Of the institution of the sacrament of the blessed bodie and blood of Christ, (by some called) the masse of Christ eight bookes; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abominations of the Romish masse. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By the R. Father in God Thomas L. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659. 1631 Approx. 1724 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 218 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A07812 STC 18189 ESTC S115096 99850315 99850315 15506 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A07812) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 15506) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 1249:8) Of the institution of the sacrament of the blessed bodie and blood of Christ, (by some called) the masse of Christ eight bookes; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abominations of the Romish masse. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By the R. Father in God Thomas L. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659. [20], 255, [1], 143, [17] p. Printed by W. Stansby, for Robert Mylbourne in Pauls Church-yard at the signe of the Grey-hound, London : MDCXXXI. [1631] "The sixth booke" (caption title) begins new pagination on (A)1r. Includes index. Reproduction of the original in the Union Theological Seminary (New York, N.Y.). Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Catholic Church -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800. Mass -- Early works to 1800. 2007-06 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2007-07 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-09 John Latta Sampled and proofread 2007-09 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion OF THE INSTITVTION OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE BLESSED BODIE AND BLOOD OF CHRIST , ( by some called ) THE MASSE OF CHRIST , Eight Bookes ; Discovering the Superstitious , Sacrilegious , and Idolatrous Abominations OF THE ROMISH MASSE . TOGETHER WITH The Consequent Obstinacies , Overtures of Perjuries , and the Heresies discernable in the DEFENDERS thereof . By the R. Father in GOD THOMAS L. Bishop of Coventry and LICHFIELD . LONDON , Printed by W. Stansby , for ROBERT MYLBOVRNE in Pauls Church-yard at the signe of the Grey-hound . MDCXXXI . VTRIVSQVE ACADEMIAE CANTABRIG . & OXON . Praeclaris Luminibus ac Ornamentis ; coeterisque Sacrae Theologiae candidatis , & sincerioris Literaturae Studiosis Gratiam & salutem in CHRISTO IESV . SIquanto amoris studio Vtramque Academiam persequor , tanto Honoris testimonio adornare eas possem ( Viri Clarissimi ) certè quidem hoc qualecunque Opus meum , vestro praesertim nomini inscriptum , usque adeò excellens & singulare fuisset , ut nec ad conciliandam gratiam Cujusquam , nec ad veniam deprecandam Praefatione aliquâ indigeret . In quo tamen si quaefortè vobis occurrant ( ut sunt sanè plurima ) nullo hactenùs , ex nostris partibus , Authore praevio , in medium prolata ; vestrae perspicacitatis erit , quanti momenti illa fuerint , dijudicare : quorum duntaxat Apices aliquot saltem attingere operaepretium esse duxi . Sacramento Eucharistiae Resp . Christiana nihil unquàm sublimius , nihil sanctius habuit atque Augustius , quo Christiani quodammodò in Christum ipsum transformamur . Hujus Institutionem in frontispicio libri , ex aliorum placitis , MISSAM appello : quam vocem aliquis fortassis omissam nimis velit . Quin estotu bono animo , quisquis es pius zelôtes , & Papisticae Missae exosor vehemens . Etenim nomen [ Missa ] secum omen suum apportat , quod cum à Dimittendis ijs , qui Eucharistiae participes esse nolunt , ortum suum traxit , Romanam Missam planè ingulat , quae ( veluti Amasios suos ) Spectatores meros omnibus lenocinijs ad se allicit atque invitat ; ac si in illo uno Theatrico spectaculo Religio ipsa Christiana ferè tota consisteret : quos tamen Antiquitas Catholica , apud Graecos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , apud Latinos Discedere iussit ; & in persistentes , ut in homines praefractos & impudentes , graviter acerbéque invecta est . Haec de Operis Titulo praefari mihi libuit , nè in isthoc vocabulo Missae , veluti in ipso vestibulo , impegisse videar . Ex parte Operis primâ , quam Practicam dicimus , constat Institutionis Christi Canones decem , per Tridentinos Canones , in Romana Missa perfringi jugiter & violari ; sed maiori nè impudentiâ , an impietate difficile est dicere : nam in Depravationibus istis patrocinandis mille annorum Consuetudini universali anteponunt sequioris aetatis Diutissimè , scilicet , retentam ( ut aiunt ) trecentorum annorum modernae Ecclesiae Romanae ( en ! ) sapientioris usum contrarium . Deindè Praeceptum praximque Apostolicam à Pontifice Rom. Abrogari posse garriunt : quin & adversus Exemplum Christi , multis retrò seculis vel ab ipsis Rom. Pontificibus sanctè religioseque observatum , obtendunt Consuetudinem contrariam habendam esse pro lege : hoc parum est , quià , quamvis de contrario Praecepto Christi constaret , nihilominùs Ius ipsum divinum à Pontifice Romano relaxari posse , Iesuita blasphemo ore pronunciat . Sequitur pars altera , quam Dogmaticam nominamus , in multa Membra se diffundens , ità tamen ut horum verborum Christi [ HOC EST CORPVS MEVM , &c. ] Expositioni literali Mysterij Romani de Eucharistia moles tota nitatur . Quanquàm dùm in istis explicandis Adversarij nostri , Tridentinorum Patrum spiritu afflati , Tropum omnem ab eisdem longè exulare iubent ; ipsi tamen ( quae est vertigo mera ) Tropos sex , velint nolint , coguntur agnoscere . Porrò in una particula [ HOC ] totius Controversiae cardo vertitur : de qua cum quaeritur , quid ea propriè designet , Pontificij Doctores in duas , easque contrarias , Opiniones distrahuntur . Alij enim per , Hoc , Christi corpus denotari volunt ; alij ad aliud ( quod ipsi commenti sunt ) Individuum Vagum Pronomen illud referunt : ità ut utrique , Andabatarum more , à se invicèm vapulent , dùm hi priorem sententiam prorsùs Absurdam , illi posteriorem Absurditatum plenam non dicunt modò , verúm etiam solidis Argumentis evincunt . Iam igitur , hoc uno fundamento ipsorum Pontificiorum Contradictionibus ( ut olim Turris Babel ) diruto atque dejecto , alia de Transsubstantiatione , de Corporali Christi Praesentia , Coniunctioneque cum corporibus Communicantium , de propriè dicto Sacrificio , & de divina denique Adoratione , superstructa portentosa Dogmata omnia corruere , & labefactari necesse est . De singulis , si placet , pauca delibemus . Primo in loco Trans●ubstantiationis non Dogma modò , sed & vox ipsa ( multò aliter quàm pisces ) novitate sua foetent . Ecquid habent , quod opponant ? nonnihil , nempè , Patres antiqui ( inquiunt ) de Conversione hujus Sacramenti verba facientes , Transformationis , Transitionis , Transmutationis , Transelementationis vocabula frequenter usurpârunt : unde ipsissimam suam Transsubstantiationem dilucidè probarigens Romana clamitat & vociferatur . Cum tamen Adversarios nostros minimè lateat , eosdem Sanctos Patres parilibertate sermonis iudicijque synceritate easdem voces singulas ad alias conversiones transtulisse , ut ( exempli gratiâ ) nunc Verbi praedicati in Auditorem , nunc Corporis Christi in Ecclesiam , nunc hominis Christiani in Christū , nūc denique Corporum Christianorum in ipsam Christi carnem . Vndè sequitur , quâ ratione praeclari isti Disputatores unam duntaxat Transsubstantiationem astruere conantur , eâdem ex ipsa lege Parium ( ô homines miserè fascinatos , aliosque miserrimè fascinantes ! ) quatuor alias tenentur admittere . In Membro tertio partis Dogmaticae quaestio de Corporali praesentia Christi in Eucharistia agitatur ; quaeque hùc pertinent omnia ad hoc unum Caput reducuntur ; Quid sit illud , quod , iuxta Christi institutionem , iam dicitur [ Corpus meum ? ] Hoc Catholica Ecclesia per multa secula ab Apostolicis usque temporibus nullum aliud esse credidit , quàm quod à B. Virgine natum , unum , uno in loco Definitum , seu circumscriptum , Organicum quoque , & demùm Sensuum omnium absolutissimâ integritate juxtà & Gloriae perfectione cumulatissimâ praeditum . At quod Romanenses Carbonarijs suis Discipulis obtrudunt , Deus bone ! quale Corpus , & quàm minimè illud MEVM ? Primò ( id enim natura Transsubstantiationis necessariò exigit ) Corpus , quale Pistores pinsunt , ex pane confectum ; mox Corpus ( namque hoc discontinuitas locorum per se postulat ) multiplex , quale Geryonis illud fuisse fingitur : post , Corpus , ( quià non definitivè in loco ) quale esse nullum potest , Infinitum : dein Corpus , ( quia totum in qualibet parte loci ) quale quis vix somniare potest , Paraphysicum : insuper Corpus ( ut ipsi aiunt ) omni movendi , sentiendi , intelligendique facultate destitutum , id est , coecum , surdum , exanime : Corpus denique nullis non sordibus cuiusvis sterquilinij , & locorum , quae honestè nominari non possunt , inhonestissimorum obnoxium . Qualia Opinionum portenta , ut omninò Haeretica , veteres Patres semper execrati sunt . Verùm enimverò diversarum aetatum subrancidas , Historias , si numeremus , Tredecim proferunt , in quibus memoria de verissimae carnis , verissimique sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia Apparentiâ verissimâ Lectoribus commendatur . In quibus Miraculis , tanquàm in Dei testimonijs omni exceptione majoribus Adversarij nostri mirificè gloriantur ; & dici vix potest quantoperè miseros mortales hâc una Persuasione sua dementarunt : cùm tamen haec verissima , scilicet , si ponderentur , vanissima esse singula apparebunt . In quem finem bonis illis Historicis valedicentes , rectà Scholas petimus , exploraturi an Scholastici eandem insanirent insaniam . Hi tantum abest ut istis Legendarijs fidem assensionemve praebeant , ut in eiusmodi Apparitionibus vel veram carnem Christi , vel omninò veram carnem inesse ausint non pernegare modò , verum-etiam contrariam hanc suam sententiam exquisitis rationibus defendere . Quanquam quid horum probatione opus est ? quandoquidem nemoferè est tàm muccosis naribus ( modò non sensus suos prorsus obstruat ) cui non suboleat , imò qui non eas legendo planè odoretur , & persentiscat has fabulas à maleferiatis hominibus aniliter esse confictas . Quarto , In Corporali sua ( ut vocant ) Christi conjunctione cum Corporibus Communicantium nihil aliud cernere licet quam Capernaiticam quandam stupiditatem ; quoties Pontificios audimus antiquas suas canere Cantilenas : se nimirùm Dentibus terere , gutturibus deglutire , hoc est , ut nos quidem interpretamur , verè devorare ; atque insuper hominum visceribus permiscere ; imo tàm canum , muriumque , nec non vilissimi cujusque animalis intestinis , quàm vllius etiam sanctissimi viri , qui illius particeps esse potest . Quis deinceps miretur fuisse olim qui Philosophos se dicerent , qui asserebant , Nivem sibi atram videri , Coelum consistere , & Terram motione suâ eâque perpetuâ rotari ? Hosce scopulos praetervecti , in Contentionum labyrinthum dilabimur , de Sacrificio Missae , tot Amphibologijs & verborum involucris , tot Opinionum Antilogijs , ceu viarum anfractibus , & sinuosi Maeandris undique implicitam , ut absque commoda aliqua Distinctione difficiles , imo impossibiles habeat explicatus ; eòque magis , quòd apud veteres Patres ( ut quod res est liberè fateamur ) de Sacrificio Corporis Christi in Eucharistia Incruento frequens est mentio . quae dici vix potest quantopere quorundam , alioqui Doctorum hominum , ingenia exercuerint , torserint , vexaverint ; aut econtrà quam jactantèr Pontificiy de ea re se ostentent : cum tamen hic nodus uno hoc Distinctionis quasi cuneo facilè discindatur . Corpus Christi dupliciter sumitur , velut Subjectum Celebrationis Eucharisticae , velut Objectum ejus . Si Subjectivè accipiatur pro eo , cui externa Accidentia insunt , tùm non potest non Corporalem Praesentiam Christi designare : sin verò Objectivè tantùm , habitâ Relatione ad Christi corpus , vel ut olim in cruce pendentis , vel ut nunc in Coelo regnantis , Praesentiam duntaxat Symbolicam declarat ; quoniam Objectum , licet rei cruentae , ut in Scaena , ipsum est tamen Incruentum . Id quod sex Argumenta , ex veterum Patrum testimonijs deprompta , dilucidè demonstrant . Eadem igitur Distinctione quivis poterit ità prorsùs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ut non habeant quod contrà mussitent . Quid ? quod praetereà etiam Romana Missa Grandis Sacrilegij rea arguitur . Ad extremum , extremae & nefandae Idolomaniae Rom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsum , quae est Sacramenti Eucharistiae divina Adoratio , in medium protrahitur ; ubi id , quod adorant , Posse esse adhuc Panem , propter ferè infinitos Defectus , ipsi Adversarij ultrò concedunt : & Nos , Non posse illud non panem esse , juxta Veterum sententiam , ex Rationibus circiter sexdecim evicimus : atque etiam quas Adorandi Formulas , ceu Pretextus , excusationis ergò , sibi tanquàm larvas induxerunt , illis detraximus , ut vultus eorum deformes horridique appareant ; usque eò ut illi Idololatricâ impietate Ethnicos aequare , Excusationis verò futilitate longè superare videantur . Quid tandem ? tota ferè Missae defensio Manicheorum , Eunomianorum , Marcionitarum , Eutychianorum , aliorumque multorum Haerefibus scatet passim , ut in postrema nostra Synopsi , veluti in speculo , contemplari quivis possit . Dùm ista literis consigno , ostensae sunt mibi , inter alias , Theses duae , quas Isaacus Casaubonus ▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Adversarijs suis , propriâ manu scriptis , post se reliquit . Prima , Iusta Causa est ( inquit ) cur Transsubstantiatio rejiciatur , ut evitentur Absurda . Altera haec est ; Veteres nunquam dixerunt destrui Symbola , sed semper de Signis locuti sunt , quasi de re ipsa . Quae quàm verae sunt , & juxta Veterum sententiam ad Causam nostram oppidò necessariae , nostri muneris erit suo loco copiosè ostendere . Priusquàm verò perorare mihi liceat , vos orandi estis ( Viri ornatissimi ) ut de Adversariorum nostrorum Iniquitate , de meoquè erga vos studio ac Benevolentia nonnihil attexam . Bellarmino , Alano , Maldonato , alijsque Romanae Missae Asserioribus suum , ut par est , ingenij acumen , exactum & perspicax ingenium , omnium de●que tàm humanae quàm divinae literaturae accuratam cognitionem facitè tribuimus ; ità tamen vt in ijs , dùm nostros Theologos criminantur , veritatem ; dum suas opiniones defendunt , constantiam ; dùm Patres , Patres crepant , obiectant , inculcant , fidem modestiamque defideremus . Vt nihil de Eorum Iuramentis dicamus , quibus se obstrinxerunt , non sine aliqua notâ Periurij ; quod Synopsis nostra Secunda satis superque declarat . Ad nostram quod attinet Sacratissimā Eucharistiam ; quia à Ministro Elementa consecrantur & benedicuntur , non minùs Sacramenta sunt , quàm est aqua Baptismatis ; quae tamen Istis non pudet probris suis contaminare , dum partem alteram merum Pistoris panem , alteram Oenopolae vinū nudū appellant nequitèr . Deindè ( ut alias eorū Calumnias praetervolem ) quòd eorum de Corporali Christi Praesentiâ in Eucharistiâ fanaticam opinionem , tanquàm impossibilem , propter implicitam Contradictionem , oppugnamus ; Illi , quasi hoc esset Dei omnipotentiae detrahere , in nos impotentèr debacchantur . Si cui lubeat singulas Operis huius Sectiones percurrere , vix in aliquam incidet aut Obiectionem Adversariorum prosua Missa , aut Responsionem , aut denique Scripturae expositionem quam non facilè observet ab alijs Pontificijs Doctoribus aut luculentâ ratione solutam , enervatam , explosam ; aut denique ( quod maius est ) per receptas Ecclesiae Romanae doctrinas oppugnatam . Nae illa praeclara est istorum hominum constantia , qui si minùs viribus nostris , suâ tamen imbecillitate & dissentione vincuntur , atque succumbunt . Praetereà de Pontificiorum Doctorum versutia obstinaciaque satis queri vix possumus . Versutia eorum cernitur cùm in rebus alijs , tûm praecipuè in abutendis veterum Patrum Testimoniis , sive per falsas Editiones Translationesque ea depravando ; sive novo excogitato Commento illudendo ; siue denique adversis frontibus oppugnando : quorum omnium Exempla plurima Libri singuli sequentes vobis exhibent . Obstinaciae verò eorum specimen nullum potest esse illustrius , quàm ( quod in altera Synopsi nostra videre est ) ex Veterum sententijs facta Collatione Eucharistiae cum Baptismate . Illi ad sua Dogmata stabilienda de Praesentia Corporali Corporis Christi in Eucharistia , ipsiusque adeò Adoratione Latreutica obijciunt Nobis , Patres negâsse Eucharistiam esse nudum Panem . Nos reponimus , eosdem Patres paritèr negâsse , in Baptismate esse Aquam nudam . At opponunt , Veteres Eucharistiam Sacrificium vocâsse . Nos rursùs , Baptisma quoque Sacrificium nominant . Illi , At apud Patres Eucharistia Sacramentum Terribile & Venerabile dicitur . Regerimus nos , à Patribus moneri homines ad Baptisma , utpote quod venerandum sit , cûm Tremore accedere . Pergimus dein , & per sexdecim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 par pari referimus , quod Adversariorum nostrorum , nisi animos obsirment , Conscientias mordeat & lancinet ; sed manu tamen medicâ , ut sanet . Eant igitur Antagonistae nostri , & cum de Antiquitate agitur nos ( ut solent ) Novatores appellitent , nunquàm tamen efficiet , quin ipsi ( ut praeclarè olim Clariss . vir Iosephus Scaliger ) Veteratores habeantur . Redeo ad Vos tandem ( dignissimi Viri ) quorum intimos animorum conceptus audire mihi videor : quibus , quoad possim , & liceat , occurrendu esse● duxi . Prim in loco , Fateor equidem me iamdiú in ist usmodi Polemicis negotijs exercuisse calamum ; non quòd nesciverim à Detractione neminem esse immunem , nisi qui nihil scriberet : sed quòd abundè noverim pro salute Patriae , proquè patria salutis , atque adeò pro fidei synceritate nullum non laborem esse subeundum . Secundò multos alios multo majore cum profectu munere hoc defungi posse agnosco : veruntamen , quatenùs praestare quicquam valeam , illud S. Augustini aures mihi vellicat , animumque stimulat : Qui mendacium docet ( inquit ) & qui veritatem tacet , uterque reus est ; alter qui● prodesse non vult , alter quia nocere desiderat . Nec profectò hanc Romulei stabuli ( cùm purgandi non datur ) exagitandi provinciam , in re Missatica , alio animo suscepi , quàm ut omnes ( quibus veritas cordi est ) intelligant , Nos Anglicanae Ecclesiae Alumnos Causam nactos esse Divinis literis consentientem maximè , Catholicae Antiquitatis suffragijs comprobatam , mille omnis ordinis Martyrum sanguine testatam ; imò etiam ( addendum est enim ) cuiusvis Christiani , si fieri posset , vel mille mortibus obsignandam . Praetereà , Romanae Ecclesiae Tyrunculis omissis , Antesignanos ipsos libentiùs aggredior , duplici ratione adductus ; quià primò , his profligatis , illi non possunt consistere : deindè ut clariùs constet , in illam Ecclesiam quadrare illud Christi ; Si lumen , quod in te , tenebrae , ipsae tenebrae quantae ? Quos tamen , dûm Argumentis prosequor , non probris insector ; quià in hoc altero Certaminis genere vincere vinci est : nam praeclarè olim Artaxerxes Rex militi , hostem convitijs proscindenti , Non ut maledicas te alo , ( inquit ) sed ut pugnes . Cur verò vobis potissimùm has meas Lucubrationes dedicarem , plurimae me Causae impulerunt . Antiquitùs plurimi dicebantur Episcopi Catholicae sive Vniversalis Ecclesiae , non solùm quòd Catholicam tenerent fidem , sed etiam quòd suam pro incolumitate Ecclesiae Vniversalis curam Scriptis & laboribus testarentur . Egone igitur ut non illud studium ergà utramque Vniversitatem profitear meum , quod ipsi ( ut ità dicam ) Vniversalitati debeam ? Huc accedit ( nam quidni fidorum Amicorum literis fidem habeam ? ) quòd cum vos Opus nostrum aliud , tribus abhinc annis publici iuris factum , non vulgari animorum vestrorum significatione approbâsse intellexerim ; hocque , quod nunc ad umbilicū perduxi , non minori cum desiderio expectâsse ( quorum illud GRANDEM ROMANAE ECCLESIAE IMPOSTVRAM detexit , hoc ROMANAE MISSAE IDOLOMANIAM , tanquàm immane monstrum , confodicat ) non committendum putavi , ut non grati animi meum hoc testimonium Vobis referrem . Quid ? quòd Causae ipsius necessitas quoque id à me exigere videbatur , quae profectò in hac Causa homines Academicos nihil minùs quàm Academicos & Scepticos esse sinet ; nè quis vestrûm ( quod detestabile omen Deus obruat ! ) in Rom. Artolatriam prolabatur , quò vel alijs scandalo , Majestati divinae odio , sibi ipsi denique certo exitio esse possit . Postremò , in hanc spem adducor , nunquàm defuturos ex utraque Academia viros plurimos , Theologici juris consultiss . omnibusque armis instructissimos , non modò ad hujusce Causae patrocinium sustinendum , verumetiam ad Mataeologiam omnem Romanensium expugnandam . Pergite igitur ô macti antiqua prudentia & veritate , pergite , inquam , & Amantissimum Vestri diligite ; quod rectius noveritis impertite , & precibus vestris adjuvate . In Christo Jesu valete , qui vos conservet in gloriam Gratiae suae ! AMEN . Tho. Coven . & Lichff . An Advertisement To all Romish Priests and Iesuites of the English Seminaries , concerning the Necessity of this ensuing Treatise ; as also of the Authors Sincerity , and his Adversaries unconscionable Dealing in their Allegations of Authors . Grace , Peace , and Trueth in CHRIST IESVS . AMong all the Controversies held against your Romish Religion , none were ever more hot , to draw Protestants violently into the fier , than these two ; first the denying of your Romane Church to be The Catholike Church , without which there is no Salvation : the second to affirme the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament of the Altar to be Idolatrous . Therefore have I especially vndertaken the discussion of both these Questions , that seeing ( as S. Augustine truly said ) It is not the punishment , but the Cause which maketh a Martyr ; it might fully appeare to the world , whether Protestants enduring that fierie triall , for both Causes , were indeed Heretickes , or true Martyrs : and consequently whether their Persecutors were iust Executioners of persons then condemned , and not rather damnable Murtherers of the faithfull Servants of Christ . And I doubt not but as the first hath verified the Title of that Booke , to prove your Doctrine of the Necessity of salvation in your Romish Church to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE : So this second , which I now ( according to my promise ) present vnto you , will make good , by many Demonstrations , that your Romish MASSE is a very Masse , or rather a Gulfe of many Superstitious , Sacrilegious , and Idolatrous Positions and Practises . And because the very name of Romane Church is commonly used as ( in it selfe ) a powerfull enchantment to stupifie every Romish Disciple , and to strike him deafe and dumbe at once , that he may may neither heare nor utter any thing in Conference concerning the Masse , or any other Controversie in Religion , be the Protestants Defence never so Divine for trueth , or ancient for time , or universall for Consent , or necessary for beleefe : I therefore held it requisite , in the first place , to discover the falshood of the former Article of your Church , before I would publish the Abominations of the Masse ; to the end that ( for Idolatrie in Scripture is often termed spirituall Adulterie ) the Romish Church , which playeth the Bawd , in patronizing Idolatry , being once outted , your Romish Masse , as the Strumpet , might the more easily either be reformed , or wholly abandoned . This may satisfie you for the necessity of this Tractate . The next must be to set before you your owne delusorie tricks , in answering , or not answering Bookes written against you ; especially such as have beene observed from mine owne experience . One is to stangle a Booke in the very birth : so dealt Mr. Breereley long since by a letter writ unto mee , to prevent the publishing of my Answere against the first Edition of his Apologie , when he sent me a second Edition thereof to be answered , which both might and ought to have beene sent a twelve-month sooner ; but was purposely reserved to be delivered not untill the very day after my * Answere ( called and Appeale ) was published . Of which his prevention I have therefore complained as of a most unconscionable Circumvention . Another device you have , to give out that the Booke ( whatsoever ) written against your Romish Tenents is in answering , and that an Answere will come out shortly . So dealt Mr. Parsons with me * Certifying me and all his credulous Readers of an Epistle which hee had received from a Scottish Doctor , censuring my Latine Apologies to be both fond and false ; and promising that his Answere to them , Printed at Gratz in Austria , should be published before the Michaelmas following : whereas there have beene above twenty . Michaelmasses sithence , every one giving Mr. Parsons his promise the flatt lie . A third Art is a voluntarie ▪ Concealement and thus Maister Brereley , who hauing had knowledge of the fore-mentioned Booke of Appeale , manifesting his manifold Aberrations and Absurdities in doctrine , his ignorances and fraudes in the abuse of his Authors , as in other passages through-out that booke , so more especially the parts concerning the Romish Masse , yet since hath written a large Booke , in defence of the Romish Liturgy or Masse , vrging all the same proofes and Authorities of Fathers ; but wisely concealing that they had beene confuted , and his fashoods discouered . Only he and Master Fisher singling out of my Appeale an explanation which I gaue of the testimonie of Gelasius ( in condemning the Manichees , concerning their opinion of not administring the Eucharist in both kindes ) did both of them divulge it in their Bookes and reports also in many parts of this kingdome , as making for the iustification of their sacrilegious dismembring the holy Sacrament , and fora foule Contradiction vnto my selfe : notwithstanding that this their scurrilous iusultation ( as is * here proued ) serueth for nothing rather than to make themselues ridiculous . The last , but most base and deuellish , Gullerie is a false imputation of Falshoods in the alleaging of Authors , which was the fine sleight of Master Parsons ; a man as subtile● for inuention , as elegant for expression , for obseruation as dextrous and acute , and as politike and perswasiue for application , as any of his time . He in an answere to some Treatises written against your Romish blacke art of Aequiuocation by mentall Reseruation , and other Positions fomenting Rebellion ( to wit ) in his bookes of Mitigation and Sober Reckoning , doth commonly leaue the principall Obiections & Reasons , and falleth to his verball skirmishes , concerning false Allegations : and ( as turning that Ironicall counsaile into earnest , Audacter & fortiter calumniare &c. ) he chargeth mee with no lesse than fiftie Falsifications . All which I spunged out in a Booke entituled an Encounter , and retorted all the same Imputations of falshood upon himselfe , with the interest of above forty more . Which may seeme to verifie that Cognizance , which your owne Brother-hood of Romish Priests in their Quodlibets have fastened on his sleeue , calling him The Quintessence of Coggerie . As for mine owne integritie , I have that which may iustifie mee ; for howsoever any one or other Error may happen , in mis-alleaging any one Author , yet that I have not erred much ; or if at all , yet never against my Conscience . Heereof I have many witnesses ; One within me , a witnesse most Domesticall , yet least partiall , and as good as Thousands , mine owne Conscience : a second is above me , God , who is Greater than the Conscience . A third sort of Witnesses are such as stand by mee , even all they who have beene conversant with mee in the perusall and examination of Authors Testimonies , by mee alleaged ; men of singular learning and iudgement , who can testifie how much they endeared them-selves vnto mee , when any of them happened to shew mee the least errour in any thing . ( Hee that shall say , Non possum errare , must be no man ; and hee that will not say , Nolo errare , as hating to erre , can be no Christian man. ) The last witnesse for my integritie may be the Bookes of my greatest Adversaries , Mr. Parsons , and Mr. Brereley , whose many scores of falshoods have beene laid so open and published for above sixteene yeares past in two Bookes ( one called an Encounter against the fore-man , the other an Appeale against the second ) yet hath not any one appeared out of your Romish Seminaries for the vindicating of them heerein . By these Advertisements you may easily conceive with what confidence I may proceede in this worke , wherein is displayed and layd open , in the discussing of these Eight Words of Christ his Institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist , [ HEE BLESSED ; BRAKE ; GAVE ; TO THEM ; SAYING ; TAKE ; EATE ; DRINKE , ] your Ten Romish Prevarications , and Transgressions . Afterwards in the following Bookes are reveiled the stupendious Paradoxes , Sacrilegiousnes , and Idolatrie of your MASSE ; together with the notorious Obstinacies , some fewe Overtures of Periuries ( out of that great Summe , which may afterwards be manifested in your swearing to the other Articles of your new Romane Faith ) and the manifold Heresies in the Defenders thereof : as also their indirect and sinister Obiecting and Answering of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers thorow-out , as if they contended neither from Conscience , nor for Conscience-sake . To Conclude . Whosoever among you hath beene fascinated ( according to your Colliers Catechisme ) with that only Article of an Implicite Faith ; let him be admonished to submit to that Duety prescribed by the Spirit of God , to Trie all things , and to Hold that which is good . And if any have a purpose to Reioyne , in Confutation either of the Booke of the Romish Imposture , or of this , which is against your Masse ; I doe adiure him in the name of Christ , whose trueth wee seeke , that avoyding all deceitfull Collusions he proceed materially from Point to point , and labour such an Answer , which hee beleeveth he may answer for before the iudgement seate of Christ . Our Lord Iesus preserve us to the glory of his saving Grace . AMEN , Tho : Coven : & Lichff . The principall Heads of the Tractate following . I. BOOKE . VNfoldeth the Ten Transgressions of the Canon of our Lord Christ his Institution , in the now Romish Masse . II. BOOKE . Manifesteth the palpable Falshood of the Romish Exposition of Christ's words of Institution , [ THIS IS MY BODY . ] III. BOOKE . Discovereth the Novelty and ( indeed ) Nullity of the Romish Article of Transubstantiation : and proveth the Continuance of the substance of Bread , after Consecration . IV. BOOKE . Reveileth the manifold Contradictions in the Romish Defence of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament ; and consequently a necessary Impossibilitie thereof , without the impeachment of the Omnipotencie of God ( yea with the aduancement thereof : ) Together with a Discovery of the falshood of their Thirteen Histories , relating so many Apparitions of True Flesh , and true Blood of Christ in the Eucharist : As also shewing the Determination of the Generall Councell of Nice upon the the point of Corporall Presence . V. BOOKE . Noteth the three-fold Capernaiticall Conceit in the Romish ( pretended ) Corporall manner of Eating , Swallowing , and g●t-receiving of Christ's flesh . VI. BOOKE . Displayeth the manifold and grosse Sacrilegiousnes in the Romish Masse ; vpon their profession of a Proper and properly Propitious Sacrifice therein . VII . BOOKE . Proveth the abhominable-double Idolatrousnes of the Romish Masse , as well Formall as Materiall . VIII . BOOKE . Besides the Three Synopses or Summarie Comprehensions ; First of the Superstitiousnes ; Secondly , of the Sacriledge ; Thirdly , of the Idolatrie of the Romish Masse ; it further declareth the diverse Periuries , and Obstinacies of the Defenders ; and also the many notorious Heresies in the Defence thereof . OF THE INSTITVTION OF THE SACRAMENT of the blessed Body and Blood OF CHRIST , &c. The first Booke . Concerning the Actiue part of Christ his Institution of the Eucharist ; and the Ten Romish TRANSGRESSIONS thereof . CHAP. I. That the Originall of the word , MASSE , nothing advantageth the Romish Masse . SECT . I. DIvers of your Romish a Doctors would haue the word , MASSE , first to be ( in the first and primitiue Imposition and vse thereof ) Diuine . Secondly , in time , more ancient than Christ . Thirdly , in signification , most Religious , deriued ( as They say ) from the Hebrew word Missah , which signifieth Oblation and Sacrifice ; euen the highest homage that can be performed vnto God. And all this to proue ( if it may be ) that which you call THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASSE . CHALLENGE . SO haue 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 natiue Countrie , kinred , and age of the Word , MASSE , doe not onely say , but also prooue , first , that Hebrew-borne . Secondly , that it is not of Primitiue antiquitie , because not read of before the dayes of S. Ambrose , who liued about three hundred seuentie three yeeres after Christ . Thirdly , that it is a plaine Latine word , to wit Missa , signifying the Dismission of the Congregation . Which Confessions being testified ( in our b Margin ) by so large a consent of your owne Doctors , prooued by so cleare Euidence , and deliuered 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 haue vainely laboured , vnder the word MASSE , falsely to impose vpon their Readers an opinion of your Romish Sacrificing Masse . That the word , MASSE , in the Primitiue signification thereof , doth properly belong vnto the Protestants : and iustly condemneth the Romish manner of Masse . SECT . II. THe word , MASSE , ( by the c Confession of Iesuites and others , and that from the authoritie of Councels , Fathers , Canon-Law , Schoolemen , and all Latine Liturgies ) is therefore so called from the Latine phrase [ Missa est ] especially , because the companie of the Catechumenists , and those which were not prepared to communicate at the celebrating of this Sacrament , after the hearing of the Gospell , or Sermons , were Dismissed , and not suffered to stay , but commanded To depart . Which furthermore your Ies . Maldonate , out of Isidore , the most ancient Authors , and all the Liturgies , is compelled to confesse to be the d Most true meaning of Antiquity . Which Custome of exempting all such persons , being euery where religiously taught and obserued in all Protestant Churches ; and contrarily the greatest devotion of your Worshippers , at this day , being exercised onely in looking and gazine vpon the Priests manner of celebrating your Romane Masse , without communicating thereof , contrary to the Institution of Christ ; contrary to the practice of Antiquity ; and contrary to the proper vse of the Sacrament : ( All which * hereafter shall be plentifully shewed ) it must therefore follow , as followeth . CHALLENGE . VVHereas there is nothing more rife and frequent in your speeches , more ordinary in your outhes , 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 iudged false , and absurd . But of this Transgression more * hereafter . The Name of CHRIST his MASSE how farre it is to be acknowledged by Protestants . SECT . III. THe Masters of your Romish Ceremonies , and others , naming the Institution of Christ , e call it his Masse . And how often doe wee heare your vulgar people talking of Christ his Masse ? Which word MASSE ( in the proper signification already specified ) could not possibly haue beene so distastfull vnto us , if you had not abused it to your fained , and ( as you now see ) false sense of your kinde of Proper Oblation and Sacrifice . Therefore was it a superfluous labour of Mr. f Brereley , to spend so many lines in prouing the Antiquity of the word , MASSE . CHALLENGE . FOr otherwise Wee ( according the aboue-confessed proper Sense thereof ) shall , together with other Protestants in the * Augustane Confession , approue and embrace it ; and that to the iust Condemnation of your present Romane Church , which in her Masse doth flatly and peremptorily contradict the proper Signification thereof , according to the Testimonie of Micrologus , saying ; g The Masse is therefore so called , because they that communicate not , are commanded to depart . By all which it is euident , that your Church hath forfeited the Title of Masse , which shee hath appropriated to her selfe as a flagge of ostentation ( whereof more * hereafter . ) In the Interim , we shall desire each one of you to hearken to the Exhortation of your owne Waldensis , saying , h ATTEND , and obserue the Masse OF CHRIST . Of the CANON OF CHRIST his MASSE , and at what wordes it beginneth . SECT . IV. CHrist his Masse , by your owne i confession , beginneth at these words of the Gospell , concerning Christ's Institution of the Eucharist , Math. 26. Luc. 22. [ And Iesus tooke bread , &c. ] which also we doe as absolutely professe . What Circumstances , by ioynt consent on both sides , are to bee exempted out of this Canon of Christ his Masse ; or the wordes of his Institution . It is no lesse Christian wisedome and Charitie to cut off vnnecessary 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 wordes ; [ 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 Passeouer , 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 priuate house : ) or Time , ( which was at night : ) or Sexe , ( which were onely men : ) or Gesture , ( which was a kind of lying downe : ) or Vesture , ( which was wee know not what : ) no nor yet whether the Bread were vnleauened , or the Wine mixed with water , two poynts which ( as you know ) Protestants and your selues k giant not to be of the essence of the Sacrament , but in their owne nature Indifferent ; and onely so farre to bee observed , as the Church , wherein the Christian Communicants are , shall for Order and Decencie-sake prescribe the use thereof . The Points contained within the Canon of Christ his Masse , and appertaining to our present Controuersie , 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 Receiuing of the holy Sacrament , according to this Tenor , Math. 26. 26. [ And Iesus tooke Bread , and blessed it , and brake it , and gaue it to his Disciples , and said , Take , eate , &c. And Luc. 22. 19 , 20. Doe this in remembrance of mee . Likewise also after Supper be tooke the Cup , and gaue thankes , and gaue it to them , saying , Drinke yee all of this . ] But the points , which are especially to bee called Doctrinall , are implied in these words of the Euangelists ; [ This is my Bodie : 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 , ] Luc. 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 Cup. The Acts concerning both , whether in Administring , or Participating thereof , are charged by Christ his Canon vpon the Church Catholike vnto 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. 25. [ This doe yee as often , &c. ] Whereof your owne Doctors , aswell Iesuites as thers haue rightly a determined with a large consent ; that the wordes [ DOE THIS ] haue relation to all the aforesaid Acts , euen according to the i●dgement of ancient Fathers ; excepting only the Time of the Celebration , which was at Supper : and which ( together with us ) b you say were put in , not for example , but only by occasion of the Passeouer , then commanded to be observed . Thus you . CHALLENGE . THis Command of Christ , being thus directly and copiously acknowledged by the best Diuines in the Romane Church , must needs challenge on both sides an answerable performance . Vpon examination whereof , it will appeare vnto euery Conscience of man , which Professors ( namely , whether Protestants or Romanists ) are the true and Catholike Executors and Obseruers of the last will and Testament of our Testator Iesus : because that Church must necessarily bee esteemed the more loyall and legitimate Spouse of Christ , which doth more precisely obey the Command of the celestiall Bride-groome . Wee , to this purpose , apply our selues to our busines , by enquiring what are the Actiue Particulars , which Christ hath giuen in charge vnto his Church by these his expresse wordes [ Doe this . ] All which wee are to discouer and discusse from point to point . TEN TRANSGRESSIONS , And Preuarications against the Command of Christ [ DOE THIS , ] practised by the Church of Rome , at this day , in her Romane Masse . SECT . II. VVEe list not to quarrell with your Church for lighter matters , albeit your owne Cassander forbeareth not to complaine that your c Bread is of such extreame thinnesse and lightnesse , that it may seeme vnworthy the name of Bread. Whereas Christ vsed Solid and tough bread [ Glutinosus ] saith d your Iesuit ) which was to be broken with hands , or cut with knife . Neuerthelesse , because there is in yours the substance of Bread , therefore we will not contend about Accidents and shadowes ; but wee insist vpon the words of 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 Consecration 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 giuen thanks : ] Which words in e your owne iudgements , are all one as if it should be said , Hee blessed it with giuing of thankes . By the which word , Blessing , he doth imply a Consecration of this Sacrament . So you . The contrary Canon of the ( now ) Romane Masse ; wherein shee , in her Exposition , hath changed Christ's manner of Consecration . The Canon of the Romish Masse attributeth the property and power of Consecration of this Sacrament only vnto the repetition of these words of Christ [ This is my body , ] and [ This my blood . ] &c. and that from the iudgement ( as f Some say ) of your Councell of Florence , and Trent . Moreouer 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 vse 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 : As your * Summa Angelica speaketh more largely concerning the Bread. CHALLENGE . BVt Christopherus your own Arch-bishop of Caesarea in his Booke dedicated to Pope Sixtus Quintus , and written professedly vpon this Subject , commeth in , compassed about with a clowd of witnesses and Reasons , to proue g that the Consecration , vsed by our Sauiour , was performed by that his Blessing by Prayer , which preceded the pronouncing of those words , [ Hoc est corpus meum : ] [ This is my bodie , &c. ] To this purpose hee is bold to averre that Thomas Aquinas and all Catholikes before Caietane have confessed that Christ did consecrate in that his [ Benedixit , that is , He blessed it . ] And that Saint Iames and Dionyse the Areopagite did not Consecrate only in the other words , but by Prayer . Then he assureth vs that the Greeke Churches maintained that Consecration consisteth in Benediction , by Prayer , and not in the only repetition of the words afore-said . After this hee produceth your subtilest Schooleman Scotus , accompanied with divers others , Who Derided those , that attributed such a supernaturall vertue 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 Gregorie , 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 only words of Institution , as you pretend . And in the end he draweth in two Popes , contradicting one the other in this point , and hath no other meanes to stint their iarre , but ( whereas the authoritie of both is equall ) to thinke it iust to yeild rather to the better learned of them both . Whosoever requireth more , may be satisfied by reading of the Booke itselfe . It will not suffice , to say , that you also vse Prayer in the Romish Liturgie : for the question is not meerely of Praying , but wherein the forme of Benediction and Consecration properly doth consist . Now none can say , that he consecrateth by that Prayer , which he belieueth is not ordained for Consecration . We may furthermore take hold , by the way , of the Testification of Mr. h Brereley a Romish Priest , who out of Basil and Chrysostome , [ calling one part Calix benedictione sacratus ] alloweth Benediction to haue beene the Consecration thereof . All this Armie of Witnesses were no better than Meteors , or imaginarie figures of battailes in the aire , if that the Answere 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 saith ) an Invocation , or Prayer . Which words ( as any man may perceiue ) Christ spake not supplicatorily vnto God , but declaratiuely vnto his Apostles , accordingly as the Text speaketh , [ Hee said unto them : ] as is also well * observed by your fore-said Arch-bishop of Caesarea , out of Saint Hierome . But none of you ( we presume ) will dare to say that Christ did Invocate his Disciples . These words therefore are of Declaration , and not of Invocation . Which ( now ) Romish Doctrine of Consecrating , by reciting these words [ This is my bodie , &c. ] your Divines of Colen k haue iudged to be a Fierce madnesse , as being repugnant both to the Easterne and Westerne Churches . But we haue heard divers Westerne Authours speake , giue leave to an Easterne Archbishop to deliuer his minde . l No Apostle , or Doctor is knowne to affirme ( saith hee ) those sole words of Christ to haue beene sufficient for Consecration . So he , three hundred yeares since , satisfying also the Testimonie of Chrysostome , obiected to the contrarie . As miserable , and more intolerable is the Answere of others , who * said that the Evangelists haue not observed the right order of Christ his actions : as if hee had first said , [ This is my bodie ] by way of Consecration , and after commanded them to [ Take and eat . ] Which Answere your owne m Iesuite hath branded with the note of Falsitie : yea , so false , that ( as it is further * 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 [ Tak● yee ] before that he said [ This is my Bodie . ] Lastly , your other lurking-hole is as shameful as the former , where , when the iudgement of Antiquitie is obiected against you , requiring that Consecration be done directly by Prayer vnto God : n you answere that some Fathers did use such speeches in their Sermons to the people , but in their secret instraction of Priests did teach otherwise . Which Answere ( besides the falsitie 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 men's Consciences , you would first satisfie your owne , especially being occupied in soule's-businesses . We conclude . Seeing that Forme ( as all learning teacheth ) giveth being vnto all things ; therefore your Church , albeit shee vse Prayer , yet erring in her iudgement concerning the perfect manner and Forme of . Consecration of this Sacrament , how shall shee be credited in the Materialls ; wherein she will be found , aswell as in this , to haue Transgressed the same Iniunction of Christ , [ DOE THIS ? ] Neuerthelesse , this our Conclusion is not so bee interpreted , as ( hearken o Mr. Brereley ) to exclude , out of the words of this Celebration , the Repetition and pronunciation of these words [ This is my Bodie : and , This is my Bloud of the new Testament . ] Farre be this from vs , because wee hold them to be essentially belonging to the Narration of the Institution of Christ ; and are vsed in the Liturgie of our Church : for although they be not words of Blessing and Consecration , ( because not of Petition , but of Repetition ) yet are they Words of Direction ; and , withall , Significations and Testifications of the mysticall effects thereof . Your Obiection out of the Fathers is * answered . The second Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse , is in their Contradicting the sence of the next words of . Institution , [ HE BRAKE IT . ] SECT . IV. HE brake it . ] So all the Evangelists doe relate . Which Act of Christ plainly noteth that hee Brake the Bread , for distributing of the same vnto 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 vpon the Consecration thereof : but our Question is of Fraction or Breaking , for Distribution to the People . The Contrarie Canon of the ( now ) Romane Masse . p BEHOLD ( say you ) Christ brake it ; but the Catholike Church ( meaning the Romane ) now doth not breake it , but giueth it whole . And this you pretend to doe for Reverence-sake , Lest ( as your q Iesuite saith ) some crummes of Bread 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 ( wee pray you ) the absolute Confession of your owne r Doctors , whereby is witnessed , first , that Christ brake the bread into twelve parts . 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 Christ's bodie vpon the Crosse , but also ( in the common participation thereof ) representing the vnion of the mysticall bodie of Christ , which is his Church , Communicating together of one loafe : that as many graines in one loafe , so all faithfull Communicants are vnited to one Head Christ , as the Apostle teacheth , 1. Cor. 10. thus , [ The bread which we breake , is it not the Communion of the bodie of Christ ? for we being many are one bread . ] We 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 vs , so was Christ crucified for vs. 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 doe grant vnto vs , 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 Ceremonie of Breaking bread was continually observed . Which may be vnto vs 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 neuer so repugnant to the will of Christ , and Custome of the truly called Catholike Church . In the next place , to your Pretence of Not-Breaking , because of Reverence , We say ; Hem , scilicet , Quanti est sapere ! As if Christ and his Apostles could not fore-see that your Necessitie , ( namely ) that by the Distributing of the Bread , and by Breaking it , some little crummes must cleaue sometimes vnto 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 then all the Apostles , or Fathers of primitiue times , who continued the same Breaking of bread . Therefore this your Contempt of Breaking what is it but a peremptorie breach of Christ his Institution , neuer regarding what the Scripture saith ; * 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 sence of the next words of Christs Command , viz. [ — GAVE IT VNTO THEM . ] SECT . V. IT followeth in the Canon of Christ his Masse , [ And hee gaue it vnto them ; ] euen to THEM , to whom hee said , [ Take yee , eate yee . ] 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 Councell of Trent ) doth approue and commend the Masses , wherein the Priest doth Sacramentally communicate alone . So your Church . CHALLENGE . BVt who shall iustifie that her Commendation of the alone-communicating of your Priest ? which we may iustly condemne by the liberall b Confessions of your owne Doctors ; who grant , first , that this is not according to the Institution of Christ , saying in the Plurall , [ To 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 Greek and Romane . Fourthly , neither to Two c Councels , the one called Nanetense , the other Papiense , decre●ing against Priuate Masse . Fiftly , nor to the very names of the true d Sacramentall Masse : which , by way of Excellencie , was sometime called [ Synaxis ] signifying ( as S. Basil saith ) the Congregation of the faithfull : somtimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion , or Communicating : and sometimes the Prayers , vsed in euery holy Masse , were e called [ Collectae ] Collects , because the people vsed to be collected to the celebration of the Masse it selfe . Sixtly , Nor to the very * Canon of the now Romane Masse , saying in the Plurall [ Sumpsimus ] we haue receiued . And thereupon ( seuenthly ) repugnant to the Complaints of your owne men , against your Abuse ; who calling the ioynt Communion , instituted by Christ , the f Legitimate Masse ; doe wonder how your Priests sole Communicating euer crept into the Church ; and also deplore the contempt , which your priuate Masse hath brought vpon your Church . Hitherto ( see the Marginals ) from your owne Confessions . Let vs adde the absurditie of the Commendation of your Councell of Trent , in saying , We commend the Priest's communicating alone . A man may indeed possibly talke alone , fret alone , play the Traytor 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 Couenant alone . Caluine saith indeed of spirituall Eating , which may be without the Sacrament ( as you also g confesse ) that a faithfull man may feede alone of the Body and Blood of Christ : But our dispute is of the Sacramentall Communicating thereof . * A SECOND CHALLENGE Against the former Prevarication , condemning this Romane Custome by the Romane Masse it selfe . VVEe make bold yet againe to condemne your Custome of Priuate Masse , and consequently the Commendation giuen thereof by the Councel of Trent . For by the Canon of your owne Masse , wherein there are Interlocutorie speeches betweene 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 Cl. Espencaeus , sometimes a Parisian Doctor ( one commended by h Genebrard for his Treatise vpon this same Subiect of the Priuate Masse ) albeit he agreeth with the execrable Execration and Anathema of the Councell of Trent , against them that hold Solitarie Masses to be vnlawfull ; yet after the expence of much paper , to prove that some private Masse must needs haue anciently beene , because Primitiuely Masse was celebrated almost in all Churches euery day ; and that S. * Chrysostome did complaine of the absence of the people : yet comming to determine of the poynt , i This Reason ( saith hee ) is onely probable , but not euident ; for although they affirme a dayly celebration of the Masse , yet doe they not denie a daily Communion . Afterwards he seeketh the Originall and beginning of priuate Masse out of priuate k Monasteries : yet , not able to satisfie himselfe 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 Answere be made to , and by the said Priest , being then alone , [ And with thy Spirit . ] To this end he propoundeth many l Answeres , which I referre to your Choice ; whether you will beleeue with Gratian , that the words [ Dominus vobiscum : The Lord be with you ] spoken by the Priest , being alone , may be thought to haue beene spoken to Angels : or , with Cameracensis , vnto Stones : or , with the Heremites in their Celles , vnto 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 vnworthy the Conceptions of but reasonable men , that we may feare to be held inconsiderate , if we should indeavor to confute them . Only we can say no lesse , than that if the Apostle did condemne them , who speake with strange languages in the publike assemblie ( although they that spake vnderstood themselues ) because that in such a Case * If ( saith hee ) there be none to interpret , and there come in an Ignorant or Infidel obseruing this , will hee not say , you are madde ? how much more extreame Madnes must wee iudge this to be , where men either talke to themselues , or els ( as if they were metamorphosed into the things , whereunto they speake ) vnto formes , stones , stooles , and the like ? For Conclusion , heare the said Deane of the Romane Cardinals ( from whom a m Greeke Archbishop shall not dissent ) speake reason , and withall tell you that the Correspondencie of speech vsed betwixt Priest and People , was to vnite the hearts of both Priest and People together . Wee say , with him , to vnite them , not ( as you doe ) to separate People from Priest by your solitarie Masses ; and yet to confound their speech by your [ Dominus vobiscum . ] And if this may not preuaile with you , yet me thinkes the authoritie of Pope Gregorie , sirnamed the Great , may command your beleefe . He vpon the forme of the Romane service , by an interchangeable speech betweene Priest and People , concludeth that n Therefore the Priest should not celebrate Masse alone . And yet behold a Greater Pope than hee , euen Soter , more ancient by 400. yeares , and also a Martyr , o decreeing , as most conuenient , ( for Answere vnto the Priest's Vobiscum , and Orate ) that there be two at least besides the Priest . An * 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 intitling singular persons in the plurall number : and this Answere hee called Saluing of a doubt . But any may replie , that if it were good manners in the Priest to call vpon the Clerke with [ Vobiscum ] in the plurall number for Civility-sake , it must then be rusticitie in your Church , to teach your Clerke to answere your Priest [ Et cum Spiritu tuo : And with thy Spirit . ] And againe , the Answere is impertinent , for where the Priest is found thus parling with the Clerke , he cannot be said to be Alone . And so the Answere of this man must be indeed not Saluing , but ( as the rest of his manner of answering ) a Quack-saluing rather , and a meere Delusion . A THIRD CHALLENGE Against the same Custome . A Custome Commendable , say your Fathers of Trent ; Condemnable , say wee , euen from your owne Consciences , because you were neuer 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 only obiected place of p 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 he 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 saith he ) was common to All. The very Argument of Saint Hierome , saying ( yet more obligatorily ) r The Lord's Supper ought to bee common to All. Such Reverencers were the Primitive Fathers of the Ordinances of Christ . And as touching * [ Nemo , No man ] in the testimonie of Chrysostome , it is knowne to be taken restrainedly , for Few ; and so s acknowledged by your selves in the place objected . The fourth Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse , contradicting the sence of the next words , [ — SAID VNTO THEM . ] SECT . VI. IN the aforesaid Canon of Christ his Masse it followeth , [ And he said vnto 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 , ioyntly with the rest , saying , [ Doe this . ] The contrarie Canon of the Romane Masse . But your late Councell of a Trent pronounceth him Anathema , who shall condemne her Custome of the Priest , uttering the words of Consecration in a lowe voice . Whereby ( saith your b Iesuite ) it forbiddeth the words of Consecration to be deliuered in a lowd and audible voice . So they . CHALLENGE . DOe you see what your Church doth professe ? See also , wee pray you , notwithstanding , what your owne Doctours are brought to c confesse ( namely ) first , that The Example of Christ and his Apostles is against this uttering those words in a lowe and inaudible voice . Secondly , that The same Custome was controlled by the practice of the whole Church of Christ , both in the East part thereof ( from the testimonies of ancient Liturgies , and Fathers ) and in the ancient Romane Church , by the witnessing of two Popes ; in whose time the People hearing the words of Consecration pronounced , did answere thereunto , AMEN . Thirdly , that the same Innovation was much misliked by the Emperour Iustinian , who severely commanded by his Edict ( as d you know ) that The Priest should pronounce the words with a cleare voice , that they may be heard of the people . Whose authority you peremptorily contemne , as though it did not belong to an Emperour to make Lawes in this kind . But forasmuch as the King of Kings , and the High Priest of Priests , the Sonne of God , hath said of this , as of the other such Circumstances , [ Doe 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 , vnto Them ) but only to himselfe , without so much as any pretence of Reason , e which might not likewise haue moued 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 Lowde voice , especially by the Romish Priest , in uttering the words of Consecration . THe greatest silence , which is vsed by the Romane worshippers , is still in the Priests vttering , or rather muttering the words of Institution [ Hoc est corpus meum : and , Hic est sanguis meus : ] albeit here is the greatest and most necessarie Cause of expressing them , for the satisfaction of euery vnderstanding Hearer among you . For those you call the Words of Consecration , the iust pronunciation whereof you hold to be most necessarie : because if the Priest , in vttering of them , faile but in one syllable , so farre as to alter the sence 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 * Bread still . If therefore the People shall stand perplexed in themselves , whether the words , which are concealed , be duely vttered 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 entreate at large in due * place , if God permit . Your fift Romish Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse , is a second Contradiction against the Sence 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 voice , Saying unto them , was necessarily audible , to reach their eares ; so was it also Intelligible , to instruct their vnderstanding : and therefore not vttered in a Tongue vnknowne . Which is evident by that hee giveth a Reason for the taking of the Cup [ Enim ] For this is the bloud , &c. which particle [ For ( saith your f Cardinall ) is implyed in the first part also . Now , whosoeuer reasoneth with another , would bee vnderstood what he saith . The contrarie Canon of the ( now ) Romane Masse . The Councel of Trent ( saith your g Iesuite ) decreed , that it is not expedient that the Diuine seruice should be celebrated in a knowne tongue . Whereupon you doubt not to censure the contrarie Doctrine of Protestants to be h Hereticall and Schismaticall , and no wayes to be admitted . But why ? Lest ( say you ) the Church may seeme a long time to haue beene asleepe , and to haue erred in her contrarie Custome . So you . Our Church of England contrarily thus : * It is a thing repugnant to the Word of God , and Custome of the Primitiue Church to haue publike 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 publike service of God. I. CHALLENGE . Against the Romish Alteration of the Catholike and vniversall practice● of the Church , and the Antiquity thereof . IN the examination of this point , Consider in the first place your owne Confessions , given by your i Iesuits , and others , acknowledging that In the dayes of the Apostles , and a long time after , euen 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 vsed to say , AMEN ! So you . And this is as much as we need to require , concerning the judgement and practice of the true Antiquitie of this Custome . You will rather doubt ( we suppose ) of the Vniversalitie thereof , because you vsually 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 seruice was celebrated thorow-out the Church in one of these three . And because these could not be the vulgar language of euery Christian Nation , it must follow ( say k they ) that the People of most Nations vnderstood not the publike Prayers vsed in their severall Churches . And with this Perswasion doe your Doctors locke vp your consciences in a false beleefe of an vniversall Custome of an vnknowne service of God. Which you may as easily vnlocke againe , if you shall but vse , 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 vsed them in Divine Service . Which one only Animadversion will fully demonstrate vnto vs the truth of our Cause . It is not denyed but that the three Languages Hebrew , Greeke , and Latine were , in primitiue ages , most m vniuersall ; 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 ouer a great part of Europe . It will now be fully sufficient to know , that the most of these languages were certainly knowne , in publike worship , vnto all them of whom they were vsed in publike Sermons , and preachings . For your owne Church , howsoever she decreed of Praying , yet doth she forbid Preaching in an vnknowne tongue . Now therefore ioyne ( we beseech you ) the eyes of your bodies and mind together in beholding and pondering our Marginals , and you shall finde , first ( if we speake of the n 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 thereof in the Church of Rome , whereof St. * Hierome hath testified , that The people were heard in the Churches of Rome resounding and thundring out their Amen! This in Churches vnmixt . Thirdly , in mixt Congregations of Greeke and Latine , that the o Seruice was said both in Greeke and Latine . Fourthly , your owne generall Confession , yeelding 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 Latine tongue was better knowne to his Africanes than was the Punicke , although this were their natiue Language : ) And also of q France , Spaine , Italie , Germanie , Pannonia , Dalmatia , and many other Nations in the North and West : particularly manifested by the Latine Homelies and writings , made to the people of Africke by Tertullian , Cyprian , and Augustine ; and in France and Germanie by the people praying and ioyntly 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 You are not to be moued with the example of such barbarous people . O Iesuiticall superciliousnes ! to contemne them as Barbarous , in an example of praying in a knowne tongue : the contrarie whereunto ( as namely praying in an vnknowne tongue ) the Apostle condemneth as * Barbarousnes it ●elfe . With the same modestie might you scoffe at , and reproach other more ancient Nations and Christians , commended by primitiue Fathers for celebrating their Oblations , Prayers , and Psalmes in their Nationall tongues ; so , that one repeating the words first , the whole people with ioynt voyce and heart accorded in ●inging . Among whom are recorded the converted s Iewes , the t Syrians ; and u All , as well Greekes as Romanes , praying in their owne tongue , and with ●armonicall consent singing of Psalmes , in the publike worship : as also the x Grecians , Egyptians , Thebaeans , Palestinians , Arabians , Phoenicians , and Syrians . This from the Testimonies of holy Fathers . Whether therefore the tongue we pray in be barbarous or learned , it is not respected of God , but whether it be knowne or vnknowne , is the point . In which respect wee may vsurpe the Similitude which St. y Augustine hath ; What availeth a golden Key , if it cannot open that which should be opened ? or what hur●eth a wooden Key , 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 prophanenesse thereof , and how after the death of Pope Gregory the first , which was abou● 608. yeares after Christ , your Romane Church degenerated as much from the ( then ) Romane truth in this point , as shee did from her Romane tongue and Language it selfe . Wee are here constrained to pleade the whole cause , for the defence of a necessity of a knowne worship , in respect of God , of Man , and of Both. A SECOND CHALLENGE , Shewing the Iniquitie of Seruice in an vnknowne tongue . And first of the Iniury done by the fore-said Romane Decree vnto the soules of Men. THe former Decree of your Councell , for vnknowne Seruice , how iniurious it is unto man , we may learne by the Confessions of Iesuites and others , z granting that The Apostles in their times required a knowne Language , Greeke in the Greeke Churches , and Latine in the Latine Churches : because that first this made for the Edification and Consolation of Christians . Secondly , that Man gaineth more both in mind and affection , who knoweth what he prayeth . As for him that is Ignorant , you say , He is not edified , in asmuch as he knoweth not in particular , although in generall he doth vnderstand . Thirdly , that the Apostle commandeth that all things be done to edification . Fourthly , that the knowne Service is fitter for Deuotion : and thereupon some of you haue 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 obserue in the Marginals . Now what more extreame and intolerable Iniurie could you doe to the soules of Gods people , than by imposing a strange language upon them , thereby ( according to your owne Confessions ) to depriue them , and that wittingly , of Edification , Consolation , and Devotion , the three chiefe Benefits that man's soule is capable off , in the seruice of God ? Thus in respect of your Iniurie against Man. A THIRD CHALLENGE , Touching the Iniurie 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 Cardinall , who confesseth that the Psalmes in the dayes of the Primitiue-Church , were sung ioyntly of the people , Because they were ordayned for instruction & consolation of the people , as the chiefe end . But as for the Diuine Service , The Principall end of it ( saith hee ) is not the instruction and consolation of the people , but the worship of God. So hee . Whom when we aske , why the people then did all ioyne together both in Singing of Psalmes , and Answering the Minister in Diuine Service , and Prayer ? Hee saith it was because of the Pauscitie of people , and rarenesse of the Assembly . Whereby it seemeth he meant to maintaine Your Degenerate Romish Worship with Paradoxes ; First , As if Psalmes , publiquely sung in the Church to Gods glorie , were not Divine duties and service . Secondly , As if the Primitive Church , using both Psalmes and other Prayers in a knowne tongue ( as he confesseth ) did not bold 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 asmuch 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 obiecting the Worship of God by vnknowne 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 hee know our wants before wee pray , yet will be sollicited by our prayers ? it b saith , that hee doth this to the end , that Praying more confidently , wee may be more inflamed with love towards God : and so being possessed with more joy , may bee exercised to a ●ervent 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 filiall Loue and dutifull Worship of God. Which was long since shadowed ( as c 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 we 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 ( contrarie to all anciently-professed Divinity , and expresse Scripture , saying , * I will pray with my spirit , I will pray with my understanding also ) doth thrust man's Vnderstanding out of God's worship , to the vtter abolishing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , his Reasonable worshipping of God ; by making man ( as Saint d Augustine noteth ) no better than O●zells , Parrots , Ravens , and Mag-pies , all which learne to prate they know not what . THE FOVRTH CHALLENGE , Against the said Romish Decree , as ioyntly injurious both to God and Man , from the Text of the Apostle , 1. Cor. 14. IN the fourth place VVee are to speake of the Iniquitie of your vnknowne language in Prayer , joyntly against both God and Man ; because that without the vnderstanding of the Prayer it is impossible for a man ( being of discretion ) to pray vnto , or to praise God as hee ought : and consequently to obtaine any blessing by prayer from God , according to that Apostolicall Doctrine , 1. Cor. 14. where he saith of the man ignorant of the language of prayer , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; ] How shall he say Amen , at thy giving of thankes , seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest ? To which Argument of the Apostles , taken from the Impossibility , your e Eckius and some Others answere , that the Apostle speaketh of Preaching , and not of Praying . What , not of Praying , Eckius ? May it not bee said of this your great Doctor , and Antagonist to Luther , that this man could not see the River for water ? for ( as your f Cardinall confesseth ) in the text it selfe the Apostle vseth these three words , Pray , sing , and give thankes . Will you now seeke an Evasion from Mr. g Brereley Pr. collecting ( as he saith ) the Contrarie in the Apostle , as affirming that not the whole vulgar , but some one was especially appointed to supply the place of the vnlearned to say Amen ? Which Reason he may seeme to have borrowed from your h Senensis , who saith that The Apostle by him [ That occupieth the place of the vnlearned ] meant the Clarke of the Parish , and not the vulgar people . But this is thought of your Bellarmine , and others , to be but an vnlearned Answere , because that In the dayes of the Apostle ( saith i he ) There was not any such office ordained , as is the Clarke of the Parish : and if there had beene any such , yet the Greeke phrase [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] would not admit of any such interpretation . So hee . Lastly , it can be no lesse than an extreme Infatuation to appose ( as k doe your Iesuite Salmeron , Eckius , and the Rhemists ) the example of Children ; because the Children crying Hosanna , and not understanding their prayers , were notwithstanding ( say they ) accepted of Christ. Ergò the Priest , Monkes , and Nunnes , in praysing God may be gratefull to God , although they vnderstand not that which they pray . So they . An Obiection taken ( as you see ) from Children , or rather , as it might seeme , made by Children , it is altogether so Childish . For the Apostle , as it were fore-seeing that this might possibly be fancied by some fond and obstinate Opposers to the Spirit of Truth , doth in the very same Chapter 1. Cor. 14. 20. purposely prevent it , saying ; Brethren , be not children in understanding . For although , when a Childe asketh his Fathers blessing only with clapping his hands together , or uttering halfe syllables , it joyeth the Father , because his Childe now expresseth his duty , according to the Capacitie of a Childe : yet if the same Childe , after hee is come to the perfect yeares of discretion , should performe that duty in no better manner than by childish babling , would the Father hold this to be Reverence , and not rather plaine Mocquerie ? So is the Case betwixt us and * God , who accepteth every one according to that which he hath , and not according to that which he hath not : A Childe in the capacity of a Childe , but a man according to to the apprehension of a man. In which consideration the Apostle saith , 1. Cor. 13. 11. When I was a childe , I spake as a childe , but being a man I put away childishnesse . Away therefore with this your more than Childish Obiection . VVee returne to the Impossibilitie of praying duely in an vnknowne tongue , which the Apostle illustrateth by two Similitudes , the one taken from an Instrument of peace , Verse 7. He that knoweth not the distinct sound of the Pipe [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; ] How shall he know what is piped ? that is , it is impossible for him to apply himselfe to the daunce . The other from an Instrument of warre , Verse 8. If the Trumpet give an vncertaine sound , who shall prepare himselfe to battell ? As if hee would haue said , It is impossible to know when to to march forward , or when to retraite . So it is said of vnknowne Prayer [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; ] How shall he that is ignorant of the language say Amen ? that is to say ( by the interpretation of your l ●esuite ) How shall people , ignorant of the tongue , answere Amen ? ( that is ) yeild consent unto the Prayer , seeing that they , who dissent among themselves after a Babylonish confusion , cannot consent in minde and affection . So he . Or , as your m Aquinas ; How shall he say , Amen , who vnderstandeth not what good words thou speakest , but only knoweth that thou blessest ? Thus in one Transgression you commit a double Sacrilege , to wit , by Robbing God of his due Honour , and Men of their spirituall graces and Comforts . To conclude . These Premises doe prove , that among many thousands of your people , assembled at a Romane Masse , and being ignorant of their Service , not any such an one ( a miserable Case ! ) can justly be held to be a true Worshipper of God , who requireth of his VVorshippers the * Calves of their lips , and not ( as now they make themselves ) the lips of Calves . THE FIFT CHALLENGE , Out of the Doctrine of the Apostle , 1. Cor. 14. more copiously in confutation of your divers Objections . IT were an easie matter to bee superfluous in the prosecuting of this Argument , by proving the truth of this Doctrine out of the Testimonies of ancient Fathers , if it were imaginable that any Reply could be made to that which is alreadie said . But yet behold an n Anonymus , having had notice of most of these points , hath formed such Objections and Answeres , as his prejudicated and purblinde Conceit could reach vnto . First , in answere to the places objected out of 1. Cor. 14. affirming ( out of the Rhemish Annotations ) That the Apostle speakes not of the publike and set prayers of the Church , but of extraordinarie and spirituall exercises of Exhortations , and suddaine Prayors . So he . Wherein the man contradicteth your owne o Schoolemen , but especially the Apostle his direct saying , Verse 23. If the whole Congregation meete together &c. what more publike than that Assembly of the whole Congregation ? And ( to suppose that they were extraordinarie Prayers ) what is more consectarie and Consequent , than that if the Apostle note it for an Abuse , to practice such extraordinarie Exercises of Preaching and Praying in a tongue vnknowne , even because the Hearers are not thereby Edified ( doubtlesse ) the same Abuse practiced in publike and ordinarie Service , being more notorious and Common , must needs be so much the more condemnable : as witnesse both Ancient Fathers , and your owne Brethren , who have taught the vse of a knowne Tongue , in all publique and ordinarie service of God , from this Text of Scripture , which ( as you say ) speaketh of Prayers extraordinarie . Yea , but It is sufficient ( saith he ) that the vulgar people know , in generall , although they vnderstand not the Prayers in particular . VVhich againe Contradicteth the Apostle , who in the sixteenth Verse will have the Private or Vulgar man to be able to giue consent to the publique Prayer , in saying Amen . And therefore requireth the Minister , Verse 7. as the Harper , to yeild in particular a Distinction of tunes [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : ] and Verse 8. as a Trumpetter , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] 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 p The Apostle reprehendeth not an vnknowne 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 * Iesuite is forced to proclaime . The Apostle ( saith he ) 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 he would not have any Publike Prayer vsed 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 do●t well ; but in respect of others , which cannot understand , Not well , because , They are not edified . His fourth Obiection he wresteth out of the fourth Verse . [ If I pray with my tongue , my spirit prayeth , but my vnderstanding is without fruit . ] So he . As though that strange Tongue , here spoken off , were not vnderstood by him that prayed . Which contradicteth the Apostle , Verse 4. He that speaketh with the tongue doth edifie himselfe : for never did any denie that he , 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 vnderstanding of all others . Therefore saith the Apostle , Verse 13. [ He that speaketh with the tongue let him pray , that he may interprete it . ] Fiftly , by the word [ Spirit ] q your Cardinall would have understood the Affection , as if Affection without understanding did profit him that prayeth : which is fully contrarie to the Apostles Doctrine , as witnesseth r your Salmeron in plaine termes ; shewing that the word , Spirit , thorow-out this whole Chapter , signifieth not the Affection , but the miraculous Spirituall gift of speaking in Strange tongues , as also the * Fathers expound it . In the next place the afore-said 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 never to the licenced 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 he ) used the said Hebrew word , Allelujah , unknowne to the people . What then ? know you not that in all Churches , of whatsoeuer 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 corupted 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 licenced . But wee demand , are men made for languages , or rather languages for men ? if the first , then all men were bound to learne all languages . If the latter , then is that language to be used , which is knowne to serve best for the Edification and Consolation of God's people in his worship . A SIXT CHALLENGE , Out of the Doctrine of Antiquitie . ALthough it were preposterous to exact of vs a proofe , from Antiquitie , of condemning the Service in a strange tongue , seeing ( as hath beene confessed ) the Primitive practice is wholly for vs ; and therefore no Abuse in those times could occasion any such Reproofe : yet shall we , for your better illumination , offer unto you some more expresse Suffrages of the ancient Fathers , after that wee shall have satisfied your Obiections , 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 Augustine forewarne the people , who although they knew the single words of the prayers of Heretickes , yet might possibly be deluded with the obscuritie of their Hereticall Sences . The Difference is extreme . For Saint Augustine's people vnderstood the language of those prayers , in the obscure and inuolued Sence whereof they were vnwillingly igno●ant . But your Popish people are wilfully ignorant both of the Words and Sence . 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 vnderstood , yet is that reading profitable . This Sentence also is alleaged for countenancing of t Prayer in an unknowne tongue ; notwithstanding that , in a man's 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 find some particular Scriptures , which God would have to excell the Capacitie of the most learned , to humble them , to the admiration of his excellent wisdome , as the Fathers teach . Whereas contrarily an unknowne Prayer , wittingly used , is both vnprofitable and vnlawfull , as hath beene copiously confessed by your owne Divines , from the Doctrine of the Apostle . More Obiections out of the Fathers you have not . We will trie whether we can recompence your Nominalities ( that wee may so call your impertinent Obiections ) with Realities and soli● Proofs . Cast but your eyes vpon the Marginals , consisting partly of the Relation of your owne u Cassander , and partly of our x Collections , and you shall finde , among the Fathers , y Ambrose denying that He , who is the person ignorant of the Prayer , can give consent vnto it , by saying Amen : and thereupon inferreth , that only Such things should be spoken in the publike Congregation , which the Hearers vnderstand . z Chrysostome noting a Man , Ignorant of the Prayer , to be no better then a Barbarian to himselfe , not in respect of the nature of the voyce , but of his owne ignorance ; and declaring Prayers , in an vnknowne tongue , to be contrary to the Apostles Doctrine , who requireth that All things be done to edification . a Isiodore peremptorily affirming an [ Oportet , ] and duety , that All may be able to Pray in publike places of prayer . Theophylact noting that b The giuing of thankes to God is unprofitable , where the edification of the people is neglected . Augustine , in his Comment vpon the Psalmes , often exhorting all sorts of men to sing them : and thereupon the c Author of the Preface before his Comment ( as it were tuning his note to Augustines ) doth deny that any can sing Psalmes as he ought to God , who knoweth not what he singeth . And , lest that this might not suffice , we have added the * Edict of the Emperour I●stinian , commanding a lowd voice in the Minister , that the people may vnderstand his words . Next , a Canon of a Councell , requiring a * Concordance both of voice and vnderstanding 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 vnderstanding . ] Then , a Decree of one Pope , in his Councell , that provision be made , where people of diuers Languages dwell in the same Cities , that their * Service may be done according to their Different tongues . After , the Resolution of another Pope , to grant vnto the * Sclavonians , at their conversion to the faith , that Divine Service might be vsed in their owne tongue ; moued thereunto , as by a voice from heauen , sounding out that Scripture ; Let every tongue praise the Lord. And lastly , * a Prohibition in the Primitive Church , that None should speake in languages vnknowne to the people . When you have disgested all these Premises , concerning the Equity and Necessity of knowne Prayers in the publike and Divine Service , both in consideration of God's worship and Mans manifold profit , so amply confirmed by so many and vncontrollable 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 Profanenesse ? and to number it among Hereticall pravities . As for your owne People , who preferre an vnknowne 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 accompanie Popiniayes and Iack-dawes , accordingly as St. * Augustine formerly hath resembled them . The sixt Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse , contradicting the Sence 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 f 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 ; Math. 26. one delivering it to an other as it is said of the Paschall Cup , Luc. 22. 17. as it is * confessed . The contrarie Canon in your ( now ) Romane Masse . Concerning this , It is to be noted ( say g you ) that the Church of Rome hath iudged it la●dable , 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 wee may note of this your [ Notandum ] the Confessions of your owne h Iesuites will shew : first , that the Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Church , for aboue 500. yeares , was , according to Christ's Institution , to deliver the Bread into the hands of the Communicants . Secondly , that the same Order was observed at Rome ( as appeareth by the Epistle of Pope Cornelius . ) Thirdly , that whereas Some had devised , for Reverence-sake , 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 you 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 els to denie this libertie vnto the people , as if their Handes were lesse sanctified than their mouthes . But you will say that it is in Reuerence , lest that the body of Christ may ( as you teach ) light vpon 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 vse due Cautelousnes , that it may be done without miscarriage ; yet must you give vs leaue to retort your pretence of Reverence vpon 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 practized 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 seaventh Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse , contradicting the Sence of the next wordes , [ EATE YEE . ] SECT . IX . AS in the third Transgression , wee , by these words of Christ [ He gaue 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 , contrarie to the ancient Custome and vniuersall practice of the Church : so now out of these words [ TAKE YEE , EATE YEE ] wee obserue that the persons present were Takers and Eaters of the blessed Eucharist , and not onely Spectators thereof . An Abuse condemned by our Church of Eugland 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 flat contrary , in your Church , by admitting people of all forts , not as the Lords Guests to Eate of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ; but as Gazers , onely to looke on it , as vpon a proper Sacrifice : telling the People that they , seeing the Priest eate and drinke , i 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 vnto God. CHALLENGE . BVt Christ ( you see ) instituted this Sacrament only 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 vse your owne k 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 Communicants to be present at the celebration of the Eucharist . As for them that came vnprepared , and as not intending to Communicate , they commanded them to be gone , and to be packing out of doores . To this purpose your owne Relator telleth you , from other Authors , of the practice of Antiquity , and of other succeeding Churches , in not suffering any to be present , but such as did Communicate ; and of removing and expelling them that did not . Nor can the Church of Rome iustly take exception at this , seing that in the Roman Church also , in the daies of P. Greg. the first , which was 600. yeares after Christ ) the office of the Deacon , at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist , was to crie alowde saying , m If any doe not communicate , let him give place . Where wee see the religious wisdome of that ancient Church of Rome , which could not suffer a Sacrifice to devoure a publike Sacrament , and to exclude a Communion : Whereunto the Scriptures gave the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , a Gathering together , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , a Communion ; as also of The Supper of the Lord. Yea and Calixtus , a Pope more ancient than Gregorie , required that persons present should Communicate : n Because ( saith he ) the Apostles had so ordained ; and our Church of Rome obserueth the same . But what haue We said ? have Wee called this Sacrament the Supper of our Lord ? so ( we thought ) were we taught by the Apostle , 1. Cor. 11. before wee heard your Iesuite o Maldonate denying this , and bitterly inveying against Protestants , terming them Blind men for want of judgement , for so calling it . But he must pardon vs , if we ( though wee should suspect our owne sight ) yeild to the ancient Fathers of Primitive times , as to men farre more cleare-sighted than that Iesuite could be ; who ( as both your p Romane Catechisme with Lindan instructeth , and as your Cardinall q Baronius confesseth ) following the authority of the Apostles , used to call the sacred Eucharist , the Lord's Supper , distinct from the Paschall Supper , which went before it : amongst whom you have r Dionysius Areopagita , with Chrysostome , Cyprian , Augustine , Hierome , Anselme , Bernard . Whereupon ( with some of them ) we enioyne a Necessity of a ioynt Communion with those that are present . Will you suffer a Golden mouth to be Moderator in this Controuersie ? thus then . Whosoever thou art ( saith s Chrysostome ) that being fit to participate of this Sacrament shalt stand only looking on , and not eate , thou doest no lesse Contumely and reproach to the Sacrament , than a man invited to a Feast , who will not taste thereof , doth unto the Lord that invited him to bee a Guest . So hee . And to shew that it cannot be sufficient to behold it only as a proper Sacrifice ( as you pretend ) the same t Father ( as you know ) saith against such By-standers , Why doe we waite at the Altar , offering ( meaning * unproperly ) a Sacrifice , when as there is none to communicate ? And why dost thou , impudent fellow , stand here still , not being one of them that participate thereof ? But enough . This then you perceiue is a matter of no small importance , even by reason of the nature of this Sacrament , which is a Divine Banquet ; being also enioyned upon the Catholike Church by that Command of Christ , [ DOE THIS . ] Therefore the Command and Precept comming , maketh you Transgressors for not - Eating ; even as by the first Command given unto man-kind of [ Eate not ] our first Parents became Transgressors for Eating . So justly doth our * Church require , that Gazers , who comunicate not , should depart . We forbeare to repeate that which we have formerly * prooved ( to wit , ) that you , by not dismissing the non-Communicants from beholding the Celebration this Sacrament , are condemned by the word Masse , whereof you have so long boasted , untill that now your Glorie is become your shame . The Eight Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse , by a second Contradiction of the Sence of the former words [ EATE YEE . ] SECT . X. THis is the last Act of Christ , concerning the use of the first Element , viz. [ Bread ] saying , EATE YEE ; even as he said of the other , [ Drinke yee . ] and of both hee gave this his joynt Command [ Doe this . ] Wherefore this Act of Eating being thus prescribed , as the only bodily outward end of this Sacrament , it doth exclude all other bodily Vses of man's inuention . Accordingly our Church of England Article 25. saith , Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be carried about , but to be duely used . The contrarie Canon of the Romane Masse . The holy Synod of Trent ( saith your a Iesuite ) hath ordained that this Sacrament be preserved , carried abroad , and publikely proposed to the people in Procession , with solemne Pompe and Worship . Which is a laudable Custome . CHALLENGE . VVE doe not dispute against all manner of Reseruation of the Eucharist , for wee acknowledge some to be ancient ; but wee inquire into the religious use and end of Reseruation : which , we say , was not for any publike Profession , or Adoration , but only for a Sacramentall Eating thereof . And how vniustly you call this your Procession ( only for publike Adoration ) Laudable , wee are provided to demonstrate by the Confessions of your owne Iesuites and others ( out of Cyprian , and other Fathers ) who , consulting first about Antiquitie , grant that , after the Celebration of the Eucharist , anciently b The Remainders , which were left ( lest they should corrupt and putrifie ) were usually either given to children under age ( yet not to be received Sacramentally , but only to be consumed by them : ) or were burnt in the fire , or else eaten reverently in the Vestrie , called the * Pastophorium . Which was likewise the Custome of Rome in the primitive age , as c 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 grant ) to no other end but that they might eate it : and this only in the time of Persecution : After which time the same Custome was abrogated . So you . How then can you call the Reservation of the Hoast , for publike Procession , and not for Eating , Laudable , which hath beene thus checked and gain-sayed by so syncere Antiquitie ? Secondly , when you please to reveile unto us the first Birth of your owne Romane Custome , you grant that it was not untill a e Thousand foure hundred yeares after Christ . And must it then be called a Laudable Custome , whereby ( that we may so speake ) beardlesse noveltie doth take place of sage and gray-headed Antiquitie ? Thirdly , in discussing the end , which was destinated by our Saviour Christ , you further grant , that f The primitive and principall end , prescribed by Christ , is for Sacramentall eating : and that the Sacrament is to be given for this , as it 's primary effect . And yet notwithstanding for you to bring in a Pompous ostentation of not - Eating , and to call it a Laudable Custome , argueth what little Congruitie there is betweene your Practice , and Christ's Institution . And how much lesse Laudable will this appeare to be , when we consider the grosse and intollerable Abuses of your Processions , which are displayed by your owne Authours ? Noting in them the very fooleries of the g Romane Pagans , by your fond Pageants , where Priests play their parts in representing the persons of Saints ; others of Queenes , accompanied with Beares and Apes , and many like profane and sportfull Inuentions , and other Abuses : which occasioned some of your owne more devout Professors to wish that this your Custome were abrogated , h Thinking that it may be omitted with profit to the Church , both because it is but an Innovation , and also for that it serveth most-what for ostentation and pompe , rather than pious Devotion . So they . Lastly , lest you may obiect ( as else where ) that a Negative Argument ( as this , because Christ did not institute this Custome , therefore it may not be allowed ) is of no effect ; we adde , that the Argument negative ( if in any thing ) then must it prevaile in condemning that Practice , which maintaineth any new End , differing from that which was ordained by Christ . Which made Origen and Cyprian argue Negatively in this Case : the one i saying , Christ reserved it not till to-morrow : and the other ; This bread is received , and not reserved , or put into a Boxe . Which Conclusion we may hold , in condemning of your publike Carrying of the Hoast in the streets and Market-places , to the end only that it may be Adored , aswell as ( of latter times ) your Pope Pius Quartus ( which your Congregation of k Cardinals report ) did forbid a new-upstart Custome of Carrying the Sacrament to sicke people , that they might adore it , when as they were not able to eate it . All these Premises doe inferre , that your Custome of Circumgestation of the Sacrament , in publike Procession , onely for Adoration , cannot justly be called Laudable , except you meane thereby to have it termed a Laudable Noveltie , and a Laudable profanation , and Transgression , against the Institution of Christ ; as now from your owne Confessions hath beene plainly evicted : and as will be further manifested , when wee are to speake of your * Idolatrous Infatuation it selfe . The Ninth Transgression of the Canon of Christ his Masse , contradicting the Sence of the words following , [ IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE . ] SECT . XI . REmembrance is an act of Vnderstanding , and therefore sheweth that Christ ordained the use of this Sacrament only for persons of Discretion and Vnderstanding , saying , [ DOE THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE . ] The contrarie Canon of the Romane Masse , in times past . Your Iesuite Maldonate will be our Relater , ingenuously confessing , that in the dayes of l Saint Augustine , and Pope Innocent the first , this opinion was of force in your Church , For six hundred yeares together , viz. that the Administration of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants . Which opinion ( saith hee ) is now reiected by the Councell of Trent , Determining that the Eucharist is not only not necessarie for Infants , but also that is Indecent to give it unto them . So he . Of this more in the Challenge . CHALLENGE . IS not now this your Churches Reiecting of her former Practice a Confession that she hath a long time erred in Transgressing of the Institution of Christ ? How then shall your Trent-Fathers free your fore-father Pope Innocent , and your former Romane Church from this taxation ? This they labour to doe , but ( alas their miserie ! ) by collusion and cunning : for the same Synod of m Trent resolveth the point thus ; The holy Synod ( say they ) teacheth , that Children being void of the use of Reason , are not necessarily bound to the Sacramentall receiving of the Eucharist . This wee call a collusion ; for by the same Reason , wherewith they argue that Children are not necessarily bound to receive the Eucharist , because they want reason , they should have concluded , that Therefore the Church is and was necessarily bound not to administer the Eucharist to Infants , even because they wanted Reason . Which the Councell , doubtlesse , knew , but was desirous thus to cover her owne shame , touching her former superstitious practice of Giving this Sacrament vnto Infants . In excuse whereof , your Councell of Trent adioyneth , that the Church of Rome , in those dayes , was not condemnable ; but why ? Because ( saith your * Councell ) Truly and without Controversie wee ought to beleeve , that they did not give the Eucharist unto Infants , as thinking it necessary to Salvation . Which Answere your owne Doctors will prove to be a bold , and a notorious vntruth , because ( as your Iesuite n sheweth ) They then beleeved that Infants baptized could not be saved , except they should participate of the Eucharist ; taking their Argument from that Scripture of Iohn 6. [ Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne , &c. ] and therfore held they it necessarie to the salvation of Infants . That this was the beleefe of Pope Innocent , and of the Church of Rome vnder him , your Parisian Doctor o 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 explaineth the same so exactly ( See the Marginall Citation ) that it will permit no Euasion . And so much the rather , because that which the Tridentine Fathers alledge , for cause of Alteration , doth confirme this unto us : It is vndocent ( say they ) to give the Eucharist unto Infants . This may perswade vs that Innocent held it necessary , els would he not haue practized , and patronized a thing so vtterly vndecent . Wee dispute therefore . If the Church of Rome , in the dayes of Pope Innocent the first , held it a doctrine of faith , in the behalfe of Infants , that they ought to receiue the Sacrament of the Eucharist , the same Church of Rome , in her Councell of Trent ( whose Decrees by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth are all held to be beleeued vpon necessity of Salvation ) did decree contrarily that the participation of the Eucharist is not necessary , no nor yet decent for Infants . Say now , did the Church of Rome not erre in the dayes of Pope Innocent ? then is she now in an error . Or doth shee not now erre herein ? then did she formerly erre , and consequently may erre hereafter , in determinining a matter to be Necessary to Salvation , which in it selfe is Superfluous and Vndecent . Thus of the contrary custome of the Church of Rome , in elder times . The new contrary Opinion , concerning the Romane Masse , at this day . Euen at this day also your Iesuite will haue vs to vnderstand the meaning of your Church to be , that q Infants are capable of the Sacrament of the Eucharist . CHALLENGE . VVHereunto wee oppose the Authority of the r Councell of Carthage , and of that ( which you call the ) Councell of Laterane , which denyed , as you know , that the Eucharist should be delivered vnto Infants , accounting them vncapable of divine and spirituall feeding : without which ( say they ) the corporall profiteth nothing . But we also summon , against the ●ormer Assertion , eight of your ancient s Schoolemen , who vpon the same Reasons made the like Conclusion with vs. And wee further ( as it were , arresting you in the Kings name ) produce against you Christ his writ , the Sacred Scripture , whereby hee requireth in all persons about to Communicate three principall Acts of Reason ; one is before , and two are at the time of Receiuing . The first is * [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] Let a man examine himselfe , and so come , &c. The second [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] To discerne the Lords body . The third is [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] To remember the Lords death vntill his Comming againe . All which Three , being acts of Iudgement , how they may agree vnto Infants , being persons void of iudgement , iudge you . And remember , we pray you , that wee speake of Sacrament all Eating , and not of that vse * 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 Sence of the next words following ( concerning the second part of this Sacrament of receiuing the Cup ) [ HE LIKEWISE TOOKE THE CVP , AND GAVE IT TO THEM , SAYING , DRINKE YEE ALL OF THIS . ] And adding , 1. Cor. 11. [ DOE THIS , AS OFTEN AS YOV DOE IT , IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE . ] SECT . I. BY which Words [ Like manner of Taking , and Giving , and Saying , Drinke yee All of this ] we 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 plainly displayed ; that every conscience of man , which is not strangely preoccupated with prejudice , or transported with malice , must needs see and detest it . We have heard of the Canon of Christ his Masse . The contrarie Canon of the Romish Church , in her Masse . Shee in her Councell of Constance , decreed that a Although Christ , indeed , and the Primive Church did administer the Eucharist in both kinds ; notwithstanding ( say they ) this Custome of but one kind is held for a law irreprovable . Which Decree shee afterwards confirmed in her b Councell of Trent , requiring that the former Custome and Law of receiuing it but vnder one kinde be observed both by Laicks , yea , and also by those Priests , who being present at Masse , doe not the office of Consecrating . Contrarily our Church of England in her thirtieth Article thus : Both parts of the Lords Sacrament , by Christ's Ordinance and Commandement , ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike . CHALLENGE . BVt wee demand ; what Conscience should mooue your late Church of Rome to be guided by the authority of that former Councel of Constance , which notwithstanding maketh no scruple to reiect the authority of the same c 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 Councell of Basil doth prooue ) 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 Obiectors 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 Catholike , with the after-contrarie Custome ; and the Latitude thereof , together with 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 Sacriledge . 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 Pa●city . In the sixt , of Wisdome , with Folly : as also of Charity with Iniustice and Impiety . In the seventh of Knowledge with Ignorance ; as likewise of Devotion with Profanenesse : 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 Contrarie : 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 ] DOE THIS : ] the second time touching the Cup , * [ Hoc FACITE QVOTIESCVNQVE : ] DOE THIS AS OFTEN &c. ] Both which whosoever should denie to have the Sound and Sence of a Precept , might be confuted by your owne Iesuites , Doctors , Bishops , and Cardinals , among * whom wee 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 . 