yea , and Calixtus , a Pope more ancient that Gregorie , required that persons present should Communicate : n n Calixtus P. ut habetur de Consecrat. Dist. 2. C. Peracts . — Peractâ Consecratione , omnes communicent , — Sic enim Apostoli slatuerunt , & sancta , tenot Ecclesia . Because ( saith hee ) the Apostles had so ordained , and the holy Church observeth the same .

But what have Wee said ? have Wee called this Sacrament The Supper of our Lord ? so ( wee thought ) were wee taught by the Apostle , 1 Cor. 11. before wee heard your lesuite o 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 wee ( though wee should suspect our owne sight ) yeeld to the ancient Fathers of Primitive times , as to men farre more cleare-sighted than that Iesuite could be ; who ( as both your p 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. Romane Catechisme , with Lindan , instructeth , and as your Cardinall q 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 r Don●s . Arcop . Hier 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 Chrysostome , Cyprian , Augustine , Hierome , Anselme , Bernard . Whereupon ( with some of them ) wee enjoyne a Necessitie of a joynt Communion with those that are present .

Will you suffer a Golden mouth to be Moderator in this Controversie ? thus then . Whosoever thou art ( saith s s Obsecro , siquis ad convivium vocatus , & manus quidem laverit & accubuerit , paratusquè & dispositus ad mensam fuerit , & tamen nihil ciborum gustaverit , nonne inferet Convivatori contumeliam , à quo fuerat vocatus ? Nonnè satiùs erit ei , qui talis est , omninò non comprauisse ? 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. Chrysostome ) that being fit to participate of this Sacrament shalt stand onely looking on , and not eate , thou dost no lesse Contumely and reproach to the Sacrament , than a man invited to a Feast , who will not taste thereof , doth unto the Lord that invited him to be a Guest . So he . And to shew that it cannot be sufficient to behold it onely as a proper Sacrifice ( as you pretend ) the same t 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 By-standers ; Why doe wee waite at the Altar , offering ( meaning * * See hereafter in the sixt booke . unproperly ) a Sacrifice , when as there is none to Communicate ? And why dost thou , impudent fellow , stand here still , not being one of them that participate thereof ? But enough .

This then you perceive is a matter of no small importance , even by reason of the nature of this Sacrament , which is a Divine Banquet ; being also enjoyned upon the Catholike Church by that Command of Christ , [ Do THIS . ] Therefore the Command and Precept comming , maketh you Transgressors for not Eating ; even as by the first Command given into mankind of [ Eate not ] our first Parents became Transgressors for Eating . So justly doth our * * Exhortation before the Communion . Church require , that Gazers , who Communicate not , should depart . Wee forbeare to repeate that which wee 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 , Masse , whereof you have so long boasted , untill that now your Glory is become your shame .

The Eighth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse , by a second Contradiction of the sense of the former words , [ EATE YEE . ] SECT. X.

THis is the last Act of Christ , concerning the use of the first Element , viz. [ Bread ] saying , EATE YEE ; even as hee said of the other , [ Drinke yee ; ] and of both hee gave this his joynt Command [ Doe this . ] Wherefore this Act of Eating being thus prescribed , as the onely bodily outward end of this Sacrament , it doth exclude all other bodily Vses of mans 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 contrarie Canon of the Romane Masse .

The holy Synode of Trent ( saith your a 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. Iesuite ) hath ordained that this Sacrament be preserved , carried abroad , and publikely proposed to the people in Procession , with solemne Pompe and Worship . Which is a laudable Custome .

CHALLENGE .

WEe do not dispute against all manner of Reservation of the Eucharist , for wee acknowledge some to be ancient ; but wee enquire into the religious use and end of Reservation : which , wee say , was not for any publike Procession , or Adoration , but onely for a Sacramentall Eating thereof . And how unjustly you call this your Procession ( onely for publike Adoration ) Laudable , wee are provided to demonstrate by the Confessions of your owne Iesuites and others ( out of Cyprian , and other Fathers ) who consulting first about Antiquitie , grant that , after the Celebration of the Eucharist , anciently b 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. Matisconēsi 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 Lev. cap. 8. §. Quomodo ergò . The Remainders , which were left ( lest they should corrupt and putrifie ) were usually either given to the children under age ( yet not to be received Sacramentally , but onely to be consumed by them : ) or were burnt in the fire , or else eaten reverently in the Vestrie , called the * * This 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Clement will Bellarmine have to be Vas quoddam , a Vessell , wherein the Sacrament was reserved : for hee thought that this would make for their priests Pixe , or Boxe . But hee is learnedly confuted , in this , by Dollor W●itaker , Praelect. de Euchar . p. 627. even out of Clement himselfe : who requireth that a Church should be built somewhat long , in forme of a Ship , and to have on both sides 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , like a ship . And the LXX in Esay . 22. doe render it thus ; that Esay was commanded to enter into [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; ] the word comming of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Thalamus , or Domus . And , in Clemēs , doth signifie Cubiculum Sacerdotum ; wherein the Priests kept it for no other use than to Eate it . Pastophorium . Which was likewise the Custome of Rome in the Primitive age , as c 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 carrie it home to their houses , yet it was ( as you d 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 eate it : and this onely in the time of Persecution : After which time the same Custome was abrogated . So you . How then can you call the Reservation of the Hoast , for publike Procession , and not for Eating , Laudable , which hath beene thus checked and gain-fayed by so syncere Antiquitie ?

Secondly , when you please to reveile unto us the first Birth of your owne Romane Custome , you grant that it was not untill a e e Hist. Mediol An. 1404. Circumferri coeptum , &c. Quam Processionē 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 adde , that there is no Extat of any such Circumgestation in the Greeke Church . ] Thousand foure hundred yeeres after Christ . And must it then bee called a Laudable Custome , whereby ( that we may so speake ) beardlesse Noveltie doth take place of sage and gray-headed Antiquitie ?

Thirdly , in discussing the end , which was destinated by our Saviour Christ , you further grant , that f 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 principall end , prescribed by Christ , is for Sacramentall eating : and that the Sacrament is to be given for this , as it 's primary effect . And yet notwithstanding for you to bring in a Pompous ostentation of not - Eating , and to call it a Laudable Custome , argueth what little Congruitie there is betweene your Practice , and Christs Institution ; which 12 12 Origen . in Levit. 7. Hom. 5. Nam Dommus panem , quem Discipulis suis dedit , dicens , A●cipite , &c. non distulit ; nec servari jussit . Origen in his time urged against Reservation till the morrow . And how much lesse Laudable will this appeare to be , when wee consider the grosse and intollerable Abuses of your Processions , which are displayed by your owne Authours ? Noting in them the very fooleries of the g 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 Iudiciae , in quibus Prophetae representantur , al●ti pueri , & chorus inducitur foeminarum ; hic Davidem agit , ille Salomonem , alij Regi●●s singu it , alij venatores Iudunt , Simiam , & jumenta inducentes . Sacerdotum alij Divoru●● personas agunt , eorum imagines aut reliquias ferentes . Polyd. Virgil. Lib 6. ●ivent . pag. 414. 415. Romane Pagans , by your fond Pageants , where Priests play their parts , in representing the persons of Saints ; others of Queenes , accompanied with Beares and Apes , and many like prophane and sportfull Inventions , and other Abuses : which occasioned some of your owne more devout Professors to wish , that this your Custome were abrogated , h 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. de 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 pompe , rather than pious Devotion . So they .

Lastly , lest you may object ( as else-where ) that a Negative Argument ( as this , because Christ did not institute this Custome , therefore it may not be allowed ) is of no effect ; wee adde , that the Argument negative ( if in any thing ) then must it prevaile in condemning that Practice , which maintaineth any new End , differing from that which was ordained by Christ . Which made Origen and Cyprian argue Negatively in this Case : the one i 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 to-morrow : and the other , This bread is received , and not reserved , or put into a Boxe . Which Conclusion wee may hold , in condemning of your publike Carrying of the Hoast in the streets and Market-places , to the end only that it may be Adored , aswell as ( of latter times ) your Pope Pius Quartus ( which your Congregation of k 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 Ioh. Gallemart , Academiae Duac . Catechist . pag. 115. ] Cardinals report ) did forbid a new-upstart Custome of Carrying the Sacrament to sicke people , that they might adore it , when as they were not able to eate it . All these Premises doe inferre , that your Custome of Circumgestation of the Sacrament , in publike Procession , onely for Adoration , cannot justly be called Laudable , except you meane thereby to have it termed a Laudable Noveltie , and a Laudable prophanation , and Transgression , against the Institution of Christ ; as now from your owne Confessions hath beene plainly evicted : and as will be further manifested , when wee are to speake of your * * In the seventh booke . Idolatrous Infatuation it selfe .

⚜ The onely one that offereth to stand in our way , as objecting any Authority from Antiquity , for Procession , is your 13 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 wee neede not to contend , because your owne French Bishop doth easily shoulder him out , proving that the Testimonie of Tertullian ( speaking of his wifes Proceeding , or going out of her house , for visiting the sicke and poore ) is ridiculously mistaken , for going in a publike Procession , even then , when it was scarce free for Christians to meete together in Churches , for feare of persecution . Wee proceede therefore to the next Transgression . ⚜

The Ninth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse , contradicting the Sense of the words following , [ IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE . ] SECT. XI .

REmembrance is an act of Vnderstanding , and therefore sheweth that Christ ordained , the use of this Sacramen● on●ly for persons of Discretion and Vnderstanding , saying , [ Do THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE . ]

The Contrarie Canon of the Roman Church , in former times .

Your Iesuite Maldonate will be our Relater , ingenuously confessing , that in the dayes of l 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 Iohan . 6. 53. pag. 7191 Saint Augustine , and Pope Innocent the first , this opinion was of force in your Church , For sixe hundred yeares together , viz. that the administration of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants , Which opinion ( saith hee ) is now rejected by the Councell of Trent , Determining that the Eucharist is not onely not necessarie for Infants , but also that it is Indecent to give it unto them . So hee . 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 fore-father Pope Innocent , and your former Romane Church from this taxation ? This they labour to do , but ( alas their miserie ! ) by collusion and cunning : for the same Synod of m 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 servârunt , 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 Sacramentall receiving of the Eucharist . This wee 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 Councell , doubtlesse , knew , but was desirous thus to cover her owne shame , touching her former superstitious practice of Giving this Sacrament unto Infants . In excuse whereof , your Councell of Trent adjoyneth , that the Church of Rome , in those dayes , was not condemnable ; but why ? Because ( saith your * * See the Testimony below of the letter ( r. ) Councell ) Truly and without Controversie wee ought to believe , that they did not give the Eucharist unto Infants , as thinking it necessarie to Salvation . Which Answere your owne Doctors will prove to be a bold , and a notorious untruth , because ( as your Iesuite n 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 perciperēt , salvos esse non posse , Idem Com. in Ioh. 6. 63. p. 717. sheweth ) They then beleeved that Infants baptised could not be saved , except they should participate of the Eucharist ; taking their Argument from that Scripture of Iohn . 6. [ Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne , &c. ] and therefore held they it necessarie to the salvation of Infants .

That this was the beleefe of Pope Innocent , and of the Church of Rome under him , your Parisian Doctor o 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 , &c. 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 Iulianum libri , quo valentiorem habuit Adversarium neminem ; in quem etiam scribendo mortuus est , ac proinde sententiam non retractâsse videtur : in quibus Iulianum 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 sheweth the loosenesse 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 , &c. ) that although the Child do not participate , yet by Baptisme hee is made partaker of that which it signifieth . ] Espencaeus also proveth at large , out of the expresse writings of Pope Innocent . Yea , and your greatly approved Binius , in his Volumes of the Councels , dedicated to Pope Paul the fift , p p Binius Tom. 1. Conc. ex Rescriptis innocentii Papae ad Conc. Millevet . Epist. 25. Illud vero , &c. 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 , &c. ] in Baptismi sumptione interpretari . Sed decepti sunt , quòd vim argumenti , quo Pontifex utitur , non sunt assecuti . Ille enim ut Pelagium ( qui docebat Baptismum Infantibus , Parente 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 Iohannis [ Nisi manducaveritis . &c. ] 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 Marginall Citation ) that it will permit no evasion . And so much the rather , because that which the Tridentine Fathers allege , for cause of Alteration , doth confirme this unto us : It is undecent ( say they ) to give the Eucharist unto Infants . This may perswade us that Innocent held it necessary , els would he not have practized , and patronized a thing so utterly Vndecent . ⚜ Besides one of your 14 14 Iac. 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. Iesuites spareth not to make a double cause of the Alteration of that Custome ; one , to avoid the Vndecencie and Prophanation of the Sacrament ( meaning , by the casting it up againe : ) and secondly , because of the Heresie of those , who thought the Reociving of this Sacrament necessarie for the Salvation of Infants . Calling this opinion an Heresie . ⚜

Wee dispute therefore . If the Church of Rome , in the dayes of Pope Innocent the first , held it a Doctrine of faith , in the behalfe of Infants , that they ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist ; the same Church of Rome , in her Councell of Trent ( whose Decrees , by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth , are all held to be beleeved upon necessitie of Salvation ) did decree contrarily that the participation of the Eucharist is not Necessary , no nor yet decent for Infants . Say now , did the Church of Rome not erre in the dayes of Pope Innocent ? then is shee now in an errour . Or doth shee not now erre herein ? then did she formerly erre , and consequently may erre hereafter , not onely in determining a matter to be Necessary to Salvation , which in it self is Superfluous and Vndecent , but also in opinion Hereticall . Thus of the contrary custome of the Church of Rome , in elder times .

The now contrary Opinion , concerning the Romane Masse , at this day .

Even at this day also your Iesuite will have us to understand the meaning of your Church to be , that r 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 onely , but as unreasonably altogether , you hold that 14 14 Non quicunquè usu rationis carentes arcendi sunt à sumptione Eucharistiae , sed hi , qui nunquam habuerunt usum rationis . Aquin. 〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉 Qu. 80. Art. 9 Mad-men , 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 Discerne the Lords Body . ⚜

CHALLENGE .

WHereunto wee oppose the Authority of the s 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. Councell of Carthage , and of that ( which you call the ) Councell of Laterane , which denyed , as you know , that the Eucharist should be delivered unto Infants , accounting them uncapable of divine and spirituall feeding : without which ( say they ) the corporall profiteth nothing . But wee also summon , against the former assertion eight of your ancient t t And of this opinion were Mayor , Petrus Soto , Paludanus , Alensis , Gubriel , Catharinus , Dom. Soto — Ration eorum ( saith the same Ies . ) quiâ hoc Sacramentum est cibus spiritualis : Ergò accommodatum eis solummodò qui possint actus spiritualis vitae exercere , quod parvuli non possunt . Suarez . Ies. quo sup [ And to the former Schoole-men , to make them even , wee may adde also Summa Angel : Tit. Eucharistia . ] Schoolemen , who upon the same Reasons made the like Conclusion with us . And wee further ( as it were , ●resting you in the Kings name ) produce against you Christ his Writ , the Sacred Scripture , whereby he requireth in all persons about to Communicate three principall Acts of Reason ; one is before , and two are at the time of receiving . The first is * * 1. Cor. 11. [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , ] Let a man examine himselfe , and so come , &c. The second [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , ] To discerne the Lords body . The third is [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , ] To remember the Lords death untill his coming againe . All which Three , being Acts of Iudgement , how they may agree unto Infants , being persons void of Iudgement , judge you . And remember , wee pray you , that wee speake of Sacramentall Eating , and not of that use * * See above Sect. 10 before spoken of , touching Eating it after the Celebration of the Sacrament ; which was for Consuming it , and not for Communicating thereof .

CHAP. III.

The Tenth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse , by the now Church of Rome , is in contradicting the Sense of the next words following ( concerning the second part of this Sacrament of receiving the Cup ) [ HE LIKEWISE TOOKE THE CVP , AND GAVE IT TO THEM , SAYING , DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS . ] And adding , 1. Cor. 11. [ DO THIS , AS OFTEN AS YOV DO IT , IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE . ] SECT. I.

BY which words [ Like maner of Taking , and Giving , and Saying , Drinke yee All of this ] wee say that Christ ordained for his Guests as well the Sacramentall Rite of Drinking , as of Eating ; and hath tied his Church Catholike in an equall obligation for performance of both , in the administring of this Sacrament .

This Cause will require a just Treatise , yet so , that our Discourse insist only upon necessary points , to the end that the extreme Insolencie , Noveltie , Folly , and Obstinacie of the Romane Church , in contradicting of this part of Christ his Canon , may be plainely displayed ; that every conscience of man , which is not strangely preoccupated with prejudice , or transported with malice , must needs see and detest it . Wee have heard of the Canon of Christ his Masse .

The contrary Canon of the Romish Church , in her Masse .

Shee , in her Councel of Constance , decreed that a a Christus sub utraque ●pecie Discipulis administravit — Licet in primitivâ 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 kindes ; notwithstanding ( say they ) this Custome of but one kinde is held for a law irreproveable . Which Decree she afterwards confirmed in her b b Ipsa Synodus , à Spiritu Sancto edocta , & ipsius Ecclesiae judicium & consuetudinem secuta , declarat & docet , nullo divino jure Laicos , & Clericos non consecrantes , obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum : Etsi Christus venerabile hoc Sacramentum sub utraque instituit , & Apostolis tradidit Concil. Trident. Sess . 〈◊〉 . 1. cap. 1. Councel of Trent ; requiring that the former Custome and Law of receiving it but under one kind be observed both by Laicks , yea , and also by all those Priests , who being present at Masse , do not the office of Consecrating . Contrarily our Church of England , in her thirtieth Article thus : Both parts of the Lords Sacrament , by Christs Ordinance and Commandement , ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike .

CHALLENGE .

BVtwee demand ; what Conscience should moove your late Church of Rome to be guided by the authority of that former Councell of Constance , which notwithstanding maketh no scruple to reject the authority of the same c 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 . Councell of Constance in another Decree thereof , wherein it gain-sayeth the Antichristian usurpation of the Pope , by Denying the authority of the Pope to be above a Councell ? and that ( as the d d Dixit Petro Christus Cum frater in te p●ccaverit , si te non audiat , Dic Ecclesiae , Ergo Ecclesiam Papae Iudicem constitut. Conc. Basil . apud AEnean●i Sylvium de gest ejusdem Concilij . Councell of Basil doth prove ) from the authority of Christ his direction unto Peter , to whom he said , Tell the Church . We returne to the State of the Question .

The full State of the Question .

All Protestants , whether you call them Calvinists , or Lutherans , hold , that in the publike and set celebration of the Eucharist , the Communion in both kinds ought to be given to all sorts of Communicants that are capable of both . The question , thus stated , will cut off a number of Impertinences , which your Objectors busie themselves withall , as will appeare in due places . Wee repeate it againe , [ In publike Assemblies of all prepared , and capable of the Communion . ]

The best Method , that I could choose , for the expedite and perspicuous handling of this great Controversie , is by way of Comparison : as namely , First , by comparing the Institution of Christ , with the contrarie Ordination and Institution of the Romane Church . Secondly , Christ his Example , with contrarie Examples . Thirdly , the Apostles Practice , with the adverse Practice . Fourthly , the Primitive Custome of the Church Catholicke , with the after-contrarie Custome ; 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 soveraigne Presidence in Christ , with Contempt . In the third , of Faithfulnesse with Faithlesnesse . In the fourth , of Antiquity with Noveltie . In the fift , of Vniversality with Paucity . In the sixt , of Wisedome with Folly : as also of Charity with Injustice and Impiety . In the seaventh , of Knowledge with Ignorance ; as likewise of Devotion with Prophanenesse . 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 Vse of Both kinds to all lawfull Communicants , SECT. II.

THere is one word twice used in the tenour of Christ his Institution ; once concerning the Bread , [ HOC FACITE ] DO THIS : ] the second time touching the Cup , * * 1. Cor. 11. 25. [ HOC FACITE , QVOTIESCVNQVE : ] DO THIS AS OFTEN , &c. ] Both which whosoever should denie to have the Sound and Sense of a Precept , might be confuted by your owne Iesuites , Doctors , Bishops , and Cardinalls , among * * See all this above Chap. 2. Sect. 1. in the Margent . whom we find your Barradas interpreting it , Praecipit : your Valentian , Praeceptum : your Iansenius , Mandat : your Alan , Praeceptio : your Bellarmine , Iubet ; each one signifying a Command . But of what ? this is our next Inquisition . And it is found , that All of them acknowledge Christs Praecept , simply for the Bread : and Some of them , onely , but conditionally of the Cup , whereof we are now to speake .

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 , &c. To the other , touching Administration of the Cup , whereof it is sayd , [ He tooke it , and gave it to his Disciples ] whom after he had Commanded , saying , [ Drinke you all of this , ] hee added the other Command set downe by Saint Paul , saying unto them , [ Doe this as often as yee shall doe it in remembrance of Mee . ] That by this Obligation hee might charge them to communicate in both kinds . A Precept then it must needs bee , But wee are not ignorant of your Evasions .

Your first Evasion .

Although ( say e e Bellar. lib. 1. de Eucharistilia . cap. 25. §. Tertu● . you ) it be said to his Disciples [ Drinke you all , and , Doe 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 againe , The Apostles did represent the Priests .

CHALLENGE .

WEe answere that your owne f 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. T it Eucharist . pag. 158. Castro will not allow your Antecedent , but is perswaded 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 answere , that your Consequence , ( viz. ) Ergò onely Priests are enjoyned to receive the Cup , will appeare to be both fond in it selfe , and to your owne selves pernicious . First , as fond , as if one should argue thus : It was at the first said only to the Apostles , Goe and baptize all Nations : Ergò none but the Apostles have Command to Baptize , which office you permit aswell to women Laicke , as to men . Next pernicious , for say ( Wee pray you ) doe the words , [ Drinke yee all of this ] command all Priests to drinke ? then must this condemne 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 onely to him that doth Consecrate : which is directly confuted by the Example of Christ , who administred the Cup , unto all his Apostles , by your doctrine , Priests .

Againe , Do these words onely command the Priest to receive the Cup ? then likewise do you condemne your former Church of Rome , which hath sometime permitted the Cup unto Laike . Yea , and your Cardinall Alan g 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 Iohan. 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 sticke to tell you , out of the ancient Fathers , that the Command [ Doe this ] declared by Saint Luke , is applyed 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 Greeke Church hath alwayes observed the use of both kinds unto this day . So hee , 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 Laicks 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 thinke that wee seeke advantage onely from your private Schooles , you may find the Councell of Braccara ( about the yeare 67● ) decreeing the severall Administration of both kindes to bee Commended to the Church , by the words of Christ his Institution . Lastly , Wee shall * * ⚜ Conc. Braccar . See the third Section following . prove , that the ancient Fathers with joynt consent collected , as well as Wee , a necessitie of the Peoples receiving in both kinds , by right of equalitie 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 fondly fancied .

Your second Evasion .

Next , although it were ( say h 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 tooke the Cup ] namely , as hee tooke Bread : yet the word [ Similitèr , Likewise ] hath Relation to his Taking , not to his Giving .

CHALLENGE .

THis is flatly repugnant to the Gospell of Christ , where these words of * * Luc. 22. 20. Saint Luke , [ Likewise hee tooke the Cup ] appeare by Saint * * Math. 26. 27. Matthew to have relation aswell to Christs Giving , as to his Taking of the Cup , thus ; [ Iesus tooke the Cup and gave thankes , and gave it unto them , saying , Drinke you all of this . ] Yea and in Saint Luke , the text objected is so cleare , that it needeth no Comment: Hee tooke the Bread , and gave thankes , and gave it unto them , saying , &c. and likewise the Cup. Where the precedent word , expressing Christ his Act , is not Tooke , but Gave the Cup. And if any should seeke a Comment upon these words , he could finde none more direct than that of your learned Arias Montanus , and Bishop Iansenius , [ In like manner : ] That ( say i i Similiter et Caheem ] id 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 . ] Iansen Episc. Concord . cap. 131. pag. 905. [ Similitèr & Calicem postquàm coenavit , &c. ] Id●est , accepit , et porte●● omnibus , dicens , [ Hic est Calix , &c ] Arias Montan. in 1. Cor. 11. 25. they ) as hee did with the Bread , so did hee with the Cup , he tooke it , hee gave thankes , hee gave it unto them All to drinke . All which Saint Luke comprized in these words ; [ In like manner Hee tooke the Cup. ] So they .

Your third Evasion .

Although it be said of Drinking of the Cup , [ Do this in Remembrance of mee : ] yet the words [ Do this , ] ( say k k Post panis consecrationem absolutè ponitur [ Hoc facite ] pòst Calicem verò idem repetitur , sed cum conditione , Hoc ( inquit ) facite quo●●escunquè bibetis , &c. Caertè non fine causa Spiri●us Sanctus modum loquendi mutavit , significans , non ut Calix debat . dari necessariò , sed modum praescribens , ut id fiat ed memoriā Dominicae Passionis . Bellar quo sup. cap. 25 §. ●am . you ) are spoken Absolutely of the Bread , and but Conditionall of the Cup , namely , [ As often as you shall drinke it . ] And upon this Conceit do two Iesuites raise up their Insultation , l 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 wonderfull providence of God , whereby is taken from Heretikes all colour of excuse . So they , of us Protestants .

⚜ If this Providence , whereof you talke , be so Wonderfull ; and Notorious ; it is some Wonder to us , how your owne other Doctors missed the sight of it ; who , in seeking most earnestly to avoyd the dint of Christs words of Precept [ Drinke you all of this ] devised an uncouth subterfuge , saying , 1 1 [ Bibite ex hoc omnes ] Quae verba si non sint Praecipientis , sed invitantis , ut certè esse possint , tùm respondemus , &c. 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 . Wee hasten to our Challenge , in answer to your former Objection .

CHALLENGE .

TO this we answer , our of the Conclusions of your owne Doctors , aswell of the new , as of the old Schooles ; your m 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 . ia 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. Iesuite Vasquez , for the new , Concluding , that the words , [ This do yee , as often as you drinke it , in remembrance of Mee , ] as they command the end of the Celebration of this Sacrament , in the remembrance of the Passion of Christ : so doe they also command the Act and manner therof , which is , by drinking of the Sacramentall Cup. Which hee holdeth to be so manifest a Truth , that hee thinketh no man to be so blinde , as not to discerne it , saying , Who seeth not this ? Accordingly he allegeth Solo , for the old Schoole , concluding that the words [ Drinke yee all of this , as often , &c. ] 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 Cardinall n n Credimus eos rectè oblagari , dùm militainus in hac vira , ad Sacramentum Fucharistiae , eo modo , quo perfectiùs significat Passionem : id est , sub utraqu● specie , &c. Card. Cusan . Epist. 2. ad Bohem . pag. 831. Cusanus affirmeth to lye alwayes upon the Church ; Whereby your Master o o Who in his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse , standeth so much upon the no command of Christ for the use of boto kinds , that he justifieth an ancient Romane Custome ( as he calleth it ) of the Priest himselfe , 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 necessitie of Drinking . Brerely may see , and acknowledge his double Errour .

And , indeed , the Evidence is so great , that although all Romish Vniversities should withstand it , we might herein appeale to common Sense : for Christ having first commanded his Disciples , saying , in the Celebration of this Sacrament , [ Drinke yee all of this ; ] this is the Act : and adding further , saying , [ As often , or whensoever as yee shall drinke it , do this in remembrance of mee , ] which is the End so commanded ; it doth equally imply a command of the Act of Drinking , aswell as of the End . Now the Catholike Church did alwayes hold , that there ought to be an Often Commemoration of the Passion of Christ , even untill his comming againe ( as saith the Apostle ) by the Celebration of this Sacrament . And the word [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] As often , or whensoever yee receive , &c. ( being indefinite , and assigning no certaine dayes or times ) giveth libertie to the Church to solemnize this Memoriall at her convenient times ; yet so , that Whensoever the Church celebrateth this Sacrament , shee do it according to the forme of Christ his Institution , by communicating in both kinds .

⚜ Yet is not this all , but if you desire an Argument of Gods wonderfull Providence , you may see it in this , in delivering up your owne Cardinals to that Stupidity , as to be caught in their owne subtilty , by the cleare light of the Text , well discerned by your Divines of 2 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 eate this Bread , and drinke this Cup. ] Do you marke ? the [ Quotiescunque , ] is applyed 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 libertie to abstaine from the Cup , it would follow that ( against the universall 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 thumbes , should say , Do this as often as you come before mee , in testimonie of my love : ( Wee 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 thumbe , by virtue of the Popes Command ? [ Do this ] who seeth not this , that doth not wilfully blind-fold and stupifie his wits ? Shall wee conclude ? As your owne Doctors inferre from these words of Christ [ Do this ] that Laicks , who be of yeares , are bound by the Law of God to communicate : by the same Text may wee 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 ] seeme to be hereunto of no force with your two Cardinals , who spy therein a wonderfull gappe of libertie for a non-use of the Cup , in the celebration of this Sacrament ; yet your Councell 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 , &c. ] 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 Contrarietie of their owne tongues .

THE CHALLENGE , In Generall .

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 performe 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 perswaded hereof , because your choicest and most subtile 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 intemperatly , as though they had beene over-taken with some other Cup : insomuch that they are confuted by their owne learned fellowes , by evident texts of the Evangelists , and by common sense ; Which giveth us just cause to turne their Wonderment against themselves , saying , Behold the Providence of God! thus plainely to confound the wisedome of the Adversaries of his truth by themselves , in their greatest subtilnesse . 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 wee had no Precept of Christ to [ Doe this ] but onely the Example of his Doing it in the first Institution , this should bee a Rule for us to observe it punctually , excepting in such Circumstances , which onely occasionally and accidentally happened therein , as * * See above Sect 2. hath beene prooved ; and therefore not to dare to give a Non-obstante against the Example of Christ , as your * * See above in this Chapter Sect. 1. lit . ( a. ) Councell of Constance hath done : and which p p Rectè docent Iurisconsulti , 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 Iesuite also teacheth , as if the Example of Christ were no argument of proofe at all . Which Doctrine wee are now to trie by the judgement of Antiquity . q q Cyprian . con. Aquarios Epist. 63. Admonitos nos scias , ut in Calice offerendo traditio observetur , neque aliquid fiat à nobis , quàm quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecerit . [ And some-what after ] A divino Magisterio non recedamus . Cyprian confuteth the Aquarij ( Heretikes that used onely Water in the Chalice ) by the Example of Christ his Institution , because Nothing is to bee done of us , in celebrating of this Mystery , which was not done of Christ . So hee .

In the dayes of Pope Iulius , Anno 337. there arose many giddie spirits , which violated the holy Institution of Christ , in this Sacrament , when as some Consecrated Milke instead of Wine : others sopped the bread in the Cup : a third sort squiezed Grapes thereinto . These , and the like , that holy Pope did condemne , but how ? by pretence of Custome only ? no , but by the obligation of Christ his Example , and Institution of this Sacrament , in these words following : r r Iulius 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 Apostolicall doctrine , and Ecclesiasticall Custome , as is easily proved from the fountaine of truth , from whence the Sacraments had their first ordinance ; for when our Master of Truth commended this to his Disciples , hee gave to none Milke , but Bread onely , and the Cup. Nor doth the Gospell mention the sopping of Bread , but of giving Bread a-part , and the Cup also a-part , &c. So Pope Iulius .

⚜ Long after this , the Councel of Braccara ( about the yeare of our Lord 675 ) withstood the Complementall Custome of receiving both kindes in dipped soppes : but wot you why ? hearken ; even because 3 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 Gospell of Christs Institution . Ponder the Testimony in the Margin , and you shall find it point-blanke contradictorie to your opinion and practice . Which Reasoning of the Bishops of that Councell had beene very loose and lavish , except they had beleeved that the forme of Institution of Christ , concerning the Participation of both kindes , 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 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 bee more direct and absolute ? yet dare your men object to the contrarie .

The Romish Objection answered .

At Emmaus , Luke 24. Christ , meeting with certaine Disciples , taking bread and blessing it , and thereby manifesting himselfe to them , is said immediately after the Breaking of Bread to have vanished out of their sights . Ergò , it may be lawfull ( saith your t t Ex Luc. 24 30. Vbi Christus appatens duobus Discipulis in Emmaus , & accumbens accepit panem , & benedixit , & dedit eis : quo facto , aperti sunt oculi comm , & evanuit ex oculis , &c. [ 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 . Cardinall ) to use but one kinde . Because ( saith * * Master Brereley Liturg . Tract . 4. §. 3. pag. 402. Master Brerely ) the Text sheweth , 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 Custome 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 appeare that he did now perfect it , in distributing either kinde to his Disciples ; Nor is this likely , saith your u u Christum hanc Eucharistiam porrexisse , sententia est incerta , & non verisim . lis , Iansen . Concord . c. 126 p. 1070. Iansenius . And it is dead-rotten also in the branch and Consequence thereof , because that this Act of Christ in Emmaus is not to bee urged , as an Example to be imitated in the Church ; which is demonstrable by an acknowledgment , of your Iesuite x 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 j●ss●s 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 Councel of Trent hath defined that the Priest , in Consecrating , is commanded by Christ his Institution to consecrate in both kinds ; Because this ( saith your Iesuite ) 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 , &c. ] Accordingly your Objectour * * Liturg. Tract . 4. §. 2. pag. 401. Master Brerely ( as if hee had meant purposely to confute , and confound himselfe ) The reason why the Priest receiveth both kinds , is , because hee is to represent the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse . But Bread cannot represent Christ dead , without some signe of Bloud .

⚜ Your Scottish Iesuite will prompt your English Priest , to say , that there may be a 4 4 Iac. 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 Christs death by consecration of but one kinde : and that Christ did not command the Consecration of Both , as necessary . This hee fetcheth from the former Example of Christ at Emmaus ; whom notwithstanding your Iesuite 5 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 Sacramēti 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 . — Altera , 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 hee cannot reforme ) will surely refute , even from your owne Romish Principle , which teacheth that the Sacrifice of the Masse is an unbloudy Sacrifice in it selfe , yet Commemorative and Representative of Christs death and Passion ; which was by the Effusion and Separation of Bloud from his Body . But this ( saith he ) cannot be represented 〈◊〉 by one kinde . And thereupon hee Concludeth that Christ instituted the Consecration of this Sacrament in Both kindes .

If then , because Christ ministred it not in Both kindes in Emmaus , it shall be lawfull for the Church to imitate him in that manner of Distribution of this Sacrament , it must as equally follow , that because hee is not found there to have Consecrated in both kindes , it may be lawfull for your Consecrating Priest so to do ; not onely contrarie to your now Romane Custome ; but also ( in the judgement of the Councell of Trent ) conrary to the Command of Christ , as * * See above . See also hereafter Sect. 6. hath beene confessed . Twice miserable therefore is the darknesse 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 Vnconscionablenesse of all your Objectors may be made more transparent , We adde out of your Schooles , that Christs Acts of Excellencie , ( that is , which are proper to his owne Soveraignty ) 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 6 Vasquez . Ies. in 3. Thom Disp 2●3 . cap. 3. Supremâ authoritate coram Discipulis in castello Emmäus alterā 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 Iesuite ) now at Emmaus consecrated but in one kinde , by his Supreme authority ; so proper to Christ , that the Pope himselfe cannot dispence 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 Priests administring the Sacrament but in One kinde , which they themselves did see could not justifie either your Priests , or Popes , consecrating but in One kinde ?

A SECOND CHALLENGE .

WEe conclude . You have seene , by the testimonies of Cyprian , and Pope Iulius , that it was good Divinity , in their dayes , to argue from the Example of Christ his Institution negatively ; by rejecting such Acts , and accounting them as contrarie to the Institution of Christ , which accord not with his Example , and which are not comprized within the Canon of Christ his [ Hoc facite . ] Which kinde of Reasoning , at this day , is hissed at in your Romish Schooles . What need many words ? O tempora !

Our third Comparison , is , by conferring Apostolicall Practice with contrary Practice . SECT. IV.

Saint Paul having more speciall 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 . Hee Catechizing 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 Iesus , &c. And , after his Recitall of the Institution of Christ , hee himselfe addeth [ * * Ibid. Vers. 26. As often as you eate of this Bread , and drinke of this Cup , you shew the Lords death untill hee come againe . * * Ibid. Vers. 28. Let therefore a man examine himselfe , and so eate of this Bread , and drinke of this Cup. ] From this wee seeke a Proofe both of the Apostolicall Practice , in the use of Both kindes , in this Sacrament ; and of our duty in observing the same . But we may spare our paines of proving the use of Both kindes in the Church of Corinth , because ( as your a a Antiqua Consuctudo temporibus Apostolorum fuit in Ecclesia , sub utraque specie communicandi . In hac assertione nulla est Controversia . Tolet. Ies. in Ioh. 6. pag 602. So Ecchius Hom. 36. Nullum insiciari posse , Paulum hoc praecipisse Corinthijs . Cardinall Tolet confesseth ) There is no controversie thereof .

As for the Proofe of our necessary Conformity , wee have the same Reasons , wherewith the Apostle perswadeth thereunto , [ That ( saith he ) which I have received of the Lord , I deliver unto you , that Iesus , &c. ] Thereby applying the Example of Christ his Institution for a Rule of their Practice : which this conjunctive Particle of Eating [ AND ] Drinking ; To Eate [ AND ] Drinke , 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 eate or Drinke : notwithstanding , you your selves have confessed that Christ spake absolutely , and without Condition , of the Bread , Take , Eate , Do this . And againe , 1 Cor. 11. 24. [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , And in like manner the Cup. ] It is an AND Conjunctive , questionlesse . For seeing it cannot be denyed , 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 beene , in words , to have contradicted his owne practice . Master Brerely opposeth , viz. The Apostle in the same Chapter saith v. 20 Hee that eateth and drinketh unworthily , eateth and drinketh judgement ; also he saith vers . 27. whosoever eateth this Bread , and drinketh this Cup unworthily , &c. So he .

It is not to be denyed but that [ AND ] is often used in Scripture for , [ Or : ] but Master Brerely his notions , as commonly else-where , 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 Transgressour , if it stood ( as Master 7 7 ⚜ Mr. Brerely in his Lit. Tract . 4. §. 7. Vsual it is in Scripture to use the Conjunctive , ET , And , for the Disjunctive . So it is sayd , he that shall strike his Father and Mother , shall die . When as both the Originall , the Roman Vulgar , and our Translations have it . ( OR . ) ⚜ Brerely objecteth , feigning a false Text contrary both to the Originall , and vulgar Latine Translation ) thus , Hee 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 Commandement 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 contrarie practice of the Apostles , Act. 2. 42 where wee read of the faithfull assembled and Continuing together in fellowship , and in breaking of bread , and in prayers ; because there is but mention onely of one kinde , which is Bread : whence they inferre a no-necessity of using the Cup. So your b b Act 2. Ita describitur com ●unicatio Eucharistiae [ Erāt enim persevorantes in doctrin● 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. Cardinall Bellarmine . And to answer , that the ministration of the Cup is understood by a figure Synechdoche , is an Answer onely imaginary and groundlesse , saith Master * * Liturg. Tract . 4. §. 3. pag 403. Brerely .

But are they yet to learne that which every man knoweth , and your owne Iesuites have taught ? that there is no Trope more familiar in Scripture than this Synechdoche of taking a part for the whole ? Or could they not discerne thus much in the same Chapter , ver. ●6 . where it is sayd , They brake bread through every house ; Wherein ( as your Iesuite c 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 foode ? Whereby you cannot but understand implied , in their breaking of bread , their mutuall 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 wee say ? was your spirituall appetite weaker than your corporall , in reading these two Texts , wherein is mentioned onely Bread , that you could discerne but halfe 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 eate bread Luc. 12. Christ to the Pharisees house eate bread . 2. Thess. 3. We have not eaten our bread freely , &c. 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 onely , without Drinke .

Besides , any man may guesse what spirit it favoureth of , that ( in paralleling the authority of your Church with the authority of the Apostles ) your Iesuites doe resolve , that although the Apostles had constituted the Custome of Receiving in both kindes , d d Si daremus hunc ritum ab Apostolo fuisse traditum , cum tamen merè positivus sit , potuillet illum mutare , quid Ecclesia habet eūdem spiritum , & eandē authoritatem cum Paulo . Salmeron . Ies. 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 . Neverthelesse ( say they ) the Church of Rome , and Pope thereof , having the same authoritie 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 wee say ; for to what end is it for us to prove an Apostolicall Practice , or Precept for Both kinds , when your Objectors are ready with the onely names of Pope and Church of Rome to stoppe the mouthes not onely of Vs Heretikes ( as you call us ) but even of Saint Paul himselfe , and of the other Apostles , yea , and of Saint Peter too ? By which Answere 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 himselfe upon the Doctrine and Precept of Christ . Thus , when wee appeale unto the Apostles Tradidition , you , by opposing , Thinke your selves wiser than the Apostles : which Irenaeus will tell you was the very garbe of old e 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. Heretikes .

Our fourth and fift Comparisons are of Primitive Custome with the contrary Custome , in respect both of the Antiquitie and Vniversalitie thereof . SECT. V.

BEfore wee shall say any thing our selves of the Primitive Custome , in using Both kinds in the administration of this Sacrament , and the extent thereof , both in the longitude of Continuance , and latitude of Vniversality , wee are ready to heare how farre your owne Doctors will yeeld unto us , in both these points , touching the publike use of Both kinds . Wherfore , hearken but unto the Marginals , and you shall finde your Iesuites , with others , uttering these voyces : f 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 Popes Decrees . De Consecrat. Dist. 2. Quid sit sanguis . Sanguis in ora fidelium funditur . ] Wee must confesse , Wee doe confesse ; yea , Wee do ingenuously confesse a Custome of both kinds ( aswell to the Laicks as Priests ) to have beene in the Primitive Church most frequent and generall : as is proved by the ancient Fathers both Greeke and Latine , among whom are Leo and Gregorie ( both ) Popes of Rome ; yea and universall also for a long time , continuing a thousand yeares in the Church of Rome , and in the Greeke Church unto this day . So they .

Where wee see both the Antiquity and Vniversality thereof to the full , which it were easie for us to have shewne Gradatim , descending downe from the first Age unto the twelfth ; but that when wee have as much confessed as neede be proved , it might be judged to bee but an importunate diligence and Curiositie to labour any further . Neverthelesse , if peradventure any should desire to see one or two Testimonies for the last Age , hee may satisfie himselfe in the g 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. Margent at the first sight .

The Romish Objections , concerning Primitive Custome .

Divers Objections are urged on your side , to abate something of the Vniversality of the Custome of Both kindes , which we defend ; but if they shall not seeke to decline the Question , and to rove about , as it were , at unset markes , their Arguments are but as so many Bolts shot altogether in vaine . For our defence is o●●ly this , that in the publike solemnization and Celebration of this Sacrament , in an Assembly of Christians freely met to communicate , no one example can bee shewne in all Antiquity , throughout the Catholike Church of Christ , for the space of a thousand yeares , inhibiting either Priest , or Laick , from Communicating in both kindes , 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 h Oh : Consuetudinem Eucharist●●m domum deferendi , &c. 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 Laicks Communion could signifie 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 cōmunicant , 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 , Canones 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 it selfe being in the Plurall , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , prae sanctificata , confuteth this Objection , and so doe the Liturgies . ] proved to be either private , or illegitimate , or false , respectively . Hitherto of the Primitive Custome .

Notwithstanding all this , will your Romane Church boast of her contrary Custome of after-times , telling us , in her Councels , that her Custome of administring the Eucharist but in one kinde is rightly observed , as a Custome , which hath beene [ Diutissimè observata , ] that is , of very long continuance . Many yeares by-passed , saith i 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 Iesuite k 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 Ioh. 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 certaine ( saith he ) that the Church , for these three or two hunded yeares , hath used to communicate to the Laity under one kinde . So they .

CHALLENGE .

NOw after that wee have proved , out of your owne Confessions , the length of the Custome of Both kindes to have beene in the Continuance above a thousand yeares , after the first Institution of this Sacrament ; and for largenesse thereof , in an universall consent thereunto , without any exception by any example ordinary , publike , and legitimate ; and that you have heard also even the Fathers of your Church opposing against it a contrarie custome not above the Compasse of three hundred yeares , and yet to call it [ Diutissima ] A Custome of longest continuance ; what Tergiversation could be more shamelesse ? But enough of this point . In the next place , because the same your Councel hath told us , that your contrary Custome was brought in [ Rationabiliter , ] with good Reason , wee are forth-with to discusse the Reasons thereof .

Our sixt Comparison is of Reasons , for the Vse of Both kindes , collated with Reasons objested to the contrary . SECT. VI.

A Sacrament ( according to the common definition ) is a Visible signe of an invisible Grace ; and so farre is a Signe 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 Signe , as well in sacred , as in prophane Rites . Come now and let us industriously and calmly debate this matter , which wee have in hand , both in respect of the thing signified ( which is the Sacrament , or spirituall 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 kindes .

The things Spirituall ( as all Christians professe ) 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 therfore ought to be performed in Both , or else the Act will be a Sacrilegious dismembring of the Sacrament of Christ . This shall we easily prove from the Principles and Confessions of your owne Schooles . 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 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 Controv. 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 . Cardinall . Consult with your m 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 , quando-quidem 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 , &c. ] See above Sect. 3. at (g) where Vasquez the Iesult is cited in 3. Them . Disput. 215. Aquinas , your Iesuites Valentia , and Vasquez , and they will say as much in behalfe of the Eucharist , as it is a Sacrament ; their reason is , Because both kindes , making but one Sacrament , ought to be celebrated perfectly , and therefore is the Priest bound to consecrate this Sacrament in both kindes 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 kindes , under the hand of the Priest , then lieth the same obligation upon the Church likewise , for distributing it in both kindes unto the people , to whom it is to be administred , in token of Christ his Passion for them applicatorily , both in his Body and Bloud : but the Bread only can no more represent the Blood of Christ in the mouthes of people , in the eating thereof , than it can by Consecrating it in the hands of the Priest : and consequently the dismembring thereof , as you do , must necessarily condemne both Priest and People . A Consequence , which your figment of * * See hereafterr , Sect: 8. Concomitancie cannot possibly avoid .

A Corroboration of the same Reason , against the Sacrilegious dismembring of this Sacrament , by the Testimony of Pope Gelasius ; and a Vindication of Doctor Morton from the Traducement of other your Priests and Iesuites . SECT. VII .

THe Hereticall Manichees forbare the use of the Cup in this Sacrament , in an opinion , that wine was not created by God , but by some evill spirit ; whom Pope Gelasius did therefore condemne by his publike Decree : which Hereticall opinion ( as once I n 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 o In his Answer to his Majestie . Master Fisher the Iesuite , of late , thought good to pervert to his owne use , thus . The Crime wherewith some Protestants charge us , that our receiving under the sole forme of Bread is to jump in the opinion of the Manichees , wee may ( as Doctour 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 Hereticall . So hee . But this mans march is but slow .

Master Brerely , p p In his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse , Tract . 4. §. 4. pag. 407. a Romish Priest , one well esteemed among you , for his exceeding labour and paines in defending the Romish Cause , to his power , by his many Bookes , almost in every particular , commeth on more roundly , as followeth : Doctor Morton himselfe ( saith he ) shall plead in our behalfe , who saith that the Manichees did heretically celebrate the Eucharist onely in one kind , in an opinion that wine was not created by God , but by some evill spirit , and were therefore anciently condemned for Heretiques : but the Romanists are not to bee accused of this heresie 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 hereticall , said hee . So your Priest ; yet what of all this ? So clearely doth Doctor Morton ( saith hee ) cleare us from the foule 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 it's originall from the Manichees : and so clearely doth hee contradict both Master Whitaker and himselfe , in one place accusing us , in another excusing us , in one and the same Respect : of which foule fault of Contradiction in so great a Rabbin when he cleareth himselfe , instead of being Bishop of Litchfield , hee shall bee unto mee ever Magnus Apollo . Thus farre Master Brerely . Alas ! what will become of the Doctor , being as you see , thus fiercely assaulted by two at once , one a Iesuite , the other a Romish Priest , both conspiring together to make the Doctor ridiculous ?

CHALLENGE ,

IT is now about twenty yeeres since the sayd Doctor ( in Confutation of a booke of Master Brerelyes , intituled an Apologie ) published a Treatise , called the Protestants Appeale , wherein were discovered many hundred of Master Brerelyes Ignorances , Falsities , and Absurdities : who ever since hath had Master Parson 's itch , ( as hee himselfe called his owne humour ) which received a Salve that might have cured him of that itch , to bee medling with the same Doctor . Yet the only Exception , which hath since come to this Doctor 's eares 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 onely , but they have also divulged this pretended Contradiction in many Counties of this Kingdome , to his reproach . Will you be so kinde , as but to heare an Answer , and then either wonder at , or hisse , or applaude , 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 dismembring 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 Hereticall Conceit , that Wine was the Creature of the Devill . Concerning this Hereticall opinion , no Protestant ( sayd q q Protestants Appeale 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 r In the same Appeale , lib. 4. chap. 22. Sect. 10. he called it Sacrilegious , and concluded the Church of Rome , in this respect , to bee as guilty of dismembring the Sacrament , as were the Manichees . And both these hee hath done by the Authority of Pope s 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 , &c. ( That is ) They are intangled in a kinde of Superstition . Then , for the Act of refusing the Cup , Because ( saith hee ) 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 , cleare the Church of Rome from the imputation of the Heresie of the Manichees , in respect of their opinion , and yet condemne them of the Manichean Sacrilege , in respect of the Act of dismembring the Sacrament ; with what spectacles ( thinke you ) did your Priest and Iesuite reade that . Answere of Doctor Morton , to collect from thence , either your Churches Iustification from a foule fault of Sacrilege , or else the Doctors foule Contradiction to himselfe , and that clearely forsooth , in the same respect ? who themselves are now found to have beene so subtilly witlesse , as not to discerne Heresie 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 himselfe . Take unto you a Similitude . A man being apprehended in the company of Traytors , upon suspicion of Fellony , is fully and effectually prosecuted for Fellony onely ; if one should say of him , that he was not convicted or condemned of Treason , but of Fellony , were this either a Contradiction in the party speaking , or a full Iustification of the party spoken of ?

You are by this time ( wee thinke ) ashamed of your Proctors , and of their scornefull insultation upon the Doctor , in the ridiculous tearmes of Rabbin , and Magnus Apollo : who willingly forbeareth , upon this Advantage , to recompence them with like scurrility , being desirous to be onely 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 Cardinall , saying , that Gelasius condemned only the Opinion of the Manichees ; which is so transparant a falshood , as any one that hath but a glympse of Reason may see throught it , by the sentence it selfe , as hath been proved .

Our second Reason is in respect of the perfect Spirituall Refection , represented by this Sacrament . SECT. VIII .

ANother Object , represented in this Sacrament , is the food of mans soule , in his faithfull receiving of the Bodie and Blood of Christ , which because it is a perfect spirituall 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 Analogie betweene the outward Signe , and the thing Signified thereby . Two of your a a Nam in alterutra 〈◊〉 sive panis sive vin● significatur sufficienter refect●● animae Bellar. lib. 4. de 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. Iesuites ( from whom Master Fisher hath learned his Answer ) seeke to perswade their Readers , that the Soules refection spirituall is sufficiently signified in either kinde , whether in Bread , or Wine . But be it knowne unto you , that either all these have forgotten their Catechisme , authorized by the Fathers of the Councel of Trent , and confirmed by Pope Pius Quintus , or else Those their Catechists forgot themselves in teaching , that b 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 severall 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 soule , it was therefore to be done by Eating and Drinking ; in both which the perfect nourishment of mans naturall life doth consist .

Aquinas , and your Iesuite Valentia , with others , are as expresse in this point , as they were in the former ; who although they ( as we also ) hold that whole Christ is received in either kinde , ( for Christ is not divided ) yet do they c 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 , Ioh. 6 [ Caro mea verè est cibus ] — Ergò , hoc Sacramentum multa quidem est materialiter , sed unum formaliter & perfectivè . 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. maintaine that This Sacrament , as it is conformable both to Eating and Drinking , so doth it by Both kindes , more perfectly expresse our spirituall nourishment by Christ : and therefore it is more convenie it that both be exhibited to the faithfull severally , as for Meate , and for drinke . So they . For although , in the Spirituall Receiving , Eating and Drinking are both one , even as the appetite of the Soule in hungring and thirsting is the same ; as where it is written , Matth. 5. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse , &c. yet in this Sacramentall communicating with bodily instruments it is otherwise , as you know . d 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 drunke in the forme of Bread , nor is his Body eaten as meate in the forme of Wine , because the Body cannot be said to be drunke , nor the blood to be eaten . So your Durand , and so afterwards your * * See hereafter Sect 10. ⚜ Who also observeth that , concerning spirituall Repast , 8 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 onely act of Faith both hunger and thirst is taken away : therefore wee are said both to eat and drinke by the same and onely act of Faith .

Wherefore you , in with-holding the Cup from the People , do violate the Testament of Christ , who requireth in this a perfect representation visible of a compleate and a full Refection spirituall ; which is sufficient to condemne your Abuse , whereby you also defraud God's people of their Dimensum , ordained by Christ for their use . Concerning this second , e e Answer to his Majestie . Master Fisher ( one of the society of Iesuites ) was taught to Answer , that the Full causality ( as he said ) and working of spirituall Effects of the soule cannot be a wanting to the Sacrament under one kind ; because of Christ his assistance . So he . We should aske , whether a greater Devotion , and a more plentifull Grace are not to be esteemed spirituall Effects , for the good of the Soule , which are f 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 Romane Pope Clement did absolutely teach that 9 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 , Ioh. 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 Iesuite ) that Hee dispenced with the King of England to participate in Both. For consider ( we pray you ) that the Assistance of Christ doth especially concurre with his owne Ordinance , and therefore much rather where the forme of a Sacrament , ordained and instituted by himselfe , is observed , then where it is ( as of you ) so notoriously perverted , and contemned . Yet because you may think we rest upon either our owne , or yet of other your Doctors Iudgement in this Defence , we shall produce to this purpose , the consona●● Doctrine of ancient Fathers .

Our third proofe is taken from the manifold Reasons of ancient Fathers , for Confirmation of the Necessity of the Communicating in Both kinds . SECT. IX .

FOr the proofe of the necessary use of Both kindes , in the solemne and publike dispensation of this Sacrament , the particular Testimonies of many ancient Fathers might be produced , but your owne Authors will ease us of that labour , by relating and g g Satis compertum est , universalem Christi Ecclesiam in hunc usque diem , Occidētalem 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 quādam 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 . — Si 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 intend to prove , viz. That the ancient Fathers were induced to the Continuance of the Custome in Both kindes , 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 soule . Fiftly , To expresse by these Symbols the perfect spirituall Nourishments wee 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 earnestnesse enforce , with joynt consent , as a necessary [ Ius ] and Right belonging to both . ) Seventhly , that the Cup of the Eucharist doth animate soules to receive the Cup of bloody Martyrdome , when the time should be . ⚜ Eightly , by the Precept of Christ ; 10 10 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Qu. 801. Disp. 216. cap. 6. Iustinus 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 . ] Iustine one of the most ancient Guides in Christs Church saying plainely , that Christ commanded Both kindes to be received

And the Commandement , which Iustine meant , your Iesuite attributeth to Christs saying , [ DO THIS ] And Cyprian as directly as succinctly 11 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 Gospell commandeth the drinking of it ; yea and Saint Augustine was so peremptory for the Common use of the Cup , that hee called Christian mens 12 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 bee their [ Vivere ] and that lawfully the one cannot bee communicated without the other . ⚜ Whereunto may bee added the Constant profession of the h h Graeci dicunt esse necessariò sub utraque specie panis scilicet , & vini communicandum , adeo quidem , ut qui sub una specie tantùm communicat , etiamsi laicus sit , peccate dicatur , quod ( ut aiunt ) contra Christi Praeceptum agat , qui sub utraque specie communicare praecepit . Prateol . Elench. Haeret. lib. 7. tit . Graeci . [ ⚜ For proofe that the Cause of Priest and people , in the receiving of this S●crament , is equall , we have these , Sayings 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. ] Greeke Church , in obeying the Canon of Christ , and holding it necessarily to be observed of the people also , by receiving in Both kindes ; and that otherwise wee transgresse against the Institution of Christ .

All these Testimonies of Primitive Fathers , under the Confession of your owne Doctors ( besides our other Collections ) are so many Arguments of the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity , for proofe of an Obligation of Precept upon the Churches of Christ whatsoever , for the preservation of the perfect forme of Christs Ordinance , in the administring of the Sacrament in Both kindes . Vpon 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 bee produced either expressely , or else by necessary Consequence , affirming the necessitie of the Laicks receiving under Both kindes : Your selves perceiving now not onely One , but many ancient Doctors to have expressed not only One , but Many Necessities 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 , speake not of a Sacramentall , but onely of a spirituall Receiving with the mouth of their hearts . When shall we find conscionable dealing at this man's hands ?

Having thus finished our Assumption , wee shall more expeditely satisfie 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 publique use of but One kind . SECT. X.

WEe heare the * * Concil. Trid. Sess . 21. Cap. 2. Gravibus et justis de Causis . Councel of Trent pretending ( as they say ) Iust reasons of altering the primitive Custome and use of both kindes , but naming none , which we may well thinke was because they deserved not the mention : surely , such they were , that your Iesuite had rather that you should beleeve them , then try and examine them ; It being your part ( as i i Porrò causas , quae Ecclesiam moverunt , ut consuetudinē 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. hee saith ) Rather to thinke them just , then to discusse them . But wee are not bound to your Rules of blinde Obedience . God will have us to use the sight , which hee hath given us , lest If the blinde leade the blinde , both fall into the Ditch . And whether the Reasons , which are given by your Doctors , be not blinde Seducements , wee are now to try . Some of your Reasons are taken from extraordinary Cases , some Instances are common to all other Churches 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 alleaged ; k 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 Northerne Countries are destitute of Wine , and therfore one kind is to be used for Concord , and Vniformity-sake . Will you be answered from your selves ? Aquinas , making the same Objection of want of Wine , and Wheare in forreine Countries , l 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 , Wheate and Wine may be transported easily to all parts . Accordingly doth he resolve of the want of Balsame , used in your Consecration , and yet it is farre more scarce than Wine or Wheate . Yet what Northerne 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 talke you of Vniformity and Concord , in this Case of Alteration , ( which are your two next Pretences ) wherein notwithstanding the Church of Rome is dissenting from the Greeke , 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 kindes to the Church of Bohemia , but twice raised a fierce warre against them ? for which your Iesuite m m Bis Princepes Germaniae ad Bohemos ( quòd Communionem sub utraque specie communicarent ) debellandos arma sump●●cre , hortatore Cardinale Iuliano 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 ; marrie it was , because that warre had not his wished successe . Is their Concord in Hostility ? Againe , because you ( thirdly ) pretend Vniformity also , why then do your consecrating Priests onely receive both kindes 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 , Monkes , and noble Personages , to receive in both kindes , and deny this liberty to Others ? Is there likewise Vniformity in Disparity ?

Your fourth Pretence is , because divers are n n Multi sunt abstemi● , qui vinum non ferunt . Bellar. lib. 4. de Eucharist . cap. 28. Abstemious , and have an Antipathy against Wine , and some sickly persons also can hardly receive without Irreverent casting it up againe . If the particular reason , which o 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 satisfie , yet this being also a Cause accidentall , and extraordinary , you ought to be regulated by this generall Rule , That extraordinary Cases ought not to justle out ordinary Lawes and Customes . For , that Command of Christ to his Apostles , Go preach to every Creature , stood good in the generall , albeit many men happened to be deafe . Saint Peter requireth of every Christian of sit yeares , 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 dumbe . Finally , to close up with you , he that by the rule of Hospitality is to cheere up his guests , doth not prescribe that , because some mens stomackes are queasie , and not able to endure Wine , or else some meates , therefore all others should be kept fasting from all meates and Drinkes : 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 beene common to other Churches .

The other Causes above-mentioned were common to the primitive Church of Christ , wherein the use of Both kindes was ( notwithstanding ) preserved and continued ; except that you will say , no Northerne Nations were Christians in those times : and that no stomackes of Christians were dis-affected to wine , in loathing it , &c. But two other Pretences you have , which you thinke to be of more speciall-force , to forbid the use of this Sacrament in Both kindes ; One is Because ( saith your m m Primò movet Ecclesiam consuetudo recepta , & approbata consensu Gentium & Populorum . Bellar. quo sup . Cardinall ) such is the now-received and approved Custome of Nations and People . So he . But first to argue , that your Church did therefore forbid the use of both kindes , because she had approved the contrary Custome , is a meere Nugacitie and Tautologie ; and as much as to say , Shee would forbid it , because shee would forbid it . Secondly , saying , that the Vse of but One kinde had indefinitely the Consent of Nations and People , is a flat falsity , because ( as hath beene confessed ) The Greeke Church ( not to mention AEthiopians , AEgyptians , Armenians , and Others ) have alwayes held the Contrary Custome . Lastly , to justifie your Churches Innovation , in consenting to the humour of People of latter times , what can you censure it lesse than a grosse and absurd Indulgence ?

The other Motive , which the n 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. Cardinall 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 faithfull Communicants : and also lest any particle of the Hoast fall to the ground , saith Master * * Liturg. tract . 4. §. 6. Brerely .

We have but foure 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 Casuall spilling of the Cup , saith your o 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 sinne , 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 adde , 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 Cardinall Alan p p Cernuntur hodiè ex antiquitate relictae quaedam fistulae argenteae & aureae velut canales , calicibus vetustioribus adjunctae , ut per eas sine effusione hauriri posset sanguis è calice , quarum in Ordinario Rom. sit mentio . Et adhuc in Missa solenni Pontificis adhibentur , ubi ministri Cardinales , aut illustriores personae communicant sub utraque specie , posteriorem speciem fistulà hauriētes : 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 , Monkes , and some other Illustrious lay-Personages . Surely , there being no respect of persons with God ( as said Saint Peter ) we thinke that he , who will be Saint Peter's Successor should have taken out with Saint Peter that lesson of Christ , of loving the whole flocke of Christ , aswell Lambes as Sheepe ; not to provide Pipes or Tunnels for himselfe 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 wee all know , that q 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 poore as the Rich , according to the Apostles Doctrine , by your owne 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 learne from ancient Histories , which evidently declare that the opinion of Reverence hath often beene the Damme and Nourse of manifold Superstitions .

As for example , The Heretikes called * * See §. 9. Discalceati , in pretence of more humility , thought that they ought to goe bare-foote . The * * See above Sect. 8. (g) Encratitae , in pretence of more sanctity , abhorred marriage . The r 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 evill Spirit . And yet were these judged by Pope Gelasius to be Sacrilegious . ⚜ Hence was it that your Iesuite demanded , 13 13 Nic. Causin . Ies in his booke called the Holy Court . pag. 539. How was it possible ( saith he ) that the Heresie of Eutyches , being nousled under a false zeale of Reverence towards the person of the Sonne of God , might not insnare the Empresse Pulcheria , a woman ? Yea , and what greater defence had the Pharisees , for all their Superstitions , than that of Reverence ? whom notwithstanding Christ did pierce thorow with so many Vae's , for annulling of the Precepts of God , by their Traditions , under the pretence of religious Reverence and sanctity .

In briefe . It was the opinion of Reverence that made Saint Peter to contradict our Lords Command , when he said , Thou shalt never wash my feete : yet how dangerous it had beene for Peter to have persisted in opposition , the Reply of our Saviour doth declare : If I wash not thy feete ( faith Christ ) thou hast no part with me , &c. Vpon which Text Saint s s Discamus Christum , prout vult , venerari , honorato namque jucundissimus est honor , non quem nos putamus ; nam & eum Petrus honorare putabat , cùm sibi pedes eum lavare prohibuit : sed non erat honor , quem agebac , sed contrarium Chrysost. Hom. 60. ad pop. Antioch . Tom. 1. Chrysostome readeth unto you this Lecture . Let us therefore learne ( saith he ) to honour and reverence Christ , as he would , and not as wee thinke meete . And sure we are , that he would that same which he commanded , saying , [ Do this . ] Therefore our next Difference , betweene 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 t Si sic tanta esset degnitas Laicorum , circà sumptionem corporis Christi , quanta Clericorum ? Gerson . Tract . de utraque specie . Greater dignity of Priests than of Laicks ; it is too phantasticall for the singularity ; too harsh for the noveltie ; and too gracelesse for the impietie thereof : seeing that Christ , who gave his Body and Blood an equall price of Redemption for all sorts , would have the Sacrament of his Body and Blood equally administred to People , as to Priests ; as you have heard the Fathers themselves professe .

The Third kinde of Romish Pretences , which are more peculiar to their owne Church , in two points .

First , because a 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 . Heretikes ( saith Bellarmine , and meaning Protestants ) do not believe Concomitancie , that is to say , that the blood of Christ is received under the forme of bread : but for this Concomitancie the Church was moved to prescribe the use of the Eucharist in one kinde . So he . And this point of Concomitancse is that which b b In his booke dedicated to K. Iames. Master Fisher , and c c In his Liturg. of the Masse pag. 396. Master Brerely most laboured for , or rather laboured upon . And albeit your Romane d d Maximè omnium ad convellendam eorum haeresin , qui negabant sub utraque specie corpus Christi contineri . Catech. Rom. par. 2. c. 4. nu. 50. Catechisme judgeth this the principall Cause of inducing your Church to preferre one kinde : yet wee ( whom you call Heretikes ) believe that the devout Communicant , receiving Christ spiritually by faith , is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucified , in the inward act of the Soule : and only deny , that the Whole is received Sacramentally , in this outward act , under one onely part of this Sacrament , which is the present Question .

And in this wee say no more than your Bishop Iansenius judged reasonable , who hath rightly argued , saying , e 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 . Iansen . Concord in Evang. pag. 457. It doth not easily appeare how the outward receiving of Christ , under the forme of Bread , should he called Drinking , but onely Eating , being received after the manner of meates , as that is called Drinking onely , which is received after the manner of drinke . Drinking therfore and Eating are distinguished by Christ , in the outward Act. So he , even as your owne * * Durand Rationale . lib. 4. c. 54. Vna 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 Booke 2. Cap. 2. § 4. Brerely will beare a part .

Therefore your Concomitancie ( if wee respect the Sacramentall manner of Receiving ) is but a Chimaera , and as great a Solecisme as to say , that the Body and Bones of Christ are drunke , and his Blood eaten : contrary to the Sacramentall representation , in receiving Bread and Wine , as hath beene proved .

Next , when wee aske you , why onely your Church will not reforme and regulate her Custome , 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 seeme to have erred in her alteration if the ancient Custome . And this your f 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 . Cardinall Bellarmine and the Iesuite g 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 publike Communion in Both kindes . Which Reason your owne Orator Gaspar Cardillo proclaimed as ( in a manner ) the sole cause of continuing your degenerated use , h 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 hee ) may seeme to have erred . What can more savour of an Hereticall and Antichristian spirit , than this pretence doth ? For an Heretike will not seeme to have erred , and Antichrist will professe himselfe one that cannot erre : which Character of not personall erring was never assumed of any particular Church , excepting only the latter Church of Rome .

Our Assumption . But the Church of Rome ( which will seeme that shee cannot possibly erre , in her not administring the Cup unto Laickes ) is knowne to have erred 600. yeares together in the abuse of the same Sacrament , by administring it ( in an opinion of Necessity ) unto Infants , as hath beene plentifully * * See above Chap. 2. Sect. 11. witnessed by eminent Doctors in your owne Church . Hence therfore ariseth another difference ; betweene the profession of our Custome and yours , which is , betweene Christ and Antichrist . All this while you do not perceive that your opinion of Concomitancie will ruinate the foundation of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation . But hereof * * In the third Book . hereafter .

The seventh Comparison is betweene the maner of Institution , and manner of Alteration thereof . SECT. XI .

THe beginning of the Institution in Both kindes is knowne and acknowledged to have beene 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 Custome of only One kinde , How ( wee beseech you ) came it into your Church ? tell us . i 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 Iesuite Costerus , and Fryer Castro . This confessed unknowne manner of Alteration of this your Custome , as it doth utterly refute your common Objection , viz. That every Doctrine and Custome must beejudged ancient and Catholike , the beginning whereof is not knowne ; 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 kinde , to proove it to have beene from the beginning , because No first knowne beginning of our Catholike practice ( * * Liturg Tract . 4. §. 9. at the ead thereof . saith he ) can bee instanced . And yet behold here no certaine beginning of this Romish Custome ; yet notwithstanding confessed to be an Alteration , different from the Custome , which formerly for a thousand yeares was held a Catholike Custome .

Was not the Church of Rome then a wise and a worthy Mistris of Churches , trow you ; to suffer her selfe to be guided by the humour of People in a matter of this nature ? what other difference can this make betweene our Custome and yours , but that which is betweene divine Ordinance and popular negligence ? or as betweene a publike Professor , and a Theevish Creeper ? Heresie 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 joynt to joynt , untill it have eaten up the vitall parts ; such a Cancer was this your Custome , if you shall stand to your owne former Confessions .

Our last Comparison is betweene the Contrary Dispositions of Professors , one in continuing , and distinguishing ; a second in mixing ; the third in rejecting Both kindes . SECT. XII .

THe comparison , betweene the divers Dispositions of Professors , none will be more willing to shew than your Iesuite l 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 Cardinall Cusanus , to observe three States of the Church . The first is in her Fervencie ; The second in her Warmnes ; The third in her Coldnes . In the first state of her Fervencie , when the Christians affected Martyrdome for the Gospell of Christ , then did the People ( saith he ) communicate in both kindes . In the second state , which was in her Warmnes ( though not so hot boyling as before ) They then used to dip the Hoast into the Chalice , and so were made joyntly partakers of Both , in one . But in the third state of Coldnes , the people were allowed the Sacrament only under one kinde . So he .

CHALLENGE ,

IF now Truth may be judged by the different Dispositions of Professors , then may this former Confession witnes for us , that there is as much difference betweene the Primitive and the now Romish Custome , as there is betweene lively Fervencie , and senselesse Numnes and Coldnes , that is to say , Godly zeale , and Godlesse 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 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 , &c. Gasp . Card Villalp . apud Act. Concil. Trident. pag. 222. §. Accedit . above-said Gasper Cardillo in the Councell of Trent , with exultation told their Father-hoods ( as being a matter of great joy ) that they who are under the Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome , in Germany , dare not so much as desire the Cup of life . So hee .

A GENERALL CHALLENGE , Concerning this last Transgression of Christ his Massè . SECT. XIII .

IN this wee are to make an open discovery of the odious Vncharitablenesse , the intolerable Arrogancie , the vile Perjury , the extreame Madnesse , and Folly , together with a note of plaine Blasphemie of your Romish Disputers , in Defence of this one Romane Custome of forbidding the Cup to faithfull Communicants . For what Vn●●aritablenesse can be more odious , than when they cannot but confesse , that there is more spirituall grace in the receiving of the Communion in Both kindes , do notwithstanding boast , even in the open Councel of Trent , of some of their Professors , who , in obedience to the Church of Rome , do not onely ( * * See the last testimonie above . their owne words ) not desire the Cup of life , but also dare not so much as desire it . Which Vaunt , wee thinke , besides the Impietie thereof , inferreth a note of prophane Tyranny .

Secondly , when wee compare these Fathers of Trent , with the Fathers of most primitive Antiquity , they answer , n 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 our's in Zeale , Wisdome , and Charity , neverthelesse , it falleth out sometimes , that the wiser may in some things be lessè wise than another . Which answer , if wee 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 Iesuites made to the Practice of the Apostles , saying that your Church , having the same spirit , hath the same power to alter the Custome : whereas we have proved , that the ground which the Apostles lay , for their Custome , was the Institution of Christ . But that which the Romane Church allegeth , is meerely a Pretence of Plenitude of her owne Authority ; It is impossible therefore that in so great a Contradiction there should be the same Spirit . And can there be a more intollerable Arrogancie than is this , which this Romane spirit bewrayeth in both these ?

Thirdly , upon the Consideration of this their Contempt of Apostolicall and primitive Antiquity , in this Cause , wee finde that your Romish Priests are to be condemned of manifest perjurie also ; for in the Forme of Oath , for the profession of the Romish Faith , every Priest and Ecclesiasticke is sworn o o Forma Iuramenti , per Bullam Pij quarti . Apostolicas & Ecclesiasticas Traditiones admitto , — Ego spondeo , & juro , &c. To admit of all Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall Traditions ; as also to hold what the p p Caetera omnia à Concilio Tridentino declarata & confirmata firmissimè teneo . Ibid. Romanam Ecclesiam Magistram esse Ecclesiarum credo , &c. Councel of Trent hath decreed . But this Custome of administration of Both kindes , as hath been acknowledged , was an Apostolicall Custome , and from them also remained in an Ecclesiasticall profession and practice thorow-out a thousand yeares space ; which your Church of Rome , notwithstanding , in her Councel of Trent , ( whereunto likewise you are sworne ) hath altered and perverted : which doth evidently involve your Priests , and Iesuites in a notorious and unavoydable Perjurie .

Fourthly , As for the note of Foolishnesse , what more mad folly can there be seene in any , than to take upon them a serious Defence of a Custome , 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 owne Doctors , or by the common Principles and Tenents of your Church , or else by the Absurdities of your Consequences issuing from your Reasons and Answers ; divers of them being no lesse grosse , than was your objecting the Antiquity and Generality of the particular Romane Church , for lesse than three hundred yeeres , and to preferre it before the confessed Vniversall primitive Custome of above the Compasse of a Thousand yeares 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 professe that Sacrilegious dismembring of the holy Sacrament , which Gelasius the Pope himselfe had anciently condemned ? or if this be not Blasphemous enough , then , supposing that Christ indeed had commanded Consecration in Both kindes , upon divine right , yet notwithstanding to hold it very probable ( as saith your Iesuit q 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 Iesuit . Tom. 1. Iustit . 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 hee ) would give my Councel that it never may be . O Iesuite ! thus to deale with Christ his Command . If hee or any other Iesuite had made as bold with the Pope * * ⚜ Extravag . de verbo signific . Tit. 14. Cap. 4. G●ossa . Dominum Deum nostrum Papam . insituled in your publike Glosse , OVR LORD GOD THE POPE ) as this doth with Christ himselfe , saying unto him ; Any of your decrees ( holy Father ) may be dispenced with by any Iesuite of our Societie : yet because no Iesuite hath taken upon him hitherto so much , my councell is that none of your Deerees be ever dispensed withall . The Pope , wee suppose , albeit he would thanke this man for his councell , for not Doing so ; yet doubtlesse , would he reward him with a welcome into the office of his holy Inquisition , for his judgement , to thinke it lawfull so to do : namely , to leave it to the discretion of every Iesuite , to dispense with his Papall Decrees . And notwithstanding the Iesuites [ Suppose ] wee may depose , that your Romish licence , for but One kinde , is a dispencing , or rather a despising of the Ordinance of Christ .

⚜ And this the Iesuites themselves do thinke , * * See above in this Chapter , Sect. 3. in the Chal. 1. which may appeare in that Conclusion , which your Iesuite Vasquez gave concerning Christ Consecrating the Eucharist but in one kinde before his Disciples at Emmaus . Where he resolved , that This was an act of Christs Supreme authority , not imitable by the Church . And that the necessary Obligation of Consecrating in Both kindes is not dispensable by the Pope . So hee . Wherfore the Act of Christ being equally an Administration in only one kinde , and Both these equally done by the same Supreme Excellencie , and authority of Christ ; the determination and Resolution must necessarily be this . That the Administration and Consecration in only One kinde are equally Indispensable .

We are already wearied with citing of the manifold , vilde , odious , and irreligious Positions of your Disputers and Proctors , for this your Cause ; yet one Pretence more may not be pretermitted , least we might seeme to contemne the wit and zeale of your Iesuite Salmeron , against the use of this Sacrament in Both kindes . The use of Both kinds ( saith r 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 bee allowed to Catholikes , because they must bee distinguished from Heretikes : nor to Heretikes , because holy things are not to bee given unto Dogges . Now blessed be God! that we are esteemed as Heretikes and Dogges , 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 himselfe .

An Appeale 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 equall , and in integrity of life Superiour unto the latter Popes of Rome and Church therof ; 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 a P. Calixtus . See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9. Pope Calixtus ( Anno Christi , 218. ) requiring all persons present at the Masse to Communicate . For which reason it was ( wee thinke ) that Pope b b P. Greg. Ibid. at ( ● ) Gregory ( Anno 60● . ) commanded every one present at the Masse , and not purposing to Communicate , to Depart . There is an History related by AEneas Sylvius ( after , Pope Pius the Second ) which sheweth the reason why another c c See above Chap 2. Sect 7. Chall. 6. ( 21 ) Pope of Rome , with his Consistory , yeelded a liberty to the Sclavonians , to have Divine Service in their Nationall Language , and reporteth that it was thorow the sound of that voice ( which is written in the Psalmes ) Let every tongue praise the Lord . d d P. Iulius . See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Pope Iulius ( 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 Customes are not agreeable to Evangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine : and our Church of Rome doth the same . Where he addeth , concerning the manner of Communicating , e e Ibid. Wee reade ( saith hee ) 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 f See above Chap. 3. Sect. 5. observing the same use of Christ , had the same Resolution ? Sure we are that Pope g g P. Gelasius . See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. r. ) Gelasius ( Anno 404 ) called the Abuse , in dismembring of this Sacrament , by receiving but in One kinde , A Grand Sacrilege .

Wee reade of a Councell held at Toledo in Spaine , under Pope Sergius , stiled h h Synod . Tolet. 16. Conc. Generale , sub Sergio Papa Baron . ad An. 693. This Councel , cap 6 saith . Quontam quidā 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 Generall Councel , could not conclude without the Popes consent , in your judgements . Generall ( Anno 69● . ) reproving those Priests who offered Bread in crusts and lumps . But with what reason were they reprehended ? Because ( saith the Councell ) that fashion is not found in the Sacred storie of the Evangelists . All those ancient Popes , who held the Example of Christ , in his Institution and Apostolicall Customes , 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 Popes being admitted for Iudges , whom all Christians acknowledged to have beene Apostolicall in their Resolutions , the now Romish Church and her degenerate Profession must needs be judged Apostaticall .

Now , 20 30 40 from the former Actuall , we proceed to the Doctrinall points .

THE SECOND BOOKE , Concerning the first Doctrinall Point , which is the Interpretation of the words of Christ's Institution ; [ THIS IS MY BODY : THIS IS MY BLOOD . ] LVKE 22.

The Doctrinall and Dogmaticall Points are to be distinguished into your Romish . 1. Interpreation of the words of Christ his Institution ; [ This is my Body , &c. ] 2. Consequences deduced from such your Expositions : such as are Transubstantiation , Corporall Presence , and the rest .

CHAP. I. Of the Exposition of the words of Christ , [ THIS IS MY BODY . ] The State of the Question in Generall .

BEcause ( as a 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 castrāt propter regnum coelorum &c. ] Aug. and to the same purpose also , lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ . Saint Augustine saith of points of faith ) It is as manifest an Heresie , in the interpretation of Scriptures , to take figurative speeches properly , as to take Proper speeches figuratively ( And such is the CAVEAT , which b b — Hoc cavendum , nisi in manifestum Haerescos scopulum impingere velimus Salm. Ies . Tom. ● Proleg. 12. pag. 227. Salmeron the Iesuite giveth you ) it will concerne both You and Vs ( as we will avoid the brand of Heresie ) to search exactly into the true sense of these words of Christ ; especially seeing wee are herein to deale with the Inscription of the Seale of our Lord IESVS , even the Sacrament of his Body and Blood . In the which Disquisition , besides the Authority of Ancient Fathers , wee shall insist much upon the Ingenuity of your owne Romish Authours .

And what Necessitie there is to enquire into the true sense of these words , will best appeare in the after-examination of the divers * * See hereafter Booke , 3. 4. 5. 6. Consequences of your owne Sense , to wit , your Doctrine of Transubstantiation , Corporall , and c c Gratian Sacramenta Christi suscipiendo , carnem ejus & sanguinem materialiter significamus . De consecrat. dist 〈◊〉 Quà morte . Materiall Presence , Propitiatory Sacrifice , and proper Adoration : All which are Dependants upon your Romish Exposition of the former wordes of Christ . The Issue then will be this , that if the words be certainly true , in a Proper and literall sense , then wee are to yeeld to you the whole Cause : But if it be necessarily Figurative , then the ground of all these your Doctrines being but sandy , the whole Structure and Fabricke , which you erect thereupon , must needs ruine and vanish . But yet know withall , that we do not so maintaine 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 Bookes following will declare .

That a Figurative sense of Christ his speech [ THIS IS MY BODY , &c. ] is evinced out of the words themselves ; from the Principles of the Romish Schooles . SECT. I.

THere are three words , which may be unto us as three keyes to unlocke the questioned Sense of Christs words ; wherof two are the Pronoune [ THIS ] and the Verbe [ IS ] not onely as they were then spoken by Christ himselfe , but also as they are now pronounced by the Minister of Christ . And the third key is the Pronoune [ MY ] whereof hereafter . Wee begin with the word [ THIS . ]

The State of the Question , about the word [ THIS . ]

When wee shall fully understand by your Church ( which a 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 literall Signification ) what the Pronoune [ THIS ] doth demonstrate , then shall wee truly inferre an infallible proofe of our figurative sense .

All Opinions concerning the Thing , which the word [ THIS ] in the divers opinions of Authours , 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 confesse : ) namely , to signifie 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 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 . Iesuite ) thinke that the Pronoune [ THIS ] pointeth out Bread . But your Romane Doctors are at oddes among themselves , and divided into two principall Opinions . Some of them referre the word [ THIS ] to Christ's Body , Some to a Third thing , which you call Individuum vagum . In the first place wee are to confute both these your Expositions ; and after to confirme our owne .

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 speciall note , as well Iesuites 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. ) &c. Practicall , ( say they ) that is , working that which they signifie ( namely ) The Body of Christ . And this sense they call Most cleare : and , in their Iudgements , there can be no better than this . So your c 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 d Hoc ] nihil aliud quàm corpus Christi demonstrat . Sand. de visib . Monarch . Ad annum 1549 p. 629. Sanders , together with e 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 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 onely that Opus erat Salmeroni medico ] Salemeron , g g Chavaus . Ies Comment. in formam juramenti fidei , inscriptio libri est , Professio verae fidei , §. 49. pag. 468. Chavausius ; these last three being Iesuites ; to whom you may adde h h In his booke of the Liturgie of the Masse , pag. 138. Tract . 2. Sect. 3. Master Brerely his Answere , saying that these words Most evidently relate to Christs Body . As evidently ( saith also your Iesuite i i Nallou● his late Reply against Doctor V●her , pag 204. Malloun ) as one pointing at his Booke , should say , This is my Book .

CHALLENGE .

ARe not these Opinators in number many ; in name , for the most part , of great esteeme ; their Assertion , in their owne opinion , full of assurance ; and delivered to their Hearers , as the onely Catholike Resolution ? And yet behold One , whose name alone hath obtained an Authority equivalent to almost all theirs , your Cardinall k 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 , Ioh. 25. Hoc est praeceptum meum — Haec explicatio non videtur satisfacere , propter duas causas . Primò , quià etsi Pronomen demōstrativum 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 demōstrari 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 tearmes call it ABSVRD . But not without good and solid reason , and that according to the Principles of Romish Schooles ; 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 bee sayd , This is my Body . ⚜ With your Cardinall two other Iesuites take part , ingenuously confessing , that 1 1 Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp. 181. cap 12. [ Hoc ] non potest demonstrare nisi id quod est praesens . And Iacob . 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 Christs words , doth necessarily demonstrate a thing present .

A Reason pregnant enough in it selfe , & ratified by your publike Romane l 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 . Catechisme , authorized by the then Pope , & Councel of Trent : yet notwithstanding your fore-named Irish Iesuite , hearing this Argument objected by Protestants , rayleth downright , calling it Accursed , as judged by the Church Hereticall , and indeed Abominable . So he , who with Others , if they were of fit yeares , might be thought to deserve the rod , for forgetting their Generall Catechisme , & for defending an Exposition , which even in common sense may be pronounced , in your Cardinalls owne 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 2 Innocent . 3. Papa lib. 3. de 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 therfore must your former . Interpretation needs be , ⚜ else shew 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 owne fellowes .

The Similitudes which are urged , to illustrate your former Practicall and operative sense , are of these kinds ; to wit , Even as if one ( say m 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 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 opinione , ] & Iansenius Concord . cap. 130 — ut faber clavum , &c. Others ) in making of a Nayle , should say , This is a Nayle ; So by Christ his saying [ This is my Body ] it was made presently the Body of Christ , at the very pronuntiation of the last word of this Sentence , [ This is my Body . ] But most conceitedly your Iesuite Malloune , and that not without scurrility ; o o Master Malloune in his late Reply , pag. 105. This is a K●tle for my wife , &c. ⚜ Egid. Conineks Ies. de Sacram. qu. 75. Art. 1. n. 36 Pronomen [ Hoc ] demonstrat●d 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 Taylor making a Kirtle , and saying ( wee shall change onely his last word ) This is a Kirtle for my Mistris CONCVBINA . So they .

CHALLENGE .

THese kind of Subtilties are frequent in the mouthes of most Romish Priests , as often as they are compelled to shew what is demonstrated by the Pronou●e , This. But that these your Similitudes of making Circles , Lines , and Nayles , are no better than Iugling , and Gypsie-trickes of fast or loose , and fond devises forged in the braines of idle Sophisters , and uttered by your Circulary Priests , your owne Authours are ready to manifest : for in these Examples of the Painters touching a Line , or a Circle ( as your a a Bellar. See before at the letter ( k ) Bellarmine sheweth ) making and saying , This is a Circle ; Is no true Proposition , untill 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 Iesuite b 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 . Iesuit . 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 , &c. 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 signifie not the Being of a thing ; but the Making therof , 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 therof 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 notifie This to be Christ's Body , before ( according to his owne judgement ) the Body of Christ can have there any being at all .

By this is discovered the notable Vertigo and dizzinesse of your Iesuite Maldonate ; Hee , to prove that the Pronoune , This , doth relate to Christ's Body , standeth upon the like Operative speculation ; God ( saith c 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 , &c. Maldon . Iesuit . 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 , ( shewing the water ) This is Wine . So he . When , notwithstanding , he is inforced in every one to alter the Verbe , Is , thus ; Slime is changed into man : Rib is converted into Woman : Water is made Wine , as he himselfe 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 therfore your Iesuite Gordon 3 3 Gordonus Scotus Ies. Controvers. 4. cap 3. num. 15. [ Hoc ] demonstrat corpus futurum . And your Angles saith directly The Pronoune [ THIS ] demonstrateth the Body , which is about to be . As much as to say , This [ Is ] shal be . Another of your owne Divines will tell you that 4 4 Si [ Hoc ] demonstrat corpus sub ratione corporis , Propositio speculativa esset , non Practica . Ies. Angles 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 practicall ( that is ) to effectuate that which it signifieth ; and this will marre 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 owne example ) having an Hearb in his hand shall say , This hearb groweth in my garden : in which speech the word , Hearb , which is demonstrated by the Pronoune , This , is not taken determinately , for that singular Hearb 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 hearb . And this opinion is defended by a,b 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 , sivè 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 Praesent . 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 Iesuites , and Doctors of your Church , ( * Sixteene in number ) as the onely sufficient and conclusive Resolution of this point , touching the proper Exposition of the words of Christ , concerning the Pronoune , THIS .

CHALLENGE .

WHich Subtilty is notwithstanding discussed , disclosed , and exploded by your learned c 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 , ô 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 farre that Archbishop . Archbishop of Caesarea , and your Iesuite d 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 substantivè 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 Iesuite 5 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 substantivè sumi ( ibid. c. 3. ) licèt non in sine solù● prolationis demonstrat id de quo praedicatur . Vasquez will take part ; and your Cardinall 6 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 alwayes in proper sense , as determinatly taken . 2. Christ spoke of that which was in his hand , but that was no vagrant , but a singular determinate Substance . And it is grosse , to say a man holdeth a confused substance in his hand . Which seemed to your e e Mr. Harding in his answer to the 24. Article , saying , Learne you what they meane , and if their meaning bee naugh , handle you them as you list ; you shall not offend us any whit . Master Harding so uncouth and fond an opinion , that hee utterly refuseth to defend the Authours 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 returne to their wits againe , 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 , bee termes as Contradictory , as to call the same thing , singular-common , or determinate-confused . As for example , Quidam home , A certaine man , is in Logike Individuum vagum ; as when Christ sayd , A certaine man went from Hierusalem to Hieriche , &c. None of the Disciples hearing this , could thereupon point him out , saying ; This man : or know thereby who , or what he was .

Wee , for further manifestation of your Absurdity in this point , will instance in your owne Example , for your Individuum vagum , of the Herbe , which a man holdeth in his hand , saying , This hearbe groweth in my Garden , how can you say it is true in the proper sense ? for if you take it determinately , the same Hearb 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 speake of it in a confused Notion , no Abstract Notion can be held in a man's hand , it being the function of the braine , and not of the hand , to apprehend mentall Notions , or Generalls ; and so it is not Individuum at all .

But the Text saith of Christ his hand , [ He tooke bread , &c. ] THIS , which Christ , in so saying , pointed out with his finger , saith your a 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 adoe to point out an Individuum vagum ( such as is an invisible , or a confused Notion ) with a visible finger . Wee would now conclude in the words of a Parisian Doctor , b b Petrus Picherellus de Missâ . cap 3. Individui vagi commentum Authori Scoto 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 relinquo ; but that something els is to bee added .

Another may be your Cardinall his owne Assertion , which he once made as a snare to catch himselfe in ; for in your c 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 Masse , the Priest having the Hoast in his hand , prayeth thus ; Receive , holy father , this immaculate Hoast . If you shall aske him what , in this prayer , the Pronoune : This doth demonstrate , hee 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 bee 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 ( wee thinke ) shall ever be able to shew .

Lastly , wee challenge you to shew , within the space of a Thousand three hundreth yeeres 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 ; orels to confesse that this your doctrine is new , extravagant , and Adulterate . Nor yet can the Defenders therof say that this is all one , as to say , This , that is , that which is contained under the forme of Bread , because this is like as when one shewing his purse , shall say , This is money , meaning that which is in his purse ; which is a knowne figure Metonymia .

Yet were it granted that [ Hoc ] betokened an Individuum vagum , as ( to use your owne Similitude ) when one saith of an herb in his hand , This herb groweth in my garden ; so Christ should have sayd 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 bee of that bread of wheate then in his hand , as Christ himselfe hath taught us , and as we are to prove unto you . For speaking of his Body , he calleth it 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 the grane of wheat , Iohn 12. 24. not This grane ; yet Christ's flesh is equally called improperly The grane , as This grane of wheate : whereof the ancient Father Theodoret will reade you all a Lesson , in the sixt Section following . And now this so open and extreme civill warre among your selves , in confuting your owne Expositions , will further and confirme 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 Tropicall and unproper sense , in the Pronoune [ THIS . ]

WEe reason first Hypothetically ; If the Pronoune This demonstrate Bread , then the words of Christ are necessarily to bee 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 proofe 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 naturall Reason , imprinted by God in man's heart , is a Maxime , and hath in it an universall Verity , which neither man nor Divell can gain-say , and is Confessed by your selves , viz. Disparatum de disparato non propriè praedicatur ; That is , nothing can be properly and literally affirmed joyntly of another thing , which is of a different nature , viz. It is impossible to say properly that an Egge is a Stone or ( to take your owne d 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 ) wee 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 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 . defens . fid. de Real . Praes. cap 58. God , who is perfect Truth , will never make those Propositions to bee true at the same time , viz , that the Wife of Lot is Salt , or Water is Wine , or an Asse a man . So your Archbishop . Yea , to come nearer to the point : f 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 . Wee 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 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 Christs Body ( saith your h 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 vaine , because that is spoken by reason of the Hypostaticall Vnion , whereby ●●ccidit Deo ut sit homo , per hypostaticam unionem , non per mutationem , which Vnity maketh God and man in Christ reciprocall . And wee also meane . Disparata absoluta , not Relata , for thus the same man is father and sonne . ] Sanders ) cannot be properly affirmed one of another . ⚜ Also your Iesuite 7 7 Estius Ies. Com 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 affirme Bread to be Christs bodie , is a Proposition false , and absurd . As false ( saith your Iesuite 8 8 Iacob . Gordonus Scotus Ies. Controv. 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 Iudam , aut Deum Diabolum . Gordon ) as to say Christ is Iudas , or God is the Devill .

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 Maxime , which your Iesuite Salmeron expresseth thus . i 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 Verbe [ EST , IS , ] joyneth things of divers natures together , we are necessarily to have recourse to a Trope and Figure . Will you be content that your Glosse , as the tongue of your Church , may have the last word ? Then hearken to it : k 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 Christs body , then something is Christs body , which is not borne of the Virgin Mary ; and then also the same body must be sayd to be living , and not living , both at once . So your Glosse , confessing hereby an Impossibilitie of this Predication , Bread is Christs Body , in a proper and literall sense . Our Proposition then standeth firme and infallible ; our Assumption will be found as true .

That the Pronoune [ THIS ] doth as verily notifie Bread , in the words of Christ , as if hee had expressely said , This Bread is my Body ; proved first by Scripture . SECT. V.

THe Text of the Evangelist Luke 22. is light sufficient in it selfe ; [ Iesus tooke bread , blessed it , brake it , and gave it to them , saying , Take , Eate , THIS , ( namely ) which they Tooke , and they tooke THIS , which he Gave ; and he gave THIS , which hee Brake ; and he brake THIS , which hee blessed ; and blessed THIS , which hee himselfe Tooke ; and THIS , which he tooke , was Bread , [ Iesus tooke Bread . ] We appeale to your owne Consciences , who never hitherto could say , that in all these Sayings of Christ there was made any Change or alteration of THIS which hee tooke , till the last word pronounced by the Priest , which is [ Meum ; ] nor yet can you deny , but that hee tooke that , which was properly , and substantially Bread . At the writing of this Sorites , we light upon an Answer from one Master l l M. Malloune . in his late Reply . pag. 200. His Sorites ; That which the Governour of the feast in Cana of Galile 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 powred into the Pots ; but that which others powred into the Pots was water . Therefore that which the Governour of the feast tasted was water . So he . [ None is so witlesse but will easily , from the light of the Text , tell him , that the water was changed into wine , before the Governour of the feast tasted thereof : whereas , in the tenure of Christ his speech , you your selves could never point out any former change at all , before the last syllable , Me-um . ] Malloune , encountring it with another , but a false Sorites , invented by himselfe , to the discountenancing of this true one ; onely we intreat you , that at the reading therof , you will not laugh at his foolery . ( See the Margin . )

Your Grammaticall Objection is Childish .

Cardinall m m Si [ Hoc ] accipitur substantivè , 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 chiefe Master , and also your Schoole-fellow n n Although the word Bread had not beene expressed , yet being present in Christs hand , and pointed unto , Hoc could not bee taken substatively no more then one should say of his Father , Hoc est Pater meus M. Brerelye's Liturgy , pag. 137. Master Brerely , as if they would put Protestants to Schoole , tell them that [ Hoc ] taken for a Substantive neuter cannot agree with Panis , it being a Thing then seene and knowne , 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 Clerkes , when they take upon them to teach others their Grammer , should be so farre overtaken , as to need to bee 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 seene or not seene . In which respect there might bee a difference betweene , 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 lightnesse and heavinesse of Wool , and of Stone , one shewing the Wool in his hand should say , Hoc est leve ; the other pointing at the Stone , should say , Hoc est grave , would any thinke that Priscian would be offended ? for [ Hoc ] in Latine , neutrally taken , more than others would be for 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in o o 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Exod. 8. 19. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 1. pet. 2. 19. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Gen. 2 13 Greeke , 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 bee so inexpert in the rudiments of learning , yet will you not thinke that others , whom you call Catholikes , could bee so deceived ; who ( as your Iesuite witnesseth ) p 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 wordes 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. Iansenius , to know why he 9 9 Iansen . 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 beene more agreeable to have rendred 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 vexe you to tell you furthermore that 10 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 thinke of the Schollership of your owne 11 11 Egid. Conicks Ies . 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 Rashnesse ? then must we now put you unto it .

In your owne vulgar Latin Translation , it is said of Evah , the wife of Adam , q q Saluteron Ies. Tom 9 Tractat. 16. §. Nec tursus — Adam de Evâ 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 owne Mother Church , by which the same Translation is made Authentike ; and wound their owne 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 maine Controversies , concerning the Romane Masse . For , if the Pronoune [ This ] have Relation to Bread , there needs no further Dispute about the figurative sense of Christ's speech .

⚜ Notwithstanding , Wee have not yet done , but furthermore to put every one of you to his Grammer . Wee have heard of a Romish Priest , who , having many unconsecrated Hoasts before him , used this forme 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 beene 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 loafe alone ( as Christ had , which he blessed , saying , [ This is my Body , and after brake it into parts , distributing them to his Disciples : ) but many round hoasts , now to be consecrated ; Wee aske , by what congruity he can pronounce of such a multitude of these Hoasts ( which he meanes to consecrate ) This is my Body ? have you ( ô the onely Grammarians ! ) any Grammer for this .

We returne to the Schoole 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 hee gave unto them , and what he called his Body : and he telleth us plainly , saying ; * * 1. Cor. 10. 16. The Bread , which wee breake , is it not the Communion if the Body of Christ ? alluding to those words of the Evangelists , He brake it , and that was Bread . And that you may know that this was Catholike Doctrine , in the dayes of Antity , wee adjoyne 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 proofe hereof , behold a Torrent of Ancient r r I. Irenaeus ; Accipiens panem , Corpus suum esse confitebatur Lib. 4. cap. 57. II. Tertull. Christus panem corpus suum appellat . Lib. adversus Iudaeos , 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 , &c. Lib. 4. de Satrament . cap 5. VI. August . Iudas manducavit panem Domini , &c. Tract 59. in Iohan. 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 , &c. C●tech . 4. Idem . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Dial. 1. cap. 8. And againe else-where ; 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . 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 Hierusalem , Cyril of Alexandria , Theodoret , Gaudentius , Cyprian , Clemens of Alexandria , and Isidore ; Thirteene to the dozen , whose sayings wee may best know by their owne Idiome , and Tenure of speech . The first noting Christ to have confessed Bread to have beene 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 hee broke , was bread . The fift , that It was Bread which he brake . The sixt , that It was Bread of the Lord , and not Bread the Lord , received of Iudas . 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 doubtfulnesse from the eyes of your mindes , illustrateth the matter thus : So ( saith hee ) did Christ call his Body Bread , as else where he calleth his flesh a Grane of Wheate ; [ Except the Grane of Wheate 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 drinke . And the last ; The Bread strengthning man's Body was therefore called the Body of Christ . Yet need not this Father be reckoned for the Last , if wee affected to be supersluous . All these so Learned and Ancient Fathers ( sufficient Grammarians wee 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 hee were permitted to plead his owne Cause .

CHALLENGE .

WEe will try what a Syllogisme will do , that , after your Posall in Grammar , wee may encounter you with Logike .

The Major . No Bread can possibly be called a Body of flesh , without a figure . ( This Proposition hath had the Vniversall consent of all Schooles , by virtue of that Maxime of Maximes , * * See above §. 4. Disparatum de Disparato , &c. )

The Minor . But in these words , [ This is my Body , ] the Pronoune [ This ] doth demonstrate Bread . ( This hath beene the generall 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 Generall confession of your owne Schooles , and Vniversall consent of Ancient Fathers ; besides the now cleare light of the words of Christ .

That it was Bread , which Christ called his Body , is proved manifestly from your owne 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 referre to word [ This ] unto the Body of Christ , is ( as hath beene f f See above §. 2. confessed ) Absurd . And that the word [ This ] should signifie your Individuum vagum , is an Exposition full of Absurdities , as hath beene also t t See above §. 3. acknowledged . It remaineth therfore 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 Councell u 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 Councell , 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 adde , for a third Principle , the above ingenuous * * See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Confession of your Iesuites , granting that the Pronoune [ THIS ] in Christs words did designe That thing which was then present , whereof Christ sayd , [ This is my Body : ] when as ( which hath likewise beene confessed ) That thing was neither Christs Body , nor any third thing differing from Bread . And therefore ( say we ) could betoken nothing but Bread .

CHALLENGE .

A New Syllogisme would bee 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 proofe . )

Minor . But to call Bread Christs Body , properly , is a Sense Impossible . ( This hath beene your owne constant * * See above § 4 profession . )

Conclusion . Therefore cannot this Sense be given properly to the Body of Christ . How can you avoyd 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 Christs Body ; or of Bread undeterminate ( which you cal vagum ) as to say , This kind of Bread is the Body of Christ , it demonstratively sheweth that your Doctors can have no greater Adversaries , in this case , than their owne Consciences , which will appeare 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 expressely spoken of Bread ; by the Analogie it hath with the other Pronoune [ HOC , THIS ] spoken of the Cup. SECT. VIII .

AS all the motions of every wheele of a Watch have their activity from the spring ; so may . We say that all the Controversies , touching the Romish Masse , in the Doctrinall parts thereof , concerning Corporall Presence , Transubstantiation , Vnion , and divine Adoration , attributed to that which is in the hands of the Priest , depend , as on their of-spring , upon the proper and Literall 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 affirme , then by Vniversall consent , of even the Romish Doctors themselves , the speech of Christ must as necessarily bee a Figurative and Tropicall speech , as was that of Saint Paul , saying , The Rocke was Christ . The Romish therfore , to avoid this , have devised other Interpretations of Christs words , as you have heard . Some ( for they are divided among themselves ) will have the Pronoune [ Hoc , This ] to betoken Christs Body , as if Christ had sayd , This my Body is my Body . The other Opinators holding the former to bee absurd , say that by [ Hoc , This ] is meant not this definite Bread it selfe , but This ( Individuum vagum ) kinde of Bread is my Body ; which hath beene condemned by their other parties ( and truly ) as an Exposition full of Absurdities .

Wee 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 tooke the Cup , and gave it ( the Cup ) to them , saying , Drinke 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 , &c. But here in these words , [ These Cup is , &c. ] the Word , Cup , by Vniversall Consent is taken Tropically for the liquor in the Cup. Therefore did not Christ intend , in that which you call his Consecratorie Words , a Proper and Literall Sense ; when otherwise it had been as easie 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 kinde of Wine in the Cup is my Blood : ] albeit this also bee as Tropicall and Figurative , as to have said , [ This Wine is my Blood . ]

Which your Church of Rome perceiued right well , and therefore , for avoyding the Trope and Figure , hath shee devised a new forme , 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 Forme of Consecration ; as if in her high presumption shee had professed to correct the forme of Christ his Institution . A perfect Argument of a novell , naughtie , ruinous , and tottering Cause . If any Protestant had made so bold with Scripture , O what outcryes and vociferations should wee have heard ! and that this was done to facilitate your Answer , where you say , 12 12 Vasquez . in 3. Thom. Disp. 109. cap. 4. Ego existimo nullum esse Tropum in verbis essentialibus formae . The Words or forme of Consecration Are without Tropes , your Iesuite Vasquez collecteth . Wherein notwithstanding hee forsaketh his Master Aquinas , even now when hee doth Glosse and Comment upon him ; for sure it is 13 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 Christs 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 Verbe [ EST , IS . ]

FOr that [ Est ] in these words hath the same sense , as , Signifieth ; as if Christ had sayd expresly 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 Verbe [ EST ] being joyned with a thing that is a Signe , is alwayes figurative , and the very same with this word , SIGNIFIETH . SECT. I.

FOr although the Verbe ( Est ) be indeed so absolutely simple , in it's owne nature , that it cannot be resolved into any other word ( as all other Verbes may be in like Case ) yet doth it ( albeit accidentally ) necessarily inferre a figurative Sense , and is as much as Signifieth , or Representeth , whensoever it joyneth the Signe and the Thing signified together . As for Example , A man pointing at a signe hanging before an Inne , and saying , This is Saint George , the Verbe Is can inferre no other Sense than Signifieth . Why ? even because the thing , whereof it speaketh , is a Signe signifying Saint George . And Bread in this Sacrament is in all Catholike Divinity a Signe of Christs Body . Therefore the Verbe [ Is ] can have no other Sense than [ Signifieth . ]

The former Proposition confirmed by all like Speeches , whether Artificiall , Politike , or Mysticall . SECT. II.

YOur owne Iesuites , and common Experience it selfe will verifie this Truth . First , In things Artificiall , as a a Metonymia , tropus est in Scripturis 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 Politike , as when a b b Testamentum saepè sumitur pro Legato , seu Re testatâ . Bartrad . Ies Institut. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Legacie , 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 waxe sealed , This is my Seale ? When as his Will ( properly taken ) is in his heart , his hand is affixed to his Arme , And his seale may be in his pocket . Thirdly , In Mysticall 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 entred into a league , which was to be ractified by a Sacrifice of Lambs , upon which both sides were to take their Oathes , this their Act is thus expressed c 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 faithfull oathes . Where Lambs , the rituall signes of their faithfull Swearing , are called Oathes . 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 Sacramentall Speeches , in Scripture , are figuratively understood . SECT. III.

IN all such like Sacramentall Speeches , both in the old and new Testament , wherein the Signe is coupled with the Thing signified , the Speech is ever unproper and Figurative , and the Verbe [ Est ] hath no other force than , Signifieth . This Truth is confirmed abundantly by the Testimonies of your owne Iesuites , and others , who come fraught with Examples . First , concerning the old Testament , Noting that the Sacrifice of the d 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 poste . ] ●ansen . Ip●sc . Concord . in Matth. 26. [ It was therefore more than boldnesse in Bellarmine , l. ● de Euch. cap 11 §. Quaedam to say ; Agnus erat propr●è Transitus , Agnus being in the Predi●ament of Substance : and Transitus in the Predicament of Action . Paschall Lambe , being but a Signe , was called the Passeover , or passing-over . Secondly , that e 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 . Arias Mont. in 1. Cor. 10. & Piata . Ies. ia Is 51. The Rocke , being but a Signe of Christ , was called Christ . ⚜ Albeit your Doctor Heskins , long ago ventured to confute this Sense , saying , 1 1 In his Parliament of Christ . B. 2. Chap. 3. Christ was the spirituall Rocke , not the materiall : 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 Spirituall Rocke , then was the figuratively called The Rock , as well as he was figuratively called Vine , and Doore ; even because he was not a Vine , or Doore Materially , but Spiritually . ⚜ Thirdly , that f f Circumcisio soedus d●●tu , & signum toederis . Bellar ●●b. 1. de Ea●● 11 § Se. und● . Circumcision , being but a Signe of the Covenant , was called the Covenant . So likewise in the new Testament , both concerning g g Christus cum Nicodemo spiritualutè : intelligendus . Muddon . Ies. in cum locum . ●ob . 3. Baptisme , which in Christ his speech to Nicodemus ( being but a Signe of Regeneration ) is called Regeneration . And h h Sep●●● sumus Rom 6. 4. Id est , Christum sepultum represent 〈◊〉 Tolet . Ies 〈◊〉 e●m 〈◊〉 . Baptizing , which being a Signe of the Buriall of Christ ) in the speech of Saint Paul , is called Buriall : and concerning the Eucharist , the Communicants therof are called One Bread , Cor. 10 16.

Finally , that the most proper Interpretation of the Verbe [ Est , Is , ] in such like speeches , importeth no more , than [ Significat , ] your Iesuite i 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 — Inde 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 testifie for us : In these speeches ( saith he ) The seed is the Wond , I am the Doore , The Rocke was Christ ; the Verbe [ Is , and , WAS ] must be interpreted for SIGNIFIETH , or figureth ; not of it's owne nature , but because the word , Rocke , cannot be otherwise joyned with Christ , than by a figure or Signe . So he . Even as Master k 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 confesse in a like Case .

CHALLENGE .

THus have wee argued from Induction and Enumeration of Texts of Scripture , in all like Sacramentall 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 Catholike Church , as your Romish , hath defined to bee a visible Signe . But no visible Signe can be joyned to any thing signified thereby , in like Predication , without a Figure , as hath beene 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 Pronoune , THIS , used aswell in these words of Christ [ This is my Body ] as in the other [ This is my ●lood ] inferre a figure , * * See the Sections ●●●ing before . hath beene proved to the full , and so will be acknowledged by your owne publikely authorized Romane * * See the Sect. 6. now following . Glosse it selfe : 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 Tropicall , and figurative . But how much more confounded must they needs be , when it shall confessedly appeare , 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 thinke indeed , and that seriously , Christ to have signified hereby that his Body in this Sacrament was therefore really Broken ? a 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 Iesuites , viz. Suarez and Maldonate ) for then should the Speeche of Christ be false : but it is figuratively and Metaphorically spoken . And they Will give you good reason hereof , collected out of b 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 chiefe 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 Christs Body in this Sacrament . So they . To which purpose your Bishop c c Iansenius . See hereafter . Book . 〈◊〉 . Chap. 1. Sect. 4. Iansenius will have us to observe a Reason wherefore the word [ Broken ] is left out of your Romane Missals ( to wit ) Lest that some should be so fond and seelie as to conceive that Christ's Body is truely Broken . And upon this Contemplation your Bishop of Winchester Stephen Gardiner is peremptorie . * * Stephen Gardiner in his Explication of the Sacrament of the Altar . If one aske ( 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 ] signifie in the speech of Christ ? and your Iesuite Salmeron is ready to instruct them out of the Fathers , that d d Salm. ron. Ies. See afterwards , B. 6. Chap. ● . Sect. 2. It signifieth the crucifying of his Body with speare and nayles upon the Crosse .

The like will be confessed of the Verbe , EATE , in those speeches of Christ , [ Take , Eate ] which being properly taken , ( say the above-named e e See above in the Margin , at the l●tter (a) Iesuites ) 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 Iesuite Salmeron , f f Salmeron . See afterwards , Book . 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Reall eating ( saith he ) requireth a reall touch and tearing of that which is eaten : but Christ's Body is not torne with the teeth , because this is Impartible . So he , Which is as plaine as can be , to prove the word , Eate , ( as it is applied to Christ's Body ) to be absolutely figurative .

In like manner , in the words of Christ's Institution , Wee reade that he said , [ DRINKE you all of this : ] which you referre properly to Christ's Blood , albeit you holding Concomitancie ( as g g See above , B. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. Out of Iansenius 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 veines thereof , therefore you cannot affirme truely that Christ's Blood is properly Drunke ; Witnesse 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 drunke in the Chalice , but onely the forme of Wine , seeing the Blood hath the same manner of Existing as under the forme of Bread , ( to wit ) not divided nor separated from the Body , but included in the veines , and then in the Body . Do you not heare ? Christ's Blood is not properly drunke , if not properly , then figuratively ; as figuratively , as if one , swallowing the Body of Christ , should be said to Drinke his Body .

Wee aske Master Brerely , what then is that which is properly drunke out of the Chalice ? and he saith , onely the forme of Wine , that is to say , a meere Accident . Hardly can it he said that a man properly drinketh the Ayre , which he breatheth , although it be a substance : and are you brought to believe meere Formalities to be truely Potable ?

Wee passe to two other Figuratives , whereof wee reade , for the first part , [ Take , this is my Body , which is Given for you : ] and of the other , [ This is the newe 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 , Wee expect from you a Confession of the figure Enallage , which is the using of the present tense for the future ; your Iesuite h h [ Corpus quod pro●vobis datur ] Id est , quod offeretur pro vobis in cruce mactatum . Valent. Ies. lib. 1. de Missa . cap. 3. §. Igitur . [ Of the word , Eato , literally false , so your Iesuites . See Book . 5. Chap. 4. §. 2. ] Valentia testifying for the first , [ Given ] that is ( saith he ) which shall be offered upon the Crosse . And your Iesuite Salmeron for the other [ Blood which is Shed . ] i i Graecus Textus [ Effunditur . ] Non est negandum morem esse Scripturae , ea dicere jam esse , quae futura sint , u●hìc [ effunditur ] quià paulò post in cruce 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 denyed ( saith he ) but that it is the manner of Scripture to speake of a thing , as now done , which is after tobe done , as in this place , [ Is shed ] because shortly after , it was to bee shed upon the crosse . So likewise your Iesuite Sa. And that this is among you the true and Common exposition of these words of Christ , your Bishop k k Iansenius . See afterwards Book . 6. Chap. 1. §. 2. at (q) Iansenius doth not forbeare to testifie . So then , in both these words [ Given , and Shed ] there are two figures , in respect of the Time .

Wee are furthermore to consider the Word , Shed ; in respect of the Act , wherof your owne l 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 . Christs blood , at his Institution of this Sacrament , did not passe out of his Body . 2. your Alfonsus . Christs blood was never Shed after his Resurrection . 3. your Iesuite Coster . True effusion of blood is a separating it from the Body , which in Christ was onely on the Crosse . 4. you may adde to these the stiffe Resolution of your Iesuit Suarez● Christs blood to be separated out of his Veines , who can beleeve ? And if this bee not to bee beleeved , then to say that it is not Figuratively sayd to be Shed , is altogether as incredible .

⚜ Will you be pleased that your Iesuite Vasquez may determine this point throughout . He 2 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 & effusionē Eucharistiae . ( Alleaging to this purpose the consent of Cajetan , Theophylact , Euthymius , Anselm , and Chrysost. ) Adding , Rationes verò pro hac nostra sententia & interpretatione sunt ( me Iudice quidem ) efficacissimae — paulò post , Non est effusio sangui●is in Eucharistia , per modum Sacrificij , sed repraesentatio & sigura illius : in calice enim Domininon separatur sanguis à corpore Christi , ac proindè reipsa non effunditur . concludeth all these words , [ Broken , Given , Shed ] to relute to Christs Passion in a future sense : bringing with him Cajetan , Theophylact , Euthymius , Anselm , and Chrysostome for his Authors : and will have you to know that hee hath most forcible Reasons for this Interpretation , besides this his owne , to wit , That the Blood of Christ cannot bee sayd to bee Shed , which is not properly separated out of his Body in the Sacrament . Aquinas will speake as confidently of Breaking , that * * See above confessed . It is impossible it should bee 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 signifie the Future time of Christs Passion , you * * Booke 6. Chap. 1. §. 2. 〈◊〉 shall have yet moe of your owne Docotors averring as much , so that your Romish Suggester shall have little cause to complaine of the paucity of our witnesses . ⚜

It followeth in the words of Christs Institution , [ This is the Cup of the new Testament in my blood . ] Now what of this ? hearken to your Bishop Iansenius . m 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 . Sivè 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 calice 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 wordes ( saith he ) cannot not be taken properly , whether the [ Cup ] bee taken for the vessell , used for drinking , which was a temporall thing , and therfore could not bee the Testament of Christ , which is aeternall : or else whether you take it for the matter in the Cup ( which is a Figure called Synechdoche ) for it being the blood of the new Testament , could not bee properly the Testament it selfe . Yea , and your Iesuite Salmeron pointeth out in the same words , a double Figure ; h 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 testatamvè 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. Iesus est sponsor melioris Testamenti . Id est haereditatis Salm. Ies . 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 Legacie that is granted and given by the Testament ; wi●h whom the o 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. Iesuite Barradas doth consent .

Hereunto may be added Christs Tropicall Saying in the 6. of Iohn , where Christ calling that , which he giveth to be eaten , his Flesh , in the same Chapter he calleth his Flesh , which is to bee eaten of the faithfull , Bread . Which none of your side durst hitherto interpret without a Figure . And yet againe , the Apostle speaking of the Mysticall body of Christ , which is his Church , assembled at the holy Communion , to participate of this Sacrament , saith of them ; * * 1. Cor. 10. 17. Wee being many are one bread and one Body : for wee are all partakers of that one Bread . But why ? Even as one Bread consisteth of many cornes , so doth one Church of Christ of many faithfull persons , saith your p p Sicut unus panis ex multis gran●s , &c. Aquia . in cum locum . Aquinas . But none of you will deny , that the Apostles naming the Communion of the Faithfull to bee one Bread , or Loafe , is altogether Figurative .

CHALLENGE .

COllect wee now the Parcels above-mentioned . 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 , Eate ; A third in the word , Drinke ; A fourth in the word , Given ; A fift and sixt 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 Christs words , as so many bolts shot upwards , must fall directly upon your own pares . Of your Bellarmines Objection of the word , Shed , hereafter , in the sixt Booke , and 2. Chapter .

⚜ It is no better than Hemlocke which you put into your Disciples mouthes , to stupifie them withall , when you reach them to stand to the Literall words of Christ , lest that otherwise Christs speech should bee accounted a Lie . First against your owne 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 Blasphemie to affirme . And also against the acknowledgement , already specified , confessing that Bread cannot , in a proper and Literall sense , be truly called Christs Body . And the generall Rule is , that Truth in a Figurative sense cannot be so in a Literall ; no more than a Literall Truth can be Figurative and Tropicall . ⚜

That the Figurative sense of Christ's words is agreeable to the Iudgement of the more Ancient Church of Rome . SECT. V.

YOur old and publike Romish Glosse saith plainly ; q 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 truely represent the flesh of Christ , is called the Body of Christ , but improperly , not in the truth of the thing , but in the mysticall Sense , to wit , it is called the Body of Christ , that is , it signifieth his Body , So your Glosse , which you may not deny to be the glosse or Tongue of your whole Church , because it hath beene 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 beene Authorized .

CHALLENGE .

IF all Protestants should meete 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 Proofe could not be desired , than hitherto hath beene evinced from your owne 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 Iudgement of Ancient Fathers of the Greeke Church . SECT. VI.

YOu will needs defend your literall Exposition by the verdict of Ancient Fathers , and wee appeale to the Venerable Senate both of Greek and Latin Fathers . The r 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. de Eucharist . cap. 15. §. Sed. — Dionys. Ep. 9. ad Titum , loquens de saris Signis , & tropicis locutionibus ; dicit Christum Iesum 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 Signes : Some calling Christ his Speeches Tropical , or Figurative ; and his Table Typicall : Some saying that Christ would have his Disciples hereby Represent the image of his Body . And one as expressely as any Protestant can speake ( even Theodoret by name ) that Christ here gave to the Signe the name of his Body , as else-where he gave to his Body the name of the Signe .

⚜ And againe , 3 3 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ibid. Origen also in Matth. 15. calleth materiam panis , Symbolicum corpus . Christ , as hee called the mysticall fruit of the Vine , after sanctification , the Blood of the Lord : So the fruit of the naturall Vine did he call the Blood of the Vine . So he Marke , no otherwise is the Wine in the Eucharist called Christ's Blood after Consecration , than the juyce 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 Signes and Symbols are most frequent in the writings of all the Greeke Fathers , which wee take to be a convincing Argument , untill you can give us some reasonable Solution hereunto . To this purpose you , leaving the principall Objections , fasten onely upon certaine Crotchets , and thereupon you bestirre your selves .

THE FIRST CHALLENGE . Against the first Romish Answer , touching the word , Type , and Antitype , used by the Greeke Fathers .

THree kindes of Answers have beene applyed , as Three wedges to dissolve this difficulty ; but a knot of wood cannot be loosed with a wedge of waxe , such as every of your Answers will appeare to bee . The first interpreting Types and Antitypes not to be taken for Signes , but for Examples , is at the first hearing rejected by your s s Prima solutio ; Vocem Antitypon non accipi pro Signo , sed pro Exemplari , &c. sed haec opinio facilè rejici potest , quia vox ea nunquam sumitu● pro exemplari . Bellarm. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15. Cardinall , and others .

The Second , alleged out of Damas●en , 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 apparantly false by your t t Altera solutio est aliorum , Panem & Vinum Antitypon dic● , sed ante Consecrationem , non posteà ; ita respondit olim Ioh. 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 . AEgypt . 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. Cardinall , and others , out of the expresse Testimonies of these Greeke Fathers , viz. Dionysius , Areopagita , Clemens , Iustine , Macarius , Basil , and Nazianzene . The third Answer is your Cardinals owne , yet but faintly urged , with a 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 hee is encountred by your b 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 . ⚜ As doth likewise your Iesuite 4 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 maintaine , against your Iesuite Turrian . ⚜ This our Objection how strong it is , may be seene by your much , but vaine strugling .

⚜ A Corroboration of the Iudgement of Antiquitie , 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 Cyrill of Hierusalem 5 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 , &c. Haec Isaacus Casaub . teste filio suo pientissimo Meirico , ex M. S. Paternis . telling you that the materiall oyle , wherwith Christians were anoynted , was called by Cyrill the Antitype of Christs owne anoynting , which was the Spirit of God it selfe . That The essentiall Spirit of God is opposed to the Antitype , which was materiall oyle . And , notwithstanding , that the same Antitype is called by Cyrill the Spirit of God ; and after , that the Christians are sayd to receive the Spirit ; when neverthelesse they receive not the essence , but the Energie and efficacious operation of the same Spirit . That learned man concludeth ; The most ancient Fathers ( saith he ) sayd 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 , presse the sentence of Cyrill of Alexandria . 6 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 Christs speech , when hee saith manifestly [ This is my Body ] but rather beleeve his words , This is that Testimony of Cyrill , which although it bee out of an Epistle , not found in the ancient Editions , but of a latter date , and but some few yeares agoe set forth ( as your Iesuite 7 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 himselfe , saying ; Solet citari Epistola ejus ad Coelosyrium , vide locum apud Ioh. Garcetium . Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 26. ] Possevin confesseth ) yet doubt not we to embrace it in Cyrils sense : who having now to deale with such Heretikes , who taught that Christ had but a seeming Phantasticall Body , doth refute them by Christs speech of this Sacrament , saying , [ This is my Body . ] Which , Sacramentally spoken and understood , must needs evince , that Christ had a true naturall Body in himselfe , because this Sacrament was instituted to bee a Signe of a true , and truly-crucified Body , not a Signe of a Figure , but of a reall thing : and therefore requireth in the Receiver not fancie , but faith to beleeve that Christ had a Substantiall body , which is the very Argument of Tertullian * * See Sect. ●9 . following . afterwards , against the same delusion of the sayd Heretikes .

8 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 cōjungimur , non enim alio corpore tu , alio ille aliter , sed eodem omnes . Chrysostome , being so eminent a Doctor of the Greeke 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 Companie of the faithfull 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 faithfull Communicants are made , which receive the Body of Christ ? Answereth , They are made the Body of Christ . But the faithfull Receivers ( as you know ) are not properly Christs Body .

The onely A●nswer that your Cardinall would affoord us , is , that 9 9 Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 22. Respondet , Loquitur Chrysostomus de pane consecrato . Chrysostome spake of Bread Consecrated , and not before Consecration . Which Answer doth fortifie our Argument , to shew that Chrysostome held it to bee Bread still after Consecration , as appeareth in his other saying concerning the same Consecrated Bread , or● Loafe ( as it signifieth the mysticall Body of Christ ) in that As Bread is united of many granes of Corne , not discernable , but yet are still the granes of Corne , joyned secretly one with another . So are wee joyned together with Christ his owne Body . So Chrysostome . Which words can in no wise bee affirmed of your Romish meere Accidents of Bread , wherein there is no mixture of any Granes of Corne , or of Vnion one with another in one Loafe , whereby to betoken the Vnion of godly Christians joyntly in one Christ . And therefore certainely Saint Chrysostome beleeved the continuance of the substantiall 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 Iustine , one of the ancientest of Fathers , doth declare , wherein hee saith 10 10 Iustin . 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 bee called [ This Thing ] properly , which is not absolutely and determinately This one Individuall 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 himselfe , as a King in a Stage-play .

THe Solution , which seemeth to your Disputers most perswasive , is thus set downe by your Cardinall , and your Iesuite Suarez , viz. c 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 Cruce , repraesentant enim passionē 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 Cruce . 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 Greeke Fathers called Bread and Wine , Antitypes , and Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ , because the same Body and Blood of Christ , as they are in this Sacrament , under the formes of Bread and Wine , are Signes of the same his Body and Blood , as they were on the Crosse . Like as a King , who having gotten a vistory in battell , should represent himselfe in a Stage-Play , as in a fight . So They. But without any Sentence of any Father , for countenancing so egregious a figment ; so farre 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 signe of it selfe , as it was upon the Crosse .

And they are no small Babes , who vent out this proofe ; by name d d Billius com . 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 Sainctes repetur , & allegari ait , ut corpus Christi ostenditur , quatenus in Sacramento est , seipsum significare , ut erat in cruce , suique Sacramentum esse & figuram , & figuram esse passionis suae ; Eandem sententiam apertissime tuetur Roff●ns & Iohan. Hessell Haec Billius . Billius , Gardiner Bishop of Winchester , Claudius Sainctes ( one of name in the Councel of Trent ) Fisher Bishop of Rochester , and Hessell . But how prove They this ? Out of any of the works of Augustine ? No , where then ? Wee are required to seeke it in Prosper ; where againe e e Trithemius . Ex sententijs Augustini , versibus hexametris & pentametris mixtum opus prosa pul●●erri●●um quod 〈◊〉 voluit , Epi●●●mma , sic incipit , ●um Sacris , &c. [ But of the other Intituled , Sententiarum ex operibus Augustini , beginning thus , Innocentia , hee 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 bee sound . ] it is not to be found . Whither next ? forsooth it is so cited by Peter Lombard , and there it appeareth that Peter Lombard had it out of his supposed Brother Gratian ; wee say , Gratian , whose bookes have beene lately reproved , and condemned by one of your f f Antonius Augustinus Archiepis●opus Tarracon . De emēdatione Gratiani . Arch-bishops , for many False allegations of Testimonies of Fathers . And when all is done , if either g g Lombardus . Attende 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 , &c. Lib. 4. distinct . 10. Apud Billium quo supra . Peter Lombard or h 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 . dest . 2. Cap. Hoc est quod . in Glossa . Gratian , who are the Relators , may be admitted to be the Interpreters of that coyned Sentence , they will say that the word Flesh , there specified , is taken for the Shape or forme of flesh ; and the word Blood , for the outward forme of Blood ; which spoyleth your Play quite : wherein you will have the Flesh of Christ under the outward formes and shape , in this Sacrament , and not the outward formes and shape themselves , to be the Signe of the same Body on the Crosse . So easie it is for Hunters to pursue their Game with loud cries upon a false sent .

Wee returne to your Cardinall , and to Suarez , who invented the Similitude of the Stage-Play for their Answer , which is indeed rather a Childish Playing , than Theologicall reasoning ; yet it is but a mad sport to argue against Conscience ; as this your Cardinall must needs have done , who i i See above at (c) confessing that the Greeke 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 Signe of the same Body of Christ , as it was upon the Crosse ; notwithstanding the Body of Christ , as it is in the Sacrament , ( according to your owne faith ) is so k 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 . Concil Trident. Sess. 18. cap. 3. Invisible , that it cannot be seene of Angels ; so Indivisible , that it cannot be parted or divided ; and so Vnbloody , that there is not the least tincture of Blood to be discerned therein .

Wherefore to perswade your Disciples , that those grave Fathers ever taught that the Invisible , Indivisible , and Vnbloody Body of Christ , as in this Sacrament , was or could be the Signe of his visible , torne , crucified and bloody Body upon the Crosse ; and so to note an Antitype , which is ( as you call it ) the l l See above at (c) Greatest Similitude , is all one , as to finde out the greatest Similitude in the greatest Dissimilitude . Which yet is the more intollerable , because it is against the Confessed m 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 owne Divines , who have taught that The Sacrament of the Eucharist is called Type and Antitype , because of the formes of Bread and Wine . So your Billius . May you not now discerne the notable perversnesse 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 wee shall be occasioned to say more in the * * Booke 6. c. 5. §. 7. sixth Booke .

That the onely Objection out of the Greeke Fathers , concerning the Pronoune [ HOC ] in the Testimony of Epiphanius , advantageth not the Romish Cause . SECT. VII .

COmpare but Epiphanius his owne a 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 Cardinall's b 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 Greeke are these : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . The last words shew that Insensible is taken according to power , that is , actively . ] Objection , and our Answer , and then make your owne determination , as you shall thinke 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 soule , or minde , or virtue ; notwithstanding resolveth thatc All men have the Image of God in them , but yet not according to nature , ( namely , that substantiall nature which is in God ) because God is Incomprehensible and infinite , &c. This is the maine point which Epiphanius will now illustrate : but how ? By something ( saith your Cardinall ) 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 truely the Body of Christ , although it seeme not to be so , outwardly , being of a round figure , and Insensible ( or without sense ) and therefore farre unlike to be the Body of Christ . So he . Who , thinking he hath overcome , doth raise up his Iö , 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 beleeved , although our senses gainesay 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 tooke Bread , He tooke the Cup , ] meaning Wine in the Cup , namely , according to the * * See above Chap. 1. §. 6. former generall Consent of the Fathers , [ HOC ] signifyed 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 Christs Body , without a Trope , as hath beene * * See above Chap. 1. §. 4. Confessed : which is our first confutation of your Cardinal , who concludeth that Epiphanius excludeth all Tropes out of Christs Speech of [ HOC . ]

Secondly c c Epiphanius in Ancorato . Habent omnes id quod est secundùm Imaginem Dei , sed non secundùm naturam : non enim secundùm aequalitatem habent homines , Deus enim mente incō 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 Naturall , the other is the Sacramentall Being thereof . The Naturall 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 Christs Body , because the Hoc ( as Epiphanins saith ) is a Round figure . But as Hoc and Hoc are Sacramentall Images , representing Meum and Meum , Christs Body and Blood : the Bread broken to betoken his Body crucifyed , and the Wine poured out a-part , to signifie Christs Blood Shed : so will the Similitude be most Harmonicall . Even as Bread and Wine in the Eucharist , although they differ in nature , yet are they representative Signes 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 Analogicall , Mysticall , and acramentall sense , upon the hearing of these words of Epiphanius , Whosoever will not believe Christs words , as hee said , falleth from grace , wee willingly shall say Amen . The rather , because Epiphanius being an Adversarie to the Marcionites , who denyed Christ to have a True Body , but onely Phantasticall , notwithstanding whatsoever proofe from mens 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 ) meere 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 then it could not be perceived to be Round . But Actively , as not able to perceive any thing , in which respect hee opposeth it to [ Meum , ] which is the Body of Christ . Which againe 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 heare , or exercise any faculty of sense without a Miracle ; as is shewed , Book . 4. Chap. 9. Sect. 2.

In the last place I require Iustice from your selves 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 Iustification , shall desire no other Advocate than Bellarmines owne words , Hic locus Epiphanij omninò convincit , quia addit etiam ( nimirum Epiphanius ) Hoc esse credendum , licet sensus repugnent . And now when you shal summ up the Premises , you will easily judge how the Testimonie of Epiphanius will be held to be Convincent .

That the same Greeke Fathers have expresly unfolded their Meanings , touching a Figurative Sense . SECT. VIII .

THe Iudgement of a whole Councel of Greek Fathers may well suffice for the manifestation of the Iudgement of that Church ; They in their Councel 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 n In sanctis nihil plus quàm corpus & sanguis Christi offeratur , ut ipse Dominus tradidit , hoc est panis & vinū aquâ mixtum . Concil. Constāt . 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 , &c. If we had not told you that this had been the speech of Greek Fathers in a Councel , you would have conceived they had bin uttered by some Heretike , as your Charity useth to call us Protestants . Neither may the Authority of this Councel be rejected by you , as unlawfull in the point of the Sacrament , because your Binius , in opposing against some things in this Councel , yet never tooke any Exception against this Canon .

We may not let passe another Testimony , used by the ancient Father o 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 therof , Except the grane of wheat die , &c. insomuch that interchangably in the one place , He gave to the Signe the name of his Body , and in the other , He gave to his Body the name of the Signe . 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 therfore , if you will believe Theodoret , you are compellable to confesse , that Christ , in calling Bread his Body , ment it not in a proper & literal sense .

⚜ Wee were about to proceed , but that your Doctor Heskins will needs crosse us in our way , by objecting the Current of Oecumenius in his Exposition of those words of the Apostle , Wee are all one Body , inasmuch as wee are partakers of one Bread , saying : 11 11 Dr. Heskins in his Parliam . of Christ . Booke 3. C. 28. Oecū . 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 granes , and we being many partakers of one Bread , are made one Body . Hence your Doctor ; In my judgement this needeth no explanation : for asking a question [ what is Bread ? ] he answereth , [ The Body of Christ . ] Note then ( Reader ) he saith not it is a Signe of Christs Body , but the Body of Christ VERILY , where he speaketh both of the Bread partaken , which he saith is Verily Christs Body ; and also of the Partakers , who be made the mysticall Body of Christ ; wherein the Reader may see how rightly he confirmeth the Catholike faith . So he .

And so wee thinke he doth ; but then must not your Popish , be this Catholike faith , because Oecumenmus calleth ( so ) Bread the Body of Christ Sacramentally , as hee calleth the Partakers of the same Bread , or Loafe , the mysticall Body of Christ . But the Partakers and Communicants are Christs mysticall Body only Figuratively , and by Analogy ; therfore the Bread is named the Naturall Body of Christ Figuratively , and as the Symboll thereof ; as Christ himselfe calleth it , by the Iudgement of Antiquitie , throughout the Second Booke . Which therfore the Apostle here calleth Bread , after Consecration ; and , as Oecumenius noteth , such Bread as consisteth of many granes of Corne ; 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 Christs Body , nameth it VERILY Christs Body , which is ( if it be lawfull to speake rudely ) a very-Lye . For the words , Verè Corpus Christi , Verily Christs Body , are attributed to the Partakers of the Bread , which are the mysticall Body of Christ ; and not either to the Bread , or Naturall Body of Christ . Hitherto of the Greeke Fathers .

That the same Figurative Sense of Christs words is avouched by the Testimonies of the Latine Fathers ; more largely ( now ) insisted on . SECT. IX .

SOme of the Latine Fathers ( we confesse ) seeme in some places to deny all Figurative sense , but this they doe even by a Figure called * * As is afterwards many wheres discovered . Hyperbole , that is , only in the excesse of Speech , thereby to abstract the minds of sensuall men from fixing their thoughts upon externall Rites , and to raise them up to a Sacramentall and Spirituall Contemplation of the Body and Blood of Christ . But as for the direct and perspicuous Sentences of these Fathers , they clearely and exactly teach a Figurative sense in the words of Christ ; ( to wit ) p p Tertull. contra Marcion . 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 plaine as any glasse can be , saying of Christ , Hee distributed his Body , that is , a Signe of his Body .

⚜ The Fantastike Marcionites held , that Christ had no essentiall Body , but onely a figurative , and Fantasticall . These Heretikes Tertullian confuteth by Christ his Institution of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood , ( as the * * At the let . ( p. ) Margin will shew you ) thus : Nothing that is fantasticall is capable of a figure ; because this were to make a signe of a Signe , or figure . But Christ in this Sacrament gave a Signe of his Body : Therefore Christ had ( namely , in himselfe ) a Reall and Substantiall Body , and not fantasticall . That he gave a Figure of his Body , hee proveth out of the Gospel , where hee is found desirous to eate his owne 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 ridde your selves of it , doth rather confirme unto us ; 12 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 Cardinall ) THIS , that is , This Bread which was once ( namely , in the old Testament ) a signe of my Body . So he . O the profundity of this Answer ! Is a Signe , saith Tertullian ; that is , Was a Signe , saith your Cardinall . If one , saying of the Sun-rising , It is in the East , and your Cardinall 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 Signe then representing the Body of Christ ; two reasons may perswade us . First , because Tertullian observeth that Christ ( concerning the participating of the Eucharist ) said , That hee desired to eate his owne Passeover ; meaning , the Eucharist , as distinct from the Iewish Passeover . Next , because he confuteth the Heretikes , who denyed 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 reall and essentiall .

And this is confessed by your Iesuite 13 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 beene the Argument of Tertullian , who once againe sheweth that Christ called Bread his Body , in saying , [ This is my Body ] as the Prophet Ieremy called his Body , Bread , in saying , Let us put Wood upon his Bread , meaning his Body . So Tertullian , shewing 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 , seemes to impute unto Tertullian . the Heresie ( which you commonly lay to the charge of us Protestants ) 14 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 onely in a figure in this Sacrament of the Eucharist .

Next , Cyprian , thus ; q q Cyprian . Serm. de Vact. Et significantia & significata ijsdem vocabuliscenserentur . Things signifying and signified , are called by the same words . Vpon the which ground he made bold to say , that Christ's Body is Created in this Sacrament : by [ Body ] understanding Bread , saith your Cardinall Bellarmine . Hierome , r r Hier. cont . Iovia . Typus sanguinis . Wine , the Type of Christ his Blood . Gelasius , s s Gelas . cont . Eutych . Quod in ejus imagine profitemur . Apud Bibliothec. Patrum . Tom. 5. p. 475. Bread , the image of his Body . Ambrose , t 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 complaine against your Cardinall 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 proofe of the literall 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 owne purpose , thus ; Before the Benediction of Christ's words This is my Body ] one kinde of thing is named , and after Consecration [ It is the Body of Christ : ] insteed of these words [ After the Consecration , 15 15 Bellar. lib 4. de Eucharist . cap 13. §. Gregor. Nyssen . Explicat Ambrosius lib 4. de Sacrament . cap. 4. quae sint verba Domini , in quibus Sacramentum conficitur , recitans illa [ Hoc est , &c. ] Et in lib. de . Init. Myster. cap. 9. Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus , Hoc est corpus meum , ante benedictionem verborum coelestium alia species nominatur , post consecraticnem corpus Christi est . the Body of Christ is signified . ] Iust Protestantwise , as can be . Do but now tell us , how you wish wee should censure this Errour ; whether as a wilfull Falsity ? and then should you eclipse his Credit and Authority : or else only as a Temeritie ? and then ought you to Censure as indifferently of such escapes ( if any such happen ) of Protestants , according to the Law of Equitie — 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 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 , hee sa 〈◊〉 : ] Respondetur , Parvulum baptizatum credere propter fidei Sacramentum . Sacraments ( saith he ) for the very Similitude and likenesse , wihich they have with the things wherof 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 certaine manner called the Body of Christ . But how ? Hee addeth ( as if hee had meant to stop the Mouthes of all Opposites ) As it is said by the Apostle of Baptisme [ we are buried by Baptisme into the death of Christ , ] He saith not we signifie his buriall , but absolutely saith [ we are buried : ] therfore hath he called the Sacrament or Signe of so great a thing by the name of the thing signified thereby . So hee , even the same Hee , who will bee found like himselfe in the following passages of this and other books , especially when wee shall handle the Manner of eating of Christs Body , which Augustine will challenge to bee 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 perversenesse ; as you may see by another Testimony of the same Father , which wee may not let passe . * * 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 hee gave a Signe of his Body : even as ( hee saith ) hee might interpret that Scripture , * * Deut. 12. The blood of the Beast is the life of the Beast : The blood is a signe thereof . Where his sole ayme is to expound the Verbe [ Est , ] to bee no more than it Is a Signe or Signifieth . But whether ( as your 16 16 Bell. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. [ in his two last , as it were in his best Answeres . ] 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 Cruce . Cardinall fancieth ) it was a Signe of Christ's Body present in the Eucharist , or rather as absent after , on the Crosse , Aug. regardeth not to mention , but meerly to teach here ( which he doth more exactly else-where ) that wheresoever any thing is predicated and affirmed of another thing , of a different nature , ( as when the Signe is called by the name of the thing signified ) the speech is Figurative ; as Christ by the Apostle is called Rocke ; 17 17 August . quaest. super Levit. cap. 57. Non est dictum , Petra significat Christum , sed Petra erat Christus : sic solet loqui Scriptura , res significātes , tanquàm res quae significantur , appellans . & Tract. 77. It is not said , ( saith Saint Augustine ) The Rocke signifieth Christ , but , the Rocke is Christ : which is usuall ( saith he ) in Scripture , which calleth signes of things by the names of the things themselves , which are signified thereby .

It will not be impertinent to adjoyne hereunto your Iesuiticall Interpretation of these words of the Apostle , [ The Rocke was Christ , ] and after to compare it with this of Saint Augustine , that thereby we may the better discerne Light from darkenesse 18 18 Ia● . Gordon . Ies. lib. Controv. 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 Literall and Proper Sense of these words ( saith hee ) is not that which our Adversaries ( meaning Protestants ) doe hold [ The Rocke signified Christ : ] contending hereupon to prove that the Verbe [ EST ] is sometime used for [ SIGNIFIETH ] that thereby they may the more easily perswade that the word [ EST ] in Christs Speech is the same , in Sense , with [ SIGNIFIETH . ] So hee . What Heretike could have more confronted Saint Augustine , than your Iesuite hath , by denying the words [ The Rocke was Christ ] to bee in true Sense , Did Signifie Christ ? Secondly , that [ Est ] elsewhere is used in Scripture for [ Significat : ] in both which Saint Augustine is as absolute an Adversarie ; and yet no more in these than , indeed , in the whole Cause concerning the Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament .

And the cause of Saint Augustines interpretation is plaine : For Adimantus the Manichee objected to the Iewe ; 19 19 Aug. cont . Adimant . quo sap . Adimantus Manichaeus ●it , secundùm intellectum Iudaeorum , qui dicunt sanguinem esse animam , sequi , &c. That they understood by the other Text [ The blood of the Beast is the soule thereof ] not that it was conteined in the soule , or joyned with the soule : but that it is the soule it selfe . This is that Literall interpretation , which Augustine declineth , and expoundeth the words as spoken Figuratively , Signe , for the thing signified , as * * See above at the letter (u) . hee did in the speech of Christ , saying of Bread , This is my Body . And doth not 20 20 Cyril . Hier. Catech. Mistag . 2 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Cyril call Baptisme the Antitype of Christs Passion ?

Saint Augustine desireth to have one word more . 21 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 Sacramē . u n corporis Christi ; illius videlicet quod visibile , quod palpabile , 〈◊〉 mortale in cruze positum est , vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis , quae Sacerdotis manibus sit , Christi passio , mors , crucifixio : non rei veritate , sed significante mysterio . The Heavenly Bread ( saith hee ) which is Christ's flesh , is called after a maner the Body of Christ , when as indeed it is the Sacrament of Christ's Body , to wit , of that Body which is visible , palpable , mortall : 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 veritie of the thing , but in a Significant mysterie . So he . Which words , if they should need a Comment , can have no better , than is your owne publike privileged Romish Glosse upon them , saying , 22 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 certaine maner the Bodie of Christ . There are foure principall Observables in this one sentence of Saint Augustine .

I. Your Doctors have vilified our Sacrament , because wee , judging it to be Bread , do but onely account it a Sacrament of Christ's Body ; Saint Augustine doth here reprove them , as directly as if hee 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 reade of the Bread called Christ's Body , you straine it to your owne sense , as directly demonstrating Christ's Body : Saint Augustine telleth you that it is in it selfe onely the Sacrament of his Bodie . III. Yea but ( say your Doctors ) The Body of Christ herein is a Sacrament and ●gne of himselfe , as he was on the Crosse : 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 mortall 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 , heerein , is called Christ's Passion : and that it is not properly , and lively so meant , but [ Suo modo ] that is , ( as your owne Glosse 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 yeare 546. ( an Author much magnified by your 23 23 Iac. Sirmundus . Ies. Epist. Dedic . ante lib. Facundi . Maximam Romanae sedis potestatem celebrat . and Baron . Ann. Chri. 546. num. 24. Prudentissimus Ecclesiasticus Agonistes Facundus . Iesuit , as one who extolleth the Authority of the See of Rome ; and by your Cardinall , 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 hee judged not to be the received Catholike doctrine of that his Age. Hee thus ; 24 24 Facundus l. 9. defens . 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 , wee call his Body and Blood , not that it is properly his Body and Blood , but because it containeth a mysterie of his Body and Blood . Iust the dialect of Protestants . Your Iesuit vainly labouring to rectifie this sentence , by the sentences of other Fathers , in the end is glad to perswade the Readers to pardon this Father Facundus : If Peradventure ( 25 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 hee ) hee hath spoken somewhat more harshly or obscurely , as one who himselfe having interpreted other mens Sayings favourably , may deserve the like Courtesie of others . Thus that Iesuite . But what Pardon can the Iesuite himselfe merit of his Reader , in calling the Testimony Obscure , and darke , which the Father Facundus himselfe , by a Similitude , maketh as cleare as day , Thus ; As Christ , being Baptized , 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 downe-right Heresie . ⚜

We shall take our Farewell of the Latine Fathers , in the Testimony of Bish. Isidore , who will give you his owne Reason , why Christ called Bread his Body : * * Isidor . Hispalensis . Panis , quem frangimus , corpus Christi est , qui dicit , Ego sum panis vivus , &c. 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 strengthneth the Body , is therfore 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 Cleare Glasse , wherein the judgment of Antiquitie , for a Figurative sense of Christ's words [ This is my Body , ] may be infallibly discerned . SECT. X.

POnder with your selves , for Gods 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 Signe thereof . The * * Councel of Trùllo . See above Sect 8. Councel of Trullo : Bodie and Blood of Christ , that is , Bread and Wine . Chrysostome a Greeke Father , * * Chrysost. See above , Sect. 6. Challenge 2. The faithfull are called his Bodie . * * Theodor. See ibid. Theodoret , Hee gave the name of Bodie to Bread , as elsewhere hee gave the name of Bread to his Bodie . * * Tertull. See above , Sect. 9. let . ( p. ) Tertullian , This is my Bodie , that is , A figure thereof . And againe , 27 27 Tertull. advers. Marcion . l. 3. p. 180. [ Venite , mittamus lignum in panem ejus . ] Ier. 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 Bodie in a figure , as his Body , in the Prophet , figured Bread . * * Cyprian . See above , Sect. 9 (q) Cvprian , Things signifying , and things signified , are called by the same names . * * August . See ibid. Augustine , When hee said , [ This is my Bodie ] hee gave a Signe of his Bodie . And , * * See afterwards B. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 5. Bread his Bodie , as he called Baptisme , a Buriall . And yet againe , As the Priest's Immolation is called Christ's Passion . * * Facundus , Set above , Sect. 9. Facundus , Not that it is properly his Bodie and Blood , but that it containeth a mysterie of them ; being called his Bodie and Blood , as the Sacrament of Adoption ( meaning Baptisme ) is called Adoption . * * Isidor . ibid. ( x. ) Isidore , Called Christ's Body , because turned into a Sacrament of his Bodie . Chrysostome , * * See Book . 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 14. Bread hath the name of Christ's Bodie , albeit it remaine in nature the same . And Ephraimius naming it Christ's Bodie , which is received of the faithfull , saith , * * See ibid. It loseth nothing of it's Sensible Substance . ( Then Bread sure , as followeth by his parallelling it with Baptisme : ) And Baptisme being One , representeth the propriety of its Sensible Substance of Water . These are as direct , as ever Bucer or Calvin could speake . Somewhat more , for Corroboration sake .

But yet by the way , if wee shall consult with 18 18 Bertram de Corpore & sanguine Domini ( after that he had cited Ambrose , Hierome , Austine , 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 Emperour , that They demonstrate , that the Bread which is called the Bodie of Christ , is a figure , because a Mysterie , and that there is no small difference betweene the same Body , which is the Mysterie , and the Bodie which was crucified ; for that this is the proper Bodie of Christ , and no figure , but a manifestation . But in that which is done by a Mysterie , there is a figure both of the proper Bodie of Christ , and also of the people that believe in him .

The same Orthodoxe Fathers of Primitive times ( thirteene in number ) have told us already that Christ called * * See above . B. 2. Cha● . 1 Sect. 6. Bread his Body , which hath beene the overthrow of your Romish Expositions of Christ's speech , as you have heard : Saint Cyprian , saying , that Christ created his owne Body , thereby ( as your * * ●yp ian . See Book 3. 〈◊〉 . 4 Sect. 2. ( in 〈◊〉 second Edi●ion ) Cardinall confessed ) meaning Bread . The Fathers of the Councel of Carthage , forbidding any thing to be offered in this mysterie but Bread and Wine , mixed with Water , deliver their Canon thus ; 29 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 ought to bee 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 , becau●e they call that Offering , now spoken of , The Body and Blood of Christ , which all know to bee spoken Sacerdotally , before it was consecrated . That nothing in those sacred mysteries be offered more than the Body and Blood of Christ , as Christ himselfe hath ordained . That is ( say they ) than the Bread and Wine . Hereby plainly teaching , that as they are called Christ's Bodie and Blood , in their Sacramentall and Mysticall use and signification ; so are they Bread and Wine , in their proper essence . The foresaid Canon is registred among the Papall Decrees . The Heretike Novatus binding some Receivers of the Eucharist to his part , by saying , 30 30 Euseb. lib. 6. Cap. 35. Verba Novati Eucharistiam sumpturo : Iura mihi per corpus & sanguinem Domini , te nunquàm me deserturum , &c. Whereupon Eusebius ; Miser ille homo non priùs degustavit , — Graec. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Here the Translator omitteth , in his Translation , the word , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Bread . Sweare to me , by the Bodie and Blood of Christ , not to depart from mee : 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 finde Eusebius calling it Bread , which had beene Consecrated by Novatus , and named The Bodie 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 els-where ) did fairely leave out the word [ Bread , ] but is a foule 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 bee essentially nothing but Bread and Wine , because it was onely 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 slaine in this Sacrament ? notwithstanding that our Christian Faith , generally beleeved , 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 powring 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 , Chrysostome , Cyprian , Hierome , Cyrill of Hierusalem , Hesychius , Paschasius , Eusebius Emissenus , Enow , one would thinke , to silence all Oppositions of them , who are instant in nothing more than in pressing the Improprieties of the speeches of Antiquitie , in a literall sense , and hereby verifying that Proverbe of Salomon ; Qui nimis emu●git , elicit sanguinem . Even so they , who by the same Reason , wherby they urge the sayings of Fathers literally , for the proofe of an unbloody Sacrifice , properly so called , must be constrained likewise ●o admit , against the Catholike faith of all Christians , a Sacrifice properly slaine and bloodie therein .

The like will bee proved from their other Hyperboles and the Excessive termes of Antiquitie , viz. of Tearing Christs Bodie , and dying our teeth in his Blood , and the like , ( in the * * Booke 5. thorow-out . fifth Booke : ) and from their checking their owne Phrase of offering the Sacrifice of his Bodie , by recalling and correcting themselves immediatly thus ; Or rather a Memoriall thereof , ( in the * * Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 6. sixth Booke . ) All these Observations are as demonstrable , for the vindicating of the judgement of Ancient Fathers , as any Child of the Catholike Church could have desired , if the same holy Fathers had beene intreated to expound their owne meanings .

Wee returne to our former Argument . Christ Instituting a Sacrament , and in Taking Bread and Blessing Bread , saying , [ This is my Bodie ] must necessarily bee understood to have spoken Sacramentally , that is , Figuratively , as hath beene prooved from Scripture ; as in all other Sacraments , so likewise in the severall confessed Figurative words of Christ , concerning this Sacrament , by eight severall Instances ( in this second Booke . ) This one Argument of it selfe , hath beene termed by Master Calvin [ Murus ahaeneus ] that is , a wall of brasse , and so will it bee found more evidently to bee , when you shall perceive the same * * Booke 3. thorrow-out . Fathers judging that , which they call a Change into Christs Flesh , to bee but a Change into the Sacrament of his Flesh ; bread still remaining the same , ( in the third Booke . ) ⚜

And now wee are to withstand your paper-bullets , wherewith you vainely attempt , in your Objections following , to batter our defence withall .

CHAP. III. The Romish Objections from Reasons , against the Figurative Sense , Answered .

The first Objection . SECT. I.

NOthing useth to bee more properlie and simplie spoken , ( say a a Primum Argumentum sumitur à materiâ , est enim materia , de quâ hic agitur , Pactum , Sacramentum . Testamentum Novum fuisse à Domino institutum pater ex illis verbis [ Hic est calix Novi Testamenti in sanguine meo ] — Iam verò nihil solet magis propriè , simplicitèr , aut exquisitè 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 alwayes taken , in a reall and substantiall meaning . M. Maloun the Ies. in his Reply . you ) than words of Testaments and Covenants . Ergò this being a Testamentary Phrase must be taken in the literall Sense .

CHALLENGE .

WHat is this ? are Figurative speeches never used in Covenants , and Testamentarie Language ? or is there not therfore sufficient perspicuity in Figures ? This is your rash and lavish Assertion , for you your selves doe teach that b b In ipsâ Scriptura dicitur Testamentum , & Instrumentum — Quia pacta Dei & soedera inita nobiscum continent , ut patet in pacto Circumcisionis cum Abrahamo . — Ante omnia praefamur S. Scripturam uti Metaphoris , non solum ob utilitatem nostram , sed etiam propter necessitatem , à pluribus Patribus traditur . Sacram scripturam de Deo , de Trinitate , de Patre , Filio , & Spiritu sancto , propriè loqui non passe — Quandò sermo est de vità aeterâ , & 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 Trinitie , and some divine things , cannot but speake Improperly and siguratively . Thirdly , That Sacramentall speeches , as , [ The Rocke was Christ , ] and the like words re * * See above , Chap. 2. Sect 3. let [ c. ] Tropicall and Figurative . Fourthly , That even in the Testamentary Speech of Christ , at his Institution of this Sacrament , saying , [ This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood : ] there is a Figure in the very word c c See above , Chap. 2 Sect. 4. ( p. q. ) Testament . So have you confessed , and so have you consequently confuted your owne Objection .

Hereto might bee added the Testament of Iacob , prophesying of his sonnes , and saying , * * Gen. 49. Reuben is my strength : Iudah a Lions Whelpe : Issachar a strong Asse : Dan an Adder in the way . All figurative Allusions . Nay , no man , in making his Testament , can call it his Will , or say that hee hath set his hand and Seale unto it , without Figures . Namely , that hee hath given by writing a Signification of his Will ; that the Subscription was made by his Hand ; and that he added unto it the Print of his Seale . These Three , Will , Hand , Seale , every word Figurative , even in a Testament .

The second Romish Objection , against the Figurative Sense . SECT. II.

LAwes and Precepts ( say d d Verba Legum & Praeceptorum debent este propria . Bellar lib 1 de Eucharist . cap 9. §. Sequitur . you ) should bee in plaine and proper words : But in the Speech of Christ , [ Take ; eate you , &c. ] are words of Command ; Ergò , They may not bee held Figurative .

CHALLENGE .

CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts , viz. of Pulling out a mans owne eye , of cutting off his hand ? Mat. 5. Or yee of a Penitents Renting of his heart ? Ioel 2. Or of not hardening his heart ? Psalme 95. and the like . Christ commanded his Disciples to prepare for his keeping the Passeover with his Disciples , and the Disciples prepared the Passeover as Iesus commanded them , saith the * * Luc. 22. 8. Evangelist . In this Command is the word [ Passeover . ] We demand , The word , Passeover , ( which is taken for the Sacrament and Signe of the Passeover ) is it taken Figuratively ? You cannot deny it . And can you deny that a Commandement may bee delivered under a Figurative Phrase ? You can both , that is , say and gaine-say any thing , like false Merchants , onely so farre as things may , or may not make for your owne advantage .

But ( to catch you in your owne snare ) your Doctrine of Concomitancy is this , viz. Bread , being turned into Christs Body , is joyntly turned into whole Christ ; and Wine , being changed into his Blood , is likewise turned into whole Christ , both Flesh and Blood . If then when Christ commanded his Disciples , saying , [ * * Matth. 26. 27. Drinke you All of this , ] that which was Drunke was the whole substantiall Body of Christ , either must his Disciples be sayd to have Drunke Christs Body properly , or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken . To say the first , contradicteth the universall expression of mans speech in all Languages ; for no man is sayd to drinke Bread , or any solid thing . And ●o grant the Second , that the speech is Figurative , contradicteth your owne Objection . Againe , Christ commanded to Eate his Body ; yet notwithstanding have Three e e Se● above , Ch. 2. §. 4. l. ) Iesuites already confessed that Christs Body cannot bee sayd to have beene properly Eaten , but Figuratively onely . What fascination then hath perverted your Iudgements ; that you cannot but still confound your selves , by your contrary and thwarting Languages ?

Your third Romish Objection . SECT. III.

DOctrinall and Dogmaticall speeches ( say f f Praecipua dogmata , &c Bellar. quo supra . §. Denota . you ) ought to be direct and literall : But these words , [ This is my Body ] are Doctrinall .

CHALLENGE .

A Man would marvaile to heare such seely and petty Reasons to bee propounded by those , who are accounted great Clerkes , and those who know full well that the speech of Christ , concerning Castrating or gelding of a man's selfe , is g 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 larum 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 . Doctrinall , and teacheth Mortification ; and yet is not literally to bee understood , as you all know by the literall errour of h 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 himselfe . And the same Origen , who thus wounded himselfe by that literall Exposition , in his youth , Hee in his Age , expounding the words of Christ , concerning the Eating of his flesh , sayd of the literall sense thereof , that , i i Origen . Litera haec occidit . in Levit. Hem 7. It killeth . Secondly , these words [ This is the New Testament in my Bood , ] they are words as Doctrinall as the other [ This is my Body : ] and yet figurative , by your owne k k See above cap. 2. §. 4. Confession . Thirdly , the words of Christ , Iohn 6. of Eating his flesh , are Doctrinall ; and yet , by your owne l l Verus & hee ral●s 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 cogitatione . Bella● lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Sed praeter . Construction , are not to bee properly understood , but as Christ afterwards expounds himselfe , Spiritually . Fourthly , where Christ thus sayd , The Bread , which I shall give , is my stesh , Ioh. 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 Doctrinall Assertions , yet was his Body figuratively called Bread . Fiftly , that in those words of Christ to Peter , Matth. ●6 . Vpon this Rocke will I build my Church ; And , To thee will I give the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven ; And Ioh. 21. Fede my sheepe ; ( In which texts of Scripture you place , although most falsly , your Doctrinall foundation of Popedome it selfe ; ) yet know you all these to be Tropicall Speeches . Yea , and what say you to the first Doctrinall Article , and foundation of Christian Doctrine , delivered by God unto man , in the beginning , * * Gen. 3. 15. The seed of the woman shall breake the Serpents head ? Is not the later part of the Article altogether Figurative , yet signifying this Doctrinall point , even the vanquishing of the power of Satan , who hath neither head nor tayle , but is Metaphorically called a Serpent ?

Your fourth Romish Objection . SECT. IV.

T He Apostles ( saith your m m Bell. Apostoli rudes & simplices erant &c. Lib. 1. de Euch. c. 9. §. Argumentum secundum . Cardinall ) were rude and simple : Therefore needed to be Instructed by Christ in plaine tearmes , Without Figures . So he .

CHALLENGE .

ANd yet Christ , you know , did often speake Figuratively unto them , talking of Bread , Leaven , Seed , &c. And stiling them the Salt of the earth ; yea even in this Sacrament ( us hath beene confessed ) in the words Eate , Shed , Testament . Another Iesuite witnesseth , that n n Apostoli à Christo edocti fuerunt , & illuminati , ut cum summâ reverē Sacramentum hoc susciperent Suarez Ies . 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 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 , tearmed Rude ; and the rather , because They ( who being commanded to prepare the Passeover , perceived that by Passeover was figuratively understood the Paschall Lambe , and thereupon prepared the Passeover , according to the Lord's Command ) could not be ignorant , that in this like Sacramentall speech [ This is my Bodie ] the Pronoune [ THIS ] did literally point out Bread , and siguratively signifie Christ's Body . Doubtlesse , if the manner of Christ's speech in the Eucharist had not beene like the other in the Passeover , they would have desired Christ to explaine his meaning , as they did sollicitously in other doubts .

Their last Romish Objection . SECT. V.

WEe are never to let passe the Literall Sense ( saith your o o Nunquàm dimittamus proprium verborum sensum , nisi cogamur ab aliquâ aliâ Scriptura , &c. Bell. l. 1. de Euch. Cap. 9. §. Vltimo . Cardinall ) 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 .

SVrely nor wee , without some one of these ; but that you may know the grounds of our perswasion to be more than one , or yet all These ; And how bountifully wee shall deale with you , wee shall shew in the Proposition following .

Ten Reasons , for proofe of the Necessity of interpreting the words of Christ Figuratively . SECT. VI.

FIrst , Wee have beene compellable to allow a Figurative Sense , by the confessed Analogie of Scripture , in all such Sacramentall Speeches of both Testaments , concerning Circumcision , Rocke , Baptisme ; as also that speech of Christ , Ioh. 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man , as you have * * See above c. 2. §. 3. heard . Secondly , Wee are Challengable hereunto by our p p See hereafter , B. ● . Chap. ● . § 〈◊〉 . Article of Faith , which teacheth but one naturall Body of Christ , and the same to Remaine now in Heaven . Thirdly , Wee are inforced , for feare of such q q See hereafter , B. ● . Chap. 4. Heresies , as have followed in other Case , upon the literall sense ; for it was not the Figurative , but the literall and proper sense of being borne againe , by Baptisme , ( Ioh. 3. ) that begat the errour of Nicodemus : and the like literall sense of God's Eyes , Hands , Feet , &c. brought forth the Anthropomorphites . And so was it the literall sense of those words in the Canticles [ Tell mee where thou lyest at noone ] which deluded the Donatists ; and of Origen you have heard , that hee by the literall sense of these wordes , [ Some there be that castrate themselves , &c , ] did fondly wrong himselfe .

Fourthly , Wee are necessarily mooved , to reject your literall sense , by a confessed Impossibility , taught by that Vniversall Maxime , r r See above Chap. 1. §. 4. Disparatum de disparato , &c. shewing that Bread , being of a different nature from flesh , can no more possibly be called the flesh or Body of Christ , literally , than Leade can be called Wood. Fiftly , Wee are perswaded hereunto by the former alleaged Interpretation of the Ancient Fathers , both of the Greeke and Latine Church , calling the Sacrament a Figure ; and expounding This is ] by [ This Signifieth . ] Sixtly , Wee are urged by the Rule set downe by Saint Augustine , for the direction of the whole Catholike Church ; that , s 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 hainous ( as to eate the flesh of Christ ) it is figurative . And of this Sacrament doth not Christ say , Take , Eate , 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 Literall Exposition therof ; because their Objections have beene confuted by your owne Doctors , and by Truth it selfe , even the holy Scriptures . Eightly , your owne Vnreasonablenesse may perswade somewhat , who have not beene able , hitherto , to confirme any one of your five former Objections to the contrary , by any one Father of the Church . Ninthly , For that the literall Interpretation of Christ's wordes was the foundation of the Heresie of the Capernaites , and hath affinitie with divers other t t See the last Booke Chap. 2. §. the last . Ancient Heresies condemned by Antiquitie . Tenthly , Our last perswasion is the consent of Antiquity , against the Literall conversion of Bread into Christ's Body ( which you call Transubstantiation ) against the Literall Corporall Presence , against Literall Corporall Eating , and Vnion , and against a proper Sacrifice of Christ's Body Subjectively . All which are fully perswasive Inducements to inforce a figurative sense , as the sundry Bookes following will clearely demonstrate from point to point .

CHALLENGE .

YOu may not passe over the consideration of these points , by calling them Schoole-subtilties , and Logicall Differences , as Master Fisher lately hath done ; thinking by this his flie Sophistrie , craftily to draw the mindes of Romish Professors from the due discovery of your Romish false Literall Exposition of Christ's words , [ THIS IS MY BODY : ] the very foundation of your manifold monstrously-Erroneous , Superstitious , Hereticall , and Idolatrous Consequences issuing from thence , whereunto wee now orderly proceed , after that wee have unfoulded your last Mysterie .

CHAP. IIII.

⚜ A Confirmation of a Figurative Sense of Christs words , [ THIS IS MY BODY ] opened unto us by a Third Key , in the Pronoune [ MEVM ] 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 Repugnancie among themselves in Answering , and Insufficiencie of Answers , may justly seeme 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 proprietie of Speech , wherein Christ himselfe spake them ; and therefore they cannot bee Consecrative words , according to your Romane Faith , as they are uttered by the Minister . For hee must deliver them either , Narratively , by way of Repetition , as they are read , both in the Gospell , and in your Romane Missall saying , [ And Iesus tooke Bread , and when hee had given thankes , he brake it , and gave it to his Disciples , saying , This is my Body . ] And if so , then the Minister in rehearsing of Christs word [ THIS ] should consecrate the Bread , wherof Christ spake in his saying , [ THIS ] at his Institution of this Sacrament , and not this Bread , which is now in the Ministers hand , made visible to the People . Or else he should pronounce the same words ( according to your owne terme ) Significatively , that is , so speaking them in the person of Christ , as if Christ himselfe should now pronounce them . And if so , then in the Priests saying [ This is my Body , ] the word [ MY ] should signifie the Body of the Priest , and not the Body of Christ . This is a shrewd Objection , which so puzleth your Doctors , ( See the 1 1 Bellarm. lib. 4. de Eucharist . cap. 14. §. Objicitur . — Possunt verba duobus modis dici , aut Narrativè ac Recitativè , vel Significativè : ut exempli gratia , cùm ex Evangelio recitamus dixisse Iudaeos de Christo [ Hic blasphemat ] illa verba [ Hic blasphemat ] à rudaeis dicebantur significativè , id enim volebant , Christum esse Blasphemum ; à nobis autem non dicuntur Significativè , sed tantum Narrativè , non enim significare volumus Christum essè Blasphemum , sed Iudaeos hoc dixis●e . Hac distinctione positâ , est hoc Argu nentum : Verba illa [ Hoc est Corpus mean ] vel dicuntur à Sacerdotibus Recitativè , vel Significativè , sed neutro modo possunt esse forma Sacramenti , igitur non sunt●sta verba forma Sacramenti , Probatur Assumptio , Nam si ista verba dicerentur Recitativè , 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 . liter tantùm , & non Significativè . Si autem dicerentu● Significativè , Primò , illud [ Hoc est Corpus meum ] demonstraret corpus Sacerdotis , non Christi , ac dicere oportet , Hoc est corpus Christi — Respondeo , verba illa dici utroque modo , & Recitativè , & Significativè , 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 Sacramentes : 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 Recitativè simul & Significativè 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 Recitativè sumi , Innocent 3. Durand . Major . Catharinus , Ledesma , Gabriel : Ratio , quia si Significativè tantùm , essent falsa , nihil significantia aliud in ore Sacerdotis , quàm in ore Christi , viz. Christum solu● dixisse Apostolis , [ Sumite , Bibite , &c. ] Ad haec , quod si Significativè , tum minister non ostenderet corpus Christi , sed suum , diceus [ Meum , ] quod esset falsum — Alij verò consent verba formae Consecrationis proferri à Sacerdote non solùm Significativè , & in persona Christi , sicut is qui in Comoedia induit personam Regis , aut alterius , assumens ejus verba , ea profert Significativè , & in persona illius , sed etiam Recitativè , quamvis non materialiter . Cap. 2. At mihi sanè prima opinio summopere displicuit , eo quod semper judicaverim nullâ ratione negari posse verba Consecrationis Significativè à Sacerdote usurpari ; cùmque duo illi modi , nempe Recitativè , & Significativè , inter se pugnent , ut in eandem vocem , aut orationem convenire nequeant — Est igitur sententia ( me quidem judice ) probabilior , verba Consecrationis , quae sunt proforma , Significativè solùm à Sacerdote proferri , non autem Recitativè , hoc est , Narrativè , 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 . Adde , haec duo inter se pugnant , nam Recitativè 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 Recitativè , tum verba non pertinerent ad materiam praesentem . Et Cap. 3 — Verba praecedentia solùm dicuntur Recitativè , 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 . vè incipiat loqui . Participium autem [ Dicens ] quod refertur etiam ad verba Consecrationis , non essicit ut illa Recitativè dicantur , sed & nomine illius , qui ea tunc dixit , pronuntientur ; atque de hoc tantum per illud Participium [ Dicens ] admonemur . Marginalls ) that they bestirre themselves like as Souldiers would doe , in withstanding a Batterie , or defending a Breach . One company of them say , that the Priest uttereth Christs words onely Narratively by rehearsing them ; A second ranke answers no , but both Recitingly , and Significatively . Not so , saith the Third Troope , because this is Impossible . Thus much of the irresolute Iudgements of your Disputers .

That the Answeres given are each of them Insufficient . The first is , that the Priest pronounceth Christs 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 ] onely as Narratively , rehearsing them , then hee could not therby consecrate the Bread , which is in his owne hands , because it is not that Bread , which was then in Christs hands , when he sayd [ This is my Bodie . ] And againe , if they should be uttered of the Priest , as in the person of Christ , which you call Significatively , as if Christ himselfe should now speake them , by the mouth of the Priest ; yet being Pronounced by the Priest , and not by Christ , the Priest in saying , [ My Bodie , ] should consecrate his owne Bodie , and not the Bodie of Christ . They doe 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 , wee should more easily beleeve them , but they cannot . Let us try this . Bellarmine . * * See above in the former Section . It is ( saith hee in the Margin ) as when the Angell of God , taking upon him the person of God , said , [ I am the God of your Fathers . ] So hee . Wee ( not to dispute now the truth of his Assertion , in saying it was Gods Angell that sayd , I am the God of your Fathers , but to suppose it true ) doe reply , that the Similitude is not appliable : Because , if as the Priest repeating Christs words thus , [ Iesus gave it to his Disciples , saying , [ This is my Bodie ; ] So the Angell 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 discerne that the Angell spake so , only as a Minister , or ( as the word , Angell , signifieth ) a Messenger of God , and not as the person of God .

Your Iesuite Suarez will mend this , who , to shew that a man may , in the same words , speake , both in his owne person , and in the person of another , 2 2 Suarez in 3. Thom. Disp . 58. §. 4 Non tantùm Recitativè , sed etiam formaliter & Significativè 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 Ambrosius , non 〈◊〉 utitur Sacerdos verbis suis , sed Christi — Et ( aliquanto post ) praecedentia & subsequentia tantùm materialiter proferuntur , at illa verba etiam Significativè 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 hee ) as if a Councell of some King should say , It is given us in charge to pronounce Sentence , saying , [ I the King doe say in this Cause , &c. ] So farre your Iesuite , and no farther . We Reply : That the point , which is to be proved , is , that the same words may bee spoken of the same man , both in his owne person and in the person of another . But when the Councell sayd , [ It is given us in charge that I doe say in this cause ] they saying , It is given us in charge , spake it in their owne 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 doe say in the Cause ] they spake not in their owne person , but in the person of the King . What need many words ? To speake the same words in a mans owne person , and ●n the person of another ( saith your Iesuit Vasquez i● the Murgi● , and that most trulie ) is Impossible ; and hee therefore standeth onely to that one Ter●●e , Significatively , which all your other Disputers held to bee necessarie for the Answering of the maine Objection . But what need wee any Iesuit to plead our Cause , seeing that the Text it selfe will clearelie evince the same ?

That the words of Christ , as they are pronounced by the Priest , are meerely Narrative , and not Significative , is proved by the Text it selfe . SECT. III.

IT was alwayes held , by all Divines , to bee 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 , Ianus 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 goe immediately before the former Text , concerning the Acts of Christ , viz. [ He ( having taken Bread ) when hee had given thankes , brake it , saying , This is , &c. ] are delivered by the Minister onely 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 Hee ( Christ ) had supped , hee tooke the Cup , and when hee had given thankes , hee sayd , Drinke you all of this , &c. ] which all are Narratives , repearing what Christ had done . For the words are , HEE ( Christ ) TOOKE ; and not , I , the Minister : And HEE , what ? [ Saying , ] a word Narrative , in it's owne proper Signification .

Next marke the succeeding words of both your supposed Consecratory Sayings of Christ , concerning the Bread [ This is my Bodie : ] it followeth , HEE ( 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 Christs Blood Shed , expressed then by Christ .

We now demand , seeing the whole Contexture , whether going before , or following after the Text in Controversie , are all words , onely rehearsing what Christ had done ; why should you conceive the Intervenient words [ This is my Bodie ] to be uttered in a different tenure of speech , as in the person of Christ ? When wee should expect some warrant hereof from some one Father , you are unanimously mute . When wee further inquire into your Reason , wee finde 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 onely ; and againe , in a middle Scene , of a Significator .

That the Suggested Romish Significative Sense of Christ's words was never Patronized by any Ancient Father . SECT. IV.

WEe 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 againe , 2 Cor. 5. Wee are Embassadors 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 owne 3 3 Estius Professor Theol. Duacen . in 2. Cor. 2. v. 10. [ Cui quid donav● in persona Christi donavi ] posset aeque verti [ In facie Christi ] quasi coram Christo , & in ejus praesentia — et infia in hac eâdem Epistolà ca 4. leg●ur in [ persona ] ubi nos habemus [ In facie Christi ] & iursus cap. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , ubi latinè [ Qui in facie ] 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 . Iesuite Estius rendreth out of the Fathers . [ In the person of Christ ] is no more ( saith he ) but in the name of Christ , and by the authoritie of Christ , and as Christ himselfe 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 farre higher straine ; which your Cardinall Bellarmine will have you to consider , * * See above Sect. 1. The Priest ( saith he ) in this Action ( of Consecration ) dealeth farre otherwise , than he doth in other Sacraments , where he speaketh as the Minister of God , in his owne person , saying , [ I Absolve thee : I Baptize thee . ] Do you marke ? [ Farre otherwise . ] And yet the Apostle , when hee spake of the Absolution , which hee gave , saying to the Corinthians , If I have pardoned any , hee 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 [ Farre 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 signifie the same Intention in himselfe , in repeating those words , which Christ himselfe had in the first uttering of them .

As for example , ( it is your Cardinal 's owne ) Any one repeating these words spoken of the wicked Iewes , 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 himselfe should Blaspheme : ●ut delivering them onely Narratively , by way of Repetition , hee doth not Blaspheme , because he meaneth not to say that Christ did Blaspheme , but that the Iewes said so . So he . And so say wee , That the Priest , in repeating of Christ's words [ This is my Body ] pronounceth them Narratively onely , and not Significatively . For the Romish Priest , if he should speake the words of Christ Significatively , in the person of Christ , that is , with the same Intention as Christ , when hee said [ This ] of the Bread , then in his hands : the Priest saying , [ This ] should intead and meane that [ This Bread ] whereof Christ spake , and not that which is in his owne hands , which now he intendeth to Consecrate ; and Consequently should he make no Consecration at all . And what hereupon must become of your Romish Masse , in your Transubstantiation , Sacrifice , and Adoration , you may understand in the next Section .

The full Overthrow of the whole Doctrine of Transubstantiation , Corporall Presence , Personall 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 Iesuite * * 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 worke 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 onely in the way of Rehearsing and Repeating them ; No one Iota in the Text , or Context ; No one Testimonie of Antiquitie ; No one Reason , or yet competent Example hath beene alleged by any of your Doctors for proofe of the Contrary .

This point needeth no more discussion , onely , for further Illustration-sake , wee shall commend unto you a more proportionable Example , than was any that hitherto your Sophisters have invented ; which , because your Iesuites have affected the * * See above in the first and second Sections . Similitudes of Historicall and Comicall Representations , wee 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 , wherof Aäron said , [ My Serpent ] cannot possibly bee said accordingly [ My Serpent ] by the Priest , as your selves 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 BOOKE , Treating of the First Romish Doctrinall Consequence , pretended to arise from your former depraved Exposition of Christ's wordes . [ This is my Body . ] called TRANSVBSTANTIATION . Your Doctrinall Romish Consequences are Five , viz. the Corporall 1. Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ , called Transubstantiation ; in this Third Booke . 2. Existence of the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament , called Corporall Presence ; in the Fourth Booke . 3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bodies of the Communicants , called Reall , or Materiall Conjunction ; in the Fifth Booke . 4. Sacrificing of Christ's Body , by the hands of the Priest , called a Propitiatory Sacrifice ; in the Sixth Booke . 5. Worshipping with Divine Worship , called Latria , or Divine Adoration of the same Sacrament ; in the Seventh Booke .

After follow the Additionals , in a Summary Discoverie of the Abominations of the Romish Masse , and the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof ; in the Eighth Booke .

THese are the five Doctrinall Consequences , which you teach , and professe , and which wee shall ( by God's assistance ) pursue , according to our former Method of Brevity , and Perspicuity ; and that by as good , and undenyable Evidences , and Confessions of your owne Authours , in most points , as either you can expect , or the Cause it selfe require . And because a Thing must have a Begetting , before it have a manner of Being , therefore before wee treate of the Corporall Presence , wee must in the first place handle your Transubstantiation , which is the manner ( as wee may so say ) of the Procreation thereof .

CHAP. I. The State of the Controversie , concerning the Change and Conversion professed by Protestants , which is Sacramentall ; And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall .

First of the Sacramentall . SECT. I.

THere lyeth a charge upon every Soule , that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament , that herein hee Discerne the Lords Body : which Office of Discerning ( according to the judgement of Protestants ) is not onely 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 naturall Bread , into a Sacrament of Christs Bodie . This wee 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 it selfe , Sacramentally represented , and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Communicants . There are then three Objects , in all , to be distinguished . The First is before Consecration , the Bread meerely Naturall . Secondly , After Consecration , Bread Sacramentall . Thirdly , Christs owne Body , which is the Spirituall , and Supersubstantiall Bread , truly exhibited by this Sacramentall , to the nourishment of the soules of the Faithfull .

Secondly of the Romish Change , which you call Transubstantiation . SECT. II.

BVt your Change in the Councell of a 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 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 , then Pope , is made an Article of Faith , without which a man cannot bee saved . Which Article of your Faith Protestants beleeve to bee a new and impious Figment , and c c Transubstantiationem Protestantes esse sceleratam Haeresin dicunt . Bell. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 11. Heresie . The Case thus standing , it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Foundation . As for the Church of England , shee professeth in her 28. Article , saying of this Transubstantiation , that It cannot bee proved by holy Writ , but is repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture , overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament , and hath given occasion unto MANY SVPERSTITIONS .

CHAP. II. The Question is to be examined by these grounds ; viz. I Scripture . II. Antiquity . III. Divine Reason .

IN all which wee shall make bold to borrow your owne Assertions , and Confessions , for the Confirmation of Truth .

The Romish Depravation of the Sense of Christ his words , [ This is my Body , ] for proofe of Transubstantiation . SECT. I.

YOu pretend ( and that with no small Confidence ) as a Truth avouched by the Councell of a 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 shew your selves to bee men of great Faith , or rather Credulity , but of little Conscience ; teaching that to bee undoubtedly True , whereof notwithstanding you your selves render many Causes of Doubting . For first you b b Scotus , quem Cameracensis sequtur , — Dicunt non extare locum in Scripturis 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 Cardinall Caejetane , and some other Ancient Schoolemen ) Scotus and Cameracensis , men most Learned and Acute , held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse , which ( without the Declaration of the Church ) can evidently compell any man to admit of Transubstantiation . So they . Which your Cardinall , and our greatest Adversary , faith c c See in the former Allegation at (b) Is not altogether improbable ; and whereunto your Bishop d 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 proofe of your Transubstantiation , out of the words of Christ , were driven to so hard shifts , as to e e [ Hoc est ] pro Transit , Bonaventura decet . Idem ferè habet Oceam , & Hol cott , insinuat etiam Waldensis — Volunt Propositionem illam non esse , substantivè , sed Transitive interpretandam , sc. ut sit sensus . [ Hoc est Corpus ] id est , Transit in Corpus . — Sed hoc corrumpit significationē 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 Verbe Substantive [ Est ] into a Verbe Passive , or Transitive , Fit , or Transit ; that is , in stead of [ Is ] to say , It 's Made , or It passeth into the Body of Christ . A Sense , which your Iesuite Suarez cannot allow , because ( as hee truly saith ) It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word , Transubstantiation , importeth no more than the Fieri , seu Transire , of Making , or Passing of one Substance into another . So that still you see Transubstantiation cannot bee extracted out of the Text , without violence to the words of Christ .

⚜ The like violence is used by your Iesuit I I Iac. Gordon Scotus Ies. lib. Controv. 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 Christs Speech to be Practicall , for working a Transubstātiation , doth inforce the words [ This is my Body ] and , [ Eat yee this ] and , [ Drinke yee this ] being all spoken in the Present tense , to signifie the future . Which , although it were true , all Grammarians know to be the figure Enallage . From these Premisses it is most apparent , that the Romish Doctors cast themselves necessarily upon the hornes of this Dilēma , thus : Either have these words of Christ [ This is my Body ] a Sense Practicall , to signifie that which they worke , and then is the Sense Tropicall , ( as you have now heard them , against your Romish Literall Sense , to betoken an operative power and effect of working Bread into the Body of Christ : ) or else they are not Practicall ; and then they cannot implie your Transubstantiation at all .

Wee might , in the third place , adde hereunto that the true Sense of the words of Christ is Figurative , as by Scriptures , Fathers , and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * * See the former Booke throughout . proved , as an insallible Truth . So groundlesse is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith , whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following . But yet , by the way , wee take leave to prevent your Objection . You have told us that * * See the former Booke throughout . the words of Christ are Operative , and worke that which they signifie ; so that upon the pronunciation of the words [ This is my Body , ] it must infallibly follow , that Bread is changed into Christs Body ; which wee shall beleeve , assoone as you shall bee able to prove , that upon the pronuntiation 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 Christs Blood , or else into his Blood it selfe .

The Noveltie 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 f Fateor , neque Antiquos Patres usos esse hoc nomine Transubstantiationis . Christoph . de Capite fontium , Archicpis . Caesar . lib. de reali praesen . cap. 5. 9. Artic. 4. was not used of any Ancient Fathers ; and that your Romish Change had not it's Christendome , or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation ( as your Cardinall g 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 Cyrill of Alexandria Epist ad Caelosyrium [ Convertens ea in veritatem Carnis : ] It is answered by Vasquez the Iesuite ; non habetur illa Epistola inter opera Cyrilli . Vasquez . in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. num. 24. Alan witnesseth ) before the Councell of Laterane , which was 1● 15. yeares after Christ ; nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine , for a Thousand yeares , attributing any word equivalent , in strict Sense , unto the same word Transubstantiation , untill the yeare 900 ( which is beyond the Compasse of due Antiquitie . ) At what time you finde , note , and urge Theophylact , who saith of the Bread , that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ . Which Phrase , in what Sense hee used it , you might best have learned from himselfe , who in the very same place saith that Christ in a manner is h h Theoph. in Ioh. 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 owne judgements to determine .

Neither yet may you , for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word , object the like use of this word [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] as though it had beene in use before the Arian Controversie began : because the Fathers of the Councell of Nice judged the Objection of the Noveltie of that word Calumnious ; for that the use of it had beene Ancient before their times , as your Cardinall i i Calumniam hanc Patres Antique aptissimè cōtutârunt , 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 himselfe witnesseth .

You furthermore , to prevent our Objection ( demanding why the Ancient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change , Transubstantiation , if they had beene of your Romish Faith , concerning the Substantiall Change of Bread into the Body of Christ ) have shaped us this Answer , namely , that k k Ets : veteres Ecclasiae Doctores non sint usi voce Tran substantrationis , tamen usi sunt vocibus icē significantibus , ut Conversionis , Trāsmutationis , 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 Divinitie among you ; who by his vast and rash boldnesse 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 Divell is Transubstantiated into an Angel of light : or from the word [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , It is changed ] ( used by l l Quiaquid Spiritus Sanctus tetigerit , & Sanctificat 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Cyril . Hieros . 〈◊〉 . 5. Cyrill ) urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctifie , is Transubstantiated into another thing : or from the word [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] in m m 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Nazianz . Orat. 40 pag. 943. Edit. Paris . Nazianzene , conclude that Every person Baptized is Transubstantiated into Christ . ⚜ And one of your owne Doctors examining all the Phrases of the Greeke Fathers , and comming to the word , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ( which doth properly expresse the sense of the Latine word , Transubstantiatio ) hee confesseth that 2 2 Quanvis Graeci Petres eo nomine 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 non utuntur , sunt tamen Authores aborum no 〈◊〉 , quibus eam , quoac hert possit , ap 〈◊〉 & exprimunt , ut 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c. 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 learne from two Patriarchs of Constantinople ; the One not admitting , the Other rejecting it ; as will bee showne 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 yeares space , finde out either the Greeke word , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or the Latine Transubstantiatio , and apply them to this Change , if they had once dreamed of this your Article of Faith ? Will you permit us to learne a point of wisedome from your Cardinall ? n n Periculosa est vocum novarum Libertas in Ecclesia , cum paulatim ex vocibus novis novae etiam res oriantor , cùm cuique licet in tel us 〈◊〉 nomina singere . Bell. lib. de Sacram. in Genere . cap 7. §. Ex quibus . Liberty of devising new wordes ( 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 meanes to avoid ; else so new and barbarous a Name must needs ingender a novel , and brutish opinion , such as this Article it selfe will appeare to be ; As followeth .

The Noveltie of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined , and showne not to have beene before the Councel of Laterane ( namely ) not untill 1215. yeares after Christ . SECT. III.

THis Article hath beene 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 Cardinall o o Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist . cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen . Bellarmine noteth to have beene in the dayes of Pope Gregory the Seventh . viz. 1073. yeares after Christ . But surely at that time this could be but a private opinion of some few , for Peter Lombard ( living 67. yeares after this Pope , and esteemed the Master of the Romish Schoole ) when he had laboured to give Resolution to all doubts , especially in this very Question ( whether the Conversion were substantiall , or not ) confesseth plainely , saying ; p 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 onely , which caused your learned and Subtile School-man Scotus to descend lower , to finde out the Birth thereof , q 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. de Eucharist . cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen . Affirming that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Councel of Laterane , under Pope Innocent the Third , viz. Anno 1215 whom therefore your Cardinall doth taxe for want of reading . But either were your Iesuite Coster , and Cardinall Perron as ignorant of Ancient Learning , as Scotus , or else they gave small Credit to that Councel cited by Bellarmine under Gregory the Seventh . For your Iesuite saith , in direct tearmes , that r 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 Councel of Laterane , 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 Cardinall Perron more peremptorily concludeth , that s 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 Estat pag. 33. [ As witnesseth our P. Presloa , alias Widdington Discuss , Concib . Latcran . part . 1. §. 1. pag. 12. ] If it had not beene for the Councel of Laterane , it might be now lawfull to impugne it . So he . A plaine acknowledgement , that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Councel , even as Scotus affirmed before . But we pursue this Chase yet further , to shew ,

That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councel of Laterane , under Pope innocentius the Third . SECT. IV.

YOur owne learned Romish t 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 , &c. Nauclerus An. 1215. [ meaning after the Councell . ] Ad festum Sanctae Andreae protractum , nihil dignum memoriâ actū , nisi quod Orientalis Ecclesia , &c. 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 farre out of Widdrington alias Preston , in his Booke 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 testifie as followeth : That many things fell under Consultation in that Councel , but nothing was openly defined , the Pope dying at Perusium . Insomuch that some of these Authours sticke not to say , that This Generall Councel , which seemed to promise bigge and mighty matters , did end in scorne and mockery , performing nothing at all . Wee might adde , that the supposed Acts of this Councel were not published untill more than two hundred yeares after . No marvell then if some u u Scholastici quidam hanc Doctrinam de Transubstantiatione non valdè Antiquam esse dixerunt : inter quos Scorus , & Gabriel Biel. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 30. §. 1. Schoole-men , among whom were Scotus and Biel , held Transubstantiation not to have beene very ancient . And another , that x x In Synaxi serò definivit Ecclesia Transubstantiationem : diù satis erat Credere sivè 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 y Mr. Brerely in his Liturgie Tract . 2. §. 11. pag. 158. Transubstantiation compleat ( that is , both for forme , and matter ) was not determined untill the last Councel of Trent ; that is to say , not untill the yeare of our Lord , 1560. Do you not see how much licking this ougly Beare had , before it came to be formed ? and yet it will appeare 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 Falshood thereof .

CHAP. III.

The Definition of Transubstantiation in the Church of Rome ; and of the Falshood thereof . SECT. I.

THe Councel of Trent ( saith your a a Concil. Tridentinum dicit , fieri Conversionem totius substantiae Panis , id est , tam formae quàm materiae in Substantiam Corporis Christi . Bellarmia . lib. 3. de Eucharist . Cap. 18. §. Si objicias . Concil. Trident. Sess . 13. Cap. 4. Cardinall ) hath defined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread , that is , aswell forme , as matter , into the Substance of Christ's Body .

Our First proofe of the Falshood 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 Doctours of your Church , concerning the nature of this Conversion , are by you reduced into these two maners , ( namely ) that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread : or else by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the forme of Bread .

CHALLENGE .

WHatsoever it is , which you will seeme to professe , never shall you perswade us that you do indeed believe either of the pretended Formes of Transubstantiation . First , not by Production , because ( as the same b b Productio est , quando terminus ad quem non existat , & ideò vi Conversionis necessariò producitur , ut aqua in vinum . Adductiva autem , &c. Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist . cap. 18. §. Secundò notandum . — Productiva non est , quia Corpas Domini praeexistit . Idem . ibid. §. Ex his . Cardinall 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 alwaies Extant ; therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread . So he . Which Productive maner of Transubstantiation could not be believed by your Iesuites , c 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 d Praeter Adductivam Conversionem evidenter refutavimus omnes modos Conversionis , qui vel dici , vel singi possunt . Suarez . Ies. Tom. 3. Qu est . 75. Disp. 50. §. 5. §. Tertiò Principaliter . [ Mr Fisher in his Rejòynder talketh fondly of a Reproduction , as of Carcasses 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 hee cannot apply this Reproduction to Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ , his Answe●●● impertinent , and hee may be produced for an idle Disputer . ] Suarez , by both whom it hath beene confuted . And if the Change be not by Production , then it must follow that it is not by Transubstantiation ; which is demonstrable in it selfe , because the next maner , which they insist upon , cannot possibly serve your turne .

This Sècond maner they name to bee by Adduction , which your e 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 . Inde 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. Cardinall 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 Councel of Trent , which defined a Change of the whole substance of Bread into the Body of Christ . So that Councel , 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 farre 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 onely the Outward Accidents , and formes of Bread . Yet had this Figment some Favourers in your f 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 Iob. 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. Schooles .

No Marvell therefore if there arose some out of your owne Church , who did impugne this delusion , calling it ( as your g 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. de Eucharist . pag. 81. Cardinall himselfe witnesseth of them ) a Translocation onely , 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 Lamb-skin , which Lambe was long since dead ( and consequently ceasing to be ) that therefore his hand is Transubstantiated into the Body of the Lambe ? yet is there in this example a more substantiall Change , by much , than can be imagined to be by your Adduction of a Body under onely the Formes and Accidents of the matter of Bread ; because ( to speake from your selves ) there is in that a Materiall Touch betweene the Substance of the hand , and the Lamb-skin : but in this other there is onely a Conjunction of the Substance of one Body with the Accidents of another . Which kinde of meere Succession of a Substance , your Iesuite Suarez will allow to bee no more than a h 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 onely Terminus praesentiae , of the Praesence of Christ's Body , instead of the Presence of Bread . Therefore it is flatly Translocation onely . A word more ; Transubstantiation ( saith your Councel of Trent ) is collected out of these words of Christ , [ This is my Body : ] But by sole Adduction ( saith your 3 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 . Iesuite Coninx ) cannot be collected a Conversion of Bread into Christ's Body out of the words of Christ .

Wee Conclude that seeing Conversion , whether by Production , or by Adduction , are so plainly proved by your selves to be contrary to Truth : therefore it is not possible for you to believe a Doctrine so absolutely repugnant to your owne knowledge . ⚜ This last figment being discarded , ponder ( wee 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 alwaies 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 gain-say the Productive , and teach the Adductive , yet do all deny Locall mutation à Termino ad Terminum . A Paradoxe which wee leave to your wisedomes to contemplate upon .

⚜ The next Contradiction is to be seene between your Romish Popes & their Councels , one against another : for your Pope Innocent 3. ( whom your Doctors have so earnestly objected , as an high Patron of Transubstantiation ) in the Councel of Laterane , Anno 1560. defined 4 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 substantiall forme . And your Pope Iulius the Second , in the Councel 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 Forme . This Contradiction is somewhat to the matter in hand ( Wee thinke ) to prove a spirit of Contradiction to be in your Romane Church .

CHALLENGE . II. ⚜ In confutation of both the pretended Romish manners of Transubstantiation joyntly .

WHether you defend Transubstantiation by Production , or by Adduction , you are equally confutable in both , even by your owne Principles ; who hold , that if the Bread , which is to bee Transubstantiated and changed into Christ's Body , bee annihilated , and brought to meere nothing , it cannot bee said to bee Transubstantiated at all . Now whether you thinke the Bread , after consecration , to be Annihilated , we desire to know from your selves . Say then ( but speak out , without lisping or stammering , we pray you , that we may heare and understand you . ) 5 5 Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. Cap. 24. Nego Panem annihilari — nam etsi Panis nihil sit , tamen id in quod ipse conversus ēst , non est nihil , nec nullum , nec nusquam . Although Bread after Consecration bee nothing ( saith Bellarmine ) yet it is not annihilated , that is , brought to nothing . 6 6 Lessius Ies. Opusc . lib. 12. cap. 16. Circa substantiam Panis & Vini , primum miraculum est , quòd hae substantiae vi Cō 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 succedēte ; 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 Iesuit Lessius ) doe 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 maner to bee Miraculous , which we hold worthy rather to be esteemed Monstrous ; the speech is altogether so contradictory in it selfe .

Wherefore wee desire the foresaid Iesuite to play the Oedipus in unfolding this Riddle : Our saying ( saith hee ) that Bread and Wine are not annihilated , belongeth to the formalitie of speech ; for as concerning the thing it selfe , there is nothing of the Bread remaining either in forme or matter . So he . But that , say we , which is nothing , either in forme or matter , is surely annihilated : and therfore Bread becomming to be nothing , before Christ's Body be present , cannot possibly bee said to bee Changed into Christ's Body absent . And that the rather , because ( as one of your 7 7 Ioh. 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 forme , is truly Annihilated .

To this Argument ( in our Apprehension Insoluble ) wee can receive from your great Dictator no better Answer than that , 8 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 bee , 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 owne * * See above at (g) Societie . And yet againe , if it may bee , more plainly your Iesuit Vasquez ; 9 9 Vasquez in 3. Thom. qu 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 caus liter 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 definit , 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 Proofe of the Falshood of the Article of Transubstantiation , is from the Article of our Christian Creed , [ BORNE OF THE VIRGIN MARY . ] SECT. II.

T Ransubstantiation ( as hath beene defined by your Councell of Trent ) is a Conversion of the substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body . Now , in every such Substantiall Change , there are Two Termes , one is the Substance from which ; the other is the Substance whereinto the Substantiall 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 Cardinall hath no Evasion , but by denying the Conversion to be by Production , which notwithstanding was formerly the Generall Tenet of the Romish Schoole , ever since the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was hatched ; and which is contrary to his owne device of Conversion by Adduction . wherein first he i i Dicta Corpus Christi ex pane fieri , non tanquàm ex materia , sed tanquàm à Termino à quo , ut mundus ex nihilo : [ then confuting himselfe ] 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 himselfe , and secondly , his opinion hath beene scornfully rejected by your owne learned Doctors , as being nothing lesse than Transubstantiation , as you have heard . Therefore may you make much of your Breaden Christ . As for us , Wee , according to our Apostollicall Creec , believe no Body of Christ , but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the Bl: Virgin Mary , for feare of k k Alphonsus de Castro lib. 4 Tit. Christꝰ . Haer. 2. Manichaei dixerūt Christum non ex utero Virginis prodijsse ; Et Apollinaris dixit Christum non assumpsisse carnem ex Virgine . Item . Chiliastae , Democritae , Melcluoritae , ut Procli mitae . pratcolus in Elench. Haeret. in suic quique titulis . Heresie .

This same Objection being made of late to a Iesuite 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 hee againe received this Reply ; That the Children , which should bee so raised out of stones , howsoever they might bee Abraham's Children , according to Faith , yet could they not bee Children of Abraham according to the Flesh . Therefore is there as great a Difference betweene that Body : from Bread , and the other from the Blessed Virgin , as there must have beene betweene 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 dayes of Edgar a Saxon King , as it is set out in an l l Homily en . Easter day , pag. 35. Homily of that time , which standeth thus . Much is betweene the body that Christ suffered in , and betweene the bodie of the hallowed Howsell . 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 sinewes , in humane limbes : and his Ghostly body , which we call his Howsell , is gathered of many Cornes , without blood , and bone , without l●mbe , and therefore nothing is to be understood heerein bodily , but all is Ghostly to bee understood . This was our then Saxons Faith ; wherein is plainly distinguished the Body of Christ , borne of the blessed Virgin , from the Sacramentall ( which is called Ghostly ) as is the Body of Flesh from the consecrated substance of Bread . A Doctrine directly confirmed by * * See Booke 4. cap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge . Saint Augustine . Wherefore wee may as truly say , concerning this your Conversion , that if it be by Transubstantiation from Bread , then it is not the Body , which was borne of the Blessed Virgin ; as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication : * * See above , E. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread bee Christ's Body , then Something was Christs Body , which was not borne of the Virgin Mary .

CHALLENGE I ⚜ In vindication of the same Truth , against the late Calumniation of a Iesuite .

THis Sentence I have seene lately canvassed by a Iesuite , against a judicious and religious Knight , Sr. H. L. falsly imputing unto him divers Falsities ; pretending especially that the English Translation , used by the Knight , is differing from the Latine . Which Exception of your Iesuite must needes have proceded either from ignorance , if hee knew not that the Translation , used by the Knight , was taken out of the Originall Saxon-language , and not out of the Latine ; or , if he knew so much , from downe-right boldnesse , in charging him with a false Translation . I omit his frivolous Cavillations upon words .

The maine 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 kinde of Bodies , essentially differing one from the other ; or but onely the two different manners of the Being of one Body . Your Iesuite affirmeth them to signifie the same Body , and he calleth the contrary opinion false . His Reason . For whereas it is said , ( saith he ) that the spirituall flesh ( which is as much as to say , our Saviour his flesh in the Sacrament ) according to the outward shew , consisting of Granes of Corne , hath no Bones , nor Sinewes , nor distinction of Parts , Life or Motion . Here the Iesuite cryeth out against falshood , but why ? Because the Knight ( forsooth ) hath pretermitted ( saith he ) these words [ According to the outward shew , consisting of granes . ] Whereby he would have us believe the new ●●mish Faith of a Subsistence of meere Accidents . Who if he had meant to have dealt ingenuously , he should have manifested that his Latine Translation to have accorded with the Originall Saxon Copie . But to take him as wee finde him . If his words [ According to the outward shew ] imply ( as it needs must , if he will speake to any purpose ) that the Body of Christ , in this Sacrament , although in outward shew it be without Bones , Sinewes , Life and Motion , yet it hath all these inwardly in it selfe , as it is in this Sacrament ; then whilest he laboureth to confute one Protestant , he contradicteth all his fellow Iesuites of the same Society , * * See Booke 4. Chap. ● . Sect. 2. who deny all possibility of Motion of Christ's Body in this Sacrament by any naturall and voluntary Act , without a miracle . But to speake to the point ; This Body , and That Body ( say wee ) do diversifie two Bodies , the one Sacramentall ( of Bread ) called Spirituall ( because of the spirituall and mysticall Signification ) this Bread consisting of Granes : And the other the Naturall Body of Christ , consisting of Bones , Sinewes , &c. In a word , This , and That , in this Saxon narration , accordeth with the Doctrine of * * See Booke 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 Iesuite , hee will wrest his prejudicate Conceite out of another Homily of AElfrick , if it be possible , where we reade thus ; As Christ before his Passion could convert the substance of Bread , and Creature of Wine into his owne 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 Testimonie 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 Booke 5. Chap. 3. §. 1. & 2. taught , when they said , that the faithfull among the Iewes Ate the same spirituall meate , [ Christs Flesh ] in eating Manna , and dranke the same spirituall drink , that is , the blood of Christ , in drinking the water that issued out of the Rocke , which Christians now doe . And therefore meant not a Corporall eating of Christ , but a Sacramentall . So say wee , Christ could aswell then turne Manna , and Water of the Rocke , into a Sacrament of his Body and Blood , for the nourishing of the soules 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 Iesuites Objection : 10 10 In his Booke 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 therfore must AElfrick his speech be understood Sacramentally , as hath beene said : which because the Iesuite 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 expresse termes , hee was able to do ( namely ) thorow his divine power , by a Sacramentall Conversion ; because Omnipotencie 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 ( thinke you ) of your Iesuit to lend his Spectacles to another , when he had the most need of them himselfe ? 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 faithfull of Christ . This Lesson * * See Booke 2. C. 2. Sect. 10. hath beene 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 againe confirmed by Saint * * See Booke 4. Chap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge . Augustine . Wherefore wee may as truly say , concerning this your Conversion , that if it be by Transubstantiation , from Bread , then it is not the Body , which was Borne of the Blessed Virgin , as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication ; * * See above B. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread be Christ's Body , then something was Christ's Body , which was not borne of the Virgin Mary . And this wee are now furthermore to evince out of your Pope Innocent the Third , against your Councel of Trent . He ( See the Margent of the former Section ) taught that when the Conversion is of the forme 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 , shewing 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 Forme , as in Matter ; whereupon by the Iudgement 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 Substantiall Change of a Substance into Substance , except that the Substance of that , whereinto the Conversion is wrought , have it's Originall 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 naturall , or miraculous , which hath beene 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.

WEe wonder not why your Fathers of the Councell of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt of m 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 affirme ; Bread and Wine to remaine in this Sacrament after Consecration : which they did , to terrifie men from the doctrine of Protestants , who do all affirme 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 doe remaine , then is all Faith , yea , and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera , and meere Fancie ; as your Cardinall doth confesse , in granting , that n 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 bee : as it was in the Conversion of Water into Wine ; Water ceased to bee Water . And so must Bread cease to bee Bread . This being the State of the Question , wee undertake to give

Good Proofes of the Existence , and Continuance of Bread in the Eucharist , the same in Substance , after Consecration . Our first Proofe 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 reade 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 hee called the ourward Element Bread . You will say ( with Some ) It was so called onely 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 abhorre to say , in a proper sense , that Christs 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 satisfie ; for we shall proove , 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 deale 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 Lords Body . It had therefore concerned him to have honored the Sacrament with Divine Titles , agreeable to the Body of Christ , hypostatically united to his Godhead , and to have denied it absolutely to have beene Bread , considering that by the name of Bread the glory of the same Body might seeme to be abased , and Eclipsed ; if in Truth , and Verity he had not beleeved it to have beene ( then ) properly Bread .

This Reason , we guesse , you are bound to approve off , who , in your opinion of the Corporall 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 Greeke o o Archi●pisc . Cabasila . Latini nostros reprehendunt , quòd post illa verba [ Hoc est Corpus meum ] Panem & Vinum nominant , &c. Exposit. Liturg. cap. 29. Archbishop of Cabasila complained of the Romish Professors , for reprehending the Greeke Liturgies : why ? Because ( saith he ) after the words of Christ , [ This is my Body ] wee call the Symbols and Signes 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 , prejudiciall to their Transubstantiation ; and that if Saint Paul himselfe should deliver the same words he did , at this day , hee should by your Romish Inquisitors be taught to use his Termes 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 Christs Body . But that it is impossible the Body of Christ should bee properly predicated upon Bread , hath beene the Generall Confession of your owne Doctors , and the Conclusion of our second Booke .

⚜ Wee returne againe to the Text , where the Apostle having named it Bread , after Consecration , expoundeth himselfe what Bread he meant , saying , Bread which we breake . 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. sayth , Because it is one Bread , wee being many are one Body for wee all communicate of one Bread . Which Chrysostome , is well as other Fathers , doth analogize thus : * * See above B. 2. ●●ap . 2. Sect. 6. Challeng 1. See also Cypri●● , and S. August . B●●k . 3. Chapt. 3. Sect. 9. That as o●● loafe consisteth of many granes united together , so are the faithfull Communicants joyned together . So hee , hereby teaching you the substantiall Materialls of the same Bread , Many granes of Corne. And , as though the Apostle had meant to muzzle the Adversaries of this truth with variety of proofes , hee ( 1 Cor 10. 17. ) hath these words , Wee participate 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] that is , De pane hoc , Of this Bread ; thus called after Consecration . And againe , 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let him eate [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Of this Bread , which manifesteth the Eating of a part of an whole loafe of Bread ; and not of the Body of Christ , which , even by the Romish faith , is not , nor cannot bee divided into parts . Thus hath Saint Paul , the Scholler of Christ , concluded of Substantiall Bread , agreeable to that which our Master Christ himselfe taught of the other sacred Substantiall part of Drinke , after the Co●secration of this Sacrament , as is proved in the next Section .

Our Second Proofe 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 himselfe , 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 proofe of this our Exposition of the words of Christ , wee have the Consent of these and thus many holy Fathers ; Origen , Cyprian , Chrysostome , Augustine , Hierome , Epiphanius , Euthymius , Theophylact , and Bede , as witnesseth your Iesuite p p Origenes , Cyprianus , Chrysost. August . Hieron . Epiphan. Beda , Euthymius , Theophylact. [ Genimen Vi●s ] ad 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 , Iohan. 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 hee ) cannot be thus perswaded . So hee . Marke this ( you great Boasters of Accordance with Antiquity ! ) and yet this maner of Answering the Fathers is most familiar with this Iesuite . But hee proceedeth , telling you that The Fathers notwithstanding did not call it Wine , as thinking it to bee Wine , but even as Christ did , when he called his flesh Bread , Iohn 6. Then hee 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 hee ) may seeme to agree with the erroneous opinion of the Calvinists . So hee .

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 plaine and evident meaning of their Testimonies ; who declare that they understood Naturall and Substantiall Wine ( as the q 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 , &c. ] 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. cont . Encratit . Qui aquam solùm adhibuerunt in Eucharistia● , 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 doe manifest ) so plainly , as to affirme that It was Wine , which then Christ dranke : and that hereby the Practices of the Heretikes Aquarij are confuted , who would drinke nothing but Water in the Eucharist . That which commeth out of the fruit of the Vine ; which certainly produceth wine , and not water . So Chrysost. It was the Wine ( saith r 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 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 owne Bishop t 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 . Iansen . Episc. Concord . in eum locum , pag. 914. Col. 2. Iansenius doth confesse , 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 12 Innocent. 3. de officio Missae , lib. 4. cap. 2. Quod autem Vinum in Calice consecravit , patet ex eo , quod ipse subjunxit ; [ Non bibam ex eo , donec , &c. ] 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 drinke of it untill , &c. ]

Marke you furthermore the Errour of the Aquarij , and the Confutation thereof . They used onely Water in the Eucharist , in prete●ce of * * See above , Book . 1. Chap. 3. §. 10. Sobriety ; which Cypriaen confuted onely 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 Onely Water . And now tell us , if that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation had beene an Article of Faith , in those daies , 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 , then ( according to your Doctrine ) their Consecration should be void ; and consequently their Adoration ( if it had beene then in use ) should have beene likewise Idolatrous . But wee heare no more of these your Exceptions .

The former Proofe confirmed by Analogie betweene Bread and Christ's Body ; both Naturall , and Mysticall . SECT. VI.

IN 1. Cor. 10. 16 , 17. [ The Bread which wee breake ( 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 wee all partake of one Bread . ] In this Sentence the word [ Bread ] hath a double Relation , the First to Christ his Body Naturall . Thus the joynt Participation of the Bread is called the Communion of the Body of Christ . The Analogie , in this respect , is excellently expressed by u 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 , Booke 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 Analogie , not to be performed by Accidents .

Could any of them , whom you call Calvinists , have spoken more significantly either in contradicting your Exposition of Christ's words ? ( for he saith that Christ called Bread his Body ; ) or in declaring the true proper Sense of the Sacramentall 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 Signes of Christ's Body , and Blood , by which wee are spiritually fed ? ( for he sheweth that it is because of their Naturall Effects , Bread substantially , and therefore not Accidentally , strengthneth Man's Body : Wine turneth into Blood . ) Which overthroweth your third Figment of onely x 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 Roundnesse , and Figure of Bread strengthen man's Body ? or doth the Accident , Colour of Wine , turne into Blood ? As well might you affirme the only Accident of Water in Baptisme to be sufficient to purge and clense the Body , by the colour , and coldnesse , without the substantiall matter thereof .

The Second part of the Analogie is discerned in the Mysticall Body of Christ , which is the Congregation of the Faithfull Communicants ; [ * * 1. Cor. 10. 17. Wee are all one Body , in as much as wee are partakers of one Bread . ] It standeth thus ; As many Granes of Corne make one Loafe of Bread , and many Grapes make one measure of Wine in the C●p : So , many Christians , partaking faithfully of this Sacrament , become One mysticall Body of Christ by the Vnion of Faith , and Love . This Exposition , as it is yielded unto by yo● C●●inall y 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 Romane and 〈◊〉 dentine z 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 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 Doctours . He was held a most expert and artificiall Pa●nter , in Plinie , that could paint Grapes so to life , as to deceive Birds ; which came to feed on them : But they are the onely Sophisticall Doctours , that offer in the Eucharist onely Accidents , as painted Colours in stead of naturall ; because where there is not a Sacramentall Analogie , there is no Sacrament . You may not say , that the Analogie consisteth in the matter before Consecration ; because every Sacramentall Analogie is betweene the Sacrament , and the Thing Signified : but it is no Sacrament , before it be Consecrated .

CHALLENGE .

SAy now , what Better Authour is there than Christ ? What better Disciple and Scholler , than the Apostle of Christ ? or what better Commentary upon the words of Christ , and his Apostle , than the Sentences of Ancient Fathers ? calling the one part Wine , the other Bread , after Consecration , as you have heard .

Our Third Proofe , that the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration in the Sacrament , is taken from the Iudgement of Sense , necessarily . First , by the Authority of Scripture . SECT. VII .

ALthough man's Sense may be deceived , through the inconvenient Disposition of the Medium , thorow which hee seeth , as it hapneth in judging a strait Staffe to bee Crooked , which standeth in the Water ; and in thinking a White Object to bee Greene in it selfe , which is seene thorow a Greene glasse ; or Secondly by the unequall Distance of place , as by concelving the Sunne to bee but two feete in breadth ; or Thirdly by some defect in the Organ , or Instrument of seeing ( which is the Eye ) whereby it cometh to passe that wee take One to bee Two , or mistake a Shadow for a Substance . Yet notwithstanding when our Eyes , that see , are of good Constitution , and Temper ; the Medium , whereby wee see , is perfectly disposed ; the Distance of the Object , which wee see , is indifferent ; then ( say we ) the judgement of Sense , being free , is True , and the Concurrence and joynt consent of divers Senses , in one arbitrement , is infallible .

This Reason , taken from Sense , you peradventure will judge to bee but Naturall and Carnall , as those Termes are opposed to a true and Christian maner of Reasoning . We defend the Contrary , being warranted by the Argument which Christ himselfe used to his Disciples , Luke 24. 39. [ Handle mee , and see . ] Your Cardinall , although hee grant that this Reason of Christ was available , to prove that his owne Body was no Spirit , or Fancy , but a true Body , even by the onely Argument from the sense of Touching ; b b Consequentia Christi , affirmativè 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 negativè , hoc non palpatur ; nec videtur , Ergò non est corpus , Dominus non fecit , & mala est . Non falluntur Sensus nostri , cum nos album quid , rotundum , solidum sentire arbitramur , quae sunt propria objècta . Sed cùm Panis Substantiam sub illis Accidentibus ●atere denunciant , falluntur . Dominus solùm probare voluit se non esse inane spectrum , seu Phantasma , sed verum Corpus ; id quod ex Testimonio sensus Tangendi optimè probavit . Illud autem Corpus esse humanum , idem quod anteà suerat , non probavit Dominus hoc solo Argumento , ex Tangendi sensu desumpto ( quod sine dubio non erat sufficiens ) sed multis alijs modis , loquendo , manducando , testimonio Angelorum , miraculo Piscium , allegatione Scripturarum . Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Respondeo . Yet ( saith hee ) was it not sufficient in it selfe , without other Arguments , to confirme it and to prove it to have bin a human body , and the very same which it was . So he .

Which Answer of your Cardinall wee wish were but onely false , and not also greatly irreligious : for Christ demonstrated hereby not onely that hee had a Body ( as your Cardinall speaketh ) but also that it was his owne same Humane Body , now risen , which before had beene Crucified , and wounded to Death , and buried , according to that of Luke [ That it is even I ] Luke 24 , 39. Now because * * 1. Cor. 15. It is not a Resurrection of a Body , except it bee the Same Body : Therefore would Christ have Thomas to * * Ioh. 20. 27. thrust his hands into his sides , and feele the print of his wounds , to manifest the Same Body ; as Two of your Iesuites do also observe , the One with an [ c c Optimè Origenes , Ostendit se Christus in vero Corpore suo resuscitatum . Tolet. les . in Ioh. c. 20. pag. 534. Optimè , ] the Other with a [ d d Probatum est , Christum idem Corpus numero demonstrāsse . Silarez Ies. Tom. 2. qu. 54. §. 1. Probatum est . ] Accordingly the Apostle Saint Paul laid this Argument , taken from Sense , as the Foundation of a Fundamentall Article of Faith , even the Resurrection of the Same Body of Christ from the dead ; for how often doth hee repeate , and inculcate this ? * * 1. Cor. 15. 5. Hee was seene , &c. And againe thrice more , Hee was seene , &c. And Saint Iohn argueth , to the same purpose , from the Concurrence of three Senses : * * 1. Ioh. 1. 1. That which wee have heard , which wee have seene , and our hands have handled , declare wee unto you . The validity of this Reason was proved by the Effect , as Christ averreth ; * * 1. Ioh. 20. 29. Thomas because thou hast seene ( that is , perceived both by Eye , and hand ) thou hast beleeved .

The Validity of the Iudgement of Sense , in THOMAS , and the other Disciples , confirmed ( in the second place ) by your owne Doctors . SECT. VIII .

PErerius a Iesuit confidently pleadeth for the Sense of Touch ; c 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 , &c. ] Perer . Ies. in Gen. 6. num. 78. pag. 2. I feare not ( saith hee ) to say , that the Evidence of Sense is so strong an Argument , to prove without all doubt an humane Body , that the Devill himselfe cannot herein delude the touch of man , that is of understanding and consideration . As for the unbeleeving Disciples , [ Christ his Handle me , &c. ] saith your Iesuite f 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 sayd to them , Perceive you my true flesh ? as being a most efficacious Argument to proove the truth of an humane Body . So hee , yea , and g 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 Ioh. 20. Tolet another Iesuite did well discerne the case of Thomas to have beene an extreme Infidelity , when hee said , [ Except I put my finger into the print of the nayles , and thrust my hand into his side , I will not beleeve . ] Which prooveth the Efficaciousnesse of the Iudgement of Sense , in reducing so extreme an Vnbeleever to beleeve .

Wherein your Authors are authorized by S. Augustine , h 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 Ioh. 20. saying that Although Thomas his Eyes had beene 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 Beliefe , than did the faith of the other Apostles : Because his Doubtfulnesse being convinced by the Sense of Touching , wee are thereby freed from all doubtfulnesse in the faith . And if this were not sufficient to confute your Cardinall , he may be shackled with his owne Answer , who , to disable the Infallibilitie of the Sense of feeling , said ; i i See above at (b) That other Arguments were requisite for the certifying the judgement of Sense : and among these Other hee reckoneth Christ his speaking , eating , and working Miracles . All which , what are they else ( wee pray you ) but equally Objects of Sense ? What Vertigo then may this be called in him , to seeke to invalidate the verity of Sense , by an Argument which justifieth the Certaintie 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 Iudgement of Ancient Fathers . SECT. IX .

HOw many Heretikes of old were there ( such as the Valentinians , Montanists , Marcionites ) who denyed that Christ had a True , and Essentiall Body ? and how absolutely were they confuted of Ancient Fathers , by the Evidence of mens Senses that heard , saw , and felt the Body of Christ ? Which sheweth plainly , that a Demonstration by Sense standeth good and strong , even in Christian Philosophie . And to come to the point in Question , ( to conclude againe 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 sheweth in the Argument , wherewith he confuted an Heretike by Sense , thus ; k 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 Analogie . ( 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 blind-fold himselfe , whose Testimony ( digested by l 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 , &c. Sic●● ex multis granis tritici unus Panis : Ita ex multitudine fidelium , una assurgit Ecclesia . Rede ) is this : That which you have seene is Bread , as your eyes do manifest unto you . And he speaketh of Bread , as this Sacrament was a Symbol , and Signe of the mysticall Body of Christ , which is his Church , consisting of a multitude of Faithfull Communicants , as one Loafe doth of many granes of wheat .

⚜ Give Chrysostome leave to put in his suffrage , especially in that Sentence , 13 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 owne 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 Tryall 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 equall efficacie ? yea , and againe Augustine in another place , objected by your owne selves ; 14 14 August . in Ioh. Tract 26. Objected by Dr. Heskins , Parl. Book . 2. Chap. 219. Our Lord Iesus ( saith he ) commended his Body and Blood in those things , which of many are brought into one certaine thing : for the one is made into one of many Granes , and so Consisteth ; the other Cometh into one , of many Grapes .

Consonantly S. Cyprian , and as plainly , 15 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 Cornes ; he thereby signifieth our people , whom he bore , shewing 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 stocke coupled together , by Conjunction of a Multitude into One. Both these holy Fathers ( even as Chrysostome already , Both. 3. chap. 3. Sect. 4. hath done ) teach , as it were with one breath , that the Outward Sacramentalls , wherein Christ commendeth his Body and Blood , being Substances compounded , the one of divers Cornes in one loafe , the other of divers Grapes in one liquor , doe so continue the same still at the receiving thereof , ( as the Analogie irrefutably proveth , ) because these Both signifie the mysticall Body of Christ , which is the Church of his faithfull , by the union of multitudes of people in one . But in your meere Accidents of Bread and Wine , you can have no union either of Granes , or of Grapes ; neither can you say , that he spake not of the things Consecrated , because the things were first Consecrated , before they were commended to his Disciples to be eaten and dranke .

Athanasius will be content to deliver his vote after the other other now cited Primitive Fathers ; who , in confutation of the Hereticall Manichees , who fancied onely a Phantasticall Body of Christ , observeth that ( 16 16 Athan. Tom. 2. Orat 2. in Assumpt. Christ . — 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christ both did eate meate , and permitted his Body to be touched of his Disciples , that thereby they might have not onely 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 soules . Gladly would wee know whether even any doctrine could more patronize that Hereticall doctrine of a Rhantasticall Body , than this yours , of your maner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the E●charist doth where in these appeareth not so much as a Spectrum of that Body , but onely ( as you ●each ) Accidents of Bread . ⚜

Tertullian hath a large Plea against the Academicks , who denied the judgement of Sense ; wherein hee maintaineth the Truth of the Senses , and in proofe thereof hee 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 m Tertull de Animà , cap 7 ad finem . Quid agi● . Academice 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 Iohannis ; Quod audivimus , inquit , quod oculis vidimus ; & ma●us nostrae contrectârunt de sermone vitae . Falsa utique testatio , si oculorum & aurium , & manuum sensus natura mentitur . If wee yield not to the suffrages of Senses , some may doubt whether Christ perceived afterwards another Sent of oyntment , which hee received ( meaning another that the naturall Sunt thereof ) before his Buriall . And immedia●ly hee addeth , ( marke we pray you ) One might doubt also whether Christ tasted afterwards another taste of Wine , than was that , which he consecrated for the memoriall of his Blood . That then , which Christ Tasted , was first Consecrated . Next , he invadeth the Heretike Marcion , for denying the Truth of Christ's Body on earth , and confuteth him by the fidelity of the Senses of the Apostles . Faithfull ( saith he ) was their sight of Christ in the Mount , Faithfull was their Taste of Wine at the Marriagè , Faithfull was the Touch of Thomas , &c. ( then concluding : ) Which Testifications ( saith he ) had not beene True , if their Senses had beene Liars . So he in his confutation not onely of the naturall Academicks , but also of the Hereticall Marcionites , who ( contrary to the demonstration of the Apostles Senses ) denied the truth of the humane Body of Christ .

CHALLENGE .

THis Apologie of Tertullian , in behalfe of the verity of the Senses , doth minister to all Christians foure Conclusions , First , not to conceit of Accidents without Subjects : but to discerne 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 Substantiall Wine afterwards , which hee had before in that which hee consecrated ; even as he had also the same Sent of Substantiall Oyntment after , which hee had before his Buriall . And all this even now , when he convinced Marcion of Heresie , an Enemie to the Catholike Faith , in denying the Truth of Christs humane naturall Body , notwithstanding the Evidence of Man's Senses .

Here had beene a full and flat Evasion for that Heretike to say , what tell you us of the validitie of the Evidence of two Senses , concerning the Truth of Christ's Body , seeing you yourselves gain-say the judgement of foure Senses at once , in denying the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament ? This , we say , they must needs have replyed , if that the Catholikes then had beene of your now Romane Beliefe , to thinke that all the Senses are deceived , in judging the matter of this Sacrament to continue Bread or wine ; and so might they have blowne away all this Catholike Confutation of Heretikes and Infidels with one and the same breath , together with the like Instances against the same Heresie , already specified , as you have heard .

Come now hither all yee that say wee must renounce all Verdict of Senses in this Case ; and tell us whether any Protestant could have beene more opposite to your Doctrine than was Tertullian , in his Defence of this Truth ? whereby hee also defendeth the Catholike Doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ , and was never hereof questioned by any Catholike , in , or since his dayes .

Let none of you object that of the Disciples , in their way to Emmaus with Christ , of whom it is sayd , 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 farre from infringing any thing that hath beene sayd , for the Infallibilitie of Sense , rightly constituted and disposed , that this thereby is notably confirmed . Wee call upon Hierome to witnesse , saying ; * * Hieron . ad Pammach : contra Errores Iohan. Ierusal . Episc. Scias errorem fuisse non corporis Domini , sed oculorum fuisse clausorum : nam aperti sunt oculi eorum , & videbant . The Error of not discerning Christ , when hee was in the midst betweene them , was not in Christ's Body , but in their eyes , because they were closed that they could not see . Apply wee 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 beleeve to bee in it selfe invisible ) but in your Eyes , as being shut up ; when notwithstanding you will bee knowne , that these are open enough for discerning Colours , and formes of Bread and Wine .

⚜ It can bee but a matter of merriment , to acquaint you with that which Master Malloune a Iesuite reporteth in good sadnes , as thus : 17 17 Mr. Malloun in his Reply , pag. 305. A devout Mayde of the Vulgar sort , by name Ioane Martlesse , ( a thing most admirable , saith hee ) was able to finde out one only consecrated Host , among a thousand unconsecrated , not onely by Divine revelation , but also by her naturall Senses . So your Iesuite ( as hee saith ) out of Waldensis . Although wee will not trifle the time , by asking how shee 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 wee tell you , that when afterwards ( in the seventh Booke ) it shall bee discovered unto you , that there are incident to the Action of your Priest , in Conscrating , above five hundred possible Defects , which may nullifie his whole Act , so that the thing remaine still Bread ( notwithstanding whatsoever his maner of Consecrating , by him performed ; ) You will then know how happy it were for your Church , that every Priest at Masse had the use of the Nose of Ioane Martlesse , to trie whether there bee 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 himselfe . ( See the seventh Booke . ) ⚜ .

Our Fourth Proofe , that the Substance of Bread remaineth , after Consecration , is taken from the Confessed Sensible Effects . SECT. X.

THe Effects , which you n 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 Calice ( 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 , sivè materiam novam facere . Suarez . ibid. your selves have discerned to be sometimes in this Sacrament , are these . First , That the Cup doth inebriate , or make drunke . Secondly , The Hoast taken in great Quantity doth nourish . Thirdly , That , it being poysoned , it paysoneth . Fourthly , That having beene long reserved , it engendereth wormes , which are bred out of it ; and are also fed of the same . Fiftly , That their matter of Generation and nourishment is Substantiall ; and that the Contrary Opinion is false , and Incredible . Sixtly ; That this matter , whereof wormes are bred and fed , is the same Bread , which was taken before Consecration . So your owne prime Schoole-men , Historians , and Iesuites respectively .

If then the Bread , now ingendring wormes , 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 , wherof new wormes are bred , whether it bee the Same that was , or not , yet being Bread , it is wrought either by a o 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 creationē produci ⚜ Miraculous Conversion , or by a New Creation . What ? you , who every where teach that none are to conceipt of any Miracle in this Sacrament , without necessary Cause , can you possibly be perswaded that there is , or can be any necessary Cause , why God should worke a Miracle , either of Conversion into , or of New Creation of Bread , for Breeding , or Feeding of wormes ? or of Wine , for making such men Drunke , as should taste too largely of the Cup ? yea , or else to poyson your Enemy , were hee p p See above at 〈◊〉 num. 3. Emperour , or q 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 bee lesse than Blasphemy , to say that God worketh Miracles , for the accomplishment of vaine , wicked , and mischievous effects ? Farre 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 poyson his Guests whosoever they bee .

Beleeve ( if you can ) that if God wrought ( as you say ) a Miracle to convert Accidents into Bread , to engender , or nourish vile wormes , that he would not much rather worke a miracle , ( if any such miracle were herein to bee expected ) to hinder the poysoning of his faithfull Communicants . In all this we appeale againe to true Antiquitie , and require of you to shew , we say not some expresse Testimony of Primitive Fathers , but so much as any intimation or insinuation , were it but by way of a Dreame , of a Miraculous Conversion of the Consecrated Host ( when it beginneth to putrifie ) by being changed againe into Bread ; or of Mice eating the Body of Christ ; or that being putrified it should bread wormes ; ( seeing it were a miracle they should not bee so bred ) or any such kind of Romish Fancies , and delusions ; or otherwise to confesse your Objectours to be miserable Proctours of a vile , and desperate Cause . Yet lest any of you may thinke , that One coming into a Cellar full of new Wine , and made Drunke with the smell thereof , therefore meere Accidents doe Inebriate : your Iesuite 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. Ayre infected with the odour which maketh men Drunke . ⚜ And that no Incorporall thing can bee nourishment to a corporall Bodily Substance , * * See below in this Booke , Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Gregory Nyssen doth make good : and your 18 18 Fra. Marin . Marsen . ord. Minim . Com. in Gen. cap. 1. v. 1. pag. 464. Angelos 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 perswade them that you cannot attribute Credit to your Senses in this case , without much derogation from Faith . Therefore , for Caution-sake , be it knowne unto you , that wee have not pleaded for the Truth of Senses , as holding nothing credible , but that which may be proved by the Testimony of Senses .

This wee utterly abhorre , as the Gulfe of Infidelity , proper to the Athean Sect : for wee accord to that saying of an holy Father , Fides non habet meritum , ubi Ratio aut Sensus habet experimentum ; and also to that other of * * 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Iustin . Exposit. Fidei . Iustine . In which respect we condemne the Incredulity of Thomas , in that he would not beleeve , except hee should See : yet notwithstanding wee , with our Saviour , approve in Thomas , that by Seeing he did beleeve . 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 beliefe of any Sensible thing , which was Contrary to the exact judgement of his Senses . And therefore your opposition , in this Case , as it is Sensles , so it is indeed Faithlesse , as wee have already learned from Scripture and Fathers ; by whom the Iudgement of Sense hath beene acknowledged to bee , in Sensible Objects , a notable Ground of Faith . All this while wee have said nothing of your professed maner of Existence of Accidents , which you may reade 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 bee Visible , Savory , Solid , &c. And some are Accessory Impressions and Alterations , which accrew afterwards , as if it shall happen to bee after Consecration , Hot , Cold , Sweet , or Sower , or the like . Wee demand , what thing you do judge that to be , which so hapneth to bee hot or sweet after Consecration ? None can deny but this must be either Quality or Quantity , or some materiall Substance . Wee , consulting with two of your owne Iesuites , heare the one maintaining that these two Accidents have 19 19 Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eucharist . cap. 24. §. Respondeo tractantur — Si mutatio in Pane Eucharistiae sit sola alteratio , ut calefactio , cōdensatio , tum non requiritur materia aut substantia pro subjecto : nam Accidētia 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 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 Hotnesse , Sweetnesse , 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 sayd Qualities , which the latter Iusuite answereth to be 21 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 & penetrativè , & mutuo nexu commisce●i . mingled with the other Accidents , which were inherent in the Host , before Consecration , the former Iesuit gaine sayeth it , because Accidents are not predicated of themselves in the Concrete ; to wit , wee say not of Coldnesse it is cold ; or of Sweetnesse , it is sweet . but these are spoken of their Subjects , which wee call either Sweet or Gold . And this wee likewise approve . Seeing then , that no Accident can bee predicated , but of some Subject , and this Subject of Coldnesse , Hotnesse , Sweetnesse , Sowernesse , and of other the like Accidents hapning to the same Sacrament , after Consecration , cannot bee so called either in respect of Quantity or Quality , it remaineth that the Subject of them must bee a materiall substance , which , as you your selves ( we know ) will sweare cannot bee the Body of Christ ; for you dare not say of it , that it in your touch or tast is either Cold , Sweet , or Sower , You must therefore give us leave to beleeve it to bee still the Substance of Bread . And this our Argument taketh away your Fancy of Accidents without a Subject ; else must you affirme that he , or shee , whosoever shall make the Host , after it bee Consecrated , either Hote , Sweet , or Sowre , 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 Schooles have ever controlled . ⚜

Our First Proofe , that Bread remaineth Bread in Substance , after Consecration , in this Sacrament , is by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers . First from due Inferences . SECT. XI .

TEstimonies of Ancient Fathers inferre a necessary Consequence , for proofe of the Existence of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament , as might bee proved partly by the repetition of many Arguments premised , and partly by intimation of other Arguments afterwards expressed . But wee shall be content with , those few , which do more properly appertaine to this present Dispute , concerning the nature of a Body . First Irenaeus , speaking of the Eucharist after Consecration , as being not now common Bread , sayd that r 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 hee ) 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 neverthelesse indued with a sacred and Divine property of a Sacramentall Representation of Christ's Body . Which Sacrament Origen calling Sanctified meat , saith that the s s Origen . in Matth. 15. Ille Cibus , qui sanstificatur per Verbum Dei & Orationem , juxtà id quod habet materiable in secessum emittitur : And after hee calleth this [ M●teriale ] Materia Panis , super quem dictus est sermo . ibid. Materiall part thereof goeth into the Draught , or seege : 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 , Materiall in this place , thinke you M. * * Liturg. Tract . 2. §. 11. Subd. 3. Brerely ? namely Magnitude , and other Sensible Accidents , which in regard of their Significations , are materialls . So hee . Very learnedly answered forsooth ! If Magnitudo , that is Greatnesse , bee a Materiall thing ; bee you so good as tell us what is the matter thereof ? for whatsoever is Materiall , hath that appellation from it's Subject matter . Is is the Body of Christ ? then must you grant ( which wee , with the holy Fathers , abhorre to thinke ) that the Body of Christ passeth into the Draught : or is it Bread ? Then farewell Transubstantiation . Nay , will you say , but they are meere Accidents . And we Answer , that it was never heard , no not in your owne Schooles , that meere Accidents were called ( which are Origen's words in this place ) either Meats , or Materialls . Yea , and Origen ( that he might be knowne to understaud Materiall 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 Formes of Bread and Wine , in this Sacrament , after Consecration , are Symbols , or Signes , signifying Bread and Wine ; and not Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ ?

S. Ambrose his Comparison is of like Consequence ; t t Ambros . lib. 4. de 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 Baptized had beene 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 , remaine that which they were before . But hee ( you know ) that was baptized , remaineth after Baptisme in Substance the same man , although , in respect of Spirituall Graces , he suffereth a Change . Of which Testimony more * * See below , ch. 4. Sect. 2. at the let . 〈◊〉 hereafter .

Cyprian is a Father much alleaged and urged by you , in defence of Transubstantiation ; but is now at hand to controll you . u u Cyprias . lib. de Vnctione . Dedit Dominus noster in Mensâ , in qua ultimum Convivium cum Apostolis participavit , propris manibus Panem & Vinum : in Cruce 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 & Sangui● ; & 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 owne hands , when hee partaked thereof with his Apostles : but on the Crosse hee delivered up his Body to the Souldiers to be pierced with wounds , to the end , that sincere verity , and true sincerity having an inward impression in the Apostles , hee by them might manifest to the Gentiles , how that Bread and wine is his Body and Blood , and by what meanes there may be agreement betweene Causes , and Effects ; and how different names and formes might be reduced to one Essence ; that things signifying , and things signified might be called by the same names . So hee . A Catholike Father , as all know ; whom if you aske , what Consecrated thing it was , which Christ had in his hands , and gave to his Disciples , hee answereth it was Bread , and Wine ; and not absolutely that , which he gave up to be Crucified on the Crosse by Souldiers , ( namely ) his Body , and Blood . If againe 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 Signes ) are called by the same names , whereby the things signified are termed .

⚜ The Marcian Heretike held Bread and Wine to bee uncleane 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 hee represented his owne Body . In which Testimonie 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 Heretike teaching the Substance ; and not the Accidents of the same Creature , Bread , to be uncleane , and Tertullian disproving him by the Sacramentall Bread , must as necessarily have meant a continuing of the Substance of Bread , as all the Lawes of Arguing do proclame ; which teach all Answerers and Confuters to speake ad Idem . ⚜

A x 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 himselfe , Anno 57. num. 149. Euchristiae partes . Tert. de Monog . Buccellas : & August . ac Alij Particulas vocant . Cyrillas in Ioh. 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 Iudgement of Antiquitie , 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 Bitts , than Parts . Thus they spake expressely of Bread Consecrated ; but to say that you eate Bitts and Fragments of whitenesse , of Roundnesse , and other Accidents , who is so absurd among your selves ? and to affirme the same of Christ's Body , who is so impious ?

⚜ Onely it will be our duety to Answer the Objection of Doctor Heskins , for proofe of the Corporall 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 22 Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ . That no Mice-dung may be seene among the Fragments of the Lords Portion : Nor that they be Suffered to remaine rotten through their negligence . We Answer ; First , by the words , Fragments of Christ's Portion , are to be understood either meere Accidents , and then are your Disputers unconscionable , to argue from Fragments of meere Accidents , for a Substantiall 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 rent 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 Rottennesse . Here , indeed , were there some use of the admirable * * Below in the fourth Booke . 〈◊〉 Nose of Ioane Martlesse , above mentioned by your Iesuite , to smell out the Abomination of this your Romish Doctrine . Somewhat more of this Point when wee shall appeale to the Canon of that famous Councel of * * See 〈…〉 c. 2. §. 10. in the Collenge . Nice . In the Interim wee may well thinke , that that Primitive Church , which abhorred to think the Body of Christ should be Devoured , or passe into the Draught , would never have consented ( as* Shee did ) to the Burying of the Sacrament , which remained after the Communion ; if they had conceived it to bee Really the Body of Christ .

Another Inference wee may take from Antiquity , in her calling this Sacrament [ Pignus ] a Pledge ( so y y Hierom. in 1. Cor. 11. Dominus passionis suae ultimam nobis Commemorationem , & memoriam reliquit : quēadmodùm siquis peregre proficiscens aliquod pignus ei , quem diligit , derelinquat , ut possit eius amicitias , & beneficia commemorare . Hierome , and z 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 betweene 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 Iudgement of the Fathers , acknowledging in expresse termes , Bread to remaine , after Consecration , in Substance the same . The First Father is THEODORET. SECT. XII .

THeodoret maketh a Dialogue , or Conference betweene two Parties , being in Controversie about the humane and bodily nature of Christ ; the one is named Eranistes , upon whom is imposed the person of an Heretike , for Defence of the Sect of the Eutychians , who ( falsly ) held , That the Body of Christ , after his Ascension , being glorified , was swallowed up of his Deitie , and continued no more the same humane and Bodily Essence , as before his Resurrection it had beene . The other Party and Disputer is named Orthodoxus , signifying the Defender of the Truth of the Catholike Doctrine ; which Person Theodoret himselfe did sustaine , in behalfe of the Catholike Church . In this Dispute the Heretike is brought in , for Defence of his Heresie , arguing thus ; Even as Signes 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 confesse to have beene the Doctrine of these Heretikes .

This was that Heretike his Objection . The Orthodoxe , or Catholike ( which was Theodoret himselfe ) cometh to answer , promising to catch the heretike , as he saith , in his owne Snare , by retorting his Argument of Similitude against him , thus : a 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 immortale , & immune ab omni corruptione . Nay , But as the mysticall Signes in the Eucharist , after Sanctification , depart not from their former nature , but continue in their former Figure , Forme and [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] that is , Substance . So the Body of Christ , after the Resurrection , remaineth in its former Figure , Forme , Circumscription , and [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] , or Substance which it had before . You may perceive that the Assertion , set downe in the name of a Grand Heretike , 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 Catholike 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 Heresie : which divers have undertaken to do by their Answeres , but alas ! so absurdly , that any reasonable man must needs laugh at their Answer ; and so falsly , as which any man of conscience must as necessarily detest .

The Principall Answer is that , which your b 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 . Cardinall giveth , that Theodoret , in saying that Bread remaineth the same in Figure , Forme , and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; By [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] meant not Substance , properly understood , but the Essence of Accidents . So he . ⚜ Or as your 23 23 Gordon . Ies. lib. Controv. 4. cap. 4. num. 12. De signorum ( id est , Accidentium ) substantia loquitur . Iesuite saith , Thesubstance of the Signes , 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 Logike ; ( as you know ) that the words and termes , 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 , Forme , and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; by the word [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] was meant properly Substance , because this was 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the maine point in Question betweene Theodoret and the Heretike , viz. whether the Substance of Christ's Body continued the same , which it had beene in time before his Resurrection ; ( the Heretike denying it , and Theodoret proving it to be absolutely still the same in Substance : ) and not whether the same onely 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 , Forme , and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ) the word [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] can have no other signification than Substance , properly taken .

Secondly , Ridiculously false , because in reckoning Figure and Forme , which are knowne to bee 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 adde the word [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] to Formes , and Figures , but hee therby meant to distinguish it as a Substance from its Accidents .

Thirdly , Heretically false ; for what was the Heresie of the Eutychians ? tell us ; They ( say c 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 onely Divine . Which word , Humane Nature , doth principally imply the Substantiall nature of Man ; and therefore in his comparison , made for the illustration of that Heresie concerning Bread , after Consecration , in Figure , Forme , and [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] the same word [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] had the same signification of Substance , as your Master Brerely afterwards is compelled to confesse : who , to the end he may disgrace Theodoret , rudely and wildly taketh upon him to justifie the Heretikes speech to be Catholike , for proofe of Transubstantiation .

Wherefore Theodoret , in his Answer , Retorting ( as hee himselfe saith ) the Heretikes Comparison , against him , did , by 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , likewise understand Substance , else had he not disputed ad Idem ; but by a shamefull Tergiversation had betraid his Catholike Cause unto that pernitious Heretike . Much like as if one should use this Comparison following . As the Moone-shine in the water ( in the opinion of the Vulgar ) is truly of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament ; so a feigned friend is equally as loving as is a Faithfull . And another retorting the same , should confute him , saying ; Nay , but as the Moon-shine in the water , is not of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament ; even so a feigned friend is not equally loving as is a Faithfull . Here the word [ Love ] being taken for Loyall Affection by the Objectour , if the sense thereof should be perverted by the Answerer and Retorter , to signifie 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 Sive . ⚜ Observe also that Arius the Heretike , being required to tell What is Substance ( Greeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ) answered , That is Substance , [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] whereby a thing doth subsist . And 23 23 Athan. Tom. 1. Disput. cont . A●ium , ubi Arius : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Cui Athan●s●●s , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Athanasius himselfe approved hereof , saying , Thou hast answered rightly : This could they not have said , if that the word [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] had not beene universally taken in the Greeke Church , aswell among Orthodoxe , as among Heretikes : for that which giveth a Subsisting to other things ( as you your selves will not deny ) is to be properly a Substance . ⚜

Here had wee fixed a Period , but that wee againe espied one Master Brerely ( a Romish Priest ) coming against us with a full careere , who after that he had beene * * Vid Protestants Appeale , Book . 2. ch. 2. §. 10. confuted , for urging the former Objection , notwithstanding , concealing the Answer , he blusheth not to regest the same ; albeit , as one conscious to himselfe of the futility therof , he leaveth it presently , falling foule upon Theodoret , as though that Father had beene in some distemper , when he so , writ : d d In his Liturg●● of the Masse . 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 personall Dispute , but deliberately writing against th● Heresia of the Eutychiant . heate of Dispute . Then hee taketh part with the Heretike , saying , It is not likely that an Heretike should have urged against a Catholike sentence for Transubstantiation , as for a point of Faith well knowne , if the same Doctrine had beene then either unknowne , or else condemned , as False . So hee , who might aswell have reasoned , in the behalfe of the Sadduces , condemned by Christ , saying : It is not likely that they would so expressely have denyed that there a●e any Spirits , in their Dispute against Christ , if that Doctrine had beene then either unknowne or condemned as False , by the Church of God , among the Iewes . And yet it is certaine that the Heresie of the Sadduces was judged execrable in that Church .

Now if the Eutychian Heretike finde such Patronage at the hands of your Priest , alas ! what will become of the Father Theodoret ? Hearken , Theodoret being an Orthodoxe Bishop ( saith hee ) could not have propounded the Heretikes Argument , as grounded upon the Churches received Doctrine of Transubstantiation , had the same beene then unknowne , and reputed False . So he , who if hee had not lost his Logike , would certainly have argued contrarily , saying ; Theodoret , being an Orthodoxe and Catholike Bishop , would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstantiation , in the name of a ranke Heretike , and after himselfe impugned and confuted the same , except he had knowne it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholike 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 forlorne of all Truth .

For a further Evidence , take unto you an Answer of your Iesuite Valentia , to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity : It is not to be held any marvell ( 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 lesse considerately and truly , before that Transubstantiation was handled publikely in the Church , especially they not handling the same Question of purpose . So hee ; and this hee calleth a Briefe and plaine Answer . And so it is , whereby , in granting that Transubstantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church , he plainly confuteth your now Romane Church , which judgeth it to have beene alwayes 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 Heretike 〈◊〉 extemporall speech personally , but deliberately and pun●●lly by writing , and therefore of Purpose .

The Second Father expresly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament , after Consecration , is Pope GELASIVS . SECT. XIII .

THis Author have Protestants called Pope Gelasius , and urged his Testimony . Your Disputers civill ; First at the name of the Author , calling Protestants e e Non fuit hic Papa Gelasius ut Adversarij impudentèr jactant ; sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus . Bellar. lib. ● . de Euch. c. 27. Impudent , for stiling him Pope Gelasus . But if hee were not that Pope Gelasiue , what Gelasius might hee bee then ? Gelasius Bishop of Caes●rea , saith your Cardinall Bellarmine . Contrarily your f f Baronius himselfe ●●tendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius , Anno 496 num. 123. &c. yet comming 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 , &c. 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 〈◊〉 . Cardinall Baronius contendeth that hee is a more ancient Gelasius , Anno 47. ( namely ) Gelasius Cyzicenus ; yet so , as confounding himselfe , insomuch that hee 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● Cardinall hath called them ? Surely , nothing , but wee 〈◊〉 more modesty in him , who hath so called them ; considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides , nor meane , to follow than these g 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 Creat . 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 carie Anastasiùs , Alphonsus de Castro , Onuphrius , Massonius , Margarinus la Bigne : all which have intituled this Gelasius , Pope of Rome . Howsoever , it is confessed on all sides , that hee was an Orthodox Father , and very Ancient .

Now then . Gelasius sayd that h h Gelasius lib. de duab . natur . cont . 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 againe . Permanent in proprietate naturae . The Sacraments of the Body , and Blood of Christ , being Divine things , yet cease not to bee the nature and substance of Bread and Wine . In Answer whereunto , both your foresaid i 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 bee seene , indeed , that this Gelasius was a Latine Author , ( but what is this to the Greeke Theodoret ? ) when the Latine Language was not so perfect , and that he did use the word equivocall● , but yet so ; that the matter it selfe doth challenge a proper use thereo , when hee speaketh of the Substancè of Bread , for confutation of the same heresie . ] Cardinalls 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 compell the understanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance . For where as the Heretike 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 , bee not in both places taken properly , Gelasius should have made but a mad Reason , as any reasonable man will confesse . For albeit Similitudes doe not amble alwayes on foure feet , yet if they halt upon the right foot , ( which is the matter in Question ) they are to be accounted perfit Dissimilitudes .

Master k 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 Heresie , 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 wee assure our selves of the consent of this Gelasius with us , untill you shall be able to free your selves 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 himselfe , than that he shall not consent to the Romish Tenet . Whereas , indeed , he saith no more than , in a mysticall sense , any Protestant must , and will allow , viz. that The Sacrament is a Divine thing , and that whosoever eate 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 Booke .

To which Saying of Gelasius , touching the Eucharist , is answerable a like Saying of Gregory Nyssen , concerning Baptisme , calling it a l 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 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 it selfe in the Eucharist . If therefore the Epithet [ Divine ] must argue a Corporall Change , what a number of Transubstantiations must you bee inforced to allow ? whereas by naming it Divine Bread , as hee did terme Priest , Divine ; People , Divine ; it proveth that hee meant no Substantiall Change . Fie upon blind boldnesse ! This mans falsity , in alleging Chemnitius , I let passe .

It is further worthy your Reflection , to observe your Disputers how earnest they have beene to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius ; contrary to the acknowledgement of your owne Historians . May we not therefore suspect that the Testimony in an extemporall speech personally , but deliberatly and punally by writing , and therefore of Purpose .

The Second Father expresly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament , after Consecration , is Pope GELASIVS . SECT. XIII .

THis Author have Protestants called Pope Gelasius , and urged his Testimony . Your Disputers cavill ; First at the name of the Author , calling Protestants e e Non suit hic Papa Gelasius 〈…〉 Adversarij impudentèr jactant ; sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus . Bellar. lib. ● . de Eu●h . c. 27. Impudent , for stiling him Pope Gelasius . But if hee were not that Pope Gelasiue , what Gelasius might hee bee then ? Gelasiue Bishop of Caesarea , saith your Cardinall Bellarmine . Con●rarily your f f Baronius himselfe contendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius , Anno 496 num. 123. &c. yet comming 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 , &c. 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 〈◊〉 . Cardinall Baronius contendeth that hee is a more ancient Gelasius , Anno 47. ( namely ) Gelasius Cyzicenus ; yet so , as confounding himselfe insomuch that hee 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 Cardinall hath called them ? Surely , nothing , but wee 〈◊〉 more modesty in him , who hath so called them ; considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides , nor meaner , to follow than these g 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 Creat . 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 carie Anastasius , Alphonsus de Castro , Onuphrius , Massonius , Margarinus la Bigne : all which have intituled this Gelasius , Pope of Rome . Howsoever , it is confessed on all sides , that hee was an Orthodox Father , and very Ancient .

Now then Gelasius sayd that h h Gelasius lib. de duab . natur . cont . 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 againe . Permanent in proprietate naturae . The Sacraments of the Body , and Blood of Christ , being Divine things , yet cease not to bee the nature and substance of Bread and Wine . In Answer whereunto , ●oth your foresaid i 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 bee seene , indeed , that this Gelasius was a Latine Author , ( but what 〈◊〉 this to the Greeke Theodoret ? ) when the Latine Language was not s● perfect , and that he did use the word equivocall● , but yet so , that the matter it selfe doth challenge a proper use there● , when hee speaketh of the Substa● of Bread , for confutation of the same heresie . ] Cardinalls 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 compell the understanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance . For where as the Heretike 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 , Su 〈…〉 perly , Gelasius should 〈…〉 reasonable man wi 〈…〉 amble alwayes on 〈…〉 t foot , ( which is the 〈…〉 d perfit Dissimili 〈…〉

Master ( 〈…〉 s Gelasius k k Master Brereley Liturg. Tract . 2. §. 2. Subd. 3. pag. 259. ( whosoe●● 〈…〉 ●●●●●●ian Heresie , that 〈…〉 ly , to his like advant●●● 〈…〉 me sense , as did Theod 〈…〉 ore must wee assure 〈…〉 us , untill you shal 〈…〉 er Interpretation o● 〈…〉 against us another ser 〈…〉 deth that Gelasius he 〈…〉 st rather contradict 〈…〉 Romish Tenet . W 〈…〉 mysticall 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 〈…〉 Baptisme , calling it a l 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 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 it selfe in the Eucharist . If therefore the Epithet [ Divine ] must argue a Corporall Change , what a number of Transubstantiations must you bee inforced to allow ? whereas by naming it Divine Bread , as hee did terme Priest , Divine ; it proveth that hee meant no Substantiall Change . Fie upon blind boldnesse ! This mans falsity , in alleging Chemnitius , I let passe .

It is further worthy your Reflection , to observe your Disputers how earnest they have beene to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius ; contrary to the acknowledgement of your owne Historians . May we not therefore suspect that the Testimony objected was distastfull unto them , when they so greatly feared , lest this Witnesse should be thought to have beene a Pope and Supreme Pastor of your Church ?

Two other Testimonies from Antiquity , for the expresse acknowledgement of the Existence of Bread after Consecration , in the Sacrament ; Chrysostome , and Bertram : to whom is added Ephraimius . SECT. XIIII .

C Hrysostome his words are these , that n 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. Vsher , ad Ann. 400. in his Answer to the Iesuits 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 workes of Chrysostome . This your Answer might satisfie us , were it not that it was extant sometime in the Libraries of o o So our Peter Martyr . Florence , and p p So your Stephen Gardiner , Bishop of Winchester , lib. 2. de Euch. as he is cited . Canterbury . To whom may bee adjoyned the Author of that Vnperfect worke , still standing under the name of Chrysostome , and by you upon any occasion objected against us ; wherein it is expresly sayd , that q 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 mysterie 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 beene admonished by one r r Dr. Iames in his Specimen Corruptelarum , &c. Haec veba habentur in editione Antwer●●● â Anno 1537. Apua Ioh. Steelsium , & i● Parisiensi An. 1543. Apud Ioh. Roydwey , ut in Parisiensi aliâ apud Andraeam Parvum , Ann. 1557. most worthy and able to advertise in this kind .

Bertram is our next witnesse from Antiquity , being about 800. yeeres agoe , and never noted of Errour anciently , untill these later times of Booke-butchery ( that we may so call your Index Expurgatorius ) s s Bertramus Gallus circa Annum Domini 810. de Corpore & Sanguine Christi . Prohibitum est omninò à Clmente octavo in postremo Indice librorum prohibitorum . Possevin Apparat. Tit. Bertram . denying altogether all liberty to all men of reading this Booke . But why ? what saith he ? He maintaineth ( saith your t 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 hee doth in his u u Bertramus . Secundùm Creaturarum substantiam , quod fuerant ante Consecrationem , hoc & posteà cons●●unt : Panis & Vinum priùs extitêre , in qua etiam specie consecrata sunt , permanere videntur . de Corpore Domini , pag. 38. Booke dedicated to the Emperour Carolus Calvus , which also hee affirmeth to bee written x x Animadvertat ( Clarissime Princeps ) sapientia vestra quod positis Scripturarum sacrarum testimonijs , & Patium dictis , &c. Idem pag. 65. According to the truth of Scriptures , and judgement of Ancient Fathers before him . This Author undergoeth also the Censure of the Vniversity of Doway , which , confessing him to have beene a Catholike 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 ? Marke this Romi●h Profession of answering Protestan●s , as often as they shall i●i●t in the sestmonies of ancient Writers : y y Iulicium Vniv●sit●t●s Du●censis , Bertr●m Catholicus Pres●yter , & 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. Tride●t . Decret. 2. Philippi 2. Reg. Hispan . Jussu Anno 1571. Let us ( say they ) in D●sputation with our Adversaries , objecting ancient Authors , tolerate many of their Errours , 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 Vniversi●ie . This being the guise and professed Art of your Schooles , 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 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● u●u●●e 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 expresly ) of the Body and Blood of Christ .

⚜ Ephraimius Bishop of Antioch , of primitive Antiquity , whose Sentence is recorded by Photius , standeth thus , 24 24 Photius Bibliothec . ex Ephr●mio . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Pag. 415. Edit. August●ae Vindelic . 1601. The Body of Christ , which is received by the faithfull , loseth nothing of it's sensible substance , nor is it separable from grace ; as Baptisme , which is spirituall , being intirely one in it selfe , preserveth the property of it's sensible substance , ( I meane water ) and loseth not that which it was . So hee . Expresly reveiling unto us in what Sense Antiquity called Bread the Bodie of Christ ; namely ( as other Fathers , in good number , have already unfolded ) because it is a Sacrament representing Christs Body . For hee clearly speaketh of that , which loseth nothing of it's sensible substance , no more than water in Baptisme doth lose ought of it's sensible substance . Which Analogie of the Eucharist with Baptisme will in the last * Booke ( in a full Synopsis ) give an upshot to the whole Cause , concerning the generall Iudgement of the Fathers from point to point . See the like Argument of Cyrill of Ierusalem afterwards , Chap. 4. Sect. 4.

CHAP. IV. Answers to the Objections of Romish Doctours , taken from the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers , for Transubstantiation .