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 acknowledged to be under that Command of [ Hoc facite , ] are the Taking Bread , and Blessing it , &c. The other touching Administration of the Cup , whereof it is said , [ Hee tooke it , and gave it to his Disciples ] whom after he had Commanded , saying [ Drinke you all of this : ] he 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 he might charge them to communicate in both kinds . A Precept then it must needs be , But we are not ignorant of your Evasions . Your first Evasion . Although ( say e you ) it be said to his Disciples [ Drinke you all , and , Doe this ] yet it is spoken to them as they were Priests . And onely to the Apostles ; saith Master * Brereley : And againe , The Apostles did represent the Priests . CHALLENGE . VVE answere that your owne f 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 only Priests are enioyned 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 . 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 * Practice of your ( now Church of Rome , which alloweth the Cup to no Priest present , but only to him that doth Consecrate : which is directly confuted by the Example of Christ , who administred the Cup unto all his Apostles , by your doctrine , Priests . Againe , Doe these words only command the Priest to receive the Cup ? then likewise doe you condemne your former Church of Rome , which hath sometime permitted the Cup unto Laicks . Yea , and your Cardinall Alan g 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 ; euen as also your * 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 celebrate the Eucharist by virtue of the Command of Christ in the same words of Institution , [ Doe this . ] Your second Evasion . Next , although it were h ( say you ) said , [ And in like manner Christ tooke the Cup ] namely , as he 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 Saint * Luke , [ Likewise he tooke the Cup ] appeare by Saint * Matthew to have relation aswell to Christ's Giuing , as to his Taking of the Cup , thus ; [ Iesus tooke the Cup and gave thankes , and gave it vnto them , saying , Drinke you all of this ] Yea and in Saint Luke the text obiected is so cleare , that it needeth no Comment : He 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 , hee could find none more direct than that of your learned Arias Montanus , and B. Iansenius , [ In like manner . ] That ( saith i they ) as he did with the bread , so did he with the Cup , he tooke it , he gave thankes , he gave it unto them All to drinke . All which Saint Luke comprized in these words ; [ In like manner He tooke the Cup. ] So they . Your third Evasion . Although it be said of Drinking of the Cup , [ Doe this in remembrance of Mee : ] yet the words [ Doe this , ] say k you ) are spoken absolutely of the Bread , and but Conditionally of the Cup , namely , [ As often as you shall drinke it . ] And vpon this Conceit doe two Iesuites raise up their Insultation , l saying ; Behold here the wonderfull providence of God , whereby is taken from Heretikes all colour of excuse . So they , of us Protestants . CHALLENGE . TO this we answere , out of the Conclusions of your owne Doctors , aswell of the new , as of the old Schooles ; your m Iesuite Vasquez , for the new , Concluding , that the words , [ This doe 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 thereof , 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 alleageth Soto for the old Schoole , concluding that the words [ Drinke yee all of this , as often , &c. ] Doe 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 Cusanus affirmeth to lie alwayes upon the Church ; Whereby your Master o Brereley 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 Sence : 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 , doe this in remembrance of mee , ] Which is the End so commanded ; it doth equally imply 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 , and when-soever 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 doe it according to the forme of Christ his Institution , by Communicating in both kinds . If the Pope , sitting in the Assembly of his Cardinals , delivering unto each of them a Ring , to put upon their thumbes , should say , Doe this as often as you come before mee , in testimonie of my love : We demand , Are they not , as often as they come into the presence of that Pope , chargeable to put on each one his Ring upon his thumbe , by vertue of the Popes Command , [ Doe this ? ] who seeth not this , that doth not wilfully blind-fold and stupifie his wits ? Shall we conclude ? As your owne Doctors inferre from these words of Christ [ Doe 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. THE CHALLENGE , In Generall . DOe this ] are ( as you haue heard ) words Commandatorie , and being spoken of both kinds , aswell for Consecration , as for Distribution , doe 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 Sobrietie ) yet doe argue so intemperately , 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 sence ; which giveth us just cause to turne their Wonderment against themselves , saying , Behold the providence of God! thus plainly to confound the wisdome of the Adversaries of his truth by themselves , in their greatest subtilenesse . 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 contrarie Example . SECT . III. VVEre it that we had no Precept of Christ to [ Doe this ] but only the Example of his Doing it in the first Institution , this should be a Rule for us to observe it punctually , excepting in such Circumstances , which only occasionally and accidentally hapned therein , as * hath beene proved ; and therefore not to dare to give a Non-obstante , against the Example of Christ , as your * Councell of Constance hath done : and which p 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 Cyprian confuteth the Aquarij ( Heretikes that used only Water in the Chalice ) by the Example of Christ his Institution , because Nothing is to be done of us , in celebrating of this Mystery , which was not done of Christ. So he . In the 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 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 , he gave to none Milke , but Bread only , 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 . Those also that offered Bread and Cheese together , in this Sacrament , are confuted by the Institution of Christ , who appointed Bread , saith s your Aquinas . What can be more direct and absolute ? yet dare your men obiect to the contrarie . The Romish Obiection 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 Cardinall ) to use but one kind . Because ( saith * Master Brereley ) the Text sheweth , that Christ vanished away , not leaving any time for Benediction , or Consecration of the Cup. CHALLENGE . THis Argument 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 Iansenius . And it is dead-rotten also in the branch and Consequence thereof , because that this Act of Christ in Emmaus is not to be urged as an Example , to be imitated in the Church ; which is demonstrable by an Acknowledgement of your Iesuite x Valentia . As for example . The Councell 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 hee saith ) by these words , [ Doe this . ] Accordingly your Objectour * Master Brereley ( as if he 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 . 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 kinds , it may be lawfull for your Church so to doe ; not only contrary to your now Romane Custome , but also ( in the judgement of the Councell of Trent ) contrary to the Command of Christ , as * hath beene confessed . Twice miserable therefore is the darknesse of your Disputers , First , not to see the Inconsequence of this Obiection : and next not to remember that common Principle , to wit , Extraordinary Acts are not to be Rules for ordinary Duties . A SECOND CHALLENGE . VVEe 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 ●issed 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 : * 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 [ * As often as you eate of this Bread , and drinke of this Cup , you shew the Lords death untill he come againe . * 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 duety in observing the same . But wee may spare our paines of prooving the use of both kindes in the Church of Corinth , because ( as your a 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 vnto you , that Iesus , &c. ] Thereby applying the Example of Christ his Institution for a Rule of their Practice : which this coniunctive Particle of Eating [ AND ] Drinking ; To Eate [ AND ] Drinke , five times so coupled in this Epistle , doe plainly declare . But you tell vs , that in this place the Coniunctive [ AND ] is is put for a disiunctive 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 , Doe this . And againe , 1. Cor. 11. 24. [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , And in like maner the cup. ] It is an AND Coniunctive , questionlesse . But seeing it cannot be denyed , that the Apostles practice was both Eating and Drinking coniunctively , it is not likely or credible that the sence of his words should be discretiue ; because this had bene , in wordes , to have contradicted his owne practice . M. Breerly opposeth , viz. The Apostle in the same Chapter saith v. 26. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh Iudgement ; also hee saith v. 27. whosoever eateth this Bread , and drinketh this Cup vnworthily , &c. So hee . It is not to be denyed but that [ AND ] is often vsed in Scripture for Or : but M. Brearly his notions , as commonly , so here also are too confused , by not distinguishing the divers use of [ AND ] in Precepts , and Exhortations to an Act , in denunciation of iudgement , 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 M. Breerly obiecteth , 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 disiunctively 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 iudgement , as any man of sense may perceive . Against this , albeit so euident a Truth , your Doctors will have something to obect , or else it will goe hard ; even forsooth the contrary 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 only of one kinde , which is Bread : whence they inferre a no-necessity of vsing the Cup. So your b Cardinall Bellarmine . And to answere that the ministration of the Cup is vnderstood by a figure Synecdoche , is an answere onely imaginary and groundles , saith * Mr. Breerely . 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 Sy●echdoche of taking a part for the whole ? Or could they not discerne thus much in the same Chap. 〈◊〉 . 46. where it is said , They brake bread through every house ; Wherein ( as your Iesuite c Lorinus teacheth ) there is not meant the Eucharist , but common foode ? Whereby you cannot but vndersta●d implied in their breaking of bread their mutuall drinking together also . And yet in the like words spoken of the Eucharist , v. 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 ? Besides , any man may guesse what spirit it savoureth of , that ( in paralleling the authoritie of your Church with the authoritie of the Apostles ) your Iesuites doe resolue , that although the Apostles had constituted the custome of Receiving in both kinds , d Nevertheles ( say they ) the Church of Rome , and Pope thereof , hauing the same authority with S. Paul , may abrogate it upon iust Cause . And yet hardly can you alleage any Cause , for abrogation of that Practice , which S. Paul might not have assumed in his time . CHALLENGE . OFrustrà susceptos Labores nostros ! may we say ; for to what end is it for vs to prove an Apostolicall Practice , or Precept for both kinds , when your Obiectors are ready with the onely names of Pope and Church of Rome to stoppe the mouthes not onely of vs Heretikes ( as you call vs ) but even of S. Paul himselfe , and of the other Apostles , yea and of S. Peter too ? By which Answere notwithstanding you may perceive how little S. 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 vpon the Doctrine and Precept of Christ . Thus , when we appeale vnto the Apostles Tradition , you , by opposing , Thinke your selves wiser than the Apostles : which Irenaeus will tell you was the very garbe of old e Heretickes . Our fourth and fift Comparisons are of Primitiue Custome with the contrary Custome ; in respect both of the Antiquitie and Vniversalitie thereof . SECT . V. BEfore wee shall say any thing our selues of the Primitive Custome , in vsing both kindes in the administration of this Sacrament , and the extent thereof , both in the longitude of Continuance , and latitude of Vniversalitie , we are ready to heare how farre your owne Doctors will yeeld vnto vs , in both these points , touching the publike vse of both kindes . Hearken but vnto the Marginals , and you shall finde your Iesuites , with others , vttering these voyces : f Wee must confesse , Wee doe confesse ; yea , Wee doe ingenuously confesse a Custome of both kindes ( aswell to the Laicks as Priests ) to have beene in the Primitive Church most frequent and generall : as is prooved 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 vnto this day . So they . where we see both Antiquity and Vniversality thereof to the full , which it were easie for vs to have shewne Gradatim , descending downe from the first Age unto the twelfth ; but that when wee haue as much confessed as neede be proved , it might be iudged to be 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 , he may satisfie himselfe in the g Margent at the first sight . The Romish Obiections , concerning Primitive Custome . Divers Obiections are vrged on your side , to abate something of the Vniuersalitie 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 vnset markes , their Arguments are but as so many Bolts shot altogether in vaine . For our defence is onely this , that in the publike solemnization and Celebration of this Sacrament , in an Assembly of Christians freely met to communicate , no one example can be shewen in all Antiquity , throughout the Catholique 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 vsually obiect , they are of no force at all , being h 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 vs 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 most long continuance : Many yeares by passed , saith i your Villalpandius : But most precisely your Iesuite k Salmeron : It is certaine ( saith he ) that the Church , for these three or two hundred yeares , hath used to communicate to the Laity vnder one kinde . So they . CHALLENGE . NOw after that wee have proved , out of your owne Confessions , the length of the Custome of both kinds to have beene in the Continuance above a thousand yeares , after the first Institution of this Sacrament , and for largenes thereof , in an universall consent thereunto , without any exception by any example ordinary , publique , and legitimate ; and that you have heard also even the Fathers of your Church opposing against it a contrary custome not above the Compasse of three hundred yeeres , and yet to call it [ Diutissima ] A Custome of long continuance ; What Tergiversation could be more shameles ? But enough of this point . In the next place , because the same your Councell hath told us , that your Contrary Custome was brought in [ Rationabilitèr , ] 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 obiected 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 vs industriously and calmly debate this matter , which wee have in hand , both in respect of the thing signified ( which is the Sacrament , or spirituall Obiect ) as of the party Communicating , who is the Subiect 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 , ( as you know ) which therfore ought to be performed in both , or els 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 generaly teach that both kinds are necessarily to be received of the Priest , because they both belong to the Essence thereof . So your l Cardinall . Consult with your m Aquinas , your Iesuites Valentia , and Vasques , 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 vnder the hand of the Priest , then lieth the same obligation vpon the Church likewise , for distributing it in both kindes vnto the people , to whom it is to be administred , in token of Christ his Passion for them applicatorily , both in his Body and Blood : but the Bread only can no more represent the Blood of Christ in the mouthes of people , in the eating thereof , then 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 * Concomitancie cannot possibly auoid . A Corroboration of the same Reason , against the Sacrilegious dismembring of this Sacrament , by the Testimony of Pope Gelasius ; and a Vindication of Dr. Morton , from the Traducement of other your Priests and Iesuites . SECT . VII . THe Haereticall Manichees forbare the vse 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 therfore condemne by his publique Decree : which hereticall opinion ( as once I n said ) cannot iustly be imputed unto the Church of Rome , in her manner of abstaining from the Cup in the Eucharist . This saying o M. 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 iump in the opinion of the Manichees , we may ( as D. Morton confesseth ) reiect as iniurious , saying with him , that it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine , but the reason of their forbearance that was iudged hereticall . So hee . But this mans march is but slow . M. Breerly , a Romish Priest , one well esteemed among you , for his exceeding labour and pains in defending the Romish Cause , to his power ; by his many Books , almost in every particular , commeth on more roundly , as followeth : D. Morton himselfe ( saith he ) shall plead in our behalfe , who saith that the Manichees did heretically celebrate the Eucharist only in one kind , in an opinion that wine was not created by God , but by some evill spirit , and were therfore anciently condemned for Heretiques : but the Romanists are not to be accused of this Heresie of the Manichees , in their not distributing of both elements of bread & wine . And to obiect this against that Church were an accusation iniurious , for it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine , but their reason thereof which made them hereticall , said he . So your Priest ; yet what of all this ? So clearly doth D. Morton ( saith he ) cleere vs from the foule and false imputation urged against us by D. 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 clearly doth he contradict both M. Whitaker & 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 hee cleereth himselfe , in stead of being Bishop of Litch field , he shall be unto me euer Magnus Apollo . Thus far M. Breerly . Alas ! what wil 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 yeares since the said Doctor ( in Confutation of a Booke of Master Brereleys , intituled an Apologie ) published a Treatise , called the Protestants Appeale , wherein were discovered many hundred of Master Brereleyes 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 be medling with the same Doctor . Yet the onely 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 finde iust Cause . Two things there were condemnable in the Manichees , one was their Act and Practice , in dismembring the Sacrament , by not communicating in both kindes : 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 ( said q Doctor Morton ) doth charge the Church of Rome : but as for the Act of not - Communicating in both kinds , r he called it Sacrilegious , and concluded the Church of Rome , in this respect , to be as guilty of dismembring the Sacrament , as were the Manichees . And both these hee hath done by the Authority of Pope s Gelasius , who decreed , in condemning the Manichees , First against their Opinion , saying , Illinescio quâ superstitione docentur astringi , &c. ( That is ) They are intangled in a kind of Superstition . Then , for the Act of refusing the Cup , Because ( saith he ) the dividing 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 cleerely 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 Romane Pope himselfe . Take unto you a Similitude . A man being apprehended in the company of Traytors , upon suspition of Felonie , is fully and effectually prosecuted for Felonie onely ; if one should say of him , that he was not conuicted or condemned of Treason , but of Felonie , were this either a Contradiction in the party speaking , or a full Iustification of the party spoken of ? You are by this time ( we 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 only Great in that , which is called Magna est Veritas , & praevalet . By which Truth also is fully discovered the vanity of the Answere both of Master Fisher , and 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 through it , by the sentence it ●elfe , as hath beene 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 man's 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 Iesuites ( from whome Master Fisher hath learned his Answere ) seeke to perswade their Readers , that the soules refection spirituall is sufficiently signified in either kind , 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 Councell of Trent , and confirmed by Pius Quartus then Pope , or else Those their Catechists forgot themselves in teaching , that b 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 Bloud 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 man's 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 doe they c mayntaine 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 convenient 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 The blood of Christ is not dranke in the forme of Bread , nor is his Bodie eaten as meate in the forme of Wine , because the Bodie cannot be said to be dranke , nor the bloud to be eaten . So your Durand , and so afterwards your * Iansenius . Wherefore you , in with-holding the Cup from the People , doe 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 vse . Concerning this second , e Master Fisher ( one of the society of Iesuites ) was taught to Answere , 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 〈◊〉 more plentifull Grace are not to be esteemed spirituall Effects , for the good of the Soule , which are f confessed to be enjoyed by Communicating in both kinds ; and why not rather than by one ? 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 thinke we rest upon either our owne , or yet of other your Doctors Iudgement in this Defence , we shall produce to this purpose , the consonant 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 vse of both kindes , in the solemne and publique dispensation of this Sacrament , the particular Testimonies of many ancient Fathers might be produced , but your owne Authours will ease us of that labour , by relating and g 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 kinds , First , by the Example and Institution of Christ . Secondly , by some particular Grace , which they held to be signified by the Cup. Thirdly , for the Representation , that it had to the Passion of Christ ; distinctly and respectively to his Bodie and Blood. Fourthly , to resemble the Redemption , which man hath in his Body by Christ's Body , and by his Blood in the soule . Fif●ly , 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 . Seventhly , that the Cup of the Eucharist doth animate soules to receive the Cup of bloody Martyrdome , when the time should be . Whereunto may be added the Constant profession of the h 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 , 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 Christ's Ordinance in the administring of the Sacrament in both kindes . Vpon this Evidence may you justly call your fellow-Priest Master Brereley to account for his bold Assumption , saying that * No Doctor ( speaking of ancient Fathers ) can be produced either expressely , or else by necessary Consequence , affirming the necessity of the Laicks receiving under both kinds : Your selves perceiving now not only 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 Answere , that The Authorities obiected , for the necessity of both kinds , speake not of a Sacramentall , but only 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 , we shall more expeditely satisfie such your Reasons , or rather Pretences , which you bring to disguize your sacrilegious Abuse . The Romish Pretences for their Innovation and Alteration of Christ his Institution , by the publique vse of but One kind . SECT . X. VVE heare the Councell of Trent pretending ( as they say ) Iust reasons of altering the primitive Custome and vse of both kinds , 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 belieue them , then try and examine them ; It being your part ( as i hee saith ) Rather to thinke them inst , than to discusse them . But wee are not bound to your Rules of blinde Obedience . God will have us to use the sight , which he hath given us , least , If the blinde leading 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 Many Northerne Countries are destitute of Wine , and therefore one kinde is to be used for Concord and Vniformity-sake . Will you be answered from your selves ? Aquinas , making the same Obiection of want of Wine , and Wheate in forreine Countries , l 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 then Wine or Wheate . Yet what Northerne Countrie almost can you name , that hath not abundance of Wine for many persons , even unto r●ot , 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 kinds to the Church of Bohemia , but twice raised a fierce warre against them ? for which your Iesuite m Salmeron seemeth to be full sorrie ; marrie it was , because that warre had not his wished successe . Is their Concord in Hostilitie ? Againe , because you thirdly pretend Vniformity also , why then doe your consecrating Priests only receive both kinds sacramentally , and all the other Priests in Communicating participate but in one ? or how is it that you allow a ●…priuiledge to * Popes , Cardinals , Monkes , and noble Personages , to receive in both kinds , and deny this liberty to others ? Is there likewise Vniformity in Disparity ? Your fourth Pretence is because divers are n 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 Aquinas giveth , saying , That Wine moderately taken of such can doe 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 iustle out ordinary Lawes and Customes . For , that Command of Christ to his Apostles , Goe preach to every Creature of man , stood good in the generall , albeit many men happened to be deafe . Saint Peter requireth of every Christian of fit yeares that he be prepared to give an answere of his faith to everyone that asketh ; which precept was not therefore alterable , because of multitudes of many that were dumbe . Finally , to close vp with you , hee 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 from 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 * 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 kinds was ( notwithstanding ) preserved and continued ; except that you will say , no Northerne Nations were Christians in those times : and that no stomacks of Christians were disaffected 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 kinds ; One is Because ( saith your m Cardinall ) Such is the now-received and approved custome of Nations and People . So hee . But first to argue , that your Church did therefore forbid the use of both kinds , because shee had approued 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 Contrarie Custome . Lastly , to justifie your Churches Innouation , in consenting to the humour of People of later times , what can you censure it lesse than a grosse and absurd Indulgence ? The other Motive , which the n Cardinall calleth a Vehement presumption , and which all your Obiectors most earnestly urge , is the Cause of Irreverence , lest the blood might be split , especially in such a multitude of faithfull Communicants : and also least any particle of the Hoast fall to the ground , saith Master * Brereley . We have but foure Answeres to this mightie Obiection . 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 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 vsed it . So hee . Wee might adde , by the same reason should people be forbid the other part also , left ( as your Priest said ) any particle thereof should fall to the ground . Furthermore , for the avoiding of Spilling , you ( as your Cardinall Alan p relateth ) have provided Pipes of silver , which are used by Popes , Cardinals Monks , and some other Illustrious lay-Personages . Surely , there being no respect of persons with God ( as said S. Peter ) we thinke that he , who will be S. Peter's Successor should have taken out with S. 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 & his Grandes , for receiuing 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 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 , wee may learne from ancient Histories , which euidently declare that the opinion of Reverence hath often beene the Damme and Nource of manifold Superstitions . As for example . The Heretikes called Discalceati , in pretence of more humilitie , thought that they ought to goe bare-foote . The Encratitae , in pretence of more sanctitity , abhorred marriage . The r 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 iudged by Pope Gelasius to be Sacrilegious . 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 , vnder the pretence of religious Reverence and sanctity . In briefe . It was the opinion of Reverence that made S. 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 Replie of our Saviour doth declare . If I wash not thy feete ( saith Christ ) thou hast no part with me , &c. Vpon which Text S. s Chrysost . readeth vnto you this Lecture . Let us therefore learne ( saith he ) to honour and reverence Christ , as he would , and not as we thinke meete . And sure wee are , that he would that same which he commanded , saying , [ Doe this . ] Therefore our next Difference , betweene our defence and yours , is no other than obedient Reverence , and reverent , or rather irreligious Disobedience . As for your Pretence of manifesting hereby a t 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 Bodie and Blood an equall price of Redemption for all sorts , would have the Sacrament of his Body and Blood equally administred to People , as Priests ; as you have heard the Fathers themselves professe . The three Romish Pretences , which are more peculiar to their owne Church , in two points . First , because a Heretikes ( saith Bellarmine , and meaning Protestants ) doe 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 vse of the Eucharist in one kinde . So he . And this point of Concomitancie is that which b M. Fisher , and c M. Breerly most laboured for , or rather laboured vpon . And albeit your Romane d Catechisme iudgeth this the principall Cause of inducing your Church to preferre one kinde : yet wee ( whom you call Heretikes ) beleeve that the deuout Communicant , receiving Christ spiritually by faith , is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucified , in the inward act of the Soule : and onely deny , that the whole is received Sacramentally , in this outward act , vnder one onely part of this Sacrament , which is the present question . And in this wee say no more than your Bishop Iansenius iudged reasonable , who hath rightly argued , saying , e It doth not easily appeare how the outward receiving of Christ , under the forme of Bread , should be 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 therefore and Eating are distinguished by Christ , in the outward Act. So hee , even as your owne * Durand before him had truely concluded , with whom M. 2 Breerly 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 dranke , and his Blood eaten : contrary to the Sacramentall representation , in Receiving Bread and Wine , as hath beene prooved . 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 answere plainly , and without Circumlocution , that the Reason is , Lest that your Church might seeme to have erred in her alteration of the ancient Custome . And this your f Cardinall Bellarmine and the Iesuite g Valentian vse and vrge 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 vse , h Least that the Church ( saith he ) may seeme to have erred . What can more sauour 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 onely the latter Church of Rome . Our Assumption . But the Church of Rome ( which will seeme that she cannot possibly erre in her not administring the Cup unto Laicks ) is knowne to have erred 600. yeares together in the abuse of the same Sacrament , by administring it ( in an opinion of necessity ) vnto Infants , as hath beene plentifully * witnessed by eminent Doctors in your owne Church . Hence therefore ariseth another difference , betweene the profession of our Custome and yours , which is , betweene Christ and Antichrist . All this while you doe not perceiue but that your opinion of Concomitancie will ruinate the foundation of your Doctrine of Transubstantiation , whereof * hereafter . The seaventh Comparison is betweene the manner of Institution , and manner of Alteration thereof . SECT . XI . THe beginning of the Institution in both kindes is knowne and acknowledged to haue 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 onely one kinde , How ( we beseech you ) came it into your Church ? tell vs. i It came not in by any precept , but crept in by little and little , by the Tacite and silent consent of the Bishops . So your Bishop Roffensis , and your Iesuite Costerus , and Frier Castro . This confessed vnknowne maner of Alteration of this your Custome , as it doth vtterly refute your common Obiection , viz. That every Doctrine and Custome must bee iudged ancient and Catholike , the beginning whereof is not knowne ; so doth it more specially put your M. Breerly to his blush , who durst make the same obiection in this very Case , in defence of the vse of but One kinde , to prove it to haue beene from the beginning , because No first knowne beginning of our Catholike practice ( * saith he ) can be 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 Priests to be guided by the People in a matter of this nature ? what other difference can this make between our Custome and yours , but that which is between divine Ordinance & popular negligence ; or as between a publique Professor , & a Thee●ish Creeper ? Heresie is certainly a disease , but wote you what ? the * Apostle noteth it to be a Cancer , or Gangrene , which is a disease Creeping by little and little , from ioynt to ioynt , untill it have eaten vp 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 reiecting both kindes . SECT . XII . THe Comparison , betweene the divers dispositions of Professors , none will be more willing to shew than your Iesuite l 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 hee ) 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 ioyntly partakers of both , in one . But in the third state of Coldnes , the people were allowed the Sacrament onely vnder one kinde . So hee . CHALLENGE . IF now Truth may be iudged 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 sencelesse 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 above-said Gaspar Cardillo in the Councell of Trent , with exultation told their Father-hoods ( as being a matter of great ioy ) that they who are under the Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome , in Germany , doe not so much as desire the Cup of life . So hee . A GENERALL CHALLENGE , Concerning this last Transgression of Christ his Masse . SECT . XIII . IN this we 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 Vncharitablenesse can be more odious , than when they cannot but confesse , that there is more spirituall grace in the receiving of the Communion in both kinds , doe notwithstanding boast , even in the open Councell of Trent , of some of their Professors , who in obedience to the Church of Rome , doe not only ( * their owne words ) not desire the Cup of life , but also dare not so much as desire it . Which Vaunt , we thinke , besides the Impiety thereof , inferreth a note of prophane Tyranny . Secondly , when wee compare these Fathers of Trent with the Fathers of most primitive Antiquity , they answere , n Although the primitive Church ( say they ) did exceed ours in Zeale , Wisdome , and Charity , neverthelesse it falleth out sometimes , that the wiser may in some things be lesse wise then another . Which answere , if we consider the many Reasons , which you have heard the Fathers give , for the use of both kinds , and their consonant practice thereof , what is it but a vilifying of the authority of all ancient Fathers ? and indeed ( as the saying is ) To put upon them the Foole. The like answere 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 wee have proved that the ground which the Apostles lay for their Custome was the Institution of Christ . But that which the Romane Church alleageth is meerely a pretence of Plenitude of her owne Authoritie ; 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 , vpon 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 sworne o To admit of all Apostolicall & Ecclesiasticall Traditions ; as also to hold what the p Councell of Trent hath decreed : But this Custome of administration of both kindes , as hath beene acknowledged , was an Apostolicall Custome , and from them also remayned in an Ecclesiasticall profession and practice thorow-out a thousand yeares space ; which your Church of Rome , notwithstanding , in her Councell of Trent , ( whereunto likewise you are sworne ) hath altered and perverted : which doth evidently involve your Priests , and Iesuites in a notorious , and unavoydable Perjury . 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 Obiections 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 Answeres ; divers of them being no lesse grosse , then was your objecting the Antiquity and Generality of the particular Romane Church , for lesse then three hundred yeares , 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 [ Doe 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 Iesuite q Azorius ) that the authority of the Pope may dispense therewith . But because Divine right was never yet dispensed with , 1 ( saith hee ) would give my Counsell that it never may be . O Iesuite ! thus to deale with Christ his Command . If he or any other Iesuite had made as bold with the Pope , as this doth with Christ himselfe , saying unto him ; Any of your Decrees ( holy Father ) may be dispensed with by any Iesuite of our Societie : yet because no Iesuite hath taken upon him hitherto so much , my counsell is that none of your Decrees be euer dispensed withall . The Pope , wee suppose , albeit he would thanke this man for his counsell , for not Doing so ; yet doubtlesse , would hee reward him with a welcome into the office of his holy Inquisition , for his judgement , to thinke it lawfull so to doe : 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 dispensing , or rather a despising of the Ordinance of Christ . Wee 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 he ) is not to be allowed to Catholiques ; because they must be distinguished from Heretikes : nor to Heretikes , because bread is not to be 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 , in synceritie of judgement equall , and in integrity of life Superiour unto the latter Popes of Rome and Church thereof ; yet the ancient held it as a matter of Conscience for the Church , in all such Cases belonging to the Eucharist , to be conformable to the Precept and Example of Christ , and of the Apostles . So , you have heard , a Pope Calixtus ( An. Christi , 218. ) requireth all persons present at the Masse to Communicate . For which reason it was ( we thinke ) that Pope b Gregory ( Anno 600. ) 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 Pope of Rome , with his Consistory , yeilded 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 prayse the Lord. d 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 hee gaue was this ; Because ( quoth hee ) 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 We reade ( saith hee ) that both the Bread and Cup , were distinctly and severally delivered . As if hee 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 observing the same use of Christ , had the same Resolution ? Sure wee are that Pope g Gelasius ( Anno 494. ) 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 generall , ( Anno 693. ) reproving those Priests who offered Bread in crusts and lumpes . But with what reason were they reprehended ? Because ( saith the Councell ) that fashion i● not ●ound 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 , from the former Actuall , wee 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. Interpretation 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 Saint Augustine saith of points of faith ) It is as manifest an Heresie , in the interpertation of Scriptures , to take figurative speechees properly , as to take proper speeches figuratively ( And such is the CAVEAT , which b Salmeron the Iesuite giveth you ) it will concerne both You and Vs ( as wee will avoide the brand of Heresie ) to search exactly into the true sence 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 sence of these words , will best appeare in the after-Examination of the divers * Consequences of your owne Sence , to wit , your Doctrine of Transubstantiation , Corporall , and c 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 litterall sence , then we are to yeild 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 doe not so maintaine a figurative Sence 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 sence 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 two words , which may be unto us as two keyes , to unlock the questioned sence of Christ's words , viz. the Pronoune , [ THIS ] and the Verbe [ IS . ] We begin with the former . The State of the Question , about the word [ THIS . ] When wee shall fully vnderstand by your Church ( which a holdeth a Proper and litterall Signification ) what the Pronoune [ THIS ] doth demonstrate , then shall We truly inferre an infallible proofe of our figurative sence . All Opinions concerning the Thing , which the word [ THIS ] in the divers opinions of Authours , pointeth at , may be reduced to Three heads ; namely , to signifie either This Bread , or This Bodie of Christ , or else some Third Thing different from them both . Tell you vs , first , what you hold to be the opinion of Protestants ? Lutherans and all Calvinists ( saith your b Iesuite ) thinke that the Pronoune [ THIS ] pointeth out Bread. But your Roman 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 we 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 sence of Christ his Speech , by the Consessions 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 pronuntiation of the last syllable of this speech [ Hoc est corpus meum : ] Because they are words * Practicall , ( say they ) that is , working that which they signifie ( namely ) The Body of Christ . And this sence they call Most cleare : and , in their Iudgements , there can be no better then this . So your c Stapleton , d Sanders , together with e Barradius , f Salmeron , g Chavausius ; these last three being Iesuites ; to whome you may adde h Master Brereley his Answere , saying that these words , Most evidently relate to Christ's Body . As evidently ( saith also your Iesuite i Malloun ) as one pointing at his Booke , should say , This is my Booke . CHALLENGE . ARe not these Opinators in number many ; in name for the most part , of great esteeme ; their Assertion , in their own opinion , full of assurance ; and delivered to their Hearers , as the onely Catholique Resolution ? And yet behold one , whose name alone hath obtained an Authority equivalent to almost all theirs , your Cardinall k 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 be said , This body is my body . A Reason pregnant enough in it selfe , and ratified by your publique Romane l Catechisme , authorised by the then Pope , and Councell of Trent ; yet notwithstanding your fore-named Irish Iesuite , hearing this Argument obiected by Protestants , rayleth downe right , calling it Accursed , as iudged by the Church Hereticall , and indeed Abhominable . So hee , who with Others , if they were of fit yeares , might be thought to deserve the rod , for forgetting their Generall Catechisme , and for defending an Exposition , which even in common sense may be pronounced , in your Cardinal 's owne phrase , very Absurde ; else shew vs , if you can , but the least semblance of Truth for that Opinion . Similitudes obiected , 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 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 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 As a Taylor making a Kirtle , and saying ( we shall change onely his last word ) This is a Kirtle for my Mistris CONVBINA . 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 Pronoune , 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 these Examples of the Painter's touching a Line , or a Circle ( as your a 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 Tence , Is , for the future , Shall be . So he . In like manner your Iesuite b 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 iudged true . So he . And furthermore , who knoweth not that every Operative speech doth signifie not the Being of a thing ; but the Making thereof , and bringing of it unto being ? For although the Painter be so nimble , in drawing a Circle , that his hand may goe before his tongue ; yet when the Operative virtue consisteth not in working , by the agility of the hand , but in the orderly pronouncing of the words of a speech with the tongue , so that the Truth thereof dependeth upon the utterance of the last syllable ; It is impossible but the Priest , in uttering distinctly these words , [ Hoc est corpus meum , ] must say , This is , before he come to the last syllable of me-um : and consequently in his sence notifie This to be Christ's Body , before ( according to his owne iudgement ) 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 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 . 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 sence of Christ his speech [ THIS IS MY BODY : ] proved by the Confession of Romish Doctors . SECT . III. A Third thing , differing both from Bread and the Body of Christ , which Romish Sophisters have lately invented , is that which they call Individuum vagum ; by which is meant , a substance confusedly taken ; as when one ( to use your own e 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 Herb in his hand , ( for that doth not now grow in his garden ) but is taken vagè and confusedly , for the common Species , nature , or kind of that hearb . And this opinion is defended by a,b Bellarmine , with other Iesuites , and Doctors of your Church , ( b Sixteene in number ) as the only sufficient and conclusive Resolution of this point , touching the proper Exposition of the words of Christ , concerning the Pronoune , THIS . CHALLENGE . VVHich Subtilty is notwithstanding discussed , disclosed , and exploded by your learned c Arch-bishop of Cesarea , and your Iesuite d Maldonate , as an Opinion both false and full of Absurdities . 1. Because whensoever the Pronowne [ This ] is used in Speech , as , This man disputeth , it is alwayes in proper sence , as determinately taken . 2. Christ spoke of that which was in his hand , but that was no vagrant , but a singular determinate Substance . And it is grosse , to say a man holdeth a confused substance in his hand . Which seemed to your e Mr. Harding so vncouth and fond an opinion , that hee utterly refuseth to defend the Authors thereof . This , and much more have they written to the discovering and discarding of this idle figment , wishing furthermore that the Defendants of this opinion , of Individuum vagum , may 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 , be termes as Contradictory , as to call the same thing , singular-common , or determinate-confused . As for example , Quidam homo , A certaine man is in Logique Individuum vagum ; as when Christ said , A certaine man went from Hierusalem to Hiericho , &c. None of the Disciples hearing this could thereupon point him out , saying ; This man : or know thereby who , or what hee was . Wee , for further manifestation of your Absurdity in this point , will instance in your owne Example , for your Individuum vagum . The Hearbe , which a man holdeth in his hand , saying , This hearb groweth in my Garden , how can you say it is true in the proper sence ? 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 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 Individui vagi commentum Authori Sco●o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relinquo ; but that somthing els is to be added . Another may be your Cardinall his owne Assertion , which he once made as a snare to catch himselfe in ; for in your c Romish Masse , the Priest hauing the Hoast in his hand , prayeth thus ; Receive , holy father , This immaculate Hoast . If you shall aske him what , in this prayer , the Pronowne This doth demonstrate , hee telleth you readily and asseverantly saying ; Certainly it demonstrateth unto sence that which the Priest hath in his hand , which is Bread. So hee . Now why there should not be the like certainty of Relation of the Pronounc [ This ] to Bread in the speech of Christ , as it hath in the prayer of the Priest , none of you ( we thinke ) shall ever be able to shew . Lastly , we challenge you to shew within the space of a Thousand three hundreth yeares after Christ , out of all the Ancient Fathers , any one Testimony that ever affirmed the Pronoune [ Hoc , This ] to betoken any Individuum vagum , or Common Substance ; or els to confesse that this your doctrine is new , extravagant , and Adulterate . Nor yet can the Defenders thereof say that this is all one , as to say , This , that is , that which is contained vnder 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 Indiuiduum vagum , as ( to use your owne Similitude ) when one saith of an herb in his hand , This hearb groweth in my garden ; so Christ should have said of bread in his hand ; This , ( that is the like kind of bread ) is my Body : yet would not this make the Speech of Christ proper , or not figurative , because Christ's Body could no more be properly predicated of the kind of wheat - Bread ; then it could be of that bread of wheate then in his hand , as Christ himselfe hath taught vs , and as we are to prove vnto you . For speaking of his Body , he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the grane of wheate , Ioh. 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 read you all a Lesson in the sixt Section following . And now this so open and extreame civill war among your selues , 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 iudgement of Protestants ) that there is a Tropicall and vnproper sence , in the Pronoune [ THIS . ] VVEe reason first Hypothetically ; If the Pronoune This demonstrate Bread , then the words of Christ are necessarily to be taken improperly and figuratively . But the Pronoune This doth demonstrate Bread. Our Conclusion will be ; Therefore the words of Christ , necessarily , are to be taken figuratively . All this will be proved , confirmed , and avouched by Reasons Authorities , and Confessions , which will admit no Contradiction . Wee 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 Veritie , which neither man nor Divell can gain-say , and is Confessed by yourselves , viz. Disparatum de disparato non propriè praedicatur ; That is , nothing can be properly and literally affirmed ioyntly 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 example ) we cannot call A man an horse , without a Trope or Figure , because their natures are repugnant . So Salmeron . And this hee holdeth necessary . Or thus : e God , who is perfect Truth , will never make those Propositions to be true at the same time , viz. that the Wife of Lot is Salt , or Water is Wine , or an Asse a man. So your Archbishop . Yea , to come nearer to the point : f We cannot say that this wine is blood , or that this blood is wine , but by a Similitude or Representation , because they differ in nature . So Bellarmine ; Adding furthermore that it is g Impossible the Proposition should be true , wherein the Subiect is Bread and the Predicate is taken for the Body of Christ . And , Bread and Christ's body ( saith your h Sanders ) cannot be properly affirmed one of another . 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 As often as the Verbe [ EST , IS , ] ioyneth 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 If bread be Christ's body , then something is Christ's body , which is not borne of the Virgin Mary ; and then also the same body must be said to be liuing , and not liuing both at once . So your Glosse , confessing hereby an Impossibilitie of this Predication , Bread is Christs Body , in a proper and literall sence . 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 expressly said , This Bread is my Body ; proved first by Scripture . SECT . V. THe Text of the Evangelist , Luc. 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 he Brake ; and hee Brake THIS , which hee Blessed ; and blessed THIS , which hee himselfe Tooke ; and THIS , which hee tooke , was Bread , [ Iesus tooke Bread. Wee 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 he tooke , till the last word pronounced by the Priest , which is Meum ; nor yet can you deny , but that he tooke that , which was properly , and substantially Bread. At the writing of this Sorites , we light vpon an Answere from one Mr. l Maloune , encountring it with another , but a false Sorites invented by himselfe , to the discountenancing of this true one ; onely wee intreat you , that at the reading thereof , you will not laugh at his foolery . See the Margin . Your Grammaticall Obiection is Childish . Cardinall m Bellarmine your chiefe Master , and also your Schoole-fellow n M. Breerly , 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 far over-taken as to need to be put in mind of their Accidence , ( if ever they learned it ) which telleth them that The neuter gender will agree with any thing that hath no life , whether seene or not seene . In which respect there might be a difference betweene , Hoc de Patre , and Hoc de Pane : for although Priscian would cry out , if hee heard one saying , Hoc lana , or Hoc lapis , wherein [ Hoc ] is taken adiectively : yet if a Question being raised concerning the lightnes and heavines 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 , will any thinke that Priscian would be offended , for [ Hoc ] in Latine , more then others would be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in o Greeke , taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ? Not to trouble you with that in your * Summa Angelica , wherein [ Hoc ] neutrally taken , is made to agree with Cibus . And although Protestants be so inexpert in the rudiments of learning , yet will you not thinke that they whom you call Catholiques could be so deceived ; who ( as your Iesuite witnesseth ) p were Many , that taught that [ Hoc ] in the words of Christ , put substantively , may without any Inconvenience agree with Panis , in [ This ] meaning [ This ] which I give you . 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 the wife of Adam , q 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 buffe● their owne Mother-Church , by which the same Translation is made Authentique ; 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 busied in a matter of so great importance , wherein consisteth the foundation of all the maine Controversies concerning the Roman Masse . For , if the Pronoune [ This ] have Relation to Bread , there needs no further dispute about the figurative sence of Christ's speech . Wee 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 hee had * Received of the Lord. Him we desire to expound vnto vs 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 vs plainly , saying ; * The bread , which we breake , is it not the Communion of 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 Catholique Doctrine in the dayes of Antiquity , wee adioyne the next Proposition . That it was Bread and Wine , which Christ called his Body and Blood ; in the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers . SECT . VI. FOr proofe hereof , behold a Torrent of Ancient r Fathers pressing upon you ; Iraeneus , Tertullian , Origen , Hierome , Ambrose , Augustine , Cyrill of Hiernsalem , Cyrill of Alexandria , Theodoret , Gaudentius , Cyprian , Clemens of Alexandria , and Isidore ; Thirteene to the dozen , whose sayings we may best know by their owne Idiome , and Tenure of speech . The first noting Christ to haue 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. The seventh , that the words [ My Body ] were spoken of the bread . The eight , 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 hee calleth his flesh a Graine of Wheate ; [ Except the Graine 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 eleuenth , that It was Wine which hee called his blood . The twelfth , that He blessed Wine , when he said drinke . And the last ; The bread strengthening man's body was therefore called the body of Christ . All these so Learned and Ancient Fathers ( sufficient Grammarians we trow ) teaching the Pronoune [ This ] to demonstrate Bread , doe as absolutely confute your Romish Exposition , to prove the speech Figurative , as any Protestant in the world could doe , if hee were permitted to plead his owne Cause . CHALLENGE . VVE will try what a Syllogisme will doe , that , after your Posall in Grammar , we may encounter you with Logique . The Maior . 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 , * 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 . ) 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 the word [ This ] unto the Body of Christ , is ( as hath beene s confessed ) Absurde . And that the word [ This ] should signifie your Individuum vagum , is an Exposition fall of Absurdities , as hath beene also t acknowledged . It remaineth therefore that the Pronoune [ This ] pointeth out precisely , Bread. A second Principle you have , to wit ; That these words [ This is my Body ] are wordes of Consecration , and Operative , so that by [ This ] is meant that which is Consecrated , and ( as your Councell u 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 onely was then consecrated and changed into the Body of Christ . Ergo the Pronoune [ THIS ] hath onely Relation to the Bread. CHALLENGE . A New Syllogisme would be had , to put the matter out of question . Maior . No Sence , which is Impossible , can be given properly to the wordes of Christ . [ This is my Body . ] ( This needeth no proofe . ) Minor. But to call Bread Christ's Body , properly , is a Sence Impossible . ( This hath beene your owne constant * profession . ) Conclusion . Therefore cannot this Sence be given properly to the Body of Christ. How can you auoid the necessity of this Consequence ? All arising from the nature of Predication , in this Proposition , wherein the Subiect is Bread , the Copula , Is ; and Predicate , Body of Christ . Which because it cannot be properly predicated either of Bread determinate , as to say , This bread in my hand is Christ's Body ; or of Bread undeterminate ( which you call vagum ) as to say , This kind of bread is the Body of Christ , it demonstrately sheweth that your Doctors can have no greater Aduersaries , in this case , than their owne Consciences , which will appeare as fully in that which followeth . CHAP. II. The Second key in Christ's Words [ Hoc est Corpus meum : This is my Body , ] opening the Figurative Sence thereof , is the Verbe [ EST , IS . ] FOr that [ Est ] in these words hath the same sence , as , Signifieth ; as if Christ had said expresly of the Bread , This signifieth my Body : and accordingly of the Wine , This signifieth my Blood , may be proued by three Propositions infringible . Our first Proposition . The Verbe [ EST ] being ioyned 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 Sence , and is as much as Signifieth , or Representeth , whensoever it ioyneth the Signe and the Thing signified together . As for Example , A man pointing at a signe hanging before an Inne , and saying , This is S. George on horse-backe , the Verbe Is can inferre no other Sence than Signifieth . Why ? even because the thing , whereof it speaketh , is a Signe signifying Saint George . And Bread in this Sacrament is in all Catholique Divinity a Signe of Christ's Body . Therefore the Verbe [ Is ] can have no other sence than [ Signifieth . ] The former Proposition confirmed by all like Speeches , whether Artificiall , Politique , or Mysticall . SECT . II. YOur owne Iesuits , and common Experience it selfe will verifie this Truth . First , in things Artificiall , as a To say of the Picture of Hercules , This is Hercules , is a figure . Secondly , In things Politique , as when a b 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 Greekes and Troians , when they entred into a league , which was to be ratified by a Sacrifice of Lambs , upon which both sides were to take their Oathes , this their Act is thus expressed c — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; that is , They brought with them two Lambes , their faithfull Oathes . Where Lambes , the rituall signes of their faithfull Swearing , are called Oathes . An Example ( I say ) even among the Heathen , which is as appo e 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 aboundantly 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 Paschall Lambe , being but a signe , was called the Passeover , or passing over . Secondly , that e The Rocke , being but a signe of Christ , was called Christ . Thirdly , that f Circumcision , being but a signe of the Covenant , was called the Covenant . So likewise in the new Testament , both concerning g Baptisme , which in Christ his Speech to Nicodemus ( being but a signe of Regeneration ) is called Regeneration : And h Baptizing , which ( being a Signe of the Buriall of Christ ) in the speech of Saint Paul , is called Buriall . Finally , that the most proper Interpretation of the Verbe [ Est , Is , ] in such like speeches , importeth no more , than [ Significat , ] your Iesuite i Salmeron will testifie for us : In these speeches ( saith he ) The seed is the Word , 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 ioyned with Christ , than by a figure or signe . So he . Even as Master k Sanders also is compelled to confesse in a like Case . CHALLENGE . THus have we 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 arieseth essentially out of the Definition of a Sacrament , which as well the whole Catholique Church , as your Romish , hath defined to be a visible Signe . But no visible Signe can be ioyned to any thing signified thereby , in like Predication , without a Figure , as hath beene both copiously proved and confessed . Our third Proposition , viz. Many Figurative Speeches are used by Christ , even in his Words of Institution of this Sacrament ; by your owne Confessions . SECT . IV. FIrst , your Iesuites ( who otherwise shame not to call Protestants , in scorne , Tropists , because they defend a Tropicall and Figurative sence in the speech of Christ ) are notwithstanding constrained to acknowledge many figures in other words of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament , Lest that otherwise ( as Maldonate and Suarez l confesse ) the Speeches of Christ should be false : ( as for example ) When the body of Christ is said to be broken , or eaten , if they should be taken properly and without a figure called Metaphora . So they . And so in the words following , [ Body given for you ] that is , which shall be offered for you on the Crosse . So your Iesuite m Valentia . Next , [ The blood is shed for you ] Matth. 26. It is not denied ( saith your Iesuite n Salmeron ) but that it is the manner of Scripture , to speake of a thing , as now done , which is after to be done : as in this place , [ Is shed ] because very shortly after it was to be shed upon the Crosse . Which is the figure Enallage . Againe , [ This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud . ] Hearken to your o Bishop ; These words cannot be taken properly , whether the Cup be taken for the vessell used for drinking , which was a temporall thing , and therefore could not be the Testament of Christ , which is eternall : or else whether you take it for the matter within the Cup ( which is the figure Synecdoche ) for , it being the blood of the new Testament , could not properly be the Testament it selfe . Yea , your Iesuite Salmeron pointeth out in the same words a double Figure ; p A double figure ( saith hee ) the Cup being put for the thing contained in the Cup : and Testament being taken for the Legacy that is granted , and given by the Testament . With whom your Iesuite q Barradius doth consent . Hereunto may be added that in the sixt 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 be 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 , * Wee being many are one bread , and one body : for we are all partakers of that one bread . But why ? Even as one bread consisteth of many cornes , so doth one Church of Christ of many faithfull persons , saith your r Aquinas . Wee may not forget what your Iansenius said of * Drinking ; To whome Master * Brereley is ready to yeild his assent , saying ; If we should attend to the Propriety of speech , neither is his blood properly drunke out of 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 seperated from the body , but included in the veines , and then in the body . Doe 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 Brereley , 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 be said that a man properly drinketh the Aire , which he breatheth , although it be a Substance ; And are you brought to believe meere Formalities , to be truly Potable ? But to the point . CHALLENGE . REpeat now the Premises ; One figure in the word [ Bread : ] another in [ Eat : ] a third in [ Given : ] a fourth in [ Shed : ] a fift in [ Cup : ] a sixt in [ Testament : ] so many words confessed to be so many Figures in the very words of Christ his Institution ; beside other-more of the same equivalencie touching the Body of Christ , both naturall , Ioh. 6. and also mysticall , which is his Church , 1. Cor. 10. It can be no lesse then a matter of great astonishment to us , to see our Romish Adversaries with such pertinacie to condemne Protestants for holding the Sacramentall speeches of Christ to be figurative , calling them Tropists ; when as they themselves are constrained to acknowledge no fewer then Six Tropes in Christ his words , as you have heard . Of your Cardinall his Objection , from the word s Shed hereafter . That the figurative sence of Christ's words is agreeable to the Iudgement of the more Ancient Church of Rome . SECT . V. YOur old and publique Romish Glosse saith plainly ; t This heavenly Sacrament , because it doth truly represent the flesh of Christ , is called the body of Christ , but improperly , not in the truth of the thing , but in the mysticall Sence , 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 u Gregory the thirteenth , wherewith your Extravagants and former Decrees of Popes have beene Authorised . CHALLENGE . IF all Protestants should meeteat once in one Synod , and should conspire together , as labouring to prove a figurative Sence in these words of Christ [ This is my body , ] I suppose that a more exact , perspicuous , copious , and ponderous Proofe could not be defined , then hitherto hath beene evinced from your owne Confessions ; grounded as well upon sound and impregnable Reasons , as upon direct Testimonies of holy Scriptures . That the former Figurative Sence of the words of Christ is agreeable to the Iudgement of Antient Fathers , of the Greeke Church . SECT . VI. YOu wil needs defend your litterall Exposition by the verdict of Ancient Fathers , and we appeale to the Venerable Senate both of Greeke and Latine Fathers . The x Greeke 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 Tropicall or Figurative ; and his Table Typicall : Some saying that Christ would haue his Disciples hereby Represent the image of his Body . And one as expressly as any Protestant can speake ( even Theodoret by name ) that Christ here gave to the Signe the name of his Body , as elswhere he gave to his Body the name of the Signe . You cannot deny but these Phrases of Signes and Symbols are most frequent in the writings of all the Greeke Fathers , which we take to be a convincing Argument , vntill you can give us some reasonable Solution hereunto . To this purpose you , leaving the principall Obiections , fasten onely upon certaine Crotchets , and thereupon you bestirre your selves . THE FIRST CHALLENGE , Against the first Romish Answere , touching the word Type and Antitype , vsed by the Greeke Fathers . THree kinds of Answeres 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 Answeres will appeare to be . The first interpreting Types and Antitypes not to be taken for Signes , but for Examples , is at the first hearing reiected by your y Cardinall , and others . The Second , alleadged out of Damascen , and much insisted upon by some favourers of your Romish Sence ; 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 Answere is proved to be apparantly false by your z Cardinall and others out of the expresse Testimonies of these Greeke Fathers , viz. Dio●ysius Areopagita , Clemens , Iustine , Macarius , Basil , and Nazianzene . The third Answere is your Cardinals owne , yet but faintly urged , with a a Peradventure they called them Antitypes , but not Types after Consecration : and he is encountred by your b Suarez and Billius , acknowledging that the words Types and Antitypes are used of the same Fathers in one and the same signification . This our Obiection how strong it is , may be seene by your much , but vaine strugling . 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 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 vnder the forme 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 victory 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 those Greeke Fathers from urging that counterfeit Testimony , which passeth vnder the name of S. Augustine , as if hee 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 Billius , Gardiner Bishop of Winchester , Claudius Sainctes ( one of name in the Councell 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 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 Arch-bishops , for many False allegations of Testimonies of Fathers . And when all is done , if either g Peter-Lombard or h 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 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 Similitvde of the Stage-Play for their Answere , which is indeed rather a Childish Playing , then Theologicall reasoning ; yet it is but a mad sport to argue against Conscience ; as this your Cardinall must needs have done , who i 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 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 . Wherfore 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 vpon the Crosse , and so to note an Antitype , which is ( as you call it ) the l Greatest Similitude , is all one , as to find out the greatest Similitude in the greatest Dissimilitude : which yet is the more intollerable , because it is against the Confessed m Common opinion of your owne Divines , who haue taught that The Sacrament of the Eucharist is called Type and Antitype , because of the formes of Bread and Wine . So your Billius . Ma● 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 we shall be occasioned to say more in the * sixt Booke . That the onely Obiection 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 words , your Cardinal's b Obiection , and our Answere , 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 that c All men haue 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 doe 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 Obiector ) The Eucharist , which is truely the Body of Christ , although it seeme not to be so , outwardly , being of a round figure , and Insensible , and therfore farre vnlike to be the Body of Christ . So he . who , thinking he hath overcome , doth raise up his Iō , and Triumph , saying ; This argument is throughly convincent , because Epiphanius addeth , He who believeth not the words of Christ , doth fall from Saluation : adding further , that they are to be believed , although our senses gain-say it . You have heard the Obiection , which seeming to so great a Champion so greatly Convincent , you will give us licence to make a full Answere . 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 , Hee tooke the Cup : ] meaning Wine in the Cup , namely , according to the * former generall Consent of the Fathers , HOC signified Bread , in one part of the Eucharist , and Wine in the other ; But Bread neither in the Substance , nor in the Accidents can be called Christ's Bodie without a Trope , as hath beene * Confessed : which is our first confutation of your Cardinall , who concludeth that Epiphanius excludeth all Tropes out of Christ's speech of [ HOC . ] Secondly , THIS , in the words of Christ , hath neither equality of Proportion , nor yet similitude of forme or figure . ( being round ) with the body of Christ , as Epiphanius willeth us to observe . Which confuteth the Assumption of your Cardinall , affirming that Epiphanius sought in the Eucharist a similitude of a Thing , which seemed to be that which it is not ; Albeit Epiphanius expresly sheweth , that there is no outward similitude betweene This and This spoken of , that is to say Bread and Wine , and that which is called , Mine , and Mine , namely , The Body and Blood of Christ . Thirdly , This spoken of by Christ ( in the Iudgement of Epiphanius ) as it is Round in figure , so is it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Insensible ; but not passively , as not perceiveable by sence , ( for then it could not be said to be Round , which with other outward Accidents are sensible to your selves , ) but actively Insensible , as not having power sensibly to perceive : which betokening Bread or the Accidents of bread ( as you see it doth ) confirmeth unto us the Tropicall speech of Christ , in calling Bread his Body ; and consequently overthroweth your whole Cause . Fourthly , the Similitude of Epiphanius must stand thus ; That which is said to be after the Image of God , is such , which hath a substantiall being , yet so that it be like , but not the same in nature : And so is Bread , having a Sacramentall Analogie to Christ's Body , the first as the substantiall meate of man's Body , and the other as the supersubstantiall food of Man's Soule . Which Conclusion , namely , that Bread , as the signe of Christ's Body , is not the same in nature with Christ's Body , doth dash out the braines of the Monster Transubstantiation ; by the which , Bread ( as your Tridentine Faith teacheth ) is wholly changed into the substantiall nature of Christ's Body . As if you would have Epiphanius to have said , The Image of God in man , is God in nature . Thus doe you find the Testimony of Epiphanius to be Convincent indeed , but against your Romish Doctrine , of Errour ; and against your Cardinall , of a foule falsity , who saith that Epiphanius will have us to believe something herein , although it be repugnant to our Sences : which word no man of Sence can find in Epiphanius . He saith , indeed , that every man is bound upon his Salvation to believe the Truth of Christ his Speech ; which say wee none but an Infidell can deny , because Christ being Truth it selfe , therefore all the words of Christ , whether spoken Literally or Tropically , they are still the Truth of Christ . That the same Greeke Fathers have expresly vnfolded their meanings , touching a Figurative Sence . SECT . VIII . THe Iudgement of a whole Councell of Greeke Fathers may well suffice for the manifestation of the Iudgement of that Church ; They in Constantinople 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 They ) Bread and Wine , &c. If we had not told you that this had been the speech of Greeke Fathers in a Councell , you would have conceived they had beene uttered by some Heretique , as your Charity useth to cal us Protestants . Neither may the Authority of this Councell be rejected by you , as unlawfull in the point of the Sacrament , both because it is objected by your selves , to prove it an vnbloody Sacrifice ( whereunto you are * answered ) as also for that your Binius , in opposing against some things in this Councell , yet neuer tooke any Exception against this Canon . We may not let passe another Testimony used by the Antient Father o Theodoret , namely , That Christ called the Bread his Body , as he called his Body Bread , Matth. 12. saying thereof , Except the grane of wheat die , &c. insomuch that Interchangeably 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 hee . As Protestantly as either Calvin or Beza could speake . And you cannot deny , but that when Christ called his Body Bread , it was an improper and figurative speech . And therefore , if you will believe Theodoret , you are compellable to confesse , that Christ , in calling Bread his Body , meant it not in a proper and literall sence . Hitherto of the Greeke Fathers . That the same Figurative sence of Christ's words is avouched by the Latine Fathers . SECT . IX . SOme of the Latine Fathers ( we confesse ) seeme in some places to deny all Figurative sence , but this they doe even by a figure called * Hyperbole , that is , onely in the excesse of Speech , thereby to abstract the minds of sensuall men from fixing their thoughts upon externall Rites , and to rayse 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 cleerely and exactly teach a figurative sence in the words of Christ , to wit , p Tertullian , [ This is my Body : ] That is a figure thereof . q Cyprian , Things signifying and signified are called by the same word . r Hierom. Wine the type of Christ his Blood. s Gelasius . Bread the image of his Body . t Ambrose . After consecration Christ his Body is signified . u Saint Augustine in many places may be unto Vs instar multorum : To eate the flesh of Christ ( saith he ) is a figurative speech . Againe . In the banquet , Christ gave to his Disciples the signe of his Body . And yet againe , Christ doubted not to say , This is my Body , when he gave a signe of his Body . Lastly ( unanswerably ) proving other Sacraments to agree with this , in this point , and that herein the Eucharist hath no Prerogative above the rest ; Sacraments ( saith he ) for the very Similitude and likenesse , which they have with the things whereof they are Sacraments , doe often take the names of those things , which they doe signifie ; 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 , wee signifie his buriall , but absolutely saith , [ Wee are buried : ] therefore hath he called the Sacrament or Signe of so great a Thing by the name of the Thing signified thereby . So he , even the same He who will be found like himselfe in the following passages of this Booke , especially when we shall handle the manner of Eating of Christ's body , which Augustine will * Challenge to be figuratively meant . We shall take our farewell of the Latine Fathers , in the Testimony of Bishop x Isidore , who will give you his owne Reason , why Christ called Bread his Body : Bread ( saith he ) because it strengtheneth the body , is therefore called the body of Christ , and Wine because it maketh Blood is therefore referred to Christ's Blood : but these two , being sanctified by the Holy Ghost , are changed into a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ . So he : and so say we . Accordingly Tertullian ; but ( least any may Cavill , as some doe , at his sentence above-cited ) wee adde his other sentence , wherein he y 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 Sence . CHALLENGE . THese Sentences of these holy Fathers are so fully Consonant to the Doctrine of Protestans , as that , if the names of these Fathers had beene concealed , our Reader might thinke that hee heard , Bucer , Calvin , or Beza speake . Goe you now and proclaime , that all Ancient Fathers teach your Litterall sence of Christ his words , and perswade your selves , if you can , that any man of Conscience and Iudgement can be seduced to believe you . They say , indeed , that Bread is the Body of Christ : and why might they not use the same Tenure of Speech , which our Lord Christ used before them ? But they say also that Bread is therefore called his Body , as being an outward Sacrament , Signe , and Figure of his Body ; seeing that every Sacrament , being a Signe or Figure , the Sacramentall Speech must necessarily be Figurative ; as hath beene proved by Scripture , as in all other Sacraments , so likewise in the severall confessed Figurative words of Christ concerning this Sacrament , in six severall Instances . This one Argument of it selfe hath beene tearmed by Master Calvin [ Murus ahaeneus , ] that is , a brazen Wall ; and so will it be found more evidently to be , when you shall perceive the same Fathers * judging that , which they call Change into Christ's flesh , to be but a Change into the Sacrament of his flesh , Bread still remayning the same : and teaching that Melchisedech offered in his Sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ , when he offered onely the Types of both ; in the * Sixt Booke . And now we are to with-stand your Paper-bullets , wherewith you vainely attempt , in your Objections following , to batter our Defence withal . CHAP. III. The Romish Obiections , against the Figurative Sence , Answered . The first Obiection . SECT . I. NOthing useth to be more properly and simply spoken , ( say a you ) than words of Testaments and Covenants . Ergò this being a Testamentary Phrase must be taken in the literall Sence . CHALLENGE . WHat is this ? are Figurative speeches never used in Covenants , and Testamentary Language ? or is there not therefore sufficient perspicuity in Figures ? This is your rash and lavish Assertion , for you your selves doe teach that b The Old and New Testament are both full fraught with multitude of Tropes and Figures , and yet are called Testaments . Secondly , That the Scripture , speaking of the Trinity and some divine things , cannot but speake improperly and figuratively . Thirdly , That Sacramentall speeches , as , [ The Rocke was Christ , ] and the like words are * 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 Testament . So have you confessed , and so have you consequently confuted your owne Obiection . Hereto might be added the Testament of Iacob , prophesying of his sonnes , and saying , * Reuben is my strength : Iudah a Lions Whelpe : Issachar a strong Asse : Danan Adder in the way . All figurative Allusions . Nay , no man in making his Testament can call it his Will , or say that he hath set his hand and Seale unto it , without Figures : Namely , that he hath given by writing a Signification of his Will ; that the Subscription was made by his Hand ; and that he added unto it the Print of his Seale . These Three , Will , Hand , Seale , every word Figuratiue , even in a Testament . The Second Romish Obiection , against the Figurative Sence . SECT . II. LAwes and Precepts ( say d you ) should be in plaine and proper words . But in the Speech of Christ , [ Take , eate you , &c. ] are words of Command . Ergò , They may not be held Figurative . CHALLENGE . CAn you be Ignorant of these Figurative Precepts , viz. of Pulling out a man 's owne eye , of cutting off his hand ? Matth. 5. Or yet of a Penitents Renting of his heart ? Ioel 2. Or of not hardening his heart ? Psal . 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 * 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 be 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 Christ's Body , is ioyntly 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 , [ * Drinke you All of this , ] that which was Drunke was the whole substantiall Body of Christ , either must his Disciples be said to have Drunke Christ's Body properly , or else was the Command of Christ figuratively spoken . To say the first , contradicteth the universall expression of man's speech in all Languages ; for no man is said to drinke Bread or any solid thing . And to grant the Second , that the speech is Figurative , contradicteth your owne Objection . Againe , Christ commanded to Eate his Body ; yet notwithstanding have Three e Iesuites already confessed that Christ's Body cannot be said 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 Obiection . SECT . III. DOctrinall and Dogmaticall speeches ( say f you ) ought to be direct and literall : But these words , [ This is my Body ] are Doctrinall . CHALLENGE . A Man would maruaile to heare such silly and petty Reasons to be 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 Doctrinall , and teacheth Mortification ; and yet is not literally to be understood , as you all know by the literall errour of h 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 , said of the literall sence thereof , that , i It killeth . Secondly , these words [ This is the New Testament in my blood , ] they are wordes as Doctrinall as the other [ This is my body : ] and yet figurative , by your owne k Confession . Thirdly , the words of Christ , Ioh. 6. of Eating his flesh are Doctrinall ; and yet by your owne l Construction , are not to be properly vnderstood , but as Christ afterwards expounds himselfe Spiritually . Fourthly , where Christ thus said , The bread , which I shall give , is my flesh , Ioh. 6. 51. he saith also of his Body , that it is True bread , Verse 32. and bread of life , Verse 48. and living bread , whereof whosoever eateth liveth eternally , Verse 51. All , Divine and Doctrinall Assertions , yet was his body figuratively called bread . Fiftly , that in those words of Christ to Peter , Matth. 16. Vpon this Rocke will I build my Church ; And , To thee will I give the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven ; And Ioh. 21. Feed 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 , * The seed of the woman shall breake the Serpents head ? Is not the latter part of the Article altogether Figurative , yet signifying this Doctrinall point , even the vanquishing of the power of Satan ? Your Fourth Romish Obiection . SECT . IV. THe Apostles ( saith your m 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 ( as hath beene confessed ) in the words , Eate , Shed , Testament . Another Iesuite witnesseth , that n The Apostles were illuminated and instructed by Christ ; that they might receive this Sacrament with all Reverence . So he . 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 vnderstood 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 body ] the Pronoune [ THIS ] did literally point out bread , and figuratively signifie Christ's bodie . 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 Obiection . SECT . V. VVE are never to let passe the Literall Sence ( saith your o Cardinall ) except we be compelled thereunto by some Scripture , or by some Article of Faith , or by some common Interpretation of the whole Church . So he . CHALLENGE . SVrely nor we , 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 we shall deale with you , we shall shew in the Proposition following . Ten Reasons , for proofe of the Necessity of interpreting the word● of Christ Figuratively . SECT . VI. FIrst , We have beene compellable to allow a Figurative Sence by the consessed 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 * heard . Secondly , We are Challengable hereunto by our p Article of Faith , which teacheth but one naturall Body of Christ , and the same to Remayne now in Heaven . Thirdly , We are inforced , for feare of such q Heresies as have followed in other Cases , upon the literall sence ; for it was not the Figurative but the literall and proper sence of being borne againe , by Baptisme , ( lob . 3. ) that begat the errour of Nicodemus ; and the like literall sence of God's Eyes , Hands , Feet , &c. brought forth the Anthropomorphites ; And so was it the literall sence of those words in the Canticles [ Tell me 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 sence , by a confessed Impossibility , taught by that Vniversall Maxime , r 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 Lead can be called Wood. Fiftly , We are perswaded hereunto by the former alleadged 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 Catholique Church ; that , s 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 sence , by observing the misery of your Disputers , in contending for a literall Exposition thereof ; 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 Obiections 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 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 Subiectively . All which are fully perswasive Inducements to inforce a figurative sence , as the sundry Bookes following will cleerely 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 slie 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 we now orderly proceed . 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 Doctrinal 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 Reall Presence ; in the Fourth Booke . 3. Receiving of the Body of Christ into the Bodies of the Communicants , called Reall , or Materiall Coniunction ; 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 . 6. The Additionals in a Summary Discovery of of the Abhominations of the Romish Masse , and Iniquities of the Defenders thereof ; in the Eight Booke . THese are the Doctrinall Consequences , which you teach , and professe , and which we 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 we treate of the Corporall Presence , we 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 Controuersie , concerning the Change and Conversion , professed by Protestants , which is Sacramentall ; And by the Papists defined to be Trans-substantiall . SECT . I. First of the Sacramentall . THere lieth a Charge upon every Soule , that shall communicate and participate of this Sacrament , that herein he Discerne the Lord's Body : which Office of Discerning ( according to the iudgement of Protestants ) is not onely in the use , but also in the Nature to distinguish the Obiect of Faith from the Obiect of Sense : The First Obiect of Christian Faith is the Divine Alteration , and Change of naturall Bread , into a Sacrament of Christ's body ; This we call a Divine Change , because none but the same * Omnipotent power , that made the Creature and Element of Bread , can Change it into a Sacrament . The Second Obiect of Faith , is the Body of Christ it selfe , Sacramentally represented , and verily exhibited to the Faithfull Communicants . There are then three Obiects , in all , to be distinguished . The First is before Consecration , the Bread meerely Naturall . Secondly , After Consecration , Bread Sacramentall . Thirdly , Christ's owne Body , which is the Spirituall , and Super-substantiall Bread , truly exhibited by this Sacramentall , to the nourishment of the soules of the Faithfull . Secondly of the Romish Change , which you call Transubstantiation . SECT . II. BVt your Change in the Councell of a Trent is thus defined : Transubstantiation is a Change of the whole Substance of Bread into the whole Substance of the Body of Christ , and of Wine into his Blood. Which by the Bull of b Pius the Fourth , then Pope , is made an Article of Faith , without which a man cannot be saved . Which Article of your Faith Protestans beleeve to be a new and impious Figment , and c Heresie . The Case thus standing , it will concerne every Christian to build his Resolution upon a sound Foundation . As for the Church of England , she professeth in her 28. Article , saying of this Transubstantiation , that It cannot be proved by holy Writ , but is repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture , overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament , and hath given occasion unto MANY SVPERSTIONS . CHAP. II. The Question is to be examined by these ground ; viz. I. Scripture . II. Antiquity . III. Divine Reason . IN all which wee shall make bold to borrow your owne Assertions , and Confessions , for the Confirmation of Truth . The Romish Depravation of the Sence of Christ his words , [ This is my Body : ] for proofe of Transubstantiation . SECT . I. YOu pretend ( and that with no small Confidence ) as a Truth avouched by the Councell of a Trent , that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole , true , and proper Signification of these words [ This is my Body . ] So you . CHALLENGE . VVHerein you shew your selves to be men of great Faith , or rather Credulity , but of little Conscience ; teaching that to be undoubtedly True , whereof notwithstanding you your-selves render many Causes of Doubting . For first you b grant that ( besides Cardinall Cajetane , and some other Ancient Schoolemen ) Scotus , and Cameracensis , men most Learned and Acute , held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse , which ( without the Declaration of the Church ) can evidently compell any man to admit of Transubstantiation . So they . Which your Cardinall , and our greatest Adversary , saith c Is not altogether improbable ; and whereunto your Bishop d 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 Change the Verbe Substantive [ Est ] into a Verbe Passive , or Transitive , Fit , or Transit ; that is , in stead of [ Is ] to say , It 's Made , or , It passeth into the Body of Christ . A Sence , which your Iesuite Suarez cannot allow , because ( as hee truly saith ) It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word Transubstantiation importeth no more than the Fieri , seu Transire , of Making , or Passing of one Substance into another . So that still you see Transubstantiation cannot be extracted out of the Text , without violence to the words of Christ . Wee might , in the third place , adde hereunto that the true Sence of the words of Christ is Figurative , as by Scriptures , Fathers , and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * proved , as an Infallible Truth . So groundlesse is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith , whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following . But yet , by the way , wee take leave to prevent your Obiection . You have told us that * the words of Christ are Operative , and worke that which they signifie ; so that upon the pronuntiation of the words [ This is my Body , ] it must infallibly follow , that Bread is changed into Christs Body ; which wee shall believe , assoone as you shall be able to prove , that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ [ This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood , ] Luc. 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christ's Blood , or else into his Blood it selfe . The Novelty of Transubstantiation examined , as well for the Name , as for the Nature thereof . SECT . II. The Title , and Name of Transubstantiation proved to be of a latter date . YOu have imposed the very Title of Transubstantiation upon the Faith of Christians ; albeit the word Transubstantiation ( as you grant ) f 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 Alan witnesseth ) before the Councell of Laterane , which was 1215. yeares after Christ ; nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine , for a Thousand yeares , attributing any word equivalent , in strict Sence ; unto the same word Transubstantiation , untill the yeare 1100. ( which is beyond the Compasse of due Antiquitie ) At what time you finde , note , and ●rge Theophylact ; who saith of the Bread , that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ . Which Phrase , in what Sence hee vsed it , you might best have learned from himselfe , who in the very same place saith that Christ in a manner is h Trans-elementated into the Communicant : which how unchristian a Paradoxe it were , being taken in strict and proper Sence , we permit to your owne iudgements to determine . Neither yet may you , for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word , obiect the like use of this word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] as though it had beene in use before the Arian Controversie began , because the Fathers of the Councell of Nice iudged the Obiection of the Novelty of that word Calumnious ; for that the use of it had beene Antient before their times , as your Cardinall i Bellarmine himselfe witnesseth . You furthermore to prevent our Obiection ( demanding why the Antient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change , Transubstantiation , if they had beene of your Romish Faith , concerning the Substantiall Change of Bread into the Body of Christ ) haue shaped us this Answere , namely , that k 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 boldnes might as iustly have inferred from the like Phrases of the Apostle , viz. [ * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , we are transformed ] that every Regenerate Christian is Transubstantiated into Christ : or , from the word [ * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , He is transfigured ] say that the Diuell is Transubstantiated into an Angell of light : or from the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , It is changed ] ( used by l Cyrill ) urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctifie , is Transubstantiated into another thing : or from the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] in m Nazianzene , conclude that Every Person Baptized is Transubstantiated into Christ . 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 in your Cardinal ? n Liberty of devising new words ( saith he ) is a thing most dangerous ; because new words , by little and little , b●get new things . So hee . Therefore may wee iustly place this your new word among those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which St. * Paul will have Christians by all means to avoid ; els so new and barbarous a name must needs ingender a novell , and brutish opinion , such as this Article it selfe will appeare to be ; As followeth . The Novelty of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined , and shewen not to have beene before the Councell of Laterane ( namely ) not untill 1215. yeares after Christ . SECT . III. THis Aricle hath beene decreed ( as you haue * 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 Bellarmine noteth to have beene in the dayes of Pope Gregory the VIIth . 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 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 Schoole-man Scotus to descend lower , to find out the Birth thereof , q Affirming that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Councell of Laterane , under Pope Innocent III. 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 Antient Learning , as Scotus , or els they gave small Credit to that Councell cited by Bellarmine under Gregory the VIIth . For your Iesuite saith , in direct tearmes , that r The name of Transubstantiation was used in the Councell of Laterane , for clearer declaration , that Christians might understand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ . Can you say then that it was universally so vnderstood before ? But your Cardinall Perr●n more peremptorily concludeth that s If it had not beene for the Councell of Laterane , it might be now lawfull to impugne it . So hee . A plaine acknowledgement , that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Councell , even as Scotus affirmed before , But we pursue this Chase yet further , to shew , That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councell of Laternae , vnder Pope Innocentius the III. SECT . IV. YOur owne learned Romish t Priest , a long time Prisoner , did under the name of Widdrington produce many Historians viz. Platina , Nauclerus , Godfridus Monumetensis , Matth. Paris , and others to testifie as followeth . That many things fell under Consultation in that Councell , but nothing was openly defined , the Pope dying at Per●sium . Insomuch that some of these Authors sticke not to say that This Generall Councell , which seemed to promise bigg and mighty matters , did end in scorne and mockery , performing nothing at all . Wee might adde that the supposed Acts of this Councell were not published vntill more than two hundred yeares after . No marvell then if some u Schoole-men , among whom were Scotus and Biel , held Transubstantiation not to have beene very antient . And another , that x It was but lately determined in the Church . Nay , M. Breerly ( if his opinion be of any Credit among you ) sticketh not to say that y Transubstantiation compleat ( that is , both for forme , and matter ) was not determined vntill the last Councell of Trent ; that is to say , not untill the yeare of our Lord 1560. Doe you not see how much licking this ougly Beare and Beast 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 to be proved , by the full discouering of the palpable Falshood thereof . CHAP. III. The Definition of Transubstantiation , in the Church of Rome ; and of the Falshood thereof . SECT . I. THe Councell of Trent ( saith your a Cardinall ) hath defined that this Conversion is of the whole Substance of Bread , that is , as well forme , as matter , into the Substance of Christ his 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 manners , ( namely ) that it is either by Production out of the substance of Bread ; or els by Adduction of the Body of Christ unto the forme of Bread. CHALLENGE . VVHatsoever it is , which you will seeme to professe , never shall you perswade us that you doe indeed believe either of the pretended Formes of Transubstantiation . First , not by Production , because ( as the same b Cardinall truely 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 manner of Transubstantiation could not be beleeved by your Iesuites c Vasquez , and d 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 manner , which they insist vpon , cannot possibly serue your turne . This Second manner they name to be by Adduction , which your e 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 , & therfore called Substantiall , but the Substance of Bread , ceaseth to haue any Being , when 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 Councell of Trent , which defined a Change of the whole substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ. So that Councell , 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 far frō bringing in the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body , that it professeth to bring the Body of Christ not so much as unto the Bread , but to be under only the Outward Accidents , & formes of Bread. Yet had this Figment some Favourers in your f Schooles . No Marvell therefore if there arose some out of your owne Church , who did impugne this delusion , calling it ( as your g Cardinall himselfe witnesseth of them ) a Translocation onely , and not a Transubstantiation ; and that truely , 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 substantial 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 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 Coniunction of the Substance of one Body with the Accidents of another . Which kind of meere Succession of a Substance your Iesuite Suarez will allow to be no more than a h Translocation . 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 beleeve a Doctrine so absolutely repugnant to your owne knowledge . Observe by the way that they , who gain-say the Productive , and teach the Adductive , yet doe all deny Locall mutation à Termino ad Terminum : a Paradox which wee leave to your wisdomes to contemplate vpon . 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. TRansubstantiation ( 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 Tearmes , 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 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 confoundeth himselfe , and secondly , his opinion hath beene scornfully reiected 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 vs , We , according to our Apostolicall Creed , beleeve no Body of Christ , but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the blessed Virgin Mary , for feare of k Heresie . This same Obiection being made of late to a Iesuite of prime note , received from him this Answer : viz. God that was ableto raise Children to Abraham out of stones , can of bread transubstantiate the same into that Body of Christ , which was of the Virgin. And he againe received this Reply ; That the Children , which should be so raised out of Stones , howsoever they might be Abraham's Children , according to Faith , yet could they not be Children of Abraham according to the Flesh . Therefore is there as great a Difference 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 out 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 Homily of that time , which being published standeth thus . Much is betweene the body that Christ sufferedin , and betweene the body 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 limbe , and therefore nothing is to be understood herein bodily , but all is Ghostly to be understood . This was our then Saxon's Faith ; wherein is plainely 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 * Saint Augustine . Wherefore we 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 : * If Bread be Christ's Body , then something was Christ's body , which was not borne of the Virgin Mary . 