Or , an Antidote to expell all their poysonsome Pretences in that behalfe . SECT. I.

THis our Antidote is compounded of five Ingredients , used for the Discovery of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers , in their Objecting the Testimonies of Fathers under false Pretences . First , upon their terming the mysticall Act A Worke of Omnipotencie . Secondly , their denying of the Eucharist to bee Naked and Bare Bread . Thirdly , in forbidding the Communicants to rely upon the Iudgement 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 seeme 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 Baptisme , and also to other sacred Rites , wherein you beleeve there is not any Substantiall Change at all .

The First Vnconscionablenesse of your Romish Disputers , in objecting the Fathers speeches of an Omnipotent Worke in this Sacrament , for proofe of Transubstantiation . SECT. II.

A Worke of Omnipotencie is attributed by divers Fathers to the Change , which is made in this Sacrament , which we likewise confesse . a a Ambros . Sermo Christ● , qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat , non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare , quod non erant &c. De myster. i●tian● . c. 9. — At omnipotentia non requiritur , ad faciendum ut res aliquid significet . Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14. Ambrosius 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 worke of Creation . b b Ex Cyprian . de Coena D●mini §. Secundum . — Panis iste non effigie , 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 Sacramentall and mysticall Being of the Body of Christ , as all other places of Cyprian shewe● . ] Cyprian speaketh of a Change in nature , by Divine Omnipotencie , c 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 heare d 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. Chrysostome proclaiming , that These are not workes of humane power : Hee that changeth , and transmuteth now , is the same that hee 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 Bulwarke impregnable ; but why ? e e See above in his objecting of Ambrose . Because ( saith your Cardinall ) Omnipotencie is not required to make a thing to be a Signe Significant . So he . Wee answer first from your owne Confessions , and then from the Fathers themselves .

There are two workes observable in every Sacrament ; one is to be a Signe of an Invisible grace , promised by God : the other to be a Seale and Pledge therof , as all Protestants hold ; and ( as your most opposed f 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 Instrumentall cause of conferring grace to the partakers of the Sacraments . In both which Respects there is required an Omnipotencie of a Divine work , without which the Element cannot be changed into a Sacrament , either to signifie , or yet to seale , much lesse to convey any grace of God unto man . And ( that wee may take you along with us ) It is the Doctrine of your Church , with common consent ( saith your Romane g 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. Cardinall ) that God onely can by his Authority institute a Sacrament , because hee onely can give them power of conferring grace , and of Infallible signification thereof . So hee Well then , aswell infallible Signification of Grace , as the efficacious conveyance of Grace , is the worke of the same Omnipocencie . To this purpose more plainly your English Cardinall Alan , speaking ( as hee saith ) from the judgement of Divines , h 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 ( hee saith ) that he speaketh , Ex Theologorum Sententia . telleth you that Although there be an aptnesse in every Creature to beare a signification of some spirituall effect , yet cannot the aptnesse be determinatly applyed unto any peculiar effect , no not so much as to signifie the outward Cleannesse of mans Body ( Sacramentally ) without a Divine Institution ; much lesse to represent mans sanctification : but being so determinated and ordained of God , the Creature ( saith hee ) is elevated above the Custome of nature , not only in respect of the worke of sanctification , but even of signification also . So hee ; and that as well as wee could wish : for this Omnipotent Change of a Creature into a Sacrament , and this Iustrumentall Cause of conferring Sanctifying Grace , to the Faithfull Communicant , is the Generall Doctrine of all Protestants . But what Change shall we thinke ? Of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christs Body , as you teach ? No ; but as * * Booke 2. Chap. 3. §. 6. before Isidore sayd , The Change of visible things , by the spirit of God , into a Sacrament of Christs Body . So hee . This being a Change from a Property naturall into a Property Supernaturall , which Change is Divine , albeit but Accidentall : whereunto accordeth that objected place of * * See above at the letter (c) Augustine , that This is sanctified by the Spirit of God to bee 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 spirituall and divine property of a Sacramentall Signification , as one of your Cardinalls hath sayd : What an unconscionablenesse is it then in your Disputers ; from the termes of Omnipotencie 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 Vnconscionablenesse bee , if we consult with the Objected Fathers themselves . For first Ambrose , who observeth an Omnipotencie in the Change of this Sacrament , explaineth himselfe what kind of Efficacy hee meant , viz. such , that i 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 al●d 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 seeme you have some reason to wipe this Testimony of S. Ambrose out of your new k k These words [ ut sint quae erant ] are wanting in the Roman and Paris Editions , Anno 1603 as Bishop Vsher 〈◊〉 nesseth in his Answer to the Tesuit . Editions : notwithstanding , by Gods providence ; so much of Ambrose his tongue is preserved , even in the same place , as will convince your Objectors of wilfull Falshood ; telling you by a Similitude , that the Change of Bread in this Sacrament is like to the Change , whereby a Christian Regenerate l 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 substantiall nature of man , but in the Accidentall properties . So this Bread of a common bodily Food is made Sacramentall . And the same Father who said of a man , that by Baptisme hee is made a new Creature , saith also of this Sacrament , that m m Per 〈…〉 ●or Explicati●e ; Corpus significatur . By Benediction Bread is made another nature , ( namely ) of an Elementall become Sacramentall , as you have heard ; and as his owne 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 your selves , for to your Lindan n 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 appeare Golden● and hee must needs provoke , forsooth , all Gospellers to hearken unto them : which also seemeth to your o o Ho● Testimon●um nullam . admit●● 〈…〉 lib 2 〈…〉 c. 9. § 〈…〉 Cardinall To admit no solution . Our Answer , first unto the Author , is to deny it to bee the Testimony of Cyprian : may we no● ? This Sermon of the Supper of the Lord is by us ( saith your Master p p Mr. 〈◊〉 Lit●rg . Praef. §. 14. pag 51. Brerely ) attributed to Cyprian . Whom of your Side he mean by Vs ] you may bee pleased to aske him ; sure wee are your Cardinall doth tell us that q 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 Booke is not Cyprian , but some other after him . But , not to disclaime your Author ; all that he saith is that r r Cyprian . de Coena D●n . Pa●s ●ste natu●à mu●●tus om●●potentia ve●b● factus est C●ro , &c. Bread is changed by Gods Omnipotency not in Figure , but in Nature . This is ill ; And all this hath beene , but even now , quitted by your ow●e Confessions , granting a power of Omnipotency in every Sacramentall Change , where the naturall Element is altered from it's common habitude into the nature of a Spirituall Instrument and use , both signifying and exhibiting Divine Grace ; and so the word Nature doth import . The Schooles , distingui●hing the Nature of Accidents from the Nature of Subjects , shew that there is an Accidentall Nature as well as a Substantiall . 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 wee are the children of wrath ; wherein Nature signifieth onely a vitious 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 Surplesse being commanded by lawfull Authority , the use thereof becometh necessary , so that the nature therof is Changed , yet not in the Substance of the thing , but in the legall necessity of the use .

⚜ And what will you thinke of that of Saint Hilarie ? saying of all persons Regenerate , that 1 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 hee affirmeth the 2 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 bee changed in this Sacrament . Certainly , even as it is in all other Mysteries , wherin ( as Saint Augustine speaketh ) 3 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 Booke 2. cap. 2. §. 16. Isidore spake ) which is called the Body of Christ , because of the Sacramentall property of speech , calling the Signe by the name of the thing signified ; as the same * Father , with divers Others hath amply declared . ⚜

But to come neerer , Answer us but this one Question . Wheras all learning alloweth this saying , that in Baptisme the nature of the Element , and the nature of the Sacrament are different , whereupon it is sayd ; The word coming to the Element maketh it a Sacrament : when wee shall say of the water in Baptisme that the Nature of it , as of a Sacrament , is more excellent than , is the nature of it , as it is a meere 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 immediatly following the Testimony objected , doth fully confute Transubstantiation by a Similitude ; comparing the Humanity , and Deity of Christ with the Naturall and Spirituall parts of this Sacrament , to wit ; s 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 himselfe true humanitie 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 it selfe . So hee , which , by the law of a Similitude , must stand thus : Even so Bread in this Sacrament is seene , and the Spirituall operation of Gods power therein to the Faithfull is Invisible . Like as we may say of the preaching of the Word of God to the Faithfull ; The words are audible , and sensible , but because of the inward working of Gods Spirit , for the Conversion of Mans soule , it is called * * Rom. 1. 16. The power of God unto salvation : as likewise Baptisme is made the Lavacr● of Regeneration ; whereof Gregory Nyssen affirmeth that t 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 Chrysostome ( not to bee superfluous ) every Protestant doth both beleeve and professe ( namely ) a Divine Operation of God , both by changing the Element into a Sacrament , and working by that Sacrament Spirituall Effects , to the good of Mans soule .

⚜ A Vindication of divers Testimonies of Saint Cyprian , by Romish Torturers forced , for proofe of Transubstantiation .

BVt you have not done with Cyprian , he is found saying , concerning this Sacrament , that 4 4 Cyprian de Coena Dom. Christus usquè hodie verissimum , Sanctissimum suum Corpus creat , sanctificat & benedicit , & piè sumentibus dividit . Objected by Dr. Heskins Parl. Booke 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 soone tryed . The words of Cyprian are , that Christ doth Create his most true Body : the onely 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 Cardinall abhorring to say that Christ's Body is properly created in this Sacrament , 5 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 . [ Wee grant that Christ spake of his true body , for this Sacrament wee say is a figure , not of a fantasticall , but of a substantiall Body . ] Answereth that the words Create , Sanctifie , and Blesse , 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 Signe of his Body , is it not a wilfull blindnesse in your Disputers , to conclude from a Signe the reall 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 6 Cyprian de Vnctione . Dedit Dominus in mensa , in qua ultimum cum Apostolis participavit Convivium , proprijs manibus Panem & Vinum , in Cruce 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 Signes ) and things signified , are called by the same termes , 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 stupiditie , or else obstinacie , than by urging this Sentence , whereby two Articles of your Councel of Trent are absolutely strangled . The first is Transubstantiation , which ( as you confesse ) is of Something Pre-existent : Whereas Creation , ( as all know ) is from a meere 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 hee calleth Created , that It is divided .

Wee have light upon another sentence of Cyprian , objected out of the same place , and as vehemently pressed , as any other out of Cyprian , 7 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 it selfe into this Sacrament , that wee should have a religious devotion towards it , that a more sincere addresse may be had to be the Truth , whereof the Body and Blood are Sacraments . So he . Now that you may know our willingnesse to go along with you in the exposition of this Sentence , so farre as either the sense of the words will beare , or Cyprian his owne direction will permit .

Wee grant , first , that the Divine Essence , which is the divine power of Christ , is exercised in every Sacrament , by making it effectuall 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 , ought to come with a Religious Devotion , and sincere affection . The onely difference is , how Christ's Body and Blood are said to bee Sacraments of the Reality of his Body and Blood , here mentioned ? and your onely Answer is , that Christ is a figure and signe of himselfe , as hee is in this Sacrament ; which figment is easily confuted by a Catholike and universall doctrine of all Christian Churches , which is , that every Sacrament is a visible Signe of an invisible Grace . But in this Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ , properly taken , are nothing lesse than Visible , by your owne Confessions , who teach them to bee so Invisible herein , that they cannot bee discerned either by Angel , or the Bodily eyes of Christ himselfe . You perceive by this , that your Boast of this Place of Cyprian , is but a vaine blast .

Wherefore wee 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 Seales of that Verity of the same Body , which was crucifyed , and of the same Blood , which was shed upon the Crosse for man's Redemption ; and are here Sacramentally exhibited to the soules of the Faithfull .

But you will aske , who will warrant this our Exposition of the words of Cyprian ? and wee Answer , that wee shall need no other Interpreter than Cyprian himselfe , already alleged , saying , * * See before at num. 6. in the Morgin . that Things signifying are called by the names of Things signifyed . So he there ; and therefore so here are Bread and Wine called the Body and Blood of Christ , being in themselves onely Sacraments and Signes : whereof you have had example in his Saying , that Christ herein created his Body ; by Body meaning Bread , as your Cardinall hath confessed . Which may give you a true Patterne of the genuine Idiome 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 Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers , for abuse of the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers , is seene in objecting their deniall of Common and Bare Bread , in this Sacrament ; for an Argument of Transubstantiation . SECT. III.

TO this purpose Irenaeus , saying that a 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 . Vnconscionably ; knowing that b b Sol. Chrysost. in Psal. 22. hom. 16. De aqua Baptismi . Non est aqua Communis . Chrysostome ( and also other Fathers , whom you moreover object ) saith likewise of the Sacrament of Baptisme , * * See in this Section li● . ( c. h. ) Wee are to behold it not as common water . The second is Iustine Martyr , saying , d d Bellamin . Oblustin . Mart. lib 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Sol. Ratio , quia 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , id est , Eucharisticatus , sivè sanctificatus Cibus . Wee receive these , not as Common Bread , or Common Drinke . Therefore ( say you ) we may not judge them by Sense . Vnconscionably ; knowing that Iustine Martyr in the same place sheweth his Reason , why it is not to be called Common , even because ( saith he ) it is [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] that is , Sanctified meat . And so Water in Baptisme is Sanctified , as you know . The third is Cyrill of Ierusalem , saying , e 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 bee judged by Sense . V●conscionably ; knowing that the same Cyrill , in the same place , saith the same of the water of Baptisme : It is not simple Water . Yea , but hee further saith ( say f f Oh. Cyrill . mystag . 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . you ) Thinke not of it , as of bare Bread , ( adding ) but the Body of Christ . Ergo ( say you ) not to bee judged otherwise by Sense . Vnconscionably ; knowing that the same Father in the same place , for explanation sake , saith likewise of g g ●ot Sequiturs 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Idem Catech. Mystag 3 Sacred Oyle , viz. Even so that holy Oyle is not bare and simple Oyle ( Adding ) but the gift of Grace .

And that your Authours Vnconscionablenesse may bee the more notorious , in their Wresting of the Catholike meaning of the Fathers , in this kind , wee must tell you that there is no speech more familiar unto ancient Fathers than to esteeme , as they ought , all Sacramentall Signes 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 , hee saith that h h Greg. Nysson . Altare 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 accep●t , mēsa facta , & Altare immaculatum est . Orat . de Sancto Baptismo . Et nè contemnas divinum Lavacrum , neque id Commune putes , &c. Although by nature it bee but as other stone , wherewith the Pavements are garnished , and adorned ; yet being Consecrated to Gods Service , by Benediction , it is an holy Table and Altar . Adding also of Baptisme , and saying ; The Divine Water is not to bee contemned , nor to bee held as Common . Yea , and what lesse doth your Church say of your hallowed Balsome , Beads , and Bells , and the like , all which you distinguish from Common and bare Oyles , 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 proofe of Transubstantiation , the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers , forbidding men to [ Discerne of this Sacrament by their Senses . ] And first of their abusing the Testimony of Cyril , by two egregious Falsifications . SECT. IV.

WEe may not easily passe over your Objection taken out of Cyrill , being in the opinion of your Cardinall so impregnable ; Let us first here your Objector : i 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 worke which ( unquestionably ) was his , yea and most cleare , and plaine , as that it cannot be perverted . Besides it is in his Catechisme , 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 farre your Cardinall , you see , with as accurate an Oratory of Amplification , as could bee invented . What Protestant would not now , if ever , expect a deadly blow from this Father to our Catholike Cause ? but attend to the Issue .

First , k 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 beleeve it to be the Body of Christ , whereinto the bread is changed . And he is brought in by your l 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 . Cardinall to averre furthermore that The Body of Christ is given under the forme of Bread . And so the Sentence seemeth to bee most manifest , saith he . But for what wee 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 forme of Bread . So he , and Master * * Liturg. Tractat . 2. §. 2. Subd 4. pag. 116. Brerely from him , as followeth ; Cyril saith , under the forme of Bread his Body is given , &c. and then dancing in the same triumph , addeth ; Can any Catholike of this Age write more plainely ? So he . And we answer , could any Iugglers deale more falsely ? For upon due examination it will appeare to be a manifest Delusion , by a false Translation of Cyrils words . The Body of Christ is given ( as your Cardinall doth render it ) [ sub specie Panis ] in , or under the forme of Bread ; whereas it is in the Greeke , m m Cyril . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cate●● Mystag . 4. Russus Mystag . 5. Non existimetis vos gustare Panem & Vinum , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Vnder the Type of Bread : even as he saith afterwards ; Thinke not that you taste bread , but the Antitype of Christ's Body . In both , [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , ] not , [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] Type , and Antitype ; not Forme , or Figure of Bread .

Now there is a maine and manifest difference betweene Forme , and Type . For Accidentall Formes are things Reall , and the determinate Objects of Sense ; but Types , or Antitypes are onely Relatives , and ( as such ) no Objects of Sense , but of Reason , and understanding onely . As for example , when a Iudge is set in his Scarlet upon the Bench , the Eye seeth nothing but the colour , and the fashion of the Gowne , 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 Iudge , ordained to trie Causes betweene Parties , is a sight of the minde , which looketh upon his Office , to discerne 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 , Signes of the Body and Blood of Christ , so are they spiritually discerned with our understanding onely .

As therefore it followeth not , that the Scarlet Gowne of the Iudge , because it is an Ensigne of his Office , should be onely 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 onely Forme , and outward Accidents , without all Substance of Bread . And thus your Cardinall his first [ Apertissimum Argumentum ] for proofe 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 errour of Sense , in judging it to be Bread . Wee call upon Cyril to decide this Controversie , who is best able to interpret himselfe . Hee therefore that said of the Eucharist , after Consecration , It is not Bare Bread , but the Body of Christ , affirmed as much of Consecrated Oyle , saying , It is not Bare Oyle . But we are answered , that n 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 Oyle to be Bare Oyle , hee called it yet still but Chrisme , ( that is ) Sanctified Oyle , after Consecration . So your Cardinall . And so are wee posed for ever . But behold another Iesuiticall Fraud ! For Cyril as hee called the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body , after Consecration , so doth hee call the Consecrated Oyle [ Charisma ] that is , the Gift of the Grace of Christ ; and not [ Chrisma ] that is , Chrisme , or Oyntment , as your Cardinall rendreth it .

Wee say againe hee calleth that Charisma , which notwithstanding hee saith was , after Consecration , still Oyle , wherewith their Foreheads were anointed . This must we Iudge to have beene a notable Falsification of Bellarmine , except you would rather we should thinke , that when hee was now to prove that our Senses are deceived , in judging of Bread to bee Bread , hee meant to prove it by seeming to be deceived himselfe , in thus mistaking the word Chrisma , for o o 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cyril . Catech. Mystag. 3. and so utterly perverting the Iudgement of Cyril ; by whom we are contrarily taught , that the Sight is no more deceived in judging Bread to be Bread , than in discerning Oyle to be Oyle . For neither was the other Bare Oyle , being a Type of a spirituall Gift ; nor yet was it therefore changed into the Spirituall Grace it selfe , because it is so called ; but onely is a Type and Symbol thereof . Which One Parallel of Oyle with Bread doth discover the Vnconscionable pertinacie and Perversnesse 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 Iudicious 8 8 Not. M. S. in Bellar. formerly alleged . Isaac Casaubon , the Myrrour of learning ; concluding with this Epiphonema : If I ( saith he ) have any judgment , Cyril judged Bread to remaine in this Sacrament of the Eucharist , as verily as in Oyle consecrated , there remaineth Oyle . As for the terme of Transmutation of Bread into Christ's Body , you may have a further plentifull satisfaction in the Seaventh Section following . And wee concurre in Iudgment with the same Cyril , exacting that wee regard not our Senses herein ; namely , to looke upon it with our naturall eyes , as beholding bare Bread : but with Spirituall , to behold it to be Sacramentall Bread , and in it , as in a Signe , to discerne the Lords Body , as Cyril hath already expounded himselfe saying , that it is changed into an Antitype of Christ's Body . ⚜

The like Romish Objection out of Chrysostome , and as Vnconscionable . SECT. V.

SAint Chrysostome his Testimonie may in no wise be omitted , which seemeth to your Disputers to bee so Convincent , that your p p Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 22. Cardinall placed it in the front of his host of the Fathers , whom hee produceth , as able to breake through an Army of Adversaries alone ; and Master q 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 Vpshot . I will conclude ( saith hee ) admonishing the Christian Reader with Saint Chrysostome his Saying ( you long to heare it , wee thinke : ) Although Christ his speech ( saith r 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 seeme absurd unto Sense and Reason , I exhort you notwithstanding that , especially in Mysteries , we looke not unto that which is before us , but observe Christ's words : for we cannot bee disappointed of that which hee saith , but Senses may be deceived . Wherefore , because he said [ This is my Body ] we are altogether to beleeve it , for hee delivereth no sensible things unto us ; but all which hee delivereth in things sensible are insensible : even as in Baptisme the gift of Regeneration granted us is Intelligible . For if thou wert without a Body , then things onely unbodily should be given unto thee , but now because thy Soule is joyned with a Body , therefore in things sensible hath Christ delivered unto thee things intelligible . So Chrysostome .

Now what of all this ? Chrysostome ( saith your s s Bellar. Non potuisset sanè Chrysostomus loqui clariùs , si Calvinistam aliquem habuisset , quem hortari ad fidem voluisset . Ibid. quo supra . Cardinall ) could not speake more plainely , if hee had had some Calvinist before him , whom hee meant to exhort to the Faith . So hee , meaning the Faith of Transubstantiation , Which ( as hath been confessed ) was no doctrine of Faith untill more than a Thousand yeeres after Christ . But to returne to Chrysostome , whose Sentence wee may compare to a Nut , consisting of a Shell , and a Kernel : The Shell wee may call his Figurative Phrases ; the Kernel wee may terme his Orthodoxe meaning . Of both in the Section following .

Of the Rhetoricall , and Hyperbolicall Phrases of Chrysostome . SECT. VI.

TO begin with the Shell . First , wee are to know that Hyperbole is a Rhetoricall Trope , or Figure , which may be defined to be an Excessive speech , signifying a Truth in an Vntruth . As to say , Something is more darke than darknesse it selfe ; which , being strictly taken , were an Impossibility , and Vntrue : but it doth imply this Truth , ( namely ) that the thing is wonderfully , and extremely darke .

Secondly , that Chrysostome was most frequent in this Figure Hyperbole , your owne t 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 generall Caution , that Fathers in their Sermons do use to declame Hyperbolically , he doth instance most specially , and by name , in Chrysostome . ⚜ And albeit that Wee object plaine places of Chrysostome , and such wherein every word may be taken in a proper Sense ; ( as for Example , where hee reproveth those that are onely Gazers , and not Communicants at the Celebration of the Eucharist , It is better ( saith hee ) not to be present , than not to participate ) yet can wee receive no better Answer , or other satisfaction from your Cardinall than thus ; 9 9 Quod dicit Chrysostomus , melius esse non interesse Sacrificio , quàm interesse , & non communica●● : D●co Chrysostomum , ut quaedam alia , per excessum esse locu●um . Bellar. lib. 2. de Missa . Cap. 10. §. Ad illud . Chrysostome here , as else where , spake in an excesse . ⚜

Thirdly , that the Excessive Phrases of Chrysostome , upon this Sacrament , do verifie as much , viz. to tell his people , that u u Dentes Carnl suae insigere . Chrys. Homil. 45. in Iohan. Lingua cruentatur hoc admirabili Senguine . Hom. 83. in Matth. Turbam circumsusam rubificri . Lib 3. de Sacerdotio . Their Teeth are fixed in the flesh of Christ : that , Their tongues are bloodied with his Blood : and that The Assembly of the people are made red therewith .

Fourthly , that hee is as Hyperbolicall in denying ( in the Celebration of this Sacrament ) the judgement of Senses , saying , x x Num vides Panem ? num Vinum ? nè putetis Corpus accipere ab homine , sed ex ipso Seraphin forcipe ignem , Idem . Tom. 3 de Eucharist . in Encaenijs . Do wee see Bread or Wine ? which is spoken in as great an exuberancie of speech , as are the next words immediately following , saying : Thinke not that you receive the Body from a man , but Fire from a Scraphin , or Angel , with a paire of Tongs . You will thinke ( notwithstanding those kinde of Phrases ) that Chrysostome thought he saw aswell Bread and Wine in this Sacrament , as he could discerne either Man from a Seraphin , or Spirit ; or his owne Fingers from a paire of Tongs .

Fiftly , that the Sentence objected against us , is adorned with the same figure Hyperbole , when he saith that No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament , and that our senses herein may be deceived . Words sore pressed by you , yet twice unconscionably ; both because every Sacrament by your owne Church is defined to be y 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 Signe ; and also for that you your selves confesse that z 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 Chrysostome himselfe well knew he did Hyperbolize herein , who after that hee had sayd , No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament ; notwithstanding , hee addeth immediately , saying of this Sacrament , that In things Sensible , things Intelligible are given unto us . Thus farre of the Rhetorike of Chrysostome .

Now are wee to shew his Theologie , and Catholike meaning , as it were the Kernel of his Speech . Hee in the same Sentence will have us understand Man to consist of Body and Soule , and accordingly in this Sacrament Sensible things are ministred to the Body , as Symbols of spirituall things , which are for the Soule to feed upon . So that a Christian , in receiving this Sacrament , is not wholly to exercise his minde upon the bodily Object , as if that were onely , or principally the thing offered unto us ; No , for then indeed our Senses would deceive our Soules of their spirituall Benefit . As for Transubstantiation , and Absence of Bread , Chrysostome , in true Sense , maketh wholly against it , by explaining himselfe , and paralleling this Sacrament with Baptisme : As in Baptisme ( saith a a Sicut in Baptismo , &c. Chrysost. See above , §. 5. at ( r. ) he ) Regeneration , the thing intelligible , is given by water , the thing sensible , the Substance of water remaining . Which proportion between the Eucharist and Baptisme , is held commonly by ancient * * See hereafter at large in the 8. Book . Fathers , to the utter overthrow of Transubstantiation . And that Chrysostome believed the Existence of Bread after Consecration , * * See above Chap 3. §. 13. hath beene already expressely showne , and is here now further proved . For he saith of Bread after Consecration , that b b Nos per hunc Panem unione conju●gimur Chrysost. in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. Wee are joyned together one with another , by this Bread . ⚜ And yet furthermore , the same Chrysostome hath already delivered his mind , touching the infallibility of the sense of Touching ; declaring in a plaine and literall Sense , as from the mouth of Christ , * That man's sense of Touch could not be deceived . ⚜

And now that you see the Nut cracked , you may observe how your Disputers have swallowed the Shell of Hyperbolicall Phrases , and left the kernel of Theologicall Sense for us to content our selves withall . Furthermore ( for this is not to be omitted ) the other Testimony of Chrysostome is spun and woven with the same Art , which saith of Consecrating this Sacrament , that c c Chrysost. Hom 50 in Matth. juxta Edit. Graec. Nè existmes Sacerdotem esse . qui hoc facit , sed [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] Then followeth of Baptisme , Ibid. Ille non te Baptizat . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Man is not to thinke it is the hand of the Priest , but of Christ himselfe , that reacheth it unto him ; seeing immediately after ( as it were with the same breath ) it is added : It is not the Minister , but God that Baptizeth thee , and holdeth thy head . ⚜ Words , you see , as Hyperbolicall as could be uttered , and notwithstanding urged by your Doctor Heskins , calling it a 9 9 Dr. Heskins in his partiam of Christ , Book . 2. Chapt. 55. objecteth . Plaine place , for proof of a proper Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament . But will this rellish with you also ? All this is to prove unto you , that you are not to exact an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , no more than when the Apostle said of the faithfull , in respect of Christ ; * * See above c. 3. §. 7. Thus farre concerning the Iudgement of Senses , which hath beene formerly proved ( at large ) both by * * Ibid. in the Chapters following . Scriptures , and * Fathers . Wee draw neerer our marke , which is the word Transubstantiation it selfe .

Fourthly , the Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers , in urging other Figurative Sayings , and Phrases of the Fathers , of Bread Changed , Transmuted , &c. into the Body of Christ , for proofe of a Transubstantiation thereof in a Proper Sense . SECT VII .

SVch words as these , Bread is the Body of Christ ; It is made the Body of Christ ; It is Changed , Translated , Trans-muted , Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ , are Phrases of the highest Emphasis that you can finde in the Volumes of Antity ; which if they were literally meant , according to your Romish Sense , there ought to be no further Dispute . But if it may evidently appeare , by the Idiome of speech of the same Fathers , that such their Sayings are Tropicall , and sometimes Hyperbolicall , then shall wee have just Cause to taxe your Disputers of as great Vnconscionablenesse ( if not of more ) in this , as in any other .

For whensoever they finde in any Father ( as in c 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. de Orthod. side , cap. 14. Panem corpus suum facere . Objected by Dr. Heskins in his Parliament . Booke 2. Chap. 20. ⚜ Eusebius ) these words ; The Bread is the Body of Christ ; they object it for Transubstantiation ; but Vnconscionably . 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 beene * * 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 Oyle , saying , this is Charisma , the Gift of Grace ; as hee called also the Holy Kisse a d d 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cyrill . sup. Reconciliation , and Others the like , as you have heard . Thirdly , seeing that you your selves 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 wee can say , An Egge is a Stone , as you have * * See above , Booke 2. cap. 1. §. 4. confessed . Againe , Some Fathers say , Bread is made Flesh , as Saint c c Ambros . De Pane ; Fit Corpus caro Christi . Ob by Bellarmine , lib. 2. de Euchar cap. 14. and by others . Ambrose objected ; but Vnconscionably ; knowing , First , that you your selves are brought now at length to deny the Body of Christ to be Produced out of Bread . Secondly , knowing the like Idiome of Fathers in their other Speeches ; Chrysostome saying that f 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. Objec●● by Mr. Brerely . Liturg . Tract . 2. §. 2. Subd. 2. Christ hath made us his owne Body , not onely in Faith , but in Deed also . And Augustine saying that g 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 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 Baptized , that Hee is not the same that hee was before Baptisme , by which ( saith he ) the Body of the party Regenerate is made the Flesh of Christ crucified . Yea , and our Venerable Bede saith , i i Beda in 1. Cor 10. Num & nos ipsius Corpus facti sumus , & quod accipimus , nos sumus . Wee are made that Body which we receive . In all which the word [ Made , ] you know , is farre from that high straine of Transubstantiation . Wee draw yet neerer to the Scope .

Wee may not deny , but that the Fathers sometimes extend their voyces higher , unto the Preposition Trans ; as k 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 it selfe ; and all the wits of men cannot ( saith one ) Assoyle such Objections . Wherein they shew themselves altogether Vnconscionable , as hath beene partly declared in Answering your Objected Sayings of l l See above c. 4. §. 2. Ambrose , In aliud Convertuntur ; of m m Ibid. at the Letter (r) Cyprian his Panis naturà mutatus ; of Cyrils Trans-mutavit ; and as now in this Section is to be manifested , in answering your other Objections to the full .

The Father o 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 , &c. 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 Cardinall , to prove Transubstantiation : but , First , Vnconscionably ; because it is in it selfe ( being literally understood , ) even in your owne judgements , incredible . For what Christian will say that the Body of Christ is Transubstantiated into any other thing ? much lesse into whatsoever thing the appetite of the Receiver shall desire ? No. But as Manna did satisfie the bodily Appetite : so , Christ's Body to the Faithfull is food , satisfying the Soule in the Spirituall and heavenly desire thereof . Wee say , the Soule , and not the bodily appetite , as your selves well know , and the Councell of * * ●certne Councell of Ni●● L. 4. c. 11. §. 3. Nice doth teach us to professe . Secondly , Vnconscionably objected , because the same Father expresseth his Hyperbolicall maner of Speech likewise , saying that p 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 it selfe , which in the Literall Sense , according to your arguing , would prove a Transubstantiation of Mens Bodies into Christ . ⚜ Were it ( for these are his two Instances ) into Milke , or Colewoorts .

But what now ? 10 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 , & immortale per illud reddi : & quod 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 Cardinall ) in his Catechetica hat● such plaine places for the changing of Bread into the substance of Christ's Flesh , as which none of our Adversaries , for ought that I know , did ever answer , or yet object out of this Author , any thing against us . So hee . And good reason , for indeed , none need to busie himselfe 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 wee may bee perswaded both because that the objected places are onely read in the 11 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 , &c. after-Editions of the works of Gregory Nyssen , and also for that ( as your own Author , who hath published the same Catecheticall Oration , confesseth of 12 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 immortall , See an Answer , Book 5. Chap. 8. §. 3. Your Objection of Divine Power is Answered already , in this Chapter , Sect. 2. To that hee Questioneth , how Christ's Body , being but one , can hee , without Diminution , received of so many ? it is Answered in the 4. Booke . The places concerning the Eucharist , which are the same now objected ) They are wanting in divers Manuscripts of Gregory Nyssen his workes . And how much more suspicious may this seeme to them , who are acquainted with your Booke-mints , and Booke-manglers , as well in foysting in false Sentences , as in falsifying the true ?

This might have beene our first Answer ; but lest that , if wee should insist upon this , wee might seeme to decline your pretended answerlesse Objection , observe you , with us , in the same Author , that as he sayeth , The Bread is converted into the Body of Christ , so hee saith of the same Body of Christ , being received , that * * See above at ( p. ) It doth convert the body of the Receiver into Christ himselfe , as you have heard . Whereby he teacheth both you and us , that this word , Convert , is to bee taken for a mysticall and Sacramentall Change , and not for a proper and substantiall ; except you would conclude from the same Father , by you objected , that the body of the Communicant is Transubstantiated into Christ himselfe . Nor this onely , but by vertue of the same word [ Transit , ] must you bee constrained to allow of a farre more strange Transubstantiation , even of the Bread , which was eaten of Christ , 13 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 owne Deitie . 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 your selves cannot but abhorre as Hereticall .

And with the same forehead doth your Cardinall say , that Protestants finde nothing to object out of this Father , Gregory Nyssen ; seeing that it is not Nothing to observe , where Nyssen saith , that 14 14 Bellar. lib. 2. de 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 meate signified in the History ( of Manna ) it is no incorporeall 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 Schooles telleth us , that not Bread and Wine , but the 15 15 Aqam part. 3 Qu. 77 Art. 6. Species Sacramētales — manifestum est quòd nutriunt . Accidents and Formes of Bread and Wine do nourish . Contrarily , Gregory Nyssen saith , as you have heard ; [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] How can an incorporeall thing give nourishment to a thing corporall ? ( as thinking it impossible . ) Our Argument then from thence may be this . Seeing Accidents of Bread cannot nourish , then certainely the substance of Bread , in this Sacrament , which giveth a bodily nourishment , doth remaine therein . And if the Substance of Bread remaine , then ( by your owne unanimous Confessions ) Bread is not changed , and converted into the Substance of Christ's Body ; and consequently must you bidd your Lateran Dame Transubstantiation adiue .

Chrysostome is found admiring these Mysteries , and is objected by Mr. q q Mr. Brerely , Tract . ● . § 4. Subd. 2. pag. 164. Brerely , for proofe of the wonderfull Effects of this Sacrament . Why ? what saith he ? r r Chrysost. Admiranda Mysteria — ut non solùm per dilectionem , sed reipsa in illam carnem convertamur . Hom. 45. in Iob. Wee our selves ( saith hee ) are converted and changed into the Flesh of Christ . Which was the former saying of Greg. Nyssen . Will your Disputers never learne the Hyperbolicall Language of ancient Fathers , especially when they speake of Sacramentall , and mysticall things ? ( more especially Chrysostome , who , when hee falleth upon this Subject , doth almost altogether Rhetoricat : ) but chiefly when they cannot bee ignorant that such words of the Fathers , in the Literall straine , are utterly absurd . For what greater Absurdity than ( as is now objected ) for our Bodies to be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ ? Hearken unto Chrysostome a word more , and hee will tell you , that wicked and impenitent Communicants being 16 16 And againe , 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 past the limits of due Antiquity , you descend lower .

Theophylact will say hard to us , who , speaking of this Sacrament , saith indeed that s 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. de Eucharist . cap. 23. §. Secundo . The Bread is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ : which your Cardinall will have to bee , in the same Fathers sense , Equivalent with your Transubstantiation . Vnconscionably ; for doth not the same Father say , likewise that t t Theoph. in . Ioh. 6 Qui me man lucat , quodammodò 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . A Christian is in a maner Trans-elementated into Christ ? Like as Isidore Pelusiota spake of u 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 Iearer . Againe , Theophylact is objected , as saying , x x Theophyl . in . Math. 26. Panis ineff●bili modo transformatur — Panis quidem apparet , sed caro est . Objected by Mr. Ererely , Laturg . Tract. 2 §. 2. S●bd . As for [ est caro ] this Phrase 〈◊〉 beene already answered . See above at ( s . ) The Bread is after an ineffable maner Transformed . It is true ; Hee saith so : and so doth Hierome say that y 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 Transforme his Body into his Church broken with afflictions : and Pope Leo sticketh not to say that 1 1 Leo. Non alia igitur participatio Corpous , quàm ut m●id , qu●d summus transeamus . De Passione Serm. 24 Wee Christians , in communicating [ Transimus ] turne , or are Changed into Christ his Body . So these ancient Fathers .

Are you not yet out of breath with objecting Testimonies of Fathers Vnconscionably , and imper●inently ? No , for Master Brerely , for a Close , desireth to be heard , and to try us with an Objection out of the Greeke Church these latter times , as followeth . a a Mr. Brereley in his Apologie ( of the first Edition ) concerning the Faith of the ancient Greeke Church . It appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines at Wittenberge , Anno Domini 1584. intituled [ Acta Theologorum Wittenbergensium , & Hieremiae Patriarchae Constantinop . &c. ] that the Greeke Church at this day ( although divided from the Latine ) professeth to beleeve Transubstantiation . So he of the Patriarch Hierem●as ; which Patriarch , if he were alive , would very hardly containe himselfe from answering this your Brother with some indignation , calling him both rash and precipitant ; seeing that the same Patriarch expresly said that b 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 Poynt to the Doctors of Wit●enbèrge . The Body and Blood of Christ are indeed Mysteries , which are not changed into humane flesh , but wee into them . So that Patriarch .

⚜ Neverthelesse another bold Romish 17 17 Franciscus de Sancta Clara. Exposit. Artic. Confess . Angi 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 Easterne and Greeke Church . But behold Cyril , now Patriarch of Constantinople , ready at hand to strangle this false bragge , saying ( as he himselfe speaketh ) 18 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 offert , non autem quam excogitata docet Transubstantiatio . In the name of the East and Greeke Churches : Wee professe a true and reall 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 wee Protestants do likewise professe ( as will be declared in the next Booke at large . ) And that the Grecians , who were present at the Councell of Florence , did not yield Assent to that Article of Transubstantiation , although your Iesuite 19 19 Gordon . Ies. Controv. 4. cap. 4. num. 25. Quod de Graecis in Concilio Florentino congregatis cōminiscuntur Adversarij , eos nimirum nègâsse Transubstantiationem , apertum est Commentum , — Nam Disputatio tantùm erat , quibus verbis fieret Transubstantiatio , seu Consecratio . Gordon would qualifie and mince the businesse , yet Binius the Publisher of that Councell 20 20 Binius Tom. 4. Not. in Conc. Florent Sess . 25. [ In vobis &c. ] Cùm Pontifex egisset , ut Graeci dicerent , quid statuerent de Processione Spiritus , de Purgatorio , deque divina Transubstantiatione panis : Cumque respondissent , se admittere Purgatorium &c. De Transubstantiatione verò Panis Suorum sententiae inhaesissent confesseth that they did therein Persist in the opinion of their owne Doctors .

Master Brerely would thinke it an injury done unto himselfe , if we should pretermit his objected Authority of Pope Gregory : for Doctor Humphrey ( saith hee ) doth charge Gregory the Great with Transubstantiation . So Master Brerely , who objected this in his Apologie , many yeares agoe , and had a full Answer in an * * Appeale . lib. 1. Chap. 2. §. 7. [ The testimony it self , cited out of Greg. by M● Brereley , is answered in the first Book , concerning EATING . Appeale , made purposely in confutation of his whole Apologie . The Summe of that Answer is this : Doctor Humphrey did not speake that , as grounded upon any sentence of Gregory , but onely 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 it selfe fond , filthy , and frivolous , the Author whereof may seeme 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 owne promise . This Answer was home , one would thinke , and might justly have provoked him to satisfie for himself , if hee could have found any Errour therein : yet notwithstanding , for want of better service , bringeth he in these Cole-worts twise sod .

CHALLENGE .

WHat greater Vnconscionablenesse could your Disputers bewray , than by so torturing the Hyperbolicall , Figurative , and Sacramentall Sayings of Ancient Fathers for proofe of the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ ? insomuch that they must bee consequently constrained , by the force of some Phrases , contrary both to the meaning of the same Fathers , and to the Doctrine of your owne 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 adde a Fourth , of Bread into the Deity of Christ . And againe , a Fift out of Chrysostome , of the Wicked receivers , turned into Wolves , as you have heard . As also ( for a Sixt , 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 Booke . 5. cap. 8. § 1. Mee into Thee , and Thee into Mee . In all which Objections they do but verifie the Proverbe : Qui nimis emungit , elicit sanguinem .

Fiftly , the like Vnconscionablenesse of your Romish Disputers is unmasked , by laying open the Emphaticall Speeches of the Fathers , concerning Baptisme , answerable to their Sayings objected , for proofe of Transubstantiation in the Eucharist . SECT. VIII .

COncerning Baptisme wee have * * See above in this Chap. §. 3. &c. heard already , out of the Writings of Antiquity , as efficacious Termes , as you could object for the Eucharist . First of the Party Baptized , Changed into a new Creature . Secondly , that No sensible thing is delivered in Baptisme . Thirdly , that The Baptized is not the same , but changed into Christ his flesh . Fourthly , to thinke that It is not the Priest , but God that Baptizeth , who holdeth thy head . Lastly , Baptisme ( saith the Councel of * * Booke 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 Generall Synopsis reserved for the Eighth Booke .

A Briefe of the Collections of that judicious Inquisitor into Antiquities , the thrice memorable , * * Notes extracted out of the above-mentioned M. S. of Mr. Isaac Casaubon , by M. Mèiric Casaubon his sonne . Master Isaac Casaubon ; for the better satisfaction of men of our owne Protestant Profession , concerning the Iudgment of Antiquitie . SECT. IX .

THis famous learned Author telleth us of the Iudgement of Ancient * * Verbis Christi adhae serunt [ Hoc est corpus meum ● & illam locutionem retinuerunt , quae nihil juvat hodier●os Pōtificios : 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 . Iustinus 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 servàlle 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 forme of speech , which Christ had done before them : which doth no whit helpe 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 speake of a Transmutation , and Change , but so expound themselves , that their words make plainly against the doctrine of the Church of Rome . II. Vsing Examples , which destroy Transubstantiation , ( as namely ) the Change of Water in Baptisme , of Laicks into the Priest . III. They acknowledged the sensible Signe 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 Mysterie 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 hee hath left us his Body , and the like , that thereby they meane 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 Baptisme , 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 farre that Orthodoxe and learned Author , justifying ( in effect ) as much as hitherto by Vs hath beene avouched from Antiquity .

Sixtly , the Vnconscionablenesse of the Romish Opposites doth betray it selfe , by their alleging of Testimonies of the Fathers , contrary to their owne Romish Principles . SECT. X.

YOur Romish Positions and Principles are these ; one is this : 20 20 Iosephus 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 commune , 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 Proprietie ; and they give reasons hereof ( in the Margin . ) The other is , That to affirme , that Bread is changed into Christ his Body , is a false Proposition : the reason is , because in your Transubstanciation there is no Change made in Christ's Body . A third may be this , touching the Praeposition , [ 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 speake of Changing Bread into Christ's Body ; and also such , which expresse the Body of Christ to be made of Bread . Which one Consideration as it doth discover the Vnconscionablenesse 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 .

ONely give us leave to speer you a Question , before wee end this third Booke . Seeing that Transubstantiation cannot properly be , by your owne Doctrine , except the Substance of Bread ceasing to be , there remaine only the Accidents thereof ( this Position of the continuance of Onely 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 proofe of this one point , excepting onely that of Cyril , which * * See above Chap. 4. § 4. hath bin ( as yoe have heard ) egregiously abused and falsified ? Learne you to Answer this Question , or else shame to object Antiquity any more ; but rather confesse your Article of Transubstantiation to be but a Bastardly Impe.

Wee might inlarge our selves in this point of your Vnconscionablenesse , in your objecting Testimonies of Fathers , for proofe aswell of Transubstantiation , as of the other Articles above-mentioned ; but that they are to be presented in their proper places , to wit ; in the following Treatises , concerning Corporall Presence ; Corporall Vnion , Corporall Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Sacrament , and the Divine Adoration thereof ; so plainly that any man may be perswaded , our Opposites meane no good Faith , in arguing from the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers .

Hitherto of the First Romish Consequences .

THE FOVRTH BOOKE , Treating of the second Romish Consequence , arising from the false Exposition of these words of Christ , [ THIS IS MY BODY , ] called Corporall Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist .

THE Sacramentall Presence hath a double Relation , one is in respect of the thing sensibly received , which is the Sacrament it selfe ; the other in respect of the Receiver and Communicant . Both which are to bee 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 Booke : the second in that which followeth .

CHAP. I. Of the state of this point of Controversie .

That notwithstanding the difference of opinion of Christ's Presence be onely De modo , that is , of the maner of Being ; yet may the Romish Doctrine be Hereticall : and to hold the contrary is a pernitious Paradoxe . SECT. I.

IT would be a wonder to us , to heare Any of our owne profession to be so extremely Indifferent , concerning the different opinions of the Maner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament ; as to thinke the Romish Sect therefore either Tollerable , or Reconciliable , upon Pretence that the Question is onely De modo , ( that is ) of the maner of Being , and that Consequently all Controversie about this is but vaine langling . Such an one ought to enter into his second thoughts , to consider the necessity that lyeth 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 soule to have it's beginning by maner of Production , from the substance of God . The Catholikes sayd nay ; but by maner of Creation , of nothing . The Pelagians maintained a free will in spirituall Acts , from the grace of Nature . The Catholikes nay ; but by speciall 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 Catholikes nay ; but by an Inchoative , comparative , and imperfect perfection of purity . Furthermore against our Christian Faith , of beleeving God to be absolutely a Spirit ; the Anthropomorphites conceived of God , as of one ( after the maner of men ) consisting of Armes and Leggs , &c.

Not to be tedious . Wee come to the Sacraments . The Cataphrygae did not Baptize in the name of the Blessed Trinity , after the maner of the Catholikes . The Artotyritae celebrated the Eucharist in Bread and Cheese . To omit many others , take one ponyard , which wee are sure will pierce into the intrailes of the Cause ( to wit ) the heresie of the Capernaits , in the dayes of our Saviour Christ : who hearing his Sermon , teaching men to Eate his flesh ; and conceiving thereby a carnall maner of Eating , irreconciliably , contrary to the spirituall maner , which was beleeved 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 unpossible to be True in the Sense of the speaker . The other [ Quomodo ] How ? Prudentiae : by inquiring into the Possible Sense of the speaker . Of the first kind was that of the Capernaits , by not beleeving , through their praejudicate understanding of his speach , Contra Christi Sensum . That other is of us Protestants , beleeving the same words , juxta Christi Sensum . ⚜ And that the Romish maner of Eating Christ his Body is Capernaiticall ; her maner of Sacrifice sacrilegious ; her maner of Divine Adoration therof Idolatrous ; and all these maners Irreconciliable to the maner of our Church , is copiously declared in the Books following . For this present we are to exhibit the different , and contradictory maners concerning the Presence of Christ herein .

The maner of Presence of Christ his Body 1. According to the Iudgement of Protestants . 2. In the profession of the Church of Rome .

That Protestants , albeit they deny the Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament ; yet hold they a true Presence thereof in divers Respects ; according to the Iudgement of Antiquitie . SECT. II.

THere may be observed Foure 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 Seale , for better assurance ; the last is , Veritas Exhibitionis , the Truth of Exhibiting , and deliverance of the Reall Body of Christ to the faithfull Communicants . The Truth of the Signe , in respect of the thing signified , is to be acknowledged so farre , as in the Signes of Bread and Wine is represented the true and Reall 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 Heretikes ; who held that Christ had in himselfe no true Body , but meerely Phantasticall , as you a a Marcionitae , Manichaei , & alij Haeretici putabant corpus Christi verum non esse , sed phantasticum esse . Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist . cap. 24. §. Resp. Argumentum . your selves well know . In confutation of which Heretikes the Father Ignatius ( as your b 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 kinde of Heretikes : Lib. 4. in Marcion . [ 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 . Cardinall witnesseth ) called the Eucharist it selfe , the flesh of Christ . Which Saying of Ignatius , in the sense of Theodoret , ( by whom hee is cited , against the Heresie of his time ) doth call it Flesh and Blood of Christ , because ( as the same Theodoret expounded himselfe ) it is a true signe of the true and Reall Body of Christ . So your Cardinall , even as Tertullian long before him had explained the words of Christ himselfe , [ This is my Body ] that is ( saith hee ) This Bread is a Signe , or Figure of my Body . Now because it is not a Signe , which is not of some Truth ( * * See above , Booke 2. Chap. 2. 〈◊〉 9. for as much as there is not a figure of a figure ) therefore Bread being a Signe of Christs Body , it must follow , that Christ had a true Body . This indeed is Theologicall arguing , by a true Signe of the Body of Christ to confute the Heretikes , that denyed the Truth of Christ's Body . Which controlleth the wisedome of your c 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. Councell of Trent , in condemning Protestants , as denying Christ to be Truly present in the Sacrament , because they say , hee is there present in a Signe . As though there were no Truth of being in a Signe , or Figure ; which were to abolish all true Sacraments , which are true Figures , and Signes of the things which they represent .

A second Truth and Realty in this Sacrament is called Veritas Revelationis , as it is a Signe , 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 it selfe , but of the maner , because the faithfull under the Law had the same faith in Christ : and therfore their Sacraments had Relation to the same Body , and Blood of Christ , but in a difference of maner . For as two Cherubins looked on the same Mercy-Seate , 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 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 , Propheticall , prenunciating and fore-telling the thing to come : but the rites of the new Testament are Historicall , annunciating and revealing the thing done : the former shewed , concerning Christ his Passion , rem faciendam , what should bee ; the latter rem factam , the thing done , and fulfilled . As therefore the Truth of History is held to be more reall than the Truth of Prophecie , because it is a declaration of a reall performance of that , which was promised : So the Evangelicall Sacrament may bee sayd to containe in it a more reall verity , than the Leviticall . Therefore are the Rites of the old Law called * * Heb. 10. Shadowes , in respect of the Sacraments of the Gospell ; according to the which difference Saint Iohn the Baptist was called by Christ a Prophet , in that he * * Ioh. 1. 15. fore-told Christ as now to come : but hee was called more than a Prophet , as demonstrating and * * Ibid. 19. pointing him out to bee now come . Which Contemplation occasioned divers Fathers to speake 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 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 hee 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 Signe , even a Seale of Gods promises in Christ ; for so the Apostle called Circumcision , ( albeit a Sacrament of the old Law ) the * * Rom. 4. 11. Seale of Faith . But yet the print of that Seale was but dimme , in comparison of the Evangelicall Sacraments ; which because they confirme unto the faithfull the Truth , which they present , are called by other ancient Fathers ( as well as by f f August . Tom. 4. de Catechizand . rudib . cap. 26. Signacula esse visibilia rerum divinarum . Saint Augustine ) visible Seales of Divine things . So that now we have in this Sacrament the Body of Christ not onely under a Signe , or Signification , but under a Seale of Confirmation also : which inferreth a greater degree of reall Truth , thereby represented unto us . This might have bin the reason why Saint Augustine taught Christ to be g 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 Baptisme , and at receiving the Lord's Supper .

A fourth Reason to be observed herein , as more speciall , is Veritas Exhibitionis , a Truth Exhibiting and delivering to the faithfull Communicants the thing signified , and sealed , which Christ expressed , when he delivered it to his Disciples , saying ; [ Take , eate , this is my Body given for you : and , this is my Blood shed for you . ] Thus Christ , by himselfe ; and so doth he to other faithfull Communicants whersoever , to the ends of the World , by his Ministers , as by his hands , through virtue of that Royall Command , [ DOE THIS . ] Vaine therefore is the Objection made by your h 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. Cardinall , 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 mysticall , and Sacramentall deliverance of Christ his Body , except it were by a corporall , and materiall presence therof : which is a transparent falsity , as any may perceive by any Deed of Gift , which by writing , seale , and delivery conveyeth any Land or Possession from man to man ; yet this farre more effectually , as afterwards will appeare . But first wee are to manifest ,

That the Romish Disputers do Odiously , Slanderously , and Vnconscionably vilifie the Sacrament of the Eucharist , as it is celebrated by PROTESTANTS . SECT. III.

BEllarmine , with others i i Christus nihil est illis , nisi frustum panis , & vini portiuncula . Salmeron . Ies. in Epist. pauli disput. 11. §. Septimo . Eucharistiā 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 againe , 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 onely a Signe , is an ancient Heresie . So they .

But have you not heard the Doctrine of the Protestants , teaching the Eucharisticall Bread to be ( more than Bare Bread ) a Sacramentall Signe ; more , an Evangelicall Signe ; more , a Sacred Seale ; yet more , an Exhibiting Instrument of the Body of Christ therein to the devout Receiver ? And have not these outragious Spirits read your owne Cardinall ? witnessing that the Protestants teach that k 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 & cōjunctionem , 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 mouthes , in receiving the Bread , the signe of Christ his Body ; and by which God doth truly , albeit Sacramentally , deliver unto the faithfull the reall Body of Christ : and secondly spiritually to the mouth of the soule 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 l Calvin , in his Booke 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 , Defens . 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. Defens. 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 himselfe , as would make any Romish Adversary blush at your former Calumnies , who hath not abandoned shamefastnesse it selfe . ⚜ As that your Doctor must needs have done , 1 1 Dr. Heskins in his Parliam . of Christ . Book . 3. cap. 48. who therefore upbraided Protestants with their Common Bread , onely because they denyed it to be Transubstantiated into Christ's Body ; even in the same his Booke , wherein notwithstanding , he confesseth the Shew-Bread , delivered to David by Abimelech , to have beene no Common Bread . Which , because it was before Christ incarnate in the flesh , you your selves will sweare was not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ ; and yet notwithstanding , was it no Common Bread .

CHALLENGE .

THus may you see that wee have not hitherto so pleaded for the Existence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament , after Consecration , as thereby to exclude all Presence of Christ his Body ; nor so maintained the proprietie of a Signe , or Figure , as not to beleeve the thing signified to be exhibited unto us , as you have heard . With what blacke spot of malignity and falshood then were the Consciences of those your Doctors defiled , thinke you , who have imputed to Protestants a Profession of using onely bare Bread , which they notwithstanding teach and beleeve to bee a Sacred Signe of the true Body of Christ , in opposition to Heretikes ; an Evangelicall Signe of the Body of the Messias crucified , against all Iewish conceit ; yea , a Seale of Ratification ; yea , and also a Sacramentall Instrument of conveying of the same precious Body of Christ to the soules of the faithfull , by an happy and ineffable Conjunction ? whereof more hereafter in the * * In the fift Book , throughout . Booke following , where the consonant doctrine of the Church of England will likewise appeare .

And as your Disputers are convinced of a malicious Detraction , by the confessed positions of Protestants , so are they much more by your owne Instance of a Crucifix● for which of you would not hold it a great derogation from Christ , that any one seeing a Crucifix of wood ( now waxen old ) should in disdaine thereof call it a wooden , or rotten Blocke , and not account them irreligious in so calling it ? but why ? onely because it is a signe of Christ crucified . Notwithstanding , were the Crucifix as glorious as either Art could fashion , or Devotion affect , or Superstition adore , yet is it but a signe invented by man . And therefore how infinitely more honourable in all Christian estimation must a Sacramentall Signe be , which onely the God of Heaven and Earth could institute , and Christ hath ordained to his Church , farre exceeding the property of a bare signe , as you have heard ? A Father delivering by politike assurances under hand and seale a portion of Land , although an hundred miles distant , and conveying it to his Sonne by Deed , if the Sonne in scorne should terme the same Deed or writing , blacke Inke ; the Seale , greasie Waxe ; and the whole Act but a bare signe , were he not worthy not only to loose this fatherly Benefit , but also to be deprived of all other the temporall Blessings of a Father , which hee might otherwise hope to enjoy ? yet such like have beene your Calumnies , and opprobrious Reproaches against our celebration of the Sacrament of Christ . The Lord lay not them to your Charge .

Now you , who so oppose against the Truth of the Mysticall Presence , will not conceale from us that Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ , which your Church doth so extremely dote on .

CHAP. II.

The Romish professed maner of Presence of Christs Body in this Sacrament . SECT. I.

OVr Methode requireth to consult , in the first place , in all Questions , with the words of Christ his Institution ; but seeing that you can allege nothing for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament , but only a literall Exposition of Christ's words [ This is my Body : ] which by Scriptures , Fathers , your owne Principles , and by unanswerable Reasons hath beene * * Booke 2. proved to be most grosly false , wee shall not need to insist further upon that ; only wee shall but put you in mind of Saint Pauls words , in teaching the use and end of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament , to wit , The shewing of Christ's death untill his coming againe : meaning corporally , at the last day . Which word [ VNTILL , ] being spoken of a last day , doth exclude your coming againe of Christ in his Corporall Presence every day ; for the Apostles word is absolutely spoken of his Bodily Coming , and not of the maner therof ; albeit other Scripture teach , that his Coming must be in all glorious Visibility . We goe on .

In the Eucharist ( saith your m m Si quis negaverit in sanctissima Eucharistia contineri verè , realiter , substantialiter corpus , & sanguinem Christi Anathema sit . Concil. Trid. Sess . 13. Can. 1. Nos dicimus Dominum Christum corporalitèr sub specie panis conemeri . Gre. Valent. Tom. 4. disp. 6. qu. 3. pag 1. Councell of Trent ) is contained truly , really , and substantially the Body , and Blood of Christ : and they account him Accursed , whosoever shall not beleeve this . By all which is signified a Corporall maner of presence ( excepting onely Relation to place ) which we say is , in many respects , impossible , as wee shall prove ; but first wee are to remove two Mil-stones , for so you esteeme your Objections , which you cast in our way of Demonstration of a Corporall Presence ; First , de facto , from ( as you say ) Miracles manifesting the same . And the Second is your Pretence of Omnipotencie , for the effectuating that Presence .

The pretended principall Romish Demonstration of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body and Blood , in this Sacrament , taken from pretended n n Supremus Iorus detur miraculis ; veluti testimonis 〈◊〉 Dei . Bozius de finis Eccles lib 14. cap. 7. pag. 170. Miraculous Apparitions of visible Flesh , and Blood , revealed to the World . SECT. II.

TRue Miracles wee shall hold as Gods Seales of Divine Truth : if therefore you shall allege any such , for proofe of a Corporall Presence , see they be true , else shall wee judge them , not to be Gods Seales , but the Devills Counterfaits . Your Bozius , one of the number of the Congregation of the Oratory in Rome ( professedly studied in historicall learning , and appointed to extract out of all Authors , whatsoever may make for defence of all Romish Causes ) after his diligent search into all ancient Records , as it were into the Ware-houses of all sorts of stuffes , having collected a packet of Apparences , useth his best Eloquence to set forth his merchandize to sale ; telling us by the way of Preface , o 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 onely such Stories , wherby it is made Evident by God himselfe , that the Body of Christ is in the Eucharist , even by the Testimony of mens eyes , that have seene it . A thing ( saith hee ) most miraculous , which every one that hath eyes may yet see . So he , even as p 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 confirme the same , wherein at the breaking of the Hoast , sundry times great copie of blood issued out , as is testified by many Writers . Wee 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 it selfe shall require . We will take their Relations according to the order of Times .

I. Anno CCCC . Simon Metaphrastes ( saith q q Simon Metaphrastes narrat , &c. Bozius ibid. Bozius ) telleth in the dayes of Honorius the Emperour ( for the confirmation of the faith of an Eremite ) that the Sacrament being propounded , presently [ Infans visus est ] a living Infant was seene by three old men on the Altar : and whilest the Priest divided the Bread , an Angell was seene , 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 Heremite being made partaker evidently of the Bloody flesh repented .

II. Anno 600. A woman ( as r r Iohannes , & Paulus Diaconus in vita Gregorij narrat , &c. 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 heare the Bread called the Body of Christ , which she her selfe had made with her owne 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 Hoast , behold the formes of Bread were vanished , and he saw [ Veram carnem ] true flesh : Then the people wondred , the woman repented , and the Hoast , at the prayer of the Priest [ in pristinam formam reversa est ] Returned into it's owne shape againe .

III. Anno 800. s s Ante Annos propè octingentos , ut narrat Pascasius , quidam Presbyter , &c. Bozius ibid. & Coccius . A certaine 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 Iesum , ] The Child Iesus , in the Hoast , [ & amplexatus est eum , & post multam deosculationem , &c. ] he embraced him , and after much kissing of him , he desired to receive the Sacrament , and the Vision vanished , and hee received it . So hee . These two last , are also alleged by your Cardinall t t Bellar. lib. 3. de Eu●●r . cap. 8. Deus non est testis menda●● , &c. Bellarmine .

IV. Not many yeares after a fourth in Italy , u u E● Guitmun lo , & Lanf●●nco , Bozius & Coccius Ibid. A Priest saying Masse , and sinding [ Veram carnem super Altare , verumque sanguinem in Calice , ] True flesh upon the Altar , and true Blood in the Cup , fearing to receive it , forthwith reported it to the Bishop , demanding what hee 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 middest 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 Reliques .

V. Anno 1050. a a Tempore quo , urgente nefando Berengario , haec in controversiam sunt adducta , ut Deus adstipulatus intellig●tur veritati , & refragatus errori , &c. Baronius Anno 1059. num. 20. ex Petro Damino . Cardinall 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 Hoast [ 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 Historie ( saith your b b Quae admiranda hoc seculo in S●lavorum Historiâ , authore Helmoldo Abbate , hujus seculi narrantur fide dignissima , accipe . His ferme diebus , &c. 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. Cardinall Baronius ) most worthy of beliefe ( you must believe it . ) At Thuring after that the Priest had given the Sacrament to a young Girle then sicke , and had washed his fingers in a pot of water , shee observing it very diligently , willed them that were by to uncover the water , for I saw ( said shee ) a piece of the Eucharist fall out of the hands of the Priest into it : which being brought unto her to drinke , all the water was turned into Blood , and the piece of the Hoast , albeit no bigger than a mans finger , was turned [ In sanguineam carnem ] into a bloody flesh . All that see it are in horrour , the Priest himselfe , suspecting his owne negligence , feareth , and wisheth that it may be burned . After was this made knowne , and divulged to the Bishop of Mentz . This Archbishop commandeth his Clergie to wait upon this , whilst it should be carried in publike procession untill they came into the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary , where prayers are made by the Archbishop , that God would be pleased to retransforme this [ in primam substantiam panis , & vini , ] into the former substance of Bread and Wine : and so at length it came to passe . Thus far the Story . This ( saith the same Cardinall ) maketh for Transubstantiation , and confuteth the Heresie of those that deny that water mixed with the Eucharist is turned into Blood . So hee .

VII . Anno 1230. c c Bozius quo supra ex Filiano . A Priest in Florence looking into the Chalice saw drops of Blood divided into parts , and joyning together againe , in Abbesse lendeth the Priest a Violl to put the Blood in , which the third day after appeared to be flesh . This flesh is still reserved in a Cristall glasse in the Church of Saint Ambrose in Florence ; and although the outward formes therof be somewhat darke , yet are they to be seene of all Travellers . So hee .

VIII . Anno 1239. d d Bozius quo supra . In the Kingdome of Valentia [ Verè memorabile ] a thing truly memorable ; In the time of the warres betweene the Christians and Mahumetans there was seene of the Priest in the Altar pieces of the Hoast inclosed in linnen , and sprinkled with drops of Blood , which Hoast afterwards by advice was laid , with all reverence , on the backe of a Mule to be carried to that place , wheresoever the Mule should make a stand . The Mule ( although inticed often by Provander to stand els-where ) never made stay untill hee came to an Hospitall of Dorchara , where falling downe upon his knees ( lest hee might afterwards carry any thing lesse noble , and worthy than that Hoast ) [ protenus expiravit ] hee suddenly died .

IX . e e Bozius ibid. ex Villano , &c. Anno 1258. When the Priest celebrated the Masse in the Kings Chappel at Paris , and was now in elevating the Hoast , to shew it unto the people , many of them presently saw [ formosissimum puerum a most beautifull Child : And out of the Eucharist [ sanguis copiosus emanavit ] much Blood issued ; so that this cannot bee imputed to the Art of the Devill .

X. Anno 1261. f 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 Devill .

XI . Anno 1273. g g Bozius ibid. A Miracle was seene at Picenum , where a woman reserved the Eucharist , which shee should have eaten , and kept it with purpose to abuse it for recovering the love of her Huband by Magicke ; The Hoast shee laid on Coales , and it presently turned into flesh : Shee was astonished , but concealed it by the space of seven yeares , at length shee discovereth it to a Priest , hee found this flesh being hid so long in a Dung-hill [ intactam , & illaesam ] perfect , and entire : hee 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 seene after so many yeares uncorrupt , to the eternall memory thereof .

XII . Anno 1510. h h Bozius ibid. At Knobloch , a Village under the Marquisate of Brandenburgh , one Paulus Formosus on a night stole the Pix wherein the Eucharist was reserved , hee sold it to a Iew , The Iew pierced it through with a Dagger , and Blood flowed out , &c. Most of all these are related by Master i i Master 〈◊〉 in his Booke of the Laturgie of the Mass● , pag. 188. & 399. Brerely Priest ; whereupon hee maketh this Conclusion : Miracles shewed by God ( saith he ) do forceably confirme the same , for at breaking of the Hoast at sundry times great copie and abundance of Blood issued out , as hath beene formerly testified . So they .

It were pitie , when as so many Countries have beene graced with such Miracles , England should be thought unworthy of like honour ; nay here also wee heare there was ( Anno 950. ) at Canterbury * * Master Foxe 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 Hoast at Masse . Such as these are the Miracles , whereof your Iesuite boasteth , saying , 2 2 Mr. Mallon Ies his Reply , Epist. to the Read . r. I have enlarged my selfe in the Article of the Reall 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 Catholike 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 wee shall easily permit it to the Iudgement of any Conscional●● man , to make his owne Conclusion . ⚜

That these were not Apparitions of true Flesh , and true Blood of Christ , by the judgement of Romish Schoole-men . SECT III.

YOur Bellarmine , Baronius , Bozius , Master Brerely , and Coccius have , for proofe of the Corporall Presence of Christ , insisted upon Apparitions of ( as they have sayd ) true flesh , red flesh , perfect flesh of the Infant Iesus ; and the child Iesus seene , 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 wee rather beleeve your Schoole-men , of whom ( besides many k 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 Iesuit Suarez , denyed all this , saying , l 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 . Iesuit . quo supra . And the Iesuite 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 appeare in his owne proper forme , in two places at once . Secondly , Because it were hainous wickednesse to inclose Christ in a Boxe , appearing in his owne forme . Thirdly , Because Christs Blood to issue , and sprinkle out of his veines , who can easily beleeve ? ( yea , and your Iesuite Coster , with some Others , spare not to professe , as well as wee , that * * See the fixt Booke , Chap. 1. §. 4. Shedding of Christs Blood out of his Body , was onely on the Crosse . ) Fourthly , Because it were Vndecencie to reserve such Reliques , experience teaching that they do putrifie . Thus your owne Schoole-men produced , and approved by Suarez the Iesuite , 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 onely a colour and signe thereof . ⚜ Fiftly , You have here before you ( in the Margin ) your Iesuite Vasquez , denying those to bee the Apparitions of true Flesh ; and as though none but simple people were deceived with such Apparitions , he holdeth it sufficient that 3 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 effigiē . — 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 bee corrected by the true instruction of the Learned . How will your Bozius , Coccius , Bellarmine , and your many other Doctors together with their Beleevers , disgest this ; to bee thus ranked by this your Iesuite among the Simple and Ignorant people in this their deliration , concerning such fictitious Apparitions ? ⚜

Do you not then see the different faith of your owne Historians , and of your owne Divines ? namely that those Historians , as uncleane Beasts , swallow downe at the first whatsoever cometh into their mouthes : but those your Divines , like more Cleane creatures , do ruminate and distinguish truth from falsehood , by sound reason and judgement , and prove the Authors of such Apparitions flat lyars ; the Reporters uncredible Writers ; and the Beleevers of them starke Fooles .

That the Romish Answer , to free their former pretended Miraculous Apparitions from suspicion of Figments , or Illusions , is Vnsufficient . SECT. IV.

ALbeit in these Apparitions there be not true flesh ( say m m Quamvis non fiat , ut vera caro Christi , vel reverà vera caro ( ut respondent Thomistae ) sed tantum color & 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 Christs Flesh is in the Eucharist . But why should not wee yeeld more credit to those Schoole-men , who say n 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 hee addeth , Hoc ab ijs gratis dictum est . ] True miracles use to bee made in true signes , and not in such as seeme onely so to bee ; because seeming signes are wrought by the Art of the Devill ? And wee take it from the Assurance , which your Iesuite giveth us , that o 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 phātastica , & 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 bee discerned from false , in that false Miracles carry onely a likenesse of things , and are unprofitable . Furthermore , yourp Aquinas proveth against the Heretikes , 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 worke of his . Thus stand you still confuted by your owne domesticall witnesses .

Wee may adde this Reason , why there could be no Resemblances of Truth , because all the personall Apparitions are said to bee of an Infant , and of the Child Iesus ; albeit Christ , at his Ascension out of this World , * * Baron . A●n. 34. was 34. yeares of age : and yet now behold Christ an Infant 34. yeares old ! as if your 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 had beheld Christ , with the Magi , 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 above-mentioned was not before the dayes of the Emperour Arcadius , which was about the yeare 395. The second not untill 700. yeares after Christ ; nor is it read of any like Apparition in all the dayes of Antiquitie , within the compasse of so long a time ; excepting that of one Marcus , recorded by p 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 faigned to Make the mixed Wine in the Cup , through his Invocation , to seeme red , that it might bee thought , that grace had infused Blood into the Cup : which the same Father noteth to have beene done by Magicke ; at what time there were dayly Proselytes and new Converts to the Christian Religion , and on the other side divers rankes of Heretikes , as namely , Valentinians , Manichees , Marcionites , and others , who all denyed , that Christ had any corporall , or Bodily Substance at all . Were it not then a strange thing that so many Apparitions should be had in after-times , in Churches established in Christian Religion , concerning the truth of Christs Body , and no such one heard of in these dayes of Antiquity , when there seemed to bee a farre more necessary use of them , both for confirming Proselytes in the faith , and reducing Heretikes from their Errour ? that Apparition only of Marcus excepted which the Church of Christ did impute to the Diabolicall Art of Magicke .

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 Cardinall , that , in Answer to an Objection from the same Author , he sayd ; q 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 Fore-man of the inquest be of no better esteeme , what shall one then thinke of the whole Packe : 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 , wee make no more account of it , than do your two r r Sed haud dubio falsa , vel supposititia . Lib. de Script . Eccles. Tit. Amphilochius ; & Cardin. Baron . ad Ann. 378. num. 10. Cardinalls , 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 Girles , who ( wheresoever Superstition raigneth ) are knowne to bee most prone thereunto . That we say nothing of the lewd Iuglings of your Priests , who in other kinds have bin often discovered amongst us , and in other Countries .

Wee conclude . A true Miracle , for confirmation of Religion ( wee are sure ) is Divinum opus , the Infidell Magicians being inforced to confesse as much , saying , * * Exod. 8. 19. Digitus Dei hic est . And as sure are wee that a fained miracle ( although it be in behalfe of Religion ) is impious and blasphemous against God , who being the God of Truth , neither will , nor can be glorified by a lie : * * Iob. 13. 7. Hath God need of a Lie ? ( saith holy Iob. ) Wee right willingly acknowledge , that divers Miracles have bin wrought , for verifying the Eucharist to be a Divine Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ : but to be it selfe the true and substantiall flesh of Christ , not one . When a * * Socrat. hist. lib. 7. cap. 17. Iew , that had beene once Baptized by one Bishop , betooke himselfe to another Bishop , to be againe Baptized of him , in hope of profit , The Water in the Font presently vanished away . s 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 Baptisme was freed from all paine , and so continued all his life long . t t Baron . An. 384. Num. 19. Baronius reporteth another of a Child fallen into a little Well , prepared for men of age to be Baptized in , and after that it was held for drowned , in the opinion of all by-standers , at the prayer of Damascus it arose from the bottome , as whole and sound as it was before . These Miracles happened not for the dignifying of the Matter , which was the water of Baptisme , but of the nature of the Sacrament it selfe , albeit voyd of the Corporall presence of Christ . Not to tell you ( which your u 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 Booke of the Gospell , 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 doe unto Christ himselfe : which , beside the Absurditie of their Opinion , doth involve them in a grosse Idolatrie , whereof Wee are to treate in the seaventh Booke .

⚜ A Digression upon occasion of a late Discourse of a greatly priviledged Doctor , concerning the Histories , mentioning the Blood of Christ miraculously Separated from his Body ( which will be pertinent to the Point in question ) wherein wee may finde many Observables . SECT VI.

FRancis Collius , Professor of Divinitie at Millan , is the Author ; whose Booke is Authorized ( as the 4 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 , &c. Margin sheweth ) With a publike privilege , and Commendation of ALL the Doctors of the College of Saint Ambrose . His whole Discourse is of this onely Subject , THE BLOOD OF CHRIST . Out of which wee have singled Three especiall 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 Reliques : The Third of the Blood which issued out of Christ's side at his Passion ; wherof Some parts are also storied to be kept as Reliques in divers Countries in Christendome .

I. Of that Blood , which is reported to have Miraculously Issued out of Christ's Body visibly in the Eucharist .

Of this First kinde , you have heard the Romish Stories , in good number , objected by your Priests and Iesuites in great earnest , for proofe of a Corporall presence in the Sacrament , in the name of True Blood , and Visible , flowing out of the same Body ; and thereupon the Common and solemne worship given thereunto , wheresoever the aforesaid Apparitions are recorded to have beene . Now entreth in your Author Collius , speaking unto you in an higher straine ( in the Margin ) than this is ; which wee shall render unto you in English . His first Generall Declamation is this . 5 5 Idem Collius Lib. 4. cap. 3. Disp. 9 Cujus ●ures auaire non refugiunt , sanguinem Christi post gloriosam à motrus Resurrectionem è naturalibus venarum conceptaculis non semel distractū 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 Eares can abide to heare , the Blood of Christ , now after his glorious Resurrection , to have been separated out of the naturall receptacles of his veines ? Yea , who can without horror thinke therof , especially seeing Experience telleth us , that the same Blood , which appeared , did vanish away , putrifie , and corrupt ? Wherfore , It will be our safest Resolution , according to the Consent of Divines , to affirme , that no mortall eye of man did ever behold the TRV● BLOOD of Christ , since his Triumphant piercing of the Heavens . Hitherto your publike Professor , according herein with Thomas Aquinas ( whom hee calleth the Angelicall Doctor ) and with other famous Divines . But presently ( whereas his cited Doctors furthermore Conclude , None of those Apparitions to have beene of any True flesh at all , but onely Shaddowes , and Representations thereof ) hee craveth leave to depart 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 then it might be , Whether the flesh of Be●sts , or of a Man ; Whether newly Created , or Commentitiously obtruded ? Hee answereth , yet so , that whereas your Stories , and all their Reporters and Worshippers of such Apparitions do equally esteeme of All , as being a like Truely flesh ; hee teacheth them to distinguish of the Apparitions , which are said to have vanished shortly after their first shew , & the other that were of a longer continuance● and to acknowledge the Existence of the True flesh , onely in the Second kinde .

In the last place , opposing against the Generall Opinion of Thomas , and other of your choicest Divines ( above-mentioned ) who held these to be meerly Apparitions , without any Substance of flesh , Hee , albeit granting that a Fictitious Apparition may be truly Miraculous , yet to make the same Opinion Ridiculous , breaketh out , and inveigheth in this maner ; 6 6 Quo●sunt ? ( C. 6. contra eos qui dicunt tantùm fictitum esse sanguinem illum , qui per long a interva●●a 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 calice supersunt , ascribendum esse . Who Can perswade himselfe , that such abundance of l●quor 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 confesse it was alwayes 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 Meere 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 Authors Discourse upon the Romish Stories , concerning the mentioned Reliques of Christs 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 els-where flowing out of Images : This your Doctor concludeth with himselfe , that 7 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 corde . ] 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 , &c. cujus Authoritas approbata est in septimo Synodo Nvcena , 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 partes , sed solum quadrare in historiam perfossae Imaginis , &c. 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 sayd to remaine on earth , yet can it not be thought , that such a copious measure of Blood , as is reported , should have bin : Because , although each Country glory and boast of such their Reliques , as being Christs Blood ( for that as the Proverb is , EVERY ONE THINKETH HIS OWNE BEST ; ) yet could not so great Quantities of Blood , as filled whole vessels , be sayd to issue out of Christs Body , without some iujury to that perfection of his glorious Body . And therefore Hee that shall beleeve that , let him heare that notable saying of Solomon , Hee that is of a sodaine Beliefe , hath a light and inconstant heart . ] By occasion of this Question , thus prosecuted , they start ( as it were ) another Hare , questioning whether it bee a matter of Faith to beleeve 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 Testimonie 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 beleeve the contrary .

III. As for the third point , of the Blood of Christ shed at his Passion , wee leave them 8 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 beene at any time remaining in the world , since the time of his Passion . All this our Relation hath no other Ayme , than to shew the Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers , in requiring Faith of Others , to beleeve such and such Apparitions of Christs Blood , which they themselves , by their owne Reasons , Contradictions , and Conclusions have made uncredible .

CHAP. III.

That the Romish manser of the Corporall Presence of Christ , in the Sacrament , is manifoldly Impossible . SECT. I.

NO sooner do you heare Protestants talke of the Impossibility 20 30 of your maner of Presence , which your Church prescribeth , but you presently cry out upon them , as upon Blasphemous Detractors from the Omnipotencie of God ; as if they meant x x Absit ●ut fidelis quispiam aurem accommodet impijs Sacramentarijs , qui excaecatâ mente 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 Scandall , thus cast in the way for simple people to stumble upon , before we can conveniently proceed to the maine matter ; and this wee shall endeavour to do by certaine Propositions .

I. That , by the Iudgement 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 , shewing that y 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 hereu●to , Theodoret. Dial. 3. cap. 4. Impossibilia sunt Omnipotenti Deo , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sic posse , esse 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Nazianz . Orat. 36. — 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , God cannot doe something , even because he is Omnipotent , as not dye , not sinne , not lye , because such Acts proceed not from power , but from impotencie , and infirmitie .

⚜ Theophylact will explaine this Point , in answering this Question , Can God make that which is once done to have beene not done ? 1 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 hee ) but to make that not to be done , which hath beene done , is a Lie . How then can hee that is true , Lie ? He should sooner lose his Divine nature . They therefore that speake so , talke as if they should aske whether God can be God , whence their question appeareth to bee ridiculous . So he . The ancient Father Iustine Iusti● . Martyr . Quaest Grec . Const. qu. 10. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 distinguisheth of Impossibilities ; One , simple and absolute , which hee calleth 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and the other , which hee saith is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 : giving for his example , in the first Impossibility , a Diameter-line in a Figure to bee equall unto the sides thereof . Of the further judgement of the Fathers hereafter . ⚜ So the Fathers .

It is not long since you have beene taught by an exceeding worthy Scholler , that in such Cases as imply Contradiction the ancient Fathers noted the pretence of Gods omnipotencie to have beene anciently z 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 , vt falsa sint vera : mendacis est , ut falsum dicat verum , quod D●o n●● competit . The Sanctuary of Heretikes . And they give an instance in the Arians , who denying Christ to have beene God eternall , beleeved him to have beene created God in time ; as if it were possible there should be a made God , whose property is to be eternall . Their only pretence was Gods Omnipotencie , to make false things true : wherein they proved themselves the greatest Lyars . Take unto you a second Proposition .

II. That the Do●trine of the same Impossibiity ( by reason of Contradiction ) doth magnifie the Power of God , by the Universall consent of Romish Doctors ; and their divers Examples of Impossibility , concerning a Body . SECT. III.

YOur owne Iesuites doe lay this for a ground : a 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 , &c. 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 affirme ( say they ) that God is Omnipotent , because he can doe any thing that implyeth 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 himselfe , cannot make a thing joyntly to be , and not to be . This is a Contradiction , and were not Omnipotencie , but Impotencie ; 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 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 . IV. 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 bee 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 possesse 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 undoe that which is once done ; because this were to make that , which is true , to be false .

⚜ Ninthly , 3 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 lesse Body to bee equall to a greater . Lastly , Impossible for a Body to be in all places . So your Iesuites , with others . And all these are therefore judged Impossible , Because of Contradiction . Many Scores of the like confessed Impossibilities might bee extracted out of your owne Bookes , who notwithstanding doubt not to impute Blasphemy to Protestants , for their affirming but of one Contradiction , and consequently the Impossibilitie of the being of a Body in divers places at once ; albeit it will bee 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 Iudgement of ancient Fathers . SECT IV.

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 himselfe did refute in his life-time , professing , that he is farre from subjecting the power of God to mans reason , or to the order of nature ; and beleeving , that even in this Sacrament it exceedeth all naturall principles , that Christ doth feed mens soules 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 it selfe . c 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 naturall reason , as to attribute nothing to the power of God , which exceedeth the order of nature , for wee confesse that our soules are fed with the flesh of Christ spiritually above all Physicall or naturall understanding : but that one should bee in divers places at once , and not contained in any , is no lesse Absurdity , than to call light darkenesse . God indeed can , when he will , turne light into darkenesse ; but to say light is darkenesse , is a perverting of the order of Gods wisedome . So Calvin , and Beza accordingly with him .

And so say wee , that it is possible for Christ , ( as God ) if hee 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 it selfe , and as much as to say Bread is no Bread ; and therefore , to the honor of the Omnipotency of Christ , we judge this Saying , properly taken , to be Impossible .

⚜ This Consequence hath beene ( as you have heard ) the Vniversall Asseveration of your Doctors , to whom , for Conclusion sake , Wee will adde the determination of another Iesuite ; 4 4 AEgid Co●incks Ies de Sacram qu 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 cōtrà e●●pert●m adferri Contradictionem . It will be sufficient ( saith he ) for the teaching of Gods Omnipotency that wee deny not but that every thing is possible to him , wherein an evident Contradiction cannot be shewne . 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 Gods Omnipotency , to hold Every thing Impossible , wherein any Contradiction is implyed ; have notwithstanding inveighed against Calvin and Beza , for denying of a Possibilitie of a Corporall Presence , only because of a Contradiction therein . And so , in making others seeme Blasphemous , have shewne themselves slanderous ; as wee are now to prove in our confutation of the principall Article of your Romish Church [ The Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist , ] by reason of six more Contradictions involved therein . ⚜

CHAP. IV. That the Romish Doctrine of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament doth , against that which Christ called [ CORPVS MEVM , MY BODY ] imply six Contradictions .

The first Romish Contradiction , in making it Borne and not borne of a Virgin . SECT. I.

THE Catholike Faith hath alwayes 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 Organicall , and consisting of distinct parts . Fiftly , that this Organicall is now Perfect , and endued with all Absolutenesse , that ever any humane body can be capable of . Sixtly , that this Perfect is now also Glorious , and no more subject to Vilification , or indignitie here on earth . But your now Romish Doctrine , touching Corporall Presence in this Sacrament , doth imply Contradictions , touching each of these , as now wee are to manifest , beginning at the first .

Our Apostolicall Article , concerning the Body of Christ , is expresly this ; Hee was borne of the Virgin Mary : which is the ancientest Article of Faith , concerning Christ , that is read of in the Booke of God : The seed of the Woman &c. Genes. 3. to shew that it was by propagation . But your Romane 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 substantiall Conversions doe shew , whether they bee naturall , or miraculous . When the substance of Ayre is naturally changed into the substance of Water , this water is made of Ayre : 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 Lots Wife was turned into a pillar of salt , the substance of that salt was made of the substance of her Bodily flesh .

CHALLENGE .

DOe you then beleeve your Doctrine of Transubstantiation , that it is the substantiall 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 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 Virgine Maria , lactarus est Iufans , &c. Quomodo panis corpus ●ius , & calix sangui● ? Ista , fratres , ideò dicuntu . Sacramenta , quia in eis 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 sheweth ) distinguished betweene the Body borne of the Virgin , and that which is on the Altar , as betweene Aliud , and Aliud ; one , and another thing . And this Argument hath beene 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 1 Bertram . ibid ex Ambrosio . Vera utique caro Christi quae crucifixa est , verè ergo carnis illius Sacramentum est . Ipse cla●at Dominus Iesus ; 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 Virgine , 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 , betweene The Flesh of Christ crucified ( and therfore Borne of the Virgin ) and the Sacrament of Christs Body , whereof Christ sayd [ This is my Body . ]

CHAP. V.

The second Romish Contradiction , to the overthrowing of that which Christ called [ MY BODIE : ] by making one Body of Christ , not One , but Many . SECT. I.

YOur Profession standeth thus : g g Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. The Body of Christ , albeit now in Heaven , yet is ( say you ) substantially in many places here on earth , even whersoever the Hoast is Consecrated . So you . Next your Master h h Mr. Brerely in his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse , pag. 150. Because Calvin Institut. 4. cap. 17. §. 10. saith : Etsi incredibile videtur , ut in tanta locorum distantia penetrare ad nos possit Christi caro , ut sit nobis in cibum , &c. Brerely laboureth earnestly to draw Calvin to professe a Possibility of Christ's Bodily Presence in divers places at once , contrary to M. Calvins plaine and expresse profession in the same Chapter ; where he directly confuteth this Romish Doctrine of Madnesse , saying thus : i 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 seeke , that Christ his Body should be in many places at once , is no lesse madnesse than to require , that God should make his Body to be flesh , and not to be flesh at one time ; whereas not Aristotle , but the Spirit of God ( saith he ) hath taught us , that this his Body is to bee contained in Heaven untill the last day . Afterwards Calvin , inveigheth against the folly of your Church , which will not acknowledge any presence of Christ in this Sacrament , except it bee locall on earth , As if ( saith hee ) shee would pull Christ out of his Sanctuary of Heaven . And at last , after that he had said , k 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 hee allege Bucer , Beza , and Farel . pag. 237. who had the same sense with Carvin . Mr. Foxe sayd , that Christ if hee list might be on earth , but he sayd not so of and in the same time . ] Christ his Body is united to the Soule of the Communicant , hee so explaineth himselfe , that hee meant a spirituall Vnion : so that it doth fully appeare , that Master Brerely in this point ( as usually in many others ) allegeth Calvins testimony , against Calvins sense , and his owne conscience .

It is irkesome to see the fury , wherewith your Disputers are carried against Protestants , amongst whom wee see againe your Master l 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 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 Iesuite Salmeron as bitterly taxeth Beza , for contrarily holding it Impossible for one Body to be in two places at once ; whom therefore he calleth an Apostata : and whom n 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 Omnipotencie of God . Whereas , according to our former Proposition , it is rather to defend it , because God is the God of Truth ( which is but one ) and truth is without that Contradiction , which is necessarily implyed in your Doctrine of the Locall presence of any one Body in many places at once , as in the next place is to be evinced .

That the same Second Romish Contradiction , holding the Presence of one Body in many places at once , is proved , by the nature of Being in distinct places at one time , to be a making One , not One. SECT. II.

IN the first place hearken to your Aquinas , ( the chiefest Doctor , that ever possessed the Romish Schoole ) o o Catholici isti cum Thoma in quartum distinct. 14. art. 2. hanc rationem , cut non possit corpus Christi localiter esse , &c. — Quod si verò non postic corpus Christi localiter esse in diversis locis , 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 eis 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 it selfe . So hee , together with others , whom you call Catholikes , who conclude it Impossible for the Body of Christ to be locally in divers places at once : ⚜ Besides that his other Sentence wherein hee holdeth this 2 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 hee speake concerning the locall maner of Being ; yet his Reason ( as * * See the former testimony . your Cardinall confesseth ) doth as well concerne your Sacramentall maner of being on earth , to deny the Body of Christ to be really in many Hoasts , and on many Altars at once . And Aquinas his reason being this , [ Vnum ] One ( saith he ) is that , which is not divided from it selfe : but , to be in divers places at once , doth divide one from it selfe , and consequently maketh it not to be One : which being a Contradiction , doth inferre an Impossbility . So hee .

⚜ Accordingly your Iesuite Conincks ; 3 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 it selfe : 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 maine Article of your Romish Faith , concerning the Corporall Presence of Christ in many places at once , wholly overthrowne by the judgement of Thomas Aquinas , the Oracle of your Romish Shooles . But when as Protestants argue accordingly , as you have done , your Ies. 4 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 Heretikes . Which bewrayeth the distorted and squint-eyed sight of our Romish Adversaries , who knowing the same Argument to be used by your owne Aquinas , as well as by Protestants , do notwithstanding honor the one with the Title of Angelicall , and upbraid the other with the black marke of Hereticall .

Earnestly have wee sought for some Answer to this insoluble Argument , as wee thinke : and your greatest Doctor hath nothing to say , but that the p 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 essentiall property of a thing , and therefore can be no more said to divide the Body from it selfe , than it can be said to divide God , who is every where , or the soule of man , which is one in every part , or member of the Body . So he . Wee throughout this whole Tractate , wherein wee dispute of the Existence of a Body in a Place , do not tye our selves every where to the precise Acception of place , as it is defined to be Superficies , &c. but as it signifieth one space or distinct Vbi , from another , which wee call here and there . We returne to your Cardinals Answer .

CHALLENGE .

AN answer you have heard from your Cardinall , unworthy any man of Iudgement , 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 hee insisteth upon ( for Example-sake ) which are both Heterogenies . Contrary to this Assertion , wee have already proved the necessity of the Locall Being of a Body , wheresoever it is ; and now wee confirme it , by the Assertion of One , than whom the latter Age of the World hath not acknowledged any more accurate , and accomplished with Philosophicall learning ; even q 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 . Iulius Scalliger Exercit. 5. quaest. 6. [ For how can there hee . Continuity in that 5. the Termi●i whereof are separated by divers places ? ] Iulius Scaliger by name , ( a Professed Romanist ) who hath concluded , as a Principle infallible , that Continuity being an immediate affection and property of Vnity , One Body cannot be said to be in two places , as here , and there , without dividing it selfe from it selfe . So hee . 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 Vnity to be a multitude , or many . Which truth , if that you should need any further proofe , may seeme 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 exemplifie a Possibility of the being of a Body in divers places at once , but onely Man's soule , which is a spirit ; and God himselfe , the Spirit of Spirits , of both which * * See below Ch ● . §. 2. & 〈◊〉 §. 2. hereafter . Onely you are to observe , that the Cardinals Argument , in proving Space to be separable from a Body , because it is not of the Essence of a Body , is , in it selfe , a Non sequitur , as may appeare 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 weakenesse of this their common Objection , Wee adde , 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 joyntly and inseparably with them in Times . But that wee may argue from the very termes of Contradiction . Your asserting the same Body of Christ to be Locall , according to the dimensions of Place ; and not Locall , 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 ) Locall , according to the dimensions of Place ; and ( as on the Altar ) not Locall , according to the dimensions of Place . Therfore is your Romish Doctrine Contradictorie to it selfe . Yet shall wee be content that you may call this a Sophisticall Argument , except the Ancient Fathers shall establish the same Conclusion . For this present take unto you a Reason , as wee think , Impregnable . Nothing can possibly be Extrà se , without it selfe ; but for a Body , being heere , to be at the same time separated from Heere , by a Space where it is not , as on this Altar , and on the other Altar , and yet not to be in the Space betweene , is to be without it selfe ; and Consequently divideth it selfe from it selfe ; which no man will affirme , that is not beside himselfe .

The same Second Romish Contradiction manifested in Scripture , by an Argument Angelicall . SECT. III.

M Atth. 28. 6. The Angell speaking to the woman that sought Christ in the grave , said ; Hee is not heere , for he is risen , and gone into Galilee : which is as much , as to have said , hee could not be in Both places at once ; an Argument Angelicall . But you Answer that it was spoken Morally . How ? ( wee beseech you ) as if one should say ( saith your r r Loquitur ad mentem sanctarum illarum mulierum — Sed optima est solutio , moraliter intel ligi , ut si quis dicat , talis homo non sedet ad mensam , coenatus est enim . Bellar. li. 3. de Eu h. c. 4. Cardinall ) Such a man sitteth not at table , for he hath supped . What fond trifling is this , and wilfull perverting the Truth of God ? for this your Argument , A man sitteth not at table , for hee hath supped , is scarce a probable Consequence , that a man is risen from the table , as soone as hee hath supped . Contrarily , the Angel's Logike is not by a Peradventure , but necessary ; not imaginary , but historicall ; not conjecturall , but dogmaticall , and Demonstrative . ⚜ And so Saint 5 5 Chrysost. [ Venite & inspicite ubi positus erat ] 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 upon the words of the Evangelist . ⚜ Chrysostome doth call it . For better explanation whereof , wee may turne the Causall word [ FOR ] into an Illative [ THEREFORE , ] because it is all one ( as you know ) to say hee is not here in the Grave [ For ●hee is risen out of the Grave ; And to say , Hee is risen out of the Grave , [ Therefore ] hee is not heere in the Grave .

Vnderstand then , first , that the matter subject of this Argument being no morall arbritrary Act of man's will ; but the omnipotent Resurrection of Christ from the dead , ( which is a fundamentall Article of Christian Faith , yea , and as it were the foundation of all other Articles , without which , as the Apostle saith , * * 1 Cor. 15. 14. Our Faith were vaine ) the Angell must necessarily be thought to have concluded dogmatically ; which is the reason that he is so instant , and so urgent , saying to the woman , Come , and see the place , where the Lord was laid . Which hee addeth ( saith your s s Videli . ad Comprobandum dictum . [ Non est hîc . ] Salmer . Ies. Tom. 11. Tract. 9. pag. 72. Iesuite ) for confirmation of that , which hee had said , [ Hee is not heere . ] & Seeking by their sight ( saith also another 6 6 Maldonat . Ies. in eum locum . Nunc experientia confirmat , & ipso visu nititur fidem facere . Iesuite ) to make them believe . ⚜ And as much as if hee had said , ( saith t t Quasi dicat , si verbo non credatis , vacuo sepulchro credatis . Anselm . Anselme ) If you believe not my word , give credit to the emptie Sepulchre , in satisfying your owne sight . Therefore was it demonstrative . And againe , the Angell putting them to make use both of his Saving , and their owne Seeing ; Go yee ( saith hee ) and tell his Disciples : And they went ( saith the Text ) to bring his Disciples word . Therefore was his Argument Doctrinall , such whereby he thought so fully to perswade them , that they might informe others in an Infallible Truth .

⚜ One of your Doctors of Lovain published a Booke intituled , A Confutation of Cavillations , wherein hee 7 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 Angell sayd of Christ , now risen out of the grave , Hee is risen , hee is not heere : Therefore hee cannot be heere . And thereupon calleth them Absurd : when-as they argue from the Angels owne Logicall terme , [ For ] in the Text , Matth. 28. 6. Hee is not heere , [ For ] hee is risen . Implying the Consequence , which you have heard , that he could not be both Risen out of the Grave , and In the Grave , at the same time of the Angels speech . But the Causall word , [ For ] your Doctor omitted quite , that hee might more easily impose upon them an Absurdity of his owne devising . Thus have you beene confuted by an Argument both Angelicall and Evangelicall . ⚜

That the Romish Objection out of that Scripture , Act. 9. is frivolous . SECT. IV.

CHrist ( Act. 9. ) appeared to Saint Paul , then Saul , when hee was in his way to Damascus , &c. whence your Cardinall a a Simul in summo 〈◊〉 , & in ●ēre vieu● terrae . Bellar●ll . 3. de E●ch . c. 3. §. Secundum , &c. laboureth to prove a double presence of Christ , at one instant , ( to wit ) in Heaven with the Saints , and in the Ayre unto Saul . First , because the light in the Ayre Strucke Saul blinde . Secondly , because others in the company of Saul heard not the same voice of Christ , which hee heard . Thirdly , because Saul asked saying ; Lord , who art thou ? and heard , and understood the voice . Fourthly , Because Saul was thereby made a witnesse of seeing Christ risen from the dead . And therefore ( saith hee ) was this Apparition in the Ayre . Every objection may receive it's opposition . To the first , thus : Did none of you ever know a mans eyes so dazled with the brightnesse of the Sun-beames on earth , that hee could not see for a while ; and yet did not the Sun remove any whit from his Sphere ? So might the glorious shine of the person of Christ in Heaven worke upon Saul on earth .

To the second , thus : Have you not read of a voice from Heaven , Iohn 12. 29. which some heard articulately , and said , An Angell speaketh , and the common people said , It thundreth ? because ( as your b b Tolet. Ies. in cum locum . Iesuit confesseth ) they heard it but confusedly .

To the third , thus : Men heare , and heare not , so farre as God is pleased to reveale , or not to reveale himselfe , or his word , and voyce , yea or any sight unto them ; for Saint Stephen saw the Heavens opened , and Majesty of Christ , when others wanted that sight .

To the fourth , thus : The eyes of Saul beholding Christ in Heaven might be as good witnesses of Christ his Resurrection , as were the eyes of Saint Stephen , Acts 7. who saw him ; and so much more , because he was both made blinde by the brightnes of that sight of Christ , and after healed in the Name of Christ .

If any desire to know the judgement of ancient Fathers , in this Case , your Cardinall leaveth him to seeke it where he shall please . Sure we are that c c Aug. in Psal . 54. & Tract. 1 in Iob. Caput in coelis , cujus membra calcabantur in terra . Augustine , d d Ambros●● 1. Cor. 15. Appatuit e● primo in coelo . Ambrose , Pope e e Greg. Moral . Hon● . 3● . in Evang. ad sinem . Persecutorem de coelo aliocurus . Gregory the first , and f f Isil . Pelus● lib. 1. Epist. 409 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 E● Pheophylact . in Act. 9 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c. Isidore Pelusiota doe expresly affirme that the appearance of Christ to Saint Paul was [ De Coelo ] from Heaven . ⚜ And lest that any fondly , by the word , Heaven , conceiving any inferiour heaven , may catch at the Moone ; you may observe that the Fathers understood that Heaven , wherein Christ is sayd to sit at the right hand of God ; and that , whereby the Doctrine of Christ is intituled Celestiall , and Heavenly . ⚜ And if all this were true that hath beene objected , that Christ appeared in the Ayre , yet is your Consequence but lame , that therefore he was bodily also in Heaven , if wee may beleeve your Iesuite Lorinus : g 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 Cardinall , for all his arguing about the Ayre , hath beene ( as the Proverbe is ) but Beating the Ayre .

⚜ And lest that any of you might Object that of Acts 23. ver. 11. The next night the Lord ( Christ ) sayd ( unto Paul ) Bethou constant , &c. as spoken by Christ , being Corporally there present , when as notwithstanding he was also resident in Heaven , one of your owne Iesuites 8 8 Lorinus Ies. Com. in Act. 23. 11. Non audeo de omnibus aepparitionibus affirmare , factas immediatè esse à Christo ipso , cùm Posset Angelus apparere pro Christo . Not daring ( as hee saith of himselfe ) to affirme all such like Apparitions to have beene immediately by Christ himselfe , will have you to know that they might have beene performed by some Angell , in the person of Christ . ⚜

And as lanke and frivolous is his Confirmation of their Assertion by ( as he saith ) Apparitions of Christ unto divers here on earth , when as yet hee was certainly in Heaven : for it is not certaine , that he appeared personally to any here on earth , if the position of your Angelicall Doctor Aquinas may stand for good , who held it * * See above , c. 2. §. 3. Impossible for Christ to appeare here on earth , in his proper shape , in two places at once : which sheweth that these Apparitions of Christ were rather onely Visions , without any personall appearing . We are not ignorant how much you attribute to your Cardinall Bellarmine , whom you have heard contending so urgently for proofe of the visible Presence of Christ in divers places at once ; and what like Esteeme you have of your great Professor Suarez , who now cometh Concluding as followeth . h 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 mysterie of the Eucharist , is no where but only in Heaven : and to affirme the contrary were a great rashnesse without ground ; and contrary to all Divines . So hee . Wee leave these your two most eminent Doctors of the Chaire , and both of the same Society of the Iesuites , the one for Rome , the other for Spaine , in this their Contradiction , that wee may consult with Antiquitie it selfe .

An Additionall , for a further Confutation .

Cardinall 9 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. cont . 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 Iohannis , qui cum ex Monasterio suo non discessisset , apparuit tamen adhuc vivens in somnis cuidam alteri longè posito ; ac deinde dicit , dubium esse , an spiritus ejus reverà fuisset in utroque loco , an id esse factum also modo : Si is ( inquit ) interfuit somnianti mirabili gratiâ , id quidem potuit , non naturâ &c. Bellarmine , for proofe that the same Body of Christ might appeare Visibly in divers places at once , doth produce the Apparitions of other men in many places at once ; and is encountred by your owne 10 10 Vasquez Ies. in 3. Thom. qu. 76. Disp. 139. Cap. 2. Exempla superiùs adducta ex Ambrosio , Egesippo , Athanasio , Giegorio , in quibus prima opinio , de existentia coporis Christi , quoad extensionem ad locum , in diversis locis simol , probari videtur : adde etiam Augustinum de cura pro mortuis Cap. 16. & respondet , difficilem esse responsionem . Verùm hoc testimonium non probat de corpore , quoad extensionem ad locum , sed de existentia animae in duobus locis simul . Neque amplius probat alterum illud Augustini de Iohanne Monacho , ubi agitur de spiritu . [ See Vasquez , who thorow our the same whole Disputation denieth the existence of Christ in divers places at once , quoad extensionem ad locum , but onely in one place so , and in many , invisibly , in the Sacrament , upon every Altar . ] Ies. Vasquez ( verbatim ) in each one , Concluding that None of them do prove such an Existence , by extension of parts , in respect of Place . Which being joyned with the former Confession of Suarez , ( already cited ) affirming it to be a Doctrine Contrary to all Divines , to teach the Body of Christ to be any where , but only in heaven , excepting the mysterie of the Eucharist ; It will be easie to discerne how little credit is to be given to the Stories , which are alleged by Bellarmine of bodily Apparitions without the Sacrament . ⚜

That the Opinion of the Being of a Body , in many places at once , implyeth a Contradiction , is Secondly proved by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers , thereby distinguishing Christ his two Natures , Godhead and Manhood , one from another , by Circumscription and Incircumscription . SECT. V.

ANcient Fathers judged it Impossible for a Body to be without Determination in one only place at one time : yea ( say you ) they did so , but meaning Impossible , according to the course of nature , but not absolutely Impossible , as if by Divine Miracle a Body might not be in many places at once . This is your onely Answer , and the Answer of every one of your Answerers , whereat wee should wonder , but that they have given us so often experience , what little conscience they make , how true their Answers be , so that they may be knowne to have answered : otherwise they well know that the Fathers meant an absolute Impossibility ; and that this is most evident by the Heresie which they did impugne , and also by their maner of confuting the same .

The Eutychian Heretikes ( you a a Alfons . de Cast. cont . haeres Eutych . know ) confounded the Properties of Christs humane nature with his Godhead , pretending ( as you do ) the Omnipotencie of Christ , for the patronizing of their Heresie , As thinking thereby ( thus saith b 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 magnifie the Lord Christ : whereas this was indeed ( as the same Father saith ) to accuse Truth of falshood . You may heare the same voice sound out of the Romane Chaire . Pope c c Leo Papa . Ep. 13. quae est ad Pulcher. Aug. Subrepsisse intelligo spiritum falsitatis , ut dum affirmat se religiosiùs de filij Dei majestate sentire , si ei naturae nostrae veritatem inesse non dicat , &c. Leo speaking of Eutyches , the Author of that Heresie , saith that Hee affirmed , that thereby he did more religiously conceive of the Majesty of Christ , by denying his humane nature ; whom therefore that holy Pope censureth to have beene seduced by the Spirit of falsity . Therfore it cannot be but that the Fathers , in confuting an Heresie founded upon a pretence of Omnipotency , did hold that doctrine absolutely impossible , which they withstood , as will now more lively appeare by the Testimonies of themselves . Theodoret against this Heretike argueth thus : d 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 bin no good reasoning , except his CANNOT had imported an absolute Impossibility . ⚜ And this 11 11 Eranistes Heret . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Ex lob . Theod. opponit Ex●mplum impossibilium : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Theodoret : Dial. 3. Cap 4. — Et paulò post ; 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . — 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Theodoret himselfe doth furthermore make good , who in the same Dialogue , where ( to the Heretikes Objection out of Iob , saying , I know thou canst doe all things , nothing is impossible with thee ) he answereth , by instancing in examples of Impossibility , because of Contradiction , saying ; It is impossible for eternity to be in time , or a thing created to be uncreated : or finite to be infinite . So he . ⚜

c 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 , Martyres roboraverunt , & fideles nunc usque custodiunt . Et paulò superius . Quia nunc in Coelo est , non est utique in terra . Vigilius ( anciently Bishop of Trent ) might have read a Lesson to the late Bishops at Trent , who against the same Heretike , distinguishing the two natures of Christ , his Humane nature , by being Circumscribed in one place ; the Divine , by being unlocable , doubted not to inferre , saying of his Bodily nature ; It being now in heaven is not at all on earth . And , lest that any might thinke this was but his owne private opinion , hee averreth saying ; This is the Catholike profession taught by the Apostles , confirmed by Martyrs , and hitherto held of the Faithfull . So Fulgentius upon the same Distinction maketh the same Conclusion , saying of his Bodily substance , that therefore f f Fulgent . de persona Christi ad Trasimund lib. 2. cap 5. Vnus idemque homo localis ex hom●ne ; 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 deale with the forenamed Heretike , and professing to deliver the substantiall difference of both Natures , hee differenceth them by these contrary Characters , g g Damascen . de fide Orthodoxi , lib 3. cap. 3. E●rum naturarum , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ast●umus salvari : nam c●eatum mansit creatum ; increat●● , increatum : morrale ●maneb●t mortale ; immortale , immortale : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ⚜ Paulo su●erius 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Created , not Created ; Capable of mortalitie , and not Capable of mortalitie ; Circumscribed , and not Circumscribed ; and Invisible in it selfe , and Visible : which notwithstanding is , in the Eucharist , by your doctrine , no● Capable of Circumscription , because whole in the whole Hoast , and in every part thereof , and to the very Angels of God Invisible .

⚜ And yet againe , that you may further know that Damiscen is as professedly ours , in this point , as any Protestant can be ; hee , in confutation of the same Heretike , addeth saying ; How can one and the same Nature be capable at once of two essentiall contrary Differences ? for how is it possible for the same Nature , according to the same , to be created , and uncreated mortall , and immorall ; circumscribed , and uncircumscribed ? Where , by the way , you may observe , that Circumscription of a Body is accounted by Damascen to be [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 that is ] Essentiall to a Body . In like maner Ephraemius ( in 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 Heretikes , who gainesaid the Truth of either Nature . Athanasius urged Christ his Ascension into Heaven , 〈◊〉 prove that hee was as truly man , as God , because his God head was never out of Heaven , being h 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 l Nazian Epist. 1. id Cled●● Hominem & 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Nazianzen also doth Characterize them .

Cyril of Alaxandria is a Father , whose Patronage your Disputers would be thought often to rely upon ; hee is now about to deliver his Iudgement so freely and plainly , as if hee had meant to stop the mouthes of all our Opposi●es in the same Answer , which hee maketh against certaine Heretikes , who held that God's nature is a Substance , which can received vision and partition . If God ( saith m m Cyril . Alex , Tom. 2. lib. de T. inir Si verè S● chohem & Partitionem , Divini natur● , ( 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 beene your onely Answer to other Fathers ) that Cyril meant not that it was absolutely Impossible , that Quantity should be without Circumscription , but onely according to the Course of nature ? then might the Heretikes , whom Cyril confuted , have made the same Answer , and consequently Cyril's Consequence , and Confutation ( together with the Arguments of the Fathers above-mentioned ) had beene of no force . What shall wee say ? must still the ancient Fathers be made no better than Asses , in arguing , that your Romish Masters ( forsooth ) may be deemed the onely Doctors , even then , when they prepare the same Evasion for Heretikes , which they devise for themselves ? but you must pardon us , if wee believe that Cyril ( seeing he durst say , that God himselfe , if hee were a Body , must be in a place , as a thing having Quantity , and Circumscribed ) would have abhorred your now Romish Faith of believing * * See hereafter , Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Christ's Body consisting of Quantitie , albeit not Circumscribed in place .

⚜ The Arguments , which wee receive from these Fathers , in Confutation of your Romish Faith , of believing the same Humane Body of Christ , Circumscribed in Heaven , and Vncircumscribed on your Altars on Earth ; are Two . The first is their denying the Possibility of Christ's Body to be Vncircumscribed , and that upon two grounds : One , because Circumscription is Essentiall , and as Proper to Christ's Body , as Vncircumscription is Proper to his Divine Nature ; without which Difference there should follow a Confusion of his two Different natures , which was the very same Heresie which they impugned . Their second ground is from the infallible Rule of Contradiction , being the extremest Degree of Impossibilitie that can be imagined ; namely , For the same ●ody to be , at the same time , mortall , and immortall ; palpable , and impalpable . And yet your Fathers of the Councell of Trent , in their wisedomes , have Canonized it for an Article of your Faith , by teaching a palpable , and Circumscriptive Body of Christ in Heaven , and impalpable , and Vncircumscriptive on Earth . It might be held a kind of Impiety not to consult with Saint Augustine , in a Question of this moment .

The Iudgement of Saint Augustine , stiled by learned Doctors , The Mallet of Heretikes , to knocke out their Braines .

First , giving this Caution , viz. 13 13 Aug. Epist. 57. ad Dardan : where after this Coveat , [ Cavendum ne ità Divinitatem affirmamus , ut corporis veritatem auferamus : ] hee hath these words . Spatia locotum tolle corpotibus , & nusquā 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 wee s● establish Christs Deity , that wee destroy not the truth of his Body ; Hee afterwards concludeth against the Impossibilitie of a Body uncircumscribed , saying , Take away Space of Place from Bodies , and then shall they be no-where ; and if they be no-where , then must they be no-what , having no Being at all . Secondly , where hee concludeth , that Christ , according to his Visible flesh , was on earth , when according to his Invisible Majesty , Hee was both in Heaven and Earth ; hee layd this Ground thereof , to wit , that A Body removing from one place to another , is not in that place from whence it came . But our Catholike Article of Faith saith , that [ Hee ascended from Earth to Heaven : ] And therefore by Saint Augustine his Argument , Hee was not then on Earth . In the third place , Discussing the Difference of the two Natures of Christ more fully , in respect of Presence in Place , for the reconciling of a Seeming Contradiction of Christs words , saying in one place , [ I am with you unto the Ends of the World , ] and another place saying , [ You shall not have me alwayes with you , ] he assoyleth the Difficultie , by Differencing Christs Natures . 14 14 Aug. Tract. 50. in ●oh . [ Pauperes semper habebitis vobiscū , 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 Virgine 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 , & eis videntibus ascendit in coesum , & non est hîc . Ibi est enim , sedet ad dextrim Patris : & hic est , non enim reces●●● ▪ praesentia majestatis . Secundùm praesentiam carnis . Ec. lesia modo side ten●● , oculis non videt . In that Christ sayd ( saith hee ) [ You shall not have mee alwayes with you , ] hee spake it of the Presence of his Body ; But in saying , [ I am with you untill the Consummation of the World , ] hee spake it of his ( Divine ) Majesty , Providence , and Invisible grace . But according to that ( nature ) which was borne of the Virgin , and after was manifested in the Resurrection , [ You shall not have me alwayes with you . ] So hee .

Your sole Answer , in the Iudgement of your choycest Divines , delivered by your Cardinall , is this ; 15 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 alwayes with us , according to the presence of his Bodie ] understood a visible presence thereof , after an humane Conversation with men : which hee collecteth from that which followeth in the speech of Saint Augustine , That Christ was seene of the Apostles in his Bodily presence after his Resurrection , and as his Assension : But now ( saith S. Augustine ) Wee see him by Faith , and not with our eyes . So your Cardinall . Which is as raw and extravagant a Collection , and repugnant to the meaning of Saint Augustine , as can be . Because the whole scope of Saint Augustine is to shew the Excellency of Christs Divine Nature , in respect of the Humane , in regard of Presence it selfe , and not in respect of visibilitie , or any maner of Presence ; Because the Divine nature , by it's Omnipresency , is alwayes with us , but the other , which was seene after his Visible Conversation upon Earth , was seene to ascend into Heaven . Hee inforceth directly from hence , therefore It is not here on Earth , ( Thus ; ) It ascended into Heaven , and is not here , for hee there sitteth at the right hand of God . But as for the Presence of his Majesty ( which signifieth his Deity ) It is here ( saith Saint Augustine ) and not departed from us : which is a manifest Distinguishing of the Deity , and Humanity of Christ , meerely , in respect of , Hic est , & Non hic est , that is , Presence of the one , and Not-Presence of the other . As also betweene , Recessit , & Non-Recessit , in like Difference ; whereas if according to the Popish Faith , the Distinction held onely in respect of the Visibilitie , or Invisibilitie of Presence , ( you alwayes teaching that Christs Body is substantially Present on Earth , Invisibly in the Eucharist ) then ( in respect of the maner of Presence by * * Because Saint Aug. calleth the presence of his majestie and grace , Invisible . ●re the Testimony above cited . Invisibilitie ) there should be no Prerogative of Difference betweene Chists Divine , and Bodily Being on Earth ; against the Conclusive Determination of Saint Augustine in this place ▪ Which is also confirmed , by that which is further objected in opposition against us , out of the last words of Saint Augustine : The Church ( saith hee ) Seeth not him with her eyes ▪ but holdeth him by Faith ; namely by believing the Presence of his Body ; But where ? to wit , Sitting at the right hand of God ( saith hee ; ) but not in the Pix , or on the Altar .

The next Testimony of this Father may be that his Malling and braining of the Hereticall Manichees , who held a Bodily Presence of Christ , both in the Sunne and Moone at once ; He making a flat Contrary Conclusion : ( 16 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 . Christs Bodily Presence could not ( saith hee ) be in the Sunne and Moone at once . Yes , will the Romish Answer ; Miraculously it may . God a mercy Papist would the Heretike have sayd ; for I likewise , when I sayd it was in the Sunne and Moone at once , was not such a Lunatick , as to thinke it could be naturally so , and without a Miracle . The same holy Father , that hee might shew himselfe constant to his owne Tene● , explaining the words of Christ [ You have heard that I sayd , I goe and come unto you ] ( ●wird● Hee went away ( saith hee ) according to that , wherein hee was man , in one place : and hee remained with them as God , and in all places ▪ still opposing the Nature of Man and God , according to the Different Presences of , One-where , and All-wheres . More Testimonies for proofe of this one point there needs not . ⚜

CHALLENGE .

THese so many and manifest proofes of the ancient Fathers , concluding an Impossibility of Existence of a Body without Determination in one place ; may be unto us a full Demonstration that they were Adversaries to your Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence , and that all your Objections , out of them , are but so many forged , and forced Illusions . ⚜ Onely be it knowne unto you , that in this whole Discourse the word , Circumscription in place , is used , in a large Acception , for every limitation of a Body in a space , or Vbi , adequate unto the thing Circumscribed . ⚜

Wee conclude . If Christ himselfe gave a Caveat , not to believe such Spirits as should say of his Bodily presence in this world , after his Resurrection ; * * Mat. 24 23. Behold heere is Christ , and behold there is Christ : then , doubtlesse , much lesse credit is to be given to your Church , which teacheth and professeth an Here is Christ , and a There is Christ , in the same instant ; as wee shall furthermore confirme by like verdict of Antiquitie , when wee shall heare the Fathers prove both that * * See Cap. 6. §. 3. Angels , and all Created Spirits are finite Creatures , and not Gods , even because they are contained in one place : and also that the * * Chap 6. §. 2. Holy Ghost is God , and no finite Creature , because it is in divers places at once . But wee must handle our matters in order .

That the Romish Doctors ( in their Objections ) have no solid proofe of the Existence of one Body in divers places at once : from the Iuagement of Antiquitie . SECT. VI.

IT is a kinde of Morosity and Perversnesse in our Opposites , to object those Testimonies , which have their Answers , as it were tongues in their mouthes , ready to confute their Objections . For s s Chrysost. li 3. de Sacerdo●● ; 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 beleeve , that the Priest and people ●●●taking doe no● [ in tertis consi●st sed ponus in coelum transferr● then followeth , O miracul●● , &c. — ad●st enim Sacerdos non ignem gestans , sed Spiritum Sanctum . Chrysostome saith not more plainly , ô Miracle , that Christ , at one and the same time , sitting with his Father in Heaven , is heere handled of Communicants on earth ; than hee doth say of the Priest and People Communicating , ô Miracle , that They do not consist or stay on earth , but are transported into Heaven . And againe , a little after the words objected , The Priest ( saith hee ) is here present , not carrying the fire , but the Holy Ghost . These and the like Sayings of Chrysostome do verifie the Censure of your * * See Booke 3. Chap. 4. §. 6. Senensis upon him , that hee was most frequent in figurative Amplifications , and Hyperbole's . Another Objection is commonly made out of t 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 . Chrysostome , of a Double Elias , one above , and another below , ( meaning , by Elias below , the sheepe-skin , or Mantle of Elias , received by Helisaeus ) namely , that Christ ascending into Heaven , in his owne flesh , left the same , but as Elias did his Mantle , being called the other Elias , to wit , figuratively : so the Sacrament , a token of Christ's flesh , is called his flesh . Which must needs be a true Answer , unlesse you will have Chrysostome to have properly conceited , as a Double Elias , so Consequently a Double Christ .

⚜ And if you be not yet sufficiently acquainted with the style of Chrysostome , take unto you another Saying of his , wherein hee introduceth Christ , as speaking to every good Christian , and saying 18 18 Chrysost. ad pop. Antioch . Hom. 55 Manduca me , & te sursum haben , & deorsum tibi connector . Eate thou mee , I have thee heere above , and am annexed to thee there below . So hee . Do you understand those words , as you did his former Speeches , literally ? then must you as necessarily conclude from hence , that the Christian Communicant , Eating Christ's Body here on earth , is corporally present with Christ in Heaven . But do you grant it to be figuratively meant ? then must you confesse , that the Conjunction , spoken of by Chrysostome , is not Corporall , but a Spirituall , and a Mysticall Communication . So then Chrysostome , speaking of a Sacrament , used a Sacramentall style , to call the Sacrament of Christ's Body , the Body or flesh of Christ ; even as Christ ( according to the Interpretation of Ancient Fathers ) called Bread his Body , as being a Signe and Sacrament of his Body , after the usall terme of Scripture in other Sacraments also . ( All which have beene largely showne throughout the Second Booke ) . No marvell therefore , if , granting that Christ taking his Flesh Personally with him into Heaven , which hee left Sacramentally heere on Earth ; you deny , notwithstanding , that Elias , by leaving his Mantle , left not himselfe , because his Mantle was not a Sacrament of himselfe . ⚜

As for the next Testimonie , it is no more than which every Christian must confesse , namely , that it is the same whole , and undivided Christ , which is spiritually received of all Christians , wheresoever , and whensoever throughout the world : the same wee say Objectively , although not Subjectively ; as the Sixt Booke , Chap. 6. and Sect. 3. will demonstrate . ⚜ And furthermore understand , that the Fathers , speaking of the Eucharist , and calling it The Body of Christ : and of the Fragments , Bitts , and Pieces thereof ; yet , in your owne construction , do meane Sacramentally , that is , Figuratively .

Your Iesuite 19 19 M● . Fisher Ies. ● his Answer to K Iames 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 Masse ▪ 1. §. 4. Subd. 1. pag 149. Master Fisher would thinke it a sleighting of him , if his Testimony might not be heard . What marvaile ( saith hee ) that Imagination fayle us to apprehend the multiplied presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament , which is Spirituall , Angelicall , Supernaturall , comparable with the Divine ? whereof Gregory Nyssen sticketh not to say ; As Deity filleth the World , and yet is One , so the Body of Christ is but One , and is offered in all places . So hee . Our Answer , in briefe , is that Master Fisher sticketh not to abuse both the Credulity of his Reader , to make him believe that which is not ; and his owne Conscience , to seeme to believe that which hee believeth not ; ( namely , that there is an Omnipresencie of Christ's Body ) as also his Adversaries patience , to occasion him to seeke that which is not to be found in the place alleged , or yet in any of the Orations of Gregory Nyssene , de Paschate . If any such Sentence had beene extant in any Booke of Gregory Nyssene , or else of any Primitive Father , ô how every one of your Romish Disputers would have embraced it , and still harped upon it ; especially it making so evidently for that , which your Iesuite urgeth , The multiplyed Presence of Christ's Body . But it is no newes with us , to be dealt with deceiptfully , and unconscionably , by your Romish Dispuputers . ⚜

That your most plausible Objection , taken out of Augustine , concerning Christ his Carrying himselfe in his owne hands , is but Sophisticall . SECT ▪ VII .

AVgustine in expounding the 33. Psalme , and falling upon a Translation , where the words 1. Sam , 21. are these ( by interpretation ) Hee carryed himselfe in his owne hands ; a a Aug. Tom. 8. in Psal 33. Conc. 1. [ Esserebatur in manibus . ejus . ] Hoc quomodò possit fieri in homine , quis intelligat ? manibus alienis portatur quis , suis autem nemo portatur . Quomodò intelligatur de Davide secundùm literam non invenimus : in Christo autem invenimus , quando commendans ipsum corpus suum , ait , [ Hoc est corpus meum : ] ferebat enim corpus in manibus suis , &c. saith that these words could not be understood of David , or yet of any other man literally : for [ Quomodo fieri potest ? ] ( saith hee ) How could that be , &c. And therefore expoundeth them as meant of Christ , at what time hee said of the Eucharist , [ This is my Body . ] This is the Testimonie which not onely your b b Obijcit Bellar. Vox [ Quodammodo ] Signi , non propriâ spetie , sed alienâ , nec modo usitato , sed extraordinariè : satis est , quod non figuratè significatur Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. Cardinall , but all other your Disputers , upon this subject , do so ostentatively embrace , and as it were , hugge in their Armes as a witnesse , which may alone stop the mouth of any Protestant ; which therefore , above all other , they dictate to their Novices , and furnish them therewith , as with Armour of proofe against all Opposites , especially seeing the same testimony seemeth to be grounded upon Scripture .

Contrarily , wee complaine of the Romish Disputers , against this their fastidious and perverse importunitie , in urging a testimony , which they themselves could as easily have answered as objected ; both in taking exception at the ground of that speech , to shew that it is not Scripture at all , and also by moderating the rigidity of that Sentence , even out of Augustine himselfe .

THE FIRST CHALLENGE , Shewing , that the Ground of that speech was not Scripture .

PRotestants ( you know ) allow of no Authenticall Scripture of the old Testament , which is not according to the Originall , namely , the Hebrew Text ; and the Church of Rome alloweth of the Vulgar Latine Translation , as of the onely Authenticall . But in neither of them are these words , viz. [ Hee was carried in his owne hands : ] but only that David , now playing the Mad-man , slipt , or fell into the hands of others , as your c c T●status Abulensis . [ Et collabe batur inter manus eorum : ] Nempè , ad modum hominis furiosi ostendebat se , ut insanum , Cor. in ●um locum . Abulensis truely observeth . So easily might the Transcribers of the Septuagints erre , in mistaking 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 : and so impossible it is for you to ground the objected Sentence upon divine Scripture , even in your owne judgement .

THE SECOND CHALLENGE , Shewing , that the Romanists cannot stand to the [ QVOMODO ] of Augustine .

THis word [ Quomodo , How ] implying it to be impossible for David , or any other man , to carry himselfe in his owne hands , excepting Christ , as you defend , must argue either an absolute Impossibility , or not : if it intend an absolute Impossibility of any man to be carryed in his owne hands , in a literall sense , then could not Christ , as man , be carryed in his owne hands : and if it doe not intimate an absolute Impossibility , then might David , or any other man , by the power of God , have carried himselfe in his owne hands . So that whether thus , or so , you will make Augustine contradict himselfe , if his words be taken in the precisenesse and strictnesse of that which is a Literall Sense .

THE THIRD CHALLENGE , Shewing , that Augustine in another word following , to wit , [ QVODAMMODO ] doth answer Saint Augustine himselfe to his owne formerly objected word [ QVOMODO . ]

SAint Augustine after hee had sayd Quomodo , How ? ( a word seeming to signifie an Impossibility ) lest that it , being taken absolutely , might imply a direct carrying of himselfe in his hands at his Supper , he qualifieth that his speech somewhat after saying ; [ Quodammodò , &c. ] that is , After a certaine maner Christ carried himselfe in his owne hands . Which is a Modification , and indeed a Correction of his former sentence . Our next labour must be to find out the meaning of his [ Quodammodo ] and what this maner of Christ's carrying himselfe was , in the judgement of Saint Augustine . Whatsoever it is that a man hath really in his hands , were it a loafe of Bread , it were ridiculous to say , that hee carrieth a loafe of Bread , After a sort in his hands , if the same were Properly carried therein ; as will appeare most plainly in the fift Challenge .

THE FOVRTH CHALLENGE , Shewing Saint Augustine to be an utter enemie to the Romish Cause in all their other conceited Maners , concerning Christ in this Sacrament .

AGainst your maner of interpreting the words of Christ , [ HOC EST CORPVS ▪ MEVM ] properly , you have heard Augustine often pleading for a Figurative Sense . Secondly , against your maner of bringing in the Body of Christ , by Transubstantiation , hee hath acknowledged in this Sacrament , after Consecration , the Continuance of Bread . Thirdly , against your Corporall Existence of Christ in many places at once , in this Sacrament , or else-where without dimension of Place , or Space , he hath already contradicted you in both , holding them Impossible : and also by arguing that therefore his flesh is not on Earth , because it is in Heaven . Fourthly , Your maner of properly Eating Christs Body Corporally , hee will * * See the fift Booke Chap. 5. Sect. 5. and Chap. 6. Sect. 3. renounce hereafter , as an execrable Imagination . Wherefore Augustine holding 〈◊〉 Impossible for Christs Body to have any Corporall Existence in this Sacrament , it is Incredible hee could have resolvedly concluded of Christ's Corporall carrying of his Body , properly , in his owne hands .

THE FIFTH CHALLENGE , Shewing that the [ QVODAMMODO ] of Saint Augustine is the same Maner , which the Protestants doe teach , by the acknowledgement of some Romanists .

DOe you then seeke after the maner which Augustine beleeved ? what need you ? having learned it of Augustine himselfe , by his [ Secundùm quendam modum , ( where he saith ) This Sacrament after a sort is the Body of Christ : ] What , literally ? Nay ; but ( for so hee saith ) * * August . Sicut secundùm quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis , Corpus Christi est ; ita Sacramentum Fidei , Fides est . See above § 8. at ( a. ) As Baptisme ( the Sacrament of Faith ) is called Faith . And if you have not the leisure to looke for Augustine judgment in his writings , you might have found it in your owne Booke of Decrees , set out by b b Decret. part. 3. de Consecr. distinct . 2. C. Hoc est . Sicut ergo coelestis panis , qui Christi caro est , suo modo vocatur corpus Christi , illius viz. quod , &c. — vocaturque immolatio carnis , quae Sacerdotis manibus fit , Christi Passio : non rei veritate , sed significante mysterio [ Observe that in the words . coelestis panis , qui caro Christi est , the word Caro is by the Glosse in Gratian interpreted Species panis , at the letter (f) Caro , id est , Species panis , to avoid the absurdity of interpreting Christ's Flesh to be the Body of Christ ] Gratian , where Augustine is alleged to say , that This holy Bread is after it's maner called the Body of Christ , as the offering thereof by the hands of the Priest is called Christs Passion . Dare you say , that the Priest's Oblation is properly , and literally in strict sense , the Passion of Christ ? or that Augustine meant any such Maner ? Surely hee did not , and therefore may wee most aptly expound Saint Augustines [ Quodammodo ] by this Saint Augustine his [ Suo modo ] which is clearely and evidently explained by your owne Romish c c Glossa ibid. [ Coeleste , &c. ] 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 . Glosse , where it saith : The heavenly Sacrament , which representeth the Flesh of Christ , is called Christ's Flesh , so sayd , [ Suo modo ] after it's maner , not in the Truth of the thing , but in a significant mysterie , as meaning , It is called Christ's Body , that is , it signifieth his Body . So the Glosse .

⚜ To conclude . Wee are in good hope , that you will give credit to that , which Many of your owne Doctors shall confesse , and that with the approbation of your Iesuite Suarez , 20 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 . — Iuxtà 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 maner the Body of Christ ; Many ( saith hee ) doe expound them as spoken very Metaphorically and Improperly : the reason whereof is cleare , because the Body of Christ is a thing distinct from the formes . So hee . Confessing that those Many yield unto us that True and Figurative Sense of Saint Augustines [ Quodammodo , ] which wee have all this while contended for . ⚜

In a word , rightly might d 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 Bookes of Augustine ( upon this subject ) proclame that hee 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 , sixt , and seventh Bookes ; besides that which they affirme in this Booke , in the Chapters following .

THE SIXT CHALLENGE , In generall , Concluding the maine Point .

BY this time , wee thinke , you may discerne betweene plaine dealing , and false juggling : for your Disputers have usually alleged , for defence of your Transubstantiation , and Corporall Presence in the Sacrament , the Sentences of Fathers used in their Sermons , and Exhortations , wherein commonly they exercised their Rhetoricke in Figurative , and Hyperbolicall speeches , as hath beene confessed by your owne Doctours ; and proved by many their like Sayings concerning other Sacramentall Rites ; but especially of the Sacrament of Baptisme : whereas our proofes arise directly from the Testimonies of the Fathers , which they have commonly had in their sad and earnest Disputation , in confutation of many , and maine Heresies , where indeed they were necessarily to make use both of their Logicko , for discerning Truth from Errour ; and also of Grammer ; wee meane the Exactnesse , and proprietie of Speech , void of Amphibologies , Hyperboles , and Ambiguities , whereby the minds of their Hearers , or Readers might be perplexed , and the Truth darkned . This one Consideration wee 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 implyeth 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 Cardinall 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 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 diverse places at once , might be below , and above , on the right hand , and on the left , behind , and before it selfe , 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 soule of man in divers parts of the Body . So you .

These are but Capriccious Chimera's and mungrell fancies of addle braines , who disputing of Bodily Locality can finde no Example , within the Circumferences of the Vniversitie of Creatures , but onely Man's soule , 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 applyable . As namely , for the same Body to be high , and low , in respect of it's owne divers parts , to wit , high in respect of the head , and low in respect of the heele , wherein there is no comparison of any whole , or part with it selfe : 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 it selfe : or , the same one finger is longer , and shorter than it selfe ; hee may justly be suspected to be besides himselfe : all such like speeches being as Contradictory in themselves , ( and consequently Impossible ) as for a man to say , hee is elder , and younger than himselfe .

⚜ Which peradventure one of your Doctors saw , when hee denyed in this Sacrament any Motion at all ; Because els ( saith 21 21 Ioh. 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 . hee ) at the Motion of the Hoast , Christ's Body should be both below and above at once , which savoureth not of Truth . So hee . And although your 22 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 Corporall 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 hee ) is Absurd and Ridiculous . ⚜ You * * See above Chap. 5. §. ● will say , ( and it is your common Sanctuary ) that Place is not essentiall 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 beene answered in the sixt Section . )

Finally , this your Subtilty would have beene judged a palpable absurdity by ancient Fathers ; among whom Theodoret taught this Philosophie , to hold true in Divinitie ( 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 hee demonstrateth the Truth of Christ's Body , because it is Circumscribed : and that it is circumscribed , because it is written of him , that f f Theod Dial. 2. cap. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . The Sheepe 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 hee is present in this Sacrament . One word more . The * * See above ●● . §. 5. Fathers , who were many , that distinguished the nature of Christs manhood from his God-head , 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 Vncircumscribed , as it is on many Altars upon earth . Divers other your Contradictorie Relations you may finde in the Sections following in this Fourth Booke .

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 voyd 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 appeare by your owne Resolutions . For your Cardinall , and your Iesuite Suarez , with divers others , have thus g 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 multiplicātur . 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 reall in a Body , without any relation to place , may not bee sayd to bee 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 ; passible , and not passible . And the like may be sayd of Love , and Hatred , which are vitall 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 hee writes of your Romane Masse , saying that 23 23 Innoc. 3. de 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 mortall and Immortall , according to the same nature . On whom your Iesuite 24 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 , &c. 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 , &c. Vasquez will waite , holding the Generall Tenent , that whatsoever Quality it is , that hath no dependance of place , it cannot be limited in respect of place : Among these hee reckoneth Blacknesse , and Whitenesse . ⚜

But have they any reason for these Points ? Yes they have , ( See the Margin ) For your Cardinall 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 hee ) it is one Body , and not many . So hee . A reason Infallible . Your Iesuite Suarez also denying that the same party can love , and hate , consent , and dissent at the same time , in respect of divers places , yeeldeth this reason ; Because ( saith hee ) 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 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. Schoolemen denying that the same Body can be sayd to grieve , and not to grieve , both at once , in respect of divers places of being , propoundeth the like Reason ; Because Griefe being in the same man , as hee is a man , cannot be sayd to be together with not Grieving in him ; lest wee should make a man not to be himselfe . ⚜ Well hath your Iesuit * * See the precedent numb . 24. Vasquez resolved of Blacknesse , health , sicknesse , and the like , that they are not limited by any respect of place . As for example , If being in one place , Peter be Blacke , he shall be sayd to be blacke in whatsoever place hee doth consist ⚜ . Cardinall Alan 1 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 & immortale . Alan . Card. de Euchar. Sacram . lib. 1. pag. 451. denying that the same Body , in respect of divers places , can be sayd to be Mortall and Immortall , Passible , and Impassible , expresseth this Reason , which ( saith hee ) was used of old : Because these sayings are most repugnant to the understanding of man .

⚜ Lastly and most largely your 25 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 . Iesuit 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 hee ) to be avoyded 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 .

WEE 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 Ponyards 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. &c. you teach that Christ , as he is in this Sacrament , hath no naturall faculty , either of Motion , of Sense , of Appetite , or of Vnderstanding things past , all which notwithstanding hee hath in all perfection in Heaven . But to understand , and not to understand , to have , and not to have an Appetite , you will confesse to be as absolute Qualities , and Acts Contradictorie , 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 himselfe , not as hee is in one Place more than in another . ⚜ A Parisian Doctor will give you his Determination , saying , that 25 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 meate at the same time in another Place . So hee . How much more must this hold in the Vnderstanding part of things passed ? which because they are Things passed , cannot be sayd to have Relation to any present place , no more than To freeze , and to be hot . ⚜ Seeing therefore you have beene 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 inferre , that one man should be , and not be himselfe : Therefore are you become necessarily Contradictory to your selves . Can there be a stronger Argument than this , to perswade Christians , that your Doctors are men delivered up to strong delusions , to beleeve lyes ? 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 shewne .

CHAP. VI.

A Confutation of the first Romish Reason , obtruded for proofe of a Possibilitie of Existence or a Body in divers places at once , taken from the nature either of a Voyce , or Colour . SECT. I.

MAster a a In his Booke of the Liturgie 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 severall hearing of sundry persons , and that not as a distinct noyse , confusedly multiplyed in the Ayre , but as one and the same peculiar word , distinguished by the selfe-same syllables wherein it was uttered . So hee , and your Doctor Wright b b In his Booke of the Reall Presence , Tract . 2. §. 4. Subd. 1. pag. 149. before him . ⚜ And one before them both , Pope Innocent the third 1 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 hee ) in the eares of divers at once ; even so is Christ's Body in divers places at once . Your Lovain Doctor 2 2 Ioh G●rretius Docto. Lov in de Praesent . 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 minusvè 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 eares of Thousands at once ; and of the same Image of a mans face in the divers fractions and pieces of a Broken glasse . ⚜

CHALLENGE .

BVt 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 . Wee 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 mans hearing , as is here affirmed ; but onely the same in kinde , by a multiplication of the sounds , and words uttered , as Philosophy teacheth . Like as wee 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 Voyce breaking th● Ayre , doth make in the Ayre Circle upon circle , till a ●ound come to the eares of the hearers ; every of the parts of the Circle being articulated , through the multiplication of the first forme , from the severall emanations of the Rayes , the divers eares do no more receive the same individuall Voyce , than they do the same individuall Ayre , whereby the Voyce 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 mens eares ; which is not individually the same , and serveth for nothing rather than to make the Disputer ridiculous .

Thus was that Doctor answered , when hee 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 it's formes seene 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 Ayre moved ; then seeing the Ayre , which entreth into one mans eare , is not the same with that which is received into another man's eare ; the voice which is an Articulate impression of the Ayre , can be said to be no more the same , than are the eares of the Hearers . Which is furthermore demonstrable in this , that the voice is more and lesse perceived of men , according to their distances in place from the Speaker , some hearing it more , and some lesse , some in whole , and some in part . But more and lesse cannot accord to one and the selfe-same thing . ⚜

Take unto you a cleere Example ( which is also your owne ) and Apposite , when in a * * See the Testimo●i● last proceding of Ioh. Garietius . Looking-glasse , 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 glasse is not individually the same : ⚜ For so many Apparitions in the Glasse are ( by the Confession of your owne 3 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 darkenesse better than light . It might seeme to be a superstitious diligence to confute such sottishnesse with the serious judgement of any grave Father ; otherwise c 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 betweene 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 Incorporeall maner apprehended , so that the same Eare 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 mans Soule , or Presence of God , devised to demonstrate a No-Contradiction of a Bodies Being in two places at once . SECT. II.

TWo other d 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 maintaine your supposed Bodily Presence in two places at once ; one is in mans Soule , the other in God himselfe . First , wee will enquire into the nature of the soule . Our exception against a Bodies Being in divers places at once , is by reason of the distance betweene place and place , for it is farre lesse than imaginable that one Body should in one and the same moment be at Toledo in Spaine , and at Paris in France ; and yet not to be in the intermediate Space betweene both , which divideth Toledo from Paris . But the Condition of the humane Soule is utterly different , for it is in the Bodily members , not as a Body in divers places , but as a forme in its owne matter , being virtually and operatively in each part , nor having Quantity and extension , ( the unseperable properties of a Body ) but by a formall perfection , As containing the Body , and not contained thereof , c c Anima est in corpore , ut continens , non ut contenta . Aquin. 1. qu. 52. Art. 1. saith your Aquinas . For the Soule is so in the head and foot , that it is aswell in the parts and members betweene both ; and therefore , not being possibly severed from them , cannot be said to be divided from it selfe . Insomuch , that if any member of the Body ( as for example the hand ) should be cut off , and divided from the Body , the Soule being indivisible ceaseth to be therein . So utterly dissonant is the Soules 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 betweene a Soule and a Body . And another Father will illustrate the like difference betweene Bodies , and Angelicall Spirits , in the next Section .

Nay , and your Cardinall 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 maner of a Body ; doth hereby as fully confute himselfe , as if hee had said , there is no comparison to be made betweene Body and Spirit , in respect of Locall Being : how much lesse betweene it , and God the Father of all Spirits , who cannot be so in many places at once , that hee is not likewise both in every intermediate space , betweene place and place , and also in all places without them : this being the propertie of his infinitenesse to containe all places , and not to be contained of any . And therefore cannot this maner of Presence , without irreligious impietie , be applyed to any creature ; which notwithstanding , f f Quòd si quis requirat esse in loco ●àm circumscriptiv● quàm definitivè , 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 Cardinall blusheth not to do in that maner , as was hitherto ( wee thinke ) never imagined by any Divine before him , namely , a maner of being of a Body in a place , which is neither Circumscriptively , as naturall 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 onely presence , after the maner as God is in place . So hee . O golden Divine ! for who knoweth not that Existence in place onely by presence is a propertie of Divine Infinitenesse ? which being attributed to any thing , that is not God , doth equall the creature with the Creator , God himselfe . ⚜ Not to mention the Difference of Opinions among Philosophers themselves , touching the particular Seats of the Soule of Man : One sort of them assigning the Heart ; as did Hypocrates , Chrysippus , and Aristotle : Another party placing it in the Braine ; to wit , Plato , Gallen , and Averroës , all admitting a Determinate Seate to the Soule , do thereby gain-say the Being therof in many parts of the Body , as properly occupying so many places . ⚜

A Confutation of the former two Romish Instances in Mans Soule , and God himselfe , by Ancient Fathers , in their Doctrine concerning Angels , and Mens Spirits . SECT. III.

ANcient Fathers ( wee trow ) were profoundly learned both in Philosophicall , and in Theologicall Mysteries , who notwithstanding ( as your g g Iob 1. 6. [ Cum venissent et astitissent Angeli , &c. ] 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 Ies . in eundem locum Iob. Iesuite witnesseth ) held it as a Doctrine of Faith , that Angels , which are Spirits , have every one their owne 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 Hyperphysicall Crotchets had entred into the minds of ancient Fathers , wee should have heard you allege , at least some one of them , if not for proofe , yet in pretext and colour of patronizing these your repugnant Paradoxes , concerning a Body taking the right hand , or left of it selfe , and the like , Velut aegri somnia vanae singuntur Species .

For your better satisfaction , wee shall allege some Testimonies , which may sufficiently declare their Iudgement of an Impossibilitie of a Spirits being in divers places at one time , whether wee consider the Spirits of Angels , or of men ; yea or the Humane Spirit or soule of Christ . Of Angels , Damascen ; h 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 worke , that they cannot possibly be in moe places at once . Athanasius , i i Athanas . Tom. 1 Epist. ad Serap . p. 201. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . As the holy Ghost filleth all places , so Angels are contained in a certaine place . Accordingly Ambrose ; k 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 speake ; l 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 soules of Saints departed . The Author set out by your selves , in the name of Athanasius , unto this Objection , How do the soules of Saints so often appear at one moment of time in the Sepulchres , as they seeme to have done ? Answereth , that They are not the same Saints , but rather visions , and adumbrations of them , by transfigurations of Angels . Hee giveth his Reason , why hee thinketh the other impossible , m 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 hee . And if the Fathers shall say , in effect , as much of the humane soule of Christ , you ( wee should think ) would require no more . Tertullian among his many divine Answers , to prove Christ to be God , he urgeth the Arian Heretikes with this one , as not the least : n 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 ? &c. 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 dissent , when in arguing he tooke as granted , that the o 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 . Soule 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 Cardinalls instance , for proofe of a Possibility of the Being of Christ's Body in many places , without Contradiction of making One not One , by dividing it from it selfe ; wee 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 Gods Infinitenesse of Being in whatsoever place : which is ( as your owne Schoole might have taught him ) so , as p 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 then is the impiety of your arguing ; by labouring to defend the maner of the Being of a Body , by the maner of Being of a Soule or Spirit ; denyed by q q Nazian. Orat. 51. cont. Apollinar . Obijcientem : Duo perfecta non continebat Christus , vz. divinitatem et humanitatem . Resp. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ut vas unius modij non duos modios continet . ) 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Nazianzene ; and maner of the Being of a Creature , by the maner 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 wee are willing to heare what you can say for your selves .

A Confutation of the Third Romish Pretence , why they need not yeeld to these Reasons whereby their Doctrine is proved to be so grossely Vnreasonable . SECT. IV.

MYsteries of Faith ( saith your r r Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. Argumentum sumitur à mysterijs , &c. Cardinall ) which exceed man's understanding , are onely 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 it selfe ; and so ought this , concerning the Presence of Christ his Body , notwithstanding any Objection from Reason . So you . Wee answer . Some of these former Mysteries wee confesse to be such as exceed man's understanding , yet such againe they are , as are not contrary to understanding , though above it ; that is to say , such ( and this you will confesse with us ) as admit not Contradiction in themselves : for it is no Contradiction to say of the Trinitie there is One God , and Three Persons , because the Essence of the God-head 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 essentiall parts , one his Body , the other his Spirit : or in the Resurrection to beleeve the same that was created , might be restored to life , more than to beleeve that one grane of Corne dying , might revive againe : or in the Creation to beleeve that something may be made of nothing , than to say that a blinde man was made to see . As for the last Objection , saying that s s Aeternitas est instans Darationis , Bellar. ibid. §. Quintum . Eternity is the instant of Duration , it is a Paradox : for t 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. Eternitie is Duration it selfe , 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 , whilest they are constrained , for avoiding of Contradictions in things subject to the determination of Sense , to pose us with Spiritual Mysteries , which are Objects onely of Faith , by reason of the Infinitenesse of their properties ; and therefore may well exceed the reach of mans 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 discerne any sensible things , by sensible meanes . By which maner of reasoning all the Arguments used by the Apostles , against Infidels , for proofe of the Resurrection , and Ascension of Christ's Body ; all the Reasons of Fathers , against Heretikes , in distinguishing of the Properties of the Divine and Humane nature of Christ in himselfe , and their former Testimonies in discerning Bodies from Spirits , by Circumscription , and Spirits from God by Determination in one place ; and lastly your owne Consequences of many confessed Impossibities , concerning Place , ( as the Impossibilitie 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 voyd . For to what end were any of these , if your Pretences have in them any shadow of Truth ? ⚜ You other Cardinall Contarenus observed more solidly out of Dionysius Areopagita , that the * * Set hereafter , Chap. 10. Sect. 6. nu. 6. God-head 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 BODIE , ] 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 bee in moe , and consequently every-where at one instant . This Consequence your ancient Schoolemen taught , and your Iesuite a 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 praesent . in Euch. cap. 12. §. Quae sanè . pag. 241. Valentia doth seeme to avow , saying , What hindereth that a Body may be [ Vbique ] every-where at once , not by it's naturall power , but by the Omnipotencie of God ? So hee . This wee say is to make a Finite Infinite , and your old Schoole-Doctors are hereunto witnesses , who have judged it b 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. Hereticall , to say , That the Body of Christ can be in divers places at once ; because then he may be in infinite . So they . And heare you what your Cardinall Bellarmine hath publikely taught ? To say ( c 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 infinitenesse 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 Heresie can there be against that Article of our Faith , concerning the Deity , and Godhead of Christ , begotten , not made , than to beleeve that there can be a made God ? for so doubtlesse do they ( whosoever they be ) that thinke a Finite Body may be made Infinite .

CHALLENGE .

YOu understand the Argument , viz. To beleeve that Chirst his Body may be every where , is a flat Heresie : but to affirme that the same Body is in many places at once , doth consequently inferre that it may be every where ( as hath beene directly professed . ) Ergo your Doctrine of attributing to the Body of Christ an Existence , in many places at once , is by the confessed generall grounds of Christianity plainly Hereticall . And from this our Conclusion your Aquinas will in no-wise dissent , who himselfe concludeth d 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 Angell 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 hee .

That , by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers , the Being in divers places at once inferreth an Infinitenesse Proper unto God : which without Heresie cannot be ascribed to any humane Body ; Proved from the maner of Existence of the Holy Ghost . SECT. II.

STill you maintaine the Reall and Corporall Presence of Christ his Body in so many place as there are consecrated Hoasts at one time in the whole World , be they ten thousand times ten Millions of Millions , or how many soever : which , say wee , is to make the Finite Body of Christ Infinite . For Aquinas ( as your e 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. Iesuite witnesseth ) held it Hereticall , to affirme One body to be every-where , because this is a Divine property , by which the Fathers did sufficiently prove the God-head of the Holy Ghost , ( namely ) Augustine , Fulgentius , Ambrose , and Basil . So he .

But how did the Fathers prove this , thinke you ? it were good , that where your owne Authors be silent , wee heard some of themselves speake . f 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 faithfull , separated in divers places . g g Basu . de Spir. Sancto , cap. 22. sub finem Reliquae virtutes omnes in loco circumscriptae esse credūtur 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 Ieremia , & 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 Angell , that was with Cornelius , was not at the same time with Philip , nor was hee then in Heaven , when he was with Zachary at the Altar . But the Holy Ghost was together with the Prophet Daniel in Babylon , with Ieremy in the Dungeon , and with Ezechiel in Chobar . h 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 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 Faithfull , hath the sense of Vbicunque , because the number of the Faithfull is but finite , and their places distinct , here and there , and not absolutely every where . ] Augustine confuteth an Arian Bishop thus : You that prayse the holy Spirit , in sanctifying his faithfull 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 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 hee ) saith , Hee is with his Church unto the end of the World ; but not as a Corporall nature , which is , when he is present in one place , to be absent from another . Accordingly , for proofe of the God-head of the same Holy Ghost , 2 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 facie tua quo defugiam ? S●alcende●o in coelum , tu illi● praestoes : si descendero in infernum , tu ibi ades . Athanasius argueth out of the same Psalme , [ Whither shall I goe from thy presence ? ] Concluding that The Holy Ghost filleth all things , and is therefore infinite in Essence . But how is this Infinitenesse 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 goe 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 k Didymus Alex. lib. 1. de Spirit . Sanct. Hieronym . interprete . ( ●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 &c. ] The Holy Ghost , if it were a Creature , should have it's Substance circumscribed ; which because it is in many places at once cannot be circumscribed , as all things that are made . Vpon the same ground Cyrill of Alexandria , maketh the same Conclusion l 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 hee ) because things Created are in one place , but of the Spirit of God it is written , whither shall I goe from thy presence ?

⚜ Let us fall to Reasoning . The Enthymem● of the Fathers being this ; The Holy Chost is in divers places at once , Therefore is hee 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 Syllogisme or forme 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 Catholike without exception , pleading for the Godhead of the Holy Ghost . By whose Iudgements wee are taught that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 doth Infallibly inferre a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; and that therefore the Contrary Profession of a Being of a Creature , in divers places , or spaces at once , is Hereticall ; because the aforesayd Fathers Disputed against the Heretikes ( named by 3 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 wee seeke to pleade our owne Cause , Wee might seeme to desert them , whom you call Lutheranes , We held it a part of Brother-hood to take with us an excellently learned Doctor of Wittenberg , Iohn Gerhard : who producing Bellarmines Objection against them , to proove them them to be Heretikes , in the opinion of the Presence of Christs 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 4 Ioh. Gerhard . Confes . 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 . Wee ( saith hee ) give not Divine Attributes to the Body of Christ either Essentially , or Accidentally , but Personally . So hee , which hath in it a true and Orthodox Sense . ⚜

CHALLENGE .

AGaine , another Syllogisme from these Premises will set all straight . To ascribe to a Body an Omni-presency , and power of Being every-where , is Hereticall . But to say that a Bodie is in divers places at once , doth consequently inferre 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 Hereticall , and implyeth a Contradiction , by affirming that a Finite thing either is , or possibly may be Infinite . Adde but hereunto the former * * See above , Chap. 5. & 6. Testimonies of Fathers , who have distinguished the humane nature of Christ from his God-head , and their denying of all Possibilities of Existence of Angels in two places at once ; and your Consciences must needes tell you , that it was Impossible for the Fathers to have believed your Romish Article of a Corporall Presence in every Hoast Consecrated at one time , on divers Altars , in your severall Churches . What shall wee then furher say concerning the Being of a Body in divers places at once ? surely ( that which hath beene plentifully proved already ) that such an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or without Place , is egregiously 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and absurd as well in Divine , as naturall Philosophy , because ( as this whole Discourse sheweth they have verified that saying of Aristoile ; 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉

⚜ A Vindication of Truth , against an egregious Infatuation of the Iesuite 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 Iesuite Lessius , ( wherein notwithstanding hee is not alone ) which wee propound unto you , not for your Instruction , but for your Recreation . 5 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 desended by Iohannes Lot●us the ●esuit in his Epistle to Conradus Verstius ; Secundò , tertiò , quartò & Iohann●m product posse , &c. 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 heare 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 certaine Quarters , you shall have in one , a Squardon of five thousand of a Horseman ; in another , Five thousand of a Pike-man ; 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 sayd to be furnished with all the different thousands of Armour and weapons , of Pikes , Muskets , Pickaxes , or Shovells , as might belong to so many thousands of men .

Although this Idle and dreamish Fiction deserve no other answer then laughter , yet seeing that Doctors of his Profession , and Jesuites also of his owne society are at hand , wee may not deny them Accesse ; Bellarmine , Suarez , and Vasquez , these three Jesuites have * * See Booke 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 Iesuite soberly feigne to himselfe a thousand Productions of a man , that could have but one Production an being at all . Againe , you have neard , from your Doctors , two other Conclusions , One , That if wee consider the Bodily presence of Christ , as hee is out of the Sacrament visible , * * See above cap. 3. §. 3. It is not possible for him ( say they ) to be in moe then one place at once . And so Lessius his great Champion must have no Being at all . The second , that if wee understand Christs 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 Armes be such a Captaine , as can neither see any enemy , nor yet be seene of any : or if seeing , yet , as a man bound hand and foot , hath no power to pursue his Foe , or if hee should make an encounter , yet is hee not able to strike one stroake , Who will not now say that your Jesuite had no other harnesse upon himselfe than pertinacie 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 Organicall , and not Organicall ; Divisible , and Indivisible . SECT. I.

THE Question is not now of the Mysticall Presence of Christ his Body in the Sacrament , which wee with the Fathere , especially a 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 , &c. Objected by Mr. Brereley Liturg. Tract . 2. Subdiv . 2. [ Answered before ● Chap. 4. Sect. 7. ] Gregory Nyssen , confesse , to be whole , as well in a part of Bread consecrated , as in the whole loafe ; even as the Image of the King may be as perfect in a penny , as in a shilling . But neither hee , nor any Father ever sayd that a little Hoast , ( which Hoast you call Christ ) is equall with a great Hoast ; No , for the Fathers in the Councell of * * See below , ● . 11. Nice absolutely denyed this : nor yet is Christ wholly represented in the least part of the Hoast , 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 bignes to be sensibly eaten in the nature of nourishment ; thereby to resemble the Spirituall nourishment of our Soules , which is the Body of Christ . So that all you have sayd maketh just nothing for the Corporall , and materiall Presence of Christs Body , which wee further impugne .

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 wee professe ) had perfect Dimensions and Distinctions of parts , an head exposed to pricking with thornes , a Face to buffets , a Backe to scourges , Eyes to visible noddings and mockings , Eares to blasphemies , Hands and Feet to piercing with Nayles . This is that Body which wee confesse to be the Body of Christ , and which wee 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 b Magnitudo & figura unitae sunt corpori Christi naturaliter & inseperabiliter — & Christus corpus suum carnem vocat . Ioh. 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 ? &c. Si tollas igitur extensionem , & partes , tollis paritèr magnitudinem Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. Tollere partium distinctionem ponit monstrosam corporis consusionem , ut ibi sit nasus , ubi oculus ; & manus , &c. Alan . lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 3. pag. 444. Cardinalls 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 owne faith , that the Body of Christ consist of Organicall parts , distinct one from another .

That the Romish Church hath decreed a doctrine of Corporall Presence of a Body of Christ , with all the parts thereof in the least Indivisible point of the Hoast . SECT. III.

THE Canons of that c 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. Councell of Trent decreed , as a Doctrine of Faith necessary to salvation , to beleeve , That the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is whole in every part of the Hoast ; whereby is meant ( saith your d d In singulis partibus continuis , quantumvis minimis , & ●●●●dem quantitatis . ●●●rez . Ies. Tom. 3. D. 5● . § 2 pag. ●79 . Jesuite ) The whole Body of Christ is in every albeit the least part of the Hoast . So he . But wee demand ; how then shall the Body of Christ but want proportion of distinct parts , which you say are Vnseparably united to a Body ? Your distinguish , that the e 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 it selfe ; but in respect of the Place , or of the formes 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 it selfe illumnate the Eyes of any Reader , to discerne betweene the Spirit of Truth , and of Errour ; 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 Organicall 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 Organicall and Humane Body , in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of later times . SECT. IV.

ALbertus , Scotus , Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned , and ancient Schoolemen , who ( as your a 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. Jesuite 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 Jesuites ( as ancient ) unto b 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 c Occham , & alij dixerunt quidam esse magnitudinem corporis Christi in Eucharistia : sed ita , ut nulla sit figura , nec distinctio partium . Sic Occham . Bellar. ibid §. ●t . Occham . Now what greater injury can there be , than , after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundred yeares since the Ascension of Christ , for any Christian to professe ( with your ancient Schoolemen ) an Impossibility , that The Body of Christ is whole in every the least part of the Hoast ; to impose upon mens consciences , as an Article of Faith , so found and so palpable a figment ? That which seemed to the above-named Durand , Occham , and other 1 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 Occham . & 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 minde of that Doctor of the Seraphicall order , who teacheth you to 2 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 Hoast . ⚜

That the Organicall 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 it selfe . SECT. V.

THE reason , which your * * See above , § 2. Cardinall layet downe to prove it necessary , that Christ his Body should have in it selfe ( according to the nature of a Body ) distinct parts of head and eyes , and other Organs fit for the use of a reasonable Soule , 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 it's owne intrinsecall disposition , in it selfe ; but not so ( saith he ) in regard of the place .

CHALLENGE .

THis your owne Reason may wee justly retort upon your selves , proving , that if the naturall disposition of the Body of Christ be thus proportionably extended in it selfe , 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 Arme must be here , and thus farre longer than the Foot , the Legge here , and thus farre thicker than the Finger , the Hand here , and thus farre broader than the Toe , and accordingly distinctly in other parts . But Hîc , and Huc●sque ; Here and There , thus farre and so farre , being Relatives of Space , and Place , do demonstratively shew 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 Mathematicall , or Phantasticall Body o● Christ , you must deny the Article of Trent , untill you can beleeve , 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 confesse it to be ) now in Heaven , possessing a Reall place in the sayd proportion of Spaces of length , and breadth , as it had here upon earth , which it doth by the naturall Magnitude , or Quantity thereof . But the sayd naturall Magnitude , or quantity of the sayd Body of Christ is ( according to your wone generall Doctrine ) in this Sacrament . Therefore must it have the same Commensuration of Space , although not of the same Space which is one earth .

Wee 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 inforce us hereunto ; Therefore must you suffer us a little to sport at your trifling seriousnesse , who writing of this Divine Sacrament , and seeing it to be round , solid , broken , moulded , in the one kind ; and liquid , frozen , and sowring 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 wee shall be constrained to beleeve , in effect , that the Cup is filled with Mathematicall lines , the Mouse eating the Hoast is sed with colours , and formes : that it is Coldnesse that is frozen , and Roundnesse which weigheth downe , and falleth to the ground ; as if you should describe a Romish Communicant to be a creature clothed with Shadowes , armed with Idaea's , fed with Abstracts , augmented with Fancies , second Intentions , and Individuall Vagues , and consisting wholly of Chimaera's .

That your Romish Doctrine is contrary to the Iudgement of ancient Fathers . SECT VI.

IF this your profession had beene a Catholike Doctrine , doubtlesse S. Augustine ( who is so devout in his fervent Meditations upon this holy mystery ) would not have oppugned it , as hee did , when unto that Question of Volusianus ( whether the Bodie of Christ before his Birth did fill the Body of the Blessed Virgin ) hee answered , d 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 lesse , 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 hee : which is directly Contradictory to your Article of Trent , for here is expresse mention of Relation to Place and Space .

And whereas for usuall colour of a Possibility , that the whole Body of Christ is in every part of the Hoast , you have objected the Example of Man's Soule , which is sayd to be whole in every member and part of the Body : Saint Augustine ( as if hee had fore-seene your mystery of Errour ) pre-occupateth , saying , a 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 membrorū 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 Soule is farre different from the nature of a Body . And againe 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 hee doth instance in Wisedome , which ( saith hee ) 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 hee ) there is lesse in the part , than there is in the whole . And by this same Maxime ( concerning Whole in respect of Place ) hee distinguisheth the God-head from the Man-hood , by which you have confounded them . And yet againe else-where ( as though hee thought this your delusion could never be sufficiently contradicted , or rather derided ) hee will further have you not to be so Childish , as not to know , that b 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 lesse than the whole hand , and one finger is lesse than two , and that one finger is one where , and the other another where . Vpon which where , and where , being notes of distinct places ; wee may aske , where are your Disputers now ? Nay yet furthermore , passing from grosser Bodies , he saith as much of Ayre ; yea , and of the most subtill of subtills , the light of the Sunne ; one part whereof ( saith hee ) cometh in at one window , another at another window , yet so , that the lesse passeth through the lesse , and the greater through the greater .

Moreover , if Saint Gregory once Bishop of Rome had beleeved that Christ his Body is whole in every least indivisible part of the Hoast , hee would never have condemned the Eutychian Heretike for beleeving c 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 bin brought into such a subtilty , that it cannot be felt . But a greater subtilty there cannot be , than for a divisible Body to be enclosed in every the least indivisible point . Show us this Doctrine taught by any Catholike Doctor in the Church , within the compasse of the twelve hundred yeares after Christ , and then shall wee conceive better of your Cause . And lest you may talke ( as you use ) of one Body penetrating another , wee lay unto you , as Damascen sayd unto his Reader , that d d Damasien . l. 1. de Orthodox 〈…〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . This is impossible , but that either the one or the other must be divided asunder . Wee say furthermore , that though this were granted , yet would you your selves deny that the other must follow , as you may discerne 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 vaine . SECT. VII .

IT is ordinarily in the mouthes of every one of you to object the Miraculous entrance of Christ into the house , the doores being shut ; his coming out of the grave , when it was covered with a sto●e ( as some thinke ; ) his Birth from his mother , her wombe being shut ; besides the miraculous passing of a Camell through the eye of a needle , spoken of by Christ ; all Miraculous indeed , as wee , with many holy * * Chrysost. Nazian●● . Aug. Ambros . Fathers , do willingly Confesse . What therefore ? Therefore ( say you ) the Body of Christ did passe through the substantiall dimensions of the Body of the Doores , Stone , and wombe ; and consequently confuteth all this , which hath beene spoken of the Organicall proportions of a Body , in respect of Space , or Place . So you . Wee grant unto you as much as these Fathers speake , in noting each of these to have beene the Acts , and workes of Omnipotencie , but yet without any penetration of Dimensions at all , or yet Alteration of the just proportion of Christs Body . Which penetration of Dimensions seemed to your e 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 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 Doores , is the saying of Chrysostom , viz. f f 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Chrysost. Hom. ●7 . in Ioh. 21. [ but according to the Latine Edition , Hom. 86. super Ioh. 20. This testimony was objected against P. Mar●● in the Disp. at Oxo● . fol. 60. ] Christs Body was thinne , or small , changed from [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] that is , it 's thicknesse , impalpable unto mortall mans hand , but only by Divine permission and dispensation . So hee . And this is alleged for proofe of a Possibility of his now Corporall Presence in the Sacrament , voyd of Palpabilitie : never considering the Ordinary and confessed Hyperboles , wherewith Chrysostome embellisheth his Sermons ; insomuch that wee may oppose Chrysostome against Chrysostome , even in the point in question : who else-where speaking of this Sacrament , saith that Christ herein * * Booke 3. cap. ● . Sect. 6. Giveth his Body both to be felt and seene ; wheras every Priests hands and eyes can testifie the contrary .

⚜ Would ye understand the judgement of 4 4 Chrysost. de Resurrect. Hom. 9. Non est meum ludificare meos phantalmate , &c. See this Testimony above Book . 3. Chap. 3. §. 9. Chrysostome indeed ? then leaving his Amphibologies , consult with him in his plaine and direct Assertions , where hee 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 beene a Delusion . Next that , Howsoever the sight of his Disciples might have beene deceived , yet their touch could not erre , in discerning a true Body . And is it not then a marvellous Infatuation in your Professors , who whilest they Tast , See , and Touch Bread in the Sacrament , beleeve contrary to their senses , that they are meere Accidents ? Thirdly , in Conclusion , hee saith that his Passing thorow the Doore was not in his Humane Substance alone , but by his Divine virtue . What can this meane , 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 Doore , should not alwayes have beene palpable in it selfe ? The Fathers of the Generall Councell at Ephesus would have protested against this , whose Resolution is , that g 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 aske then , how could it passe through either Stones , or Doores , without penetration of Dimensions , or els by an extreame tenuity of the Body it selfe ? Wee answer , that the Divine power constrained the Stone and Doores to yeeld a passage , the Thicknesse of his Body continuing the same . Wee have Hierome for the first part teaching , h h Hier. Creatura cessit Creatori . The Creature ( saith hee ) yeelded to the Creator ? and ancient Iustine , for the second , most aptly , and exactly , i i Iustin Martyr quaest. ad Orthodox Quest. 117. pag 363. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c. As Christ did tread the Water , not by changing his Body into Spirit , but by his Divine power : So hee passed thorow both Doores and Sepulchre being shut , by his Divine power , above nature , in his unaltered Body . Hee proceedeth , shewing 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 then was not in his Body , but in the other things , such as were the Doores , thorow which hee passed : 5 5 Cyri● . Alexandr . in Iohan. lib. 12. cap. 53. Clausis foribus Dominius omnipotentiâ , suâ , superatâ naturâ rerum , intravit . The nature of things being overcome by Christs Omnipotencie , hee made his entrance , as saith Cyrill of Alexandria . And why should not the Creature yeeld 〈…〉 Creator , rather than the Creator to the Creature ? Will you give you Jesuite Lessius licence to interpose his judgement , who maintaining a Possibility of a maner of Penetration of a Body by a Body , yet discussing the maner [ How , will tell you that 6 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 naturall , or Supernaturall in a glorified Body ; but by Gods immediate Assistance : and that the Saints themselves ( who are sayd to penetrate other bodies with their bodies ) have no other power than that which may be called morall , which is to be willing to passe thorow any body : and God , according to their wils , assiteth to worke the effect . ⚜

Each of which Sayings of the Fathers , professing a Body of Christ palpable , ( whether Thinne with Chrysostome , or Thicke with Iustine ) doe confute your Tridentine Faith in beleeving a Body of Christ whole in the whole , and whole in every least part of the Hoast , as unpalpable to man , as you have sayd it is invisible to the Angels themselves : which is to bring it to such a Subtilty , as will draw you whether you will or no into a kindred with the Eutychian Heretikes , who ( as your k 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 beene as subtill as the Ayre , and as the winde impalpable ; as did also the l l Pratent . E●ench . 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 maner of Christ his Birth , whereunto when wee answer , that Christ in his Birth opened the Wombe of his Mother , although without violation of her Sacred Vessel , wee are therefore presently branded by your m m Bellar. lib de notis Eccles. cap. 9. Sander . de visib Monarch . lib. 7. pag. 321. Ma●don . Ies. Com. 〈◊〉 Luc. 2. 23. Disputers with the blacke marke of the Heresie of those wicked Spirits , who taught the Corruption of her Virginitie . Which objection nothing but personall malice could make , or Impudency defend , as the Objecters themselves well knew , one of them confessing , that divers Fathers , in interpreting that Scripture , which is by the Evangelist applyed to the Virgin Mary , and Birth of Christ , viz. Every Male child that openeth the Wombe shall be holy unto the Lord ; Luk. 2. did teach that n n Docuerunt — solum Christum aperuisse vulvam . Mald. in Luc. 2. Christ alone did properly open the Wombe of a Woman , who onely found it shut . Hee reckoneth for this opinion these holy o o Origen . in hunc locum Hom. 14. Tert. de carne Christi . Ambr & Greg. Nyssen . in Testimonijs ex vet. Testamento collectis . Epiph●n . Haeies . 78. Hier lib. 2. cont. pelag. Theophylact. & . Euseb. [ That which hee 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 hee . A faire company of fellow Heretikes with Protestants , wee trowe : to whom the same Jesuite joyneth divers Doctors of your Romish Church , whom he calleth Docti & Catholici . Thus your owne spirit of Contradiction , whereas two words might have quit the Heresie , maintained the Miracle , and defended the Integrity of that sanctified Wombe of the Blessed Virgin , ( to wit ) that the Virginall cell might be said to open it selfe , which was shut in respect of other Women ( who necessarily suffer violent rupture by the Birth ) being preserved from all hurtfull violence , either from within or without ; which could not be without a perfect Miracle .

Furthermore hearken to the Answer of some other Doctors of your Church , and you shall find your owne Doctrine to smell ranke of the Heresie of the Marcionites , in the opinion of the fore-cited ancient Fathers ; for your fore-named a 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 . Jesuite telleth you of some Doctors in your Church ( whom hee himselfe approveth ) who taught that The Fathers , who sayd that Christ did open the Matrix of his Mother , spake it in the heat of Dispute against the Hereticall Marcionites , who denyed that Christ had any true Body ; because that els the sayd Fathers should seeme to make Christ his Body to be no better than an Incorporeall , and only imaginary thing . So they . Which proveth , that in the judgment of those Ancient Fathers , all your defence , in this Case , is at least Phantasticall . Let Isiodore Pelusiota his sufferage be aded to the rest , who in an Epistle calmely , and as it were in coole blood , teacheth that b b Ibid. Pelusiot . lib. 1. Epist. 23. Ape●i●e vulvam ( Luc. 2. ) non dicitur de quovis primogenito 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christ is the onely he , who by his Birth opened his Mothers Wombe , and left it shut and sealed up againe . And maketh bold to tearme them Vnlearned , that thinke the contrary : who living above a thousand yeeres agoe , is therefore so much the more competent a witnesse of the Catholike truth .

⚜ Yet that you may know this Father not to be alone , in this Doctrine , peruse the 7 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 Ambrosius ab Originis sencentia non abhorruit , Ianscinius 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 Camell , which is said by Christ , to passe 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 spake by way of comparison , and implyed as well an Impossibility , as a Possibility . Thus ; as it is simply Impossible for a Camell ( be it Rope , or be it Beast ) to passe through the eye of a Needle , retaining the same Dimension and Property : so is it Impossible for a Rich man , so long as hee hath on him a great Bunch or grossenesse of confidence in his riches , and worldly affections , to enter into the Kingdome of God . Although otherwise , as it is possible for God , by his miraculous power so to contract the Camell , that it may passe through the Needles 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 Rich-man , that hee , being truly mortified , may repose his whole trust in God himselfe , and at length enter into the Kingdome of Heaven .

⚜ This you might have learned from Saint Hierome , who saith that in this Similitude 8 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 . Impossibilitie is compared with Impossibilitie , because as a Camell cannot passe through the Needles eye , no more can richmen enter into the Kingdome of Heaven . So he , speaking of the Rich-man , 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 himselfe , 9 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 Hierusalem : 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 Camels Beasts to whom the rich are resembled ) could passe through the straight gate of Hierusalem , as soone as they were disburthened of their loads ; So Rich men , casting off the load of their sins , may enter in at the straight gate that leadeth unto life .

A Vindication of Truth against an Objected Testimony under the name of Pope Hilary , for proofe of the Being of the whole Body of Christ in every part of the Hoast SECT. VIII .

WE are to insert in this place the ( forgotten ) Objected words , which passe under the name of Pope Hilarie , and recorded in your Papall decrees , 10 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 , quod 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 Christs Body , ( in the Sacrament ) there is the whole : there being the same reason of this as there was of Manna , whereof it is written , Hee that gathered much had no more than others : and hee that gathered not so much had no whit lesse . Which your Romish Glosse applyeth to the Sacrament , to signifie that There is no lesse quantity of Christs Body , under a lesse quantity of the Sacrament ; none greater , under a greater .

Our Answer is Three-fold . I. That your Doctors could never yet prove the writings , which goe under the name of Popes * * Legat qai velit nostri Roberti Coci Censuram Scriptorum . Decret all Epistles to have beene truly theirs , whereof many of themselves have doubted , and which some also have denyed . II. That the Comparison fighteth mainly against your professed Romane 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 Hoast , without all maner of situation therein , so , as not having the Head above , and the Feete below . This you cannot deny to be your owne positive Tridentine Sense . But the Manna , which was diminished and augmented in Quantity by Gods providence , had notwithstanding a certaine determinate Quantitie , expressely mentioned in the same Text : Every man a Gomer , according to their families namely every one an equall , but yet a severall measure and Quantity ; for one mans 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 Granes of the same Manna ( for it was like Coriander-seed ) had their severall 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 maner of Christs being in this Sacrament . III. The Comparison will farre better suite with the Spirituall soules receiving of the Body of Christ : Every Faithfull one indeed participating the same whole Christ , by Faith , whether in a Greater or lesser Hoast , without all proportioning of his Bodily Dimensions . ⚜

CHALLENGE .

SHall not then the Novelty of your Romish Article , which was no so much as beleeved of Romish Doctors of this last Age of Christianitie ? Shall not your Contradiction to your owne Romish Principle ? Shall not the expresse Testimony of Saint Augustine , who as hee was universally acknowledged to be a Catholike Father ; so was hee never condemned by any other Catholike 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 , perswade 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 thinke we neede to impose any absurd Doctrine upon your Church ; the Absurdities which wee have already heard professed therin , under the testifications of your owne Disputers , having beene so marvellously and palpably absurd , as hath beene shewne . Among which wee 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 naturall and voluntary motion of Sense , and of Vnderstanding . SECT. II.

CAtholike Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ , after the Resurrection , but that hee was able naturally of himselfe , as hee was man , to performe the perfect Acts , which other men can , who are of right constitution of Body , and of sound understanding ; such as are the functions of Iudgement , and reason , and of appetite , sense , and motion , according to the liberty of his owne will . This Doctrine was above a thousand yeeres Catholike . But your now Romane Faith is to beleeve , as followeth in the Conclusions set downe by your Jesuite a 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 naturall , 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 , &c. 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 , &c. Suarez , and other Romish Doctors : First , that Christ , as hee is in this Sacrament , hath no power naturally of himselfe to move himselfe . And this your owne dayly experience hath brought you unto ; whilest beleeving Christs Corporall Presence in the Hoast , you shut him up in a Boxe , where you still find the same lying as destitute of power of motion , as any other unconsecrated Bread ; which being put together with it lyeth so long , untill they both equally waxe mouldy , putrifie , and ingender wormes . Secondly , that Christ in himselfe , as being in this Sacrament , hath no naturall faculty of sense , nor abilitie ( without a miracle ) to heare or see , &c. Thirdly , That hee is voyd of all sensible appetite . Lastly , that ( without some miraculous power ) hee cannot possibly apprehend in his understanding any thing present , nor yet remember any notions past . So hee .

⚜ ⚜ — Iosephus 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 activâ . ( See Palenterius above Chap. 4. Sect. 9. ) Similter Aegidius Conicks de Sacramen . Quaest. 76. Art. 6. num. 91. Yet so , that he is not alone : For hee 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 subtilest of Schoolemen , to be a Patron thereof . Which they founded upon your other generall , but yet vast and wilde Paradoxe of an Existence of Christs Body in this Sacrament without a Quantitative maner of Being , by way of Extension of Parts . It were well that you would take the Testimonies of your other two Jesuites for a supplement : as namely of 1 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 lesse . ] & Disp. 190. c. 3. Citat Thomam , & alios Scholasticos , de non posse moveri per se . Vasquez , denying to Christs Body all Possibility of either doing , or suffering , as it is in this Sacrament . And of 2 2 Gordon . Sco●●● Ies. Controv. 8. cap. 4. ● . 19. Corpus Christi 〈◊〉 specie pa●●● est modo planè 〈…〉 mortem in cruce & 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 maner , as hee was in the grave , neither hearing , nor seeing , nor exercising any virtuall 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 ? Certainely Scripture telleth us , that Christ his Body by Resurrection is perfected in Sense , and Agility ; and his soule in Iudgement , and Capacity . Nor can you shew any Father in the Church of Christ , within the Circumfrence of 1400. yeares after Christ , who held this your doctrine so much as in a Dreame ; or who hath not esteemed the Body of Christ to be of the most absolute perfection : we say no one Father , or Teacher of the Evangelicall Truth once fancied this un-christian , and false faith . ⚜ No , no ; your own 3 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 Incarnat . 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 your selves instiled Great , Both so intituled for their singular worthinesse ) who taught that Christ rose againe Perfest in his Bodie , So Athanasius . And that No infirmitie remained in him . So Leo. And addeth of himselfe , that All the Fathers were of the same Iudgement . If so , then were they directly Adversaries to your prodigious Beliefe , except you will dare to say that Blindnesse , Deafenesse , and Senslesnesse are no Infirmities .

Wee returne to the written word of God . When the Apostle , for the magnifying of the perfection of Christs glorious Resurrection , as the Head , by Analogy with the promised Corporall Glory of faithfull Christians , as his Members , by the virtue of Christs owne Resurrection , saith of these , Phil. 3. Hee shall transforme our vile Bodies , and make them conformable to his owne glorious Body , ( namely ) according to those Celestiall Dotes and Indowments , set downe 1. Cor. 11. Incorruption , Immortalitie , Glory , Power . By all which the excellencie of the Corporall state of the Saints is delineated ; whereby to excite all the faithfull to possesse their bodies in sanctity , and to prepare them to Martyrdome , 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 . Wee suppose the Apostle could not then dreame of a Body of Christ , without facultie of Sense , or power of Motion . ⚜ You must therefore derive this from him , whom Christ calleth the Father of lyes . Wee shall give you good reason for this our Declamation .

That this Romish Doctrine is Blasphemously Derogatory from the Majesticall Body of Christ . SECT. IV.

WHat is this , which we have heard ? Christ his humanity , after his Resurection , not to have so much Capacity as a Child ; which is ( as hee is here ) to understand or imagine any thing done ? not the power of a Moale , or Mouse ; which is to heare , or see ? not the faculty of a little Ant , so as to move it selfe ? 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 Sowen in Infirmitie , is ( as the Scripture saith ) since risen in power . Do you heare ? In power , saith the Spirit of God , shewing that Infirmitie is changed into Potencie , in the Body of every Christian : and you have turned Power into infirmity , even in Christ himselfe , whom you have now transformed into an * * Psal. 116. Idoll having eyes , and seeth not , eares , and heareth not , feete , and walketh not , heart , and imagineth not : and yet this you professe to adore , as the person of the Sonne of God . O the strength of Satanicall Delusion ?

That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your owne Principle . SECT. V.

REmember your * * See above , 〈…〉 former generall Principle , which wee acknowledged to be sound and true , viz. All such Actions and Qualities , which are reall in any Body , without any relation to Place , cannot be sayd to be multiplyed 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 griefe , dead , and alive at the same time . The reason . These are impossible ( say you ) because of Contradiction : for that the same thing should be capable of such Contrarieties , it is repugnant to the understanding of man . So you ; which is an infallible Truth , when the Modus , or Maner of a thing is compared to it selfe , and not to any thing else : it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be onely one , the same Jesuit cannot be sicke in Iapan , 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 4 Petrus Arcad. Corcyren . de Concord . Eccles. Occid . & Orient . Anno 1626. ( Approbantibus Episcopo Bargi , Episc. Zacinth . Andraea Eud●emone Ioh. & Doctoribus Facult. Parisien . Tract . de Eucharistia . Dicere corpus Christi esse quandoque imperfectum , est mira blasphemia . Blasphemous , Nor may you deny the Disabilitie of Motion in Christs Body to be an Imperfection , seeing that , as the Head of your Church taught ( that which all Christian , Churches ever professed ) to wit , 5 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 Bodie , wheresoever it is . And you may call to minde the Conclusion of your Iesuite Conincks above-mentioned , ( Cap. 4. Sect. 10. ) Shewing that for the Same Body to be sayd to move in one place , and stand still in another , is as flat a Contradiction , as to say , It is frozen and warme both at once . Which hee confirmed ( in the Margin ) with severall Reasons , which do accordingly confute your Doctrine of Possibility of the voluntary Motion of Christs Body in Heaven , and the Impossibilitie thereof , as it is in this Sacrament . ⚜

CHALLENGE .

NOw say ( wee beseech you ) is there not the like Contradiction to make the same Christ , at the same time , as hee is in Heaven , Intelligent , and Sensitive ; and as on earth , Ignorant , and Senslesse ? Or Powerfull to move of himselfe on the Throne of Majestie ; and absolutely Impotent , as hee is on the Altar ? Because these Attributes , of Christ being Intelligent , and Potent equally , have no Relation to Place . Notwithstanding all which you shame not to professe a senslesse , ignorant , and feeble Christ . O come out of Babylon , and be no more bewitched by such her Sorceries .

CHAP. X.

The sixt kind of Romish Contradiction against these words Of Christ [ MY BODY , ] as it is now most Glorious , by making it most Inglorious . SECT. I.

BEfore we proceed in discovering the ouglinesse of the Romish Doctrine in this point , wee are willing to heare your a a In his booke of the Liturgie of the Masse Tract . 2. §. 4. Subd. 1. M. Brerely his preface in your defence : The carnall ma● ( saith he ) is not for all this satisfied , but standeth still offended at sundry pretended , absurd , and undecent indignities : Calvin saying , That hee rejected them as unworthy of the Majesty of Christ ; And Doctor Willet saith , That they are unseemely , and against the dignity of the glorious and impassible Body of Christ . So hee , 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 Jesuite Suarez delivereth it in the generall Doctrine of the Romish Divines ; d 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 , &c. 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 formes of Bread and Wine , whersoever , as the same formes remaine in the same plight , as that the same formes of Bread and Wine might be preserved . And this hee calleth a Generall Principle in your Romish profession . Insomuch that the Body of Christ is moved , wheresoever the formes of Bread are moved , be it into the dirt , or into the Dunghill . Secondly , that according to your e e Potest corpus Christi per accidens moveri ab eo , qui potest especies consecratas secundùm locum mutare . Suarez Tom. 3. quaest. 76. Disp. 2. Art. 7. And , Ad motum specierum movetur Christus . Bellar. lib 3. de Euch. c. 19. Si per negligentiam aliquid de sanguine stillaverit in terram , &c. Decret. D. 2. Cap. Si per negligentiam . Nunquid cadente Sacramento cadit corpus Christi ? Dic quod sit . Glossa ibid [ And Bozius lib. 14. de signis Eccles. cap. 7. telleth of a woman , that hid it in a Dunghill . See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. ] Romish Decrees , and publike Missals , the same Body of Christ is vomited up by the Communicant ; yea , and you have f f A Nauseabundis expuituir . Suarez . quo supra . Si quis stomacho evomit illas species , corpus Christi evomit — si species possint discernab alijs , debent cum reverentia sumi , & cremari , & cineres juxta Altare recondi . Gloss. Decret. quo supra , & Summa Angel . Tit. Eucharistia n. 5. pag. 147. Cases about the vomiting of it , whether upon weakenesse of g g Si fiat● usea Sacerd●● p●r m●scam ●ciden em — si aliquid venen●sum ●●●deret in calicem , vel quod provocaset vomitum , tum &c. 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 . Stomacke , or of h 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 . Drunkennesse . Next that it is devoured of i 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 blowne 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 knowne , that as you have * * See above in this Booke , Chap. ● . Sect 2. found the Body of Christ Hid for many yeeres in a Dunghill ; so will you * * See Booke 5. Chap. 11. Sect. 1. hereafter prove it to be found in Mans Seege and Draught .

That the Romish fore-sayd Indignities are contrary to holy Scriptures , and Iudgement of Ancient Fathers . SECT. III.

HOly Writ teacheth us , that there is as great differerence betweene the Humiliation of Christ , when hee was on Earth , and his now Exaltation in glory , in Heaven , as there is betweene shame , and Glory , it being now * * 1. Cor. 15. Philip. 2. 8. 9. [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] A Body of Glory . Now for you to beleeve and professe the personall burning , devouring , regorging , yea and the hiding of that glorious Body of Christ in a dunghill , and the like , are such execrable speeches , as that wee stand astonished with horrour to heare them , thinking that wee have heard , in these , the scoffes , reproaches , and blasphemies of some Pagans against Christian Religion , rather than the opinion of any , that take to themselves one syllable of the name of Christians ,

If this had beene the ancient Faith , some Fathers doubtlesse upon some occasion , by some one sentence or other , would have revealed their Judgement therein : from whose diuerse and copious Volumes neither do you allege , nor we read any one word of mans spewing up , or Mice eating , or so much as the Wind blowing away the Body of Christ , much lesse of the other basenesse spoken of . But contrariwise l 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 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Chrysost. Hom. de Euch. in Lucam : Num vides panem ? num vides vinum ? sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt ? absit , sic ne cogites [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . ] Cyrill , distinguishing betweene the spirituall Bread , which is the Reall Body of Christ , and the Bread Sacramentall , say That not that Body , but this Bread goeth into the Draught . Which to affirme of Christs Body , were an Assertion abominable .

⚜ Suffer us to aske you a question . When in the dayes of old ( as you * * See above Booke ● . Chap 2. §. 10. in the Challenge . know ) the Remainders of the Sacrament were committed to the fire , tell us what that was , which was burned ? was it onely Bread and Wine ? or yet the Accidents of them only ? This you cannot say , whose Vniversall Doctrine is , that so long as the Formes of Bread and Wine are uncorrupt , the Body and Blood of Christ are Existent under them . Or e●se was it the Body and Blood of Christ which was cast into the fire ? who will not abhorre to conceive such an Abomination to have beene willingly committed by Sacred and Primitive Antiquity ? and Consequently you ought to execrate all beliefe of a Corporall Existence of Christs Body in the Sacrament , within the ●●●●●dents thereof . ⚜

That the Romish Answeres , for defence of this their vile and beastly Opinion , are but false and fond . SECT. IV.

IT was sayd of Philosophers of old that nothing was so absurd , but some one or other of them would take in hand to defend it : the like may be sayd of our Romish Opposites , whereof wee haue given you divers Instances throughout this whole Treatise , as in the most particulars , so for the point now in Question . And although many of your Disputers have for modesties sake passed by it , yet have two among you ( as it were putting on Visards on their faces ) come in with two fanaticall m m Card. Bellar. and Master Brereley in places above-cited . Answers . Both which are taken from the condition of Christ his humane Body , whilest he was in the World : n n No●nulli vix ferre possunt Christum quoquo modo includi in pa●vâ pixide , cadere in terram , cōmburi , rodi à best●a — Annon 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 Cardinall ) can scarce endure to heare that Christ is included in a Boxe , fallen to the earth , burnt , or eaten of Beasts : as though wee doe not read , that Christ was included in the Wombe of the Virgin , lay upon the Earth , and might without any Miracle have beene eaten of Beasts , why may not such things now happen unto him , but [ sine laesione ] without any hurt at all . So hee .

Joyne with this the Determination of your o o Aquinas . Etiamsi ca●is hostiam consecratam manducet , substantia corporis Christi non definit esse sub speciebus . part. 3. quaest. 80. art. 3. Schoole ; That the Substance of Christ his Body remaineth still , although the Hoast be eaten with Dogs . But Master Brerely more cunningly , that hee might not only disguise your opinions , but also make Protestants odious , ( if it might be ) for their exceptions against them , doth readily tell us , that Pagans , Iewes , and Heretikes conceived Indignities against some mysteries of Christian Religion , as against Christ his Incarnation , and his Crucifying . So he . Both which Answers are but meere tergiversations , by confounding the two most different conditions of Christ : That , then in the state of his humiliation , with This , which is Now in the highest exaltation of Glory . Wee therefore rejoyne as followeth .

Your Disputers have so answered , as if Christ his Incarnation in the Wombe of a Virgin , his Conversation upon earth , and his Passion upon the Crosse were not objects of Indignity , notwithstanding the Spirit of God , hath blazed them to the world to have beene the Indignities of all Indignities , Thus : * * Philip. 2. 6. Who being in the forme of God , and thinking it no robbery to be equall wi●h God , yet [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] made himselfe of no reputation but tooke upon him the forme of a servant ( such was his Incarnation ) and became obedient to death , even ( spoken for aggravating the Indignity thereof ) The [ shamefull ] death of the Crosse . Than which never any thing could make more either for the magnifying of Gods grace , and mercy , or for the dignifying of Christ his merit for man , as it is written , * * Ioh. 3. 16. God so loved the World , that he sent his Sonne , ( namely to suffer ) that whosoever should believe in him should not perish , but have life everlasting . How could your A●swerers but know , that it was not the observation of the Indignities , which Christ suffered , that wrought to the condemnation of Pagans , Iewes , and Heretikes : but their faithlessenesse , in taking such scandall thereat , as to deprive themselves , by their Infidelity , of all hope of life by Christ crucified . Hearken furthermore .

That the state of Christ his Humanity cannot be now obnoxious to bodily Indignities ; and that the Comparing both the Estates ( in your answering ) is unworthy the learning of very Catechumenists and Petties in Christian Religion . SECT. V.

THis Disproportion betweene Christ his estate in the dayes of his flesh in this World , and his now present Condition at the right hand of God , is as extreamely disproportionable as is * * 1. Cor. 15. Mortality and Immortality , Shame and Glory , Misery and Blessednesse , Earth and Heaven ; that being his state of Humaliation , and this Contrariwise of his Exaltation , as all Christians know , and professe . And although the Body of Christ , now in eternall Majesty , be not obnoxious to Corporall injuries , yet may Morall and Spirituall abasements be offered unto Christ , as well in the Opinion , as in the Practise of men . Of the Opinion we have an Example in the Capernaites concerning Christ , whensoever hee should give his Flesh to be eaten carnally : for the Practice you may 〈◊〉 before you the Corinthians , who abusing the Sacrament of the Lord did thereby contemne him , and were made guilty of high Prophanation against the glorious Body of Christ . And what else soundeth that Relative injury against Christ , by murthering his Saints on earth , complained off by his voice from Heaven ; * * Act. 9. 4. Saul , Saul , why persecutest thou mee ?

Your Cardinall , in answer to the Objection of Indignity offered to Christ , by putting him in a Boxe , and of being Eaten with Wormes , and the like ; opposed ( as you have heard ) saying , Why may not such things now happen unto him but [ sine laesione ] that is , without any hurt ? Wee answer , that if he should suffer nothing in his humanity passively , to the Laesio corporis , that is , hurt of the Body ; yet should there be thereby , in the opinion of men ; Laesio dignitatis , that is , a lessening and obscuring of that his Dignity , which is set forth in Scripture , and which our Article of faith , concerning his Bodily sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven , teacheth us to be in all Celestiall glory and Majesty . This your Aquinas well saw , when in regard of Indignity hee judged it a a Nesas nunc esset Christum in propriâ specie in pixi●le includi putare . A. quin. part. 3. quaest. 76. art. 8. An hainous wickednes for any to thinke Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe , appearing in his proper forme . And what greater difference can it be for a Body to be Boxed under another forme , more than when that one , and the same Person is knowne to be imprisoned , whether open-faced , or covered , whether in the day , or in the night , it mattereth not much , for still the same person is shut up in prison ? Againe , if that these Circumstances now spoken of were not Arguments of Indignity , why do your Jesuites , in a point of Opinion , deny that Christs Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant , because of the * * See hereafter Booke 5. Chap. 7. §. ● . Indignity against his Majesty ?

Come wee to the point of Practice . Let this be our Lesson ; when there is Reverence in the use of a thing , then there may be Irreverence , and Indignity in the abuse thereof . But your Church hath provided that the Priests Beards be shaven , and that the Laicks abstaine from the Cup , in a pretence of Reverence . The first , lest some part of the Hoast ( which you beleeve to be the Body of Christ ) should hang on the Priest's Beard ; the second , lest any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be spilt . But how much more Indignity must it needs be , to be devoured of Mice , Wormes , and sometimes ( as your owne * * See above in this Book C. 2. Sect. 2. stories have related ) kept close in a Dunghill ? One word more . If these seeme not sufficiently indigne , because there is not Laesio corporis , Hurt to the Body , ( this being your onely Evasion ) what will you say of your framing a Christ unto your selves , who as hee is in this Sacrament , Is ( you say ) without power of motion , of sense , and of understanding ? Why , my Masters , can there be Lamenesse , Blindnesse , Deafenesse , and Impotencie it selfe , without Hurt of the same party so maymed ? &c. 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 ; wee shall draw his principall Points into a Compendium , which consisteth of two Generalls , and of divers Particulars . His two Generalls are his Position , and Supposition .

Master Fisher his Generall Position , for Defence of Romish Absurdities , the Consequences of your Transubstantiation . Numb. 1.

A Christian Catholike ( saith he ) Seeing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation , many seeming Absurdities that presse carnall Imaginations to the ground , growes more and more strong to believe them , imbracing these difficulties , as signes of that doctrine which was believed of the Primitive Church . — And againe , The seeming Absurdities should rather incline a Christian to beleeve this mystery .

Our Reply in Generall , to prove that his former Assertion may truly be termed FISHERS FOLLIE .

For if the Absurder a thing be , it shall deserve a more beliefe ; 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 Blacke , ) should be held to be more faithfull , than the best of Christians : and Heretikes , who have turned their Phantasticall dreames into Articles of Faith , should be judged to be more true Beleevers , than are true Catholikes . And sure wee are that , by this Position , the Jewish Rabbins , who taught the people to beleeve ( in an implicit Faith ) all their Doctrines , albeit it were to hold , his Left hand was his Right , should bee esteemed no lesse Faithfull , than the Papist , who by like Doctrine of blind Obedience have professed that Christ his Bodie , being in divers Hoasts , taketh the Right hand and left hand of it selfe . And by the same Assertion shall Master Fisher thinke himselfe to be a better Catholike than were any of the ancient Fathers , or yet any Romish Doctor , yea or than is M. Fisher himselfe , as will appeare in the sequele of our Reply .

The second Generall 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 , seeme to be such , Because they are not apprehensible by reason , yet are they therefore ( saith he ) the rather to be beleeved , notwithstanding whatsoever Impossibilities that can be pretended . So hee . Our Confutation must be accordingly two-fold : The first in respect of Impossibilities , and the next of Indignities .

Our Reply , displaying the Absurditie of Master Fishers Supposition in respect of Impossibilities , by the Generall Doctrine of Fathers , Consent of Romish Divines , and by his owne particular Praevarication .

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 Impossibilitie in such Cases to be a Truth greatly magnifying the Omnipotencie 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 gain-saying of Impossibilitie , in things contradictory , hath beene anciently The Sanctuary of Heretikes . So the holy Fathers .

Secondly , all the Doctors of the Romish Schooles , of whatsoever Age , Sect , Society , or Denomination , have subscribed to the judgement of those Ancient Fathers , in the same point of Impossibilitie , but why Impossibility ? Because , say they , that such things are unconceivible in mans reason , and that they seeme 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 quantitie of a Bodie not to possesse a place : Impossible for Christs Body , as in this Sacrament , to goe from one place to another : Impossible for the same Bodie to be equall 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 Vniversall Church , Primitive , as in the now Romish , must , by Master Fishers former Assertion , be held to have beene no better than underminers of the Christian Faith , in that they did not Rather beleeve those things to be possible , even because they seemed Impossible , by reason of Contradiction .

Lastly , to come to Master Fisher his owne Praevarication : * * Mr. Fisher in his Answere to the 〈◊〉 upon the seventh point , which is the ●ommunion in both kinds . How can the Body of Christ ( saith hee ) be without either Blood or Soule unlesse 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 voyd of Soule , Blood , and Sense is his Body : Yea as ( Calvin himselfe confesseth ) It is an Absurd maner of speech to terme Christ , the meere Bodie of Christ . So hee . Whereupon hee will be found so implicated within the hor●es of a Dilemma , that hee cannot expedite himselfe : For say , good Master Fisher , should a Christian man ( as you have sayd ) the rather beleeve a Doctrine because it seemeth to be Absurd ? ( wee speake of sensible Objects ) why then do you not beleeve these Absurdities , which you your selfe now do so utterly therefore condemne ? But do you indeed condemne them , because they seeme impossible and Absurd ? why then have you broached a Doctrine of Rather beleeving things , because of their seeming Impossiblities ? So easie it is for a Patron of Absurdities to prove himselfe notably Absurd .

Master Fisher his Generall Supposition , in respect of Seeming Indignities , happening to the Bodie of Christ , from the Doctrine of Transubstantiation . Numb. 3.

As hee sayd of Absurdities in respect of Impossibilitie , so doth hee also argue from Seeming Indignities , condemning Protestants for arguing against Transubstantiation , because of Seeming Indignities : As in not conceiving Christs Bodie ( saith hee ) to be combined unto the Consecrated formes 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 Bodie of Christ should receive some Corporall hurt or pollution . There were , and are amongst the Romish * * See Booke 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 beene Confuted by your owne Jesuites for the same Opinion , judging it to be Rash , Absurd , and Repugnant to the Majestie of the Sacrament . Your Aquinas ( as you have * * See the former section . heard ) held it an Hainous wickednesse for any man to thinke that Christ should be inclosed in a Boxe , appearing in his proper forme . Neverthelesse Master Fisher ( as the Cat that covereth her excrement with dust ) meant by this his former Answer to cover , or at least-wise colour your Romish Barbarous Indignities , in professing the * * See Booke 5. cap. 7. Cleaving of Christs Bodie unto your guts , the vomiting of it , and a passable transmitting thereof unto the Seege , and other the like execrable Romish Indignites against the Body of Christ , so as the holy Fathers abhorred the very thought thereof . But wee chose rather to confute Master Fisher , by Master Fisher himselfe ; who , in his Answer to Saint Augustine , ( who called the Capernaiticall maner of Eating Christs Flesh Flagitious ) saith , that Saint Augustine excluded the grosse imagination of Eating Christs Body in his proper Shape , tearing it in pieces with their teeth . Do you not heare ? The opinion of Tearing Christs Flesh with mens teeth in his Proper Shape , he termed Grosse , or Absurd .

Do you but now compare this his Confession with his former Assertion , which was , that wee are Rather to beleeve a doctrine , because it seemeth Absurd ; and then try him when you please how hee will avoyd this Dilemma . Either ought Master Fisher to beleeve the Eating of Christs Flesh , in it's Proper Shape , or he ought not : If hee say hee ought , then must hee turne Capernaite , to beleeve the Body of Christ to be eaten with tearing it in pieces with mens teeth in it's Proper Shape , which hee himselfe disliketh as Grosse and Absurd ; and Saint Augustine abhorred as Flagitious . And if hee Answer that hee ought not , then is his former Position both Flagitious , Grosse , and Absurd , in affirming that A doctrine is the rather to be beleeved , because it seemeth Impossible . From these Generalls , we passe to his Particulars and specialls : to wit in his particular Exposition , Reasons , Inferences , and Confirmations , &c.

Master Fisher his Particular Exposition of Christs words [ This is my Body ] as the Foundation of the former seeming Romish Absurdities , and Indignities .

Hee thinking to qualifie all the Absurdities and Indignities , which necessarily follow upon your Romish Exposition of Christs words , as being the foundation thereof , in the First place insisteth upon Christs speech [ This is my Body , ] Why should Catholikes feare ( saith hee ) any hard Sentence in respect of their prompt Credulity of Gods word taken in a plaine 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 plaine and proper Sense . Now whatsoever Relation the word [ THIS ] hath in Christ's Speech , it cannot , without Absurdity , be taken in a proper and literall Signification , even by the Confession of your Romish Doctors themselves ; as hath beene * * See Booke 2. cap. 1. plentifully proved . For if ( as some of them affirme ) the Pronoune [ This 〈◊〉 be referred to Christ's Body ; as if Christ had sayd [ This my Body is my Body : ] This Exposition hath bin exploded by some Romish Doctors , of best note in your Church , expressely calling it an Exposition very absurd in Tautologie . 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 beene scornfully rejected by other of your Iesuits and Doctors , as an Interpretation full of Absurdities . And lastly , if it shall be sayd to relate to [ Bread , ] as to be sayd [ This Bread is my Body in a proper and literall Sense ; All your Romish Disputers , with one Consent , abandon this also , as no lesse false , than for to say a Man is an Asse , or ( as one of them feared not to write ) to affirme Christ to be Iudas .

And were it that Christ's Speech [ This is my Body ] were taken properly , yet the Doctrine of Transubstantiation , which you doe erect upon this foundation , would prove to be truly Absurd and Impossible , even by the Confession of your owne Romish Doctors themselves , who are , in their patronizing 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 Partie , holding this maner of Change as * * See above , Booke 3. Chap. ● . §. 1. Absurd , as to affirme Christ's Body to have had any Existence , before Christ had spoken these words . The Second maner 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 maners of Change of Christ's Body thereby , being thus utterly rejected by your owne 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 Faithlesse ; or else your Iesuit Master Fisher ( which consequently followeth thereon ) in concluding that your Romish Doctors are Rather to be believed , because they seeme to be Absurd , was no better than Fantasticall .

Master Fisher his Particular Reason , for Defence of his former Exposition , as the Ground of Transubstantiation . Numb. 6.

The Primitive Church ( saith hee ) preaching to Iewes 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 Baptisme were not fully instructed therein . And their Reason was , lest one should be scandalized , and the other mocked . This supposed , I inferre , &c.

Our Reply , noting a double Errour in Mr. Fisher's Reason .

His first Error is , that hee supposeth that The Primitive Church did absolutely conceale the Eucharist from Pagans and Catechumenists , and that more precisely than any other Mysteries ; each of which are * * See Booke 7. cap. 3. proved to be false . For neither could the Mystery of the Eucharist be sayd to have beene wholly concealed , which the Fathers both preached in their Sermons , and expressed in their publike Writings ( as is to be seene in the Bookes of Iustine , 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 reveale the Sacrament of Baptisme either to Pagans or Catechumenists , as they did the Sacrament of the Eucharist , as will be proved at large in the Seventh Booke .

His Second Absurdity is to be seene in his Comparison ( common to him with his fellowes ) reasoning thus , that the Articles of the Trinity and of the Incarnation of Christ , are above mans Capacity and Reason , being onely to be apprehended by Faith , and therefore ought men to inthrall their Reason to believe what the Romish Church teacheth , concerning the Eucharist , and not examine their Mysteries of Transubstantiation , which implyeth an Absolute Absence ( in this Sacrament ) of the Substance of Bread , and an Existence of the Naturall Body of Christ . Whereas , indeed , there cannot bee a more absurd Comparison ; because the Mystery of the Trinity , and maner of Hypostaticall Vnion of the God-head and Man-hood of Christ , are Objects transcendently spirituall , and matters of Infinitenesse in themselves : but the matters of all Sacraments , are Corporall Objects of Sense , and therefore discernable thereby , and subject to the Examen of Reason , according to the Practice , and * * See Booke 3. Conclusions both of Primitive Fathers and Romish Doctors ; Among whom your Cardinall 1 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 chiefe 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 excede all aprehension of mans mind .

Master Fisher his Inference , upon his former Supposition . Numb. 7.

This being supposed , ( saith he ) I inferre that the Seeming Absurdities of Catholike Reall Presence should incourage a true Christian mind to believe it , as to that which was believed in the Primitive Church , although accompanyed with so Seemingly Grosse Absurdities : as being of things above our Imaginations . So hee .

Our Reply , noting the Absurdity of his Inference upon his false Supposition .

The Supposition having beene proved to be false , concerning the Doctrine of Primitive Fathers , his Inference from thence cannot be Really true : which wee shall now confute by the Sayings of your owne Doctors . For if Romish Doctrines , concerning the Eucharist , were therefore the Rather to be beleeved , because that they were accompanyed with Seeming Absurdities ; then was it either Faithlesnesse or extreme Folly in your owne 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 Iesuit 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 ( sayth hee ) altogether Vnconceivable . III. Pope Innocent against the Possibility of Christs Body to be Mortall and Immortall at once ; * * See Booke 4. Chap. ● . Sect. ● . Because ( saith hee ) it is Incredible . And IV. ( as other of your * * Ibid. See the Marginells . Theologues in the same place do affirme ) Because it is Repugnant to the Vnderstanding of man . V. Your Collius , Declaming against pretended Miraculous Issues of Christ's Blood out of the Eucharist , and sometime out of Images , impugneth it , saying , * * Booke 4. Ca. 2. Sect. 6. & 7. Whose eares can abide to heare such a Copie and abundance of Blood of Christ to be separated out of his Veines now after his Resurrection ? yea , who without horrour can thinke thereof ? He that beleeveth this , let him heare that notable Saying of Solomon [ Hee that is sodaine ( or easie ) of Beliefe is of a light and unconstant heart . ] Nor could such Copie of Blood issue out , without some injurie to the Perfection of his Glorious Body . So they . Which Sentence of Solomon , if Master Fisher had truely had by heart , hee 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 Hoast . 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 remaine , performing the office of the Substance even to the nutrition of mans Body . These Difficulties scandalize Protestants , and thereupon they hold the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be Absurd and Ridiculous , but wee must not depend upon our Senses . So hee .

Our Reply , especially out of the Fathers , for Discovery of Master Fishers Falshood in pretending the Patronage of Antiquity , for Defence of these Particular Romish Absurdities .

Master Fisher , in his former Inference , pretended the Beliefe of the Primitive Church , as holding of Seeming Absurdities , as being things above Imaginations : and now insisteth upon your particular Romish Seeming Absurd Tenents , if they should be judged by our Senses ; as though this had beene the Doctrine of Primitive Antiquity , whereas indeed he could not have done a greater injurie 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 Hoast ; or ( as your Tridentine Fathers said ) In every least part thereof , was contradicted by Saint * * Booke 4. cap. 8. Sect. 6. Augustine , holding it Incredible , as well as by some of your Schoolemen , who judged it Monstrous ; and as much as to make the Nose of Christ to stand together with his Heele ; and so to make his Body a Confused * * See Booke 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 Booke 5. throughout . Fathers , who have gain-sayd The Eating of Christ with Teeth , The devouring with the Throate , and abhorred the passing it downe 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 Booke 4. cap 6. Ancient Fathers teaching : I. Circumscription to be Inseparable from a Bodie : II. Proving thereby Christs 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 remaine and nourish mans Body ; which one Instance followeth two falsehoods : One is , to beleeve that Sole Accidents do remaine , without all Substance of Bread ; contradicted by * * See Booke 3. cap 3 12. Theodoret , your Pope Gelasius , and by other holy Fathers . The other Falshood is your professing , that Sole Accidents do nourish the Bodies , whether of Man or Mouse , ( as you teach ) But expresly 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 wee 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 Booke 3. throughout . that we see Bread and Wine : the Bread which consisteth of granes of Corne , and Wine of Grapes ) have justified the Judgement of our Senses in sensible Objects ; and not this onely , but by the same Argument taken from our Senses , have furthermore confuted and confounded both the Heathen Academicks , and Hereticall Marcionites , Manichees , Eunomians , Eutychians , and others the most grosly Absurd Heretikes 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 Heretikes , or else Master Fisher ought to recant this his pernicious and Hereticall Paradox of Beleeving Doctrines the Rather , because they seeme 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 quaint example of his owne . Numb. 9.

The Bodie of Christ ( saith hee ) being glorious , is as swift in operation as any Thought , but a mans Thought is so quicke , that one may be by Thought in two disjoyned places at once , for example , in London and at Rome .

Our Reply , detecting the Stupidity of this Objection .

Wee ( to omit that which is more * * He useth the Common Objection of Man's soule , and God himselfe , which hath beene confuted formerly . See above , cap. 6. Sect. 2. common ) note in Master Fisher , now Objecting his owne 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 easie for any man to guesse in what place of London hee himselfe was ; because that every Sober man will beleeve that Master Fisher , in thinking of Rome , had his Thought then in his owne Braine , and not at Rome . And though it should be possible for him to thinke both of Rome and London at once , yet could not this any way exemplifie 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 exequuting 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 owne . Numb. 10.

It seemeth difficult ( saith hee ) to conceive that Accidents can performe the office of any Substance , as to nourish a man : But wee should perchance find as great a difficultie to beleeve ( did wee not see it ) Glasse to be made of Ashes : A Bird to be bred out of the rotten Barke of a Tree , &c.

Our Reply , manifesting his Absurd Exemplification .

This his Comparison of Likenesse ( as any one may discerne at the first sight ) consisteth meerely of unlikelihoods , and Dissimilitudes ; for he laboureth to prove it to be an equall Difficulty for an Accident to nourish a Substance ( as it is in his Examples ) as for a Substance to nourish a Substance . The Absurditie whereof is no lesse , 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 irkesome unto us to have stayd so long in Master Fishers Absurdities , wee hasten to our Generall Challenge . ⚜

THE GENERALL CHALLENGE ,

THese above specified Sixe 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 owne Romish learning in most points confirmed ; your Abrenunciation of your so many Grosse Errours may be as necessary , as your persisting therein will be damnable . Before we can end , wee are to consult with the Fathers of the Councel of Nice , especially seeing that as well Romanists as Protestants will be knowne to appeale to that Councel .

CHAP. XI .

Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice , objected for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist ; and against it . SECT. I.

THis ( as it is delivered by your a 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 . Prop●er 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. Cardinall , taken out , as he saith , of the Vatican Library ) standeth thus : Let us not heere in this Divine Table , bend our thoughts downewards upon the Bread , and the Cup , which is set before Vs , but lifting up our minds let us understand by faith the Lambe of God , set upon that Table ; The Lambe 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 thinke these to be the Symbols of our Resurrection . For this cause do wee receive not much , but little , that wee may understand this is not to satisfie , but to Sanctifie . So the Canon .

The Generall approbation of this Canon by Both sides . SECT. II.

SCarce is there any one Romish Author , handling this Controversie , who doth not fasten upon this Canon of Nice , for the countenancing of your Romish Masse . Contrarily Protestants ( as they are set downe by our b 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 himselfe assenting unto the same . Zanchy , and your c c Hoc testimonium Niceni Conc. primi in actis ejusdem Conc. in Vaticana Bibliotheca his verbis , &c. 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 ⚜ [ ●● Greeke thus ] 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ⚜ Bellarmine ) in great numbers ( among whom are Luther and Calvin ) with joynt consent approve of this Canon ; one of them ( Bucer by name ) subscribing unto it with his owne hand , in these words : So I thinke in the Lord , and I wish to appeare in this minde before the Tribunall seat of God . So they . The right Explication of this Canon will be worthy our paines .

⚜ Where any man may discerne an Allusion of the Fathers to the words of Saint Paul , Colos. 3. Seeke those things that are above , and not on Earth : and that [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] referreth to things on Earth , and [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] to the things above , in Heaven : and that the word [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] spoke of the Table , opposite to that Table whereof it was sayd ; [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. ] as much as There , to Here. ⚜

The state of the Difference , concerning this Canon . SECT. III.

THis ( as is propounded by your Cardinall ) standeth thus . d d Per Agnum omnes intelligunt Christum , ut distinguitut contra symbo la , Bellar. quo supra . — Illi ( Protestantes ) quasi admoneāt , nè quaerendum Christum in Altar● 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 hee ) by the Lambe understand Christ as hee is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar . Next , But the Protestants thinke ( saith hee ) that the Councel admonisheth not to seeke Christ on the Altar , but to ascend up unto him in Heaven by faith , as sitting at the Right hand of God . But wee all say ( saith hee ) that the Councel would have us to attend unto the holy Table ( meaning the Altar below ) yet so , that wee see in it not so much the outward Symbols , and Signes , as that which lyeth hid under them , viz. The Body and Blood of Christ . So hee . The difference then betweene him and us is no lesse than the distance betweene Aloft and Vnder , that is , between Heaven above , and Earth below . Let us set forward in our progresse , but with easie , and even paces ; to the end you may better understand the strength of our Proofes , and rottennesse of your Objections .

That the Nicene Councell is marveilously prejudiciall to your Romish Defence : proved by divers Observations ; Three heere . SECT. IV.

FIve Points are chiefly observable in this Canon . First is the nomination of Bread . Secondly , the mention of two Tables . Thirdly , the admonition to lift up our minds . Fourthly , the expression of the Reason thereof . Fiftly , the Confirmation of the same Reason . First , That , which the Councel would that men be not too intent unto , they call Bread after Consecration ; for the Errour , which they would have avoyded , was either the too much abasing of this Sacrament ( according to your Cardinals e e Iubet Concilium ut non inhaereamus speciebus panis & vini ; quasi ibi nihil sit , nisi quod oculi renuntiant . Bellarm. quo supra . Glosse ) and then was it after Consecration ; because they needed not to have perswaded any to have too meane an estimation of the Bread unconsecrated ; ( which you your selves hold to be a common and prophane thing : ) or else the Errour must have been , as indeed it was , too high a valuation of the outward Element of Bread , which must needs be so , because it was Consecrated , and notwithstanding it being so Consecrated , in the Canon it is called Bread . Which your Fathers of the Councel of Trent would not have indured , especially seeing that wee find that your f 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. Latine Church was offended with the late Greeke Church , for calling the parts of the Eucharist by the termes of Bread and Wine , after the pronunciation of these words [ This is my Body , ] by you called the words of Consecration . Besides they so call them Bread and Wine , as they name them Symbols and Signes , which properly they could not be , untill after Consecration .

Secondly , the g g 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c — 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Conc. Nicen . Canon expresly noteth and distinguisheth two Tables , in respect of place ; the one , as Here ; being as much as to say , The Table : and the other opposed hereunto is instiled , That Table , I say . And now be it knowne , that [ The Table here ] which is not to be represented by the Antithesis of [ But that Table ] must necessarily inferre two distinct Tables ; as , Here , and , There , doe prove two distinct Places : except one can make congruitie of these words [ That Table Here. ] Which I note , in Confutation of a vaine and crotchetive Objector . And , of this Table Here , the Councel forbiddeth Christians to looke Too attentively to the thing set before us : But contrarily , concerning That other Table , they command men to Lift up their minds aloft . And not thus only , but they also distinguish them , in respect of their different Objects . The Object of the First Table , Here , they name Bread , and the Cup , the Objects of Sense : And the other Object , opposed to this , is that on the other Table , expressed to be the Lambe God , the Object of our mindes .

Thirdly , the Admonition or Caution , which the Councel giveth concerning the Bread , is , not to be too intent to it : but touching the Lambe Christ , they command us to lift up our mindes aloft ; for so the world h h 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] doth signifie ; not to be used ( wee thinke ) for an inward looking into the sublimiy of the mystery of the matter before us , as your Cardinall fancieth : but for looking up aloft unto the Lambe of God in Heaven , according to the Catholike Sense of those words , * * See hereafter , Book . 7. Chap. 4. §. 2. SVRSVM CGRDA .

The next two Proofes out of the same Canon of Nice , to manifest our Protestant profession touching the Question in hand . SECT. V.

OVr next two Proofes out of the Canon are these . First is their Reason of the former Caution : The Second , the Confirmation of that Reason : Both are expresly set downe in the Canon it selfe . Why then did those holy Fathers admonish us , not to be too intent to the Bread and Wine set before us ? It followeth ; Because they are not ordained to satisfie our Naturall man , namely , by a full Eating and Drinking : but for a Sacramentall participation of the Body , and Blood of Christ , to the sanctifying of our Soules : whereas your Church doth attribute to that , which you eat in this Sacrament , a power of sanctifying the Body by it's Bodily touch . But much more will the next Proofe undermine your Defence .

To confirme their Reason , why the Sacrament was not ordayned for the satisfying of the naturall man , they adde saying ; For this canse wee 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 generall Romane Catechisme ( if you have not already learned it ) will now teach you to believe , saying that i 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 hee ate a little of Christ Body , or a little Christ ; but yet the Sacrament eaten is sometimes more , sometime lesse Nor this onely , but the Canon furthermore speaketh of taking a little of that , whereof if much were taken ( saith it ) it might satiate the naturall man . So the Canon . But that the outward Sacrament can truely satisfie the naturall man , you your selves will testifie in your Booke-Cases and Missals , * * See Book , 3. chap. 3. §. 10. Chap 6. §. 1. & 2. acknowledging men Drunke 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 natuturall man may be satiated with this Sacrament ; but with what therein ? The Body and Blood of Christ ? you abhorre to thinke that , with Accidents ? You may be ashamed to affirme it , as from the J●dgement of Antiquity , seeing you were never able hitherto justly to produce one Father for proofe of the Existence of Accidents without their Subjects : or of nourishing a Substance by meere Accidents .

Wherefore untill you can prove some one of all these , give us leave to beleeve , that all were of the mind of that one k k Gregor. Nyssen . Quomodò enim res incorporea corpori cibus fiat ? In Orat. de vita Mosi● , p. 509. Father , who held it Impossible for an Incorporeall , or not-Bodily thing to be food to a Bodily substance . And so much the rather , because the Fathers have manifoldly * * See above , Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. & 10. &c. acknowledged in this Sacrament , after Consecration , the substance of Bread . Wherefore the Reasoning of the Councel , touching the Eucharist , was like as if one should say of Baptisme ; Wee take not too much , but little , lest it might be thought to have beene ordained not for a Sacramentall meanes of sanctifying the Soule , but for the clensing of the Flesh . None is so stupid as not to understand , by Much and Little , the substance of water ; and not onely 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 Councel held at Toledo in Spaine , Anno 693. who shew this Reason , why they l 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 Hoast , ( namely say they ) lest otherwise the belly of him that taketh this Sacrament may be stuffed , and over charged , and lest it may passe into the Draught , but that it may be nourishment for the Soule . Hereby plainly teaching , concerning the consecrated matter , that were it so much as could burthen the belly , it would through the supersluity thereof goe into the Draught : whereas , if Lesse , it would serve as wel , or better for a Sacramentall use , to the replenishing of our soules in the spiritually receiving of the Body of Christ . But never was any of the Primitive Age so farre bereft of his wits as to imagine that Much , which stuffeth , and after passeth into the Draught , to be Christ's Bodie : and you may sweare that the Fathers meant not meere * * See above Book 3. Chap. 3 §. ●● . Accidents ; For meere Accidents have not the property of Substance , through the Muchnesse thereof , either to satiate the naturall appetite , in feeding , or to overcharge the belly by weight , in prossing it downe 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 Romane Faith .

Therefore this one Canon of Nice being thus undoubtedly gained , concerning he not seeking Christ , Here , on this Table , is sufficient of it selfe to batter downe your Assertion by a five-fold force . First , by proofe of no Transubstantiation of Bread ; Secondly , no Corporall Presence of Christs Body ; Thirdly , no Corporall 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 m Ob. 1. Cum dicit agnum Dei sitū 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 Lambe 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 , hee is said ( say you ) to be Sacrifised by the hands of the Priest ; which cannot be done , as hee is in Heaven . The words of the Canon , truly resolved , to cashiere this Objection , as thus : The Lambe of God set as that Table ( namely in Heaven ) is sacrifised by the hands of the Priest Here , to wit , on the Table below ( representatively ) as hereafter the Catholike Fathers themselves will shew . And these two may easily consist , without any necessitie of the Priest reaching his hands as farre as the highest Heavens ; as your Cardinall objecteth . ⚜ The Priest ( saith hee ) hath not so long hands as to reach it in Heaven . So hee , delicately , and like a Romish Cardinall , carnally conceiting onely a Touch , by the Finger , of Flesh , never regarding the Primitive Doctrine of Touching Christ by Faith , whereof first Saint Ambrose : 1 1 Ambrosius in Luc. 24. Paulus docuit ubi te reperire possi●●● , ubi ait ; Si consurrexistis cum Christo , quae sursum sunt sap●●e , non super terram . Ergo non quae supra terram , nec in terra , nec secundum carnem te quaerere debemus , si volumus invenire . Nunc enim secundum carnem jam non novimus Christum . Denique Stephanus non supra terram quae 〈◊〉 , qui stantem 〈◊〉 ad dextram Dei vidit . Maria autem quae quaerebat in terra , tangere non potuit . Stephanus te●igit , quia quaesivit in coelo . Many ( saith hee ) sought Christ on Earth , but could not touch him ; But Stephen touched him , who sought him in Heaven . Consonantly Saint Augustine ; who to this Question , If Mary touched not Christ on Earth , what mortall man shall touch him in Heaven ? Answereth , 2 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 ; hee that believeth in Christ , Toucheth him , ⚜ Thirdly , you allege ; Wee are said to partake truly of the Body of Christ . As though there were not a Truth in a Sacramentall , that is Figurative Receiving ; and more especially ( which * * See above c. 1. Sect. 2. hath beene both proved , and confessed ) a Reall , and true participation of Christs Body a●d Blood spiritually , without any Corporall Conjunction .

But it is added ( saith hee ) that These ( namely , the Body and Blood of Christ ) are Symbols of our Resurrection ; which is by reason that our Bodies are joyned with the Body of Christ : otherwise if our Conjunction were onely of our Soules , onely the Resurrection of our Soules should be signified thereby . So hee , that 's to say , as successesly as in the for●er .

For the word , HA●C , These , ( which are called Symbols of our Resurrection ) may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ , immediately spoken of , and placed on the Table in Heaven ( which wee Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament ) and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies : because , * * See below Booke 5. Cap. ● . §. 1. If Christ be risen , then must they that are Christs also rise againe . Or else the word , These , may have relation to the more remote ( after the maner of the Greekes ) to wit , Bread and Cup on the first Table ; because ( as immediatly followeth ) they are these whereof not much , but little is taken ; as you have heard . Which other * * See below Booke 5. Cap. ● . §. 1. Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection , without any Consequence of Christs Bodily Conjunction with our Bodies , more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptisme ; which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection , as doth also your Jesuite m m Ad futuram Resurrectionem , per Baptismi Sacramentum , jus & pignus accepimus . Coster . institut . Christ . lib. 4. c. 4. [ See more in the Booke following . c. 8. Sect. 6. ] Coster call it The pledge of our Resurrection . ( But this our Conjunction with Christ is the Subject matter of the fift Booke . ) Lastly how the Eucharist , was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice , is plentifully resolved in the * * See Chap. 5. Sect. 4. 5. & 6. sixt Booke .

THE FIFTH BOOKE Treating of the Third Romish Doctrinall Consequence , arising from your depraved Sense of the words of Christs Institution [ THIS IS MY BODY ] concerning the maner of the present Vnion of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Receivers by eating , &c.

CHAP. I.

The State of the Question . SECT I.

A Christian man consisting of two men , the Outward , or bodily ; & the Inward , which is , Spiritual : this Sacrament , accordingly , consisteth of two parts , Earthly and Heavenly : as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread & Wine , as the visible Signes and Objects of Sense ; and of the Body , and Blood of Christ , which is the Spirituall part . Answerable to both these is the Double nourishment and Vnion of a Christian ; the one Sacramentall , by communicating of the outward Elements of Bread and Wine , united to mans body , in his Taking , Eating , Disgesting , till at length it be Transubstantiated into him , by being Substantially incorporated in his Flesh . The other , which is the Spirituall , and Soules food , is the Body and Blood of the Lord , ( therefore called Spirituall , because it is the Object of 〈◊〉 ) by an Vnion wrought by Gods Spirit , and mans Faith ; which ( as hath beene professed by Protestants ) is most Reall and Ineffable .

But your Church of Rome teacheth such a Reall Vnion of Christ his Body and Blood with the Bodies of the Communicants , as is Corporall ; which * * See below Ch. ● Sect. ● . you call [ Per contactum ] by Bodily touch , so long as the formes of Bread and Wine remaine uncorrupt in the Bodies of the Receivers . Our Method requireth , that wee first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Orthodox Truth . Secondly , to impugne your Romish Vnion , as Capernaiticall ( that is ) Hereticall . And thirdly , to Determine the Point by comparing them both together . Our Orthodox Truth will be found in the Propositions following .

That Protestants professe not onely a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body ; but also a Spiritually-Reall . SECT. II.

IN all the Bookes of our Adversaries written against Protestants , they are most especially vehement , violent , and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries , as though wee professed no other maner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body , than onely Sacramentall and Figurative . For Confutation of which Calumnie it will be most requisite to propose the Apologie of a a Calvin . in hi●s libris , viz. Consensio in re Sacramentaria● & Di●ensio contra 〈◊〉 et Explicatio de vera participat . 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 sines , & sensus nostri modum ex supo●at ; quod Christi caro nobis sit com nuuis , & 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 Confessione ( 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 beene most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause , to shew , first , what hee held not ; and then what hee held .

If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not , hee will answer you , I. I do abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence . And II. I have an hundred times disclamed the receiving onely of a Figure , in this Sacrament . What then did hee hold ? III. Our Catehisme teacheth ( saith hee ) not onely a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein , but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our soules . And with Swinckfeldius , maintaining onely a Figurative perception , wee have nothing to do . If you further demand what is the Feeding , whereby wee are united to Christ's Body , in this Sacrament ? hee tells you , IV. that it is Not Carnall , but Spirituall , and Reall ; and so Reall , that the Soule is as truely replenished with the lively virtue of his flesh , by the powerfull worke of the Spirit of God , as the Body is nourished with the Corporall Element of Bread in this Sacrament . If you exact an expression of this Spirituall Vnion , to know the maner , hee acknowledgeth it to be V. above Reason .

If further you desire to understand , whether hee were not Singular in this opinion , hee hath avouched the judgement of other Protestants , professing not to dissent 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 wee breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ , which Body is given , taken , and eaten in the Supper onely after a spirituall and heavenly maner , the meane whereby as Faith .

That the Body of Christ , by this Sacrament , was ordayned onely for food to the Christian man's Soule . SECT. III.

WHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers , which are many , in this Point of Dispute , having before us the judgement of your b b Summus Salv●tor hoc Sacramentum voluit esse tanquam spiritualem animarum cibum , quo alamur , & confortemur , viventes vita illius , quo dixit , [ Qui mand ucat me , &c. ] Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. ca. 2. Fathers of the Councell of Trent , and of your c c Sacramento utendum ad alendam animam : Catech. Trid. de Euch. num. 29. Romane Catechisme , authorized by the same Councell ? both which affirme that Christ ordained this Sacrament to be the Spirituall food of man's Soule . In which respect the Body of Christ is called Spirituall in your Popes d 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 Booke .

That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christ's Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Conjunction can be . SECT. IV.

THe soule of man being the most Essentiall and Substantiall part of man ( because a Spirit immortall ; ) and the flesh of Christ being the most Substantiall of all food ; and theréfore called , as of ancient e e Ambros . lib. 5. de Sacram. cap. 4. Fathers , even so by your Fathers of f f Conc. Trident. Panem illum supersubstantialé frequenter accipiant . Sess. 13. ca. 8. Trent , Supersubstantiall Bread ; it must necessarily follow , that as it is named by Christ * * Ioh. 6. 32. The true Bread , and the Life thereby ( which is the Effect of the Spirituall eating thereof ) is the most true and Reall Life , because Everlasting : So the Vnion Spirituall , which a Christian hath in his soules feeding , is the most Reall and true Vnion , as may sufficiently appeare by Analogie . To wit , that Bread and Wine being the most vitall 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 Signes and Symbals ) the very Body and Blood of Christ . Therefore the Body and Blood of Christ are our Reall nourishments in this Sacrament .

And such as is our food , such must be our Vnion , by feeding thereon ; which wee say is by Faith , in this Sacrament ; and you may not gain-say it , who , to comfort your Disciples , are g 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 Spirituall Vnion may be presented to the Soule of man , with the Body of Christ ; and that as a sufficient meanes of uniting him to Christ , by a Spirituall maner of Eating . And this ( you say ) is To receive Christ his Body truely ; albeit this be to receive him onely by faith and desire . So you . Whence you perceive our Inference , viz. If our Spirituall Vnion with Christ his Body may be really and truly made by Faith , and Desire , without this Sacrament ; then , in our Sacramentall Eating thereof , may the Communicant be much more made partaker thereof by Faith and ardent Desire ; the Sacrament it selfe being a S●●le of this our Christian Faith .

CHAP. II.

That onely 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.

OVr Church of England in her 28. and 29. Article saith thus ; The Body of Christ is given to be eaten in this Sacrament onely after a Spirituall maner , even by faith ; wherein the wicked , and such as are voyd of faith , eat it not : although they do visibly presse 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 h Mr. Brerely Tract . 2. §. 5. Sub 2. Brerely endeavoured to assume some Protestants to be on your side , whom hee hath alleged with like faithfulnesse , as hee hath cited Master Calvin : than whom hee could not have , in this case , a greater Adversary . For although Calvin grant , with all Protestants , that the wicked and faithlesse receive truly , by way of Sacrament , the Body of Christ ; yet doth hee deny that they have in their Bodies any Corporall Conjunction or Vnion with Christ , because the Vnion , which wee have i i Calvin Epist. 372. yet in the same Epistie hee saith of Papists , Damnantur qui dicunt non minus corporis Christi participem fuisse Iudam , 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 , &c. Haec Calvinus . saith hee ) is Onely Spirituall ; onely with the soule ; onely with the heart ; onely by faith ; and although it be offered to the wicked , to be really received , yet do they not receive it , because they are Carnall . Their onely Receiving therfore is but Sacramentall . So Master Calvin .

It had beene good that your Priest had suspected his owne Iudgement , and ( as well in this case , as others ) by doubting his owne eye-sight , had borrowed your k 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 . Cardinall his Spectacles : then would hee have clearly perceived that ( together with other Protestants ) Calvin held that The wicked , although they receive the Symbols and outward Signes of Christ's body , yet the Body it selfe they doe not receive . So your Cardinall of the Doctrine of Protestants . For although , indeed , Calvin sayd that The wicked eat the Body of Christ ; yet , explayning himselfe , hee added these two words [ In Sacramento , that is , Sacramentally ; ] which in Calvin's style is taken for Symbolically onely . As for the Consent of Protestants herein , wee put it to your great Cardinall and Champion , their greatest Adversary , to expresse . l 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 . Hee joyneth Lutherans to the Calvinists in one Consent , for denying the Orall and Corporall Eating thereof ; and for believing the Eating of it Onely by Faith . Yet lest any may say , that , in receiving the same Sacrament , hee doth not receive the thing signifyed thereby ; you may have a Similitude to illustrate your Judgements , as thus : The same outward word , concerning Justification by Christ , cometh to the eares of both Vnbelievers and Believers . But the Believers onely 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 hee ) Eateth this Bread , and Drinketh this Cup unworthily , hee shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. And ( vers. 29. ) eateth and drinketh Damnation to himselfe , not discerning the Lords Body .

Your Remish Professours ( men not the least zealous for your Romish Cause ) objecting this against the Protestants , call upon you , saying first m m Rhemists Annot. in 1. Cor. 11. vers. 27. Here upon marke 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 hainous 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 sinne for any to receive any Sacrament , with will and intention to continue in sinne , or without repentance of former sinnes ; but yet by the unworthy receiving of no other Sacrament is man made guilty of Christs Body and Blood , but here , where the unworthy Receiver ( as Saint n n Chrysost. Hom 60. & 61. ad Pop. Antioch . Chrysostome saith ) do vill any to Christs owne Person , as the Iewes and Gentiles did , that crucified him . Which invincibly proveth against the Heretikes , that Christ is herein really present . And guilty is hee , for not d●scerning the Lords Body , that is , because hee putteth no difference betweene this high meat and others . So your Rhemists .

Your Cardinall also , as though hee had found herein something for his purpose o 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. Sectio● following . ] fasteneth upon the sentence of Cyprian , who accounted them , that after their denyall of Christ presented themselves to this Communion , without repentance , to offer more injurie to Christ , by their polluted hands and mouthes , than they did in denying Christ ▪ and besides hee recordeth Examples of Gods miraculous vengeance upon those , who violated the Body of Christ in this Sacrament . So hee . 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 Guilt of prophaning this Sacrament , which being more hainous than the abuse of any other Sacrament , therfore the injury is to be judged more personall . The last , that the Examples of Gods vindicative Iudgemeuts , for Contempt hereof , have beene more extraordinary : which may seeme to be a Confirmation of both the former . Before wee handle these points in order , take our next Position for a Directory to that , which shall be answered in the sixt Section .

That some Fathers understood the Apostles words , 1. Corinth . 10. Spiritually , ( namely ) as signifying the Eating of Christs Flesh , and drinking his Blood ; both in the Old Testament and in the New . SECT. III.

VPon those words of the Apostle , 1 Cor. 10. verse 4. [ They ate of the same Spirituall meate ▪ &c. ] The Iewes received the same Spirituall meate p p Aug. Tract. 26. in Ioh. sup. illa verba Apostoli , 1. Cor. 20. de fidelibus Iudaeis . [ Omnes candem spiritualem escam ( in Manna . ) edebant ; & bibebant eundem potum spiritualem , &c. ] Corporalem escam diversam , illi Manna , nos aliud , spiritualem sed candem : aliud illi , aliud nos bibimus , sed aliud specie visibili , idem autem significante virtute . Item . Eandem quam nos escam ; sed Patres nostri , ( nèmpè fideles ) non Patres illorum . Aug. Ibid. saith Saint Augustine ; namely they who were faithfull . Yea ( saith your q q At eandem inter se ; non nobis . cum candem Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Quia . Cardinall ) the Iewes received the same among themselves , but not the same with us Christians . So hee . Albeit the words of Augustine are plainly thus ; The same which wee eate : so plainely , that divers on your owne side doe so directly and truly acknowledge it , that your Jesuit r r Iudaeos candem escam spiritualem edisse nobiscum ; exposuit hunc locum de Manna Augustinus , & qui eum secuti sunt multi ; ut Beda , Strabo , & Author Glossae ordinariae — reprobatum hoc esse a posterioribus . Ego persuasum habeo , Augustinum , si nostra aetate fuisset , longè aliter sensurum fuisse , omni genti Hereticorum inimicissimum , cum videret Calvinistas ad eundèm ferè modum hunc locum interpretari . Maldon . Ies. in Ioh. 6. vers. 50. col. 706. Maldonate , not able to gain-say this Truth , pleaseth himselfe notwithstanding in fancying that If Augustine were alive in this Age , hee would thinke otherwise , especially perceiving Hereticall Calvinists , ( and s s Calvin . Instit. lib. 4. Cap. 14. Sect. 23. Eandem nobiscum — contra Scholasticorum dogma , quo docent , veteri lege tantum adumbrari gratiam , & novâ praesentem conferri . Calvin himselfe ) to be of his opinion . So hee . Was it not great pity that Augustine was not brought up in the Schoole of the Jesuites ! surely they would have taught him the Article of Transubstantiation , of the Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament , and Corporall Vnion ; against all which there could not be a greater Adversary than was Augustine ; whom Maldonate here noteth to have beene the Greatest enemy to all Heretikes : whom t 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 u Eandem escam spiritualem id est , Corpus Christi in signo spiritualiter intellecto : idem , quod nos , sed aliam escam corporalem , quam nos . Aquinas in 1. Cor. 10. Aquinas also ; The same ( saith hee ) which wee eate . Yea and Anselme imbraceth the same exposition , in the very words of Saint Augustine , The same which wee eat . Thus much by the way . Wee goe on to our Answers .

That the wicked Receivers are called Guilty of Christs Body ; not by properly Eating of his Body unworthily , but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament thereof Symbolically . SECT. IV.

THE Distinction used by Saint Augustine ( who is still a resolute Patron of our Cause ) hath beene alwayes as generally acknowledged , as knowne , wherein hee will have us to discerne , in the Eucharist , the Sacrament from the thing represented , and exhibited thereby . Of the Sacrament hee saith that * * Aùg in Ioh. Tract . 26. Sacramentum ●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 it selfe ( saith hee ) is received of None , but to Salvation . So hee No Protestant could speake more directly , or Conclusively for proofe ; First , That , in the Sacrament of the Eucharist , the Body of Christ is as well tendred to the Wicked , as to the Godly . Secondly , That the Wicked for want of a living faith , have no Hand to receive it . Thirdly That their not preparing themselves to a due receiving of it , is a Contempt of Christ his Body and Blood . Fourthly , and Consequently that it worketh the judgement of Guiltinesse upon them .

⚜ If it shall be proved that the like judgement followeth upon the Wicked , for absenting himselfe from receiving of this Sacrament , in Contempt thereof ; as well as it doth upon the unworthy Receiver , it Determinateth the Point in question , to prove the inconsequence of your reason , wherof you conclude , that the Guiltinesse of Judgement ariseth from unworthy Corporall participation of Christs Body , Now Saint Augustines words are , that 1 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 . Hee that contenineth to eate this , hath no life in him , and shall be deprived of life eternall . Which is by his Contempt , not in the Receiving , but in the Not-Receiving thereof .

All which both the Evidence of Scripture , and Consent of Antiquity do notably confirme . For the Text objected doth clearely confute your Romish Consequence , because Saint Pauls words are not ; Hee that eateth the Body of Christ , and drinketh his Blood unworthily , is guilty of his Body and Blood : but , Hee that entreth the Bread , and drinketh the Cup of the Lord unworthily , &c , Which wee have proved throughout the second Booke to signifie Bread and Wine , the Signes and Sacraments of his Body and Blood , after Consecration . And ( to come to Antiquity ) All the Fathers hereafter cited , who deny that the wicked Communicants are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ ( albeit knowing , as well as you , that all such unworthy Receivers are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ ) will thereby sufficiently confute your Consequence , which is , that because the Wicked are guiltie of Christs Body ; Ergo his Body is Corporally present in them . But wee pursue you yet further .

That a Guiltinesse of Contempt of Christs Body and Blood is to be acknowledged in all Prophane 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 seene in a wilfull refusing to receive , as in a Contemptuous maner of Receiving ; the Guiltinesse by the same Contempt must needs be against the thing offered , whether it be Corporall or Spirituall ; and Consequ●ntly against the Giver himselfe . In which respect Christ compareth the Refusers of the promises of the Gospell of Salvation unto beastly Hogs , which trample under their feete Pearles of highest price , even because they would not beleeve them : Beleeving being our Spirituall Receiving . From the same Guilt of Contempt followeth the Obnoxiousnesse to punishment , denounced by our Saviour ; * * Luc. 9. 5. To shake off the dust of their feate for a testimony against them , in not receiving the Gospell of Peace . Therefore is that saying of Hierome common to every Sacrament , * * Below Sect. 6. Contempt of a Sacrament ( saith hee ) is the Contempt of him whose Sacrament it is : As also that other of Rupertus , saying ; y y Rupertus in Ioh. 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 &c. 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 a Quemadmodum enim accedere frigidè [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] — sic non communicare de istis [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ▪ ] Chrysost. in 1. C●● . ●0 . Hom. 24 Chrysostome called mans Ind●votion in receiving the Eucharist Dangerous , hee named the Contempt of Not participating thereof , Pestilence , and death it selfe .

But not to presse you further with other such like speeches of the Fathers , wee shall referre you to your Divines of Collen , who in their Councel censured those , who Contemptuously refused to Communicate of this Sacrament , to be but b b Conc. Provincia●e 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 ( marke wee 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 owne Doctors , your owne maine Objection , even in Terminis terminantibus , as the Schoole speaketh : professing both mans Guiltinesse of Christs Body in not receiving this Sacrament , and Obnoxiousnesse thereupon unto Gods judgement ; as also hath beene 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 disgestion , because Comparisons of Magis , and Minus , ( as learning teacheth ) are altered upon all different respects . Some in persecution denyed Christ , in the extremity of their feare ; and some in their wilfullnesse prophaned the Sacrament of the Eucharist , instituted by Christ . This latter is the greater sinner before God , who judgeth sinne not onely 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 wee may well thinke that Iudas his traiterous , and scornefull Kisse was more hainous than Peters perjurie . Have you not read what the Apostle hath written against such as Apostate from their Faith , and vow of Baptisme , saying , * * Hebr. 6. 6. They Crucifie unto themselves the Sonne of God ? which is much more than Cyprian spake of the Guilty Receiver of the Eucharist ; yet dare not you conclude that therefore there is a Corporall presence of Christ in the Water of Baptisme . And as in the Guilt of sinne ; so is it in the Guilt of punishment also , which followeth sinne , as a shadow doth a Body . In which consideration Augustine doth parallell Baptisme , and the Eucharist together , saying , c 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 hee that drinketh the Blood of the Lord unworthily drinketh his owne judgement : So doth hee who receiveth Baptisme unworthily .

By these Premises you will furthermore easily discerne , that you other Romish Doctors have beene no lesse 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 Empresse d 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 Ies Tom. 1. in 3. Thom. Disp. ●4 §. 3. Eudocia was ( as is confessed ) reproached by the Citizens of Antioch , in their despight wrought upon her Image ; therefore was shee personally present in the same Image . Yea and your selves , when you plead for the Reverend use of Images , can be content to take your reason from the e 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 Ioh. Cocl●o , ex Walfrido . Cap 8. Example of Kings or Princes ; as being injured by the abuse of their pictures .

You seeme to be zealously bent against all unworthy usage of this ●oly Sacrament ; it is well ; yet were it better that you saw your owne Guiltinesse to repentance : Forasmuch as every one is an Vnworthy Receiver ( in the judgement of Saint f 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 himselfe . Your Ten Transgressions of Christ his Institution in this Sacrament ( discovered in the First Booke ) convinceth you of a Ten-fold Guiltinesse of the Vnworthy Receiving of this Mysterie . Your last Objection of Guiltinesse hath beene taken from the Executions of Gods punishments . Wee therefore rejoyne .

That the Examples of Gods Vindicative Justice have appeared against the Contemners of many holy things , without respect to the Corporall presence of Christ therein . SECT. VI.

COme wee to the open judgements and punishments of God , upon the Contemners of this Sacrament , The visible Testimonies of his Justice , and Arguments of the preciousnesse and holinesse of this Mysterie . These wee beleeve to be true , And the Apostle hath made it manifest , where ( speaking of the great plague , which fell upon the Corinthians , who had prophaned this Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ ) hee pointeth this out as their sinne , saying , * * 1. Cor. 11. vers ▪ ●0 . [ Ob hanc causam ] For this cause are many sicke among you , and many sleepe , &c. 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 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 Mysterie ; ( namely ) by their prophane behaviour at their receiving thereof , as if they had beene at the Heathenish Bacchanalls : or , as Primasius yeeldeth the Cause , h h Primas . in ●und . locum . Quia acciperent quasi cibum communem . For that they tooke 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 2 Hier. Com. in Malach. c. 1. Dum Sacramenta violantur , ipse cujus sunt violatur . When the Sacraments ( saith hee ) are violated , hee , whose Sacraments they be , is violated and vilified . ⚜

All can point at the dolefull Example of Gods vengeance upon Iudas , the first unworthy Receiver ; and therefore the subject of the first Document of Gods judgement , notwithstanding that hee received but the Sacrament onely , and not the very Body of Christ , as Saint Augustine observed , saying ; * * See after in Sect. 10. Hee received not the Bread , the Lord , but the Bread of the Lord . And how justly may wee thinke , did God punish certaine k k Optatus lib. 2. Donatists , who casting the holy Sacrament to Dogs , were themselves devoured of Dogs ? Neither have these kindes of Gods judgements beene proper to the Abuse of this Sacrament onely , as you have instructed men to believe ; for looke into the sacred story , and you shall find the men of * * 1. Sam. 5. Ashdod , for modling with the Arke of God , afflicted with Emrods : the men of * * 1. Sam. 6. Bethshemesh smitten with a great slaughter , for but peeping into Gods Arke . Also * * 2 Sam. 6. Vzzah , no Priest ; doth but touch the same Arke , ( albeit with a good intent , to support it ) and hee is suddainly strucke dead . * * Levit. 10. Nadab and Abih● prophaned the Altar of the Lord with offering st●a●ge fire thereon ; and both of them were immediately burnt with fire from Heaven , and perished ▪ * * Dan. 5. Belshazzar will needs carouze in the sacred boles of Gods Temple , in the Contempt of God , and of his Law ; and behold a Writing upon the wall , signifying that his Dayes were at an end , as it came to passe . And yet was there not any peculiar existence of God in these Things . * * 2 King . 2. Boyes are mocking Gods ●rophet in Bethel , by noting him for a Bald pate , and are devo●red by Beares . Th● * * Numb. 11. People loathing Manna , are choaked with Quail●● .

If sacred stories will not prevaile , peradventure your owne Legends will rellish better with you : so the● your l l Quidam , qui sancti Anthonij Imaginem abolere cupiebant , non tulerunt illud scelus impune , sed è vestigio peste illa , quae dicit●o Antonij , correpti interierunt . Bozius de signis . Eccles. lib. 15. c. 12. ex Lindano . Bozius will tell you of them , who were suddainly strucke with the plague , called Saint Anthonies plague , one by for seeking to pull downe and demolish Saint Anthonies Image . Have you faith to believe this ? and can you not conceive a like right Judgement against the Prophaners of the Sacramentall Image of Christ himselfe ?

Be it therefore furthermore knowne unto you , that the Sacrament , which is celebrated by Protestants , although ▪ it conteine no Corporall Vnion 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 prophane Communicants and Contemners of this holy Mystery , which hath in it a Sacramentall Vnion of the Body and Blood of Christ . One example , whereof wee reade , is of one that being afflicted in Conscience for his abuse of the Sacrament , in receiving it but in one kind , m 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 , ô ( inquit ) Ego sum &c. Did cast himselfe head-long out of a window , and so dyed . The other is that which hee ( who now writeth these things ) saw and can testifie , viz. n n Sir Booth of S. Iohn's Coll. in Cambridge . A Bachelour of Arts , being Popishly affected , at the time of the Communion , tooke 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 induring the torment of his guilty Conscience , hee threw himselfe head-long over the Battlements of the Chappell , and some few houres after ended his Life .

That onely the Godly Christians are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ , and thereby Vnited unto him , is not Contrary to the Iudgement 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 3 Dr Heskias in his Parlia . of Christ . Book 3. cap. 48. f●l. 367. out of Chrysostome . Hom. 30. de proditione Iudae . Chrysostome , Speaking ( saith hee ) of the traytor Iudas his Receiving Christs Body ; and what satisfaction ( saith Chrysostome ) shall wee give , if after wee have beene nourished with this Lambe , wee shall be turned into Wolves ? And againe , 4 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 Christs Body to the unworthy Receiver . Thirdly , 5 5 ●ooke 3. c. 54. out of Hom. 3. in Ephs. Thou art bold with uncleane hands and lips to touch the Body of Christ , thou wouldest not kisse the King with a stinking breath . Fourthly , out of Basil 6 6 Book . 3. c. 47. out of Basil . The ungodly handleth the Body of Christ . Fiftly , out of Theodoret 7 7 Book . 3. c. 52. out of Theodoret. That Christ gave to Iudas his precious Body . And Lastly out of Saint Augustine 8 8 In 1. Cor. 11. Aug. lib. contra ●ulgent . Donatist . Dr. Heskins in his parliament of Christ . Chap. 48 fol 369. That hee that drinketh the Blood of the Lord unworthily , drinketh Iudgement unto himselfe . So your Doctor . Wee shall helpe him with another Testimonie of 9 9 Aug. lib. 5. de Baptismo . Chap. 8. Iudas 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 , &c. Augustine , that Iudas sinned in wickedly receiving the Body of Christ . But ( not to usurpe in this place the Answer of your owne Doctors unto the Ordinary speeches of Chrysostome in his Homilies noting his Rhetoricall Hyperboles ) wee answer directly from Saint Augustine himselfe , who hath already told you , that the calling Bread the Body of Christ , is not spoken in the strictnesse of the truth of the thing , but in a Mysticall Signification , that is ( said your owne Romish * * See above ● . 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. Glosse ) unproperly .

The same Answer may serve for the Objected place of 10 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 wee find a cleare Distinction , betweene the Being of Christs Body Sacramentally in the Eucharist , ( together with the Receiving thereof ) and it 's Being Spiritually ; Concerning the Sacramentall virtue ( namely the thing signified ) which is ministerially offered to every Communicant , in every Divine Sacrament ; but that this should be effectuall to any Communicant , it is necessary that his Receiving be Spirituall . For Grace is the virtue of Baptisme to every Person baptized ; yet ( according to the termes of Schooles ) Hee , who either by his Infidelity , or Impenitency shall Obicem ponere , that is , set a Barre , and resist that Grace , hee doth not receive it . A man that receiveth with his hand a politike Instrument , and Scale offered unto him , yet if hee yeeld not his Consent to accept of the Guift it selfe , therby conveyed , and in the maner that hee ought ; it may well be sayd , that the thing thus bequeathed is really tendered , yet in respect of the Parties Contemning it , although it be touched and taken after the publike and Civill touch , yet notwithstanding is hee 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 marke tha● Cyprian speaketh of [ Sacramenta , Sacraments , ] in generall : 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 Alchymie , as well extract a Corporall Presence of Christ out of Baptisme , as out of the Eucharist .

That the Vngodly do not Communicate of Christs Body in Receiving the Eucharist , is the Determinate Iudgement of Antiquity , and Consequently argueth a No-Corporall presence of Christ , as an Vnion with him in the Eucharist . SECT. VIII .

AFter that you have heard the Symbolicall Phrases of the Fathers , so Dissonantly objected for proofe of a Bodily Presence of Christ in the Eucharist ; Hearken , 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 Christs Sacred Body and Blood , saying of every such a one , that 11 11 Irenae● adversus Haeres ▪ lib. 5. confesseth , Caro sanguine Christi nutrita membrum ejus est . Hee is a member of Christ . So Irenaeus . And 12 12 Cyrill . Alex. in Ioh 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 . Hee that eateth this Bread of life is joyned with Christ , and Christ dwelleth in him . So Cyrill . And 13 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 meate shall live for ever . So Origen . And 14 14 Ambrosius 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 15 Chrysost. Hom. 61. ad . Pop. Antioch . Tradit un●onem ratione cujus dicuntur membra Christi . The Vnion is that whereby the Eaters are sayd to be the members of Christ . So Chrysostome . Sometime more Emphatically , in a Negative style , 16 16 Origen . vide paul● sup. Origen , No wicked one can eate this meat . As also Hierome , 17 17 Hi●ronym . in Malac. Sordidi mundum sanguinem bibunt . [ namely Sacramentally , for the signe of his Body , who himselfe , in lib. 1. contra ●ovianum calleth it , Typus sanguinis ; And againe 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 eate Christs Flesh or drinke his Blood . Wee 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 vainely and unconscionably , as will appeare in the Section following .

Now whether side , yours , or ours , can more satisfactorily reconcile the seeming Contradictions of the Fathers , in saying and gain-saying the Eating of Christs 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 eate the Body of Christ Corporally in this Sacrament , by a Bodily Touch ; but they eate it not Spiritually : for they eate it not worthly , and in that respect are said not to eate it . So you . As if the Fathers , in denying the Wicked to be partakers of Christs Flesh , must have meant that they Eate it not worthily . But this Distinction cannot possibly accord with your owne Romish Faith , which teacheth a Bodily Eating , with a Bodily Touch by a Bodily . Vnion of the Eater with the Body of Christ , common as well to Iudas , as to Peter ; to the Prophanest miscreant , as to the Godliest Saint : yea to the very Beasts , as really as to Men.

If this had beene the ancient Catholike Faith , then could not these Fathers so peremptorily and precisely have denyed , that any Wicked is joyned and united with Christs Body , and especially when they mention in expresse termes a Naturall and Corporall Conjunction of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants , by this Sacrament ; which you your selves interpret to be spoken of your Corporall Vnion 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 implyed in the Sayings of the rest of the Fathers , when they speake so universally of the True Eater of Christs Body , * * See above in this Sect. n. 11. &c. That every such are joyned 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 , spake onely Symbolically , to wit , as they called the Sacrament of Christs Body , the Body of Christ , Sacramentally and Figuratively ( as hath beene * * See Booke 2. thorowout . copiously and convincingly proved ; ) So do they affirme the Body of Christ to be Eaten of the Wicked , that is to say , Symbolically , by eating onely the Sacrament of his Body : But in affirming that the Godly onely eat Christs flesh , they spake of the Spiritually-Real Eating by Faith , which was the maner and meanes Spirituall of being truly Vnited to Christs flesh , and so to his person , God and man ; and so , as his lively members , made Capable of Immortality it selfe , as well in Body , as in Soule . This our Distinction , wee have received from Saint Augustine , for whom both you and wee strive , as for the Homer of his age , and Patron of our Faith in this Point , which is to be tryed in the Section following .

In the Interim , you ( who so earnestly plead against this privilege of the Godly to be partakers of Christs Body , by making the Wicked to be as Capable thereof , as any Sanctifyed member of Christ can be ) thinke but with your selves , how that Satan is sayd to have entred into the heart of Iudas , after his receiving of this Sacrament ; and then tell us , if the Wicked be really partakers of Christs Body , and not to Contradict that Scripture , which denyeth that there can be any Communion with Christ and Beliall ; yet will you inferre ( in Iudas , ) a Communion betweene Christ and Satan .

That Saint Augustine ( to whom both sides appeale ) is a Direct Patron of our Protestant Cause , for proofe , that the Wicked eat not the Body of Christ : And Consequently an Adversary to the Romish Faith of a Corporall Presence in this Sacrament ; noting also an egregious Depravation of a Testimony of Saint Augustine , by a Romish Doctor . SECT. IX .

YOu allege , and wee as willingly acknowledge , that Saint Augustine said , that the Wicked , ( and among others , even Iudas , ) doe eat the Body of Christ ; which hee meant ( say wee ) Metonymically and Figuratively , in as full a sense as if hee had flatly sayd , The Wicked eat onely the Sacramentall Signe of his Body , because hee spake so , onely [ 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 wee produce some Author hereof ; who may be beyond all exception : And none , thinke wee , rather than Saint Augustine himselfe , especially seeing that your Disputers do collect Testimonies out of him , in prejudice of this our defence ; which is , that Saint Augustine denyed , that the Wicked receive the Body of Christ properly but onely the Sacrament thereof .