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. VVE wonder not why your Fathers of the Councell of Trent were so fierce in casting their great Thunderbolt of m Anathema , and Curse upon every man that should affirme , Bread and Wine to remayne in this Sacrament after Consecration : which they did , to terrifie men from the Doctrine of Protestants , who doe 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 remayne , then is all Faith , yea , and Conceit of Transubstantiation but a feigned Chimaera , and meere Fancy , as your Cardinall doth confesse , in granting that n It is a necessarie Condition , in every Transubstantiation , that the thing , which is Converted , cease any more to be ; as it was in the Conversion of Water into Wine ; Water ceased to be Water . And so must Bread cease to be Bread. This being the State of the Question , we undertake to give Good 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. Saint Paul calling it [ Bread. ] SECT . IV. IN the Apostle his Comment ( that I may so call his two * 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 & Drinking after Consecration : and yet hath he called the outward Element Bread. You will say ( with some ) It was so called onely because it was made of Bread ; as Aarons Rod , turned into a Serpent , was notwithstanding called a Rod. But this Answere 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 Aaron's Rod , turned into Serpent , none could say , This Rod. And secondly , it is contrary to Christian Faith , which will abhorre to say , in a proper sence , that Christ's Body was ever Bread. Or else you will answere , 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 prove , that the Apostle would never have called it Bread after Consecration , but because it was Substantially , still , Bread. Our Reason is ; He had now to deale against the Prophaners of this Sacrament , in reproving such as used it as Common Bread , * Not discerning therein ( Sacramentally exhibited ) the Lord's Body . It had therefore concerned him to have honoured the Sacrament with Divine Titles , agreeable to the Body of Christ , hypostatically united to his God-head , 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 Ecclipsed ; if in Truth , and Veritie hee had not beleeved it to have beene ( then ) 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 Archbishop 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 hee . Which bewrayeth that the very naming of the Sacrament Bread , and Wine is , in the iudgement of the Church of Rome , preiudiciall to their Transubstantiation ; and that if Saint Paul himselfe should deliuer 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 Christ's Body ! But that it is Impossible the Body of Christ should be properly predicated upon Bread , hath beene the Generall Confession of your owne Doctours , and the Conclusion of our second Booke . 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. 26. 29. by the Interpretation of Antiquity . SECT . V. THe same is as fully verified by our Lord and Master Christ himselfe , in thesecond Element of Wine , calling it * This fruit of the Vine , that is , Wine , after Consecration : where the Pronoune [ This ] hath relation to the Wine in the Cup. For the proof of this our Exposition of the words of Christ , we have the Consent of these and thus many holy Fathers ; Origen , Cyprian , Chrysostome , Augustine , Hierome , Epiphanius , Euthymius , Theophylact , and Bede , as witnesseth your Iesuite p Maldonate ( no one Father produced by him to the contrary ) Then answering ; But I ( saith hee ) cannot be thus perswaded . So he . Marke this ( you great Boasters of Accordance with Antiquity ! ) and yet this manner of answering the Fathers is most familiar with this Iesuite . But he proceedeth , telling you that The Fathers notwithstanding did not call it Wine , as thinking it to be Wine , but even as Christ did when hee called his flesh Bread , Iohn 6. Then he addeth ; They that will follow the Exposition of These Fathers are thus to interpret them . And gives his Reason of this his Aduertisement , Lest the other Exposition ( saith he ) may seeme to agree with the opinion of the Calvinists . So he . For which his Answere Calvinists ▪ are as much beholding to him , as are the Ancient Fathers , with whom he hath made bold not only to reiect 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 Marginals doe manifest ) so plainly , as to affirme that It was Wine , which then Christ dranke , and that hereby the practices of the Heretiques Aquarij are confuted , who would drinke nothing but Water in the Eucharist . It was the Wine ( saith r Augustine ) which was used in the mysteries of our Redemption : Even that Wine , which was blessed ( saith s Clemens Alexandrinus : ) and your owne Bishop t 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 . Marke you furthermore the Errour of the Aquarij , and the Confutation thereof : they used only Water in the Eucharist , in pretence of * Sobriety , which Cyprian confuted only upon this ground , viz. that this Practice was not warranted by the * 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 dayes , whether it had not concerned Cyprian to have stood exactly upon it , for the more just condemnation of those Aquarij , to let them know , that if they would needs use only Water , than ( according to your Doctrine ) their Consecration should be void ; and consequently their Adoration ( if it had beene then in use ) should have beene like wise Idolatrous . 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 we 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 Isidore : Bread ( saith hee ) 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 two are visibles , but being sanctified by the holy Spirit , are turned into a Sacrament of Christ's Body . So hee . This is indeed a true Analogie , not to be performed by Accidents . Could any of them , whom you call Calvinists , have spoken more significantly either in contradicting your Exposition of Christ's words ( for he saith that Christ called Bread his Body ; ) or in declaring the true proper Sence of the Sacramentall Conversion ? ( for he saith , Bread is Changed into a Sacrament of Christ's Bodie ; ) or else in giving the Reason why Bread , and Wine were chosen to be Sacraments and Signes of Christ's Body , and Blood , by which we are spiritually fed ? ( for hee sheweth that it is because of their Naturall Effects , Bread substantially , and therefore not Accidentally , strengtheneth Man's Body : Wine turneth in Blood. ) Which overthroweth your third Figment of onely * Accidents ; as if the Substance of Bread and Wine , were not necessary in this Sacrament . Say then , doth the Accident of Roundnesse and Figure of Bread strengthen mans Body ? or doth the Accident , Colour of Wine , turne into Blood ? As well might you affirme the only Accident of Water in Baptisme to be sufficient to purge and cleanse the Body , by the colour , and coldnesse , without the substantiall matter thereof . The Second part of the Analogie is discerned in the Mysticall Body of Christ , which is the Congregation of the Faithfull Communicants ; [ * We are all one Body , in as much as we are partakers of one Bread. ] It standeth thus ; As many Granes of Corne make one Loafe of Bread , and many Grapes make one measure of Wine in the Cup : So , many Christians , partaking faithfully of this Sacrament , become One mysticall Body of Christ by the Vnion of Faith , and Love. This Exposition , as it is yeilded unto by your Cardinall y Cajetan , and authorized by your Romane and Tridentine z Catechisme , so is it also confessed to be used of a Almost all holy Doctours . Hee was held a most expert and artificiall Painter , in Plinie , that could paint Grapes so to life , as to deceive Birds ; which came to feed on them : But they are the only Sophisticall Doctors , that offer in the Eucharist only Accidents , as painted Colours in stead of naturall , because where there is not a Reall Analogie , there is no Sacrament . You may not say , that the Analogie consisteth in the matter before Consecration ; because every Sacramentall Analogie is betweene the Sacrament , and the Thing Signified , but it is no Sacrament , before it be Consecrated . CHALLENGE . SAy now , what Better Authour is there than Christ ? What better Disciple and Scholler , than the Apostle of Christ ? or what better Commentary upon the words of Christ , and his Apostle , than the Sentences of Ancient Fathers ? calling the one part Wine , the other Bread , after Consecration , as you have heard . Our Third Proofe , that the Substance of Bread remayneth after Consecration in the Sacrament , is taken from the Iudgement of Sense necessarily . First , by the Authority of Scripture . SECT . VII . ALthough man's Sense may be deceived , thorow the inconvenient Diposition of the Medium , thorow which he seeth , as it hapneth in judging a straight Staffe to be Crooked , which standeth in the Water ; and in thinking a White Obiect to be Greene in it selfe , which is seene through a Greene glasse : or Secondly by the unequall Distance of place , as by conceiving the Sunne to be but two feet in breadth ; or the Rainbow to be a Colour , and not Light ; or Thirdly by some defect in the Organ , or Instrument of seeing ( which is the Eye ) whereby it commeth to passe that wee take One to be Two , or mistake a Shadow for a Substance : yet notwithstanding when our Eyes that see are of good Constitution , and Temper ; the Medium , whereby we see , is perfectly disposed ; the Distance of the Obiect , which we see , is indifferent ; then ( say we ) the iudgement of Sense , being free , is True , and the Concurrence and ioynt Consent of divers Senses , in one arbitrement , is infallible . This Reason , taken from Sence , you peradventure will judge to be but Naturall and Carnall , as those Termes are opposed to a true and Christian manner of Reasoning : Wee defend the Contrary being warranted by the Argument which Christ himselfe used to his Disciples , Luc. 24. 39. [ Handle mee , and see . ] Your Cardinall although he grant that this Reason of Christ was available , to prove that his owne Body was no Spirit , or Fancy , but a true body , even by the onely Argument from the Sence of Touching ; b Yet ( saith he ) was it not sufficient in it selfe , without other Arguments to confirme it , and to prove it to have beene a humane body , and the very same which it was . So he . Which Answere of your Cardinall we wish were but only false , and not also greatly irreligious : for Christ demonstrated hereby not onely that he had a body ( as your Cardinall speaketh ) but also that it was his owne same humane body , now risen , which before had beene Crucified , and wounded to Death , and buried , according to that of Luke [ That it is even I. ] Luc. 24. 39. Now because * It is not a Resurrection of a Body , except it be the Same body : Therefore would Christ have Thomas to * thrust his hands into his sides , and feele the print of his wounds , to manifest the same body ; as Two of your Iesuites doe also observe , the One with an c Optimè , the Other with a d Probatum est . Accordingly the Apostle Saint Paul laid this Argument , taken from Sence , as the foundation of a Fundamentall Article of Faith , even the Resurrection of the same Body of Christ from the dead ; for how often doth he repeate , and inculcate this ? * He was seene , &c. And againe thrice more , Hee was seene , &c. And Saint Iohn argueth , to the same purpose , from the Concurrence of three Sences : * That which wee have heard , which we have seene , and our hands have handled , declare wee unto you . The validity of this Reason was proved by the Effect , as Christ averreth , * Thomas because thou hast seene ( that is , perceiued both by Eye , and hand ) thou hast beleeved . The Validity of the Iudgement of Sense , in THOMAS , and the other Disciples , confirmed in the second place by your owne Doctors . SECT . VIII . PErerius a Iesuite confidently pleadeth for the Sense of Touch : e I feare not ( saith hee ) to say , that the Evidence of Sense is so strong an Argument , to prove without all doubt an humane Bodie , that the Devill himselfe cannot herein delude the touch of man , that is of vnderstanding and consideration . As for the unbeleeving Disciples , [ Christ his Handle me , &c. ] ( saith your Iesuite f Vasquez ) was as much as if he had said to them , Perceive you my true flesh ? as being a most efficacious Argument to prove the truth of an humane Body . So he , yea , and g Tolet another Iesuite did well discerne the case of Thomas to have beene an extreme Infidelity , when hee said , [ Except I put my finger into the print of the nailes , and thrust my hand into his side , I will not beleeve . ] Which proveth the Efficaciousnesse of the Iudgement of Sence , in reducing so extreme an Vnbeleever to beleeve . Wherein your Authours are authorized by Saint Augustine , h 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 , we are thereby freed from all doubtfulnesse in the faith . And if this were not sufficient to confute your Cardinall , hee may be shackled with his owne answere , who , to disable the Infallibilitie of the Sense of feeling , said ; i That other Arguments were requisite for the certifying the iudgement of Sense : and among these Other he reckoneth Christ his speaking , eating , and working Miracles . All which , what are they else ( wee pray you ) but equally Obiects of Sense ? What Vertigo then may this be called in him , to seeke to invalidate the verity of Sense by an Argument , which iustifieth the certainty of Sense ? A third Confirmation of the Truth of Senses , as sufficient in Divine Causes , for discerning Obiects of Sense , and particularly in perceiving Bread and Wine to continue the same in this Sacrament ; by the judgement of Ancient Fathers . SECT . IX . HOw many Heretiques of old were there ( such as the Valentinians , Montanists , Marcionites ) who denied that Christ had a True , and Essentiall Bodie ? and how absolutely were they confuted of Ancient Fathers , by the Evidence of men's Senses that heard , saw , and felt the Body of Christ ? Which sheweth plainly that a Demonstration by Sense standeth good and strong euen in Christian Philosophie . And to come to the point in Question , to conclude 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 Sence . Therefore this may be equally concluded by the same Argument of Sence . And that there is the same Reason of both these , the Ancient Father Theodoret sheweth in the Argument , wherewith he confuted an Heretique by Sense , thus ; k As after Consecration ( saith he ) Bread remayneth the same in substance : So Christ his Body after the Resurrection remayned in substance the same . Thus much of the Analogie . ( As for the word [ Substance ] more is to be spoken thereof * hereafter . ) Yea , and Saint Augustine will not suffer the Communicant to blind-fold himselfe , whose Testimony ( digested by l Bede ) is this : That which you have seene is Bread , as your eyes doe 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 graines of wheate . So Saint Augustine . Ergò , It is Bread after Consecration . Tertullian hath a large Plea against the Academici , who denied the iudgement of Sense ; wherein hee maintayneth 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 If wee yeild not to the suffrages of Senses , some may doubt whether Christ perceiued afterwards another Sent of oyntment , which hee received ( meaning another than the naturall Sent thereof ) before his Buriall . And immediatly he 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 Heretique Marcion , for denying the Truth of Christ's Bodie on earth , and confuteth him by the fidelity of the Senses of the Apostles . Faithfull ( saith hee ) was their sight of Christ in the Mount , Faithfull was their Tast of Wine at the Marriage , 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 Academici , 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 fower Conclusions . First , not to conceit of Accidents without Subiects : but to discerne of Subiects , and Substances , by their Accidents . Secondly , that our Outward Senses rightly constituted ( more especially the Sense of Feeling ) are Demonstrations of Truth in Sensible Obiects . Thirdly , that this verification of Subiects , by their Accidents , is common with Christ , his Apostles , all Christians , and with every reasonable man. And lastly , that Wine is to be discerned to be truly and naturally Wine , after Consecration , by the iudgement of the Senses , because he instanceth in this very point : teaching that Christ had the same taste of Wine afterwards , which hee had before in that , which he consecrated ; even as hee had also the same Sent of Oyntment after , which hee had before his Buriall . And all this even now , when he convinced Marcion of Heresie , an Enemy to the Catholique Faith , in denying the Truth of Christ's humane naturall Body , notwithstanding the Evidence of Man's Senses . Here had beene a full and flat Evasion for that Heretique to say , what tell you us of the validitie of the Evidence of two Senses , concerning the Truth of Christ's Body , seeing you your-selves gain-say the iudgement 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 Catholiques then had beene of your now Romane Beliefe , to thinke that all the Sences are deceived , in iudging the matter of this Sacrament to continue Bread or Wine ; and so might they have blowne away all this Catholique Confutation of Heretiques and Infidels with one and the same breath . Come now hither all yee that say we 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 Catholique Doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ , and was never heereof questioned by any Catholique , in , or since his daies . Let none of you obiect that of the Disciples , in their way to Emmaus with Christ , of whom it is said that [ * They could not know him : ] for the same Text giveth this Cause , that their eyes were holden , lest they should see him : and after , * Their eyes were opened , and they saw him . So the Evangelist , which is so farre from infringing any thing that hath beene said , for the Infallibility of Sence , rightly constituted and disposed , that this thereby is notably confirmed . Wee call vpon Hierome to witnesse , saying ; * The Error of not discerning Christ , when he 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 Bodie ( which you beleeve to be in it selfe invisible ) but in your Eyes , as being shut vp ; when notwithstanding you will be knowne , that these are open enough for discerning Colours , and formes of Bread and Wine ? 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 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 poysoneth . Fourthly , That having beene long reserved , It engendreth 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 , whereof new wormes are Bred , whether it be the same that was , or not ; yet being Bread , it is wrought either by a o 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 tast too largely of the Cup ? yea , or els to poyson our Enemy , were hee p Emperour , or q Pope ? Nay can it be lesse than Blasphemy to say that God worketh Miracles , for the accomplishment of vaine , wicked , and mischievous effects ? But farre be it from vs 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 whosoeuer they be . 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 hee would not much rather worke a miracle , ( if any such miracle were herein to be expected ) to hinder the poysoning of his faithfull Communicants . In all this wee appeale againe to true Antiquity , 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 breed wormes ; ( seeing it were rather a miracle they should not be so bred ) or any such kinde of Romish Fancies , and delusions ; or otherwise to confesse your Obiectours to be miserable Proctours of a vile , and desperate Cause . Yet lest any of your may thinke , that One comming 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 * Ayre infected with the odour which maketh man Drunke . A SECOND CHALLENGE , with a Caution . YOur Common , and most plausible Obiection , to dementate vulgar people , is to perswade them that you cannot attribute Credit to your Senses in this case without much derogation from Faith. Therfore , for Caution-sake , be it knowne vnto you , that we have not pleaded for the Truth of Senses , as holding nothing Credible , but that , which may be proved by the Testimony of Senses . This we vtterly 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 , vbi Ratio aut Sensus habet experimentum ; and also to that other of * Iustine . In which respect we condemne the Incredulity of Thomas , in that he would not beleeve , except he should See : yet notwithstanding we , 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 sence ; but never ( Contra ) against either . It was never read that God required of any man a beleefe of any Sensible thing , which was Contrary to the exact iudgement of his Senses . And therefore your opposition , in this Case , as it is Sensles , so it is indeed Faithlesse ; as we have already learned from Scripture and Fathers ; by whom the Iudgement of Sense hath beene acknowledged to be , in Sensible Obiects , a notable Ground of Faith. Our Fift Proofe , that Bread remaineth Bread in Substance , after Consecration , in this Sacrament , is by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers . First from due Inferences . SECT . II. TEstimonies of Ancient Fathers inferre a necessary Consequence , for proofe of the Existence of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament , as might be proved partly by the repetition of many Arguments premised , and partly by intimation of other Arguments afterwards expressed . But wee shall be content with those few which doe 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 , said that r 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 hope ) 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 meate , saith that the s 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. * Breerly ? namely , Magnitude , and other Sensible Accidents , which in regard of their Significations , are materialls . So hee . Very learnedly answered forsooth ! If Magnitudo , that is Greatnes , be a Materiall thing , be you so good as tell us what is the matter thereof ? for whatsoever is Materiall , hath that appellation from it's Subiect matter . Is it the Body of Christ ? then must you grant ( which wee , with 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 were 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 Meates , or Materialls . Yea , and Origen ( that hee might bee knowne to understand Materiall Bread ) furthermore calleth it now , after Consecration , Matter of Bread. S. Ambrose his Comparison is of like Consequence ; t As one Baptized had beene an old Creature , and was made a new one , euen 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 , hee suffereth a Change. Of which Testimone more * hereafter . Cyprian is a Father much alleadged and urged by you , in defence of Transubstantiation ; but is now at hand to controll you . u Our Lord gave in this Banquet ( saith he ) Bread and Wine with his owne hands , when hee pertaked thereof with his Apostles : but on the Crosse hee delivered vp 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 Catholique 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 hee gave up to be Crucified on the Crosse by Soldiers , ( namely ) his Body , and Blood. If againe you demand of Cyprian , why Christ called the Bread , which hee had in his hand , his Body , he readily answereth saying : The things signifying ( or Signes ) are called by the same names , whereby the things signifyed are termed . A * Protestant of admirable learning unfolded unto you the Iudgement of Antiquity , from the Testimonies of divers Fathers , in saying of this Sacrament , after Consecration , that The bread , by being divided , is diminished : that , It is delivered by fragments : that these are so little , that they are to be called rather Bitts then Parts . Thus they spake expressly of Bread Consecrated ; but to say that you eate bitts and Fragments of whitenes , of Roundnes , and other Accidents , who is so absurd among your selves ? And to affirme the same of Christs body , who is so impious ? Somewhat more of this , when we shall appeale to the Canon of that famous Councell of * Nice . Another Inference we may take from Antiquity , in her calling this Sacrament [ Pignus ] a Pledge ( so y Hierome , and z 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 . 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 tearmes 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 Eramstes , 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 Deity , and continued no more the same humane and Bodily Essence , as before his Resurrectiit had beene . The other Party and Disputer is named Orthodoxus , signifying the Defender of the Truth of the Catholique Doctrine ; which Person Theodoret himselfe did sustaine , in behalfe of the Catholique 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 Romanists and Protestants confesse to have beene the Doctrine of these Heretikes . This was that Heretike his Obiection . The Orthodoxe , or Catholique ( which was Theodoret himselfe ) commeth to answer , promising to catch the Heretique , as he saith , in his owne Snare , by retorting his Argument of Similitude against him , thus : a 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 Catholique 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 doe by their Answeres , but alas ! so absurdly , that any reasonable man must needs laugh at ; and so false , as which any man of conscience must as necessarily detest them . The Principall Answere is that , which your b Cardinall giveth , that Theodoret , in saying that Bread remayneth the same in Figure , Forme , and [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] meant not Substance properly understood , but the essence of Accidents . So hee . An Answere ( by your leave ) notoriously , 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 Logique ( 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 Heretique ; viz. whether the Substance of Christ's Body continued the same , which it had beene in time before his Resurrection ( the Heretique denying it , and Theodoret proving it to be absolutely still the same in Substance : ) and not whether the same only in Quantities , and Accidents ; for these the Apostle teacheth to be alterable , * Corruption putting on Incorruption , Mortality Immortality , 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 be Accidents , and adding [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] this necessarily is opposed to the former Two , as Substance to Accidents . Nor was there ( we suppose ) ever any so vnlearned , who did adde the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ] to Formes , and Figures , but hee thereby meant to distinguish it as a Substance from its Accidents . Thirdly , Heretically false ; for what was the Heresie of the E●tychians ? tell us ; They ( say c you ) held that Christ ( namely after his Resurrection ) had not an humane nature , but only 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 Brereley afterwards is compelled to confesse : who , to the end hee may disgrace Theodoret , rudely and wildly taketh upon him to iustifie the Heretiques speech to be Catholique , for proofe of Transubstantiation . Wherefore Theodoret , in his Answere Retorting ( as he himselfe saith ) the Heretiques Comparison against him , did by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 likewise understand Substance , else had he not disputed ad Idem ; but by a shamefull Tergiversation had betraid his Catholique Cause unto that pernitious Heretique . 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 * Agellius , where such an Obiectour is compared to a man milking an Hee-Goat , ( or if you will , a Bull ) and the Answerer to another holding under a Sive . Here had wee fixed a Period , but that wee againe espied one Master Brerely ( a Romish Priest ) comming against us with a full careere , who after that he had beene * confuted , for urging the former Obiection , notwithstanding , concealing the Answere , he blusheth not to regest the same ; albeit , as one conscious to himselfe of the futility thereof , he leaveth it presently , falling foule upon Theodoret , as though that Father had beene in some distemper , when he so writ : d saying , first , that Theodoret used that his Retortion in his * heate of Dispute . Then hee taketh part with the Heretique , saying , It is not likely that an Heretique should have urged against a Catholique 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 as well have reasoned in the behalfe of the Sadduces , condemned by Christ , saying : It is not likely that they would so expressely have denied that there are 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 iudged execrable in that Church . Now if the Eutychian Heretique 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 hee , who , if he had not lost his Logique , would certainly have argued contrarily , saying ; Theodoret , being an Orthodoxe and Catholique Bishop , would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstantiation in the name of a ranke Heretique , and after himselfe impugned and confuted the same , except he had knowne it to be flatly repugnant to the Catholique 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 Answere of your Iesuite Valen●ia to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity : It is not to be held any marvell ( saith * 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 he ; and this hee calleth a briefe and plaine Answere . And so it is , whereby , in granting that Transubstantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church , hee plainly confuteth your now Romane Church , which iudgeth 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 Heretique in an extemporall speech personally , but deliberately and punctually 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 Authour haue Protestants called Pope Gelasius , and urged his Testimony . Your Disputers cavill ; First at the name of the Authour , calling Protestants e Impudent , for stiling him Pope Gelasius . But if he were not that Pope Gelasius , what Gelasius might hee be then ? Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea , saith your Cardinall Bellarmine . Contrarily your Cardinall f Baronius contendeth that he is a more ancient Gelasius , Anno 476. ( namely ) Gelasius Citizenus ; 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 Pope of Rome . But what shall we answere for the Impudent Protestants , as your Cardinall hath called them ? Surely nothing , but wee require more modesty in him , who hath so called them ; considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides , nor meaner to follow than these g Historians , viz. Genadius , yea your Bibliothecarie 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 he was an Orthodoxe Father , and very Ancient . Now then , Gelasius said that h The Sacraments of the Body , and Blood of Christ , being Divine things , yet cease not to be the nature and substance of Bread , and Wine . In Answere whereunto , both your foresaid i Cardinals here , ( as before ) by Substance interpret Accidents : one of them labouring to prove that Gelasius somewhere else called Accidents , Substances . Were this granted , yet the Argument , which Gelasius hath in hand , will compell the understanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance . For whereas the Heretique Eutyches taught that Christ his Body was changed into the Substance of his Divinity , after the Resurrection , and that the substance of his Body remained no more the same ; Gelasius confuteth him by a Similitude , and Comparison , viz. That as the Substance of Bread remaineth after Consecration : So Christ his Bodily Substance remained after the Resurrection . Wherein if the word , Substance , be not in both places taken properly , Gelasius should have made but a mad Reason , as any reasonable man will 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 Brereley would have you to know , that this Gelasius ( whosoever hee were ) writeth against the same Eutychian Heresie , that Theodoret did ; and thereupon useth accordingly , to his like aduantage , the words Substance , and Nature in the same sence , 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 Mr. Brerely opposeth against us another sentence of Gelasius , from whence he concludeth that Gelasius held Transubstantiation : so that Gelasius must rather contradict himself , then that he shal not consent to the Romish Tenet . Whereas , indeed , hee saith no more than , in a mysticall sence , 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 . To which saying of Gelasius , touching the Eucharist , is answerable a like saying of Gregory Nyssen , concerning Baptisme , calling it a l Divine Laver , working miraculous effects . Yea , and Dionysius the m 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 be inforced to allow ? Fie upon blind boldnesse ! This mans falsity , in alledging Chemnitius , I let passe . It is further worthy your Reflection , to observe your Disputers how earnest they have bin to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius ; contrary to the acknowledgement of your owne Historians . May wee not therefore suspect that the Testimony obiected was distastfull unto them , when they so greatly feared , lest this Witnesse should be thought to have beene a Pope and Supreame Paster 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 . SECT . XIIII . CHrysostome his words are these , that n 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 Answer might satisfie us , were it not that it was extant sometime in the Libraries of o Florence , and p Canterbury . To whom may be adioyned the Authour of that Vnperfect worke , still standing under the name of Chrysostome , and by you upon any occasion obiected against vs ; wherein it is expressly said , that q The True Body of Christ is not contained within these sanctified Vessels . 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 most worthy and able to advertise in this kind . Bertram is our next witnesse from Antiquity , being about 800. yeares agoe , and never noted of Errour antiently , untill these later times of Booke-butchery ( that wee may so call your s Index Expurgatorius ) denying altogether all liberty to all men of reading this Booke . But why ? what saith he ? Hee maintaineth ( saith your t Senensis ) that the Eucharist is the substance of Bread and Wine . And indeed so he doth in his u Booke dedicated to the Emperour Carolus Calvus , which also he affirmeth to be written x According to the truth of Scriptures , and iudgement of Ancient Fathers before him . This Author undergoeth also the Censure of the Vniversity of Doway , which , confessing him to have beene a Catholique Priest , framed divers Answers , whereby they meant to prevent all obiections , which Protestants might peradventure urge vnder the Authority of this Author Bertram . But how ? Marke this Romish Profession of answering Protestants , as often as they shall insist in the Testimonies of antient Writers : y Let us ( say they ) in Disputation with our Adversaries , obiecting ancient Authors , tolerate many of their Errours ; extenuate , and excuse them ; yea and oftentimes , by some devised Comment , deny them ; as also by feigning to apply some apt sence unto them . So that Vniuersitie . 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 Trithemius , for his Excellent Learning in Scripture , his godly life , his worthy Books , ( and by name this now mentioned , written expressly ) Of the Body and Blood of Christ . CHAP. IV. Answeres to the Obiections of Romish Doctours , taken from the Testimonies of Antient 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 , vsed for the Discovery of the Vnconscionablenes of your Disputers , in their Obiecting 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 be Naked , and Bare Bread. Thirdly , in forbidding the Communicants to rely vpon 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 doe 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 Vnconscionablenes of your Romish Disputers , in obiecting 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 wee likewise ▪ confesse . a Ambrose compareth the Change by Benediction , made in this Sacrament , unto many miraculous workes of God ; yea , even to the worke of Creation . b Cyprian speaketh of a Change in nature , by divine Omnipotencie . c Augustine reckoning it among God's miracles , saith that This Sacrament is wrought by the Spirit of God. Accordingly we heare d Chrysostome proclaiming , that These are not workes of humane power : He that changeth , and transmuteth now is the same that he was in his last Supper . Each one of these Testimonies are principally alleaged 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 Because ( saith your Cardinall ) Omnipotencie is not required to make a thing to be a Signe Significant . Se he . We answer first from your owne Confessions , and then from the Fathers themselues . There are two workes observable in every Sacrament : one is to be not onely a Signe of an Invisible grace , promised by God : but also both a Seale and Pledge thereof , as all Protestants hold ; and ( as your most opposed f 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 vs ) ▪ It is the Doctrine of your Church , with common consent ( saith your Romane g Cardinall ) that God only can by his Authority institute a Sacrament , because he onely can give them power of conferring grace , and of infallible signification thereof . So hee . Well then , as well infallible Signification of Grace , as the efficacious conveyance of Grace is the worke of the same Omnipotencie . To this purpose more plainly your English Cardinall Alan , speaking ( as he saith ) from the iudgement of Divines , h telleth you that Although there be an apt nes in every Creature to beare a signification of some spiritall effect , yet cannot the aptnes be determinately applyed vnto any peculiar effect , n● not so much as to signifie the outward Cleannes of man's Body ( Sacramentally ) without a Divine Institution : much lesse to represent man's sanctification , but being so determinated and ordained of God , the Creature ( saith hee ) is elevated above the Custome of nature , not onely in respect of the worke of sanctification , but even of signification also . So hee ; And that as well as we could wish : for this Omnipotent Change of a Creature into a Sacrament , and this Instrumentall Cause of conferring Sanctifying Grace , to the Faithfull Communicant , is the Generall Doctrine of all Protestants . But what Change shall wee thinke ? Of the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body , as you teach ? No ; but as * before Isidore said , The Change of visible things , by the spirit of God , into a Sacrament of Christ's Body . Seeing then that both Divine power , and authority is required in every Sacrament , to make it either infallibly significant , or els efficaciously profitable to man ; and that it is by the same Divine power that the Element is Changed , by being Elevated from a common , vnto a spirituall and divine property of a Sacramentall Signification , as one of your Cardinals hath said : What an unconscionablenes is it then in your Disputers , from the termes of Omnipotencie and Divine working , which is necessary 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 be , if we consult with the Obiected Fathers themselves . For first Ambrose , who observeth an Omnipotency in the Change of this Sacrament , explaineth himselfe what kind of Efficacy he meant , viz. such that i The things changed into a divine Sacrament are still the same which they were before ( namely ) according to their naturall property . Which one Clause doth so strangle all conceit of Transubstantiation , that it may seeme you have some reason to wipe this Testimony of Saint Ambrose out of your new k Editions : notwithstanding , by Gods providence , so much of Ambrose his tongue is preserved even in the same place , as will convince your Obiectors 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 of an old Creature is made a new Creature : which is ( as euery Christian knoweth ) not a change in the substantiall nature of man , but in the Accidentall properties . So this Bread of 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 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 applaude your selves , for to your Lindan n The wordes of Cyprian appeare Golden : and hee must needs provoke , forsooth , all Gospellers to hearken unto them : which also seemeth to your o Cardinall To admit no solution . Our Answere first unto the Authour is to deny it to be the Testimony of Cyprian : may we not ? This Sermon of the Supper of the Lord is by us ( saith your Master p Brerely ) attributed to Cyprian . Whom of your Side he meant by [ Vs ] you may be pleased to aske him ; sure we are your Cardinall doth tell us that q The Authour of this Booke is not Cyprian , but some other after him . But , not to disclaime your Authour ; all that he saith is that r Bread is changed by God's Omnipotency not in Figure , but in Nature . This is all ; And all this hath beene , but even now , quitted by your owne 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 , distinguishing the Nature of Accidents from the Nature of Subiects , shew that there is an Accidentall Nature as well as a Substantiall . Theology teaching that * By nature we 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 * Brerely alloweth of , as for example : a Surplesse being commanded by lawfull Authority , the use thereof becommeth necessary , so that the nature thereof is Changed , yet not in the Substance of the thing , but in the legall necessitie of the use . But to come nearer , Answer us but this one Question . Whereas all learning alloweth this saying , that in Baptisme the nature of the Element , and the nature of the Sacrament are different , whereupon it is said ; The word comming to the Element maketh it a Sacrament : when we 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 , iustly accord unto the Phrase of Cyprian , in the case of the Eucharist ? and so much the rather , because that Cyprian , in the words of immediatly following the Testimony obiected , 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 As in Christ himselfe true humanity appeared in his flesh , and his Deity was hid : ( This was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and first part of this Similitude ; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and next part followeth ) Even so in 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 God's 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 God's Spirit , for the Conversion of Man's soule , it is called * The Power of God unto salvation : as likewise Baptisme is made the Lavacre of Regeneration ; whereof Greg. Nyssen affirmeth that t It worketh marvellously by benediction , and produceth marvellous Effects . As for Augustine , and Chrysostome ( not to be 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 Man's soule . The second Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers , in 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 It is not Common Bread : Ergo ( say you ) not to be properly iudged by Sense . Vnconscionably , knowing that b Chrysostome ( and also all other Fathers whom you moreover obiect ) saith likewise of the Sacrament of Baptisme , * Wee are to behold it not as common water . The second i● Iustine Martyr , saying ; d We receive these not as Common Bread , or Common Drinke . Therefore ( say you ) we may not iudge them by Sence . Vnconscionably ; knowing that Iustine Martyr in the same place sheweth his Reason , why it is not to be called Common , euen because ( saith he ) it is [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] that is , Sanctified meate . And so Water in Baptisme is Sanctified , as you know . The third is Cyril of Ierusalem , saying , e Consider these , not as Common Bread and Wine : Ergò ( say you ) not to be iudged by Sense . Vnconscionably , knowing that the same Cyril , in the same place , saith the same of the water of Baptisme : It is not simple Water . Yea , but he further saith ( say f you ) Thinke not of it , as of bare Bread ( adding ) but the body of Christ . Ergò ( say you ) not to be iudged otherwise by Sense . Vnconscionably ; knowing that the same Father in the same place , for explanation sake , saith likewise of g 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 be the more notorious , in their wresting of the Catholique 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 . Insomuch that Gregory Nyssen , speaking of a Ceremony inferiour to this Sacrament , which is the Altar , or Table of the Lord , he saith that h Although by nature it be but as other stone , wherewith the Pavements are garnished , and adorned ; yet being Consecrated to God's Service , by Benediction , it is an holy Table and Altar . Yea , and what lesse doth your Church say of your hallowed Balsome , Beads , and Bels , and the like , all which you distinguish from Common , and bare Oyles , and Metalls , because of their different use ; and service , without Opinion of any Change of Substance at all ? The third Vnconscionablenesse 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. VVE may not easily passe over your Obiection taken out of Cyril , being in the opinion of your Cardinall so impregnable ; Let us first heare your Obiector . i This Testimony of Cyril 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 Cyril ever reproved of Errour in his doctrine of the Eucharist . Thus farre your Cardinall , you see , with as accurate an oratory of Amplification , as could be invented . What Protestant would not now , if ever , expect a deadly blow from this Father to our Catholique Cause ? but attend to the Issue . First , k Cyril will not allow a man to credit his Taste , but although Tast saith it is Bread , yet undoubtedly to believe it to be the Body of Christ , whereinto the Bread is changed . And hee is brought in by your l Cardinall to averre furthermore that The Body of Christ is given under the forme of Bread. And so the Sentence seemeth to be 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 hee , and Master * 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 Catholique of this Age write more plainly ? So he . And we answere , could any Iugglers deale more falsly ? For upon due examination it will appeare to be a manifest Delusion , by a false Translation of Cyril's words . The Body of Christ is given ( as your Cardinall doth render it ) sub specie Panis , under the forme of Bread ; whereas it is in the Greeke , m Vnder the Type of Bread : even as hee 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 Obiects of Sense ; but Types , or Antitypes are only Relatives , and ( as such ) no Obiects 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 red Scarlet , and the fashion of the Gowne , and outward figurature of his Face , and so may every Childe see him ; for these are Outward and Visible Accidents . But to see that man , as hee hath upon him the person of a Iudge , ordained to try Causes betweene parties , is a sight of the minde , which looketh upon his Office , to discerne him by his Habit from common Subiects . 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 only . As therefore it followeth not , that the Scarlet Gowne of the Iudge , because it is an Ensigne of his Office , should be only Colour and Fashion , without the matter and Substance of the Cloth ; no more can any conclude from Cyrill , that because the Sacrament is a Type , therefore this Type was only 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 iudging it to be Bread. Wee call vpon Cyrill to decide this Controversie , who is best able to interprete 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 〈◊〉 Bare Oyle . But we are answered , that n Cyrill , 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 Chrisme ( that is ) Sanctified Oyle , after Consecration . So your Cardinall . And so are wee posed for ever . But behold another Iesuiticall Fraud ! For Cyrill as he called the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body , after Consecration , so doth he 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 he 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 iudging of Bread to be Bread , he meant to prove it by seeming to be deceived himselfe , in thus mistaking the word Chrisma , for o Charisma , and so utterly perverting the Iudgement of Cyrill ; by whom we are contrarily taught , that the Sight is no more deceived in iudging 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 Perversnes of your Disputers , in urging the Testimony of Cyrill . The like Romish Obiection out of Chrysostome , and as Vnconscionable . SECT . V. SAint Chrysostome his Testimony may in no wise be omitted , which seemeth to your Disputers to be so Convincent , that your p Cardinall placed it in the front of his host of the Fathers , whom he produceth , as able to breake through an army of Aduersaries alone ; and Mr. q Breerely reserved it to the last of the Testimonies , which hee alleaged , 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 Chrysostome ) may seeme absurd vnto Sense and Reason , Iexhort you notwithstanding that especially in mysteries we looke not unto that which is before us , but observe Christ's words : for we cannot be disappointed of that , which he saith , but Sences may be deceived . Wherefore , because he said [ This is my Body ] we are altogether to beleeve it , for hee deliuereth no sensible things unto us ; but all which he 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 only unbodily should be given unto thee , but now because thy Soule is ioyned 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 Cardinall ) could not speake more plainly , if he had had some Calvinist before him , whom he meant to exhort to the Faith. So he , meaning the Faith of Transubstantiation , which ( as hath beene confessed ) was no doctrine of Faith untill more than a Thousand yeares after Christ . But to returne to Chrysostome , whose Sentence we may compare to a Nut , consisting of a Shell , and a Kernell : The Shell wee may call his Figurative Phrases : the Kernel we may terme his Orthodox meaning . Of both in the Section following . Of the Rhetoricall , and Hyperbolicall Phrases of Chrysostome . SECT . VI. TO begin with the Shell . First , we 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 Senensis doth instruct you ; where giving a generall Caution , that Fathers in their Sermons doe use to declame Hyperbolically , he doth instance most specially , by name , in Chrysostome . Thirdly , that the Excessive Phrases of Chrysostome , upon this Sacrament , doe verifie as much , viz. to tell his people , that u Their Teeth are fixed in the flesh of Christ : that Their tongues are bloodied with his Blood : and that The Assembly of the People are made red therewith . Fourthly , that he is as Hyperbolicall in denying ( in the Celebration of this Sacrament ) the iudgement of Senses , saying , x Doe we see Bread , or Wine ? which is spoken in as great an exuberancie of speech as are the next wordes immediatly following , saying : Thinke not that you receive the Body from a man , but fire from a Seraphin , or Angell , with a paire of Tongs . You will thinke ( notwithstanding those kind of Phrases ) that Chrysostome thought he saw as well Bread , and Wine in this Sacrament , as he could discerne either Man from a Seraphin , or Spirit ; or his own Fingers from a paire of Tongs . Fiftly , that the Sentence obiected 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 A Sensible Signe ; and also for that you your selves confesse that z Our senses cannot be deceived in their proper sensible Obiects . Sixtly , that Chrysostome himselfe well knew he did Hyperbolize herein , who after that he had said , No sensible thing is delivered unto us in this Sacrament ; notwithstanding he addeth immediately , saying of this Sacrament , that In things Sensible , things Intelligible are given unto us . Thus farre of the Rhetorique of Chrysostome . Now are we to shew his Theologie , and Catholique meaning , as it were the Kernell 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 mind upon the bodily Obiect , 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 Sence , maketh wholly against it , by explaining himselfe , and paralleling this Sacrament with Baptisme : As in Baptisme ( saith a hee ) Regeneration , the thing intelligible , is given by water the thing sensible , the Substance of water remaining . Which proportion , betweene the Eucharist and Baptisme , is held commonly by ancient * Fathers , to the utter overthrow of Transubstantiation . And that Chrysostome beleeved the Existence of Bread after Consecration , * hath beene already expressly shewne , and is here now further proved . For he saith of Bread after Consecration , that b Wee are ioyned together one with another , by this Bread. And now that you see the Nut cracked , you may observe how your Disputers have swallowed the shell of Hyperbolicall Phrases , and left the kernell of Theologicall Sence 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 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 . Thus farre concerning the Iudgement of Sences , which hath beene formerly proved ( at large ) both by * Scriptures , and * Fathers ; wee draw nearer our marke , which is your Transubstantiation . Fourthly the Vnconscionablenes 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 Sence . 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 , Transelementated into the Body of Christ , are Phrases of the highest Emphasis that you can find in the Volumes of Antiquity ; which if they were literally meant , according to your Romish Sence , 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 we have iust Cause to taxe your Disputers of as great Vnconscionablenes ( if not of more ) in this , as in any other . For whensoever they find in any Father ( as in c Eusebius ) these words ; The Bread is the Body of Christ , they obiect it for Transubstantiation ; but Vnconscionably . First , seeing that the Fathers doe but herein imitate our Lord and Master Christ , who said of the Bread [ This is my Body : ] which hath beene * proved by Scriptures , and Fathers to be a Figurative and unproper speech . Secondly , seeing that they use the same Dialect in other things , as Cyrill of Sacred Oyle , saying , this is Charisma , the Gift of Grace ; as hee called also the Holy Kisse a d Reconciliation , and others the like , as you have heard . Thirdly , seeing that you your selves have renounced all proper Sence of all such Speeches , because things of different natures cannot possibly be affirmed one of another ; for no more can it be properly said Bread is man's Body , than we can say , An Egg is a Stone , as you have * confessed . Againe , Some Fathers say , Bread is made Flesh , as e S. Ambrose . obiected ; but Vnconscionably , knowing First , that you your selues 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 ; Chrysost . saying that f Christ hath made us his owne Body , not only in Faith , but in deed also : And Augustine saying that g Christians themselves with their Head , which ascended into heaven , are one Christ : yea , and Pope h Leo , saying of the party Baptized , that Hee is not the same that he was before Baptisme , by which ( saith he ) the Body of the party Regenerate is made the Flesh of Christ crucified . Finally , Venerable Bede saith ; i 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 nearer to the Scope . Wee may not deny , but that the Fathers sometimes extend their voyces higher , unto the Praeposition Trans ; as k Transit , Transmutatur , signifying a Change , and Trans-mutation into the Body of Christ . Every such Instance is , in the opinion of your Doctours , a full demonstration of Transubstantiation it selfe ; and all the wits of men cannot ( saith one ) Assoyle such Obiections . Wherein they shew themselves altogether Vnconscionable , as hath beene partly declared in Answering your Obiected Sayings of l Ambrose In aliud Convertuntur ; of m Cyprian his Panis naturâ mutatus ; of Cyrils Trans-mutavit ; and as now in this Section is to be manifested , in answering your other Obiections to the full . The Father o Greg. Nyssen comparing the Body of Christ with Manna , which satisfied every man's tast 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 obiected by your Cardinall , to prove Transubstantiation ; but First Vnconscionably ; because it is in it selfe ( being literally understood ) euen in your owne iudgements , 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 . Secondly , Vnconscionably obiected , because the same Father expresseth his Hyperbolicall mannet of speech likewise , saying that p Christ's Body doth change our Bodies into it selfe , which in the Literall Sence , according to your arguing , would prove a Transubstantiation of Mens Bodies into Christ . Chrysostome is found admiring these mysteries , and is obiected by Mr. q Breerly , for proofe of the wonderfull Effects of this Sacrament . Why ? what saith he ? r 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 he falleth upon this Subiect , doth almost altogether Rhetoricate : ) but chiefly when they cannot be ignorant that such words of the Fathers , in the Literall straine , are utterly absurd . For what greater Absurdity than ( as is now obiected ) for our Bodies to be Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ ? Now are wee past the limits of due Antiquity , you descend lower . Theophylact will say hard to vs , who , speaking of this Sacrament , saith indeed that s The Bread is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ : which your Cardinall will have to be , in the same Fathers sence , Equivalent with your Transubstantiation . Vnconscionably , for doth not the same Father say likewise that t A Christian is in a manner Trans-elementated into Christ ? Like as Isidore Pelusiota spake of u Trans-elementing , in a sort , of the word of God into the good hearer . Againe , Theophylact is obiected , as saying , x The Bread is after an ineffable manner Transformed . It is true ; Hee saith so : and so doth Hi●rome say that y Christ in breaking Bread , did Transfigure , or Transforme his Body into his Church broken with afflictions : and Pope Leo sticketh not to say that z 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 obiecting Testimonies of Fathers Vnconscionably , and Impertinently ? No , for Mr. Breerly , for a Close , desireth to be heard , and to try us with an Obiection out of the Greeke Church of these latter times , as followeth . a It appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines at Wittenberge , Anno Domini 1584. intituled [ Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium , & Hieremiae Patriarchae Constantinop . &c. ] that the Greeke Church at this day ( although divided from the Latine ) professeth to beleeve Transubstantiation . So hee of the Patriarch Hieremias ; which Patriarch , if wee were alive , would very hardly conteyne himselfe from answering this your Brother with some indignation , calling him both rash and praecipitant ; seeing that the same Patriarch expressly said that b These Mysteries are not changed into humane Flesh . Mr. Breerly would thinke it an iniury done unto himselfe , if wee should praetermit his obiected Authority of Pope Gregory : for Doctor Humphrey ( saith hee ) doth charge Gregory the Great with Transubstantiation . So Mr. Breerly , who obiected this in his Apologie many yeares agoe , and had a full Answer in an * 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 iudgement 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 frivolo●s ; the Author whereof may seeme to have a face of Ir●n , and a heart of Leade ; and the Obiectour , namely Mr. Breerly ( for grounding his Obiection on a Legendary Historie ) A Falsifier of his owne promise . This Answer was home , one would thinke , and might iustly have provoked him to satisfie for himselfe ; if he could have found any errour therein : yet notwithstanding , for want of better service , bringeth he in these Coleworts twise sod . CHALLENGE . VVHat 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 be 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 what soever 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 obiected plainly pronounce . In all which Obiections they doe but verifie the Proverbe : Qui nimis em●ngit , 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 obiected , for proofe of Transubstantiation in the Eucharist . SECT . VIII . COncerning Baptisme we have * heard already , out of the Writings of Antiquity , as efficacious Termes , as you could obiect 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 fl●sh . Fourthly , to thinke that It is not the Priest , but God that Baptizeth , who holdeth thy head . Lastly , Baptisme ( saith the Councell of * 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 Eight Booke . CHALLENGE . ONly give us leane to spurre you a Question before we end this third Booke . Seeing that Transubstantiation cannot properly be , by your owne Doctrine , except the Substance of Bread ceasing to be there remaine onely the Accidents thereof ( this Position of the continuance of Onely Accidents , without a Subiect , 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 only that of Cyril , which * hath beene ( as you haue heard ) egregiously abused and falsified ? Learne you to Answere this Question , or else shame to obiect Antiquity any more ; but rather confesse your Article of Transubstantiation to be but a Bastardly Impe. Wee might enlarge our selves in this point of your Vnconscionablenesse in obiecting 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 Consequence . 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 be distinctly considered , as well for our right discerning of the matter in hand , as also for Method's sake . The first is handled in this 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 only De modo , that is , of the manner 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 Manner 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 only De modo , ( that is ) of the manner of Being , and that consequently all Controversie about this is but vaine Iangling . Such an one ought to enter into his second thoughts , to consider the necessity that lieth upon every Christian to abandon divers Heresies , albeit their difference from the Orthodoxe profession were only De modo . As for example , First , The Gnostick taught man's soule to have it's beginning by manner of Production , from the substance of God. The Catholikes said nay , but by manner 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 Anthrepomorphites conceived of God , as of one ( after the manner of men ) consisting of Armes and Legges , &c. Not to be tedious . We come to the Sacraments . The Cataphrygae did not baptize in the name of the blessed Trinity , after the manner of the Catholikes . The Artotyritae celebrated the Eucharist in Bread and Cheese . To omit many others , take one poniard , which we are sure will pierce into the entrailes 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 manner of Eating , irreconciliably contrary to the spirituall manner , which was beleeved by the true Disciples of Christ , departed from Christ , and Apostated from the Faith. And that the Romish manner of Eating Christ his Body is Capernaiticall ; her manner of Sacrifice sacrilegious ; her manner of Divine Adoration thereof Idolatrous ; and all these manners Irreconciliable to the manner of our Church , is copiously declared in the Bookes following . For this present we are to exhibit the different , and contradictory manners , concerning the Presence of Christ herein . The manner of Presence of Christ his Body 1. According to the 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 kindes 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 Reality 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 your selves well know . In confutation of which Heretikes the Father Ignatius ( as your b Cardinall witnesseth ) called the Eucharist it selfe , the flesh of Christ. Which saying of Ignatius , in the sence of Theodoret , ( by whom he 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 : and , 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 , ( * for as much as there is not a figure of a figure ) therefore Bread being a signe of Christs Bodie , 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 denied the Truth of Christ's Body . Which controlleth the wisdome of your c Councell of Trent , in condemning Protestants , as denying Christ to be Truly present in the Sacrament , because , they say , he 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 Reality in this Sacrament is called Veritas Revelationis , as it is a signe , in respect of the Typicall Signes 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 manner , because the faithfull under the Law had the same faith in Christ , and therefore their Sacraments had Relation to the same Body , and Blood of Christ , but in a difference of manner . For as two Cherubins looked on the same Mercy 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 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 be ; 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 Prophesie , because it is a declaration of a reall performance of that , which was promised : So the Evangelicall Sacrament may be said to containe in it a more reall verity , then the Leviticall . Therefore are the Rites of the old Law called * 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 hee * foretold Christ , as now to come : but he was called more then a Prophet , as demonstrating and * pointing him out to be 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 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 * 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 Saint Augustine ) visible Seales of divine things . So that now we have in this Sacrament the Body of Christ not only 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 beene the reason , why Saint Augustine taught Christ to be g 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 wheresoever , 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 Obiection made by your h 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 thereof : 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 we are to manifest . That the Romish Disputers doe odiously , slanderously , and unconscionably vilifie the Sacrament of the Eucharist , as it is celebrated by PROTESTANTS . SECT . III. BEllarmine , with others i obiect against Protestants , saying , that Their Sacrament is nothing else but a crust of Bread , and pittance of Wine . And againe ; A morsell of Bread ill baked , by which the Protestants represent unto their memories the death of Christ , and the benefits thereof . A goodly matter ! so doth a Crucifix : and to make the Sacrament only a 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 Although the Body of Christ be still in Heaven , yet is it received in this Sacrament ; first Sacramentally by Bodily mouthes , in receiuing 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 Calvin himselfe , as would make any Romish Adversary blush at your former Calumnies , who hath not abandoned shamefastnesse it selfe . CHALLENGE . THus may you see that we have not hitherto so pleaded for the Existence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament , after Consecration , as thereby to exclude all Presence of Christ his body ; nor so maintained the 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 be 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 Coniunction ; whereof more hereafter in the * Booke following , where the consonant Doctrine of the Church of England will likewise appeare . And as your Disputers are convinced of a malitious 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 deliuering by politique assurances under hand and seale a portion of Land , although an hundred miles distant , and convaying 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 onely 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 enioy ? 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 manner of Presence of Christ's Body in this Sacrament . SECT . I. OVr Methode requireth to consult , in the first place , in all questions , with the wordes of Christ his Institution ; but seeing that you can alleage nothing for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament , but onely a literall Exposition of Christ's words [ This is my Body ; ] which by Scriptures , Fathers , your owne Principles , and by unanswerable Reasons hath beene * proved to be most grosly false , wee shall not need to insist further upon that ; only we shall but put you in minde of Saint Paul's words , in teaching the use and end of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament , to wit , The shewing of Christ's death untill his comming againe : meaning corporally , at the last day . Which word [ VNTILL ] being spoken of a last day doth exclude your comming againe of Christ in his Corporall Presence every day ; for the Apostles word is absolutely spoken of his Bodily Comming , and not of the manner thereof ; albeit other Scripture teacheth , that his Comming must be in all glorious Visibility . We goe on . In the Eucharist ( saith your m 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 manner of presence ( excepting onely Relation to place ) which we say is , in many respects , impossible , as we shall prove ; but first we are to remove a Mil-stone , for so you esteeme an Obiection , which you cast in our way of Demonstration of a Corporall Presence , de facto , from ( as you say ) Miracles manifesting the same . The pretended principall Romish Demonstration of a Corporall Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in this Sacrament , taken from pretended n Miraculous Apparitions of visible Flesh , and Blood , revealed to the World. SECT . II. TRue Miracles we shall hold as God's Seales of Divine Truth : if therefore you shall alleage any such , for proofe of a Corporall Presence , see they be true , else shall wee iudge them , not to be God's Seales , but the Deuils 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 ●orts of stuffes , having collected a packet of Apparances , useth his best Eloquence to set forth his merchandize to sale ; telling us by the way of Preface , o that he will report onely such Stories , whereby 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 Coccius before him in every particular : and after both Master * Brereley thus prefacing ; Miracles sent by God confirme the same , wherin at the breaking of the Hoast , sundry times great copie of blood issued out , as is testified by many Writers . We are now attentive to the Relation of your Oratour 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 . 1. Anno CCCC . Simon Metaphrastes q ( saith 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 whilst the Priest divided the Bread , an Angell was seene , and seemed to divide , and cut in peeces 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 . 2. Anno 600. A woman ( as r 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 its owne shape againe . 3. Anno 800. s A certaine Priest called Phlegis , being desirous to see Christ in the Eucharist , not that hee doubted thereof , but that hee 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 he received it . So he . These two last , are also alleaged by your Cardinall t Bellarmine . 4. Not many yeares after a fourth in Italy , u A Priest saying Masse , and finding [ Veram carnem super Altare , verumque sanguinem in Calice , ] True flesh upon the Altar , and true Blood in the C●p , fearing to receive it , forthwith reported it to the Bishop , demanding what he should doe ; The Bishop consulteth 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 . 5. Anno 1050. a 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 hee was doubting of the truth of the Body of Christ , in the Sacrament , at the breaking of the Hoast [ Rubra & perfecta caro inter eius manus apparuit , it a ut digitos eius ●r●entaret ] Red and perfect flesh appeared betwixt his hands , insomuch that his hands were bloodied therewith . 6. Anno 1192. Behold an History ( saith your b Cardinall Baronius ) most worthy of beliefe ( you must beleeve it . ) At Thuring after that the Priest had given the Sacrament to a yong Girle then sicke , and had washed his fingers in a pot of water , she observing it very diligently , willed them that were by to vncover 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 Clergy to attend 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 farre 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 he . 7. Anno 1230. c A Priest in Florence looking into the Chalice saw drops of Blood divided into parts , and ioyning together againe , an Abbatisse 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 thereof be somewhat darke , yet are they to be seene of all Trau●llers . So hee . 8. Anno 1239. d In the Kingdome of Valentia [ Verè memorabile ] a thing truly memorable ; In the time of the warres betweene the Christians and Mah●metans 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 aduise 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 Provande● to stand else-where ) never made stay untill he came to an Hospitall of Dorchara , where falling downe upon his knees ( least he might afterwards carry any thing lesse noble , and worthy then that Hoast ) protenùs expiravit ] he suddenly died . 9. e Anno 1258. When the Priest celebrated the Masse in the Kings Chappell 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 copiosusemanavit ] much blood issued out ; so that this cannot be imputed to the Art of the Devill . 10. Anno 1261. f [ 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 Deuill . 11. Anno 1273. g A Miracle was seene at Picenum , where a woman reserved the Eucharist , which she should have eaten , and kept it with purpose to abuse it for recouering the love of her Husband by Magicke ; The Hoast she laid on Coales , and it presently turned into flesh : She was astonished , but concealed it by the space of seven yeares , at length she discovereth it to a Priest , he found this flesh being hid so long in a Dung-hill [ intactam , & illaesam ] perfect , and entire : hee published this Miracle , which moued 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 . 12. Anno 1510. h At Knobloch , a Village under the Marquisate of Brandenburgh , one Paulus Formosus on a night stole the Pix wherein the Eucharist was reserved , he 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 Brerely Priest ; whereupon hee maketh this Conclusion : Miracles shewed by God ( saith he ) doe 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 pittie , 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 * a Miracle wrought for confirming divers Clergy men ( then wavering ) in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation , by a Bloody dropping of the Hoast at Masse . That these were not Apparitions of true Flesh , and true Blood of Christ , by the iudgement of Romish Schoole-men . SECT . III. YOur Bellarmine , Baronius , Bozius , Mr. Breerly , and Coccius have , for proofe of the Corporall presence of Christ , insisted upon Apparitions of ( as they have said ) 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 Droppes of Blood , sprinkling droppes of Blood , issuing out , and bloodying the fingers of the Priest , that saw it . But we rather beleeve your Schoole-men , of whom ( besides many k that doubted ) divers , together with Thomas Aquinas , with the Thomists , and other Authors , alleged by your Iesuite , Suarez , denyed all this , saying l That in such Apparitions there is no True flesh , nor true blood of Christ at all . Their Reasons ; First , Because 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 Christ's Blood to issue , and sprinkle out of his veines , who can easily beleeve ? Fourthly , Because it were undecencie to reserve such Reliques , experience teaching that they doe 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 onely not the fl●sh of Christ , but even no true flesh at all , but onely a colour , and Signe thereof . So they . Do you not then see the different faith of your owne Historians , and of your owne Divines ? namely that those Historians as vncleane beasts swallow downe at the first whatsoever commeth into their Mawes ; but those your Divines , like more cleane creatures , doe ruminate and distinguish truth from falshood , by sound reason and iudgement , and prove the Authors of such Apparitions flat lyars ; the Reporters uncredible Writers ; and the Beleevers of them starke Fooles . That the Romish Answere , to free their former pretended Miraculous Apparitions from suspition of Figments , or Illusions , is Vnsufficient . SECT . IV. ALbeit in these Apparitions there be not true flesh ( say m some of your Doctors ) yet such Apparitions , being miraculously wrought , are sufficient Demonstrations that Christs Flesh is in the Eucharist . But why should not we yeeld more credit to those Schoolmen ? who say n True miracles use to be made in true signes , and not in such as seeme onely so to be ; because seeming signes are wrought by the Art of the Divell . And we take it from the Assurance , which your Iesuite giveth vs , that o Divels and Painters can make such semblances and Similitudes : and that true Miracles are to be discerned from false , in that false Miracles carie onely a likenes of things , and are unprofitable . Furthermore , your P 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 be of an Infant , and of the Childe Iesus ; albeit Christ , at his ascension out of this world * 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 Bethlehem , 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 Antiquity , within the compasse of so long a time ; excepting that of one Marcus , recorded by p Irenaeus , who faigned to Make the mixed wine in the Cup , through his Invocation to seeme redd , that it might be 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 Heretiques , 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 , and no such one heard of in these dayes of Antiquity , when there seemed to be a farre more necessary use of them , both for confirming Proselytes in the faith , and reducing Heretiques from their Errour ? ( that Apparition onely 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 Answere to an Obiection from the same Author , hee said ; q 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 ( obiected by your * Coccius ) writing the life of Basil , and mentioning the like Apparitions of Flesh , we make no more account of it , then doe your two r Cardinals , by whom it is reiected as Supposititious and Bastardly . But the Suggesters of these Apparitions , what were they ? ( a matter observable ) ordinarily Priests , together with either old men , weomen , and sometimes young Girles , who ( wheresoever superstition raigneth ) are knowne to be most prone thereunto . That we say nothing of the lewde Iugglings of your Pri●sts , who in other kinds have beene often discovered amongst us , and in other Countries . We conclude . A true Miracle , for Confirmation of Religion ( we are sure ) is Divinum opus , the Infidell Magicians being enforced to confesse as much , saying , * Digitus Dei hic est . And as sure are we 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 : * Hath God need of a Lye ? ( saith holy Iob. ) Wee right willingly acknowledge , that diuers Miracles have beene 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 * Iew , that had beene once Baptized by one Bishop , betooke himselfe to another Bishop , to be againe Baptized of him , in hope of profi● , The Water in the Font presently vanished away . s S. Augustine telleth of a Physitian , who was vexed extreamly with the Gout , and at his Baptisme was freed from all paine , and so continued all his life long . t 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 Durantus will have you to know ) of Miracles , wrought by the Booke of the Gospell , for the extinguishing of Fiers . This first Obstacle being removed out of the way , our passage will be so much the more easier in the following Discourse . CHAP. III. That the Romish manner of the Corporall Presence of Christ , in the Sacrament , is manifoldly Impossible . SECT . I. NO sooner doe you heare Protestants talke of the Impossibility of your manner of Presence , which your Church prescribeth , but you presently cry out upon them , as vpon Blasphemous Detractors from the Omnipotencie of God , as if they meant x To tie God to the Rules of Nature , as your Authors are pleased to suggest . Wee hold it necessary therefore to remoue this scandall , thus cast in the way for simple people to stumble upon , before wee can conveniently proceed to the maine matter ; and this wee shall endeavor to doe by certaine Propositions . That , by the Iudgement of ancient Fathers , some things ( by reason of Contradiction in them ) may be called Impossible , without the impeachment of the Omnipotencie of God ; yea , with th great advancement thereof . SECT . II. THis Proposition accordeth to the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers , shewing that y God cannot doe something , even because he is omnipotent , as not die , not sinne , not lye , because such Acts proceed not from power , but from impotencie , and infirmity . 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 The Sanctuary of Heretiques . And they give an instance in the Arrians , 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 onely 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 Doctrine of the same Impossibility ( 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 Bodie . SECT . III. YOur owne Iesuites doe lay this for a ground : a All Divines affirme ( say they ) that God is omnipotent , because hee can doe any thing that implyeth not 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 ioyntly 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 truely . 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 , that it is b Impossible for God to be contained in one place : Secondly , for a Spirit to be divided into parts : Thirdly , for Bread to be the Body of Christ , at the same instant when it is Bread : Fourthly , for the same thing to be present together at divers times : Fiftly , 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 : Eighthly , Impossible it is to vndoe that which is once done ; because this were to make that which is true to be false . So your Iesuites , with others . 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 Omnipotencie of God , in this Question of the Sacrament ; which Calvin himselfe did refute in his life-time , professing , that he is farre from subiecting the power of God to man's reason , or to the order of nature ; and beleeving , that even in this Sacrament it exceedeth all naturall principles , that Christ doth feed men's 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 Wee ( saith hee ) are not so addicted to naturall reason , as to attribute nothing to the power of God , which exceedeth the order of nature , for we confesse that our soules are fed with the flesh of Christ spiritually above all Physicall or naturall vnderstanding : but that one should be in divers places at once , and not contained in any , is no lesse absurdity then to call light darknesse . God indeed can when hee will turne light into darknes ; but to say light is darknesse , is a perverting of the order of Gods wisedome . So Calvin , and Beza accordingly with him . And so say we , that it is possible for Christ , ( as God ) if he were so pleased , to make of Bread an humane body as easily as of stones to raise up Children to Abraham ; for there is involved no Contradiction in this . But to make Bread to be flesh , while it is Bread , is a Contradiction in it selfe , and as much as to say Bread is no Bread ; and therefore to the honour of the Omnipotencie of Christ , wee iudge this saying properly taken to be Impossible . 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 sixe Contradictions . The first Romish Contradiction , in making it Borne , and not borne of a Virgin. SECT . I. THe Catholique Faith hath alwayes taught , 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 subiect to vilification , or indignity here on earth . But your now Romish Doctrine , touching Corporall Presence in this Sacrament , doth imply Contradictions , touching each of these , as now we 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. Gen. 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 * proved , and as all substantiall Conversions doe shew , whether they be 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 wordes of Consecration ) of Bread into a Body which you call the Bodie 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 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 * before , and is furthermore confirmed by Saint Augustine * afterwards . The second Romish Contradiction , to the ouerthrowing of that , which Christ called [ MY BODY : ] by making one Body of Christ , not one , but many . SECT . II. YOur Profession standeth thus : g The Body of Christ , albeit now in Heaven , yet is ( say you ) substantially in many places here on earth , even wheresoever the Hoast is consecrated . So you . Next your Master h Brerely laboureth earnestly to draw Calvin to professe a Possibility of Christ's Bodily presence in divers places at once , contrary to Master Caluins plaine and expresse profession in the same Chapter ; where he directly confuteth this Romish Doctrine of Madnesse , saying thus : i To seeke , that Christ his Bodie 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 be 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 be locall on earth , As if ( saith he ) she would pull Christ out of his Sanctuary of Heaven . And at last , after that he had said , k Christ his Body is united to the soule of the Communicant , he 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 ) alleageth Calvins testimony , against Calvins sence ; 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 Brerely imposing upon Beza the same opinion of the presence of Christ's Body in Heaven , and in Earth at one time . Although , notwithstanding , m 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 another tearmeth 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 . III. IN the first place hearken to your Aquinas , ( the chiefest Doctor , that ever professed in the Romish Schoole ) o It is not possible by any Miracle , that the Body of Christ be locally in many places at once , because it includeth a Contradiction , by making it not one ; for one is that , which is not divided from it selfe . So he , together with others whom you call Catholikes , who conclude it Impossible for the Body of Christ to be corporally in divers places at once . Which although he speake concerning the locall manner of being ; yet his Reason ( as * your Cardinall confesseth ) doth as well concerne your Sacramentall manner of being on earth . 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 Impossibility . So he ▪ Earnestly have we sought for some Answere to this insoluble Argument , as we thinke : And your greatest Doctor hath nothing to say , but that the p 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 , then 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 . We throughout this whole Tractate , wherein we dispute of the existence of a Body in a place , doe not tie 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 Answere . CHALLENGE . AN answere 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 he insisteth upon ( for example sake ) which are both Heterogenies . Contrary to this Assertion , we 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 , then whom the latter Age of the World hath not acknowledged any more accurate , and accomplished with Philosophicall learning ; even q Iulius Scaliger by name , who hath concluded , as a principle infallible , that Continuity being an immediate affection , and property of Vnity , One body can not 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 only Man's soule , which is a spirit ; and God himselfe , the Spirit of Spirits , of both which * 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 Adiunct 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 . The same second Romish Contradiction manifested in Scripture , by an Argument Angelicall . SECT . IV. MAth . 28. 6. The Angell speaking to the woman , that sought Christ in the grave , said ; He is not here , for he is risen , and gone into Galilee : which is as much , as to have said , hee could not be in both places at once ; an Argument Angelicall . But you answere that it was spoken Morally . How ? ( wee beseech you ) as if one should say ( saith your r 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 he hath supped . Contrarily , the Angel's Logicke is not by a Peradventure , but necessary not imaginary , but historicall ; not coniecturall but dogmatiticall , and demonstrative . For better explanation whereof , we 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 ] he is risen out of the Grave , And to say , Hee is risen out of the grave , [ Therefore ] he is not heere in the Grave . Vnderstand then , first , that the matter subiect of this Argument being no morall arbitrary 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 , * Our Faith were vaine ) the Angell must necessarily be thought to have concluded dogmatically ; which is the reason that he is so instant , and urgent , saying to the woman , Come , and see the place , where the Lord was laid . Which he addeth ( saith your s Iesuite ) for confirmation of that , which he had said , [ He is not heere . ] And as much as if he had said ( saith Anselme ) t If you beleeve not my word , give credit to the empty Sepulchre , in satisfying your owne sight . Therefore was it demonstrative . And againe , the Angell putting them to make use both of his ●aying , and their owne seeing ; Goe 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 . It were iniury unto you to deprive you of that light which Augustine offereth unto you in commenting upon these words of Christ ; * The Poore you shall have alwayes with you , but me you shall not alwayes have . The light , which wil expel all Romish darknesse out of every corner of exception to the contrary , is , first if you shall say , that Christ did not speake of his bodily Presence ; u He spake ( saith Augustine ) of his bodily presence , in saying , you shall not have me alwayes with you . Secondly , if you answer , that Christ denyed not absolutely his Corporall presence , but onely the manner of his presence on earth , in his visible shape : Augustine will reforme you , shewing , that Christ , in saying You shall not have me ; by [ Me ] meant absolutely his Body , as it is distinguished from his God-head , namely , You shall have mee , according to my Maiesty , and my providence , and invisible grace ( all spirituall : ) but according to my flesh , even that flesh , which was borne of the Virgin Mary [ you shall not have me . ] Thirdly , If you reason , saying ; But yet is it possible for Christ to be here on Earth , and there in Heaven at one instant ? Augustine will confute you , who asking , why Christ may not be said to be here in Bodily presence , giveth onely this reason , because he ascended into Heaven , and ( as alluding to the former words of the Angell ) addeth , And he is not here . So raw therefore , so vaine , and perverse is that Answere of Morall , and Civill reasoning , which your Cardinall obtruded upon his Readers , against an Argument both so Angelicall , and Evangelicall . That the Romish Obiection out of that Scripture , Act. 9. is frivolous . SECT . V. CHrist ( Acts 9. ) appeared to Saint Paul , then Saul , when he was in his way to Damascus , &c. whence your Cardinall a 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 he heard . Thirdly , because Saul asked saying ; Lord , who ar● 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 obiection 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 awhile ; 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 Iesuite 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 voice , yea or any sight unto them ; for Saint Stephen saw the Heavens opened , and Maiestie 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 brightnesse of that sight of Christ , and after healed in the Name of Christ . If any desire to know the iudgement of ancient Fathers , in this Case , your Cardinall leaveth him to seeke it where hee shall please . Sure we are that c Augustine , d Ambrose , Pope e Gregory the first , and f Isidore Pelusiota doe expresly affirme that the appearance of Christ to Saint Paul was [ de Coelo ] from Heaven . And if all this were true that hath beene obiected , that Christ appeared in the Ayre , yet is your Consequence but lame , that therefore hee was bodily also in Heaven , if we may beleeve your Iesuite Lorinus : g 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 as lancke and frivolous is his Confirmation of their Assertion by ( as hee 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 Evangelicall Doctor Aquinas may stand for good , who held it * 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 only 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 commeth concluding as followeth . h 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 contrarie were a great rashnesse without ground ; and contrary to all Divines . So hee . We leave these your two most eminent Doctors of the Chaire , and both of the same Societie of the Iesuites , the one for Rome , the other for Spaine , in this their Contradiction , that wee may consult with Antiquity it selfe . 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 . VI. ANcient Fathers iudged it Impossible for a Body to be without Determination in one only place at one time : yea ( say you ) they did so , but meaning Impossible , according to the course of nature , but not absolutely Impossible , as if by Divine Miracle a Body might not be in many places at once . This is your only Answere , and the Answere 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 Answeres be , so that they may be knowne to have answered : otherwise they well know that the Fathers meant an absolute Impossibilitie ; and that this is most evident by the Heresie which they did impugne ; and also by their manner of confuting the same . The Eutychian Heretikes ( you a know ) confounded the properties of Christs humane nature with his Godhead , pretending ( as you doe ) the Omnipotencie of Christ , for the patronizing of their heresie , As thinking thereby ( thus saith b Theodoret , out of Amphilochius ) To magnifie the Lord Christ , whereas this was indeed ( as the same Father saith ) to accuse God of falshood . You may heare the same voice sound out of the Romane Chaire . Pope c Leo , speaking of Eutyches , the Authour of that heresie , saith that Hee affirmed , that thereby hee did more religiously conceive of the Maiestie of Christ , by denying his humane nature ; whom therefore that holy Pope censureth to have beene seduced by the spirit of falsity . Therefore it cannot be but that the Fathers , in confuting an heresie founded upon a pretence of Omnipotencie , 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 The Body of Christ , being a compounded thing , cannot be changed into a divine nature , because it hath Circumscription . This had beene no good reasoning , except his CANNOT had imported an absolute Impossibility . e Vigilius ( anciently Bishop of Trent ) might have read a Lesson to the late Bishops at Trent , who against the same Heretique , 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 , least that any might thinke this was but his owne private opinion , he averreth saying ; This is the Catholique 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 Being on Earth it was absent from Heaven ; and going to Heaven it left the Earth . Damascen had to deale with the fore-named Heretique , and professing to deliver the substantiall difference of both natures , hee differenceth them by these contrary Charters , g 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 , not Capable of Circumscription , because whole in the whole hoast , and in every part thereof , and to the very Angels of God Invisible . Let vs ascend hither to the more primitive Ages , to inquire of Fathers , who had conflicts also with Heretiques , who gaine-said the Truth of either nature . Athanasius urged Christ his Ascention into Heaven , to prove that he was truely man , as God , because his God-head was never out of Heaven , being h Vndeterminate in place , and uncircumscribed , even then , when it was Hypostatically 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 Nazianzene also doth Characterize them . Augustine falling upon such Heretiques , as taught a Bodily presence of Christ in the Sunne , and in the Moone , at once , ( which you your selves will confesse could not be imagined to be according to the Course of nature ) giveth them first this Caueat : k You may not ( saith hee ) so defend the Deity of Christ , as to defraud the Truth of his humanity : then he addeth ( as if none could faine a presence of a Body without determination in space or place ) Bodies cannot be without space . And againe , l A Bodie cannot be at one time in places distinct one from another . And what els doth that saying of Ambrose imply , spoken as to Christ ? Stephen ( saith he ) who saw thee in Heaven , sought thee not upon earth . Cyrill of Alexandria is a Father , whose Patronage your Disputers would bee thought often to rely vpon ; hee is now about to deliver his Iudgement so freely and plainly , as if he had meant to stop the mouthes of all our Opposites in the same Answere , which he maketh against certaine Heretiques , who held that God's nature is a Substance , which can receive division and partition : If God ( saith m Cyrill ) should be divisible , as a Bodie , 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 Answere to other Fathers ) that Cyrill meant not that it was absolutely Impossible , that Quantity should be without Circumscription , but onely according to the Course of nature ? then might the Heretiques , whom Cyrill confuted , have made the same Answere , and consequently Cyril's Consequence and confutation had beene of no force . What shall wee say ? must still the antient Fathers be made no better than Asses in arguing , that your Romish Masters ( forsooth ) may be deemed the only Doctors , even then , when they prepare the same Evasion for Heretiques , which they devise for themselves ? but you must pardon us , if wee beleeue that Cyrill ( seeing hee durst say that God himselfe , if hee were a Body , must be in a place , as a thing having Quantitie and Circumscribed ) would have abhorred your now Romish Faith of beleeving * Christ's Bodie consisting of Quantity , albeit not Circumscribed in place . 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 Obiections , out of them , are but so many forged , and forced Illusions . Wee conclude . If Christ himselfe gave a Caveat , not to beleeve such Spirits as should say of his Bodily presence in this world , after his Resurrection ; * Behold here 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 further more confirme by like verdict of Antiquity , when wee shall heare the Fathers proue both that * Angels , and all created Spirits are finite Creatures , and not Gods , even because they are contained in one place : and also that the holy * Ghost is God , and no finite Creature , because it is in divers places at once . But we must handle our matters in order . That the Romish Doctors ( in their Obiections ) have no solid proofe of the Existence of one Body in divers places at once : from the Iudgement of Antiquitie . SECT . VII . IT is a kind of Morosity , and Perversnes in our Opposites , to obiect those testimonies , which have their Answeres , as it were tongues in their mouthes , ready to confute their Obiections . For s Chrysostome saith not more plainly that Christ , at one and the same time , sitting with his Father in Heaven , is here handled of Communicants on earth ; than hee doth say of the Priest and People communicating , that They doe not consist or stay on earth , but are transported into Heaven . And againe , a little after the words obiected , The Priest ( saith he ) is here present , not carrying the fire , but the holy Ghost . These and the like sayings of Chrysostome doe verifie the Censure of your * Senensis upon him , that he was most frequent in figurative Amplifications and Hyperbole's . Another Obiection is commonly made out of t Chrysostome , of a double Elias , one above and another below ( meaning , by Elias below , the sheepe-skin , or mantle of Elias , received by Helisaeus , ) namely , that Christ ascending into Heaven , in his owne flesh , left the same , but as Elias did his Mantle , being called the other Elias , to wit , figuratively : so the Sacrament , a token of Christ's flesh , is called his flesh . Which must needs be a true Answere , unles you will have Chrysostome to have properly conceited , as a double Elias ; so consequently a double Christ . As for the next * Testimonie , it is no more than which every Christian must confesse , namely , that it is the same whole , & undivided Christ , which is spiritually received of all Christians , wheresoever , and whensoever throughout the world : the same we say Obiectively , although not Subiectively ; as the Sixt Booke Chap. 6. and § . 