There were Prophane Spirits in the dayes of Saint Augustine , who pampering themselves in their vices , notwithstanding presumed of Salvation , because of their professing of the Catholike Faith , and of their being the Members of Christs mysticall Body , which is his Church , and Concluded thereupon , That they , in communicating of this Sacrament , eat not onely the Sacrament , but indeed the Body of Christ . These Saint 8 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 hee 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 sanguinē , 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 Christs Body , saith First , that They cannot be sayd 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 Christs mysticall Body ? Saint Augustine himselfe saith no , 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 sayd , in the beginning of that Chapter of Saint Augustine , To eat , and now in the end thereof , Not to eat Christs Body ? This [ How ] is the very Birds eye , let therefore our ayme and levell be at this .

Those foresayd Prophane livers tooke to themselves this presumption for their Pillow to leane and sleepe upon , in indulging themselves in their wickednesse . Wee ( say they ) do eat , no onely the Sacrament , but indeed wee eat Christs Body it selfe , because wee are members of his mysticall Body . S. Augustine answereth directly , that Christ by saying [ Hee that eateth my flesh abideth in mee , ] sheweth what it is to Eat Christs Body [ non Sacramento tenus ] that is , Not onely as concerning the Sacrament , but [ Indeed , ] So hee . Where wee have a flat opposition , betweene that which is called [ Revera ] a Reall eating , against Eating onely Sacramentally . So that the Antithesis falling betweene these Termes , of Eating Christs Body [ Revera , Indeed ] by the Godly ; and of Eating it onely [ 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 Corporall Presence of Christ , which your Profession teacheth to be Eaten as well of a Wicked man , or of vile Myce , as it can be of the most Faithfull member of Christ . Againe 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 owne Romish Glosse expoundeth to meane , that It is called Christs Body Improperly .

The Second Assertion of Saint Augustine will accord to our former Conclusion , 9 9 Aug. Tract. 26. in Ioh. [ Qui manducat carnem meam , in me manet . ] Qui non manet in Christo , proculdubio non māducat Spritualiter carnem Christi , nec bibit ejus sanguinem , 〈◊〉 carnaliter & visibiliter prem at dentsbus Sacramentum corporis — Tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat . Hee that abideth not in Christ ( saith hee ) although hee presse with his Teeth , the Sacrament of Christs flesh ; yet doth hee not Eat the Spirituall flesh of Christ . The Observable is , that hee saith not , They eat not Spiritually the flesh of Christ ; But [ They eat not the Spirituall flesh of Christ : ] therefore called Spirituall , because it is Hypostatically united unto his Deity . So then , that which they properly Eat , is not Christ Body , but onely the Sacrament thereof : allowing no Corporall Touch with the Teeth , but onely of the Sacrament it selfe . Compare wee now this Doctrine of Saint Augustine of Pressing onely the Sacrament of Christs Body , and not Christs Body it selfe ; with your Pope Nicholas his Profession of Tearing of Christs Body with mens Teeth , * * See below Ch. 5. Sect. 1. ( above mentioned ) and then will it be easie for any man of but ordinary Capacity to collect , that Pope Nicholas , by his Affirmation , meant as directly to proclame your Romish Article of the Corporall Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament ; as S. Augustine , by his Denyall , meant utterly to disclame 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 owne Table , namely Christs faithfull Apostles , and the Reprobate Iudas , saying , 10 10 Aug. Tract 59. in Ioh. Illi manducarunt panem , Dominum ; Iudas autem panem Domini . They received the Bread , the Lord ; ( meaning the Body of Christ ) But Iudas , What ? Hee received but the Bread of the Lord ( which was but the Sacramentall Bread . ) The onely Answer which your i i Resp. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Eucharist● . cap. 13. Iudas inutiliter edebat , sicut qui comedit et rejicit ●●●sus , dicitur non comedere . Cardinall vouchsafeth is , that Saint Augustine spake so , because Iudas ate the Bode of Christ Vnprofitably : as if the Difference of Eating , and , Not Eating , Christs Body had beene betweene 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 expresly betweene the divers Subject matters of Eating ; The one being Bread , the Lord , which is Christs Body ; the other being the Bread of the Lord , which is the Sacramentall Bread ; as any , 〈◊〉 but an Halfe-eyed man , may easily discerne . Another Comparision remayneth , whereabout wee are to have 〈◊〉 Conflict with your Doctor Heskins .

A Vindication of a Speciall Testimony of Saint Augustine , in the same point , against the notorious Falsification of his words , by Doctor Heskins . SECT. X.

DOctor Heskins , before that he deliver the Sentence it selfe , as a man but about to put on his Harnesse , 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 hee . The words of Saint Austine ( speaking of Moses and other Faithfull , in the Old Testament , who in eating Manna , ate Christ Spiritually , and therefore although they died in Body , yet died not Spiritually in their soules ) are these 11 11 Aug. To. 9. Tract. 26. in Ioh. 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 Jewes ) ate Manna and died not ; ( namely in Soule ) But why ? Because they understood it Spiritually ; For wee 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 eate damnation to themselves . So hee . Namely ( say wee ) Because they ate onely the Sacrament , as the visible meat , and not the Virute , that is the Bodie of Christ signified thereby : And by this our Paraphrasis Saint Augustine is fully Protestant , professing with us , that the Wicked Communicants do not eate the Body of Christ .

Your Doctor , to make Saint Augustine as flatly a Papist as himselfe , hath framed 12 12 Dr Heskins in his parliament of Christ . Booke 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 doe receive it at the Altar and do die . Meaning according to the Saying of the Apostle , that receiving , it unworthily they Die in the Soule , eating and drinking their owne Damnation . Now would it be learned of the Adversary , how hee will understand Saint Augustine in this word [ Virtue . ] First certaine it is , that it is not taken for the Sacramentall 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 it selfe . 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 soules , and Die the Death that Iudas 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 meate ; [ But the Sacrament is one thing , and the Virtue of the Sacrament another thing , which , many eating die . ] And thereupon taking a full Cariere in a large Discourse ( See the margin ) argueth thus . By the word [ Virtue ] ( saith hee ) is meant the Body of Christ : And by [ Dying ] is meant the death of the Soule ; But Saint Augustine affirmeth that the Wicked do eate of this [ Virtue ] or Body of Christ . So hee ; Point-blanke Contrary to our Interpretation as can be , not but that wee confesse , that Saint Augustine by this word , Virtue , meant the Body of Christ ; and that by Dying , is understood the Death of mens Soules ; but that his Assertion affirming Saint Augustine to teach herein That the Wicked Receivers that Dye in their Soules , do eate the Virtue which is the Body of Christ ; is a plaine Imposture by a Grossely false Construction and Composition of Saint Augustines words thus : [ Aliud est virtus Sacramenti . Qudm multi &c. ] wherein you see a full point , as a deepe Ditch , to sever virtus from the immediatly following word , Quàm , which your Doctor joyneth together , whereby the word , Virtus , is Vitiously abused . Then is he injurious to Quàm , which being an Adverbe , and carrying the Adverbiall Accent above-head , as a Badge of Distinction , hee 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 .

Wee know you ( Romish Priests ) to be reasonable men , and will therefore demand ; whether hee had not reason , by some other Edition of Saint Augustine , to justifie his Allegation , and thereby his owne Conclusion , as if Saint Augustine had meant , That the wicked do Dye in their Soule , by unworthy Eating of the Reall Body of Christ ? Wee answer , no : It is Impossible hee should evade by any such excuse , and lest wee may seeme to speake partially , wee shall offer unto you a witnesse hereof , without all exception , and that shall be the Author Saint Augustine himselfe , the Expositor of his owne meaning in the very same Tractate , and in his words a little after expresly concluding the Contrary , saying : that 13 13 Aug. Tom. 9. 〈◊〉 Ioh. 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 corde , non qui premat dente . [ Hee that eateth of this , so farre as concerneth the virtue of the Sacrament , cannot Dye ; albeit otherwise in respect of Eating onely the visible Sacrament , he do dye . ] Where you see , that none that eate the Virtue , which is ( as hath beene confessed ) the Body of the Lord , dye the Death of the Soule . And for better explanation , hee distinguisheth , affirming that the Maner of Eating of the virtue of this Sacrament , is , Eating it , [ Intus corde , Inwardly in the heart : ] and the Eating of the other Sacrament it selfe , is Eating outwardly , and with the Teeth .

Now then , that your Doctors 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 minde of Saint Augustine , as the Catholike Church teacheth , and not as the malignant feigneth . ⚜

CHAP. III. Of the Capernaiticall Heresie , concerning the Bodily Vnion with Christ by Eating , What it was .

1. That the Errour of the Capernaites , Iohn 6. was an Opinion of the Corporall Eating of the Flesh of Christ . SECT I.

MAster Brerely , the Author of the Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse ( lately published , and largely applauded by all of your profession ) doth bestow a whole a a Mr. Brerely . Lituig . Tract . 2. §. 3. Section in explicating the Errour of the Capernaites , so that it must wholly reflect ( forsooth ! ) upon the Protestants . It is not needfull wee should deny , that in this Chapter of Saint Iohn , Christ doth speake of the Eucharist , which if wee did , wee might be assisted by your owne Bishop b b Ionsen . Concord . in Ioh. 6. per totum . Iansenius together with divers * * There are rec●oned 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 Jesuite c c Maldonat . in Ioh. 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 beene Learned , Godly , and Catholike ; yet fretteth not a little at them , for so resolutely affirming that In this Chapter of Saint Iohn , there was no speech of the Eucharist , because by this their opposition hee was hindred ( as the c c Maldonat . in Ioh. 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 . ) Jesuite himselfe saith ) That hee could not so sharpely and vehemently inveigh against Protestants . Let it then be supposed as spoken with a relation to a Sacramentall Eating with the mouth , as some of the Fathers thought ; but yet onely Sacramentally , and not Properly , as by them will be found true .

Wee returne to the Discourse of your Romish Priest , * * Above at (a) Christ having spoken ( saith hee ) of Eating his Flesh , and the Capernàites answering [ How can hee give us his Flesh to eate ? ] They understood eating with the mouth , yet were ( a speciall observation ) never reproved of Christ for mistaking the meaning of his words , a strong reason that they understood them rightly ; but for not beleeving them : and Christ often repeating the eating of his Flesh , and drinking of his Blood , and requiring them to beleeve , and when hee saith [ The flesh profiteth nothing , it is the Spirit that quickeneth ] it is not spoken to exclude the Reall Presence , or to qualifie his former sayings , but to admonish them not to judge things by carnall reason , and yet more evidently in the words following [ There are some of you that beleeve not ] Hee sayd not ( saith Saint Augustine ) there be some among you that understand not : so plainly did hee hereby instruct them not how to understand , but how to beleeve ; for had hee , for their better understanding , intended hereby to have qualified , or corrected his former sayings , as to be meant Eating Spiritually by Faith , hee would have explained himselfe in plaine termes , and so have satisfied the Iewes . Vpon which premises I do conclude , that because our Saviour did reprove his Scrupulous hearers not for want of understanding , but for want of beleefe , it doth from thence , and from other premises abundantly follow that his fore-sayd promise was not obscure , and Figurative , but plaine and literall for our receiving of him without our bodily mouthes .

Thus farre 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 Beleeving 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 qualifie his former speech , to instruct their understanding : Thirdly , They needed no instruction of their understanding ; Therefore Christs words of Eating his Flesh , were not Figurative . Fourthly , these his words were not Figurative : Therefore his words of Eating his Flesh , teach a Corporall 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 Beliefe , whereupon Aristotle gave that Rule to every Schollar , that intendeth to learne the principles of any Art ( to wit ) Oportet discentem credere : A Schollar is bound to beleeve . The other point , touching the Truth , or true sense , what it is , is the Object of mans understanding ; so that there is a great difference betweene both these in the case of a Reprehension . As for example ; the Master teaching the definition of Logick , saying ; It is an Art of Disputing rightly , may justly reprove his Schollar for his not beleeving it , because his not beleeving is wilfull : so can hee not for his not understanding it , for that hee therefore learneth , because hee doth not understand ; except it be , that being taught hee either through carelesse negligence , or else affected ignorance will not understand .

This agreeth with the Current of Scripture Iohn 6. verse 38. Christ being the Oracle of Truth , which descended from Heaven to reveale the will of his Father , might justly exact Beliefe , that whatsoever hee spake to the sonnes of men was most true : as it is written , The will of God is , that whosoever beleeveth in mee , &c. verse 40. viz. That they must Eate 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 Schollars of preposterous wits ) would they not beleeve 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , namely That they were True : hence it was that Christ reproved them for not beleeving onely verse 64. and not for not understanding . Because it was as lawfull for Christs Disciples to be ignorant of his darke sayings and Parables ( which were therefore so spoken , that his Schollars might more earnestly labour to know them ) as it was after lawfull for them to seeke of their Master , ( whose precept is to * * Matth. 7. 7. Seeke , and promise to Find ) how to understand them . As it is written ; * * Matth. 13. 36. His Disciples sayd unto him , Declare unto us the Parable of the Seed : and Christ answered them , Hee that soweth , &c.

That admirable Doctor of Gods Church Saint Augustine will shew himselfe herein an understanding Schollar of Christ ( see his Testimony ) requiring of all the Disciples of Christ , in the first place , Beliefe 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 Christs words right well . And Saint d d Aug. in Ioh. 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 , expressely 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 owne Romish Church ( wee thinke ) before one Master Brerely , that thought otherwise . Wee are willing your Bishop Iansenius may moderate this Difference . ( See the 1 1 Iansenius 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 quickneth , ] That it was not spoken by Christ to Qualifie his former termes of Eating his flesh , is very like also to be his owne , being flatly contrary to the same Father , whom hee 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 owne great Master , Cardinall f 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 proofe thereof the Testimonies of other Fathers , saying ; Chrysostome , Theophylact , Euthemius , and also Origen so expoundeth it . So hee . ⚜ Who notwithstanding should not have balked Tertullian , where speaking of these Carnall Hearers , hee saith , that 2 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 intollerable , as if Christ had determined to deliver his flesh to be ( Marke ) truly Eaten : therefore Christ added , saying The flesh profiteth nothing , ] But for giving of Life , is required the Spirit , [ The words which I speake are Spirit , and Life . ] What can be more plaine to prove that the Truly proper Eating must needs signify an Eating Carnall , and Capernaiticall . ⚜

Master Brerely his third Inference is ; Therefore the words , speaking of Eating his flesh , are not Figurative ; which indeed is the maine Controversie , for never any but an Infidell denyed the speech of Christ to be true ; nor yet did ever any , but an Orthodoxe , understand the Truth of the speech , what it was , that 's to say , whether the Truth be according to a Literall sense , ( as Master Brerely would have it ) or else in a Figurative ; which hath beene our defence and proofe throughout the Second Booke , from all kind of Evidences of Truth .

Here therefore wee are onely to deale with Master Brerely , and with his pretended witnesse Saint Augustine , to whom hee would seeme to adhere . Notwithstanding ( that wee may beleeve Master Brerely himselfe ) h h Mr. Brerely Liturg Booke 4. §. ● . at Fourthly . If wee should attend to the properiety of Speech , Christs Blood is not properly drunke . So hee ; albeit Christ his speech was as expresly for drinking his Blood , as for Eating his Body . And hee ( wee suppose ) will confesse , that every speech , which is Vnproper , is Figurative . As for Saint Augustine , hee standeth as a sworne witnesse against the proper and literall sense of Eating Christs Flesh , calling it * * See afterwards , Chap 6. § 3. in the Challenge . Flagitious . Besides , rather than wee should want witnesses , to averre this Truth , Divers Jesuites will be ready ( in the * * See afterward c. 5. Sect. 2. following Chapter ) to tell Master Brerely flatly , that if hee say the words , Eating Christs Flesh , are properly spoken , he speaketh False .

II. Proving the Objected Saint Augustine to Contradict the Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence , as Protestantly as can be . SECT. II.

MAster Brerely his Conclusion , taken from Christs speech of Eating , is to inferre a Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament . ⚜ But Saint Augustine upon these words of Christ , Iohn 6. 3 3 Aug Tract. 27 〈◊〉 Ioh. [ 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 Sonne of man ascending into Heaven where hee was first ] saith that Christ by those words , Assoyleth the doubt , which troubled and scandalized the Capernaites , who thought that Christ should give them his Flesh to eate ; by saying , that he was to ascend into heaven , doubtlesse with his perfect Body ; and that therefore they were not to thinke that his Body was to be given unto them , in the maner which they conceived , by eating it by Bits and Morsels . ⚜ Wherein you may plainly discerne the Argument of Saint Augustine to be , that Christ by his Bodily Ascension would shew to the world , that hee being Bodily absent from the Earth , his Flesh could not be here Eaten by Bodily Tearing asunder . Thus hee 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 Booke 3. c. 3. §. 11. Fathers ( as wee have heard ) have called them Fragments , and Bits . And that which Iudas received from the hand of Christ , Saint Augustine himselfe calleth 4 4 Aug. Tract. 26. in Iob. 6. Nonne Buccella Dominica venenum fuit Iudae ? & tamen accepit ; sed non quia male , sed quia male malus . Buccella , a Morsell . If then by the judgement of Saint Augustine , Christ his Bodily Ascension into Heaven , proved that hee was not to be Eaten by Morsels here on Earth ; then must it thereupon necessarily follow , that the Sacrament of the Eucharist , given to Iudas , which Saint Augustine calleth a Morsell , was not the Body and Flesh of Christ . ⚜ Wee have no list , after so plaine a discovery of Master Brerely his manifold ignorances , to play upon his Person , but rather do pray that at the sight of his Errors hee may be reduced unto the Truth , now , after his ( fondly miscalled ) Strong Reasoning to the Contrary .

CHAP. IV.

That the now Romish maner of Vnion , and Bodily receiving of the Body of Christ , is sufficiently Capernaiticall in Five kinds . SECT. I.

TEll us not that no Doctrine of your Church can be called Hereticall , before that it be so judged by some Generall Councell : no , for Rectum est Index sui & Obliqui , and therefore an evident Truth , written in the word of God , doth sufficiently condemne the Contrary of Heresie , as well as Light doth discover and dispell Darkenesse . And this is manifest by the example , which wee have now in hand , of the Capernaites , old Heretikes , ( as all know ) even because they are set downe in Scripture to have perverted the sense of Christ his words of Eating his Flesh ; and thereupon to have departed from Christ , Iohn 6.

Your Romish particular maner 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 Vnion in the Inferiour parts , unworthy to be named .

⚜ That the First maner of Romish Corporall Vnion of Christs Bodie with the Bodies of the Communicants , by Bodily Touch , is Capernaiticall , and the Testimonies of the Fathers are unconscionably urged to the Contrary . SECT. II.

VNion of Christ his Body , by a Bodily Touch , in generall , 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 , &c. and therefore wee begin with the First degree of Touch , as it were by Hand ; which , in the generalitie thereof , may imply all the other Touches . Your Objected Testimonies are , either our of Cyrill , talking of bringing our Earthly Bodies , by participation of this Sacrament to a 1 1 Cyril . Alex. lib. 4. in Ioh. 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 Bodie ; or from Saint Chrysostome , where speaking of this Sacrament , 2 2 Chrysostome , Multi desiderant Videre formam Christi : Ipsum vides , 〈◊〉 Objected by Doctor Heskins in his Parliament of Christ . booke 3. c. 54. out of Chrysostomes Hom. 3 in Eph●● . tous ; Imput●s manibus ausus es ipsius Corpus attinge . ● . Many ( saith hee ) desire to see the forme of Christ , and here Christ yeeldeth himselfe ( in this Sacrament ) not onely to be seene , but also to be felt and Touched . And this will your Doctors needs inforce upon us , for proofe of a Corporall Touch , and Consequently a Corporall presence of Christs 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 learne that which you all teach , that Christs Body , as it is in this Sacrament , is altogether Invisible beyond mans Imagination , and not to be seene of men ; no , nor yet to be discernd by the very Devills . Besides , that All mens eyes , by Contemplation , can avouch it to be nothing lesse than Seene . So that the word [ Seene ] being so Vnproperly and Figuratively spoken , might have given you reason to discerne , that hee used the same Impropriety of Phrase in the other word [ Touch. ] Yea , and Chrysostome himselfe will tell you , that hath Rhetoricated as fully in the word Touch ; when in an Homily hee willed the People 3 3 Chrysost. in Mart. 14 ( To people that were to be baptized . ) Tenete pedes Salvato●s To hold Christ our Saviour by the feet .

But what need many words , your owne Doctor and Dictator of Romish Profession , Aquinas affirmeth also 4 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 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 hee ) as hee is in this Sacrament , can neither touch , nor be touched of any thing . And your* Schoole againe giveth reasons hereof .

Therefore can it be no lesse than a blind Boldnesse , 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 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 sayd Who Toucheth me ] when men touched him , but not immediatly , but by Touching his garment . So he . But soft Sir , you your selfe 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 Testimonie of Aquinas , here above cited , at (4) . That the sense of Touch hath no habitude at all to Christs Body herein , not so much as by the Accidents , or formes of Bread and Wine , neither mediatly nor immediatly ; which sheweth the Dissimilitude of the Comparison taken from Touching Christs Vestment , ( and thereby his sacred Body , which was touched by the same Vestment immediatly ) and here Touching Christs Body by the Accidents of Bread , which you grant , do neither Touch Christs Body , nor are Touched by it ; because Christs Body is therein Simply as a Substance without Accidents . From the Manuall Touch , by Handling , wee proceed to the Orall , by Eating . ⚜

CHAP. V. Of the Second Romish Bodily maner of Vnion with Christs Body by Eating .

That the Second Romish Bodily maner of Vnion with the Body of Christ , which is by Orall Eating , once professed in the Church of Rome , was both Capernaitically-Hereticall , and is also still no lesse , in the Profession of divers in the same Church . SECT. I.

THe first member wil appeare by the Faith of the Church of Rome , in the Dayes of Pope Nicholas , whose Faith ( about the yeare 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 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 Cōcillo detestatus est errorem ▪ fidemque Catholicam professus — Ego Berengarius — ore & corde 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 Iesu Christi esse , & sensualiter non solùm Sacramento , sed 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 . Cardinall Baronius doth certifie you from the Stories of those times ) Pope Nicholas and a Generall Councel held at Rome revised , approved , and prescribed to Berengarius to take , for the abjuration of his Errour , concerning the maner of Eating the Body of Christ ; and the same Oath was after published by the Popes authority throughout all the Cities of Italy , France , and Germany ; and wheresoever the Report of Berengarius should come . So hee . You cannot now but expect such a forme of an Oath , which must be as truly Romish , as either Romane Pope , or Romane Councel could devise .

Marke then the enjoyned tenour of the Oath . I Berengarius Archdeacon , &c. do firmely professe , that I hold that Faith , which the Reverend P. Nicholas and this holy Synod hath commanded mee to hold , ( to wit ) That the Body of Christ is in this Sacrament , not onely as a Sacrament , but even in truth is sensibly handled with the hands of the Priest , and broken and torne with the Teeth of the faithfull . So the Oath . The same forme of Abjuration is registred in the publike Papall b b Ad perpetuam rei memoriam , &c. Bulla P. ante Gratian. Extat in Decret. de Consecrat. Dist. 2. C. Ego Berengarius . Decrees : and the Body of these Decrees hath beene lately ratifyed by the Bull of Pope Gregory the thirteenth . The same Faith was imbraced afterwar●●●ds of some c 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 . Schoolemen , who , without any Distinction , used the same Phrase of Tearing with Teeth .

Secondly , of aftertimes , your d 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 torne with the teeth . But most Emphatically your Cardinall e 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 competāt , 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 , &c. attribuuntur Domino Deo in Scriptura , propter conjunctam humanitatem in eadem Hypostasi . Alan . Cardin . lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 37. pag. 435. Alan . It is sayd ( saith he ) to be torne with the teeth of the faithfull , no lesse properly , than if it should be sayd so of the Bread , if it were eaten . ⚜ Flat Contradictory to the Determination of your owne Pope Innocent the third , teaching that 1 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 formes of Bread are sayd to be broken , because this notifyeth a Corruption ( meaning ) of that which seemeth to be Broken and Torne . ⚜ Yea and your Cardinall g 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 proofe of Transubstantiation , hath recourse unto the same Romane Councel , which hee styleth Generall , and noteth the thing defined to have beene the Iudgement of the Church ; and that the same Iudgement was Delivered under the Censure of an Anathema and Curs● against the Gain-sayers : and therefore Hee , with his Disciple Master h h In his Rejoynd . pag. 270. Fisher ( who also allegeth the same ) are Challengeable to hold it according to the literall 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 downe , as a Forme of Recantation and Abjuration of Heresie : but ( as i 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 confesse ) There are no formes of speech more exact and proper in phrase , concerning the matter of faith , than such as are used by them that abjure Heresie . And Secondly , for that this Forme 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 literall Exposition of the words of Christ [ This is my Body , &c. ] therefore was it taken literally : But what ( thinke you ) will Calvin say to this your ( then ) Romish forme of Profession , in the literall sense ? k k Calvin . lib. 2. Defens . Sacram. Nonne 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 hee ) than once to intangle himselfe in a Doctrine , so monstrously sacrilegious . Which Censure of his wee now endeavour to make good .

That the foresayd Romane Faith , of Properly Eating the Body of Christ , is Capernaitically-Hereticall ; as is proved by some of your owne Doctors of the now Romish Church . SECT. II.

YOu have heard of Berengarius his Abrenuntiation of Heresie , according to the faith of the ( then ) Romane Church , in Breaking the Body of Christ , and tearing it sensibly with their teeth . Hearken now a little , and you shall heare , in a maner , an Abrenuntiation of that ( then ) Romane faith , by denying it to be either properly Broken or yet really Torne , even by the Jesuites themselves . l 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 ▪ Reall Eating ( saith your Salmeron ) requireth a reall touch and tearing of the thing which is eaten : but the Body of Christ is not torne with teeth , or touched by them that eat him , because hee is herein impartible . So hee . Your Jesuite and Cardinall Bellarmine is as it were in a maze , saying and gain-saying , as you may perceive : yet notwithstanding , whether hee will or no , must perforce confesse no lesse , when hee saith that m 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 formes of Bread : and that is to say ( saith hee ) the formes of Bread are sensibly and visibly eaten . So hee . If this imported a literall maner of Eating , then might your Cardinall have sayd as literally of himselfe ; My Clothes are torne , therefore my Body is rent in pieces . Not to trouble you with the Cardinall's Philosophy , that talketh of Eating and Tearing of Colours . But to the point .

If onely the Accidents of Bread be ( as hee saith ) sensibly eaten , then was Pope Nicholas his Prescription of Eating Christs Body sensibly , in your Cardinalls opinion , not True . And upon the same Ground it is , that your Iesuit n 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 Schoolemen , affirmeth the word [ Broken ] to be a Metaphoricall 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 hee , as also your * * Canus , see in the former Section . Canus hath concluded . And your o 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. Iesuite Maldonate is so bold as to tell you , that these Propositions , The Body of Christ is Eaten , is Broken , Torne with the Teeth , or Devoured of us ( properly taken ) are false . Thus your Iesuites , as if they had expressely sayd , that to thinke the Body of Christ to be eaten , torne , or devoured ( properly taken ) is a Carnall , Capernaiticall , and ( as your owne p p Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarij , in majorem Haeresin incides quam Ipse fuerit . Igitur omnia referas ad species ipsas , &c. Gloss. apud Gratian. de Consecrat. Dist. 2. c. Ego Berengarius . Glosse in Gratian concludeth ) an Hereticall opinion .

Will you have any more ? It is but the last day , in respect , when q 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 , mente nequissimâ potes comprobare ? non magis id facias quàm Caiphas , cùm tunicam à pectore laceravit . one of your grave Criticks so much abhorred the conceit of proper Tearing Christs Body , that hee called the Objecting hereof against your Church , in his blind zeale , Blasphemie : and answereth , that you do no more Teare Christs Flesh , than Caiphas tore his , when he rent his Clothes . The case then is plaine enough , for Confutation of your more ancient Romish Faith .

That the former Romish and Popish Faith , for the Maner of receiving of the Body of Christ , is at this day but somewhat altered ; yet miserably inconstant and Faithlesse . SECT. III.

PRotestants may have in this place just matter of insultation against your Romish Professors , to prove their Infidelity in that which they seeme to professe . As first , that the Ground of your Doctrine of Corporall presence is the litterall and proper interpretation of the words of Christ , when hee sayd [ Take , eate , 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 Romane Pope , in a Romane Councell , in a matter of Faith , is Infallible . Notwithstanding Pope Nicholas , with his Romane Councel , is found to have grossely erred in a tenor of Abjuration , which of all others ( as hath beene confessed ) is most Literall , and was therefore purposely devised against a Figurative Sense of the words of Christ ; and forth-with published throughout Italy , France , Germany , &c. to direct men in the Faith of sensuall 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 maner to abrenounce Berengarius his Abrenunciation , what is , if this be not an Argument that either you say , you care not , or else you beleeve you know not what ? Let us goe on , in pursuit of your Doctrine of the Corporall maner of Eating , which you still maintaine , and it will be found to be Capernaiticall enough . And lest that you may evade , by pretence of Not - Chewing , wee adde as followeth .

That the Orall Eating of the Sacrament , was anciently by Chewing . SECT. IV.

CHewing the Sacrament with the Teeth was the forme of Eating , at the time of Christ his Institution , as is proved by your owne * * Suarez . See above , Booke 1. Cap. 1. Sect. 4. Confession , in granting that the unleavened Bread , which Christ used , was [ Glutinosus , ] that is , gluish , clammie , and such as was to be cut with a knife . But that the same maner of Eating , by Chewing , was altered in the Apostolicall or Primitive times , is not read of by any Canon ; yea or yet Admonition of any one Father in the Church , whether Greek , or Latine : among whom , Saint Augustine called the maner 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 yeares after Christ , is not obscurely implyed 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 Custome of the same Church , is as evident by your Cardinall Alan , and Canus , * * See above in the former Section . who have defended the maner of Eating , by Tearing . Nor was Swallowing prescribed by any untill that the queazie stomaches of your r r Hostiam salivâ 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. Jesuites , not enduring Chewing , perswaded the Contrary . Which kinds of Eating , whether by Chewing ; or Swallowing of Christs Flesh , being both Orall , none can deny to have beene the opinion of the s 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 sixt Chapter following , in it's due place .

That the Corporall and Orall Eating of Christs Flesh is a Capernaiticall Heresie , is proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers . SECT. V.

SOmetime do Ancient Fathers point out the Error of the Capernaites , set downe Iohn 6. concerning their false interpreting the words of Christ , when hee speaketh of Eating his Flesh , which they understood literally . But this literall sense a a Origen . Hom. 7. in Levit. pag. 141. [ Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam ] Si secundum literam sequaris hoc : ipsum quod dictum est , occidit haec litera : vis tibi aliam proferam ex Evangelio literam quae occidit , [ Qui non habet , inquit , gladium , vendat tunicam , & emat gladium ] Si vero spiritualiter , non occidit , sed est in eo spiritus vivificans . Origen calleth a Killing letter , that is , a pernicious interpretation , even as of that other Scripture [ Hee that hath not a Sword , let him buy one : &c. ] but this latter is altogether Figurative , as you know , and hath a Spirituall understanding , therefore the former is Figurative also .

Athanasius b b Athanas . Tract . in illa verba . [ Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium hominis , &c ] Quod hominibus corpus suffecisset ad cibum , ut universis mundi alimonia fieret . Sed propterea ascensionis suae meminit , ut eos a corporali intellectu abstraheret , — Quae locutus sum ( inquit ) spiritus sunt & vita , id est , corpus in cibum dabitur , ut spiritualiter unicuique tribuatur , & fiat singulis praeservatio ad Resurrectionem . confuting the Capernaiticall conceipt of Corporall Eating of Christs Flesh , will have us to observe , that Christ after hee spake of his Flesh , did forth-with make mention of his Ascension into Heaven , but why ? That Christ might thereby draw their thoughts from the bodily sense , namely , of Eating it Corporally upon Earth , which is your Romish sense . ⚜ His Reason , Reduced into Logicall forme , must have beene this , against the Capernaites ( who imagined a Carnall Eating of Christs Flesh . ) That which was to ascend into Heaven , could not be eaten Corporally on Earth : But Christ sayd that his Body should ascend into Heaven . And therefore signified thereby that hee could not be eaten upon Earth ; which ought to have beene a Satisfactory reason and Answere to the Capernaites themselves . ⚜

Tertullian likewise giveth the reason of Christs saying , [ It is the Spirit which quickeneth ] because the Capernaites so understood the words of Christs speech of Eating his Flesh , As if ( saith c c Tertul. de Capernaitis . Quia durum & intolerabile existimarunt sermonem , quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset , praemisit , [ Spiritus est qui vivificat ] lib. de Resurrect. carnis . Tertullian ) Christ had truly determined to give his Flesh to be eaten . Therefore it was their Errour to dreame of a truly Corporall Eating . d d Aug. in Iob 6. [ Non moritur ] Non qui panem premit dente , sed qui man ducat in Corde . Tract. 26. — Idem in Psal. 98. Spiritualiter intelligite , non Hoc corpus , quod videtis , manducaturi estit , & bibituri sanguinem illum , quem fusuri sunt , qui me crucifigent : Sacramentum commendavi vobis , spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos . Augustine , out of the sixt of Iohn , bringeth in Christ expounding his owne meaning of Eating his Flesh , and saying , You are not to eate this flesh which you see , I have commended unto you a Sacrament , which being Spiritually understood shall revive you . Plainely denying it to be Christs Body which is Eaten Orally ; and then affirming it to be the Sacrament of his Body : and as plainely calling the maner of Corporall Eating , A pressing of Bread with the teeth . Wee say Bread , not the Body of Christ . For , when hee cometh to our Eating of Christs flesh , hee exempteth the Corporall Instruments , and requireth only the Spirituall , saying , e 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 hee addeth ; Believe , and thou hast eaten . Saint Augustine goeth on , and knowing that Corporall Eating of any thing doth inferre a Chewing , by dividing the thing eaten into parts ( as your owne Iesuit hath * * See above , Booke 5. cap. ● . §. 2. confessed ) lest wee should understand this properly , hee teacheth us to say f f Idem rursus apud Gratiam ibid. Christus manducatus vivit ; quia resurre●t it occi●us : nec , quando mandu●●us , partes 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 corde . Ex Aug. Serm. de verbis Evangeli● . Christ is not divided into parts . Contrarily , when wee speake Sacramentally , that is , Figuratively , and improperly , hee will have us to grant that Christ his Body is divided in this Sacrament , but remayneth whole in Heaven .

Say now ; will you say that Christs Body is Divided by your Eating the Eucharist , in a literall sense ? your owne Iesuits have abhorred to thinke so . And dare you not say that in Eating this Sacrament you do Divide Christs Body , in a literall sense ? then are you to abhorre your Romish Literall Exposition of Christs speech , which cannot but necessarily inferr a proper Dividing of the flesh of Christ .

⚜ Wee may not conceale 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 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 maner ( namely ) not in a visible and mortall shape . So they . Than which Exposition what can be more extravagant , by skipping from the Predicament of Substance , to the Predicament of Quality ? You shall not eat the same Body ( saith Saint Augustine ) What then shall they eat ? Hee addeth , I have commended to you a Sacrament to be eaten . Therefore the Opposition used by Saint Augustine , is to Distinguish betweene Christs Body , and the Sacrament of Bread ; as betweene Substance , and Substance ; for hee sayd not to eat his Body As you see it , to signify the maner of Eating invisibly : but you are not to eat That which you see ; as denying Christs Body to be the matter of their Sight ; even as Saint Augustine doth often expresse himselfe , as well in that place where hee called his Body , The Bread , the Lord : and the Sacrament , The Bread of the Lord : like as your owne 2 2 Gabriel Bi●l , Lect. 80. lit . n. Non , cum manducamus , partes de illo facimus , & quidem in Sacramento id fit : intelligit nos non partem corporis Christi sumer●e , sed Sacramenti . Schoolemen discerned his meaning in the other words , of Eating ▪ as yet not making parts of his Body , but of the Sacrament of his Body . ⚜

Lastly , do but call to mind Saint * * See above Chap. §. 2. 〈◊〉 Augustines Observation ( just the same with the now-Cited Testimony of Athanasius ) to wit , Christs mention of his Ascension in his Body from Earth , lest that they might conceive of a Carnall Eating of his flesh ; and these Premises will fully manifest , that Saint Augustines Faith was farre differing from the now Romish , as Heaven is distant from Earth . Wee still stand unto Christs Qualification of his owne speech , when hee condemned all Carnall sense of Eating his flesh , saying thereof , The flesh profiteth nothing , &c.

For Conclusion of this Point , you may take unto you the Commentary of Saint i i Chrysost. in Iohan . 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 . Chrysostome , as followeth ; Did not Christ therefore speake of his flesh ? farre be it from us ( saith hee ) so to thinke ! for how shall that flesh not profit , without which none can have life ? but in saying [ The flesh profiteth nothing ] is meant the carnall understanding of the words of Christ . And that you may know how absolutely hee abandoneth all carnall understanding of Christs words , of Eating his flesh , hee sayth , They have no fleshly , or naturall Consequence at all . So hee . Ergo , say wee ( to the Confutation of your Romish Beliefe ) no Corporall touch of Christ in your mouths , no Corporall Eating with your teeth , no Corporall Swallowing downe your throat ; how much less any Corporall mixture in your Bellies or Guts , as your Romane * * See Chapt. 6. Sect. ● . following . Church professeth .

CHALLENGE .

WHether therefore the Capernaites though to eate Christs Flesh raw , or roasted ; torne , or whole ; dead , or alive ; seeing that every Corporall Eating thereof , properly taken , is by the Fathers held as Carnall and Capernaiticall , it cannot be that the Romish maner of Eating should accord , in the Judgement of Antiquity , with the Doctrine of Christ . Notwithstanding you cite us to appeare before the Tribunall of Antiquity , by objecting Counter-Testimonies of Ancient Fathers ; and wee are as willing to give you Answering .

The Extreme Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers , in wresting the Figurative Phrases of Ancient Fathers to their Orall maner of Receiving the Bodie of Christ , proved by just evidences out of the Fathers themselves . SECT. VI.

IT is a miserable thing to see how your Authors delude their Readers , by obtruding upon them the Sentences of Fathers in a literall sense , against the evident Expressions of the same Fathers to the Contrary . I. k k Origen . Hom. 5. 〈◊〉 divers . Script . Loca . Sub tectum tuam ingreditur , imitare Centurionem , & dic non sum dignus , Domine , &c. Objic . Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 8. Non vidi Adversariorum Responsum ad hoc . [ Yea Resp. Orig. ibid. ] Intrat nunc Dominus sub tectum credentium duplici figurâ seu more ; 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 , &c. Origen ( say you ) will have the Communicant to thinke himselfe unworthy , that the Lord should enter under the roofe of his mouth . Right , hee saith so , but in the same sense wherein hee equivalently sayd , that Hee who entertaineth a Bishop and Spirituall Pastor , must know that now Christ entreth under his roofe , namely , Christ , Figuratively . II. Chrysostome ( who speaketh in the highest straine ) saith that l 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 Ioh. [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . ] Spiritualia sunt . Wee see , touch , eate , and teare with our teeth the Flesh of Christ . True , but , to note that hee spa●e it in a Rhetoricall & Figurative sense , he equivalently saith also in the same place ; Our tongues are made red with his Blood . And elsewhere , to put all out of question ; * * See his testimonie in the former Section at (i) These ( saith he ) are Spirituall , and containe no Carnall thing . Yet what need you our Comment ? Your Josuit Maldonate would haue gladly prevented us , 3 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 Chrysostome ( saith hee ) of tearing the Flesh of Christ , cannot be otherwise understood , than Sacramentally . Euen he , which concluded but now , that to say * * See above , Ch. 4. Sect. 2. We eat Christs Flesh , properly , is a false proposition . ⚜ And touching the other Phrase , S. Augustine as Emphatically of Baptisme , 4 4 Aug. in Ioh. Tract . 11. Vnde rubet Baptismus , nisi Christi sangu●e consecratus ? It is red with the Blood of Christ . ⚜

III. Gaudentius ( say you ) saith o o Gaudent Promisit corpus suum ; por●igit tibi corpus suum , corpu● accipis , De pane fecit corpus proprium , &c. 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 ante oculos h●bentes quotidie gerentes in manibus , & ore 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 sayd so , but hee interpreteth himselfe , saying ; Christ would have our soules sanctified with the Image of his Passion . Againe , scan but his former words , Christ made his Body [ de Pane , of Bread ] in the literall Sense , and it will infer a Body of Christ not made of the flesh of the Virgin . IV. But p 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 q Notandum , non corde tantum , sed etiam ore dici — Bellar. Ibid. [ yet it followeth immediatly in S. Augustine , giving this generall 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 , &c. [ Teaching in all other Scriptures ( as in this ) a figurative sense , wherein any matter of Horror , or Turpitude may seeme to be contained ] Objector noteth , as being very not able for the Orall Receiving , Corporally ; albeit the same S. Augustine immediatly expresseth , that this , & all other such speeches are to be understood figuratively ; and unproperly . V. But Pope Leo is brought in , saying [ r r Leo Ser● 14. de passione Christi . Ipsum per omnia & spiritu & catne gustemus . Ob Bellar. quo supra , cap. 28. [ Gustemu●● , pro Gestamus ; for hee speakes of Baptisme lawfully administred , where by we are said to put on Christ , Gal. 3. By which , saith hee , Corpus regenerati fiat caro Crucisixi . Other places objected out of Leo wee grant , as Serm. 6. de 〈◊〉 . 7. Hoc ore sumitur , quod cord● . creditur : And so say we ; Ore , Sacramentally ] Gustamus ] Wee tast with our Flesh the Flesh of Christ . Nay , but you have corrupted his Saying , for his word is [ Gestamus ] We beare or carrie it , ( namely ) by being Baptized ( as there is expressed ) whereof the Apostle sayd ; You have put on Christ . VI. But Pope Gregorie ( say you ) saith ; s 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 Gregorie a little after of Baptisme , ] Et in superlim nare domus agni sanguinem po●imus , quia crucem illius passionis in fronte portamus . The Blood of Christ is sprinkled upon both Posts , when we receive it both with heart and mouth . Which ( we say ) he spake with the same Impropriety of speech , wherein he addeth equivalently , that The Blood of Christ is sprinkled upon the upper postes , when wee carry in our fore-heads ( by Baptisme ) the Signe of the Crosse . VII . But t t Isych . l. 6. in Levit. c. ●2 Per ignorantiam percipit , qui nescit quia corpus hoc & sanguis est secundùm veritatem , &c. Ob. Bellar quo supra [ Yet the same Isych . lib. ● . in Levit. cap. ● . Carnem aptam cibo feclt post passione● : 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 hee that perceiveth the truth of his Blood . But how ? even as hee himselfe there addeth , By receiving the memory of his Passion .

⚜ In all the former Sentences of Saint Augustine , Pope Leo , and Pope Gregorie , all that wee reade of is , that the Body of Christ is Received in the Sacrament , not onely with the heart , or by Faith ; but also with the mouth . And so will any Protestant affirme , not only in the same words of the Fathers , but also in their owne genuine Sense : if Saint Augustine , who is objected in the first place , may interp●et his other Contests , who ( in a Section before ) sayes , as you have heard , that Bread is called Christs Body , not in the Truth of the things , namely , of propriety of speech , according to the letter , but in a Significant mysterie , or Mysticall Signification . To signifie unto us that Christs Body is in our heart Really , and in our mouths Sacramentally . ⚜

VIII . But Optatus tels us u u Optat. Milevit . lib. 6. contr. Parmen. In Altaribus Christi membra sunt portata — Altare sedes est corporis & sanguinis Christi — Immane facinus quando fregistis calices sanguinis Christi . Obijcit Bellarm. quo supra . Albeit the same Optatus paulò post ; Iudaeos 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 Iudaeos imitati estis , illi injecerunt manus Christo in cruce , 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 breake the Chalices of the Blood of Christ , &c. Wee grant these to be the Phrases of Optatus , indeed , which you have objected : but , alas ! my Masters , will you never learne 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 owne language , who presently after inveighing against the same Donatists , saith ; Christ is now beaten by you on the Altar . So hee ; by the Hyperbole making Christ to be beaten , wherewith hee sayd Christ was seated on the Altar . Yea and that the Members of Christ are carried also on the same Altars : meaning thereby the Faithfull Communicants , as is confessed by your owne * * 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 Rhetoricall sense , wherwith x x Aug. Vos estis in Calice , vos estis in mensa . Teste Beda in 1. Cor. 10. Augustine sayd of all the Faithfull 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 y De Consecrat. Dist. 2. Can. Cùm frangitur . — Dum sanguis de calice in or● fidelium funditur . Aug. The Lords Blood is po●●ed out into the mouthes of the faithfull . And Hierome is as bold to say of the audible word of God , that when it is preached z z Hier. in Psal. 147. Quando audimus sermonem Dei , 〈◊〉 Christi & sanguis ejus in auribus fidelium sunditur . The Blood of Christ ( by it ) is powred into the eares of the Hearers .

Master a 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 thinke much not to be suffered to put in his Vie , in the name of Cyprian ; Wee are joyned with his Blood , not onely outwardly , ' but also inwardly our soules are fortified with the Sprinkling thereof . So Cyprian . What meaneth this ? not onely outwardly , meaning in Body ( saith Master Brerely , and addeth ) which convinceth our Bodliy Receiving therof So hee . From the same Cyprian , who , in the same place , saith in the same style , b b Cyprian , paulò post . Cruci haeremus , sanguinem sugimus , & intra ipsa Redempptoris vulnera figimus linguam , &c. Wee cleave to his Crosse , sucke his Blood , and fixe our tongues within the wounds of our Redeemer , which are all Sacramentall , Allegoricall , and Tropologicall Phrases ; as Cyprian will clearely expresse himselfe , in respect of our outward man , and spiritually of the inward . Wee shall desire Cyprian to be Moderator betweene us in this question , before wee come to an end of this Booke .

CHALLENGE .

BY this time it may appeare that all your so serious and exquisite Collections out of the Fathers , for proofe of a Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament , and Vnion 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 yeeld assent unto them . For to interpret the Figurative speeches of the Fathers literally , is all one , as to sticke Goose-feathers in their Caps , and plainely to befoole them ; by making them of all others the most egregiously absurd ( as you have already heard , ) and no lesse fond in the outward letter , than are these others that follow ; ( to wit ) of Gaudentius ; c c Gaudent . Tract . 2. Jubemur Caput Divinitatis ejus cum pedibus Incarnationis manducare . Wee are commanded to eate the head of Christ's Deity , with the feete of his Incarnation . Or the saying of Saint Hierome ; d d Hier. in Psal. 147. Ego corpus Iesu Evangelium puto — Et cum dicit [ Qui bibit sanguinem meum ] licet in mysterio possit intelligi , tamen verius sanguis ejus , sermo scripturarum est . When Christ sayd , Hee that drinketh my Blood , although it may be understood in a Mystery , yet the truer blood ( saith hee ) is the word of Scripture . Or as before him , Origen ; e 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 , Ioh. 6. Verba mea Spiritus sunt & vita . Wee drinke the Blood of Christ ( saith hee ) not onely by the rite of a Sacrament , but also in receiving his word , whereof it is sayd , My words are Spirit and Life . So they .

And so just Cause have wee to complaine of the Vnconscionablenesse 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 owne Senensis : f 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 hee ) that the Sayings of Fathers be not urged in the rigidnesse of their words , because they use to speake many times HYPERBOLICALLY , and in excesse , being either transported by the vehemency of their Affections , or carried with the Current of their Speech . So hee . ⚜ Thus have wee satisfied the objected Testimonies of the Fathers , by the Fathers owne Equivalent Phrases and Expressions ; All which challenge your Objectours of Vnconscionablenesse , for alleging them contrary to their owne Sense . Our next Section of Vnconscionablenesse will pierce deeper , by proving that you have alleged the fore-sayd Testimonies of the Fathers against your owne more direct , and free Confessions .

The Vnconscionablenesse 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 Sayings of the Fathers , which you have earnestly objected : And the other must be of the Confessions of your owne Doctors , as well Iesuites as others , by whom the literall sense of the same Sayings and Phrases of the Fathers , are as liberally and expresly rejected . The Termes of the Fathers , which have beene alleged in the two former Sections were of these kinds ; to wit , Christs Body , received in this Sacrament , is Tasted , Divided , Broken , Torne with the Teeth ; And his Blood Sprinkled , and Powred into our mouths , and Drunken . If any Protestant should say that these speeches of the Fathers , are all Improper & Figurative , and therfore prove not your Conclusion ( which is , that they meant Really a Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament ) you would say that he interpreted the sayings of the same Orthodox Fathers falsly & Heretically , according to your maner of phrasing and en●tyling Protestants , to make their Answer● seeme Odious . Wherefore wee now crave leave of you that wee may beleeve your owne Doctors themselves , from their owne Confessions , ( See the Margin : ) wee meane such , who , without exception , are privileged in your Church . By name , Lumbard , Aquinas , Alphonsus de Castr● , together with your Jesuites 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 Booke 2. Cap. 2. §. 4. Dansqueius . See above , Booke 5. Cap. 4. Sect. 2. Dicere immortales artus Corporis Christi dentibus teri , oris Blasphemi est , & mentis nequissimae . Dansquelu● . pag. 2. 〈◊〉 . Respectively . I. Of [ Taste . ] Wee cannot say that one doth Taste of Christs Body properly , but by a Figure . II. Of [ Dividing . ] Christ , in this Sacrament , is whole in every part thereof , and cannot be Divided ; because hee is impartible . III. Of [ Broken . ] Christs Body is not sayd to be Broken in it selfe , but onely in the Sacrament of Bread ; and to say that Christs Body is properly Broken , were a false speech , and not agreeable to Christs Body . IV. Of [ Tearing . ] Christs Bodie ( say they ) cannot be sayd to be Torne , but onely Tropically , because it is not Divisible : and to say that your Church of Rome holds that Christs Body is Torne 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 torne with the Teeth , and if so , then also divided into parts : It is therefore sayd to be torne , by a Figure , because the formes of Bread are torne with the Teeth . Of the VI , and VII . [ Sprinkling , and Powring out of Blood . ] Those are not to be attributed to Christs 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 Crosse ; 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 Corporall Vnion of the Bodie of Christ , with the Bodies of the Communicants , is with Swallowing it downe . SECT I.

YOur Generall Tenet is , That the Body of Christ is present in the Bodies of the Receivers , So long as the formes of Bread and Wine do continne . Nex that a a Satis est ut transmissio fiat in stomachum , deglutiendo . Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euc. cap. 11. It is swallowed downe , and transmitted unto the Stomach : Yet further , that your Priest in your Romane Masse is injoyned to pray , saying ; b 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 drunke , cleave unto my Guts , or Entrails . And a lesse c c Missale par 〈◊〉 pro Sacerdotibu● in Anglia Iussu Pauls 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 . Missall ( but yet of equall Authority ) teacheth all you English Priests to pray , saying ; O God who refreshest both our Substances with this food , grant that the supply and helpe hereof may not be awanting either to our Bodies , or Soules . ⚜ Insomuch that your Aquinas concludeth , 1 1 Aquin● in 3. qu. 7● . Art , 6. ed 3. Subst 〈◊〉 Corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus pa●is , quamdi● sp●cie● illa manet . That the Body of Christ ceaseth not to be in this Sacrament , so long as the forme of Bread continueth in the Eater thereof . So hee . Not excepting any Eater , whether it be Man , or Beast ; thereby embracing this Opinion ; namely , 2 2 Iosephus Angles Quest. de Sus●●ption . 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 Devoure 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 Capernaiticall SECT. II.

IN this Romish Profession every one may see , in your Corporall 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 downeward Into the Draught and Seege ; that being as ill , this peradventure worse , than any Capernaiticall Infatuation ; for which cause it was that your Jesuite Maldonate , although granting that you do Corporally receive it into your stomachs , yet * * See above , cha . 4. §. 2. denyed , for shame , that you are Devourers thereof .

But , I beseech you , what then meaneth that , which your Romish Instructions , Decrees , and Missals ( as wee have * * Ibid. §. 1. heard ) do teach you to do with the Hoast , in case that any either through Infirmity , or by Surfet and Drunkennesse , shall cast up the same Hoast out of his stomach ? Wee demand , may your Communicants be [ Vomitores , ] to cast it up againe , and can you deny but that they must first have beene [ Voratores , ] to have devoured that which they do so Disgorge ? Will you beleeve your Jesuire f f 〈◊〉 Ies. Tom. 2. Cont. 2. in Ioh. ● . 〈◊〉 mea ve●os est cibus &c. ] votare , est ●ine masticatione glutire . Osorius ? To Devoure a thing ( saith he ) is to swallow it downe by Chewing . Say now , do you Swallow the Sacrament by Chewing it ? then are you Capernaiticall Tearers of Christs Body . But do you Swallow it without Chewing ? then are you Capernaiticall Devourers thereof . Say not , that because the Bodie 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 Ionas 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 maner of Receiving it downe into the Belly , is proved to be Capernaiticall , by the Iudgement of Antiquity . SECT. III.

TTheophylact g g Theoph. in Ioh. 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 bin , 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 knowne that wee Christians ( what ? ) are not Devourers of Christ . So he . But , that Swallowing ( properly taken ) is a Devouring , hath beene proved : and , if Devoured , then why not also ( that which is the Basest of all Basenesse ) passed downe , by Egestion , into the Seege ? whereof the Antient Fathers have thus Determined . Origen , that h 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 materiall part of this meate , Sanctified by prayer , passeth into the Draught : which ( saith hee ) I speake of the Symbolicall Bodie , &c.

Here will be no place for your i i Bellar. Ista omnia recte intellig● possunt de Eucharistia — at materiale , quod 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 cruce . lib. 2. de Euch. cap. ● . Cardinalls Crotchets , who confessing Origen to have spoken all this of the Eucharist , would have us by Materials to understand Accidents in respect ( saith hee ) of Sanctification , which they had , and of Magnitude , which belongeth rather to the matter of a thing , than to the forme : and by Symbolicall Body , to conceive , that this was meant of the Body of Christ it selfe , as it is present in this Sacrament , a Signe , or Symboll of it selfe , as it was on the Crosse . So he ; as if he meant to Crosse Origens intention throughout every part of his Testimony .

For first , That which he called Bread , hee calleth also meat Sanctified . Secondly , That Meat he termeth Materiall . Thirdly , This Materiall , he saith , passeth into the Draught . Lastly , concluding his speech , concerning the Sacramentall Body , and saying ; Hithe● have I spoken of the Symbolicall Body ; immediatly he maketh his ●ransition to speake of the Incarnate Body of Christ , as it is the True Soules meate . But first , meerely Accidents were never called , by Ancient Fathers , Meats . Secondly , never Materials . Thirdly , never Magnitude in it selfe , without a Subject , was judged otherwise than Immateriall . Fourthly , never any Immateriall 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 foure-fold Cord , to draw any Conscionable man to grant , that Origen was of our Protestants Faith .

⚜ And although Obstinacie it selfe should struggle with us , touching the former sentence of Origen , yet his words immediatly following , should ( we think ) challenge a Consent : Because cause , after he had spoken of Sanctified meate , meate Materiall , meate which goeth into the Belly , Meate whose matter doth not profit the Eater , Meate passing into the Draught , Meate named the Symbolicall Body ; ( which your Cardinall teacheth to betoken Christs owne naturall Body : ) He immediatly after maketh a Transition from this Meate , to that which he calleth the True meate , and saith ; 3 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 eate , else should hee live for ever . Directly opposing this Word made Flesh , to that which he had called the Symbolicall Body . Ergo say wee , Origen ( your Cardinall must pardon us ) taught the Symbolicall Body , and Christ True and proper Flesh to be two different Subjects . And againe , for better manifestation , hee distinguisheth in their effects ; the one to be insufficient to give life , the other to be Salvificall in it selfe , even to Life everlasting . And Thirdly hee differenceth them in their Eaters , intimating , that The wicked may be partakers of the former Symbolicall Bodie ; because , of this flesh , whereof the Scripture saith , [ The Word was made flesh , ] called the True meate , he testifieth and professeth , that No wicked man can eate this .

If , in imitation of Origens discourse upon the Eucharist , one should say of the Baptisme of a man of yeeres and growth , thus ; Water in Baptisme , is in it selfe a Liquor , although profitable to the Receiver , according to the proportion of Faith , yet doth it clense onely the flesh , and is afterward cast out of the Font into the Channell : ( adding immediatly ) Thus much be spoken of the Symbolicall 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 seely , as not to apprehend a plaine distinction , made bet●●●●ene the Symbolicall Water , and the Truly Spirituall , 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 Cardinalls Pageant of Christs Body in this Sacrament , as being a Signe and Symboll of it selfe , as it was on the Crosse , it * * See Booke● . Chap. 2. Sect 6. hath once already , and will the * * Booke 6. c. 5. Sect. 7. second time come into play , where you will take small pleasure in this figment .

Againe concerning the Body of Christ it selfe , l l Cyr●l . Hierosol . Catech Mystag ● Panis hic 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Cyrill Christianly denyeth it to goe either into the Bellie , or into the Draught ; and m m Chrysost. de Euch. in Encaen . Non sicut reliqu● cibi in seces●um vadunt : absit● ne sic cogites . Chrysostome ( as judging the very thought thereof Execrable ) denyeth it with an [ Absit ! ] Finally , n 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 sarre from the proper Swallowing of Christ in this Sacrament , that Distinguishing betweene Corporall Bread , and the Body of Christ , ( which he calle●h Super substantiall Bread , and Bread of everlasting life , for the establishing of mans Soule ) hee denyeth flatly that this is that Bread which goeth into the Body . If any Mouse ( which , you say , may run away with the Hoast ) be wholly fed thereon for a moneths 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 confesse ( which you do ) in that Creature a Digestion thereof ?

Two false Interpretations fell upon the Catholike Profession , concerning the Doctrine of the Eucharist , in the dayes of S. Augustine ; both which that holy Father did utterly explode . The first was by the Manichees , who teaching , that o o August● 〈…〉 . ib. 20. cap 1● . Ex fabula vest●â de Sp. Sancto cerra concipiens gign●t patib●●em Iesum , 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 Iudae orum Christus , & in sole , & in luna Christus , &c. 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 , &c. [ Edit Pa●i●ijs . Anno. 1555. ] Christ was Hanged on every tree , and tyed unto all meates which they eate , would needes have their Religion to be somewhat agreeable to the Catholike Profession . An Imputation which Saint Augustine did abhorre , namely , that it should be thought that there was the same reason ( concerning Christs Body ) of the opinion of Mysticall Bread , among the Orthodox , which the Man●chees had of their Corporall Bread . As for example , that Christ should be fastned or tyed to mens guts , by eating , and let loose againe by their belching . Which Hereticall Doctrine how shall it not accord with your Romish , which hath affirmed a passage and Entrance of Christs Body into , and Cleaving unto mens * * See Chap. 7. Sect. 1. Guts by eating ? and a Repasse againe by Vomiting , albeit the matter , so fast and so loose , be ( in the judgement of Saint Augustine ) Bread still , after Consecration ?

The Second Calumniation aginst the True Professours , was by others , who testifyed that Catholikes in the Eucharist adored Ceres and Bacchus , after the maner of the Pagans . What answer , do you thinke , would a Romish Professour have made in this Case ? doubtlesse ( according to your Doctrine of Corporall Presence ) by saying thus : Whereas some affirme that wee do adore Bread and Wine in this Sacrament , yet the truth is wee adore that , whereunto Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated , ( to wit ) the Body and Blood of Christ the sonne of God . But Saint Augustine , as one fancying nothing lesse ; Wee ( saith hee ) are farre from the gods of the Pagans , for ●ee embrace the Sacrament of Bread and Wine . This is all , and all this hee spake after Consecration .

Whereupon wee 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 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 Eare● of Corne , spoken of by the Mani chees ) but made My sticall ; and Sacramentall by Cōsecration . ] 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 signifie that Common Bread is by Consecration made Mysticall or Sacramentall ( according to Saint Augustines owne Exposition , saying that wee embrace the Sacrament of Bread and Cup ; ) and also the Phrase of [ Panis fit Corpus Christi ; Bread is made Christs Body ] be repugnant to a common Principle of all Christianity , which never believed a Body of Christ made of Bread . So that the aforesayd Addition is not a Correcting , but a Corrupting of the Text.

⚜ The miserable straights of Romish Disputers , in answering the Definitive Sentence of Saint Augustine , concerning Christs words , of Eating his flesh ; and of the Romish Shift in saying , they do but Swallow it . SECT. IV.

SAint q 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 . Augustines Determination is set downe in that his one famous Sentence , for the expounding of those words of Christ [ Except you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man , &c. Ioh. 6. ] thus : Whensoever wee find in Scripture any speech seeming to forbid any laudable good thing , or to command any haynous evill Act , the speech is Figurative ; Vt cum aicitur [ Nisi manducaveritis ] that is , As when it is sayd [ Except you eat my flesh : ] which seemeth to command some hainous Sinne , therefore it is Figurative , commanding us to communicate with Christs passion , and sweetly and profitably record in our memory , that his flesh was crucifyed and slaine for us . So Saint Augustine ; which one Sentence hath beene alwayes held , of Protestants , to be convincent , for strangling of your Romish Cause . Which your Cardinall seeing as it were gasping , hasteneth to give it some short breath . r 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 partes , & 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 hee ) meant not to say that Christs flesh is eaten Tropically , in respect of an Essentiall Eating , wherein is required onely , that True meat be let downe from the mouth into the stomacke , by vitall Instruments : but called it a Tropicall Eating , in respect of your ordinary and proper maner of Eating , by a visible dividing of Christs flesh into parts and morsells , and that it be sod , and not raw . But Christs flesh in the Eucharist is received whole , invisibly , and without any hurt , by which maner of Eating wee represent the Passion of Christ ; which is thus proved : because First , It is no hainous sinne to eat Christs flesh Spiritually , and without hurting it ; and Secondly , because Saint Auigustine understandeth by an Hainous offence , the Capernaiticall maner of eating thereof , namely by Tearing it in pieces . So hee . Wee must take this whole Answer in pieces , for Confutation of each particular point , lest otherwise a Generall and Briefe Answer might breed Obscurity .

Your Cardinall thinketh to evade , by multiplicity of Distinctions . Ob. 1. Hee meant not Eating with Teeth , but a passing of it from the Mouth into the Stomacke . Sol. This is False , because the Apostles in their receiving of it , did use Chewing , your owne Jesuite Suarez confessing that the Sacramentall Bread in Christ's time was * * See Booke 1. cap. 2. §. 2. Glutinosus : And that this maner of Tearing with Teeth had beene continued many Ages in the Church of Rome , as also used among some of your Church at this day , as hath beene * * See above Cap. 5. Sect. 4. proved . And lastly that Saint Augustine himselfe meant Eating by Tearing with Teeth , who ( as the 4 4 Bellar lib. 1. de Euch. Cap. 7. Qui manducat corde , non qui premit dente , &c. Vbi de Sacramento loquitur , non qui premit dente , nimirùm , solo . Cardinall himselfe confesseth ) mentioneth the * * See above , Cap 5. Sect. 5. Pressing of the Sacrament with Teeth . Secondly , Ob. But the maner of Tearing ( saith hee ) is not essentiall to eating , but onely the pressing of it downe into the Stomacke . So hee . Sol. Notwithstanding Pope Nicolas in his Romane Councell expresly required the Sensible Tearing of Christs flesh ( as hath beene shewed * * See above , Cap. 5. Sect. 5. ) whereof you have also heard your Iesuite * * See above , Cap. 5. Sect. 2. Salmeron confesse , saying , that Proper Eating requireth a Proper Tearing , even as your Cardinall himselfe , calling Eating , by Dividing into Parts , a Proper maner of Eating . Ob. 3. Augustine spoke of a visible Eating of Christ , and not as ours is , Invisible . Sol. As if a blinde man could not eat meat as perfectly as he that seeth . Ob. 4. But Saint Augustine understood Christs flesh Sod , and not Raw. Sol. As though the Eating of mans flesh Raw , or Sod , could distinguish a Canniball . Ob. 5. But Saint Augustine spake of Eating Christs flesh with hurting him , which appeareth by this , that hee called the maner of Eating , which hee spake of , an Hainous offence . Sol. As though your * * See above ; Booke 4. Cap. 10 Sect. 5. Aquinas had not as well judged it an Hainous offence to put Christ in a Boxe , appearing in his visible shape , notwithstanding Christs No-sensible-heart thereby . Ob. 6. But he spake against the Capernaiticall maner of Eating , which was Tearing it in pieces , and requireth a Spirituall order in eating ; and ours is Spirituall . Sol. First as if your Eating were not Capernaiticall in any degree , which is False . Because as the Capernaites interpreted Christs words in a literall sense of Eating it perfectly , so did they also conceive a Reall Swallowing of it after it had beene Eaten . And doth not your Cardinall plead here wholly for Swallowing of Christs Body ? or hath not also your Iesuite Coster defined Devouring to be a Swallowing of meat without Mastication , or Tearing ? Or can you deny but the Primitive * * See before , in this Chap. 6. Fathers Detested the very conceipt of Devouring Christs flesh ? And Secondly , where Saint Augustine opposeth Carnal maner of Eating to the Spirituall , could hee possibly meane your Romish kind , which you professe to be a taking it into your Mouths , and by your Corporall Swallowing and Transmitting through the Throat into your Stomack , whether Visibly , or Invisibly , whether Sod , or Raw ? No no , nothing lesse , but the flat Contrary , a meere Spirituall maner of Communicating of Christs passion ( saith hee ) and by * * See 〈…〉 Sweetly recording in our memories his flesh once crucifyed for us . Establishing this latter Eating with Minde and Heart , that hee might exclude the other of Eating with Mouth and Teeth . ⚜

CHAP. VII .

The Fourth Corporall maner of Vnion of Christ his Body , by a Bodily Mixture with the Bodies of the Communicants ( professed by some Romanists at this day ) is Capernaiticall . SECT. I.

WEe heare your Iesuit reporting that a 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 beene authorized in these dayes to write , labouring to bring the Romane Faith to so high a pitch , as to perswade a b b Denique Recentiores omnes , qui de hoc Sacramento contra Haereticos scribunt , hoc fere modo loquuntur . Suarez in 3. Tho. Disp. 64. §. 3. pag. 822. Reall , Naturall , Corporall , and Substantiall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants : even almost all of late ( saith hee ) who have written against Heretickes . So hee .

Among others wee find your Cardinall c 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 onely excepted ; as did also Cardinall d d Fe●tur Mendozam Cardinalem Burgensem in lib. quem de unione 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 wee have heard out of your Roman * * See above , Chap. 6. §. 2. Missall , praying that the Body of Christ eaten may cleave unto your Guts ? just Manichean-wise , as you have heard even now out of Saint Augustine . ⚜ And it may be you have Faith also to believe your own Legendae , telling you of the 1 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 . Hoast taken out of the Guts of a Malefactor , by the Virgin Mary , before his Execution . ⚜

The Confutation and Expulsion of this Foggie Mist of Error , by your owne more Common Confessions . SECT. II.

THis first opinion of mingling the Body of Christ , Corporally with mans Bodily parts , what thinke you of it ? Your Iesuite calleth it f 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 . Ioh. 6. ] p. 822. Improbable , and as repugnant to the dignitie and majestie of this Sacrament : * * See above in the first § at the letter ( D ) Rash , and Absurd . Iustly , 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 entrailes ; and so such vile Creatures should be as really Capable of the Communion of Christs Body , as the most sanctifyed among Christians can be : for which the Beasts themselves , if they could speake , would ( as the Asse unto Balaam ) condemne the foolishnesse of your Prophets , namely those , of whom you have * * See above at ( B ) heard your Iesuit confessing , that this is the Doctrine of Almost all late Divines ; which is to adde one Capernaiticall Absurdity to another .

It onely remaineth to know with what Spirit these your New Divines have thus written ; your * * See above his Testimonie cited at the letter ( A ) Suarez . telleth us , saying , That they spake so in hatred of Heretikes ( meaning Protestants ) against whom they write . Who would not now magnifie the Profession of Protestants , to observe their Adversaries to be so farre transported with the Spirit of malignity and giddinesse against them , that by the just judgement of God they are become so strake blind in themselves , as that they fall into opinions not onely ( 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 Corporall fleshly Commixtion ?

CHAP. VIII . Of the Romish Objections out of the Fathers , for proofe of an Vnion of Christs 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 Historicall Reports . Wee beginne with their Sentences .

That the Objected Sentences of Fathers make not for the Romish Corporall Vnion ; but are proved by their owne Dialect to be unconscionably alleged . SECT. I.

THe expresse Testimonies of the Objected Fathers you may reade in the Margin , as they are marshalled by your owne Iesuit a 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 Ioh. 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 Ioh. 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 , nonne 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 admiseuit . Lib. 8. de Trinit. [ Hee might have added Iustin 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 Iavacrum , qui ante Baptismum fuit , sed corpus regenerati fiat caro crucifixi . Leo. Serm. 14. de Passione Demini . Suarez , to wit , Irenaeus , Chrysostome , Cyril Alexand. Greg. Nyssen , Pope Leo , and Hilarie . The summe is , The mixture of Christs Body with ours , by a Corporall and Naturall Vnion indeed , and not onely in faith or affection .

Two kind of Semblances are to be Observed , one in their like Hyperbolicall Phrasing , concerning Baptisme ; and the other touching our Conjunction with Christ .

Of Baptisme , Hilarie the VI. objected , saith , Christians by Baptisme , which is one , are made one , not onely in affection , but also in nature . Leo the V. objected , saith also that By Baptisme the Body of the Regenerate is made the flesh of Christ crucifyed . And furthermore marke what your Cardinall Tolet hath collected from Augustine , namely that b b Tolet. Com. in Iob. ● A●not . 26. D●cet Augustimus lib. 1. de Pec● merit . Parvulos per B. p●●smum participes fieri hujus Sacramenti ( Eucharistie ) quod 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 Baptized , are made partakers of the Eucharist , because they are Members of the Mysticall Body , and are so made in a sort partakers of this Sacrament , ( that is to say ) of the thing signifyed , Eating his flesh , and Drinking his Blood . So hee . By which your Objectour must be inforced to admit a like Reall Conjunction , and Consequently of a Reall presence of Christ in Baptisme , as they have for the Bodily Vnion 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 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 mens soules , and is in a maner mingled therewith . Of the Baptized , that by Baptisme d 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 e Chrysost. in Ephes. Hom. 20 ( de Baptismo . ) Facti sumus os ex ossibus , & caro ex carne ejus in lavaero . They are made bone of Christs bone , and flesh of his flesh , saith Chrysostome . Of the Eucharist , f f Domase . Epist. ad Zachar. Episc. D●arorum . Quod accipitur , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Teste Casaub . in Baron . Exercit. 16. cap. 39. It is mingled with our soules . So Damascen . Of the participation of the Bread of Idolaters , with the participation of the Sacramentall Bread of the Lords Supper , that g 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 Christs 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 nourishings of mans soule , by the word . First , a proper Mingling of Gods spirit with Man . Secondly , a proper Incorporating of man into Christ ; and a proper Mixture of Man with Devils . And againe upon due Comparison of the Testimonies of Fathers , objected by you , with these now alleged by us , concerning the Eucharist it selfe , it will necessarily follow , that by the same reason , wherewith you have sought to prove one kind of Proper presence of Christs Body , and Transubstantiation , and Vnions you must allow h h August . Confess . lib. 7. cap. 10 ▪ Munducabis me , Tu me in te mutabis , & Tu mutaberis in me . Theophyl . in Ioh. 6. Qui manducat me , vivet propter me , & quodammodò miscetur mihi , Cyril . in Ioh. 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 Testimonie is at the letter (g) immediately before ] Foure more : One of Christs Body into the Body of the Communicant ; a Second of a Christian Communicant into Christ Body ; a Third of a Naturall bodily Vnion of Christians among themselves . And Fourthly ( which is Damascen's ) of Christs Body into mens soules . All which kind of Presences , Vnions , Mixtures , and Transubstantiations , taken in a proper sense , you cannot but condemne as Atheologicall and senselesse , in your owne Judgement ; notwithstanding all the former alleged Phrases of ancient Fathers , for your Corporall Conjunction .

⚜ The Romish Objections out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers , more vehemently ( and as unconscionably ) insisted upon for a Proper Corporall Mixture out of the Testimonies of Cyril . Alexand. and Hilarie Pictav . SECT. II.

WEe have therefore singled apart the Testimonies of these two i i Cyrillus . 〈◊〉 10. cap. 13. in Ioh. 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 cōjungimur ; 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 liter quam per participationem spiritus fieri ne quit . Et. c. 38. Nullus ambigit , cum ad coelos asconderit , quin virtute spiritus semper adfuerit , um 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 Ioh. 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 Ioh. 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 speciall , because that all your Disputers , whensoever they produce them , for proofe of your Romish Doctrine of Corporal Vnion , they esteeme them Insoluble above all others ; Insomuch that one of your Doctors , after hee had objected the Sentences of Irenaeus , Greg. Nyssen , Damascen , Leo , and Saint Augustine , no sooner nameth the Sentence of Hilarie , 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 Devill , for not assenting to your Common Interpretation of him . But this Flash of your Doctor will appeare to be but an Ignis fatuus , or a Blind Zeale without knowledge , when wee come to this Particular .

In the Interim , that you may know wee meane to deale clearely , wee First grant unto you the Scope of either of these two Fathers , in their Discourses . Hilarius sought to confute the Arian Heretikes by defending a Naturall Vnion of the Godhead of Christ , the sonne of God , with God the Father . Cyril intended to convince the Nestorian Heretikes , for proofe of an Hypostaticall Vnion of the two Natures , Godhead and Manhood , in one person of Christ . Secondly , wee grant that both the Fathers , together with that Generall Councel at Ephesus , call the Flesh of Christ , which Christians participate in this Sacrament , [ Vivificatricem , ] that is , Vivificall , or giving life to the Receivers , even unto Immortality . Thirdly wee grant , that they name our Conjunction of Christ by this Sacrament to be , not onely an Vnion in Affection and Concord , but also a Naturall and Corporall Conjunction of the Body of Christ with the Bodie of the Communicants . And Lastly wee grant , that one of them addeth a Similitude of the Vnion of Waxemelted with Waxe . And yet notwithstanding all these our Acknowledgements and Grants , wee presume to affirme , that all these Testimonies teach , indeed , a Mysticall , not your Romish Missaticall Vnion , by a properly Corporall Touch of Christs owne naturall Body , with the Bodies of the Receivers . Our ground is the same , which wee have often layd in our former Confutations ( to wit ) by paralleling this Vnion of the Eucharist ( as it is to be seene in the Margin ) with other Vnions mentioned by both these same Fathers , in as Aequivalent and Equipollent termes ( equally named by them both ) Naturall and Corporall ; albeit voyd of any Corporall Touch of the Body of Christ , as you your selves will grant .

For the Instances , used by these Fathers , are divers , Some consist onely in Relation , and some in Application also . The Instance given in the Relative onely , is in respect of the Incarnation of Christ , when hee tooke the same nature of our flesh upon him ; which Relation of a Christian mans flesh with the Humane flesh of Christ , is universally in all persons , at all times ( even without this Sacrament ) called by Hilarie , [ Vnio Corporalis Nativitatis Christi ] that is , an Vnion wrought by Christ his Incarnation in our flesh , being the same Specifically with his ; and notwithstanding it is called by him an Vnion Naturall and Corporall , and not onely the Vnion of Will and Affection , albeit voyd of all Bodily Touch.

Next of the Vnions made by Application , some are Spiritually onely , and some are Sacramentall also . Of the Spirituall Vnion ( which is also free from all Bodily Touch ) they say of Christ , and of True Christians , that they are Vnited by the Vnity of Faith ; which notwithstanding is likewise called by him , a Corporall Vnion , and not onely in Will and Affection . I come to the Sacramentall Vnion . Some of this kind are found in other Sacraments , and some in the Eucharist it selfe . Of others it is indefinitely here sayd , that Christians are united by the Sacraments , and namely ( as is confessed ) The Regenerat , by Baptisme , have an Vnion Corporall with Christ , and not onely in Affection and Concord : albeit this also be ( as you know ) exempted from all Bodily Touch. Accordingly of the Vnions made by the Eucharist ; Some are of Christians among themselves ; and some of Christ with us . Of the former , the Vnion of the faithfull Communicants , as the Members of Christ , is named by them a Naturall and Corporall Vnion , and not onely in Concord , although ( as you know ) this can be no coincident Corporall Touch of their Body reciprocally .

Thus these holy Fathers . And now that you may understand , from them , Foure several Vnions , One Relative ; Another Spirituall ; A third Sacramentall in Generall ; And a Fourth ( as I may say ) Eucharisticall ; ( peculiar onely to the Sacrament of the Eucharist ) all of them equally named of these Fathers Corporall and Naturall Vnions , and not Vnions of Affection and Concordonely ; notwithstanding each one of the former Three exclude all Bodily Touch. Wee demand therefore why all these Foure , being named Naturall and Corporall , Improperly , onely the last should inferre a Reall Corporall Touch of Christs Body , by the virtue of the same words , Naturall , or Corporall ? Your Cardinall giveth his maine reason ; 2 2 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 12. Aliud esse , apud Hilarium , aliqua esse unum naturaliter , aliud autem , unum esse in alio naturaliter . Nam ut aliqua sint unum naturaliter , satis est , si verè participent naturam ipsius rei , in qua sunt unum : & hoc modo dicit ipse omnes fideles esse unum naturaliter per fidem — sed ut unum sit in alio naturaliter — necesse est , ut natura unius , merè sit in alio : & hoc modo — Christum esse in nobis per carnem naturaliter ; quia natura carnis ejus nobis vere unitur per Eucharistiam . It is not the same thing with Hilarie ( saith hee ) Some things to be one Naturally ; and to be one in another Naturally : For things to be one Naturally , it is sufficient , if both of them partake truly of the Nature of the thing wherein they are one ; and so hee calleth all Christians one Naturally by Faith . But to be one Naturally [ In ] another , it is necessary that the Nature of the one be meerely within the Nature of the other : and so ( in the meaning of Hilarie ) is Christs Body sayd to be Naturally within ours by the Eucharist . This is your Cardinalls Ground of Assoilement , whereupon hee relyeth as on a Rocke , immoveable ; which will instantly prove as wavering as a Reed ; both False and Fond ; ( as you may finde in the Marginalls . )

For Hilarie speaking of one of the other Vnions , which hee calleth Naturall , by reason of Christs Incarnation , in taking our nature of Flesh upon him , saith that wee are [ In him . ] Therefore is your Cardinalls Distinction False . Next of the very Sacramentall Vnion , whereof it is sayd , that Christ is [ Naturally In us , ] it is also as expressely sayd , that wee are likewise [ Naturally In Christ . ] But none can affirme , that Wee , in true propriety of speech , are Naturally in the Body of Christ . Therefore is his Answer most Absurd . But you will aske , how then can this stand with the scope of the same Fathers , for the Confuting of the two former Divers Heresies , by an Onely Symbolicall and Mysticall Conjunction with the Body of Christ ? First thus ; By our Eating and Drinking in this Sacrament ( according to Christs Institution ) is professed a Vivificall flesh of Christ , giving eternall life unto the world ; which ( as these Fathers truly teach ) it could not do , if it were the Flesh of a meere man : And therefore he is , by Nature , God ; one with God the Father . Ergò Avant ! Thou Arian-Heretike . The Second thus ; The same Humane flesh of Christ would not have the same divine Vivifical power and virtue , except it were perfectly Vnited to his Godhead ; and therefore is Christ both God and Man ; and that not by Relation of two different Persons onely , but by an Hypostaticall Vnion of two Natures . Ergo thou Nestorian Heretike Recant .

The meaning of these holy Fathers is transparent enough , by their owne Sentences , as is now proved ; which if it needed any further Illustration , might be manifested by the like Testimonies of that Great Athanasius , who , from this Article , of Christ his Incarnation onely , whereby his Godhead assumed our nature of flesh , spared not to say : 3 3 Athanasius Tom. 1. Orat. 4. Contra Arianos , pag 487. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . that By his flesh , thus assumed of the word , ( God ) wee men are Deifyed and made Gods . So hee ; without any Relation to the Sacrament at all . And againe , when he spake of the same Article of Christs Incarnation , he hath Relation to a Sacrament , and saith as much of Baptisme , as either Hilarie or Cyril did of the Eucharist . 4 4 Ibidem . pag. 486. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Wee , ( saith hee ) being borne againe of water and the holy Ghost , are all made alive by Christ ; and our flesh is no more Earthly , but now by that [ word , God ] Wordifyed , and made the same by him , that for us was made flesh . So hee . And so , according to the Romish presumption of Arguing , from the like words of the Fathers , concerning the Eucharist , Athanasius must be sayd to have judged of Baptisme . I. That the Substance of water is changed . II. That by it , there is a Corporall Vnion properly with the Bodies of the Baptized . III. That by the same , the Flesh of the Baptized is made the Word , God . Which nothing but Stupidity could conceive , or Impudencie utter , or else Obstinacie defend .

The miserable Vnconscionablenesse of the Romish Objecturs made clearely Discernable , by their owne Confessions , in granting that the Formerly alleged Testimonies of the Fathers are Not to be taken in a Literall Sense . SECT. III.

ALl the Questions betweene your Romish Disputers and Vs ( concerning the Speeches of the Fathers , objected by them , through the whole Treatise of the Masse , for proofe of a Bodily Presence ) is , whether they are to be taken Literally and Properly , as they sound to the eare ; or Improperly and Figuratively , as they are to be apprehended by our understandings , in a qualifyed Sacramentall and Mystical Signification . And whether you can conclude from them a Properly ( so called ) Corporall Vnion with his sacred Body ; whether by a Corporall Touch and Tast , Mixture , or Nutrition and Augmentation thereby , or no. You have heard your Doctors object against Vs the naked and Symbolicall Phrases of the Fathers : will you be so good as heare them againe , both relating the Expositions , which the Protestants make of the words of the Fathers objected , and afterwards enforced , by good evidence , to interpret the Fathers accordingly .

These you Doctors certifie you ( see the Margin ) that Calvin indeed Expoundeth each phrase as spoken by an excesse and exuberancie of speech , for extolling , and commending the Dignity of the Sacrament . So hee , of Calvin . Likewise of your owne Romish Doctors ( saith your Vasquez ) Some of the Vniversity of Complutum in Spaine , did interpret the words of the Fathers , as spoken Hyperbolically . And if you shall reject these , as the meaner Some ; wee shall enquire into other Some , of better eminencie . As namely your Bellarmine , and Tolet , both Cardinalls : your Suarez , and even Vasquez himselfe , all Iesuits in their Times .

Let them ( wee pray you ) make their owne Answers in order , as they have beene Cited . First Bellarmine ; 5 5 Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4 §. Secundo Respondeo . ( Wherein also hee expoundeth the like words of Iustin . ) Non est novum apud Itenaeum , Hilarium , Nyssenum , Cyrillum , & alios , ut Eu charistia dicatur alere corpora nostra , sed non intelligunt Patres , cum hoc dicunt , Eucharistiâ nutriri vel augeri mortalem substantiam corporis nostri ; sic enim facerent Eucharistiam cibum ventris , non mentis , qu● nihil absurdius fingi possit . It is ordinary ( saith hee ) with these Fathers , to wit , Irenaeus , Hilarie , Nyssen , Cyril , and others , to say that the Eucharist nourisheth our Bodies : But they did not understand a Substantiall nutrition , or augmentation of our Bodies ; for so they should make it to be meat for the Belly , and not for the soule , than which nothing could be feigned more Absurd . So hee . Cardinall Tolet is the Second , wee desire to heare his Judgement . 6 6 Tolet. in Ioh. 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 hee ) Cyril and Hilarie , when they tell us , that wee have a Corporall and Naturall Vnion with Christs Body in the Sacrament , are not to be understood , as if our Bodies and Christs Body were made one , in Entity : this were a Doctrine unworthy of them ; but they meant of the Vnion of Faith and Affection , Christ being within us Really , as the Cause thereof . So he . Observe that Cardinall Tolet noteth the Fathers to have sayd , that the Bodies of the Communicants and the Body of Christ , by this Sacrament , have One naturall Being ; because of their other Sayings , that by eating of this Sacrament our Bodies are Nourished and Augmented by Christs Body . All which are spoken in a Sacramentall tenour of speech , and not properly , as you heare . Francis Suarez his Course is next ; 7 7 Suarez . in 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp 64. Sect. 3. Nihilominus haec sententia improbabilis , & aliena dignitate & majestate hujus Sacramēti , quod non propter corporalem conjunctionem , sed propter spiritualem institutum est , dicente Christo , Mea verba spiritus sunt & vita . Ioh. 6. [ See above , Chap. 7. Sect. 2. at the letter f. ] Suarez . Damascen . lib. 4 cap. 14. Hoc Sacramento — nos Christi concorporei existimus — & animo & voluntate copulamur . Cyril . Hierosol . Catechis . 4. Mystag . Sumpto corpore & sanguine Christi efficimur comparticipes corporis & sanguinis , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , — cum ejus sanguinem & corpus in nostra membra receperimus , arquè ita ( ut B. Pe●ius dicit ) Divinae naturae consortes efficimur . [ Hinc Suarez : ] Vbi propter Sacramentalem susceptionem , non agnoscit aliam unionem praeter spiritualem per gratiam , &c. In 3. Tho. qu. 79. Disp. 64. quo supra . I say ( saith he ) that Cardinall Mendoza is reported to have taught ( namely , as out of the Fathers ) that Christ's Body is so united with our Bodies , that they are both joyntly mingled in parts , one with another . Which is an Opinion Improbable , and unworthy of the Majesty and Dignity of the Sacrament , which was instituted by Christ , not for a Corporall , but for a Spirituall Conjunction : and the other Conjunction is False and Absurd . So he . Gabriell Vasquez is now to take his turne , first to make his Preface , and then to deliver his Opinion . 8 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 usuall in our Schooles , yet ought wee to interpret their speeches so , that although at the first sight they containe some Absurdity , yet not to take them contrary to their meaning without due advise , and that relying upon Testimonies of Antiquity . So hee . And for Instances hee bringeth divers , and more particularly that Similitude of Conjunction , already objected out of Cyr●l ; As waxe with waxe melted are joyned together . And this ( if it be taken in the Rigidity of the words ) hee denyeth to note either Diffusion of Christs Body into the parts of mans Body , or else a Substantiall Conversion into them .

All these acknowledgements being so plaine and ingenuous , and delivered with so full an Assurance and Resolution of your owne Doctors , of most exquisite judgement above Others in your Church , do minister unto us matter of Astonishment , to wonder with what Consciences they could urge us with these Sentences of the Fathers , as they goe under a Literall habit and propriety of Speech ; seeing that now , after some Deliberation , they find the same to be so glowing hot , that they themselves , not daring to touch them with their bare fingers , take hold of them with a Distinction , as it were with a paire of Tongs , saying , that 9 9 Suarez . in 3. Thom. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 64. Sect. 3. Existimo omnino certum , praeter contactum corporis nostri & Christi , medijs speciebus Sacramentalibus , non intervenire materialem aliquam unionem physicam & veram . Because there is no Naturall Conjunction between Christs Body and ours , excepting onely a Touch of the one by the other , under formes of Bread : The Vnion , spoken of by the Fathers , is not Physicall , or Naturall , but Spirituall . So Suarez . Not Physicall , or Naturall , but Metaphoricall . So Vasquez . But yet how Mysticall it is , this will be handled in the next Section .

Can there then be any thing more Odious or Vnjust , than for your Disputers to proclame their Adversaries Heretikes , for expounding the aforesayd Sentences of the Fathers , in an unproper Sense ; which liberty , They themselves both now have practised , and also instructed Others to doe the like by their owne 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 Sayings of Chrysostome and Cyril , concerning the Conjunction of Christs Body with ours , to be like as when Waxe is melted with waxe in one Vnion , Hee himselfe waxed wroth with Protestants so farre , as to iudge them Men given over to the Devill , because they did not believe them according to the outward letter . Notwithstanding your owne Vasquez ( as you have heard ) taught that the same words cannot be admitted in the strictnesse of the Termes ; as also your Suarez and Tolet in saying , that to Interpret them Literally , were to detract from the Wisdome of those Fathers , and from the Dignity and Majesty of the Sacrament itselfe . 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 , Cariers of Christ ; yet your Suarez expounding this , and that other of Damascen , calling them 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , Ioynt Bodies with Christ , and so partakers of the Divine Nature ; alloweth no more in the Continuance of this Carying of Christs Body , and Vnion therewith , but onely a Spirituall , that is , of Grace and Affection .

That the Former Objected Testimonies of the Fathers , make flatly against the Romish Faith of a proper Corporall Conjunction and Mixture of Christs Body with the Bodies of the Communicants , in two more especiall Points . SECT. IV.

ALl the Bodily Conjunction of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants , which your Romish ●aith teacheth , consisteth onely in a Mutuall Contactus or Touch of his Body with theirs , as your Iesuites every where teach . Our Observables hereupon , at this present , are especially two . One in respect of the Time of Continuance of the same Vnion : The other in respect of the Persons united together . Of the former , you professe by your 10 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 . Jesuite , that Christ is but onely so long in the Bodies of the Receivers , as the formes of Bread and Wine do continue uncorrupt . And , concerning the Persons , you hold of this your Bodily Vnion ( as your 11 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 faithfull 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 , Chrysostome , Hierome , Ambrose , Augustine , Hilarie , Cyril of Alexandria ( under the Confession of your forenamed Jesuites , to whom wee may adjoyne both Basil , and Theodoret ) acknowledging , that whereas the Vnion which you believe to have with Christs Body in this Sacrament , onely by Bodily Touch , is Transient , during 12 12 Suarez . quo supra . Sancti ( Patres ) non loquuntur de unione Transeunte , ut sic dicam , cum speciebus Sacramētalibus , sed permanente & Durabili . no longer , than the formes of Bread and Wine , eaten and transmitted into the stomacke of the Eater , are uncorrupt , ( this Conjunction being indeed momentary , ) They , I say , do contrarily teach a Conjunction absolutely Permanent , even to Immortality it selfe .

And againe , your Romish Conjunction being Common to the wickedest of men , and this Conjunction , spoken of by the Fathers , being 13 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 onely to the Godly and Faithfull , who are joyned together in Faith with Christ , and in Charity with all Christians ( which therefore you your selves call a 14 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 . Morall and Mysticall Vnion : ) It followeth in both these Respects , that you may easily deserne 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 looke downe to the Idiome and language of the Fathers , and compare their Sayings together , and wee shall finde these Testimonies no lesse vehemently , than violently and unconscionably objected . 1 1 Hier Epist. 15. ad Hebdidiam , objected by Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 23. and Doctor Heskins cap. 53. and others . Dominus Iesus , 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 himselfe : which you ( for proofe of his Corporall Presence in the Eucharist ) Interpret to be Properly understood . But wee say not Properly , but Figuratively and Vnproperly , even as well as are his words following , where hee nameth our Drinking Christs Blood , the Pressing out , with the feet , the elect and chosen Vines : as also , in calling the Church of Christ , the Kingdome of the Father . Might not these his latter Improper Phrases of Speech have beene cleare Spectales unto you , to Diserne the like Impropriety in the former ? The same Answer may be given to the like objected speech of Chrysostome , concerning Christs 2 2 And Chrysostome also by Doctor Heskins ( See in the Section following . ) Eating himselfe , which is , together with the former , to be Discussed in the next Section following .

In the Second place , the Eucharist is called in the Greeke 3 3 In Liturgijs , ut patet ex Casaubon . Exerc. 16. cap. 52. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . And Liturgies , and in the Councell of * * Conc. Nicen . can 13. Si quis egreditur de corpore , ultimo & necessario viatico non privetur , &c. Nice , the Viaticum , that is Viand , or Provision for our Travell in our way to Life everlasting . A word objected by your 4 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 Baptisme , which is called by 5 5 Basil . Exhort . ad Baptismum , De Baptisme sic monet Iuvenem ; 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Basil and 6 6 Nazian. Orat. 40. de Baptismo , vult morientem 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Gregorie Naxianzene our Viaticum . ( See the 7 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 8 Bellar. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 cap. 17. ex Optato . Optatus vocet Eucharist●● . 〈…〉 fidei , et spem Resurrectionis ▪ Cardinall hath urged out of Optatus , naming the Eucharist , the Pledge of Salvation , helpe of Faith , and hope of our Resurrection . Which are ( say wee ) delivered in the same Te●or , and sense of speech , wherein 9 9 Basil exhort . ad Baptis . Baptismus namque ad resurrectionem facultas quaedam et a●●abo , &c. Basil , and 10 10 Theodoret. in Divinorum Decretorum Epitome de Baptismo . Baptismus est pignus et A●●a futurorū bonorum , et futurae Resurrectionis . Theodoret termed Baptisme , the Pledge and Earnest of Blessings to come , and of our future Resurrection . The Common Id●ome of Antiquity being so frequent and familiar , equally for Baptisme , as for the Eucharist ; who can but admire the Boldnesse 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 , &c. Viand and Pledge , do , in themselves , altogether Confute your Romish Pretence , to the further manifestation of the Vnconscionablenesse 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 beene both Convivium , and Convivam , that is , both Feast and Guest , Eating his owne Body . And your Doctor Heskins Instan●eth in the like speech of Chrysostome , saying : that 11 11 Dr. Heskins in his Parliament of Christ . Book . 2. cap 55. objected out of Chrysostome 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 himselfe dranke thereof in the behalfe of his Disciples , lest they should be troubled with his words of [ Eating his Flesh , and Drinking his Blood ] therefore did hee himselfe first receive , that hee might induce them to take it with a Quiet Minde . So Chrysostome ; whom your Doctor allegeth for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ ; and then applying himselfe to his Reader , Now you have heard ( saith hee ) the mind of Chrysostome 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 Christs hand ) did believe . So hee . And wee shall as willingly subscribe to the Orthodoxe meaning of Hierome and Chrysostome ( for they Both agree in one . )

Thus then , Christ must have beene a Guest and Feast himselfe unto himselfe , in Eating his owne Body , either Naturally , or Spiritually , or Romishly , or else Sacramentally . But not Naturally , to have his Body fed by the same his owne Body ; for this Conceipt , in your * * See above . own Judgement , is Absurd . Nor Spiritually ; Because hee needeth not any Spirituall helpe of any Sacrament , for nourishing or augmenting any Grace in his Soule . Nor yet Romishly , by a Bodily Touch ( which is your Professed Corporall Vnion ; ) Because it was never heard , that any man was fed and feasted by an onely Touch. A Bullet , ( for example ) transmitted into the Belly , doth Touch , not feed : Nutrition and Feeding being , Properly , a Substantiall Change of a thing Nourishable , into the Substance of the Body Nourished . And againe , what can be more grosse , than to imagine ( albeit but in a Dreame ) of a man Eating with his Mouth , his owne Mouth ; Swallowing with his Throat , his owne Throat ; Disgesting with his Stomacke , his owne Stomacke ? All which Consequences follow upon a mans wholly Eating his owne Body .

Therefore must wee apprehend such Speeches of the Fathers in a fourth sense , to wit , Sacramentally , by attributing the name of the Thing unto the Signe , as wee teach ; which sense the Objected Testimony of Chrysostome doth confirme unto us : who saith not , that Christ Dranke or Ate himselfe ; but that hee dranke of the Passeover , lest they that heard him should say , What shall wee drinke his Blood ? which is as much as if Chrysostome had directly sayd , that Christ therefore dranke of the Cup , that they , seeing him drinke , might thereby understand , that Hee did no more drinke his owne Blood , than Hee , in Eating , did appeare to Eat his owne Flesh . Hee therefore Dranke ( saith Chrysostome ) lest they should be troubled to thinke ; what ? what , but that hee Dranke his owne Blood ? which sense of Chrysostomes the sentence it selfe doth evince : lest that ( saith hee ) they should say within themselves , Shall wee drinke his Blood ? Such Interrogative speeches ( as your owne Schoole teaches you ) have Vim Negationis , that is , imply a Negation , and import as much , as to thinke that Christ did not Drinke his owne Blood . Will you have any more ? Chrysostome explayning the words of Christ , Ioh. 6. of Eating his Flesh , and Drinking his Blood , giveth all Christians a Caveat , not to understand them Carnally ; 12 12 Chrysost. in Ioh. 6. Hom. 46. Quid est carnaliter intelligere ? simpliciter ut res dicuntur , neque aliud quippiam excogitate . And what is it ( saith hee ) to understand them Carnally ? even to understand them simply , as they are spoken , and not conceive any thing else .

The Atribute 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 wee permit to your owne wits to examine , that with more Brevity wee may descend to the last Adjunct , which is , a Pledge of our Resurrection to Immortality , which hath beene applyed by your Cardinall as peculiar to the Eucharist , to prove a Corporall presence of Christ therein ; It being a Terme taken from the mouth of the Father Optatus , whom wee 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 Baptisme . From whom it may be your * * Costerus . See above , Booke 4. ca. 10. §. 5. Jesuite Coster borrowed his Assertion , where hee also nameth Baptisme , 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 your selves , and to vanquish your Romish Defence , even from the nature of a Pledge , as it is applyed to the Sacrament of the Eucharist , by three Fathers .

I. Hierome , 13 13 Hieron . See above , Booke 3. Ca. 3. §. 11. Christ ( saith he ) left this his last memoriall 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 14 Gaudent . See above , Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 1● . at ( ● ) . Christ ( saith hee ) being about to be Crucifyed , 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 15 Primas . in 1. Cor. 11. Salvator Deus exemplum dedit , ut quotiescunquè hoc facimus in mente 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 wee celebrate this , wee should call to remembrance that Christ dyed for us . And therfore is it called the Body of Christ , ( saith hee ) that , as often as wee remember , wee be not ingrate and unthankfull to his gratiousnesse ; 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 hee be a living Travailer , or one departed this life . Primasius his Observation of the [ Pledge ] is very remarkable , when hee 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 Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist ? Seeing now that the Ancient Fathers have shewne themselves Patrons and Favourers of our Cause , it will become us , as true Children , to do them right . To which purpose wee adde , and shew

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 wee performe it so , that the Doctrine of the Fathers ( notwithstanding this Reconciliation ) may appeare to be both Adverse to the Romish Corporall Conjunction ; and also agreeable to our Protestant sense , as well in respect of the Sacramentall , as of the Spirituall Conjunction , which the Receiver of this Sacrament hath with the Body of Christ .

The Repugnancie of the Fathers to the Romish Corporall Conjunction .

Sometimes the Fathers are found , in this Sacrament , to speake 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is Exactly and precisely , and sometime 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Improperly . When they speake of a Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body , Exactly and simply so taken , so often they appeare to deny it absolutely from point to point . As I. by their 16 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 Touc● of Christ after his Resurrection . So Ambrose . II. 17 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 Iawes . So the same Father . III. 18 18 Attalas Martyr . See above . Not to be devoured with Throat . So Attalas the Martyr . IV. 19 19 Cyprian de Coena Dom. Non ventris cibus . Not for the Belly . So Cyprian . V. 20 20 Idem de Coena Dom De unione 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 Vnion of Substances . So also the same Father . VI. 21 21 Cyril . Hierosol . See above , Booke 4. cap. 10 § 3. Not to be cast into the Draught . So Cyrill of Hierusalem . Whereunto you may adde , as the Complexion and Comprehension of all the rest , that of Chrysostome concerning this Sacrament . * * Chrysost. See above . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; that is , Having no fleshly thing , nor yet that hath any Natural Consequence thereof , namely of fleshly Vnion . In which you have all as ●●at Negatives to your Romish Corporall Vnion , 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 speake so expressely of an Vnion , by Touching , Eating , Tearing , and of your Corporall Conjunction , even unto the Feeding thereby ▪ This is the next Doubt , which wee are now to assoyle , in the next Section .

The meaning of the words of the Ancient Fathers is fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestants . SECT. IV.

THe Sacramentall Vnion , which Protestants teach , ( besides that which they call Spirituall ) consisteth wholly in the Resemblance , which is betweene the Body of Christ , and the Substance of Bread and Wine , and this is Analogicall : which was the Ground of all the Fathers former Speeches , concerning a Bodily Vnion with Christs Body in every Degree . First then the Fathers , in their Symbolicall language , have called Bread the Body of Christ , onely Sacramentally ; because it is a Sacrament and Signe of Christs Body ; which was the Conclusion of our Second Booke . II. They have not spared to call the Change of Bread into our Bodies , a Change of Christs Body into ours , in a like Sacramentall signification , as hath beene shewed in the Third Booke . III. Vpon the same Sacramentall and Analogicall reason , they have used to say , that wee See , Touch , Tast , and Eat Christs Body , albeit Improperly , as hath beene plentifully declared , and confessed in this Fift Booke . 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 Christs Body ; which you your selves have confessed to be most Improperly spoken ; in the same Booke . V. Almost all the former Vnions Corporall of our Bodies with Christ , have beene ascribed by the same Fathers unto the Sacrament of Baptisme ; wherein there cannot Properly be any Corporall Touch , or Conjunction at all .

As for example , in saying ; I. That Wee , in Baptisme , hold the feet of Christ . II. Are Sprinkled with his Blood . III. Do Eat his flesh , have Vnion with him in Nature and not onely 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 Booke of this Treatise of the Masse . The summe of all these Premises is , that wee are to acknowledge in the Objected Testimonies of Fathers , concerning the Symbol and Sacrament of Christs Body , their Symbolicall and Sacramentall , that is , Figurative Meanings . And lest you may Doubt of the reason hereof , we adjoyne the Section following .

The Divine Contemplations , which the Holy Fathers had , in uttering their Phrases of our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction with Christs Body , and Nourishment thereby to Immortality ; for the Elevating of our minds to a Spirituall apprehension of his Body and Blood . SECT. V.

YOur Jesuites , Bellarmine , Tolet , Suarez , and Vasquez , have already instructed you , not to take such Sayings 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 beene better if they had furthermore unfolded unto us the Fathers true Mysticall meaning therein ; which wee must endeavour to do out of the premised Sentences of the same Fathers ; to the end that you , and wee , may make an holy and comfortable use of their Divine meditations upon this Sacrament . They have sayd , I. That Christ hath a Naturall Vnion 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 wee have with Christ our Naturall and Corporall Conjunction . III. That by the same Hypostaticall Vnion of his Divine and Humane Nature together , his Bodily Flesh is become the Flesh of God , his Blood the Blood of God . IV. That these being the Flesh and Blood of God , are become thereby to be Vivificall , that is , giving Life , Blisse , and Immortality , both to the Bodies and Soules of the Faithfull in Christ . V. That the Faithfull , by Reason of the Specificall Vnion 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 Baptisme , and by the Eucharist , wee have a Naturall and Corporall Vnion with the Body of Christ , mystically ; in as much as the Sacrament of Bread and Wine ( the Choycest Refections of mans Bodily Life ) are Touched , Tasted , Eaten , and Sensually mixed with our Flesh to the nourishing and augmenting the same , untill it become of the Essence of our Bodily Substance unseparably . Therfore hath this Sacrament most aptly beene called a Pledge of an unspeakable Vnion of Christs Body with ours unto Immortality , and an Earnest of our Resurrection .

Lastly , from this Sacrament there resulteth a Spirituall Vnion , continuing in the Faithfull after the Receiving of this Sacrament , even all their life long ; and notwithstanding called by the same Fathers Corporall and Naturall , that is , ( as they interpret themselves ) from the Nature of Faith , by believing that Christ had truly a Naturall and Bodily flesh , the same Specifically with ours : Which Vnion , your Jesuites have beene enforced to acknowledge , to be in it selfe not Properly a Corporall and Naturall Vnion , but Spirituall and Mysticall , wrought onely in the Soule . 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 Soule : For when the Soules of the Faithfull , departing this life in the state of Grace , and the Soules likewise of the Vngodly passing but from hence into the thraldome of Sin , shall resume their owne Bodies ; by virtue of that Resumption , shall be made possessors of Life and Blisse both in Body and Soule ; and the Wicked ( contrarily ) of Curse and Damnation in both , according to that Generall Doome , Come you Blessed , unto the one , &c. and Goe you Cursed , to the other , &c.

Nor will your learned Suarez deny this . 22 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 ( Cōdudit ; ) Hoc Sacramentum non aliam conferre vitam & immortalitatem corporis , quam nutriendo & conservando charitatem & gratiam . The Glory of the Body ( saith hee ) dependeth upon the Glory of the Soule , and the Happinesse of the Soule dependeth upon Grace therein ; neither doth the Sacrament any otherwise conferre Immortality to the Body , but by nourishing and preserving grace in the Soule . Which is Divinely spoken . And yet wee have a more Ancient than your Jesuite , 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 . Hee , in his Discourse of the Supper of the Lord , the Blessed Sacrament of our Vnion , which the Faithfull Communicants have in receiving it ; 23 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 drinke ( saith hee ) 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 Soule : 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 Carnall Nutriments for our Temporall life and Being . So hee .

Nothing now remaineth but the last exercise of Faith , which is by Application in Speciall , 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 beene proved , Sacramentally and Figuratively ) to instruct every of his Disciples in taking thereof , to apply those words [ Body given for you , &c. ] as verily spoken to himselfe , as if hee had sayd , Take thou Iohn , and Take thou Peter , My Body given for thee Iohn , and for thee Peter , &c. in a Sacramentall Analogie . So then as my Bodily hand taketh the Sacramentall Bread , the Signe of Christs Body ; and my Bodily mouth eateth , and my Bodily stomacke digesteth , and turneth it , as nourishment , into my flesh ; so my Soule saith that I believe that the Body of my Saviour was Crucifyed , and his Blood shed for mee , whole man , Body and Soule : And that thereby I have an Interest in the power of his Passion , both for Redemption , and for Everlasting Salvation ; whereof I have a Sacramentall Pledge , by the converting of Bread into the Substance of mine owne Flesh : According to the Consonant Doctrine of Antiquity , set downe in the last Chapter of this Fift Booke . ⚜

CHAP. X.

Of the Romish Historicall Objections Chiefely insisted upon , out of Iustine , concerning the Slander raysed against Christians of Eating mans flesh , sprung ( as is pretended ) from the Catholike Doctrine of Eating Christs Body in the Eucharist ; which is their First Argument . SECT. I.

MAny leaves are spent by M. a a Mr. Brerely in his Liturgie Tra. 2. §. 2. Subd 4. p. 121. Where in his Margin hee citeth Vadian , whom hee nameth a Zuinglian : [ And if so , how far●e hee was from confessing a Corporall Presence , the Romish Authors , who condemne him for the contrary opinion , doe prove . ] See above , Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Brerely in pressing this Objection ; the strength of his Inforcement standeth thus : Iustine Martyr , in the yeare 130. writing an Apologie to the Heathen Emperour , when he was in discourse of the Eucharist ( The reported Doctrine whereof , concerning the Reall Presence , was the true and confessed Cause of this Slander ; ) and when hee 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 , &c. Then hee proceedeth in urging his other Argument ( as followeth ) borrowed from the b b Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. Cardinall , to wit , Iustine his comparing the Change in the Eucharist to be a worke of Omnipotencie , and for his not expounding the words of Christ Figuratively . Then is brought in * * In the Margin of Master Berely . Ibid. Attalas the Martyr , whilest he was under the Tortures , and Torments of his Persecutors , saying , Behold your Doing , [ Hoc est homines devorare ] This is a Devouring of men : wee Christians do not Devoure men . To whom is joyned Tertullian , making mention of the same Clamour of Sacrifising a Childe , and Eating his flesh , [ Ad nostrae Doctrinae notam : ] To the infamie of our Profession . At length Master Brerely concludeth as followeth ; So evidently doth this Slander , thus given forth by the Iewes , argue sufficiently the Doctrine of Reall 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 hee . ⚜ And so , long before him , Doctor Heskins ; 1 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 Corporall Presence and Existence of Christs Body in the Eucharist .

That the Romish Objection is , in it selfe , most Slanderous against the Historicall Truth taught by the Ancient Fathers ; and Confessed by the Romish Doctors themselves . SECT. II.

WHat ? That the Catholike Doctrine of Ancient times , concerning our Eating of Christ's Body in this Sacrament , should have beene the Cause ; yea , or yet the Occasion to the Heathen and Iewes , of imputing to the Christians a Capernaiticall Eating of Man's flesh ? This is the first Argument , which your Objectors , from Historicall Relations , use for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist , out of this Ancient Father Iustine Martyr ; In Confutation whereof wee produce ( see the Margin ) the Testimonies of these Ancient Fathers 2 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 Martyre ; sin vivus pro Magno Sace●dote . Augustine , 3 3 Irenaeus . lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum , ( Haereticorum ) omnes nos blasphemant , & avertunt aures a praeconio veritatis . Irenaeus , 4 4 Ter●ull . ad uxorem . Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante cibum gustes . [ Agapae verò non nisi Vespere . ] Tertul. Apolog. 16. Alij Asini caput , & per ludibrium Christiani appellabantur Asinarij , &c. Tertullian , 5 5 Epiphan. Haeres . 26. Foelum jam natum detractum pistillo ●undunt , & omnes contusi pueri participes facti esu peracto , &c. Epiphanius , and 6 6 Origen . testatur opera Iudaeorum has calum●ias adversus Christian●s di●●igatus . lib. 1. contra Celsum . 〈…〉 . Origen ; together with the Confessions of your owne Romish Authors , 7 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 8 Baronius Anno 120. num. 22. usque ad numerum 36. Quae Gnostici agebant in occulto , palam facta cōvertebant in Christianos : nam Epiphanius Haeres . 26. Foetum jam natum detractum pistillo tundunt , & omnes contusi pueri participes facti , esu peracto &c. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum ( Haereticorum ) omnes nos blasphemant , & aver●unt aures a praeconio veritatis . Origenes testatur opera Iudaeorum 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 &c. 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 lowd and lewd Slander cast upon Catholike Christians , by both Iewes and Gentiles , that it was occasioned by Hereticall , and Fanaticall Christians , in the Primitive Age of the Church ; such as were the Montanists , the Cataphryges and Gnosticks , who did indeed and Really eate Humane flesh . So they .

But most especially is this Romish Figment confuted by the Storie it selfe , 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 falshood of your Objections to seeme , in a maner palpable unto us ; because Christ being crucified by both Jewes and Gentiles , when hee was above thirty yeares of Age , and the whole Church of Christ professing as much , it was not possible that the Eating of an Infant onely , should produce an opinion of Eating a Man of growth ; much lesse could it be credible , that they imputed the Eating thereof in the Eucharist , if ( as your French 10 10 Gabriel Episcop. Albispin . lib. 1. Observat. 18 : Eucharistia non nisi mane sumebatur . Te●t . ad uxor . Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante cibum gustes . 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. Iustin . Gretzerus . Ies. de cruce , 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 hee . And consequently so sandie and boggie is this foundation of your maine Objection , for proofe of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist .

The Second Romish Argument out of Justine , termed Insoluble before all others , is , because when hee called the Eating of the Eucharist , the Eating of the Body of Christ , hee wrot to an Heathen Emperour . SECT. III.

IVstine writeth an Apologie unto Antoninus Pius , an Heathen Emperour , at what time the Slander of Eating Humane flesh fell upon the Orthodoxe Christians , Originally from the impious Practice of Hereticall Christians , as you have heard ; and now are you to heare the Insoluble Argument forsooth , which your Cardinall Bellarmine extracteth from thence . 11 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 , & non in signo tantum datur nobis comedenda Christi caro . This Dilemma ( saith hee ) remaineth Insoluble . Either could Iustine truly have sayd , that the flesh of Christ is Eaten of Christians onely in a Signe : or hee could not have so sayd . If hee could , then did hee 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 hee might have made it probable , and so have blotted out the Infamy conceived against Christians . And if hee could not say that Christ is Eaten in the Eucharist , onely as in a Signe ; doubtlesse the reason why hee could not , must have beene because the flesh of Christ is not given to be Eaten therein as in a Signe onely . So he , Ostentatively of his owne Argument , insigned by himselfe Insoluble , as you see ; Notwithstanding this may admit divers and sundry Solutions .

That the Hornes of your Cardinals Dilemma are easily blunted by a Three-fold Solution . The Firs is by shewing the Cause to be Impertinent . SECT. IV.

IVstine 12 12 Iustin . 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 . shewed to the same Emperour , that no Impiety at all ( upon any Inquisition formerly made ) could be layd to the charge of Orthodoxe Christians , in this Case , by good proofes . First Iustine propoundeth the Letters of the Emperour 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 proofe of some Impiety . As also the Epistle of Marcus , Emperour before his Father , who became both a Patron to justifie 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 13 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Onely for being a Christian ( that is for his Profession sake onely ) should be burnt Quicke . And should not the Sacrifising of Infants ( if any such had beene practised by the Christians ) have beene held Capitall Crimes with those Emperours , trow yee ? Besides this Iustine allegeth unto this Emperour Antoninus himselfe , his owne Epistle , whereby he testifyed in the Behalfe of Christians , 14 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 it selfe 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.

OVr next Reason of the Insufficiencie meeteth with the Cardinalls Reason , enforced by the First Horne of his Dilemma , thus : * * See above , Sect. 3. If Iustine ( saith hee ) could have sayd that Christs flesh is eaten in the Eucharist , onely in a Signe ; then did hee praevaricate in the Case of Christians , and make their faith most odious , in increasing the Suspicion of the Crime objected against them . Wee Answer , that although hee might have sayd , that Christs flesh is eaten Bodily , onely in a Signe , 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 Sacramentall and Mysticall , Signes , by the names of the Things signifyed thereby , whereof you have heard a Memorable example out of * * See above , Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Homer ; where , even as Christ sayd of Consecrated Bread , [ This is my Body ; ] So those Heathen , in Sacrifising of Lambes , for Ratification of their Oaths and Covenants , called those Sacrifices their Oaths . And that nothing was more familiar among the Heathen , you may know by that Proverbiall speech ; Sine Cerere & Libero friget Venus : without Ceres and Bacchus Lust doth languish : where they give to Bread the name of the Goddesse Ceres , and the name of God Bacchus to Wine .

Secondly , and more especially may this appeare out of Iustine , immediatly after the place now objected , thus : 15 15 Iustin . Loco supracitat [ Hoc est sanguis meus ] 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Christ ( saith Iustine ) receiving Bread , saith [ This is my Body : ] and taking the Cup , sayd [ This is my Blood : ] and delivered them onely in those words ; the which also even the wicked Devils , by Imitation , have taught to be done in the Mysteries of their Mithra , ( namely ) for that Bread and a Pot of Water is put in the Sacrifices of him that is initiated unto their Communion , in the Sacrifices , by Addition of certaine words , as you either know , or might have knowne . So Iustine , To the Heathen Emperour . Do you not see how the Devils in their Sacrifices and Mysteries ( as 16 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 Christs Apes , as other Fathers use to speake ; And that not onely in their Materiall Ceremonies , such as are Bread and Cup , but also in their Verball , by Addition of words , as Iustine sheweth . Where you may perceive how Iustine argued with those Heathen out of their owne Mysteries , and ( that wee may so call them ) Sacraments : even as Saint Paul did with the Athenians out of the Inscription of their owne Altar .

It happened not above a quarter of a yeare , after that had set downe this Observation , that in reading a Booke of that never too worthily Commended Mirrour of Learning , Master Isaac Casaubone , I found this my Opinion fortifyed , and as it were animated with his most acurate Judgement , shewing out of his most exquisite Reading ; that 17 17 Isaac Casaub in 〈◊〉 exercitat . 16. Iustinus 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 Iuris . 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 aemulation of Christians , use in their Mysteries of Mythra , Symbols of Bread and Cup , adding solemne Mysticall words . Hee furthermore sheweth out of Porphyrie , that in their Religious Communion , they had certaine Aenigmaticall expressions ; Calling their Communicants , if Men , Lions ; if Women , Hyenas ; and if Ministers , Crowes . Still ( as you see ) using Mysticall and Figurative Appellations in their Ceremoniall Rites . Vpon which evidence wee may easily encounter your Cardinalls Dilemma with this that followeth . Either the Emperour and the Heathen people did perceive that the words of Christ , now published by Iustine , were spoken Figuratively , signifying the Outward Eating of his Body , Bodily , in a Signe onely ; or they did not . If they did know so much , then could they not be offended with Orthodoxe Christians , or Scandalized thereby . And if they did not know that they were Figuratively and Mystically to be understood , then would not those Emperours have absolved Christians from all blame ( as you see they did ) but punished them for Sacrificing of Infants ; which Act , among these Heathen , was held to be Criminall and Capitall . And that Iustine did not Praevaricate by concealing his Figurative sense of Christs words , it is as manifest by that he Instructed them therein out of their own Phrases , used in their Ceremonies of their God Mithra .

The Impossibility that any Heathen could be offended at the former words of Justine . SECT. VI.

NO Heathen , that heard of the Catholike Faith of Christians , concerning the Body of Christ , in those Primitive times , published by Ancient Fathers , and by Iustine himselfe , could , except it were against their Consciences , impute unto Christians a Corporall Eating of the Body of Christ . For , first , the Articles of Christian Faith ( for which so many Armies of Martyrs conquered the Infidelity of the world , by Martyrdome ) being this ; that Christ , the Saviour of the world , God and Man , ascended into Heaven , and there now reigneth in the Kingdome of everlasting Blessednesse , adored of all Christians with Divine worship . Another Article , Vniversally held of those Catholike Fathers ( as hath been * * See Book 4. c. 5. §. 5. proved ) that the Body of Christ was ever , notwithstanding his Resurrection and Ascension , Circumscribed in one place . And thirdly , All knowing that this Principle was universally and infallibly believed of all the Heathen ( namely ) To thinke it Impossible for one Body to be in many places at once . Therefore was it Impossible for the Heathen to conceive that the Christians taught a Corporall Eating of that Body on Earth , which they believed was Circumscribed , and conteined in Heaven . Fourthly , That this was the Faith , which the same Ancient Father Iustine did professe and publish at that time , is now to be tryed out of the Bookes of Iustine himselfe .

That Iustine himselfe did accordingly argue against the Possibility of Christs Bodily Presence on Earth ; And that Attalas ( objected ) condemneth the Romish Capernaiticall Swallowing of Christs Body . SECT. VII .

IVstine , in the same Apologie , now objected , and by him directed unto the Heathen Emperor Antoninus sirnamed the Godly , before his words of Eating Christs flesh , setteth down the Christian Article of his Ascension into Heaven , saying 18 18 Iustin . in Apologia secund pag. 64. Deus , Christum post Resurrectionem illaturus coelo 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. adversantes Daemones percutiat , et bonorum numerum expleatur , propter quos nondum extremum Decretum et consummationem fecit . that God the Father assumed Christ , after his death , into Heaven , there 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , To detaine him , untill hee vanquished the Devils , and filled up the number of the Godly . An Argument ( as Athanasius , and Augustine observeth ) which was used by Christ himselfe , as that which ought to have perswaded the very Capernaites , that Christ was not to be Bodily Eaten upon Earth ( as hath beene * * See above , B. 5. cap. 3. Sect. 2. proved . ) The same Iustine in his Resolution of Questions , made by Orthodoxe Christians , shewed that Christ denyed to have a Continuall Conversation with men , after his Resurrection , which hee had before his Passion : Namely that 19 19 Iustin . Quaest. & Resp. ad Orthodox●● . pag. 327. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . adding that after his Resur●ection 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Hee would by little and little disuse and unaccustome them with his sight and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , Presence . Do you heare his withdrawing his Presence ? That is , will you say , his Visible Presence . Nay , but whatsomever Locall Presence , which hee had among them formerly ; whether ( saith Iustine ) of Being Seene , or of Not being Seene among them . This is plaine .

Of Averroes his Imputing to Christians the Devouring of their God . SECT. VIII .

WEe are not ignorant what some of you would Reply , by Instancing in Averroes his upbrayding of Christians with Devouring of their God , which wee may justly conceive hee spake in the spirit of Malignancie , and against his owne knowledge , as the Premises have proved , and against the expresse Profession of Ancient Fathers , detesting the same Conceipt of Devouring Christs flesh ( as you have formerly heard . ) Just like as our Romish Adversaries deale with us , who , as often as they labour to confute our Doctrine of Iustification onely by Faith , do inveigh against Protestants , as professing a Iustifying Faith without Good works and Repentance . And notwithstanding the same Objectors themselves , expressing the very words of Protestants , confesse that their Iustifying Faith , which they teach , is a Living Faith alwayes joyned with Contrition of heart for sinne , and purpose of Amendment of Life , and that this Iustification 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 20 Pope Nicolas the Second , living Ann. 1059. Averroes ( ut a●t Possevinus Biblioth lib 13. c. 23. ) fuit à Nativitate Christi , anno 1150. discussed ) in his Romane 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 Torne with the Teeth of all the Communicants of this Sacrament : Which tenour of Speech hath beene abandoned by your owne Doctors ; some censuring it as harsh and false , and some as Hereticall . It can be no marvaile ( say wee ) that Averro●s hearing of this , Then professed by Papall Christians , did deride and detest all such Eaters of their God , and that most Justly . Because that Devouring ( as hath beene confessed by your Jesuite ) is nothing else but a Transmitting without mastication , or Tearing , into the stomack ▪ else could not Scriputre have sayd , that Ionas was devoured of the Whale . Which your Corporall Swallowing of Christs Body , if it had beene held Christian in the Dayes of Antiquity , then could not Attalas ( as hath beene objected ) have upbraided the Heathenish Persecutors at the time of his Martyrdome , saying , * * See above Sect. 1. This ( your persecuting of Christians to death ) is a Devouring of men , Wee Christians do not Devoure 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 sayd to Devoure that which they professe to Eat , Swallow , and sometime to passe into their Bellies , and after into the Draught .

CHAP. XI . Of the Fift , Last , and Basest Romish maner of Vnion with Christs Body , in the Inferiour parts of your Communicants .

HItherto have your Romish Disputers laboured to bring the Body of Christ into your Bellies and Entrailes : Now , as if they thought this not a sufficient Vilfication of the Blessed Bodie of Christ , they proceede to depresse it lower , into the Basest place of Baseness , which is the Draught and Seege it selfe : so vile , that the very Inke may seeme to blush , in setting downe the Sordidity thereof ; which ( in respect of other Readers , than your selves , who teach this ) wee may not further adventure to mention without Preface of Reverence ; under our Readers patience therefore wee proceed , as followeth .

Shewing the Romish Doctrine of an Vnion of Christs Body with the Basest parts of Mans Body , to be more Beastly than the Carnall and Capernaiticall conceipt of Eating Christs Body is read of ever to have descended unto . SECT I.

CApernaites , when they were offended at Christs words , concerning the receiving of Christs flesh , are not read to have proceeded further in the grosenesse of their Imagination , than to a Proper Eating thereof . Our Saviour shewing the Ordinary Course of meat , in the superfluity thereof , above that which is turned into nourishment , and changed in the Substantiall parts of mans Body , saith that Coming into the Belly , it descendeth into the Draught . A Saying which holdeth true , as well in meat Sacramentall , as Naturall ; as Manna , for example ( called Angels food ) and the Paschall Lambe , neither of both were privileged from the ordinary course of Nature . And as for the materiall 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 generall learning of your Schooles is , that The Body of Christ is under the formes of Bread wheresoever , so long as they remaine uncorrupt . Which is so verily your Romane Faith , that one of your Cardinalls in his Catechisme , telleth his Catechumenist , that 21 21 Contarenus Cardinal . Catechests Christiana . Interrog. 14. Remanetne corpus Christi ▪ & sanguis , in Eucharistia , donec species illae remanent ? Resp. Quis sanus mente 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 layd , wee propound unto you the Consequences hereof , as wee finde them divulged in print by your owne Authors , and in their privileged Books , Antoninus was ( as 22 22 Anton Possetia . Apparat. Tit. Antoninus — Antoninus Florentinus , deinceps Archiepiscopus Patriae suae , in Sanctorum numerum à Pontifice Clemente Septimo relatus . you know ) an Arch-Bishop living , and being dead , Canonized a Saint by Pope Nicolas . Hee shall be our Relater of the Doctrine of Paludanus , whom your Jesuite 23 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 Generall Principle , argued , saying that 24 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 formes of Bread and Wine do as verily goe into the Stomack , and so after into the Draught , as could the Substance of either of them , if they were there , and yet sometimes passe out uncorrupted , in Bodies infirme , and especially those that labour of the Fluxe : Because some so diseased persons do let passe from them that which they eat , as uncorrupt as they received it , whether it be by Vomit , or by Egestion into the Seege . So hee .

Which againe is a Doctrine so verily Romish , that your owne Casust , in his Booke enstiled Morall Resolutions , propoundeth two Cases ; and afterwards manerly ( saving your presence ) resolveth them thus : 25 25 Iohannes 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 Iohann . 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 formes of both may be Reverently licked up , if any can performe this without loathsomnesse . So hee . Might this be Possible ! Wee returne to your Relater Antoninus , out of Plaudanus , giving you an example of a Devout man much commended by one 26 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 Hoast vomited ; and after affirming that the suffering on Saint Laurence his Gridiron had beene more tolerable than this . So they . How like you this ? For mislike it you may not , it being the naturall Brat and Off-spring of your Generall Romish faith , Believing ( as hath beene sayd ) that the Body and Blood of Christ is under the Consecrated formes of Bread and of Wine wheresoever , so long as the same formes remaine uncorrupted . This Theme will not permit much Discussion , for , as the Saying is , Omne Coenum ma●è olet , commove , & senties odorem . Wee hasten to the next Section .

That the very Imagination of this Former Romish Beastly Doctrine would have beene held of the Ancient Fathers most Abominable . SECT. II.

THe Holy Fathers ( if they had beene of your Romish Faith , concerning the Corporall Presence of Christs Body in this Sacrament ) must have held also your Romish Conclusion , of a Possibility of Egestion ; the Conceipt whereof they did greatly abhorre . For * * Cyril . Hierosol . See above , Booke 4. cap ●● . §. ● . Cyril of Ierusalem , to the end that hee might abstract mens mindes from all such monstrously-prophane and Base thoughts and conceptions , concerning the Body of Christ , denyed peremptorily , that Christs Body can passe into the Seege . Which also seemed to be so unsavorie and loathsome to * * Chrysost. Ibid. Chrysostome , that hee spit at the first thought thereof , with an Absit ! as much as to say [ Fy 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 maner ) here , where the Turpitude and Beastlinesse of your Doctrine forbiddeth us to inlarge our Confutation , and therefore wee hasten to a Conclusion .

That the Institution of this Sacrament was ordained to be Food onely for the Soule , and not for the Body , according to the Iudgement of Antiquitie . SECT. III.

THis Proposition hath beene already * * See above ch. 2. § 3. confessed by your Councel of Trent , and Romane Catechisme , and confirmed by the Consent of * * See above ch. 10. §. 5. Antiquity it selfe ; where it was manifested , that albeit they sometime make mention of it's being Food and Life to the Body also ; yet was not this ( as your Jesuites have * * Ibid. confessed ) so sayd in respect of any immediate Bodily preservation therof , in this Life , but in the Everlasting Life of Glorification , in the Day of Resurrection , after it be reunited to the Soule , according to that Promise of Christ , Ioh. 6. excepting only the Analogicall and Sacramentall maner of Feeding , which wee defend ( that is to say ) As the Body Feedeth Corporally on the Sacrament , Bread ; so is the Soule nourished Spiritually with Christs Body and Blood . Otherwise the Ancient Fathers maintayned a sole Soule-feeding on Christs Body ; in which respect ( as one of your 27 27 Casaub . Ex. er●it . 16. cap. 39. Vocant Graeci Patres hoc Sacramentum 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . owne learned Authors hath informed you ) The Greek Fathers called that which wee receive [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , ] that is , Supersubstantiall Bread . 28 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 Ioh. Panis iste quaerit esurlem interioris hominis . Basil . in Psalm . Est & quiddam interni hominis os , quo pascitur , recipiens verbum vitae , qui panis descendit de caelo . Wee adde the particular accordant Testimonies of diverse Fathers , of whom if you aske , What the Meat is , which you must believe to Eat in this Sacrament ? They will tell you , Not of the Body , but of the Soule . If Who must be the Eater ? Not the outward , but the Inward man . If What it is that hungreth for this ? The Inward Soule . If What must taste it ? The Soule . If with What mouth ? That , whereof Tertullian said ( speaking of Christs Flesh ) It is to be devoured with the Eare , ruminated with the Minde , and disgested with Faith . If How ? Let Saint Augustine make up the whole harmony ; Eat his Flesh ▪ * * See above ch. 6. §. 4. This ( saith hee ) 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 crucifyed for us . So the Fathers . Besides many other like Sayings , by us already related in the former Sections , wherein hath beene opposed out of the Fathers , against your Corporall Touch , saying of Christ , Touch mee not : against your Orall Eating thus , Not meat of the Tooth ; but of the Minde : against your Swallowing thus , Wee Devour not Christs Flesh : against your Corporall mixture therewith thus , Wee mingle not the Persons and Substances : And against your Corporall Transmitting the same Body downe by Egestion thus , It descendeth not into the Draught .

Wee therefore ( according to the genuine sense of Primitive Fathers , answerable to the Doctrine of Christ ) conclude ; that such as is our Feeding of Christs Body in this Sacrament , such also must be our Eating , because Eating is ordained for Feeding . But by the universall Consent of all Christian Professours , of all ages , whether Primitive , or Successive , Greeke or Romane , Protestants or Papists ; our Spirituall Feeding of Christ Body , in this Sacrament , is devoyd of all Corporall Instrument , or effect . Therefore our Spirituall Eating is no way Corporall . ⚜

CHALLENGE .

THrice therefore , yea foure times unconscionable are your Disputers , in Objecting the former Sentences of holy Fathers , as teaching a Corporall and Naturall Vnion of Christs 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 Corporall 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 Sacramentall Bread united with our owne Bodies , in a Mysticall Relation to the Body of our Redeemer ; and lastly , and that principally , because they meant a Spirituall 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 horrour of your Corporall Conjunction of Christ his Body in Boxes and Dunghills , in Mawes of Beasts , in Guts of Mice , Wormes and Dogs , and at length into the Seege , 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 Seale 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 Literall sense of Christs words [ This is my Body ] so farre as concerneth Corporall Vnion . The next Consequence will be touching the Proper Sacrificing thereof ; whereunto wee proceed , nothing doubting but that wee shall finde your Romish Disputers the same men , which hitherto they have appeared to be ; Peremptory in their Assertions , Vnconscionable in their Inforcements of the Sentences of Antiquity , Contradictory to themselves ; and Vaine and Absurd in their Inferences and Conclusions . ⚜

THE SIXTH BOOKE , Entreating of the fourth Romish Consequence , which concerneth the pretended proper Propitiatorie Sacrifice in the Romish Masse , arising from the depraved Sense of the former words of Christ ; [ THIS IS MY BODY : ] and confuted by the true Sense of the words following , [ IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE . ]

The State of the Controversie .

WHo soever shall deny it ( say your Fathers of a a Si quie dixerit . non offerri Deo verum & proprium Sacrificium , aut non es●t Propitiatorium , A●athema sit . cone . Tri● Sess. 22. Cap. 1. & 3. Visibile . cap. 1. Sacramentum verè propitiatorium . cap. 2. Trent ) to bee a true and proper Sacrifice , or that it is Propitiatory : Let him bee Anatherna , or Accisrsed . Which one Canon hath begot two Controversies ( as you b 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 Masse be a proper Sacrifice . 2. Whether it bee 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 , wee are forthwith to examine . Wee begin with the Sacrifice , as it is called Proper .

This Examination hath foure Trials : 1. By the Scripture . 2. By the Judgement of Ancient Fathers . 3. By Romish Principles ; and 4. By Comparison betweene this your Masse , and the Protestants Sacrifice , in the Celebration of the holy Eucharist .

CHAP. I. Our Examination by Scripture .

SCriptures alleaged by our Disputers , for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice , are partly out of the new Testament , and partly out of the old . In the new , some Objections are collected out of the Gospell of Christ , and some out of other places . We beginning at the Gospell , assuredly affirme that if there were in it any note of a Proper Sacrifice , it must necessarily appeare either from some speciall word , or else from some Sacrificing Act of Christ , at his first Institution .

First of Christs words . That there is no one word , in Christ his first Institution , which can probably inferre a Proper Sacrifice ; not the first and principall words of Luc. 22. [ Hoc FACITE : DOE THIS . ] SECT. I.

WHen wee call upon you for a Proofe , by the words of Christ , we exact not the very word Offering , or Sacrifice , in the same Syllables , but shall bee content with any Phrase of equivalencie , amounting to the sense or meaning of a Sacrifice . In the first place you object those words of Christ , [ Hoc facite : Doe this . ] from which your Councell of a a [ Hoc facite ] Tunc , utà Sancto Synodo definitum est , Christus Sacerdotes instituit , praecepirgue ut & ipsi & qui 〈…〉 eis essent , corpus ejus immolarent . Catechis . Trid. de Euch. Num. 58. Trent hath collected the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ : which your Cardinall avoucheth with his b b Cerium est , probari Sacrificium Missae his verbis , [ Hoc facite ] &c. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 12. Certum est , as a truth without all exception ; as if [ Doe this ] in the literall sense , were all one with [ Doe you Sacrifice , ] But why ? because , forsooth , the same word in the Hebrew Originall , and in the Greeke Translation is elsewhere so used , Levit. 15. for Doe , nor Make , spoken of the Turtle-dove 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 , Doe , or Make. So he , together with some other Iesuites . But vainly , ridiculously , and injuriously .

I. Vainly , because the word , Doe , in those Scriptures did not simply in it selfe 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 appeare in the places objected , Lev. 15. where was speech of a Turtle-dove , appointed for a Sacrifice . And so likewise in 1 King . 18. 23. was there mention of a Bullocke 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 doe diversifie the sense of the same word .

II. Ridiculously . For if the Hebrew and Greeke c c Gnaschah , Heb. the same in Greeke , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , in Latine , Facio Iud. 6 29. Ios. 5. vers. ull . Iob. 13. 7. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and Marc. 11. 3. Si quis dixerit , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Editions , which signifie Doe this , doe necessarily argue a sacrificing act or Sacrifice , then shall you be compelled to admit of strange and odde kinds of Sacrifices ; one in Gideon his destroying of the Altar of Baal : another in Moses his Putting off his shooes . A third in Christs washing his Disciples feet . A fourth ( to goe no further ) in the Mans Loosing of his Colt . In all which Instances there are the same originall words now objected , by interpretation , Doe , or Make. Even as it was also in Christs words to Iudas , then , when that Monster was plotting that heinous Treason , saying . [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] That which thou doest , doe quickly . Can your Alchymists possibly extract a dramme of Sacrifice , as offered by Iudas , either from the word , Doe , or Doest , in that place ?

III. Injuriously . First , to the Text of Christ , wherein the word is not indefinite , Doe , but determinate , [ Doe this . ] Next , Injurious to your owne many Authors : for the words , [ Doe this ] ( by the * * See above Book . ● . Chap. 2. §. 1. confessions of your owne Iesuites and others ) have reference to all the former Acts of Christ his Celebration , then specified ; as namely , Blessing , Breaking , Eating , &c. Yea , and if your Cardinals Answer were held so Certaine among your selves , then would not your Iesuite Maldonate have so farre slighted it , as to say , d 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 [ Doe ] signifieth the same with , Doe sacrifice . ⚜ If you thinke this be not opposite enough , then behold your Iesuite Estius flatly contending against it . 1 1 Estius Ies Com 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 doe expound it , besides the meaning of Scripture ⚜ . Next , Injurious to antiquity , which ( as is confessed ) e e Qùod olim dicimus , Missas facere , Veteres quoque dixerunt Divina mysteria celebrare . Hilar. &c. Ex Cassand . Liturg cap. 16. called Doing Masse the Celebration of the Sacrament . Besides , Injurious to your owne Masse , in the Canon inserted by f f Alexander Papa & Martyr , Passionem Domini inserens Canoni Missae , ait , [ Hoc quoticscunque feceritis , ] Id est , Benedixeritis , Fregeritis , Distribueritis , &c. Id. Cassander ibid. cap. 29. Alexander Pope and Martyr , of the Primitive age , in these words ; [ Doe this as often ] that is , Blesseit , Breakeit , Distributeit , &c. A plaine and direct Interpretation of the words [ Doe 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 [ Doe this , as often as you doe it , in remembrance of mee , ] vers. 25. immediately expounding what was meant by Doing , expresseth the Acts of Doing , thus ; As often as ye shall eat this Bread , and drinke this Cup , &c. Which his Command of Doing , by Eating and Drinking , was spoken generally to all the faithfull in Corinth ; that you may not imagine it was wholly restrained to the sacrificing Priests .

Other Romish Doctors also , if they had beene so sure of the force of the word [ FACITE , ] as your Cardinall seemeth to be , then surely would they not have sought to prove it from Virgils Calfe , 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 beene since branded by your g g Operae-pretium erit imposturam Adversariorum refutate . Calvinus fingit Catholicos ità probare Propositionem nostri argumenti ex Virgilii verbis , Cùm faciam vitulâ , &c. Et Kemnitius ridet Catholicos . — sed errant , nee bonâfide referunt argumenta Catholicorum . Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa . cap. 12. Cardinall with a marke of Imposture , as if they had falsly taxed your Romish Authors of such fondnesse . 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 , hee presumed , that none of them could be so absurd . But your Iansenius will quit the report of Calvin and Chemnitius from the suspicion of Falshood , who witnesseth , concerning some Romish Authors of his time , saying ; h h Sunt qui ex verbo [ Facite ] Sacrificium ostendere conantur , quia aliquandò accipitur pro Sacrificare , ut cum Vitgilius dicit — Cùm faciam Vitulâ profrugibus , ipse venito . Iansen Concor . in cum locum cap. 131. p. 904. There are some who endevour 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 beene as absurd , as some others that came after , yea ( by your leave ) i i Et Poeta , Cùm faciam vitulâ , &c. Valent . Ies. lib. 1. de Sacrif . Missa , c. 4. §. Fatentur . p. 519. Eam vim habet verbum Faciendi , ut cum Poeta dicit , Cùm faciam Vitulà , &c. Salmer . Ies. Tim. 9. Tract. 27. pag. 205. §. Septi●● . Iesuites themselves , of your Bellarmines owne Society , who in like maner have consulted with the Poet Virgil about his Calfe ; but as wisely ( according to our Proverb ) as Walton's Calfe , which went &c. For the matter Subject of the Poets Sacrifice is there expressed to have beene Vitula , a Calfe . You have failed in your first Objection .

That a Proper Sacrifice cannot be collected out of any of these words of Christs 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 Greeke , there is a varying of the Case : whereupon your Disputers , as if they had cryed 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , 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 Grammer point , concerning the Case .

This is the new Testament in my Blood : ● Now what of this ? a 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 Calice . It is not said ( saith your Cardinall ) 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 bee shed for us for remission of sinnes . But how gather you this ? Because in the b b 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Greeke ( saith M. c 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 bee 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 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 Iesuite 2 2 Gordonus Scotus Ies. l. 1. Controvers. 3. c. 12. nu. 6. [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] est nominativi casus necessariò referendū ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , non dativi 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , ut pertineatad 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Gordon hath done . In which one Collection they labour upon many ignorances . 1. As if a Soloecophanes were a prophanation of Scripture , by Incongruity of speech ; which ( as one e 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 Elegancie of speech by the two Princes of Orators , Demosthenes for the Greeke , and Tully for the Latine ; and by the two Parents of Poets , among the Greeks Homer , and by Virgil among the Latines .

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 confesse f f Sixtus Senensis Biblioth. lib. 8. pag. ult. Nos ingenuè fatemur nonnullas mendas in hac nostra editlona inveniri , etiam Soloecismos , & Barbarismos , hyperbata , &c. Ingenuously , that in their Vulgar Latine Translation ( which is decreed by the Councell of Trent to be Authenticall ) there are meere Solecismes , and Barbarismes , and other faults , which wee may call , in point of Grammar , downe 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 Solecismes , and Barbarismes , which had crept into the Translation of Scriptures , saying that g 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 Latine 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 h D. Fulke against Greg. Martin . D. Fulke divers * * Apoc. l. 4 & 8. 9. & 3. 12 , &c. Examples . 5. As if this Soloecophanes now objected were not justifiable , which is defended by the Mirrour of Grammarians i i Ioseph . Sciligeri Nota in novum Testamentum . Luc. 22. 20. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 : Mera est Antiptósis , pro 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Beza rectè exponit , & ait duplicem esse Metonymiam . Ioseph Scaliger , by a figure Antiptôsis ; and Beza ( saith hee ) doth truly expound it . Besides it is explained anciently by k 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 appeare in our Answer to the next Objection of Time : for if by Given , Broken , and Shed , is meant the time future , then these words Shed for you , for remission of sinnes , flatly conclude that hereby is not meant any proper Sacrifice of Christs Blood in the Cup , but on the Crosse .

⚜ Lastly , if wee shall answer , that the Cup , indeed , is taken for the Liquor in the Cup , which is called Christs Blood , per Metonymiain , that is , Figuratively , the signo for the name of the thing Signified ( whereof you have heard plentifull examples thorowout the second Book ) you shall never be able to make any Reply . One word more . Seeing that it is the universall Confession of all your Doctors , yea , even of the Objectors themselves , that * * See Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and in this Sect. in their owne words . Christs 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 assoile 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 Christs Body , and shedding his Bloud , is in the Supper , and not on the Crosse : So your l l Bellarm. lib. 1. de ●●iss . cap. 12. Datur , Frangitur , Funditur , in Praesenti tempore , docet apertissimè non fusum esse in Cruce sanguinem , sed in Coena . Cardinall : most invincibly say your m m Rhemists upon Luc. 22. 20. Rhemists , and Mr Breerly , as dancing merrily after their Pipes ; n n M. Breerly , Liturg. Tract . 3. §. 3. subd. 1. p. 319. This point ( saith hee ) is clearly determined by the Evangelists themselves , in their owne originall writings , Broken , Given , Shed . And o o Ibid. subd. 3. p. 319. The Evasions , which our Adversaries seeke , whereby to avoid this , are enforced , racked and miserable shifts . And againe , for corroboration-sake . p p Ibid. subd. 1. p. 317. The word Broken also , spoken in regard of the outward formes , which are in time of Sacrificing , is more forcible , because not meant of the Crosse : for when they saw hee was dead , fulfilling the Prophecie [ A Bone of him shall not be broken ] they brake not his legges , Ioh. 19. 33. ⚜ And will you see your Iesuite Gordon , frisking and keeping the same measure ; urging the present-Tense of the word , Broken , Given , Shed ; calling this the Chiefe reason , and most evident for proofe of a Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Masse ? and censuring Protestants for saying that in the same words the Present Tense is put for the Future ; and that Broken doth signifie the Renting of Christs flesh with whips and nailes : which he termeth a seeking of refuge in Tropes and Figures , as that which cannot bee proved by any Scripture . So he , with these others , most ostentatively , as you have heard ⚜ . Alas ! what huge Anakims and Giants have we to deale withall ! no Argument can proceed from them but most Evident , Forcible , and Invincible ; yet may we not despaire of due Resistance , especially , being supported by your owne Brethren , as well the sonnes of Anak , as were the other : besides , some better aid , both from Fathers and Scriptures , for proofe that these words Broken , Given , Shed , spoken in the Present time doe signifie the Future time of Christs body being Broken , and Bloudshed ; and both Given up as a Sacrifice instantly after upon the Crosse .

What Authors on your side may satisfie you ? whether your * * See above Book . 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and the rest in our Additionals to this Section . choice Iesuites , Salmeron , Valentia , ⚜ Suarez , Vasquez Barradas , and our Country-man Sà ; together with 3 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 rendred , Shall be Shed ⚜ ; or will you be directed by most voices , whereby it is confessed ( namely ) that q q Iansenius referring it to the Cup , yet saith : [ Qui effunditur ] communiter intelligitur de effusione factâ in Cruce , & rect● . Concord 131 ▪ By Bloud-shed is commonly understood of it shed upon the Crosse . But what need have we of the severall members , when as the whole Body of your Romish Church is for us , rendring the word , Shed , in the Future Tense [ Fundetur ] shall be shed , as referred to the Crosse ? What thinke you by this ? say M. Breerly . * * Liturg. Tract . ● . §. 3. subd. 1. Our Adversaries are in great straits , when they are glad to appeale from the Originall Greeke Text which they call Authenticall , unto the Latine Vulgar Translation , which they call old , rotten , and full of corruptions . This were well objected indeed , if that Protestants should alleage your Vulgar Latine 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 perswasion to themselves , and not rather ( as it were by the Law of Armes ) an Opposition , and indeed conviction upon their Adversaries , who by the Decree of your Councell of Trent , are bound * * See hereafter Book . ● . Not to reject it upon any pretence whatsoever . And to have this your owne Authenticall Translation to make against you , is to be in straits indeed , because all the Decrees of that Councell , by the Bull of Pope Pius 4. are put upon you to be beleeved under the bond of an Oath .

Is it possible for you to shake off these shackles ? Yes , M. Breerly can , by an admirable tricke of wi : r r Li●urg . in the place above cited . Neverthelesse ( saith hee ) I answer in behalfe of the Vulgar Interpreter , that as he translateth in the Future Tense , [ which shall be shed ] so doth hee use the Present Tense in the other words , Given , and Broken , to signifie that it was then given in the Sacrament , and afterwards to be given upon the Crosse , both together . As if you should tell us in plaine English that your Church in her Vulgar Latine Text doth equivocate , teaching that It shall be shed , in the Future , doth signifie also the Present Tense , Is shed , that is , It is , shall be , both together . A fit man ( forsooth ) to inveigh against a Soloecophanes . ⚜ Your Iesuite Vasquez doubtlesse would have laughed at the ridiculousnesse of this mans defence of the Vulgar Translation , 4 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 Ies . 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 onely concerning the Blood , in [ Fundetur , ] but also concerning the Body , in [ Tradetur . ⚜ ] But how then can Protestants interpret the Present to signifie the Future ? We tell you , because you have in Scriptures , and other Authours , thousands of Examples of the Present tense put for the Future , to signifie the certainty or instancie 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 Progresse to the time past . And if , Shed , be taken not in true sense , then shall it be lawfull for every pettie Romish Priest at every Masse-saying to correct your Romish Missall , authorized by the same Tridentine Fathers , which hath it , s s Missale Rom. Cali● Sanguinis — qui effundetur . Shall be Shed . ⚜ If this will not serve , we refer you to your owne other 5 5 Vasqu . Ies. in 3. Thom. Quest. 78. Art. 3. Disp. 199. Cap. 2. [ Effundetur ] Effusionem in Cruce significat — Adde 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 Cruce , quia clavis confixus est . Refortur reverand Calicem , Relativum Qui : Verùm quia effusio non propriè convenit Calici , Ideir●ò estratione sanguinis , qui effundetur in Cruce , Barradas Ies. Tom. 4. in Evang. lib. 3. cap. 5. [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] Adjoyning a second opini●n in confuting this . De effusione in Eucharistia interpretantur Iansenius , Bellarminus , Maldonasus . Verum ( Ob. Sol. ) Cali● effunditur : Continens pro contento sanguine , qui effundebatur in cruce . Ob. Pro multis , dicit , & pro vobis . Sol. Omnes multi sunt , ut Ent●ymius , & Theophylactus ex Mat. 10. Iesuites , 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 straitnesse or loosnesse , that occasioned him to deliver it in the Preterimperfect Tense , t t Liturg. Tract. 3. c. 3. subd . ● p. 145. Was shed . But he will expect that wee answer his reason . He urged the word , Broken , that because this could not be meant of Broken on the Crosse , for that His Legs were not there broken , ( according as it was prophesied ) therefore it must inferre it to have beene Broken at his Supper , when he uttered the word Broken . Which is like his other maner of Reasons , blunt , and broken at the point , as it became one not much conversant in Scripture : else might he have answered himselfe by another Prophecie , 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 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 . Iesuites acknowledge ) By nailes , speare , and whips ; and is to bee applied to the Breaking of his sinewes , nerves , and veines , as your x x Bellarm. V●cunque possit fractio , &c. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 12. §. Ad quartum . Cardinall 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 our selves , we , before all other Reasons , and against all opposition whatsoeuer , take our light from the same Scripture ( immediately after the Text objected ) wherein it is said of Iudas , * * Luc. 22. 2● . He that betrayeth me ; and againe , Christ of himselfe , * * Vers. 22. I goe my way , both in the Present Tense , but both betokening the Futur● : because neither Iudas , 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 Greeke Text , 〈◊〉 rendred by your Iesuites Maldonate and Tolet , upon that 〈◊〉 . I lay downe my life , Ioh. 10. 17. spoken of the Future Time of his death . Lastly , if ancient Fathers may be held for indifferent and competent a 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 Chrysostome ; All for the Future Tense , by their Confringetur , Tradetur , Effundetur . What , my Masters , is there no learning but under your Romish caps ?

That the Objected words of Christ , and the whole Text , do utterly overthrow the pretended Sacrifice in the Romish Masse . SECT. IV.

AMong the words of Institution , the first which offereth it selfe to our use , is the formerly-objected word , BROKEN ; which word ( said your Iesuite * * See above Booke 2. Chap. 2. Suarez ) is taken unproperly , because in the proper and exact acception it should signifie a dividing of the Body of Christ into parts . So hee , and that truely . Else why ( wee pray you ) is it , that your Romane Church hath left out of her Masse the same word [ Broken ] used by Christ in the words , which you terme Words of Consecration ? But although you ( peradventure ) would be silent , yet your Bishop a 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 . Ians . Concord . c. 131. in Matth. 26. Iansenius will not forbeare to tell us , that It was left out , lest that any man might conceive so fondly , as to thinke the Body of Christ to be truly Broken . So hee . It is well .

The word , [ Shed ] is the next , which properly signifieth the issuing of blood out of the veines of Christ ; But , That Blood of Christ ( saith your b b Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa ; c. 12. §. Ad secundum . Sanguis Christi reipsa non egreditur de Corpore . Cardinall , speaking of the first Institution ) did not passe out of his Body . Even as * * See above Booke 4. Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Aquinas had said before him . But most emphatically your Alphonsus . c c Alfonsus lib 6 adversus Haeres . Tit. Eucharistia . haeres ult . Cum Sanguinem pro nobis semel in ara Crucis effusum , post resurrectionem nunqū 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 Cruce , & à corpore separatum . Christ his Blood was once Shed upon the Crosse , never to be Shed againe after his Resurrection , which cannot be perfectly separated from his Body . And accordingly your Jesuite d d Coste● . Enchirid c. 9. de Sacrificio . §. Ex quibus . Christus veram sanguinis effusionem passus in cruce , 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 onely on the Crosse . So they .

Hearken now . These words , Blood shed , and Body broken , were spoken then by Christ , and are now recited by your Priest either in the proper 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 deceitfull Sophisters , as men who speak not from conscience , but for contention : who being defeated in their first skirmish , about Christs words , do flie for refuge to his Acts , and Deedes , whither wee further pursue them .

That there was no Sacrificing Act in the whole Institution of Christ , which the Romish Church can justly pretend for defence of her Proper Sacrifice ; proved by your owne Confessions . SECT. V.

THere are sixe Acts , which your Proctors , who plead for a proper Sacrifice , do pretend for proofe thereof , as being ascribable to the Institution of Christ , and are as readily and roundly confuted by their owne fellowes , as they were by others frequently and diligently sought out , or vehemently objected : which the Marginals will manifest unto you , in every particular , to be no essentiall Acts of a proper Sacrifice . 1. Not a 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 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 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 Cardinall Alan , The only essentiall Act ; yet ( as * * Quorundam opinio est , non esse de essentia hujus Sacrificij ipsam Consecrationem . Suarez . quosupr . pag. 966. Ioseph . Angles ●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 thinke ) It is not of the Essence of a Sacrifice . And why should not they so judge ? ( say wee , ) for many things are Sacrata , that is , Consecrated , which are not Sacrificata , that is , Sacrifised . Else what will you say of Water in Baptisme , yea of your Holy-water sprinckle ? of your Pots , Bells , Vestments ? which being held by you as Sacred , are notwithstanding not so much as Sacramentals . Besides , if Consecration made the Sacrifice , then Bread and Wine being only consecrated , they alone should be the Sacrifice in your Masse , against your former Assertions . 4. d 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 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 f Immersio in calice — Hanc tenuit Canus . Sed constat Christum , per illam actionem non sacrificari . Suarez quo sup . Not dipping of the Hoast in the Chalice . 6. Yea and ( although your g g Consumptio utriusque speciei per o● Sacerdotis , quatenus est immolatio victimae oblatae . Bellar. quo sup . Cardinall preferred this before all others ) h h Consumptio non videtur pertinere ad Essentiam , quia Scriptura discernit inter Sacrificium & participationem ipsius . 1. Cor. 10 Nonne qui edunt hostia● participes sunt Al●aris ? Salmer . Tom. 9. Tract. 29. p. 233. Not the Consumption of the Hoast by the Priests eating it . Which your Iesuite Salmeron , Cardinall i 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 Iesuit k 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 himselfe : 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 Schoole-men do gaine-say ; because this is Rather proper to a Sacrament , than to a Sacrifice . And for that also ( if it were essentiall ) the People might be held Sacrficers as well as Priests .

⚜ If you shall give your Iesuite 6 6 Vasquez Ies. in 3 Th●● . qu●● 83. 〈…〉 Immolandi Opinio prima corum , qui volu●● consisted in oblatione — qui non dicunt eam in Consecratione esse 〈◊〉 , q●●a haec tan●●● praeparatio ad ●●●●ficium . — At non in oblatione , ●●st Consecrationē ; — 〈◊〉 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 Presse of Opinators , hee 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 hee will also exempt the Explications of all Others , hee himselfe standing wholly for his owne opinion of Sole Consecration : who ordereth the different sorts of Expositors ( whom hee calleth Moderne Divines ) into foure Rankes , 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 Sheepe , 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-Souldiers , that stood in his way hee placeth insteed 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 , wee pray you , that ( as you All k k Tota Essentia Sacrificij pendet ex Institutione Christi . Suarez & Salmeron supra . confesse ) The whole Essence of a Sacrifice dependeth upon the Institution of Christ . And that l 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 ordaine a Sacrifice . Next , that if any Sacrifice had beene 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 ( wee pray you ) can make more both for the justifying of your owne Bishop of Bitontum , who feared not to publish in your Councell of Trent , before all their Father-hoods , m 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 owne Romish Church for a Sacrilegious Depravation of the Sacrament of Christ ? Vpon this their Exigence whither will they now ? To other Scriptures of the new Testament , and then of the old . Out of the new are the two that follow .

CHAP. II.

That the other objected Scriptures , out of the new Testament , make not for any Proper Sacrifice among Christians , to witt , not Acts 13. 2. of [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] . SECT. I.

ACTS 13. 2. Saint Luke reporting the publike Ministerie , wherein the Apostles with other devout Christians were now exercised , saith [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , ] which two of your a 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 Scripturis 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 wee , not some other ministerial Function , as Preaching ( in which respect S. Paul called himself 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Rom. 15. 16. ) or administring the Sacrament , seeing that the words may bear it ? They answer us , because 1. This Ministerie is said to be done To the Lord , so is not Preaching . 2. For that the word [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] whensoever it is applyed to sacred Ministerie and used absolutely , it is alwayes taken for the Act of Sacrificing . So they . When wee should have answered this Objection , wee found our selves prevented by one , who for Greeke-learning hath scarce had his equall in this our age , namely , that b 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 Actis 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 . Iustiniani 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 . Phenix M. Isaac Casaubon . Looke upon the Margin , where you may find the word , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , to have beene 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 ( wee thinke ) that there was any proper Evening Sacrifice in use in those times .

What can you say for your Cardinall his former lavish assertion , who is thus largely confuted ? Nay , how shall you justifie your selves , who are bound by Oath not to gain-say in your Disputations the Vulgar Latine Translation , which hath rendred the same Greeke words [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] Ministrantibus eis , that is , They ministring , and not , They sacrificing ? which might be said as well of preaching , praying , administring 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 beene done unto God . ⚜ Even as well as it might be said of him , that eateth his common food with Giving God thanks , that hee Eateth to the Lord , Rom. 14. 6. else was Chrysostome farre wide , when hee , commenting upon the same words [ Ministring to the Lord , ] to the question , What is meant there by [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] answereth ; 1 1 Chrysost. in Act: 13. Hom. 27. Quid est [ Ministrantibus ? ] — Praedicantibus . Preaching . ⚜

That the Second objected place out of the new Testament , to witt , 1. Cor. 10. cannot inferre 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 Devills , and not unto God , and I would not have you partakers with Devills : yee cannot drinke of the Cup of the Lord , and the Cup of Devills : you cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord , and the Table of Devills . Hence Bellarmine ; a a Postremum Argumentū ex Scri●turis habetur , 1. Cor. 10. Vbi primò mensa Domini comparatur cum Altari Gentilium . Ergo , Mensa Domini est quoddam Altare , & proinde Eucharistia Sacrificium . ● . Ita vult Sacrificium Deo ob●●tum 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 hee ) the Table of the Lord is compared with the Altar of the Gentiles : Therefore is the Table of the Lord certainely an Altar , and therefore it hath a Sacrifice . 2. Because the Eucharist is so offered , as were the Sacrifices of the Iewes . And 3. Because hee that eateth the Eucharist is said so to be partaker of the Lord's Altar , as the Heathen of things sacrificed to Idolls are said to be partakers of the Idolls Altar . So hee ; following only his owne sense , and not regarding the voyce or judgement of any other . If wee should say , in Answer to his first Objection , that your Cardinall wanted his spectacles , in reading of the Text , when hee 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 Devills ) it were a friendly answer in his behalfe ; for the words of the Text expressely relate a Comparison of the Table of the Lord with the Table of Gentiles , and Devills ; and not with their Altar .

⚜ Can you then guesse what Spirit it was that moved your Cardinall thus to falsifie the sacred Text , to the end that hee might conclude the Romish Sacrifice from the Altar of Devils ? Even that wherewith the Fathers of the Councell 2 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 , Altare utrobique intelligens . of Trent , when they ( although to the Confutation of Bellarmines errour ) acknowledged the words of the Apostle to be , Table of the Lord , and Table of Devils , yet doe they impose upon you a Beliefe , that The Apostle doth in both , by Table , understand Altar , thereby turning a Table into an Altar ; albeit these two differed no lesse than Offering ( which was onely 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 joyntly 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 seene * * 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 summe of his Argument is , that whosoever is Partaker of any Ceremonie , made essentiall to any worship professed , hee maketh himselfe a Partaker of the profession it selfe , whether it be Christian , vers. 16. or Iewish , vers. 18. or Heathenish and Devillish , vers. 20. And againe , 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 b Aquinas . Non potestis Calicem Domini bibere & Daemoniorum simul . ] Quoad sacramentum fanguinis , Non potestis mensae Domini participes esse : quoad Sacramentum corporis , & mēsae Daemoniorum . In 1. Cor. ●0 . Aquinas thought , who paraphraseth thus upon the Text ; You cannot bee 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 Booke 5 Chap. 8 Sect. ● . at the letter ( ● ) . As our Saviour said ; Hee that eateth my flesh abideth in mee , so the eating of the Bread of Idols is to be partakers of the Devils . But this participation of Devills must needs be spirituall , and not corporall ; you know the Consequence .

CHAP. III. That no Scripture in the old Testament hath beene justly produced , for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist .

THe Places of Scripture , selected by your Disputers , are partly Typicall , and partly Propheticall .

That the first objected Typicall Scripture , concerning Melchisedech , maketh not for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist . SECT. I. The State of the Question .

WEE are loth to trouble you with Dispute about the end of Melchisedech his ministring Bread and Wine to Abraham , and his Company ; whether it were as a matter of Sacrifice unto God ; or ( as 1 1 ⚜ Others have beene alleged for this Exposition , viz. Iosephus 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 Iudaeos Cap. 3. But [ obtulit ei ] which was to Abraham , in the proper acception of Sacrificing , had beene Sacrilegious , as you very well know . ⚜ Divers have thought ) only for refreshing the wearie Souldiers of Abraham ; because the Question is brought to be tried by the judgement of such Fathers , who have called it a Sacrifice . Wherefore wee yeeld unto you the full scope , and suppose ( with your * * Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 6. Cardinall ) that the Bread and Wine brought forth had beene sacrificed by Melchisedech to God , and not as a Sacrifice administred by him to his Guests . Now , because whatsoever shall be objected will concerne either the matter of Sacrifice , or else the Priest-hood and office of the Sacrificer , wee are orderly to handle them both .

That the Testimonies of the Fathers , for proofe 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 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 Liturgie , 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 Materialls , The Sacrifice of Christians : such are the Testimonies of Ambrose , Augustine , Chrysostome , Theophylact , Oecumenius , and Cassidore , together with two Iewish 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 proofe that the Eucharist is a Proper Visible Sacrifice . But first Vnconscionably , knowing and * * See hereafter Chap. 5. Sect. 1. confessing it to be no better than a Iewish Conceipt , to thinke 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 signifie any sacred ministration , as Isidore doth instruct you ? Who , if you aske him what it is , which Christians do now offer after the order of Melchisedech ? he will say , that it is Bread and Wine . b b Isidor . Victimas jam , non quales Iudaei , sed quales Melchisedech offerunt credentes : id est , Panem & Vinum . id est , Corporis & Sanguinis Sacramentum . Lib. de Vocat . Gent. cap. 26. That is ( saith hee ) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood . Even as Hierome long before him ; c c Hiero. Epist. ad Evag. Pane & Vino simplice , puroque Sacrificio Christo dedicaverit Sacramentum . Melchisedech in plaine Bread and Wine did dedicate the Sacrament of Christ : distinguishing both the Sacrament from a Proper Sacrifice , and naming the thing , that is sayd 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 expresse as any , teaching that the Church now , as well as Melchisedech then , 2 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 kinde 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 Ranke wee reckon the d 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 . Iesu . Eucher . Lugdun lib. 2 cap. 18. in Gen. Vt oblationem Panis & Vini , i. e Corporis & Sanguinis ejus Sacramentum in Sacrificiū 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 onely make an Analogie betweene the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist , and the Bread and Wine , which Melchisedech brought forth , and wherein Hee , as in Types , saw the Mysteries of Christs 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 sweare ( wee dare say ) was not the proper Subject matter of the Sacrifice of Melchisedech , who performed his Sacrifice many thousands of yeares 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 Christs 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 proofe of the unconscionable dealing of your Disputers , by inforcing Testimonies against common sense .

But will you see furthermore the Vnluckinesse of your game , and that three maner of wayes ? First , your ordinary guize 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 heare the Fathers naming Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ , ô then behold Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ his Body ; and behold it 's Corporall presence , and that most evidently ! this is your common shout . And yet behold in your owne 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 hee ) cryes out against Bellarmine , that his former Testimonies are unconsc●onably alleaged ; and yet halfe of them hee skippeth over without any shew 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 hee quoteth many Testimonies , whereof no one doth justifie his Pretence , but many of them doe plainely confute and directly contradict it .

Answer .

To have cryed out of Vnconscionablenesse against any man , without just Cause , had beene Injurious ; To have skipped over any Testimony , which might be thought not sufficiently answered in the Confutation of the other Testimonies cited , had beene Diffidence ; To have quoted them , and not to the purpose , had beene meere Childishnesse . But so to have quoted them , that they should contradict my purpose , had beene starke madnesse .

The first point of my Vindication must be , to set downe the other Testimonies , which ( hee saith ) have beene skipped over . This is now 3 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 oblatione 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 shew that the Testimonies objected speake 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 mee but leave to Appeale to the Testimonies themselves , which are here ( and in the former Section ) cited out of your owne Cardinall , visible before you in the Margin , and I shall desire no other Iudge than the most partiall among your Romish Priests , to determine whether these Testimonies goe any further than was alleged , to wit , Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine , which is now offered . Item , He sacrifised in Bread and Wine , wherein hee 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 Vnconscionablenesse in concluding a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist , from the Testimonies of Fathers , * * See this Treatise of the Masse , Booke 6. Chap. 5. §. 1 which mentioned onely 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 maner of Arguing , what can be more Vnconscionable , and lesse to the purpose ?

A second Vindication of my second kinde of Allegations and Exceptions , against the Calumnies of the same Romish Seducer .

Heare your Romanist . His second Pretence is , that the other of the Fathers 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 hee .

Answer .

There needeth no more , for my discharge , than to apply the Sentences of the Fathers above-cited to the point in Question . Christ ( saith Cyprian ) offered up the same which Melchisedech offered , to wit , his Body and Blood . Plaine . Againe , 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 Plaine . 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 plaine as the former . Now for any Romanist to reprove all this , without any Proofe to the Contrary , bewrayeth both Impotencie in not effecting , and Impudencie in attempting his pretended Confutation . ⚜

That the Apostle to the Hebrewes , in comparing Melchisedech with Christ , did not intimate any Analogie betweene the Sacrifice of Melchisedeth , and of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist . SECT. III.

BVt , a a Bellar. Non videtur posse negari , &c. Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 6. § Accedit . you pre-occupate , 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 seeme ( saith your Cardinall ) a thing undeniable , that the Apostle meant thereby the Mysterie of the Eucharist , because it was above their capacity , and therefore hee purposely forbare to mention either Bread or Wine . So your Answerer . To whom you may take , for a Reply as in our behalfe , the Confession of your much-esteemed Jesuite Ribera , who telleth you that b 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 desperat Paulus quae scripturus est posse ab illis percipi , si animū attendant , aut certè à nonnullis eorum , qui eruditiores erant , per quos caeteri etiam paulatim intelligerent . Cā . in Heb. 6. num. 1. Where also hee 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 conceale the matter implyed ( which was so pertinent to that hee had in hand ) from them , because of the want of their Capacity : but did , in so saying , rather excite them to a greater Attention ; shewing thereby that hee did not despaire , but that they were capable of that which hee would say ; at least the learned among them , by whom others might have learned by little and little . So hee , proving the same out of those words of the Apostle , [ Passing by the Rudiments , &c. Let us goe on unto perfection : ] that is , ( saith hee ) Do your diligence in hearing , that you may attaine unto the understanding of these things , which are delivered unto those that are perfect . This is the Briefe of his large Comment hereupon .

⚜ Wee 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 maner 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 wee formerly forbare to urge , because wee wanted the Assent of any of your Romish Doctors herein . But now wee have found , among your Jesuites , 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 4 Iac. 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 cruce 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 Crosse , 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 universall , absolute , and constant Consequence of your Romish Doctors , judging and censuring the Contrary Assertion of this Jesuite to be Iewish and Absurd , as you may finde in the fift Chapter following , Sect. 1. ⚜ Notwithstanding , what our Opposites faile of , in the point of Sacrifice , they intend to gaine 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 Hebrewes . SECT. IV. The State of the Question .

Aarons Priesthood ( said your a 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 , &c. 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 . Cardinall ) 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 perpetuall and eternall , cannot be performed properly by Christ himselfe , and therefore must be executed by his Ministers , as Vicars on earth . So hee , accordingly as your b b Concil. Trident . Sess. 22. Ca. 1. Christus Sacerdos secund● ordinem Melchisedech ; & si semel obtulic in cruce , ut aeternam redemptionem operaretur : quia tamen per mortem ejus Sacerdotium estinguendum non erat &c Councell of Trent hath decreed . Insomuch that Master Sanders will have the whole Ministery of the new Testament to issue c 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 appeare ; which wee shall resolve by certaine Positions .

The foundation of all the Doctrine , concerning Christ and Melchisedech , is set downe in the Epistle to the Hebrewes .

That the Analogie betweene Melchisedech his Priesthood , and the eternall Priesthood of Christ in himselfe , is most perfect , and so declared to be , Heb. 5 , 6 , 7 , Chapp . SECT. V.

THe holy Apostle , in the Epistle to the Hebrewes , comparing the Type Melchisedech with the Arch-Type Christ Iesus , in one order of Priesthood , sheweth betweene Both an absolute Analogie , 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 Iustice and Peace . So Christ ( but infinitely more ) is called * * Rom. 3. 26. Our Iustice 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 dayes ( according to the same Historicall Tenure : ) so Christ an eternall Priest , Chap. 5 , 6. Fourthly , in Number , onely One , who had no Predecessor , nor Successor . So Christ , who acknowledged no such Priest before him , nor shall finde any other after him for ever . Fifthly , Christ was Vniversally King and Priest , as the Apostle noted , Chap. 7. 4. saying , That the Priesthood was changed from Aaron and Levi to Christ , in Iuda . That is , that Christs Power might be both Regall , and Sacerdotall , saith a 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. Chrysostome , which was a singular dignity , as your Jesuite well observeth .

That the nature of every other Priesthood ( be it of your Romish High-Priest ) 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 wee should instance in , than in your intituled Summus Pontifex , that is , the High-Priest , your Pope : who notwithstanding cannot be sayd to be a King , as Melchisedech , much lesse as Christ , a a Bellar. Regnum spirituale Christo proprium : — item Regnum divinum universale , ratione Hypostaticae Vnionis ; item gloriae in Beatitudine . Tēporale terrenū Christo conveniebat . Lib. Recog. pag. 28. Everlasting . Secondly , much lesse a King of Peace , who hath beene reproved by Antiquity for being b b Victor , Pacis perturbator . Irenaeus apud Euseb. hist. lib 5 cap. 24. A Troubler of the Peace of Christs Church : And generally complained of by others , as being c c Non tantùm contra Barbaros , sed etiam ejusdem patriae , sanguinis , & fidei principes Domini nostri Dei pacis minus pacifici Vicarij . Espenc . in 1. Tim. digress . lib. 2. cap 6 pag. 273. Nothing lesse than the Vicar of the God of Peace , because of his raising hostile warres against Princes of the same Nation , Blood , and Faith : And for d d Leodiens . Epist. ad Paulum 2. de Greg. Septimo ; Novello schismate Regnum & Sacerdotium scindebat . Teste Espencaeo quo supra . Distracting the Estates of Princedome and Priestdome . Thirdly , not King of Iustice , because some Popes have excited Subjects and Sonnes to rebell against their Liege Soveraigns and Parents . Fourthly , not Originally without Generation , by either Father or Mother ; some of them having beene borne in lawfull Wedlocke , and of knowne honest Parents : albeit of othersome the Mothers side hath beene much the surer .

It will be no Answer to say , as Pope e e Non secundùm c●dinē Aaron , cujus Sacerdotiū per propaginem sui seminis in ministerio temporali fuit , & cum Veteris Testamenti Lege cessavit : sed secundùm ordinem Melchisedech , in quo aeterni Pontificis forma praecessit . Leo papa Serm. 2. in Annivers . die Assumpt . ad Pontif. Leo in effect did , viz. that , as Priests , you are not as were the Leviticall , by naturall Propagation ; but by a Spirituall ordination : because a Spirituall propagation is no proper , but a metaphoricall Generation . Fifthly , not without Succession ; seeing that Succession , as from S. Peter , is the chief tenure of your Priesthood . Nor will that of Epiphanius help you , in this Case , to say that f f Nunc sanè non amplius semen secundùm successionem eligitur , sed forma juxta virtutem quaeritur . Epiphan. cont . Haeres. 55. You had no Succession by the seed of Aaron : because although this may exempt you from the Leviticall Priesthood , yet will not it associate you with the Priesthood of Melchisedech , or of Christ , whose Characters of Priesthood was to be Priests soly , individually , and absolutely in themselues , without Succession by another . And this the words of the Apostle [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] that is , Christ had an Intransmissible Priest-hood , do fully signifie .

As little can your ordinary Answer availe , telling us that you are not g g Salmeron . Ies . Nos in Christo Sacerdotes sumus tanquam Vicarij — Satis est nobis illum Principem semper vivere . Com. in Heb. cap. 10. Disp 19. Successors , but Vicars of Christ , and Successors of Peter ; because , whilest you claime that the Visible Priest-hood and Sacrifice of Christ is still in the Church , which is perpetuated by Succession , you must bid farewell to the Priest-hood of Melchisedech . But if indeed you disclaime all Succession of Christ , why is your Jesuite licensed to say , that your h 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 Pastorsh●p over the Church , although not in their Priesthood , by offering Sacrifices , expiating sinnes by their owne virtue ? Are not the Titles of Pastor and Priest equally transcendent in Christ ? Againe , if you be Vicars of Christ , then are you not after the Order of Melchisedech , who is read to have had no more any Vicar , than that hee had either Father or Mother .

Sixtly , not in respect of the no-necessity of a Succession , which was * * Heb 7. 23. Immortality , because the Popes shewed themselves to be sufficiently mortall , insomuch that one Pope maligning another , after death hath dragged the Carcasse of his Predecessor out of his i 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 5 Athanas . con. Arian . Orat. 3. pag. 380. Aaroni quidem Successores dati , & omninò legale Sacerdotium mortis & temporis progressu alios atque alios Sacerdotes accepit : Dominus autem 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Aaron indeed had Successors , and in the Legall Priest-hood , in processe of time , by reason of death one succeeded another : but our Lord had a Priesthood without Transition and Succession , being himselfe alwayes a faithfull High-Priest .

From the same law of Mortality Theodoret concludeth likewise that Christ in the New Testament 6 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 wee may say , that Theodoret was Scholler to Chrysostome , 7 7 Chrysost. in Hebr. 7. Hom 13. Quia semper vivit , non habet Successorem . Ostendit novum Testamentum praestantius esse Veteri , inductâ comparatione de Sacerdotibus : quod illud quidem homines habuit Sacerdotes : hoc autem Christum . who likewise maketh the excellencie of the New Testament , in comparison of the Old , to consist in this , that they had many Priests successively , for that ( by reason of Mortality ) they were but men : in the New Testament , wee have Christ a Priest . So hee . This one Observation might satisfie any reasonable man , for the confutation of your Romish Doctrine of Proper Priesthood ; the rather because you were never able to prove , out of any Father , that Distinction of yours , to wit , of one being the Vicar , albeit the Successor of Christ . No , no this Distinction , now after a thousand yeares since Christ his Incarnation , hath beene the adulterate Coyne of your owne Romish forge . ⚜

Seventhly , not Personall Sanctity , * * Heb. 7. 26. Holy , impolluted , and separated from sinnes . For whosoever , being meerely Man , shall arrogate to himselfe to be without sinne , the holy Ghost will give him the * * 1. Iohn 1. 8. Lie . As for your Popes , wee wish you to make choice of whatsoever Historians you please , and wee doubt not but you shall finde upon record , that many of them are noted to have beene as impious and mischievous in their lives , and in their deaths as infamous and cursed , as they were contrarily Bonifaces , Innocents , or Benedicts in their names . Can there be then any Analogie betweene your High Romane Priest and Christ , the Prototype to Melchisedech , in so manifold Repugnancies ? yet notwithstanding , every one of you must be ( forsooth ) a Priest after the order of Melchisedech .

Nay , but ( not to multiply many words ) the Novelty of your Pretence doth bewray it selfe from k k Lambard . de Ordinat . Presb. Accipiunt etiam calicem cum vino , & patinam cum Hostijs , ut sciant se accepisse potestatem placabiles Deo hostias offerendi Hic ordo à filijs Aaron sumpsit initium , &c. Lib. 4. Distinct . 24. 〈◊〉 I. Peter Lombard , Master of the Romish Schoole , who Anno 1145. taught ( how truly looke you to that ) that every Priest at his Ordination , in taking the Chalice with Wine , and Platter with the Hoast , should understand that his power of Sacrificing was from the order of Aaron . Nor may you thinke that this was his private opinion , for Hee ( saith your l l Pet. Lombardus collegit sententias Theologoorum , & Magister Theologotum scholasticorum dici meruit . Lib. de Script . Eccles. Tit. Petrus Lombardus . Cardinall of him ) collected the Sentences of Divines , and deserved to be called the Master of Schoolemen . Thus farre of the Person of Christ , as Priest ; in the next place wee are to enquire into his Priestly Function .

Of the Function of Christ his Priesthood , now after his Ascension into Heaven ; and your Cardinall his Doctrine Sacrilegiously detracting from it . SECT. VII .

BY the Doctrine of your Cardinall , in the name of your Church , a a Bellar. Crucis Sacrificium non est perpetuum , sed effectum ejus — nec dicitur aeternū quod non jugiter sacrificatur — non in caelis jam Sacerdos per solam orationē , nec mediante oblatione Victimae , quià tun . necesse est eum semper offerre : — Ergo Eucharistia & Sacrificium quod jugiter offertur — Oblatio in coelis non est propriè dictum Sacrificium — Ergò non est verè ac propriè . Sacerdos , cùm verum ac proprium Sacrificium offerre non potest Lib. 1. de Missa . c. 6 sparsim . And — Christus non sacrificat nunc per se visibiliter , nisi in Eucharistia . Bell. ibid c. 25. § Quod autem . And , Sacrificium 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 hee were no Priest . Thus his Priesthood is called Eternall , and must have a perpetuall offering , which was not that upon the Crosse . Nor can that suffice , which the Protestants say , That his Priesthood is perpetuall , because of the perpetuall virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse ; or bicause of his perpetuall Act of Intercession , as Priest in Heaven ; or of presenting his passion to his Father in Heaven , whither his Priesthood was translated . No , but it is certaine that Christ cannot now properly sacrifice by himselfe , Hee doth it by his Ministers in the Eucharist , Because the Sacrifice of the Crosse , in respect of Christians , is now invisible , and seene onely by Faith : which although it be a more true Sacrifice , yet it is not , as our Adversaries say , the only Sacrifice of Christian Religion , nor sufficient for the Conservation thereof . And againe , His sacrificing of himselfe in the Sacrament , by his Ministers , is that by which onely hee is said to have a perpetuall Priesthood . Accordingly your Cardinall b b Alan . Christus in 〈◊〉 coelo 〈◊〉 aliquid Sacerdotal● facit . nisi respectu nostri Sacramenti , quod ipse per nostrum ministerium efficit continuò & offert . Lib. 2. ● Euchar. ca. 8 §. Reliqua . Alan ; Christ ( saith hee ) performeth no Priestly Function in Heaven , but with relation to our Ministery here on earth , whereby hee offereth . So they , for the dignifying of their Romish Masse , as did also c c Rhemists . Christ his Priesthood consisteth in the perpetuall offring of Christ his Body and Blood in the Church . Annot. in Heb. 7. 17. your Rhemists ; but with what Ecclipse of Iudgement and good Conscience , is now to be declared .

If wee take the Sacrifice of Christ for the proper Act of Sacrificing , which is destructive ; so was Christ his Sacrifice but One , and Once , Heb. 7. and 8. But understanding it as the subject matter of the same Sacrifice , once so offered to God upon the Crosse , and after his Ascension entred into Heaven , and so is it a perpetuall Sacrifice presentative before God . For as the High-Priest of the Law , after the Sacrifice was killed , entred into the Holy place once a yeare , but not without Blood , Heb. 9. 7. so Christ having purchased an eternall redemption , by his Death upon the Crosse , went into the Holy place ( of Heaven ) with the same his owne Blood . Vers. 12. To what end ? Alwayes living to make supplication for us . Chapt. 7. Vers. 3. and 25.

Hence followeth the continuall use , which the soules of the faithfull have , of his immediate Function in Heaven : Having a perpetuall Priesthood , hee is able continually to save them that come to God by him . Vers. 24 , 25. Whence issueth our boldnesse and all-confidence , alwayes to addresse our prayers to him , or by him unto God : Wee having an High-Priest over the house of God , let us draw nere with a true heart , in full assurance of faith , having our hearts sprinckled from an evill Conscience . Chap. 10. 22. The evidence of these Scriptures hath drawne from your Iesuite Ribera ( even then , when hee professeth himselfe an earnest defender of your Romane Masse ) these Acknowledgements following d d Ribera . Ies. in his Comment upon the places . alleged , Chap. 7. 23. Chap. 8. 2. & 3. Chap. 9. 23. His Book is familitar with you , where you may peruse the places . viz. upon the Chap. 7. 23. That Christ is a true Priest , and all other do partake of his Priesthood , in offering Sacrifice , only in remembrance of his Sacrifice : And that hee did not performe the office of Priesthood onely upon earth , but even now also in heaven : which Function hee now dischargeth by the virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse . Hee proceedeth . No man ( saith hee ) will deny this Position ( namely ) that Christ now ever exerciseth the office of a Priest , by presenting himselfe for us . So hee .

Another Theologicall Professour , of Bellarmines owne Society , in the place where hee noteth Bellarmine to walke in his owne opinion alone , procedeth further , 8 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 hee should become a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech ; because hee is to continue a Priest for ever , even after the end of the world , when hee shall not have any proper Sacrifice at all . Yet lest this Iesuite might seeme but to lispe it , by mentioning an Eternity of the Priesthood of Christ , onely in respect of his person , your Iesuite Estius cometh off roundly , 9 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 , & offert 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 wee 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 succede him . Secondly in respect of his Office , by making supplication in heaven for us . Nor doth hee 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 Crosse , the cause of our Redemption . So hee , as just Protestantiall as can be . ⚜

This is still Christs Function of Priesthood , whereunto this Apostle exhorteth all Christians , at all times of need , to make their addresse ; which Saint Iohn propoundeth as the onely Anchor-hold of Faith in his Propitiation , 1. Iohn 2. If any sinne , wee have an Advocate with the Father , Iesus Christ the righteous , and hee is ( what ? ) The Propitiation for our sinnes . The which every faithfull Christian doth apply , by faith , unto himselfe , as often as hee prayeth to God , in Christs name , for the remission of sinnes , saying , Through Iesus Christ our Lord . How therefore can this his Function of Priesthood , without extreme sacrilege , be held Insufficient to his Church , for obtaining pardon immediatly from God , who seeth not ? As for other your ordinary Objections , taken from two sentences of the Apostle , speaking of the Examples of things celestiall , and of Purging sinnes now with better Sacrifices , you should not have troubled us with them , knowing them to be satisfyed by your owne Authors e 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 sequutus 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 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 Plurall number , because he was now in Speech of Multitudes of Sacrifices . ] Aquinas long-agoe .

That the former Romish Sacrilegious Derogation , from Christs Priestly Function in Heaven , is contradicted by ancient Fathers ; first in respect of Place , or Altar , and Function . SECT. VIII .

THeodoret is a 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 himselfe , but onely in the Church : albeit hee saith not so , simply ; but , that hee offereth not in the Church personally , which all confesse : for otherwise Theodoret presently after b b His words immediately following are these : Et propterea Sacerdotio fu●gitur ut homo : recipit autem ea quae offeruntur ut Deus . Offert 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 Shee offereth the Body and Blood of Christ in Sacrifice , but , The Symbols of his Body and Blood : Therfore is this his Testimony unworthily and unconscionably objected . But wee will consult with the direct speeches of Antiquity . First if you aske the Offering , Ambrose answereth you , that c c Ambros . Nunc Christus offertur , hî● 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 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 Hee , who on earth suffered Death for thee . There is some difference then sure .

As little reason have your Disputers to object that one and onely Testimony of Augustine , f 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 hee spake not absolutely , but comparatively ( namely ) in respect of Lay-Christians , who in Scripture are otherwise called Priests . ( As your owne * * 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 Romane Catechisme distinguish , calling the former the Inward , which onely the Faithfull have by the Sacrament of Baptisme ; the other Outward , by the Sacrament of Orders . ) And with the like liberty doth Saint Augustine call the Sacrifice of the Old Testament ( although most proper ) but a Signe , in respect of the Spirituall Sacrifice of this worke of mercie ; which hee g g Aug. ibid. in Apoc. 20. 6. [ Sed erunt Sacerdotes Christi , & regnabunt cum Eo , &c. ] Non utique de solis Episcopis aut Presbyteris dictum est , qui propriê jam vocantur in Ecclesia Sacerdotes : sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus propter mysticum Chrisma , sic omnes Sacerdotes , quià membra unius Sacerdotis , &c. [ For there is a double Reason of naming Christians Priests ; one is in generall , because of their offering up spirituall Sacrifices of prayers and Praises to God , 1 Pet. 2. 5. And another is in speciall , by publike Function , commending the same spirituall Sacrifices , in publike Service , in the name of the Church . ● And so , according to the same libertie of terming them properly Priests , wherewith before ( as you have heard ) in comparing Almes with the Iewish Sacrifice , he called Almes the true Sacrifice , and the other but The signe of it ; notwithstanding the bodily Sacrifice of the Iewes was , in proprietie of Speech , The true Sacrifice , and the other but Analogicall . ] calleth True , namely in the Truth of Excellencie , although though not of Propriety , as you may see . And lastly , here you have urged one , than whom there is scarcely found among Protestants a greater Adversary to your fundamentall Article of your Sacrifice , which is the Corporall existence of Christ in the Eucharist . All which notwithstanding , the dignity of our Evangelicall Function is nothing lessened , but much more amplifyed by this Comparison .

If furthermore wee speake of the Altar , you will have it to be rather on earth below , and to that end you object that Scripture , Hebr. 13. 10. Wee have [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] that is , an Altar ( saith the Apostle ) whereof they have no right to eat , that serve at the Tabernacle . This h h Rhemists in their Annot. upon the Place : and M. Breerly in his Booke of the Liturgie Tract . 3. Sect. 3. Subd. 4. some of you greedily catch at , for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse , and are presently repulsed by your i i Aquinas . Istud altare vel est crux Christi , in quâ Christus immolatus est , vel ipse Christus in quo , & per quem prèces nostras offerimus : & hoc est Altare aureum , de quo Apoc. 8. Com. in hunc locum . Aquinas , expounding the place to signifie Either his Altar upon the Crosse , or else his Body , as his Altar in Heaven : mentioned Apocal. 8. and called The golden Altar . If wee our selves should tell you , how some one affirmeth that This Altar , spoken of by the Apostle , is the Body of Christ himselfe in Heaven , upon which , and by which all Christians are to offer up their spirituall Sacrifices of Faith , Devotion , Thankefulnesse , Hope , and Charity ; you would presently answer , that This one certainely is some Lutheran or Calvinist , the words are so contradictory to your Romish Garbe : notwithstanding you may finde all this in the k k Antididag . Coloniens . de Missae Sacrificio . §. Posthac — [ Habemùs Altare ] Heb. 13. & Apoc. 8. [ Aureum altare , ] in quo , & per quod omnes Christiani universa Sacrificia spiritualia fidei , devotionis , gratiatum actionis , spei , & charitatis Deo Patri debent offerre . — Atque ità sit , ut Christus sit altare , Sacerdos , & Sacrificium . August . lib. 10. de Trinitate : Antididagma of the Divines of Collen . Besides your Argument drawne from the word Altar , in this Scripture , is so feeble and lame a Souldier , that your l l Bellarm. Quia non desunt ex Catholicis , qui interpretantur hunc locum vel de Cruce , vel de Christo ipso , non urgeo eum . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 14. Cardinall was content to leave it behinde him , because Many Catholikes ( saith hee ) interpret it otherwise .

⚜ And , indeed , who is of so shallow a braine , as not to discerne the notorious unconscionablenesse of your Disputers ; who confessing that the Apostles , in their times , did * * See above , Chap. 5. Sect. 15. Abstaine from the words Sacrifice , Priest , and Altar , do notwithstanding allege the word , Altar , in the Text to the Hebrewes , for proofe of a proper Altar in the Masse ? Will you be contented to permit the decision of this point to the judgement of your Iesuite Estius ? 10 10 Estius Comment. in 13. ad Hebr. [ Habemus Altate . ] Thomas Altare hoc interpretatur Crucem Christi , vel ipsum Christum , de quo edere , inquit , est fructum passionis percipere , & ipsi tanquam Capiti incorpocari . Crucem Christi proprie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est . Vnde Ecclesia vocat Aram Crucis — Arbitror Expositionem Thomae magis esse germanam , quam innuit Apostolous , cum paulo post dicit [ Iesum extra portam passum esse , ] i.e. in ara Crucis oblatum . Vt taceam , quod toties in hac Epistola , atque ex instituto per Antithesim comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernaculo , cum Christo seipsum offerente in Cruce . — Sanè cum nullam facere voluerit mentionem Sacrificij incruenti novae legis , non multum verisimile est , eum nunc aliud agentem , velut ex abrupto voluisse de Sacrificio incruento sermonem jungere ; Sed potius cruenti in cruce oblati memoriam ex antedictis renovare . — Huc pertinet quod Corpus Christi in Cruce oblatum , Panis vocatur , fide manducandus . Vt Ioh. 6. Pan●s quem ego dabo . Hee adhereth to the Interpretation of Aquinas , which is , that here , by Altar , is meant the Crosse of Christs sufferings : which hee collecteth out of the Text of the Apostle , where hee saith of the Oblation of Christs Passion , that It was without the gate ; and observeth , for Confirmation-sake , that the Apostle often , of purpose , opposeth the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to the Bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testament , so farre , as never to make mention of the Sacrifice of the New Testament . So hee . What is , if this be not our Protestantiall profession , concerning this word , Altar , to prove it to be taken Improperly for the Altar of Christs Crosse ; and not for your pretended proper Altar of the Masse ? ⚜

But wee are cited to consult with the Ancient Fathers , be it so . If then wee shall demand where our High-Priest Christ Iesus is , to whom a man in Fasting must repaire , m 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 , Hee is not to be sought here on earth at all , but in Heaven . If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution , that hee cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on earth , Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him , as hee did himselfe , saying , n 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 instrumētum auditum est : sed mentis totum hoc opus est , huicque per contemplationem astabo , in hoc gratū immolabo Sacrificiū , oblationes & Holocausta , [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] tantò praestantiora , quantò Veritas umbrâ . Orat. 28. pag. 4●4 . I have another Altar in Heaven , whereof these ( Altars ) are but Signes ; a better Altar , to be beholden with the eyes of my mind , there will I offer up my Oblations : as great a Difference ( doubtlesse ) as betweene Signes and Things . This could not hee have sayd of those Altars , if the Sacrifices on them both were , as you pretend , subjectively and corporally the same . If wee would know how , what , and where the thing is , which a Christian man ought to contēplate upon , when hee is exercised in this our Eucharisticall Sacrifice ? o o Chrysostom . in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. Illud sanè tremendum Sacrificium , ut cum concordia ad illud accedamus , ut Aquilae facti ad ipsum coelum evolemus : ubi enim cadaver , ibi aquilae . Cadaver Domini corpus , propter mortem : Aquilas autem non oportet ad inseriora trahi aut repere , sed ad superiora volare , & Solem Iustitiae intueri oculo mentis acutissimo . Aquilarum enim haec mensa est , non Graculorum . Chrysostome is ready to instruct him , Not to play the Chough or Iay , in fixing his thoughts here below , but as the Eagle to ascend thither where the Body is , namely ( for so hee saith ) in Heaven . According to that of the Apostle , Heb. 10. Christ sitting at the right hand of God . Vers. 12. What therefore ? Therefore let us draw neere with an Assurance of faith . Vers. 22.

If wee would understand wherein the difference of the Iewish Religion and Christian Profession especially consisteth , in respect of Priesthood , p p Aug. advers. Iudaeos , ca. 9. Nam & Aaron & Sacerdotium jam nullum est in aliquo templo , & Christi Sacerdotium est aeternum in coelo . Augustine telleth us that They have no Priesthood ; and the Priesthood of Christ is eternall in Heaven . And the holy Fathers give us some Reasons for these and the like Resolutions . For if any would know the Reason why wee must have our Confidence in the Celestiall Priest , Sacrifice , and Altar ; q q Oecumen . in Heb. 10. super 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 r Ambros . in Heb. 10. Cum ●iducio , nit Apostolus : nihil enim hic visible , neque Sacerdos , neque Sacrificium , neque Altare . Ambrose will shew us that it is because Here below there is nothing visible ; neither Temple , ours being in Heaven ; nor Priest , ours being Christ ; nor Sacrifice , ours being his Body ; nor yet Altar , saith the other . Heare your owne Canus : f f Canus loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. Oblatio , quam Christus in coelis incruentum fecit . pag. 421. Christs offereth an unbloody Oblation in Heaven .

⚜ Chrysostome will not be behind his disciple Oecumenius , in expressions , who differenceth our Christian Religion from the Iewish , for that 11 11 Chrysost. in Hebr. Hom. 11. in Moral . Quantum est inter Aaron & Christum , tantum est inter Iudaeos & nos : quippe nos habemus Sacrarium in Coelis , Sacerdotem in coelis , & hostiam , &c. Talia igitur nos offeramus Sacrificia , quae in illo Sanctuario possunt offerri . And then explaining what they were , viz. Sacrificium laudis , justitiae , Spiritus contribulati ; haec sacrificia offeramus . Our Sanctuary , Priest , and Sacrifices is in Heaven . And if Christians intend any other Sacrifice than that , hee admonisheth that they may be such , which may be accepted of in the Heavenly Sanctuarie ; as namely The Sacrifice of Iustice , Praise , and of a Contrite Spirit , and the like , all meerely Spirituall ( as you confesse ) and therefore but Metaphorically called Sacrifices : And 12 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 High-Priest , and his Function , which hath beene already confirmed by the Fathers of the first Councell of Nice . And thus farre of the place of this Altar , the Throne of Grace ; something would be spoken in respect of Time .

That the former Sacrilegious Derogation , from Christs Priestly Function in Heaven , is contradicted by Scriptures , and Fathers , in respect of the Time of the execution thereof . SECT. IX .

CHrist his Bodily existence in Heaven ( as wee have * * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 9. heard ) is set out by the Apostle in these termes : Hee abideth a Priest for us . Hee continueth a Priest . Hee having a continuall Priesthood . Hee , without intermission , appeareth before God for us . Thus the Apostle . But what of this , will you say ? Do but marke . Are you not All heard still proclaiming , as with one voice , that your Romish Sacrifice of the Masse is the onely 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and a a Barradas . Quod singulis diebus Christus offert incurrentè . Hoc judge Sacrificium est Ecclesiae . Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap. 15. Salmer . Effusio sanguinis semel facta semper prodest , modo jugiter offeratur . In Heb. 10. Disp. 19. Beccanus . Iuge Sacrificium Veteris Testamenti fuit figura Missae in novo , ratione determinationis temporis : sicut ille offerrebatur mane & vespere , ita Christus à principio mundi usque ad finem . Apoc. 13. Agnus occisus — Lib. de analog . utriusque Testam . cap. 13. num. 14. Iuge Sacrificium , that is , the Continuall Sacrifice ; Continually offered : Whereof the [ Iuge ] and Continuall Sacrifice of the Law was a Signe . So you . But it were strange that the Iuge Sacrificium of the Law , continuing both Morning and Evening , should be a figure of your Masse-Sacrifice , which is but onely offered in the Morning . As if you would make a picture , having two hands , for to represent a person that hath but one . But , not to deny that the Celebration of the Eucharist may be called a Iuge Sacrificium ( for so some Fathers have termed it : ) Yet , they no otherwise call it Iuge , or Continual , than they call it a Sacrifice , that is , Vnproperly ; because it cannot possibly be compared for Continuance of Time to that Celestiall of Christ in the highest Heaven , where Christ offereth himselfe to God for us day and night , without Intermission .

Whereupon it is that Irenaeus exhorteth men to pray often by Christ at his Altar , b b Irenaeus . Nos quoque victimas offerre ad altare 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 hee ) is in Heaven , and the Temple open . Apocaly p. 11. 19. c c Greg. Sine intermissione pro nobis Holocaustum Redemptor immolat , qui sine cessatione Patri suam pro nobis incarnationem demonstrat . Moral . lib 1. cap. 24. in Iob. Where ( saith Pope Gregory ) our Saviour Christ offereth up his burnt Sacrifice for us without Intermission : And whereupon your Iesuite Coster , out of Ambrose , affirmeth , that d d Coster . Enchirid. contro . cap. 9. Solut. ad Object. 1. ex Ambros . Sicut in coelis Christus corpus suum , olim in cruce vulneratum , & occisum , tanquam juge Sacrificium paternis oculis perpetuò pro nobis exhibet : ità hîc in terris per Ministerium Sacerdotum idem Corpus in specie mortur & exanguis offert . [ That is objectively ; for it is the Bloody Body , that is presented by us in the Eucharist . ] Christ exhibiteth his Body wounded upon the Crosse , and slaine , as a [ Iuge Sacrificium ] that is , a Continuall Sacrifice , perpetually unto his Father for us . And to this purpose serve the fore-cited Testimonies of Augustine , Gregory Nazianzen , Ambrose , Chrysostome , and Occumenius ; some pointing out the Altar in Heaven , as the Truth ; some by Exhortations , and some by their Examples instructing us to make our Continuall Approach unto the Celestiall Altar .

CHALLENGE .

NOw you , who so fixe the hearts and minds of the Spectators of your Masse upon your sublunary Altars and Hoasts , and appropriate the Iuge Sacrificium thereunto ( in respect of Time ) during onely the houres of your Priestly Sacrificing ; allow your attention but a moment of Time , and you will easily see the Impiety of that your Profession .

The Iuge Sacrificium of Christ , as it is presented to God by him in Heaven , hath beene described to be Continuall , without Intermission , Alwayes ( that is ) without any Interruption of any moment of Time : to the end that all sorts of Penitents and faithfull Suters , solliciting God by him , might finde ( as the Apostle saith ) 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , Helpe at any time of need . The Gates of this Temple , Heaven , being ever open ; the matter of this Sacrifice , which is the Body of Christ , being there ever present ; The Priest , who is Christ himselfe , ever executing his Function . Whereas , contrarily , you will confesse , ( wee dare say ) that the Doores of your Churches may happen to be all locked , or interdicted ; your Sacrifice shut up in a Boxe , or lurched , and carryed away by Mice ; your Priest taken up with sport , or repast , or journey , or sleepe : yea , and even when hee is acting a Sacrifice , may possibly nullifie all his Priestly Sacrificing Act , by reason of ( * * See hereafter Book 7. Cha. 5. Sect. 5. Confessed ) Almost infinite Defects .

Therefore the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Doctrine of your Masse is thus farre manifested , in as much that your owne Ministeriall Priesthood doth so prejudice the personall Priesthood of Christ , as it is in Heaven , as the Moone doth by her interposition ecclipse the glory of the Sunne : by confounding things distinct , that is , ( as wee 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 ; Signes with Things ; Worse with Better ; Iayes with Eagles , and the like .

A SECOND CHALLENGE , ⚜ Against your Cardinall Bellarmine his principall Grounds ; out of the Confession of your owne Iesuit , 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 Cardinall 13 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 peractū 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 offerendū 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 Christs Priesthood can have no further Extent ; concluding thereupon , that ( for the preserving of the Priesthood of Christ ) Hee , either by himselfe , or by some other , must necessarily offer some sacrifice unto the end of the world , because it cannot bee that that , which was but once done , can ever againe bee repeated , namely , his bloody Sacrifice upon the Crosse . So hee , Concluding it must therefore bee the unbloudy Sacrifice in your Romish Masse .

Although this Argument deserve no other Confutation , than what hath been given out of the Confessions of your own Iesuit . 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 seeme as it were to offer his service unto us , as being desirous to oppose against the Iudgement of your Cardinall , wee may not deny him our due Attention . He both out of Scriptures and ancient Fathers ( alleged in the Margin ) concludeth . 14 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 Iuge 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 immortale — 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 Ambrosius & Anselmus , non de Sacrificio incruento , sed de cruento , quod in Cruce oblatum est intelligunt — Quare ad Ob. Resp . Satis esse Christo unum assignare Sacrificium cruentum , hoc ipso quod est Sacerdos , quia ad hunc finem facta est Vnio — neque opus est aliquid denuo offerre — quod autem offertur in Missa per Ministros se offerat incruento modo , non ideò est quod indigeat hac functione , ut permaneat Sacerdos , sed ut meritum universale Sacrificij cruenti applicetur — Num. 35. Disp. 86. Ex Patribus , quos nos contra Haereticos supra adduximus , nullus est qui asserat , ex eo solum dici Christum Sacerdotem secundùm ordinem Mechilsedech , quòd in coena Sacrificium Corporis sub speciebus Panis & Vini obulit . — Num. 38. Si attente consideremus modum loquendi Scripturae , nunquam inveniemus dictum Sacrificium Christi , vel secundùm ordinem Melchisedech , vel secundùm ordinem Aaron , quod sit in perpetuum Sacerdos — qui una oblatione consummavit , &c. that Christ is called a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech , not in respect onely of the time , to the end of the world , but everlastingly beyond all worlds : and this not onely in respect of any Sacrifice to bee made heereafter , but of that his Bloody Sacrifice once and onely offered upon the Crosse . Professing , that the contrary Assertion is repugnant to Scripture , even By the Exposition of ancient Fathers , expresly teaching , that Christ's Priesthood is called Eternall , because it reacheth beyond all mortalitie .

And your Cardinall objected that out of Hebr. 5. Every Priest must have something to offer : Ergo , Christ , being a Priest , must not bee without a present and continuall Sacrifice , which can bee no other than that in the Eucharist . Against which the same Jesuit replyeth ; But all the Greeke Fathers upon this Text ( saith hee ) and some of the Latine Fathers also , interpret this not of the unbloody , but of the bloody Sacrifice of Christ : which may bee sufficient for his eternall Priesthood , by reason of the unitie of his Humanitie and Divinitie , which is eternall . Nor is there any one ( saith hee ) of all the Fathers , whom wee have cited in Confutation of Heretikes , that expound that Scripture to exclude the Sacrifice of the Crosse . So hee , and much more , in the place quoted against the particular and petty Reasons objected to the contrarie . What Confutation can be more convincent then that , which is warranted and fortified by the confessed Evidences of Scriptures , and Testimonies of Ancient Fathers ? ⚜

Of the second Typicall Scripture , which is the Passeover : shewing the weaknesse of the Argument taken from thence , for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse . SECT. X.

FIrst , it is meet wee heare your Objector speake , even your a a Bellarm. Immolatio Agni Paschalis potest quidem dici figura Passionis : nam si Agnus ille fuit figura Eucharistiae , Eucharistia autem figura Passionis , quis negat Agnum istum figuram fuisse & Repraesentationem Passionis ? Quarè Ioh. 19. Videmus Evangelistam reddere causam , cur non fuerant crura Christi confracta in Passione , quia scriptum est de Agno Paschali , [ Os non comminuetis ex eo . ] Tamen magis immediatè & principaliter Ceremonia Agni Paschalis potiùs fuit figura Eucharistiae , quam Passionis . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 7. §. Illud . — Quod celebratio Agni Paschalis fuit figura celebrationis Eucharistiae , probatur ex Scripturis , 1. Cor. 5. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus : itaque epulemur in Azymis Veritatis . — Dicent Adversarij impletum fuisse hoc in Cruce — At constat Apostolos in coena manducasse carnem Christi , — Verum Agnum Paschalem , ad cujus epulum nos hortatur Apostolus . 1. Cor. 5. Epulemur , &c Bellarm. ibid. §. Quod igitur , & §. Dicent . Cardinall , who albeit hee confesseth the Paschall Lambe to have been the figure of Christ on the Crosse , yet did it in the Ceremonies thereof ( saith hee ) more immediatly and principally prefigure the Eucharist than the Passion , which is proved by Scripture , 1. Cor. 5. [ Our Passeover is offered up , therefore let us feast it in the Azymes of Syncerity and Truth . ] Which offering up was not fulfilled on the Crosse ; but it is evident that the Apostle did eat this true Paschall Lambe , the flesh of Christ , at his Supper : and this Apostle exhorteth us to this Feast , in saying , [ Let us therefore keepe our Feast , &c. ] So hee , bestowing a large Chapter of Arguments , wherewith to bleare our eyes , lest that wee should see in this Scripture [ Our Passeover is offered up ] Rather the Immolation of Christ on the Crosse , than in the Eucharist . We willingly yeeld unto his alleged Testimonies of ancient Fathers , who by way of Allusion , or Analogie , do all call the Eucharist a Paschal Sacrifice . But yet that the words of this Scripture should more properly and principally meane the Eucharisticall Sacrifice ( as if the Jewish Passeover did rather prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ in the Masse , than on the Crosse ) not one .

It were a tedious worke to sift out all the drosse of his Argumentations ; Neverthelesse , because he putteth Protestants unto it , saying as followeth , b b Bellar. quo supr● §. Dicent &c. Dicent Adversarij Apostolum loqui de Immolatione in cruce facta : at nos probabimus ●iguram illam propriè impletam fuisse in coena . But our Adversaries ( saith hee ) will say , that the Apostle , in saying our Passeover is offered up , speaketh of Christ's Sacrifice offered upon the Crosse : but wee will prove that this figure was properly fulfilled at his Supper . ( So he . ) Wee will now shew you , that other Adversaries , than Protestants , are ready to encounter this your Champion .

First , the choisest Chieftaine of his owne side , armed with the Authoritie of Christ himselfe ▪ Joh. 13. 1. [ Before the day of the Passeover , Iesus knowing that his hower was come , that he must passe out of the world unto the Father . ] Now when was this spoken ? Even then , saith c c Ioh. 13. 1. [ Antè diem Paschae sciens Iesus quia venit hora , ut transiret ex hoc mundo ad Patrem . ] Hic mortem Transitum vocat . — Alludit ad Pascha , ac si Latinè disceret , Antè diem festum Transitûs , sciens quia venit hora ut transiret ipse : Ipse enim Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus . — Optimus autem terminus , Transitus ejus ex hoc mundo ad Patrem . Tolet. Ies. Com. in cum locum . Tolet your Cardinall & 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 Iewish Passeover ( saith hee ) in signification of his owne passing over by death to his Father . So he . So also your Jesuit d 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 paschall Lambe was offered up for the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt , so Christ was offered up to death for the Redemption of his people , and so passed by his passion to his Father . So your e 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 . Ioh. 13. Haec Aquin. Com. in 1. Cor. 5. And Tollet in his Testimonie before cited . So Becanus Ies. Aquinus . [ Our Passeover . ] Namely , By his Sacrifice in shedding his Blood on the Crosse . So your Jesuit . f f [ Pascha nostrum . 1. Cor. 5. ] Nempè per immolationem in cruce , & effusionem sanguinis illius , liberatum est genus humanum . Analog . utriusque Testam . cap. 13. pag. 313. Becanus . And , By this his Passeover on the Crosse was the Passeover of the Iewes fulfilled . So your Bishop g g Impleta erat figura Paschalis , quando verum nostrum Pascha est immolatus Christus Iesus , & hos per ejus sanguinem liberat●●eramus . I●●sen . Concord . Evang. cap. 13● . pag. 895. Iansenius , as flat diameter to your Cardinal●s Objection as can be .

A third Scripture wee find , Joh. 19. [ They broke not his legs , that the Scripture might bee fulfilled which is written , A bone of him shall not be broken : ] which your h h Ioh. 19. [ Crura non confregerant , ut impleretur quod scriptum est , Os non comminuetis ex eo . ] Bellar. quo supra , yet gaine saith with his , Tamen , &c. §. Illud . Cardinall himselfe confesseth to relate onely to Christ's Sacrifice on the Crosse ; and notwithstanding dare immediatly oppose , saying , Neverthelesse the Ceremony of the Paschall Lambe did more immediatly and properly prefigure the Eucharist than Christ's passion : wherein , whether he will or no , he must be an Adversary to himselfe . For there is no Ceremony more principall 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 Lambe , the Sacrificing Act was the killing thereof , and offering it up killed unto God . Whether therefore the Paschall Lambe did more principally prefigure the visible Body of Christ on the Crosse , or your imagined Invisible in your Masse , whether the slaine Paschall Lambe bleeding to death , did more properly and immediatly prefigure and represent a living and perfect Body of Christ , than that his Body wounded to death , and blood-shed , Common sense may stand for Judge .

The Ancient Fathers , when they speake of the Sacrifice of Christ's passion , in a precise proprietie of speech , do declare themselves accordingly . If in generall , then as i 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 hee ) were perfigurations of this our perfect Sacrifice . If more particularly , then as k k Chrysostomus de 〈◊〉 & Latrone 1. Cor. 5. Pascha ●ostrum immolatus est Christus : sestivitas ergò , &c. Vide crucis intuitu porceptam laetitiam ? in cruce 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 — & Altare Crux fuit . Chrysost. Tom. 3. pag. 826. Chrysostome , from the objected Text of the Apostle . 1. Cor. 5. [ Our Passeover is offered up , Christ , Let us therefore keepe our Feast , &c. ] Dost thou see ( saith hee ) in beholding the Crosse , the joy which wee have from it ? for Christ is offered upon the Crosse , 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 Crosse his Altar . Insomuch , that else-where hee teacheth every Christian how , as a spirituall Priest , hee may l l 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Idem . Tom. 5. Ser. 88. Edi● . Savil. pag. 602. Alwaies keepe the Passeover of Christ . ⚜ And yet againe the same Father , as if hee had thought this point deserved to be got by heart of every Christian : ⚜* ⚜* Idem in Ioh. ● . 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 wee may speake of Christs Passion ( saith hee ) what saith the Figure ? [ Take unto you a Lambe : ] but Christ commandeth no such thing , for hee himselfe ( namely at his Passion ) offered up himselfe to the Father . So hee . ⚜ What greater plainenesse can be desired ? and yet behold , if it be possible , a greater from m 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 contemplationē traducit : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Origen , calling the Sacrifice on the Crosse , the Onely true Passeover . Which saying his Reporter Socrates imbraceth , as a Divine Contemplation .

⚜ That the third objected Typicall Scripture out of Exod. 24. [ The Blood of the Testament ] is not justly objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse . 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 Gospell , seemeth to your Cardinall to be an Argument of great force , and therefore doth hee dart it against us with all his strength of Arguing , saying ; 15 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 argumētamur . 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 Hoast truly sacrifised ; 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 sacrifised therein . So hee , heaping up Reason upon Reason , as it were to make a mountaine ; and presently after his much working and heaving , cometh one of his owne family of the Iesuites , Vasquez by name , and kicketh all downe with his heeles , as it had beene but a Mole-hill , saying ; 16 16 Vasquez . Ies. in 3. Tho. Disp. 190. num. 15. [ Novum Testamentū 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 ] iude 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 Christes Passion . Which hee confirmeth by the most Authenticall kinde of proofe , even from the Scripture , out of one Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrewes , in severall 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 againe ; [ Christ was once , sacrifised 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 betweene , for Redemption . &c.

Each one of these pointing out Christs Bloody Sacrifice on the Crosse , teacheth us to deale with you , by law of Retortion thus : The Old Testament was confirmed by the Death and Blood-shed of the Creature sacrifised : And so ( according to the Apostles Comparison ) was the New Testament confirmed by the Death and Blood-shed of Christ our Testator . Therefore could not the Bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testament be a Figure of an Vn-bloody Sacrifice in the New .

That your Cardinall Bellarmine hath Contradicted the Doctrine of the Ancient Church of Rome , taught by Pope Leo the First . SECT. XII .

POpe Leo is hee , whom the Church of Rome will be thought to esteeme as equall with the best of Popes , and therefore , hath honoured him with the singular Title of Magnus , ( Ob insignem sanctitatem , doctrinam & eloquentiam , saith your Iesuit * * Possevin . Apparat . Tit. Leo. Possevin ) who lived above a thousand yeares since . Him doth your 17 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 . Cardinall object for proofe of the Sacrifice of the Masse , from the Signe of the Paschall Lambe , in a Sentence , which in it selfe is sufficient to tell us what was the Faith of the Church of Rome in his dayes ; and to direct you in the point now in Question : in manifesting that your Cardinall hath egregiously abused his Testimony , for proofe of an Vn-bloody Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Eucharist ; which Leo spake so evidently and expresly of the Sacrifice of his Passion , that your Iesuite Vasquez was enforced to 18 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 Ies . in 3. Tho. Disp. 223. Quest. 83. Cap. 6. Againe . Solet ex Leone probari Missae sacrificium unicum esse ex Sermone 7. de Paschate . Opportebat , &c. Verùm ibi loquitur de sacrificio cruento Christi , subdit enim [ omnia illa Christi occisionem pronuneiârant ] per occisionem planè intelligit cruentum sacrificum . Eadem ferè verba hab●t Chrysostomus in Psalm . 95. [ Lest 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 bee observed , that nothing is more familiar with Leo , than to call every Mysterie and Christian Article , Sacramentum . As for Example , in the beginning of this Sermon , hee 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 . ] confesse thus much , even then , when hee sought to defend the Romish Sacrifice of the Eucharist .

The words of Leo are generall . All those things which were performed , concerning the Sacrificing of the Lambe by Moyses , from Gods command , were prophesied of Christ , and did properly declare the Slaying of Christ . So hee . Ergo hee spake of 〈◊〉 bloody Sacrifice . And if these Prefigurations of the Old Law , in the Sacrifice of the Lambe , do properly point at the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ , then were they not properly Types of any Sacrifice in the Masse . And lest you might thinke that Leo was singular In this Opinion , your Iesuit will have you know that Chrysostome hath also the same words . Now whether you are bound rather to believe an Ancient Romane Pope , or a late Romane Cardinall ; judge you . In the last place wee 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 Briefe of your Reason is this . 19 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 Propositionū — 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 Minorē probam ex Patribus . Figures are necessarily inferiour unto the Things prefigured . But , In the Old Testament , the Bread of Melchisedech , the Shew-bread , the Bread of Manna , and the Paschall Lambe 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 Cardinall . Your Dr. Heskins also playeth his descant upon this Base , and runneth voluntary in a large discourse from the 20 20 Dr. Heskins in his parlam . lib. 3. chap. 14. Brazen Serpent on a Pole , the figure of Christ Crucified : From Ionas in the Belly of the Whale , a figure of Christ's Resurrection ; and from the Paschall Lambe , a figure of Christ offered in the Eucharist . Now the Thing being better than the Signe , therefore Christ herein offered is better than the Lambe : But if ( as the Sacramentaries say ) the Eucharist be but a Signe , then was the Paschall Lambe but the figure of a Piece of Bread , wherewith there is no Similitude . But that the things prefigured are more excellent than their Signes , is proved out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes , in preferring the New Testament before the Old . Whereby I may Conclude ( saith hee ) that the Paschall Lambe being a Signe of this Sacrament , this is not Bread , but the Body of Christ . So hee . The Answer is easie , by a Distinction of Things prefigured . Some are Figures Principall , which are called Arche-types , and some lesse principall , called onely Antitypes . We shall make the matter plaine by Authenticall Examples , 1. Cor. 10. 2. Wee are Baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea . Hence all Expositors ( aswell as your 21 21 Aquinas upon the same place . Aquinas ) teach that The Sea , thorow which the Iraelites passed under Moses , was a Signe of Baptisme : by which Baptisme wee are buryed into Christs death , Rom. 6. This Exposition standeth firme without any Contradiction . Whereby you may perceive , that the Archetypon , or thing Principally prefigured by that Sea , is Christ's buriall : and Water in Baptisme , is but as the Antitype , or thing lesse principally prefigured thereby .

If then you shall compare the Type , or Figure , with the Thing prefigured , as Archetype , or Principall thing figured or prefigured , wee are bound by Christian verity to believe your Proposition to be most true , ( to wit ) Christ's buriall is infinitely more excellent than either the Type in the Old Testament , which was the Sea they passed thorow ; or yet than Water in Baptisme 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 generall Proposition , affirming that Figures and Signes are inferiour to the thing prefigured , as you may see in the Apostles Example . The Sea under Moses , a figure of Baptisme under Christ . 22 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 lesse worth in Substance , than is the Element of Water in the Font of Baptisme ; both having equally in them the Substantiall Properties of Water .

Our next Example , in the same Chapter , is this : They ( to wit , the Jewes ) ate of the same spirituall meate , and dranke of the same spirituall drinke ; ( namely ) Christ's Body and Blood ; the one whereof was prefigured by Manna , the other by the Water out of the Rocke 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 beene proved from Fathers , and Others , in a full * * See above B. 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Section . And for this cause Gregorie Nazianzen , 23 23 Greg. Nazian. Orat. 42. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . I dare say ( saith hee ) that the Legall Passeover was a Figure of a figure ; but somewhat more obscure . So hee . Which scarce any of your Doctors dare say , lest that the Eucharisticall 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 Rocke , and Water of Baptisme , with his Blood , and your Consequence is most Divine : viz. The Thing prefigured excelleth , beyond all Comparison , the Signes thereof . But yet againe Compare the Signes and Antitypes , viz. Manna with Bread , and the Water of the Rocke with Wine in the Cup : and in their Natures and Substances , the one doth not exceed the other .

You will then aske , If the Sacraments of both Testaments were in this maner joynt Antitypes , that is , Correspondent Signes of the same Body and Blood of Christ ; wherein then consisteth the Excellencie of the Sacraments of the New , if it be not in respect of their naturall and substantiall properties ? Wee were about to tell you , namely , that Although these former Sacraments of both Testaments be but Corporall food , and drinke ; yet have the Sacraments of the Gospell a threefold Privilege above the other . The First is in respect of the Efficacie of the Signification . Signes of the Old being Propheticall , and darkly promising Christ's Body and Blood to come . But , Signes of the New are Historicall , poynting out , unto life , Christ already come , and crucified in his Body , and his Blood shed . The Second , in respect of the Efficacie of Application , and Exhibition of both these , arising from the former Ground . For Saint Paul said more effectually , Christ , who dyed for mee , and gave himselfe for mee ; than any Israelite under the Law could say , Christ , who shall dye for mee , and shall give himselfe for mee . The Third is the Excellencie of Duration , for those Signes as Shadowes , had an end long since : Whereas the Evangelicall Symbols , as Images , are to be perpetuall to the end of the world , as Saint Paul did intimate in his speech of the Eucharist , You shew the Lord's death untill his coming againe , 1 Cor. 11. Now then that you see what is , indeed , the Betternesse betweene the figure and thing figured , may you not say it had beene better that your Disputers had forborne their Objection ? From Typicall Scriptures wee descend to Propheticall . ⚜

CHAP. IV. That the objected Propheticall Scriptures of the old Testament are by your Disputers violently wrested , for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse . The first Text is Malachy chap. 5. vers. 1.

THe first , Mal. 5. 1. is objected by your Cardinall in this maner : [ From the rising of the Sunne to the going downe 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 Cardinall , * * See the Testimony following . Is a notable Testimony for the Sacrifice of the Masse .

The State of the Question .

BE so good , as to set downe the State of the Controversie your selves , a 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 , &c. Bellarm. Ibid. Argum. 1. Propheta utitur voce Minhhah , quod est Sacrificium absolute , absque adjuncto , ut cum dicitur , Sacrificium laudis , &c. Argum. 2. Vox [ Munda ] opponitur immundis oblationibus Iudaeorum , 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 Controversie is , whether this Scripture spake of a Sacrifice properly so called , or of an Vnproper Sacrifice , such as are Prayers and Thanksgiving , &c. So you . You contend for a Proper Sacrifice , and Wee denye it : and now that wee are to grapple together , wee 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 Councell of Trent to be the onely Authenticall , and which thereupon you are injoyned 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 transgresse that Decree ) doth deliver us this Text [ In every place is sacrificed and offered to my name a pure Oblation , &c. ] without any mention of the word Incense at all : whereas ( which your Cardinall b b Bellarm. In Hebraea , & Graeca Editione sic Legimus [ Incensum offertur nomini meo , & Sacrificium mundum . ] Quo supra . confesseth ) Both the Hebrew and Greeke Text hath it thus ; [ Incense is offered in my name , and a pure offering , &c. ] and that More plainely , saith your c c Septuaginta apertiùs . Valent. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 4. pag. 526. Valenta . Which warranteth us to call your Vulgar Translation false , as wee shall now prove , and you perceive , without any farre Digression . For wee meddle not now with the generall Controversie , about this Translation , but insist onely upon this Particular , that as A Lion is knowne by his claw , so your Vulgar Translation may be discerned by this one Clause , wherein the word , Incense , is omitted quite .

If yee will permit us , without being prejudicated by your Fathers of Trent , to try the Cause by impartiall Iudges , 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 : Looke then upon the d d Bellar. Vocem illam [ Incensum ] interpretatur Tertull. Orationem , ut & ante eum Iren. lib. 4. cont. Haeres . cap. 33. Incensa autem Iohannes vocat orationes Sanctorū . 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 , &c. 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. Marginalls , and you shall find mention of the word , Incense , ( according to the Hebrew and Greeke Texts ) in the very same objected Testimonies of Tertullian , Irenaeus , Hierome , Chrysostome , Eusebius , and Augustine . Notwithstanding , wee 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 it selfe to satisfie all your Objections taken from the Sentences of Fathers , and urged by virtue of the word , Sacrifice , and Oblation , as will appeare .

That the Text of Malachy doth not imply a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist , by the Expositions of Ancient Fathers . SECT. II.

TWo words wee finde 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 , &c. ] You All affirme 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 , Chrysostome , Eusebius , and Augustine ) do * * See the preceding Marginalls . Expound Incense to signifie these Spirituall Duties , which are unproperly called Incense . Therefore may wee as justly conceive , that the word , Sacrifice , used by them , and applyed to the service of God in the New Testament , was meant Improperly ; and that so much the rather , because your Cardinall hath no Objection out of the Fathers for his advantage in the word , Sacrifice , which hee loseth not by the word Incense , from point to point .

For to the first Objection wee oppose , saying , The word Incense , is likewise used without a a See in the Testimonies above cited , for it is called absolutely Incense , and not Incense of Prayer , &c. Addition . To the second , Wee accordingly say , Incense was meant also to be Pure : for you will not imagine , that God would promise to his faithfull in Christ Impure things . To the third , It is as well said concerning Incense , as of Sacrifice ( against the Iewes , vers 10. ) I will not receive any offerings at your hands : * * Isaiah 1. 13. Incense is an abomination unto mee . To the fourth , The same Godlesse Iewes did joyntly contemne Gods worship made by Incense , as by Sacrifice , except you shall thinke it credible , that the same men should be both devout and profane in one prescribed Service of God . To the last , Malachy in the same Sentence ( and as it were with the same breath ) equally taketh exceptions to the Iewish Priests , in both Sacrifice , and Incense . Therefore , as the word , Incense , so accordingly the word , Sacrifice , was used Improperly of the Fathers . Do you not now see what reason your Cardinall had , to make choise of a corrupt Text , wanting the word Incense ? which hee peradventure foresaw would prove as bitter as Coloquintida in his Pottage .

The second word in Malachy is [ Levite , ] I will purge the sonnes of Levi ; which was spoken ( as your Cardinall b 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 Ministerie and Service of the New Testament , Pure Sacrifice ? And did hee not in the like maner call the Ministers of the New Testament Purged Levites ? as also some of the Ancient * * Augustine , Ambrose , Cyprian , Leo. Fathers ( you know ) used to do : and as your Church , in degrading of Arch-Bishop Cranmer from his order of c c Mr. Foxe Acts and Monuments pag. 2117. Levitico ordine te privamus . Deaconship once did . Therefore both alike were used Improperly , in imitation of this Prophet , and also of that in * * Isa. 66. Isaiah , I will send them Priests and Levites .

That the Text of the Prophet Malachy doth confute the Romish Pretence of Sacrifice , even by the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers . SECT. III.

PErmit you us , for brevity-sake , to contrive this Section into Ob. and Sol. your Cardinalls Objections , and our Solutions or Answers . I. Ob. Sacrifice is called pure alwayes , and in all places , Ergo , Christs Body . Sol. And Chrysostome ( who is a a Chrysost. in Psal. 95. ( objected ) Malachias appellat Thymiama ●urum , 〈◊〉 pieces . obiected ) termeth Prayers , Pure Incense ( meaning when , or wheresoever . ) II. Ob. The word , Sacrificè , is spoken of in Malachy , without an Adjunct , as to say the Sacrifice of praise , &c. for these are improperly called Sacrifices , Ergo , &c. Sol. Yet First , b b Tertul. Ob. by Bellarm. lib. 3. contr. Marcion . ex Psalm . 57. In Ecclesijs benedicite Dominum Deum , ut pariter cōcurreret Malachiae prophetia , In omni loco Sacrificium mundum : Gloriae silicet relatio , & Benedictio , & Laus , & hymni . [ Which words Bellarmine restraineth to Prayers and Prayses onely , in the Masse , whereas Tertullian speaketh of Prayers in generall . ] Againe , Lib. 4. advers. Marc. a little after the beginning . Dicente Malachia , Sacrificium mundū , scilicet , simplex oratio de conscientia pura . [ Where hee expoundeth Pure Sacrifice to be Praier . ] Tertullian ( objected ) expounded the same word , Sacrifice , to signifie Benedictions , and Praises . And Secondly , c c Euseb. Demonst lib. 1. cap 6. [ In omni loco Incensum & Sacrificium , &c. ] 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 Cardinall could not Answer , but with a marvellous and miserable Illusion . III. Ob. By the word , d d Bellar. Resp . Non quasi Oratio sit ipsum Incensum , seu Sacrificium , sed illud quod per Orationem , id est , per verba Consecrationis perficitur . Solent enim Patres verba Consecrationis orationes , seu mysticas preces interpretati . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 10. [ First , fondly , for the words of Consecration containe in them no terme of Prayer : And secondly , falsely , for the Fathers did not call these words Prayer . Both which have beene amply discussed . ] Sacrifice , were not meant Spirituall Sacrifices , &c. Sol. Yet e e Hieron . ( objected ) Malach. 1. Vt sciant Iudaei carnalibus Victimis spitituales successuras . Thymiama , hoc est , Orationes Sanctorum offerendas , Oblationem mundam , ut est in ceremonijs Christianorum . Bellar. Licet per Incensum intelligat orationem , tamen per Sacrificium intelligit Eucharistiam : dicit enim offerri in Ceremonijs Christianorum . [ Be it so , but the Question is , whether the Action of the Eucharist be not called spirituall , that is ( as is confessed ) an Vnproper Sacrifice . ] Hierome ( objected ) expresly nameth the Sacrifice , in Malachy , Spirituall .

To come to your Cardinals principall Reason . IV. Ob. The Iewish Sacrifices were called Vncleane , not in respect of the Offerers onely , but of the Offerings ; intimating thereby , that this Offering in the new Testament can be no lesse than the very Body of Christ . Sol. Irenaeus ( objected ) plainely putteth the difference to be made , by Malachy , betweene the Sacrifices , as they were the Offerings of the wicked Iewes , and the Sacrifices of godly Christians ; and hee giveth this Reason , because f f Irenaeus ( ob . ) advers. Haeres lib 4. cap. 34 speaking as well of Sacrifices in Iudaico populo , as in Ecclesia , saith ; Non Sacrificia sanctificant hominem , sed Conscientia pura ejus , qui offert , &c. ] Then of Eleemosynae , Which the Apostle calleth Hostiam acceptabilem ▪ [ Opportet nos oblationem Deo facere in sententia pura . And then , Ecclesia offert oblationem hanc Fabricatori puram , offerens ei cum gratiarum Actione ex creatura ejus . Iudaei autem non offerunt , quia manus eorum plenae sanguine , &c. The Iewes ( saith hee ) offered up their Oblations with wicked hearts , but the Christians performe theirs with pure Consciences . And that the Iewish Sacrifices were not rejected for themselves , but for the impiety of their Sacrificers ; your owne Iesuit g 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 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 Scripturis , non ratione sui , sed propter malam voluntatem offerentium . None to be ignorant , that the Sacrifices of the old Testament were all cleane 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 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 , &c. Lib. adversus Iudaeos . I will no more of [ your ] Sacrifice , and not of [ my ] Sacrifice .

But you will say , Some of the Fathers spake directly of the Proper Sacrifice of the new Testament . Wee answer , that as they apply it to the Eucharist , they meant no proper Sacrifice , as the Subject , but onely as the Object therein , which was that of the Crosse . In which respect k 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 . Chrysostome ( objected ) calleth it that Sacrifice , whereof Saint Paul writeth , saying , [ Christ gave himselfe up a Sacrifice for his Church . ] Ephes. 5. Lastly , Cyprian ( objected ) calleth it the l l Cypr. ( object : ) ex ●ib. 1. cont. Iudaeos cap. 16. Novum Sacrificium , Sacrificium Laudis . New Sacrifice of Praise : which is , you know , a Spirituall , and no Corporall or Proper Sacrifice .

The second Propheticall Text ( as is pretended ) is Psal. 72. 16. concerning a [ Handfull of Corne in the Top of the Mountaines : ] objected to prove a Sacrifice in the Romish Masse ; but yet as very Romishly , as were the rest . SECT. IV.

OF this Corne your a a Psal 7● . juxta Heb. [ Et erit pugillus frumenti in summitatibus montium ] vulg. Lat [ Et erit fitmamentū in terra in summis Montium . ] Galatinus de Arcani● Cath. Veritatis , li. 10. cap. 5. Hoc est , dicit Chaldae a Translatio Rabbi Ionathae , 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 Hee out of the Chaldee Translation , and other his supposed Iewish Rabbins , have observed a Cake on the top of the Mountaines . But what of this ? This Cake , forsooth , was by their Doctrine a Propheticall 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 b Master Brerely in his Protestants Apol. noting Duraeus the Iesuit to have urged the same out of Galatinus . A most strong Argument , in behalfe of the said Doctrine . ⚜ Yea , and your Jesuite 1 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 hee also will needs have a licke at it . ⚜ But wee must tell you , that your Galatinus is too credulous , and that his Rabbinicall Abstracts are no better than the Gibeonites old torne Shooes , and mouldy Bread , seeming to have come from farre , 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 Conceipts , with the marke of a Vaine man , by your judicious c 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 Iewish Fables ; and fabulous in this very Point , by your great Romane Dictator d 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 Iudaicis Pharaphrasis illa scateat , ideò piget ex lacunis Expositionū Iudaicarum haurire , &c. Bellarmine .

Which wee speake not , as being offended to heare 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 onely , 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 maner choaked with their owne 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 disgesting this Cake , hath in his dispersed * * As I received it from a Right Honourable Person , the Lord C●● : Papers divulged me in this maner : 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 appeare to any one that reades the Protestants Apology . Pag. 156. So hee . Flatly and sharply , as you see , charging mee with a palpable untruth , and for Tryall referring himselfe to the Booke it selfe ; and I Subscribe , saying , Sit Liber Iudex . The Booke is Master Brerely his Apology in his Treatise 1. Sect. 4. Subd . 12. Pag. ( as the Romish Seducer himselfe hath truly quoted it ) 156. where Master Brereley his words ( for I hope they are not flowne out of the Booke since ) are expressely these : This therefore so plaine foresaid Prediction , made by the ancient Rabbins before Christs time in behalfe of Catholike Doctrine , concerning Reall presence , demonstrating it selfe so evidently to have proceeded , not from any Secondary cause , but onely from a Divine instinct ; yeeldeth hereby a [ MOST STRONG ARGVMENT ] in behalfe of the said Doctrines . So hee .

Therefore do not I know what to impute unto this Romanist , because of his denyall of these words , A most strong Argument , rather than the spirit of a Strong Delusion , issuing from the worst kinde of malice , whereof the Adage speaketh , Veritas Odium parit . Yet shall this piece of Falshood 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 hee was so loath to acknowledge .

A Second Vindication , against another Sinister Romish Detraction ; shewing that the other Scriptures , which are said to be Propheticall , are not Iudicially objected by your Cardinall . SECT. VI.

YOur Cardinall hath 2 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 : & Iere. 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 Spirituall , & 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 Iuge 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 beene 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 Prophecie of Malachy .

Now our Taske must be , to shew the Injudiciousnesse of your Cardinall , 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 Allegoricall Allusions , and Assimulations . Wherein wee durst Appeale to your Cardinall himselfe , who if hee had thought these kinds of Applications to be Argumentative , might have made five moe 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 Baptisme , whereof your owne Lauretus 3 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 . Iud. 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 tooke men up to the Anckles , Ezek. 24. The Water in a Bason , Iud. 6. The Waters of Contradiction , Psalm . 80. The Waters wherin the dust of the Golden Calfe was throwne , Exod. 32. Each one of which Waters they apply unto Baptisme . And , being not contented with these , hee referreth you unto above Forty places moe of the Old Testament , which may have the like Relation to Baptisme ; none whereof can be properly called a Literall Explication , but onely an Allegoricall Application of Scriptures .

The Second Argument of his Injudiciousnesse is discernable in this , that all that is alleged proveth no more than that which Protestants confesse , to wit , that the Eucharist may be called a Sacrifice , either Eucharisticall , or Latreuticall , in a Spirituall Sense , as the Fathers do after expound themselves .

Thirdly , to come to that wherein your Cardinall is most peremptory , saying that the [ Iuge Sacrificium , that is , Continuall Sacrifice ] prophecied of , should be taken away by Antichrist , cannot meane any Spirituall and improper Sacrifice . but the Reall and Proper Sacrifice of the Masse . But wee say that the Fathers understood it of the proper Spirituall worship of Christians . Now whom would you wish to be Moderator betweene us ? Wee guesse some Romish Doctor should be the man ; and above all , some one out of the Schoole of the Iesuites ; and of these , such an one must be most fit , who is knowne to be of a more moderate Temper than the most of them . Behold the man , even your Iesuite 4 4 Pererius Ies. in Dan. 12. Anti-Christus tollet Iuge 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 cultū appellavit Angelus Iuge 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 Iudaicum , 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 Anti-Christo — Iuge Sacrificium tollit , quià studium sanctae conversationis Ecclesiae in eis quos caeperit , interrumpit . Pererius , who coming to explaine this [ Iuge Sacrificium ] out of the Fathers , granteth that indeed these Fathers , Hierome , and Theodoret , understood thereby the Divine worship of Christians , in generall . And that Pope Gregory expoundeth it of the Christian Conversation of Life , which shall be interrupted by Antichrist . So hee . But yet the same Jesuite , perceiving that this reached not home to the Sacrifice of your Masse , straineth courtesie with the Fathers , and without any their Authority , or rather against it , cometh in with his [ QVANQVAM : ] Notwithstanding ( saith hee ) this name of , Continuall Sacrifice , may be referred to the Sacrifice of the Masse , because that is not as the Sacrifice of the Iewes ; in one place onely , or at morne and night , but continually in all places , and at all times . So hee . Which any Iew ( if hee heard it ) would thinke were unadvisedly spoken , saying of their Iewish Continuall 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 onely , and therefore cannot be so justly called [ Iuge ] or Continuall , as the Jewish was ; because nothing can be called [ Iuge ] in respect of Place , but onely in respect of Time . ⚜ .

CHAP. V. Of our Second Examination of this Controversie , by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers , shewing that they never called the Eucharist a Sacrifice , Properly . Our Generall Proposition . The ancient Fathers never called the Eucharist , Properly , a Sacrifice : proved by many Demonstrations .

THe Demonstrations , which wee 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 , wee have it confessed asseverantly by your owne a a Maldonat . Ob. Irenaeum lib 4. cap. 32. & 34. Scribit Christianos Deo offerre primitias creaturarū 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 . Iesuite , where hee will have you furthermore to observe , that Bread and Wine , before Consecration , is called an Immaculate Sacrifice , even in your Romane Masse . And that the Primitive Fathers called Bread and Wine , Sacrifice , after Consecration also , wee have likewise proved in two full * * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 2. Sections : which your Cardinall 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 beene Figures of the Eucharist , which wee desire you to carry still in minde , untill wee end this Section .

Hereupon wee demand , whether you thinke that Bread and Wine , in the Eucharist , can be called of Christians a Sacrifice Properly , either before , or after Consecration ? No ( saith one b 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. Iesuite ) because it is not agreeable to our Priesthood . No ( saith a c 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 livelesse Sacrifice , and consequently more vile than was the Iewish . No ( saith a d 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 Iewes , to believe that the Church of God should professe an Offering of Corporall and earthly Sacrifices . No ( saith a e 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 . Wee would be glad to take the Apostle of Christ to be our Guide , for our better security , hee ( as is likewise f f Bellarmin . Apostolus declarat , non esse terrenum aliquid quod offert Christus , si esset super terram , ex Heb. 8. 4. Et ostendit nunc meliores hostias offerr● 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 quils in publishing such sound Truths as this is , wee then would wish them Good speed in all their Writings . Notwithstanding , upon consideration of the Premises , wee are inforced to complaine of the Vnconscionablenesse 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 joynt and consonant Confession of the Cardinall himselfe , and other prime Iesuites of his owne society , cannot be held to be Proper Sacrifices , without Absurdity and Impiety . And the like obliquity of Iudgement you may finde in your Rhemish Divines , in * * Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22. 19. alleging the Testimonies of Irenaeus , for proofe of the Sacrifice of your Masse , which your Iesuite Maldonate hath truly observed to have beene spoken of Bread and Wine , even * * See above at ( a. ) before Consecration .

One word more . By this you may perceive another proofe of the Idiome of Ancient Fathers , in Extending the word [ Sacrifice ] beyond it's literall sense : which ( beside the former ) the last annexed Testimonie of g g To these former , wee 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 , shewing , 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 . Wee 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 Cardinall will tell us , to wit , Bread and Wine are consecrated , and by Consecration made the Body and Blood of Christ : so that now a 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 , &c. Non panis , sed quod expane factum propriè sacrificatur . [ For still the Question is that of Lombards ; Quaeritur si quod gerit Sacerdos , sit propriè sacrificium . Lombard . lib. 4. Dist. 12. lit . G. Not Bread ( saith hee ) but the Body of Christ is the thing sacrificed . This is plaine dealing , and as much as if hee had said , If there be in the Eucharist no Transubstantiation of the Bread into Christs Body , by Consecration , then cannot Christs Body be a proper Sacrifice . But that there is no such Transubstantiation , or Corporal Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament , hath beene proved to be the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers , by many Demonstrations thorow-out the third and fourth Bookes . A stronger Argument there needeth not .

Our Third Demonstration is , Because the objected places of Antiquity , for proofe 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 .

OVr Distinction is this . These words , The Body and Blood of Christ , as they are applyed to the Eucharist , in the name of Sacrifice , may admit of a double Acception ; one is to take them Subjectively , as being the proper Materiall Subject of this Sacrament ; the other is to understand them Objectively , that is , to accompt the Body and Blood of Christ , as they were the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse , to be onely the proper Object of a Christian Celebration , according to the Direction and Institution of Christ , saying , Do this in remembrance of mee . Your Romish Church professeth the Body and Blood to be the proper Subject ; Wee nay , but the proper Object of our Celebration . This Distinction , well learned , will be unto our Reader as an Ariadne's thred , to winde him out of the Labyrinth of all Obscurities , and seeming Repugnancies of Ancient Fathers ; out of all the confused Subtilties , and equivocall Resolutions of your Romish Disputers ; and out of the Perplexities , wherewith some Protestants also may seeme ( in some sort ) to have beene intangled .

The Demonstration it selfe , Because the Eucharist , being onely 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 onely for Commemoration and Representation , is the Conclusion of your owne a a Bellarm. Si sola repraesentatio Sacrificij crucis , tùm non potest dici oblatio in hunc modum : Offero tibi Pater , &c. ac à Patribus Oblatio dicitur . Lib 1. de Missa , cap. 15. §. Quartò . Cardinall ; although it cannot be denyed , 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 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. §. Q●od verò . Rhemish Divines and Romish Cardinall are very earnest and instant in proving , that because the Iewish 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 Iewish Sacrifices , albeit they were Representations of Christs Passion , yet were they not onely 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 , Sheepe , Goates ; next in their Sacrificing Act , which was Destructive , as to be slaine ; and lastly , in their proper and peculiar end , which was ( as your c 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 , &c. 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. Cardinall witnesseth ) For expiation of legall Pollutions , and remission of temporall Punishments . Each one of these may satisfie your Objection : ⚜ And ( as your 1 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 Gods Soveraigntie 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 kinde of Offerings of Christ , here on Earth , and above in Heaven , hee saith that a a Ambr. Vmbra in Lege , imago in Evangelio , veritas in coelestibus : antè agnus offerebatur , nunc Christ ▪ offertur quasi Homo , quasi recipiens passionem , & offert sese ipse quasi Sacérdos , ut peccata nostra dimittat , hîc in imagine , ibi in veritate , ubi apud Patrem pro nobis quasi Advocatus intervenit . Lib. 1. de Offic. Cap. 48. Christ here is offered as one suffering , and above hee himselfe Offereth himselfe an Advocate with the Father for us . And this our offering of him hee calleth but an Image ; and that above hee calleth the Truth . Clearly shewing that wee have , in our Offering , Christ's Body onely as it is Crucified , which is the Object of our Commemoration ; But the same Body , as it is now the personall subject of a present Time , and Place , they behold it in Heaven ; even the same Body , which was once offered on the Crosse by his Passion , now offered up by himselfe to God , by Presentation in Heaven ; here in the Church onely by our Representation Sacramentally on earth .

Saint Augustine dealeth as plainly with us , where distinguishing three States of Offerings up of Christ , hee b 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. Nōne semel immolatus est Christus , & tamen in Sacramento quotidiè immolatur ? He addeth , Nec tamen mentitur , qui dicit Christum immolari : si enim Sacramenta non haberent similitudinem rerum ipsarum , quas repraesentant , non essent Sacramenta . Ex qua similitudine nomina eorum accipiunt . Aug. lib. Epist. 23. [ See of this above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. And yet againe , more plainely in his 20 Book against Faust●● , cap. 21. it followeth ; ] Vt Baptismus dicitur sepulchrū ; sic , Hoc est corpus meum . saith first , that under the Law Christ was promised In the Similitude of their Sacrifices : meaning , his bloody death was prefigured by those bloody Sacrifices . Secondly , in the offering at his Passion hee was Delivered up in Truth , or proper Sacrifice , this was on the Crosse . And Thirdly , after his Ascension , The memorie of Him is celebrated by a Sacrament , or Sacramentall Representation . So hee . For although the Sacrifices of the Iewes were true Sacrifices , yet were they not truly the Sacrificings of Christ . Note you this Assertion . Againe , speaking of his owne Time , when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was daily celebrated , hee saith , That Christ was once sacrificed ( namely upon the Crosse ) and is now daily sacrificed in the Sacrament ; nor shall hee lye ( saith hee ) that saith Christ is sacrificed . So hee .

No , holy Augustine , shall hee not lye , who saith that Christ , as the personall Subject of this Sacrament , is a Proper Sacrifice in the Literall Sense ? ( for , whether Proper or Vnproper , are the two Seales of this Controversie . ) Now interpose your Catholike Resolution . Say first , why is it called a Sacrament ? tell us ; * * See above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 8. out of his Epist. 23. ad Bonifacium . If Sacraments had not a similitude of things , which they represent , they were no Sacraments , from which similitude they have their Appellation and name of the things ( to wit ) The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is called his Body , as Baptisme is called a Buriall . Be so good as to explaine this by another , which may illuminate every man , in the point of Sacrifice also , although otherwise blinded with prejudice . c c Epist. 23. ad Bonifac . Paulò ante verba superiora , nempè , Pascha appropinquante , saepè dicimus crastinam Domini passionem , cum ille ante multos annos passus sit , nec omninö nisi semel ista passio facta sit , nempè isto die : ( dicimus ) Christus resurrexit , cum ex quo resurrexit tot Anni transierunt , cum nemo ita ●eptus sit qui nos ita Ioquentes arguat nos esse mentitos — ut dicatur ipse Dies , quia non est ipse , sed similis — none semel immolatus est Christus ? &c. As when the day of Christs Passion ( saith hee ) being to morrow , or the day of his Resurrection about to be the next day but one ; wee use to say of the former , To morrow is Christ's Passio ; and of the other , when it cometh , it is Christ's Resurrection , yet will none be so absurd as to say , wee lye in so saying , because wee speake it by way of Similitude : even so when wee say , this is sacrificed , &c. So Saint Augustine .

Who now seeth not , that as the Buriall of Christ is not the Subject matter of Baptisme , but onely the Representative Object thereof ; and as Good-Friday , and Easter-day , are not properly the dayes of Christ his Passion , or Resurrection , but Anniversarie , and Represensative , or Commemorative Resemblances of them : So this Sacrifice is a Similitude of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse , and not materially the same . ⚜ Lastly heare Augustine againe : 2 2 Aug. lib. 1. Con. advers. Leg. & Proph. cap. 18. Mors Christi unum & unicum verum Sacrificium . The death of Christ ( saith hee ) is the onely true Sacrifice . ⚜ Wee omit Testimonies of other Fathers , which are dispersed in other Sections . Although this one Explanation might satisfie , yet shall wee adjoyne others , which may satiate even the greediest Appetite in the Demonstrations following .

The fourth Demonstration , From the Fathers Explanation of their meaning , by a kinde of Correction . SECT. VI.

ANcient Fathers in good number call that , which is represented in the Eucharist , and which wee are said to offer , The same Host , not many ; the same Oblation , no other ; the same Sacrifice , and none but it : but they adde by a Figure 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , a Correction of the excesse of their speech , or rather for Caution-sake , ( lest their Readers might conceive of the same Sacrifice herein as properly present ) saying in this maner ; Wee offer the same Sacrifice , or rather the Remembrance thereof ; alluding sometime expresly to the Institution of Christ , [ Do this in remembrance of mee . ] The Fathers are these , viz. a 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 , &c. Chrysostome , b 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 , quandoquidē & ille semel immolatus est . Eundē 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 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 offerre , sed unius illius salutaris memoriam peragere — Dixit enim , Hoc facite in memoriam mei . Theodoret , d d Ambros . in Hebr. ●0 . Osterimus quidem , sed Recordationem salutaris mortis ejus , & una haec Hostia , non multae . Ambrose , e e Euseb. Demonst. Evangelic . lib. 1 cap. 10. Sacrificamus & incendimus , aliâs autem magni Sacrificij illius memoriam , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Eusebius , and f f Primasius in Heb. cap. 10. Quod Deus &c. Offerunt quidem S●cerdotes nost●i , sed ad recordationem mortis ejus — sicut ipse dixit , Hoc facite in Commemorationem mei . — Vna 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 onely 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 Crosse ; but that it is not offered in the same maner by effusion of Blood , as that was ; which is indeed a Part , but not the whole Truth . For survey the Marginalls , 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 maner , whether Bloody or Vnbloody , but to the person of Christ ? saying , Wee offer the same Christ , who was once offered , or rather a Memoriall of his Oblation . And Theodoret applying it directly to the thing , [ Non aliud ] Wee offer not another Sacrifice , but a memoriall therof . Why Eusebius ? Wee offer a Memoriall in stead of a Sacrifice . Why Chrysostome ? The same Sacrifice or rather a Commemoration of it : every one directly requiring that the Thing , which wee offer , be the same crucifyed Bloody Sacrifice of Christs Death , ( which S. Augustine but even now named The onely true Sacrifice of Christ , ( in the former Section ) but that they plainly notifyed unto us , that they meant the same very Body , which was the Subject of the Sacrifice on the Crosse , 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 speakes of the Priest , who is said to take the Person of Christ in this Sacrament , so that , He ( saith g 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 speake as directly of the Differences of the two Sacrifices , as hee doth of the two Priests ; for distinguishing betweene them , 3 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 hee ) which is marveilously done in commemoration of Christ , one may eat : but that which hee offered of himself upon the Crosse , no man may eat . Where hee noteth two Sacrifices , One Here , and another on the Crosse : the first offered by Another , and the second by Himselfe . And hee separateth them ( in respect of the Subject ) as THIS , from THAT ; which if they were subjectively , really , and personally the same , then the Eating of the one should be the Eating of the other , which S. Hierome denyeth : Of THIS one may eat , ( saith hee ) but not of THAT . ⚜

Lastly , The same ( said * * See the former Marginalls at the letter ( f. ) Primasius ) in all places , which was born of the Virgin , & not now great , & now lesse . So he . But have wee not heard you number your many Hosts on one Altar , at one Time ? and yet the Fathers say , Wee offer not many , but the same , which must needs be the same one , as Object ; else shew us where ever any Father denyed but that upon diverse Altars were diverse Breads ; or that but , according to their outward Dimensions , they were now greater , now lesse ; which no way agreeth with the Body of Christ , as hath beene proved in discussing the * * See above B. 4. Chap ●● . Sect. 5. Canon of the Councell 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 vaine 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 Crosse ) 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 crucifyed , and his Blood shed in that Sacrifice of his Passion , is a point as questionlesse : which accordeth both to the words of Christ his Institution [ Do this in remembrance of mee , ] and to the Exposition of Saint Paul , to be a [ shewing forth of the Lords death untill hee 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 onely 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 Crosse ? Wee yielding unto you a possibility , that one thing , in some respects , may be a Representation of it selfe . Your Tridentine Fathers to this purpose say , that a a Concil. Trident. Christum reliquisse Sacrificium Ecclesiae suae visibile , quo cruentum istud in Cruce peragendum repraesentaretur . Ses. 22. ca. 1. Christ left this visible Sacrifice to his Church , whereby his Body sacrificed on the Crosse should be represented . So they . From whom ( it may seeme ) your Rhemists learned that Lesson , which they taught others , that b b Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22. Christs Body , once visibly sacrificed upon the Crosse , In and By the selfe 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 againe , This neerely and lively resembleth that . So they . But this wee utterly deny , because although a thing may in some sort be represented by it selfe , yet ( say wee ) 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 Crosse . And upon the Truth or Vntruth of this our Assertion dependeth the gaining or losing of the whole Cause , concerning the Question of Sacrifice , now controverted betweene Vs.

Two of your Iesuites have undertaken to manifest your Representation ( by a more fit example than do your Rhemists ) thus ; c c Barradas Ies . En tibi stupendam Dei adinventionem notam facimus . Animo concipiamus Regem aliquem post reportatam de Hostibus Victoriam , &c. Sic Christi corpus veluti in scena personatur , id est , speciebus panis & vini velatur , &c. Tom. 4. Concord . Evang lib. 3. cap. 13. §. Optimus . And Bellarmine . Even as a King ( say they ) having got a victory , should represent himselfe , after his warre , in a Stage-play in fight , &c.

⚜ Or as your Cardinall Peron is said to have fancied ; As David might have represented his owne Combate with Goliah in a Theater . ⚜ So they , even in earnest , which hath beene 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 , &c. 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 Councell of * * See hereafter , Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Trent hath defined ) is in your Masse a visible Sacrifice , whereby the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse 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 Stollidity of this your onely Romish Defence , concerning an Vnbloody Representative Sacrifice of Christ's Body sacrificed on the Crosse ; from another Romish Principle , and from the Absurdity of the Defence it selfe .

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 professe it to be the Representative and Commemorative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse . But how it is Representative , is become the maine hinge of the whole Controversie . Protestants hold and teach this to consist onely in the Analogie betweene the Consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine , and the use thereof in the Eucharist ; and the Body and Blood of Christ on the Crosse . But you Romish maintaine a Representation of Christs Sacrifice on the Crosse by Analogie with his Body and Blood , as it is in this Sacrament . The Analogie of Representation , held by Protestants , is such as your owne 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 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 Crosse . Secondly , Nor will any of you deny , but the formes of Bread and Wine do Represent the Body and Blood of Christ . Nor ( thirdly ) will you gaine-say , that the Separation of Bread from the Wine , in the Eucharist , doth represent the Separation of Christ's Body and Blood on the Crosse . Which are the three Summarie Points of Representation , held by Vs , contrarie 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 Crosse , as it were in a Stage-play . ⚜

You therefore ( except you will be Players , and not Disputers ) must tell us , where ever it was seene or heard of a King , as Conquerour , or yet of any other , of what condition soever , acting himselfe , and that Visibly , Perfectly , and Truly ( as you have said ) yea or else any way semblably Representing himselfe , when as yet the same King , or party , was to all the Spectators altogether Invisible ? If You can , then shew where this was Acted , whether it were not in Vtopia ? 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 Theater and Stage alone , void of all Actors , yet seeming to himselfe to see all Varieties of Actions ; occasioning him to laugh , and applaud at that which hee saw represented to himselfe onely in his owne phantasticall Braine ?

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 beene much better you had answered , indeed , nothing at all , rather than not onely to contradict that , which was said by your Fathers of Trent , ( decreeing the Representation to be made By the Sacrifice on the Altar it selfe ; and more expressely by your * * See above at ( ● ) Rhemists , In and by the same Body in the Eucharist : ) but also to expose your selves to the reproofe of your Adversaries , and Scorne of any man of common Sense ; as if you would perswade him his money is Visible to any that will use his eyes , which hee hath therefore locked close up in his Coffer , lest any man might see it .