3. will demonstrate . That your most plausible Obiection taken out of Augustine , concerning Christ his Carrying himselfe in his owne hands , is but Sophisticall . SECT . VIII . a AVgustine in expounding the 33. Psalme , and falling vpon a Translation , where the words 1. Sam. 21. are these ( by interpretation ) Hee carryed himselfe in his owne hands ; saith that these words could not be understood of David , or yet of any other man literally : for [ Quomodo fieri potest ? ] ( saith he ) How could that be &c. And therefore expoundeth them as meant of Christ , at what time he said of the Eucharist , [ This is my Body . ] This is the testimonie which not onely your b Cardinall , but all other your Disputers , upon this subiect , doe so ostentatively embrace , and as it were hugge in their armes as a witnes , which may alone stop the mouth of any Protestant ; which therefore , above all other , they dictate to their Novices , and furnish them therewith , as with Armour of proofe against all Opposites , especially seeing the same testimony seemeth to be grounded upon Scripture . Contrarily we complaine of the Romish Disputers against this their fastidious and perverse importunitie , in urging a testimonie , which they themselves could as easily have answered as obiected ; both in taking exception at the ground of that speech , to shew that it is not Scripture at all , and also by moderating the rigidity of that sentence , even out of Augustine himselfe . THE FIRST CHALLENGE , Shewing , that the Ground of that Speech was not Scripture . PRotestants ( you know ) allow of no Authenticall Scripture of the old Testament , which is not according to the Originall , namely , the Hebrew text ; and the Church of Rome alloweth of the Vulgar Latine Translation , as of the only Authenticall . But in neither of them are these words , viz. [ Hee was carried in his owne hands : ] but only that David , now playing the Mad-man , slipt , or fell into the hands of others , as your c Abulensis truely observeth . So easily might the Transcribers of the Septuagints erre , in mistaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : and so impossible it is for you to ground the obiected sentence upon divine Scripture , even in your owne iudgement . THE SECOND CHALLENGE , Shewing , that the Romanists cannot stand to the [ QVOMODO ] of Augustine . THis word [ Quomodo , How ] implying it to be impossible for David , or any other man to carry himselfe in his owne hands , excepting Christ , as you defend , must argue either an absolute Impossibility , or not : if it intend an absolute Impossibility of any man to be carried in his owne hands , in a literall sence , then could not Christ , as man , be carried in his own hands : and if it do not intimate an absolute Impossibility , then might David or any other man , by the power of God , have carried himselfe in his owne hands . So that whether thus , or so , you will make Augustine contradict himselfe , if his words be taken in the Precisenesse and strictnesse of that which is a Literall sence . THE THIRD CHALLENGE , Shewing that Augustine in another word following , to wit , [ QVODAMMODO ] doth answere Saint Augustine himselfe to his owne formerly obiected word [ QVOMODO . ] SAint Augustine after hee had said Quomodo , How ? ( a word seeming to signifie an Impossibility ) left that it , being taken absolutely , might imply a direct carying of himselfe in his hands at his Supper , hee qualifieth that his speech somewhat after , saying ; [ Quodammodò , &c. ] that is , After a certaine manner Christ caried himselfe in his owne hands . Which is a modification , and indeed a Correction of the excesse of his former sentence . Our next labour must be to find out the meaning of his [ Quodammodo ] and what ●his manner of Christ's carying himselfe was , in the iudgment of Saint Augustine . THE FOVRTH CHALLENGE , Shewing Saint Augustine to be an utter enemy to the Romish Cause in all their other conceited manners , concerning Christ in this Sacrament . AGainst your manner of interpreting the words of Christ [ HOC EST CORPVS MEVM ] properly , you have heard Augustine often pleading for a Figurative sence . Secondly , against your manner of bringing in the Body of Christ , by Transubstantiation , hee hath acknowledged in this Sacrament , after Consecration , the Continuance of Bread. Thirdly , Against your Corporall Existence of Christ in many places at once , in this Sacrament , or else-where without dimension of Place , or Space , he hath already contradicted you in both , holding them Impossible : and also by arguing that therefore his flesh is not on earth , because it is in Heaven . Fourthly , Your manner of properly Eating Christ's Body Corporally , hee will * renounce hereafter , as an execrable Imagination . Wherefore Augustine holding it Impossible for Christ's Body to have any Corporall Existence in this Sacrament , it is Incredible he could haue resolvedly concluded of Christ's Corporall carrying of his Body properly in his owne hands . THE FIFTH CHALLENGE , Shewing that the [ QVODAMMODO ] of Saint Augustine is the same manner , which the Protestants doe teach . DOe you then seeke after the manner , which Augustine beleeved ? what need you ? having learned it of Augustine himselfe , by his Secundùm quendam modum , ( where he saith ) this Sacrament after a sort is the Body of Christ : what , literally ? Nay ; but ( for so hee saith ) a As Baptisme ( the Sacrament of Faith ) is called Faith. And if you have not the leisure to looke for Augustines iudgement in his writings , you might have found it in your owne Booke of Decrees , set out by b Gratian , where Augustine is alleaged to say , that This holy Bread is after its manner called the Body of Christ ; as the offering thereof by the hands of the Priest is called Christ's Passion . Dare you say , that the Priest's Oblation is properly , and literally in strict sence the Passion of Christ ? or that Aug. meant any such a Manner ? You dare not , yet if you should , your c Romish Glosse in that place would presently reprove you saying , that by this comparison is meant , that The Sacrament , representing the Body of Christ , is therefore called Christs flesh , not in verity of the thing , but in a mystery ( namely ) as the representation of Christ therein is called his Passion . In a word rightly might d Calvin say , speaking of these Controversies concerning this Sacrament : All the Bookes of Augustine ( upon this subiect ) proclaime that hee is of our profession . Much more , concerning Christ his not being corporally here on earth , will , by the iudgement of Augustine and other Fathers , be found in the fifth , sixt , and seventh Bookes ; besides that which they affirme in this Booke , in the thirteenth , and sixteenth Sections following . THE SIXT CHALLENGE , In generall , concluding the maine Point . BY this time wee thinke you may discerne betweene plaine dealing , and false iugling : for your Disputers have usually alleaged , 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 Disputations , in confutation of many , and maine Heresies , where indeed they were necessarily to make use both of their Logicke , for discerning Truth from Errour ; and also of Grammer ; we meane the Exactnesse , and propriety 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 we iudge to be of necessary importance . And thus much concerning the iudgement 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 . IX . YOu have already * 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 , you have also heard your Cardinall making this Consequence , viz. by the same reason it must 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 e 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 find no example , within the Circumferences of the Vniversalities of Creatures , but only Man's soule , which is a Spirit : which point is to be discussed in the twelfth Section . In the Interim know you , that although Relations doe 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 then it selfe ; hee may iustly be suspected to be besides himselfe : all such like speeches being as Contradictory in themselves , ( and consequently Impossible ) as for a man to say , he is elder , and yonger than himselfe . You * 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 . Finally , this your Subtilty would have beene iudged a palpable absurdity by ancient Fathers ; among whom Theodoret taught this Philosophie , to hold true in Divinity ( to wit ) that whosoever hath properly one thing on the right hand of it , and another thing on the left , it is Circumscribed in place . Whereby 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 The sheepe shall stand on his right hand , and the goates on the left . Nor doe you your-selves teach , nor yet can you imagine his body to want either his right hand , or his left , as he is present in this Sacrament . One word more . The 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 yeeld to either of both , that it is both crucified and not crucified ; as you doe to Christ's bodie , teaching it to be at the same time Circumscribed in Heaven , when it is Vncircumscribed , as it is on many Altars vpon earth . 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 . X. VVEre 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 determined , that such Actions and Qualities as are reall in a Body , without any relation to place , may not be said to be multiplyed in respect of divers places , wherein the same Body is supposed to be : ( As for example ) the same Body to be hot in some Countrey , and cold in another at the same time ; wounded , and not wounded ; passible , and not passible . And the like may be said of Love , and Hatred , which are vitall Actions , proceeding naturally from the Subiect . So that the Body , which in one place is affected with love , cannot possibly but be so affected in what place soever . So your owne Disputers . But have they any reason for these points ? Yes they have , ( See the Margent ) 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 he . 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 he ) these repugnant affections belonging to one subiect , cannot by the omnipotency of God be together in the same , because they destroy one another . Aquinas , and other Schoolemen * denying that the same Body can be said to grieve , and not to grieve , both at once , in respect of divers places of being , propoundeth the like Reason ; Because Griefe being in the same man , as he is a man , cannot be said to be together with not Grieving in him ; lest we should make a man not to be himselfe . Lastly , your Cardinall h Alan denying that the same Body , in respect of divers places , can be said to be Mortall , and Immortall , Passible , and impassible expresseth this reason , which ( hee saith ) was used of old : Because these sayings are most repugnant to the understanding of man. Enough , enough . CHALLENGE . VVE have in these your Premises received as true Assertions , as sufficient Reasons , and as absolute Confessions as can be desired , which will be as so many Poniards sticking fast in the bowels of your Romish Cause , to give it a deadly wound . As first this : * you teach that Christ , as he is in this Sacrament , hath no naturall faculty , either of motion , of sense , of Appetite , or of Vnderstanding , 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 , 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 then in another . 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 lies ? of which kind this , of teaching a Body to be in divers places at once , is not the least . CHAP. V. A Confutation of the first Romish Reason ; obtruded for proofe of a Possibility of existence of a Body in divers places at once , taken from the nature either of a Voice , or Colour . SECT . I. MAster a Brerely thus : The difficulty may be better conceived , rather then directly proved , by an example of the same word : the which , being once uttered , is thereupon at one instant in the severall hearing of sundrie persons , and that not as a distinct noyse confusedly multiplyed in the ●…re , 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 before him . 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 . We say , the same Body ; but this your Example of Word , or Voice , which you Both call the same , is not individually the same in every 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 we see in throwing a stone into the water , it maketh at the first a Circle , and circle multiplyeth upon circle , till the last come to a large Circumference : Even so the * word , by voyce breaking the Ayre , doth make in the Aire Circle upon circle , till it come to the eares of the hearers ; every of the parts of the Circle being articulated through the multiplication of the first forme , the divers eares doc no more receive the same individuall voice , than they do● the same individuall Aire , whereby the voice is conueyed . 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 ●ares ; which is not individually the same , and serveth for nothing rather than to make the Disputer ridiculous . Thus was that Doctor answered , when he confessed of the voice of the Preacher in the Pulpit , which is received by multitudes of hearers , and of his other Example of a colour of a red Cow by multiplication of its formes seene of thousand mens eyes at once , that it is not Numerically the same . Take unto you a cleare Example and Apposite , when in a looking-glasse , broken into many peeces , 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 peece of the glasse is not individually the same : wherefore these kinds of Instances are but Mountebanke trickes , devised to delude men , that love darknesse better then light . It might seeme superstitious diligence to confute such so●tishnes with the serious iudgement of any grave Father ; otherwise c Gregory Nazianzen is at hand , ready to tell you , that there is as great a difference betweene Bodies , and Voices , and 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 manner apprehended , so that the same Eare is capable of many voices , and the same sight of many Visibles . A Confutation of their second , and third Reasons , taken from the Similitude of man's Soule , or Presence of God , devised to demonstrate a no - Contradiction of a Bodie 's Being in two places at once . SECT . II. TWo other d Instances you have , whereby to maintaine your supposed Bodily Presence in two places at once ; one is in man's Soule , the other in God himselfe . First , we 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 Bodie 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 Soule is utterly different , for it is in the Bodily members , not as a Body in diuers places , but as a forme in it's owne matter ; nor having Quantity and extension , ( the unseperable properties of a Body ) but by a formall perfection , As containing the Body , and not contained thereof , e 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 diuided from the Body , the Soule being indivisible ceaseth to be therein . So utterly dissonant is the Soules being in divers places . Nay and your Cardinall having * confessed already , that It is not possible by any divine power , that a spirit should be divisible after the manner of a Body ; doth hereby as fully confute 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 he 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 infinitenes to containe all places , and not to be contained of any . And therefore cannot this manner of presence , without irreligious impietie , be applyed to any creature ; which notwithstanding , f your Cardinall blusheth not to do in that manner , as was hitherto ( we thinke ) never imagined by any Divine before him , namely , a manner 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 only presence after the manner 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 Infinitenes , which being attributed to any thing , that is not God , doth equall the creature with the Creator . A Confutation of the former two Romish Instances in Man's Soule , and God himselfe , by Ancient Fathers , in their Doctrine concerning Angels , and Men's Spirits . SECT . III. ANcient Fathers ( we trow ) were profoundly learned both in Philosophicall , and in Theologicall Mysteries , who notwithstanding ( as your g 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 then Hyperphysicall Croche●s had entred into the minds of ancient Fathers , we should have heard you alleage , at least some one of them , if not for proofe , yet in pretext and colour of patronizing these your repugnant Paradoxes , concerning a Bodie taking the right hand , or left of it selfe , and the like , — Velut aegri somnia vanae finguntur Species . For your better satisfaction , we shall alleage some Testimonies , which may sufficiently declare their Iudgement of an Impossibilitie of a Spirit 's being in divers places at one time , whether we consider the Spirits of Angels , or of men ; yea or the humane Spirit or soule of Christ . Of Angels , Damascen ; h They are so circumscribed in the place where they worke , that they cannot possibly be in moe places at once . Athanasius , i As the Holy Ghost filleth all places , so Angels are contained in a certaine place . Accordingly Ambrose : k Herein doe Angels differ from the holy Ghost , which filleth all things , that the S●raphims doe move from place to place . Pope Gregory would be heard speake : l Angels are c●rcumscribed , 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 Obiection ; How doe the soules of Saints so often appeare 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 . He giueth his Reason , why he thinketh the other impossible , m Because it is proper ( saith hee ) 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 thinke ) would require no more . Tertull●an among his many divine Answers , to prove Christ to be God , hee urgeth the Arian Heretiques with this one , as not the least : n Because Christ is present in all places , where he is invocated upon , which is a power not incident unto man , but proper to the nature of God. So hee . How like you this ? And Augustine may not be thought to dissent , when in arguing hee tooke as granted , that the o Soule of Christ , when it departed this life , could not be in Heaven , and in hell at once . As for the Beeing of God in divers places at once , which was your Cardinal's instance , for proof of a Possibility of the Being of Christ's Body in many places , without Contradiction of making One not One , by dividing it from it selfe ; wee know not whether rather to censure it ●gregiously absurd , or extreamly impious ; seeing that the Being of God in divers places at once without Contradiction ariseth from the very nature of God's Infinitenes of Being in whatsoever place : which is ( as your owne Schoole might have taught him ) so , as p 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 bee the property of his Deity . Such then is the impietie of your arguing ; by labouring to defend the manner of the Being of a Bodie , by the manner of Being of a Soule or Spirit , denyed by q Nazianzene ; and manner of the Being of a Creature , by the manner of the Being of God the Creator , excedeth all Absurdities that can be named . The holy Fathers have something more to * say to you ; but first we are willing to heare what you can say for your selves . A Confutation of the Third Romish Pretence ; why they need not yeild to these Reasons , whereby their Doctrine is proved to be so grossely Vnreasonable . SECT . IV. MYsteries of Faith , ( saith your r Cardinall ) which excede man's understanding , are only to be apprehended by Faith. Such as are the Articles of the Trinity of Christ his Incarnation , of the Resurrection , of the Creation , and of Eternity it selfe ; and so ought this , concerning the Presence of Christ his Body , notwithstanding any Obiection from Reason . So you . Wee answere . Some of these former Mysteries we confesse to be such as excede 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 Godhead is common to each person : or to say in the Incarnation there is one Person , and two natures ; no more than to say , that in one man there is one person , and two 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 graine 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 Obiection , saying that s Eternity is the instant of Duration , it is an atheologicall Paradoxe : for 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 subiect to the determination of Sence , to pose us with spirituall Mysteries , which are Obiects onely of Faith , by reason of the Infinitenes of their properties ; and therefore may well exceede the reach of mans wit , and apprehension , without any preiudice 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 manner 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 Heretiques , 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 Impossibilities concerning Place , ( as the Impossibility that God should be contained in Place , as for one Body having Quantity to be incapable of a Place , and the like ) are all vtterly made voyd . For to what end were any of these , if your Pretences have in them any shaddow of Trueth ? CHAP. VI. The third Romish Contradiction , against the words of Christ [ MY BODY , ] is by making a Body Finite , to be a Body not finite . SECT . I. IF ( as you have said ) the Body of Christ is , or may be at one time in so many places , then may it be in mo● , and consequently every-where at one instant . This Consequence your ancient Schoole-men taught , and your Iesuite a Valentia doth seeme to avow , saying , What hindreth that a Body may be [ Vbique ] every where at once , not by it's naturall power , but by the omnipotencie of God ? So he . This we say is to make a finite infinite ; and your old Schoole-Doctors are hereunto witnesses , who have iudged it b 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 saith he ) that the Body of Christ may be in infinite places at once , is to ascribe an Immensity and infinitenes unto it ( namely , that ) which is proper unto God. So hee , 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 doubtles doe they ( whosoever they bee ) that thinke a finite Body may be made Infinite . CHALLENGE . YOu understand the Argument , viz. To believe that Christ his Body may be every where , is a flat 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 That the Angell is not in divers places at once , because an Angell 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 manner of Existence of the Holy Ghost . SECT . II. STill you maintaine the Reall and Corporall presence of Christ his Body in so many places , 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 we , is to make the Finite Body of Christ Infinite . For Aquinas ( as your e 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 Authours be silent , we heard some of themselves speake . f Fulgentius his reason is , Because the Spirit of God dwelleth wholly in all the faithfull separated in divers places . g Basil thus : The Angell , that was with Cornelius , was not at the same time with Philip , nor was he then in Heaven , when he was with Zachary at the Altar : But the Holy Ghost was together with the Prophet Daniel in Babylon , with Ieremy in the Dungeon , and with Ezekiel in Chobar . h 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 . i 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 ? k Didymus of Alexandria ( whom Hierome acknowledgeth as his Master , for the understanding of Scripture ) thus : The Holy Ghost ( seeing it is in many places at once ) may not be thought to be a Creature . Lastly upon the same ground Cyrill of Alexandria maketh the same Conclusion : l 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 ? So these holy Fathers , every one Gatholique , without exception . CHALLENGE . ASyllogisme 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 Body 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 a Finite thing to be infinite . Adde but hereunto the former * 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 needs tell you , that it was Impossible for the Fathers to have beleeved your Romish Article of a Corporall Presence in every Hoast consecrated at onetime , on divers Altars in your severall Churches . What shall we then further say concerning a Being of a Body in divers places at once ? Surely ( that which hath beene plentifully proved already ) that such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is egregiously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well in Divine , as in naturall Philosophy , because ( as this whole Discourse sheweth ) they have verified that saying of Aristotle , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . CHAP. VII . 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 we with the Fathers , especially a Greg. 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 said that a little Hoast ( which boast you call Christ ) is equall with a great Hoast ; No , for the Fathers in the Councell of * Nice absolutely denyed this : nor yet is Christ wholly represented in the least part of the Hoast , as your Fathers of * 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 said maketh iust nothing for the Corporall , and materiall Presence of Christs Body , which we further impugne . That it is necessary the Body of Christ ( wheresoever ) consist of distinct members and proportions of a Bodie . SECT . II. THe Body of Christ ( as we professe ) had perfect Dimensions and Distinctions of parts , an head exposed to pricking with thornes , a face to buffers , 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 we confesse to be the Body of Christ , and which we celebrate in the use of this Sacrament , in Remembrance that he had a Body consisting of proportion of divers parts , distinct one from another . Two of your b Cardinals doe both answere 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 Bodie 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 , withall the parts thereof in the least indivisible point of the Hoast . SECT . III. THe Canons of that c 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 Iesuite ) The whole Body of Christ is in every albeit the least part of the Hoast . So he . But we demand ; how then shall the Body of Christ but want proportion of distinct parts , which you say are Vnseparably united to a Body ? You distinguish , that the e 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 illuminate 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 latter times . SECT . IV. ALbertus , Scotus , Aegidius are recounted amongst your learned , and Ancient Schoolemen , who ( as your a Iesuite testifieth ) Thought it impossible , that a Body that hath extension of parts , should be contained in an indivisible point . The same opinion is ascribed by your Iesuites ( as ancient ) unto b Durand , and c Occham . Now what greater iniury can there be , than , after that it was lawfull for a thousand , and foure hundreth yeares since the Ascension of Christ , for any Christian to professe ( with your ancient Schoole-men ) an Impossibility , that The Body of Christ is whole in everie the least part of the Hoast ; to impose upon men's consciences , as an Article of Faith , so fond and so palpable a figment . That which seemed to the above-named Durand , and Occham such an Opinion , whence ( as they thought ) it must needes follow , that the Eyes must be where the Nose is , the hand confounded with the legges : which ( as your Cardinall Alan truly said ) were to make of the Body of Christ a confused Chaos , and altogether * monstrous . 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 * Cardinall layeth 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 , hee taketh from Magnitude , which is an Extension of parts into their proportionable length , bredth , and depth : this ( saith he ) is inseparably united to Christ his Body in its owne intrinsecall disposition , in it selfe ; but not so ( saith he ) in regard of the place . CHALLENGE . THis your owne Reason may wee iustly retort upon your selves , proving , that if the naturall disposition of the Bodie 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 Hucusque ; Heere and There , thus farre , and so farre , being Relatives of space , and place , doe 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 of 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 Bodie , ( as you confesse it to be ) now in Heaven , possessing a Reall place in the said 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 said naturall magnitude , or quantity of the said Body of Christ is ( according to your owne generall Doctrine ) in this Sacrament . Therefore must it have the same Commensuration of Space . 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 , doe attribute all these to Quantities , and Qualities , and Accidents , without any other subiect at all . So then by the Romish Faith we shall be constrained to beleeve , in effect , that the Cup is filled with Mathematicall lines , the Mouse eating the Hoast is fed with colours , and formes : that it is Coldnesse that freezeth , 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 Saint Augustine ( who is so devout in his fervent Meditations upon this holy mystery ) would not have oppugned it , as he did , when unto that Question of Volusianus ( whether the Body of Christ before his birth did fill the Body of the blessed Virgin ) he answered , d 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 obiected the Example of Man's Soule , which is said to be whole in every member and part of the Body : S. Augustine ( as if hee had fore-seene your mystery of Errour ) pre-occupateth , saying , a The nature of a Soule is farre different from the nature of a Body . And againe the same holy Father , seeking to finde 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 Priviledge , for speaking of Quantity and Magnitude , In all such Quantity , or magnitude ( saith hee ) there is lesse in the part , then 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 haue 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 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 , we may aske , where are your Disputers now ? Nay yet furthermore , passing from grosser Bodies , hee saith as much of Ayre , yea , and of the most subtil of subtils , the light of the Sunne ; one part whereof ( saith hee ) commeth 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 , he would never haue condemned the Eutychian Heretique for beleeving c The Body of Christ to have beene brought into such a subtilty , that is cannot be felt . But a greater subtilty there cannot be , than for a divisible Body to be enclosed in every the least indivisible point . Shew vs this Doctrine taught by any Catholike Doctor in the Church within the compasse of the twelve hundred years after Christ , and then shall we conceive better of your Cause . And lest you may talke ( as you vse ) of one body penetrating another , wee say unto you , as Damascen said vnto his Reader , that d This is impossible , but that either the one or the other must be divided asunder . That the Romish Obiections , against our former Tenet , are feeble and vaine . SECT . VII . IT is ordinarily in the mouthes of every one of you to obiect the Miraculous entrance of Christ into the house , the dores being shut ; his comming out of the grave , when it was covered with a stone ; 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 we , with many holy * Fathers , doe 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 iust proportion of Christs body . Which penetration of Dimensions seemed to your e Durand as incredible , as unto us . The principall Testimony which is insisted upon , concerning the passing of Christ through the Doores , is the saying of Chrysostome , viz. f Christ's Body was thinne , or small , changed from [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ] that is , it 's Thicknes , impalpable unto mortall mans hand , but onely by divine permission and dispensation . So hee . And this is alleadged for proofe of a Possibility of his now Corporall Presence in the Sacrament , voyd of Palpabilitie : never considering the Ordinary and confessed Hyperbole's , wherewith Chrysostome embellisheth his Sermons ; insomuch that we may oppose Chrysostome against Chrysostome , even in the point in question : who else-where speaking of this Sacrament , saith that Christ herein * Giveth his Body both to be felt and seene ; whereas every Priests hands and eyes can testifie the Contrary . 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 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 answere , the divine power constrained the Stone and Doores to yeeld a passage , the Thicknes of his Body continuing the same . We have Ierome for the first part teaching . h The Creature ( saith hee ) yeelded to the Creatour : and ancient i Iustine , for the second , saying that The passage of Christ through the Doores was , by his Divine power , above nature , in his vnaltred Body ; which Body consisteth of thick parts . Hee proceedeth , shewing how ; even as was his walking upon the Water , by 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 . 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 said 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 Heretiques , who ( as your k 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 Eunomians , and were therefore condemned by Pope Gregory surnamed the Great . Some more difficulty you suppose to be in the manner of Christ his Birth , whereunto when we answer , that Christ in his Birth opened the wombe of his Mother , although without violation of her sacred vessell , wee are therefore presently branded by your m Disputers with the blacke marke of the Heresie of those wicked Spirits , who taught the Corruption of her Virginitie . Which obiection nothing but personall malice could make , or Impudency defend , as the Obiecters 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 ; did teach that n Christ alone did properly open the wombe of a woman , who onely found it shut ▪ He o reckoneth for this opinion these holy Fathers , Origen , Tertullian , Ambrose , Gregory Nyssen , Epiphanius , Hierome , Theophylact , Eusebius . So hee . A faire company of fellow Heretiques with Protestants , wee trowe : to whom the same Iesuite ioyneth 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 Integritie of that sanctified wombe of the Blessed Virgin , ( to witt ) 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 preserued from all hurtfull violence , either from within or from without ; which could not be without a Miracle . Furthermore hearken to the answere of some other Doctors of your Church , and you shall finde 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 Iesuite telleth you of some Doctors in your Church ( whom hee himselfe approveth ) who taught that The Fathers , who said that Christ did open the Matrix of his Mother , speake it in the heat of Dispute against the Hereticall Marcionites , who denyed that Christ had any true Body ; because that els the said Fathers should seeme to make Christ his Body to be no better than an Incorporeall , and onely imaginary thing . So they . Which proveth , that in the iudgement of those Ancient Fathers , all your defence , in this Case , is at least Phantasticall . Let Isiodore Pelusiota his suffrage be added to the rest , who in an Epistle calmly , and as it were in a coole blood , teacheth that b Christ is the only he , who by his birth opened his Mothers wombe , and left it shut & sealed up againe . And maketh bold to tearme them vnlearned , that thinke the contrary : who living above a thousand yeares agoe , is therefore so much the more competent a witnes of the Catholike truth . As for the entrance of the * Camell , ( which is said of Christ ) to passe through the eye of a needle : the subtilty of your Obiection 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 he hath on him a great Bunch or grossnes of confidence in his riches , and wordly 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 by his omnipotent power of Grace to abate the swelling Bunch of worldly Confidence in the heart of the Rich-man , that hee , being truely mortified , may repose his whole trust in God himselfe , and at length enter into the Kingdome of Heaven . CHALLENGE . SHall not then the novelty of your Romish Article , which was not so much as beleeved of Romish Doctors of this last Age of Christianity ? Shall not your Contradiction to your owne Romish Principle ? Shall not the expresse Testimony of S. Augustine , who as he was universally acknowledged to be a Catholike Father ; so was he 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 bath with damnable heresies , perswade you of the falsity of this your Romish Faith ? CHAP. VIII . 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 need to impose any absurd Doctrine upon your Church ; the Absurdities which we have already heard professed therein , under the testifications of your own Disputers , having beene so marvailously and palpably absurd , as hath beene shewen . 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 glorifyed , to be destitute of naturall and voluntary motion of Sence , and of Vnderstanding . SECT . II. CAtholique Faith never conceived otherwise of the humane nature of Christ , after the Resurrection , but that he was able naturally of himselfe , as hee was man , to performe the perfect Acts , which other men can , who are of right constitution of Body , and of sound understanding ; such as are the functions of Iudgement , and reason , and of appetite , sence , & motion , according to the liberty of his own will. This Doctrine was above 1000. yeers Catholike . But your now Romane faith is to beleeve , as followeth in the conclusions set down by your Iesuite Suarez , a without ( as he saith ) the contradiction of any Divine in your Church . First , that Christ , as he is in this Sacrament , hath no power naturally of himselfe to move himselfe . And this your owne daily experience hath brought you vnto ; whilst beleeuing Christs Corporall presence in the Hoast , you shut him vp in a Boxe , where you still find the same lying as destitute of power of motion , as any other unconsecrated Bread ; which being put together with it lyeth so long , untill they both equally waxe mouldy , putrifye , and ingender wormes . Secondly , that Christ in himselfe , as being in this Sacrament , hath no naturall faculty of sence , nor ability ( without a miracle ) to heare or see , &c. Thirdly , That he is voyd of all sensible appetite . Lastly , that ( without some miraculous power ) he cannot possibly apprehend in his vnderstanding any thing present , nor yet remember any notions past . So he . That this is a new , brutish , and barbarous Doctrine , destitute of all ancient Patronage either of written or of unwritten Tradition . SECT . III. HAve you any Text , yea or yet pretext either of Scripture , or humane Tradition for countenancing this so prodigious and monstrous a conception ? Certainly Scripture telleth us , that Christ his Body by Resurrection is perfected in sense , and Agility ; and his soule in Iudgement , and Capacity . Nor can you shew any Father in the Church of Christ within the Circumference of 1400. years after Christ , who held this your doctrine so much as in a Dreame ▪ or who hath not esteemed the Body of Christ to be of the most absolute perfection : we say no one Father , or Teacher of the Evangelicall Truth once fancied this unchristian , and false faith . You must therefore derive this from him , whom Christ calleth the Father of lies . VVe shall give you good reason for this our Declamation . That this Romish Doctrine is blasphemously Derogatory from the Maiesticall Body of Christ . SECT . IV. VVHat is this , which we have heard ? Christ his humanity ▪ after his Resurrection , not to have so much Capacity , as a Child ? which is ( as he is here ) to vnderstand or imagine any thing done ? not thè power of a Moale , or Mouse ; which is to heare , or see ? not the faculty of a little Aut , so as to move it selfe ? as if this were not an Antichristian blasphemy against that all-Maiesticall Body , & humane nature of Christ : which being once * sowen in infirmity , is , ( as the Scripture saith ) since risen in power . Doe you heare ? In power , saith the spirit of God , shewing that Infirmity is changed into Potencie , in the Body of every Christian : and you have turned power into infirmitie , even in Christ himselfe , whom you have now transformed into an * Idoll having eyes , and seeth not , eares , and heareth not , feete , and walketh not , heart , and imagineth not : and yet this you professe to adore , as the person of the Sonne of God. O the strength of Satanicall Delusion ! That this Romish Doctrine contradicteth your owne Principle . SECT . V. REmember your * former generall Principle , which wee acknowledged to be sound and true , viz. All such Actions , and Qualities , which are reall in any Body without any relation to place , cannot be said to be multiplied in respect of divers places , wherein a Body is supposed to be . As for Example : The Body of Christ cannot be cold in one Altar , and hot in another , wounded , and whole , in ioy , and griefe , dead , and alive at the same time . The reason . These are impossible ( say you ) because of Contradiction : for , that the same thing should be capable of such contrarieties , it is repugnant to the understanding of man. So you ; which is an infallible Truth , when the Modus , or Manner of a thing is compared to it selfe , and not to any thing else : it is necessary that at one and the same time the Modus be onely one , the same Iesuite cannot be sicke in Iapan , and sound and in health at Rome , in the same instant . CHALLENGE . NOw say ( we beseech you ) is there not the like Contradiction to make the same Christ at the same time , as hee is in Heaven , intelligent , and sensitive ; and as on earth ignorant , and sensl●sse ? Or powerfull to move of himselfe , on the throne of Maiestie ; and absolutely Impotent , as hee is on the Altar ? because these Attributes , of Christ being Intelligent , and potent equally have no Relation to place . Notwithstanding all which you shame not to professe a senslesse , ignorant , and feeble Christ . O come out of Babylon , and be no more be witched by such her Sorceries ! CHAP. IX . The sixt kind of Romish Contradiction against these words of Christ [ MY BODY ] as it is now most Glorious , by making it most Inglorious . SECT . I. BEfore we proceed in discovering the ouglinesse of the Romish Doctrine in this point , wee are willing to heare your a Master Brerely his preface in your defence : The carnall man ( saith hee ) is not for all this satisfied , but standeth still offended at sundry pretended absurd , and undecent indignities : Calvin saying , That he reiected them as unworthy of the Maiestie of Christ , And Doctor Willet saith : That they are unseemely , and against the dignity of the glorious and impassible Body of Christ . So he , at once relating , and reiecting their opinions . That the Indignities , whereunto the Body of Christ is made subiect , by the Romish Doctrine , are most uile , and derogatory to the Maiestie of Christ . SECT . II. ALl Christian Creeds tell us , that Christ our Saviour sitteth at the right hand of God , that is , in perfection of glory . But your Iesuite Suarez delivereth it in the generall Doctrine of the Romish Divines ; d That the Body of Christ remaineth so long under the formes of Bread and wine , wheresoever , untill they be corrupted . And this he calleth a Generall Principle in your Romish profession . Insomuch , that the Body of Christ is moved , wheresoever the formes of Bread are moved , be it into the dirt , or into the Dunghill . Secondly , that according to your e Romish Decrees , and publique Missals , the same Body of Christ is vomited up by the Communicant ; yea , and you have f Cases about the vomiting of it , whether vpon weaknes of g S●omacke , or of h Drunkennes . Next that it is devoured of Mice , and blowne away with wind , for wee read of your Church Cases also for these in your * Missals . VVee thirdly demand whether you thinke it possible for meate , that is undigested by reason of mans infirmity , to descend raw through the Body into the Draught ( which in other meates is knowne sometime to be certaine : ) you falling into this speculation , tell us concerning the Egestion , that it is held i Probable that the Body of Christ doth not passe with the formes into the Draught in that Case . So you : affirming this to be but onely Probable , whereas whosoever shall teach that the Body of Christ is not severed from the forme of Bread , so long as it is uncorrupt ( which is your k generall Tenet ) they must hold that the same Body in the like case of mans bodily infirmity doth passe by Egestion in like sort into the seege . For if ( as you do also say ) the same Body of Christ hath beene once hidden in a * Dunghill , why may you not as wickedly beleeve , that it may passe into the Draught ? That the Romish foresaid Indignities are contrary to holy Scriptures , and iudgement of Ancient Fathers . SECT . III. HOly Writ teacheth us , that there is as great difference betweene the humiliation of Christ , when he was on earth , and his now Exaltation in glory , in Heauen , as there is betweene Shame , and Glory , it being now * [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] A Body of Glory . Now for you to believe and professe the personall burning , devouring , regorging , yea and the hiding of that glorious Body of Christ in a dung hill , and the like , are such execrable speeches , as that we stand astonished with horrour to heare them , thinking that we 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 Iudgement therein : from whose diuerse and copious Volumes neither doe you alleage , nor we reade any one word of mans spewing up , or Mice eating , or so much as the winde blowing away the Body of Christ ; much lesse of the other basenesse spoken of . But contrariwise l Origen and * 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 abhominable . That the Romish Answeres , for defence of this their vile and beastly Opinion , are but false and fond . SECT . IV. IT was said of Philosophers of old that nothing was so absurd , but some one or other of them would take in hand to defend it : the like may be said of our Romish Opposites , whereof wee have given you divers Instances throughout this whole Treatise , as in the most particulars , so for the point now in Question . And although many of your Disputers have for modesties sake passed by it , yet have two among you ( as it were putting on Vizards on their faces ) come in with two fanaticall m Answeres . Both which are taken from the condition of Christ his humane Body , whilest he was in the world : n 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 we 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 he . Ioyne with this the Determination of your o Schoole ; That the substance of Christ his Body remaineth still , although the Hoast be eaten with Dogs . But Master Brerely more cunningly , that he might not 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 Heretiques conceived Indignities against some mysteries of Christian Religion , as against Christ his Incarnation , and his Crucifying . So he . Both which Answeres 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 reioyne , 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 obiects of Indignity , notwithstanding the Spirit of God , hath blazed them to the world to have beene the Indignities of all Indignities , Thus : * Who being in the forme of God , and thinking it no robbery to be equall with 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 * 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 Answerers 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 Infidelitie , 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 * Mortality , and Immortality , Shame and Glory , Misery and Blessednes , Earth and Heaven ; that being his state of humiliation , and this contrariwise of his exaltation , as all Christians know , and professe . And although the Body of Christ now in eternall Maiesty be not obnoxious to Corporall iniuries , yet may Morall and Spirituall abasements be offered unto Christ , as well in the Opinion , as in the Practice of men . Of the opinion wee have an Example in the Capernaites concerning Christ , whensoever he should give his flesh to be eaten carnally : for the Practice you may set 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 iniury against Christ , by murthering his Saints on earth , complained off by his voice from Heaven ; * Saul , Saul , why persecutest thou me ? Your Cardinall , in answere to the Obiection 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 hee 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 Maiestie . This your Aquinas well saw , when in regard of Indignity he iudged it a An hainous wickednesse 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 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 doe your Iesuites , in a point of Opinion , deny that Christ's Body is Transubstantiated into the flesh of the Communicant , because of the * Indignity against his Maiestie . Come we to the point of Practice . Let this be our lesson ; when there is Reverence in the use of a thing , then there may be Irreverence , and Indignity in the abuse thereof . But your Church hath provided that the Priests be shaven , and the Laicks abstaine from the Cup in a pretence of Reverence . The first , least some part of the Hoast ( which you beleeve to be the body of Christ ) should hang on the Priest's Beard ; the second , least any whit of Christs Blood in the Cup should be split . But how much more indignity must it needs be to be devoured of Mice , Wormes , and sometimes ( as your owne * stories have related ) kept close in a Dunghill ? One word more . If these seeme not sufficiently indigne , because there is not Laesio corporis ; Hurt of the Body ( this being your onely Evasion ) what will you say of your framing a Christ unto your selves , who as he is in this Sacrament , Is ( you say ) without power of motion of sense , and of understanding ? Why , my Masters , can there be Lamenesse , Blindnesse , Deafenesse , and Impotencie it selfe , without Hurt of the same partie so maymed ? &c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill . 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 , we are to consult with the Fathers of the Councell of Nice , especially seeing that aswell Romanists as Protestants will be knowne to appeale to that Councell . CHAP. X. Of the Canon of the Councell of Nice , obiected for proofe of a Corporall Prescnce of Christ in the Eucharist . SECT . I. THis ( as it is delivered by your a Cardinall , taken out , as he saith , of the Vatican Library ) standeth thus : Let us not here in this divine Table be in humblenesse intent unto the Bread , and Cup which is set before us , 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 sinnes 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 doe we 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 Zanchy , and your c Bellarmine ) in great numbers ( among whom are Luther and Calvin ) with ioynt 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 . The state of the Difference , concerning this Canon . SECT . III. THis ( as is propounded by your Cardinall ) standeth thus . d All ( saith he ) by the Lambe understand Christ as he is distinguished from the Symbols and Signes upon the Altar . Next . But the Protestants thinke ( saith he ) that the Councell 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 we all say ( saith he ) that the Councell would have us to attend unto the holy Table ( meaning the Altar below ) yet so , that we see in it not so much the outward Symbols , and 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 , betweene 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 Obiections . That the Nicene Councell is marvellously preiudiciall to your Romish Defence : proved by five Observations ; Three here . 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 Councell 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 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 beene ( 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 Councell of Trent would not have endured , especially seeing that we find that your f 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 Canon expresly noteth and distinguisheth two Tables , in respect of place ; the one , as Here ; being as much as to say , This Table : and the other opposed hereunto is instiled , That Table . And , of this Table Here , the Councell 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 onely , but they also distinguish them in respect of their different Obiects . The Obiect of the First Table , Here , they name Bread , and the Cup ; the obiects of sense : And the other obiect , opposed to this , is that on the other Table , expressed to be the Lambe of God , the obiect of our mindes . Thirdly , the Admonition or Caution , which the Councell giveth concerning the Bread , is , not to be too intent to it : but touching the Lambe of Christ , they command us to lift up our mindes aloft ; for so the word h [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] doth signifie , not to be used ( we thinke ) for an inward looking into the sublimity of the mystery of the matter before us , as your Cardinall fancieth : but for looking vp aloft unto the Lambe of God in Heaven , according to the Catholike fence of those words , * SVRSVM CORDA ! The next two proofes out of the same Canon of Nice , to manifest our Protestant profession touching the question in hand . 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 eate in this Sacrament , a power of sanctifying the Body by it's Bodily touch . But much more will the next proofe vndermine your defence . To confirme their Reason , why the Sacrament was not ordained for the satisfying of the naturall man , they adde saying ; For this cause we receive not much , but little : which one Clause most evidently proveth it to be spoken of Bread and Wine ; and not of the Body , and Blood of Christ . As your generall Romane Catechisme ( if you have not already learned it ) will now teach you to beleeve , saying that i Christ is not great or small in this Sacrament . And indeed none ever said of the Eucharist , that he eat a little of Christ's 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 truly satisfie the naturall man , you your selves will testifie in your Booke-Cases and Missals , * 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 naturall 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 Iudgement of Antiquity , seeing you were never able hitherto iustly to produce one Father for proofe of the Existence of Accidents without their Subiects : 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 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 * acknowledged in this Sacrament , after Consecration , the substance of Bread. Wherefore the Reasoning of the Councell , touching the Eucharist , was like as if one should say of Baptisme ; We 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 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 Councell held at Toledo in Spaine , Anno 693. who shew this Reason , why they l Take little portions of the Hoast ( namely , say they ) least otherwise the belly of him that taketh this Sacrament may be stuffed , and over-charged ; and least 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 superfluitie thereof goe into the Draught : whereas , if Lesse , it would serve as well , or better for a Sacramentall use , to the replenishing of our soules in the spiritually receiving of the Body of Christ . But you are not so farre bereft of your 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 * Accidents . For mere Accidents have not the property of Substance , through the Muchnesse thereof , either to satiate the naturall appetite , in feeding , or to over-charge the Belly by weight , in pressing 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 confuration of your Romane Faith. Therefore this one Canon of Nice being thus undoubtedly gained , concerning the 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 Christ's Bodie ; Thirdly , no Corporall Coniunction 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 avant . Your Obiections , from the former Canon , answered . SECT . V. FIrst you m Obiect , 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 sacrificed by the hands of the Priest ; which cannot be done , as hee is in Heaven . The words of the Canon , truly resolved , doe cashiere this Obiection , as thus : The Lambe of God set at that Table ( namely in Heaven ) is sacrificed by the hands of the Priest Here , to wit , on the Table below ( representatively ) as hereafter the Catholique Fathers themselves will shew . And these two may easily consist , without any necessity of the Priest reaching his hands as farre as the highest Heavens ; as your Cardinall pleasantly obiecteth . Thirdly , you alleage ; 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 * hath beene both proved , and confessed ) a Reall , and true participation of Christ's Body and Blood spiritually , without any Corporall Coniunction . But it is added ( saith he ) that These ( namely , the Body and Blood of Christ ) are Symbols of our Resurrection ; which is by reason that our Bodies are ioyned with the Body of Christ : otherwise if our Coniunction 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 former . For the word , HAEC , These , ( which are called Symbols of our Resurrection ) may be referred either to the Body and Blood of Christ , immediatly spoken of , and placed on the Table in Heaven ( which we Commemorate also in the Celebration of this Sacrament ) and in that respect may be called Symbols of the Resurrection of our Bodies : because , * 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 manner of the Greekes ) to wit , Bread and Cup on the first Table , because ( as immediately followeth ) they are these whereof not much , but little is taken ; as you have heard . Which other * Fathers will shew to be indeed Symbols of our Resurrection , without any Consequence of Christ's Bodily Coniunction with our Bodies , more than there is by the Sacrament of Baptisme , which they call the Earnest of our Resurrection ; as doth also your Iesuite m Coster call it The Pledge of our Resurrection . ( But this our Coniunction with Christ is the subiect matter of the Fift Booke . ) Lastly , how the Eucharist was called of the Fathers a Sacrifice , is plentifully resolved in * the Sixt Booke . THE FIFTH BOOKE , Treating of the third Romish Doctrinall Consequence , arising from your depraved Sence of the Words of Christs Institution [ THIS IS MY BODY : ] concerning the manner of the present Vnion of his 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 ; and the Inward , which is , Spirituall ; this Sacrament , accordingly , consisteth of two parts , Earthly and Heavenly : as Irenaeus spake of the bodily Elements of Bread and Wine , as the visible Signes and Obiects 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 man's body , in his Taking , Eating , digesting , till at length it be transubstantiated into him , by being substantially incorporated in his flesh . The other , which is the Spirituall , and Soules food , is the Body and Blood of the Lord ( therefore called Spirituall , because it is the Obiect of Faith ) by an Vnion wrought by God's Spirit , and man's 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 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 we first manifest our Protestant Defence of Vnion to be an Orthodoxe truth . Secondly , to impugne your Romish Vnion , as Capernaiticall ( that is ) Hereticall . And thirdly , to determine the Point , by comparing them both together . Our Orthodoxe Truth will be found in the Preparations following . That Protestants prosesse not only a Figurative and Sacramentall Participation and Communion with Christ's Body ; but also a spiritually - Reall . SECT . II. ALl the Bookes of the Adversaries to Protestants are most especially vehement , violent , and virulent in traducing them in the name of Sacramentaries , as though we professed no other manner of feeding and Vnion with Christ's body than only Sacramentall , and Figurative . For Confutation of which Calumny it will be most requisite to oppose the Apologie of a Him , who hath beene most opposed and traduced by your Disputers in this Cause : to shew , first , what he held not ; and then what he held . If you shall aske Calvin what he liked not , he will answere you , i I doe abhorre your grosse Doctrine of Corporall Presence . And ii I have an hundred times disclaimed the receiuing only of a Figure , in this Sacrament . What then did hee hold ? iii Our Catechisme teacheth ( saith hee ) not only a signification of the Benefits of Christ to be had herein , but also a participation of the substance of Christ's flesh in our soules . And with Swinckfeldius , maintayning only a Figurative perception , we have nothing to doe . If you further demand what is the Feeding , whereby we are united to Christ's body , in this Sacrament ? hee tels you that it is ( IV. ) Not carnall , but Spirituall , and Reall ; and so Reall , that the soule is as truly 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 manner , hee acknowledgeth it to be v above Reason . If further you desire to understand , whether he were not Singular in this opinion , he hath avouched the iudgement of other Protestants , professing not to dissent one Syllable from the vi Augustane Confession , as agreeing with him in iudgement herein . Accordingly our Church of England ( in the 28. Article ) saith that To such as worthily , and with faith receive this Sacrament , The Bread which we breake is a partaking of the Body of Christ , which Body is given , taken , and eaten in the Supper only after a spirituall and heavenly manner , the meane whereby is Faith. That the Body of Christ , by this Sacrament , was ordained only for food to the Christian man's Soule . SECT . III. VVHat need wee seeke into the Testimonies of ancient Fathers , which are many , in this point of Dispute , having before us the Iudgement of your b Fathers of the Councell of Trent , and of your c 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 Decree . That the Spirituall feeding and Vnion with Christs Body is more excellent and Reall than the Corporall Coniunction 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 therefore called , as of ancient e Fathers , so even by your Fathers of f Trent , Supersubstantiall Bread ; it must necessarily follow , that as it is named by Christ * 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 Symbols ) 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 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 manner of Eating . And this ( you say ) is To receive Christ his Body truly ; albeit this be to receive him only by faith and desire . So you . Whence you perceive our Inference , viz. If our 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 Seale of this our Christian Faith. CHAP. II. That only the Godly faithfull Communicants are Partakers of the Bodie and Blood of Christ ; and thereby united to Christ , in the iudgement 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 only after a spirituall manner , even by faith : wherein the wicked , and such as are void of faith , eate it not ; although they doe 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 Brereley endevoured to assume some Protestants to be on your side , whom he hath alleaged with like faithfulnesse , as he hath cited Master Calvin : then whom he 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 he deny that they have in their bodies any Corporall coniunction or Vnion with Christ , because the Vnion , which we have ( i saith he ) is Only spirituall ; only with the soule ; onely with the heart ; onely by faith : and although it be offered to the wicked , to be really received , yet doe they not receive it , because they are Carnall . Their onely Receiving therefore is but Sacramentall . So Mr. Calvin . It had beene good that your Priest had suspected his Iudgement , and ( as well in this Case , as in others ) by doubting his owne eye-sight had borrowed your k 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 said that The wicked eate the Body of Christ : yet , explaining himselfe , he added these two words [ In Sacramento , that is , Sacramentally ; ] which in Calvins stile is alwayes taken for Symbolically only . As for the consent of Protestants herein , we put it to your great Cardinall and Champion , their greatest Adversary , to expresse . l He ioyneth Lutherans to the Calvinists in one consent , for denying the Orall and Corporall Eating thereof ; and for believing the Eating of it to be Only by Faith. Yet left any may say , that in receiving the same Sacrament he doth not receive the thing signified thereby ; you may haue a Similitude to illustrate your iudgments , as thus : The same outward word , concerning Iustification by Christ , commeth to the eares of both Vnbeleevers and Beleevers . But the Beleevers only are capable of Iustification . That only the Godly-faithfull are Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ , and thereby Vnited unto him ; in the iudgement of Ancient Fathers . SECT . II. CHrist , speaking of that which is the most Reall Eating , saith Ioh. 6. [ He that eateth me remaineth in me , and shall live for ever . ] Vpon which Text Saint Hierome concludeth ; m The men that live in pleasure neither eate the flesh of Christ , nor drinke his Blood. Next , Origen inferreth that n No wicked man can eat Christ his flesh . And Saint Augustine most peremptorily ; o Without doubt ( saith he ) they doe not spiritually eate the flesh of Christ , nor drinke his blood , although that they doe visibly and carnally presse the Sacrament thereof with their teeth , and notwithstanding eate their condemnation . So he , thereby distinguishing the inward soules Eating Spirituall from the outward and Sacramentall Eating ; as he doth man's Spirit from his Teeth . In which respect he as verily denied that Indas ate his Lord the bread , as hee affirmed him to have eaten The bread of the Lord. Therefore the Bread Sacramentall was not the Bread the Lord. p Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria teacheth , that whosoever doth truly receive the body of Christ , Is in Christ , and Christ in him ; both so ioyned , one with the other , as waxe melted with waxe is united together . All these so evident Testimonies of so ancient Fathers doe inferre this Conclusio● against you , that none doe really eate the Body of Christ , who receive him but only Sacramentally . And * afterwards other Fathers will be found to ioyne their Consent hereunto : where they teach that none eate his flesh , with whom Christ hath not a perpetuall vnion . Now , for you to answere , that their meaning is not that the ungodly eate it not really , but that they eate it unworthily , and therefore unprofitably for their salvation ; is but recoyling and giving backe , when you want a shield for your defence . For the Testimonies alleaged , which deny that the faithlesse and godlesse men Eate Christ's Body , speake directly of the Act of spirituall Eating , and not only of the Effect , as you fancie ; Peruse you their Testimonies , and be you our Iudges . That by Spirituall Eating your Romish Corporall Vnion ( through Sacramentall Eating ) is excluded . SECT . III. SAcramentall Eating and Vnion professed by your Church is ( as you may remember ) said to be Corporall , by Christ's bodily Touch of the body of the Receiver : but seeing the godly and faithfull man only can be partaker of the body and blood of Christ , and be really united unto it ( as the Fathers have declared ) what could these holy Fathers have thought of your Barbarous or rather Brutish faith , that teacheth such a Corporall Vnion , by a bodily Touch and Eating , whereby ( according to your owne Doctrine ) Rats , Wormes , and Dogges , and whatsoever vile beast may be as reall partakers of the bodie of Christ , as Peter , or Iohn , or whosoever the essentiall member of Christ ? Wherefore you must suffer us to reason aswell against your Corporall Coniunction , by bodily Touch , as a Many of your Divines have done against bodily Vnion , by coniunction and commixture : but why ? even Because the Sacrament was not ordained for a bodily , but for a spirituall Coniunction . So they . So that wee need say no more , but ( fore-seeing what you will obiect ) we adde the Propositions following . CHAP. III. That wicked Communicants , albeit they eate not bodily Christ's Bodie , yet are they Guilty of the Lords Bodie , for not receiving it spiritually ( namely ) thorow their Contempt , for not receiving the Blessing offered thereby . SECT . I. THe Apostle , 1. Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever ( saith hee ) Eateth this Bread , and Drinketh this Cup unworthily , he shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord And ( Vers . 29. ) eateth and drinketh Damnation to himselfe , not discerning the Lord's Bodie . Your Rhemish Professors ( men not the least zealous for your Romish Cause ) obiecting this against the Protestants , call upon you saying first , b Hereupon 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 Christ's Bodie and Blood , but here , where the unworthy Receiver ( as Saint c Chrysostome saith ) doth villany to Christ's 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 he , for not discerning the Lord's Body , that is , because hee putteth no difference betweene this high meate and others . So your Rhemists . Your Cardinall also , as though he had found herein something for his purpose , d fastneth upon the sentence of Cyprian , who accounted them , that after their deniall of Christ presented themselves to this Communion , without repentance , to offer more iniurie to Christ , by their polluted handes and mouthes , than they did in denying Christ : and besides he recordeth Examples of God's 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 guiltie 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 , therefore the iniury is to be iudged more personall . The last , that the Examples of God's vindicative Iudgements , for Contempt hereof , have beene more extraordinary : which may seeme to be a Confirmation of both the former . Before we handle these points in order , take our next Position for a Directory to that , which shall be answered in the VI. Section . That some Fathers understood the Apostles words 1. Cor. 10. spiritually , ( namely ) as signifying the Eating of Christ's Flesh , and drinking his Blood ; both in the Old Testament and in the Newe . SECT . II. VPon those words of the Apostle , 1. Cor. 10. v. 4. [ They ate of the same spirituall meate , &c. ] The Iewes received the same spirituall meate , e saith S. Augustine . Yea ( saith your f 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 we eat : so plainly , that divers of your own side doe so directly and truely acknowledge it , that your Iesuite g Maldonate , not able to gain-say this Trueth , pleaseth himselfe notwithstanding in fancying that If August . were alive in this Age , he would think otherwise , especially perceiving Hereticall Calvinists , ( and h Calvin himselfe ) to be of his opinion . So hee . Was it not great pitty that Augustine was not brought up in the Schoole of the Iesuites ! 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 Adversarie than was Augustine : whom Maldonate here noteth to have beene the Greatest Enemie to all Heretickes : whom i Bertram followed in the same Exposition : and , by your leave , so did k your Aquinas also ; The same ( saith he ) which wee eate . Thus much by the way . Wee goe on to our Answeres . That the wicked Receivers are called Guiltie of Christ's Bodie not for Eating of his Body unworthily , but for unworthily Eating the Sacrament thereof . SECT . III. THe Distinction used by St. Augustine hath bene 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 l 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 receiue 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 iudgement of Guiltines upon them . All which both the Evidence of Scripture , and consent of Antiquity doe notably confirme . For the Text obiected doth clearely confute your Romish Consequence , because S. Paul's 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 eateth the Bread , and drinketh the Cupp of the Lord unworthily , &c. which we have proved throughout the 2. 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 above cited Ch. 1. § . 6. who denyed 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 ) have thereby sufficiently confuted your Consequence , which was , that because the wicked are Guilty of Christ's bodie , Ergò his Body is Corporally present in them . But we pursue you yet further . That a Guiltines of Contempt of Christ's Body and blood is to be acknowledged in all prophane Neglect , by whatsoever person capable of this Blessed Sacrament . SECT . IV. 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 manner of receiving ; the Guiltines by the same Contempt must needs be against the thing offered , whether it be Corporall or Spirituall ; and consequently against the Giver himselfe . In which respect Christ compareth the Refusers of the promises of the Gospell of Salvation vnto beastly Hogs , which trample under their feet pearles of highest price , even because they would not beleeve them ; Beleeving being our spirituall Receiving . From the same guilt of Contempt followeth the Obnoxiousnes to punishment , denounced by our Saviour ; To shake of the d●st of their fee●● , for a testimonie against them , in not receiving the Gospell of peace . Therefore is that saying of Hierome common to every Sacrament , * Contempt of a Sacrament ( saith he ) is the contempt of him whose Sacrament it is : As also that other of Rupertus , saying m The not receiving of the Eucharist ( if it be in contempt ) doth separate the Contemner from the societie of the members of Christ . Hence it was , that whereas n Chrysostome called man's Indevotion 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 referr you to your Divines of Collen , who in their Councell censured those , who Contemptuously refused to communicate of this Sacrament , to be but o onely in name Christians , worse ( say they ) than the Capernaites , offering contumely ( marke we pray you , against your Rhemists ) to the Body and Blood of Christ ; and are made thereby obnoxious to the terrible iudgement of God. A Conclusion , whereby is satisfied from your owne Doctors your owne maine Obiection , even in Terminis Terminantibus , as the Schoole speaketh , professing both a guiltines of Christ's Body in not receiuing it , and an obnoxiousnes thereupon unto Gods Iudgement . As for your obiected speech of St. * Cyprian , it is of easie 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 wilfulnes profaned the Sacrament of the Eucharist , instituted by Christ : this latter is the greater sinner before God , who iudgeth sinne not onely secundùm 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 periury . Have you not read what the Apostle hath written against such as Apostate from their Faith , and vow of Baptisme , saying , * They crucifie unto themselves the sonne of God ? which is much more than Cyprian spake of the Guiltie 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 A●g●stine doth parallell Baptisme , and the Eucharist together , saying , p As he that drinketh the Blood of the Lord unworthily drinketh his owne iudgement : so doth he who receiveth Baptisme unworthily . By these Premisses you will furthermore easily discerne , that your 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 iniurie in his body and blood , by the abuse of the Sacrament of the Eucharist ; therefore his Body and blood is carnally present therein . As if they would teach , by the like Inference , that because the Empresse q E●docia was ( as is confessed ) reproached by the Citizens of Anti●ch , in their despight wrought upon her image ; therefore was she personally present in the same Image . You seeme to be zealously bent against all unworthy usage of this holy Sacrament ; it is well , yet were it better that you saw your owne guiltines herein , to repentance . For inasmuch as every one is an unworthy Receiver ( in the iudgement of S. r Ambrose ) who doth celebrate it otherwise than was appointed by Christ himselfe : your Ten Transgressions of Christ his Institution of this Sacrament ( discovered in the first Booke ) convinceth you of a ten-fold Guiltines , of the Vnworthy Receiving of this Mistery . Your last obiection of Guiltines is taken from the Executions of Gods punishments . Wee therefore reioyne . That the Examples of Gods vindicative Iustice have appeared against the Contemners of many holy things , without respect to the Corporall Presence of Christ therein . SECT . V. COme wee to the open iudgements and punishments of God , upon the Contemners of this Sacrament , the visible Testimonies of his Iustice , and Arguments of the pretiousnesse and holinesse of this mystery . These we 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 ) he pointeth this out as their sinne , saying , * [ Ob hanc causam ] For this cause are many sicke among you , and many sleepe , &c. Yet was not this for not Discerning the body of Christ to be corporally in the Eucharist ( as your Disputers pretend : ) but ( to use Saint Hierome's words ) s They were guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ , because they despised the Sacrament of so great a mystery ; ( namely ) by their prophane behaviour at their receiving thereof , as if they had beene at the Heathenish Bacchanals : or as Primasius yeeldeth the Cause , t For that they tooke it as homely , as their common bread . All can point at the dolefull Example of God's vengeance upon Iudas , the first unworthy Receiver ; and therefore the subiect of the first Document of Gods iudgement , notwithstanding that hee received but the Sacrament only , and not the very body of Christ , as Saint Augustine observed , saying ; * Hee received not the bread the Lord , but the bread of the Lord. And how iustly , may we thinke , did God punish certaine u Donatists , who casting the holy Sacrament to Dogges , were themselves devoured of Dogges ? Neither have these kind of God's iudgements beene proper to the Abuse of this Sacrament only , as you have instructed men to beleeve ; for looke into the sacred story , and you shall find the men of * Ashdod , for medling with the Arke of God , Afflicted with Emrods : the men of * Bethshemesh smitten with a great slaughter , for but peeping into God's Arke . Also * Vzzah , no Priest , doth but touch the same Arke ( albeit with a good intent , to support it ) and he is suddainly strucke dead . * Nadab and Abihu prophaned the Altar of the Lord with offering strange fire thereon , and both of them were immediatly burnt with fire from Heaven , and perished . * Belshazzar will needs carouze in the sacred bowles of Gods Temple , in the contempt of God , and of his Law , and behold a writing upon the wall ; signifyng 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 . * Boyes are mocking God's Prophet in Bethel , by noting him for a Bald-pate , and are devoured by Beares . The * People loathing Manna are choaked with Quailes . If sacred stories will not preuaile , peradventure your owne Legends will rellish better with you : so then your x Bozius will tell you of them , Who were suddainly strucke with the plague , called Saint Anthonies plague , only for seeking to pull downe and demolish Saint Anthonies Image . Have you faith to beleeve this ? and can you not conceive a like right of Iudgement 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 containe 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 Mysterie , which hath in it a Sacramentall Vnion of the Bodie and Blood of Christ . One example , whereof we reade , is of one that being afflicted in Conscience for his Abuse of the Sacrament , in receiving it but in one kind , y Did cast himselfe head-long out of a window and so died . The other is that which he ( who now writeth these things ) saw and can testifie , viz. z A Batchelour of Arts , being Popishly affected , at the time of the Communion tooke the Consecrated Bread , and forbearing to eate it , convayed and kept it closely for a time ; and afterwards threw it over the wall of the Colledge : but a short time after , not induring the torment of his guilty Conscience , he threw himselfe head-long over the Battlements of the Chappell , and some few houres after ended his life . Thus farre of this Subiect , concerning an Vnion with Christ , as it is professed in our Church . A Confutation of the Romish professed Corporall Coniunction of Christ his Bodie with the Bodies of the Communicants . SECT . VI. I. That the Errour of the Capernaites Ioh. 6. was an opinion of the Corporall Eating of the flesh of Christ . MAster Brerely , the Author of the Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse ( lately published , and largely applauded by all of your profession ) a doth bestow a whole Section in explicating the Errour of the Capernaites , so that it must wholy reflect ( forsooth ) upon the Protestants . It is not needfull we should deny , that in this Chapter of Saint Iohn Christ doth speake of the Eucharist , which if we did , we might be assisted by your owne Bishop b Iansenius , together with divers * others , whom your Iesuite c Maldonate confesseth to have beene Learned , Godly , and Catholique ; 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 Iesuite himselfe saith ) That he could not so sharply and vehemently inueigh against Protestants . Let it then be supposed as spoken of Sacramentall eating with the mouth , as some of the Fathers thought ; but yet only Sacramentally , and not properly , as by them will be found true . We returne to the Discourse of your Romish Priest . * Christ having spoken ( saith he ) of eating his flesh , and the Capernaites answering [ How can he give us his flesh to eate ? ] They undorstood 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 believing them : and Christ often repeating the eating of his flesh , and drinking of his Blood , and requiring them to beleeve , and when he 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 iudge things by carnall reason , and yet more euidently in the words following , [ There are some of you that beleeve not . ] He said not ( saith Saint Augustine ) there be some among you that understand not : So plainly did hee hereby instruct them not how to understand , but to beleeve ; for had he , for their better understanding , intended hereby to have qualified , or corrected his former sayings , as to be meant Eating spiritually by Faith , he would have explained himselfe in plaine tearmes , and so have satisfied the Iewes . Vpon which premises I doe conclude , that because our Sauiour did reprove his sorupulous hearers not for want of understanding , but for want of beleefe , it doth from thence , and other premises abundantly follow that his fore-said promise was not obscure , and figurative , but plaine and literall for our reciving of him without out 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 for 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 quickneth , did not thereby qualifie his former speech , to instruct their understanding . Thirdly , They needed no instruction for 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 sence thereof . To the apprehending of the first is required Beliefe , whereupon Aristotle gave that Rule to every Scholler , that intendeth to learne the principles of any Art ( to wit ) Oportet discentem credere : A Scholler is bound to beleeve . The other point , touching the Truth , or true sence , what it is , is the obiect of man's 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 Logicke , saying , It is an Art of disputing rightly , may iustly reproue his Scholler 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 he either through carelesse negligence , or else affected ignorance will not understand . This agreeth with the Current of Scripture , Ioh. 6. vers . 38. Christ being the Oracle of Truth , which descended from Heaven to reueale the will of his Father , might iustly exact beliefe , that whatsoever he spake to the sonnes of men was most true : as it is written , The will of God is , that whosoever beleeveth in me , &c. Vers . 40. vz. That they must eate his flesh . But his hearers could not understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , what was the true sence of these words , which caused them to say , This is an hard saying . Therefore ( like Schollers of preposterous wits ) would they not beleeve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , namely That they were True : hence it was that Christ reproued them for not Beleeving only , vers . 64. and not for not understanding . Because it was as lawfull for Christ's Disciples to be ignorant of his darke Sayings and Parables , ( which were therefore so spoken , that his Schollers might more earnestly labour to know them ) as it was after lawfull for them to seeke of their Master , ( whose precept is to * Seeke , and promise to Find ) how to understand them . As it is written ; * His Disciples said unto him , Declare unto us the Parable of the seed : and Christ answered them , He that soweth , &c. That admirable Doctour of Gods Church Saint Augustine will shew himselfe herein an understanding Scholler of Christ ( See his Testimonie ) requiring of all the Disciples of Christ , in the first place , Beliefe of Christ's words , that they are True , before they did understand what was the Truth thereof : confirming his Rule by that Scripture ; Except you beleeve you shall not understand . O , but the Capernaites ( saith Master Brereley ) did understand Christ's wordes right well . And Saint d Augustine contrary to Master Brerely , expresly answereth , They did not understand the Truth of Christ his speech , but apprehended it foolishly and literally : nor was there ever any Father , or Authour , no not in your owne Romish Church ( wee thinke ) before one Master Breerley ; that thought otherwise . His second Assertion , touching that speech of Christ , [ The flesh profiteth nothing , it is the spirit , that quickeneth , ] That it was not spoken by Christ to Qualifie his former termes of Eating his flesh , is very like also to be his owne , being flatly contrary to the same Father , whom he avouched ; for Saint Augustine saith that Christ , by these wordes , taught the Capernaites to understand his other words of Eating spiritually : a Truth which Master Brerely's owne great Master Cardinall e Bellarmine hath published , alleaging for proofe thereof the Testimonies of other Fathers , saying ; Chrysostome , Theophylact , Euthemius , and also Origen so expoundeth it . So hee . Master Breerly 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 denied 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 Litterall Sence ( as Master Brereley would have it ) or else in a Figurative : which hath beene our defence and proofe throughout the Second Booke , from all kinde of Evidences of Truth . Here therefore we are onely to deale with Master Breerly , and with his pretended witnesse Saint Augustine , to whom hee would seeme to adhere . Notwithstanding ( that wee may beleeve Master Brereley himselfe ) f If wee should attend to the propriety of speech , Christ's blood is not properly drunke . So he : albeit Christ his speech was as expresly for drinking his Blood , as for Eating his Bodie . And every Schoole-boy will tell him , that every speech , which is unproper , is figurative . As for Saint Augustine , hee standeth as a sworne witnesse against the proper and literall sence of Eating Christ's flesh , calling it * Flagitious . Besides , rather than we should want witnesses , to aver this Truth , divers Iesuites will be ready in the following Chapter to tell Master Brereley flatly , that if hee say the words , Eating Christs flesh , are properly spoken , he speaketh false . CHALLENGE , Proving the obiected Saint Augustine to contradict the Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence , as Protestantly as can be desired . MAster Brereley his Conclusion , taken from Christ's speech of Eating , is to inferre a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament . But Saint Augustine ( cited above in the Margent ) thus ; Christ , to them that thought hee was not to give his Body to be eaten , said that hee himselfe was to ascend up into Heaven , and then indeed they were to know , that he meant not to give his Body to be eaten , after that manner which they conceived , which was carnall , by tearing and renting it in peeces . Wherein you may plainly discerne the Argument of Saint Augustine to be , that Christ by his Bodily Ascension would shew to the world , that he being bodily absent from the Earth , his flesh could not be here eaten by Bodily Tearing asunder . Thus he against the Capernaits , 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 . We have no list , after so plaine a discoverie of Master Brereley his manifold ignorances , to play upon his Person , but rather doe pray that at the sight of his Errours he may be reduced unto the Truth now , after his ( fondly miscalled ) Strong Reasoning to the contrarie . CHAP. IV. That the manner of Eating the Body of Christ , 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 will appeare by the faith of the Church of Rome , in the dayes of Pope Nicolas , whose faith ( about the yeare 1059. ) may be best knowne 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 Cardinall Baronius doth certifie you from the stories of those times ) Pope Nicholas and a Generall Councell held at Rome revised , approved , and prescribed to Berengarius to take , for the abiuration of his errour , concerning the manner of eating the body of Christ : and the same Oath was after published by the Popes authoritie throughout all the Cities of Italy , France , and Germanie ; and wheresoever the report of Berengarius should come . So he . You cannot now but expect such a forme of an Oath , which must be as truely Romish , as either Romane Pope , or Romane Councel could devise . Marke then the enioyned tenor of the Oath . I Berengarius Archdeacon &c. doe firmely professe , that I hold that Faith , which the Reverend P. Nicholas and this holy Synod hath commanded me to hold , ( to wit ) That the body of Christ is in this Sacrament , not onely as a Sacrament , but even in trueth 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 Abiuration is registred in the publique Papall b Decrees : and the Body of these Decrees hath beene lately ratified by the Bull of P. Gregory the thirteenth . The same Faith was embraced afterwards of some c Schoole-men , who , without any distinction , vsed the same phrase of Tearing with Teeth . Secondly , of after-times , your d 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 Alan . It is said ( saith he ) to be torne with the teeth of the faithfull no lesse properly , than if it should be said so of the Bread , if it were eaten . Yea and your Cardinall f Bellarmine , for proofe of Transubstantiation , hath recourse unto the same Roman Councell , which he stileth 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 Curse against the Gain-sayers : and therefore he , with his Disciple Mr. g Fisher ( who also alleageth the same ) are challengeable to hold it according to the literall sence therof ; because it will not admit of 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 Abiuration of Heresie : but ( as h 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 abiure Heresie . And Secondly , for that this forme of words , of Tearing with the teeth the flesh of Christ , was also made purposely for Abiuration , and abandoning all figurative Sence , for the defence of the literall Exposition of the words of Christ , [ This my Body , &c. ] therefore was it taken literally . But what ( thinke you ) will Cavin say to this your ( then ) Romish forme of Profession , in the literall sence ? i A man should rather wish to die an hundred times ( saith he ) than once to intangle himselfe in a Doctrine , so monstrously sacrilegious . Which Censure of his wee now endeavour to make good . That the former Romane Faith , of Properly Eating the Body of Christ , is Capernaitically-Hereticall at this day ; as is proved by some of your owne Doctors of the now Romane Church . SECT . II. YOu have heard of Berengarius his Abrenunciation 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 manner , an Abrenunciation of that ( then ) Romane faith , by denying it to be either properly Broken or yet really Torne , even by the Iesuites themselves . k 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 the teeth , or touched by them that eate him , because he is herein impartible . So he . Your Iesuite and Cardinall Bellarmine is as it were in a maze , saying and gain-saying , as you may perceive : yet notwithstanding , whether he will or no , must perforce confesse no lesse , when he saith that l The Body of Christ is not absolutely eaten , but eaten vnder the formes of Bread : and that is to say ( saith he ) the formes of Bread are sensibly and visibly eaten . So hee . If this imported a literall manner of eating , then might your Cardinall have said as literally of himselfe ; My clothes are torne , therefore my body is rent in pieces . Not to trouble you with the Cardinal's Philosophie , that talketh of Eating and tearing of Colours . But to the point . If onely the Accidents of Bread be ( as he saith ) Sensibly eaten , then was Pope Nicolas his Prescription of Eating Christ's body sensibly , in your Cardinal's opinion , not true . And upon the same ground it is , that your Iesuite m Suarez , out of Thomas , and other Schoole-men , affirmeth the word [ Broken ] to bee 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 hath concluded . And your n 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 expressly said , that to thinke the Body of Christ to be eaten , torne , or devoured ( properly taken ) is a carnall , Capernaiticall , and ( as your owne o Glosse in Gratian concludeth ) an Hereticall opinion . Will your have any more ? It is but the last day , in respect , when p one of your grave Criticks so much abhorred the conceit of proper Tearing Christ's Bodie , that he called the Obiecting thereof , against your Church , in his blinde zeale , Blasphemie : and answereth , that you doe no more Teare Christ's flesh , than Caiphas tore his , when he rent his clothes . The Case then is plaine . That the former Romish and Popish Faith , for the manner of of receiving of the Body of Christ , is but somewhat altered ; yet miserably inconstant and faithlesse . SECT . III. PRotestants may have in this place iust matter of insulation 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 literall and proper interpretation of the words of Christ , when he said [ Take , eate , this is my Body : ] yet now are you compelled to say that Properly eaten , is no proper , but a false sence . Your Second Doctrine is , that the iudgement of a Romane Pope , in a Romane Councell , in a matter of faith is Infallible . Notwithstanding Pope Nicolas , with his Romane Councell , is found to haue grossly erred in a tenor of Abiuration , which of all others ( as hath beene confessed ) is most literall , and was therefore purposely devised against a figurative sence of the words of Christ ; and forthwith published throughout Italie , 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 Iudgement being now to reiect such phrases , taken in their proper signification , and in a manner to abrenounce Berengarius his Abrenunciation , what is , if this be not an argument that either you say , you care not , or else beleeve you know not what ? Let us goe on , in pursuite of your Doctrine of the Corporall manner , of eating , which you still maintaine , and it will be found to be Capernaiticall enough . CHAP. V. That the now Romish manner of Eating , and bodily receiving of the Body of Christ , is sufficiently Capernaiticall in three kindes . TEll vs not that no Doctrine of your Church can be called Hereticall , before that it be so iudged 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 Darknes . And this is manifest by the example , which we have now in hand , of the Capernaites , old Heretickes , ( as all know ) even because they are set downe in Scripture to have perverted the sence of Christ his words of Eating his flesh ; and thereupon to have departed from Christ , Iohn 6. Your Romish particular manner of Corporall Receiving of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament is three-fold . 1. Orall , in the Mouth . 2. Gutturall , in the Throat : and ( permit vs this word ) 3. Ventricall , in the Belly of the Communicant . That the Romish Orall manner of Receiving Corporally the Body of Christ , with the mouth , is Capernaticall . SECT . I. CHewing the Sacrament with the Teeth was the forme of Eating , at the time of Christ his Institution , as is proved by your owne * Confession , in granting that the vnleavened bread , which Christ used , was [ glutinosus , ] that is , gluish , clammie , and such as was to be cut with a knife . But that the same manner 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 Father in the Church , whether Greek , or Latine . That also Chewing continued in the Romish Church til a thousand and fiftie yeares after Christ , is not obscurely implyed in the former tenour of the Recantation of Berengarius , prescribed by the same Church : which was to eat ( as you have heard ) By tearing it with the teeth . And lastly that this hath since continued the ordinary custome of the same Church , is as evident by your Cardinall Alan , and Canus , * who have defended the manner of eating by Tearing . Nor was Swallowing prescribed by any untill that the queazie Stomacke of your q Iesuites , not enduring Chewing , perswaded the contrarie . Which kinds of Eating , whether by Chewing or Swallowing of Christ's flesh , being both Orall , none can deny to have beene the opinion of the r Capernaites . First of not Chewing ; and then of Swallowing in the VI. Chapter following . That the Corporall and Orall Eating of Christ's flesh is a Capernaiticall Heresie ; is proved by the Doctrine of Ancient Fathers . SECT . II. SOmetime doe Ancient Fathers point out the Errour of the Capernaites , set downe Ioh. 6. concerning their false interpreting the words of Christ , when hee speaketh of Eating his flesh , which they understood literally . But this literall sence a Origen calleth a killing letter , that is , a pernitious interpretation , even as of that other Scripture [ He 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 confuting the Capernaiticall conceit of Corporall eating of Christ's flesh , will have us to observe , that Christ after hee spake of his flesh , did forthwith make mention of his Ascension into Heaven , but why ? That Christ might thereby draw their bodily thoughts from the bodily sence , namely , of eating it corporally upon earth , which is your Romish sence . Tertullian likewise giveth the Reason of Christ's saying [ It is the spirit which quickeneth ] because the Capernaites so understood the wordes of Christ's speech of Eating his flesh , As if ( saith c 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 Augustine out of the ●ixt 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 . Plainly denying it to be Christs Body which is eaten Orally , and then affirming it to be the Sacrament of his Body : and as plainly calling the manner of Corporall Eating , a Pressing of bread with the teeth . We say , Bread , not the Body of Christ . For , when he commeth to our Eating of Christ's flesh , he exempteth the corporall Instruments , and requireth only the spirituall , saying , e Why preparest thou thy Tooth ? It is then no corporall Eating : and hee addeth ; Beleeve , 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 Iesuite hath * confessed ) lest we should understand this properly , he teacheth us to say f Christ is not divided into parts . Contrarily , when we speake Sacramentally , that is , figuratively and improperly , hee will have us to grant that Christ his flesh is divided in this Sacrament , but remayneth whole in Heaven . Say now ; will you say that Christ's Body is Divided by your eating the Eucharist , in a literall sence ? your owne Iesuits have abhorred to thinke so . And dare you not say that in Eating this Sacrament you doe Divide Christs Body , in a literall sence ? then are you to abhorre your Romish literall Exposition of Christ's speech , which cannot but necessarily inferre a proper Dividing of the flesh of Christ . Lastly , doe but call to remembrance Saint * Augustines Observation ( iust the same with the now-cited Testimonie of Athanasius ) to wit , Christ's mention of his , Ascension in his Bodie 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 Christ's Qualification of his owne speech , when hee condemned all Carnall Sence of Eating his flesh , saying thereof , The flesh profiteth nothing &c. For conclusion of this point , you may take unto you the commandement of Saint g Chrysostome , as followeth , Did not Christ therefore speake of his flesh ? farre be it from us ( saith he ) 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 he abandoneth all carnall understanding of Christ's words , of Eating his flesh , hee saith , They have no fleshly , or naturall Consequence at all . So he . Ergo , say we ( to the Confutation of your Romish beliefe ) no corporall touch of Christ in your mouthes , no Corporall eating with your Teeth , no Corporall swallowing downe your Throate ; how much lesse any Corporall mixture in your bellies or guts ? CHALLENGE . VVHether therefore the Capernaites thought to eate Christ his flesh raw , or rosted , 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 manner of Eating should accord , in the iudgement of Antiquity , with the doctrine of Christ . Notwithstanding you cite us to appeare before the Tribunall of Antiquity , by obiecting counter-Testimonies of ancient Fathers ; and we are as willing to give you the Answering . The extreme Vnconscionablenesse of Romish Disputers , in wresting the figurative Phrases of Ancient Fathers to their Literall and Corporall manner of Receiving the Body of Christ . SECT . III. IT is a miserable thing to see how your Authours delude their Readers , by obtruding upon them the Sentences of Fathers in a literall Sence , against the evident Expressions of the same Fathers to the contrary . I. b Origen ( say you ) will have the Communicant to thinke himselfe Vnworthy , that the Lord should enter under the roofe of his mouth . Right , hee saith so , but in the same sence wherein he equivalently said , 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 i We see , touch , eate , and teare with our teeth the flesh of Christ . True , but , to note that hee spake it in a Rhetoricall and figurative Sence , he equiualently saith also in the same place ; Our tongues are made red with his blood . And else-where , to put all out of question ; These ( saith he ) are spirituall , and containe no Carnall thing . Yet what need you our Comment ? Your Iesuite Maldonate would gladly prevent us : k The words of Chrysostome ( saith he ) of tearing the flesh of Christ , cannot be otherwise understood , than Sacramentally . Even he which concluded but now , that to say * we Eate Christs flesh , properly , is a false proposition . III. Gaudentius ( say you ) saith ; l Wee receive the bodie , which Christ reacheth . We grant he said so , but he interpreteth himselfe , saying ; Christ would have our soules sanctified by the Image of his Passion . IV. But m Augustine teacheth that Wee receive the body of Christ both with heart and mouth . Which your Obiector n noteth , as being very notable for the Orall Receiving , Corporally : albeit the same Saint Augustine immediatly expresseth , that this and all other such Speeches are to be vnderstood figuratively and unproperly . V. But Pope Leo is brought in , saying , [ o Gustamus ] We taste with our flesh the flesh of Christ . Nay , but you have corrupted his Saying , for his word is [ Gestamus ] Wee beare or carrie it ( namely ) by being baptized ( as there is expressed ) whereof the Apostle said ; You have put on Christ . VI. But Pope Gregorie ( say you ) saith , p The blood of Christ is sprinkled upon both postes , when we receive it both with heart and mouth . Which ( wee say ) he spake with the same Improprietie of speech , wherein hee 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 , q Non● receiveth ( saith Hesychius ) save hee that perceiveth the truth of his blood . But how ? even as hee himselfe there addeth , By receiving the memorie of his Passion . VIII . But Optatus tels us that r The members of Christ are upon the Altar : and that The Altar is the seate of his Body and Blood : and that it is an hainous thing to breake the Chalices of the Blood of Christ , &c. Wee grant these to be the Phrases of Optatus , indeed , which you have obiected : but , alas ! my Masters , will you never learne the Dialect of the Ancient Fathers , after so many Examples , as it were lights , to illuminate your iudgements ? Wherein ( as other Fathers have done ) Optatus will instruct you , for his owne language , who in this Booke inveighing against the madnesse of the Donatists , for their iniuring of the Ministers of Christ ; Now ( saith he ) doe you imitate the Iewes , they laid hands vpon Christ , and Christ is now beaten by you on the Altar . So hee ; by the same Hyperbole making as well the Priest , that ministreth at the Altar , Christ ; as he did the Signes and Symboles of the parts of Christ ( which are his Body and Blood ) the members of Christ : even as Christ himselfe said to Saul , the Persecutor of the Faithfull ; Saul , Saul , why persecutest thou me ? The great Oratour Chrysostome is further obiected , flowing in his Rhetorike , and saying of this Sacrament that s Wee see him on the Altar : and that He is held in the hands of the Priest : ( namely ) in the same Rhetoricall sence , wherewith t Augustine said of all the faithfull Christian Communicants ; You are on the Table ; you are in the Cup. Or as Chrysostome himselfe required of persons baptized in their perfect age , saying , u Hold you the feet of our Saviour . Yet one more . Augustine doubted not to say of this visible word , the Sacrament of Christ , that x The Lord's blood is powred 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 , y The blood of Christ ( by it ) is powred into the eares of the Hearers . Master z Brereley would thinke much not to be suffered to put in his Vie , iu the name of Cyprian : Wee are anointed with his blood , not only 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 Brereley , and addeth ) which convinceth our Bodily receiving thereof . So hee . From the same Cyprian , who , in the same place , saith in the same stile , a We cleave to his Crosse , sucke his blood , and fixe our tongues within the wounds of our Redeemer , which are all Sacramentall , Allegoricall , and Tropolasticall Phrases ; as Cyprian will clearely expresse himselfe , in respect of our outward man , and spiritually of the inward . CHALLENGE . BY this 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 , doe appeare , by this Encounter of iust Parallels , to be indeed the idle Imaginations of your Teachers , and the ●rroneous 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 plainly 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 then are these others that follow ; to wit , of Gaudentius ; b We are commanded to eate the head of Christ's Deity , with the feet of his Incarnation . Or the saying of Saint Hierome ; c When Christ said , 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 : d We drinke the blood of Christ ( saith he ) not only by the rite of a Sacrament , but also in receiving his word , whereof it is said , My words are spirit and life : So they . And so iust cause have we to complaine of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Obiecters , by their so often abusing the Testimonies of these holy Fathers ; insomuch that you had need of the often Admonition of your owne Senensis : e I have often given warning ( saith he ) 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 vehemencie of their Affections , or carried with the C●rren● of their speech . So hee . CHAP. VI. The Second Romish Corporall Vnion of the Body 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 continue . Next , that a It is swallowed downe , and transmitted into the stomacke ▪ yet further , that your Priest in your Romane Masse is enioyned to pray , saying , b O Lord , let thy bodie which I have taken , and blood which I have drunke , cleave unto my Guts , or Entrailes . And a lesse c Missall ( but yet of equall Authoritie ) 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 . So that finally , If through infirmity of the eater it passe from the stomacke downewards , it then goeth into the Draught and place of egestion . As hath beene evicted from your owne * Conclusions . 