⚜ Besides , this your Romish Principle and Doctrine of Concomitancie is not unknowne 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 veines of the same Body , as verily as it was before his Passion . Hence wee 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 beene in his Sacrifice on the Crosse ) than Crookednesse can resemble Straightnesse ; or Light , Darknesse . Therefore is not the Romish Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ , Representative of his Body and Blood on the Crosse , notwithstanding that ( as hath beene 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 Cardinall , that Ancient Fathers gave certaine Epithets , and Attributes to the Eucharist . I. Some calling it a Full & Pure ; II. Some , Terrible Sacrifice ; III. Some termed it in the Plurall number Sacrifices and Victimes . His Argument ( in the Margin ) is this : If the Fathers had held the Sacrifice of the Eucharist to be but onely Representative , They would not have called them in the Plurall number Sacrifices . So hee , a 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 . Wee encounter all these foure kinde of Instances with like Epithets given by the same b 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 . Iustin . Dialog. cum Tryphon . Preces & Gratiarum actiones , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Fathers to other Things ( in your owne judgement ) Improperly called Sacrifices ; as namely to Prayers , Praises , Giving Thankes , and Hymnes , instiled True , Pure , and Cleane , and the onely perfect Sacrifices , by Primitive Fathers . Secondly , they are as zealous concerning the second c c Cyril . Apol. Lectio Scripturarum terribilium . Testae Iewello , art. 17. Chrysost. in 1. Corinth Hom. 40 De Baptismate paulò post initium , Post pronunciationem 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Point , in terming holy Scriptures Terrible ; the Rules touching Baptisme , Terrible Words , and Horrible Canons ; and the Christian , duly considering the nature of Baptisme , One compassed about with Horror and Astonishment . Whereof more * * See Booke 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. hereafter . And indeed what is there , whereby wee have any apprehension of Gods Majesty , and Divine Attributes , which doth not worke 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 d Euseb. lib. 1. Demonst. Evang. cap. 10. Porrò has rursus incorporeas & intelligentia praeditas hostias prophetica nunciant oracula . Immola Deo Sacrificium laudis , & Orationes sanctas , &c. Iust. Martyr . Dialog. cum Triphon . pag. 269. Suppicationes & gratiarum actiones solas esse charas Victimas Deo . Fathers named Prayers , Giving of Thankes , and other holy Actions and Commemorations themselves , Sacrifices and Hoasts , in the Plurall number . And is not there in the Eucharist Prayers , Hymnes , and Thanksgivings ? Nay , but know , that inasmuch as the Fathers have called the Eucharist in the Plurall number Hoasts , and Sacrifices , it proveth that they were not of your Romish Beliefe of Concomitancie , to thinke ( 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 Testimonie 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 mee that my Answer is False . But if I be mistaken , then hath Eusebius himselfe seduced mee , who , before the same words , speaketh of [ Hostias incorporeas , & intelligentiâ praeditas : ] specifying the Sacrifice of a contrite heart , and Sacrifice of Prayse . And againe immediately after ; [ At Sacrificium Deo spiritus contritus . ] Then , after this hee adjoyneth [ Memoriam magni illius Sacrificij ; ] The Memoriall of that great Sacrifice ; Meaning , the Eucharisticall Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse , as any that looketh not a-squint upon the place will easily perceive . Besides , all the Sacrifices of the New Testament , by him mentioned , hee calleth Incorporeall , and indued with Vnderstanding . But you do as truly grant the Eucharist to be a Corporall Substance , as you wickedly * * See above Booke 4. c. 9. §. 2 say , that Christ's Body therein is Without Vnderstanding .

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 usuall Epithets , which the Fathers in this Case give to the word Sacrifice . My * * Treatise of the Masse , Booke . 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 8. Lord of Durham undertakes to encounter him with the like , given to the word Sacrifice , when they manifestly speake of improper Sacrifices . This hee undertakes , but performes nothing , for hee allegeth no saying of any Father , where any thing of this nature is called [ Sacrificium Terribile , Plenum Horroris , Sacrificium Summum , Sacrificium Verissimum , Sacrificium Singulare , Sacrificium Deo Plenum . ] So hee .

That which should have been performed by mee , in this Treatise , was to shew that there were none of these Attributes , which Bellarmine collected out of the Fathers , as proper to your Romish Sacrifice of the Masse , but have beene as effectually applyed by Ancient Fathers unto Prayers , Praises , Baptisme , and other the like holy and pious Actions . Which the same your Bellarmine himselfe confesseth to be No proper Sacrifice . Notwithstanding have I lately beene Challenged by one , who saith ( as becomes an egregious Seducer ) that I have performed hereof nothing at all . Do you heare ? Flatly , Nothing at all : Meaning , that none of the Epithets , above-mentioned by Bellarmine ( out of the Fathers ) were at any time attributed by them to any other thing but to your Sacrifice of the Masse .

But what ? Nothing at all ? I. Not the Epithet [ Terrible ? ] False . For I proved that the Fathers called Baptisme a 5 5 Treatise of the Masse , Booke 6. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 3. Sacrifice , and inscribed it [ 6 6 Ibid. Sect. 8. Terible ] II. Not the Epithet [ Summum ] that is , Chiefe ? False . For the Father 7 7 See Booke 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 8 August . See Booke 6. cha. 7. Sect. 2 Augustine not onely enstiling Every pious worke a True Sacrifice ( & Vero nihil verius , saith the Philosopher ) but also nothing that , Where God saith , I will have Mercie , and not Sacrifice ; Mercie ( saith hee ) is a Sacrifice most Excellent , and whereof the other are but Signes . IV. 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 9 Chrysost. See oke . 6. Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Bo Chrysostome , a Pure and immortall Sacrifice ; And what would you say to your Divines of Collen 10 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 Mysticall Body , consecrated to God , a pure and full Sacrifice ?

Lastly , Not the last Epithet , which is [ Singulare 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 onely to be a Sacrifice , but also to be the onely 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 hee . Who might thinke it hapned well to himselfe , if hee should be but onely 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 11 See Booke 6 Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Iustine naming Prayers , and Thanksgivings [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 : The perfect and onely Sacrifices well pleasing unto God . ] Can there be any thing more Singular than that which is Onely ? The voice of Saint Augustine is full as loud , for the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion : The Death of Christ ( saith 12 12 August . See 〈◊〉 , Chap. 5. & Sect. 5. hee ) is the onely Sacrifice , which being the onely true Sacrifice must necessarily exclude the Hoast in your Masse 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 Rashnesse and Weaknesse in his arguing ; aswell as this Seducer is of Falshood and Malice in his detracting in all the Rest . ⚜

The Seventh Demonstration , Of No-Proper Sacrifice in the Euchrist : Because the Principall Epithet , of Vnbloody Sacrifice , used by the Fathers , and most urgently objected by your Doctors , for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice , doth evince the Contrarie . SECT. IX .

IT hath beene some paines 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 helpe 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 b Basil in his Masse , 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 altare , 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 Liturgie of S. Iames : Pro oblatis , sanctisicatis , pretiosis , immaculatis donis divinis oremus Dominum — acceptis eis in supercoeleste , mentale , spirituale Altare , in odorem spiritualis fr●grantiae , &c. 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 , &c. — Suscipe incorruptum Hymnum in sanctis & incruentis Sacrificijs tuis . ] — Liturgies , ( or if you will Missals ) are objected , to prove that by Vnbloody Sacrifice , and Reasonable and unbloody Worship , is betokened the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood in the Masse ; one of Basil , another of Chrysostome , and ( by some others ) the Masse of Saint Iames of Ierusalem . In which Epithet of Vnbloody ( say wee ) could not be signified Christ's Body . Our Reasons ; because ( as the Margin sheweth ) the word , Vnbloody , hath sometime Relation unto the Bread and Wine ( both unbloody ) before Consecration , called in Saint Iames his Liturgie , Gods gifts of the first fruit of the Ground : who also reckoneth Hymnes among Vnbloody Sacrifices ; ( But Christ's Body is the fruit of the Wombe ) or else sometime it is referred to the Acts of Celebration , in Supplication , Thanksgiving , and Worship of God ( all Vnbloody ) naming that A Reasonable and Vnbloody Service , which they had termed an Vnbloody Sacrifice , as Lindan your Parisian Doctor hath truly observed . Which Chrysostome also stiled Spirituall ( marke you ) 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Service , or Worship . Was ever Christ called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , who is himselfe rather the Person to be worshipped ?

Secondly , Reasonable , could this point out Christ's Body in the Sense of the objected Fathers ? Suffer Chrysostome to resolve us . c 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 , &c. Sacrificium laudis , justitiae , spiritus contribulati . Reasonable Service , ( saith hee ) is that which is performed with the minde , without Bodily helpe . ⚜ The which Athanasius attributeth to Baptisme : 13 13 Athanas . cont . Macedon . Dial. 1. de Baptismo . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c. This ( saith hee ) is a Reasonable and living Worship ; whereof the Apostle saith , Yield up your Bodies an holy lively Sacrifice , &c. ⚜

Thirdly , The Vnbloody Sacrifice is called Spirituall ( as you heare ) how shall this be properly applyed to the Body of Christ ? You will say , not in it's naturall Essence , but in the maner of being Invisible , Impalpable , and the like . But wee demand ; the same head of a mans Body , is it more Spirituall in the darke than in the light ?

Lastly , all these termes in these Liturgies of Vnbloody Sacrifice , Reasonable Service , and Spirituall , are spoken before Consecration , when the Body of Christ , even in your owne Faith , as yet can have no being in the Eucharist ; and therefore cannot be the Vnbloody Sacrifice here meant by you . Will you have the full substance of all these Reasons ? The word , Vnbloody , whether it point out Bread and Wine , or the Act of outward Worship in this celebration , called a Reasonable Service , and Spirituall Sacrifice , it must betoken a thing void of Blood , which no Christian Professor dare attribute to the Body of Christ . Wee proceed .

Eusebius saith indeed , g 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 . Wee offer an Vnbloody Sacrifice ; but what hee meant thereby , hee doth not expresse , whether the Signes of Bread and Wine , which hee elsewhere , with others , ( as you have heard ) called Sacrifices : or whether , as Basil and Chrysostome have done , hee understood together the Publike Service in celebrating the Memory of Christ's Death . This then concludeth not for an Existence of the Body of Christ , as of the Vnbloody Subject herein . But whereas furthermore your may observe , that Eusebius ( objected ) calleth h h Non per cruores , sed per quas actiones summo Deo offerendas . After , there followeth an Oration of Constantine , Ad Sanctorum coetum . Tale Sacrificiū 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 i Againe , 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 Materiall Substance , as hee did the Celebration of the Sacrament [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] that is , Vnbloody : And yet againe of this Sacrament ; A Memoriall , saith hee , instead of a Sacrifice . These shew that Eusebius meant a Sacrifice void of Blood ; which neither the word of God will permit us ; nor your Councell of Trent will suffer you to impute to the Body of Christ , and therefore must needs wound your Romane Oblation of Body and Blood to the very heart .

Nazianzen ( objected ) is as directly opposite to your Masse , as East is to West , and will strike the matter dead , calling it k k Nazian. Invect . 1. advers , Iulian. ante med [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] i. e. Vt ab incruento Sacrificio manꝰ elueret , per quod nos Christo , ipsiusque passionibus , & divinitate cōmunicamus . [ Marke , Incruentū , per quod , is distinguished from , Christo , therfore was not Christ the Incruentum , objected by the Rhemists , Angotat . in Luc. 22. 19. ] The unbloody Sacrifice , whereby ( saith hee ) wee Communicate with Christ . Flatly differencing the unbloody Sacrifice , whereby , from Christ himselfe , with whom the Faithfull docommunicate in this Sacrament .

Ambrose ( objected ) prayeth to God , l l Ambr. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. Sacerdos dicit , Ergo memores gloriosissimae ejus passions , offerim̄us . Tibi immaculatam hanc hostiam incruentani , & hunc panem sanctum , & hanc oblationem salutis aeternae . To accept of this immaculate , and unbloody Hoast , which are the very words of your Romane m m Suscipias in sublimi Altari●uo perimentis 〈◊〉 lorum , sicut accipere dignatus es munera Abel , &c. [ To be expounded , as Bellarmine doth 〈◊〉 the same words in the Roman Masse ] Masse , and which your Cardinall seeketh to justifie by Saint Ambrose . But this hee cannot do , except their meaning be both the same . Let then your Cardinall but tell us the meaning of the Canon of your Masse , and you will soone apprehend the Iudgement of Saint Ambrose . In our Masse ( saith your n 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 , haue 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 Cardinall doth often in this and other Chapters justifie the Romane terme of Masse , by the 〈◊〉 in Ambras●● ] Cardinall ) it is sayd , Receive , holy Father , this immaculate Hoast ; where the Pronounce This ( saith hee ) doth domonstrate Bread and Wine , because spoken before Consecration . So hee . 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 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 Melahisedechs was Vnbloody , negatively , having no Blood at all in it . So was never the Body of Christ ; since his Resurrection , according to our Christian Beliefe .

CHALLENGE .

WHat a faire piece of service ( do you thinke ) have these Objectors done , for the patronizing of your Romane Sacrifice , out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers ? whilest they , alleging their words , citing their Bookes , and quoting their Chapters , have so handled the matter , as if they had meant , by prevaricating in their owne 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 Councell of Ephesus , Basil , Chrysostome , and Eusebius . Next by the word , Vnbloody , being spoken before Consecration ( and therefore concerneth not the Vnbloody 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 againe , and you shall find Basil to have spoken of Seruice before Consecration : Chrysest. Of Blood and Wine , before Consecration : Eusebius in one place is interpreted ( by your owne 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 joyn Athanasius . ] Sentences , the word Vnbloody , must needs be taken negatively for want , or absence of Blood : and so you may bid your Corporall Presence adieu . All which may be strong Arguments unto us , both of the deplorable Consciences of your Doctors , and of the desperatenesse of your Cause . Other Testimonies , wherein there is mention of Christs Body and Blood , come now to be discussed .

A Confirmation of the former Demonstration , from the use of the word , Vnbloody , 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 onely seemeth . Clemens Bishop of Rome , the first of that name , calleth ( indeed ) the Eucharisticall Celebration a 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 Vnbloody Sacrifice is plainly distinguished from the Body and Blood , whereof it is a Sacrifice , even as both the Act and Service of Commemoration have beene 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 Crosse . This is manifest by two especiall Reasons ; the first , because that which hee calleth Vnbloody , hee termeth also a Reasonable Service .

Secondly , Clemens calleth the same Vnbloody Sacrifice the Signe and Type of Christs Body and Blood , thereby distinguishing them from that Body and Blood whereof they are but Types . You will then aske , what is this Body and Blood , whereof they are sayd to be Types ? Yea marry , This being knowne will set all straight . And Clemens telleth you , that it is his Precious Body , and his Blood shed , which ( properly taken ) all Christians professe to be Proper to his Body crucifyed , and Blood shed on the Crosse , for the proper Object of our Typicall Remembrance , as wee have formerly * * See B. 2. Ch. 2. § 4 and this B. 6. Ch. 1. § 2. proved , and you your selves have confessed already .

c c Cyril . Hierosol . Mystag . 5. Postquàm consecimus [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] Aliquanto post , Obsecramus Deum pro , &c. Et Christum [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] Ob. ● Salmerone Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 30. Cyril of Hierusalem doth attend upon Pope Clemens , and in a sort treadeth in his steps . The maner of our Celebrating the memory of Christs death , hee calleth a Spirituall Sacrifice , and an Vnbloody worship ; wherein , against the Iewish Sacrifice , hee opposeth Spirituall against Corporall , as hee doth Vnbloody against Bloody . But , by Spirituall , hee meant that which wanteth a Body . Therefore , by Vnbloody , hee meant that which was properly voyd of Blood . So farre was Cyril from signifying thereby the Vnbloody Body of Christ , as the Subject matter in the Eucharist . As for the Body & Blood of Christ it selfe , which hee calleth Propitiation , Cyril expoundeth himselfe to meane ( for so hee nameth it ) Christ slaine for our sinnes , which still wee say , and you cannot deny , is onely the Object of our whole Spirituall service of Remembrance and Commemoration . Both these former Witnesses have delivered their Testimonies , as spoken under a forme 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 Vnbloody , Spirituall , and Mentall .

The eighth Demonstration Of the no-Proper Sacrifice of the Masse ; Because the Ancient Fathers called the Eucharist a Bloody Sacrifice , which all you will confesse to be Vnproperly spoken . SECT. XI .

TAke but unto you your owne Allegations ( set downe in the a 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 finde how the Ancient Fathers doubted not to say that Christ suffereth , is slaine , slayeth himselfe , suffereth often in this Sacrament : and that His Passion and Bloody Sacrifice is offered herein . ⚜ And againe ; As often as Christ is offered on the Altar , so often is hee slaine and eaten of the faithfull . Do you marke 〈◊〉 even so eaten , as hee is slaine , but onely so , as slaine ; which no living man will say , can be spoken Properly of Christs Body , after his Resurrection . ⚜ These are Sayings of the highest Accent , as you see , and of no fewer nor meaner Fathers than these , Alexander , Chrysostome , Cyprian , Hierome , Cyril of Hierusalem , Hesychius , Pascasins , and Eusebius Emissenus . ⚜ Vnto this holy Assembly Gregory Nyssen joyneth himselfe , who , although last in place , yet will appeare to be as forward in sense as the formost . Hee speaking of the Body of Christ , as it was a Sacrifice eaten of his Disciples in his last Supper , held the Crucifyed Body of Christ to have beene even then so necessary an Object for his Disciples Eating thereof , that hee saith : 14 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 oblationē 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 hee , as slaine . His Reason ; for a Body having life ( saith hee ) cannot be fit to be eaten . So hee . Than which nothing can make more against your Eating of Christs Body , as Corporally Present ; or yet against a Proper Sacrifice therein . ⚜

What thinke you of such Sayings ? Can Christ be said properly to be Dead in this Sacrament ? b b Quis unquàm Catholicꝰ dixit Christum rursùs mori ? Ribera . Ies. Com. in Heb. 10. num. 25. Never any Catholike said so ( saith your Iesuite Ribera . ) What then could be the meaning of such words ? If you should be ignorant , your Cardinall Alan would teach you , & he would have you c 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 hee saith : Christ is said by the Fathers to suffer ( saith hee ) and to dye in this Sacrament onely so farre as his Death and Passion is commemorated and represented herein . And so speaketh also your Romane d d Glossa de Consecrat. Dist. ● . Quid fit . Hoc est , ejus Mors repraesentatur . Glosse .

What now hindreth but that whensoever wee heare the same Fathers affirming that the same Body and Blood of Christ are Sacrificed in the Eucharist , wee understand them in the same impropriety of Speech , that they meant onely Representatively ? especially when as wee see your other Grand Cardinall coming somewhat home towards us , and to confesse as followeth ; e e Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 29. §. Respondeo si , &c. 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 Catholikes should say that Christ doth truly dye in this Sacrament , this Argument might be of some force : but they say hee dyeth not , but in Sacrament and Signe representing . So hee ; which yet alas is too little a crevase for so great a Doctor to creepe out at . First , because there is aswell a Figurative , as there is a Literall 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 lye , and yet it is but the Anniversarie day , betokening the other . When Christ said of one part of this Sacrament , [ This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood ] hee spake by a double Figure , said your Iesuite * * Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Salmeron , yet truly .

Secondly Christ , who is Truth it selfe , in saying of Bread , This is my Body , or Flesh , spake a Truth , as you all professe ; and was it not likewise a Truth , when hee called his Flesh Bread ? yea , and also * * Ioh. 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 Mysterie : 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 Mysterie ; according to that their generall 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 Baptisme a Sacrifice aswell as the Eucharist , doubted not to stretch Baptisme up to as high a note as they have done the Eucharist , saying , f f Chrysost. in Epist. ad Heb. Hom. 16. Baptismus est passio Christi . Baptisme is the Passion of Christ : and g g Ambros . de Poenitent . lib. 2. cap. 1. In Baptismo crucifigimus in nobis filium Dei . In Baptisme wee crucifie Christ . To signifie , 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 Vnproper Sacrifice might furthermore have beene called both Bloody and Vnbloody , 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 * * Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 7. you have done another from thence , for palliating a Falshood . You may recognize with us that Tragicall end of the Emperour Mauritius , by the command of one Phoca● , ( once his Slave ) that Grand Patrone of the Popedome , by Privileging the Church of Rome , to be the Head of all Churches , as divers of your owne Historians do relate . But to the Point . By the commandement of this Phocas ( as you * * See Baron . Anno 602. &c. know ) were slaine two of Mauritius his Sons , three Daughters , and his Wife ; and all these before his owne eyes , and at last the Emperour Mauritius himselfe was also murthered .

Were now this dolefull Spectacle acted on a Stage , might not any Spectator say ( at the horrid sight thereof ) This is a Bloody Tragedie , namely , in respect of the Object represented herein ? And might hee not also say as truly , This is an Vnbloody Tragedie ? to wit , in respect of the Representative Subject , Action , and Commemoration it selfe , seeing that there is not here shed any one drop of mans Blood ? And from the same Evidence it will be easie to perceive , that the Greeke Fathers used to terme the Eucharist [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] and the Latines Tremendum , that is , a Terrible and Dreadfull Sacrifice , ( namely ) for the Semblance-sake , and Analogie it hath with Christ's Death : even as one would call the Act , representing the cruell Butchering of the Emperour Mauritius , an Horrible and Lamentable Spectacle . This is a cleare Glasse , wherein any may discerne the open visage of Truth , from the feigned Vizard of Errour .

The ninth Demonstration , Because Ancient Fathers likewise called the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice , for the Representation-sake which it hath of Christ's Death ; which is Argumentum à paribus . SECT. XIII .

WEe shall not urge the Antecedent of this Argument , taken from Baptisme , before that wee have made knowne the force of the Consequence thereof . First one of your Cardinals thus ; a 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 beene no cause why they should not have called Baptisme a Sacrifice , it being a Representation of Christs death : But the Fathers do no where call Baptisme a Sacrifice . So hee . Another Cardinall thus , b 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 spake abusively , in calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice , seeing this is the onely Sacrament , which they call a Sacrifice , and no other . Next , take your learned'st Iesuite with you , who would be loth to come behinde any in vehemencie and boldnesse , thus ; c 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 Baptisme or the Ministery thereof a Sacrifice ; albeit they might have so called it Metaphorically : which wee note ( saith hee ) because of the Heretickes , 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 then 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 Heretikes ( for so they call Protestants ) could shew that the Ancient Fathers did any where name the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice , which wee confesse to be onely but a Representation of Christs death , then should wee need no other Reason to perswade us that the Fathers called the Sacrament of the Eucharist a Sacrifice also , Improperly , onely because it representeth the Body and Blood of Christ sacrificed on the Crosse . Thus for the Consequence confessed by your owne chiefest Advocates .

The Assumption lyeth upon us to prove , to wit , that the Fathers called Baptisme a Sacrifice , even from the words of the Apostle , Hebr. 10. 20. where , speaking of Baptisme , he saith ; To them that sinne voluntarily , there remaineth no Sacrifice for sinne . Saint Augustine testifyeth of the Doctors of the Church Catholike , before his time , that d 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 Christs Passion , which every one then offereth , when hee is baptized into the faith of Christ . So that holy Father , who is a Witnesse without all Exception ; yet if , peradventure , wee should need any testimony our of your owne Schooles , the witnesse of your Canus may be sufficient , confessing and saying , e 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 Baptisme , which they so called Metaphorically , because by it the Sacrifice of the Crosse is applyed unto us . So hee . Is not this enough for the understanding of the Dialect , and of the speech of Ancient Fathers ; both in calling Baptisme a Sacrifice , and of the Reason thereof , to wit , for Representation and Application-sake onely ; 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 owne 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 Cardinall out of the number of Proper Sacrifices , are a 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 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 , &c. 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 workes of Virtue are unproperly called Sacrifices . All workes which consist in Action , being transient , as Bowing , singing of Psalmes , or the sole Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse : together with all such Acts performed to God , which otherwise are yielded to man , as the Gesture of Vncovering the head in Gods Service , Bowing the knee , and all outward signes of Reverence , yea and all inward and invisible Acts of man in his will and understanding . All these spirituall Acts are esteemed by him to be unproperly called Sacrifices . But that all these kinde of Acts , so farre forth as they are exercised in the holy worship of God , are called Sacrifices by the Ancient Fathers , can never be denyed 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 Vnproper Sacrifices , being used in the Celebration of the Supper of our Lord , occasioned the Fathers to call the Eucharist it selfe a Sacrifice ; and therefore they meant thereby no Proper Sacrifice . As first ( by your owne c 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 spake abusively , in calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice , seeing this is the onely Sacrament , which they call a Sacrifice , and no other . Next , take your learned'st Iesuite with you , who would be loth to come behinde any in vehemencie and boldnesse , thus ; c 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 Almes , and Collections for the poore , Sacrifices ; Our Praises and Thanksgiving to God ( whereof the Eucharist hath it's name ) Sacrifice : and that many other Circumstantiall Acts are called Sacrifices , even the Sole Act of our Commemoration , as will appeare in our last Examination concerning the Doctrine of Protestants . ⚜ But yet some of you ( among others your Pamelius ) are so greedie of a Sacrifice in the Masse , that they will force Tertullian to speake for it , even where ( as is confessed and proved ) hee speaketh of such Offerings , which belonged to the 15 15 Gabriel . Episcop. Albispin . Not. in Tertull. lib. ad Vxorem , cap. 9. Sacrificia sine serupùlo , &c. 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 . Reliefe of the poore ; and which was to be ministred 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 Vnproperly of Ancient Fathers . SECT. XV.

YOur Cardinall his Objection is this ; that Priest , Altar , and Sacrifice , are Relatives , and have mutuall and unseparable Dependance one of each other . So hee , and truly . But you ought to take with you a necessary Caution , observed by the same a 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 . Cardinall , that An unproper Sacrifice cannot inferre a proper Priest-hood : nor an unproper Priest-hood a proper Sacrifice , &c. otherwise , your Iesuite can tell you of a b b Maldonat . Ies . Serpens aeneus suit Sacrificium commemorativum futuri Sacrificij Christi , sed tamen non habuit altare . Lib. de 7. Sacrā . Tom. 1. de Euch. §. Quintum genus . Sacrifice without an Altar , and your c c Abulens . in Ios. 22. Altare 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 wilde Sophistrie , as from a wooden Leg to inferre a body of Flesh . Now what if wee shall say of this Point of Appellations , that It was not so from the Beginning ? Hereunto wee claime but your owne common Confessions , viz , d 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 Iudaicum , ideò abstinebant abijsdem vocibus , ne viderentur eosdem illos ritus innovare . That the Apostles did willingly abstaine from the words of Sacrifice , [ Sacerdos , ] and Altar . So your Cardinall , and e e Eodem modo Durantus de Ritibus , lib. 1. cap. 1. num. 7. Durantus , the great Advocates for your Romane Masse : whereby they have condemned not onely other your Romish Disputers , who * * See above Cha. 3. Sect. 8. have sought a Proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in your Masse 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 againe your Iesuite Lorinus ; 16 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 hee ) abstained from the word [ * * Graecè , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Sacerdos ] as from that which is more Proper to the Old Testament . So hee . 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 Proofe of a Sacrificing Act , proper to the New , performe as fond and fruitlesse a labour , as is the patching of old Vestments with new pieces , whereby the rent is made worse . ⚜

But the Apostles did indeed forbeare such termes in their speeches , concerning Christian worship , whereof these your forenamed Disputers can give us a Reason , f f See the former Testimony at ( d. ) Lest that ( say they ) the Iewish Priest-hood being as yet in force , Christians might seeme , by using Iewish Termes , to innovate Iewish Rites . Which is enough to shew , that you are perswaded 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 , Baptisme , this being as fully Iewish , as was either the word Priest , Altar , or Temple : and yet used of the Apostle without danger of Innovation of the Iewish maner of Baptismes . Yea , and if the Apostles had thought the Altar , Priest , Sacrifices , to be essentiall 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 .

Wee descend to the Fathers . It is not unknowne unto you , how the Fathers delighted themselves , in all their Treatises , with Iewish Ceremoniall Termes , onely by Allegoricall Allusions , as they did with the word Synagogue , applying it to any Christian assembly ; as Arke , to the Church ; Holocaust , to Mortification ; Levite , to Deacons ; Incense , to Prayers and Praises ; and the word Pascha to the day of the Resurrection of Christ . But if any should say , that these Fathers used any of these words in a proper Signification , hee should wrong both the common sense of these Fathers , and his owne Conscience . It were superfluous to urge many Instances , where one will serve . The word , Altar , applyed to the Table of the Lord ( which anciently stood in the g 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 , &c. Cocclus Tom. 2. Tract . de Altari , & Athanasio in vita Antonij . Altare Domini multorum multitudine circumdatum . Chrysost. ( de visione Angelorum ) lib. 6. de Saerdotio . — 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . & Dionys. Hierarch . Eccles. cap. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . August . de Verbis Dom. Serm. 46. de eo quod scriptum , [ Qui mandueat . ] Christus quotidie pascit : mensa Ipsius est illa in medio constituta . [ These Testimonies verifie the same Assertion of Doctor Falke against Gregory Martin , cap. 17. The Table stood so , that men might stand round aboue it . ] Midst of the Chancell ; so that They might compasse it round ) was more rarely called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Greekes , or Altare of the Latines , than 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and Mensa , that is , Table ; which they would not have done , if ( Altar ) had carryed in it the true and absolute property of an Altar : nay but they used therein the like liberty , as they used to do in h h August . quaest. super Exod. lib. 2. cap. 9. Altare est populus Dei . Lib. 1. de Serm. in monte . Altare in interiore Dei templò , id est , fides . Lib. 10. de Civitat . Dei , cap. 4. Ejus est Altare cor nostrum . And other Fathers ordinarily . applying the name , Altar , to Gods People , and to a Christian man's Faith and Heart .

⚜ All this notwithstanding , you are not to thinke that wee do hereby oppugne the Appellation of Priest and Altar , or yet the now Situation thereof in our Church , for use as Convenient , and for order more Decent ; but onely the Romish Opinion and Doctrine , whereby you hold them , in the verie proprietie of words , and not as the Fathers did , onely by way of Allusion . For your better Apprehension of this Truth , if you will be pleased to observe that Christ , in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sacrament , propounded it , in the place where hee , with his Disciples , gave it unto them to be Eaten and Drunken ; then tell us where it was ever knowne , that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking ? In Gods Booke wee find , Levit. 9. that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eate their Oblation On , but , Besides the Altar . Neither may you thinke it any Derogation to this Sacrament , that the place , whereon it is Celebrated , is not called an Altar of the Lord , seeing the Spirit of God , by his Apostle , hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes ; for the Apostle , as hee called this Sacred Banquet purposely The Supper of the Lord , and the Vessell prepared for the Liquid , The Cup of the Lord ; so did hee name the place whereon it was set , The Table of the Lord , and the Contemners thereof , Guiltie of the Body and Blood of the Lord ; and thereupon did denounce the Vengeance and Plague , which fell upon prophane Communicants , The Iudgement of the Lord : and all these in one Chapter , 1. Cor. 11. The like Difference may be discerned betweene your maner of Reverence , in Bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist onely : and ours in Bowing aswell when there is no Eucharist on the Table , as when there is , which is not to the Table of the Lord , but to the Lord of the Table , to testifie the Communion of all the Faithfull Communicants thereat ; even as the People of God did , in Adoring him before the Arke his Footstoole , Psal. 99. 5. and 1. Chron. 28. 2. as Daniels Bowing at Prayer in Chaldea , looking towards the Temple of Ierusalem , where the Temple of Gods Worship was , Dan. 6. 10. And as David would be knowne to have done , saying , Psal. 5. 7. I will Worship towards thy holy Temple :

Will you suffer us to come home to you ? The Father Gregory Nazianzen , for his soundnesse of Iudgement Sirnamed the Divine , comparing this Inferiour Altar , and Sacrifice on earth , with the Body of Christ seated in Heaven , faith that the Sacrifices , which hee offereth in his Contemplation at the Altar in Heaven , are i 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 Altare , 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 hee . Therefore ( say wee ) the Sacrifice of Christ his Body and Blood are subjectively in Heaven , but objectively here in the Eucharist ; here Representative only , as in a Shadow , but in Heaven presentatively , in his Bodily presence . So vainly your Disputers hitherto ( whilst that wee required Materials ) have objected against us bare words , phrases , and very shadowes .

Lastly , Cyril of Alexandria k k Cyril . Alexand. cont . Iulian. lib. 9 ( Iulian . Ob. ) Iudaei sacrificant , — vos autem invento novo Sacrificio — quare non sacrificatis ? — illud commune nobiscum habent , etiam Templa , Altaria , &c. ( Resp. Cyril multò post , ) Vitae honestas , & ad meliora propensio est Sacrificium fragrantissimum — Et Paulus hortatur nos exhibere corpora nostra Sacrificium sanctum , rationalem cultum nostrum Deo . — Igitur etsi Iudaei sacrificarent , ut in umbris praecepta implerent , nos tamen latâ viâ euntes , ad id quod rectum est veniemus , nempè spiritualem & immortalem cultum proficientes . ( Iulian. ) Mosi dicitur , septem diebus azymis vescemini : vobis parum est abstulisse . ( Cyril . Resp. ) Impletur Lex à nobis in azymis , maximè fide justificatis in Spiritu , mentalemque cultum praeponentibus tali modo . — Vnde scribit D. Paulus , ut diem agamus in azymis sinceritatis & veritatis . ( Rursus , Iulian. ibid. lib. 10 ) Offerre 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 , &c. hos tamen tam crasso ministerio relicto renue & subril● , at spirituale perficimus : offerimus enim in odorem suavitatis fidem , spem , charitatem , justitiam , laudes , Sacrificium enim secundùm naturam incorporèum decet Deum . ( Iulian. ) 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 Iulian. 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 Iulian the Apostate , against the Truth of Christian Religion . By this conflict betweene these two wits , as it were by the clashing of a Stone and Steele together , such a flash of lightning will appeare , as may sufficiently illuminate every Reader , for the understanding of the Iudgement 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 keepe the Passeover of the Iewes : albeit , Cain , Abel , and Abraham before the Law , and the Israelites under the Law , and Heathenish Grecians alwayes without that Law , offered Sacrifices unto God . But they ( saith Iulian , 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 againe the Marginalls ) That wee Christians have the spirituall Circumcision of the heart : That wee observe the spirituall Azymes of Syncerity and Truth : And as for the Passeover , Christ our Passeover was offered up , namely upon the Crosse ( for so is it answerable to the words objected by Iulian. ) And to the Objection of not erecting Altars , Cyril saith not a word .

But what for the point of Sacrifice ? Hearken , ( wee pray you ) Although ( saith hee ) the Iewes Sacrificed to fulfill Gods Precepts in shadowes , yet wee doing that which is right ( meaning the Truth opposite to Shadowes ) performe a spirituall , and mentall worship , as namely , Honesty , and an holy Conversation . And againe , The Iewes offered in Sacrifice Bulls and Sheep , first-fruits of the Earth , Cakes , and Frankincense : but wee offer that which is spirituall , to wit , Faith , Hope , Charity , and Praises ; because an unbodily Sacrifice is fit for God . And yet againe , Wee Sacrifice to God spiritually , and mentally , the perfumes of virtues . This is the summe of Saint Cyril his Answer , voyd 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 Vnbloody 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 hee doth the Bloody of Sheepe , and Oxen.

Neverthelesse , wee should confute our selves , for objecting this Testimony , seeing that the Custome of the Primitive Church being then professedly not to reveale the Mystery of the Sacrament of Baptisme , 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 Masse , might seeme to have beene purposely done , to conceale it from Iulian , the Patron of Heathenish worship . So indeed wee should have thought , but that then Iulian and Cyril both would as readily confute us ; Iulian , because hee himselfe had beene more than a Catechumenist in the Church of Christ , even ( as namely Gregory Nazianzene witnesseth ) once l l Greg. Nazian. Orat. 3. advers. Iulian. ( De Gallo et Iuliano ) Quinetiam in Clerum seipsos ascripserunt , ut divinós quoque libros plebi lectitarent : non minus id sibi amplum & honorificum existimantes quàm aliud quidvis , &c. A Reader of Scriptures to the people , not thinking it any Derogation unto him so to do ; therefore was hee not ignorant of the ( then ) Christian Doctrine , concerning the Eucharist . And ( which is a point as observable ) when hee objecteth against Christians want of Sacrifices , by and by , as if Christians had nothing to say for themselves , but that Christ gave up himselfe once ; hee expresseth this their Answer , as that which hee held not to be sufficient . And Cyril also would controll us , who in his whole Answer ( opposing Spirituall to Corporall ) defendeth no Sacrifice at all among Christians , but that which hee called Spirituall and Mentall ; as for Example , Godly Conversation , Faith , Hope , Charitie , Praises , &c. All which are * * See Chap. 5. Sect. 14 excluded out of your Definition of Proper Sacrifice .

The Case then is plaine . 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 beene Catholike learning in that Age , then assuredly could neither Iulian have challenged Christians for No Sacrifice , nor Cyril have defended them , by confessing indeed No Sacrifice among Christians , but onely Spirituall and Mentall . ⚜ And undoubtedly if Materiall Altars ( properly so called ) had beene in use in Christianitie 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 17 Origen . cont . 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 . Atheisme . ⚜

CHAP. VI. Our third Examination , which concerneth your Profession of the Romish Masse , by your Romish Principles . The State of the Question .

WEll have you discerned of the two-fold acception of a Proper Sacrifice , which ( as a 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 Cardinall : 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 Masse .

That the Thing , pretended to be Sacrificed , is not Properly in the Romane Masse . SECT. I.

THe things , which your Romish Beliefe professeth to be Sacrificed in your Masse , is the Body and Blood of Christ , corporally extant therein , as the proper Subject thereof . But that there is no Corporall Existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist , was the Conclusion of our second , third , and fourth Bookes . And that the same Body and Blood of Christ is not the proper subject matter of the Sacrifice , used in your Masse , is our Conclusion throughout this whole Booke . Of both which you may have a Synopsis and generall view in the last Booke . 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 Romane Masse , can truly be called a proper Sacrificing Act : proved by your owne Principles . SECT. II.

WHatsoever Sacrificing Act your Advocates have held , as Proper to a Sacrifice ; and assumed , as belonging to the Sacrifice of your Masse , have each one beene * * See above Chap. 1. Sect. 5. Confuted by Doctors of your owne , 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 wee . But now are wee to discusse such Properties , as are yet awanting in your Romish Execution .

II. That that , which is properly a Sacrificing Act , is wanting in the Romane Masse ; proved by your owne 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 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 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 . ⚜ Prophane , made sacred by the Act of Consecration . Thirdly , that the Act be a c c Bellar. Octavò , trāsmutatur , 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 significationē mortis Christi . 2. ad protestationē 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●● . Controv. 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 owne 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 powring out , and shedding , &c. So you in Thesi , wee descend to the Hypothesis .

But before wee enter into this Disquisition , wee shall desire you to take unto you the spirits of reasonable men , whilest wee reason the matter with you in few words . First , it cannot be called Properly Visible , which is not Visible in it selfe . But the Body of Christ , which you call the thing sacrificed , is not Visible in it selfe , but onely ( as your Councell of d d Conc. Trid. and Bellarm above cited , §. 3. at ( a. ) Trent hath taught ) In the forme of Bread ; and then , how invisible it is , onely blinde men can be ignorant . Nor will wee thinke All , among you , to be so blinde , seeing that wee heare one ( and that a Iesuite ) acknowledging his eye-sight , and plainly , without Parables , saying , that e e Salmeron . Christus cruentus , & incruentus , non differunt , sed quod ille visibilis , hic invisibills . Tom 9 Tract . 29. § Iam de . Christ in the Eucharist is invisible . So hee . Therefore the first Property of a proper Sacrificing Subject is wanting in your Romane Masse .

Secondly , wee will not judge any of you so blasphemous , as to say , that the Body of Christ , by your Consecration , is of a Prophane thing made sacred , which wee are sure your ancient Romish Schoole did deny ; which concluded that f f Aquinas . Benedictio sacerdotalis fertur super terminū 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 blesse . 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 owne Iudgements , that the Body of Christ should be properly Destroyed . Wee say , in your owne Iudgements , who therefore are constrained to say , g 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 naturall Destruction , but onely Sacramentall , that is , Metaphoricall . Ergo , your Romish Masse is destitute of the proper Sacrificing Act of Destruction . And againe , whereas the word , Immolation , is taken of h 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 Slaine , or suffering by Death ; It was most truly said by him ( saith your Cardinall ) that Christ is not properly immolated , meaning not slaine , but onely in Representation .

Well then , the State of the Question , as your Cardinall himselfe hath set it downe , 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. Marke , wee 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 onely properly offered , can never be said to be againe properly offered ; and that which is a Bloody Oblation , by your owne learning cannot be Vnbloody .

And as great an Intoxication is to be seene in your Disputers , in respect of the other part of the Sacrament touching the Cup : For your Cardinall Alan defendeth a Reall Destruction in this maner ; i 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 hee ) the thing sacrificed must be slaine , 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 maner of Sacrifice , taking upon him the maner of Sacrificing , which hee had in offering himselfe upon the Crosse , by separation of his Blood . So hee . All which doth inferre a Reall and Proper separation and effusion of Blood ; yet immediatly after standeth hee to the Defence of Concomitancie , which teacheth an Vnion of Body and Blood together , in as full a maner as it was in Christ his most perfect estate . But Blood Separated , and Vnited , are as 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 contrarie as can be . How much better would it beseeme you to confesse plainly and truly with your Costerus , that k k Costerus Christian . Institut. lib. 1. cap. 10. Christus in cruce solus seipsum obtulit per verā 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 wee see your owne Doctors come in your most controverted points towards us , albeit as Rowers , looking backwards to their owne purposes and conclusions .

CHALLENGE .

A Syllogisme will quit the Businesse ; as for Example .

Every proper Sacrifice is properly Visible , of Prophane is made Sacred , and properly suffereth Destruction . ( This is your owne Proposition in each part . )

But the Body of Christ , in the Eucharist , is neither properly Visible , nor properly of Prophane made Sacred , nor suffereth any proper Destruction . ( This is also your owne Assumption . )

Therefore the Body of Christ , in this Sacrament , is not a proper Sacrifice , nor properly Sacrificed . This ( except men have lost their braines ) must needs be every mans Conclusion . And that so much the rather , because it cannot be sufficient , that Christs Body be present in the Eucharist , to make it a Sacrifice , without some Sacrificing Act. A Sheepe is no Sacrifice whil'st it remaineth in the Fold , nor can every Action serve the turne , except it be a Destructive Act : for the Sheep doth not become therefore a Sacrifice , because it is shorne , nor yet can any Destructive Act be held Sacrificing , which is not prescribed by Divine Authority ; which onely cun ordaine a Sacrifice , as hath beene confessed . But no such divine ordinance hath hitherto beene proved .

Is it not then a miserable case which you are in , to suffer your selves to be deceived by such Mountebankes , who pretend to direct mens 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 meere 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 , wee 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 reall Body of Christ , as it was Sacrificed upon the Crosse . In respect of the Acts wee say ,

I. That Spirituall Sacrifices , albeit Vnproper , are in one respect more true , and do farre excell all merely Corporall Sacrifices , according to Scripture . SECT. I.

WHen Christ called himselfe the True Vine , the True light , the True Bread ; in respect of the Naturall Vine , Light , and Bread ; Hee taught us to distinguish betweene a Truth of Excellencie , and a Truth of Propriety , by their different Effects . That which hath the naturall property of Bread ( although Manna ) preserveth but the temporall life , for * * Iohn 6. See above Booke 5. Sect. 6. They ate Manna , and dyed : but the Bread of Excellencie , which is Christs Body , preserveth to * * Ibid. Immortality . It is a good Observation , which your Canus hath , that a 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 spirituall things are called Sacrifices , in Scriptur , because they were prefigured by the outward bodily Sacrifices of the Lambe : as the killing of Beasts were signes of mortification , which is a killing of sinne . So hee . And the thing Archetypally prefigured ( you know ) is alwayes 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 Righteousnesse , Psalm . 4. 5. Offer the Sacrifice of Righteousnesse . 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. Wee will render the Calves of our lips . Fourthly , of Almes-workes , Heb. 13. 16. With such Sacrifices God is well pleased . Fifthly , Sacrifice the fruite of Preaching , Rom. 15. 16. That I ministring the Gospell , that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable , being sanctifyed by the holy Ghost . Sixthly , the Sacrifice of Martyrdome , Phil. 2. 17. Yea , and if I be offered up upon the Sacrifice and Service of your faith , &c. Next wee say ,

II. That all these Spirituall Acts , although Improperly called Sacrifices , yet are they more excellent than all meerely Corporall and Proper Sacrifices ; in the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers . SECT. II.

VPon this Contemplation Ancient Fathers have breathed out many divine Ejaculations , for the expressing of the excellent Prerogatives of Spirituall Sacrifices , in respect of Corporall . Of the Sacrifice of Contritition , thus : a a Non terrenis , sed spiritualibus est Deo litandum . Tertull. adversus Iudaeos . Gods wrath is to be appeased with Spirituall Sacrifices . And b b Erant tum Sacrificia pro delicto , quae nunc sunt Sacrificia poenitentiae de delicto . Ambros . lib. 3. Epist. 28. They were then Sacrifices for sinne , which are now Sacrifices of Repentance for sinne . And c c Spiritus contribulatus . — Ostendit Deus , se velle Sacrificium , non trucidati pecoris , sed contriti pectoris . Aug. de Civit . Dei . lib. 20. cap. 5. God sheweth hee will not have the Sacrifice of a slaine beast , but of a contrite breast . Of the Sacrifice of Righteousnesse , thus ; d d Mundo moriens , ipse est Sacrificium . Idem . Hee that dyeth to the world , is for himselfe a Sacrifice . And e e Tunc corpora pro corporibus ; nunc non corpora , sed vitia corporis perimenda . Arnob. cont . Gentes . Then were Creatures slaine to cleanse mens Bodies : but now are men to mortifie their vices : f f 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 — 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Isid. Pelus . lib. 3. Epist. 75. Every one being made a Priest over his owne Body , to over-rule vices . And g 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 hee hath translated word for word out of Cyril . Alex. cont . Iulian. See above , towards the end of Chap. 5. ] They offered those grosse Bodies of sheepe : but wee the more subtile and pure of virtues , because unbloody things best agree with God . And h h Chrysost. in Gen. Hom. 60. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . This is a new and admirable Sacrifice . And i i Pelusiota . lib. 3. Ep. 75. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . The best Sacrifice is to have a pure Minde and a chaste Body .

Of the Spirituall Sacrifice of Prayer and Praises unto God , thus ; k k Preces & Gratiarum actiones factae Deo , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Iustin . Dial. cum Tryphone Iudaeo . 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 sayd , Deo magis placet Schir , quàm Schior , id est , Canticum , quàm vitulus . Bellar. ibid. These are most perfect and onely Sacrifices acceptable to God . Of Preaching the Word of God , thus ; l l Gladio verbi mactans vltia . Hier & rursus in Psal. 26. Hostia jubilationis , hostia praedicationis . Wee slay vices with the sword of the Word . And of The Function Evangelicall , m m Chrys. in Psal. 95. Munus Evangelicum Sacrificium mundum & immaculatum . It is a pure Sacrifice , and immaculate . And n n Sacrificium praedicationis omnibus aromatibus praestantius . Aug. A Sacrifice sweeter than all Spices . Of Almesworkes , thus ; o 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 p Vbi scriptum est , [ Misericordiam magis volo quàm Sacrificium ] nihil aliud quàm Sacrificiū 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 Signes . Of Martyrdome , thus ; r r Nos templum Dei sumus omnes , cor nostrum altare Dei , cruentas victimas caedimus , quando usque ad sanguinem pro veritate certamus . Aug. ibid. cap. 4. Wee are Gods Temple , our hearts his Altars : wee then offer up our bloody Sacrifice , when wee contend for the Truth with our Blood . In briefe , s 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 worke done , to the end that wee may enjoy God , is a true Sacrifice . ⚜ Your Cardinall Bellarmine lighting on this Sentence , wherein Saint Augustine defineth a Sacrifice to be every good worke wrought , that wee may in an holy Societie adhere unto God : 1 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 Cardinall ) not properly , according to the essence of a Sacrifice , but in respect of the dignitie and effects of every such worke . So hee . ⚜ Hitherto of our Proposition , by the Determination of holy Fathers . In the next place wee say , for the Assumption ,

III. That Protestants professe , in their Celebration , divers Sacrifices of chiefe Excellencie . SECT. III.

COrporall and Spirituall Sacrifices are by you distinguished , calling the first , Proper , and the other Improper ; but the Spirituall excelleth by infinite Degrees , as you have heard . In which kinde Protestants , in their Celebration , professe foure sorts of Sacrifices . For proofe hereof , wee may instance in our Church of a a In the English Liturgia . England , most happily reformed and established . First , the Sacrifice of Mortification in Act , and of Martyrdome in Vow , saying , [ Wee offer unto thee , O Lord , our selves , our soules , and bodies , to be an holy , lively , and reasonable Sacrifice unto thee . ] Next , a Sacrifice Eucharisticall , saying , [ Wee desire thy fatherly goodnesse mercifully to accept of our Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving . ] And why may wee not , with the Scripture , call this a Sacrifice ? seeing that your Bishop Iansenius held it for an Argument of proving Christ to have offered a Sacrifice , even b b Iansen . 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 hee gave Thanks : giving of Thanks being a kinde of Sacrifice . So hee . Thirdly , a Sacrifice Latreuticall , that is , of Divine worship , saying , [ And although wee be unworthy to offer up any Sacrifice , yet wee beseech thee to accept of our bounden duty and service , &c. ] This performance of our Bounden Service is that , which * * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 5 Ancient Fathers called an Vnbloody Sacrifice .

Nor is our Church of England alone in this Profession : this Truth wee referre unto the Report of your c c Bellarm. Melancthon Eucharistiam Sacrificium esse vult , — & Calvinus non solùm 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 esse vult , sed etiam 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 2. §. Ac primum , & §. Expendamus . Cardinall , and of d 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 betweene them , whom you name Lutherans , in their Augustane Confession , and of Calvin ; by acknowledging not some one Act , but the whole worke 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 Eucharisticall : 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 professe , 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 wee can performe to God . Now wherein , and in what respect wee may furthermore be said to offer to God a Sacrifice propitiatory , improperly , will after appeare , when wee consider Christ's Body as the Object heerein .

That Protestants in their Commemoration offer up the same Body and Blood of Christ , which was Sacrificed on the Crosse , as the Object of Remembrance , and most absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption : which is partly justified by the Romish Masse it selfe . SECT. IV.

NOw wee 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 Sayings of Fathers , where they affirme that wee offer unto God The same Body and Blood of Christ , on this Altar , even the same which was sacrificed on the Crosse ; which therefore you interpret as being the same subject matter of our Commemoration , As is a King acting himselfe upon a Stage , as hath beene * * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 7. shewen .

Wee as instantly , and more truly , proclame that wee offer ( Commemoratively ) the same , undoubtedly the very same Body and Blood of Christ his All-sufficient Sacrifice on the Crosse , although not as the Subject of his Proper Sacrifice , but yet as the only adequate Object of our Commemoration ; ( as the Emperour Mauritius is sayd to be represented in a Stage-play ) wherein wee cannot possibly erre , having Truth it selfe for our Guide , who said , Do this in remembrance of mee , namely , of the same [ Mee ; ] meaning Christ , as crucified on the Crosse , as the Apostle commenteth , saying , Hereby you shew the Lords Death till hee come , even the Same Body , as the Same Death ; whereunto beare all the Fathers witnesse , throughout this Treatise . Wee say againe , for your better Observation , the Same Body , as the Same Death : but it cannot be the Same Death , but objectively onely . Ergò , can it not be the Same Body , but onely Objectively . Whereby it will be easie for us to discerne the subject Sacrifice of Christ from ours , his being the Reall Sacrifice on the Crosse , ours onely the Sacramentall Representation , Commemoration , and Application thereof .

⚜ For your better satisfaction , Wee exhibit unto you the ancient Practise of your Romish Church , in the Service of the Masse , celebrated every Saturday in the Passion-weeke ; wherein ( as your 2 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 &c. ] Et paulò antè ; [ Sic fiat Sacrificium nostrum in conspectu tuo , ut placeat Tibi , Domine Deus . ] In his duobus lotis vox , Sacrificiū , 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 . &c. Cardinall doth certifie you and us ) the Priest , in your Missall , Prayeth twice to God to receive [ His Sacrifice : ] although it be , properly , but onely a Sacrament , the whole Action thereof being called a Sacrifice . So hee , even as directly for our purpose , as wee could wish ; hereby justifying our Calling the Whole Celebration of the Eucharist ( albeit Properly a Sacrament onely ) a Sacrifice , in a Large and qualified Sense , according to the Practise of ancient Fathers ; as wee have proved throughout the whole Sixt Booke , by Eleven Demonstrations . ⚜

CHAP. VIII . Of the Second Principall part of this Controversie , 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 Sinnes .

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 it's owne virtue and efficacie , which ( as all confesse ) is onely the Sacrifice of Christ in his owne selfe ; or else a thing is said to be Propitiatory and pleasing to God , by God's Gracious acceptance and indulgence . The Romish professe the Sacrifice of their Masse 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 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 cruce obtulit . Sess. 22. cap. 2. It is that whereby God being pacified doth pardon sinnes .

And least that there might be any ambiguity , how it doth pacifie God , whether by his gracious Acceptance , or the Efficacie of offering , your generall Romane Chatechisme , authorized both by your Councell of Trent , and the then Pope Pius the fift , for the direction of your whole Church , instructeth you all , concerning your Sacrifice of the Masse , that b 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 Sacrificiū 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 Efficacie and Virtue , not onely of merit , but also of satisfaction . So they , as truly setting downe the true nature of a Propitiatory Sacrifice , as they do falsly assume and apply it unto the Sacrifice of your Masse ; which Protestants abhorre and impugne as a Doctrine most Sacrilegious ; and onely grant the Celebration to be Propitiatory ( Improperly ) by God's Complacencie and favourable acceptance , wherewith hee vouchsafeth to admit of the holy Actions and Affections of his faithfull .

Tryall of all this is to be made by Scriptures , and Fathers , by your owne Romish Principles , and by the Doctrine of Protestants . In the Interim , be it knowne that our Church of England in her 31. Article , saith of your Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Masse , 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 onely 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 sinnes . Heare your Cardinall , a a Bellarm. Secundum Argumentū 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 sinnes of his Apostles . So hee . But if this his Exposition of Christ's word 's be most evident , alas ! what a number of other blinde 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 Crosse immediately after ; among whom have * * See above . Chap. 1. Sect. 2. beene reckoned Gregory de Valentia , Salmeron , Barradas , Vasquez , and Suarez , five prime Iesuites , your Bishop Iansenius , yea and the Author of your Vulgar Translation , and the Authorizers thereof .

And that you may the better discerne , how hard the foreheads heads of your Cardinall , of your Rhemists , of Master Brerely , and of such others are , who have made that Objection , you have beene likewise advertised , that in the very tenour of your owne Romish Masse it selfe , the word is expresly [ * * In the 〈◊〉 place . Effundetur ] It shall be shed : Wee say in the Tenour of your Romish Masse , published by the Authority of Pope Pius the fift , repeated by every one of your selves , ( 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 owne Generall Confession , granting that Christ his Blood was not Really shed in his last Supper . This is that which wee had to oppose unto that your Cardinals Most evident Argument , as Sun-shine to Moone-light .

That many things are said to pacifie and please God , which are not properly Propitiatory , by their owne Virtue , according to criptures and your owne Confessions . SECT. III.

IN Scripture , our Mortification of the flesh is called a Sacrifice well-pleasing to God . Rom. 12. 1. Almes , Workes 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 well-pleasing to God , Phil. 4. 18. So the Scripture .

And that spirituall Sacrifices are more pleasing unto God , than all the Hecatombs of Corporals could be , is a Confession , which wee will take from the quill of Valentia the Jesuite , saying that a 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 bee Propitiatory , and to pacifie God . As likewise of Prayer ; Scripture ( saith hee ) attributeth a Propitiatory force unto Prayers , so farre forth as wee obtaine many Blessings of God , through his mercie , by them . So hee . Which confirmeth our former Distinction of Propitiatory , by the mercifull Acceptation of God , distinct from your Propitiatory , which is of meritorious Satisfaction by its owne virtue : which meere man must let alone for ever . Thus of our Examination from Scripture .

The Doctrine of Ancient Fathers , concerning a Propitiatory Sacrifice . SECT. IV.

ALbeit our Premises in the former part of this Controversie touching Sacrifice , and proving both by Scripture and ancient Fathers , that the Eucharist is not properly a Sacrifice , might give a Supersedeas to all your further contending by their Authority , for Defence of a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory ; because that which is not properly a Sacrifice , can no more be a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory , than that which is not properly a stone can be properly called a Mil-stone : Notwithstanding , wee 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 kindes : some , wherein there is no mention of the Body and Blood of Christ at all ; and the other sort such , wherein they both are named and expressed .

CHAP. IX .

That the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers might well be understood to call the Celebration of the Eucharist A Propitiatory Sacrifice , in respect of divers Spirituall Acts therin , without any Conceit of a Proper Virtue of Propitiation it selfe . SECT. I.

A Propitiatory in Gods mercifull acceptance wee defend , but not in Equivalencie of Valour and Virtue in it selfe . First , as it is an Act commanded by Christ , in which sense your Iesuite * * See above , Chap. 8. Sect. 3. Valentia saith , that Every right Act is in a sort Propitiatory . Secondly , as it is a godly Act , wherby wee do affiance our soule to God , Every good worke , ( as * * August . See above , Cha. 5. Sect. 8. Augustine saith ) which is done that wee may adhere unto God , is a True Sacrifice . Thirdly , as it is an Act serving peculiarly to Gods worship , for Religiousnesse is that ( said * * Chrysost. ibid. Chrysostome ) wherewith God testifieth himselfe to be well pleased . Fourthly as it is an Act of Commemoration and Representation of that onely properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse , wee must grant to your Cardinall , that Commemoration alone hath not any Propitious Efficacie in it selfe : But yet by the Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ , resembled thereby , God vouchsafeth to be Propitious unto us ; in which respect a 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 mee : This ( saith Origen ) is the only Commemoration which maketh God propitious .

If any would say , how then shall wee not make Commemoration to be Propitiatory in it selfe ? Wee answer , as a man holding in his hand a precious Iewell , which is inclosed in a Ring of gold , and putting it on his finger to preserve him from a Convulsion , the Preservative Virtue is not attributed to the Ring , but to the Iewell ; and yet wee say , the Ring is the only meanes to us , which maketh the finger capable of that Virtue . So say wee , Christ his owne Sacrifice , which was the onely precious Subject matter of our Redemption , is made now , by our Remembring , the Object of our Commemoration and Application of it , for our Remission and Iustification .

Nor is Origen alone in this , but all they ( who were * * See Chap. 5. Sect. 11. many ) whom you have heard saying that Christs Death and Passion , yea his Bloody Body is offered herein . Your owne Iesuit Salmeron is witnesse unto us ( for the Councel of Ephesus , Eusebius , and Saint Augustine ) that b b Salmeron . Ies. Tom. 9. Tract . 31. §. Postremò superest . pa. 238. Quidā Patres judicant inprimis hâc hostiâ expiari peccata , quòd cruentū 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 sinnes by this Sacrifice , because the bloody Sacrifice of Christ is remembred and commemorated herein .

That wee say nothing of our Supplications and Prayers , by which , through the same Virtue of Christs Propitiation , wee obtaine pardon and Remission of sinnes ( whether for Quicke 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 Iustine Martyr called it , by the way of Excellencie , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , The onely gratefull Sacrifices . Lastly , in respect of our Application it selfe , whereof in the next Section .

That the Ancient Fathers called it a Propitiatory Sacrifice Objectively , for the Application of the Properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Crosse , made by the faithfull in Celebration of the Memory thereof . SECT. II.

WHen it was asked , why the Ancient Fathers called Baptisme a Sacrifice , it was answered , * * See above Chap. 5. Sect. 13. at the Letter (c) . Because the Sacrifice of Christs Death was applied unto us thereby . Yet that Death , truly and onely properly Propitious , is but onely objectively offered in Baptisme . The same may be said of the Eucharist , whereof your owne great Schoole-man , and Bishop a a Canus . Satis est ut vere & propriè sit Sacrificium , quod mois Christi ita nunc ad peccati remissionē applicetur , ac si nunc ipse Christus moreretur , id quod Scriptorum veterum testimonijs cōfirmatur . — 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. demū 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 applyed thereby , as if he were now dead . Marke , As if hee were now dead , which can be but Objectively onely , 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 b Cyril . Mystag . 5. Christum mactatum offerimus , ut Deum propitiū 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 , &c. Suffering , being slaine , and dying in the Eucharist ; Wee Protestants subscribe to their Iudgements with a full faith , in acknowledgement that Christs Death , the proper worke of our Propitiation , is the onely Object of our Remembrance and Faith : which sayings of the Fathers ( saith your c c Salmeron . Quod benignè interpretandum — nimirùm , mactationem antiquam Christi in cruce 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 . Iesuite ) must be understood Sacramentally , to signifie the reall slaughter of Christ offered by him upon the Crosse . So hee . Which againe proveth our Conclusion , that they understood a Propitiatory Sacrifice onely objectively in the Eucharist . Wee will end with the objected Testimony of Ambrose , thus , d d Ambros . Hic imago , veritas in coelestibus , nunc Christus offertur , sed offertur quasi homo , quasi recipiens passionem . Offert 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 himselfe as it were a Priest , that he may forgive our sinnes . And of his now being * * See above , Cha. 3. Sect. 8. at the letter (c) . elsewhere hee saith , The truth is in Heaven , there is Hee in truth with the Father . So hee . Whereby is confuted your Conclusion of a Subjective Body of Christ present herein , from [ Quasi homo offertur : ] for this any one may perceive to be but a Quasi Argument for a Corporall presence , and to make fully for our Distinction and Defence thereby . Enough of the Iudgement of Antiquity . Our third Examination followeth .

CHAP. X. Of the pretended Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice , confuted by Romish Principles , as destitute of foure Properties of Propitiation .

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 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 himselfe , as that was of the Crosse , but by his Minister . And the Reason of this , you say , is , b 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 Vniversall Cause worketh according to the limitation of the second Causes . So you . Vnderstanding , 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 propertie of a true Propitiatory Virtue and efficacie , 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 meere man : and secondly , in respect of the matter of Sacrifice it selfe , which was some unreasonable beast , and had no Virtue of Propitiation in it selfe , for remission either of guilt , or of the eternall punishment of sinne , as hath beene * * See above , Chap. 5. Sect. 4. Confessed ; and therefore not Properly Propitiatory , but Figuratively ; onely as Types of the Sacrifice of Christ .

II. Confutation , from the Romish Definition of a Propitiatory Sacrifice . SECT. II.

SEcondly , in your c 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 Reall 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 Reall Destruction . Ergo , say wee , by your owne 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 Masse is unbloody . Our Conclusion necessarily followeth , which is this ; Ergo , say wee , your Masse-Sacrifice cannot be properly Propitiatory . Your Cardinall , in Answering first that the d 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 spake this of the Sacrifice of the Old Law onely , standeth twice convicted of a foule Tergiversarion ; first , by the Apostles Explication of himselfe , who although hee spake 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 owne Conscience , who having spent some Chapters , in proving that the Sacrifices of the Law were Types of the Sacrifice in the Masse , doth now deny that this Proposition of [ No Remission of sinnes without sheedding of Blood ] is to be applyed to the Eucharist . Hee is glad therefore to adde a second Answer , given by your Maldonate , who finding no security in the former Refuge , betaketh himselfe to another , saying that e 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 sinnes is not now for any present effusion of Blood , but for that effusion which had been . Which Answer ( if wee may so interpret it ) is a plaine Prevarication . The Reason may be this ; because there was never Bloody Sacrifice ( Christ on the Crosse excepted , which onely was of infinite virtue , as well to times past , as to come ) but it was alwayes actually by the Effusion of Blood at the time of Sacrificing . These kindes of so ordinary Doublings and Turnings , which your Disputers use , as men in a maze , do plainly Demonstrate either their irresolute Iudgements , or else their dissolute Consciences ; and in either of both their desperate Cause .

Wee have not done yet , but give you further to understand , that as you could finde no proper Sacrificing Act , to make your Masse properly a Sacrifice , so neither can ye shew any propitiating Act , to make it properly a Sacrifice propitiatory . This wee prove out of your Councel of Colen , which f f Si respicimus corpus Christi , quod continetur in Euch. quis negat esse propitiatorium , non ratione oblationis , quam Sacerdos facit , sed ratione Oblationis factae in cruce ? Conc. provinc . Colon. de Missa . fol. 105. And a little after , Non propitiatorium , ratione Sacrificij , quod est situm in actione Sacerdoris , seu Mislae communicātum , aut Ecclesiae : sed ratione Sacrificij , quod in cruce 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 onely of the Oblation once made by Christ himselfe on the Crosse . Which oblation how absent it is , who seeth not , that is present with himselfe ? 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 Crosse you do Christianly esteeme to have beene of a 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 himselfe , God and man : and that otherwise b b Erat infiniti valoris : nec enim aliter potui● compensari injuria Deo facta . Ribera Ies. in Heb. 10. num. 19. Hee could not have made satisfaction to an Infinite and Divine Majestie . So you . But of the Sacrifice of the Masse , what ▪ The common opinion of our Church ( saith your c c Valor 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 knowne that Cardinall C●●jetane , Canus , and Scotus were of a contrarie opinion : ] To this last Testimony of Bellarm●●e adde also Salmeron . Ies. Tom. 9. Tract . 33. §. Tertiò . Cardinall ) is that it is but of finite value . So hee . Notwithstanding it be impossible for any thing of finite virtue to have power in it selfe 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 owne Definition , and by obtruding things as proper , which are voyd of all due Properties . This being all one , as if you , in the Case of Miracles , would deliver unto us a Iannes and Iambres , in stead of Moses ; in Art , Sophistry for Logike ; in Commerce , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , adulterate Coine for current ; and in warlike stratagems , instead of a naturall , a Trojane Horse . Oh what a misery it is to reason with such unreasonable ( to speake mildly ) men ! Thus much of your Romish Sacrifice , according to your owne 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 sinnes Sacramentally to all Communicants , is the profession of all Protestants . That the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse is therein offered up Objectively , by Commemoration and Supplication , for all Conditions of men , hath an universall Consent among them , without Exception . But that any substantiall Body , as Subjectively contained in the Masse , can be the Sacrifice of applying the merits of Christ for remission of sinnes , ( which is your a a Conc. Trid. Vt visibile Sacrificium — quo cr●enti Sacrificij virtus in remissionem peccatorum applicaretur . Sess. 22. cap. 1. Tridentine faith ) hath beene hitherto impugned and infringed thorowout our whole former Dispute . Furthermore our present Opposition is three-fold ; First , concerning the sinnes 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 sinne is made .

I. That the Church of Rome is not yet resolved of the Extent of the Virtue of her Sacrifice of the Masse , for remission of sinnes or Punishment . SECT. I.

NEver can there be any true Application of the Passion of Christ for remission of sinnes ( say wee ) which is not absolute , but onely partiall . Your Iesuit b b Ribera . Ies . Quoniam quotidiè peccamus , quotidiè virtutem passionis Christi participamus , quod Conc. Trid. docuit , quo cruentum illud , semel in cruce 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. Ioh. 2. Com. in Heb. 1. 10. num. 16. Ribera seemeth to come on roundly towards us , and friendly to joyne hands with us in this point of Application of an absolute Remiss●on of sinnes , pretending that this was decreed in the Councell of Trent , as indeed it seemeth to have beene , and that from the Authority of Scripture ; and hee addeth , that Protestant● ( whom hee is pleased to grace with the name of * * See the last Testimony . Heretikes ) do not deny this manifest Truth . So hee . Do you marke ? a Truth , a manifest Truth , a Truth said to be confirmed by your last Councel , and a Truth consented unto by the Heretikes , as being a manifest Truth .

Who would not now looke for a Truth universally professed in your Church without all exception ? But behold ( even since that Councell of Trent ) your greatly approved Melchior Canus steppeth forth with a peremptory Contradiction , saying , that to hold c 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 mortall sinnes to be remitted by the Application of the Sacrifice in the Masse , is false , except all Divines be deceived . So hee , speaking of the Divines of the Romish Church . And so may every Papist receive as much remission of his sinnes by holy Water sprinckled at the Church doore , as hee can by the Sacrifice at your Masse .

Your Iesuit Valentia noteth , among you , another sort of Doctors , maintaining that your Masse-Application serveth onely for d 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 temporall punishment , the guilt whereof was formerly pardoned . So hee .

CHALLENGE .

IF any shall but recollect the Contradictions of your owne Doctors , thorowout all these former points of Controversie already handled , hee will thinke himselfe to be among the Fencers called Andabatae , who first blind-folding themselves fell a slashing one another , not knowing whom they hitt ; therfore wee leave them in their broiles , and our selves will consult with Antiquity .

That the Ancient Fathers never taught any Application of Christs Passion , but that which is for a Plenary Remission of sinnes . SECT. II.

CArdinall a 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 proofe of an Application for remission of all sinnes , for which Christ died . The Fathers whom hee produceth , are these , Chrysostome , Theophylact , Cyprian , and Origen . If these will not suffise , you may take unto you these b 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 , Iulius Pope of Rome , Iustine Martyr , Augustine , Cyril , and Basil . Do you require any more ? What needeth it ? seeing that the same Cardinall 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 Vse of a singular Application of the Sacrifice of the Masse to Non-Communicants , because of their present Attendance , is repugnant to the Doctrine of Antiquity . SECT. III.

THe Greeke and Latine Churches anciently made up the whole Catholike Church . The Greeke pronounced an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , Be-gone , to all Non-Communicants : the Latine Church also ordained , that the Deacon should Proclame all Not-Communicants to Depart . From which Custome afterwards the word Masse had it's Originall ; namely from the words , [ Ite , missa est ] as * * See above Booke 1. Chap. ● . Sect. ● . ● . hath beene confessed . But now the Case is so altered , that if any Non-Communicant , being present shall in Devotion apply himselfe to your Romish Masse , your c c Canon Missae ( De Applicatione ) — & omnium Circumstantium , quorum tibi fides cognita est , & nota devotio , pro quibus Tibi offerimus &c. Canon of the Masse provideth that Application of your Sacrifice be made unto him for Remission of sinnes . And that , as your Iesuite teacheth , d 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 onely , but also to be e e Costerus Christian . Institut. lib. 1. cap ▪ 8 ▪ de sacro Missae officio quotidi● audiendo . Quotquot adsunt & dignè se parāt , spiritualiter corpore Domini reficiuntur per os Sacerdotis . Spiritually refreshed by the mouth of the Priest .

Be you therefore intreated to lend your Attention , but for an Instant of time , and then tell us whether wee speake Reason unto you ▪ or no. All Antiquity Catholike ( as hath beene generally * * See Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. confessed by your selves ) never admitted to that part of the Masse , which you call a Sacrifice , any but such as were prepared to Communicate , by receiving the Sacrament , but shut all others out of Doores ; which , wee say , they neither would nor could lawfully have done , if they had beene 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 Iewes , under the Law , all persons had liberty to partake thereof . Wee thinke 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 Gaine , in behalfe of the Priest ; without all warrant of Antiquity . SECT. IV.

HItherto wee have expected some Reasons , which might move your Church so to lessen the proportion of Christ's Passion , in the Application therof for Remission either of sinnes or punishments . And now at length your Iesuite Salmeron cometh to resolve us , saying , a a Salmeron Ies . Si hoc esset infiniti valoris , & celebrata esset Missa pro redemptione omnium animarum , quae in expiatorio carcere contiuentur , 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 , then one Masse being said for all the soules in the Dungeon of Purgatory would evacuate and empty the whole place , and then should it be in vaine to say many Masses for one soule . So hee . Wee may not so farre digresse , as to enter into this Controversie of Purgatory , because wee are to finish that which wee have now in hand . Else were it easie to shew , that the infinite gaine , which your Alchemists worke out of your forge of Purgatory-fire , hath occasioned this Heterodoxe and graceles Doctrine of disannulling the infinite efficacie of Christ's Blood : which is so utterly forlorne of all Approbation from Antiquity , that your Disputers have not alleged so much as one Iota , out of any Father , for warrant thereof .

Next , in the Sacrifice of your Masse , there is ( say b 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 hee will , so farre forth that hee extend his Memento upon any one , to whom hee shall be pleased to intend it , upon Condition to receive money therefore : insomuch , that It will be more availeable 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 owne advantage ? Cardinall c 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 wee are attentive to heare what he saith ; There is not either any Scripture ( saith hee ) or Father shewing any such thing , for such a maner of esteeming the fruit of Christ's Sacrifice . So hee .

In the third place , whiles wee are in this speculation , wee heare one of you putting this Case . If the Priest shall receive a stipend of Peter , upon Condition that hee shall apply his Memento and Intention upon the soule of Iohn , departed this life , and hee notwithstanding doth apply it unto the good of the soule of Paul , whether now the Priests Memento should worke for the good of the soule of Iohn , according to the Priests Obligation upon the Condition made with Peter , or else for the good of the soule of Paul , according to the Priests immediate Intention . Here , although some of you stand for the justice of the d 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 , offert pro se . Quidam dicunt Sacrificium operari in hujusmodi casibus non secundùm voluntatem Ministri , sed secundùm obligationem , quâ tenetur pro hoc vel illo offerre . Ali● volunt obligationem tenere — Sed operatur secundùm intentionem Ministri , quatenùs est Christi Minister . Suarez . quo supra . [ But your Cardinall , ] Sed injustè facere . Alan . quo supra , cap. 35. pag. 640. Priests Obligation , yet some others Resolution is , that the Priests intention ( albeit unjust ) must stand for good . Wee have done .

CHALLENGE .

WHereas it is now evident , that your Romish Masse serveth so well for your no small gaine , by appropriating of a Priestly portion to be dispensed for some one or other soule for money , as it were the Cookes fee , and that but onely for the paines of a Spirituall intention ; yea , though it be to the Injury of the Purchaser : It can be no marvell , that wee heare so often , and as loud shouts for your magnifying of the Romane Masse , as ever Demetrius , and his fellow Craft-mates made for Diana , the Goddesse of the Ephesians .

It remaineth , that wee deliver unto you a Synopsis of the Abominations of your Romish Sacrifice , which wee have reserved to be discovered in the eighth Booke . Wee hasten to the last Examination , which is of Pro●estants .

CHAP. XII .

That the Protestants , in their Celebration , offer to God a Spirituall Sacrifice , which is Propitiatory , by way of Complacencie . SECT. I.

CAll but to mind our former * * See above Chap. 〈…〉 . Distinction of a double kinde of Propitiousnesse ; one of Complacencie , and Acceptation , and the other of Merit , and Equivulencie ; and ioyne hereunto your owne definition of Propitiousnesse by way of gracious acceptance , when you confesse that Every religious Act , whereby man in devotion adhereth intirely unto God , in acknowledgement of his Soveraigntie , mercie , and bountie , is propitious unto God . Now then , Protestants celebrating the Eucharist with Faith in the Sonne of God , and offering up to God the Commemoration of his death , and mans Redemption thereby ( a worke farre exceeding in worth the Creation , if it so were , of a thousand Thousand worlds ) and thereby powring out their whole spirit of Thankfulnesse 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 Thankes , and that most worthily , forasmuch as the end and efficacie of Christ's Passion is no lesse than our Redemption from the eternall paines of hell , and purchase of our everlasting salvation : ) All these ( I say ) and other essentiall Duties of holy Devotion being performed not according to Mans Invention , as yours ; but to that direct , and expresse Prescript , and ordinance of Christ himselfe [ Do this , ] It is not possible , but that their whole complementall Act of Celebration must needs be through Gods favour Propitious , and well-pleasing in his sight . Take unto you our last Proposition , concerning the second kinde of Propitiousnesse .

That the Protestants may more truly be said to offer to God a meritoriously Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of Sinne , than the Romish do . SECT. II.

BEfore wee resolve any thing , wee are willing to heare your Cardinals Determination . The Death of Christ ( saith a a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 3. Mors Christi est Sacrificium prop iè dictum , & perfectissimum . hee ) is a proper , and most perfect Sacrifice . So hee , most Christianly : But after noting the Profession of Protestants , to hold that the same Most perfect Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is the onely proper Sacrifice of Christian Religion , hee denyeth this , because ( saith b 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 . hee ) This is common to all true Religions , and being but once done , ceaseth to be any more , but onely in the virtue and efficacie thereof . And all this hee doth for establishing of another properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Romish Masse , by the hands of the Priest .

But wee , believing that That Sacrifice of Christ's death was but once offered as ( according to our other distinction ) the onely subjective , meritorious , and properly - Propitiatory Sacrifice , therefore it ceaseth to be so any more ; but yet is still objectively perpetuall 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 Efficacie and Virtue thereof . In which respect ( as Christian Beliefe professeth ) Christ is called * * Apoc. 5. 12. The Lambe slaine from the beginning of the world : so is hee the same still , and ever will be untill the end thereof ; for which cause our Celebration is called of the Apostle A shewing of the Lords Death till hee come . So that as by the Bodily Eye , beholding the * * Iohn 3. Serpent on a pole in the Wildernesse , they that were stung with the deadly poyson of Fiery Serpents were healed ; even so All , who by Faith , the Eye of the soule , behold the Sonne of God lift upon the Crosse , shall not perish , but have everlasting life .

But what is that Propitiousnesse of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body ( will you say ) which you Protestants will be said to offer more truly to God , than that wee Romanists do , and wherein doth the difference consist ? Be you as willing to heare as to aske , 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 , onely by Gods Complacencie 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 efficacie therof , a truly and properly propitiatory Sacrifice , and Satisfaction , for a perfect Remission of all sinnes . Thus concerning Protestants . As for you , if wee consider your owne outward Acts of Celebration , ( wherein in Ten Circumstances wee ●inde Ten Transgressions of the Institution of Christ , and therefore provocatory to stir up Gods displeasure ) wee thinke not that it can be Propitiatory so much as by way of Gods Acceptance .

Next , when we dive into the mysterie of your Masse , to seeke 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 it selfe ; it hath beene found ( besides our Proofes from Scriptures , and your owne Principles ) by * * See a Sy●opsis hereof , Booke 8. Ten Demonstrations out of Ancient Fathers to be Sacramentall 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 it selfe Propitiatory , than substantiall Bread can be Christ .

Lastly , in examining the End of the Propitiation by the Masse , Wee perceive your Doctors in suspense among themselves , whether you be capable of Propitiation for Remission of sinnes , or else of Temporall Punishments due to such Sinners ; or if of Sins , whether of Mortall sinnes , or else of Veniall sinnes only : to wit , such as you thinke may be washed away by your owne Holy-water-sprinckle . Marke now , wee 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 Faithfull , but for a doubtfull ; not for an absolute , but for a partiall Remission , and that also you know not whether of sinnes , or of punishments : and then must you necessarily acknowledge the happinesse 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 Taske .

A Vindication of certaine Testimonies , alleged in the II. III. IV. and V. Bookes of the preceding Treatise ; against the Vnjust Imputations of one ( whosoever ) . Popishly inspired : To the greater Disadvantage of the Romish Cause , wherein hee hath so much laboured .

THese kinde of Vindications ought not to seeme unnecessary to any Reader , who would wish either estimation to the Author , or just advantage to the Cause , when he shal perceive extreme diligence joined with an unstanchable malignancie , in sifting every corner , and weighing every grane . Howbeit that these Exceptions ( such as they are ) may worke 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 sixt Booke had beene reprinted , in this second Edition ) that my Answers unto them might have bene inserted in their proper places . But now to the objected Testimonies , of which ( that in Epiphanius being altered in this second * * Pag. 121. Edition ) Wee will take the rest in due order .

The first Passage concerneth a Testimony of S. EPIPHANIVS . Alleged in the * * Edit. 1. pag. 92. Pag. 120. of this second Edition .

TO leave the Objectors verball Exceptions , because ( now ) satisfyed in the second Edition ; and to try that which hee thinketh materiall .

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 ] hee allegeth not as the words of Epiphanius , because hee hath them in a different Character .

ANSW. It will be sufficient to set downe the words of Bellarmine his owne , thus ; ETIAM ADDIT , ( Epiph. ) ID ESS● CREDENDVM , LICET SENSVS REPVGNENT ; that is , HEE ( speaking of Epiphanius ) ALSO ADDETH , THAT IT IS TO BE BELIEVED , ALTHOVGH IT BE REPVGNANT TO OVR SENSES . How then can it be denyed that Bellarmine delivered those words , REPVGNANT TO OVR SENSES , as the words of Epiphanius , hearing Bellarmine himselfe affirming that they were ADDED by Epiphanius ? If I had denyed this , I would have given my Objector leave to say , I had beene out of my Senses .

The Second Passage . Book . 2. * * Edit. 1. pag. 95. Pag. 129. TERTVLLIAN .

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 Barre , pag. 180.

ANSW. A sore Taxation , which pincheth upon my Fidelity ; I shall then give a summarie 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 hee , do not signifie that Christ gave a Signe of his Body , and not his Body it selfe . ] otherwise he would not have said that Christ [ Corporis sui figuram panis dedisse . ] How then should it have beene , I pray you ? OB. III. It should have beene [ 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 gain-say his owne choice . Pamelius therefore in the very * * Edit. Paris . 1580. Edition and page cited by the Objector , ingenuously confesseth saying ; TERTVLLIANVS DICENS CHRISTVM CORPORIS SVI FIGVRAM PANIS DEDISSE ; SVBAVDIT , MORE SVO , ACCVSATIVUM .

By which words of Pamelius wee have gained fowre Advantages . I. A Iustification of the sense of the Accusative [ PANEM , ] as Pamelius sheweth . 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 inferre that Christ gave not onely a Signe of his Body , but the Body it selfe ; whereas Tertullian ( saith Pamelius ) used the Genitive-case , PANIS , instead of the Accusative , PANEM ; how ? MORE SVO ; that is , AS TERTVLLIAN , VSED To Do : which plainly sheweth that Bellarmine was either ignorant of the style of Tertullian , or rather ( if hee knew it ) guilty of Dissimulation herein , namely , More suo . The Last is a Manifestation of an egregious fondnesse 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 Signe of his owne Body of Bread ; which is plainly a Non-sense , as any may perceive ; so that I may well conclude , ô felix error ! of changing the word , PANIS , into PANEM ; although it were but by chance , and onely to make true Latine , according to ordinary Construction . By occasion whereof , so much Ignorance and Perversnesse of the Adversary hath beene 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 yeare 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 proofe as faisible , as I hold it Impossible , yet was my Assertion , notwithstanding , most true , because I onely spake of the Imposition of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation , as an Article of Faith , upon mens Consciences , not to have beene before that forenamed Pope Gregory the Seventh . The Contrary whereof neither hee , nor any for him , can shew out of any Ancient Father . The Advantage hee giveth us , is the bewraying of his owne Precipitancie .

The Fourth Passage . Book . 3. * * Edit. 1. pag. 113. Pag. 162. N. CABASILAS .

THe Greeke Archbishop Cabasilas hath told us , that the Latines of the Romish Church would not indure the Greeks to call the Eucharist , after the Romish Consecration , Bread .

The OB. Romane Catholikes do commonly allow that it be called Bread , after Consecration .

ANSW. I proved from Cabasilas , that they will not indure it : hee telleth mee , without any proofe at all , they do . But if hee should eat no bread , untill hee could finde in Romish writers the Commonly naming of the Eucharist Bread , after their Consecration thereof , hee 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 Booke ) that Cabasilas and the Greekes hold that the words of Christs Institution , to wit [ HOC EST CORPVS MEVM ] are not words of Consecration , and therfore called the Romish Eucharist Bread ; and Con●ludeth ,

OB. Therefore doth not Cabasila's Testimonie availe 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 pronesse to quarrell , you know not for what .

The Fifth Passage . Book . 3. * * Edit. 1. pag. 125. pag. 177. IRENAEVS .

OB. I. YOu translate it [ Even as ] to make it a Similitude .

ANSW. When I was but a Boy , I then learned to translate SICVT , SIC ( which are the words of Irenaeus ) EVEN As , So.

OB. II. But the Similitude is onely for the Change , and not for the maner of the Change .

ANSW. Can there be a Change with a SICVT , EVEN As , without a maner of Similitude of Change ?

One Advantage herein may be this our further Observation , that Irenaeus , as hee said of the BREAD Consecrated , that it is NO MORE A COMMON THING , BVT CHANGED INTO AN EVCHARIST ( a Sacrament : ) saith likewise of the other part of the Similitude , that THE BODIES OF THE COMMVNICANTS ARE INCORRVPTIBLE IN HOPE OF RESVRRECTION : meaning , that they are therefore not to be esteemed of in the common Condition of naturall Bodies .

Our other Advantage will be , to learne the language of the Fathers , as here of Irenaeus , calling the Bodies of the Faithfull INCORRVPTIBLE ; 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 onely in Qualities , from Incorruptibility and Basenesse . Even as hee meant of the change of this Sacrament , consisting of an Earthly , and an Heavenly part ; the Earthly being the Bread Naturall ; and the Heavenly being the same Sacramentall , 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 joyne 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 adde [ Even as ] to make it a Similitude .

ANSW. This needed not to have beene 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 , remaine 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 betweene THE THINGS THAT WERE BE STILL ; AND THEY BE STILL THAT WHICH THEY WERE BEFORE , ALTHOVGH CHANGED INTO ANOTHER THING . That is to say , Of Common Elements made Sacred and Sacramentall .

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 downe , IPSA NATVRA MVTATVR , which I understand to be as asseverantly spoken , as if hee had sworne 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 hee is an Observer ; who doth not know that which is common to all Writers , that what the Author hath spoken somewhat more obscurely before , hee explaineth it with words more intelligible , albeit long after .

OB. III. But Ambrose said elswhere [ Panis dicitur , sed Corpus appellatur ; ] It is said to be Bread , but it is called the Body of Christ . So saith hee 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 onely Appellations of the outward words , whereas [ SIGNIFICATA ] alwayes import the sense of the same words , whether spoken or read ; so that I shal need , for Confutation , no more but to appeale unto the Objector himself to distinguish the office of his cares & eyes , whereby hee apprehendeth onely words , from the Function of his Brain-pan , in judging of their sense and signification .

A further Advantage upon this occasion may be had first from another Allegation , of the Objector himselfe , 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 . Wee heare 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 signifie Bread , which marreth and dasheth your Romi●h and literall Exposition of Christ's words ( the foundation of all your other errours , concerning Corporall Presence : ) to note in Saint Ambrose his Iudgement , that [ Hoc ] in Christ's speech betokened Bread , which , in the universall Iudgement of all Romish Doctors , cannot be attributed to Christ's Body in a literall 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 [ CORPVS CHRISTI SIGNIFICATVR . ] If that there were no more force in the word [ SIGNIFICATVR ] than in NOMINATVR , why did your Cardinall 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 effigie sed ] is not set downe in the Latine sentence of Cyprian , and [ Caro Factus est ] is left out in the English : both of purpose , as will be thought .

ANSW. Neither , I dare sweare , on purpose , because both of them are alleged : the first [ NON EFFIGIE , SED ] translated in the English , and [ CARO FACTVS EST ] expressed in the Latine . Our Advantage now is this , to call to our Readers Remembrance , that hee 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. Hee meant not simply , but after a sort , as the Testimonies shew , which hee alleged .

ANSW. He meant as simply as any Protestant can do , saying a little before the words , A thing of Indifferencie , being determinated by the Church , if it be violated , is a sinne . What is , if this be not a Change of the Nature , to become ( by reason of the Churches Decree ) of a thing Indifferent and not sinfull , a thing sinfull , and therefore not Indifferent .

The Tenth Passage . Book . 3. * * Edit. 1. pag. 136. pag. 194. IVSTINE MARTYR .

OB. YOu make Iustine say , that hee called the Eucharist therefore no common Bread , because it was [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , ] that is , Sanctified meate .

ANSW. And that , I say , millions of Popish Doctors , at the first hearing , would sweare , 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 it selfe ( 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 HIERVSALEM .

OB. BEllarmine is taxed of Vnconscionablenesse 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 expressely saying , [ It is the Body of Christ ; although thy sense tell thee not so , yet let thy faith confirme thee , &c. ]

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 sayd of Cyril , as absolutely denying that there can be any tryall of the naturall Substance of Bread , after Consecration , by the verdict of any of mans senses ; whereas Cyril spake onely of the Sacramentall nature thereof . This was evidently proved out of Cyril , who affirming Sacred Oile to be no more Bare Oile , after Consecration , as he said of the Eucharist , It was no more meere Wine after it be Consecrated ; thereby taught us to judge of both alike . Even as wee may say , upon the same reason , that the water of Baptisme is , during the use thereof , no meere Water . But why ? even because it is Sacramentall ; and that accordingly wee are not to beleeve our Senses , when wee are in Contemplation of this Sacrament , to thinke it now to be mere Water , but beleeve it to be of another nature : else our naturall eyes and senses shall deceive our Spirituall sight of Faith , in discerning the Spirituall and Mysticall meanings thereof . Yea , and in this respect I might have taxed Bellarmine , for inferring from such speeches an absolute denying of the tryall , by sense , of the natural part of the Sacrament , because hee might have beene instructed ▪ By the * * See Booke 2. cap. 1. Sect. 7. Councell of Nice , of the meaning of such speeches of the Fathers ; that Councell saying as much of Baptisme , thus , Baptisme is not to be considered with the eyes of our Bodies , but of our Mindes . All which is to abstract the thoughts of Christian men from all Earthly conceipts , when they are conversant in the Celebration of such sacred Mysteries . This wee have noted , Book . 3. pag. 207.

This also hath occasioned another Advantage against your Romane Faith , by observing in the same place of Cyril another Sentence concerning this Sacrament : Coelestiall Bread ( saith hee ) sanctifying both Body and Soule . 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 soule . What other can be meant hereby , but that calling the Sacrament [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] after Consecration , hee acknowledged not any Substantiall change thereof ; and more demonstrably , because of the Comparison hee hath of the Sacramentall applying of the Body of Christ to the food of the Soule , as hee doth the Sacramentall 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. CHRYSOSTOME .

OB. CHrysostome is said to be placed in the front of the host of Bellarmines Fathers , whereas Bellarmine in his Catalogue of Fathers De Euchar. lib. 2. citeth twenty Fathers before him .

ANSW. If Bellarmine have had other Treatises , in his Controversies against K. IAMES of blessed memory , wherein Chrysostome was made the Champion , was this fondnesse in mee to say as I have sayd , and not rather rashnesse in this Objector , in thus gain-saying ?

OB. II. But you have furthermore omitted the words of Chrysostome , which in English should be these [ Although these things exceed our sense and reason , yet let us hold them without doubting . ]

ANSW. Hee telleth mee what was omitted , looking directly upon that , but forgot to acknowledge what was expressed out of Chrysostome , looking askew and asquint at it . My Translation out of Chrysostome delivered his words , in the first part , thus ; [ ALTHOVGH 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 downe these words of Chrysostome , [ YET LET VS BELIEVE HIS WORDS ; ] Fully equivalent with those which were omitted , [ YET LET VS RECEIVE CHRIST'S WORDS WITHOVT DOVBTING ; ] except the Papists will thinke us to be of their degenerate Faith , Of Believing with doubting . Where you may perceive that your Objector considered not how easie it had been for me ( by not omitting some words ) to have beene superfluous .

The Thirteenth Passage . Book . 3. * * Edit. 1. pag. 140. pag. 199. SIXTVS SENENSIS .

OB. IT is alleged out of Senensis , that hee maketh Chrysostome to have beene the most frequent in Hyperbolizing of all the Fathers ; But Senensis onely saith , that Chrysostome did [ Interdum ] use Hyperbole's .

ANSW. And I say , Aliquando [ seu , INTERDVM ] dormitat Homerus : Esto igitur , [ INTERDVM : ] Although I made it good in the same Section , that hee often Hyperbolized , yea even in this very point of the Eucharist .

OB. II. Elswhere Senensis , you say , giveth us a caution against Chrysostome's Rhet●ricke in this point .

ANSW. It is certaine that Senensis doth there most especially and by name note Chrysostome to Hyperbolize , and his Caution being generall , to take heed of his Hyperbole's , may be justly applyed as wel to this , as to that point , there specified in Senensis , according to the Law of Schooles ; where Generall rules are applyable to other examples , besides that which is in the Author specified and adjoyned to the same Rule . But this man had rather cavill 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 forbeare to shew the many Limitations which hee giveth .

ANSW. I never held it seasonable to shew a man any thing when he would not see it ; otherwise the Objector , who hath sought into every corner of all my Sayings , with purpose to traduce them , could not but have found the same Limitations of Bellarmine punctually set downe . Book . 3. cap. 3. Sect. 7.

The Fourteenth Passage . Book . 3. * * Edit. 1. pag. 141. pag. 200. S. CHRYSOSTOME .

OB. TO the words of Chrysostome , [ As in Baptisme , Regeneration , the thing Intelligible , is given by water , the thing Sensible ] you adde these words , [ The Substance of Water remaining ] which are not in the Text ; whereof your Lordship is conscious , and therfore 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 mee to be Conscious of this , whereas any might have thought , that the words should have beene ( if the Printer had not mistaken ) in a different Character , to distinguish them from the words of Chrysostome ; because , in the Margin , hee was directed to another place , where the full Text of Chrysostome was perfectly alleged , without that Addition now objected .

ANSW. II. Yet there is no reasonable man , pondering the words of Chrysostome , but must justifie the Addition of those words of to be most consonant to the meaning of Chrysostome ( there ) speaking of the Water of Baptisme . For is there any one of sound braines , that will deny the Water of Baptisme , after Consecration , to remaine in Substance the same ? Besides there hath beene produced another Testimonie , as out of Chrysostome , that Bread , even in the Sacrament of the Eucharist , after Consecration , remaineth in Substance the same . These should the Objector have ruminated upon , before hee layd downe this Accusation , but that hee found they were not for his distemperate palate .

The Fifteenth Passage . Book . 3. * * Edit. 1. pag. 14● . pag. 201. EVSEBIVS EMISSENVS .

OB. YOu referre vs to Master Brerely his Liturgie , 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 weake an Argument , when as hee doth there but onely mention the name of Eusebius , referring us to a fuller Sentence , which hee citeth out of Eusebius in some few pages following .

ANSW. If the Objector had beene so curteous as to have lookt back to Master Brerely's Allegation of the said Testimony of Eusebius , some few leaves before , pag. 160. as hee was curious for ( Contention-sake ) to urge the words following in some pages after , which hee saith are omitted , and concerne Transubstantiation , hee might have found that Allegation of Master Brerely as I delivered it , Tract . 2. Sect. 2. Subd . 2. [ SVBSTANTIA PANIS POST VERBA CHRISTI EST CORPVS CHRISTI . ] As for the words following , which corcerne Conversion of Bread , it was beyond the scope which I had then in hand , which concerned onely the Enunciative Speeches of Christ ( namely of calling Bread his Body ) and not the maner of Change thereof ; which point notwithstanding is afterwards handled at full in the same Section .

Our Advantage from this mans Cavillation is this : That hee calleth this maner 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 Christs Body , as it was in the Manger , to be but a [ WEAK ARGVMENT , ] 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 proofe of Transubstantiation .

ANSW. II. Yet I was much to blame , I confesse , 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 untill 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 French-man ; Some Caesarius ; Some Eucherius . And as for the Booke it selfe , 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 owne Satisfaction , not to thinke 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 hee direct his Reader to Nyssens Treatise of Manna , where the Sentence is , which is alleged by others . Nor can hee be excusable , in that , having read the Testimony now objected , hee did not thereby perceive that the Fathers Sacramentall 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 Cardinall , for Transubstantiation ; where speaking of the [ Bread which came downe from heaven , and was prepared for us without seed , without tilling , without mans worke : Th●s ( saith Nyssen ) is signifyed in this Mysterie , 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 trie the Romish Faith by this Lydian Stone , and wee shall finde it to be meerely counterfeit and base . For aske any of the Romish Disputers , what it is , which in this Sacrament is knowne to nourish , whether man or mouse ? And they answer us that the Accidents of Bread , voyd of the substance of Bread , is that which is Nutritive . But Greg. Nyssen saith just the ●lat Contrary , [ NOTHING CAN NOVRISH A BODY BVT THAT WHICH IS A CORPOREAL SVBSTANCE , ] 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 universall 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. TERTVLLIAN .

OB. I. THe word [ Bread ] is added .

ANSW. No , but truly related , and that by the Authority of Tertullian himselfe , whose former words are , Christ distributed [ PANEM , BREAD , ] to his Disciples , faciens [ ILLVM , that is , making IT , his BODY , THAT IS , A FIGVRE of his BODY . ] There is no Schoole-boy , 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 sayd ▪ 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 complayned of .

ANSW. I answer therefore , not to trouble his braines with Grammar-learning , which teacheth the Particle [ IS ] 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , to agree with that which followeth ; but to deale with him by an example , to make his fondnesse more palpable . Can any man at the first sight of an Ivy-bush , say , This is a Taverne , THAT IS , A Signe of a Taverne , and not meane that it [ IS A SIGNE ] of a Taverne ?

OB. III. Your Adversaries will complaine of this , seeing they are perswaded that this is not spoken of a figure actually present , but perfectly past .

ANSW. God send mee alwayes such Adversaries , who in their greatest subtilties bewray their extremest ●o●tishnesse , in complaining of my [ IS ] in the Present-●ense , and in requiring the sense of the time perfectly past ; as if Tertullia● had said thus , Christ sayd this is my Body , [ THAT IS , IT WAS ] a figure of my Body . Here have wee just reason to reflect upon this Objector with that Saying , Risum teneatis amici ? Yet the Objector ( lest we might thinke him not to Insanire cum ratione ) yieldeth this Reason , why it should be meant of the time passed , before the coming of Christ .

OB. IV. Because of the words immediatly following , [ Figura autem non fuisset , nisi esset veritatis corpus : ] shew that the word , [ Figure , ] was not taken representatively , but Typically .

ANSW. When Tertullian spake onely narratively , by repeating the words of Christ , he must needs speak in the tense and time when Christ uttered them , when hee sayd [ IT IS MY BODY , THAT IS , IS A FIGVRE OF MY BODY , ] But after speaking Enunciatively , with the Relation from his owne time when hee wrot , to the time of Christs Speech , which was the distance of three hundred yeares , hee could not but use the time perfectly past , saying , [ It had not beene a figure ] namely , when Christ called it his Body , [ except , &c. ] 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 againe with Tertullians words of Exposition , [ IT HAD NOT BEENE A FIGVRE , EXCEPT THERE HAD BEENE THE TRVTH OF HIS BODY : ] But Christs Body had no TRVTH of BEING before his Incarnation and time of his existence in the Flesh ; and therfore [ FVISSET ] extended not unto any Type , which had beene before Christs being on earth . Wherefore this [ HAD ] of Tertullian , I hope , will put this Objector to his Non putabam , or Had I wist .

Our Advantages occasioned by this Accusation are great , and divers : One is to discerne more clearly the then-Catholike Doctrine in the dayes of Tertullian . Next to observe the stupid insatuation of our Romish Adversaries . The Last will be to display an Heresie 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 Fantasticall 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 Skonce to the former Heresie of denying the Verity of Christs Body ?

THE SEVENTH BOOKE , 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 MEE . ]

CHAP. I.

WEe have hitherto passed thorow many dangerous and pernicious Gulfes of Romish Doctrines , which our instant haste will not suffer us to looke backe upon , by any repetition of them . But now are wee entring upon Asphaltites , or Mare mortuum , even the Dead Sea of Romish Idolatrie ; whereinto all their Superstitious and Sacrilegious Doctrines do empty themselves : which , how detestable it is , wee had rather prove , than prejudge .

The State of the Question , concerning Adoration of the Sacrament SECT. I.

IN the thirteenth Session of your Councell of Trent , wee finde a Decree commanding thus , a 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 b Si quis dixerit in hoc Sacramento unigenitum Dei filiū 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 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 & crucē , 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 formes of Bread and Wine , as your Iesuit expoundeth it ; A worship ( saith hee ) farre exceeding that , which is to be given to the Crucifix . Whereupon it is that your Priests are taught , in your d d Missale Rom. Sacerdos prolatis suis verbis [ Hoc est corpus meum , &c. ] 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 , &c. Canon . Missae . Romane Missall , to elevate the Consecrated Hoast , and to propound it to the people to be adored ; and adoring it themselves , in thrice striking their breast , to say , O Lambe of God , that takest away the sinnes of the world , have mercie upon us . ⚜ Besides your other Precations , as thus : 1 1 Cornel. Loos 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 Iesu , 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 . Iesu , qui omnis gratiae Fons es . I , in a Catholike faith , being prostrate before thee ( Lord Iesus ) adore thee God , whom I believe to be corporally present under the formes of Bread and Wine . ⚜ So you .

But what do they , whom you call Sacramentaries , judge of this kinde of worship , can you tell ? e e Bellarm. Omnes Idololatriam appellant hujusmodi adorationem . Lib. 4. de Eucharist . cap. 29. §. Porrò . All of them ( saith your Cardinall ) call it Idolatrie . But they , whom you call Lutherans , are they not of the same Iudgement ? say , f 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 Iesuite . As for our Church of England , Shee accordingly saith , that The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not reserved , carryed about , lifted up , or worshipped .

Our Method must now be to treat first of Christs Institution , or Masse ; next of the Profession of Ancient Fathers ; then of your Romish Masse in it selfe ; and lastly wee shall returne againe to our owne home , to demonstrate the happy Security , which our Church hath in her maner 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 Controversie , 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 ; shewing 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 wee ) at the Institution thereof , which you confesse with us ; and take upon you to give a reason thereof , to wit , that g g Caster Ies . Nec opus erat ut genu slexo significationem novam honoris darent , sumentes corpus dominicum , quià eundem habebant praesentem , & corpus suum porrigentem , quem mente 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 Iesuite , which contradicteth your owne Objection , of therefore adoring Christ in receiving the Sacrament , because then hee * * See hereafter Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Cometh under the roofe of your mouths ; for the neerer 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 appeare , much lesse have you any Evidence of any Precept for it . If there had beene in the words of Christ , or in the volume of the New Testament any syllable thereof , your Cardinall would not have roaved so farre as to Deuteronomie , in the Old Testament , to fetch his onely defence out of these words of God , h h Bellarm. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 29. Scriptum est Deut. 6. Dominum tuum adobis , &c. §. His praemissis . Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God ; ( supposing that the Bread which is worshipped is indeed the Sonne of God : ) which is , as it were , mere Canting being the basest kinde of Reasoning that can be , and is therefore called of Logicians , A begging of the point in Question .

Wee contrarily adhere to the Institution of Christ in all points necessary , and essentiall thereunto , and knowing that the Apostle promised to deliver * * 1 Cor 11. Whatsoever hee had received of the Lord , concerning this Sacrament ( which you hold to be the principall part of your Romish Religion ) wee are perswaded 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 hee gave not so much as the least intimation . The Apostolicall times faile you . Wee 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 Iudgement of Antiquity is objected by you , and the same is opposed by us against you . Let both be put to the Triall ; 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 Verball , and partly Practicall ; the Verball are of three kinds , two whereof are specified in the next Proposition .

That neither the objected maner of Invitation to come with Feare , nor of Association of Angels , spoken of by the Fathers , imply any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist . SECT. II.

OVt of a a Chrysost. in Homaed Cor. 24. Cum horrore accedamus ad Deum . Ob. Harding , &c. 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 splendorē 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 agnū jacentem , &c. Et Hom ad Ephes. 3. Hostiam quam Angeli cum 〈◊〉 more suscipiunt . Chrysostome is objected his Exhortation , that Christians in their approach to this Sacrament , Do come with horror , feare , and reverence . Next , is their talking of the Angels , being present at this Celebration , holding downe their heads , and not daring to behold the excellencie of the splendor , &c. and to deprecate the Lambe lying on the Altar . These seeme to your Cardinall to be such invincible Testimonies , to prove the Adoration of Christ as Corporally present , that hee is bold to say , They never hitherto were answered , nor yet possibly can be . So he ; taking all Chrysostomes words in a literall sense ; whom notwithstanding your owne * * See above B. 3. Cha 4. Sect ● . in the Challenge . Senensis hath made to be the most Hyperbolizing Preacher of all the Fathers : and therefore hath given unto all Divines a speciall Caution against his Rhetorick , in the point of this Sacrament , lest wee understand him literally . Of which kinds you may have some Instances out of the very places objected , where b b Chrys. Orat. in Philogon . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Idem paulò superius . Chrysostome saith indeed , That wee see that Lambe lying on the Altar . And said hee not also , even in the same Oration , Wee see here Christ lying in the Manger , wrapped in his clouts ; a dreadfull and admirable spectacle ? So hee . But ( say ) do you see herein either Cratch or Clothes ? or can you talke of Christ's lying on this Altar , who teach , that as hee is in this Sacrament , hee hath no locall Site , Posture , or Position at all ? It is also true of the Angels , hee said [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] they stand in dread , and the sight is fearefull . And hee saith no lesse of the Festivall day of Christ's Nativity , that It is most venerable , and terrible , and the very Metropolis of all others . Yet doth not this argue any Corporall Presence of Christ , in respect of the day . This Answer , taken from Chrysostome , may satisfie for Chrysostome .

Wee grant furthermore to your c c Bellar. lib 2 de Missa , 〈◊〉 . 15. § Quinto — Omnes Graeci Patres passim vocant terribile Sacrificium , & horroris plenum . Cardinall , That all the Greeke Fathers call the Eucharist terrible , and full of dread . But what ? As therefore implying a Corporall presence of Christ , and Divine Adoration thereupon ? This is your Cardinals scope ; but to prove him an ill marke-man , take unto you an answer from your selves , * * See above , Booke 5. Cha. 2. Sect. 4. who teach with the Apostle , that All prophane comers to this Sacrament make themselves guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ ; in which respect wee do acknowledge it to be Dreadfull indeed , especially to the 〈◊〉 yet making no more for a Corporall presence , than the contempt of Baptisme , whereby a man maketh himselfe obnoxious to Gods 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 Baptisme called Terrible , even by * * Ibidem . Chrysostome himselfe .

As for your objected assistance of Angels , at the Celebration of the Eucharist , it is no such a Prerogative , but that the Prayers of the Faithfull , and Baptisme will plead for the same honour : your Durandus granting of the first , that d 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 e 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Orat. 40 de Baptismo The Angels are present at Baptisme , and do magnifie ( or honour ) it with their presence , and observance : notwithstanding none of you ever defended either Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Baptisme , or yet any Adoration of the consecrated Element of Water therein . If these two may not serve take unto you this Saying of Augustine , spoken of persons baptized , f f August . de meritis & de 〈…〉 Christum portantur . They ( saith hee ) with feare are brought unto Christ their Physician , that is ( for so hee expoundeth himselfe ) unto the Sacrament of eternall 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 feare , as if they were in the presence of Christ . And thus is your unanswerable Objection answered , so that this your Cable rope being untwisted is become no better than loose towe . Now to your third Objection .

That the most earnestly-objected Phrase [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] and Adoration , used of the Fathers , doth not necessarily inferre any Divine Worship of the Eucharist . SECT. III.

WEe find not your Disputers more pressing and urgent in any Argument , than in objecting the word , Reverence , Honour , and especially Adoration , for proofe that Divine Honour is due to the Eucharist , as to Christ himselfe , whensoever they finde the use of that Phrase applyed by Antiquity unto this Sacrament . Our answer is first in generall ; That the words Reverence , Honour , and Adoration , simply in themselves , without the Adjunct and Additament , Divine , cannot conclude the Divine worship proper to God . To this purpose wee desire you not to hearken unto us , but to heare your selves speake . a a Mr. Brerely . Pontificales vestes , & calices coeperunt esse honorandi , Sacramenti causâ . Liturg. Tract . 2. §. 8. Subd. 2. The Pontificall 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 ) wee our selves yield as much to the Eucharist , as b b August . Epist. 164. Baptismum Christi ubique veneramur . Augustine did to Baptisme , when hee said , Wee reverence Baptisme wheresoever .

Accordingly of the word , Adoration , your Cardinall and other Iesuites are bold to say , that c 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. Angelos antè adventura Christi adoraton , post assumptam humanitatem adorationem recusasse . Eodem modo Glossa , Hugo , Rupertus , & alij nonnulli , &c. So Suarez Tom. 1. Disp. 54. & Bellarm. Hieronymus non ignorabat Adorationis multa genera , & aliam soli Deo , aliam rebus deberi sacris . Apol. c. 1. § Primū . [ And hereckoneth Adoration of Reliques , Tombes of Martyrs , &c. ] It is sometimes used also in Scriptures for an honour common to Creatures , as to Angels , to Kings , to Martyrs , and to their Tombes . And although your Disputers should conceale this Truth , yet would the Fathers themselves informe us in what a Latitude they used the same word , Adoration . Among the Latine Fathers , one , who knew the propriety of that Language as well as any , viz. Tertullian , saying , d d Adoro plenitudinem Scripturarum . Adversus Hermog . post medium . pag. 350. I adore the plenitude of Scriptures ; and Gregory Nazianzene , among the Greeke , for his excellencie in divine knowledge , e e Greg. Nazian. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Orat. 40. sirnamed the Divine ( and therefore may not be thought to apply words belonging to Divine worship preposterously or improperly ) instructed the party baptized to say thus to the Devill , Fall downe [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] and worship mee . Thus much in Generall .

Let us proceed , You to your particular Objections , and Wee to our Answers . I. Ob. Ambrose saith , that f 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 Iesu adoraverunt . Ob. 1. per Bellarm. Apol. cap. 8. pag. 107. Hic locus nullam admittit solutionem . Item lib. 2. de Euchar. cap. 14. Wee adore in these mysteries the flesh of Christ , as the footstoole of his Deity . You call this an Argument infallible : nay ( say wee ) but false , because Ambrose doth not say , that wee adore the Sacrament , ( which is the point in Question ) but that in our mysticall Celebration of the memory of Christ his Passion , wee are to adore his Humanity , namely as it is hypostatically united to the person of his God-head , which all Christians professe as well as you , yea even in Baptisme also . II. Ob. g 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 hee adore it . A Testimony which seemeth to you Notable : but which wee judge to be indeed not able at all to prove the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament , even in the Iudgement of Saint Augustine , who hath every-where distinguished betweene the Sacrament and Christs Flesh , as betweene Bread and Christs Body , as hath beene often demonstrated . His meaning therefore is no more but this , that whosoever shall communicate of this Sacrament , the Symboll of Christ must first be a true Christian , believing that Christ is not onely man , but God also , and adore him accordingly with Divine honour , as well before and without the Sacrament , as at the receiving thereof . Even as h h 〈…〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Edit. Paris . 1027. 〈…〉 , speaking of Baptisme , saith that The Catechumenists do adore the Father and the Sonne , but they are not perfect before they are baptized in the name of the Father , and of the Sonne , and of the Holy Ghost . So Athanasius . Consider the words well , the Catechumenists are said not to be perfect , before they are baptized in the name of the Father , Sonne , and Holy Ghost , whom they adore . Therfore did they first adore the Persons , in whose names they were baptized : except some will feigne a Christian Catechumenist to be admitted to holy Baptisme before hee believe and professe that hee believeth ; which is the Adoration of the Blessed Trinity . And is there any of your Priests so unchristian , as not to adore Christ , before hee come to the Communion ? A plaine Case .

⚜ Notwithstanding , were it that the Adoration , above objected out of Saint Augustine , should referre to the time of the Celebration of the Eucharist ; yet will hee not admit of any other Veneration therein , then what may be held as well in the Sacrament of Baptisme ; hee requring that in both these the 2 2 August . de doctrin 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 applyed to the Sacrament it selfe , but to the things signifyed thereby . Which Doctrine of Saint Augustine may serve for an 〈◊〉 as against all other Idolatrous infections , so against your Objection , taken from the false conceipts 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 Booke 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 applyable to the matter in Controversie . ⚜

Will you have any more ? The places alleged out of Saint Augustine , by you , are like Bellerophons Letters , to confute you ; for lest Saint Augustines Reader might mis-construe the meaning of Christs words , by perverting them to a Corporall and Orall eating of his Flesh , a a August . in 〈◊〉 98. Non hoc corpus quod videris munducaturi estis — spiritual ter intellectum vivisic wit . Saint Augustine addeth ( bringing Christ speaking to the Iewes , concerning the eating of his ●lesh ) You are not to eat this flesh , which you see : hee saith not , You are not to see the flesh which you shall eat , ( which is your Romish Iugling : ) 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 Testimonie of Augustine may satisfie for the present , untill 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 Feare , and a minde knowing that 3 3 Dr. Heskins in his Parlium Booke 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 . hee oweth reverence to him , whose Body hee commeth to receive . Which words your Doctor calleth Plaine termes . Sol. And so indeed they are , for proofe of an Adoration to Christ , who is spiritually received in our receiving this Sacrament : ●ut not to the Sacrament it selfe , as unto the very person of Christ . Yea , and the same Reverence wee also professe 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 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 Signes are believed and adored , whereby hee most evidently teacheth the presence of Christ's flesh ( as saith your Cardinall : ) even so , as commonly hee useth to do in alleging of other Testimonies , both unconscionably against his knowledge , and unluckily against his Cause . For with what Conscience can hee urge the word Adoration here , as most evidently noting a Divine worship of the Sacrament , seeing that hee hath before confessed the same word , Adore , to be used of the Fathers , sometimes for worship communicable to Angels , & Saints , and to their Tombes ? yea , and when as also Theodoret ( which proveth your Cardinals Objection lucklesse ) doth expresly say , that The substance of Bread remaineth , meaning absolutely the proper substance of Bread ( as hath beene * * See this discussed to the full . Booke 3. copiously proved ) whereunto no Divine worship can be lawfully given , not onely in the Faith of all other Catholike Fathers ; but even in the beliefe of the Romane Church at this day ? And although the Symbols , and Signes ( as you fancie ) were meere Accidents , yet dare not you your selves 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 eagernesse , than either with good Iudgement or Conscience . Your next Objections are taken from their Acts , whereunto wee addresse our Answers .

CHAP. III.

That no objected Act out of the Fathers , for proofe of an Invocation by Divine Adoration of the Eucharist , is conscionably alleged ; not the first , which is their prescribed Concealment of this Mysterie . SECT. I.

ACts insisted upon by you , for proofe of Adoration ; are these ; The Fathers injoyning a Concealment of this Mysterie from some others : their Elevation of the Host after Consecration : their Cautelousnesse in administring it , without letting any part thereof fall to the ground : their Bodily Gesture in token of Humiliation ; and their pretended Invocating on it . Wee acknowledge ( that wee may begin with the first ) how strictly often times the Ancient Fathers generally prescribed to others , ( which they observed themselves ) that this Mysterie should be kept secret from all persons , who were not initiated by Baptisme , and incorporated therby into the visible Church of Christ , were they Infidels or Catechumenists ( that is ) unbaptized Christians . Vpon this our Confession , as the Base , hearken what a discant your Doctors can chant , saying as followeth ; a 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 mysterie of the Eucharist that onely [ Fideles nôrunt ] the Faithfull know it : and therefore wee must be perswaded they understood a Corporall 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 Fathers professing to write more circumspectly of this Sacrament , so as not daring to explaine it , as Theodoret , Origen , Augustine , Chrysostome ; this were causlesse , if the Fathers had thought Christ's words figurative : nor had it beene more necessary in this than in Baptisme , had the Fathers acknowledged no other presence in this , than in Baptisme , &c. So hee ; and so also your Irish 1 1 Mr. M●llon in his Reply , pag 221. Iesuite .

Well then , by your owne judgement , if it may be found that the Eathers observed a like Circumspection in the maner of uttering , and Cautelousnesse in concealing the Sacrament of Baptisme from Infidels and Catechumenists ; then must you confesse that this your Argument maketh no more for proofe of a Corporall Presence in the Eucharist , as you would have it , than in Baptisme , where you confesse it is no. And now behold the Fathers are as precise in concealing the Mysterie of Baptisme , from all persons unbaptized , even in as expresse termes as was spoken of in the Eucharist ; Chrysostome saying , ( against such Persons ) b b Chrysost. in Gal. 4. Non natura , sed Dei promissio Sacramentum fecit : sic renascentia nostra natura quidem nulla est , caeterum verbum Dei , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . The faithfull know this . And againe , entring into a discourse of Baptisme , he prefaceth saying ; c c And againe in 1. Cor. Hom. 40. about to entreat of the words of S. Paul , [ Quid facientij , qui baptizantur pro mortuis ? [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ⚜ And yet againe , in Ioh. 85. Hom. 33. joyning that Contemplation of Baptisme and of the Eucharist together , hee saith ; 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . id est , Initiati . ⚜ I would indeed speake this plainly , but I dare not , because of them that are not initiated , or Baptized .

⚜ Basil also , speaking of the Rites of Baptisme , saith that 2 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 & otiosos submovet , servârunt ? The Ancient Fathers ( before his time ) left them in silence ; and preserved them from curious and idle men . ⚜ And Dionysius , the supposed Areopagite , d d Dionys. Hierar . cap. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Let none that is not a perfect Christian be admitted to the sight of the signes of Baptisme : even as the Councell e 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 baptized that come to behold this Sacrament . If hereupon any Protestant shall inferre a Corporall Presence of Christ in Baptisme , and consequently an Adoration of Christ in the same Sacrament , you your selves ( wee know ) would but hisse at him , in detestation of his Consequence , as judging it Idolatrous .

But do you aske , why then the Fathers did teach Christians not to speake of these Mysteries in the hearing of the Catechumenists ? Saint Augustine himselfe ( whom your Cardinall hath brought in for defence of Corporall Presence ) will resolve us , and witnesse against him , telling him , not that the reason was the sublimity of the matter , as though they could not apprehend it , but because f f Aug. Tom. 9. Tract . 〈◊〉 in Ioh. 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 generall ) 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 Christs 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 Hoast , and preserving of it from falling , are no Arguments of Divine Adoration . SECT. II.

SEcondly , the Elevation of the Hoast over the head of the Priest is your ordinary Objection , for proofe 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 Booke of the Gospel , in the Roman Church , when it was ( according to the Rite then a 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 Priests elevation ? you would perswade ( in the b b Idem de Ritibus l. 2. cap. 40. in Psal 71. In capite montium : hoc est ( ait Rabbi Ionathan ) 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 Hoast over his head , was prophesied of by the Psalmist ; And , that the Rite of holding the Hoast up was chiefly , that the people knowing it to be now consecrated , should understand that Christ is on the Altar , whom they are to adore by falling downe on the ground . Whereof albeit some of you speak more confidently , yet the most principall searcher into Antiquity dare say no more , than onely This is probable .

Wee contrarily conceive , 1. that that Rabbinish interpretation can be no good ground to rest upon , which * * See above , B. 3. hath bin rejected by Bellarmine , as being idle and frivolous . 2. That the Ceremony of Elevation ( as hath * * See above , B. 6. Chap. 4. Sect. 5. beene confessed ) was neither instituted by Christ , nor yet alwaies 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 Hoast before Consecration ; as your objected c c Missals published by Claudius Sanctes a Parisian Doctor , before Consecration , in the Missal of S. Iames , Attollens : In the Masse of Basil . Exaltans panem . Missals of Saint Iames , and Basil do manifest . Lastly , that where Elevation was practised after Consecration , the objected Authors confute your Assertion , for in Chrysostome ( if wee should grant unto you the whole Liturgie to be his , which the best learned Grecians at this day do * * 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. deny ) it is read , d d After Consecration in the Masse of Chrysostome . 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 e In Dionys. Areoprelating the forme of their Mosse , 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 . ] 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Dionys. Areopag . cap. 3. Denis there is no more , but that The sacred celebrated Symbols were brought into light , which after Consecration hee termeth Vncovered Bread , divided of the Priest into many parts . Bread ( wee say ) broken after Consecration ; which is the break-necke of your whole Defence .

⚜ And why may not wee thinke 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 owne Ritualist , that 3 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 untill after the daies of Thomas Aquinas . So hee ; and that ( you know ) was a thousand and some hundreth of yeares after Christ his Institution of this Sacrament . It were strange , if the Romish Faith had then been , that the Blood of Christ , beeing 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 4 Cassand . in Liturg . cap. 11. Sacerdos sublevet , Id ipsum quoque facit in Calice , sed non elevat . confessed ) used no Elevation . ⚜

Your third Objection is the diligent Caution given by Ancient Fathers , to take heed f 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 crumme fall to the ground . Tract . 4. Sect. ● . And , Pius Bishop of Rome ordained that the conse●rated 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 Masse ( 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 Lawes of Decorum . Marke 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 wee , but that if they should speake out , they should betray their Cause , in calling that little part a part of Bread , as your objected Dionysius spake ? And when all is said , wee heare no proofe 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 . Casuall spilling of the Cup is no sinne .

⚜ Howbeit , wee aske you , whether it were a Veniall sin in your Cardinall , to allege the words of Tertullian , as spoken of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist , which , by the judgement of your owne 5 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 himselfe ; 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 Cardinall Bellarmine and Master Brerely were not in them a fault Common and ordinarie . Howsoever wee 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 blameable for 6 6 Hier. ad Rustic . cap. 4. commending the Bp. Exuperius . Nihil de illo dicimus , qui corpus in canistro , & sanguinem portabat in vitro . Carrying it in a Glasse . And much more condemnable should that godly Pope Zephyrinus have beene 7 7 De Consec . D. 1. C. Vasa . — Zepherinus Episcopus patenis vitrcis Missas celebrare constituit . Who ordained that the Masse should be celebrated in Chalices of Glasse ; which the more brittle they were , the more solidly they confirme unto us this Truth , that Antiquity harboured not your beliefe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament . ⚜

Only we must againe insist in the former Observation , to wit , the frequent speeches of the Fathers , telling ●s of Crums , Fragments , little parts of this Sacrament ; and of Burning them into ashes , after the Celebration ended . Now answer us , in good sadnesse ; was it ever heard of , we say not of ancient Fathers , but of any professing Christianity , were the Catholikes or Heretikes , who would not have judged it most execrible for any to say , or thinke that A crum , 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 speake of Eating , Swallowing , feeding Corporally on Christ's Body ) the Body of Christ were the proper Subject of these accidentall Events .

That the Objection taken from any Gesture , used in the daies 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 Chrysostome will have the Communicant take it with a a Chrysost: in Liturg Posteà similiter Sacerdos sumit sanctum panem , inclinato capite ante sacram mensam orans . Inclining his head downe before the holy Table . Cyril , by b b Cyril . Hieros . Mystag . 5. Accede . ad calicem sanguinis illius pronus [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . ] Bowing after the maner of Adoring . You will be still like your selves , insisting upon H●terogenies , and Arguments which conclude not ad idem . For first , the Examples objected speake not of Bowing downe to the Sacrament , but of our Bowing downe our heads to the ground , in signification of our Vnworthinesse ; 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 shew out of Antiquity , and affirmeth this as a Point ( as c 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 Rubrick of * * The Latine is , Inclinantes Altari : but since I finde it in the Greeke ( before Consecration ) 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; and so thrice the like . After Consecration ; 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 [ Behinde the Table bowing downe his head . ] And againe 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Chrysostomes Liturgie , that the Ministers did use to Incline their Bodies to the holy Table , yet none can be so simple to thinke that they did yield Divine honour unto the Table . Nay , your owne great Master of Ceremonies d d Durant Peractâ thurificatione , Sacerdos levite● incurvescit ante Altare — dum autem inclinat Sacerdos , humilitatem Christi significat . — Sacerdos reflexus ad Altare , cum paratur Consecratio . Lib. 2. de Ritib . cap. 25. Durantus hath observed the like Bewing downe of the Priest in the preparation of this Sacrament , even Before Consecration ; and one of your Iesuites witnesseth that the ( objected ) e e Vasquez . Ies . Graec● Ecclesia antè Consecrationem reverenter adorat , etiam si non sit ibi Christus . De Adorat . lib. 2. c. 11. [ Falsly commenting that this was Divine honour , and iust . ] Greek Church at this day doth Reverently adore , before Consecration of the Bread and Wine , albeit Christ be not therein . And lest you may thinke your Posture of Kneeling to be absolutely necessarie , wee referre you , for your ample satisfaction , to your owne learned French Bishop * * Gabriel Episc. Albisp . Observat . sacr. lib. 1. Observ. 12. professedly discussing this Point .

This being knowne , how can you in any credibility conclude , as you have done , a Corporall 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 shew some Examples of a Bodily Inclining to the Sacrament , done before Consecration , yet after Consecration they have not produced any one .

But what newes now ? We blush , in your behalfe , to repeat the Instance which you have out of your Legends , of a f f Mr. Brerely Liturg. Tract . 2. §. 9. Subd . 3. [ Out of Bellarm. and Bellar. out of Antoninus . ] — When ( not unlike to the reproofe which God miraculously gave to Balaam by the speech of an Asse ) a bruit-beast for our instruction did prostrate himselfe in reverence before the blessed Sacrament . Brute Beast prostrating it selfe before the Host , and doing Reverence unto it . Wee would have concealed this , but that you seeme to glory herein , as being for your Instruction , like to the reproofe given miraculously to Balaam by his Asse . Well might this Legend have become that latter time of darknesse , wherein it was first hatched , but not these cleare daies , wherein your mysteries of Delusions have beene so often revealed , and when all Christians almost in all Countries have taken knowledge of an * * BANKS HIS HORSE ; according to his Masters owne Relation . Horse taught by Art to kneele to any person at his Masters command ; and once in France , when , by the Suggestion and Instigation of Romish Priests , his Master was called into question for Sorcerie , hee for vindication of his credit with them , commanded his Horse to kneele before a Crucifix , and therby freed himselfe from suspition of Diabolicall familiarity , according to the Principles of their owne superstition . And for any one to conclude this to have bin Gods miraculous work in that Horse , ( as the other was in that Asse ) would seeme to be the reason of an unreasonable man ; because all Miracles alwaies exceed all power both of Art , and Nature ; else were they no Miracles at all . Thus to your fourth Objection from outward Acts , we passe on to Examples .

That no Example of Invocation , objected out of Antiquity , can inferre the Divine Honour of the Sacrament , as is pretended . SECT. IV.

YOur Instances are Three ; the principall in Gorgonia , the Sister of Gregory Nazianzen , in whose Oration , at her Funerall , we find that a 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 [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] Antityporū preciosi Corporis & Sanguinis manu recondrderat , ad lachrymis admiscursset ( ô rem admirandam ! ) statim se morbo liberatam sentit . She having been troubled with a prodigious disease , after that neither the Art of Physick , nor teares of her Parents , nor the publike Prayers of the Church could procure her any health , went and cast her selfe downe at the Altar , Invocating Christ , who is honoured on the Altar , saying that she would not remove her head from the Altar , untill shee had received her health : when ( Oh admiable event ! ) she was presently freed from her d●sease . This is the Story set downe by Gregory Nazian●en . Hence your Cardinall 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 onely in respect of them , whose consciences are scorched , or stung with their owne guiltinesse of in forcing and injuring the Story , as will now appeare .

For first , why should wee thinke that she invocated the Sacrament ? Because ( saith your b 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 Cardinall ) she prostrated her selfe at the Altar , before the Sacrament ; which words [ Before the Sacrament ] are of his owne coyning , and no part of the Story . His next reason ; Because she is said to have invocated him , who is honored 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 Sacramentall Symbols had beene then on the Altar , yet would it not follow , that she invocated the Sacrament , as betokening a Corporall presence of Christ ( as your Disputers have fancied ) no more than if the said godly woman upon the same occasion presenting her selfe at the sacred Font , wherin she had beene baptized , could be thought to have invocated the water therein ; because she was said to have invocated him , who is honoured in the Administration of Baptisme . And furthermore it is certaine , that the Remainders of the Sacrament in those daies were kept in their Pastophorium , a * * See above , Book 4. Chap. 1. Sect. 10. As further also appeareth in the Liturgie of pope Clement ; Accipiant Diacont reliquias , & portent in Pastophoria ( Doubtlesse 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. Baptisme . But , for a Conclusion , wee shal willingly admit of Gregory Nazianzen to be Vmpier betweene us . He , in relating the Story , saith of the Sacrament of the Eucharist ; 9 9 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Orat. 11. quo supra . If shee 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 shee mingled with her teares . So hee , calling the consecrated Sacrament Antitypes , or Signes of Christ's Body : therby signifying , that the Sacrament is not the Body and Blood of Christ , as hath been * * Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. proved unto you at large out of Nazianzen , and other Greeke Fathers , Whereas if indeed he had meant that the Body and Blood of Christ had beene there corporally present , as that which was Invocated ; then now ( if ever ) it had concerned this holy Father to have expresly 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 . Wee say of the Body and Blood of Christ , and not ( as hee said ) of the Antitypes , or Signes 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 c Bellar. Dionys. Areop. Hier. cap. 3. part . 3. O divinissimum & sacrosanctum Sacramentum , obducta tibi significancium signorum operimenta aperi , &c. 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. Aud indeed who not ? said , O must divine Sacrament , reveale union us the mysterie of thy signes , &c. which in the eares of your Disputers ringeth a flat Invocation of the Sacrament : ⚜ And that 10 10 Mallon . Ies. in his Reply . Nothing could be said more plainly . ⚜ Contrariwise wee confidently affirme , that your Teachers have taken a figure Prosopopoeia for Invocation ; like men who take Moon-shine for Day-light , as wee shall manifest by Examples , Confessions , yea and the very Instance of Dionysius himselfe .

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 , Heare ô Heavens , and hearken ô Earth , Isa. 1. In like maner , among the Ancient Fathers , one called upon his owne Church Anastasia , whence he was to depart , and saying thus , d d Nazian. Orat. 32. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Oh Anastasia , which hast restored our Doctrine , when it was despised ! Others of the Element of Baptisme , thus : Oh water that hath washed our Saviour , and deserved to be a Sacrament ! or thus , e e Ambros . in Luc. lib. 10. cap. 22. O aqua , tu aspersum sanguine ( Christum ) lavisti , Sacramentum Christi esse meruisti , &c. Oh water which once purged the world , yea ( as another ) and naming it f f Optat. lib. 6. cont. Parmē . O aqua , quae & purum feceras orbē , & terram lavisti . Greg. Nyssen . Divinū lavacrum , See above , Booke 3. C. 3. §. 13. A Divine Lavacre , &c. Nay , you your selves can sing , & chant it to the Crosse , g g O salve Crux , spes unica ! auge piis justitiam , &c. Est Prosopopoeia . Vasquez . Ies. lib. 2. de Adorat . Disp. 9. cap. 4. pag. 445. Oh Crosse our only hope , &c. and in expounding the same , allow no more than a Prosopopoeia and figurative speech , lest that otherwise your Invocation may be judged Idolatrous . And wheras in another Romish Anthem it is sung of the Eucharist , Oh holy Feast ! This Saying ( saith another h h O sacrum cōvivium ! quod omni Sacramento convenit . Tolet. Ies. Instruct . Sacerd. lib. 2. cap. 15. pag. 366. Iesuite ) agreeth to every Sacrament . Thus have you heard both from Fathers , and from your selves the like Tenour of Invocation ; Oh Church ! Oh Water ! Oh Crosse ! 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 voyce , so in sense the same which we judge it to be , what better Interpreter can you require of this Greeke Author Dionysius , than was his Greeke Scholiast Pachymeres ? who hath given his Iudgement of this very speech directly , saying that i 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 , &c. 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 Mysterie . 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 soules of men ? In which maner of speech , notwithstanding , wee 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 Corporall Presence therein , reade but one Chapter of the same Author , and hee will teach you to say as much of many other things , wherein you will not believe any Corporall Existence of Christ , we are sure : for there he equally nameth the place of Celebration , * * See above Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect 13. Divine Altar ; the Sacramental Signes , 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 shewne , what holy Father hath left in writing the words of Invocation ? Thus that Father , whence your Father Bellarmine thus ; k 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 consecrationē 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 , &c. Hence know we the Custome of the ancient Church , namely , that the Eucharist is shewne 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 Cardinall 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 Cons●cration , ( when as yet , by your owne Doctrine , Christ is not present ) as spoken of an Invocation of the Eucharist after Consecration ; for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ therein , and the Divine Adoration thereof , as will most evidently appeare . For first it is not unknown to you , that the Greeke Church differeth from your Roman in the forme 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 Greeke Church . Secondly , your l l Archiep. Caesariens . seu Christoph . de Capite fontium , Tractat . var. Sacerdos invocando Deum panē consecravit : Hanc alij , ut Tertull. Iren. Iustin . Gratiarum actionē hujusmodi Invocationem seu benedictionem vocant . pag. 34. Alicubi Theodoret Basil . Cyril . Hierosol . Iren. Damascen . Theoph. Alex . vocant Eucharistiae formam 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Invocationem . Ibid. pag. 33. And hee allegeth your Lindanus for a Suffragator in this point . Archbishop of Caesarea , for proofe that Invocation by prayers was a forme of Consecration used primitively in the Greeke Church , citeth the two most ancient Fathers , Tertullian and Irenaeus ; and of the Greeke he allegeth Iustine , Cyril , Damascen , Theophilus Alex. yea , and ( by your leave ) Basil himselfe too : and that Basil was an Orthodoxe Greeke Father you will not deny .

Thirdly , therfore ( to come home unto you ) wee shall be directed by the Objected words of Basil himselfe , appealing herein to your owne consciences . For your Lindanus was , in the estimation of your Church , the strongest Champion in his time for your Romane Cause ; he , to prove that the forme of Consecratio , of the Eucharist standeth not in any prescribed words in the Gospel , but in words of Invocation by prayer ( as * * See Booke 1. Chap. 2. hath been confirmed by a Torrent of Ancient Fathers ) saith , m m Paulus non tradidit formā Consecrationis , quod Basilius ità illustrat , 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 shewne unto us ? adding , That no man of sound Braines can require any more , for the clearing of the point concerning●th forme 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 ( wee will not say , unlearnedly ) hath enforced .

Looke upon the Text againe , for your better satisfaction ; It speaketh expresly of an Invocation , when Bread is shewne : but you deny that Bread is Invocated upon , untill 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 hee had expresly 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 Greeke Missals do ratifie unto us . For , in the Liturgie ascribed to Saint n n Liturg. Iac. [ Sancte Domine , &c. ] Iames the Apostle , the Consecration is by Invocating and praying thus , Holy Lord who dwellest in holiest &c. The Liturgie of o o Liturg. Chrysost . [ Adhuc offerimus — mitte Spiritum , &c. ] Chrys●stome Invocateth by praying ; Wee beseech thee , O Lord , to send thy Spirit upon these Gifts prepared before us , &c. The Liturgie under the name of p p Liturg. Basil . [ Respice Domine . ] Basil consecrateth by this Invocation , when the Priest lifteth up the Bread , Looke downe , O Lord Iesu our God , from thy holy habitation , and vouchsafe , &c. 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 10 Cyril . Hiero. sol. Mystag . Catech. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Cyril calleth an Invocation of the holy Trinity . ⚜ And as for any expresse or prescribed forme or prayer to be used of All , well might Basil say , Who hath set it downe in writing ? that is , It was never delivered either in Scripture , or in the Bookes of any Author of former Antiquity ; and this is that which is testified in your owne q q Decret. part. 1. cap. 11. Ecclesiasticorum . Aug. ex Basilio ; Quae scripta nobis , quibus verbis sit Consecratio , commendavit ? Bookes of Augustine , out of Basil , saying that No writing hath delivered in what words the forme of Consecration was made .

Now then , guesse you what was in the braines of your Disputers , in objecting this Testimony of Basil , contrary to the evident Sense ; and accordingly judge of the weaknesse of your Cause , which hath no better supports than such fond , false , and ridiculous Objections to relye upon . Such as is also that your r r 〈…〉 Bellar. lib 2. de Euch. cap 8. §. Alt●rum . Cardinall 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 beene 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 Mysterie of the Eucharist , by celebrating the maner of his death , ( as Hierome may be said to have adored at Ierusalem , Christ in his Cratch ; or as every Christian doth in the Mysterie of Baptisme ) wee could store you with multitudes : but of Adoring the Eucharist , with a proper Invocation of Christ himselfe , wee have not as yet received from you any one .

⚜ A Vindication of the Testimonies of Dionysius , Pachymeres , and Nazianzen , against the late vaine Calumniations of a Romish Seducer . SECT. V.

IN the former Section was objected the Testimonie of Dionysius , saying of the Eucharist [ ô Divine Sacrament ! ] as if it had beene spoken to the Sacrament , by invocating of it ; and implying therein a Divine Adoration , because of that Corporall presence of Christ under the Formers of Bread and Wine . The Insufficiencie of this Consequence was manifested ( besides divers other Instances ) by the Testimonie of Pachym●res your Greeke Expositour of Dionysius , referring us to Nazianzen his like words , when hee sayd [ ô great and holy Pascha . ]

A late Romish Seducer ( to omit his verball wranglings , which are now removed in this second Edition ) falleth foule upon mee in an invective Conclusion , saying [ So wee see that Bellarmine , Dionysius , Pachymeres , and Nazianzen all agree : and that onely my Lord of Durham hath dealt injuriously with them all . ] So hee . Even so , as it became an egregious Seducer to say , as will now appeare . The parties , which are said to be injured , are no lesse than fower ; 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 himselfe ; unto whose sentence wee were so referred . Whose words are these [ ô great and holy Pascha : ] which words , sayd 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 [ ô great and holy Pascha ] Nazianzen declareth his Invocation of Christ therein . So hee . As soone then as wee shall understand the words of Nazianzen aright , wee shall easily discerne the Exposition of Pachymeres , and by him the meaning of Dionysius , and consequently the meere Sophistry ( as I called it ) of your Cardinall Bellarmine .

The words of Nazianzen , truly translated , are these ; [ But ô Pascha , the great and holy , the purification of the world , for I will speake unto thee as to that , which , as it were , hath Life . ] The last words , [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] will assoile the whole doubt , which are spoken onely by way of a Metaphoricall Similitude , thus ; [ As to that , which , as it were , hath Life : ] thereby implying , that it is in it selfe without Life , as both your Billius the Translator of Nazianzen , and Nicetas his Commentator and Expositor ; and lastly , Nazianzen himselfe will manifest . I. Billius ( being hee whom the Romish Seducer himselfe hath attested , and whom wee now assume for our Proctor ) translateth Nazianzen's words thus ; [ 11 11 Billius in Orat. 42. Nazianz. To enim quasi vitâ praeditum alloquar . For I will speake unto thee , even as having Life : or , to that , which , as it were , hath Life : ] Wee demand then , would any but an Anti-Christian say of Christ , that he is but a [ Quasi ] one who , as it were , hath Life ? Secondly Nicetas , Metropolitane of Heraclea , is a professed and privileged Expositor of Nazianzen , him wee desire to be our Advocate in this Cause . [ 12 12 Nicetas in locum ipsum Nazianz. [ O Pascha magnum & sacrum Pascha , &c. ] Haec verba Nazianzeni ad Festum ipsum perinde ac vitâ praeditum refert . These words of Nazianzen [ ô great Pascha , I say , ô sacred Pascha ] Nazianzen ( saith hee ) referreth unto the Feast it selfe , as if it were indued with Life . ] So hee . 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 it selfe ] called in Greeke and Latine Pascha , and by us Pace or Easter , and not to the Eucharist ? which was that my Conclusion , against which the Romish Seducer hath revelled , and thereupon in a maner reviled me , to make me a Falsificator like himselfe .

Lastly Nazianzen is hee , whom wee 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 , hee 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 ; ] expresly speaking not of Christ the Lord , nor of the Eucharist , but of that which hee calleth The Feast of Feasts : namely , that , which hee as expresly 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 Ecchoing as it were to the Former saith [ ô great and holy Pascha ] namely , in respect of the same Pascha , the Feast of Feasts , and Celebritie of Celebrities .

But this Romish Seducer , never considering these Premises , peremptorily posteth on , objecting onely the words of Nazianzen immediately following , which unto a Cursory Reader , might seeme to make , for him , some shew of Confutation ; for thus hee proceeds : [ ô word of God , and Light , and Life , and Wisedome , and Power , for I am delighted with all thy names , &c. ] Which words we confesse are spoken of Christ , and not of the Feast , whereupon your Seducer concludeth , that the former words [ ô Pascha ] refer likewise to Christ . Which his Erroneous conceipt hath beene long since confuted by the forenamed Bishop Nicetas , expresly affirming of these words that They were spoken of the * * See above a● [ 12 ] Feast , and these last words [ ô Word of God and Light , &c. ] are spoken indeed to Christ the spirituall Pascha . But how ? by Invocation ? no : but by Acclamation ( saith hee ) nothing being more Familiar to Orators , than to use Apostrophe's , by Transition from the Signe to the Thing signified : as here , from the Signe , which was Christ's day of Resurrection , to the Contemplation of the person risen againe .

Notwithstanding , were it that this had beene an Invocation of Christ , yet except it had beene an Invocation of him , as hee was then in the Eucharist , it maketh nothing at all for Bellarmines Conclusion , which was thus , Ergò Christ is corporally is this Sacrament , and to be Divinely adored therin .

By all which you may clearly discern the true meaning of the first objected Author Dionysius from his Expositor Pachymeres . II. The Iudgement of Pachymeres , by his Reference to the Sentence of Gregory Nazianzen . III. The exact Vnderstanding of Gregory Nazianzen , by the Commentarie of the Bishop Nicetas . And IV. the truth of that Commentarie by the Tenor of Nazianzen's Oration it selfe , as you have heard ; and consequently that there is still just Cause for us to exclaime both against the Sophistry of your Bellarmine , and rashnesse and impotencie , if not impudencie rather , of this frivolous Seducer and Calumniator . ⚜

CHAP. IV.

That the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice Repugnant to the Iudgement of Antiquity . First by their Silence . SECT. I.

YOu are not to require of us , that wee produce the expresse 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 satisfie you , that your owne most zealous , indefatigable , subtile , and skilfull Miners , digging and searching into all the Volumes of Antiquity , which have beene extant in the Christian world for the space of sixe or seven hundred yeares after Christ , yet have not beene able to extract from them any proofe of a Divine honour , as due to this Sacrament , either in expresse words , or practice ; insomuch that you are enforced to obtrude onely such Sentences , and Acts , which equally extend to the honouring of the Sacrament of Baptisme , and other sacred things , whereunto ( even according to your owne Romish Profession ) Divine honour cannot be attributed without grosse Idolatry : and neverthelesse have your Disputers not spared to call such their Objections Cleare Arguments , piercing , and unsoluble .

Wee therfore make bold hereupon to knocke at the Consistory doore of the Conscience of every man , indued with any small glimpse of Reason , and to entreat him , for Christs sake , whose Cause it is , to judge betweene Rome and Vs , after hee hath heard the case , which standeth thus ; Divine Adoration of the Host is held to be , in the Romish Profession , the principall practicke part of Christian Religion .

Next , the ancient Fathers of the Church were the faithfull Registers of Catholike Truth , in all necessary points of Christian Faith , and Divine worship . They in their Writings manifoldly instructed their Readers by Exhortations , Admonitions , Perswasions , and Precepts how they are to demeane 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 Iudgement of every man , whether it can fall within his capacity to thinke it Credible , that those Fathers , if they had beene of the now Romish Faith , would not have expresly 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 publike forme of Prayer , and Invocation in their solemne Masses ; or else to confesse , that Antiquity never fancied any Divine Adoration of the Eucharist .

Yet two words more . You presse the point of the Invocation of the Sacrament more urgently and vehemently than any other : and wee indeed believe that the ancient Fathers ( if they had held , according to the now Romane Church , a Corporall presence of Christ ) would never have celebrated any Masse , without an expresse Invocation of the Sacrament , as in your now-Romane Masse , wee finde it done , saying , O Lambe of God , &c. or some other like forme . Yet know ( now ) that your owne learned Pamelius hath published two large Tomes of all the Masses in the Latine Church , from Pope Clemens downe to Pope Gregory ( containing the compasse of six hundred yeares ) wee say , Latine Missals above forty in number ; in all which , upon our once reading , wee presume to say that there is not one such tenour of Invocation at all . This our first Reason , taken from so universall a silence of ancient Fathers , in a case of so necessary a moment , may be ( wee thinke ) satisfactory in it selfe to any man of ordinary Reason . Our second Objection out of the Fathers followeth .

That the Ancient Fathers gain-sayd the Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament , and the Adoration therof , by their Preface , in their presenting the Host , saying , [ Lift up your Hearts . ] SECT. II.

IT was the generall Preface of Antiquity , used in the Celebration of this Sacrament , for the Minister to say , [ Lift up your Hearts , ] and the People to answer , [ Wee lift them up unto the Lord. ] This [ Sursum Corda ] Calvin a a Calvin . Instit. lib. 2. c. 17. §. 36. Nec alia cau●â in antiqua Ecclesia fuisse institutum , ut antè mysteriotum celebrationē diceretur , [ Sursùm corda . ] hath objected against you ; and your Cardinall confessing that this Preface b b In omnibus Liturgiis Graecis Iacobi , Basilij , Chrysost. et omnibus Latinis habetur id , quod etiam hoc tempore nos facimus . Bellar lib. 1. de Euch. ca. 14. §. Respondeo si . was in use in all Liturgies of Antiquity , aswell Greeke as Latine , and continued in the Church of Rome unto this day ; Then answereth , that c c Respondeo [ Sursùm corda ] non significare elevationem ad locum corporalem , sed elevationem à rebus terrenis & curis hujus vitae , ad Deum & res aeternas . Non respondetur , Habemus ad firmamentum , sed [ Habemus ad Dominum . ] Et certè qui Christum quaerebant in praesepi , in templo , in sepulchro , Sursùm corda habebant , quia illum quaerebant , qui est super omnia , Deus benedictus in secula . — Et fieri potest ut qui terram intuetur , cor deor um — Sic qui in Eucharistia Christum quaerunt & venerantur , cor sursum habent , si de ipso Christo , non de negotiis hujus vitae interim cogitent . Bellarm. Ibid. Hee that seeketh Christ in the Eucharist , and worshippeth him , if hee thinke of Christ , and not of the Cares of earthly things , hee hath his heart above . So hee . As though the word [ Above ] meant , as the Subject , the person of Christ in the Eucharist , and not his place of residence in the highest Heavens ; contrary to the word in the Greeke * * Liturg. Graec. [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . ] Liturgies , which is [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] Above , wherein the Church alludeth to that [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] of the Apostle , Coloss. 3. 1. Seeke the things that are above , where Christ is at the right hand of God , as your owne d d Monet ergo Sacerdos populum [ Sursùm ] i. e. super seipsum elevare corda ad Dominum , juxtà exhortationem Apostoli , Col. 3. Quae sursùm sunt quaerite , non quae super terram . Durand . Ration . lib. 4. cap. 33. Durandus , the Expositor of the Romish Masse , doth acknowledge . Saint Augustine saying , e e Aug. in Psal. 148. [ Laudate Dominum in excelsis . ] Primò de coelo dicit , posteà de terris : laudatur enim Deus , qui fecit coelum & terram . Nos adhuc in imo sumus , sed cum cogitamus quomodo illic laudetur Deus , cor ibi habeamus : & non sine causa audimus [ Sursùm corda . ] It is not without Cause , that it is said , Lift up your hearts ; Hee sheweth the Cause to be , that wee , who are here at the Bottome , might ( according to that of the Psalmist ) Praise God in the highest .

This , one would thinke , is plaine enough , but that is much more , which wee have already proved out of the Fathers , by their Antithesis , and Opposition betweene the Altar on Earth , and the other in Heaven ; where wee have heard * * See above , Booke 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. &c. Chrysostome distinguishing them that fasten their thoughts upon this Below , from Them that seeke Christ in Heaven , as hee doth Choughs from Eagles . Ambrose , as they that behold the Image , from them that contemplate upon the Truth . * * Ibid. Nazianzen , as they that looke upon the Signes , from them that see the Things ; and to contemplate upon the Better Altar in Heaven . And the Councel of * * Booke 4. Chap. 11. Sect. 4. Nice , as they that stoope downe , from them that looke up aloft . And wee may not forget the Observation which * * Booke 5. Chap. 5. Sect. ● . Athanasius made of Christ , in his discourse of Eating his Flesh , and drinking his Blood ; purposely making mention of his Ascension into Heaven , thereby to draw their thoughts from earthly Imaginations , and to consider him as being in Heaven ; as did also Saint * * Aug. See above B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. Augustine .

Cyril of Hierusalem is a Father whom you have often sollicited to speake for your Cause in other Cases , but all in vaine ; shall wee hearken to him in this ? Hee interpreting these words [ Lift up your Hearts , ] will not have it onely to signifie a sequestring of your thoughts from earthly Cares to spirituall and heavenly ( which you say was the meaning of the Councel of Nice , as if that Lifting up their Hearts had beene onely an exercising of their thoughts upon that in the hands of the Priest , or on the Altar beneath ; ) No , but hee saith that it is f f Cyril . Hier. Catech. Mystag . 5. Ob hanc causam clamat Sacerdos [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] quià oportet sursùm habere cor , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , & non ad terrena negotia deprimere . Paulò post , 19. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 To have our hearts in heaven with God the lover of man-kind : even as did also Saint g 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 Eucharisticall Sacrifice on this Altar , so would hee have us to seeke for our Priest in heaven : namely , as Origen more expresly said , Not on earth , but in heaven : accordingly Oecumenius , placing the Host and Sacrifice where Christs Invisible Temple is , even in heaven . ⚜ Agreeable to this are the words of Hierome , whom notwithstanding your owne 1 1 Dr. Heskins Parliam . Booke 2. Ch. 53. out of Hier. Epist ad Hebdib . qu. 2. Doctor hath objected as a Patron , for defence of your Romish Masse ; 2 2 Hier 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 cleane ; and let us receive of him the Cup of the new Testament : and there keeping the Passeover with him , let us be made drunke with the wine of Sobriety . All , as plaine as plainnesse it selfe . ⚜

Will you suffer one , whom the world knoweth to have been as excellently versed in Antiquity as any other , to determine this Point ? Hee will come home unto you ; h h Tempore veters Ecclesiae Romanae populus non cursitabat ad videndum id quod Sacerdos ostendit , sed prostratis humi corporibus , animis in coelum erectis , gratias agebant Redemptori . Eras . lib. de amab . Eccles. Concord . In the time of the ancient Church of Rome ( saith hee ) the people did not run hither and thither to behold that which the Priest doth shew , but prostrating their Bodies on the ground , they lift up their minds to heaven , giving thanks to their Redeemer . So hee . Thus may wee justly appeale , as in all other Causes of moment , so in this , from this degenerate Church of Rome , to the sincere Church of Rome , in the Primitive times ; like as one is reported to have Appealed from Caesar sleeping to Caesar waking . Our difference then can be no other than was that betweene Mary and Stephen , noted by Ambrose , i i Ambros . in Luc. cap. 24. Maria , quae quaerebat Christum in terra , ●angere non potuit : Stephanus tetigit , qui quaesivit in coelo . Mary , because shee sought to touch Christ on earth , could not ; but Stephen touched him , who sought him in heaven . A third Argument followeth .

That the ancient Fathers cendemned the Romish worship by their Descriptions of Divine Adoration . SECT. III.

ALl Divine Adoration of a meere Creature is Idolatry ; hereunto accord these sayings of k 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 Catholike Christian doth worship , as a Divine Power , that which is created of God . Or thus , I feare to worship earth , lest hee condemne mee , who created both Heaven and earth . Or thus , If I should worship a Creature , I could not be named a Christian . It were a tedious superfluity , in a matter so universally confessed by your selves , and all Christians , to use Witnesses unnecessarily . Wee adde the Assumption . But the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament is an attributing of Divine Honour to a meere Creature , the Consecrated Bread . For that it is still Bread , you shall find to have beene the Doctrine of Primitive Fathers , if you shall but have the patience to stay untill wee deliver unto you a * * See Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Synopsis of their Catholike Iudgement herein ; after that wee have duly examined your Romish Doctrine by your owne Principles , which is the next point .

CHAP. V. An Examination of the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament in the Masse , to prove it Idolatrous , by discussing your owne Principles . The State of the Question .

IDolatry , by the Distinction of your Iesuites , is either Materiall , or Formall . The Materiall you call that , when the Worshipper adoreth something in stead of God , in a wrong perswasion that it is God ; otherwise you judge the Worship to be a Formall Idolatry . Now because many of your seduced Romanists are perswaded that your Romish worship , in your Masse , cannot be subject either to Materiall or Formall Idolatry , it concerneth us in Conscience , both for the honour of God , and safety of all that feare God , to prove Both. Wee begin at that which you confesse to be a Materiall Idolatry .

That the Romish Adoration of the Host , in the hand of the Priest , is necessarily a Materiall Idolatry , by reason of many hundred confessed Defects : whereof Seven concerne the Matter of the Sacrament . SECT. I.

IT is a point unquestionable among you , that if the thing , in the hand of the Priest , be not duly Consecrated , then the Matter Adored is but a meere Creature ; and your Adoration must needs be , at the least , a Materiall Idolatry . The Seven defects , set downe in your Romane a a Missal . Rom. pag. 31. Vbi debita materia deficit , non conficitur Sacramentum . — Si non sit panis triticeus , vel si alioqui corruptus . Et pag. 32. Si Vinum sit factum acetum , vel penitùs putidum , vel de uvis acerbis & non maturis expressum , vel admixtum aquae , ut sit corruptum , non conficitur Sacramentum . Missall , and by your b b Dico , species consecratae perfectè misceri possunt cum liquore specie distincto , & tum non manet sub eis sanguis Christi . Ità Thomas . Teste Suar. Ies . in 3. Thom. Disp. 67 Sect. 4. § Dico . Et Durand . Si plus apponatur Aquae quàm Vini , erit irritum Sacramentum . Lib. 4. cap. 42. Iesuite , are these ; First , If the Bread be not of Wheat ; or secondly , Be corrupt ; or thirdly , the Wine be turned Vinegar ; or fourthly , of sowre ; or fifthly , unripe Grapes ; or sixthly , be stinking , or imperfectly mixt with any liquor of any other kinde , the Consecration is void : so that neither Body or Blood of Christ can be there present ; seventhly , yea , and if there be more Water than Wine . So you . All which Defects how easily they may happen , beyond the understanding of every Consecrating Priest , let Bakers and Vintners judge .

That there are Sixe other c 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 , transpositionē , 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 , &c. ] Si quis diminueret aliquid , aut immutaret de forma Cōsecrationis , 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 inferre an Idolatrous Adoration , in respect of the Forme of Consecrating . SECT. II.

AS thus ; If the Priest faile 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 Romane Missall and Doctors say may happen , in either of both , sixe maner of wayes : 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 betweene , which are impertinent . Each one of these faults , ( say you ) concerning either Element , doth so disannull the Consecration , that The thing adored is still but Bread and Wine , and therefore the worship thereof must be a Materiall Idolatry . So you .

And how easie it is for the Priest ( that wee may use your owne 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 hee might erre in his Grammar , in using the singular number for the plurall ) Consecrated in these words , d d Agrippa . Sicut narratur de Sacrificulo , sivè verum , sivè 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 : wee say for the possibility of these and the like Lapses ( beside this last from the want of wit ) the manifold infirmities of mans speech , either upon Amazement , or Temulencie , or Temerity and Negligence , or Imperfection of a Stammering tongue , can give you a shrewd guesse .

That there are Foure other confessed kinde of Defects , in respect of the Priests Intention , whereby the Consecration being hindred , the Romish Adoration must needs be materially Idolatrous . SECT. III.

AS for Example , first , c 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. — Vel ex oblivione , cùm hostia aliqua lateat , cùm non intendit consecrare nisi quas videt . Vel si habens coram se vndecim hostias , & intendat consecrare decem , non determinans quas decem intendit , non consecrat , quia requiritur Intentio . Missal . Ibid. If the Priest in Consecrating ( saith your Cardinall ) have no intention to consecrate at all ; or ( to speake from your Romish Missal it selfe ) secondly , If his virtuall Intention in Consecrating be not to do as the Church doth ; or thirdly , If hee should consecrate but in mockery ; or fourthly , Hee having more Hosts before him than hee is aware of ; if hee intend to consecrate fewer than there are before him ; and yet not knowing which of them all to omit . Of the Easinesse of all these Defects , the possibility of retchlesnesse , of infidelity , of mockery , and of obliviousnesse in some Priests may sufficiently prognosticate ; each of which inferreth a confessed Materiall Idolatry .

That there are Sixe other Defects able to frustrate the Consecration , by reason of the person of the Priest himselfe , as being Incompetent for want of due Baptisme . SECT. IV.

FOr first you have a a a Decret. li. 13. tit. 43. cap. 3. Vehiens ad gradum Sacerdotij comperit tandem quod non sit baptizatus , ritè fecimus ipsum baptizari . Case of one being a Priest , who had not beene baptized ; and next concerning Defects of Baptisme , you resolve ( as before of pronunciation of the forme of the Eucharist ) b 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 , &c. Alan . Card de Sacrā . in Gen. cap. 21. And Azorius , See above , Sect. 2. lit . (c) that if in pronunciation of the wordes of Baptisme [ 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 sixe Defects , ( already spoken of ) as in saying , Ego te baptizo in nomine Patriae , &c. or the like , then the whole Consecration is of no effect . The possibility of womens erring in their ministery of Baptisme , Cardinal Pole may seeme to teach in that his Article , whereby it is inquired , c c M. Fox his Acts and Monum . pag. 1969. Whether Parsons , Vicars , and Curates be diligent in teaching women to baptize Children after the maner of the Church .

Take with you another Case , supposed by your selves , the d 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 , &c. Author delivereth it at length , the briefe is this : The woman baptizeth an Infant , because it is the Child of a noble man , in Rosewater , the Baptisme is voyd ; the Childe 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 knowne , but who they were that had beene ordained cannot possibly be knowne , whose Ordinations are all invalid , and their Ministery 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 beene so irregularly ordained , onely by his word , Dicendo , sint Saderdotes , saying , Be they all Priests . So hee , who notwithstanding had rather thinke the Case could not possibly happen , than to trust to this Remedy . How-ever it might be in this one , the possibility of the other Six Defects neither man nor woman can deny , every one concluding a Materiall 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 Materiall 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 onely of Bread , and Wine ; as if hee be an Intruder , and not ordained at all : or else of the forme of Ordination , viz. [ Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium : Et Accipe Spiritum Sanctum , quorum peccataremiseris , remissa , &c. ] As if it hath beene corrupted , by missing so much as one Syllable , or Letter , by Addition , Detraction , or any of the Sixe Errors before rehearsed ; as Accipe Spiritu Sancto , for Spiritum Sanctum ; or , Accipe potestatem ferendi Sacrificium , for Offerendi , or the like ; ⚜ to the 1 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 , &c. Altering of the Sense of the Speech . ⚜

That there are many hundred confessed Defects , which may nullifie the Consecration , to make the Romish Adoration Idolatrous , in respect of Insufficiencies , which might be incident unto the Prae-ordainers of that Priest , whosoever hee be , that now Consecrateth ; for causing a Materiall Idolatry . SECT. VI.

IF the a 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 himselfe , truly ordained , or duly baptized ; or else the next Bishop before him , or yet any one in the same line of Ordainers , untill you come to Saint Peter , for the space ( now ) of a thousand six hundred yeares , whereof your Iesuite saith ; b 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 seene in many Cases , wherein , Progredi possumus ferè in Infinitum ( that is ) wee may proceed almost infinitely . So hee . Thinking belike that if wee should in this number of yeares allow unto every Bishop ordaining the continuance of twenty yeares 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 , then this Priest faileth in his Priest-hood . Now of these kindes your c 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 Ioh. 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 d Platina in vita Steph. 6. de Formoso ; Abscissis duobus dextrae illius digitis , potissimum eis , quibus Sacerdotes in Consecratione utuntur . Popes fingers , wherewith hee had used to consecrate . ⚜ You may also reade of One , who consecrated an huge number of 2 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 Controv. Tract. 3. qu. 25. Priests , Whose Ordinations were all voyd , albeit they had exercised their functions of Consecrating , in the Masse , for ten or twelve yeares space . ⚜

Yet is not this all , for unto these are to be added the other Defects , to wit , want of Baptisme , 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 eighteene : and these being multiplied by fourescore ( which is the number of Bishop-ordainers from this Bishop to Saint Peter ) the totall , wee suppose , will at the least amount unto a Thousand possible Defects , each one whereof , if it happen , doth quite frustrate and annull the Consecration of this Priest , whosoever hee be , that now saith Masse ; and leaveth to the people nothing but the Substance of the Creatures of Bread and Wine to be Adored , in stead of Christ Iesus , the Sonne of God . And yet in this Summe are not reckoned the foresaid Defects concerning the Matter , or Forme of Consecration , or of the Priests Intention therein , or else of his possible Intrusion into this Function of Consecrating of this one Priest , now supposed to bee ordained ; every Defect being of force in it selfe to inferre necessarily a Materiall Idolatry in your Romish Masse .

Now rather than you shall call these our Instances odious , or malicious , you must accuse your owne Romish Church , because wee have alleged no Testimony , but out of your owne publke Romish Missall , Cardinalls , Iesuits , and other Authors privileged in your Church . Wee are now in the high point of Christian Religion , even the principall part of Gods Royalty , Divine Adoration , not to be trifled withall . Therefore now , if ever , shew your selves conscionable Divines , by freeing your Romish Masse from a Formall Idolatry in these forenamed Respects , concerning your confessed Materiall 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 Formall Idolatry , notwithstanding any Pretence that by your Romish Doctors hath beene made to the Contrary .

The State of the Question . SECT. I.

VPon this occasion , oh ! how your Summists , Theologues , and Casuists do bestirre themselves , for the vindicating of your Church from the guilt of Formall Idolatry ? The Briefe of your Defence is this : a a Bellar. Vbi deest vera Consecratio , nullum est periculum in eo , qui bonâ side Sacramētum 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 speculativè 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 Actuall , albeit Tacitam , Azor. Ies . reckoneth from Gabriel in Can. Missae , Thom. Bonavent . Albert. Richard . yea and Canonistas Theologos , excepting Cajetan . Hassel . Claud. Sainctes , 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 mente & 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 cogitatione . Idem Gabriel . Marsil . & communiter Summistae , verbo , Adoratio . Ità Suarez Tom. 3. quaest. 79. Art. 8. Disp. 6● . pag. 828. col . 2. Nihil obfuit Iacob , 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 , &c. 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 Morall certainty , with a sincere mind and good intention , doth adore Bread , it is but Materiall , and no Formall Idolatry , so that hee have an Habituall condition , as being so disposed in his mind , not to give a Divine honour unto it , if hee knew it to be but Bread . As for Example ; Hee that giveth an Almes to a Rich man , being probably perswaded that hee is not rich , the Act proceedeth from a pious Intention . And , As it was no Sin in Iacob to lye with Leah , because hee thought her to be his wife ; so in this case it is no formall Idolatry to worship Bread , being Morally perswaded that it is Christ . Thus they .

Your Pretences herein are three ; Morall Certainty , Good Intent , and ( at least ) Habituall Condition . But alas ! all this is but Sowing Fig-leaves together , which will never be able to cover your foule shame of grosse Idolatry . To begin first with that which you call Morall Certainty .

That the Pretence of Morall Certainty of worshipping of Bread , instead of Christ , cannot free the Romish Church from Formall Idolatry . SECT. II.

OVr Confutation is grounded upon divers impregnable Reasons , one whereof is taken from the Iealousie 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 Vncertainty of that , which you call Morall Certainty .

First then , although Morall and Conjecturall perswasions might excuse mens Actions in divers Cases , yet in an Object of Divine Worship it is utterly condemnable , even because of the Iealousie of the Almighty , who expresseth himselfe to be a Iealous God , Exod. 20. signifying , as b 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 Hee will not indure any consort in his worship ; his Motto being this , I am , and there is no Other . Even as in the Case of mortall Majesty , when as a subject , building upon a Morall Certainty onely , shall question the Title and Right of his Soveraigne established in his Throne , hee becometh guilty of High Treason .

Secondly , all Divine Worship must be performed with a Divine Faith , which is an Infallible perswasion of the God-head of that which wee honour as God , as it is written : Hee that cometh to God , must believe that God is , Heb. 11. 6. and againe , You must aske in Faith , nothing doubting , Iac. 1. because this is the nature of Faith , as the Apostle describeth it ; Faith is the Hypostasis of things not seene . Heb. 11. That is , ( to take your c 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. owne Comment ) Faith ●aketh those things , which are believed , no lesse certaine than if they did subsist : whereby wee are taught both the nature and necessitie of Faith in Divine Worship . But Morall and Conjecturall Certainty is not an Hypostasis , which implieth an Infallibilitie of Truth , but an Hypothesis , and supposition of that which may be otherwise , and hath in it nothing but Vncertainty at all ; of which more * * Chap. 9. Sect. 4. hereafter .

Thirdly , God himselfe commandeth his People by his Prophet , saying , Thou shalt worship mee , and ( in * * Septuagiots . Greeke , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ) shalt sweare by my Name . Swearing then is an Adoration , by Invocating of God ; and his owne peculiar Prerogative . Hearken now . By this Law of God , none may sweare by any thing as God , which hee dare not sweare is God : But your Romish Professors , in your Masse , Invocate this Sacrament thus , d d Sacerdos inclinatus Sacramento , junctis manibus , & ter pectus percutiens , dicit , Agnus Dei , qui tollis peccata mundi , miserere nobis . Et rursus , Agnus Dei , &c. Missal . Rom. pag. 24. Rursus . Inclinato capite versus Sacramentum , dicit intelligibili voce , Da nobis pacem : Et rursus secretè , Domine Iesu Christe , &c. Missal . Rom. ibid O Lambe of God , which takest away the Sins of the world , have mercie upon us . And what Romish Professor is there who sweareth not By the Masse ( meaning the Consecrated Host ) as by Christ himselfe ? Notwithstanding , no one of your Romish Priests ( by reason of the manifold Defects incident thereunto , as you have heard ) durst ever sweare 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 faithlesse prophanation of the name of the Son of God , and of his Worship . This Point , concerning Faith in every Worshipper , will be confessed * * Thorow-out the 7. Chapter . afterwards .

In the last place ( that wee may ruinate the very foundation of your Excuse ) your Pretence of Morall Certainty cometh to be examined , which you have exemplified by one giving an Almes to a poore man , who peradventure hath no need : and of Iacobs lying ignorantly with her that was not his wife . These , say wee , are Cases farre different from this which wee have in hand , because Gods Almoner ( you know ) is not bound to enquire of a man , whom hee seeth to appeare to be miserable and poore , whether hee be a Counterfeit or no ; for Charity is not suspicious , saith the Apostle Saint Paul . Iacob , indeed , was bound to know onely his owne wife , but if hee had had any probable or Morall Cause of doubt , would that holy Patriarke ( thinke you ) have beene so deluded , or over-reached a second , and a third time , to defile his body by an unchaste Bed ? But the Causes of your Doubtings are see forth and numbred by threes , Sixes , Twenties , Hundreds , untill you come to a Thousand , and ( as your Iesuite hath said ) Almost infinite Defects . For indeed if there be ( as appeareth ) a Thousand hazards in every Masse of any one Priest , then in two Priests , as many more , and so forward ; so that if one should heare in his time the Masses of Ten , and Twenty Priests , what multitudes of Thousands of Defects would the reckoning make ? But wee 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 Morall Certainty , as that , in any one generation of men from Christ's time , each one of that off-spring hath beene chastly borne , whereunto what Christian is there that dare be sworne ?

CHALLENGE .

COnsider ( wee beseech you , for Gods Cause , for wee are now in the Cause of God ) whether our God , who will be knowne to be transcendently Iealous of his owne Honour , would ever ordaine such a worship of a Sacrament , whereby men must needs be still more obnoxious to that , which you call a Materiall Idolatry , by many hundred-fold , than possibly any can be to any materiall Parricide , or materiall Murther , or materiall Adultery , or any other hainous and materiall Transgression , that can be named under the Sun . Thus much of your first Pretence , for this present , untill wee come to receive the * * See Chap. 7. thorowout . Confessions of your owne Doctors in this very point .

That the Second Romish Pretence , which is of a Good Intent , cannot free your Adoration of the Host from Formall Idolatry . SECT. III.

LEt us heare your Cardinall ; a a Bellar. Sicut is , qui panem non consecratum injuriâ afficeret , &c. See above , Sect. 1. (a) . Honour ( saith hee ) dependeth upon the Intention , so that as hee , who should contemptuously abuse the unconsecrated Bread , thinking it to be Consecrated , should grievously offend Christ ; contrariwise hee , who certainly beleeving the Bread to be Christs Body , shall Adore the same , doth principally and formally Adore Christ , and not the Bread . So hee , even with the same Sophistry , from onely such a seeming Contrariety , wherewith you use to pleade for Merits : ( to wit ) if evill workes deserve damnation , then good workes deserve eternall life . But will you be pleased to heare the same Cardinall speake in earnest , from the Principles of true Logike ? b b M●la intentio vittat opus : sed perperā 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 evill Intention doth 〈◊〉 and corruptiun Act otherwise good , yet it followeth not that a good Intent should justisie an evill Act , because no Act is good , except all the Causes thereof be good ; but any Act is evill upon any one Defect . So hee ; which his Conclusion is held as universally true in all Schooles , 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 hee thinketh to be Christ , that therefore the honour , which hee doth to that , which hee falsly 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 witnesse to the world , as your owne * * Chap. 7 , and 8. Confessions will confirme .

⚜ It may not seeme a thing superfluous to apply to our former Answer the Testimony of your Iesuite Lessius , judging it 1 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 profectū , 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 offerre , quod mereatur condonationem ; multò minùs possit homo compensationem Deo reddere . Lessius Ies. Opusc . lib. 13. de Iustic . cap. 27. A thing incredible , for God to equall mans love unto him ( in the good ) as hee would do Sin , wherewith hee is offended : for who will say ( saith hee ) that a man injuring his Prince , and violating his Lawes so , as to deserve death , shall equally satisfie it , after hee shall be sorry for his offence , and love him , and promise amendment ? will any affirme , if the nature of the thing bee duly considered , that the Prince is bound to be aswell pleased with the griefe of that man , for his offence , proceeding from love , as hee was offended at the injurie , and that hee ought not to punish him ? nay , but the man hath deserved to lose both Land and Life , although hee be a thousand times sorry for his offence : much lesse possible is it for man to returne an equall Compensation unto God . So hee , which sheweth sufficiently that there is a Disproportion of Contraries , in their divers respects . ⚜

CHALLENGE .

DO you not perceive what a patched Cloake of Sophistry your Cardinall cast upon your Good Intent , in your Adoration , to cover the filthinesse thereof , if it might be ? and how by another Position hee rent the same in pieces , when hee had done ? Againe , you stand thus farre , furthermore , condemnable in your selves in this Point , whilest as you seeke 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 formed with an Habituall 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 Habituall Condition , in the Worshipper , excuseth him not from formall Idolatry ; proved first by Scripture . SECT. IV.

HAbituall Condition you have interpreted to stand thus ; * * See above Sect. 1. at the letter ( a ) ad finem . If hee that chanceth to worship onely Bread be in that Act so disposed in himselfe , that hee would not worship the same Bread , as Christ , if hee knew it were but Bread , and not Christ ; and by this you teach , that the Act ( which you call a Materiall Idolatry ) is made not onely excusable , but ( your * * Ibid. owne words ) honest and commendable also . So you . What execrable Doctrine is this that wee heare ? which cannot be justifiable except you will justifie the Murtherers of the members of Christ ; and of Christ himselfe ? First , of the members of Christ , wee reade of one Saul , afterwards Paul , breathing out threatnings , 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 heare himselfe say ) Ignorantly , 1. Tim. 1. 13. and with a good Conscience , Act. 23. 1. and in zeale , 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 Habituall Condition , namely , that if hee had then ( as afterwards ) knowne Christ to have beene the Lord of life , and those murthered Christians , to have beene his mysticall Members , hee would rather have exposed himselfe to Martyrdome , 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 , &c. then by his Acknowledgement of Gods especiall mercie , * * 2. Tim. 1. 13. But God had mercie on mee . Afterwards by his Labour for winning soules to the Faith : I have laboured more abundantly than they all . And lastly , in that hee was one of those Actors , of whom Christ himselfe foretold , saying , * * Ioh. 16. 2. They shall draw you before Iudgement seats , and when they shall persecute you , they will thinke that they do God good service . Which also plainly argueth , that their and his perswasion of so doing proceded from a Morall Certainty , Good Intent , and Habituall Condition .

From these Members let us ascend to our Head , Christ the Lord of Glory ; what thinke you of the Iewes ? of whom Saint Peter sayd , You have murthered the Prince of life . Act. 3. 15. But did they this Voluntarily , and knowingly , as understanding him to have beene the Redeemer of the world , and indeed the Prince of life ? they did not , for the same Apostle testifyeth in their behalfe , saying , I know you did it ignorantly , as did also your Rulers . Act. 3. 17. If this be not sufficient , heare the voice of the person that was slaine , Christ himselfe , who did so farre acquit them , saying , They know not what they do . Luk. 23. 24. Ignorantly then , in a Conjecturall Certainty , but yet with Good Intent ; of whom Saint Paul witnesseth in these words , I beare them witnesse , that they have the Zeale of God , but not according to knowledge . Rom. 10. But what for Habituall Condition ? were they not bent in their owne minds ( if they had understood what Christ was ) to have abhorred that so heinous a guilt of the death of the Sonne of God ? questionlesse , for so saith the Apostle : If they had knowne , they would not have crucifyed the Lord of Glory . 1. Cor. 2. 8. Wee conclude , seeing these Iewes , notwithstanding their Morall Certainty , ( being seduced by their Priests ) or else their Good Intent of doing God good service therein ; or yet their Habituall Condition , not to have crucified Christ , if they had truly knowne him , were neverthelesse by Saint Peter condemned , yea and of themselves , as Formall and verily Murtherers of Christ ; then ( ô 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 Salomon speaketh of an Adulterous woman ; * * Prov. 30. 20. Shee eateth , and wipeth her mouth , saying , I have done no wickednesse ; so may wee 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 grosnesse and ouglinesse of your Idolatry , might abhorre 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 workes are yet extant ( who lived within Six or Seven hundred yeares after Christ ) are recorded to have beene 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 Materiall and Formall Idolatry ; nor yet by qualifying any Idolatry under pretence of either Morall Certainty , or Good Intent , or yet Habituall Condition ; and therefore must wee judge that they never gave Assent to this your Sorcery . For wee may not be so injurious to the memory of so many , so famously learned , and Catholike Doctors of the Church of Christ , that they could not ; or of persons so holy , and zealous of Gods honour , and of mens Salvation , that they would not satisfie mens 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 Iesuit Suarez . Almost infinitely intangled .

CHAP. VII . That the Romish Adoration , notwithstanding your former Pretences , is Formally Idolatrous ; proved by foure Grounds of Romish Profession .

The first is your Definition of Idolatry . SECT. I.

DIvine honour ( saith your Iesuite a a Honor 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 accōmodatum 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 excellencie , whether in word or outward office , that a man doth performe , whereby hee doth intend to beget in others such an estimation of God , unto that which hee honoureth , as is proper unto the Majestie of God . So that Idolatry is an Error in the understanding ( saith your Iesuite b 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 our selves to that which is not God . In a word , Idolatry comprehendeth all religious superstition ( saith your Iesuite c 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 owne Confessions may possibly be , and by our proofes cannot possibly but be ( after Consecration ) Bread still , whereunto notwithstanding hee prostrateth himselfe , sweareth , by , and invocateth upon , as being in it selfe the person of Christ ; the Priest himselfe saying , d 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 , &c. ] Espenc . lib. 5. de Adorat . cap. 8. fol. 185 & ibid. lib. 1. cap. 9. fol. 25. O holy Host , &c. O Lambe of God , &c. whereby also , according to your Definition of Idolatry , you your selves do seeke to professe , 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 your selves from the Crime of formall Idolatry , by pretence of Ignorance , and error of true knowledge of the thing falsly adored , seeing that Idolatry ( as you your selves 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 sicke , because his humours are distempered .

II. That Romish Worship is proved to be Formally Idolatrous , by Consequence taken from a Romish Principle , concerning Co-adoration , or joynt-worship of Christ with Bread . SECT. II.

CO-adoration is when any thing is worshipped joyntly with God in a Divine Worship , which worship by the Law of God ( which saith , Thou shalt have no other Gods but mee ) is perfectly Idolatry , by your owne e 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 feare of this kind of Idolatry , your Claudius Sainctes f f Ne Idolatria committeretur , ait , ( nempè Claudius Sainctes ) cum Christo in Eucharistia debeatur summus divinusque cultus , non est eo Adorationis genere colendum sensibile cōntinens , quo contentus Iesus . Teste Vasquez . Ies. de Adorat . lib. 2. Disp. 8. c. 11. pag. 389. taught that The signes in the Eucharist are not to be adored with the same honour as Christ is . And that therefore g 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 , &c. 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 Sainctes , 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 h Sacramenta haec in sumente homine , quià quamdiù in eo Sacramentaliter sunt incertum est , nec regulariter , nec ordinariè solent adorari . — Praeceptor meus D. Ioh. Benedictus , Magnum Dominicani ordinis ornamentum , docuit , majus esse Idololatriae periculum , si Christus adoraretur in homine , quià homo est subjectum rationis capax ( honor 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 eis 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 hee should be honoured as God . So your owne Iesuites and Others . Yet ( not to do you wrong ) in this Contemplation Christ , by reason of the Hypostaticall Vnion of his God-head ( being no meere Creature ) is wholly excepted : whom wee are taught by the Fathers of a Generall i 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 . Councel to adore , not in both his distinct natures , but whole Christ .

CHALLENGE .

WEe suppose that there is not any of your owne Romish Sect , albeit most superstitious , who would worship with Divine Worship either the Signes , or the Appearance of flesh , or the Priest , whiles the Sacrament is in his mouth , without at least a Morall Perswasion , viz. that hee may so do ; nor without a Good intent , viz. that it is well done ; nor without habituall Condition , viz. not to do so , if hee knew they were but Signes , Apparance of flesh , or hee meerely 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 Masse , by a Consequence from Romish Doctrine , touching Canonization of Saints . SECT. III.

COncerning your Popes Canonizing of Saints ( see the a 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 . Cathar . 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 , & non 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 thinke , that your Church cannot erre in this Function , and that all Christians are bound to believe the same ; but how ? upon a Morall and Conjecturall perswasion onely ? 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 wee should worship a dead and a rotten , instead of a lively member of Christ : which were an Error pernicious , seeing that every lye , figment , and falshood in religious worship must needs be abominable unto God . So your Archbishop , with others . You will aske , what , maketh all this to the question in hand ? give ▪ us leave to tell you .

CHALLENGE .

THe same Archbishop Catharinus b 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 hee ) aswell as in the Heathen , who adored Heaven instead of God . So hee . Do you marke ? aswell Idolatry , as that of the Heathen ; whom neither Morall Certainty , nor Good Intent , or Habituall Condition could ever free from a formall Idolatry . Our Argument , from your owne Confessions , will be this .

Whosoever may be mistaken , in adoring Bread instead of Christ's Body , may therein be held as Formall an Idolater as any Heathen . ( This is your Bishops Proposition . ) The Assumption . But any man among you may manifoldly be deceived , in taking Bread for Christ's Body . ( Which hath beene your generall Confession . ) Our Conclusion must be ; Therefore any of you , in adoring Bread for Christ , in this Sacrament , may be a Formall Idolater .

IV. That the Romish Worship is proved to be a Formall Idolatry , by the Consequence used from the Consecration of your Popes . SECT. IV.

SAlmeron , a Iesuite of prime note in your Church , endeavoureth to c c Fides divina est , quâ credimus Iesum , eâdem credimus hunc esse Paulum Quartum Pontificem &c. — 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 hee is Consecrated , to be the true Pope , not onely with a Morall or Humane Assurance , but with a Divine and infallible Faith ; as were the Iewes bound to believe Christ Iesus , at his coming , to be the true Messias : that is ( saith hee ) with a Faith that cannot possibly be deceived . Wee have nothing to do with your Iesuits Position in this place , concerning the Infallibillity of Beliefe of the Creation , and Election of your Popes , which wee have elsewhere proved to be a * * See the Grand Romish Imposture , &c. Grosse Imposture . But wee are to argue from his Supposition , as for Example .

CHALLENGE .

YOur Iesuite d 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 , &c. ] 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 Beliefe , which men ought to have , concerning the Consecration of the Eucharist , wherein ( saith hee ) if there should be any Vncertainty , so that our Faith should depend upon the Intention of the Priest , in like maner might every one doubt , whether hee may adore the Sacrament , as being not truly consecrated ; as also make doubt of the Priest himselfe , as being not rightly ordained . So hee ; who therefore in all these requireth a Faith infallible . All these fore-cited Confessions of your owne Divines , as first concerning your Definition of Idolatry ; next in the point of Co-adoration of the Creature together with the Creator ; thirdly , in your Beliefe 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 Schismes of Anti-Popes , sometimes of two , sometimes of three at once , and that for forty or fifty yeares 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 Morall Certainty , that hee is truly elected Pope ; and in an habituall Condition , not to acknowledge him , if I knew him not to be Pope , wherein if I erre , it is but a Materiall Disloyalty ; would not the Pope , notwithstanding all these Pretenses , judge this man to be Formally an Anti-Papist , and pierce him with his Thunder-bolt of Anathema , as Popes have often dealt with Cardinals , Princes , and Emperours in like Case ? yet what is this Glowormes slimy shine to the glory of Divine Majesty ?

⚜ An Answer to a Conceited and Deceiptfull Impious Objection of a bold Spectacle-maker , a Iesuite ; Shewing his Spectacles to be but Counterfeit . SECT. V.

YOur Iesuit , in his Booke of Spectacles , made in Confutation of a Iudicious and Religious Knight , among many other of his Paradoxes and Absur●ities ( as if concerning our present Question hee had meant to excell himselfe , in the same kinde ) after his most diligent search into every Corner , where to finde an Evasion , by the helpe of Spectacles of his own making , yet could spie no other , than that poore little Crevise , specifyed in his words following : If Christ ( saith hee ) be not there , ( in the Sacrament after Consecration ) wee are in danger to worship him , where hee is not ; and if he be there , then are you in danger , in not worshipping him , where hee is . How then are you Protestants more safe than wee ? So your Iesuite . But most Sophistically . In Answer whereunto , the Protestants can say no lesse , than that this Objection is Fallacious , Impious , and Impudent . The notable Sophistry whereof appeareth in this ; because of an Extreme Disparity betweene your Romish Terme of Worshipping by a Conjecturall Supposition , as , [ I adore thee ô Christ , if thou be here , ] and the Protestants Resolution of [ not adoring with Divine honour ] at all , that , which you your selves 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 owne Confessions , and illustrated by your owne 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 feare of Idolatry . Item , Although Christ be in the mouth of the Communicant , * * See in the same place . yet not to adore it there , for feare 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 owne Similitude of * * See above , Chap. 6 § ● . Iacob lying with Leah , instead of Rachel : and , that you may make a more joynt Application , suppose that both these Sisters had beene presented before Iacob , masked and unknowne ; would your Iesuite judge it to be a like security and safety in Iacob , to have taken either of them to his bed , because it was posible hee might have made choice of his owne wife , as it had beene to have abstained from admitting of either at that time , lest hee might have made choice of not his owne wife ?

Wee have furthermore in the title of this Section called this an Impious Answer and Evasion ; which wee 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 Samaritanes , and preferred it before the Religion of the Iewes , a Religion which was then approved and professed by Christ himselfe : You Samaritanes ( saith Christ ) worship you know not what ; But wee ( Iewes ) know what wee worship , Ioh. 4. 22. where , our Lord , who is Truth and Life , determineth the Cause it selfe , namely , that if the Case so stand , in point of Gods worship , The worshipping of not knowing what , is damnable ; and onely , the worshipping of knowing what , is justifiable . And this was alwaies Catholike learning , in all Ages , untill your Romish Tyranny brought in this Samaritan kind of [ Worshipping you know not what . ] Wherein your worshippers faile most blindly both for matter , for maner , 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 Iesuite , without some tincture of Impudencie , forasmuch as hee , by a seeming Case of Indifferencie , seeketh to excuse his Romish Sect from Idolatry , for feare of [ Danger of not adoring Christ where hee is , ] when as notwithstanding , hee , with all his Complices , would condemne Protestants for arrant Heretikes and Contemners of Christ in [ not adoring him ( according to the Romish Religion ) where ( peradventure ) hee is . ] And this they do against all warrant of Antiquity ; or else shew 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 perswasion of the Deity thereof . Not to repeat the above specified Confessions of your owne Doctors against this very Delusion . But what talke wee 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 maner 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 immediatly upon the Creature , without Relation to the Creator , whereof your Cardinall Alan hath resolved , saying ; a 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 Cardinall Bellarmine hath determined , saying , b 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 Idolū , 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 internall , or else externall , as Sacrifice . So hee . This wee say , first to put you in mind of c 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 cloake , yet the Complaints and out-cries of your owne 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 porest , 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 immediatly and terminately given by your people to the thing it selfe , 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 maner of Relation , that which is here condemned by your Cardinall .

But to the point , your owne Iesuites d 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 , &c. III. Hominum mortuorum . IV. Mundi , tanquam animati . V. Substantiarum immaterialium , etiam perse , 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 , beleeving that They were inspired with a Divine Spirit ; next that they had soure kinde of perswasions for this their Beleefe , 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 : neverthelesse so , that they sometimes honoured not the things themselves , but the Spirit which they thought them possessed withall . Will you permit us to compare this with that which you have called but your * * See above . Materiall Idolatry ? To this end , wee are to try whether there hath beene 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 Morall , and Conjecturall 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 your selves with your Good Intent , that , in worshipping the Bread , you thinke to adore Christ ; and the Pagans ( which also the whole world of Idolaters professed of themselves , and you your selves have confessed of them ) in their most Formall Idolatry , were perswaded they worshipped a True God . Thirdly , you relye upon an Habituall 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 owne Bibles , and you shall find that the Heathen were not inferiour 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 , untill 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 then is plaine . Hee , and they , who abhorred , and uterly destroyed that Idoll , assoone 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 beene perswaded it had not beene a God . In such just Equipage do these your Romish , and those Heathenish walke together , that from these your owne Premises , you may take your Conclusion out of the mouth of your owne Archbishop , whom you have heard affirme , that * * See above , Ch. 7 Sect 2. at (a) . If in the worship of this Sacrament ( saith hee ) wee may be deceived , in mistaking Bread , instead of Christ ; then is this worship as meerly Idolatrous , as was that of the Heathen . So hee . Which sheweth your Cause and theirs , in these Respects , to be all one . Wee proceed a step further .

That the Romish Worship of that , which may possibly be Bread , may seeme to be in one respect worse than almost the worst of the Pagans . SECT. II.

ALthough the very Title of this Section may seeme unto you fully odious , yet let Truth ( in what apparrell soever it shall appeare ) be gracious unto you . Costerus is a Iesuite much privileged by your Church , who doubted not to affirme , that a 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 onely , the Errour ( saith hee ) is more intolerable than was the Errour of the Heathen , in worshipping either a golden Statue , or a Red Clout . So hee . What reason hee had to speake so broad Language , wee referre to your Inquisitors , to question him for it . But what Cause wee have for the confirming our Title of this Section , wee shall not forbeare 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 Vncertainty of the presence of Christ therein , by reason of ( as your Iesuite Suarez * * See above . Chap. ● . Sect. 6. speakes ) 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 Iesuite ) They believed them certainly to have beene 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 Goddesse ; And the Athenians had an * * Act. 27. 23. Altar 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , To an unknowne 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 Devillish Nations excepted , who are said knowingly to have Adored Devils , but ( as some people sometime do homage to Tyrannous Vsurpers , knowing them not to be their lawfull Soveraignes ) onely Nè noceant , for feare of hurt .

So abominable is your Masse-worship , being both contrary to expresse Scripture , which exacteth of every man * * Heb. 11. ● . That cometh to God , that hee must believe , what ? [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] If hee be ? no , but [ 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ] That hee is God ; and also against the light of grace in all Christians , before the darknesse of Popery began ; yea and against the light of nature in the very Pagans . For although you do but seeme to symbolize with them in that one part of Idolatry , thus described by the Prophet ; * * Esay 44. 15 &c Hee taketh wood , burneth it , maketh Bread , and of a part thereof maketh a God , and falling downe before it , prayeth , Deliver mee , for thou art my God : ( Like as is the taking a lumpe of Dough , 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 owne vulgar Rimes : Non est Panis , sed est Deus , Homo liberator meus : fit cibus ex pane , caro Deus ex elemento : Qui me creavit sine me , creatur mediante me ; ) yet notwithstanding do you farre excede them , by adoring onely in an Habituall Condition , If the thing be God , which you worship ; Therefore shall they be your Iudges .

CHAP. IX .

Our Examination of the Reverence professed by Protestants , and the Securitie 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 Naturall , Politicke , Religious , or Divine . Children ( for Example sake ) are taught by Scripture to honour their Parents , Wives their Husbands , Husbands their Wives , Subjects their Soveraignes , 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 Naturall ; of Subjects to Governours , Politique ; of People to their Pastors , Religious ; of All to God , Divine , which is transcendently Religious , and Spirituall . And the Outward is common to each Degree ; three onely outward Acts excepted , Sacrificing , Vowing unto , and Swearing by : Homages appropriated to the Majestie of God ; Sacrifice to betoken his Soveraignty ; Vowing to testifie his Providence ; and Swearing for the acknowledging of his Wisedome in discerning , Iustice in condemning , and Omnipotencie 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 Signes of the precious Body and Blood of Christ , a Memoriall of his death , which is the price of mans Redemption , and to the Faithfull a Token of their spirituall Vnion 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 it selfe , as you will a 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 . confesse from Antiquity , whether it be in Standing , Bowing , Kneeling , or the like ; even because the Gestures of Vncovering , Bowing , and Kneeling , are outward behaviours communicable to other persons besides God , according to their Naturall , Morall , Politike , and Religious respects . Howbeit , any of these outward Gestures , which carry in them a greater respect of Reverence , may be injoyned by the Church ( whereunto obedience is due ) according to the just occasions inducing thereunto . And where there is no such necessary occasion , there the publike observation of the Rites of Communicating , commanded by Christ in his first Institution , performed ( namely ) by Supplications , and Praises , is a plaine 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 , Wee 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 Vnlawful . Every such One is to be intreated to be better acquainted with Calvin , where , speaking of the Reverence of kneeling , hee saith , b b Calvin . Institut. lib. 4. §. 37. Iam 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 lawfull , if it be directed not to the Signe , but to Christ himselfe in Heaven ; which is the resolute profession of our English Church , in the use of this Gesture . ⚜ And the use of Bowing towards the Lords Table hath in it no other nature or meaning than Daniel his Kneeling with his face towards Ierusalem and the Temple . For as this was a Testification of his joynt-Society , in that religious worship , which had beene exercised in the Temple and Altar thereof at Hierusalem : so ours is a Symbol of our union in profession with them , who do faithfully Communicate at the Table of the Lord . ⚜ But to returne unto you , who thinke it no Reverence , which is not given by Divine Adoration of this Sacrament , wee aske , Do not you use the Sacrament of Baptisme 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 prophane to many of you : but the Reason is , you would rather condemne him , than judge him , lest that his Doctrine , if it come to examination , might condemne you . For albeit hee abhorre your Divine Adoration of the Host , yet doth he also c 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 cōmunicationis pignus , quod reverenter suscipere decebat — non mirum si corporis & sanguinis Christi rei censeantur . Ibid . pag. 39. condemne every Prophane man , who shall partake thereof in the state of Impenitencie , 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 Intanglements .

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.

OVr Church commandeth that the best Bread and Wine be provided for this best of Banquets , the Supper of our Lord ; yet doth it beleeve , that Christ the Ordainer thereof will not deprive the soules of his guests of their desired spirituall Blessings , for the negligence of his steward , in being defective to provide the Materiall 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 knowen unto all the people communicating , and in a loud voice , according to the universall Practice of the Church of Christ in primitive times , as * * See above , Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. 7. hath beene confessed . So that the Peoples eares may be their owne witnesses , whether the words of Consecration , either by Prayer , or together with the forme 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 Morall Certaintie . SECT. IV.

OVr Profession is to adore Christ with an infallible faith , and not with a conjecturall Credulity , or Probability , as wee are taught by the holy Scripture , the Canonicall foundation of Christian faith ; defining Faith to be an * * Heb. 11. 1. Evidence of things not seene ; namely , a more infallible apprehension of the minde , than any perception of sight can be ; a faith required of every one , which shall approach in supplication to God : * * Heb. 11. 6. Hee that cometh to God must beleeve that God is . Infallible faith then must usher Prayer , yea and preaching also any fundamentall doctrine of beleefe , as it is written , * * Psal. 116. 10 & 2. Cor. 4. 13. I beleeved , therefore I spake . Yea , without divine Faith , it is impossible to use any religious Invocation : * * Rom 10. 14. How shall they invocate on whom they have not beleeved ? So incredible and faithlesse is your Romish Conjecturall 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 ) wee , because faithfully , do * * See the Consent of Fathers above Chap. 4. Sect. 2. Catholikely , and comfortably adore him , where hee infallibly is upon his Throne of Majestie 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 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 Protestantes 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 . Cardinall 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 Hereticall . But wee permit it to your discrete Iudgements , whether to yeeld to this ostentative ●lourish of your Cardinall , or to the exact and accurate discourse of your b b Salmeron . Ies . Intentio duplex , publica , in observando formam publicam in pronunciatione verborum , &c. Altera verò privata & particularis ipsius Ministri , qui aut nihil credit eorum , quae facit , aut derisoriè facit , aut contrariam habet intentionem non cōferendi Sacramenta . — At ejus Intentio non est absolutè necessaria . Rat. I. Quià cùm intentio intima sit latens in corde 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 aliquotū 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 agat , 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. Jesuite Salmeron , to the contrary ; grounded upon sound Reasons , ( among others , this ) that this Perplexitie , and doubt , whether the Priest hath a Due intention in consecrating , worketh to the tormenting of mens Consciences , injury to Gods exceeding bounty and goodnesse , contrary to the Iudgement of Antiquity , and in speciall , 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 heresie of the Donatists . So hee .

All which turneth to the condemnation of your Doctrine ( teaching a necessary Priestly intention ) of Noveltie , Impietie , and relish of Heresie . Wee adde to this that saying of the Apostle , * * Phil. 1. 18. If the word be preached , whether of envie , and vaine glory , or of good will , I rejoyce , and will rejoyce ; which proveth that the evill 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 marginall Testimony of your Iesuite Salmeron , of a Notary publicke making a true Instrument , according to the forme of Court , in the time when he was distracted in his wits ; neverthelesse the same Instrument is of use , and for the benefit of the partie who hath it , not through the Intention of the Scribe , but by the will of the Ordainer , and willingnesse and consent of the Receiver .

Our fifth Securitie from your Romish Perplexitie , touching Ordination . SECT. VI.

TO passe over matters not controverted betweene us , whether the Minister that consecrateth this Sacrament ought to be consecrated by Ecclesiasticall Ordination to this Function ( a matter agreed upon on both sides ) the onely question is , if hee that ministreth happen to be an Intruder , and no consecrated Minister , whether this his Defect do so nullifie 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 hee have beene rightly baptized ; and this not satisfying , shee will have you seeke forth the Bishop , by whom hee was ordained , and so to the Odainer of that Bishop , and so to speere further , and further , untill 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 Baptisme of each one , without which the Act of this Priest now consecrating is frustrate , and your Adoration Idolatrous . Contrariwise wee , in such an indeprehensible Case , ( observe that wee speake of an extraordinary Case ) wherein the Actor or Act hath no apparent Defect , are no way scrupulous , knowing that things do worke Ad modum Recipientis : as you have heard in the Example of preaching the word of God , were it by Iudas , or if you will a transformed Devill , yet the seed being Gods , it may be fruitfull , ( whatsoever the Seed-man be ) if the ground that receiveth it be capable . Therefore here might wee take occasion to compare the Ordination Romish and English ; and to shew ours , so farre as it consenteth with yours , to be the same ; and wherein it differeth to be farre more justifiable than yours can be , if it were lawfull , upon so long travelling , to transgresse by wandring into by-pathes .

Our last Securitie from the Romish Perplexity of Habituall Condition . SECT. VII .

HAbituall or virtuall 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 leakes in a ship , threatning a certaine 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 c Suarez . Ies . Simpliciter adorandus est Christus in Eucharistia , & aliud exigere ex iis esset superstitiosum , & vanis scrupulis , & superstitionibus expositū : 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 perswade you to Adore Christ in the Eucharist simply , without all scrupulizing , saying , It is not fit to feare where no feare is ; When as hee himselfe ( 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 disannull the ⚜ whole Act of Consecration : ⚜ Every Morall Certaintie ( as your other i i Lessius Ies. Opusc . Tract . de Praescien condit . 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 . Iesuit , and you all confesse ) being but conjecturall . ⚜ Therefore there needeth none other Confutation , than this , of his owne shamelesse Contradiction , which ( as you may see ) is palpably grosse . So impossible it is for any of you to allay the detestable stench of plaine Idolatry . Certainely , if S. Augustine had heard that a Worship of Latria ( which hee every-where teacheth to be proper to God ) were performed to Bread and Wine , as the matter of Divine Adoration , hee neither would , nor could have said , in defence thereof , as hee did of the Celebration of the Eucharist in his owne time , viz. d d Aug. contr. Faust . Manich. lib. 20 cap. 21. Nos à Cerere & Libero Paganorum Diis longè absumus . Wee are farre from your Paganish worshipping of Ceres and Bacchus .

But as for us Protestants , wee professe no Divine worship of God , but with a Divine , that is , an Infallible Faith , that * ⁎ * it is God , whom wee worship ; who will not be worshipped , but in spirit and truth . What furthermore wee have to say against your Romish Masse , will be discovered in the Booke following .

THE EIGHTH BOOKE , Of the Additionalls ; by a Summary Discovery of the manifold Abominations of the Romish Masse ; and , of the Iniquities of the Defenders thereof .

THese may be distinguished into Principals , which are Three ; the Romish Superstitiousnesse , Sacrilegiousnesse , and Idolatrousnesse of your Masse : and Accessories , which are These ; Obstinacies , manifold Overtures of Perjuries , Mixture of many ancient Heresies , in the Defenders thereof .

CHAP. I.

Of the peremptory Superstitiousnesse of the Romish Masse ; 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 , Mans 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 , wee have learned by his last Will and Testament , expresly charging his Church , and saying , [ Do THIS : ] pointing out thereby such proper Acts , which concerned either the Administring , or the Participating of the same holy Sacrament . But now cometh in Mans 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 beene in direct Termes countermanded thus , [ Do not This , ] ( as hath been * * Booke 1. thorowout . proved : ) notwithstanding the former direct Injunction of Christ , or conformable Observation of the holy Apostles , or Consent , and Custome of the Church Catholike ; 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 bin many ) devised by the new Church of Rome , in an opinion of her own wisdome , to the befooling & vilifying of the Ancient Catholike 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 excedeth all height of Superstition , is , when upon the will-worship of man are stamped counterfeit Seales of forged Miracles , as if they had beene authorized by the immediate hand of God ; whereof your Legendaries have obtruded upon their Readers * * Booke 4. Ca. 2 , 〈◊〉 . Thirteene 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 Falshood ; a Sin abhorred by holy Iob , saying to his Adversaries ; * * Iob 13. 4 , & 7 You are Forgers of Lies : will you speake deceitfully for God ? And furthermore how Sacrilegious , and Idolatrous your Romish Superstition is , you may behold in the Sections following .

Of the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Romish Masse , and Defence thereof , in the point of Sacrifice ; comprized in this Synopsis . SECT. II.

SAcrilege is whatsoever Violation of any sacred Person , Place , or Thing . Now omitting to speake of your Dismembring the Eucharist , by administring it but in One kinde ( which your Pope a a Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. in the Challenge . Gelasius condemned for a Grand Sacrilege ) or of the like points formerly discovered in the first Booke ; wee shall insist onely in your Churches Doctrine of Sacrifice , wherein your Sacrifice is found to be grossely Sacrilegious in the Tractate of the Sixth Booke .

I. By Creating a new Sacrifice , as Proper , and thereby assuming to her selfe that b b Booke ● . Cha. ● . Sect. ● Excellencie of Prerogative , which is proper to Christ alone the High Priest , and Bishop of our Soules ( namely ) the power of ordaining Sacraments ; or ( if need were ) Sacrifices in his Church . Which Guiltinesse wee may call a Counterfeiting of the Seale of Christ .

II. By making this Sacrifice , in her pretence , Christian ; but indeed c c Booke . 6. Cha. 5. Sect. 1. Earthly , and Iewish .

III. By dignifying it with a Divine property of d d Ibid. Chap. 10. Meritorious , and Satisfactorie Propitiation .

IV. By professing another properly Satisfactory and c c Ibid. and after , &c. Propitiatory Sacrifice , for Remission of Sins , besides that which Christ offered upon the Crosse . As if after one hath paid the Debts of many at once , upon condition that such of those Debters should be discharged , whosoever submissively acknowledging those Debts to be due , should also professe the favour of their Redeemer ; It cannot but be extreme folly for any to thinke , that the money once paid should be tendred , and offered againe , as often as One or Other of the Debters should make such an acknowledgment , 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 behalfe 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 againe , by way of Satisfaction , be personally performed and tendred unto God .

V. By detracting from the absolute Function of Christ his f f B. ●● . Chap. 3. Sect. 7. Priesthood now eminent , and permanent before God in Heaven ; and thereupon stupifying the mindes 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 Spirituall Eagles ) soare aloft , and contemplate upon the Body of Christ , where it 's infallible Residence is , in that his heavenly Kingdome .

VI. By transforming ( as much as they can ) the Sacrament , ordained for Christians to eat with their owne mouthes , into a g g Ibid. Theatricall 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 h Ibid. Chap. 10. Sect. 4. finite ; whereas Christ being 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , God and Man in one person , every propitiatory worke 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 sinne to be plenary , in the Application thereof .

IX . There hath beene noted ( by the way ) the Portion appropriated to the Priest , out of your Sacrifice , and to be applyed to some particular Soule for money : being an Invention , as hath beene confessed , void of all i i Ibid. Chap. 11. Sect. 4. Warrant , either by Scripture , or by Ancient Tradition . To say nothing of your fine Art of cheating mens Soules , by Priestly Fraud ; whereof , as also of the Rest , wee have discoursed at k k Booke 6. thorowout . large .

A New Instance , for proofe of Romish Sacrilegiousnesse , in the Prayer set downe in the Liturgie of their Masse . SECT. III.

IN your Missall , after Consecration , it is prayed thus : a 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 . Iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli in sublime Altare tuum coeleste . Wee offer unto thy Majestie , O Lord , this immaculate Host , this holy Bread of eternall life , this Cup of everlasting salvation , upon which vouchsafe to looke 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 celestiall Altar , &c. So the Canon of your Masse . Some Protestants , in their zeale to the glory of Christ , impute unto you hereupon a Sacrilegious Profanenesse , whilest you beleeving That Host , and That Cup to be the very Body , and Blood of Christ , and a Propitiatory Sacrifice in it selfe , yet do so pray God to be propitious unto it , and to accept it , as hee did the Sacrifice of Abel ; yeelding thereby no more estimation to Christ , than to a vile sheepe , which was offered by Abel .

At the hearing of this , your Cardinall ( See the b 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. Iube 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 hee ) is easie . As if that Objection , which seemeth to us a huge logg in your way , were so little an obstacle , that any might skip over it . But have you never seene men , in trusting too much to their nimblenesse , to over-reach themselves in their leape , stumble , fall , and breake their limbes ?

Semblably hee in his Answer ( which is the second point ) The meaning of our Church ( saith hee ) is not to pray for Christs reconciliation , who was alwayes well pleasing to God , but in respect of the infirmity of the Priest and people , that the offering may be accepted from them . So hee . But whatsoever the meaning of the Priest in his praying is , sure wee are this cannot be the meaning of the Prayer ; for the matter prayed for is set downe 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 tenour of prayer expressely is , [ Vpon which Lord looke propitiously ; ] wee say , upon which , not upon whom ; which point is confirmed in that which followeth .

Thirdly therefore hee illustrateth . The Comparison ( saith hee ) is not absolutely betweene 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 Musicke Discantas contra punctum ; for the prayer is directly : [ Looke downe propitiously upon these , as thou didst upon the gifts of Abel . ] The Comparison then is distinctly betweene the Gifts , and not betweene the Givers . Yea but not absolutely so meant ( saith hee : ) be it so , yet if it be so meant but in part , that Christ , who is Propitiation it selfe , 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 knowne ( saith hee ) that the Sacrifices of Sheepe and Oxen had nothing in themselves , whereby to pacifie , or please God , the Scripture saying , that Abel offered a better Sacrifice than Cain . And againe , God had respect to Abel , and to his Gifts . So hee . Which is the very Reason that perswadeth Protestants to call that your Prayer most Sacrilegious , because whereas the Gifts of Abel were but Sheepe , &c. 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 , then 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 farre more abominably Sacrilegious . And not much lesse is that which followeth , praying God to command his Angel to carry ( if the Gift be Hee ) Christ into heaven ; contrary to the Article of our Catholike Faith , which teacheth us to believe his perpetuall Residence in heaven , at the right hand of the Father . Hee answereth : c c Bellarm. sup. And so Doctor Heskins ( out of Hugo de sancto victore ) in his Parliament of Christ , Booke 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 hee . Which is as truly a false Glosse , as the former ; for , in the Tenour of your Masse , the Subject of your prayer is [ Holy Bread of life , and Cup of salvation . ] The prayer is plainly thus ; Vpon which , O Lord , looke propitiously : and immediately after , Command [ These ] to be carried by thy Angel . Marke , [ 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 wee may so say ) miserably Radiculous .

That the former Romish Prayer , as it was Ancient , doth in the ( then ) true meaning thereof condemne the now Romish Church of the former Sacrilegious Innovation . SECT. IV.

FOr to thinke that it should be prayed , that God would be propitious to Christ , were an Execrable opinion , even in the Iudgement of our Adversaries themselves ; who for avoydance thereof have obtruded an Exposition , as farre differing from the Text , as doth This from That , or Christ from the Priest , as you have heard . But whither will hee now ? Your Cardinall telleth you , that the words of your Romish Canon are ancient , such as are found in the a a Bellarm. l. 2. de Missa , cap. 24. Super quae propitio , &c. 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 Iacobi , Clementis , Basilij , Chrysostomi . Missals of Saint Iames , of Clement Pope of Rome , of Basil , of Chrysostome , and of Ambrose . You will hold it requisite that wee consult with these Liturgies , set out by your selves , for the better understanding of the Tenour of your Romish Masse . The Principall Quaere will be , whether Antiquity in her Liturgies , by praying to God for a propitious Acceptation , and admittance into his Celestiall Altar , meant ( as your Cardinall answered ) Propitiousnesse towards Priest , and People , in respect of their Faith , and devotion ; and not towards the Things offered distinctly in themselves ?

In the pretended Liturgie of b b Liturgia Iacobi antè Conjecrationem . Diaconus . Oremus pro sanctificatis tremendis donis — ut Dominus acceptis eis in super-coeleste 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 Iames ( before Consecration ) the prayer to God is , To accept the Gifts unto his celestiall Altar ; even the Gifts , which hee called The fruits of the earth . And then after , for the Parties , aswell Priest , as People , To sanctifie their soules .

In the Liturgie of c 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 , &c. Post , sequitur Consecratio . Pontifex : Respice Domine Iesu . Et post Consecrationem ; Gratias agimus . Basil ( before Consecration ) it is prayed to God , that hee Receiving the Gifts into his celestiall Altar , would also ( concerning the Parties ) send his Grace , and Spirit upon them .

And no lesse plainly Pope d d Clement . Constitut . lib. 8. cap. 16. called , Constitutio Iacobi , apud Binium . Tu , qui Abelis Sacrificium suscepisti — And after , Pro omnibus tibi gloria , &c. cap. 17. Benignè aspicere digneris super haec dona proposita in conspectu tuo — & complaceas tibi in eis , in honorem Christi , & mittas spiritum super hoc Sacrificium , testem passionum ejus — ut ostendas hunc panem corpus ejus , &c. 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 , &c. 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 ; expresly differencing this Sacrifice , done in honour of Christ , from Christ himselfe , 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 Celestiall 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 : wee say againe , the Gift for Christ , and not Christ for the Gift , ( what can be more plaine against all Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament ? ) and to receive it into his Celestiall Altar , but how ? by intercession of Angels ? No , but expresly thus : By Christ the Mediatour .

In the Liturgie of e e Missa Chrysostomi antè Consecrationem . Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile , & incruentū hoc obsequium . Deposcimus ut mittas Spiritum sanctum super nos , et super apposita munera Sequitur Consecratio . Fac Panem istum preciosum Corpus , &c. Post Consecrationem . Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile hoc obsequium pro fideliter do●mientibꝰ , &c. Post . Dominum deprecemur , ut qui suscepit ea in sancto et coelesti Altari suo , mittat nobis proprerea gratiam , et donū Spiritus sancti . Chrysostome ( before Consecration ) God is prayed unto , and supplicated thus : Wee beseech thee to send thy Spirit upon us , and upon the Gifts set before us .

Even as f f Ambros . de Sacram lib 4. cap. 6. post Consecrationem . Offerimus tibi hunc Papem sanctum , et Calicem , et perimus ut hanc Oblationē suscipias in sublimi Altari tuo per manus Angelorum , sicut accipere dignatus es munera pueri tui Abel , &c. Ambrose explaineth his Supplication ( after Consecration ) for God , To accept this Oblation , namely that , which hee called Holy Bread , and Cup.

If therefore these former Formes may interpret your Romane Liturgie , 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 Romane 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 eternall , 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 mens prayers ( thereby greatly derogating from the meritorious Satisfaction of Christ : ) you ought to reduce this your Romane Canon to the Orthodox meaning of Ancient Liturgies above mentioned ; and to understand it Sacramentally onely , ( namely ) our Objective Representation , Commemoration , and Application thereof by us , which is our Act of Celebration .

To the former vast heape of Sacrilegious Positions , and Practices , wee may adde your other many vile , and impious g g Booke 5. thorowout . Indignities offered to the all-glorious Sonne of God , in making his sacred Body , in your owne opinions , obnoxious to the Imprisoning in Boxes , Tearing with mens 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 , Wormes ; and ( which transcendeth , if it may be , all your other Absurdities ) to be deprived of all naturall power of Motion , Sense , and Vnderstanding . O Abominable ! Abominable !

A Synopsis of the Idolatrousnesse of the Romish Masse , and Defence thereof ; by many Evidences from Antiquity . SECT. V.

OVr 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 , shewing , that the same pointeth out Bread , as you have a a Booke 2. Cha. 1. Sect. 6. heard : whereby the monstrous Conception of Transubstantiation is strangled in the very wombe .

Insomuch that sometimes they expressely * * Ibid. interpret it thus ; Christs Body , and Blood , that is , ( say they ) The Bread , and Wine . Item , Hee gave the name of the Signe to the thing signified . Item , Bread the Signe of his Body . And lastly , Bread is called Christs Body , because it signifieth his Body .

Secondly ( in the point of Transubstantiation it selfe ) They calling the Eucharist ( which you dare not ) b b Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 5. & 11. & Sect. 14. in Chrysost , and by Cyprian his Confutation of the Aquarii , ibid. Sect. 5. & Book 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 3. Bread and c c Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 5. Wine , after Consecration , and naming them * * Ibid. Sect. 13. Earthly materialls , and Matter of Bread : and also ( as you have heard out of the Ancient Liturgies ) d d Above in this Booke , Ch. 1. Sect. 4. Fruits of the Earth ; and yet more plainely , by way of Periphrasis , describing them to consist of e e Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Divers granes , and Divers grapes . After , by approving the Suffrage and judgement of our f f Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 8 , 9 , &c. Senses , in discerning all Sensible things ; and in speciall the Eucharist it selfe ; and at length affirming that there remaineth therein the g g Booke 3. Cha. 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 maner of Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist ; because so farre were the Fathers from beleeving that the Body of Christ could be in h h Booke 4. thorowout . divers places ( as you say in Millions ) at one time , that by this property of Being in many places at once , they have discerned Angells 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 adde the Fathers speeches , contradicting your Dreame 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 i Ibid. Chap. 7. Sect 6. and Booke 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . beene discussed from point to point .

Our Fourth Generall Argument is , that whereas your Corporall Presence must needs inferre Corporall Eating thereof by the Communicants , notwithstanding you have heard the contrary Sentences of Ancient Fathers , against k k Booke 5. thorowout . Tearing , and Swallowing of Christ's Body , and Bodily Egestion . Next concerning the Eaters , that onely the Godly faithfull 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 l Booke . 1. Cha. 2. Sect. 10. Earen ( by the ordinance of the Church ) by Schoole-boyes , and sometimes Burnt in the fire . Besides they called them m m Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. and Booke 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 n Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. They held the thing present to be a pledge of Christ's Body absent : and also o 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 Generall 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 ; wee , upon due inquisition into the doctrine of Antiquity , have p p Booke 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. thorowout , and elsewhere . found the Ancient Fathers 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 q B 3. Chap. 13 Sect. 10 nourish and satiate mans Bodily Nature . III. Such , as needeth prayer to God , that it may be r r In this Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Acceptable to God , as was the Sacrifice of Abels sheepe . IV. So naming it an Vnbloody Sacrifice , as meaning thereby s s Booke 6. thorowout , 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 Excesse of speech ( wherein they named it The same Sacrifice of Christ once offered ) by an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 correcting it thus ; t t Booke 6. Cha. 5. Sect. 6. A Sacrifice , or rather a Memoriall thereof . VI. By placing the Sacrifice of Christ his Body , as now Presentative onely in Heaven , and the thing offered , on Earth but a Signe . VII . In all your objected Testimonies , for proofe of the same Body of Christ in the Eucharist , which suffered on the Crosse , they understood the same as the u u Booke 6. Cha. 5. Sect. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , &c. Object of our Remembrance , and not as the Subject of Offering , which make up so many Arguments moe . VIII . By paralle●ing x x In this Booke , Chap. 2. Sect. 2 , & 3. Baptisme with the Eucharist , in like tenour of speech , from point to point . IX . By praying God to be y y Above in this Booke , Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Propitious to that which is offered .

Sixthly , upon the same Doctrine of Corporall Presence you have erected and fastned the roofe of all your Building , which is , Divine Adoration of the Host : yet notwithstanding have you not beene able , by the Testimonies of any ancient Father , to free your selves from Formall Idolatry , by any of your z z Booke 7. thorowout . Pretences ( devised for your excuse ) either of Good Intent , Morall Certainty , or of Habituall Condition : especially seeing that the Fathers , by that their universall Invitation , [ Lift up your hearts ] abstracted still the thoughts of the Communicants from contemplating of any Subject present here Below , that they might be drawne to the meditation of the Body of Christ , as it is in Heaven .

Lastly , in your owne Romish Masse , praying ( after Consecration ) God to be propitious to the things offered , as to Abels Sacrifice , which was but a sacrificed Sheepe .

Compute all these Particulars , and you shall finde about sixteene Arguments , to prove you to be absolutely Idolaters . Wee having thus reveiled these Three Principall , and Fundamentall Abominations , do now proceed to their Concomitants and Consequences , which are Mixtures of Heresie in many , Overture of Perjury in some , and Obstinacie in all . Wee begin at the last .

CHAP. II.

Of the exceeding Obstinacie of the Romish Disputers , made palpable by their owne Contradictions ; and of the Defence thereof , as being Contradictory in it selfe . SECT. I.

ALl your Disputers shew themselves in nothing more zealous , than in maintenance of your Romish Masse , 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 owne fellowes , as the Sections thorowout this whole Tractate do plainly demonstrate . Wee cannot therefore otherwise judge , but that as Prejudice is the chiefe Director , so Obstinacie is the greatest Supporter of your Cause .

How much more when the Defence it selfe is found to consist upon meere Contradictories , whereof you may take a Taste out of your Doctrine of Corporall Presence , and of a proper Sacrifice . In the first , by obtruding on mens Consciences a Beliefe ( 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 beene a a Booke 4. thorowout . proved in each point .

II. In a point of properly Sacrificing of Christ's Body , your Musicke stands upon the same kind of Discords , of b b See Booke 6. thorowout . 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 Obstinacie one would thinke , and yet behold a plainer , if it may be .

One Example , instead of many , of a stupendious Obstinacie , in urging the Iudgement of Antiquity , for Defence of your Romish Masse , in the chiefect parts thereof ; proved by instancing onely in their like Sayings concerning Baptisme . SECT. II.

THree chiefe Iesuites , besides others , have beene ( as you may c c Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 13. remember ) extremely urgent , and important with Protestants to shew , if they could , the like Phrases of the Fathers in Baptisme , 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 . Wee are to deale more liberally with them , and whereas they assume unto themselves the suffrages of Antiquity ; 1. For a Literall Exposition of Christs words [ This is my Body : ] 2. For a Change of Bread , by Transubstantiation into his Body : 3. For a Corporall Presence of the same Body in the Sacrament : 4. For a Bodily Vnion with our Bodies : 5. For a Proper Sacrifice of the Eucharist : And lastly , for a Divine Adoration thereof ; wee answer them from the Fathers , in their like Sayings concerning Baptisme , throughout every particular .

A Synopsis of the Speeches of Ancient Fathers , objected throughout this whole Treatise , for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist ; and assoyled and satisfied by the Parallels and like Equivalent Sayings of the same Fathers ; to the manifold and manifest Conviction of all Romish Deliration , in this their Controversie of the Masse . SECT. III.

WEe shall pursue your Objections , and our Solutions , according to the Order of the Bookes , wherein they are cited .

BOOKE II. I. Kind of Romish Objections , for proofe of the Corporall Presence of Christs 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 Baptisme 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 Corporall Presence therein . B. 2. c. 2. §. 9. SOL. Nay ; for as Baptisme is called by the Apostle a Buriall : So is the Sacrament of his Body called his Body . Augustine . And Baptisme , the Sacrament of Adoption , is called Adoption . Facundus . Ibid. BOOKE III. II. Kind of Objections , for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist , are found in this third Booke . OB. I. THe Fathers say of the Eucharist , that It is no Common Bread . Irenaeus , and Iustin Martyr , &c. B. 3. c. 4. §. 3. SOL. Nor is Water , in Baptisme , Bare Water . Cyril . Ibid. OB. II. Wee must not judge hereof by sense , for no sensible thing is herein given unto us . Chrysostome . B. 3. c. 4. § 5. Ergo. &c. SOL. In Baptisme no sensible thing is delivered . Chrysost. Ibid. Nor are wee to consider Baptisme with the eyes of the Body . Councell 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 Baptisme is man made a new Creature . Ambrose . By which the Baptized is made the flesh of Christ . P. Leo Ibid. OB. IV. Bread is changed into Christ's Body . Greg. Nyssen . B. 3. c. 4. Sect. 7. Ergo , &c. SOL. Not so ; for of the Eucharist so , as of Baptisme : It preserveth the propriety of its sensible Substance . Ephraimius . Booke 3. c. 3. Sect. 14. BOOKE . IV. III. Kind of Romish Objections , for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist , are found in this Fourth Booke . OB. I. CHrist is present in the Sacrament . So Fathers . Booke 4. Ergo , &c. SOL. Wee have Christ present in Baptisme . Aug. B. 4. c. 1. Sect. 2. OB. II. Thinke not that the Priest , but Christ reacheth it unto thee . Chrysostome . Ergo , &c. Booke 3. c. 4. Sect. 6. SOL. Even as it is said of Baptisme ; It is not the Minister , but God that Baptizeth , and holdeth the head of the person Baptized . Chrysost. B. 3. c. 4. Sect. 6. OB. III. Miracles have beene wrought by this divine Sacrament of the Eucharist . Socrates . Ergo , &c. B. 4. cap. 2. Sect. 5. SOL. Miracles have beene wrought at the Font. August . Booke 4. cap. 2. Sect. 5. And , The Divine Water of Baptisme produceth marveilous effects . Greg. Nyssen . Booke 3. cap. 3. Sect. 13. BOOKE V. IV. Kind of Romish Objections , for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist , are found in this Fifth Booke . I. By Tovc● . OB. I. WEe touch him , and hee is held by the hand of the Priest . Chrysost. Ergo , &c. Booke 5. cap. 4. Sect. 2 . SOL. As well is it said by him , of parties Baptized , that They hold the feete of our Saviour . Chrysost. Ibid. OB. II By the Eucharist , Christ's Blood is sprinkled upon us , when hee is received both with mouth and heart . Pope Gregory . Ergo , &c. B. 5. c. 5. §. 6. in the Margin . SOL. Accordingly of Baptisme . Christ's Blood is sprinkled on the Foreheads of the Baptized . Pope Gregory . Ibid. II. BY EATING . OB. I. Wee eate Christ's flesh in the Eucharist . Divers Fathers . Ergo , &c. B. 5. c. 5. Sect. 2. SOL. And Infants are partakers of his flesh by being Baptized . August . B. 5. c. 8. Sect. 1. OB. II. Our Tongues , in receiving the Eucharist , are made red with his Blood . Chrysost. Ergo , &c. Booke 5. cap. 5. Sect. 6. SOL And Baptisme is red with his Blood . August . Ibid. Sect. 6. III. By our manner of Vnion with Christ's body , through this Sacrament . OB. I. Wee have a naturall Vnion with Christ hereby , and not onely in affection . Cyril and Hilarie . Ergo , &c. Booke 5. cap. 8. Sect. 2. SOL. So likewise Christians by Baptisme are made one with Christ , not onely in affection , but also in nature . Hilarie . Ibid. Wee are incorporate in Christ . Aug. Ibid. Sect. 1. Made Bone of his Bone , and flesh of his flesh . Chrysost. Ibid. OB. II. Wee are Christophers , or Carriers of Christ hereby . Cyril . Ergo. B. 5. c. 8. Sect. 3. SOL. So also , by Baptisme , Wee 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 doe injury to Christ . Cyprian . Ergo. B. 5. c. 9. §. 1. SOL. Hee that receiveth Baptisme 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 Baptisme 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. Booke 5. cap. 4. Sect. ● . SOL. Well , And Baptisme is an Earnest of our Resurrection to life . Theod. & Basil . Ibid. OB. IV. By the Eucharist wee are nourished unto Immortalitie . Cyril . Ergo. B. 5. c. 8. Sect. 2. SOL. So likewise of Baptisme ; By it wee are made alive , as being no more earthly . Athanasius . Ibid. BOOKE VI. V. Kind is in the point of Sacrifice , whereof in this Sixt Book throughout . OB. I. THe Fathers call the Eucharist a Sacrifice of Christ . Chrysostome , and others . B. 6. throughout . Ergo. SOL. And what of Baptisme ? It is the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion ; and every one offereth , when hee is Baptized 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. Baptisme is our reasonable worship of God . Athanas . B. 6. c. 5. Sect. 9. BOOKE VII . VI. Kind of Romish Objections for proof of Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist , arise from this their Pretense , that the Fathers gave Divine Adoration unto it . OB. I. THis Sacrament of the Eucharist is dreadfull , whereunto men should come with feare . Chrysost. Ergo , to be Adored with divine worship . Booke 7. cap. 2. Sect. 2. SOL. So the Canons of Baptisme are terrible words . Chrysost. B. 6. c. 5. § . 8. And Wee are to be brought with feare and horrour to Baptisme . August . Booke 7. cap. 2. Sect. 1. OB. II. Angels of God are present at the Eucharist . Chrysost. Ergo , &c. B. 7. c. 2. Sect. 2. SOL. And , The Angels magnifie Baptisme by their presence . Greg. Nazian. Ibid. OB. III. The mysterie of the Eucharist is to be kept secret from Infidels and Catechumenists . And Only [ fideles nôrunt . ] August . and Others . Ergo , &c. Booke 7. cap. 3. Sect. 1. SOL. Let none but perfect Christians see the signes of Baptisme . Dionys. Areop. and Only [ fideles nôrunt . ] August . Ibid. OB. IV. None eateth the flesh of Christ before hee adore . August . Ergo , &c. B. 7. c. 2. Sect. 3. SOL. The Catechumenists adore , before they be baptized . Athanasius . Ibid. OB. V. Wee adore these mysteries . Ambrose . Ergo , &c. Booke 7. cap. 2. Sect. 3. SOL. And , Wee Reverence Baptisme wheresoever . Aug. Ibidem . Baptisme is worshipped . Idem ibidem . OB. VI. Of the Eucharist , O Divine Sacrament . Dionys. Areop. Ergo , &c. B. 7. c. 3. Sect. 4. SOL. Iust so of Baptisme ; O water , that &c. Optat. Divine Lavar . Greg. Nyssen . Booke 7. cap. 7. Sect. 4.

So many Parallels , so pregnant and punctuall , in so maine points , assoyling Romish Objections in their Instances of greatest weight and urgencie ; what , but Obstinacie it selfe , 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 Baptisme ; what greater Evidence can any desire to be made of a wilfull Obstinacie ( that wee say not madnesse ) than this of your Disputers appeareth to be ? but how much more , if wee should point at the other manifold Instances , which wee have prosecuted at large throughout this whole Volume , wherein their Vnconscionablenesse hath beene manifested in all passages to the Conscience of every indifferent Reader . Yet were this their Guilt not so hainous , if such their Obstinacie were not infected with some contagion of Perjury .

A Synopsis of manifold Overtures of Perjuries , in Defence of the Romish Masse . SECT. IV.

EVery Perjury presupposeth an Oath ; which you have in the a a Bulla Pii Quarti super forma Iuramenti — 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 Ecclesiasticke , subject to the See of Rome , for the ratifying of the Beliefe of the many new Romish Articles contained therein , as True , Catholike , and without which none can be saved . The due proofe 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 wee are not altogether unprovided . But wee are to confine our selves to the Observations promised in our former Discourse , in foure speciall points .

I. Overture of Perjury is in Swearing unto that , which is called The Vulgar Latine Translation .

THis is decreed in the Councel of a 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 Authenticall , and not to be rejected upon any Pretence whatsoever . Whereunto ( together with all other Decrees , and Declarations of the same Councel ) you are sworne by the forme of Oath set downe in the foresaid Bull of the Pope . The same Vulgar Translation , professed by you to be Authenticall , and that ( as you expound it ) it is b b Sacrobos . Defens . 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 , &c. 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 Originall , the Hebrew , and Greeke Texts , hath notwithstanding beene rejected by your c c Booke 6. Cap. 1. Sect 2. Cardinall , and the Greeke Translation urged for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice . Even as it hath beene frequently excepted against by other learned Doctors in your Church , after the Councel of Trent , noting Errours therein not onely by fault of Print , but also such as hapned by the Negligence , or Ignorance of the Author thereof , as is d d Azorius Moral . Tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 3. §. Quartò . &c. 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. &c. 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 onely in matter of Faith , and good maners . Which is also your e 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● Defens . fid. Trid & Salmeron . Tom. 1. Prolegom. 3. Cardinall his Evasion ; but is no better than a lurking hole , and so seemeth it to be to your two Iesuits f f Azorius quo supra . Mihi verò verior videtur eorum esse sententia , qui opinantur vulgatā Editionem non solum in rebus fidei , & morū , sed in caeteris quoque omnibus omni errore carere : quia licet aliquando aliqua significantius , proprius , ac latius reddi potuerit ; non tamen verius , aut simpliciter certius . Azorius , and g g Greg. Valent. Analys lib. 8. c. 4. §. Etenim , &c. 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 assequutum — In omnibus igitur locis vult Concilium Eam haberi pro Authenticâ , exceptis erroribus Typographorum — ( Vt Iudic. cap. 11. pro , altera Matre , lectum fuisse adultera Matre , ut quidam objiciunt ) — Nam Concilium probavit veterem benè Typis impressam — Post . §. Porrò . Nullo modo audiendi sunt ii , qui , post Concilium Tridentinum , contendunt , Editionem Vulgatam aliquibus in locis , quod ad ipsam sententiam attinet , emendari , Quin potiùs Graeci , & Hebraici Codices , siquidem dissideant à nostra , sunt per eam corrigendi . Valentia , who thinke that Oath to be violated , if the Vulgar Latine be rejected at all , as lesse true than the Originals . And your Spanish Inquisitors finding , in one of your Romish Doctors , the Rule of Hierome , and Augustine urged , which is , that no Translation Latine , or other be further allowed than as it agreeth with the Originals , they faire and cleanly wipe it out , saying that h h Index Expurgatorius Hispanicus , ad nomen Martinz — Quamvis haec , quae Hieronymus , & Augustinus docuerunt , vera sunt , tamen post Concilii Tridentini Decretum , non licet Vulgatae Latinae Testimonia quovis praetextu rejicere , prout in ipsius Concilii Decreto constitutum est . fol. 145. Although that , which Hierome and Augustine taught , be true ; yet now since the Councel of Trent it is not lawfull to reject the same Translation upon any pretence whatsoever . ⚜ Accordingly your Iesuite Lorinus ( in a matter concerning neither faith nor maners ) i i Lorinus Ies. Comment. in Lib. Sap. ca. 12. Versq . 6. §. Vatablus . — Non licet nobis discrepantem expositionem ab Editione nostra Vulgata jam correcta sequi . It is not lawfull for us ( saith hee ) to follow an Exposition differing from the Vulgar Edition , which is now corrected . ⚜ So they . And so farre unsatisfied are your Doctors , in taking this Oath .

Wee are furthermore not destiture of matter for a large Confutation ( first ) of your assuming Saint Hierome as the Author of your Vulgar Latine Translation ; to manifest that it is no more the Translation of Hierome , or yet of any one Author , than the divers habits of a mans Body , from head to foot , can be called the worke of one singular work-man .

Secondly , concerning the Authority thereof , you professe it to be Authenticall ( that is , as you have defined ) Conformable to the Originall Hebrew and Greeke : although it may be as easily proved , not to be that Ancient Vulgar , which had continued ( as the Decree speaketh ) from divers ages , than the Ship of Theseus , which after some Ages had beene so thorowly battered and pierced , that at last the keele and bottome therof did onely remaine , which could be called the Same . But passing by all further Dispute , wee shall referre you to the judgement of the Patrones of the former Rule ( so insolently contemned by the Spanish Inquisitors , as you have heard ) by one Instance , which may be sufficient in it selfe for triall of the Case now in hand .

The Text of Scripture is Ephes. 1. 14. in the Latine Translation ( even in that , which is set forth by Pope i i Clem. Octavus — In perpetuam rei memoriam — Textus accuratissime mendis purgatus . Clement , as The most accurate Edition ) thus : k 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 Greeke it is : You are sealed with the spirit of promise , which is the Earnest of your inheritance . The Question is , whether of these is to be preferred ; and Hierome , and Augustine are ready to resolve you herein , both of them Correcting the Vulgar Translation in the word Pledge , and one of them giving an Absit ! against this Sense of it . The Reason of both is , because hee that giveth a Pledge taketh it againe , when the Thing , for which it was pledged , is received . But hee that giveth an Earnest , will have it continue with him , to whom it was given . And so God assuring his Chosen , by his Spirit , doth for their greater Confidence give it as an Earnest , and not as a Pledge . So they . Therby advancing Gods gracious love , towards man , and mans faith in Gods love . Here will be no corner of Pretence , that this being an Errour of Print , and not of Doctrine , may be rejected by you without Prejudice to your Oath ; no , for Errour of Print ariseth from some affinity of words , ( as where these words , This is a sound Reason , being delivered to the Print , was returned from the Presse thus ; This is a fond Reason . ) But betweene Pignus , and Arrhabo , there is no more Symphonie than betweene an Horse , and a Saddle . Nor will it avayle you to say that the Originall Greeke was corrupted , for it is the same Greeke word , which Hierome himselfe ( who as you know used the perfectest Greeke Text ) doth here avow to be True .

II. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the Romish Expositions of Scripture .

THe Tenour of the Oath , in this respect , is : a a Bulla eadem . Sacram Scripturam admitto juxta eum sensum , quem Tenuit , & Tenet Mater Ecclesia — extra quam nemo salvus , &c. I admit the sacred Scriptures in that Sense , which the Mother Church hath held , and doth hold . By [ Mother Church ] understanding the Church of Rome , as without which there is no salvation ; which is expressed in the same Oath , as another Article therein , and which else-where wee have proved to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE , in a full Tractate , from the Doctrine of the Apostles , of Generall Councels , of severall Catholike Churches , and from such Primitive Fathers , whose memories are at this day registred in the Romish Calender of Saints . How then can the Oath for this point be taken without danger of Perjury ? But to come to the Article , concerning the Expositions of Scriptures According to the sense of the Church of Rome , which would thereby be thought to Hold no Sense of Scripture now , which shee had not Held in more Ancient Times . Wee , for Triall hereof , shall for this present seeke after no other Instances , than such as in this Treatise have beene discussed , and for brevity-sake single , out of many , but onely Three ; A first is in that Scripture , Ioh. 6. Except you eate the flesh of the Son of man , you cannot have life .

The word [ Except ] was extended unto Infants in the dayes of Pope Innocent the First , continuing ( as hath beene b b Booke 1. Ch. 2. Sect. ●1 . confessed ) six hundred yeares together , when the Church of Rome thereupon Held it necessary for Infants to receive the Eucharist . Contrarily the now Romane Church Holdeth it Inexpedient to administer the Eucharist unto Infants , as you have heard .

Secondly , Luk. 22. Take , Eate , &c. Your Church of Rome , in the dayes of Pope Nicholas , in a Councel at Rome , Held , that by the word , Eate , was meant an c c Booke 3. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Eating , by Tearing the Body of Christ sensually with mens teeth , in a Literall sense . Which your now Romane Church ( if wee may believe your Iesuites ) doth not Hold , as hath appeared .

Thirdly the Tenour of the Institution of Christ , concerning the Cup , was Held in the dayes of Pope d d Booke 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. Gelasius to be peremptory , for the administration thereof , to prove that the Eucharist ought to be administred in both kindes to all Communicants , and judging the dismembring of them a Grand Sacrilege , as you have heard : whereas now your Romish Church Holdeth it not onely lawfull , but also religious to with-hold the Cup from all , but onely Consecrating Priests . Vpon these ( omitting other Scriptures , which you your selves may observe at your best leasure ) wee conclude . You therefore in taking that Oath , swearing to admit all Interpretations of Scripture , both which the Church of Rome once Held , and now Holdeth ; the Proverbe must needs be verified upon you , viz. You hold a Woolfe by the eare : which howsoever you Hold , you are sure to be Oath-bit , either in Holding TENVIT , by TENET , or in Holding TENET , by TENVIT .

III. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers , is in swearing to the pretended Consent of Fathers , in their Expositions of Scriptures .

HEare your Oath . a a Bulla ead . Nec Scripturam ullam , nisi juxtà unanimem Consensum Patrum interpretabor . Neither will I ever interpret any Scripture , but according to the unanimous consent of Fathers . Here the word [ Fathers ] cannot betoken Bishops and Fathers assembled in a Councel , where the major part of voices conclude the lesse ; for Councel never writ Commentaries upon Scriptures , but from Scriptures collect their Conclusions . And although the word [ Vnanimous ] doth literally signifie the universall Consent ( which would inferre an Impossibility , because that all Fathers have not expounded any one Scripture , and very few ( All ) yet that you may know wee presse not too violently upon you , wee shall be content to take this word Morally , with this Diminution , For the most part ; and hereupon make bold to averre , that your Iuror by this Oath is sworne to a flat Falsity , because you cannot deny but that the Fathers , in their Expositions , dissent among themselves , insomuch that you your selves are at difference , among your selves , which part to side with ; b 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 c Canus . Ioc. Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. num. 8. Plurium Sanctorum authoritas , reliquis licet paucioribus reclamantibus , firma Argumenta sufficere , & praestare non valet . Lesser , ( saith Canus . ) Can you dreame of an Vnanimity in Disparity ? Sometime there is a Non-Constat , what is the Iudgement of the Fathers in some points , which you call matter of Faith . What then ? Then ( saith your d d Valent. quo supra . Quod si per Sententiam Doctorum aliqua fidei controversia non satis commodè componi posset , eo quod de eorum consensu non satis constaret , sua tunc constet Authoritas Pontifici , ut consultis aliis ad definiendum regulis , de quibus est dictum , Ecclesiae proponat , quid sit sentiendum . Iesuite ) the Authority of the Pope is to take place , who being guided by other rules may propound what is the Sense . Behold here the very ground of that , which wee call Popery , which is devising and obtruding upon the Church of Christ new Articles of Faith unknowne ( for ought you know ) to Ancient Fathers . And is it possible to find an Vnanimity of Consent in an Individuall Vnity , or rather a Nullity ? for what else is an Ignorance , what the Sense of the Fathers is , whether so , or so ?

Next , that it may appeare that this Article , touching the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers , is a meere Ostentation and gullery , and no better than that Challenge made by the wise man of Athens of all the Ships , that entred into the Road , to be his owne : as if you should say , All the Fathers do patronize your Romish Cause . Wee shall give you one or two Examples , among your Iesuites , as patternes of the Disposition of others in neglecting , sleighting , and rejecting the more Generall Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures . One Instance may be given in your Cardinall , who , in his Commentaries upon the Psalmes , dedicated to the then Pope , professeth himselfe to have composed them , e e Bellar. Epist. Dedic . Paulo Quinto entè Comment. in Psal. Psalmorum ego tractationē magis propriâ meditatione , quam mul●â librorum lectione composui . Rather by his owne meditation , than by reading of many Bookes ; whereas hee that will seeke for Vnanimous Consent of Fathers , must have a perusall of them all . In the second place hearken unto the Accents of your Iesuite Maldonate , in his rejecting the Expositions of the Fathers , as for Example : f 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 . Itē 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 Ioh. 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 Hilarie , do thinke . 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 hee , and that usually . ( O dura ilia ! ) With what Stomach could this man swallow that Oath ?

Salmeron the Iesuite may stand for the Third upon that Text , Rom. 5. In whom all have sinned , which teacheth the universall Guilt of Originall Sin of mankinde . What the Sense of the Fathers was from this Text , your Canus will certifie you ; g 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 hee rechoneth , adding : Et si nullos contravenerit ; infirmum tamen ex omnium autoritate Argumentū . All they ( saith hee ) who have formerly fallen upon this subject matter , have confessed , as it were with one mouth , that the Virgin Mary was conceived in Originall sin , no one contrarying this Opinion . So hee , of the Iudgement of Antiquity , which notwithstanding hee durst contradict . But wee returne to your Iesuite , who premising that this Question doth belong to Faith , propoundeth h 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 , &c. At Antiqui . Resp Quilibet senex laudator temporis acti●sed & illud asserimus , quo juniores , eo perspicactores Doctores esse [ After hee wrangleth , and wresteth some sayings 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 proofe that the Virgin Mary hath the same Originall defect in her owne naturall Generation , and shapeth Answers full of regret , and reluctancie . For , first , To this Objection ; The Fathers did consent : Hee answereth thus ; The Argument from Authority is infirme . II. To this ; The Fathers were Ancient : Thus ; The younger Divines are more quicke of understanding . III. To this ; The Fathers were many : Hee answereth ; Hee is but a poore man that can number his Cattell . And againe , confronting the Ancient Fathers , and preferring novell Divines , hee saith ; Wee oppose multitude to multitude . IV. But The Fathers were Devout : hee 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 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 wee either more Learned , or more Devout than the Fathers ? Your Iesuite answering to him by name , casteth him off with the Rest .

Here wee see an Oath exacting a Consent to the Vnanimous Expositions of Fathers , and heare notwithstanding as plaine a Dissent of your Iesuites opposition unto Vnanimous 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 heires of the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers . Your Fathers of the Councel of Trent have set it downe for a Canon , whereunto you are also sworne , that the words of Christ his Institution , concerning the giving of his Body and Blood , * * Booke 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Have a plaine , and proper signification without Tropes : which notwithstanding , the same words of Christ have beene evinced to be Figurative , not onely by the Vnanimous Consent of k k Booke 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. and Chap. 2. Sect. 6. & 7. Antiquity , but also by the expresse l l Booke 2. Cha. 2. Sect. 4. See also B. 3. Ch. 3. in the words , [ The fruit of the Vine . ] Sect. 5. Confessions of your owne Iesuites , in the words [ Eate , Breake , Cup , &c. ] and wherin your selves 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 your selves , and then judge whether your Swearing be not Perjury it selfe .

IV. Overture of Perjury , in the Defenders of the Romish Masse , 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 sworne that every Article therein is the a a See above in this Sect. 4. Initio , at the letter ( a. ) True Catholike Faith , without which none can be saved ; among which is the Article already mentioned , swearing to whatsoever was declared in the Councel of Trent , by which Councel your now Romane b b Synod . Trident . Sess. 15. Missall , or Masse-booke is approved . Now take a Taste of your Oath in every Epithet . First , [ True : ] and hereby are you sworne that in the dayes of Pope Innocentius the third , the Administration of the Eucharist to Infants was not held necessary ; which your owne Authors have c c Booke 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 Catholike ( that is ) anciently Vniversall : which was generally condemned by Ancient Fathers ; and , even in the Church of Rome it selfe , abandoned by two d d Booke 1. Cha. 2. Sect. 9. Popes .

Lastly , in the point of Necessity to salvation ; To sweare that whosoever believeth not that one may be said to c c Booke 1. Cha. 2. Sect. 5. Communicate alone , is damned ; that whosoever believeth not that the Priest in the Masse , being alone , can duly say , The Lord be with you , hee is damned ; or that the f f See Booke 4. Body of Christ may not be run away with Mice , and be blowne away with the wind , hee is damned ; and a number other like extreme foolish Crotchets , set downe in your Missals , which wee willingly omit . The Summe of all these is , that the same your Oath , made to damne others , doth serve chiefly to make the Swearers themselves most damnable . If peradventure any of you shall oppose , saying that none of you within this Kingdome ( which never admitted of the Councel 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 Actuall Perjury , yet can it not free him from the Habituall , which is , that hee is disposed in himselfe to take it , whensoever it shall be offered unto him in any Kingdome , that doth imbrace and professe the same .

Our last Advertisement followeth . Of the Mixture of many old Heresies with the former Defence of the Romish Masse . SECT. V.

THe more odious the Title of this Section may seëme to be , the more studious ought you to shew your selves in examining the proofes thereof ; that so you may either confute , or confesse them , and accordingly re-assume , or renounce your Romish Defence .

Heresie hath a double aspect : One is when it is direct , having the expresse termes of Heresie ; the Other is oblique , and by consequence , when the Defence doth inferre or imply necessarily the same Hereticall Sense , even as it may be said of Treason . For to say that Caesar is not King , is a Treasonable speech Directly , in a plaine Sense ; and to say that Tribute money is not due to Caesar , is as Treasonable in the Consequence . Thus much being premised , wee are now to recognize such Errours , wherin your Disputers may seeme to have accordance with old Heretikes , which point wee shall pursue according to the order of the Bookes .

BOOKE I. Wherein your Church is found altering almost the whole forme of Christ his Institution , and the Custome of the Catholike Church , descended from the Apostles ; which Presumption Pope a a Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 3. Iulius 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 Heretickes by your Aquinas . In which Comparison your Aberration from Christs example is so much greater than theirs , as you are found Guilty in defending b b Booke 1. thorowout . Ten Innovations , for one .

2. Your Pope Gelasius condemned the Hereticall Manichees , for thinking it lawfull not to receive the Cup in the Administration of the Eucharist , judging it to be c c Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 7. Greatly Sacrilegious : notwithstanding your d d Ibid. Church authorizeth the same Custome of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants .

3. As c c Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 10. you pretend Reverence , for withdrawing the Cup ; so did the f f Ibid. Sect. 10. Aquarij forbeare wine , and used onely 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 . Wee therefore exact of you an Authority for altering the Apostles Customes , and Constitutions ; and are answered that g g Booke 1. Cha. 3. Sect. 4. your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts . Iump with them , who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions , replyed that h h Ibid. They were herein above the Apostles , whom therefore Irenaeus reckoneth among the Heretikes of his Time .

BOOKE II. It is not nothing , which hath beene observed therein ( to wit ) your Reasoning , why you ought not to interpret the words of Christ [ This is my Body ] i i Booke 2. Cha. 3. thorowout . literally ; and why you urge his other Saying [ Except you eate my flesh ] k k Ibid. for proofe of Bodily Eating ; so that your Priest may literally say in your Masse , that The Body of Christ passeth into your Bellies and Entrails , because ( forsooth ) the words of Christ are l l Booke 2. Cha. 3. Sect. 2. Doctrinall . And have you not heard of one Nicodemus , who hearing Christ teach that every man must be * * Ioh. 3. Borne againe , who shall be partaker of Gods Kingdome ; and that hee , expounding them in a Literall Sense , conceited a new Entrance into his Mothers wombe , when as nothing wanted to turne that his Errour into an Heresie , but onely Obstinacie ? But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers , you have received a full m m See above in this Booke , Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Synopsis .

BOOKE 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 n Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. Production of Christs Body out of the Substance of Bread , it necessarily inferreth a Body ( called , and believed to be Christs ) which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin , as Saint Augustine hath plainly o o Booke . 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 Heresie of Apollinaris , who taught a p p Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 2 Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary .

Secondly , You exclude all judgement of q q Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. Senses , in discerning Bread to be truly Bread , as did the r r Manichaei dicebant Christum non esse verum hominem , sed phantasma quoddam . Pr●teol . Elench. Haeret. Manichees in discerning Christ's Body , when hee was heere alive , which they thereupon held not to have beene a True , but a Phantasticall Body . Tertullian also challengeth the Verity of Sense , in judging of Wine in the Eucharist , ( after Consecration ) in Confutation of the same Errour in the Marcionites .

Thirdly , for Defence of Christ his invisible Bodily Presence , you professe that ( after Consecration ) Bread is no more the same , but changed into the Body of Christ : which Doctrine in very expresse words was bolted out by an Eutychian Heretike , and instantly coudemned by s s Booke 3. Cha. 3. Sect. 12. Theodoret , and as fully abandoned by Pope t t Ibid. Sect. 13. Gelasius .

BOOKE IV. Catholike 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 diversly oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body , sometime in direct termes , and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences ; whether it were by gaine-saying the Finitenesse , or Solidity , or else the compleat Perfection thereof : wherein how farre yee may challenge affinity or kindred with them , be you pleased to examine by this which followeth .

I. The Heretikes , who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily Finitenesse , said that it was in divers places at once , ( as is u 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 Catholike Fathers for Hereticall , it may best be seene by their Doctrine of the Existence of Christ's Body in one onely place ; not onely Definitively , but also Circumscriptively : both which do teach an absolute Impossibility of the Existence of the same in divers places at once . And they were as zealous in professing the Article of the maner of Christs Bodily Being in place , as they are in instructing men of the Article of Christ's Bodily Being , lest that the deniall of its Bodily maner of being might destroy the nature of his Body . ⚜ So farre , that the Ancient Father Vigilius * * Vigilius . B. 4. C. 5. §. 5. testifieth , that to believe The Body of Christ , wheresoever it was , to be Circumscribed in one place , was the Ancient Catholike Doctrine of those Ages . ⚜ To which end they have concluded it to be absolutely but in one place , sometime in a x x Chap. 4 thorowout . Circumscriptive Finitenesse , thereby distinguishing them from all created Spirits ; and sometime by a Definitive Termination , which they set downe first by Exemplications , thus : y y Ibid. Sect. ● . If Christ his Body be on Earth , then it is absent from Heaven ; and thus , Being in the Sunne , it could not be in the Moone : Secondly , by divers Comparisons , for comparing the Creature with the Creator God , they a 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 b Cha. 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 c Cha. ● . 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 Heretikes . A thing so well knowne to your elder Romish Schoole , that it confessed the Doctrine of Existence of a Body in divers places at once ( in the judgement of Antiquity ) to be d d Ibid. Hereticall . ⚜ Yea and so Hereticall , that it openeth a Sluce for the old raucid Heresie 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 Hee is in divers places at once . Which was likewise * * B. 4. ● . 6. §. 3. Tertullians Argument , to prove the Godhead of Christ .

II. The property of a Solidity likewise was patronized by Ancient Fathers , in confutation of Heretikes , by teaching e e Chap. 7. Sect. 6. Christs Body to be necessarily Palpable , against their Impalpabilitie ; and to have a Thicknesse , against their feigned subtile Body , as the Aire . ⚜ A whole * * Booke 4. c. 8. §. ● ▪ Generall Councel 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 f Cha. 7. Sect. 6. Being whole in the whole space , and in every part thereof ; and of Christ's Body g g Cha. 4 Sect. 9 taking the Right hand , or left , of it selfe .

III The property of Perfection of the Body of Christ , wheresoever , in the highest Degree of Absolutenesse . This ( one would thinke ) every Christian heart should assent unto , at the first hearing ; wherefore if that they were judged Heretickes by Ancient Fathers , who h h Prateol . Elench. haeres . Tit. Philoponus Alexandrinus . Statuit mortuorum resurrectionem esse , viz. rationalium animarum cum corruptibili corpore indissolubilem unionem . taught an Indivisible Vnion of mens soules with their Bodies naturally , still subject to corruption after the resurrection ; who can imagine that the holy Catholicke Fathers would otherwise have judged of this your generall Tenet , ( viz. to beleeve a Body of Christ , now since his Glorification , which is destitute of all power of naturall motion , sense , appetite , or understanding ) otherwise than of a senselesse , and Antichristian Deliration , and Delusion ? ⚜ Fie , no! for they believed no Body of Christ , after his Resurrection , but such as is * * Booke 4. Cha. 9. §. 3. void of all infirmity , and in all integrity most perfect . ⚜ Yea and that which is your onely Reason you allege , to avoid our Objection of Impossibilities in such cases , ( to wit ) i i Booke 4. Ch. 5. Sect. ● . The Omnipotencie of God , the same was the Pretence of Heretikes of old , in the like Assertions ; which occasioned the Ancient Fathers to terme the Pretence of Omnipotencie , k k Ibid. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. The Sanctuary of Heretikes : albeit the same Heretikes , ( as well as you ) intended ( as a Father speaketh ) to magnifie God thereby ; namely , inbeleeving the Body of Christ , after his Ascension , to be wholly Spirituall . To which Heretikes the same Father readily answered , ( as wee may to you ) saying , l l Chap. 4. Sect. ● . at ( b & c. ) When you will so magnifie Christ , you do but accuse him of falshood : not that wee do any whit detract from the Omnipotencie of Christ , ( farre be this Spirit of Blasphemy from us ! ) but that ( as you have beene instructed by Ancient Fathers ) the attributing an Impossibility to God , in such Cases of Contradiction , is not a diminishing , but an ample advancing of the m m Ibid. Omnipotencie of God .

BOOKE V. Your Orall Eating , Gutturall Swallowing , and Inward Digestion ( as you have n n Booke ● thorowout . taught ) of the Body of Christ into your Entrails , and from thence into the Draught , hath beene proved out of the Fathers to be in each respect sufficiently Capernaiticall , and termed by them a Sense both o o Booke 5. Cha. 6. Sect. 4 Pernicious , and Flagitious . Besides you have a Confutation of the Hereticall Manichees , for their p p Booke 5. Ch. 6. Sect. 3. Opinion of Fastning Christ to mens guts , and loosing him againe by their belchings : Consonant to your Romish Profession both of Christ's q q Booke 5. Ch. 6. Sect. 1. Cleaving to the guts of your Communicants , and r r Booke 5. Cha. 6. Sect. 2. Vomiting it up againe , when you have done . ⚜ Besides the same Fathers condemned the Heresie of the same Capernaites * * See Booke 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 5. & Chap. 3. ● 2. & Ch 8. §. 2. for not discerning Christs words , after his speaking of Eating his flesh : Hee made mention of his Ascension into Heaven ; saying , When you shall see the Sonne of man ascending where hee first was , they did not understand that they therefore could not Eate him on Earth , as they imagined , because hee should ascend to Heaven . ⚜

BOOKE VI. This is spent wholly in examining the Romish Doctrine of Masse-Sacrifice , and in proving it to be Sacrilegiousnesse it selfe , as you have seene in a former s s See above in this Booke , Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Synopsis .

BOOKE VII . This containeth a Discoverie of your Masse-Idolatry , not onely as being equall with the Doctrine of some Heretikes , but in one respect exceeding the infatuation of the very t t Booke 7. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. Pagans ; besides the Generall Doctrine of the power of your Priests u u Cha. 5. Sect. 3. Intention , in consecrating , hath beene yoaked , by your owne Jesuite , with the Heresies of the * * Cha. 9. Sect. 5. Donatists .

When you have beheld your owne faces in these divers Synopses as it were in so many glasses , wee pray to God that the sight of so many and so prodigious Abominations in your Romish Masse may draw you to a just Detestation of it , and bring you to that true worship of God , which is to be performed in Spirit and in Truth , and to the saving of every one of your soules , through his Grace in Christ Iesus . AMEN . * ⁎ *

ALL GLORY BE ONELY TO GOD.