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 ougly Assumptions ; One is of your Devouring of Christ , and feeding bodily of him . The other is a possibilitie of ( sauing your presence ) passing him downeward into the Draught , or Seege ; that being as ill , this peradventure worse , than any Capernaiticall infatuation : for which cause it was that your Iesuite Maldonate , although granting that you doe corporally receive it into your stomackes , yet * denied , for shame , that you are Devourers thereof . But , I beseech you , what then meaneth that , which your Romish Instructions , Decrees , and Missals ( as we have * heard ) doe teach you to doe with the Hoast , in case that any either through Infirmitie , or by Surfet and Drunkennes shall cast up the same Hoast out of his stomacke ? We 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 doe so disgorge ? Will you beleeve your Iesuite d Osorius ? To Devoure a thing ( saith he ) is to swallow it downe without chewing . Say now , doe not you swallow the Sacrament with chewing it ? then are you Capernaiticall Tearers of Christ's Body . But doe you Swallow it without Chewing ? then are you Capernaiticall Devourers thereof . Say not , that because the Bodie of Christ suffereth no hurt , therefore hee cannot be said by Corporall swallowing to be Devoured : for his Bodie was not corrupted in the grave , and yet was it truly buried ; and his Type thereof , even Ionas , without maceration was swallowed vp into the belly of the Whale , and yet had no hurt . Notwithstanding , he was first caught and devoured , who was after cast up and vomited . That the same Romish manner , of Receiving it downe into the Belly , is proved to be Capernaiticall by the Iudgement of Antiquity . SECT . III. THeophylact e noted the Capernaites opinion to have beene , that the Receivers of the Body of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Devourers of flesh , whereas the words of Christ ( saith hee ) are to be understood spiritually , and so will it be known that we Christians ( what ? ) are not Devourers of Christ . So hee . 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 ●gestion into the Seege ? whereof the Ancient Fathers have thus determined : Origen , that f The materiall part of this sanctified meate passeth into the Draught : which ( saith he ) I speake of the symbolicall Bodie , &c. Here will be no place for your g Cardinal's Crotchets , who confessing Origen to have spoken all this of the Eucharist , would have vs 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 , then 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 Origen's intention throughout every part of his Testimony . For first , That which he called Bread , he calleth also meate sanctified : Secondly , that meate he tea●meth materiall . Thirdly , This materiall , he saith , passeth into the Draught . Lastly , concluding his speech , concerning the Sacramentall Body , and saying , Hitherto have I spoken of the symbolicall body ; immediately he maketh his Transition to speake of the incarnate Body of Christ , as it is the True soules meate . But first meerly Accidents were never called by the Ancient Fathers Meates . Secondly , never Materials . Thirdly , never Magnitude in it selfe , without a Subiect , was iudged otherwise then Immateriall . Fourthly , never any Immateriall thing to have Gravitie , or weight in pressing the guts to make an egestion into the * Draught . If every one of these be not , yet all , as a foure-fold cord , may be of force to draw any Conscionable man to grant , that Origen was of our Protestants faith . And that which is more than all , hee , in his Transition , expresly sheweth his faith , concerning Christ's Body , as Spirituall Bread , by discerning it from the Sacramentall , which he named a Symbolicall Body , as one Body distinctly differing from the other . As for your Cardinals pageant of Christ's Body in this Sacrament , as being a Signe and Symbol of it selfe , as it was on the Crosse , it * hath once already , and will the * second time come into play , where you will take small pleasure in this figment . Againe , concerning the Body of Christ it selfe , h Cyrill Christianly denyeth it to goe either into the Belly , or into the Draught ; and i Chrysostome ( as iudging the very thought thereof Execrable ) denyeth it with an Absit ! Finally k Ambrose is so farre from the proper swallowing of Christ in this Sacrament , that distinguishing between Corporall Bread and the Body of Christ , ( which he calleth super substantiall Bread , and Bread of everlasting life , for the establishing of man's soule ) hee denyeth flatly that this is that Bread which goeth into the Body . If any mouse , which your say may run away with the hoast , be wholly fed thereon for a monthes space , the Egestion of that Creature will be as absoute a Demonstration as the world can have that the matter fed upon , after Consecration , is Bread : And why may you not aswell grant a power of Egestion , as confesse ( which you doe ) in that Creature a digestion thereof . Two false Interpretations fell upon the Catholike Profession , concerning the Doctrine of the Eucharist , in the dayes of Saint Augustine ; both which that holy Father did utterly explode . The first was by the Manichees , who teaching l that Christ was Hanged on every tree , and tied unto all meates which they eate , would needs 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 of the opinion of Mysticall bread , among the Orthodoxe , which the Manich●es had of their Corporall bread . As for example , that Christ should be Fastened or tied 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 * Guts by eating ? and a Repasse againe by Vomitting , albeit the matter , so fast and loose , in the iudgement of St. Augustine , be Bread still , after Consecration . The Second Calumniation against the true Professours was by others , who testified that Catholikes in the Eucharist adored Ceres and Bacchus , after the manner of the Paganes . What answere , doe you thinke , would a Romish Professor have made in this Case ? doubtles ( according to your doctrine of Corporall presence ) by saying thus : Whereas some affirme that we adore Bread and Wine in this Sacrament , yet the truth is wee adore that , whereinto Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated , ( to wit ) the Bodie and blood of Christ the sonne of God. But S. Augustine , as one fancying nothing lesse ; Wee ( saith he ) are farre from the Gods of the Pagans , for we embrace the Sacrament of Bread and wine . This is all , and all this he spake after Consecration . Whereupon we are occasioned to admonish our Christian Reader to take heed of the fraudulent practice of the Romish Sect , because of their abusing of the Writings of ancient Fathers . Whereof take unto you this present m example . The Paris Edition An. 1555. hath the Sentence of S. Augustine thus : Noster Panis — Mysticus fit nobis , non nascitur . But the last Paris . Edition Ann. 1614. hath foisted in and inserted [ Corpus Christi ; ] albeit the sence be full without this Addition , to signifie that Common Bread is by Consecration made Mysticall or Sacramentall ( according to S. Augustine his 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 Bodie ] be repugnant to a common Principle of all Christianity , which never beleeved a Body of Christ made of Bread. So that the foresaid Addition is not a correcting , but a Corrupting of the Text. CHALLENGE . HOw might it concerne you upon these premises , if there be in you any spirit of Christianity , to suffer n S. Augustine to be your Moderator in this whole Cause ? who upon the speech of Christ [ Except you eate my flesh ] giveth this generall Rule , That whensoever we fi●d in Scripture any speech of commanding some ●eynous Act , or forbidding some laudable thing , there to hold the speech to be figurative , even as this is of eating the flesh of Christ . So hee . And what this figurative speech signifieth , this holy Father declareth in the next words : It Commandeth ( saith hee ) that wee doe Communicate of the passion of Christ , and sweetly and profitably keepe in memory that his flesh was crucified for us . Thus you see hee excludeth the Corporall , Sensuall , and Carnall Eating , that hee might establish the spirituall of mind , and Memory . If St. Augustine by this his counsell might have prevailed with your Disputers and Doctors , they never had fallen upon so many Rocks , and Paradoxes , nor sunke into such puddles of so nastie and beastly Absurdites , as have beene now discovered ; which by your Doctrine of Corporall Presence you are plunged into . CHAP. VII . The Third Corporall manner 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 Iesuite reporting that a Many latter Divines in your Church have beene authorized in these daies to write , labouring to bring the Romane Faith to so high a pitch , as to perswade a b Reall , naturall , corporall , and substantiall Vnion of the Body of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants : even almost all of late ( saith he ) who have written against Heretiques . So hee . Among others we find your Cardinall c Alan , who will have it Really mingled with our flesh , as other meates , Transubstantiation onely excepted ; as did also Cardinall d Mendoza . And what else can that sound , which we have heard out of your Roman * Missal , praying that The Bodie of Christ eaten may cleave unto your gutts ? iust Manichean-wise , as you have heard even now out of St. Augustine . CHALLENGE . Confuting and dispelling this foggie myst of Errour , by your owne more common confessions . THis first opinion of mingling the Body of Christ corporally with man's Bodily parts , what thinke you of it ? your Iesuite calleth it e Improbable , and as repugnant to the dignity and maiesty of this Sacrament , * Rash , and absurd . Iustly , because if this Doctrine were true , you must likewise grant that the same Bodie of Christ , which you say is eaten of myce and Rats , is mingled within their guts , and entrails ; and so such vile Creatures should be as really capable of Communion with Christ's Body , as the most sanctified among Christians can be : for which the Beasts themselues , if they could speake , would ( as the Asse unto Bal●am ) condemne the foolishnes of your Prophets , namely those , of whom you have * heard your Iesuite confessing , that this is the Doctrine of Almost all late Diuines , which is to adde one Capernaiticall Absurdity to another . It onely remaineth to know with what Spirits these your New Divines have thus written ; your * Suarez telleth vs , saying , That they speake so in hatred of Heretiques ( meaning Protestants ) against whom they writ . Who would not now magnifie the Profession of Protestants , to observe their Adversaries to be so farre transported with the Spirit of malignity and giddines against them , that by the iust Iudgement of God they are become so starke 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 aswell have conceived a Corporall fleshly Commixtion ? CHAP. VIII . Of the Romish Obiections out of the Fathers , for proofe of Corporall Presence , and Corporall vnion with the Bodies of the Communicants . SECT . I. IT cannot be denyed but that many antient Fathers are * frequent in these kind of Phrases ; Our Bodies are nourished and augmented by the flesh of Christ , and his Body is mingled with our flesh , as melted waxe with waxe : yea , we have a corporall and naturall vnion with him . These kind of sayings of the Holy Fathers have beene obiected , not onely by your new * Divines , for proofe of a Corporall Coniunction of Christ with the Bodies of the Communicants , but also by your a Cardinall , and all other like Romish Professors , for defence of a Corporall Presence of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament ; but with what coloured Consciences ( white or blacke ) they have beene so obiected , commeth now to be scanned by iust Processe . That the obiected Sentences of Fathers doe not intend a Corporall Coniunction , so properly called , even by the Confession of Romish Divines of best esteeme . SECT . II. ALl your Obiectors produce the Testimonies of Fathers , for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ , as vehemently as the others of them have done for maintaining of an Vnion properly and really Corporall . Notwithstanding the most eminent Cathedrall Doctors in your Romish Schooles , to wit , Bellarmine , Tolet , and Suarez doe explode that Corporall Commixture . The first Cardinall and Iesuite now mentioned , singling out these Fathers , who seeme most peremptorily and Emphatically to teach a Corporall nourishing , Corporall Augmentation , Corporall and naturall mixture , and Vnion of Christ's Body with ours ; such as were Ireneus , Hilary , Nyssen , Cyrill , and others , ( as if he had forgot himselfe , and meant to answere for us ) saith : a The Fathers in so saying are not so to be understood , as if the mortall substance of our bodies were nourished thereby , for so they should make it meate for the Belly , and not of the mind , than which nothing can be more absurd . The Second Cardinall and Iesuite , speaking of Cyrill and Hilarie , b They say ( saith hee ) that our Bodies have a naturall Coniunction and Vnion in this Sacrament w●●● the Body of Christ , but are not so to be vnderstood , as if there were a naturall Vnion ( which were a Doctrine unworthy of them ) but their meaning is , that for the Vnion-sake , which is of Faith and Charitie , Christ is really and truly within us , who is the cause of faith . So hee . Your Third Iesuite of prime note we * have heard already ( in Confutation of your new Divines , who collected from such Testimonies a Proper Corporall Coniunction ) terming this Doctrine Rash , absurd , and repugnant to the dignity and Maiestie of the Sacrament . That the Obiected Sentences of Fathers make not for the Romish Corporall Vnion ; proved by their owne Dialect . SECT . III. THe expresse Testimonies of the obiected Fathers you may read in the Margent , as they are marshalled by your owne Iesuite c Suarez , to wit , Irenaeus , Chrysostome , Cyril Alexand. Grego . Nyssen . Pope Leo , and Hillarie . The Summe is , The mixture of Christ's Body with ours , by a Corporall and naturall Vnion in deede , 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 Coniunction with Christ . Of Baptisme Hilarie the 6. obiected saith , Christians by Baptisme , which is one , are made one , not onely in affection but also in nature . Leo the 5. obiected , saith also , that By Baptisme the Body of the Regenerate is made the flesh of Christ crucified . And marke what your Cardinall Tolet hath collected from Augustine , namely that d Infants by being Baptized , are made partakers of the Eucharist , because they are memberr of the mysticall Body , and are so made in a sort partakers of this Sacrament , that is to say , of the thing signified , eating his flesh , and drinking his Blood. So hee . By which your Obiector must be inforced to admit a like Reall coniunction , 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 : e Isidore Pleusiota of the word of God , that It feedeth mens soules , and is in a manner mingled therewith . Of the Baptised , that by Baptisme f They are incorporated into Christ , saith Augustine : And that thereby g They are made bone of Christ's bone , and flesh of his flesh , saith Chrysost . Of the Eucharist , h 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 ; i That as by the one Christians are made partakers of Christ's flesh , so by that other are men made partakers with Divels . 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 man's Soule , by the Word . First , a proper mingling of God's Spirit with Man. Secondly , a proper incorporating of Man into Christ ; and a proper mixture of Man with Divels . And againe upon due Comparison of the Testimonies of Fathers , obiected by you , with these now alleadged 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 Christ's bodie , and Transubstantiation , and Vnion ; you k must allow fower more . One of Christs bodie into the bodie of the Communicant : a Second of a Christian Communicant into Christs bodie . A Third of a Naturall bodily Vnion of Christians among themselves . And fourthly ( which is Damascen's ) of Christ's bodie into men's soules . All which kind of Presences , Vnions , Mixtures , and Transubstantiations , taken in a proper sence , you cannot but condemne as Atheologicall and sencelesse , in your owne iudgement , notwithstanding all the former alleaged Phrases of ancient l Fathers . And what talke you of the Eucharist , as being called the Viaticum , and food-provision for our iourneying through death , by the ancient Fathers ? as though this were an Argument of Christs Corporall Presence in the Sacrament , and Coniunction with them that participate thereof ; except you meant to make the same Consequence in behalfe of Baptisme , wherewith m Basil exhorteth both young and old to be provided , as of their Spirituall Viaticum . That the obiected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers make against the Romish Corporall Vnion of Christ's Bodie with the Bodies of the Communicants . SECT . IV. YOur Romish Corporall Vnion is distinguished from the Corporall Vnion spoken of the Fathers , by two Properties , which are universally beleeved in your Church : one is the note of the discontinuance of the Bodie of Christ , saying that * The Body of Christ continueth no longer in the Body of the Communicant , than whilest the outward formes of Bread and Wine do● remaine uncorrupt , The other is the note of Community , beleeving that The Corporall Coniunction with the Communicant is equally as common to the prophane and godly Receiver , as are the outward Symbols , and Signes , which they Sacramentally Eate or Drinke . Such are these your two Principles , concerning Corporall Coniunction , both which are notably contradicted by two contrarie notes of Corporall Coniunction , spoken of by the Fathers . The first is of the Perpetuity of Christian Coniunction with Christ , against your Non-residencie thereof . The Second is of the Peculiarity of this Vnion , ( namely ) onely unto pious , and faithfull Receivers ; and both these by the Testimonies of the obiected Fathers , yea even in the most of your * obiected Testimonies themselves . That the Fathers meant by their Corporall Vnion a perpetuall residence in the Receivers , their owne * Testimonies above-cited doe declare , noting that it is the Vnion whereof Christ spake , saying , He that eateth me remayneth in me , and dwelleth in me , &c. A Truth so apparent , that your best reputed Iesuite n Suarez is inforced to confesse , that The Corporall ▪ Vnion , spoken of by the holy Fathers , is not Tra●sient and Passable , but permanent and durable : which hee proveth both from their expresse words , and also by the ground of their Speech , which is the Doctrine of Saint Paul , 1. Cor. 10. For we being many are one Bread , in as much as we are partakers of one bread ; which are spoken of a permanent Vnion of Christians , as they are members of Christ . As for the second note of Vnion , professed by holy Fathers , we have already * learned from this their generall Doctrine , that the Godly onely are truly Partakers of the flesh of Christ . And that our Vnion with Christ , by virtue of this Sacrament , is proper to the Godly and Faithfull , is now further confirmed by the Testimonies * obiected . Some expressing the Vnion to be such whereby Christ abideth in us , and we in him , as you have heard : and some , that whosoever hath it , hath spirituall life by it ; whereas They who eate the Bread of iniquity , doe not eate the flesh of Iesus , nor drinke his Blood , saith o Hierome ; whereas your Popish Vnion is p common to both . For , indeed , what is it for Christ his Body to be receiued of the wicked , but , as it were , to have him buried in a grave againe ? And to feed the ungodly with such precious food , is like as if a man should put meate into the mouth of a dead Carkasse . The former Assertion being so generally the Doctrine of primitive Fathers , it is , in it selfe , a full and absolute Confutation of the Romish Defence , throughout the whole Controversie , touching the Corporall Vnion with the Body of Christ , as properly so taken . Have not then your Disputers , in urging the iudgement of holy Fathers , spun a faire thred , trow yee , whereby they have thus evidently strangled their whole Cause ? A Determination of this point in question . I. That the former obiected Sentences of Fathers , concerning Corporall Vnion , are Sacramentally and Spiritually to be understood , as proper to the Godly and Faithfull Receiver . SECT . V. HOwsoever the sound of their words have seemed unto some of you , to teach a proper Corporall Vnion with the Bodies of the Communicants , yet the Reasons wherewith the said Sentences are invested doe plainly declare , they meant thereby a Spirituall Vnion onely ; first and principally , because they ground their sayings upon that of Saint Iohn , * He that eateth my flesh abideth in me , and hath life , and I will raise him up at the last day : He dwelleth in me , and I in him , which many of your owne Doctours have * expounded to be taken spiritually , as doth also your Bishop q Iansenius , out of Augustine . Secondly , because they make the Vnion perpetuall to the Receiver . Thirdly , because they hold this Vnion proper to the spirituall Communicant , excluding the prophane from any reall participation of Christs flesh . Fourthly , because they taught the same Vnion , whereof they speake , to be made without this Sacrament , even by * Baptisme ; and that Really , as your Iesuite Tolet hath said . Fiftly , because they have compared this Vnion to the continued-Vnion betweene Man and Wife . Good and solid Reasons , we thinke , to perswade any reasonable man that they meant no proper Corporall Vnion . Whereby , peradventure , your Iesuite Tolet was * induced to grant , that Hilarie and Cyril , by the Corporall Vnion of Christ's Bodie with ours , meant the Vnion by Faith and Charitie . As also , whereas Damascene saith , That by this Communion wee are made ioynt-bodies with Christ . And lastly , Cyril of Ierusalem calleth the Communicants , by reason of their participation of the Bodie and Blood of Christ , Christophers , that is ( being interpreted ) Carriers of Christ ; and that hereby we are made partakers of that divine nature : a Sentence much urged by your Disputers , notwithstanding your r Suarez seeth nothing in it but a Spirituall V●ion by Grace and Affection . Which two Testimonies we may adde to the former Fathers , for proofe that onely the Godly have Vnion with Christ . II. That the obiected Ancient Fathers , without Contradiction to themselves , have both affirmed and denied a Corporall and perpetuall Vnion of Christ's Bodie with the Bodies of the Communicants . SECT . VI. THree acceptions there may be of the word Corporall Vnion , the first Literall , and proper , which this whole Booke proveth out of the Fathers to be Capernaiticall , by Corporall Touching , Corporall Tearing with Teeth , Corporall Swallowing and Devouring , and Corporall mixture with our flesh ; a sence seeming pernicious to Origen ; and to Augustine odious and flagitious , as * hath beene proved . The second is a Corporall Coniunction Sacramentall : that as they called Bread broken the Bodie of Christ , by reason of the Sacramentall Analogie with his Bodie Crucified ( as hath beene plentifully demonstrated : ) so have they called the Sacrament all Vnion with our Bodies the Corporall Vnion of his Body with ours ; namely , that as the Bread is eaten , swallowed , disgested by vs , and incorporated into our Bodies , to the preservation of this life , so , by the virtue of Christ's humanity dying , and rising againe for us , our Bodies shall be restored to life in that day . In which respect Bread the Sacrament of Christ's Body , being so changed into the Substance of our flesh , is in us a perpetuall pledge of our Resurrection to glory . The last is a Spirituall Vnion , that as the Body of Christ is immediately foode of the Soule onely , so is the Vnion thereof immediately wrought in the Soule ; and because , in Christian Philosophy , the Body followeth the Condition of the Soule , according to the tenour of Iudgement used in the last day , when as the vngodly Soule shall take unto it selfe it 's owne sinfull Body , and carrie it into Hell , and the regenerate Soule shall returne to it 's owne Bodie , and being united thereunto be ioyntly raised to immortalitie and blisse , and all this by our Spirituall and Sacramentall ( for they are not divided in the Godly ) Communicating of the Bodie and Blood of Christ . This ought not to seeme unto you any novell Doctrine , having heard it professed by your Iesuite , in your publique Schooles , saying ; s The glory of the Bodie depends on the glorie of the soule , and the Happinesse of the soule depends on Grace therein , neither doth this Sacrament ( saith he ) any otherwise conferre immortalitie to the Bodie , than by nourishing and preserving grace in the soule . So hee . In which respect wee concurre with the iudgement of ancient t Fathers , who call this Sacrament the Symbol and Token of the Resurrection , the Medicine of Immortality , by which our verie bodies have hope of Immortality . So they . Yea and ( which is a further Evidence ) as your obiected Optatus u called the Eucharist , The pledge of Salvation , and hope of the Resurrection : so doth x Basil speake of Baptisme , tearming it our Strength unto Resurrection ( being a Sacrament both of his death and Resurrection ) and the Earnest thereof . Nor can wee desire a more pregnant confutation of your Corporall Presence , than that the Eucharist is called of the Fathers a Pledge , as you have obiected . To this purpose wee are to consult with Primasius ; hee telleth vs that Christ dying left us a y Pledge for our Memorandum of him after his death : By which Pledge what Christian ( as often as hee shall be put in minde of his death ) can then containe himselfe from weeping , if he doe perfectly love him ? The comparison here is taken from a man , who before his death willeave some thing of worth with his friend , as a Pledge of his love , and a token of his Remembrance of him after his death . But the Pledge and the Pledger are two different things in themselves , and as different in place , the Pledge being a present token of a Friend absent . Nothing now remaineth but some one Father to be Moderator in this Point , and no-one more fit than he , who is as vehemently obiected against us , as any other , namely , z Cyprian ; who speaking without all Ambages and Hyperboles saith that our Participation of this Sacrament Worketh not any consubstantiall Vnion : that the Coniunction of Christ with us hath in it no mixture of persons ( vz. of Christ and Christians : ) that it uniteth not the substances , but ioyneth affections , and affianceth our wils . After this , hee elegantly expresseth the Analogie betweene the Sacramentall , and Spirituall nourishment : a As by Eating and drinking ( saith hee ) of the bodily substance our Bodies are fed and live : so is the life of the soule nourished with this food . So he . III. That the former Doctrine of the Fathers is consonant to the Profession of Protestants . SECT . VII . IF you take the Corporall Vnion of Christ's bodie with ours as you doe , by a Bodily Touch , bodily Eating , Swallowing , and Mixture with our bodies , We abhorre this as much as did the Ancient Fathers in these their precedent Item's , ( to wit ) First , Ambrose opposing hereunto Christs [ Noli me tangere , ] Touch me not , which was spoken to Mary . Against your Touch. Secondly , Augustines [ Non dentis , sed mentis ] Against your proper eating . Thirdly , Theophylact's [ We devoure not his flesh . ] Against your Swallowing . Fourthly Cyprians [ We mingle not persons . ] Against your Transmitting him into your Bowels and Entrailes . And , for a further Discoverie of Romish stupidity in your Doctrine of Transubstantiation , the Analogie betweene the Sacrament and Christ , in the Doctrine of Antiquity , is alwayes of the substance of Bread and Wine , with his Bodie and Blood. But we never read in ancient Bookes of your Sacramentall Eating of Accidents , Drinking of Accidents , or being fed and living by Accidents . Wherefore muster you all those Testimonies of Fathers , which speake of the Nourishment , augmentation , and subsistence of our Bodies by the bodie and blood of Christ , and all such Sentences will be so many witnesses of your incredible pervicacie , who seeke to prove an Augmentation of our bodies , by the bodie and blood of Christ , in the Eucharist : and yet professe ( according to your owne Romane faith ) that as soone as the Formes of Bread and Wine eaten and drunke are corrupted ( which you know is done in a very short time ) the Bodie and Blood of Christ hath no longer Residence in the bodie of the Communicant . CHALLENGE . THrice therefore , yea foure-times unconscionable are your Disputers , in obiecting the former sentences of holy Fathers , as teaching a Corporall and Naturall Vnion of Christ's body with the bodies of Christian Communicants , once , because they in true sence , make not at all for your Romish Tenet : next , because they make against it : then because the Corporall Coniunction , though it be of the Bodie of Christ , and Bodies of Christians , in respect of the obiect , yet for the matter and subiect , 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 Coniunction properly , and perpetually belonging to the Sanctified 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 Coniunction of Christ his Body in Boxes and Dunghils , in Mawes of Beasts , in Guts of Wormes , Mice and D●gges , as you have taught . Fie , Fie ! Tell it not in Gath , nor let it be once heard off in any heathenish Nation to the Blaspheming of the Christian profession , and dishonouring of the broad Seale of the Gospell of Christ , which is the blessed Sacrament of his precious Bodie and Blood. Before we can proceed to the next Booke , wee are to remove a rub which lyeth in our way . CHAP. IX . That the Obiection taken from the slanders of Iewes and Pagans , against Christians , by imputing the guilt of Eating man's flesh , unto them , in receiving of the Sacrament , is but ignorantly and idly urged by your Disputers . SECT . I. MAny leaves are spent by a Master Brereley in pressing this Obiection ; the strength of his inforcement standeth thus . Iustine Martyr , in the yeare 130. writing an Apologie to the heathen Emperour , when hee 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 he should have removed the suspition thereof , did notwithstanding call the Eucharist , No common Bread , but , after Consecration , the food wherewith our Flesh and Blood are fed , &c. Then he proceedeth in urging his other Argument , borrowed from the b 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 * Attalus the Martyr , whilst he was under the tortures , and torments of his Persecutors , saying , Behold your doing , [ Hoc est homines devorare , ] This is a devouring of men : We Christians doe not devoure men . To whom is ioyned Tertullian , making mention of the same slander of Sacrificing 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 he . THE FIRST CHALLENGE , Against the Ignorance of the Obiector , and the falfe ground of his Obiection . SECT . II. THe confessed light of History will discouer the mist of Preiudice in our opposites ; for Irenaeus , Augustine , and Epiphanius doe all declare , that the ground of this Slander against Christians , for eating man's flesh , was the detestable fact of some Heretiques , who professing themselves Christians , notwithstanding in Celebration of the Eucharist , did indeed eate man's flesh , as your Iesuite c Maldonate , and Cardinall d Baronius doe both witnesse . The former of these fixing a Credo upon it , against your obiected [ Probabile ] to the contrarie . Againe , looke but into the Testimones , as they are alleaged by the Obiector , and recorded in the Histories themselves , and it is found , that , that Slander raised against Christians , was alwayes for eating the flesh of a Child , or Infant , as their Eucharist , and therefore could not reflect upon any Christian and Sacramentall communicating of Christ his flesh in the Eucharist , wherein the Bodie represented ( according to our Christian profession ) is not of a Child , but of a man of more than thirty yeares of age . I say it could no more refl●ct on them than that other heathenish e Lie , that Christians did worship an Asse or Asses head for their God. So childishly hath your Priest vaunted , in calling his Obiection An evident Argument , which will afterwards * be encountred with an Argument against your Romish Sacrifice from the Answere of Cyril of Alexandria unto the Emperour Iulian the Apostate , in defence of Christian Religion , farre more Evident than yours was from the Apologie of Iustine to the other Infidell Emperour . A SECOND CHALLENGE , Against the Insufficiencie of the Reasons collected out of Iustine . SECT . III. THe * Consequences deduced out of Iustine Martyr have beene answered in effect alreadie . First , Hee calleth the Eucharist Not common Bread , and so doth every Christian speake of every sacred and consecrated thing : you Papists will be offended to heare even your Holy Water ( no Sacrament ) to be called Common-water . Secondly , Iustine said , As Christ was made flesh by incarnation , so is the Eucharist by Prayer . It were an Iniurie to Iustine , for any man to thinke him so absurd , as , dealing with an Infidell , to prove unto him one obscure mysterie of Christianitie by another ; And the calling of the Eucharist Flesh Sacramentally , as being a Signe of Flesh , could be no matter of Scandall to the Pagans , who themselves , in their Sacramentalls , usually called the Signe by the name of the Thing signified , one instance whereof you have heard out of Homer , calling the Lambe sacrificed , ( whereby they swore for Ratification of their Covenants ) their faithfull oathes . Againe , the generall Profession of Christians , so well knowne to beleeve that Christ once crucified● , ac cording to the Christian Creed , set at the right hand of God , in highest Maiestie , might quite free them from all heathenish suspition of Corporall Eating the flesh of Christ . Thirdly , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , The meate blessed by giving of Thankes , Iustine calleth Christ's flesh , namely , Improperly , which who shall affirme properly , without a Figure ( by the Censure of your owne Iesuites ) must bee iudged * Absurde . THE THIRD CHALLENGE , Against the Vnluckinesse of the Obiectors , by their urging that which maketh against them . SECT . IV. FOr , first , they have told us of the Martyr Attalius , that hee upbraided his heathenish persecutors , who put him to death , calling them Devourers of mens flesh , and avouching , in behalfe of all true Christians , that they Devoure not man's flesh ; which no Romish Professor at this day can affirme ; this Profession , that you swallow and transmit that flesh of Christ into the stomacke ; this having beene confessed by your owne Iesuite to be a Devouring . So that the Doctrine of that primitive Age ( as you now see ) was as different from your Romish Noveltie , as are Corporall , and not Corporall Eating of the same Bodie of Christ . Finally , All our premised Sections , throughout this Fift Booke , doe clearely make up this Conclusion , that the Bodie of Christ , which Protestants doe feed upon , as their soules food , is the Bodie of Christ once Crucified , and now sitting in glorious maiestie in Heaven : and that Bodie of Christ , beleeved by you , is of Corporall Eating , in deed and in truth of Bread ( as hath beene proued , and will be further discovered in a generall * Synopsis . ) Wherefore let every Christian studie with syncere conscience To eate the flesh of Christ with a spirituall appetite , as his Soules food , thereby to have a Spirituall Vnion with him proper to the Faithfull ; not subiect to Vomitings , or Corruption , and not common to wicked men , and vile beasts , but alwayes working to the salvation of the true Receiver : so shall he abhorre all your Capernatticall fancies . Thus much of the Romish Consequence concerning Vnion ; the next toucheth the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ , whereunto we proceed , not doubting but that we shall find your Disputers the same men , as hitherto wee have done , peremptorie in their Assertions , Vnconscionable in wresting of the Fathers , and vaine , fantasticall , and absurd in their Inferences and Conclusions . THE SIXTH BOOKE , Entreating of the fourth Romish Consequence , which concerneth the pretended proper Propitiatorie Sacrifice in the Romish Masse , arising from the depraved Sence of the former words of Christ ; [ THIS IS MY BODY : ] and confuted by the true Sense of the words following , [ IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE . ] The State of the Controversie . WHosoever shall deny it ( say your Fathers of a Trent ) to be a true and proper Sacrifice : or that it is Propitiatorie , Let him be Anathema , or Accursed . Which one Canon hath begot two Controversies ( as you b know ) One , Whether the Sacrifice in the Masse be a proper Sacrifice . 2. Whether it be truly Propitiatorie . Your Trent-Synode hath affirmed both ; Protestants deny both ; so that , Proper , and Improper , are the distinct Borders of both Controversies . And now whether the Affirmers or Denyers , that is , the Cursers , or the parties so Cursed deserve rather the Curse of God , we are forthwith to examine . We begin with the Sacrifice , as it is called Proper . This Examination hath foure Trials : 1. By the Scripture . 2. By the Iudgement of Antient Fathers . 3. By Romish Principles ; and 4. By Comparison betweene this your Masse , and the Protestants Sacrifice , in the Celebration of the holy Eucharist . CHAP. I. Our Examination by Scripture . SCriptures alleaged by your Disputers , for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice , are partly out of the new Testament , and partly out of the old . In the new , some Objections are collected out of the Gospell of Christ , and some out of other places . Wee beginning at the Gospell , assuredly affirme that if there were in it any note of a Proper Sacrifice , it must necessarily appeare either from some speciall word , or else from some Sacrificing Act of Christ , at the first Institution . First of Christs words . That there is no one word , in Christ his first Institution , which can probably inferre a Proper Sacrifice ; not the first and principall words of Luc. 22. [ HOC FACITF : DOE THIS . ] SECT . I. WHen we call upon you for a Proofe , by the words of Christ , wee exact not the verie word Offering , or Sacrifice , in the same Syllables , but shall bee content with any Phrase of equivalencie , amounting to the sense or meaning of a Sacrifice . In the first place you object those words of Christ , [ Hoc facite , Doe this , ] from which your Councell of a Trent hath collected the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ : which your Cardinall avoucheth with his b Certum est , as a Truth without all exception ; as if [ Doe this , ] in the literall sense , were all one with [ Doe you Sacrifice . ] But why ? because , forsooth , the same word in the Hebrew Originall , and in the Greeke Translation is so used , Levit. 15. for Doe , or Make , spoken of the Turtle-dove prepared for an Holocaust , or Sacrifice : and 1 Kings 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 vainely , ridiculously , and injuriously . I. Vainely , 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 explaned by just circumstances , as may appeare in the places objected , Levit. 15. where was speech of a Turtle-dove appointed for a Sacrifice . And so likewise in 1. Kings 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 hungrie , and having spoken of meat , shall command another , saying likewise , Make ready , None can bee so simple as to confound the different sences of the same word Make , but knoweth right well that the Significations are to bee 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 sence of the same word . II. Ridiculously . For if the Hebrew and Greeke c Editions , which signifie Doe this , doe necessarily argue a sacrificing act or Sacrifice , then shall you be compelled to admit of strange and od kindes of Sacrifices ; one in Gedeon his destroying of the Altar of Baal : another in Moses his Putting off of his shooes . A third in Christs washing of 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. 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 * 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 Cardinalls Answer were held so Certaine among your selves , then would not your Iesuite Maldonate have so farre slighted it , as to say , d I will not contend , that in this place the word [ Doe ] signifieth the same with , Doe sacrifice . Next , Injurious to antiquitie , which ( as is confessed ) e called Doing Masse the Celebration of the Sacrament . Besides , Injurious to your owne Masse , in the Canon inserted by f Alexander Pope and Martyr , of the Primitive age , in these words ; [ Doe this as often ] that is , Blesse it , Breake it , Distribute it , &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 you 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 Cardinall with a marke of Imposture , as if they had falsly taxed your Romish Authors of such fondnesse . But now what shall wee say to such a Gnostick , who , as though he had knowen what all the Doctors in the Church of Rome had then written and ●ented , durst thus engage his word for everie one ? It may bee , hee presumed , that none of them could bee so absurd . But your Iansenius will quit the report of Calvine and Chemnitius from the suspicion of Falshood , who witnesseth , concerning some Romish Authors of his time , sa●ing ; h There are some who endeavour to prove the word [ Facere ] to be put for [ Sacrificare ] by that saying of Virgil , — Cùm faciam vitula . So he . And why might not they have beene as absurd , as some others that came after , yea ( by your leave ) i Iesuites themselves , of your Bellarmines owne Societie , who in like manner 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 Bloud ; wherein , according to the Greeke , there is a varying of the Case : whereupon your Disputers , as if they had cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , are commonly more Instant in this Objection than in any other : some of them spending eight full leaves in pressing this Text , by two Arguments , one in respect of the Case , and another in regard of the Time. Of the Grammar point , concerning the Case . This is the new Testament in my Bloud : ] Now what of this ? a 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 Bloud , 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 Greeke ( saith M. c Breerly ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 varieth the Case from the word [ Sanguine , ] and the Genus from the word [ Testamentum , ] and agreeth evidently with Calix : which drive Beza unto a strange Answer , saying that this is a Soloe cophanes , or Incongruitie of speech . So he ; which Objection he learned , peradventure , of the d Rhemists , who are vehement in pressing the same ; their Conclusion is : This proveth the Sacrifice of Christ's Blood in the Chalice . In which one Collection they labour upon many ignorances . 1. As if a Soloe cophanes were a prophanation of Scripture by Incongruitie of speech ; which ( as one e 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 Greekes 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 Incongruitie , like a Seeming Limping , who themselves confesse f Ingeniously 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 , down right halting . 3. As if a Truth might not be delivered in a Barbarous speech , or that this could be denied by them , who defend Solecismes , and Barbarismes , which had crept into the Translation of Scriptures , saying that g Ancient Fathers , and Doctors have had such a religious care of former Translations , that they would not change their Babarismes of the Vulgar Latine Text , [ as nubent , & nubentur ] and the like . 4. As if there were not the like Soloecophanes of Relatives not agreeing with their Antecedents in case , whereof you have received from h D. Fulke divers Examples . 5. As if this Soloecophanes now objected were not justifiable , which is defended by the Myrrour of Grammarians i Ioseph Scaliger by a figure Antiptôsis , and explaned anciently by k Basil a perfect Greeke Father : referring the Participle [ Shed ] unto the word Blood , and not unto the Chalice ; which marreth 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 . Let us proceed therefore to that point . Of the Time signified by the Participles Given , Broken , Shed . These words being of the Present time , Therefore it plainly followeth that Breaking , Giving Christ's Body , and shedding his Blood is in the Supper , and not on the Crosse : So your l Cardinall : most invincibly say your m Rhemists , and M. Breerly , as dancing merily after their Pipes ; n This point ( saith hee ) is cleerely determined by the Evangelists themselves in their owne origin all writings , Broken , Given , Shed . And o The Evasions , which our Adversaries seeke , whereby to avoid this , are enforced , racked , and miserable shifts . And againe , for corroboration sake . p 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 legs . Ioh. 19. 33. So hee , and so they . Alas ! what huge Anakims , and Gyants have wee 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 Bloodshed ; and both Given up as a Sacrifice instantly after upon the Crosse . What Authors on your side may satisfie you ? whether your Two * choyse Iesuites , Salmeron and Valentia ? or will you be directed by most voices , whereby it is confessed ( namely ) that q By Blood shed , is commonly understood of it shed upon the Crosse . But what need have wee 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 , ] shal be shed , as referred to the Crosse ? What thinke you by this ? say M. Breerly . * Our Adversaries are in great straights , 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 alledge your Vulgar Latine Edition , as a purer Translation , and not as a true Translation 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 * Not to reject it upon any pretence whatsoever . And to have this your owne Authenticall Translation to make against you , is to be in straights indeed , because all the Decrees of that Councell , by the Bull of Pope Pius 4. are put upon you to bee 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 wit : r Neverthelesse ( saith hee ) I answer in behalfe of the Vulgar Interpreter , that as hee translateth in the Future Tense , [ which shall bee 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 bee 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 . A fit man ( forsooth ) to inveigh against a Soloecophanes . But how then can Protestants interpret the Present to signifie the Future ? Wee tell you , because you have in Scriptures , and other Authors thousands of Examples of the Present Tense put for the Future , to signifie the certaintie or instancie of that which is spoken : but was it 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 bee taken not in true sence , then shall it be lawfull for everie pettie Romish Priest at every Masse-saving to correct your Romish Missall , authorized by the same Tridentine Fathers , which hath it s Shall be shed . One word more with M. Breerly , only desirous to know of him , if hee allow of the Tense either Present or Future , whether it was straightnesse , or loosenesse , that occasioned him to deliver it in the Preterimperfect Tense t Was shed . But he will expect that wee answer his Reason . Hee 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 hee uttered the word Broken ; which is like his other manner of Reasons , blunt , and broken at the point , as it became one not much conversant in Scripture : else might he have answered 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 , Hee was Broken for our iniquities : ( namely , as two of your u Iesuites acknowledge ) By nailes , speare , and whips ; and is to be applyed to the Breaking of his sinewes , nerves , and veines , as your x 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 Antient Fathers . SECT . III. AS for our selves , we , before all other Reasons , and against all opposition whatsoever , take our light from the same Scripture ( immediately after the Text objected ) wherein it is said of Iudas , * He that betrayeth me ; and againe , Christ of himselfe , * I goe my way , both in the Present Tense , but both betokening the Future : because neither Iudas at that instant practised any thing , nor did Christ move any whit out of his place . Lastly , if ancient Fathers may be held for indifferent and competent a Expositors , we have Origen , Tertullian , Athanasius , Basil , Ambrose , Theodoret , Isidore , Pope Alexander , and Chrysostome , All for the Future Tense , by their Confringetur , Tradetur , Effundetur . What , my Masters , is there no learning but under your Romish caps ? That the objected words of Christ , and the whole Text , doe utterly overthrow the pretended Sacrifice in the Romish Masse . SECT . IV. AMong the words of Institution , the first which offereth it selfe to our use , is the formerly-objected word , BROKEN ; which word ( said your Iesuite * Suares ) is taken unproperly , because in the proper and exact acception it should signifie a dividing of the body of Christ into parts . So he , and that truly . Else why ( wee pray you ) is it , that your Roman Church hath left out of her Masse the same word [ Broken ] used by Christ in the words , which you terme words of Consecration ? Although you ( peradventure ) would be silent , yet your Bishop a 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 Cardinall , speaking of the first Institution ) did not passe out of his Body . Even as * Aquinas had said before him . But most emphatically your Alphonsus . c Christ his Bloud was once shed upon the Crosse , never to be shed againe after his resurrection , which cannot be perfectly separated from his Body . And accordingly your Iesuite d Coster ; The true effusion of his Blood , which is by separating it from the Body , was only on the Crosse . So they . Hearken now . These words , Blood shed , and Body broken , were spoken then by Christ , and are now recited by your Priest either in the proper sence of shedding , or they are not . If in a proper sence , then is it properly separated from his Body , ( against your former Confession , and Profession of all Christians ; ) But if it be said to be shed unproperly , then are your Objectors of a proper Sence of Christ his words to be properly called deceitfull Sophisters , as men who speake not from conscience , but for contention : who being defeated in their first skirmish , about Christs words , doe flie for refuge to his Acts , and Deeds ; whither wee further pursue them . That there was no Sacrificing Act in the whole Institution of Christ , which the Romish Church can justly pretend for defence of her Proper Sacrifice ; proved by your owne Confessions . SECT . V. THere are six Acts of Christ , which your Proctors , who plead for a proper Sacrifice , do pretend for proofe thereof , as being ascribable to the Institution of Christ , and are as readily and roundly confuted by their owne fellowes , as they were by others frequently and diligently fought out , or vehemently objected : which the Marginals will manifest unto you , in everie particular ▪ to be no essentiall Acts of a proper Sacrifice . 1. Not a Elevation , because it was not instituted by Christ . 2. Not the b Breaking of Bread , because ( you say ) it is not necessarie . 3. Not Consecration , although it be held , by c your Cardinall Alan , The only essentiall Act ; yet ( as * Some thinke ) Is it not of the Essence of a Sacrifice . And why should not they so judge ? ( say wee , ) for many things are Sacrata , that is , Consecrated , which are not Sacrificata , that is , Sacrificed . Else what will you say of Water in Baptisme , yea of your Holy-water-sprinckle ? of your Pots , Bells , Vestments ? which , being held by you as Sacred , are notwithstanding not so much as Sacramentals . Besides , if Consecration made the Sacrifice , then Bread being only consecrated , it alone should be the Sacrifice in your Masse . 4. d Not Oblation , whether before , or e after Consecration . 5. f Not dipping of the Hoast in the Chalice . 6. ( Although your g Cardinall preferred this before all others ) h Not the Consumption of the Hoast by the Priests eating it . Which your Iesuite Salmeron , and Cardinall Alan , together with your Iesuite i Suarez , accompanied with with seven other of your Schoole-men doe gaine-say ; because this is Rather proper to a Sacrament , than to a Sacrifice . And for that also ( if it were essentiall ) the People might be held Sacrificers , aswell as Priests . So they , of these Particulars ; whereof some are more largely discussed afterwards . CHALLENGE . COnsider now ( wee pray you ) that ( as you All k confesse ) The whole Essence of a Sacrifice dependeth upon the Institution of Christ . And that l It is not in the power of the Church to ordaine a Sacrifice . Next , that if any Sacrifice had beene instituted , it must have appeared either by some word , or Act of Christ , neither of which can be found , or yet any shaddow thereof . What then ( we pray you ) can make more both for the justifying of your owne Bishop of Bitontum , who feared not to publish in your Councell of Trent , before all their Father-hoods , m That Christ in his last Supper did not offer up any proper Sacrifice ? As also for the condemning of your owne Romish Church for a Sacrilegious Depravation of the Sacrament of Christ ? Vpon this their Exigence whither will they now ? To other Scriptures of the new Testament , and then of the old . Out of the new are the two that follow . CHAP. II. That the other objected Scriptures , out of the new Testament , make not for any Proper Sacrifice among Christians , to witt , not Acts 13. 2. of [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] SECT . I. ACTS 13. 2. S. Luke reporting the publike Ministerie , wherein the Apostles with other devout Christians were ●ow exercised , saith [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ] which two of your a Cardinalls translate , They sacrificing . But why Sacrificing , say we , and not some other ministeriall Function , as preaching , or administring the Sacrament , seeing that the words may beare it ? They answer us , because 1. This Ministerie is said to be done To the Lord , so is not Preaching . 2. For that the word [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] whensoever it is applyed to sacred Ministerie and used absolutely , it is alwayes taken for the Act of Sacrificing . So they . When we should have answered this Objection , wee found our selves prevented by one , who for Greeke-learning hath sca●… had his equall in this our age , namely , that b Phenix M. Isaac Casaubon . Looke upon the Margent , where you may finde the word , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to have been used Ecclesiastically for whatsoever religious ministration , ( even for sole Praying , where there is no note or occasion of Sacrifice ) and he instanceth in the Fathers , mentioning the Morning and Evening 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church . But you will not say ( 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 me●t 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. 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 cat 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 Here ( saith hee ) the Table of the Lord is compared with the Altar of the Gentiles : Therefore is the Table of the Lord certainly an Altar , and therefore it hath a Sacrifice . 2. Because the Eucharist is so offered , as were the Sacrifices of the Iewes . And 3. Because he that eateth the Eucharist is said so to be partaker of the Lord's Altar , as the Heathen of things sacrificed to Idolls are said to be partakers of the Idolls Altar . So hee ; following only his owne sence , and not regarding the voyce or judgement of any other . If we 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 . And although the Heathen had their Altars , yet ( which crosseth all the former Objections ) their common Eating of things sacrificed unto Idolls was not upon Altars , but upon Tables , in feasting and partaking of the Idolothytes , and not in Sacrificing , as did also the * Gentiles . The whole scope of the Apostle is to dehort all Christians from communicating with the Heathen in their Idoll Solemnities whatsoever ; and the summe of his Argument is , that whosoever is Partaker of any Ceremony , 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 aswell agree with a Religious Table , as with an Altar ; with a Sacrament , as with a Sacrifice , and so it seemeth your b Aquinas thought , who paraphraseth thus upon the Text ; You cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord , in respect of the Sacrament of the Lords Body , and of the table of Devills . 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 : * 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 Devills . 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 been 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 Divers have thought ) only of 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 we yeeld unto you the full scope , and suppose ( with your * 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 shal be objected will concerne either the matter of Sacrifice , or else the Priest-hood & office of the Sacrificer , we 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 Margent ) comparing the Sacrifice of Melchisedech to the Eucharist , in the name of a Sacrifice , doe relate no further than Bread and Wine , calling these Materials , The Sacrifice of Christians : such are the Testimonies of Ambrose , Augustine , Chrysostome , Theophylact , O●cumenius , and Cassiodore , together with two Iewish Rabbins ; promising that at the comming 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 * confessing it to be no better than a Iewish Conceit , 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 , doe you not blush ? How much better had it becomne you to have understood the Fathers to have used the word Sacrifice in a large sence , as it might signifie any sacred ministration , as Isidore doth instruct you ? Who , if you aske what it is , which Christ●ans doe now offer after the order of Melchisedech ? he will say , that it is Bread and Wine . b That is ( saith he ) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood. Even as Ierome long before him ; c Melchisedech in Bread and Wine did dedicate the Sacrament of Christ : distinguishing both the Sacrament from a Proper Sacrifice , and naming the thing , that is said in a sort to be offered , Not to be the Body and Blood of Christ , but the Sacrament of both . Your second kinde of objected Sentences of Fathers doe indeed compare the Bread and Wine of Melchisedech with the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist . In this Rancke wee reckon the d Testimonies of Cyprian , Hierome , Eusebius , and Eucherius , saying that Melchisedech himselfe offered up the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrifice : which Body and Blood of Christ you will All sweare ( we 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 Christ's Body and Blood , any thing but the Type of Christ his Body and Blood ; these being then the Object of Melchisedech's faith , as the cited Sentences of Hierome and Eusebius doe declare . Which is a second proofe of the unconscionable dealing of your Disputers , by inforcing Testimonies against common sence . But will you see furthermore the Vnluckinesse of your game , and that three manner of wayes ? First , your ordinarie 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 libertie . 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 fore-named 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 . That the Apostle to the Hebrewes , in comparing Melchisedech with Christ , did not intimate any Analogie betweene the Sacrifice of Melchisedech , and of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist . SECT . III. BVt , a 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 vour Cardinall ) a thing undeniable , that the Apostle meant thereby the mysterie of the Eucharist , because it was above their capacitie , 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 Iesuite Ribera , who telleth you that b 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 Capacitie : but did , in so saying , rather excite them to a greater Attention ; shewing thereby that he did not dispaire , 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 he ) Doe 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 . 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 Cardinall ) is transla●ed into the Priesthood of Melchizedech , and this into the Priesthood of Christ , [ A Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedech : ] which , because it is perpetuall and eternall , cannot be performed properly by Christ himselfe , and therefore must be executed by his Ministers , ●s Vicars on earth . So he , accordingly as your b Councell of Trent hath decreed . Insomuch that M. Sanders will have the whole Ministerie of the new Testament to issue c Originally from Melchizedech . This is a matter of great moment , as will appeare ; which we shall resolve by o●rtaine Positions . The foundation of all the Doctrine , concerning Christ and Melchizedech , is set downe in the Epistle to the Hebrewes . That the Analogie betweene Melchizedech 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 Melchizedech with the Arch-Type Christ Iesus , in one order of Priesthood , sheweth betweene Both an absolute Analogie , although not in equalitie of Excellence , yet in similitude of qualities and offices . As first in Royaltie , Melchizedech is called The King of Iustice and Peace . So Christ ( but infinitely more ) is called Our Iustice and Peace . Secondly , Melchizedech , in respect of Generation , was without Generation from Father or Mother ( according to the formalitie of Sacred Storie : ) so Christ , according to the veritie of his Humanitie , without Father ; and , in his divine nature , without Mother : of whom also it is written , Who shall declare his Generation ? Thirdly , in Time , Melchizedech 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 , only 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 Christ's Power might be both Regall , and Sacerdotall , saith a Chrysostome ; which was a singular dignity , as your Iesuite well observeth . That the nature of everie other Priesthood ( be it of your Romish High-Priest ) dissenteth as much from the Priesthood of Melchizdech , as the Priesthood of Melchizedech agreeth with the Priest-hood of Christ . SECT . VI. IF Comparison might be made of Priesthood , whom would you rather that we should instance in , than in your intituled Summus Pontifex , that is , the High Priest , your Pope : who notwithstanding cannot be said to be a King , as Melchizedech , much lesse as Christ , a Everlasting . Secondly , Much lesse a King of Peace , who hath beene reproved by Antiquitie for being b A Troubler of the Peace of Christ's Church : And generally complained of by others , as being c Nothing lesse than the Vicar of the God of Peace , because of his raising hostile wars against Princes of the same Nation , Blood , and Faith : And for d Distracting the Estates of Princedome and Priestdome . Thirdly , not King of Iustice , because some Popes have excited Subjects and Sonnes to rebell against their Leige Soveraignes 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 other-some the mothers side hath beene much the surer . It will be no Answer to say , as Pope e 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 Saint Peter , is the chiefe tenure of your Priest-hood . Nor will that of Epiphanius helpe you , in this Case , to say that f You had no Succession by the seed of Aaron : because although this may exempt you from the Leviticall Priest-hood , yet will not it associate you with the Priest-hood of Melchizedech , or of Christ , whose Characters of Priest-hood was to be Priests soly , individually , and absolutely in themselves . As little can your ordinary Answer availe , telling us that you are not g 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 Melchizedech . But if indeed you disclaime all Succession of Christ , why is your Iesuit licensed to say , that your h Roman Popes doe succeed Christ in their Pastorship over the Church , although not in their Priest-hood by offering Sacrifices , expiating sinnes by their owne virtue ? Are not the titles of Pastor and Priest equally transcendent in Christ ? Sixthly , not in respect of the no-necessity of a Succession , which was 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 Grave ; to omit their other like barbarous outrages . Seventhly , not Personall Sanctity , * 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 * Lie. As for your Popes , we wish you to make choice of whatsoever Historians you please , and we 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 Roman Priest and Christ , the Prototype to Melchizedech , in so manifold Repugnances ? Yet notwithstanding , every one of you must be ( forsooth ) a Priest after the order of Melchizedeck . Nay , but ( not to multiply many words ) the Novelty of your Pretence doth bewray it selfe from k 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 He ( saith your l Cardinall of him ) collected the sentences of Divines , and deserved to be called the Master of Schoolmen . Thus farre of the Person of Christ , as Priest ; in the next place we are to enquire into his Priestly function . Of the Function of Christ his Priest-hood , 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 The old Priest-hood of Aaron was translated into the Priest-hood of Christ : Every Priest ( saith the Apostle ) must have some thing to offer , else he were no Priest . Thus his Priest-hood 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 Preist-hood is perpetuall , because of the perpetuall virtue of his sacrifice upon the Crosse ; or because of his perpetuall Act of Intercession , as Priest in Heaven ; or of presenting his passion to his Father in Heaven , whither his Priest-hood was translated . No , but it is certaine that Christ cannot now properly sacrifice by himselfe , He 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 onely 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 only ●e is said to have a perpetuall Priest-hood . Accordingly your Cardinall b Alan ; Christ ( saith he ) performeth no Priestly function in Heaven , but with relation to our Ministery here on earth , whereby he offereth . So they for the dignifying of their Romish Masse , as did also c your Rhemists ; but with what Ecclipse of Iudgement and good Conscience , is now to be declared . If we take the Sacrifice of Christ for the proper Act of Sacrificing , which is destructive ; so was Christ his Sacrifice but One , and Once , Heb. 7. and 8. But understanding it as the subject matter of the same Sacrifice , once so offered to God upon the 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 . V. 12. To what end ? Alwaies living to make supplication for us . Ch. 7. V. 3. and 25. Hence followeth the continuall use , which the soules of the faithfull have , of his immediate function in Heaven : Having a perpetuall Priest-hood , he is able continually to save them that come to God by him . V. 24 , 25. Whence issueth our boldnesse and all-confidence , alwaies to addresse our prayers to him , or by him unto God : We having an high Priest over the house of God , let us draw neare with a true heart , infull assurance of faith , having our hearts sprinckled from an evill Conscience . Ch. 10. 22. The evidence of these Scriptures hath drawne from your Iesuit Ribera ( even then , when he professeth himselfe an earnest defender of your Romane Masse ) these Acknowledgements following d viz. upon the Ch. 7. 23. That Christ is a true Priest , and all other doe partake of his Priest-hood , in offering sacrifice , onely in remembrance of his Sacrifice : And that he did not performe the office of Priest-hood onely upon earth , but even now also in heaven : which function he now dischargeth by the virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse . He proceedeth . No man ( saith he ) will deny this Position ( namely ) that Christ now ever exercizeth the office of a Priest , by presenting himselfe for us . So he . This is still Christ's function of Priest-hood , whereunto this Apostle exhorteth all Christians , at all times of need to make their addresse ; which Saint Iohn propoundeth as the only Anchor-hold of Faith in his Propitiation , 1. Iohn 2. If any sinne , we have an Advocate with the Father , Iesus Christ the righteous , and he is ( what ? ) The Propitiation for our sinnes . The which every faithfull Christian doth apply , by faith , unto himselfe , as often as he prayeth to God , in Christ's name , for the remission of sinnes , saying , Through Iesus Christ our Lord. How therefore can this his function of Priest-hood , 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 satisfied by your owne Authors e Ribera , and f Aquinas long-ago . That the former Romish Sacrilegious Derogation , from Christ's Priestly function in Heaven , is contradicted by ancient Fathers ; first inrespect of Place , or Altar , and Function . SECT . VIII . THeodoret is a alleaged by you , as denying that Christ now offereth any thing by himselfe , but only in the Church : albeit he saith not so , simply ; but , that he offereth not in the Church personally , which all confesse : for otherwise Theodoret presently after b expresseth , that Christ exerciseth his Priest-hood still as man. As for the Church , his words are not , that She offereth the Body and Blood of Christ in Sacrifice , but , The Symbols of his Body and Blood. Therefore is this his Testimony unworthily and unconscionably objected . But we will consult with the direct speeches of Antiquity . 1. If you aske of the Offering , Ambrose answereth you , that c 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 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 Presbyteri propriè Sacerdotes : which ho●pake not absolutely , but comparatively ( namely ) in respect of Lay-Christians , who in Scripture are otherwise called Priests . ( As your owne * Catechisme distinguisheth , calling the former the Inward , which only 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 mercy ; which he g calleth True , namely in the Truth of Excellency , although 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 amplified by this comparison . If furthermore we speake of the Altar , you will have it to be rather on earth below , and to that end you object that Scripture , Heb. 13. 10. We have [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] that is , an Altar ( saith the Apostle ) whereof they have no right to eat , that serve at the Tabernacle . This h some of you greedily catch at , for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse , and are presently repulsed by your i Aquinas , expounding the place to signifie Either his Altar upon the Crosse , or else his Body , as his Altar in Heaven : mentioned Apoc. 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 , Thankfulnesse , Hope , and Charity ; you would presently answer , that This one certainly is some Lutheran or Calvinist , the words are so contradictory to your Romish Garbe : notwithstanding you may finde all this in the k Antididagma of the Divines of Collen . And your Argument drawne from the word Altar , in this Scripture , is so feeble and lame a Souldier , that your l Cardinall was content to leave it behind him , because Many Catholikes ( saith he ) interpret it otherwise . But we are cited to consult with the Antient Fathers , be it so . If then we shall demand where our high Priest Christ Iesus is , to whom a man in fasting must repaire , m Origen resolveth us , saying , He is not to be sought here on earth at all , but in Heaven . If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution , that he cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on earth , Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him , as he did himselfe , saying , n I have another Altar in Heaven , whereof these ( Altars ) are but signes ; a better Altar , to be beholden with the eyes of my mind , theye will I offer up my oblations : as great a Difference ( doubtlesse ) as betweene Signes and Things . This could not he have said of those Altars , if the Sacrifices on them both were , as you pretend , subjectively and corporally the same . If we would know how , what , and where the thing is , which a Christian man ought to contemplate upon , when he is exercised in this our Eucharisticall Sacrifice ? o 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 he saith ) in Heaven . According to that of the Apostle , Heb. 10. Christ sitting at the right hand of God. V. 12. What therefore ? Therefore let us draw neere with an Assurance of faith . V. 22. If we would understand wherein the difference of the Iewish Religion and Christian Profession especially consisteth , in respect of Priest-hood , p Augustine telleth us that They have no Priest-hood ; and the Priest-hood 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 we must have our Confidence in the Celestiall Priest , Sacrifice , and Altar ; q Oecumenius and r Ambrose will shew us that it is because Here below there is nothing visible ; neither Temple , ours being in Heaven ; nor Priest , our being Christ ; nor Sacrifice , ours being his Body ; nor yet Altar , saith the other . Heare your owne Canus : s Christ offereth an unbloody Oblation in Heaven . 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 we have * heard ) is set out by the Apostle in these termes : He abideth a Priest for us . He continueth a Priest . He having a continuall Priest-hood . He , without intermission , appeareth before God for us . Thus the Apostle . But what of this , will you say ? Doe but marke . Are you not All heard still proclaiming , as with one voice , that your Romish Sacrifice of the Masse is the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and a Iuge Sacrificium , that is , the Continuall Sacrifice ; Continually offered : Whereof the [ Iuge ] and Continuall Sacrifice of the Law was a signe . So you . But it were strange that the Iuge Sacrificium of the Law , continuing both Morning and Evening , should be a figure of your Masse-Sacrifice , which is but only offered in the Morning . As if you would make a picture , having two hands , for to represent a Person that hath but one . But , not to deny that the Celebration of the Eucharist , may be called a Iuge Sacrificium ( for so some Fathers have termed it : ) Yet , they no otherwise call it Iuge , or Continuall , than they call it a Sacrifice , that is , Vnproperly ; because it cannot possibly be compared for Continuance of Time to that Celestiall of Christ in the highest Heaven , where Christ offereth himselfe to God for us day and night , without Intermission . Whereupon it is that Irenaeus exhorteth men to pray often by Christ at his Altar , b Which Altar ( saith he ) is in Heaven , and the Temple open . Apoc. 11. 19. c Where ( saith Pope Gregory ) our Saviour Christ offereth up his burnt Sacrifices for us without intermission : And whereupon your Iesuit Coster , out of Ambrose , affirmeth , that d Christ exhibiteth his Body wounded upon the Crosse , and slaine , as a [ Iuge Sacrificium ] that is , a Continuall Sacrifice , perpetually unto his Father for us . And to this purpose serve the fore-cited Testimonies of Augustine , Gregory Nazianzen , Ambrose , Chrysostome , and Oecumenius ; some pointing out the Altar in Heaven , as the Truth , Some by Exhortations , and Some by their Examples instructing us to make our Continuall Approach unto the Celestiall Altar . CHALLENGE . NOw you , who so fix the hearts and minds of the Spectators of your Masse , upon your sublunary Altars and Hoasts , and appropriate the Iuge Sacrificium thereunto ( in respect of Time ) during onely the houres of your Priestly Sacrificing ; allow your attention but a moment of Time , and you will easily see the Impiety of that your Profession . The Iuge Sacrificium of Christ , as it is presented to God by him in Heaven , hath beene described to be Continuall , without Intermission , Alwayes ( that is ) without any Interruption of any moment of Time : to the end that all sorts of Penitents and faithfull Suters , solliciting God by him , might finde ( as the Apostle saith ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , Helpe at any time of need . The gates of this Temple , Heaven , being ever open : the matter of this Sacrifice , which is the Body of Christ , being there ever present . The Priest , who is Christ himselfe , ever executing his Function . Whereas , contrarily , ( you will confesse , we dare say ) that the Doores of your Churches may happen to be all locked , or interdicted ; your Sacrifice shut up in a Box , or lurched , and carried away by Mice ; your Priest taken up with sport , or repast , or journey , or sleepe : yea , and even when he is acting a Sacrifice , may possibly nullifie all his Priestly Sacrificing Act , by reason of ( * Confessed ) Almost infinite Defects . Therefore the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Doctrine of your Masse is thus farre manifested , in as much that your owne Ministeriall Priest-hood doth so prejudice the personall Priest-hood of Christ , as it is in Heaven , as the Moone doth by her interposition ecclipse the glory of the Sunne : by confounding things distinct , that is , ( as we have learned from the Fathers ) Image with Truth ; The state of Wicked Partakers with the Godly ; Matters Visible with Invisible ; Signes with Things ; Worse with Better ; Iayes with Eagles ; and the like . Of the second Typicall Scripture , which is the Passeover : shewing the weaknesse of the Argument taken from thence , for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse . SECT . X. FIrst it is meet we heare your Objector speake , even your a Cardinall , who albeit he confesseth the Paschall Lamb to have been the figure of Christ on the Crosse , yet did it in the Ceremonies thereof ( saith he ) more immediatly and principally prefigure the Eucharist than the Passion , which is proved by Scripture , 1. Cor. 5. [ Our Passeover is offered up , therefore let us feast it in the Azymes of Sincerity and Truth . ] Which offering up was not fulfilled on the Crosse ; but it is evident that the Apostle did eat this true Paschall Lambe , the flesh of Christ , at his Supper : and this Apostle exhorteth us to this Feast , in saying , [ Let us therefore keepe our feast , &c. ] So hee , bestowing a large Chapter of Arguments , wherewith to bleare our eyes , lest that we should see in this Scripture [ Our Passeover is offered up ] Rather the Immolation of Christ on the Crosse , than in the Eucharist . We willingly yeeld unto his alleaged Testimonies of Ancient Fathers , who by way of Allusion , or Analogie , doe all call the Eucharist a Paschall Sacrifice . But yet that the words of this Scripture should more properly and principally meane the Eucharisticall Sacrifice ( as if the Iewish Passeover did rather prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ in the Masse , than on the Crosse ) not one . It were a tedious worke to sift out all the Drosse of his Argumentations ; Neverthelesse , because he putteth Protestants unto it , saying us followeth , b But our Adversaries ( saith he ) will say , that the Apostle , in saying our Passeover is offered up , speaketh of Christ's Sacrifice offered upon the Crosse , but we will prove that this figure was properly fulfilled at his S●pper : ( So he ) We will now shew you that other Adversaries , than Protestants , are ready to encounter this your Champion . First , the choisest Chieftaine of his owne side , armed with the Authority of Christ himselfe , Ioh. 13. 1. [ Before the day of the Passeover , Iesus knowing that his howre was come , that he must passe out of the world unto the Father . ] Now when was this spoken ? Even then , saith c Tolet , your Cardinall and Iesuit , When he came to the celebrating of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood , that is , at his last Supper . But what was meant hereby ? namely , Christ alluded unto the Iewish Passeover ( saith he ) in signification of his owne passing over by death to his Father . So he . So also your Iesuit d Pererius , out of Augustine . A second Scripture is the objected Text 1. Cor. 5. [ Our Passeover is offered up , Christ : ] that is , As the figurative paschall Lambe was offered up for the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt , so Christ was offered up to death for the Redemption of his people , and so passed by his passion to his Father . So your e Aquinas . [ Our Passeover . ] Namely , by his Sacrifice in shedding his Blood on the Crosse . So your Iesuit f Becanus . And , By this his Passeover on the Crosse was the Passeover of the Iewes fulfilled . So your Bishop g Iansenius , as flat diameter to your Cardinal's Objection as can be . A third Scripture we finde , Ioh. 19. [ They broke not his legs , that the Scriptures might be fulfilled which is written , A bone of him shall not be broken : ] which your h Cardinall himselfe confesseth to relate only 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 Christs 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 bloodshed , Common sense may stand for Iudge . The Ancient Fathers , when they speake of the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion , in a precise propriety of speech , doe declare themselves accordingly . If in generall , then as i Origen : All those other Sacrifices ( saith hee ) were prefigurations of this our perfect Sacrifice . If more particularly , then as k 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 he ) in beholding the Crosse , the joy which we 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 . In so much that , else-where he teacheth every Christian how , as a spirituall Priest , he may l Alwaies keepe the Passeover of Christ . What greater plainenesse can be desired ? and yet behold , if it bee possible , a greater from m Origen , calling the Sacrifice on the Crosse the the Onely true Passeover . Which saying his Reporter Socrates imbraceth , as a Divine Contemplation . From Typicall Scriptures we 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 Texts are two . The first , which is , Mal. 5. 1. is objected by your Cardinall in this manner : [ 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 , * 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 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 We deny it : and how that we are to grapple together , we shall first charge you with alleaging a corrupt Tr●nslation , 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 only 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 confesseth ) Both the Hebrew and Greeke Text hath it thus : [ Incense is offered in my name ; and a pure offering , &c. ] and that More plainly , saith your c Valentia . Which warranteth us to call your Vulgar Translation false , as we shall now prove , and you perceive , without any farre Digression . For we meddle not now with the generall Controversie , about this Translation , but insist only 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 ye 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 your selves 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 Marginals , and you shall finde mention of the word Incense ( according to the Hebrew and Greeke Texts ) in the very same objected Testimonies of Tertullian , Irenaeus , Hierom , Chrysostome , Eusebius , and Augustine . Notwithstanding , we should not be so vehement , in condemning your Romish Translation in this point , if the matter , now in hand , did not challenge us thereunto : the word , Incense , being sufficient in it selfe to satisfie all your Objections taken from the Sentences of Fathers , and vrged 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 we finde in this Prophet , concerning the new Testament : One is , Incense , in the Text now alleaged ; 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 Spirituall , and no proper Sacrifices . But the Fathers , by you objected , ( to wit , Tertullian , Irenaeus , Hierome , Chrysostome , Eusebius , and Augustine ) doe * Expound Incense to signifie these Spirituall Duties , which are unproperly called Incense . Therefore may we as justly conceive , that the word , Sacrifice , used by them , and applied to the service of God in the new Testament , was meant Improperly ; and that so much the rather , because your Cardinall hath no Objection out of the Fathers for his advantage in the word , Sacrifice , which he looseth not by the word Incense , from point to point . For the first Objection we oppose , saying , The word Incense , is likewise used without a Addition . To the second , We accordingly say , Incense was meant also to be Pure : for you will not imagine , that God would promise to his 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 : * Incense is an abominination 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 . Doe you not now see what reason your Cardinall had , to make choise of a corrupt Text , wanting the word Incense ? which he peradventure foresaw would prove as bitter as Coloquintida in his Pottage . The second word in Malachy is [ Levite , ] I will purge the sonnes of Levi ; which was spoken ( as your Cardinall b confesseth ) of the Ministers of the new Testament . Well then , did the Prophet call the Ministery & service of the new Testament , Pure Sacrifice ? And did he not in the like manner call the Ministers of the new Testament Purged Levites ? as also some of the Ancient * Fathers ( you know ) used to doe : And as your Church , in degrading of Arch-Bishop Cranmer from his order of c Deaconship once did . Therefore both alike were used Improperly , in imitation of this Prophet , and also of that in * Isaiah , I will send them Priests and Levites . That the Text of the Prophet Malachy doth confute the Romish Pretence of Sacrifice , even by the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers . SECT . III. PErmit you us , for brevity sake , to contrive this Section into Ob. and Sol. your Cardinal's Objections , and our Solutions or Answers . 1. Ob. Sacrifice is called pure , Ergo , Christs Body . Sol. And Chrysost . ( who is a objected ) termeth Prayers , Pure Incense . 2. Ob. The word , Sacrifice , signifieth not Prayers , Praises , or Pious Actions , for these are improperly called Sacrifices , Ergo , &c. Sol. First , b Tertullian ( objected ) expounded the word Sacrifice , to signifie Benedictions , and Praises . And secondly , c Eusebius ( objected ) calleth this Pure Sacrifice , Pious Actions and Prayers . Which your Cardinall could not Answer , but with a marvellous and miserable Illusion . 3. Ob. By the word , d Sacrifice , were not meant Spirituall Sacrifices , &c. Sol. Yet e Hierome ( objected ) expresly nameth the Sacrifice , in Malachy , Spirituall . To come to your Cardinals principall Reason . 4. Ob. The Iewish Sacrifices were called Vncleane , not in respect of the Offerers , 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 ) plainly 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 he giveth this Reason , because f The Iewes ( saith he ) offered up their Oblations with wicked hearts , but the Christians performe theirs with pure Consciences . And that the Iewish Sacrifices were not rejected for themselves , but for the impiety of their Sacrificers ; your owne Iesuit g Ribera 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 None to be ignorant ; for 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 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 . We 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 Chrysostome ( objected ) calleth it that Sacrifice , whereof Saint Paul writeth , saying , [ Christ gave himselfe up a Sacrifice for his Church . ] Eph. 5. Lastly , Cyprian ( objected ) calleth it the l New Sacrifice of Praise : which is , you know , a Spirituall , and no Corporall or Proper Sacrifice . The first Propheticall Text is finished . The second Propheticall Text ( as is pretended ) is Psal . 72. 16. concerning an [ Handfull of Corne in the Top of the Mountaines : ] objected to proue a Sacrifice in the Romish Masse ; but yet as very Romishly , as were the rest . SECT . IV. OF this Corne your a Disputers Coccius , Duraeus , Sanctesius , Genebrard , out of Galatinus , and He 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 Breerly , b A most strong Argument , in behalfe of the said Doctrine . 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 mooldy 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 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 Bellarmine . Which we 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 & truly a Cake , then is not it Accidents only , but hath still in it the substance of Bread. And so farewell your Helena of Trent , called Transubstantiation . Now because the Sacrifice can be no better than the matter thereof will permit it , it followeth that the Sacrifice is not properly the Body of Christ , but the Element of Bread. And thus your Authors ( after their laborious kneading and moulding , their greedy longing , and their sweetly chewing hereof ) are at length in a manner choaked with their owne Cake . CHAP. V. Of our Second Examination of this Controversie , by the Iudgment 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 Demonstraations . THE Demonstrations , which we are to speake of , are many ; some taken from the proper , and some from the pretended Subject of the Eucharist ; some from the paritie 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 is , That the Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice ; as being the Subject matter of the Eucharist , but Vnproperly . SECT . I. THat Antient Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice , even before Consecration , we have it confessed asseverantly by your owne a Iesuit , where he will have you furthermore to observe , that Bread and Wine , before Consecration , is called an Immaculate Sacrifice , even in your Roman Masse . And that the Primitive Fathers called Bread and Wine , Sacrifice , after Consecration also , we have likewise proved in two full * Sections : which your Cardinall is bound to acknowledge , who , to prove that Melchizedech Sacrificed Bread and Wine , produced the Testimonies of Ambrose , Augustine , Chrysostome , Oecumenius , and Theophylact , to conclude them to have beene Figures of the Eucharist , which we desire you to cary still in minde , untill we end this Section . Hereupon we demand , whether you think that Bread and Wine , in the Eucharist , can be called of Christians a Sacrifice properly , either before , or after Consecration ? No ( saith one b Iesuit ) Because it is not agreeable to our Priest-hood . No ( saith a c Second ) because it were most absurd that the Church of Christ should have a lifelesse Sacrifice , and consequently more vile than was the Iewish . No , ( d saith a Third ) because it were an heinous impiety now , after the abrogation of the terrene Sacrifices of the Iewes , to beleeve that the Church of God should professe an Offering of Corporall and earthly Sacrifices . No ( e saith a 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 exercized upon Bread and Wine . So they . Wee would be glad to take the Apostle of Christ to be our Guide , for our better security , he ( as is likewise f 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 , we then would wish them Good speed in all their Writings . Notwithstanding , upon consideration of the Premises , we are inforced to complaine of the Vnconscionablenesse of your Cardinall , 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 Romish Divines , in alleaging the Testimonies of Irenaeus , for proofe of the Sacrifice of your Masse , which your Iesuit Maldonat hath truly observed to have beene spoken of Bread and Wine , even * 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 Testimony of g 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 . We in the next place are to examine the pretended Subject , which your Church will have to be the Body and Blood of Christ . Our Second Demonstration is , 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 commeth 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 Not Bread ( saith he ) but the Body of Christ is the Thing sacrificed . This is plaine dealing , and as much as if he had said , If there be in the Eucharist no Transubstantiation of the Bread into Christ's Body , by Consecration , then cannot Christ's Body be a proper Sacrifice . But that there is no such Transubstantiation or Corporall Presence of Christ's 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 , doe not point out any where 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 only the proper Object of a Christian Celebration , according to the Direction and Institution of Christ , saying , Doe this in remembrance of me . Your Romish Church professeth the Body and Blood to be the proper Subject ; we nay , but the proper Object of our Celebration . This Distinction , well learned , will be unto our Reader as an Ariadne's 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 is , Because the Eucharist , being only Commemorative and Representative , cannot be a proper Sacrifice : answering the Romish Objection taken from the Sacrifices under the Law. SECT . IV. THat it cannot be called properly a Sacrifice , which is onely for Commemoration and Representation , is the Conclusion of your owne a Cardinall ; although it cannot be denied , but that Improperly it may be called , as well as you may call the Image of Christ crucified , the Crucifix . But , to come to your Objection , your b Romish 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 only Representations thereof , as the Eucharist is , but were also beside that Sacrifices in themselves , and so ordained to be by God ; first in their matter , as Bulls , Sheepe , Goats ; 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 Cardinall witnesseth ) for expiation of legall Pollutions , and remission of temporall punishments . Each one of these may satisfie your Objection . 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 , he saith that a Christ here is offered as one suffering , and above he himselfe Offereth himselfe an Advocate with the Father for us . And this our offering of him he calleth but an Image ; and that above he calleth the Truth . Clearly shewing , that we have in our Offering Christ's Body only , as it is Crucified , which is the Object of our Commemoration ; But the same Body , as it is now the 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 only by our Representation Sacramentally on earth . Saint Augustine dealeth as plainly with us , where distinguishing three States of Offerings up to Christ , he b saith first , that under the Law Christ was promised In the similitude of their Sacrifices : meaning , his bloody death was prefigured by those bloody Sacrifices . Secondly , in the offering at his Passion he was Delivered up in truth , or proper Sacrifice , this was on the Crosse . And thirdly , after his Ascension , The memory of Him is celebrated by a Sacrament , or Sacramentall Representation . So he . 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 , he saith , That Christ was once sacrified ( namely upon the Crosse ) and Is now daily sacrificed in the Sacrament ; nor shall he lie ( saith he ) that saith Christ is sacrificed . So he . No , holy Augustine , shall he not 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 ; * 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 even a man , in the point of Sacrifice also , although otherwise blinded with prejudice . c As when the day of Christ's Passion ( faith he ) being to morrow , or the day of his Resurrection about to be the next day but one ; we use to say of the former , To morrow is Christ's Passion ; and of the other , when it commeth , it is Christ's Resurrection , yet will none be so absurd as to say , we lye in so saying , because we speake it by way of Similitude : even so when we 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 only the Representative Object thereof ; and as Good Fryday , and Easter-day , are not properly the daies of Christ his Passion or Resurrection , but Anniversary , and Represensative , or Commemorative Resemblances of them : So this Sacrifice is a Similitude of the Sacrifice of Christ's on the Crosse , and not materially the same . We omit Testimonies of other Fathers , which are dispersed in this and other Sections . Although this one Explanation might satisfie , yet shall we adjoyne others , which may satiate even the greediest Appetite . 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 we 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 , ( least their Readers might conceive of the same Sacrifice herein as properly pres●nt ) saying in this manner ; We offer the same Sacrifice , or Rather the Remembrance thereof ; alluding sometime expresly to the Institution of Christ , [ Doe this in remembrance of me . ] The Fathers are these , viz. a Chrysostome , b Theophylact , c Thodoret , d Ambrose , e Eusebius , and f Primasius . Your only Answer is , that their Exception , here used , was not to note that it is not the same Body of Christ here Corporally present , which was offered upon the Crosse , but that it is not offered in the same manner by effusion of Blood , as that was ; which is indeed a Part , but not the whole Truth . For survay the Marginals , and then tell us ; If that your Sacrifice were the same Body of Christ Corporally present , why should Theophylact apply h●s qualification not to the manner , whether Bloody or Vnbloody , but to the person of Christ , saying , ▪ We 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 ] We offer not another Sacrifice , but a memoriall thereof ? why Eusebius , Wee offer a Memoriall in stead of a Sacrifice ? plainly notifying unto tis , 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 Hierome ) be a a true Priest , or rather an Imitator of him . But a Priest and an Imitator is not Identically the same that is represented . Master Breeley is not Christ . Lastly , The same ( said Primasius ) in all places , which was borne of the Virgin , and not now great , and now lesse . So he . But have we not heard you number your many Hoasts on one Altar , at one Time ? and yet the Fathers say , We offer not many , but the same , which must needs be the same one , as Object ; else shew us where ever any Father denied but that upon divers Altars were divers Breads ; or that but , according to their outward Demensions , they were now greater , now lesse ; which no way agreeth with the Body of Christ , as hath beene proved in discussing the * 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 . 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 crucified , 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 [ Doe this in remembrance of me , ] and to the Exposition of Saint Paul , to be a [ shewing fo●th of the Lords death untill he come : ] yea and is also consonant to the last mentioned Doctrine of the Fathers , calling it A Sacrifice of Christ , or rather a Remembrance thereof . The only Question will be , how This , which you call The same Sacrifice , meaning the Body of Christ subjectively in the Eucharist , being invisible , can be said to represent , figure , and resemble the same Body , as it was the Sacrifice on the Crosse ? We yeelding 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 Christ left this visible Sacrifice to his Church , whereby his Body sacrified upon the Crosse should be represented . So they . From whom ( it may seeme ) your Rhemists learned that lesson , which they taught Others , that b Christ's Body , once visibly sacrificed upon the Crosse , In and By the selfe same Body is immolated and sacrificed under the shapes of Bread & Wine , and is most perfectly thereby resembled : and therefore i● most properly Commemorative ; being called the same Sacrifice by the Ancient Fathers . And againe , This nearely and lively resembleth that . So they . But this we utterly deny , because although a thing may in some sort be represented by it selfe , yet ( say we ) there is no Representative quality of any Body and Blood of Christ ( as it is said by you to be in the Eucharist ) of his Body and Blood Sacrificed upon the 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 us . Two of yout Iesuits have undertaken to manifest your Representation ( by a more fit example than doe your Rhemists ) thus ; c Even as a King ( say They ) having got a Victory , should represent himselfe , after his warre , in a Stage-play in sight , &c. So they , even in earnest , which hath beene as earnestly , yet easily ; confuted by us * already ; although , indeed , the Play deserveth but laughter : and that so much the rather , because the Representative part ( as your Councell of * 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 . CHALLENGE . YOu ( 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 he 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 only 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 expresly by your * 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 sence ; as if you would perswade him his money is Visible to any that will use his eyes , which he hath therefore locked up close in his Coffer , least any man might see it . But this we have discussed sufficiently in the 2. Booke , and 2. Chapter , § . 6. 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 , 1. Some calling it a Full and pure ; 2. some terrible Service ; 3. some termed it in the plurall number Sacrifices and Victimes ; and 4. some Anunbloody Sacrifice . So hee , a concluding from each of these , that they meant thereby a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist . We encounter all these foure kinde of Instances with like Epithets given by the same b 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 only perfect Sacrifices , by Primitive Fathers . Secondly , they are as zealous concerning the second c 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 * hereafter . And indeed what is there , whereby we 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 Fathers named Prayers , Giving of Thankes , and other holy Actions , Sacrifices , and Hoasts , in the plurall number . And is not there in the Eucharist , Prayers , Hymnes , and Thanksgivings ? nay , but know , that in as much as the Fathers have called the Eucharist in the plurall number Hoasts , and Sacrifices , it proveth that they were not of your Romish Beleefe of Concomitancy , 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 . The Answer to the fourth Epithete followeth . The seventh Demonstration of no - Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist : 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 Contrary . 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 Margent , with more ease , and presently percelve , 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 & unbloody Service or Worship ? In the first place three b Liturgies , or ( if you will ) Masses are objected , to prove that by unbloody Sacrifice , and Reasonable and unbloody worship , is betokened the Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in the Masse ; one of Basil , another of Chrysostome , and ( by some others ) the Masse of Saint Iames of Ierusalem . In which Epithet of Vnbloody ( say we ) could not be signified Christ's body . Our reasons : because ( as the Margent sheweth ) the word Vnbloody hath sometime Relation unto the Bread and Wine ( both unbloody ) before Consecration , called in Saint Iames his Liturgy , Gods gifts of the first fruit of the ground : who also reckoneth Hymnes among unbloody Sacrifices : ( But Christ's Body is the fruit of the wombe ) or else sometime is it referred to the Acts of Celebration , in Supplication , Thanksgiving , and Worship of God ( all unbloody ) naming that Areasonable and unbloody Service , which they had termed an unbloody 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 sence of the objected Fathers ? suffer Chrysostome to resolve us . c Reasonable Service ( saith he ) is that which is performed with the minde , without Bodily helpe . 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 manner of being Invisible , Impalpable , and the like . But we 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 . We proceed . Eusebius saith indeed , g We offer an unbloody Sacrifice ; but what he meant thereby , he doth not expresse , whether the Signes of Bread & Wine , which he elsewhere with others ( as you have heard ) called Sacrifices : or whether , as Basil and Chrysostome have done , he 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 you may observe that Eusebius ( objected ) calleth h Godly Actions a pure Sacrifice , and opposeth this against Bloody Sacrifices ; and also termeth i Holy Prayers [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] that is , without Materiall Substance , as he did the Celebration of the Sacrament [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ] that is , Vnbloody : 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 Roman Oblation of Body and Blood to the very heart . Nazianzene ( objected ) is as directly opposite to your Masse , as East is to West , and will strike the matter dead , calling it k The unbloody Sacrifice , whereby ( saith he ) we communicate with Christ : Flatly differencing the unbloody Sacrifice , whereby , from Christ himselfe , with whom the Faithfull doe communicate in this Sacrament . Ambrose ( objected ) prayeth to God , l To accept of this immaculate , and unbloody Hoast , which are the very words of your Roman m Masse , and which your Cardinall seeketh to justifie by S. Ambrose . But this he cannot doe , 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 Cardinall ) it is said , Receive , holy Father , this immaculate ▪ Hoast ; where the Pronoune This ( saith he ) doth demo astrate Bread and Wine , because spoken before Consecration . So he . And the Body and Blood of Christ ( you know ) are not Bread and Wine . Let Athanasius put Per●od to this Section , who saith that o Melchizedech ) in giving ●read and Wine , was the first Type of an unbloody Sacrifice . But Melchizedech's was Vnbloody , negatively , having no Blood at all in it . So was never the Body of Christ since his Resurrection , according to our Christian Beleefe . CHALLENGE . WHat a faire peece of service ( doe you thinke ) have these Objecters done , for the patronizing of your Romane Sacrifice , out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers ? whilest they , alleaging 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 apparant , 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 , instead of Christ , in the Testimony of Nazianzene . But especiaily , because in the * most , of the Sentences , the word , Vnbloody , must needs be taken negatively for want , or absence of of Blood : and so you may bid your Corporall Presence adi●u ▪ 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 Christ's 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 only seemeth . Clemens Bishop of Rome , the first of that name , calleth ( indeed ) the Eucharisticall Celebration a 〈◊〉 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 he calleth Vnbloody , he termeth also a Reasonable Service . Secondly , Clemens calleth the same Vnbloody Sacrifice the Signe and Type of Christ's 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 said to be Types ? Yea marry , This being known 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 crucified , and Blood shed on the Crosse , for the proper object of our Typicall Remembrance , as we have formerly proved , and you your selves confessed already . c Cyril of Hierusalem doth attend upon Pope Clemens , and in a sort treadeth in his steps . The manner of our Celebrating the memory of Christ's death , he calleth a Spirituall Sacrifice , and an Vnbloody worship ; wherein , against the Iewish Sacrifice , he opposeth Spirituall against Corporall , as he doth Vnbloody against Bloody . But by , Spirituall , he meant that which wanteth a Body . Therefore by , Vnbloody , he meant that which was properly void 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 and Blood of Christ it selfe , which hee calleth Propitiation , Cyril expoundeth himselfe to meane ( for so he nameth it ) Christ slaine for our sinnes , which still wee say , and you cannot deny , is only 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 . 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 Margent ) of the Sentences of Antiquit● , 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 . Sayings of the highest Accent , as you see , and of no fewer nor meaner Fathers than these , Alexander , & Gregory both Popes , Chrysostome , Cyprian , Hierome , Cyril of Ierusalem , Hesychius , Pascatius . What thinke you of such sayings ? Can Christ be said properly to be Dead in this Sacrament ? b Never any Catholike said so ( saith your Iesuit Ribera . ) What then could be the meaning of such words ? If you should be ignorant , your Cardinall Alan would teach you , and he would have you c Observe what he saith : Christ is said by the Fathers to suffer ( saith he ) and to die in this Sacrament only so farre as his Death and Passion is commemorated and represented herein . And so speaketh also your Roman d Glosse . What now hindreth but that whensoever we heare the same Fathers affirming that the same Body and Blood of Christ are Sacrificed in the Eucharist , we understand them in the same impropriety of speech , that they meant onely Representatively ? especially when as we see your other grand Cardinall comming somewhat home towards us , and to confesse as followeth ; e If Catholikes should say that Christ doth truly die in this Sacrament , this Argument might be of some force : but they say he dieth not ; but in a Sacrament and Signe representing . So he ; which yet alas is too little a Crevase for so great a Doctor to creepe out at . First , because there is as well a Figurative , as there is a literall Truth ; for , If I should say of Easter day ( said * Augustine ) it is the day of Christ's Resurrection , I should not lie , and yet it is but the Anniversary day , betokening the other . When Christ said of one part of this Sacrament , [ This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood ] he spake by a double figure , said your Iesuit * 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 he called his Flesh Bread ? yea , and also * The true Bread. Thirdly , the Fathers , as they said that Christ is dead , & 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 * Image , in a Sacrament , or Mysterie , according to that their generall Qualification , saying , It is the same Sacrifice which Christ offered , or * Rather a Remembrance thereof . And lastly , the Fathers , who named Baptisme a Sacrifice as well as the Eucharist ▪ doubted not to stretch Baptisme up to as high a note as they have done the Eucharist , saying , f Baptisme is the passion of Christ : and g In Baptisme we 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 Antient 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 , as well as * 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 Phocas , ( 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 doe relate . But to the point . By the commandment of this Phocas ( as you * know ) were slaine two of Mauritius his sonnes , 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 he not also say as truly , This is an Vnbloody Tragedie ? to wit , in respect of the representative Subject , Action , & Commemoration it selfe , wherein there is not 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 fained Vizard of Error . The ninth Demonstration , Because Antient 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 . WE shall not urge the Antecedent of this Argument , taken from Baptisme , before that we have made knowne the force of the Consequence thereof . First one of your Cardinalls thus , a If the Fathers had held the Eucharist onely 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 Christ's death : But the Fathers doe no where call Baptisme a Sacrifice . So he . Another Cardinall thus , b Who can so much as suspect that the Fathers spake abusively , in calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice , seeing this is the only Sacrament , which they call a Sacrifice , and no other . Next , take your learned'st Iesuit with you , who would be loth to come behind any in vehemency and boldnesse , thus ; c Antient Fathers never called Baptisme or the Ministry thereof a Sacrifice ; albeit they might have so called it Metaphorically : which we note ( saith he ) because of the Heretikes , who pervert the speeches of the Fathers , as if they had called the Eucharist a Sacrifice Metaphorically , and improperly . So they , to omit * 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 s●ew that the Antient Fathers did any where name the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice , which we confesse to be only a Representation of Christ's death , then should we need no other Reason to perswade us that the Fathers called the Sacrament of the Eucharist a Sacrifice also Improperly , only because it representeth the Body and Blood of Christ Sacrificed on the Crossè . Thus for the Consequence , confessed by your 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 , Heb. 10. 20. where , speaking of Baptisme ; he saith ; To them that sinne voluntarily there remaineth no Sacrifice for sinne . Saint Augustine testifieth of the Doctors of the Church Catholike , before his time , that d They , who more diligently handled this Text , understood it of the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion , which every one then offereth , when he is baptized into the faith of Christ . So that holy Father , who is a Witnesse without all Exception ; yet if , peradventure , we should need any testimony out of your owne Schooles , the witnesse of your Canus may be sufficient , confessing and saving , e That most of the Fathers by Sacrifice in this place understood Baptisme , which they so called Metaphorically , because by it the Sacrifice of the ●rosse is applied unto us . So he . Is not this enough for the understanding of the Dialect , and of the speech of Antient Fathers , both in calling Baptisme a Sacrifice , and of the Reason thereof , to wit , for Representation 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 Oblations , or Offerings of any thing 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 All workes of Vertue 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 yeelded 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 kindes 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 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 . Our Eleventh Demonstration ; because the Relatives of Sacrifice , which are Altar and Priest , objected as properly taken , are used Vnproperly of Antient 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 he , and truly . But you ought to take with you a necessary Caution , observed by the same a Cardinall , that An unproper Sacrifice cannot infer a proper Priest-hood : nor an unproper Priest-hood a proper Sacrifice , &c. otherwise , your Iesuit can tell you of a b Sacrifice without an Altar , and your c Bishop can point you out an Altar without a Sacrifice . Now to take one of these improperly , and the other properly , were as wilde Sophistrie , as from a woodden leg to infer a Body of Flesh . Now what if we shall say of this point of Appellations , that It was not so from the beginning ? Hereunto we claime but your owne common Confessions , viz. d That the Apostles did willingly abstaine from the words of Sacrifice , Priest , and Altar . So your Cardinall , and e Durantus , the great Advocates for your Romane Masse : whereby they have condemned not only other your Romish Disputers , who x 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. [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] x concluded a proper Sacrifice . As if the Apostles had both abstained and not abstained from the words of Priest and Sacrifice . 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 Least 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 , 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 Iewish manner 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 , least thereby they might have seemed to have abhorred the proper Characters of our Christian Profession . We 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 , he 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 Middest of the Chancell , so that they might compasse it round ) was farre 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 carried in it the true and absolute property of an Altar : no , but they used therein the like liberty , as they used to doe in h applying the name Altar to Gods people , and to a Christian man's Faith and Heart . Will you suffer us to come home to you ? The Father Gregory Nazianzen , for his soundnesse of Iudgement surnamed the Divine , comparing this Inferiour Altar , and Sacrifice on earth , with the Body of Christ seated in Heaven , saith that the Sacrifices , which he offereth in his Contemplation at the Altar in Heaven , are i More acceptable than the Sacrifices , which are offered at the Altar below , as much as Truth is more excellent than the Shadow . So he . Therefore ( say we ) the Sacrifice of Christ his Body and Blood are subjectively in Heaven , but objectively here in the Eucharist ; here Representative only , as in a shadow , but in Heaven presentatively , in his bodily presence . So vainly your Disputers hitherto ( whilst that we required Materials ) have objected against us bare words , phrases , and very shadowes . Lastly , Cyril of Alexandria k 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 judgement of Antiquity thorowout the whole Clause ; concerning Bodily Sacrifice . The Apostate objecteth ( See the Margent ) as an exception against Christians that they are not Circumcised ▪ that they use no Azymes , nor keepe the Passeover of the Iewes : albeit , Gain , Abel , and Abraham before the Law , and the Israelites under the Law , and Heathenish Grecians , alwaies 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 Marginals ) That we Christians have the spirituall Circumcision of the heart : That we 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 ( we pray you ) Although ( saith he ) the Iewes Sacrificed to fulfill God's precepts in shadowes , yet we 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 Sheepe , 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 , We Sacrifice to God spiritually , and mentally , the perfumes of vertues . This is the Summe of Saint Cyril his Answer , void of all mention of any Offering of the Body of Christ , as either Corporally present in the Eucharist to be Sacrificed by the Priest , or yet of any Corporall Touch thereof ( by eating ) with the Bodies of Communicants ; no nor any intimation of any Proper Sacrifice professed by Christians . Here will be no place for your Answer , to tell us that the Question was of Bloody , and not of 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 he doth the Bloody of Sheepe , and Oxen. Neverthelesse , we should confute our selves , by 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 both Iulian , the Patron of Heathenish worship , and all Infidels : So indeed we should have thought , but that then Iulian and Cyril both would as readily confute us ; Iulian , because he himselfe had beene more than a Catechumenist in the Church of Christ , even ( as namely Gregory Nazienzene witnesseth ) once l A Reader of Scriptures to the people , not thinking it any Derogation unto him so to doe ; therefore was he not ignorant of the then Christian Doctrine , concerning the Eucharist . And ( which is a point as observable ) when he objecteth against Christians want of Sacrifices , by and by , as if Christians had nothing to say for themselves , but that Christ gave up himselfe once ; he 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 he calleth Spirituall and mentall ; as for example , Godly Conversation , Faith , Hope , Charity , Praises , &c. All which are * 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 only Spirituall and Mentall . 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 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 Beleefe 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 thorow out 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 bee 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 * 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 we . But now are we 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 Visible . Secondly , that the thing sacrificed be of b Prophane , made sacred by the Act of Consecration . Thirdly , that the Act be a c 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 we enter into this Disquisition , we shall desire you to take unto you the spirits of reasonable men , whilest we 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 only ( as your Councell of d Trent hath taught ) In the forme of Bread ; and then , how invisible it is , only blinde men can be ignorant . Nor will we thinke All , among you , to be so blinde , seeing that we heare one ( and that a Iesuite ) acknowledging his eye-sight , and plainly , without Parables , saying , that e Christ in the Eucharist is invisible . So he . Therefore the first Property of a proper Sacrificing Subject is wanting in Roman Masse . Secondly , we will not judge any of you so blasphemous , as to say , that the Body of Christ , by your Consecration , is of a Profane thing made sacred , which we are sure your Ancient Romish Schoole did deny ; which concluded that f 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 in your owne Iudgements , that the Body of Christ should be properly Destroyed . We say , in your owne Iudgements , who therefore are constrained to say , g 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 Lombard for being Slaine , or suffering by Death ; It was most truly said by him ( saith your Cardinall ) that Christ is not immolated , meaning not slaine , but only 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 bee properly Sacrificed , or no. Marke , we pray you , your Cardinal's Resolution . His bloody Sacrifice was but once truly and properly done , but now it is properly done but by Representation . O Vertigo ! 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 manner ; i In creatures living ( saith he ) 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 manner of Sacrifice , taking upon him the manner of Sacrificing , which he had in offering himselfe upon the Crosse , by separation of his Blood. So he . All which doth inferre a Reall and Proper separation and effusion of Blood ; yet immediatly after standeth he to the Defence of Concomitancy , which teacheth an Vnion of Body and Blood together , in as full a manner as it was in Christ his most perfect estate . But Blood Separated , and Vnited , are as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary as can be . How much better would it beseeme you to confesse plainly and truly with your Costerus , that k Christ is not offered here with effusion of Blood , but by a representation thereof . 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 Christ's Body be present in the Eucharist , to make it a Sacrifice , without some Sacrificing Act. A Sheepe is no Sacrifice whilst it remaineth in the fold , nor can every Action serve the turne , except it be a destructive Act : for the Sheepe 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 can 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 , we are to consider first the Acts , which are incident unto the Celebration of this Sacrament : and then the Object thereof which is the true and reall Body of Christ , as it was Sacrificed upon the Crosse . In respect of the Acts we say , I. That Spirituall Sacrifices , albeit Vnproper , are in one respect more true , and doe 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 ; He taught us to distinguish betweene a Truth of Excellency , 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 * They are Manna , and died : But the Bread of Excellency , which is Christ's Body , preserveth to * Immortalitie . It is a good Observation , which your Canus hath , that a Many spirituall things are called Sacrifices , in Scripture , 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 he . And the Thing prefigured ( you know ) is alwaies held more excellent than the figure thereof . First , the Sacrifice of Contrition , Psal . 51. 17. The Sacrifice of God is a Contrite heart . Secondly , of Righteousnesse , by Mortification . Psal . 4. 5. Offer the Sacrifice of Righteousnesse . And Rom. 12. 1. Present your Bodies a living Sacrifice , holy and acceptable unto God , which is your reasonable Service . Thirdly , the Sacrifice of Prayer and Praise , Hosea 14. 2. We will render the Calves of our lips . Fourthly , of Almes-workes , Heb. 13. 16. With such Sacrifices God is well pleased . Fifthly , Sacrifice of Preaching , Rom. 15. 16. That I ministring the Gospell , that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable , being sanctified 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 we say . II. That all these Spirituall Acts , although improperly called Sacrifices , yet are they more excellent than all merely Corpoporall 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 Contrition , thus : a Gods wrath is to be appeased with Spirituall Sacrifices . And b They were then Sacrifices for sinne , which are now Sacrifices of Repentance for sinne . And c God sheweth he will not have the Sacrifice of a slaine beast , but of a contrite breast . Of the Sacrifice of Righteousnesse thus , d He that dieth to the world is for himselfe a Sacrifice . And e Then were creatures slaine to cleanse mens bodies : but now are men to mortifie their vices : f Every one being made a Priest over his owne body , to over-rule vices . And g They offered those grosse bodies of sheepe : but we the more subtile and pure of vertues , because unbloody things best agree with God. And h This is a new and admirable Sacrifice . And i 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 These are most perfect and onely Sacrifices acceptable to God. Of Preaching the word of God thus , l We stay vices with the sword of the word . And of The Function Evangelicall , m It is a pure Sacrifice , and immaculate . And n A Sacrifice sweeter than all Spices . Of Almes-workes thus , o These God testifieth to be more pleasant unto him , than all the Sacrifices . And p This is a true Sacrifice , whereof the other Sacrifices are but Signes . Of Martyrdome thus , r We are God's Temple , our hearts his Altars : we then offer up our bloody Sacrifice , when we contend for the truth with our blood . In briefe , s Every good worke done , to the end that we may enjoy God , is a true Sacrifice . Hitherto of our Proposition , by the Determination of holy Fathers : In the next place we say , for the Assumption , III. That Protestants professe in their Celebration divers Sacrifices of chiefe Excellency . 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 , we may instance in our Church of a England , most happily reformed and established . First , the Sacrifice of Mortification in Act , and of Martyrdome in Vow , saying , We 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 , We desire thy fatherly goodnesse mercifully to accept of our Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving . And why may we not , with the Scripture , call this a Sacrifice ? seeing that your Bishop Iansenius held it for an Argument of proving Christ to have offered a Sacrifice , even b Because he gave Thanks : giving of Thankes being a kinde of Sacrifice . So he . Thirdly , a Sacrifice Latreuticall , that is , of Divine worship , saying , And although we be unworthy to offer up any Sacrifice , yet we beseech thee to accept of our bounden duty and service , &c. This performance of our Bounden Service is that which * Ancient Fathers called an Vnbloody Sacrifice . Nor is our Church of England alone in this Profession . This Truth we refer unto the Report of your c Cardinall , and of d 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 we can performe to God. Now wherein , and in what respect we may furthermore be said to offer to God a Sacrifice propitiatory , improperly , will after appeare when we consider Christ's Body as the Object herein . That Protestants in their Commemoration offer up the same Body and Blood of Christ , which was Sacrificed on the Crosse , as the Object of Remembrance , and most absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption . SECT . IV. NOw we are come to the last , most true , and necessary point : which is the Body and Blood , as the Object of our Commemoration . Still , still doe you urge the saying of Fathers , where they affirme that we 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 * shewen . We as instantly , and more truly , proclaime that we 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 when the same murther of the Emperour Mauritius is represented in a Stage-play in some manner of Resemblance : wherein we cannot possibly erre , having Truth it selfe for our Guide , who said , Doe this in remembrance of me , namely , of the same [ Mee ] meaning Christ as crucified on the Crosse , as the Apostle commenteth , saying , Hereby you shew the Lords Death till he come , even the Same Body , as the Same Death ; whereunto beare all the Fathers witnesse , thorowout this Treatise . 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 only the Sacramentall Representation , Commemoration , and Application thereof . 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 efficacy , which ( as all confesse ) is only 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 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 Catechisme authorized both by your Councell of Trent , and the then Pope Pius the fourth , for the direction of your whole Church , instructeth you all , concerning your Sacrifice of the Masse , that b As it is a Sacrifice , it hath an Efficacy 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 doe falsly assume and apply it unto the Sacrifice of your Masse ; which Protestants abhor and impugne as a Doctrine most Sacrilegious ; and only grant the Celebration to be Propitiatory ( Improperly ) by God's Complacency and favourable acceptance , wherewith he vouchsafeth to admit of the holy Actions and Affections of his faithfull . Triall of all this is to be made by Scriptures , 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 , faith 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 These words doe most evidently teach , that Christ now in his Supper offered up his Blood for the sinnes of his Apostles . So he . But if this his Exposition of Christ's words 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 immediatly after ; among whom have * beene reckoned Gregory de Valentia , Salmeron , Barradas , three prime Iesuits , your Bishop Iansenius , yea and the Author of your Vulgar Translation . And that you may the better discerne , how hard the foreheads of your Cardinall , of your Rhemists , of Mr. Breerley , and of such others are , who have made that Objection , you have beene likewise advertized , that in the very tenor of your owne Romish Masse it selfe , the word is expresly [ * Effundetur ] It shall be shed : We say in the Tenor of your Romish Masse , published by the Authority of Pope Pius the fifth , repeated by every one of your selves ( you being Romish Priests ) and accordingly beleeved of all the Professors of your Romish Religion . Which Interpretation was furthermore confirmed by * Fathers , and by Scripture ( in the places objected ) and by a Reason taken from your owne Confession , granting that Christ his Blood was not really shed in his last Supper . This is that which we had to oppose unto that your Cardinal 's Most evident Argument , as Sun-shine to Moone-light . That many things are said to pacifie and please God , which are not properly Propitiatorie , by their owne Virtue , according to Scriptures 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 we will take from the quill of Valentia the Iesuite , saying that a All right and just Actions may be said , in some sort , to be Propitiatory , and to pacifie God. As likewise of Prayer ; Scripture ( saith he ) attributeth a Propitiatory force unto Prayers , so farre forth as we obtaine many Blessings of God , through his mercy , by them . So he . Which confirmeth our former Distinction of Propitiatory , by the mercifull Acceptation of God , distinct from your Propitiatory , which is of meritorious Satisfaction by its owne virtue : which mere man must let alone for ever . Thus of our Examination from Scripture . The Doctrine of Ancient Fathers , concerning a Propitiatory Sacrifice . SECT . IV. ALbeit our Premises in the former part of this Controversie touching Sacrifice , and proving both by Scripture and ancient Fathers , that the Eucharist is not properly a Sacrifice , might give a Supersedeas to all your further contending by their Authority , for Defence of a Sacrifice properly propitiatory ; because that which is not properly a Sacrifice , can no more be a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory , than that which is not properly a stone can be properly called a Mil-stone : Notwithstanding , we would be loth to be indebted unto you for an Answer to your objected Fathers , in this point also . The Objections , which you use and urge , are of two kinds : some , wherein there is no mention of the Body and Blood of Christ at all ; and the other sort such , wherein they both are named and expressed . CHAP. IX . That the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers might well be understood to call the Celebration of the Eucharist A Propitiatory Sacrifice , in respect of divers Spirituall Acts therein , without any Conceit of a Proper Virtue of Propititiation it selfe . SECT . I. A Propitiatory in God's mercifull acceptance we defend , but not in Equivalency of valour and Virtue in it selfe . First , as it is an Act commanded by Christ , in which sence your Iesuit * Valentia saith , that Every right Act is in a sort Propitiatory . Secondly , as it is a godly Act , whereby we doe affiance our soule * to God , Every good worke , which is done that we may adhere unto * God , is a True Sacrifice . Thirdly , as it is an Act serving peculiarly to Gods worship , for Religiousnesse is that ( said Chrysostome ) wherewith God testifieth himselfe to be well pleased . Fourthly , as it is an Act of Commemoration and Representation of that only properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse , wee must grant to your Cardinall , that Commemoration alone hath not any Propitious Efficacy in it selfe : But yet by the Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ , resembled thereby , God vouchsafeth to be Propitious unto us ; in which respect a Origen exhorting Christians to resort unto Christ , whom God hath made a Propitiation through faith in his blood , and also to reflect upon the Commemoration which was commanded by Christ , saying , Doc this in remembrance of mee : This ( saith Origen ) is the onely Commemoration which maketh God propitious . If any would say , how then shall we not make Commemoration to be Propitiatory in it selfe ? We answer , as a man holding in his hand a pretious Iewell , which is inclosed in a Ring of gold , and putting it on his finger to preserve him from a Convulsion , the Preservative Virtue is not attributed to the Ring , but to the Iewell ; and yet we say , the Ring is the onely meanes to us , which maketh the finger capable of that Virtue . So say we , Christ his owne Sacrifice , which was the onely precious subject matter of our Redemption , is made now , by our Remembring , the Object of our Commemoration , and Application of it , for our Remission and Iustification . Nor is Origen alone in this , but all they ( who were * many ) whom you have heard saying that Christs Death and Passion , yea his Bloody Body is offered herein . Your owne Iesuite Salmeron is witnesse unto us ( for the Councell of Ephesus , Eusebius , and Saint Augustine ) that b They declared us to have expiation of our sins by this Sacrifice , because the bloody Sacrifice of Christ is remembred and commemorated herein . That we say nothing of our Supplications and Prayers , by which through the same Virtue of Christ's Propitiation , we obtaine pardon and Remission of sinnes ( whether for Quicke and Dead , belongeth not to this Dispute , because whether so or so , they are but Supplications still ) together with many other saying Blessings from God. Nor of the Act of Thanksgiving , ( from which this Sacrament is called the Eucharist ) because this is the destinate end of our Celebration , and therefore of all our spirituall Sacrifices most acceptable unto God , for which cause * Iustine Martyr called it , by the way of Excellency , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , The onely gratefull Sacrifices . Lastly , in respect of our Application it selfe , whereof in the next Section . That the Ancient Fathers called it a Propitiatory Sacrifice Objectively , for the Application of the Properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Crosse , made of the faithfull in Celebration of the Memory thereof . SECT . II. WHen it was asked why the Ancient Fathers called Baptisme a Sacrifice , it was answered , * Because the Sacrifice of Christ's Death was applied unto us thereby . Yet that Death , truly and onely properly propitious , is but onely objectively offered in Baptisme . The same may be said of the Eucharist , whereof your owne great Schoole-man , and Bishop a Canus saith , that It is sufficient that the Eucharist be called a proper and true Sacrifice , because the Death of Christ is applyed thereby , as if he were now dead . Marke , As if he were now dead , which can be but Objectively only , and which ( as you all know ) is not your Priestly Sacrifice . As for the Ancient Fathers , who in their objected Testimonies talked of Christ b Suffering , being slaine , and dying in the Eucharist ; We Protestants subscribe to their Iudgements with a full faith , in acknowledgement that Christ's Death , the proper worke of our Propitiation , is the only Object of our Remembrance and faith : which sayings of the Fathers ( saith your c Iesuit ) must be understood Sacramentally , to signifie the reall slaughter of Christ offered by him upon the Crosse . So he . Which againe proveth our Conclusion , that they understood a Propitiatory Sacrifice onely Objectively in the Eucharist . We will end with the objected Testimony of Ambrose , thus , d Here is an Image offered [ Quasi , that is ] as it were a man , as it were suffering a Passion , offering himselfe as it were a Priest , that he may forgive our sinnes . And of his now being * elsewhere he saith , The truth is in Heaven , there is He in truth with the Father . So he . Whereby is confuted your Conclusion of a Subjective Body of Christ present herein , from [ Quasi homo offertur : ] for this any one may perceive to be but a Quasi Argument for a Corporall presence , and to make fully for our Distinction and Defence thereby . Enough of the Iudgement of Antiquity . Our third Examination followeth . CHAP. X. Of the pretended Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice , confuted by Romish Principles , as destitute of foure Properties of Propitiation . 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 Because it is not immediatly offered up by Christ himselfe , as that was of the Crosse ; but by his Minister . And the Reason of this , you say , is , b 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 property of a true Propitiatory Virtue and efficacy in prevailing with God for man , it is impossible for any of your Priests ( because All are imperfect ) to offer up properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice unto God. None may hereupon oppose unto us the Propitiatory Sacrifices under the Law , because they also were twice imperfect ; once in respect of the Sacrificer , who was but a mere man : and secondly , in respect of the matter of Sacrifice 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 * Confessed ; and therefore not properly Propitiatory , but fiuratively ; only as Types of the Sacrifice of Christ . II. Confutation from the Romish Definition of a Propitiatory Sacrifice . SECT . II. SEcondly , in your c 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 we , by your owne Principle there cannot be herein a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory . III. Confutation from the Apostle's 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 we , your Masse-Sacrifice cannot be properly Propitiatory . Your Cardinall , in Answering first that the d Apostle spake this of the Sacrifice of the old Law , onely standeth twice convicted of a foule Tergiversation ; first , by the Apostles Explication of himselfe , who although he 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 shedding of Blood ] is to be applyed to the Eucharist . He is glad therefore to adde a second Answer , given by your Maldodonate , who finding no security in the former Refuge , betaketh himselfe to another , saying that e Remission of sinnes is not now for any present effusion of Blood , but for that effusion which had beene . Which Answer ( if we may so interpret it ) is a plaine Prevarication . The Reason may be this ; first , because there was never Bloody Sacrifice ( Christ on the Crosse excepted , which only was of infinite virtue , as well to times past , as to come ) but it was alwaies actually by the effusion of Blood at the time of Sacrificing . These kinds of so ordinary Doubtings and Turnings , which your Disputers use , as men in a maze , doe plainly Demonstrate either their irresolute Iudgements , or else their dissolute Consciences ; and in either of both their desperate Cause . We have not done yet , but give you further to understand , that as you could 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 we prove out of your Councell of Colen , which f 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 doe Christianly esteeme to have beene of a Infinite merit and Satisfaction , because it was offered by himselfe : and that otherwise b He 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 Cardinall ) is that it is but of finite value . So he . 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 void of all due Properties . This being all one , as if you , in the Case of Miracles , would deliver unto us a Iannes and Iambres , instead of Moses ; in Art , Sophistrie for Logique ; 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 Christ's 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 Tridentine faith ) hath beene hitherto impugned and infringed thorowout our whole former Dispute . Furthermore our present Opposition is threefold : 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 we ) which is not absolute , but onely partiall . Your Iesuit b Ribera seemeth to come on roundly towards us , and friendly to joyne hands with us in this point of Application of an absolute Remission 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 he addeth , that Protestants ( whom he is pleased to grace with the name of * Heretikes ) doe not deny this manifest Truth . So he . Doe you marke ? a Truth , a manifest Truth , a Truth said to be confirmed by your last Councell , 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 All mortall sinnes to be remitted by the Application of the Sacrifice in the Masse , is false , except all Divines be deceived . So he , speaking of the Divines of the Romish Church . Your Iesuit Valentia noteth , among you , another sort of Doctors , maintaining that your Masse-Application serveth onely for d Remission of such temporall punishment , the guilt whereof was formerly pardoned . So he . CHALLENGE . IF any shall but recollect the Contradictions of your owne Doctors , thorowout out all these former points of Controversie already handled , he will thinke himselfe to be among the people called Andabatae , who first blind-folding themselves fell a buffeting one another , not knowing whom they hitt ; therefore wee leave them in their broiles , and our selves will consult with Antiquity . That the Ancient Fathers never taught any Application of Christ's Passion , but that which is for a Plenary Remission of sinnes . SECT . II. CArdinall a 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 he produceth , are these , Chrysostome , Theophylact , Cyprian , and Origen . If these will not suffice , you may take unto you these b other , Iulius Pope of Rome , Iustin Martyr , Augustine , Cyril , and Basil . Doe 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 proclaime all Not-Communicants to Depart . From which Custome afterwards the word Masse had it's Orginall ; namely from the words , [ Ite , missa est ] as * 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 Canon of the Masse prouideth that Application of your Sacrifice be made unto him for Remission of sinnes . And that , as your Iesuit teacheth , d The fruit of the Sacrifice [ Ex opere operato ] redoundeth unto him ; and not this only , but also to be e 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 we speake Reason unto you , or no. All Antiquity Catholike ( as hath beene generally * 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 , in receiving the Sacrament , but shut all others out of Doores ; which , we say , they neither would nor could lawfully have done , if they had beene of your now Romish faith , to beleeve that it is a Sacrifice Propitiatory for all such as devontly 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 . We 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 we have expected some Reasons , which might move your Church so to lessen the proportion of Christ's Passion , in the Application thereof for remission either of sinnes or punishments . And now at length your Iesuit Salmeron commeth to resolve us , saying , a 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 he . We may not so farre digresse , as to enter into this Controversie of Purgatory , because we 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 gracelesse Doctrine of disannulling the infinite efficacy of Christ's Blood : which is so utterly forlorne of all approbation from Antiquity , that your Disputers have not alleaged so much as one Iota , out of any Father , for warrant thereof . Next , in the Sacrifice of your Masse , there is ( say b you ) a Portion thereof appropriated to the Priest alone , which is a power to apply , by his Memento , the same Sacrifice to whom he will , so farre forth that he extend his Memento upon any one , to whom he shall be pleased to intend it , upon Condition to receive money therfore : in so much 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 Alan ( your Advocate ) is ready to answer for you , and we are attentive to heare what he saith ; There is not either any Scripture ( saith he ) or Father shewing any such thing for such a manner of esteeming the fruit of Christ's Sacrifice . So he . In the third place , whiles we are in this speculation , we heare one of you putting this Case . If the Priest shall receive a stipend of Peter , upon Condition that he shall apply his Memento and Intention upon the soule of Iohn , departed this life , and he 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 Priest's Obligation upon the Condition made with Peter , or else for the good of the soule of Paul , according to the Priest's immediate Intention . Here , although some of you stand for the justice of the d Priest's Obligation , yet some others Resolution is , that the Priest's intention ( albeit unjust ) must stand for good . We have done . CHALLENGE . WHereas it is now evident , that your Romish 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 we heare so often , and as loud shouts for your magnifying of the Romane Masse , as ever Demetrius , and his fellow Crafts-mates made for Diana , the Goddesse of the Ephesians . It remaineth , that we deliver unto you a Synopsis of the Abominations of your Romish Sacrifice , which we have reserved to be discovered in the eighth Booke . We hasten to the last Examination , which is of Protestants . CHAP. XII . That the Protestants , in their Celebration , offer to God a Spirituall Sacrifice , which is Propitiatory , by way of Complacency . SECT . I. CAll but to minde our former * Distinction of a double kinde of Propitiousnesse ; one of Complacency , and Acceptation , and the other of Merit , and Equivalency ; and joyne 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 Soveraignty , mercy , and bounty , 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 man's 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 , for as much as the end and efficacy 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 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 [ Doe 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 doe . SECT . II. BEfore we resolve any thing , we are willing to heare your Cardinals Determination . The Death of Christ ( saith a he ) is a proper , and most perfect Sacrifice . So he , most Christianly : But after noting the Profession of Protestants , to hold that the same Most perfect Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is the only proper Sacrifice of Christian Religion , he denieth this , because ( saith he ) b This is common to all true Religions , and being but once done , ceaseth to be any more , but onely in the virtue and efficacy thereof . And all this he doth for establishing of another properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Romish Masse , by the hands of the Priest . But we , beleeving that That Sacrifice of Christ's death was but once offered as ( according to our other distinction ) the only subjective , meritorious , and properly Propitiatory Sacrifice , therefore it ceaseth to be so any more ; but yet is still objectively 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 Efficacy and Virtue thereof . In which respect ( as Christian Beleefe professeth ) Christ is called * The Lambe s●aine from the beginning of the world : so is he 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 Lord's Death till he come . So that as by the Bodily Eye , beholding the * Serpent on a pole in the Wildernesse , they that were stung with the deadly poison 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 we Romanists doe , 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 , only by God's Complacency and Acceptance ; Yet the object of our Commemoration being the Death and Passion of Christ , in his Body and Blood , is to us , by the efficacy thereof , a truly and properly propiatory Sacrifice , and Satisfaction , for a perfect remission of all sinnes . Thus concerning Protestants . As for you , if we consider your owne outward Acts of Celebration , ( where in Ten Circumstances we finde Ten Transgressions of the Institution of Christ , and therefore provocatory to stir up Gods displeasure ) we thinke not that it can be Propitiatory so much as by way of God's Acceptance . Next , when we dive into the mystery 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 * 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 naturall Bread can be Christ . Lastly , in examining the End of the Propitiation by the Masse , We 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 Sinnes , whether of mortall sinnes , or else of venall sinnes onely : to wit , such as you thinke may be washed away by your owne Holy-water sprinckle . Marke now , we pray you , these three : First , what you offer , namely not to 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 . THE SEVENTH BOOKE ; Concerning the last Romish Consequence , derived from the depraved sence 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 doe emptie themselves : which , how detestable it is , we had rather prove , than prejudge . The State of the Question , concerning Adoration of the Sacrament . SECT . I. IN the thirteenth Session of your Councell of Trent , wee finde a Decree commanding thus , a Let the same divine honour , that is due to the true God , be giuen to this Sacrament . After this warning-Peece , they shoot of a great b Canon of Anathema , and Curse against everie one that shall not herein worship Christ ( namely , as corporally present ) with Divine honour . That is to say , c 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 he ) far exceeding that which is to be given to the Crucifix . Whereupon it is that your Priests are taught , in your d 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 mercy upon us . So you . But what doe they , whom you call Sacramentaries , judge of this kinde of worship , can you tell ? e All of them ( saith your Cardinall ) call it Idolatry . But they , whom you call Lutherans , are they not of the same Iudgement ? say , f They call us ( because of this worship ) Artolaters , that is , Bread-worshippers and Idolaters , saith your Iesuit . As for our Church of England , She accordingly saith , that The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not reserved , carried about , lifted up , or worshipped . Our Method must now be to treat first of Christs Institution , or Masse ; next of the Profession of Antient Fathers ; then of your Romish Masse in it selfe ; and lastly wee shall returne againe to our owne home , to demonstrate the happie Securitie , which our Church hath in her manner of worship . So that these contradictorie 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 we ) at the Institution thereof , which you confesse with us ; and take upon you to give a reason thereof , to wit , that g 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 he * Commeth under the roofe of your mouthes ; for the neerer our approach is to any Majestie , 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 roved so farre , as to Deuteronomie in the old Testament , to fetch his only defence out of these words of God , h 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 Logitians , A begging of the point in Question . We contrarily adhere to the Institution of Christ in all points necessarie , and essentiall thereunto , and knowing that the Apostle promised to deliver * 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 he 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 . We shall try if the next , called the Primitive Age , can any whit advantage your Cause , which is our second Station . CHAP. II. Of the Doctrine of Antiquity , concerning the Adoration of the Eucharist . SECT . I. THE 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 manner 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 Chrysostome is objected his Exhortation , that Christians in their approach to this Sacrament , Doe 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 excellency 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 he is bold to say , They never hitherto were answered , nor yet possibly can be . So he ; taking all Chrysostomes words in a literall sence ; whom notwithstanding your owne * 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 Rhetoricke , in the point of this Sacrament , lest we understand him literally . Of which kinds you may have some Instances out of the very places Objected , where b Chrysostome saith indeed , That we see that Lambe lying on the Altar . And said he not also , even in the same Oration , We see here Christ lying in the Manger , wrapped in his clouts ; a dreadfull and admirable spectacle ? So he . But ( say ) doe you see herein either Cratch or Clothes ? or can you talke of Christ's lying on this Altar , who teach that , as he is in this Sacrament , hee hath no locall Site , Posture , or Position at all ? It is also true of the Angels , he said [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] they stand in dread , and the sight is fearefull . And he saith no lesse of the festivall day of Christ's Nativity , that It is most venerable , and terrible , and the very Metropolis of all others . Yet doth not this argue any Corporall Presence of Christ , in respect of the day . This answer , taken from Chrysostome , may satisfie for Chrysostome . We grant furthermore to your c Cardinall , That all the Greeke Fathers call the Eucharist terrible , and full of dread . But what ? As therefore implying a Corporall presence of Christ , and Divine Adoration thereupon ? This is your Cardinall's scope ; but to prove him an ill marke-man , take unto you an answer from your selves , * who teach with the Apostle , that All prophane commers to this Sacrament make themselves guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ ; in which respect we doe acknowledge it to be Dreadfull indeed , especially to the wicked : but yet making no more for a Corporall presence , than the contempt of Baptisme , whereby a man maketh himselfe obnoxious to God's iudgements , ( as * Augustine hath compared them ) can infer the same . Another answer you may receive from Ancient Fathers , who , together with the Eucharist , have * called the reading of Scriptures Terrible ; and so were the Canons of Baptisme called Terrible , even by * Chrysostome himselfe . As for your objected assistance of Angels , at the Celebration of the Eucharist , it is no such a Prerogative , but that the Prayers of the faithfull , and Baptisme will plead for the same honour : your Durandus granting of the first , that d The Angels of God are present with us in our prayers ; and for the second , Divine Nazianzene teacheth that e The Angels are present at Baptisme , and doe magnifie , or honour it with their presence , and observance : notwithstanding none of you ever defended either Corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Baptisme , or yet any Adoration of the consecrated Element of water therein . If these two may not serve , take unto you this saying of Augustine , spoken of persons baptized , f They ( saith he ) with feare are brought unto Christ their Physician , that is ( for so he expoundeth himselfe ) unto the Sacrament of eternall Salvation . Which one saying of so Oxthodox a Father doth instruct us how to interpret all your objected Testimonies ; to with , that Whosoever come to the receiving of the Sacrament of Christ , they ought to come with feare , as if they were in the presence of Christ . And thus is your unanswerable Objection answered , so that this your Cable-rope being untwisted is become no better than loose tow . Now to your third Objection . That the most earnestly-objected Phrase [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] and Adoration , used of the Fathers , doth not necessarily inferre any Divine Worship of the Eucharist . SECT . III. WEE finde not your Disputers more pressing and urgent in any Argument , than in objecting the word , Reverence , Honour , and especially Adoration , for proofe that Divine Honour is due to the Eucharist , as to Christ himselfe , whensoever they finde the use of that Phrase applyed by Antiquity unto this Sacrament . Our answer is first in Generall ; That the words Reverence , Honour , and Adoration , simply in themselves , without the adjunct and Additament , Divine , cannot conclude the Divine worship proper to God. To this purpose we desire you not to hearken unto us , but to heare your selves speake . a The Pontificall Vestments , Chalices , and the like , are to be honoured , say you , but how ? with divine Honour ? you will not say it ; nor will you hold that ancient Bede worthy of Divine Worship , albeit you entitle him Venerable , in a Religious respect . Yea ( under the degree of divine worship ) we our selves yeeld as much to the Eucharist as b Augustine did to Baptisme , when he said , We reverence Baptisme wheresoever it is . Accordingly of the word Adoration your Cardinall and other Iesuits are bold to say , that c It is sometimes used also in Scriptures for an honour common to creatures , as to Angels , to Kings , to Martyrs , and to their Tombs . And although your Disputers should conceale this Truth , yet would the Fathers themselves informe us in what a Latitude they used the same word Adoration . Among the Latine Fathers , one , who knew the propriety of that Language as well as any , viz. Tertullian , saying , d I adore the plenitude of Scriptures ; and Gregory Nazianzene , among the Greeke , for his excellency in divine knowledge surnamed the Divine ( and therefore may not be thought to apply words belonging to Divine Worship preposterously or improperly ) instructed the partty baptized to say thus to the Devill , Fall downe [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] and worship me . Thus much in Generall . Let us proceed , You to your particular Objections ; and We to our Answers . 1. Ob. Ambrose saith , that f We adore in these mysteries the flesh of Christ , as the foot stoole of his Deity . You call this an Argument infallible : nay ( say we ) but false , because Ambrose doth not say , that we adore the Sacrament , ( which is the point in Question ) but that in our mysticall Celebration of the memory of Christ his Passion , we are to adore his humanity , namely as it is hypostatically united to the person of his God-head , which all Christians professe as well as you , yea even in Baptisme also . 2. Ob. g None ( saith Augustine ) doth eat the flesh of Christ before he adore it . A Testimony which seemeth to you Notable : but which we judge to be indeed not able at all to prove the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament , even in the Iudgement of Saint Augustine , who hath every-where distinguished betweene the Sacrament and Christ's Flesh , as betweene Bread and Christ's Body , as hath beene often demonstrated . His meaning therefore is no more but this , that whosoever shall communicate of this Sacrament , the Symbole of Christ , must first be a true Christian , beleeving that Christ is not onely man , but God also , and adore him accordingly with Divine honour , as well before and without the Sacrament , as at the receiving thereof . Even as h Athanasius spake of Baptisme , saying that The Catechumenists did first adore the Father , Sonne , and Holy Ghost , before that they were to be baptized in their names . And is there any of your Priests so unchristian , as not to adore Christ , before he come to the Communion ? A plaine Case . Will you have any more ? The places alleaged out of Saint Augustine , by you , are like Bellerophons Letters to confute you ; for lest Saint Augustines Reader might mis-construe the meaning of Christ's words , by perverting them to a Corporall and Orall eating of his Flesh , a Saint Augustine addeth ( bringing Christ speaking to the Iewes , concerning the eating of his flesh ) You are not to eat this flesh , which you see : he saith not , You are not to see the flesh which you shall not eat , ( which is your Romish Iuggling . ) But thus , You are not to eat the flesh which you see , namely that , which then was visible when Christ was in the world . This one Testimony of Augustine may satisfie for the present , untill another shall be delivered fom him , absolutely * confuting your Tridentine Faith of the Divine worship of the Host , to prove it Idolatrous . Theodoret seemeth unto you to come off roundly , saying b That Symbols and Signes are beleeved and adored , whereby he most evidently teacheth the presence of Christ's flesh ( as saith your Cardinall : ) even so , as commonly he useth to doe in alleaging of other Testimonies , both unconscionably against his knowledge , and unluckily against his Cause . For with what Conscience can he urge the word Adoration here , as most evidently noting a Divine worship of the Sacrament , seeing that he hath before confessed the same word , Adore , to be used of the Fathers sometimes for worship communicable to Angels , and Saints , and to their Tombs ? yea , and when as also Theodoret ( which proveth your Cardinal's Objection lucklesse ) doth expresly say , that The substance of bread remaineth , meaning absolutely the proper substance of Bread ( as hath beene * copiously proved ) whereunto no Divine worship can be lawfully given , not only in the Faith of all other Catholike Fathers ; but even in the beleefe of the Roman Church at this day ? And although the Symbols , and Signes ( as you fancy ) 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 eage●nesse , than either with good Iudgement or Conscience . Your next Objections are taken from the Acts , whereunto we 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 alleaged ; not the first , which is their prescribed Concealment of this Mystery . SECT . I. ACTS insisted upon by you , for proofe of Adoration , are these ; The Fathers injoyning a Concealment of this Mystery 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 . We acknowledge ( that we may begin with the first ) how strictly the Ancient Fathers generally prescribed to others , ( which they observed themselves ) that this Mystery should be kept secret from all persons , who were not initiated by Baptisme , and incorporated thereby 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 The Fathers said of this mystery of the Eucharist that only [ Fideles norunt ] the faithfull know it : and therefore we must be perswaded they understood a Corporall Presence of Christ herein ; and consequently a Divine Adoration due unto it . Master Breerly swelleth big , in amplifying this Objection ; take a briefe 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 he . Well then , by your owne judgement , if it may be found that the Fathers observed alike Circumspection in the manner 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 not . And now behold the Fathers are as precise in conclealing the Mystery of Baptisme , from all Persons unbaptized , even in as expresse termes as was spoken of in the Eucharist ; Chrysostome saying , ( against such Persons ) b The faithfull know this . And againe , entring into a discourse of Baptisme , he prefaceth saying ; c I would indeed speake this plainly , but I dare not , because of them that are not initiated , or Baptized . And Dionysius , the supposed Areopagite , d Let none that is not a perfect Christian be admitted to the sight of the signes of Baptisme : even as the Councell e 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 infer a Corporall presence of Christ in Baptisme , and consequently an Adoration of Christ in the same Sacrament , you your selves ( we know ) would but hisse at him , in detestation of his Consequence , as judging it Idolatrous . But doe 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 , that the reason was not the sublimity of the matter , as though they could not apprehend it , but because f 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 Christ's Sacrament from contempt . Thus your most specious Objection serveth for nothing more than to prove your Disputers to be wonderfully precipitant in their Arguing . That the objected Elevation , or lifting up of the Host , and preserving of it from falling , are no Arguments of 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 * confessed , that this was not of prime Antiquity . But supposing Elevation to have beene so ancient , yet was it not to the end it should be adored , no more than was the Booke of the Gospell , in the Roman Church , when it was ( according to the Rite then ) a Lift up by the hands of the Deacon , and carried on hi● right shoulder . What else will you say of the Priest's Elevation ? you would perswade ( in the b Margent ) by some , that the Priest lifting the Host over his head , was prophesied of by the Psalmist ; And , that the Rite of holding the Host up was 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 speake more confidently , yet the most principall searcher into Antiquity da●e say no more , than only This is probable . We contrarily conceive , that that Rabbinish interpretation can be no good ground to rest upon , which * hath bin rejected by Bellarmine , as being Idle and Frivolous . 2. That the Ceremony of Elevation ( as hath * 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 as well in use in your lifting up of the Host before Consecration ; as your objected c Missal's of Saint Iames , and Basil doe manifest . Lastly , that where Elevation was practised after Consecration , the objected Authors confute your Assertion , for in Chrysostome it is read , d 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 Saint e Denis there is no more , but that The sacred celebrated Symbols were brought into light , which after Consecration he termeth Vncovered Bread ▪ divided of the Priest into many parts . Bread ( we say ) broken after Consecration ; which is the break-necke of your whole Defence . Your third Objection is the diligent Caution given by Ancient Fathers , to take heed ▪ f 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 . Pharoah his Butler and ●aker , we are sure , would have beene loth 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 Breerly 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 this childish Fabling trow we , 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 , we heare no proofe of Divine Adoration of the Hoast . But we leave you to take your Answer from your Cardinall , who hath told you that * Casuall spilling of the Cup is no sinne . Only we must againe insist in the former Observation , to wit , the frequent speeches of the Fathers , telling us 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 they Catholikes or Heretikes , who would not have judged it most execrable 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 of 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 Inclining hit head downe before the holy Table . Cyril , by b Bowing after the manner of Adoring . You will be still like your selves , insisting upon Heterogenies , 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 , Lifting 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 Antiquitie , and affirmeth this as a Point ( as c he saith ) agreed on by all ; adding that Divine Adoration consisteth not in the outward . Gesture , but in the Intention of the minde . For indeed , there is no one kinde of outward Gesture , which ( as you have confessed ) is not also communicable to man : so that although that were true , which is set downe in the Rubricke of * Chrysostomes Liturgie , that the Ministers did use to Incline their Bodies to the Altar , yet none can be so simple , to thinke that they did yeeld divine honour unto an Altar . Nay , your owne great Master of Ceremonies d Durantus hath observed the like Bowing downe of the Priest in the preparation of this Sacrament , even Before consecration ; and one of your Iesuits reporteth your objected e Greeke Church at this day to Adore the Bread and Wine unconsecrated , albeit they beleeve no Presence of Christ herein . 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 beene yeelded 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 Brute Beast prostrating it selfe before the Host , and doing Reverence unto it . We 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 * 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 Sorcery , he for vindication of his credit with them , commanded his horse to kneele before a Crucifix , and thereby freed himselfe from suspition of Diabolicall familiarity , according to the Principles of their owne superstition . And for any one to conclude this to have been God's miraculous worke 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 infer 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 finde that a She having beene troubled with a prodigious disease , after that neither the Art of Physicke , 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 she had received her health : when ( Oh admirable event ! ) she was presently freed from her disease . This is the Story set downe by Gregory Nazianzene . Hence your Cardinall concludeth , that Gorgonia invocated the Sacrament , as being the very Body and Blood of Christ , and calleth this An hor 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 inforcing , and injuring the story , as will now appeare . For first , why should we thinke that she invocated the Sacrament ? Because ( saith your b 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 honoured on the Altar . As though every Christian praying at the Table of the Lord , to Christ , may not be justly said to Invocate him , who is used to be Honoured by the Priest , celebrating the memory of Christ thereon . Nay , and were it granted , that the Sacramentall Symbols had beene then on 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 , wherein she had beene baptized , could be thought to have invocated the water therein ; because shee 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 * 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 * Baptisme But , for a Conclusion , we shall willingly admit of Gregory Nazianzene to be Vmpier betweene us . He , in relating the Story , saith of the Sacrament of the Eucharist , ( See the * Margent above ) that If she had at that time of her invocating held the Antitypes ( or Symbols ) of the Body and Blood of Christ in her hands , they had beene mingled with her teares . So he , calling the consecrated Sacrament Antitypes , or Signes of Christ's Body : thereby signifying , that the Sacrament is not the Body and Blood of Christ , as hath beene * proved unto you at large out of Nazianzene , 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 the Body and Blood of Christ had beene then held in her hands , her teares had beene mingled with them , viz. Body and Blood ; and not ( as he said ) with 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 said , O most divine Sacrament , reveale unto us the mystery of thy signes , &c. which in the eares of your Disputers ringeth a flatt Invocation of the Sacrament . Contrariwise we confidently affirme , that your Teachers have taken a figure Prosopopoeia for Invocation ; like men who take Moon-shine for Day-light , as we 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 sence , as if it had sence ; as when in Scripture the Prophet said , Heare ô Heavens , and hearken ô Earth , Isa . 1. In like manner , among the Ancient Fathers , one called upon his owne Church Anastasia , whence he was to depart , and saying thus , d 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 Oh water which once purged the world ! or thus , f Oh divine Lavacre , &c. Nay , you your selves can sing , and chant it to the Crosse , g O 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 whereas in another Romish Anthem it is sung of the Eucharist , Oh holy Feast ! This saying ( saith another h Iesuite ) agreeth to every Sacrament . Thus have you heard both from Fathers , and from your selves the like Tenor 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 sence the same which we judge it to be , what better Interpreter can you require of this Greek Author Dionysius , than was his Greeke Scholiast Pachumeres ? who hath given his Iudgement of this very speech directly , saying that i It was spoken as of a thing having life , and that fitly , as did Nazienzene ( saith he ) when he said of the Feast of Easter ; O great and holy Feast ! &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 minde upon this holy Mystery . The due consideration of these your former so frivolous , and so false Objections provoketh us to cry out , saying , Oh Sophistry , Sophistry ! when wilt thou cease to delude the soules of men ? In which manner of speech , notwithstanding , we doe 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 , read but one Chapter of the same Author , and he will teach you to say as much of many other things , wherein you will not beleeve any Corporall Existence of Christ we are sure : for there he equally nameth the place of Celebration , * Divine Altar ; the Sacramentall Signes , Divine Symbols ; the Minister , Divine Priest ; the Communicants , Divine People ; yea and ( which may muzzell 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 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 doe you first , if you please , admire the wit of your Cardinall in so framing his Consequence , and after abhor his will to decive you , when you have done : for he applyeth the words spoken by Basil of an Invocation before Consecration , ( 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 unknowne 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 Christs words [ This is my Body ] wherein there is * no Invocation at all . And Basil was of the Greeke Church . Secondly , your l Archbishop of Cesarea , 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 alleageth Iustine , Cyril , Damascen , Theophilus Alex. yea , and ( by your leave ) Basil himselfe too : and that Basil was an Orthodox Greeke Father you will not deny . Thirdly therefore ( to come home unto you ) we 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 Roman Cause ; he , to prove that the forme of Consecration of the Eucharist standeth not in any prescribed words in the Gospell , but in words of Invocation by prayer ( as * hath beene confirmed by a Torrent of Ancient Fathers ) saith , m That the same is illustrated by these words of Basil , saying , What Father hath left unto us in 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 the forme of Consecration . So then , Invocation was an Invocation by Prayer unto God , for the Consecration of the Bread set before them , and not an Invocation of Adoration unto the Eucharist , as already consecrated ; which your Cardinall unconscionably ( we 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 Basil demanding [ What Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocation ? ] is in true and genuine sence , as if he 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 doe ratifie unto us . For , in the Liturgie ascribed to Saint n Iames the Apostle , the Consecration is by Invocating and praying thus , Holy Lord who dwellest in holiest , &c. The Liturgie of o Chrysostome invocateth by praying ; We beseech thee , O Lord , to send thy Spirit upon these Gifts prepared before us , &c. The Liturgie under the name of p 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 and Adorations of the same Sacrament . 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 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 Sence ; 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 Cardinall his objecting the words of Origen , 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 * mention in this case . If you would have some Examples of Adoring Christ with divine worship , in the Mystery of the Eucharist , by celebrating the manner of his death , ( as Hierom may be said to have adored at Ierusalem , Christ in his Crach ; or as every Christian doth in the Mystery of Baptisme ) we could store you with multitudes : but of Adoring the Eucharist , with a proper Invocation of Christ himselfe therein , we have not as yet received from you any one . CHAP. IV. That the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice Repugnant to the Iudgement of Antiquity . First by their Silence . SECT . I. YOV are not to require of us , that we 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 , subtill , and skilfull Miners , digging and searching into all the Volumes of Antiquity , which have beene extant in the Christian world for the space of six 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 never ther the lesse have your Disputers not spared to call such their Objections Cleare Arguments , piercing , and unsoluble . We therefore make bold hereupon to knocke at the Consistory dore of the conscience of every man , indued with any small glimpse of Reason , and to entreat him , for Christ's sake , whose Cause it is , to judge betweene Rome and Vs , after he hath heard the case , which standeth thus ; Divine Adoration of the Host is held to be , in the Romish Profession , the principall practique 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 , & 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 Practise , not of one or other private man or woman , but by their publike forme of Prayer , and Invocation in their soleme 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 we indeed beleeve 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 him , as in your now-Roman Masse we 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 ) we say , Latine Missals above forty in number ; in all which , upon our once reading , we 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 ( we thinke ) satisfactory in it selfe to any man of ordinary Reason . Our second Objection out of the Fathers followeth . That the Ancient Fathers gain-said the Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament , and Adoration thereof , 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 , [ We lift them up unto the Lord. ] This [ Sursum Cord● ] a Calvin hath objected against you ; and your Cardinall confessing that This Preface b was in use in all Liturgies of Antiquity , as well Greeke as Latine , and continued in the Church of Rome unto this day ; Then answereth that c He that seeketh Christ , in the Eucharist and worshippeth him , if he thinke of Christ , and not of the Cares of earthly things , he hath his heart above . So he . As though the word [ Above ] meant , as the Object , the person of Christ in the Eucharist , and not his place of Residence in the highest Heavens ; contrary to the word in the Greeke * Liturgies , which is [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] Above , wherein the Church alludeth to that [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] of the Apostle , Colos . 3. 1. Seeke the things that are above , where Christ is at the right hand of God , as your owne d Durandus , the Expositor of the Romish Masse , doth acknowledge . Saint Augustine saying , e It is not without Cause , that it is said , Lift up your heares ; He 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 we have already proved out of the Fathers , by their Antithesis , and Opposition●etweene ●etweene the Altar on Earth , and the other in Heaven ; where we have heard * Chrysostome distinguishing them that fasten their thoughts upon this Below , from Them that seeke Christ in Heaven , as he doth Choughs from Eagles . Ambrose , as they that behold the Image , from them that contemplate upon the Tra●h . * Nazianzene , as they that looke upon the Signes , from them that see the Things . And the Councell of * Nice , as they that stoope downe , from them that looke up aloft . And we may not forget the Observation which * 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 . Cyril of Hierusalem is a Father whom you have often solicited to speake for your Cause in other Cases , but all in vaine ; shall we hearken to him in this ? He 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 Councell of Nice , as if that Lifting up their hearts had beene only an exercising of their thoughts upon that in the hands of the Priest , or on the Altar beneath , ) No , but he saith that it is f To have our hearts in Heaven with God the lover of man-kinde : even as did also g S. Augustine interpret this Admonition to be A lifting up of hearts to Heaven . Whom as you have * heard leaving our Eucharisticall Sacrifice on this Altar , so would hee have us to seeke ●or our Priest in Heaven ; namely , as Origen more expresly said , Not on earth , but in Heaven : accordingly Oecumenius , placing the Host and Sacrifice where Christ's Invisible Temple is , even in Heaven . Will you suffer one , whom the world knoweth to have beene as excellently versed in Antiquity as any other , to determine this point ? He will come home unto you ; h In the time of the Ancient Church of Rome ( saith he ) the people did not runne hither and thither to behold that which the Priest doth shew , bu● prostrating their Bodies on the ground , they lift up their minds to Heaven , giving thankes to their Redeemer . So he . Thus may we 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 Cesar sleeping to Cesar waking . Our difference then can be no other than was that betweene Mary and Stephen , noted by Ambrose , i Mary , because she sought to touch Christ on earth , could not ; but Stephen touched him , who sought him in Heaven . A third Argument followeth . That the Ancient Fathers condemned 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 Antiquity : No Catholike Christian doth worship , as a Divine Power , that which is created of God. Orthus , I feare to worship Earth , lest he condemne me , who created both Heaven and Earth . Or thus , If I should worship a Creature , I could not be named a Christian . It were a tedious superfluity , in a matter so universally confessed by yourselves , and all Christians , to use Witnesses unnecessarily . We adde the Assumption . But the Romish Adoration of the Sacrament is an attributing of Divine Honour to a meere Creature , Bread. For that it is still Bread , you shall finde to have beene the Doctrine of Primitive Fathers , if you shall but have the patience to stay untill we deliver unto you a * Synopsis of their Catholike Iudgement herein ; after that we have duly examined your Romish Doctrine by your owne Principles , which is the next point . CHAP. V. An Examination of 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 Idolatrie , 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 Missall , and by your b 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 Six other c confessed Defect's , incident to either Element in the Eucharist , which may hinder the Consecration ; and necessarily infer 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 fidei : qui pro vobis , & pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum . Which your Romane Missall , and Doctors say may happen , in either of both , six manner of waies : first , by Addition ; or secondly , by Omission ; thirdly , by Mutation , and Change of any one Syllable , which may alter the sence 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 we 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 he might erre in his Grammar , in using the singular number for the plurall ) Consecrated in these words , d Haec sunt corpora mea ; These are my Bodies : we say for the possibility of these and the like Lapses ( beside this last from the want of wit ) the manifold infirmities of man's speech , either upon Amazement , or Temulency , 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 Priest's Intention , whereby the Consecration being hindred , the Romish Adoration must needs be materially Idolatrous . SECT . III. AS for Example , first , e If the Priest in Consecrating ( saith your Cardinall ) have no intention to consecrate at all ; or ( to speake from your Romish Missall it selfe ) secondly , If his virtuall Intention in consecrating be not to doe a● the Church doth ; or thirdly , If he should consecrate but in mockery ; or fourthly , He having more Hosts before him , than he is ware of ; if he intend to Consecrate fewer than there is before him , and yet not knowing which of them all to omit . Of the Easines 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 Six 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 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 that if in pronunciation of the words of Baptisme [ Baptizo te in nomine Patris , Filii , & Spiritus Sancti ] the Minister ( whether man or woman ) shall vary one word , which may corrupt the true sence of the words , although but in one Syllable , or Letter , be it either by adding , removing , changing , or by any of the six Defects ( already spoken of ) as in saying , Ego te baptizo in nomine Patriae , &c. or the like , then the whole Consecration is of no effect . The possibility of womens erring , in their Ministery of Baptisme , Cardinall Pole may seeme to teach in that his Article , whereof it is inquired , c Whether Parsons , Vicars , and Curates be diligent in teaching women to Baptize Children after the manner of the Church . Take with you another Case , supposed by your selves , the d Author delivereth it at length , the briefe is this : The woman baptizeth an Infant , because it as the Childe of a noble man , in Rose-water , the Baptisme is void ; the Childe is afterwards ordained a Bishop , and hee 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 , only by his word , Dicendo sint Sacerdotes , saying , Be they all Priests . So he , 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 no-due Ordination ; whereby is occasioned a Materiall Idolatry . SECT . V. YOV have furthermore * confessed , that , for want of due Ordination of the Priest , the Sacrament remaineth in his former nature only of Bread , and Wine ; as if he be an Incruder , and not ordained at all : or else of the forme of Ordination , viz. [ Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificium : Et Accipe Spiritum Sanctum , quorum peccata remiseris , remissa , &c. ] As if it hath beene corrupted , by missing so much as one Syllable , or letter , by Addition , Detraction , or any of the six Errors before rehearsed ; as Accipe Spiritu Sancto , for Spiritum Sanctum ; or , Accipe potestatem ferendi Sacrificium , for Offerendi ; or the like . That there are many hundred confessed Defects , which may nullisic the Consecration , to make the Romish Adoration Idolatrous , in respect of Insufficiencies , which might be incident unto the Prae-ordainers of that Priest , whosoever he be , that now consecrateth ; for causing a Materiall Idolatry . SECT . VI. IF the a 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 Iesuit saith ; b The Defect of Ordination is seene in many Cases , wherein , Progredi possumus fere in Infinition ( that is ) we may proceed almost infinitely . So he . Thinking belike that if we 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 fourescore Bishops ; among whom if any one were an Intruder , or Vnordained , then this Priest faileth in his Priest-hood . Now of these kinds your c Historians afford us Examples of your Popes , some dissolving the Ordinations of their Predecessors , even to the cutting off of one d Popes fingers , wherewith he had used to consecrate . 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 ( we suppose ) will amount unto a Thousand possible Defects , each one whereof , if it happen , doth quite frustrate and annull the Consecration of this Priest , whosoever he 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 be ordained ; every Defect being of force in it selfe to infer 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 we have alleaged no Testimony , but out of your owne publike Romish Missall , Cardinal's , Iesuites , and other Authors privileged in your Church . We are now in the high point of Christian Religion , even the principall part of God's 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 forenam'd Respects , concerning your confessed Materiall Idolatry ; and doe 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 , ôh ! how your Summists , Theologues , and Casuists doe bestirre themselves for the vindicating of your Church from the guilt of formall Idolatry ? The Briefe of your Defence is this : a Although ( say they , in the Margent ) there be no true Consecration , by reason of divers Defects , yet in him who upon a Morall certainty , with a sincere minde and good intention , doth adore Bread , it is but Materiall , and no Formall Idolatry , so that he have an habituall condition , as being so disposed in his minde , not to give a divine honour unto it , if he knew it to be but Bread. As for Example ; He that giveth an Almes to a Rich man , being probably perswaded that he is not rich , the Act proceedeth from a pious Intention . And , As it was no sinne in Iacob to lie with Leah , because he 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 then 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 Iealouzie 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 men's 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 you know , that He will not indure any confort 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 , he becommeth 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 we honour as God , as it is written : He that commeth to God , must beleeve 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 Hyposta●is of things not seene , Heb. 11. That is , ( to take your c owne Comment ) Faith maketh those things , which are beleeved , no lesse certaine than if they did subsist , whereby we are taught both the nature and necessity of Faith in Divine Worship . But Morall and Conjecturall Certainty is not Hypostasis , which impli●th an Infallibility 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 * hereafter . Thirdly , God himselfe commandeth his people by his Prophet , saving , Thou shalt worship me , and ( in * 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 he dare not sweare is God : But your Romish Professors , in your Masse , Invocate this Sacrament thus , d O Lambe of God , which takest away the sinnes of the world , have mercy 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 eversweare 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 profanation of the name of the Sonne of God , and of his worship . This point , concerning Faith in every Worshipper , will be confessed * afterwards . In the last place ( that we may ruinate the very foundation of your Excuse ) your Pretence of Morall Certainty commeth 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 we , are Cases farre different from this which we have in hand , because God's Almoner ( you know ) is not bound to enquire of a man , whom he seeth to appeare to be miserable and poore , whether he 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 he 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 set 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 we need say no more , than hath already beene 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 ( we beseech you , for God's Cause , for we 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 Sunne . Thus much of your first Pretence for this present , untill we come to receive the * 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 Honour ( saith he ) dependeth upon the Intention , so that as he , who should contemptuously abuse the unconsecrated Bread , thinking it to be Conserated , should grievously offend Christ ; contrariwise he , who certainly beleeving the Bread to be Christ's Body , shall Adore the same , doth principally and formally Adore Christ , and not the Bread. So he , even with the same Sophistry , from only such a seeming Contrariety , wherewith you use to plead for Merits : ( to wit ) if evill works 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 Logicke ? b Although an evill Intention doth vitiate and corrupt an Act otherwise good , yet it followeth not that a good intent should justifie 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 he ; 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 he thinketh to be Christ , that therefore the honour , which he doth to that , which he falsely beleeveth 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 , doe witnesse to the world , as your owne * Confessions will confirme . CHALLENGE . DOE 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 he rent the same in peeces , when he 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 . 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 ; * If he that chanceth to worship onely Bread be in that Act so disposed in himselfe , that he would not worship the same Bread , as Christ , if he knew it were but Bread , and not Christ ; and by this you teach , that the Act ( which you call a materiall Idolatry ) is made not onely excusable but ( your owne * words ) honest and commendable also . So you . What execrable Doctrine is this that we 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 , we reade of one Saul , afterwards Paul , breathing out threatnings , and slanders against them , Act. 9. 1. and persecuting the Church , 1 Cor. 15. and 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 he had then ( as afterwards ) knowne Christ to have beene the Lord of life , and those murthered Christians , to have beene his mysticall members , he 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 , * Who are thou , Lord ? next by his detestation of his fact , * I am unworthy to be called an Apostle , because I persecuted the Church , &c. then by his Acknowledgement of God's especiall mercy , * But God had mercy on me . Afterwards by his labour for winning soules to the Faith : I have laboured more abundantly than they all . And lastly , in that he was one of those Actors , of whom Christ himselfe foretold , saying , * They shall draw you before Iudgement seats , and when they shall persecute you , they will thinke that they doe God good service . Which also plainly argueth , that their and his perswasion of so doing proceeded from a Morall Certainty . From these Members let us ascend to our Head , Christ the Lord of Glory ; what thinke you of the Iewes ? of whom Saint Peter said , You have murthered the Prince of life , Act. 3. 15. But did they this Voluntarily , and Knowingly , as understanding him to have beene the Red●…er of the world , and indeed the Prince of life ? they did not , for the same Apostle testifieth 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 doe , Luk. 23. 34. 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 mindes ( if they had understood what Christ was ) to have abhorred that so heinous a guilt of the death of the Sonne of God ? questionles , for so saith the Apostle : If they had knowne , they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory , 1. Cor. 2. 8. We 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 knowen him , were neverthelesse by S. Peter condemned , yea and of themselves , as formall and verily Murtherers of Christ ; then ( ô you Romish worshippers of the Hoast ) 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 ; * She eateth , and wipeth her month , saying , I have done no wickednesse ; so may we say of Idolatrous Worshippers , and their Proctours : for what else are these your three Romish Pretences , but like such mouth-wipers ? or as Anodyna , and stupifying Medicines , which take away the Sence of the diseased person , but doe not cure the disease ? So doe you delude miserable people with false Pretences , lest they , discerning the grossenesse and ouglinesse of your Idolatry , might abhor that worship , and abandon your Romish worshippers . That the former Romish Pretences have no warrant from Antiquity . SECT . V. THe number of Ancient Fathers , whose workes are yet extant ( who liv'd within Six and 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 any one 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 we judge that they never gave Assent to this your Sorcery . For we may not be so injurious to the memory of so many , so famously learned , and 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 * Almost infinitly 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 ( a saith your Iesuit Valentia ) is whatsoever word or outward office that a man doth performe , whereby he doth intend to beget in others such an estimation of God , unto that which he honoureth , which is proper unto the Majestie of God. So that Idolatry is an Error in the understanding ( saith your Iesuit b Tolet ) in yeelding 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 Iesuit c Lorinus ) 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 Distinction 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 he prostrateth himselfe , sweareth by , and invocateth upon , as being in it selfe the person of Christ ; the Priest himselfe saying , d O holy Host , &c. O Lambe of God , &c. whereby also , according to your Definition of Idolatry , you your selves doe seeke to professe , and thereby to beget in others an opinion of a God-head 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 falsely 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 Coadoration , or joynt-worship of Christ with Bread. SECT . II. COadoration 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 me ) is perfectly Idolatry , by your owne e Confessions ; and , for feare of this kinde of Idolatry , your Claudius Sainctes f taught that The signes in the Eucharist are not to be adored with the same honour as Christ is . And that therefore g Bread is not to be adored in the Sacrament with Christ's Body , least 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 Because ( say you ) man being capable of honour , it might fall out , by little and little , that he should be honoured as God. So your owne Iesuits and Others . Yet ( not to doe you wrong ) in this Contemplation Christ , by reason of the Hypostaticall Vnion of his God-head ( being no meere Creature ) is wholly excepted : whom we are taught by the Fathers of a Generall i Councell 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 he may so doe ; nor without a Good intent , viz. that it is well done ; nor without habituall Condition , viz. not to doe so , if he 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 Marginals ) you shall finde 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 beleeve 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 we 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 Arch-bishop , with others . You will aske , what maketh all this to the Question in hand ? give us leave to tell you . CHALLENGE . THE same Arch-Bishop Catharinus b 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 I dolatry ( saith he ) as well in the Heathen , who adored Heaven in stead of God. So he . Doe you marke ? as well 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 in stead 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 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 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 , endevoureth to c prove that all men are bound to beleeve the new Pope , whensoever he is consecrated , to be the true Pope , not only with a Morall or Humane Assurance , but with a Divine and infallible faith ; as were the Iewes bound to beleeve Christ Iesus , at his comming , to be the true Messias : that is ( saith he ) with a faith that cannot possibly be deceived . We have nothing to doe with your Iesuits Position in this place , concerning the Infallibity of Beleefe of the Consecration , and Election of your Popes , which we have else where proved to be a * Grosse Imposture . But we are to argue from his Supposition , as for Example . CHALLENGE . YOur Iesuite d grounded his Assertion of an Infallible faith due to be had , touching the Consecration 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 he ) if there should be any Vncertainty , so that our faith should depend upon the Intention of the Priest , in like manner might every one doubt , whether he may adore the Sacrament , as being not truly consecrated ; as also make doubt of the Priest himselfe , as being not rightly ordained . So he ; who therefore in all these requireth a faith infallible . All these forecited Confessions of your owne Divines , as first concerning your Definition of Idolatry , next in the point of Coadoration of the Creature , together with the Creator . Thirdly , in your Beleefe of the ●anonization of Saints ; and lastly , in the Consecration of the Pope , which are but humane Institutions , doe 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 yeeld to him all Fealtie and Obedience , for I doe this to a Good Intent , in a Morall Certainty , that he 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 Glo-wormes slimy shine to the glory of Divine Majesty ? CHAP. VIII . Of the Romish manner of Adoration , in Comparison with the Heathen . That the Romish Adoration ; by your former Pretences , justifieth the vilest kinde of Idolatry among the Heathen . SECT . I. THere is a double kinde 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 The terminating and fixing of Divine Honour upon any Creature , is a notorious Idolatry . The second kinde is Relative Honour , having Relation to Christ ; whereof your Cardinall Bellarmine hath determined , saying , b 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 he . This we say , first to put you in minde of c Very many of your Romish People , who adore Images Idolatrously ; which although you would cloake , yet the Complaints and outcries of your owne Romish * 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 manner of Relation , that which is here condemned by your Cardinall . But to the point , your owne Iesuites d report that some Heathen Idolaters did worship Idols , beleeving that They were inspired with a Divine Spirit ; next that they had foure 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 , the 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 * Materiall Idolatry ? To this end , we 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 beene 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 rely 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 finde that the Heathen were not inferiour unto you in this Modification also ; for in the History of Bel 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 Idoll : and no sooner had the King perceived the Delusion , but presently commanded it should be demolished . The Case then is plaine . He , and they , who abhorred , and utterly destroyed that Idol , as soone 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 doe these your Romish , and those Heathenish walke together , that from these your owne Premisses , you may take your Conclusion out of the mouth of your owne Arch-Bishop , whom you have heard affirme , that If in the worship of this Sacrament ( saith he ) we may be deceived , in mistaking Bread , instead of Christ ▪ then in this worship as madly Idolatrous as was that of the Heathen . So he . Which sheweth your Cause and theirs , in these Respects , to be all one . We proceed a step further . That the Romish Worship of that , which may possibly be Bread , may 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 a●●irme , that a If Christ be not in this Sacrament , but Bread only , the Error ( saith he ) is more intolerable than was the Error of the Heathen , in worshipping either a golden Statue , or a Red Clout . So he . What reason he had to speake so broad Language , we referre to your Inquisitors , to question him for it . But what Cause we have for the confirming our Title of this Section , we shall not forbeare to impart unto you . It is the profession of your Church to Adore Bread in the Eucharist with Divine Worship , notwithstanding whatsoever Vncertainty of the presence of Christ therein , by reason of ( as your Iesuite Suarez * speakes ) almost infinite Defects , which may possibly happen to cause the same . Contrariwise the Heathen Idolaters , touching the things which they worshipped , * Credebant ( said your Iesuite ) They beleeved 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 ●e God or Goddesse ; And the Athenians had an * Altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , To an unknowne God , yet hardly shall you ever finde 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 doe homage to Tyrannous Vsurpers , knowing them not to be their lawfull Soveraignes ) only N●●●ceant , for feare of hurt . So abominable is your Masse worship , being both contrary to expresse Scripture , which exacteth of every man * That commeth to God that he must beleeve , what ? [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] If he be ? no , but [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] That he 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 doe but seeme to symbolize with them in that one part of Idolatry , thus described by the Prophet , * He taketh wood , burneth it , maketh Bread , and of a part thereof maketh a God , and falling downe before it , prayeth , Deliver me , 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 expane , caro Deus exelemento : Qui me creavit sine me , creatur mediante me ) yet notwithstanding doe you farre exceed them , by adoring only 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 Security of their Profession therein ; First , defining and distinguishing the Properties of Reverence . SECT . I. REverence is a due Respect had unto things or persons , according to the good qualities that is 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 , Politique , 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 only 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 Wisdome 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 Symboles 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 incôrporation 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 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 beside God , according to their naturall , morall , politique , and religious respects . Howbeit , any of these outward Gestures , which carry in them a greater respect of Reverence , may be injoyned by the Church ( wherunto obedience is due ) according to the just occasions inducing thereunto . And where there is no such necessarie occasion , there the publique 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 all 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 Vnlawfull . Every such One is to be intreated to be better acquainted with Calvin , where , speaking of the Reverence of kneeling , he saith , b 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 . But to returne unto you , who thinke it no Reverence , which is not given by Divine Adoration of this Sacrament , wee aske , Doe not you use the Sacrament of Baptisme Reverently ? you doe , yet doe you not adore the water with that [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] which you yeeld unto the Eucharist . All this notwithstanding , Calvin his estimation of this Sacrament seemeth but profane to many of you : but the reason is , you would rather condemne him , than judge him , lest that his Doctrine , if it come to examination , might condemne you . For albeit he abhorre your Divine Adoration of the Host , yet doth he also c condemne every Profane man , who shall partake thereof in the state of Impenitency , To be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ . Your next Question will be , after this our Discoverie 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 ●ord ; 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 Pronuntiation , 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 * 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 have 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 Certainty . SECT . IV. OVr Profession is to adore Christ with an infallible faith , and not with a conjecturall Credulity , or Probability , as we are taught by the holy Scripture , the Canonicall foundation of Christian faith ; defining Faith to be an * 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 : * Hee that commeth to God must beleeve that God is . Infallible faith then must vsher Prayer , yea and preaching also any fundamentall doctrine of beleefe , as it is written , * I beleeved , therefore I spake : yea , without divine Faith , it is impossible to use any religious Invocation : * 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 ) we , because faithfully , doe * Catholikely , and comfortably adore him , where he 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 necessitie of the Priests due Intention in consecrating your a Cardinall alleageth the Authority , addeth the consent of your Doctors , ( except Catharinu● ) produceth the opinion of Luther , and Calvin , condemning this Romis● Doctrine ; and condemneth their Censure as Hereticall . But wee permit it to vour discreet Iudgements , whether to yeeld to this ostentative flourish of your Cardinall , or to the exact and accurate discourse of your b Iesuite Salmeron , to the contrarie ; grounded upon sound Reasons , ( among others , this ) that this Perplexity , and doubt , whether the Priest hath a Due intention in consecrating , worketh to the tormenting of mens Consciences , injurie to Gods exceeding bountie and goodnesse , contrary to the Iudgement of Antiquity ; and in speciall , against that of S. Augustine ; Saepèmihi ignotaest 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 Novelty , Impiety , and relish of Heresie . We adde to this that saying of the Apostle , * 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 publique making a true Instrument , according to the forme of Court , in the time when hee 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 Security from your Romish Perplexity , 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 only question is , if hee that ministreth happen to be an Intruder , and no consecrated Minister , whether this his Defect doe so nullifie his Consecration of the Eucharist , that it becommeth altogether unprofitable to the devout Communicant . Your Church in this case sendeth you to inquire after the Godfathers , Godmothers , Priest , or Midwife that baptizeth , to know whether he have beene rightly baptized ; and this not satisfying , she will have you seeke forth the Bishop , by whom he was ordained , and so to the Ordainer of that Bishop , and so to spurre further , and further , untill you come to S. 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 . Contrari-wise we , in such an indeprehensible Case , wherein the Actor or Act hath no apparent Defect , are no way scrupulous , knowing that things doe 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-paths . Our Securitie from the Romish Perplexity of Habituall Condition . SECT . VII . HAbituall or virtuall Condition ( as it is conceived by your Professours ) standeth thus ; I adore this which is in the hands of the Priest , as Christ , if it be Christ ; being otherwise not willing so to doe , if it be not Christ . What my Masters , Iffs , and And 's 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 doe . For as touching your profane Lecturer e 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 * Almost Infinite Defects , and consequently as many Causes of Doubting , which may disannull the whole Act of Consecration : there needeth no 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 . Certainly , if S. Augustine had heard that a Worship of Latria ( which he every-where teacheth to be proper to God ) were performed to Bread and Wine , as the matter of Divine Adoration , he neither would , nor could have said , in defence thereof , as he did of the Celebation of the Eucharist in his owne time , viz. d We are farre from your Paganish worshipping of Ceres and Bacchus . But as for us Protestants , we professe no Divine Worship of God , but with a Divine , that is , an Infallible Faith , that it is God , whom we worship ; who will not be worshipped , but in spirit and truth . What furthermore we have to say against your Romish Masse , will be discovered in the Booke following . THE EIGHTH BOOKE , Of the Additionalls : by a Summary Discovery of the many-fold Abhominations 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 Accessaries , 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 , * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , Man's will-worship ; as it is opposite to the worship revealed by the will of God. What the will of Christ is , concerning the Celebration of the Sacrament of his Body , and Blood , wee have learned by his last will and Testament , expressely charging his Church , and saying , [ DOE THIS : ] pointing out thereby such proper Acts , which concerned either the Administring or the Participating of the same holy Sacrament . But now commeth in Mans's will-worship , ordained in the Church of Rome ; as flatly contradictory to the same Command of Christ , by Ten notorious Transgressions , as if it had beene in direct Termes countermanded thus , [ Doe not This ] ( as hath beene * proved : ) notwithstanding the former direct Injunction of Christ , or conformable Observation of the holy Apostles , or Consent , and Custome of the Church Catholique ; 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 disguised under the feigned vizard of false Pretences ( which have beene many ) devised by the new Church of Rome , in an opinion of her owne wisdome , to the befooling and vilifying of the Antient Cathólique Church of Christ : which never esteemed the same Reasons reasonable enough , for making any Alteration ; but ( notwithstanding such imaginations ) precisely observed the Precept , and Ordinance of Christ . But that , which exceedeth all height of Superstition , is , when upon the will-worship of man are stamped counterfeit Seales of forged Miracles , as if they had beene authorized by the immediate hand of God ; whereof your Legendaries have obtruded upon their Readers * 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 Sinne abhorred by holy Iob , saying to his Adversaries , * 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 Gelasius condemned for Grand Sacrilege ) or of the like points formerly discovered , we shall insist only 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 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 we may call a Counterfeiting of the Seale of Christ . II. By making this Sacrifice , in her pretence , Christian ; but but indeed c Earthly , and Iewish . III. By dignifying it with a Divine property of d Meritorious , and Satisfactorie Propitiation . IV. By professing another properly Satisfactorie and e Propitiatory Sacrifice , for Remission of sinnes , 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 , whosever 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 acknowledgement , the Surety having once sufficiently satisfied for all . So Christ having once for all satisfied the justice of God , by the price of his blood , in the 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 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 becommeth Spirituall Eagles ) soare alost , 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 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 finite ; whereas Christ being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , God and Man in one person , every propitiatory worke of his must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and therefore of an infinite price , and power . VIII . By denying the Effect of his * Propi●iation 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 , voyd of all i Warrant , either by Scripture , or by Antient 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 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 Wee offer unto thy Majesty , 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 caried 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 doe 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 Margent ) 1. Prefaceth , 2. Answereth , 3. Illustrateth , 4. Reasoneth . First of his Preface . The Answer ( saith he ) 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 ? Sembably he in his Answer ( which is the second point , ) The meaning of our Church ( saith he ) is not to pray for Christs reconciliátion , 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 he . But whatsoever the meaning of the Priest in his praying is , sure we are this cannot be the meaning of the Prayer ; for the matter prayed for is set 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 he illustrateth . The Comparison ( saith he ) is not absolutely betweene the Sacrifice of Abel , and of Christ , but in respect of the faith 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 Discantus 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 he : ) 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 knowen ( saith he ) 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 he . 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 , & 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 far more abominably Sacrilegious . And not much lesse is that which followeth , praying God to command his Angell to cary ( if the Gift be He ) Christ into heaven ; contrary to the Article of our Catholique Faith , which teacheth us to beleeve his perpetuall Residence in heaven , at the right hand of the Father . Hee answereth : c It is not meant , that God would command his Angell to cary Christs Body , but our prayers and desires , by their intercession unto God for us . So he . 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 caried by thy Angell . 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 we may so say ) miserably Ridiculous . That the former Romish Prayer , as it was Antient , 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 avoidance 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 antient , such as are found in the a Missalls of S. 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 S. b Iames ( before Consecration ) the prayer to God is , To accept the Gifts into his celestiall Altar ; even the Gifts , which he called The fruits of the earth . And then after , for the Parties , as well Priest , as People , To sanctifie their soules . In the Liturgie of c Basil ( before Consecration ) it is prayed to God , that the Receiving the Gifts into his celestiall Altar , would also ( concerning the Parties ) send his Gra●e , and Spirit upon them . And no lesse plainly Pope d Clemens teaching ( before Consecration ) to pray God , who received the Gifts of Abel gratiously , to behold these Gifts propounded to the honour of his Sonne Christ ; expressely differenceth 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 Angells ? No , but expressely thus : By Christ the Mediatour . In the Liturgie of e Chrysostome ( before Consecration ) God is prayed unto , and supplicated thus : We beseech thee to send thy Spirit upon us , and upon the Gifts set before us . Even as f 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 Antient , 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 Missalls being so Antient 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 Sence , 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 Antient Liturgies above mentioned ; and to understand it Sacramentally only , ( namely ) our Objective Representation , Commemoration , and Application thereof by us , which is our Act of Celebration . To the former vast heape of Sacrilegious Positions , and Practices , wee may adde your other many vile , and impious g 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 , 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 , Sence , 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 Antient Fathers , shewing that the same pointeth out Bread , as you have a heard ; whereby the monstrous Conception of Transubstantiation is strangled in the very wombe . Insomuch that sometimes they expressely * 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 Bread , and c Wine , after Consecration , and naming them * Earthly materialls , and Matter of Bread , and also ( as you have heard out of the Antient Liturgies ) d Fruits of the Earth ; and yet more plainly , by way of Periphrasis , describing them to consist of e Divers graines , and Divers grapes . After , by approving the Suffrage and judgement of our f Senses , in discerning all Sensible things ; and in speciall the Eucharist it selfe ; and at length affirming , that there remaineth therein the g Substance of Bread , and Wine , which are the Subject matter of your Divine Adoration . All which are other Three Demonstrations of their meanings ; every singular point being avouched by the Suffrages of Antiquity . Thirdly against your Faith , concerning the manner of Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist ; because so farre were the Fathers from beleeving that the Body of Christ could be in h 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 Absenc● from Earth ; all which have i been 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 Antient Fathers , against k Tearing , and Swallowing of Christ's Body , and Bodily Egestion : next concerning the Eaters , that only 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 Eaten ( by the ordinance of the Church ) by Schoole-boyes , and sometimes Burnt in the fire : besides they called them m Bits , and Fragments of Bread broken , ( after Consecration ) and diminished : and lastly in respect of the End of Eating , n They held the thing present to be a pledge of Christ's Body absent , and also o allowed such a Touch of his Body by Faith , that whosoever so toucheth him is Sanctified . Which Observations , concerning our Fourth Generall Argument , doe minister unto us five particular Reasons , which make our Defence to be Impregnable . 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 found the Antient Fathers 1. Noting that , which they called Sacrifice herein , to be Bread , and Wine , saying thereupon that Melchizedech in that his Bread and Wine offered the Body and Blood of Christ . 2. Such a Subject , which being taken in great Quantity doth q nourish and satiate mans Bodily Nature . 3. Such as needeth prayer to God , that it may be r Acceptable to God , as was the Sacrifice of Abels sheepe . 4. Sonaming it an Vnblo●dy Sacrifice , as meaning thereby s void of Blood , which cannot agree to the Body of Christ now risen from death . 5. 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 A Sacrifice , or rather a Memoriall thereof . 6. By placing the Sacrifice of Christ his Body , as now Presentative only in Heaven ; and the thing offered on Earth but a Signe . 7. 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 Object of our Remembrance , and not as the Subject of Offering , which make up so many Arguments moe . 8. By paralleling x Baptisme with the Eucharist , in like tenour of speech , from point to point . 9. By praying God to be y Propitious to that which is offered . Sixthly , upon the same Doctrine of Corporall Presence you have erected and fastened 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 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 drawen 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 thing offered , as to Abel's 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 revealed these Three Principall , and Fundamentall Abominations , doe now proceed to their Concomitants and Consequences , which are Mixtures of Heresie in many , Overture of Perjury in some , and Obstinacie in all . We begin at the last . CHAP. II. Of the stupendious 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 , & Reasons : notwithstanding their Expositions of Scriptures , their Inferences out of the Fathers , their devised Reasons , and almost all their Confutations are confuted , rejected , & contradicted by their owne fellowes , as the Sections thorowout this whole Tractate doth plainly demonstrate . We 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 mere 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 Beleefe ( 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 proved in each point . 2. In a point of properly Sacrificing of Christ's Body , your Musicke stands upon the same kinde of Discords , of b Teaching a Body Broken , and not Broken ; a matter visible , 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 , in stead of many , of a stupendious Obstinacie , in urging the Iudgement of Antiquity , for Defence of your Romish Masse , in the chiefest parts thereof ; proved by instancing only in their like Sayings concerning Baptisme . SECT . II. THree chiefe Iesuites , besides others , have beene ( as you may c 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 Christ's 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 thorowout every particular . A Synopsis of the Speeches of Fathers , objected in the Defence of the Masse-points , and paralleled ( and consequently satisfied ) by the like Equivalent speeches of the Fathers touching Baptisme . SECT . III. THe two Proper Sacraments , as the two Seales of the new Testament , Baptisme and the Eucharist , use to goe in equipage in the writings of Antiquity . The Parallel doth consist in these two ; your Objections , in urging the Fathers Phrases , and wresting them to your Romish Literall Sence , concerning the Eucharist : and our Solutions , by the equivalent Termes of the same Fathers given unto Baptisme , and thereby instructing us of their Sacramentall and Figurative Interpretation . OB. 1. The Fathers , say you , called the Eucharist an a Antitype , because an Antitype is not every Signe , but that which differeth almost nothing from the Truth . Ergò the word Antitype doth not prove a figurative Sence . And againe they call Bread b The Body of Christ . SOL. The Fathers accordingly call Baptisme a The Antitype of Christ's Passion . And againe they observe that S. Paul calleth it a b Buriall . Ergo neither of both make for a Literall Sence . OB. 2. You contend by the Fathers to prove a Corporall Change of Bread into Christ's Body , because they say of it , after Consecration , a It is not now Common Bread. b Nor are wee to consider it as Bare Bread , yea , c no sensible thing is delivered herein : d And it is changed by Divine Omnipotencie into another nature . Ergo they meant a Corporall Presence of Christ . SOL. Your Consequence is lame , and out of joynt in every part , because the Fathers , speaking of Baptisme , have said as much , to wit , a We are not to behold this as common Water ; b Nor is it simple Water : c Nor to be discerned with our eyes , but with our mindes : d Wherein no Sensible thing is given ; seeing the e Water by benediction is made a Divine Laver ; working miraculous effects : whereby the party baptized is made a f new Creature , and his Body made the g Flesh of Christ crucified . OB. 3. You labour to prove a Corporall Presence out of the Fathers , where they say ; a Christ is herein ( without mention of Presence : ) and where they adde saying , b Thinke not it is the Priest , but Christ that reacheth it unto ●hee . SOL. As though such Phrases of the Fathers were still Literally meant , or that you are ignorant of their like sayings , in behalfe of Baptisme : viz. a Wee have Christ Present at the Sacrament of Baptisme ; where b Not the Minister , but God holdeth the head of the party baptized . OB. 4. To evince a Corporall Participation of Christ , in communicating of the Eucharist , and consequently the Bodily Presence , are alleaged the speeches of the Fathers , of our a Touching Christ's Body , and b Eating Christ's flesh , of c Naturall union with his Body , and that the Eucharist is our d Viaticum , and Pledge of our Resurrection ; whereunto is added that e Contemptuous Communicants doe more injury to Christ , than they that denied him : f Eating and drinking their owne judgement . SOL. And what of Baptisme ? concerning Touching ; the Fathers teach that wee a Take hold of the feet of Christ : concerning Eating , that the partie Baptized may be said to b Eat the Flesh of Christ , in respect of the thing it selfe : concerning Vnion with Christ , they adde c We are hereby One with him , not only by assent of will , but even naturally ; and d Incorporate in him , e made thereby bone of his bone , and flesh of his flesh : Even f The flesh of Christ crucified . Concerning the Effect , they hold that g Baptisme is our Viaticum , and the Earnest of our Resurrection , and salvation : whereunto is added out of the Apostle , concerning the Contemners of their vow of Baptisme , that h They crucifie unto themselves the Sonne of God. i And he that receiveth Baptisme unworthily , is guilty of judgement . OB. 5. To beget an opinion of the proper Sacrifice of the Eucharist , and consequently a Corpor all Presence of Christ herein , you insist upon such Phrases of the Fathers as call it a a Sacrifice , still exacting of Protestants to shew , if ever any Father said as much of Baptisme , to name it a Sacrifice ; or the Celebration thereof b The Immolation of Christ . SOL. And you have beene plentifully satisfied , in both , out of the Testimonies of Antiquity , often calling Baptisme a a Sacrifice , and sometimes also the Passion of Christ . OB. 6. Your last and worst Contention is in Defence of a Divine Adoration of the Eucharist , and consequently a Corporall Presence of Christ in the same , as from the judgement of Antient Fathers , by manifold Arguments , wherein you may be pleased ( for Brevity sake ) to let your Ob. for the Eucharist , and our Sol. for Baptisme wrastle , and grapple together . Your first Ob. is taken from their Reverend Silence , for they instruct Communtcants not to speake of the Eucharist before Catechumenists , or Insidels , saying , a The faithfull know it ; pretending that the like Circumspection cannot be shewed of Baptisme . Sol. Even as upon the same Consideration they forbid speech of Baptisme , expressely saying : b The faithfull know it ; and c Inhibiting All , except the Baptized , to see it . A second Note of Reverence is taken from the Ef●ects . Ob. d Miracles were wrought by the Eucharist , and at it . Sol. e They shew miracles wrought about Baptisme also . A Third Ob. is grounded upon Reverence done by Angells , because they are said to be f Present , and attendant at the Celebration of the Eucharist , Sol. Namely , as they are likewise said to be g Present at Baptisme , and to honour it , with their Presence . A fourth Ob. ( ●o come to the Communicants themselves ) ariseth from danger of Contempt , even h Such , as to eat and drinke judgement to themselves . Sol. i So they , who receive Baptisme unworthily , receive their owne judgement . A Fifth Ob. is ( for danger begetteth Dread ) from feare , where with they are moved to approach to the Eucharist , which therefore the Fathers call a k Dreadfull Sacrament , and causing horrour . Sol. To wit , as they call the words of Baptisime l Terrible , and it's Canons Dreadfull , m whereunto the Baptized are brought with feare . Ob. 6. But none ( say the Fathers ) n Communicateth of the Eucharist , before he Adore . And , o They first adore Christ ( say they , speaking of men of yeares ) who are to be Baptized in his name . Ob. 7. But the Fathers tell us p They reverence the Eucharist . Sol. True : even as they say , q We reverence Baptisme , wheresoever it is . Ob. 8. Lastly they use a forme of Invocation upon the Eucharist , thus : r Ob Divine Sacrament , reveale unto us , &c. Sol. They doe so , but in the same figurative manner of speech , called Prosopapoeia , wherein they as well use the same forme concerning Baptisme , as thus : s Ob Water ! which hast washed our Saviour , when hee was imbr●… blood , &c. CHALLENGE . SO many Testimonies of Fathers , so mainly insisted upon by vour 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 wi●full Obstinacy ( that we say not madnes ) than this of your Disputers appeareth to be ? how much more , if we should point at the other manifold Instances , which we have prosecuted at large thorowout 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 , it 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 Bull of Pope Pius IV. imposed upon every Ecclesiasticke , subject to the Sea of Rome , for the ratifying of the Beleefe of the many new Romish Articles contained therein , as True , Catholique , 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 we are not altogether unprovided . But we 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 it called The Vulgar Latine Translation . THis is decreed in the Councell of a Trent to be Authenticall , and not to be rejected upon any Pretence whatsoever . Whereunto ( together with all other Decrees , and Declarations of the same Councell ) 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 Consonant unto the Originall , the Hebrew , and Greeke Texts ; hath notwithstanding beene rejected by your c Cardinall , and the Greek 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 Councell of Trent , noting Errours therein not only by fault of Print , but also such as happened by the Negligence , or Ignorance of the Author thereof , as is d confessed ; notwithstanding that Inhibition in that Decree , viz. Not to reject it upon any Pretence whatsoever . Who , to free themselves from Perjury , make this Comment upon it , that this restraint of Not rejecting it is only in matter of Faith , & good manners . Which is also your e Cardinall his Evasion ; but is no better than a lurking hole , and so seemeth it to be to your two Iesuites f Azorius , and g Valentia , who thinke that Oath to be violated , if the Vulgar Latine be rejected at all , as lesse true than the Originalls . And your Spanish Inquisitors finding urged , in one of your Romish Doctors , the Rule of Hierome ; and Augustine , which is , that no Translation Latine , or other be further allowed than as it agreeth with the Originalls , they faire and cleanly wipe it out , saying that h Although that , which Hierome and Augustine taught , be true ; yet now since the Councell of Trent it is not lawfull to reject the same Translation upon any pretence whatsoever . So they . And so farre unsatisfied are your Doctors , in taking this Oath . We are furthermore not destitute of matter for a large Consutation ( first ) of your assuming S. 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 cloathes 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 Antient 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 thereof did only 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 Clement , as The most accurate Edition ) thus : k 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●l against this Sence of it . The Reason of both is , because he that giveth a Pledge taketh it againe , when the Thing for which it was pledged , is received . But he that giveth an Earnest , will have it continue with him , to whom it was given . And so God assuring his Chosen , by his Spirit , doth for their greater Confidence give it as an Earnest , and not as a Pledge . So they . Thereby advancing Gods gracious love , towards man , and man's faith in God's love . Here will be no corner of Pretence , that this being an Errour of Print , and not of Doctrine , may be rejected by you without Prejudice to your Oath ; no , for Errour of Print ariseth from some affinity of words , ( as where these words ; This is a sound reason , being delivered to the print , was returned from the Presse thus ; This is a fond reason . ) But betweene Pignus , and Arrhabo , there is no more Symphony than betweene an Horse , and a Saddle . Nor will it availe you to say that the Originall Greeke was corrupted , for it is the same Greeke word , which Hierome himselfe , ( who as you know used the perfectest Greeke Text ) doth here avow to be True. II. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers is in swearing to the Romish Expositions of Scripture . THe Tenour of the Oath , in this respect , is : a I admit the sacred Scriptures in that Sense , which the Mother Church hath held , and doth hold . By [ Mother Church ] understanding the Church of Rome , as without which there is no salvation ; which is expressed in the same Oath , as another Article therein , and which else-where we have proved to be a GRAND IMPOSTVRE , in a full Tractate , from the Doctrine of the Apostles , of Generall Councells , of severall Catholique Churches , and from such Primitive Fathers , whose memories are at this day registred in the Romish Calender of Saints . How then can the Oath for this point be taken without danger of Perjury ? But to come to the Article , concerning the Expositions of Scriptures According to the sence of the Church of Rome , which would thereby be thought to Hold no Sence of Scripture now , which she had not Held in more Antient Times . We , for Triall hereof ; shall for this present seeke after no other Instances , than such as in this Treatise have been discussed , and for brevity-sake single , out of many , but only Three ; A first is in that Scripture Ioh. 6. Except you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man , you cannot have life . The word [ Except ] was extended unto Infants in the dayes of Pope Innocent the First , continuing ( as hath beene b confessed ) six hundred yeares together , when the Church of Rome thereupon Held it necessary for Infants to receive the Eucharist . Contrarily the now Romane Church Holdeth it Inexpedient to administer the Eucharist unto Infants , as you have heard . Secondly , Luc. 22. Take , Eat , &c. Your Church of Rome , in the dayes of Pope Nicolas , in a Councell at Rome , Held , that by the word , Eate , was meant an c Eating , by Tearing the Body of Christ sensually with men's teeth , in a Literall sence . Which your now Romane Church ( if we may beleeve your Iesuites ) doth not Hold , as hath appeared . Thirdly the Tenour of the Institution of Christ , concerning the Cup , was Held in the dayes of Pope d Gelasius to be peremptory , for the administration thereof , to prove that the Eucharist ought to be administred in both kindes to all Communicants , and judging the dismembring of them a Grand Sacrilege , as you have heard : whereas now your Romish Church Holdeth it not only lawfull , but also religious to withhold the Cup from all , but only consecrating Priests . Vpon these ( omitting other Scriptures , which you your selves may observe at your best leasure ) we conclude . You therefore in taking that Oath , swearing to admit all Interpretations of Scripture , both which the Church of Rome once Held , and now Holdeth ; the Proverbe must needs be verified upon you , viz. You hold a Wolfe by the eare : which howsoever you Hold , you are sure to be Oath-bit , either in Holding TENVIT , by TENET , or in Holding TENET , by TENVIT . III. Overture of Perjury in your Disputers , is in swearing to the pretended Consent of Fathers , in their Expositions of Scriptures . HEare your Oath . a Neither will I ever interpret any Scripture , but according to the unanimous consent of Fathers . Here the word [ Fathers ] cannot betoken Bishops and Fathers assembled in a Councell , where the major part of voices conclude the lesse ; for Councell never writ Commentaries upon Scriptures , but from Scriptures collect their Conclusions . And although the word [ Vnanimous ] doth literally signifie the universall Consent ( which would inferre an Impossibility , because that all Fathers have not expounded any one Scripture , and very few All ) yet that you may know we presse not too violently upon you , we shall be content to take this word Morally , with this Diminution , For the most part ; and hereupon make bold to averre , that your Iuror by this Oath is sworne to a flat Falsity , because you cannot deny but that the Fathers , in their Expositions , dissent among themselves , sometimes a Greater part from the lesse ; insomuch that you your selves are at difference among your selves , which part to side with : b With the greater ( saith Valentia , ) nay but sometime with the c 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 ? d Then ( saith your Iesuite ) the Authority of the Pope is to take place , who being guided by other rules may propound what is the Sence . Behold here the very ground of that , which we call Popery , which is devising and obtruding upon the Church of Christ new Articles of Faith unknowen ( for ought you know ) to Ancient Fathers . And is it possible to finde an Vnanimity of Consent in an Individuall Vnity , or rather a Nullity ? for what else is an ignorance , what the Sence of the Fathers is , whether so , or so ? Next , that it may appeare that this Article , touching the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers , is a meere Ostentation and gullery , and no better than that Challenge made by the wise man of Athens of all the Ships that entred into the Road , to be his owne : as if you should say , All the Fathers doe patronize your Romish Cause . We shall give you one or two Examples , among your Iesuites , as patternes of the Disposition of others in neglecting , sleighting , and rejecting the more Generall Consent of Fathers in their Expositions of Scriptures . One Instance may be given in your Cardinall , who , in his Commentaries upon the Psalmes , dedicated to the then Pope , professeth himselfe to have composed them , e Rather by his owne meditation , than by reading of many bookes ; whereas he that will seeke for Vnanimous Consent of Fathers , must have a perusall of them all . In the second place hearken unto the Accents of your Iesuite Maldonate , in his rejecting the Expositions of the Fathers , as for Example : f So indeed said the Fathers , but I beleeve the Contrary . Item , This seemeth not to me to be the Sence of this place , which All , whom I have read , except Hilary , doe thinke . Item , Their opinions are divers , I rest upon none of them All. Item , All Antients almost doe 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 doe 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 O ath ? 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 Sinne of mankinde . What the Sence of the Fathers was from this Text , your Canus will certifie you ; g All they ( saith he ) who have formerly fallen upon this subject matter , have confessed , as it were with one mouth , that the Virgin Mary was conceived in originall sinne , no one contrarying this opinon . So he of the Iudgement of A●tiquity , which notwithstanding he durst contradict : but wee returne to your Iesuite , who premising that this Question doth belong to Faith , propoundeth h 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 reluctancy . For , first , To this Objection ; The Fathers did consen● : Hee answereth thus ; The Argument from Authority is infirme . 2. To this ; The Fathers were Antient : Thus ; The younger Divines are more quicke of understanding . 3. To this ; The Fathers were many : hee answereth ; Hee is but a poore man that can number his Cattell . And againe confronting the Antient Fathers , and preferring novell Divines , he saith ; Wee oppose multitude to multitude . 4. But The Fathers were Devout : he answereth ; Yet all Devotion towards the Blessed Virgin resteth not in the Fathers . And when one of the Devoutest of them ( Bernard by name ) is objected , who had said of the point now in Question ; i To ascribe the prerogative of the Sonne 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 we see an Oath exacting a Consent to the Vnanimous Expositions of Fathers , & 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 Antient Fathers . Your Fathers of the Councell 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 , * Have a plaine , and proper signification without Tropes ; which notwithstanding , the same words of Christ have beene evinced to be Figurative , not only by the Vnanimous Consent of k Antiquity , but also by the expresse l Confessions of your owne Iesuites , in the words [ Eate , Breake , Cup , &c. ] and wherein 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 IV. you are sworne that every Article therein is the a True Catholique Faith , without which none can be saved ; among which is the Article already mentioned , swearing to whatsoever was declared in the Councell of Trent ; by which Councell your now Romane b 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 confessed , and proved to be false . Secondly , that the presence of them , who , at the administration of the Eucharist , doe not communicate , is * Commendable , and held a Doctrine Catholique ( that is ) antiently Vniversall : which was generally condemned by Ancient Fathers ; and , even in the Church of Rome it selfe , abandoned by two d Popes . Lastly , in the point of Necessity to Salvation ; To sweare that whosoever beleeveth not that one may be said to e Communicate alone , is damned ; that whosoever beleeveth not that the Priest in the Masse , being alone , cannot duly say , The Lord be with you , he is damned ; or that the f Body of Christ may not be run away with Mice , & be blowen away with the wind , he is damned ; and a number other like extreme foolish Crotchets , set downe in your Missalls , 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 Councell of Trent , nor of the Bull of Pope Pius IV. ) 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 seeme 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 Sence , even as it may be said of Treason . For to say that Caesar is not King , is a Treasonable speech Directly , in a plaine Sence ; and to say that Tribute money is not due to Caesar , is as Treasonable in the Consequence . Thus much being premised , we are now to recognize such Errrours , wherein your Disputers may seeme to have accordance with old Heretiques , which point we 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 Catholique Church , descended from the Apostles ; which Presumption Pope a 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 * Artoryritae in mingling Bread with Cheese , censured for Heretiques by your Aquinas . In which Comparison your Aberration from Christ's Example is so much greater than theirs , as you are found Guilty in defending b 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 Greatly Sacrilegious : notwithstanding your d Church authorizeth the same Custome of forbidding the Administration of the Cup to fit Communicants . 3. As e you pretend Reverence , for withdrawing the Cup ; so did the f Aquarii forbeare wine , and used only Water , under a pretence of Sobriety . 4. Sometime there may be a Reason to doe a thing , when as yet there is no right , nor Authority for him that doth it : Wee therefore exact of you an Autority for altering the Apostles Customes , and Constitutions ; and are answered that g your Church hath Authority over the Apostles Precepts . Iumpe with them , who being asked why they stood not unto the Apostles Traditions , replyed that h 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 literally ; and why you urge his other saying [ Except yo●… eat my flesh ] k 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 entr●ils , because ( forsooth ) the words of Christ are l Doctrinall . And have you not heard of one Nicodemus , who hearing Christ teach that every man must be * Borne againe , who shall be partaker of God's Kingdome ; and that hee expounding them in a Literall Sence conceited a new Entrance into his Mothers wombe , when as nothing wanted to turne that his Errour into an Heresie , but only Obstinacie ? But of the strong and strange Obstinacies of your Disputers , you have received a full m Synopsis . BOOKE III. After followeth your Article of Transubstantiation . I. Your direct profession is indeed to beleeve no Body of Christ , but that which was Borne of the Virgin Mary . But this your Article of Transubstantiation of Bread into Christs Body , generally held , according to the proper nature of Transubstantion , to be by n Production of Christs Body out of the Substance of Bread , it necessarrly inferreth a Body ( called , and beleeved to be Christ's ) which is not Borne of the Blessed Virgin , as S. Augustine hath plainly o 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 Body not Borne of the Virgin Mary . Secondly , you exclude all judgement of q Senses , in discerning Bread to be tr●… Bread , as did the r Manichees in discerning Christ's Body , 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 E●charist ( after Consecration ) in confutation of the same Errour in the Marcioni●es . 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 E●tychian Heretique , and instantly condemned by s Theodoret , and as fully abandoned by Pope Gelas●… . BOOKE IV. Catholique 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 , E●tychians , and E●nomians ; all of them diversly oppugning the Integrity of Christ's Body , sometime in direct tearmes , and sometime by irrefragrable Consequences ; whether it were by gaine-saying the Finitenesse , or Solidity , or else the compleat Perfection thereof : wherein ●ow farre yee may challenge affinity or kindred with them , be you pleased to examine by this which followeth . 1. The Heretiques , who undermined the property of Christ's Bodily Finitenesse , said that it was in divers places at once , ( as is u 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 Catholique Fathers for Hereticall , it may best be seene by their Doctrine of the Existence of Christ's Body in one only place , not only Definitively , but also Circumspectively : both which doe teach an absolute Impossibility of the Existence of the same in divers places at once . And they were as zealous in professing the Article of the manner of Christ's Bodily Being in place , as they are in instructing men of the Article of Christ's Bodily Being , lest that the deniall of it's Bodily manner of being might destroy the nature of his Body . To which end they have concluded it to be absolutely but in one place , sometime in a x Circumspective Finitenesse , thereby distinguishing them from all created Spirits ; and sometime by a Definitive Termination , which they set downe first by Exemplifications , thus : y 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 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 conclude , that they are herein different , because the humane and Bodily Nature of Christ is necessarily included in one place : and la●tly comparing Creatures with the Holy Ghost , they c conclude a difference by the the same Argument , because the Holy Ghost is in many places at once ; and all these in confutation of divers Heretiques . A thing so well knowen 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 Hereticall . 2. The property of a Solidity likewise was patronized by Antient Fathers , in confutation of Heretiques , by teaching e Christ's Body to be necessarily Palpable , against their Impalpabilitie : and to have a Thicknesse , against their feigned subtile Body , as the Aire : and furthermore controlling these opinions following ( which are also your Crotchets ) of a Bodies f Being whole in the whole space , and in every part thereof ; and of Christ's Body g taking the Right hand , or left , of it selfe . 3. The property of Perfection of the Body of Christ , wheresoever , in the highest Degree of Absolutenesse . This ( one would thinke ) everie Christian heart should assent unto , at the first hearing ; wherefore if that they were judged Heretiques by Antient Fathers , who h taught an Indivisible Vnion of mens soules with their Bodies naturally , still subiect to corruption after the resurrection ; who can imagine that the holy Catholique 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 , sence , appetite , or understanding ) otherwise than of a senslesse , and Antichristian Deliration , and Delusion ? Yea and that which is your only Reason you alleage , to avoid our Objection of Impossibilities in such cases , ( to wit ) i The Omnipotencie of God , the same was the Pretence of Heretiques of old , in the like Assertions , which occasioned the Antient Fathers to terme the Pretence of Omnipotencie , k The Sanctuary of Heretiques : albeit the same Heretiques , ( as well as you ) intended ( as a Father speaketh ) to magnifie God thereby ; namely , in beleeving the Body of Christ , after his Ascension , to be wholly Spirituall . To which Heretiques the same Father readily answered , ( as wee may to you ) saying , l When you will so magnifie Christ , you doe but accuse him of falshood : not that wee doe any whit detract from the Omnipotencie of Christ , ( farre be this Spirit of Blasphemy from us ! ) but that ( as you have beene instructed by Antient Fathers ) the not attributing an Impossibility to God , in such Cases of Contradiction , is not a diminishing , but an ample advancing of the m Omnipotencie of God. BOOKE V. Your Orall Eating , Gutturall Swallowing , and Inward Digestion ( as you have n taught ) of the Body of Christ into your Entrails hath beene proved out of the Fathers to be in each respect sufficiently Capernaiticall , and termed by them a Sence both o Pernicious , and Flagitious . Besides you have a Confutation of the Hereticall Manichees , for their p Opinion of Fastning Christ to mens guts , and loosing him againe by their belchings : Consonant to your Romish Profession both of Christ's q Cleaving to the guts of your Communicants , and r Vomiting it up againe , when you have done . 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 Synopsis . BOOKE VII . This containeth a Discoverie of your Masse-Idolatry , not onely as being equall with the Doctrine of some Heretiques , but in one respect exceeding the in●atuation of the very t Pagans ; besides the Generall Doctrine of the power of your Priests u Intention , in consecrating , hath beene yoaked , by your owne Iesuite , with the Heresies of the x Donatists . When you have beheld your owne faces in these divers Synopses , as it were in so many glasses , we pray to God that the sight of so many and so prodigious Abominations in your Romish 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. I. INDEX OF THE PRINCIPALL MATTERS Discussed thorow-out the eight Bookes of the whole former Treatise . A ACcidents merely feed not , Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. Nor inebriate , &c. Ibid. Not without Subject , according to the ancient Fathers , Ibid. ( See more in the words Bread , Councell , Cyrill . ) Adoration of the Eucharist Romish , Booke 7. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Not from Christ's Institution , Chap. 2. Nor from Antiquity , Ibid. Sect. 1. Not by the word , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Sect. 3. Romish Adoration Idolatrous , by their owne Principles , Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Eucharist forbid to be carried to the sicke , for Adoration , Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 10. Romish manner of Adoration of the Host , Book 7. Chap. 7. Sect. 1. Coadoration may be Idolatrous . Sect. 2. ( See the words , Gesture , Idolatry , Invocation , Reverence . ) Altar , unproperly used of the Fathers . Book 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 13 , & 15. Angels not possibly in two places at once . Book 4. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Apparitions of Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament , fictitious . Booke 4. Chap. 2 , &c. ( See more in the word Miracles . ) Application of Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice not yet resolved of , Booke 6. Chap. 11. Sect. 1. Otherwise the Fathers . Ibid. Sect. 2. Romish Application not sufficient for all in Purgatory , Sect. 3. Application of Protestants ( Propitiously ) how justifiable . Ib. Ch. 2. Sect. 1 , & 2. B. BAptisme , called a Sacrifice of the Fathers , Book 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 15. Want of it in the Romish Priest inferreth Idolatry , Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 4. Paralleled with the Eucharist in most points . Booke 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 2 , 3. Beast prostrate before the Host , Objected ( Ridiculously ) for Adoration . Booke 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 3. Blood of Christ not properly shed . Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Body of Christ not properly broken , Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. That in the Eucharist not borne of the Virgin Mary , Booke 4. Chap. 4 , & 5. By Corporall Presence , not one , Ibid. Sect. 2. Infinite , Ibid. Chap. 6. Not organicall , Chap. 7. not perfect , Chap. 8. nor glorious : and subject to vile indignities , Chap. 9. ( See more in Vnion . ) Bread not duly broken in the Romish Masse , Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Remaining after Consecration , Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 4 , & 5. Proved by many Arguments , Ibid. unto Sect. 9. Engendring Wormes , Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 10. ( See Accidents . ) Broken ; Body of Christ unproperly , Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and Booke 6. Chap. 1. Sect. 4. The word [ Broken ] in S. Luke signifies the Present Tense , Booke 6. Chap. 2. Sect. 3. C CAnonization of Saints , a Case doubtfull and dangerous , Book 7. Ch. 7. Sect. 3. Capernaiticall conceit of eating Christ's flesh Bodily , Booke 5. Chap. 4. Sect. 1. Such was the Romish , and is , Sect. 3. As also in swallowing , and bodily mixture , Ibid. Chap. 7 , & 8. ( See Vnion . ) Christ's Priesthood . ( See Priest-hood . ) Church of Rome hath erred in her opinion of administring the Eucharist to Infants , Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 11. Her Doctrine made necessary to Salvation , Book 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. Concomitance of Blood under the forme of Bread , how , Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 6. Consecration used of Christ by prayer , Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Now transgressed in the Romish Church , Ibid. Sect. 4. Forme thereof not set downe either in Scripture , or in ancient Tradition , Book 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. Many Defects incident to make void the Act , and to inferre Idolatry , Book 7. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Contradictions Romish VI. against these words of Christ , [ My Body . ] Booke 4. Ch. 4. Cup is to be administred to all the Communicants , Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. By Christ's precept , and example , Sect. 2 , & 3. By Apostolicall practice , and Fathers , &c. Ibid. Custome of 300. yeares preferred ( by the Romish ) before a more ancient of a thousand , Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 5. D. DEvouring Christ's flesh ; such is the Romish Swallowing of Christ , Booke 5. Chap. 6. Sect. 1 , & 2. and Chap. 9. Distinction of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body , as Subjectively or Objectively , Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Of Propitiousnesse , B. 6. Ch. 8. Sect. 1. Divine Sacrament , so called of the Fathers without any inference of a Corporall Presence , B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 13. Dominus Vobiscum , ] in the Romish Masse condemneth their private Masse , Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 5. E. EAting and drinking spiritually are all one , but not Sacramentally , B. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. Elevation not ancient , B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 5. Proveth not Adoration , B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. Eucharist anciently called the Lord's Supper , Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. Forbid to be carried to the sicke , for Adoration , Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. In both kindes , proved by Christ's precept , B. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 1. ( See Cup. ) Exposition of Scripture by the Romish Church sworne unto , but not without Perjury ( in a Synopsis ) B. 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 5. G. GAzers excluded from the Sacrament anciently , Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. Gesture of bowing objected for Adoration of the Host , vainly , Booke 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. God's Presence in many places objected fondly , for proofe of the possibility of a Body in divers places at once , Book 4. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Holy Ghost proved to be infinite , and God , by it's being in divers places at once ; by the Iudgement of Antiquity , Booke 4. Chap. 6. Sect. 2. Guilty of the Lords Bodie , ] Words objected for proofe of Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist , vainly , Book 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1 , & 5. H. HAbituall Condition no sufficient Pretence to free the Romish from Idolatry , Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 3 , & 4. A matter of great perplexity in the Romish worship , Ibid. Chap. 9. Sect. 7. Hands ; not taking the Sacrament therewith , an Innovation , against the Institution of Christ , B. 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 8. Heresie , the Defence of the Romish Masse fraught with many , B. 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. Hoc facite , ] Absurdly objected for proofe of a Sacrifice , Booke 6. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. [ Hoc ] in the words [ Hoc est corpus meum ] doth not point out properly either Christ's Body , or Individuum vagum , Booke 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 2 , &c. I. IDolatry materiall in the Romish Masse possible , almost infinitely , Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 1 , &c. Yea and Formall , notwithstanding any Pretence to the Contrary , Ib. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. No warrant for such Pretences from Antiquity , Ibid. Sect. 5. A Synopsis of this , Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 5. Idolatry an errour in the understanding , Booke 7. Chap. 7. Sect. 1. The Romish as Idolatrous as the Heathen , Ibid. Chap. 8. Sect. 1. And , in one respect worse , B. 7. Chap. 8. Sect. 2. Impossibility acknowledged in things contradictory , even with the Advancement of God's ●mpotencie , Book 4. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. ( See Contradiction , Omnipotencie . ) Infants made partakers of the Eucharist erroneously , B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 11. Institution of Christ transgressed by the Romish Church , by ten Prevarications , B. 1. Ch. 2. Intent good cannot free one from Formall Idolatry , B. 7. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Intention of the Priest , if not right , occasioneth Idolatry , B. 7. Ch. 5. Sect. 4. A matter of extreme perplexity , Ibid. Ch. 9. Sect. 5. Invocation upon the Sacrament can never be proved out of the Fathers , B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. & Ch. 5. Sect. 1. Romish manner of Invocating the Host , Ibid. Chap. 7. Sect. 1. L. LIft up your hearts , ] used anciciently , maketh against Adoration of the Eucharist , Book 7. Chap. 4. Sect. 2. Liturgies ( or Missals ) ancient praying [ God to accept this as Abel's Sacrifice . ] B. 8. Ch. 8. Sect. 4. M. MAsse , the word , B. 1. Ch. 1. The Romish hath ten Innovations contrary to Christ his Institution , B. 1. Ch. 2. The Superstitiousnesse thereof , Book 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Sacrilegiousnesse thereof , Ibid. Sect. 2. Idolatrousnesse , Booke 7. thorowout , & B. 8. Ch. 1. Sect. 5. Melchizedech his Priesthood and Sacrifice objected and discussed , Booke 6. Chap. 3. Miraculous Apparitions thirteene of true flesh and blood in the Eucharist , falsly pretended for proofe of a Corporall Presence , Booke 4. Chap. 2. Sect ▪ 1 , &c. Miraculous birth of Christ thorow the wombe of the Blessed Virgin ob . and his entrance thorow the doores , and passing thorow the Tombe , and a Camels passing thorow a needles eye , Booke 4. Chap. 7. Sect. 7. Morall Certainty no sufficient Pretence , to excuse from formall Idolatry , B. 7. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. A matter of great perplexity in Romish worship , Book 7. Ch. 9. Sect. 4. D. Morton vindicated from two Romish Adversaries , in the point of the Maniches opinion , imputed to the Romish Church , B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. O. OBstinacies of the Defenders of the Romish Masse discovered in a Synopsis , B. 8. Ch. 2. Sect. 1 , &c. Omnipotencie spoken of the Fathers , and objected for a Corporall presence of Christ's body , and for Transubstantiation , vainly , B. 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. God's Omnipotencie nothing impeached , by the acknowledgement of Impossibilities , by Contradiction , B. 4. Chap. 3. Sect. 2 , &c. Omnipotencie pretended by Heretikes , Ibid. Chap. 4. Sect. 5. See Impossibility , and see Contradiction . Ordination , awanting in the Romish Priest , causeth Idolatry in their Masse , Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 6. P. PAsseov●s no Type of a proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist . Booke 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. Pastophorium , what it signifieth . B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. & B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Perjuries of the Romish Disputants in Defence of their Masse , ( in a Synopsis . ) Book 8. Ch. 2. Sect. 4. Perplexities wherewith the Romish are intangled in their Adoration ; and from which Protestants are free . B. 7. Ch. 9. Place . One Body in many places impossible , proved by Contradictions in it selfe . Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 2 , &c. By Confession , Scripture , and Fathers . Ibid. Sect. 3 , &c. By Reasons . Sect. 9. Objections to the contrary answered . B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 1 , &c. Ob. Sol. Chap. 5. Sect. 4. The Fathers prove the Holy Ghost God , by it's being in div●…s places at once . B. 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. ( See Angels . ) Pledge of Resurrection is the Eucharist called of the Fathers ; vainly objected for proofe of a Corporall Presence . B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 6. & B. 4. Ch. 10. Sect. 5. See also B. 〈◊〉 . Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Popes Consecration a matter doubtfull and dangerous . B. 7. Ch. 7. Sect. 4. Popes made wiser than the Apostles . Book 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. Christ's Divine Precept held to be by the Pope dispensable . Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 13. Presence of Christ's Body ; wherein the Difference [ de modo ] 〈◊〉 necessary . Booke 4. Ch. 1 , &c. Romish manner Capernaiticall . Chap. 2. Sect. 1. Impossible . Chap. 3. Sect. 1. Priesthood Romish not after the order of Melchizedech . B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Word , Priest , uproperly used of the Fathers . B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 15. Christs Priesthood now performed in heaven . B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. Confirmed by antiquity . Sect. 8. Private Masse . ( See Masse . ) Procession with the Sacrament an Innovation . Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 10. Pronuntiation of the words of Consecration , a matter of Perplexity in the Romish worship . Book 7. Chap. 9. Sect. 3. Propitiatory Sacrifice distinguished . B. 6. Ch. 8. Sect. 1. Objectively . Chap. 9. Sect. 2. The Romish Propitiatory void of Propitiatory qualities . Booke 6. Chap. 10. Sect. 1 , &c. Protestants professe an Vnion with Christ more than figurative . B. 5. Ch. 2. They professe a Sacrifice both Encharisticall and Latreuticall . B. 6. Ch. 7. Sect. 1 , &c. And offer Christ's Propitiatory Sacrifice objectively . Ib. Sect. 4. Slandered as celebrating Bare Bread. Book 4. Ch. 1. Sect. 3. In the celebration of the Eucharist they use due Reverence , and are free from all Perplexities , wherewith the Romish are intangled in their worship . Booke 7. Ch. 9. Sect. 3. ( See Vnion . ) Q. QVantity and Quality differ extremely in respect of their being in place or space . Booke 4. Chap. 6. Sect. 6. R. REservation of the Eucharist to other ends than eating is an Innovation . Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. Reverence of this Sacrament falsly pretended , for an Alteration of Christ's Institution . Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. Reverence professed by Protestants . B. 7. Ch. 9. What are the properties of due Reverence . Ibid. ( See Adoration , and Idolatry . ) S. SAcrifice not properly so called in the now Testament . Book 6. Chap. 1. and so thorowout the Book 6. Not proved by Christ's Institution , or any Scripture , whether Typicall , or Propheticall . Chap. 3 , &c. Commemorative only , not proper . Ch. 5 , &c. The Romish Masse is destitute of all Sacrificing Acts , Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Sacrifice how professed by Protestants . Ch. 7. Sect. 1. Sacrilegiousnesse of the Romish Masse ( in a Synopsis ) Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 2. Scriptures , their Exposition impudently appropriated to the Romish Church . Booke 8. Ch. 2. Sect. 8. Shed ] in Christ's Institution taken unproperly , without effusion of Blood. B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 4. Of the Present Tense . B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 4. Similitude of making a Circle , is but a juggling Invention , for proofe of Transubstantiation , or the literall sence of Christ's words . B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 2. Another of a Stage-play , for proofe of a proper Sacrifice , ●idioulously objected . B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Chall . 2. & B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 7. & Ch. 5. Sect. 12. Slander of Iewes & Pagans against Christians ( as eating a Childe ) foolishly objected for proofe of a Corporall eating of Christ's flesh . B. 5. Chap. 9. Sect. 1. Against Protestants , as denying God's omnipotency . B. 4. Ch. 3. Sect. 1 , & 4. And as if they held but bare bread in the Sacrament . Booke 4. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. Soule fondly objected , for proofe of a possibility of a Bodies existence in many places at once . Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. A great difference betweene Body and Soule . B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Stage-play . ( See Similitude . ) Superstitiousnesse of the Romish Masse ( in a Synopsis . ) Book 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. T. TOngue unknowen unlawfull in Gods Service . Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. Translation , called the Vulgar Latine , rejected by the Romish Disputers , notwithstanding their Oath to the contrary . Booke 8. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. & Booke 〈◊〉 Chap. 1. Sect. 2. And yet objected . B. 6. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. Transubstantiation not proved by Christ's words [ This is my Body ] Booke 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. Novelty of the word and Article . Ibid. Bread remaineth . Sect. 4 , &c. As well foure Transubstantiations evinced out of the same Testimonies of Fathers , whereby the Romish Disputers seeke to prove one . B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. Types and Antitypes how applyed to the Eucharist , by the Fathers . B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. V. VIaticum , spoken of by the Fathers , objected idly . B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. Vnbloody Sacrifice , so termed of the Fathers , to signifie void of blood , as in the Sacrifice of Melchizedech . B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 9. which they also call a Bloody Sacrifice . Ibid. Ch. 5. Sect. 11. Vnion of Christ's body with the bodies of the Communicants , by this Sacrament is spirituall . B. 5. Ch. 1 , & 2. The wicked are not united , and yet guilty of Christ's blood . Chap. 3. Corporall Vnion how understood by the Fathers . B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 5 , &c. ( See Capernaites . ) Voice objected seelily for proofe of a possibility of a Body to be indivers places at once . B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 1. Vulgar Translation . ( See Translation . ) II. Index of the Generall Consent of ancient Fathers , in points controverted thorow-out the eight former Bookes . BOOKE I. ANtiquity , in generall , against the Romish forme of Consecration . Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Against their Not Breaking of Bread , in the distributing thereof . Sect. 4. Against Private Masse . Sect. 5. Against uttering the words of Consecration in a low voice . Sect. 6. Against an Vnknowen tongue , in the publike service of God. Sect. 7. Against the presence of Persons not Communicating . Chap. 2. Sect. 9. Against Reservation of the Eucharist for Procession , or other like ends . Sect. 10. Against Communicating but in one kinde . Chap. 3. Sect. 5. The Objections out of the Fathers , in this point , answered . Ibid. The Father 's many Reasons for the common use of the Cup. Sect. 9. BOOKE II. ANtiquitie agreeing in the Exposition of the words of Christ , [ This is my Body ] by referring [ Hoc , This ] to Bread. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. And in yeelding unto them a Figurative Sence . Chap. 2. Sect. 6 , &c. BOOKE III. ANtiquity never mentioning the word Transubstantiation . Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Expounding these words [ Fruit of the Vine ] to meane Wine after Consecration . Chap. 3. Sect. 5. Acknowledging the verity of Sence . Sect. 9. And Bread remaining after Consecration . Sect. 11. Never speakes of Accidents without Substance . Sect. 11. & Chap. 3. Sect. 14. Nor of any Miraculous Conversion of the Sacrament putrified into Bread againe . Ibid. Romish Art in deluding the Testimonies of Antiquity . Ibid. Antiquity objected and answered . Chap. 4. thorow-out . BOOKE IV. ANtiquity against the Possibility of the Being of a Body in moe places than one , at once . Chap. 6. Sect. 6 , &c. or yet Angels . Chap. 5. Sect. 3. For the manner of the birth of Christ , in opening the wombe . Chap. 7. Sect. 7. BOOKE V. ANtiquity agreeing , that only the Godly are partakers of Christ's body and blood . Chap. 2. Sect. 2. In expounding the words [ The flesh profiteth nothing ] spiritually . Chap. 5. Sect. 2. The Fathers Hyperbole's necessarily to be observed . Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Objected for mens being nourished with Christ's flesh , unconscionably . Chap. 8. Sect. 1. As also for Mixture with mens Bodies . Chap. 8. Sect. 3. whereby they must as well prov● foure Transubstantiations , as one . 〈◊〉 . Agreeing , that None●… Christ , in wh●m Christ doth ●ot remaine . Ibid. How they are to be understood concerning Corporall Vnion . Ch. 8. Sect. 4 , &c. ( See Liturgies . ) BOOKE VI. ANtiquity unconscionably objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice , from the Sacrifice of Melchizede●h . Ch. 3. Sect. 2. And in the Exposition of Malachy . Ch. 4. Sect. 2 , &c. Agreeth for Christ's Priestly Function in heaven . Chap. 3. Sect. 8. Explane themselves to signifie a Sacrifice unproperly . Chap. 4. Sect. 5 , & 6. Vnconscionable Objections from their Epithets of Terrible . Chap. 5. Sect. 8. and Vnbloody . Sect. 9. which They call also Bloody . Sect. 11. And also Baptisme a Sacrifice . Sect. 13. And other Spirituall Acts. Sect. 14. Vnconscionable Objections from their words , Altar , and Priest . Sect. 15. Spirituall Acts called Sacrifices unproperly . Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Yea and also Propitious . Chap. 8. Sect. 1. BOOKE VII . ANtiquity unconscionably objected for a Divine Adoration of the Sacrament , from any of their words . Chap. 2. Sect. 1. as also from any of their Acts , either of their Concealement of this Mystery . Ch. 3. Sect. 1. or Elevation . Sect. 2. or Gesture . Sect. 3. or Invocation . Sect. 4. Which was never taught by them . Ch. 5. Sect. 1. Nay , Antiquity was against Divine Adoration of the Eucharist , by their Common Admonition , [ Lift up your hearts , &c. ] Chap. 4. Sect. 2. BOOKE VIII . ANtiquity against the Romish Sacrilegiousnesse , ( in a Synopsis . ) Chap. 1. Sect. 4. Against their Idolatrousnesse , teaching Bread to remaine . Sect. 5. Their Testimonies unconscionably objected for Corporall Presence , Proper Sacrifice , and Divine Adoration , ( as appeareth in a Synopsis . ) Instance in Baptisme , by paralleling their like speeches of it with the Eucharist . Chap. 2. Sect. 2 , & 3. Antiquity insolently rejected , and falsly boasted of by our Adversaries . Ch. 2. Sect. 4. III. Index of the particular Iudgements of Fathers severally ; as also of Councels and Popes , both in our Oppositions , and in the Romish Objections ; besides those ( here omitted ) which have beene otherwise answered in the Generall , thorow-out the former TREATISE . AMbrose Opp. against unknowen Prayer . B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. And that the words of Christ are figurative . Book 2. Sect. 9. and That Christ gave bread . B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. And for a figurative Sence in the words , [ This is my Body . ] B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. And for Bread remaining . B. 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11. Ob. his terming it a Miraculous worke ( unconscionably . ) Ch. 4. Sect. 2. And for saying , Bread is made man's flesh . Sect. 7. And , that Bread is changed into another thing . Ibid. Opp. Hee teacheth Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven . B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. And an Vnproper Sacrifice . Ib. Ch. 5. Sect. 5. and correcteth his Excessive speech of Sacrifice . B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. For naming it an [ Vnbloody Sacrifice ] ( Vnconscionably . ) B. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 9. And for [ Adoration of Christ's footstoole . ] B. 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. And Christ's appearing to Saul from Heaven . Booke 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 5. Opp. proving the Holy Ghost to be God , by it's Being in divers places at once . Booke 4. Chap. 6. Sect. 2. Athanasius Opp. for a necessitie of Circumscription of a Body in one place only Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. And for Impossibility of Angels being in many places at once . B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. And for the spirituall Exposition of those words , [ The flesh profiteth nothing . ] B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. And that Angels cannot be in divers places at once . B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Augustine fondly Ob. for an unknowne tongue . Booke 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. Chall . 6. And for proofe that Christ in the Sacrament was a Figure of himselfe on the Crosse . B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Chall . 2. Opp. That Bread was called Christs body . B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. And that hee alloweth the Iudgement of Sence in this Sacrament . B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. And for a Figurative Sence in the words [ This is my Body ] B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 9. Ob. for Transubstantiation , because a powerfull worke . Book 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. Opp. For necessary Circumscription of a Body in one place . B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. Ob. That Christ [ Efferebatur manibus ejus . ] Ibid. Sect. 8. Opp. For the Being of Christ's soule but in one place . Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. And that the godly only partake Christ's Body . Booke 5. Ch. 2. Sect. 2. & Ch. 3. Sect. 3 , 4. Ob. that the Flesh of Christ , in the Eucharist , is a signe of it selfe on the Crosse , ( fraudulently . ) B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Chall . 2. Opp. for expounding that Scripture [ The flesh profiteth nothing . ] B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Ob. that the Capernaites understood not Christ . ( unconscionably . ) B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. And that [ Wee receive with our mouths Christ's Body . ] Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. And also his [ Fideles nôrunt ] B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. And [ None eateth , before he adore . ] Booke 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. And for Priests ( properly . ) Book 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Opp. Eucharist an unproper Sacrifice . Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 5. and hee is an utter Adversary to the whole Romish Cause . B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 8. Chall . 4 , & 5. And that Christ appeared to Saul from heaven . Ibid. Sect. 5. And hee proveth the Holy Ghost to be God , by it's being in divers places at once . Booke 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. And is against a Bodies being without Commensuration to place and space . Ibid. Sect. 6. And that no Body can be whole in any one part of place . Chap. 7. Sect. 6. And that Angels cannot be in divers places at once . Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Basil Opp. proving the Holy Ghost to be God , by it's being in many places at once . Booke 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. Ob. [ What were the words of Invocation ? ] And for Adoration of the Eucharist ( most grossely . ) B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Opp. That hee called , the Eucharist Bread after Consecration . B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Bertram Opp. for the existence of Bread after Consecration . B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 14. Chrysostome Opp. against Gazers on the Sacrament . B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. Ob. for private Masse . Ibid. Sect. 5. Chall . 3 : Opp. teaching Bread to remaine after Consecration . B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 14. Ob. for Transubstantiation in his words , [ Change by divine power . ] Ibid. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. And his Exception , saying , [ Although it seeme absurd to Sense . ] B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 5. and his Hyperbolicall Phrases . Ibid. and his words , [ It is made Christ's body indeed . ] Ibid. Sect. 7. and these , [ Wee are changed into the flesh of Christ . ] Ibid. And that the wicked are [ guilty of Christ's Body ] for corporall presence . B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. His ( 〈◊〉 miracle ! ) saying [ Christ in heaven is handled here on earth . ] And of a double Elias . B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. and for Christ's passing thorow the doores . Ibid. Opp. his expounding the words [ Flesh profiteth not ] figuratively . Booke 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. Ob. The words , [ Tearing with teeth . ] Ibid. Sect. 3. and these , [ Christ is held in the hands of the Priest . ] Ibid. And , [ Christ hath made us his body . ] B. 5. Chap. 8. Sect. 3. Opp. Christ's Priestly Residence in heaven . B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. And , [ Sacrifice , or rather a Memoriall thereof . ] Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. [ Sacrifice Pure , and Terrible . ] Ibid. Sect. 8. And [ Lambe lying on the Altar , Terrible , and Angels present . ] B. 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. and [ Fideles nôrunt . ] Ch. 3. Sect. 1. and Elevation . Ibid. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. and Bowing before the Table . Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Opp. Angels cannot be in divers places at once . B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. jet , Ob. for Christ's presence in divers places at once , ( Vnconscionably . ) B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 7. Clemens Alexandrinus opp . calling Bread Christ's body . B. 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. and calling Bread and Wine [ Antitypes ] after Consecration . Ibid. Naming it a [ Sacrifice of Christs body . ] Clemens Bishop of Rome . See Pope . Councell of Collen opp . that contemptuous Refusers to communicate are guilty of the body of Christ . B. 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. Of Constance ob . for Communion in one kinde . B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. Of Ephesus opp . for a palpable Body of Christ . B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Of Lateran 4. ob . for Transubstantiation . B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Of Naunts , opp . against private Masse . Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. Of Nice [ Lambe of God on the Table ] ob . unconscionably for a corporall presence , and proper Sacrifice . B. 4. Ch. 10. Sect. 3. And for calling the Eucharist a [ Pledge of the Resurrection . ] B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 6. opp . the same Councell against both corporall presence , and proper Sacrifice . Booke 4. Ch. 10. and against sole Accidents . Ibid. Sect. 2. Of Toledo and Trullo opp . for receiving the Sacrament with hands . Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. And of Toledo against Innovating in the Eucharist . Booke 1. Ch. 3. Sect. ult . And against Transubstantiation and Corporall Eating . Booke 4. Chap. 10. Sect. 3. and against sole Accidents . Ibid. Chap. 10. Sect. 2. And of Trullo , to prove that which is called [ Body ] to be Bread. B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 8. Of Trent opp . for reporting the Errour of the Romish Church about ministring the Eucharist to Infants . B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 11. Cyprian calling it a [ worke of omnipotency ] ob . Booke 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 2. and Bread changed in nature . Ibid. Figurative Sence of Christ's words , [ This is &c. ] Opp. B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. and calling Bread Christ's body . B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Against Reservation of the Sacrament . B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. Ob. Wicked men guilty of Christ's body . B. 5. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. and [ Wee are anoynted with his blood inwardly . ] B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Opp. calling it a [ True and Pure Sacrifice . ] Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 8. Cyril Alexand. Opp. Godly only partakers of Christ his Body . B. 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. ob . that wee have a naturall conjunction hereby with Christ . B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 8. and Ob. his Similitude , [ As Wax melted . ] Ibid. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. And [ Christ dwelleth in us . ] Ibid. Opp. Body as well circumscribed in one place , as God uncircumscribed . B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. Cyril Hierosol . ob . [ Thinke not thou takest bread . ] ( unconscionably . ) B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 4. and [ under the forme of bread ] for proofe of only Accidents , ( fraudulently ) and Species for Typus . Ibid. and Chrisma for Charisma . Ibid. and Sacrifice of Christ's Body . B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 10. and [ Bowing ] for Adoration . B. 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 3. Opp. against Christs body going into the draught . B. 4. Ch. 9. Sect. 3. Damascen opp . that Angels cannot possibly be but in one place . B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Circumscription of a Body necessary . Ib. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. and against penetration of Bodies . Chap. 7. Sect. 6. And for teaching the word , Antitype , to have beene used only before Consecration ( falsly . ) Yet ob . B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. And for naming ( Elevation ) is ob . for Adoration , ( unconscionably . ) Book 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. and for his [ O Divine Sacrament ] unconscionably . Ib. Sect. 4. Dionysius Areopag . opp . Calling the Sacrament [ Antitype ] after Consecration . Booke 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. Didymus Alexand. opp . Proving the Holy Ghost God , by it's being in divers places at once . Book 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 2. Epiphanius his , [ Hoc est meum , & Hoc ] objected . B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 7. Eusebius ob . his saying , [ It is Christ's body ] unconscionably . B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Opp. his correcting of his speech , saying , [ Or rather a Memoriall of a Sacrifice . ] B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Ob. naming the Sacrament a [ bloody Sacrifice , ] unconscionably . B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 9. Fulgentius opp . For necessary circumscription of a Body . Book 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. Gaudentius opp . calling that which is present [ A pledge of Christ's body absent . ] Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11. and calling Bread Christ's body . Book 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. His saying ob . [ Body , which Christ reacheth . ] Book 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Gelasius . See Pope . Gregory Nazian . opp . against the possibility of the being of one Body in divers places at once . B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 1. and also of the Angels . Ibid. Sect. 3. and that Christ's Priestly Function is in heaven . B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. Ob. his naming the Eucharist a [ Bloody Sacrifice ] unconscionably . Chap. 5. Sect. 9. Opp. against Proper Sacrifice , he saith that [ This is not so acceptable as that in heaven . ] Ibid. Sect. 9 , & 15. and calleth the Symbols after Consecration [ Antitypes . ] B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Ob. h●s sister Gorgonia , for Adoration , unconscionably . Book 7. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Gregory Nyssen ob . his saying [ It is changed into whatsoever , &c. ] unconscionably . Book 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. as also these other words [ Christ's body when it is within ours , &c. ] B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 3. Againe , [ One body divided to thousands , and undivided . ] B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. Gregory the Great . See Pope . Hesychius ob . for Praying , [ Perceiving the truth of blood . ] B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. ( unconscionably . ) Hierome opp . that the words of Christ , [ This is my body ] are figurative . B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. and calling the Sacrament present a [ Pledge of his Body absent . ] B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. and that only the Godly are partakers of Christ's body . Book 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Hilary ob . for saying , [ Wee are nourished in our bodies by Christ's body . ] B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. ( unconscionably . ) As also ob . [ That Christ is naturally within us . ] Ibid. Sect. 3. Irenaeus opp . For the remaining of Bread after Consecration . B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Ob. For denying the Sacrament to be common bread . Ibid. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. ( unconscionably . ) And that our bodies are nourished with his body . B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. and for his saying , that our [ Bodies are not now corruptible . ] Ibid. Sect. 6. Opp. his saying that it was Bread , which was called Christs body . B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Isidore Hispal . opp . For a figurative Sence of Christ's words [ This is my Body ] B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. Opp. against Conversion by Transubstantiation . Book 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 6. and for the Sence of the word Masse . B. 1. Ch. 1. Sect. 2. and for calling the thing sacrificed , after the order of Melchizedech , Bread and Wine . B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 2. and calling it [ Bread changed into a Sacrament ] after Consecration . B. 2. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. and against Prayer in an unknowen tongue . B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. Isidore Pelus . opp . that Christ spake from heaven to Saul . B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 5. and for Christ's opening the wombe of the Blessed Virgin at his birth . Ibid. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Iulius . See Pope . Iustine Martyr ob . his Apologie against the slander of Christians , as eating an Infant . B. 5. Ch. 9. Sect. 1 , & 3. ( unconscionably . ) And for calling it no common bread . B. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. ( unconscionably . ) Opp. Calling the Symbols Antitypes after Consecration . B. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and against the altering of Christ's body in his entrance thorow the doore . B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Leo. See Pope . Nicholas . See Pope . Oecumenius Opp. For Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven . B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. Optatus Ob. his calling the [ Altar the seat of Christ . ] B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. and that the Eucharist is the [ Pledge of our Salvation . ] B. 5. Ch. 8. Sect. 6. Origen ob . For bread remaining after Consecration . B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 11. Opp. Against prayer in an unknowen tongue . Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 7. Chall . 6. and against Christ's body going into the draught . Book 4. Chap. 9. Sect. 3. and that only the Godly are Partakers of the body of Christ . B. 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. and for expounding Iob. 6. [ The flesh profiteth nothing . ] B. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. Ob. his saying [ Not worthy , that Christ should come under the roofe of our mouthes . ] Ibid. Sect. 3. and for Christ's Priestly Function in Heaven . B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. and that it was bread which was called Christ's body . Booke 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. Pope Calixtus opp . against Gazers only at the celebration of the Sacrament . Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. and for calling Communion but in one kinde Sacrilegious . B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. For the existence of Bread after Consecration . B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 13. Clemens ob . for unbloody Sacrifice . B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 10. Greg. 1. opp . against Gazers on the Eucharist . Booke 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 9. Ob. for Transubstantiation out of a Legend . Booke 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. and for his saying , [ Blood sprinckled upon the posts . ] B. 5. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. ( unconscionably . ) Opp. Angels cannot be in divers places at once . B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. Gregory 7. Pope ob . for Transubstantiation . B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. Iulius opp . against Innovation in the Eucharist . B. 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Leo Ob. his saying [ Let us taist with our flesh . ] B. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. Opp. against them who erre , in pretence of Omnipotency . B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. Nicholas ob . his [ Tearing sensibly Christ's flesh with te●th . ] B. 5. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. Pius 2. against an unknowen tongue in Gods service . B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 7. Chall . 5. Primasius opp . his correction , [ Sacrifice , or rather a Memoriall . ] B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Tertullian opp . for his expounding Christ's words [ This is my body ] figuratively . B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 9. and for verifying the Truth of Sence in this Sacrament . B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. and for expounding the words of Ioh. 6. [ Flesh profiteth nothing . ] B. 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. and that Angels are not in many places at once . Book 4. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. and mans being in many places at once impossible . B. 4. Ch. 5. Sect. 3. and that it was Bread which he called his Body . B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Theodoret opp . For his expounding Christ's words [ This is my body ] figuratively . B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6 , & 8. and of bread remaining after Consecration . B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 9 , & 12. and that one thing cannot have the right hand and left of it selfe . Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 9. and for Christ's Priestly Function in heaven . B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. and for correcting himselfe , [ a Sacrifice , or rather a Memoriall . ] Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 6. and for circumscription of a body in one place necessarily . B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. ob . his Symbols adored . B. 7. Ch. 2. ( unconscionably . ) Opp. That it was bread which he called his body . Book 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 6. Theophylact ob . for Transubstantiation . B. 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 2. & Ch. 4. Sect. 7. ( unconscionably . ) Opp. for correcting himselfe , saying , [ Sacrifice , or rather a Memoriall . ] B. 6. Ch. 5. Sect. 6. Vigilins Opp. For circumscription of Christ's body in one place . B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 6. IV. Index of the principall places of Scriptures opposed by us , and objected against us thorow-out this Controversie . PSal . 72. 16. [ There shall be an handfull of corne . ] Ob. to prove the Romish Sacrifice . Booke 6. Chap. 4. Sect. 4. Malach. 5. 1. [ In every place shall Sacrifice and Oblation be offered to my name . ] Ob. For a proper Sacrifice ( but vainly . ) B. 6. Ch. 4. Sect. 1 , & 3. Matth. 19. 14. [ Easier for a Camel to passe thorow the eye of a needle , &c. ] Ob. For the manner of Christ's presence . B. 4. Ch. 7. Sect. 7. Matth. 26. 29. [ Fruit of the vine . ] Opp. against Transubstantiation . B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 5. Matth. 26. 26 , &c. [ And he blessed it . ] Opp. B. 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. [ Brake it . ] Ibid. Sect. 4. [ Said unto them . ] Ibid. Sect. 5 , 6. [ Take . ] Ibid. Sect. 7. [ Eat yee . ] B. 1. Ch. 1. Sect. 9. [ In remembrance . ] Ibid. Sect. 11. [ Drinke yee all of this . ] Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. [ In like manner he tooke the cup. ] Ibid. [ As often as you shall doe this . ] Ibid. [ THIS IS MY BODY . ] The word [ This ] B. 2. Ch. 1. Sect. 1 , &c. The verbe [ Est ] Ibid. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. Figurative , and not making for Transubstantiation . Book 3. Ch. 1. Sect. 1. [ My body ] Farre differing from that which is in the hands of the Priest . B. 4. thorow . out . [ Doe this . ] Ob. for Sacrifice . B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 1. [ Is shed , Is broken , Is given . ] Ob. for Sacrifice . Ibid. Sect. 2. ( Both unreasonably . ) [ In remembrance of mee . ] B. 6. thorowout . [ Shed for remission of sins . ] Ob. for a Sacrifice Propitiatory . B. 6. Ch. 8. Sect. 2. Matth. 28. 6. [ He is not here , for he is risen . ] Opp. against Being in two places at once . Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 4. Luc. 24. 16. [ Their eyes were holden . ] Ob. B. 4. Ch. 3. Sect. 9. Ibid. [ — Knowen at Emmaus by breaking of bread . ] Ob. Book 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 3. Ioh. 6. 54. [ Who so eateth my flesh . ] Opp. Booke 5. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. Ibid. vers . 63. [ It is the Spirit that quickneth . ] Ibid. Ch. 5. Sect. 2. & Chap. 3. Sect. 6. Ioh. 19. 33. [ They brake not his legs . ] Ob. B. 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 2. & Ch. 3. Sect. 10. Acts 2. 42. [ They continued in fellowship & breaking of bread . ] Ob. B. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Acts 9. Concerning Christ's Apparance to Saul . Ob. B. 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 5. Acts 13. 2. [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] Ob. B. 6. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. 1. Cor. 5. 7. [ Our Passeover is sacrificed . ] Ob. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. 1. Cor. 10. 3. [ The same spirituall meat . ] Opp. Booke 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 1. Ibid. vers . 16. [ The Bread which wee breake . ] Opp. against Transubstantiation . Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 6. Ibid. vers . 18. [ They which eat — are partakers of the Altar . ] Ob. B. 6. Ch. 2. Sect. 10. for proofe of a proper Sacrifice . 1. Cor. 11. vers . 28. [ So let him eat of this Bread , and drinke of this cup. ] Opp. against Communion but in one kinde . Booke 3. Ch. 2. Sect. 6. And Opp. for proofe of Bread , after Consecration . B. 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. Ibid. vers . 27. [ Guilty of the Lord's body . ] Ob. Booke 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 1 , & 4. 1. Cor. 14. 16. [ How shall hee say Amen ? ] Opp. against unknowen Prayer . ] Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. Heb. 5. Concerning Melchizedech . Ob. for Sacrifice . B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 2 , & 4. Heb. 9. 22. [ Without shedding of Blood. ] Opp. Booke 6. Ch. 10. Sect. 3. Heb. 13. 10. [ We have an Altar . ] Ob. B. 6. Ch. 3. Sect. 8. Faults committed in some Copies of the first five Bookes . PAg. 3. lin . 35. Read , according to the. pag. 25. lin . last but one , read , oppose . pag. 36. lin . 5. read , Publike Procession . pag. 53. ●ine last but foure , read , of longest . pag. 61. lin . last but two , read , kept fasting . pag. 171. lin . 15. for Chatters , read , Characters . pag. 178. lin . 24. crucified , read , circumscribed , twice in that line . pag. 211. lin . 9. read , in the Propositions . pag. 232. lin . 36 for Commandement , read , Commentary . pag. 235. lin . 33. read , Tropologicall phrases . Besides these , there is an Omission pag. 108. in the lin . 9. of § . 4 where , over against these words of the Context , * Acts of this Councell were not published untill more than 200 ( read 300 ) yeares after ; for proofe thereof the Observation , which the same Author , under the name of M. Widdrington , hath made , may be thus inserted in the Margine . * Conc. Lateranense non nisi post trecentos annos in lucem publicam prodiisse , neque in Tomis Conciliorum à Jac. Merlin — — conscriptum esse . And againe ; At si Conc. istud plen● absolutum fuisset — aliquis intrà trecentorum Annorum spatium publicandum curâsset : neque Joh. Cochlaei ope indiguissemus , qui post totos tercentum annos Conc. istud non ex Bibliotheca Vaticana , &c. Faults in the three last Bookes . PAg. 6. lin . 24. for Translation , read , Interpretation . pag. 9. lin . 25. adde , and read , 6. yea and ( although . pag. 36 lin . 23. read , two Scales . pag 74. lin . 4 read , Veniall sins . Ibid. lin . 7. read , namely , not Christ . pag. 80. lin . last but six , read , shall eat , &c. Other Errata , especially in the Marginalls , by mis-acc●●ting of some Greeke words , through the Correctors unskilfulnesse in the Character , the inganious and ingenuous Reader may as easily amend 〈◊〉 espi● . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A07812-e2440 * See the Protestants Appeale in the beginning . * In his Sober Reckoning . * Booke 1. c. 3. §. 7. Notes for div A07812-e3520 a Nomen antiquissimum , Missa , ( quod quidem fides Christiana profitetur ) ex Hebraica vel Chaldaica nomenclatura acceptum esse videtur , Missah , i. e. spontanea oblatio , conueniens instituto Sacrificio . Baron . Cardin. Anno 34. num . 59. Est Hebraicum . Tolet. Ies . & Cardin. Instruct . Sacerd . li. 2. c. 4. Quidam , vt Reulin , Alcian , Xaintes , Pintus , Pamelius existimant esse Hebraicum . At Azor. Ies. reporteth , in Inst . Moral . par . 1. li. 10. ca. 18. b Latinum , non Hebraicum est , vt Neoterici studiosè exquitunt . Binius Tom. 3. Conc. p. 110. Eodem modo interpretantur cōplures . Durant . de Ritib . l. 2. c. 2. p. 190 , 192. Magis spectat ad Latinam phrasin . Salmeron Ies . Epist . ad Canis . de nomine Missae . [ So also Azor. the Ies . in the place aboue ▪ cited . ] Multò probabilius esse Latinam ; nam si vox Hebraica in vsu apud Apostolos fuisfet , certè retinuissent eam Graeci , & Syri , aliaeque Nationes , vt retinuerunt vocem Hosanna , Allelujah , Pascha , Sabbatum , & similes voces . — Apud Graecos nulla est hujus vocis mentio ; pro ea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt : est autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aeunus , siue ministerium publicum . Bellar. l. 1. de Missa . c. 1. Melius qui Latinam — Suarez Ies . 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 . l. 2. de Episc . Rom. in Leon. 1. [ And Ambrose is the ancientest that either Bellar. or Binius , in the places before-quoted , could mention . ] Missa à Missione dicta est . Salmeron Ies . 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 . c Missa à Missione dicta est , quoniam Catechumeni ●â susceptâ foras de Ecclesia emitterentur : vt in ritibus Paganorum dici consueuerat , Ilicet , quod per Syncopen idem est ac , Ire licet . Sic nostrum verbum , Missa , Ite , missa est . Salmeron . Ies . in the place aboue-cited , p. 390 , 391. Sic accipitur in iure Canonico , & in Patribus etiam , atque Concilijs . Azor. Ies . Inst. par . 1 pag 850. Gemin● Missio ; prima Catechumenorum , alia peractis sacris , Missâ completâ . Binius in the place afore-cited . Esse à dimissione , per ●te , missa est , tenet Alcuin . Amalar. Fortunat. Durant . quo suprà . [ And the other fore-named Authors , who confesse the word to be Latine , doe hold that it commeth of Ite , Missa est ; ●or ] Iubebantur exire Catechumeni , & Poenitentes , vt qui nondum ad communicandum praeparauerant . Cassaud . Consult . Art. 24. As also in his Tract . de solit . Missa p. 217. with others . ( See more hereafter , Chap. 2. §. 5. where this point is discussed . ) [ As for the dismissing of the whole Congregation after the receiuing of the Sacrament , by an Ite , missa est , it was vsed in the second place , after the other . See Binius aboue ] d Alij , ut Isidorus de diuin . offic . dixerunt Missam appellatam esse quasi dimissionem , à dimittendis Catechumenis antequam Sacrificium inchoaretur : quā sententiam colligo esse verissimam ex antiquiss . Authoribus . — Clamabat enim Diaconus post Cōcionem , Catechumeni exeunto , et qui communicare non possunt : vt constat ex omnibus Liturgijs , vbi non potest nomen Missae accipi pro Sacrificio . Maldon . Ies . lib. dc 7 Sacram. Tract . de Euch. §. Primum . p. 335. * See Chap. 2. Sect. 9. * See below , Chap. 2. Sect. 5. e Durand . Ration . lib. 4. c. 1. & Durant : de Ritib . l. 2. c. 3. So Christoph . de Capit● fontium Archiep. Caesar . var. Tract . de Christi Missa , pag. 34. Liturgiae veteres partes Missae Christi exactè respondent : — Missa Christi Ecclesiae Missam declarat . f Liturg. Trac . 1. §. 1. * Confess . Aug. Cap. de Coena Domini . g Microl. de Eccl. obseruat . c. 1. Propter hoc certe dicitur Missa , quoniam mittendi sunt foràs , qui non participant Sacrificio , vel communione Sancta . Teste Cassand . Liturg fol 59. * See below . c. 2. sect . 9. h Attende Missam Christi , &c. Waldens . de Missa . i Hoc officium Christus instituit , ubi dicitur , [ Accepit Iesus panem ] Durand . Ration . l. 4. c. 1. p. 165. Christus instituit , Lu. 22 Accepto pane , &c. Durant . de ●iti . l. 2. c. 3 p. 211. k Antiquissimus decumbēdi usus more accumbendi nondum inuento , ex Philone lib. de Ios pho . — Iudaeorum mos jacendi inter Epulas . Amos c. 2. 〈◊〉 . Foeneratores super Vestimenta in pignus accepta discumbunt iuxta quoduis altare : ubi vestimenta pro lectis . Casaub . Exerc. 16. in Baron . [ And lest any might obiect a necessity of representation Aquae , quae fluxit è corpore Christi , Bonauent . q. 3. D. 11. cleares it thus ] Dicendum quòd per aquam illam non signatur aqua ista , nec è conuerso : sed aqua illa aquam Baptismatis signat . [ Againe , concerning the difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it is plaine , that although Azymes were vsed by Christ , it being then the Paschal feast , yet was this occasionally by reason of the same feast , which was prescribed to the Iewes , as was also the eating of the Lambe . ] Graeca Ecclesia peccaret consecrans in Azymo . Tolet Ies . instruct . lib. 2. cap. 25. Lutherani non disputant de necessitate fermenti , aut Azymi . Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 7. Res videtur esse indifferens in se , sed ità vt peccatum sit homini Graeco contra morem & mandatum suae Ecclesiae in Azymo : & nos in Latina Ecclesia , nisi in Azymo , sine scelere non facimus . Alan Card. l. 1. de Euch cap. ●2 . pag. 267. Error est dicere alterutrum panem , siue azymum siue fermentatum , esse simplici●er de necessitate Sacramenti in hac vel illa Ecclesia : tàm Graecis quam Latinis licet consuetudinem suae Ecclesiae sequi . Suarez Ies . Tom 3. disp . 44. §. 3. p. 523. In fermentato confici posse , Ecclesia Latina docet , nam Azymus panis fermentato non substantia , sed qualitate differt . Salmeron Ies . To. 9. Tra. 12. p. 75. Christus dicitur panem accepisse : ex quo intelligitur quemvis panem proprie dictum esse posse materiam Eucharistiae , siue azymum siue fermentatum . Iansen . Episc . Concord . c. 131. p. 899. Maior pars Theologorum docet , non esse aquam de necessitate Sacramenti — Opinio illa Cypriani , quod at●inet ad modum loquendi — quod ad rem attiner , non Catholicae Ecclesi● , fortasse etiam nec Cypriani . Bel. l. 4. de Euch. c. 11. §. Quinto . And of leauened Bread , Mr. Brerely Lit. Tract . 4. §. 6. p. 413. when the Ebionites taught ●nleavened Bread to be necessary , the Church commanded consecration to be made in leauened Bread. a [ Hoc facite . ] Alter sensus est , Facite viz. quod feci — Christus accepit panem , gratias egit , benedixit , &c. idipsumque praecepit Discipulis , eorumque successoribus Sacerdotibus . Barrad . Ies . Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap. 6. pag. 82. col . 2. [ which sence hee also embraceth , although hee excludeth not a second . ] Illud [ Hoc facite ] posuit post datum Sacramentum , ut intelligeremus iu●●i●●e Dominum ut sub &c. Bellar. l. 4 de Euch. c. 25. §. Resp . mirab . Idem . [ Hoc facite ] illud i●bet vt totam actionem Christi●mitemur . Ib. c 13. § Quod illa . — 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 . ●ansen . Episc . Concord . c 131. p. 903. Againe Bellar. Videtur ●n . sententia Iohannis à Lovanio valde probabilis , qui docet verba Domini [ Hoc facite ] apud Lucam ad omnia referri ( id est ) ad id quod fecit Christus , & id quod egerunt Apostoli : ut sit sensus , Id quod nunc agimus ; Ego dùm consecro & porrigo , & vos dùm accipitis , &c. frequentate vsque ad mundi consummationem . Profert n. idem Author veteres Pa●res , qui illa verba modò referunt ad Christi actionem , Cyp● . l. 2. Epist . 3. Damas l. 4. de fide . c. 14. modò ad actionem Discipulorum , vt Basil . reg . mor. 21. Cyril Alex. l. 11. in Ioh. c. 58. Thus far Bellar. l. 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 , Hee tooke bread , &c. ] nam ea vis est Pronominis demonstratiui [ Hoc ] & verbi [ Facite ] ut praeceptum quod his duobus verbis continetur , ad eas tantum actiones referatur , quas tum in praesentia Christus vel faciebat , velfaciendas significabat : quae quid em actiones continentur in ipsa narratione Institutionis , quae incipit ab illis verbis [ Accipiens panem . ] Greg Valent. Ies . Tract . de vsu alterius spec . in Euch. c. 2. §. Id manifestè — [ Hoc facite . ] Ex tribus Euangelistis , & 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 narrat 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. Caietan . Card. in Lucam pag. 304. in fine . b [ Coenan tibus autem illis . ] & [ Postquam coenanit . ] Non necesse est huiusmodi Sacramenti celebrationem aut coena praecedat , aut consequatur , nam Christus ante coenauerat , non ut exemplum praeberet , fecit , sed necessariò , quia opo●tebat vetera Sacramenta prius implere , quàm noua instituere ( id est ) agnum paschalem priùs edere , quàm corpus & sanguinem su●m dare . Agnus autem non alio tempore quàm coenae edi poterat . Maldon . Ies . in Mat. 26 super illa verba [ Coenantibus autem . ] &c. c Has Panis Oblatas , quae nunc ad imaginem nummorum , & ad tenuissimam & leuissimam forman a veri panis specie alienam redactae sunt , per contemptum ( ab ordinis Rom. Expositore ) vocari minutias nummulariarum Oblatarum , quae panis vocabulo indignae sunt : propter quas Ecclesiasticum officium eiusque religio per omnem modum confunditur . Cassand . Liturg. sol . ●6 . d Panis azymus glutinosus erat , & frangebatur siue manu , siuè cultro . Lorin . Ies . in Act. 2. v. 42. §. Indicat . e Non dubium est quin apud Euangelistas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idem sit quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : nam quod Matthaeus & Marcus dicunt [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] post de calice loquentes , dicunt [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : ] & vicissim quod Matth. & Marcus de pane dicunt [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ] Lucas & Paulus dicunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] Maldon . Ies . in Math. 26 and Stapleton . Antidot . in eum locum . Promiscuè unum pro altero indesinenter accipi . Salmeron . Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 12. Haec duo verba idem valent , ut Cyrillus admonet , & sicut apparet ex Euangelistis , & S. Paulo . Inde est quòd Ecclesia Latina , pro eodem accipiens has voces , simul conjunxit . Idem ibid. pag. 76. Illud verbum Benedictionis est forma eius Sacramenti , & idem est , Benedicere , & uti verbis Consecrationis ad elementa proposita . Alan . l 1. de Euch. ca. 15. p 294. Et Catechismus Trident. dicit idem esse Benedicere & Consecrare res proposi●as . Idem ibid. Dixit S. Paulus [ Calix benedictionis , ●ui 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. ] f Communis sententia est non solùm Theologorum recentiorum , led etiam veterum Patrum , Christum consecrásse his verbis [ Hoc est corpus meum . Hic est sanguis meus ] Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 13. §. Quod attinet — Probatur ex Conc. Florentino , & Conc. Trident. sess . 13. cap. 1. Barrad . Ies . Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 4. So also Suarez . Ies . Tom. 3. Disp . 58. Sect. 1. §. Dicendum — Omnes veteres his solis verbis dixerunt fieri consecrationem . Maldon . Ies . Disp . de S. Euch. pag. 134. Nè formae ignoratione turpissime peccetur , ab Euangelistis & Apostolis docemurillam esse formam . Catechis . Rom. de Euch. num 18. Tenet Sacerdos ambaous manibus hostiam , profert verba Consecrationis distinctè [ Hoc est corpus meum . ] Missal . Rom. iussu Pij Quinti Pont. edit . Rubrica Canonis , & Aquinas part . 3. qu. 60. Art. 8. * Summa Angelica , tit . Eucharistia num . 25. de P●ne . Sacerdos consecrans ex intentione Ecclesiae vnâ vice possit conficere tot hostias , quae sufficerent toti mundo , si necessitas effet Ecclesiae . g Christoph . de capite fontium Archiepise . Caesarien . Tract . var. ad Sixtum Quintum Pont. Paris . 1586. — Cap. 1. Non solùm Thomas , sed omnes ante Caietanū Theologi fatentur Christum , cùm benedixit , consecrasse . Nec ullum verbum ( ut ait Alphonsus à Castro ) est a pud Euangelistas , quo Consecratio significetur , praeter verbum [ Benedixit ] vel per verbum [ Gratias egit ] quod ibi pro eodem sumitur . — Cap. 5. Ad formam à Christo institutam obseruandum vrget 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 eum 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 lustino , sine precibus Consecrationem nullam esse . Amalcharius praef . in lib. de offic Apostolos solâ benedictione consectare 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. Tarraretus , Catharinus . — Lindanus de Iustino ait , quòd negat Apostolos istis verbis u●os ad consecrandam Eucharistiam . De Basilio asserit , quòd 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 eoloco Canonis , viz. Quam oblationem tu , Deus , benedictam , &c. Visscire ( 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 obiect , that the Apostles did not observe in their narration the right order of Christ's acts , Hee addeth ; ] Omnes nunc prouoco Lectores ad legendos Missales libros Liturg. Iacobi , Clementis , Bafilij , Chrysost . & Ecclesiae Latinae , & videbunt , nisi sibi oculos eruere velint , quàm constanter omnes unoore 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 , dedirque Discipulis esse corpus Domini Saluatoris , dicens , [ Accipite & comedite , Hoc est corpus meum . ] Haec ille . Nota quòd ait Christum dixisse ad Apostolos , non ad panem . [ Hoc est corpus : ] Ergò non per ista verba panem consecrauit — Si mihi opponant authoritatem Pij Quinti in Catechis . qui post Conc. Trid factus est , ego opponam illi non minoris authoritatis & sanctitatis , eruditionis autem nomine maioris , Innocentij tertij sententiam oppositum sentientis — Et dico , librum illum Catechismi non definiendo , sed magistraliter docendo factum esse . Hactenus ex Archiep. Caesarien . h Tract . of the Masse , pag. 105. i Verba haec [ Hoc est corpus meum ] pronuntiata à Sacerdote , cùm intentione consecrandi Sacramentum , continent implicitè Invocationem . Bellar. lib. 4. de Euch. c. 14. §. Quintū arg . * See the former testimony , letter ( g. ) k Vehemens prorsus insania est , quòd nune arbitrantur se consecrate hoc Sacramentum sine prece , quam Canonem appellamus , absque invocatione super dona , sed tantùm recitatione verborum , &c. Talis recitatio non est Cōsecratio . — Alitèr profectò erat in Ecclesia orientali , & occidentali . — Hactenùs in Ecclesia doctum fuit , in piece , quâ Sacerdos sic invoca● [ Hanc Oblationem quaesumus , Domine , acceptabile facere dignetis , &c. Antididag . de Cath. Relig. per Canon . Eccles . Coloniens . Tract . de Missa , p. 100 §. An sine prece . l Quod autem ille sermo Domini sufficiat ad sanctificationem , nullus neque Apostolus , nec Doctor dixisse cernitur . Nic. Cabasil . Explicat . Euch. c. 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 adiumento , nullâ prece , nullo matrimonio ? Ibid. * See the Testimonie before at the letter ( g ) towards the end . m Alij dixerunt , Christum his verbis semel dictis consec●âsse , sed Evangelistas non seruâsse ordinem in rei gestae narratione . Sed cùm omnes Evangelistae conueniunt in hoc , ut dicant , primùm Christum accepisse panem , deindè Benedixisse , tertiò fregisse , & tùm de disse , dicendo [ Hoc est corpus meum ] videntur non casu , sed consilio Evangelistae rem narrâsse , ut gesta est . Maldon . Jes . Disp . de Euch. q. 7. p. 133. [ And among them that doe invert the order , is Alan . lib. 〈◊〉 . de Euch. c. 15. p. 295. ] Alij docuerunt , Christum haec verba [ Hoc est corpus meum , &c. ] bis repetivisse : quae sententia est falsa , quia null● conjecturâ probari potest . Idem ibidem . * See aboue , lit . ( 〈◊〉 . ) n Iustin . Apol. 2. docet , Oratione confici Eucharistiam . Iren. lib. 4. c. 5. Invocatione nominis Dei. Cyril . Hier. Catech. mystag . 3. & 4. Invocatione Spiritus Sancti . Hieron . Epist . ad Evag. Sacerdotum precibus . August . Semperferè prece mysticâ ( ut lib. 3. c. 4. de Trin. ) Sacramentum fieri asserit . — Respondetur , Primò quòd veteres non curabant passim exactè declarate & praecisè quibus verbis conceptis consecraretur : licet Ministris secretiore institutione ea tradidisse constat . Alan . l. 1. de Euch. c. 17. p. 310. [ To whom might be added Cyprian de coena Domini , Calix benedictione sacratus . ] o It was M. Brereley his error , Liturg. p. 101. in alleaging Irenaeus lib. 5. cap. 1. Quandò mixtus calix , & fractus panis percepit verbū 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 blessed it , and commanded his Church , saying , Doe this : as appeareth by Iraen . 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 dc Sacr. Consecratio igitur quibus verbis fit ? Domini Iesu , &c. Ergò sermo Christi conficit hoc Sacramentum , nempe is , quo facta sunt omnia , iussit , & factum est . [ This is the Allegation ; whereas if he had taken but a little paines to have read the Chapter following , bee should have received Saint Ambrose his plaine Resolution ; that they meant the words of Prayer . Visscire quibus verbis coelestibus consecratur ? Accipe verba , Dicit Sacerdos , Fac nobis hanc Oblationem acceptam , &c. Then he procecdeth to the Repetition of the whole Institution . 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 . ] * See at the former letter ( o. ) p Ecce , in coena Christus fregit panem : & tamen Ecclesia Gatholica modò non frangit , sed integrum dat . Salmeron . Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 34. §. Nam . p. 275. q Amulto tempore non usupatur fractio , sed singuli panes , seu minores hostiae consecrantur , ad evitandum periculum decidentium micarum . Lorin . Ies . in Act. 2. 42. Bonâ ratione , nè micae aut particulae panissacri pereant . Salmeron quo suprà , aliquantò post . r Fregit . ] Nimirùm in tot particulas quot erant Apostoli manducaturi , praetersuam , quam Christus primus accepit . Et ( ut quidam non indiligenter annotavit ) quemadmodùm unum calicem communem omnibus tradidit ad bibendū , ità unâ palma panem in 12. buccellas fractum manibus suis dispensavit . Salmerquo 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 repraesentatur Passio corporis Christi . Idem Ies . Tract . 35. §. Vocat . pag. 288. [ Infractione Panis , Act. 2. ] Indicat fractionis nomen antiquam consuetudinem partiendi pro astantibus sive manu , sive cultro ; quià panis azymus glutinosus ità 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 & eius celebrandi ordo nos docent , qualis fuit Christi Missa , & quo illam ordine celebravit ▪ Archiep. Caesar . var. Tract . pag. 27. * 1. Sam. 15. 22. a Missas illas , in quibus solus Sacerdos sacramentaliter cōmunicat — probar atque adeò commendat . Concil . Trid. Sess . 22. cap. 6. b Sunt qui in Missa communionem requirunt : sic , fateor , à Christo institutum fuit , & ita olim fieri consuevit . Eras . Concord . Eccles . vers . finem . [ Act. 2. Erant communicantes in Oratione & communicatione fractionis Panis ] id est , in Eucharistia non minùs quàm oratione . Lorinus Ies . in Act. 2. 46. Odo Camera cens . in Canonem scribit , Missas solitarias antiquitùsi● vsu Ecclesiae non fuisse . — Et hunc fuisse antiquum Ecclesiae Rom. morem , ●t plures de eodem Sacrificio participent , doctiss●●i quique agnoscunt . — Itáque hac nostra aetate R. Pater , & vir doctiss ▪ Ioh Hoffmeisterus his verbis suam sententiam declaravit . Res , inquit , clamat , tàm in Graeca quà● in Latina Ecclesia non solùm Sacerdotem sacrificantem , sed & reliquos Presbyteros & Diaconos , necnon & reliquam plebem , aut●altem 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 s●mpserimus , &c. Item , Prosint nobis divina Sacrificia , quae sumpsimus . Teste G. Cassandro Consult . Art. 24. pag. 216 , 217 , — 223. &c. c Idem Ioh : Hoffmeisterus ; Quomodò ( inquit ) ordo antiquus cessauerit , mirandum est , & ut bonus ille usus reuocetur laborandum . Nunc verò postquàm communionis ordo à nobis obseruari desijt , idque per negligentiam tàm plebis quàm Sacerdotum , ut ait Hospin . — Ex Canone quodam Cone Nannetensis , Sacerdos solus Missam celebrare vetatur : absurdum n. 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 Decretum reperitur in Conc. Papiensi , ut nullus Presbyter Missam celebrare praesumat — Cur autem Canon noster [ Speaking of the forme of the Romane Masse ] alijs in superstitionem , alijs in contemptum adductus sit , in causa potissimum est mutatio prisci ritus . Georg. Cassand . quo sup . d Act. 2. 42. [ Erant communicantes ▪ &c. ] Vsus fuit 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 . e Collectae , per figuram , dicebantur Preces , ab ipsa celebratione Missae , quum ad eam populus colligebatur . Bellar. l. 2. de Missa cap. 16. §. Post salutationem . * See aboue at ( b. ) f Generaliter autem dicendum est , quòd illa est legitima Mis●a , in qua sunt Sacerdotes , Respondens , Offerens , atque Communicans , sicut ipsa precum compositio evidenti ratione demonstrat . Durand . l. 4. c. 1. pag. 174. Walf●idus Strabo , etiam aliqui antiquiores Scholasticorum Interpretessolam legitimam Missam fatentur , cui interfuit Sacerdos , Respondentes , Offerentes , atque Communicantes . Cassand . quo supra . g Qui dicunt Christum manducari spiritualiter à fidelibus posse , etiamsi Sacramentaliter non manducetur , atque eo cibo animam ali , vera quidem asserunt . Acosta Jes . de procur . Indorum Salut . c. 7. p. 532. * See aboue at the letter ( a ) h Claudij Espencaei Theologi Parisiensis Tractatus de utraque Missa : quarum alteram publicam , alteram priuatam appe●lant . Operâ Gilberti Theologi Parisiensis . Genebrard . * See below at the letter ( p. ) i Haec & similia pro priuatarū Missarum usu & vetustate probabilia quidem sunt , sed minus aperta , nec n. qui oblatum dicunt communicatum negant , &c. Espen . Tract . de vtraque Missa fol. 226. [ where also had beene obiected the complaint of Chrysostome , sc . fol. 222. ] k Monachos , plus alioqui iam satis grauatos invidiâ , primos prinatarum Missarum Authores fuisse , quidam faciunt . Espenc . ibid. fol. 227. Non est quòd ex publicarum Missarum Monachis cùm interdictione colligamus Privatarum ab eis inventionem . Ib. fol. 228. l Dominus vobiscum , &c. Quarè salutatio non Cleri modò sed & plebis fuit . Ex horum verborum occasione mota olim iam tanta quaestio , quâ non alia sit in hodiernis de religione controversijs grauior au● magis agitata . — Gratianus rospondet , piè credi , Angolorum in Missa praesentiam , & nobis orantibus assistentiam : ad Angelos igitur , cum deessent homines , salutationem hîc videtur retulisse . Ecquò n. 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 , & maximè in Coenobijs fieri , ubi non habeant quàm pluraliter Collectam salutent , nec plures mutare possunt salutationes , convertunt se ad Ecclesiam , dicentes , se Ecclesiam in Ecclesia salutare , & in corpore totum corpus colloqui . Exercuerat & ante hos Cardinalium Decanum à fratribus Eremitis proposita quaestio , utrum singulares in cellulis , & orantes iuxta morem Ecclesiaicum , sibimet dicere deberent [ Dominus vobiscum ] quando nemo sit qui responde●t ? quidam etiam inter se sic rationabantur , Hoc lapidibus ▪ aut tabulis dicendum . Respondet peculiari opusculo , quod & ideò inscriptum , Dominus vobiscum . — Ca. 4. In his docuit seruandam Ecclesiae consuetudinem , & hanc Sacerdotalem salutationem nec per traditionem permutari licere : Ecclesia siquidem Christiana tanta charitatis inter se compage invicem connectitur , ut in pluribus una , & in singulis sit per mysterium tota ; & unaquaeque electa anima per Sacramenti mysterium plena esse credatur Ecclesia . Thus far Espen . quo sup fol. 212 , 213. & Gers . Tract . Qu●stion . cum Resp . Quid Sacerdos gerit vicem popull . * 1. Cor. 14. 23. m Sacerdos dicit [ Pax omnibus vobis : ] quoniam autem pro se invicem precari est praeceptum Apostolicum , propterea populus quoque ei ipsam pacem precatur , dicens , [ Et cum spiritu tuo . ] Nic. cabas . Archiep. Thessal . Ann. Dom. 1350. Exposit . Liturg. cap. 25. n Greg. Papa . Sacerdos Missam solus nequaquam celebret ; quià sicut illa celebrari non potest sine salutatione Sacerdotis , & 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 Cassandro Liturg . fol. 96. o Soter B. of Rome Ann. 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 ] & illud in secret is [ Orate pro me ] apertissimè convenit , ut ipsius respondeatur salutationi . Witnes M. Harding Art. 1. Divis . 29. apud Iuellum . * One that of late writ to a Popish Ladie , not discouering his name . p Chrysost . in Ephes . Hom. 3. Frustrà habetur quotidiana oblatio , frustra stamus ad altare , cum nemo est qui participet . Ob. à Bellar. lib. 2. de Missa , cap. 9. [ Not that in these daily Celebrations None at all did communicate with the Priest : for he was accompanied , at least , with some Ecclesiastiques ; as is implyed in the words , ( Stamꝰ ad Altare ) And it is no rare Hyperbole in Chrysostome to vse the word , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for , a Paucitie . ] q Chrysost . Illa coena ( Christi ) communiter omnes accumbentes habuit . Tom. 4. in illum locum Pauli ; Oportet Haereses esse . 1. Cor. 11. 19. r Hieron . Coena Domini dicitur , quia Dominus in coena tradidit Sacramenta . Dominica coena debet omnibus esse communis . In 1. Cor. cap 11. * [ For againe , if it should be strictly racked , so should he himselfe not have participated , and then was it no Masse at all . But Chrysostom's Rhetorique , in Hyperbolizing , is noted especially by your Senensis ; as may be obserued in Chrysostome's like Invectiue against the carnall securitie 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 sencelesse as to thinke hereby that Chrysostome thought himselfe absolutely to be wholy alone . ] s [ Frustrà stamus , &c. ] Ex quibus verbis apparet , in his quotidianis Missis solos ferè Ministros & Clericos , paucos verò autnullos à populis communicâsse . G. Cassander de Liturg. Chrysost● [ Yea and Epenseus durst not relie vpon this Testimonie . a Si quis dixetit , Ecclesiae Rom ritum , quo submissâ voce pars Canonis , & verba Consecrationis proferuntur , damnandum esse , Anathoma sit . Conc. Trid. Sess . 22. Can 9. b Quibus verbis Conc. verba Consecrationis altâ voce proferri prohibuit . Ledesima Ies . de Script . quavis ling. non legend . p. 161. In inclinatione Sacerdotis & osculatione 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 . c Christus altâ voce pronuntiabat verba illa [ Hoc est corpus meum ] ut audirentur ab Apostolis . Bellar. l. 〈◊〉 . de Missa , c. 12. §. Quod attinet . — In Ecclesia Orientali altâ voce recitari consuevisse , non negamus . Idem . ibid. § Respondeo . — Certè ex Graecorum Liturgijs invenies tàm ●n Missa Iacobi Apostoli & Clementis Rom. quàm in illis quae editae sunt à Basilio & Chrysostomo , quòd ubi Sacerdos protulisset verba Cōsecrationis tàm post panis , quàm post vini Consecra●ionem , populus acclamabat dicendo , Amen . Idē etiam confirmatur ex Leone , Aug. Ambrosio , & alijs multis Patrib . Salmeron . Ies . Cō . in 1. Cor. 14. Disp . 22. p 188. Moris enim fuit Ecclesiae primitivae , ut constat ex Leone magno , & Iustino Martyre , ut verbis Consecrationis altâ v●ce prolatis , populus responderet , Amen . Idem Tom. 9. Tract 13. pag. 90. Col. 2. d Novellâ Constit . 123. Iustiniani severè praecipitur Sacerdoribus , ut in Eucharistiae celebratione verba clarâ voce pronuntientur , ut à populo exaudiantur — [ Which made Bellar. to bluster after this manner : ] Ad Novellam responderi possit imprimis , ad Imperatorem non pertinere de ritu sacrificandi leges ferre : proinde non multum referre quid ipse sanxerit . Bellar. l. 2. de Missa c. 12. §. Ad Novellam . e Vtile est , ad reverentiam tanti Sacramenti ( ut Basil . rectè docet l. de Sp. Sancto c. 27. ) & multum confert ad dignitatem & reverentiam mysteriorum ut non assuescant homines eadem saepius audire : vel potiùs ut non offerrentur ad aures vulgi . Et in Liturgijs Graecis Basilij & Chrysost . praescribunt quaedamsub silentio dicēda . — In Liturgijs Chrysost . Sacerdos orat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , quod non significat moderatâ voce , sed planèsecretò . In Latinis Liturgijs , Innocentio reste , praecipua pars Missae secreta erat . Bellar. quo supra . [ Wee oppose 1. Never were any words held secret , so , as not to be beard of them that were baptised , and were allowed to be 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 Secreto 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 point in question , that the words of Institution were in th●se times pronounced with an audible voice both in the Greeke and Latine Churches ( as hath beene confessed , and their owne Writings doe verifie : ) Basil . 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 revocare eam dictionem , &c. ] secundùm Graec. Edit . * See Booke 7. C. 5. §. 2. * Ibidem . f [ ENIM . ] Ea particula intelligitur in forma panis . Bellar . l. 4. de Euch. c. 14. g Concil . Trident. Sess . 22 c. 8. Statuit non expedire ut divinum Officium vulgari passim linguâ celebretur . Azor. Ies . Inst . Moral . par . 1. l. 8. c. 26. §. Verum-enimverò . h Asserere Missas celebrandas esse linguâ vulgari , cōsilium est Schismaticum — Haereticum — & non acceptandum , — nè Ecclesia dormitâsse aliquandò , atque adeò errâsse videatur . Salmeron Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 32. Sect. 5. p. 251 * Article 24. i Tempore Apostolorum totum populum respondere solitum in diuinis officijs — Et longo tempore post in Occidente & Oriente Ecclesia : tempore Chrysostomi , & Cypriani , atque Hieronymi , eadem Consuetudo invaluit . Et Hieronymꝰ scribit in praefat . lib. 2. ad Gal. In Ecclesijs vrbis Romae quasi coeleste tonitru audiri populum reboaniem , Amen . Bellar. lib. 2. de verbo Dei , cap 16 §. Sed neque . Tempore Apostolorum , cùm celebratetur Sacrificium hoc , Sacerdos dixit , [ Hoc est corpꝰ meū ] & populus respondebat , Amen . — Et hic usus manavit in totam Ecclesiam usque ad mille & amplius annos . Maldon . Ies . Disp . de Sacram. Tom. 1. de Euch. Coni●ct . 1. §. Vbi Scribit . k Bellar. lib. 2. de verbo Dei , cap. 15. & 16 , and so Others also . m Tres hae linguae vniuersalissimae , ità ut Hebraica per totum fere Orientem : Omnes enim Chaldaicâ , aut Syriacâ . i. Hebraicâ , sed corruptè Ioquebantur . Graeca per totam Graeciam , & Asiam minorem , olim , ac varias provincias latè patebat : Latina autem per magnam Europae partem vagabatur . Ledesima Ies . in defens . Bellar. n [ Concionatus est Graecè Chrysostomus apud Antiochenos , apud Caesari●nses Basilius , apud Alexandrinos Athanasius , apud Hierosolymi●anos Cyrillus . ] Thus from Constantinople to Antioch , throughout Asia , was the Greeke Language universally knowne . * See about , at the letter ( i. ) o Cum Ecclesia Rom. de Latinis & Graecis es●et permixta , singulae ●ectiones de utraque lingua recitabantur : nam ab una lingua recitantes ab utriusque linguae populis intelligi non poterant . Rupertus de Diuin . offic . l. 3 c. 8. p [ Augustini sunt plurimi Tractatus & Sermones ad Hipponenses suos . With whom hee rather chose to speake ossum than os : to the end they should understand him . ] Lib. Retract . cap. 20. Psalmum , qui ijs caneretur , per Latinas literas feci , propter vulgi & Idiotarum notitiam . Idem Sermon . 25. de verb. Apostol . Punicum proverbium est antiquum , quod quidem Latinè vobis dicam , quia Punicè non omnes nôstis . So well was the Latine knowne vnto them . Item Tert. ad vxorem scripsit Latinè , Ad mulieres de Habitu , ad Foeminas de cultu , ad Virgines de velo , directing the same writings to them , thus ; Dei Servae , Conservae , & Sorori meae , &c. Cyprianus saepe ad Martyres & plebem Latinè . ] 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 l. 19. c. 7. Nostri per totum ●erè occidentem , per Septentrionis , per Africae non exiguam partem brevi spatio linguam Romanam celebrem , & quasi Regiam fecerunt . — Nostra est Italia , nostra Gallia , nostra Hispania , Germania , Pannonia , Dalmatia , Illyricum , & multae aliae nationes . Valla Praesat . in l. Elegant . Certè testimonium ex Hilario ductum videtur omninò cogere , ut credamus in Gallia fuisse consuetudinem ut populus & Ecclesia caneret etiam antè Ambrosij tempora . Bellar. l. 1 de bonis operibus . c. 16. §. Fortasse . r Cer tum est ( inquiunt Protestantes ) Ruthenos , Aegyptios , Aethiopes , Armenos , & quosdam alios celebrare diuina Officia in Lingua vulgari . — Respondemus , nos non moveri Barbarorū moribus . Salmeron . Ies . Com. in 1. Cor. 16. Disp . 30. §. Septimò . * 1. Cor. 14. 11. s De Iudaeis conversis , Ambros . in 1. Cor. 14. Aliquando Syrâ Linguâ , plerunque Hebraeâ in Oblationibus utebantur . t Hier. ad Eustoch . Epitaph . Paulae . Hebraeo , Graeco , Latino , Syròque Sermone Psalmi in ordine personabant . Ad finem . u Orig. con . Celsum . lib. 8. Graeci Graecè , Romani Romanâ , fingulique precentur linguâ suâ — Non enim est Deus maximus unus eorum , qui certam aliquam linguam sortiti , coetorarum ignari sunt . x Basil . ad Cler. Eccles . Caesarien . Quidam Psalmos causantur , & modos Psalmodiae — Vnum hoc numeris datur , ut quod canendum sit prius ordiatur , reliqui succinunt . — elucescente die pariter omnes veluti vno ore & corde confessionis Psalmum Deo offerunt — Horum gratia si nos fugitis , fugietis simul Aegyptios , Thebaeos , Palaestinos , Arabes , Phoenicas , Syros , & ut semel dicam omnes apud quos vigiliae , precesque communesque Psalmodiae in pretio sunt . For the Sclavonians . See hereafter . 6. Challenge at ( d ) y Aug. de doctr . Christ . l 4. c. 11. Quid prodest , &c. z Apostolus praecip it , ut Preces ad aedificationem fiant , quemadmodùm probatur Rom. 15. — Plus lucratur , quoad intellectum & 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 ae dificationem abundent : melius est orare mente , distinctè intelligente ea quae orat , quàm confusè . Et ex hac doctrina habetur , melius esse ut publicè preces Ecclesiae nostrae , audiente populo , in lingua Clericis & populo communi dicantur , quàm Latin● . Caietan . Cardin. in eum locum . 1. Cor. 14. Paulus vult omnes homines orate , etiam mente . Fa●er Stapulens . in eundem locum . Quid proficit populus non intelligendo ea quae orat ? Lyran. in 1. Cor. 14 Né benedicens ( Sacerdos ) diceret , Ego quidem intelligo & gratias ago peregri●â linguâ : responde● Apostolus [ Sed alter non aedificatur : ] Id est , Indè nulla ae dificatio Ecclesiae , cujus inprimis ratio habenda erat : ità ut nolit ullas preces publicas in Ecclesia celebrari ignoto prorsus Sermone , — qui non sit Graecis Graecus , Hebraeis Hebraeus , Latinus Latinis , nam magna ex parte haec idiomata ab ijs , qui sunt eiusdem linguae , intelliguntur . Salmeron . Ies . Com. sup . eum locum 1. Cor. 14. [ which he confesseth of the Apostles times . ] a Bellarm. lib. 2. de verbo Dei , cap. 16. De Canticis Spiritualibꝰ tempore Primitivae Ecclesiae Tert. §. Porro consuevisse . — Quoniam igitur ista Cantica fiunt ad Populi consolationem , vult Apostolus , ut fiant linguâ quae intelligatur : ut Idiota , &c. Ibid. §. Quoniam — Praeterea tunc , quia Christiani erant pauci , omnes simul psallebant in Ecclesiâ & respondebant diuinis officijs : at postea , crescente populo , divisa sunt magis officia , & solis Clericis relictum est , ut communes préces & laudes in Ecclesiâ peragant . Ibid. §. Respondeo negando . — Denique finis praecipuus illorum Canticorum erat instructio & consolatio populi , — & nisi linguâ nota facta fuissent — periisset praecipuus fructus ipsorum : At Divinorum officiorum nec est finis praecipuus instructio , vel consolatio populi , sed cultus Dei. Ibid. §. Denique finis . b Cur Deus , cùm sciat quibꝰ indige●ꝰ , vult oratione nostrâ sollicitari ? Vult nos ●itè petendo petere fidentius — ut magis ad amorem incendamur — ac ut saepiùs majori affecti laetitiâ ad cumamandum atque colendum incitemur ardentiùs . Catech. Trid. v●l Rom. part . 4. Cap. 2. pag. 386. c Exod. 15. [ Can●emus Domino ] Can●abat Moses & Miriam , nempè Moses , id est , pars intellectus , & Miriam , id est sensus purificatus : iustum enim est intelligibilite● & sensibiliter Deo hymnes dici , utrumque instrumentum concinnè pulsari , tàm intellectum quàm sensum , in solius Dei salvatorislaudem , & actionem Gratiarum . Hactenùs Philo Iudaeus . Pulcherrimus hic Tractatus moralis . Pererius Ies . in Exo. 15. Disp . 2. §. Exercitus porrò . * 1. Cor. 14. 15. d Aug. Expos . 2. in Psal . 18. Merulae , Psi●taci , Corvi , Picae , & hujusmodi volucres saepe docentur ab hominibus sonare quod nesciunt : scienter verò cantare non avi , sed homini Divina voluntate concessum est . e Dici● Apostolus [ ut instruam ] Expende vocem hanc , ●nstruam ; quòd sit de p●aedicatione , non de Missae celebra●ione . Eckius Enchrid . Quaes● . Missa Latinè , §. Quod ad . & Bellar. Aliqui respondent , non agi●…ic de precibus . Lib 2. de verbo Dei c. 16 §. Ad hanc . f Imò sequitur [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] quibus verbis Apostolus significat precari , &c. Bellar. ibid. g Master Breerley in his Liturgie of the Masse , Tract . 5. Sect. 4. ad finem . h Providet sapientèr Ecclesia , ut Minister vice totius populi respondeat : imò hoc est quod Apostolus ai● , cùm subdit , Qui supplet locum Idiotae . Sixtus Se●…sBiblioth . lib. 6. Annot. 263. Hinc manifestè convincitur , fuisse tempore Apostoli Pauli unum , qui suppleretlocum populi . Ledesima Ies . de Scriptur ▪ nonlegend . cap. 26. 27. §. Praetercà ex . & Sa. Ies . Coment . in hunc locum . i Tempore Apost lorum nullum fuisse pro Laicis constitutum , ex ●ustino constat : E● Graeca vox [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] non significat , secundùm usum Graecae li●guae , vice ●diotarum , sed unum esse ex Idiotis . Bellar. lib. 2. de verbo Dei , c. 16. §. Sed non videtur . — Ità est secundùm phrasin Graecam , ut sit sensus : unus ex Idiotis . Salmeron . Jes . in 1. Cor. 14. Disp . 2● . §. Illud etiam . And the English Rhemists in their Annot. on the same place . k Satisfacit Sacerdos , cù●●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 enin● Pueri orant , & est beneplacitum Deo. Eckius Tom. 2. Hom. 3. in festo Rogat . pag. 90. Etiam pueri oran● , Ozanna , & preces eorum erant Christo g●atissimae . Salmer . Ies . in 1. Cor. 16. Disp . 30. §. Septimo . So the Rhemists in Matth. 21. Verse 16. and in 1. Cor. 19. pag. 463. * 2. Cor. 8. 12. l Populus ignorae linguae quomodò respondebit , Amen ? hoc est , animae praebebit assensum , cùm more Babylonice cōfusionis qui dissident , nequaquàm sensu animisque conspirent . Acosta Ies . de Indorum salute cap. 6. p 37. m Quomodò dicet , [ Amen ? ] Cum quid boni dicas non intelligit , ni●i benedicas tantùm . Aquinas in hunc locum , 1. Cor. 14. I adde Sander . de visib . Monarch . ad Ann. 1563. [ Si benedixeris spiricu ] Quomodò dicat Amen ? Significatur de precibus Ecclesiasticis , ●ateor , quas in spiritu , hoc est , in dono linguae peregrinae recitari nollet , ut in Latina Ecclesia Hebraeam , aut in Graeca Persicam : quià deëssent plerunque viri docti & periti illius linguae , qui populo interpretari possent . [ Thus from the Apostle he granteth , that Prayers are not to be used , where the people have not the interpretation : although hee say , that Deus honori●ic entiùs colitur perlinguam doctam , quam per indoctam & vulgarem . As though where there is no respect of persons with God , yet there should be respect of the Tongues . ] * Hos . 14. 2. & Heb. 13. 15. n In his afórementioned writing to a Ladie , &c. o Alij dicunt Apostolum loqui de divinis officijs , viz. Haymo , Primasius , P. Lombardus , D. Thomas , & alij quidam ex Latinis . Teste Bellar. l. 2. de verb. Dei● cap. 16. p Non reprehenditur oratio non intellecta , sed ●i anteponitur oratio quae intelligitur , ut patet Verse 17. [ Tu quidem benè gratias agis , sed alter non aedificatur ] Bellar. quo supra . * Salmeron . Ies . See above Challenge 2. at the let . ( z. ) q Id est , si orē ▪ do●o linguae : nimirùm , quam non intelligam [ Spiritus ] id est Affectus meus orat , sed mens est sine fructu . Ergo dicit Apostolꝰ , non Orationem sed mentem esse sine fructu . Bellar. quo sup . And this Answere M. Breeely borrowed from Bellar. Tract . vpon the Masse , pag. 452. r Vox [ Spiritus ] à principio usque ad ●inem Donum Spiritus peculiare significat , quo impellebantur linguis lequi . Si Apostolus in hac voceadmitteret Homonymiam aliquā Graeci Patres nos de eo admonuissent . Salmeron . Ies . in eund . locum . * Vpon the same place both Ambrose , [ Spiritu , id est , linguâ ignotâ ] and Chrysostome also . s Aug. de Bap. l. 6. c. 24. Multi irruunt in preces , etiam ab Haereticis compositas , & per ignorantiae simplicitatem non valentes decernere , utuntur cis , & plerunque precis vitium superat precantis affectus . — Non quià ista corrigenda non sint , ut populus ad id , quod planè intelligat , dicat Amen Idem de Catechizand . rudibus c. 9. Teste Cassandro in Liturg. pag. ●0● . t Origen Hom. ●0 . in ●os●… Quae nos proferimus saepe non intelligimus , sed virtutes intelligunt . Ergo licet preces non intellectas usurpare . Ob. Bellar. l. 2. deverbo Dei cap. 16. u Iohannes Billet in summa de divinis offlcijs ; In primitiva Ecclesia ( inquit ) prohibitum erat , nè quis loqueretur linguis , nisi intelligerentur . — At nostris temporibus , ubi nullus aut rarus invenitur legens vel audiens , qui intelligat , completum est quod à Propheta dicitur : Erit Sacerdos ut populus . Videtur potius esse tacendum quam psallendum . Innocent . 3. in Conc. gen . in lib. Decret . de offic . Iud. Ordinar . Quoniam in pletisque partibus — permixti sunt populi diversarum linguarum — . Pontifices civitatum provideant virosidoneos , qui secundùm diversitatem linguarum divina illis officia celebrent . — Aen. Syl. Hist . Bohem. cap. 13. Cyrillo Romae Episcopo suppli●ante , ut lingua Sclavonicâ res divina fieret — essentque non pauci qui contradicerent , audita est vox , tanquàm è coelo , in haec verba missa , Omnis Spiritus laudet Dominum , & omnis lingua confiteatur ei : indeque indultum Cyrillo . Hucusque ex Cassand . Lit. s●l . 101 , 102. x Conc. Aquisgranens . cap. 131. Psallentlum in Ecclesia Domino mens concordare debet cum voce , ut impleatur illud Apostoli , Psallam Spiritu , psallam & mente . y Ambros . in 1. Cor. 14. [ Qui supplet locum Idiotae , quomodò dicet Amen ad benedictionem tuam , quià nescit quid dicis ? ] Imperitus n. nesciens quid dicitur , nescit finem orationis , & non respondet Amen . Verum , ut confirmetur benedictio : per hos n. qui respondent Amen , impletur confirmatio precis , ut omnia dicti veri testimonio conf●rmentur in mentibus Audientium . — [ Sed alius non aedifica●ur . ] Si igitur ad aedificandam Ecclesiam convenitis , ca debent dici , quae intelligant Audientes : nam quid prodest , ut quis lingua loquatur , quam solus scit ? ideò tacere debet in Ecclesia , ut ij loquantur qui prosunt Audientibus . 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 tenetindocti . ] Indoctum promiscuam pleb●m intelligit , monstratque non leue impedimentum esse , si non intelligat . [ Omnia ad aedificationem . ] Aedificare . n. Architecti est opus , & per omnia proximum juvare — Si n. aedificandi gratiâ non venis , quid necesse est omninò venisse ? a Isidor . de Eccles offic . l. 1. cap 10. Oportet , quando oratur , ut ab omnibus oretur . b Theophylact. in 1. Cor. 14. [ Tugra●ias bene agis , sed alius non aedificatur . ] Proximiutilitate rejecta , inutiles erant huiusmodi gratiae . c In the Preface of an vnknowne Author before the Prologue of S. Aug. vpon the Psalmes : Quo modo debitè potest Deo psallere , qui ignorat quid psallat ? * See above in the begi●…ing of the 6. Sect. letter ( d. ) * See a little before at the letter ( x. ) * Ibid. at the letter ( u ) * Ibid. * Ibid. d Quod aute●… omnia vernacu●e fiunt in Ecclesis , planè profanum est . Stapleton . spec . pravit . Haeret . p. 580. * See aboue , Sect. 7. in the Challenge 3. f Quia Apostoli non acciperent nisi quod ipse dabat , verbum Dandi Tran●lationem de manibus Christi in manus Discipulorum significat . Salmer . Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 18. p. 126. Videtur quòd Christus aut singulis in manus dederit partem à se sumendam , aut patinam tradiderit propinquiori●su , &c. Iansen . Episc . Concord . cap. 131. * Iansen . Concord . in eund . locum . Fracto pane in duodecim buccellas , singulis in manus de derit ; & Calicem propinquiores sequentibus tradiderunt : sic enim dixit ; Accipite , dividite inter vos . 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 sumpfit suam particulam , ut moris fuit ad Sextam usque Synodum , nempè , Caesar-augustanam : verùm ob sacram huius Mysterii singularem reverentiam Ecclesia instituit , nè Laici nudâ manu Eucharistiam attingerent , sed à Sacerdo●e in os sumentis mitteretur . Salmeron . quo sup . Tract . 12. pag. 78 , 79. h Apostoli primùm manibus suis panem sanctum acceperunt ; & hujus ritus meminerunt veteres Patres . Nam Tert. lib. ad vxorem inquit ; Eucharistiae Sacramentum nec de aliorum manibus quam praesidentium sumimus . Et ex Cypri . Serm. de lapsis , ob nonnulla exempla , quae producit , constat , Eucharistiam in manibus Communicantium Laicorum dari . Vt constat ex Conc. Toletano , cap. 14. & ex sexta Synodo in T●ullo 101. ubi prohibentur fideles offerre vascula aurea & argentea , in quibus accipiant Eucharistiam ut per ea communicent , sed proprijs manibus . Idém colligitur ex Epist . Cornel. Papae , quam refert Euseb . lib. 6. Hist . cap. 35 , & ex Dionys . Al . x. ut refert Niceph . cap. 9. & ex verbis Ambrofij . Suarez . Ies . Tom. 3. in Tho. Disp . 49. Sect. 6. initio . Hoc intelligi potest ex Greg. Nazi . Morem fuisse , vt Christiani Eucharistiam , quam accipissent , ad os admoverent . — vnde relictam esse credo Consuetudinem in multis locis , quandò non communicant , dùm Eucharistia ostenditur , manus tendant , quasi gestientes manibus sumere . Maldon . Ies . de Euch. §. Nova creatura , pag. 285. i Synod . Trident. Sess . 22. c. 6. Adstantes si dices , spiritualiter communicant . In cujus ( namely , the Priests ) persona totus populus spirituall quadam sumptione sanguinem Christi bibere gaud entèr debet credere . Ecchius Enchirid. de Euch. c. 10. p. 114 and Acosta the Ies . See above Sect. 5. let . ( g. ) k Temporibus Dionysij Areop . ( 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. 〈◊〉 . de Euch. cap 30. pag. 648. Sciendum est iuxta antiquos Patres , quòd soli Communicantes divinis mysterijs interesse consueverant , vnde ante oblationem iubebantur exire Catechum eni & Poenitentes , sc . quià nodùm se praeparaverant ad communicandum . Cassand . Consult . Art. 24. p. 216 , 217. And he further brings in Cochlaeus de Sacrific . Missae , witnessing the same : Quòd olim tam Sacerdotes quàm Laici , quicunque Sacrificio Missae non intererant , peractâ communicatione cum Sacrificante communicabaut ; sicut in Can. Apostolorum , & libris antiquis . Doctorum Ecclesiae perspicue 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 priuata Missa , fol 232. col . 2. ( l ) Sciendum est , iuxta antiquos Patres , quòd soli Communicantes divinis officijs inter esse consueverant . Microlog . de Eccles . observat . Et in Liturg. Aethiop . Si communicare non vultis , discedite . In Liturg. Armen . Exeant toràs . Nic Cusan . Dico , inquit Dionys . Areop . quòd qui non parati erant ad susceptionem , expellebantur ex Ecclesia . Haec . Teste Cassandro Liturg. c. 26. p. 59. m Diaconus clamabat , [ Si quis non communicet , det locum . ] Greg. Dial. c. 23. [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] &c. n Calixtus P. ut habetur de Consecrat . Dist . 2. C. Peracta . — Peractâ Consecratione , omnes communicent , — Sic enim Apostoli statuerunt , & sancta tenet Ecclesia . o Calvinistarum & Lutheranorum inscitia , Sacramentum hoc Coenam appellantium : atqui nullus in sacris literis locus est , ubi Coena vocatur . Vbi dicit D. Paulus , [ Iam non est Dominicā Coenam manducare ] nullo judicio adhibito existimant illum Eucharistiam Coenam appellare — Non viderūt homines coeci quòd Luc. 22. 20. & Paulus , vers . 25. scribit [ Postquam coenavit ] usitatam & communem coenam , ante hoc Sacramentum , Coenam vocant . Maldon . Ies . in Matth. 26. pag. 624. p Vetustissimi Patres , Apostolorum authoritatem secuti , coenae Christi nomine sacram Eucharistiam interdum vocârunt ; quòd in illo novissimae coenae salutari mysterio à Christo Domino sit instituta . Catech. Rom. par . 2. p 171. Coena Dominica , ex Institutionis tempore , à D. Paulo dicitur . Lindan . Panop . l. 4 c. 37. q Constat Coenam Domini ( sic enim patres consueverunt institutionem sacrae Eucharistiae appellare : — id●mque esse Coenam Dominicam manducare , quod Eucharistiam sumere , ut Aug. demonstrat ) fuisse distinctam à Coena Paschali . Baron . An. 34 num . 45. r Dionys . Areop Hier. c. 3. [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] Chrysost . Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Oecumen . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Cyprian . lib. instituit de Coena Dommi , Bern. Tract . habet de Coena Domini . Tert. lib. 2. cap. 4. ad vxorem ; Convivium Dominicum . Hier. in 1. Cor. Caeterum Dominica Coena debet esse omnibus communis , quia ille omnibus , qui adorant , discipulis aequalitèr tradidit Sacramentum . Anselm . in 1. Cor. Dominica Coena omnibus Christianis debet esse communis . Baron . quo suprà . s Obsecro , si si quis ad convivium vocatus , & manus quidem laverit & accubuerit , paratusque & dispositus ad mensam fuerit , & tamen nihil ciborum gusta verit , nonne inferet Convivatori contumeliam , à quo fuerat vocatus ? Nonnè satiùs erit ei , quitalis est , omnino non comparuisse ? 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 manseris , de mensa ista non participas ? indignus es igitur eâ communione , quae in precibus ? [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] Chrysost . H●m . 3. in Epist . ad Ephes . t Audi Chrysost . Hom 61. ad pop . Antioch . & Hom. 3. ad Ephes . Frustrà hîc offertur hostia salutaris & quotidianum Sacrificium ; in cassum Altari insistimus , cùm nemo est qui participet , nullus cui communicetur . — Quid stas , si è numero , es poenitentium ' — tu tamen hîc interim persistis impudens ? at ex ijs non es , sed inter eos , qui possint esse participes Espēc . de Missa privata , pag. 221. Itē Chrysost . Hom. 3. ad Ephes . p. 78. Edit . Savil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * See hereafter in the sixt Booke . * Exhortation before the Communion . * See aboue Chap. 1. §. 2. a Statuit sacrosancta Synodus Trident . Sess 13. c. 5. Divinum hoc Sacramētum publicè interdū proponendum , vel circumferendum esse per vias & loca publica cùm solenni pompa & veneratione . Quae est laudabilis consuetudo . Suarez Ies . in Thom. 3. Tom. 3. Disp . 65. Sect. 1. p. 827. b Prisca consuetudo erat dandi Eucharistiam infantib ' , ut ex Cypr. & alijs constat : & si aliquae particulae superessent , mos erat ut puori impuberes , qui Ecclesiam frequentabant , accerserentur , ut eas consumerent . Suarez . Ies . quo suprà , Disp . 46. Sect. 6. p. 557. In Cone . Matisconensi advocantur innocentes parvuli , ut detur illis , si quid ex Sacramenti particulis consumendum est . Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 5. §. Quartò profert . Licet Graeci antiquitus pueris darent ( ut de Consecrat . D. 2. ) parvuli tamen Sacramentaliter sumere non possunt , quià nō utuntur Sacramento , ut Sacramento , sed ut communicibo , propter carentiam discretionis Summa Angel. p. 148. Pueris exhibitae , sed ( ut sic dicam ) perfunctoriè , ne ut credo corrum perentur . Espensol . 2. de Euch. c. 12. Reliquias comburendas esse . Isych . in Levit. c. 8. §. Quomodo ergo . * This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Clement will Bellarmine have to be Vas quoddam , a Vessell , wherein the Sacrament was reserved : for he thought that this would make for their Priests Pixe , or Boxe . But he is learnedly consuted in this by Doctor Whittaker , Praelect . de Euch. p. 627 even out of Clement himselfe : who requireth that a Church should be built somewhat long , informe of a Ship , and to have on both sides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , like a ship . And the LXX . in Esay 22. doerender it thus ; that Esay was commanded to enter into [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; ] the word comming of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Thalamus , or Domus . And in Clemens doth signifie cubiculum Sacerdotum ; wherein the Priests kept it for no other use than to Eate it . c Quòd si remanserint in crastinum , non serventur , sed cùm timore & tremore in Sacrario consumantur . Clemens P. apud Gratian. de Consecra . D. 2. d Quondam , imminente persecutione , domum deportabant , & asservabant , cum opus esset sumpturi — Consuetudo post per Conc. Toletanum antiquata . Durant . de Ritib . l. 1. c. 16. num . 11. e Hist . Mediolan . Anno 1404. Circumferri coeptum , &c. Quàm Processionem tantâ laetitiâ & consensione , ac laetâ 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 . f Primarius finis servandi Eucharistiam semper fuit manducatio : servatur enim ad viaticum infirmorum . Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 5. §. Deinde . Sacramentum per se est dandum propter suum primarium effectum , & non aliâs . Suarez . Ies . Tom. 3. Disp . 62. Sect. 4. §. Secunda Sent. g Ità Romani factitabant , & aliae pleraeque Gentes , à quibus ad nos proculdubiò ritus hujusmodi manavit . — Nam Supplicationum nostrarum pompas solent ludicra quaedam praecedere , ubi effigies aliqua magnis malis de hiscens , dentibusque sonitum faciens , & aliae oblectationes Iudicrae , in quibus Prophetae repraesentantur , alati pueri , & chorus inducitur foeminarum : hic David em agit , ille Salomonem , alij Reginas fingunt , alij venatores ludunt , Simiam , & jumenta inducentes . Sacerdotum alij Divorum personas agunt , earū imagines aut reliquias ferentes . Polyd. Virgil . ( in that Edition which is not castrated by the Romish Inquisitors ) Lib. 6. Invēt . p. 414 , 415. h Videtur hic Circumgestationis usus etiam cùm Eccclesiae lucro omitti posse , cùm sic recens , & diu absque ea Circumgestatione Sacramēto suus honos constiterit ; plerunque non devotioni , sed pompae & ostentationi inservit . Itaque vir summi iudicij Albertus Crantziuslaudat Nic. Cusanum Legatum per Germaniam , quòd abusum eius , in nimis frequenti per singulas ferias Circumgestatione , sustulerit , & constituerit , quòd nisi infra tempus festi Sacramento dedicati , in publicum non deferetur : quia ( inquit ) eius Sacramentum institutum est ad usum , non ad ostentationem . Cassand . Consult . Art. 22. Tit. de Circumgestatione . pag. 174. i Christus non distulit , hee servari iussit in crastinum . Orig. Hom. 5. in Levit. Panis iste recipitur , non includitur . Cyprian . de coena Dom. col 382. k Sic sanctiss . Sacramentum ad infirmos deferendum est , ut illud sumant , non autem ut adoren● 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. ] * In the seventh Booke . l Augustini & Innocentij sententia erat , quae sexcentos Annos in Ecclesia viguit , Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus necessariam esse : quae ab Ecclesia iam reiecta , Conc. Trid. statuente , non solū non necessarium esse , sed nè quidem decere Eucharistiam Infantibus dari . Maldō . Ies . Com. in Ioh. 6. 53. p. 719. m Sancta Synodus docet , Parvulos , usu rationis carētes , nullâ obligari necessitate ad Sacramentalem Eucharistiae cōmunionem — Neque ideò tamen dānanda est Antiquitas , si eum morem aliquādo in quibusdam locis serv●runt , quià certè eos nullâ salutis necessitate fecisse , sine controversia credendum est . Conc. Trid. Sess . 21. cap. 4. * See the Testimony below at the letter ( r. ) n Ecclesia tunc adducta fuit Eucharistiam Infātibus dare , argumento sumpto ex verbis Christi , [ Nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis , & biberitis sanguinem , nòn habebitis vitam in vobis ] Maldon . Ies . disp . de Sacram. Tract . de Euch. §. Nono , p. ●00 . Etiam credebant Infantes tunc baptizatos , nisi Eucharistiam perciperent , salvos esse non posse . Idem Com. in Ioh. 6. 63. p. 717. o Innocent . 1. Rom. Pont. Epist . 93. ad Conc. Milevet . con . Pelag. respondebat , quòd parvulos aeternae vitae praemijs , etiam sine baptismatis gratia posse donari , perfatuum est : nisi 〈◊〉 . manducaverint carnem filij hominis , non habebunt vitam in seme●ipsis ; qui autem hanc els sine regeneratione defendunt , videntur etiam mihi Baptismū cassare velle , cùm praedicant nos habere , quod in eos creditur non nisi Baptismate conferendum . [ Whence Espencaeus thus : ] Mirum , ejus temporis Pontifices ex Eucharistiae necessitate Baptismi & ejus praecursoris urgere necessitatem ; nisi idem , & ex eodem tùm loco , tùm Innocentij argumento & authoritate , aduersus eosdem hostes urgeret August . Epist . 106. con . Pelag. — Contra Apostolicae sedis authoritatem , ubi de hac ipsâ re cùm ageretur , hoc testimonium exhibitum est Evangelicum , nè Parvuli non baptizati vitam posse habere credantur . Si autem cedunt Sedi Apostolicae , vel potiùs ipsi Magistro & Domino Apostolorum , qui dicit , non vitam habituros , nisi manducaverint & biberint , &c. Espen . de Adorat Euch. l. 2 c. 12 pag. 58. [ Afterwards hee bringeth in many other testimonies of S. Augustine , and Ibid. pag. 59. he proveth that he did not retract this opinion . ] Ejus haud dubiè sunt contra Iulianum libri , quo valentiorem habuit Aduersarium neminem ; in quem etiam scribendo mortuus est , ac proindè sententiam non retractâsse videtur : in quibus Iulianum obruit Maiorum praeiudicio , ab Innocent●o Rom. Pont. exorius , qui parvulos ( ait ) definivit , nisi mandacaverint carnem filij hominis , vitam prorsus habere non posse . Espen . ibid. [ And a little after he sheweth the loosnes of Aquinas his Solutions . Albeit , S. 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 Childe doe not participate , yet by Baptisme he is made partaker of that which it signifieth . ] p Binius Tom. 1. Conc. ex Rescriptis Innocentij Papae ad Conc. Milevit . Epist 25. Illud vero , &c. Hinc Binius ; Hinc constat Innocentij sententia , quae 600 circiter Annos viguit in Ecclesia ( quamque Augustinus secutus ) Eucharistiam Infantibus necessariam fuisse . Conc. Trid. rectè decrevit , eam non solûm non necessariam Infantibus , sed nè quidem decere ut eis distribuatur — Quidam viri non vulgariter docti existimârunt Innocentium hunclocum , [ Nisi manducaveritis , &c. ] in Baptismi sumptione interpretari . Sed decepti sunt , quòd vim argumenti , quo Pontifex utitur , non sunt assecuti . Ille n. ut Pelagium ( qui docebat Baptismum infantibus , Parente fideli prognatis , peccatum originale non contrahentibus , necessarium non esse ) convinceret , hāc Ratiocinatione est vsus : Quibus necessaria est Eucharistiae sumptio , ijsdem Baptismi sumptio magis est 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 , Anno 1606. q Non quòd Infantes sunt incapaces huius Sacramenti● , sed quià hoc nunc magis expedit , ad decentiam , & reverentiam , quae aliquali vtilitati parvulorum praeferenda est . Suarez . Tom. 3. Dist . 61. Sect. 3. §. Quocirca . r Conc. Carthag . 3. Eucharistiam Catechumenis & mortuis dari prohibet , & 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 propria & spiritualis manducatio & bibitio est , sine qua Sacramentalis non prodest , frustrà pueris Sacramentum & cùm periculo porrigeretur — Non igitur satis est quòd puer possit naturaliter edere , quia hoc possit trinus & quatrimus praestare : sed opus est ut possit Sacramentaliter edere , 1. cognoscere ibi esse Christum , & discernere ab alijs cibis . Salmeron . Jes . Tom. 9. Tract . 12. in illa verba [ Dedit Discipulis ] pag. 7● . s And of this opinion were Mayor , Petrus Soto , Paludanus , Alensis , Gabriel , Catharinus , Dom. de Soto . — Ratio eorum ( saith the same Ies . ) quià hoc Sacramentum est cibus spiritualis : Ergò accommodatum eis solummodò qui possint actus spiritualis vitae exercere , quod parvuli non possunt . Suarez . Ies . quosup . [ And to the former Schoole-men , to make them even , we may adde also Summa Angel : Tit. Eucharistia . ] * 1. Cor. 11. * See above . Sect. 10. a Christus sub utraque specie Discipulis administravit — Licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ sub●utraque specie hoc Sacramentum reciperetur , — tamen haec consuetudo , ut à Laicis sub specie panis tantùm reciperetur , — habenda est pro lege , quàm non licet reprobare . Conc. Constant . Sess . 13. b Ipsa Synodus , à Spiritu Sancto edocta , & ipsius Ecclesiae iudicium & consuetudinem secura , declarat & docet , n●llo divino iure Laicos , & ●lericos non consecrantes , obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum : etsi Christas venerabile hoc Sacramentum sub utraque instituit , & Apostolis tradidit . Conc. Trid. Sess . 21. cap. 1. c Respondeo , Fuit reprobarum Conc. Cōstantiense à Martino Pont. quantum ad eam partem , quâ statuit Concilium fuisse suprà Papam . Bellar . l 1. de Conc. c. 7. §. Quintum . d Dixit Petro Christus [ Cum frater in te peccaverit , si ●e non andia● , Dic Ecclesiae . ] Ergo Ecclesiam Papae Iudicem constituit . Conc. Basil . apud Aenaeam Sylvium de gest . eiusdem Conc. * 1. Cor. 11. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * See all this above Chap. 2. Sect. 1. in the Margent . e Bellar. l. 1. de Eucharist . c. 25 §. Tertiū . * M. Brereley Liturg . Tract . 4. § 7. after the let . ( y ) and after ( g. ) f Quorundam opinio , est Apostolos factos sacerdotes per illa vèrba [ Hoc facite . ] Sed de his verbis non constat facta consecratione immediate ea dixisse , antequàm Eucharistiam sub utraque specie dedit , vel pòst — Quodsi 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 . Haeres . Tit. Eucharist . pag. 158. * See above in this Chapter at the let . ( b. ) g [ Hoc facite . ] Quod cùm pertincat maximè ad potestatem sacerdotalem circa consecrandum & sacrificandum , tamen Apostolꝰ 1. Cor. 11. refert quóque ad sumptionem sive Laicorum , sive Sacerdorum . Quod & Cyrillus facit in Ioh. l. 1● . c. 58. Et Basil . in Moral . Reg. 21. c. 〈◊〉 . ut [ Hoc facite ] pertineat ad totam actionem , Eucharistiam à Christo factam , & tàm à Presbyteris quàm à plebe posteà faciendam . Eodemque verbo imprimis potestas consecrandi & offerendi , deinde etiam mandatum sumendi tàm Sacerdotibus quàm alijs fidelibus detur , cum utrumque suo modo , licet prius exactius Sacrificium , quàm sumptio memoriam mortis Dominicae contineat . Alan . l. 2 de Eucha . cap. 37. p. 646. * Laici adulti tenentur ex institutione Christi communicare , iure divino : hoc Thomas probat ex Luc. 22. [ Hoc facite in commemorationem 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 Sacrif . Missae , lib. 2. c. 2. h Nec quicquam valetquod obijcitur [ Similitèr & Calicem : ] quià non dicit Similiter & Calicem dedit , sed solùm accepit . Bellar. ibid. §. Nec quicquam . * Luke 22. 20. * Matth. 26. 27. i Similiter & Calicem . ] Id est , Qualia fecit circa panem , talia circa Calicem , Accepit , gratias egit , dividendum dedit , atque praecepit ut biberent ab co omnes : Quae omnia Lucas complexus est , dicens , [ Similitèr & Calicem . ] Iansen . Episc . Concord . cap. 131. pag 905. [ Similitèr & Calicem postquàm coenavit , &c. ] Id est , accepit , & porrexit omnibus , dicens , [ Hic est Calix , &c. ] Ari●… Montan. in 1. Cor. 11. 25. k Pòst panis consecrationem absolutè ponitur [ Hoc facite ] pòst Calicem verò idem repetitur , sed cum conditione , Hoc ( inquit ) facite quotiescunque bibetis , &c. Certè non sine causa Spiritus Sanctus modum loquendi mutavit , significans , non ut calix debeat dari necessariò , sed modum praescribens , ut id fiat ad memoriam Dominicae Passionis . Bellar. quo sup . cap. 25. §. Iam. l Mirabilis est Dei providentia in sanctis literis , nam ut non haberent Haeretici justam excusationem , sustulit eis omnem ●ergiversandi occasionem . Nam Lucas [ Hoc facite ] posuit pòst datum Sacramentum sub specie panis : post datum autem Calicem non repetivit , ut intelligeremus Dominum jussisse , ut sub specie panis omnibus distriburetur : sub specie autem vini non item . Bellar. quo sup c. 25. §. Resp . Mirabilis . Singularis Dei providentia , ut intelligamus minimè expedire , ut singuli fideles sub utraque specie communicent . Valent. Ies . Tract . de Euch. c. 2. §. Et certè , p. 483. m Praecepit igitur Christus , in verbis Lucae , ut ipsâ sumptione commemoremꝰ Passionem cius ; & non tantùm ut quoties illud sumeremus Passionem ipsius in memoriam revocaremus . Ac proindè praecepit , ut opere aliquo commemoratio fiat alicujus beneficii accepti , ex modo ipso praecipiendi . Praecepit etiam ut fiat opus ipsum , quis hoc non videat ? Vasquez . Ies . in 3. Thom. Disp . 113. cap. 2. At verò non est negandum , esse Praeceptum simplicitèr faciendum , alioquin non haberemus fundamentum Praecepti celebrandi in Ecclesia . Soto in 4. Dist. 12. q. 1. Art. 12. n Credimus eos rectè obligari , dùm militamus in hac vita , ad Sacramentum Eucharistiae , eo modo , quo perfectiùs significat Passionem : id est , sub utraque specie , &c. Card. Cusan . Epist . 2. ad Bohem. pag. 831. o [ Who in his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse , stadeth so much upon the no-Command of Christ for the use of both kinds , that he iustifieth an ancient Romane Custome ( as he calleth it ) of the Priest himselfe receiving on Good Friday only under one kind . ] Tract . 〈…〉 Sect. 4. pag. 407. And Tract . 4. Sect. 7. pag. 421. [ As often : ] not signifying the necessitie of Drinking . * See above Sect. 2 * See aboue in this Chapter Sect. 1. lit . ( a. ) p Rectè docent Iuriscōsulti , non exemplis sed legibus iudicandum . — Quae ab exemplis ducuntur argumēta per locum sunt à simili ( quae non tàm ad aliquid firmandum , quàm ad id quod firmatur illustrandum à Dialecticis esse traduntur . ) Salmeron . Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 34. 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 . r Julius P. apud Gratian. de Consecrat . Ca. Cum omne . Audivimus quosdam , Schismaticâ ambitione detentos , contra divinos ordines & Apostolicas institutiones , lac provino , in divinis officijs dedicare : alios intinctam Eucharistiam populo pro complemento communionis porrigere : quosdam etiam expressum vinum in Sacramento Dominici Calicis afferre : Alijs verò pannum lineum , musto intinctum , per totum annum reservare , & in tempore Sacrificij partem eius aquâlavare , & sic offerre . Quod cùm sit Evangelicae & Apostolicae doctrinae contrarium , & consuetudini Ecclesiasticae adversum , non difficilè ab ipso fonte veritatis probatur , à quo ordinata ipsa Sacramentorum mysteria processerunt . Cùm onim Magister veritatis verum salutis nostrae Sacrificium suis commendaret Discipulis , nulli 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 , & seorsim Calicis commendatio memoratur . s Artotyritae panē & caseum offerunt : qui excluduntur per hoc , quòd Christus hoc Sacramentum instituit in pane . Aquinas part . 3. quaest . 24. Art. 1. t Ex Luc. 24. 30. Vbi Christus apparens duobus Discipulis in Emmaus , & accumbens accepit panem , & benedixit , & dedit eis : quo facto , aperti sunt oculi eorum , & evanuit ex oculis , &c. [ Hence doth Bellarmine conclude thus : ] Ostendi● . hoc exemplum , quòd minimè existimandum fit , fuiffe imperatum omnibus illius usum in utraque specie . Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 24. §. Rursus , So also Roffensis , and others . * Master Brereley Liturg. Tract . 4. §. 3. pag 402. u Christum hanc Eucharistiam porrexisse , sententia est incerra , & non verisimilis . Iansen . Concord . cap. 126. pa. ●070 . x Respondendum est , eam actionem esse illis ipsis imperatam per illa verba [ Hoc facite . ] Hoc ipso enim quod jussi sunt consecrare sub specie panis , consequenter intelligi debet eos jussos esse consecrare sub specie vini . Nam hoc exigit necessariò natura Sacrificij & Sacramenti : si enim una species absque altera conficiatur , sacrilegium committitur . Quamobrem in Conc. Trident. absolute dicitur , Sacerdotes jussos esse offerre utramque speciem illis verbis [ Hoc facire in commemorationem meam . ] Quae forma verborum solùm usurpata fuit à Christo circa panem . Valent. Ies . de usu Eucharist . c. 3 §. Respondendum . * Liturg. Tract . 4. §. 2. pag. 401. * See above . * 1. Cor. 11. 23. * Ib. Verse 26. * Ib. Verse 28. a Antiqua Consuetudo temporibus Apostolorum fuit in Ecclesia , sub utraque specio communicandi . In hac assertione nulla est Controversia . Tolet. Ies . in Ioh. 6. pag. 602. So Ecchius Hom. 36. Nullum inficiari posse , Paulum hoc praecepisse Corinthijs . b Act. 2. Ita describitur communicatio Eucharistiae [ Erant enim perseverantes in doctrina Apostolorum , & communicatione fractionis panis , & Orationibus . ] Quò 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. * Liturg. Tract . 4. §. 3. pag. 403. c Existimo de Eucharistia non esse Sermonem , quoniam de illo superius paulò Sermo habitus est . Lorin . Ies . in eund . loc . And Caietan . Card. Fiebat distributio panis — Ita quod accipiebant cibus erat . Comment in eund . loc . d Si daremus hunc ritum ab Apostolo fuisse traditum , cùm tamen merè positivus sit , potuisset illum mutare , quià Ecclesia habet eundem spiritum , & eandem authoritatem cum Paulo . Salmeron Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 34. p. 277. Eod●m modo Vasquez Ies . in 3. Thom. Disp . 215 , 216. Nihilo minus Ecclesia & summus Pontifex poterit illud iust is de causis abrogare ; licet concederemus praeceptum hoc fuisse Apostolicum . e Cùm ad eam Traditionem , quae ab Apostolis , provocamus eos , dicent se Apostolis existentes superiores sinceram invenisse veritatem . Iren. lib. 2. advers . Hi●res . cap. 2. f Olim per multa secula sub utraque specie porrigibatur Laicis , ut ex multorum Sanctorum scriptis didicimus . Alfons . à Castro in hac ipsa controversia , pag. 158. Vsus utriusque specici à primitiva Ecclesia comprobatus fuit : in posteriori etiam Ecclesia multi Latini & occidentales illum retinuerunt . Graeci quoque hodiè & Orientales licitè & sanctè , quod ad ipsum ritum attinet , cum observant . Salmeron . Jes . Tom. 9. Tract . 37. pag. 308. Minimè negamus quin utraque species frequentissimè olim etiam administrata fuerit , utapparet ex Paulo , Athanasio , 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. Ies . 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 . Dequo 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 quo sup . Tract . 35. §. Ingenuè p. 294. B. Gregorius , & Sexcenta huiusmodi proferri possent . — Vsus utriusque speciei à Christo & Apostolis , & à Primitiva Ecclesia , qui illum usurpârunt , comprobatus fuit . In posteriori etiam Ecclesia multi Latini & Occidentales illum retinuerunt : Graeci 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 testimonie is cited in Gratian among the Popes Decrees . De Consecrat . Dist . 2. Quid sit sanguis . Sanguis in ora fid elium funditur . ] g Bern. Serm. 3. de ramis palmarum , de Sacrament . corp . & sanguinis Dom. — Nemo est qui nesciat hanc tàm fingularem alimoniam ea primâ die ( viz. Palmarum ) exhibitam & commendatam , & mandatam deinceps frequentari . Algerus l. 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 . offic . lib. 6. cap. 23. h Ob : Consuetudinem Eucharistiam domum deferendi , &c. Sol. [ By reason of Persecution , and the paucitie of Ministers : but afterwards abolished by the Church as was the ministration thereof to Infants . ] Ob : [ Communio olim Laicis data in poenam gravis delicti . Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. cap. 24. [ Sol. As if the punishment of the Laicks Communion could signifie Partaking in one kinde . ] which is confuted by Durant . lib. 2. de Ritib . cap. 55. Nonnulli crediderunt Laicam Communionem appellatam , quòd sub unica specie etiam Clerici , imò Sacerdotes ipsi non conficientes communicant , nunc sub una specie . Quare verius est , Laicam communionem dictam , quia extra sacratiorem locum , ubi Sacrificium fit , ubi Sacerdos conficiens , tùm Ministri communicabant . And by Pamelius in Cyprian . Epist . 152. Laicum communicare , nihil aliud est quam inter Laicos . i. e. extrâ cancellos — hoc est , extra chorum , ut hodie loquimur . Lorinus Ies . in Act. 2. Reverà distinctio non in specie utraque & una esse videtur , quoniam utraque species concedebatur ( nempe Laicis ) sed in destinato loco , separato p●o Clericis . [ And there were two punishments of Priests anciently , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , privari Clericatus honore , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Excommunicari . ] Ob : Ritus erat , ut Communio praesanctificatorum esset sub una specie , die Parascevis , corpus sine specie sanguinis . Sol. [ The word it selfe being in the Plurall , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , praesanctificata , Confuteth this Obiection , and so doe the Lyturgies . ] i In Conc. Constant . de usu unius speciei . Cum huiusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia & sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta , & hactenús diutissime observata sit , habenda est pro lege . Eodem modo Conc. Basil . penè eisdem verbis : Deinde latam legem quamplurimis retrò annis Consuetudo iucundissima effecerat . Gasp . Cardillus apud Act. Conc. Trident. p 220 , 222 , 223. k Secundum certum est , Ecclesiam praesentem , & quae illam praecessit per trecentos aut ducentos annos , Laicos sub altera specie in multis Ecclesijs communicare consuevisse , ut docet S. Thomas in Ioh. his verbis . Secundùm 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 Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 35. §. Secundum certum . pag. 284. l Sed nos nullam scimus Sacramenti multilationem , neque partem dimidiam Laicis esse substractam , siquidem duae species requiruntur necessariò ad Sacrificium , sed ad essentiam Sacramenti quae . libet ex duobus sufficit . — Proinde Sacramentum sub specie panis est verum & integrum Sacramentum , quandò sumitur per modum unius refectionis . Bellar . Apol. con . Praefat. Monit . 〈◊〉 . 102. And Alfons . à Castro de hac Controv. p. 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 solam carnem significat , species vini solum sanguinem repraesentat , illiusque solius memoriam gerit . m Vnum dicitur quod est perfectum , sic cum dicitur una domus , unus homo . Est autem unum in perfectione , ad cujus integritatem concurrunt omnia quae requiruntur . Aquin. par . 3. qu. 73. Art. 12 Ex parte Sacramenti convenit , ut utrumque sumatur sc . corpus & sanguis , quòd in utroque consistit perfectio Sacramenti . Idem ibid. quaest 80. Art. 2. Etenim obligatio perficiendi istud Sacramentum illi solùm ex natura rei i. e. spectatâ Sacramenti dignitate , incumbit , qui illud etiam conficit : debet enim is , quandoquidem rem tam divinam facit , non utcunque facere . Itaque tenetur inprimis utramque speciem consecrare , tùm ut huic Sacramento omnis perfectio sua substantialis , etiam quoad nationem individuam , constet . Valent. Ies . de vsu Euch. c. 6. §. Etenim . pag. 492. Respondendum est , eam actionem esse illis ipsis imperatam perilla verba [ Hoc facite , &c. See above Sect. 3. at ( g ) where Vasquez the Ies . is cited in 3 : Thom. disp . 215. * See heereafter , Sect. 8. n Appeal . lib. 2. Chap. 1. pag. 140. o In his Answere to his Maiestie . ( p ) In his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse , Tract . 4. §. 4. pag. 407. q Protestants Appeale , lib. 2. Chapter 4. Sect. 3. r In the same Appeale , lib. 4. Chapter 22. Sect. 10. s Cōperimꝰ quòd quidam , sumptâ tan●ummodò corporis sacri portione , à Calice sacri cruoris abstineant : qui proculdubiò ( quoniam nescio qua superstitione docētur astringi ) aut Sacramenta integra percipiāt , aut ab integris arceantur , quià divisio uniꝰ ejusdemque mysterii sinè grādi sacrilegio non potest provenire . Gelas . apud Gratia● . de Consecrat . cap. Comperimu● . D. 2. a Nam in alterutra specie sive panis sive vini significatur sufficienter refectio animae . Bellar. l. 4. de Eucharist . c. 22. §. Vtraque p. 639. Est etiam in specie qualibet tota significatio refectionis spiritualis — quià unam & eandem refectionis gratiam spiritualem significat cibꝰ & potus . Valent. quo sup . de legit . usu Euch. p. 491. b Optimo iure institutum est ut separatim duae consecrationes fierent : primò enim ut Passio Domini , in qua sanguis à corpore divi●us est , magis referatur — Deindè , maximè consentaneum suit , ut quoniam Sacramento , ad alendam animam , utendum nobis erat , tanquam cibus & potus instituetetur , ex qui●us perfectum corporis alimentum constare , perspicuum est . Catechis . Rom. part . 2. de ●uch . num 29. c Hoc Sacramentum ordiratur ad spir●tualem refectionem , quae conformatur corporali . Ad corporalem autem refectionem Duo requiruntur , scilicet cibus , qui est almentū si●cum , & potus , qui est alimentum humidum . Et etiam ad integritatem hu●us Sacramenti duo concurrunt , scilicet , spiricualis cibus , & spiritualis potus , s●cundū illud , Ioh. 6. [ Caro mea verè est cibus . ] — Ergò hoc Sacramentum multa quidē est materialitèr , sed unum formalitèr & perfectivè . Aquin. par . 3. qu. 73. Art. 2. Etsi negandum non est quin eius refectionis spiritualis vis & commoditas clarius utraque resimul , scilicet cibo & potu , atque adeo utraque specie significetur : ideo enim hoc Sacramentum , quod attinet quidem ad relationē individualem , perfectius est in utraque simu● specie , quàm in altera . Greg. de Valent . Ies . de usu Sacrā . Euch. c. 6. §. Secundū p. 491. Hoc est conveniētius u●ui ●uius Sacramenti , ut seorsim exhibeatur fidelibus corpus Christi in cibum , & sanguis in potum . Aquinas quo sup . quaest . 76. Art. 2. d Sub specie panis sanguis sumatur cùm corpore , & sub specie vini sumatur corpus cum sanguine , nec sanguis sub specie panis bibitur , nec corpus sub specie vini editur : quià ●icut nec corpus bibitur , ità nec sanguis comeditur . Durand . Rational . lib. 4. cap. 41. pag. 326 * See hereafter Sect. 10. e Answere to his Maiestie . f Secundum Alexand●um de Hales — Maior fructus ex perceptione utriusque speci●i habetur . Salmeron . Ies . Tom 9. Tract . 37. §. Neque benè . pag. 303. Per accidens autem non est dubium quin usus utriusque specici possit esse fructuosior , eò quod potest majorem devotionem commoverein percipiente . Vndè fiat , ut propter majorem dispositionem consequatur ille verlorem gratiam ex Sacramento . Valent. Ies . ibid. pag. 493. §. Per accidens . g Satis compertum est , universalem Christi Eccl●siam in hunc usque diem , Occidētalem autem seti Romanam mille amplius à Christo annis , in solenni praese● tim & ordinaria huius Sacramenti dispensatione , utramque panis & vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse — atque uti●à facerent , inductos fuisse primo Instituto exemploque Christi , qui hoc Sacramentū corporis & sanguinis sui duobus hisce panis & vini symbolis Discipulis suis , fidelium Communicantium personam repraesentantibus , praebuit : tum quià in Sacramento sanguinis peculiarem quādam virtut●m & gratiam hoc vinisymbolo significatam esse credebant : tūm ob rationes mysti●as huius Instituti , quae à veteribus variè adducuntur , viz. ad repraesentandam memoriam Passionis Christi in oblatione corporis , & sanguinis effusione , iuxta illud Pauli , [ Quotiescunque comederitis panem hunc , & Calicem Domini biberitis , morrem Domini annunciatis donec venerit . ] Item ad significand●m integram refectionem sive nutritionem , quae ●ibo & potu constat , quomodò Christus inquit , [ Caro mea verus est cibus , & sanguis meus verus est po●us . ] Item ad design●ndam 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. 2● . pag. 166 , 167. — Christus licet totus sub una specie , tamen administrari ●oluit sub duplici , primò , ut totam naturam assumpsisse se ostenderet , ut utramque redimeret : panis enim ad corpus refertur , vinum ad anima● . — Si in altera tantùm sumer●tur , — tum mortem suam ad alterius salutem valere significaretur . Pet. Lombard●… . Dist . 11. Hic Calix pa●i cunctis conditione sit traditus . Theoph in 1. Cor. 1● . In veteri Testamento quaedam Sacerdos , quaedam populus comedebat , nec poterat populus participare illis , quorum Sacerdos particeps erat : nunc autem omnibus un●m 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 1. Cor. 11. Quomodò ad martyrij poculum eos idoneos secimus , si non ad poculum Domini admittimus ? Cyprian . Epist . 54. ad Cornel. Epis● . Rom. de pace lapsis da da. Etiam Lumbardus lib. 4. dist . 11. ex Ambrosio ad 1. Cor 11 Valet ad tuitionem corporis & animae quod percipimus , quià caro Christi pro salute corporis , sanguis vero pro anima nostra offertur . h ●raeci dicunt esse necessario sub utraque specie panisscilicet , & vini communicandum , adeo quidem , ut qui sub una specie tantùm communicat etiamsi laicus sit , peccare dicatur , quod ( ut aiu●t ) contra Christi praeceptum agat ▪ qu● sub utraque specie communicare praecepit . Prat●ol Elench . Haeret lib. 7. tit . Graeci . * Liturg. Tract 4 § 9. p. 425. at Eightly . i Porrò causas , quae Ecclesiam moverunt , ut consuetudinem communicandi sub altera probaret , atque etiam pro lege observandā esse decerneret , non tàm nostrum est discutere aut inquirere , quàm ipsi Decreto simplicitèr obtemperare , existimaréque omninò eas fuisse just as , ut rectissimè ex Conc. Trid. definitum est . Greg. Valent. Ies . de legit . usu Sacra . Euch. c. 10. §. Porrò , p. 499. k Ob inopiam vini , cujus in plerisque Christianitatis partibus magna penuria . Valent. ibid. & Salmeron Jes . Tom. 9. Tract . 34. §. Ad quintum , pag. 279. And Roffens . 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 & unitatis , 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. l Licet non in omnibus terris nascitur vinum aut triticum , tamen ad omnes terras facilè deferri potest , quantum sufficit ad usum huius Sacramenti . Aquin. part . 3. qu. 74. Art. 1. Sufficit quòd Balsamum potest ad omnia loca transferri . Idem ibid. qu. 72. Art. 2. m Bis Principes Germaniae ad Bohemos ( quòd Communionem sub utr●que specie communicarent ) debellandos arma sumpsere , hortatore Cardinale luliano S. Angeli , Apo. stolicae sedis Legato doctissimo paritèr & rerum gerendarum prudentiâ ornatissimo viro : quanquàm bellum non satis feliciter successit . Salmeron Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 35. pag. 284. * See a little after at ( p. ) n Multi sunt Abstemij , qui vinum non ferunt . Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. cap. 28. o Dicēdum , quod vinum modicè sumptum non potest multum aegrotanti nocere . Aquin. par . 3 quest . 74. Art. 1. * See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9. in the Chall . m Primò movet Ecclesiam consuetudo recepta & approbata consensu Gentium & Populorum . Bellar. quosup . n Movet Ecclesiā , & quidem vehementèr Irreverentia & profanationes tanti Sacramenti , quae vix evitari possent in tāta fidelium multitudine , si omnibus daretur sub utraque specie . Bellar. ibid. * Liturg. tract . 4. §. 6. o Vtriusque specici vsum illicitum esse atque sacrilegium ait . — falsum est , quòd usui Calicis annexum sit peccatum vel sacrilegiu , propter periculum effusionis : nam si hab eret adiūctum peccatum , neque Christus Dominus , neque Apostoli in primitiva Ecclesia , nee Orientales modo , nec Occidentales ante Conc. Constantiense , neque denique Sacerdotes celebrantes eo ut erentur ritu Salmeron Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 37. §. Deinde , p. 308. p Cernuntur hodiè ex antiquitate relictae quaedam fistu lae argenteae & aureae velut canales , calicibus vetustioribus adjunctae , ut per eas sine effusione hauri●i posset ●anguis è calice , quarum in Ordinario Rom. fit mentio . Et adhuc in Missa solenni Pontificis adhibentur , ubi ministri Cardinales , aut illustriores personae communicant sub utraque specie , posteriorem speciem fistulâ haurientes . sed ista instrumenta non fuisse in usu apud plebem in parochialibus Ecclesijs planè existimo , sed tantum in sacris Cardinalium , Canonicorum , & Monachorum Conventibus . Alan . lib. 1. de Euch. cap 47. p. 495. q 1. Cor. 11. Itaque fratres mei , cum conven●ritis , invicem expectate . ] Dominus ex aequo Tibi & pauperimensam proprij corporis , & poculum sanguinis t●adidit . Teste Salmeron . Ies Tom. 14. Disp . 19. pag. 153. ( * ) See §. 9. ( * ) See above . Secto 8. ( g ) r Aquarij solam aquam apponendam asserebant , sobrietatis conservandae causâ vinum vitantes . Alfons . à Castro cont . Haeres . Tit. Eucharistia , Haer. 6. s Discamus Christum , prout vult , venerari , honorato namque iucundissi●us est honor , non quem nos putamus ; nam & eum Petrus honorare putabar , cùm sibi pedes eum lavare prohibuit : sed non erat honor , quem agebat , sed contrarium . Chrysost . Hom. 60. ad pop . Antioch . Tom. 5. t Si sic tanta esset dignitas Laicorum circà sūptionem corporis Christi , quanta Clericorum ? Gerson . Tract . de utraque specie . a Movit Ecclesiam , ad hunc usum stabiliendum & lege firmandum , quòd videret ab Haereticis , & ex errore oppugnari . Sacramentarij autem non credunt Cōcomitantiam sanguinis Domini cùm corpore in specie panis : undè etiam ij Lutheranorum maximè urgent utramque speciem , qui cum Sacramentarijs rident Concomitantiā . Bellar . l. 4 de Euch. c. 28. § Secundò . b In his Booke dedicated to K. Iames. c In his Liturg. of the Masse pag. 396. d Maximè omnium ad convellendam eorum haeresin , qui negabant sub utraque specie corpus Christi contineri . Catech. Rom. par 2. c. 4. nu 50. 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 & bibere , qui panem tinctum vino sume●et , quamvis sumat quod famem tollat & sitim . Proindè , secundùm horum sententiam vider●tu● omninò dicendum — cum dicitur manducare , & bibere , non ratione actus exterioris , qui manducationis tantum speciem habet : sed ratione actus interioris , nempe , ratione fidei . Jansen . Concord . in Evang. pag. 457. * See more expressly in the testimony of Durand above , Sect. 8. 2 See Booke 2. Cap. 2. §. 4. f Secunda ratio , quià qui Concomitantiam negant , ex alio pernitioso errore petunt utramque speciem : quià nimirum existimant iure divino esse praeceptum ; & proptereà totam Ecclesiam longo tempore in hac re turpiter errâsse . Bellar. qu● sup . §. Secundo . g Rectissimè facit Ecclesia , quod ipsa praxi contrariâ refu●at corum haeresin , qui utramque speciem iure divino necessariam omnibus esse perperam contendunt . Quae ratio iure optimo inter coetera considerata est in Conc. Constant . contra Bohemos ; & in Conc. Trident. contra recentiores Sectarios . Greg. de Valent. Ies . Tract . de usu Eucharist . cap. 10. §. Deindè , p. 499. h Ego existimo , Patres , non solùm nullam legitimam causam esse , sed neque fingi posse , cur de consensu vestro Laici calicem bibant : neque pa●i ullo modo velitis à more vestro quempiam decedere latum unguem . — Inprimis , quoniam Ecclesia illud praecepit , ut alteram tantùm speciem Laicis porrigamus , cui m●ritò nobis obtemperandum est , quià nihil agit sine magna ratione , neque in huiusmodi legibus ferendis errare potest . Denique si latam legem nullâ evidenti necessitate convellatis ( Patres ) suspicari multis in mentem veniet , aut vos illam temerè nulloque consilio tulisse olim suscipisseque , aut susceptam cùm ratione & servatam diutissimè in Christiana Republica nullâ vel causa vel ratione pro nihilo ducere , quo nihil fieri potest gravitate vestrâ , aut huius amplissimi ordinis maiestate indignius . Gaspar Cardillo Villalpand : Orat. apud ▪ Act. Conc. Trid. pag. 219 , 221 , 222. * See above , Chap. 2. Sect. 11. * In the third Booke . i Nullâ praeceptorum vi , sed consensu quodam tacito tàm populi quam Cleri sensim irrepsit dicta consue●udo . Ro●●ens . con . Cap. Babyl . Trac . de utraque Specie , f. 28. Estque hoc diligenter notandum , alterius speciei communionem non tam Episcoporum mandato , quam populi usu & facto conniventibus tamen Praesulibus , irrepsisse : populus enim ob varia incommoda paulatim à calice abstinebat . Episcopi propter varia effusionis sanguinis , aliaque pericula tacendo hanc abstinentiam comprobabant : quae abstinentia à calice cum tempore ▪ Constantiensis Conc. ferè per Europam universalis esset , non erat damnanda , sed contra Haereticos insurgentes defendenda . Coster . Ies . Enchirid. Tract . de Com. sub . utraque specie , pag. 359. Credere par est , ex communi fidelium populor●m & Orthodoxorum Praesulum tacito consensu receptam : quandò autem primum inceperit , mihi non constat . Alf. de Castro l. 6. Tit : Eucharistia , haer . vlt. * Liturg Tract 4 § 9. at the end thereof . * 2. Tim 2. 15. l Quod verò attinet ad tempora , triplicem in coetu Christiano statum , Nic. de Cusano Card. expendit ; ferventis nimirùm , calidae & frigentis . Initio n. 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 , licet non ità fervens , & tunc non dabatur bina species , sed panis tantùm sanguine infusus , ut ex quibusdam veterū Patrum sententijs Concilijsq colligi potest . Tertius status est Ecclesiae frigentis ac tepidae , & in ea tantùm altera species , panis sc . sine infusione sanguinis Laicis dispensatur . Salm. Ies . To. 9. Tract . 34. §. Quod verò , p. 277. m Vt nobis locupletissimi testes , atque omni exeptione maiores retulerunt , in Germania qui eò loci per omnia obediunt Rom. Pontificibus , non solùm ( Reverendi Patres ) calicem vitae non cupiunt , aut petere audent , &c. Gasp . Card. Villalp . opud Act. Conc. Trid. p. 222. §. Accedit . * See the next testimony above . n Tertio loco obijciunt Ecclesiae sapientiam , antiquitatem , atque potestatem ; aiunt enim , Ecclesiam primitivam , quae antiquior & scientiâ atquè vitae sanctitate praestantior erat , utráque specie usam fu●sse : nostra igitur illam imitari debet , praesertim cū eandem atque illa habet potestatem in eiusmodi legibus positivis siuè abrogandis siuè dispensandis . Respondemus , non esse dubium quin Ecclesia primitiva nostrae maiore charitate , ac proindè uberiori sapientia praecelluerit , nihilominus , tamen interdum cōtingit minus sapientem in aliquo meliùs sapere , quàm al●●m absolutè sapientiorem . Saepe etiam accidit , minùs p●●fectum hominem vitare aliquem errorē , quem melior non vitat . Salmeron Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 38. §. Tertio loco , p. 320. o Forma Iuramenti , per Bullam Pij quarti . Apostolicas & Ecclesiasticas Traditiones admitto , — Ego spond eo , & juro , &c. p Coetera omnia à Concilio Tr●dent . declarata & confirmata firmissimè ●eneo . Ibid. Romanam Ecclesiam Magistram esse Ecclefiar u●…do , &c. q Licet Gabriel , & quidam alij sentiant divini juris esse , ut Sacerdos in utraque specie sacrificet , nihilominùs ' tamen opinantur authoritate Rom. Pontificis fieri posse , ut in una tantùm specie sacrificet , viz. in consecratione panis fine vino , quià putant multa esse juris divini , quae remittere & relaxare Pótifex queat ob publicam aliquam & gravem necessitatem : ut videmus votum , iusiurandū , matrimonium ratum , nō consummatū , authoritate Pontificis relaxari & dissolvi . Et ità in hac quaestione prima puto probabilius & verius esse ( ut dixi ) iuris 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 ▪ quià nunquàm est relaxatum , ego confilium darem ut nunquam relaxaretur . Azorius Ies . Tom. 1. Instit , Moral . lib. 10. cap. 19. §. Tertium pag. 857. r Dispensandus non est utriusque , speciei usus Haereticis , quia non sunt dāda sancta Canibus : nec Catholicis , quià debent distingui ab Haereticis , qui communicant sub duab . Salmeron Jes . Tom. 9. Tract . 37. §. His pofitis , p. 411. a P. Calixtus . See above Chap. 2. Sect. 9. b P. Greg. Ibid. at ( b. ) c See above , Chap. 2. Sect. 7. Chall . 5. ( a. ) d P. Iulius . See above Chap. 3. Sect. 3. e Ibid. f See above Chap. 3. Sect 4. g P. Gelasius . See above Chap. 3. Sect. 4. h Synod . Tolet. 16 — Conc. Generale , sub Sergio Papa . Baron , ad An. 693 This Councel , cap. 6. saith , Quoniam quid ā non panes m●ndos atque integros , sed crustulam & particulam offerunt — quod nequaquàm in sacrae authoritatis historia gestum perpenditur ; ubi legitur Christum benedixisse & dedi●se panem , &c. Apud Binium Tom. 3. And this being , by Baronius , a Generall Councell , could not conclude without the Popes consent , in your iudgements . a In scripturâ explicandâ haeresis est manifesta , sicut figurata propriè accipere , ità quae sunt propriè dicta ad Tropicā locutionē detorquere : nam in verbis [ Eunuchi sunt qui se castrant propter regnum coelorum &c. ] August . and to the same purpose also , lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ . b — Hoc cavendum , nisi in manifestum Haereseos scopulum impingere velimus . Salmeron . Jes . Tom. 1. Proleg . 12. pag. 227. * See before Booke , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6. c Gratian. Sacramenta Christi suscipiendo , carnem eius & sanguinem materialiter significamus . De Consecrat . dist . 2. C. Quià morte . a Conc. Trid. Sess . 13. cap. 1. Verba illa à Christo commemorata , & à Divo Paulo repetita propriam significationem prae se ferunt . b Lutherani & omnes Calvinistae pronomen [ Hoc ] pro pane positum esse dicunt , quià panem Christus in manu acceperat , & dixit [ Hoc est Corpus meum . ] Maldon . Ies . in Matth. 26. §. Hoc omnes — Lutherus in verba Evangelistae . Habent hunc sensum ; Hic panis est corpus meum . * See below , let . ( k. n. o. ) &c. c [ Hoc ] designat corpus , ut est intermino prolationis : & hic est sensus luculentissimus . Stapleton . Prompt . Cath. serm . Heb. sacra . vpon these words , [ Hoc est corpus meum . ] d [ Hoc ] nihil aliud quam corpus Christi demonstrat . Sand. de visib . Monarch . Ad annum 1549 p. 629. e Demonstrat corpus ipsum in quod panis convertitur in fine propositionis ; nec est Tautologia , quemadmodum neque in illo , [ Hic est hlius dilectus . ] Barrad . Ies . de Inst . Euch C. 4. f Vtique 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 . ] g Chavaus . Ies . Comment . in formam iuramenti fidei , Inscriptio libri est , Professio verae fidei , §. 49. pag. 468. h In his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse , pag. 138. Tract . 2. Sect. 3. i Malloun his late Reply against Doctour Vsher , pag. 204. k Argumentum eorum , qui volunt Pronomen [ Hoc ] demonstrare Corpus , est absurdum , quod in huius modi propositionibus , quae significant id quod tunc fit cum dicitur , Pronomina demonstrativa non demonstrate quod est , sed quod erit . Et ponunt Exempla , ut si quis dum pingit lineam , aut circulum dicat , Haec est linea , hic est Circulus . Quomodo etiam exponi debet Pronomen in illis verbis Domini , Ioh. 15. Hoc est praeceptum meum . — Haec explicatio non videtur satisfacere , propter duas causas . Primò quià etsi Pronomen demonstrativum demonstrer rem futuram , quandò nihil est praesens , quod demonstretur ( ut in exemplis allatis ) tamen si quis digito aliquid ostendat , dum pronomen effert , valdè absurdum videtur dicere , pronomine illo non demonstrari rem praesentem . Atqui Dominus accepit panem , & illum porrigens , ait , [ Accipite , Edite , H. E. C. M. ] Videtur igitur demonstrasse panem . Neque Obstat quod propositio non significat , nisi in sine totius prolationis : Nam etsi ità est de propositione , quae est ratio quaedam , tamen Demonstratiua Pronomina mox indicant certum aliquid , etiam antequam sequantur coeterae 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 . l Huius vocis [ Hoc ] ea visest , ut rei praesentis substantiā demōstret . Catech. Conc. Trid. Decret . & inssu Pij Quinti Pontificis Edit . ut in frontispitio libri c●…r . m Bellar. See above at let . ( k. ) n Haec locutio , [ Hoc est corpus meum ] habet virtutem factivam conversionis panis in Corpus Christi , ut an 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 proferendū , & esse per prolationem verb orū . Salmeron Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 13. pag. 81. Col. 1. [ ex aliorum opinione , ] & Iansenius Concerd . cap. 130. — vt faber clavum , &c. o Master Malloune in his late Reply , p. 105. This is a Kirtle for my wife , &c. a Bellar. See above at let . ( k. ) b Profectò propositio non est vera , nisi postquàm factus est Circulus : Sed oratio accipitur pro verà , quia ●…d quod futurum est , accipitur pro iam facto , per Tropū , non iuxtà Proprietatem sermonis : in quē sensum Christus plerunque praesens pro futuro vsurpavit : ut Math. 26. Apud te facio Pascha cum dicipulis me●s , id est , confestian facio Pascha Salmerō . Ies . ●om . 9. Tran. 13. §. Secunda . — Si [ est ] proptie accipiatur , pro existere , durum est ut vniat subiectum cum praedicato pro futuro tempore , quià falsa esser 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 ; Profectò propositio non est statim vera , &c. Salm. Ib. p. 83 c Quum Deus ex limo terrae hominem sinxit rectè ver éque dicere potuisset , sumpto in manus limo , Hic est Homo . Et cum ex costa mulierē fabricauit , sumptâ costâ dicere potuit ; Haec est mulier , quamuis cum pronunciasset Pronomen [ Haec ] nondùm fuisset mulier , ac significasset cùm ità locutus fuisset , limūnon esse hominem , & costam mulierem ; sed limum in hominem , costam in mulierem converti . Sic cum Christus dicit , [ Hoc est corpus meum , ] significat panem mutari in corpus suum . Quemadmodum si in Cana Galileae , cum aquam in vinum , &c. Maldon . Ies in Matth. 26. Ità cum Christus dicit , accepto pane [ Hoc est corpus meum ] quamvis illud corpus nondum ille esset , sed futurum erat , illud eo pronomine demonstrat , nec significat panem , quem acceperat , esse corpus suum , sed mutari in corpus suum . Idemin Matth. 26. pag. 635. a,b Sententia haec est , P●onomine illo designari aliquid cōmune Substantiae panis & corporis Christi ; Commune ( inquam ) non secundum Rem , ( illud enim nullum esse potest ) sed secundum rationē seu denominationem viz. sub ratione contenti sub his accidētibus continetur corpus meum . Ità Guitmundus ( where hee reckons vp 15. other Schoole men : ) vbi Pronomen [ Hoc ] substantivè sumitur , & demonstrat in confuso Ens , sivè substantiam contentam sub illis speciebus — vt cum 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. disp 58. §. 7. p 7●5 ▪ Secundùm rationem Substantiae tùm communem tùm Indiuiduam vagam . Greg. de Valent. l. 1. de Present . corp . Chr ( 〈◊〉 ) . §. Respondemus . p. 377. Quià Sacramenta significant quod efficiunt , & non efficitur in hoc Sacramento ut corpus Christi sit corpus Christi , quià ità semper suit , nec ut panis sit corpus Christi , id enim fieri nequit , sed efficitur ut sub speciebus illis sit corpus Christi , sub quibus anteà etat panis : [ Hoc ] non demonstrat panem , vel corpus , sed contentum sub speciebus . Bell. l 1. de Euch. c. 11. §. Est igitur . c Archiepisc . Caesar . sivè Christopherus de Capite fontium . var. Trac . Demonstrando corpus in genere , nescio quid — dictum velis , cū 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 , quod res est vera , velnon est vera : ergò non verborum dispositio consideranda venit — Rapiunt isti à rerum consideratione lectorem , ut non res ipsas , sed intelligibiles formas loquendi contempletur . — Quibus dixerim , revertiminiad iudicium , ô viri , & duas has tantum res Corpus sc . & panem considerate , quarum alterum tantùm demonstrari necesse est . Quià Pronomen vice nominis Proprij positum prosolo 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 , infarcientesilli ex suo cerebro tertiam illam rem , cujus nullam habent mentionem , & quâ positâ , propositio esset fal●a , Archiep. Caesar . quo supra p. 12. Si enim Christus ità loqueretur de pane , ante illius Transubstantiationem , mentiretur — Non enim haec dici possunt de Pan● consecrando , quod sit corpus Christi . Ibid. p. 17. Solam illam substantiam singularem 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 . d Vulgata opinio est , illud pronomen [ Hoc ] neque demonstrare corpus Christi ; neque panem , sed accipi vagè , pro eo quod continetur sub accidentibus , quod priùs est panis , deinde corpus Christi . Quae sententia non videtur mihi probabilis esse , quià etsi vocabula solent aliquandò 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 , quam 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 , autpro pane , aut pro corpore Christi — Nulla res potest esse nisi determinate aut haec aut illa ; Ergò non possunt haec Pronomina , si substantiuè accipiantur , nisi pro hac vel illâ re determinata accipi . Maldon . Ies . de Sacram. Euch. Tom. 1. §. Tertius error , pag. 216. 217. e Mr. Harding in his answere to the 24. Article , saying ; Learn you what they mean , and if their meaning be naught , handle you them as you list ; you shall not offend us any whit . a [ Hoc est corpus meum . ] Hoc quod Christus digito demonstrabat , cumilla verba protulit . Sand. de visib . Monarch . l. 7. ad Annum . 1547. b Pe●rus Picherellus de Missâ . cap. 3. c Cum antè Consecrationem dicimus in Litutgiâ [ suscipe sancte Pater hanc immaculatam hostiam ] certè Pronomen [ Hanc ] demonstrat ad sensus id quod tunc manibus tenemus , id autem est panis . Bel. l. 1 de Missâ , c. 27. §. Prima propositio . d Dispatatum de disparato non praedicatur , valet ●gitur argumentum : Si hoc est lac , non est ferrum : ita etiam valebit , si hoc est est corpusnon est panis ; cum repugnet , unam naturam de alterâ diversâ dici , ut hominem esse equum citra tropum , vel Metaphoram . Salm. Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 16. §. Primum igitur . p. 109. e Nè ipse quidem Deus , qui est summa veritas , vn quam efficiet , vt hae propositiones , vxor Lot est Sal , aqua est vinum , asinus est homo , in sensu composito sint verae . Archiep. Caesar . d●●ens . 〈◊〉 . de Real . Praes . cap. 58. f Obseruandum , cum dicitur vinum es● sanguis , docetur esse sanguinem per similitudinem , reipsa autem & propriè est vinum . Et cum dicitur sanguis est vinū , intelligitur vinum esse per similitudinem : nec enim reipsâ aut propriè esse potest aut vinū sanguis , aut sanguis vinum , cum res sunt ipsae diversae inter se , & termini ut vocant disparati . Bel. l. 2. de Euch. c. 9. §. Observand . g Non potest fieri ut vera sit Propositio , in qua subiectum supponitur propane , praedicatum pro corpore Christi : Panis enim & corpus res diversissimae sunt . Bellar ▪ l. 〈◊〉 . de . Euch. c. 19. § Primum . h Eodem tempore panis triticeus , & corpus Christi esse non possunt , quia disparata sunt . Sand. de visi● . Monarch . ad Annum . 1549. [ To obi●ct De Christo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Deus est homo , were vaine , because that is spoken by reason of ●he Hypostaticall Vnion whereby Accidit Deo ut sit homo , per hypostaticam vnionem , non per mutationem , which Vnity maketh God and man in Christ reciprocall . And we also meane , Disparata absoluta , not Relata , for thus the same man is father and sonne . ] 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. p. 138. k Sipanis est corpus Christi , ergo aliquid quod non es● natum ex virgine est corpus Christ● : & ità animatum est inanimatum . Gloss . Decret . de Consecrat . dist . 〈◊〉 . can . Quia . l M. Malloune in his late Reply . p. 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 : Therfore 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 ●f Christ his speech , you your selves could never point out any former change at all , before the last syllable , Meum ] m Si [ Hoc ] accipitur substantivè , tùm sensꝰ erit , [ Hoc ] i. e. Haec res , quod si de Pane dieatur , 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 . n Although the word Bread had not beene expressed , yet being present in Christs hand , and pointed unto , Hoc could not be takē substantively no more then one should say of his Father , Hoc est Pater meus . M. Breerlye's Liturgie . p. 137. o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Exod. 8. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 1. Pet. 2. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Gen. 213. * Summa Angelica . tit . Eucharist . quest . 23. Propofitio esset magis propria , si demonstr●ndo Cibum diceretur [ Hoc est Corpus meum . ] 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 Máth . 26. pag. 633. q Salmer . Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 16. §. Nec rursus . — Adam de Evâ ex costâ eius desumptâ , Hoc nun● os ex ossibus meis . Gen. 2. 13. * 1. Cor. 11. 23. * 1. Cor. 10. 16. r 1. Iraener●s ; Accipiens panem , Corpus suum esse confitebatur . Lib. 4. cap. 57. 2. Tertull. Christus panem corpus suum appellat . Lib. adversus Iudaeos , Cap. quod incipit , Itaque . 3. Origen . Nec materia panis est , sed super illum dictus sermo est , qui prodest non indignè comedenti . In Matth. 15. 4. Hieron . Nos audiamus panem , quem fregit Dominus , esse corpus Servatoris . Epist. ad Hebdib . Quaest . 2. 5. Ambros . Panem fractum tradidit discipulis s●…s , dice●s ; Accipite , Hoc , &c. Lib. 4. de Sacrament . cap. 5. 6. August . Iudas manducavi● Panem Domini , &c. Tract . 59. in Io● . 7. Cyril . Hier. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. Mystag . 4. pag. 528. 8. Cyril . Alex. Cum Christusipse sic affirmat , ac dicat de Pane , Hoc est Corpus meum , &c. Cat●chis . 4. Id●m . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — Ioh ▪ 2 ▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. ] 9. Theodoret. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●ial . 1. cap. 8. 10. Gaudent . Brixiens . Cum panem consecratum discipulis por●…g : ●at , si● ait , Hoc est Corpus meum . Tract . de ratione Sacra . 11. Cyprian . Vinum fuisse , quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus . Epist . 63. 12. Clemens Alexand. Benedixit vinum , cum dixit , Accipite . Paedag. lib. 2 cap. 3. 13. Isidor . Panis , quia confirmat corpus , ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur . Lib. 1. de officijs , cap. 18. * See above §. 4. s See above §. 2. t See above §. 3. u Concil . Trident. Sess . 13. c. 4. Fit Conversio totius substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi . * See above §. 4. a Meronymia , 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. b Testamentum saepè sumitur pro Legato , seu Re testatâ . Barrad . Ies . Iust . l. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. c Salm. Jes . Tom. 9. Tract . 15. § Malè etiā . [ Idem prius habuit noster Beza in Luc. 22. 20. ] d Pascha significat transitum , quià Angelus transivit domos Israëlitarum : haec ratio nominis redditur , cū dicitur , [ Transibit enim Dominus cum viderit sanguinē in utroque poste . ] Iansen . Epis . Concord . in Matth. 26. [ It was therefore more then boldnes in Bellarmine , l. 1. de ●…uch . cap. 11. §. Quaedam to say ; Agnꝰ erat propriè Transitus , Agnus being in the Predicament of Substance : and Transitus in the Predicament of Action . e Petra hoc in loco dicitur spiritualis , ex qua Deus eduxit per miraculum a quam , qui à signum fuit è latere Christi profluentis sanguinis & aquae . Salmeron Ies . in 1. Cor. 10. [ Petra autem erat Christus . ] Id est , Petra significabat Christum : ubi signum appellat nomine rei significatae . Perer. Ies . Com. in Dan. 2. p. 85. [ Petraerat Christus . ] Erat autem Christus Petra , certissima scilicet significatione . Arias Mont. in 1. Cor. 10 & Pinta Ies . in ●s . 51. f Circumcisio foedus dicitur , & signum foederis , Bellar. lib. 〈◊〉 . de Euch , c. 11. §. Secundò . g Christus cum Nicodemo spiritualiter intelligendus . Maldon . Ies . in eum locum Ioh 3. h Sepul●i lumus , Rom. 6. 4. id est , Christum sepultum repraesentamus . Tolet. Jes . in eum locum . i Quòd verò in illis Orationibus [ Petra erat Christus ; semenerat verbū Dei , Ego sum Ostium ] verbum substantivum sit interpretandum pro significat , aut figurat ; non ei id accidit ex naturâ suâ , aut per se , sed quoniam Petra illa aliter cum Christo coniungi non potest , quam per signum — Inde sit , ut parvireferat siuè dicas , Petra erat signum Christi , vel significabat Christum . Salmeron Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 16. §. Primum igitur , p. 118. k [ Petra erat Christus . ] Soletità exponi , Petra significabat Christum , id non ita accidit quòd verbum [ Est ] pro significat , ex se collocetur , sed quoniam [ Petra ] illa aliter cum Christo cohaerere , quam per similitudinem , & signum non potest . Sand. de Visib . Monar . ad Annum 1550. p. 141. l Si propriè loqui velimꝰ , falsae sunt istae Propositiones , Corpus Christi manducatur à nobis , corpus Christi teritur , corpus Christi devoratur , corpus Christi frangitur , quia ipsi modi , qui significantur his verbis , non conveniunt corpori Christi ; Sacramentalis locuti● esset , si corpus Christi dicer●tur frangi , aut dentibus teri : haec enim non possint , nisi Sacramento tenus intelligi , quia non propriè corpus Christi frangitur , sed Sacramentum . Mald. Ies . de Sacram. in gener . Tom. 1. §. Quapropter p. 144. & Com. in Matth. 26. Frangi cum dicitur , est Metaphorica locutio , quià fractiò propriè significat divisionem , & discontinuationem partium , quam constat non fieri in partibus corporis Christi . Suarez . Ies . Tom. 3. dis . 47. Sect. 4. §. Exempla tertiae . pag. 577. m Corpus quod pro vobis datur , ] id est , quod offeretur pro vobis in Cruce mactatum . Valent. Ies . l. 1. de Missa . c. 3. §. Igitur . [ Of the word Eate litterally false , so your Jesuites . See Booke 5. C. 4. §. 2. ] n Graecus Textus [ Effunditur : ] Non est negandum morem esse Scripturae , eam dicere jam esse , quae futurasit , ut hîc [ Effunditur ] quià paulò post in Crace effundendus . Salmer . Ies . in 1. Cor. 11. p. 154. o Hic Calix est Novum Testamentū ] Non potest accipi in proprio sensu , sed in eo quem clariora verba Matthaei & Marci indicant , & exigunt . Sivê enim Calix fumatur pro poculo potorio , fivè Synecdochicè pro sanguine in poculo contento , non potest consistere ut in ijs verbis sit propria locutio , — Nemo enim dixerit propriâ locutione vasculum illud potorium fuisse Testamentū Novum , cum incertum sit , an adhuc extet illud poculum ; at Novum Testamentum est aeternum : sed nec●sanguis in Calice contentus potest esse novum Testamentum , quià lex Evangelica in Epist . ad Hebr. dicitur Novum Testamētum , & apud Matthaeum & Marcum , sanguis dicitur Novi Testamenti . At vnicum est Novum Testamentum : Ergo non est Novum Testamentum . Iansen . Conc. in cum locum , pag. 910. p Subest in his duplex Meronymia : 1. quia continens ponitur pro contento , id est , poculum siue Calix provino , eò quòd vinum in ipso continetur . 2. est , eò quòd contentum in poculo foedus vel Testam entum dicitur Novum , cum sit eius symbolum propter species — Testamentum hoc in loco potest sumi prolege Evangelicâ , quae veteri legi opponitur , vel vtrem Testamento legatam testatamuè significet . Quemadmodum Haeres dicere solet , Hic fundus est testamentum patris mei , id est , port●o haereditatis à patre meo legata ; in quem sensum loquitur A postolus ad Hebr. Iefus est sponsor melioris testamenti , id est , haereditatis . Salm. Ies . Tom. 9. Tract 15. §. Tertio p. 98. q Testamentum sumitur prolegato Metonymicè . continens testamentum sumitur pro contento legato , seu haereditate , quae testamento continetur . Barrad . l. 3. de Euch. c. 5. p. 79. Tom. 4. * 1. Cor. 10. 17. r Sicut vnus panis ex multis granis , &c. Aquinas in eum locum . * See above Booke 〈◊〉 . cap. 3. §. 8. * Master Brereley Liturg. Tract . 4. §. 8. s See heereafter . Booke 6. Chap. 1. §. 2. t Coeleste Sacramentum , quod verè representat Christi carnem , dicitur Corpus Christi , sed impropriè , unde dicitur suo more , sed non rei veritate , sed significāte mysterio : ut sit sensus , vocatur Corpus Christi , id est , significatur . Gloss . Decret . de Consecrat . dist . 〈◊〉 . Can. Hoc est . u Gregorius XIII . Papa . In the priviledge before the body of the Canon Law. x Graeci Patres vocant Eucharistiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , quae lunt apud nostros figurae , Sacramenta , Signa ; & haec om●…a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accepère . Alan . lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 30 pag. 383. — Dionys . c. 1. Eccle. Hier. Theod. Dial 1. Macarius Hom. 27. Nazianzen Orat. in Gorgon . vocant Eucharistiam , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 post recitationem horum verborum , [ Hoc est corpus meum . ] Teste Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15. §. Sed — Dionys . Ep. 9. ad Titum , loquens de sacris Signis & tropicis locutionibus , dicit Christum Iesum in Parabolis per typicae mensae apparatum deifica mysteria tradere . Eodem modo Greg. Nazi . orat . 11. vocat Antitypum pretiosi corporis & sanguinis Domini . Euseb . lib. 8. Demonstrat . in fine : Christus discipulos hortatur , ut sui ipsius corporis imaginem repraesentent : Teste Suarez . Tom. 3. in Thom. Quest . 74. disp . 46. §. 4. pag. 547. & 552. — Theod. dial . 1. cap. 8. Scis quòd Deus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Luc. 22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — Ipseigitur Salvator noster 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Paul● post interrogando docet ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . [ Origen . etiam in Matth. 15. calleth materiam panis , Symbolicum Corpus . ] y Prima solutio ; Vocem Antitypon non accipi pro signo , sed pro Exemplari , &c. sed haec opinio facilè reijci potest , quià vox ea nunquam sumitur pro exemplar● . Bel. l. 2. de Euch. cap. 15. z Alterasolutio est aliorū , Panem & Vinum Antitypon dici , sed ante Cōsecrationem non postea ; it à respondit olim Ioh. Damasc . l. 4. de ●ide c. 14. Et Epi. in 7. Syn. Art. 6. Tom. 3. sed invenimus apud Basiliū Eucharistiā dici Antitypon corporis post recitationem istorum verborum , [ H. E. C. M. ] — Tamen Theod. apertissimè eam sic vocat . Dial. 1. & Macar . Aegypt . Hom. 27. imo Dion . Areop . Eccl. Hier. c. 1. Naz. orat . in Gorgon . Bell. ibid. — Etiam Clemens in Constit . Billius Com ▪ ad Eliam Cret●nsem , in Orat. 11. Nazianz. Hanc interpretationem ( Damasceni ) refellunt Bessar●on Card. & Turrian . Durant . de Rit . l. 2. c. 39. a Foratassis Basilius & alij Graeci Patres non vocant typum aut figuram , sed Antitypa , quia Antitypa non sunt quaelibet figurae , sed illa tantūm , quae nihil fere differunt à veritate . Bel. Ibid. quo supra . b Negari non potest quin nonnunquam nomen Typi inveniatur in Patribus , ut ex Hieronymo paulò ante notavi . Idem reperitur apud Chrysost . Hom. 16. ad Hebr. & Bilius apud Nazian . Annot. in or at . vndecimam , in fine . Quare probabile valdè existimo vocem Antitypi in eadem significatione usurpari hoc loco , quo Typi , seu figurae . Suarez Ies . quo sup . p. 554. c Solutio , Eucharistiam etiam post Consecrationem dici posse Antitypum corporis & sanguinis Domini , non solùm quia species panis & vini sunt figurae corporis & sanguinis Domini ibi rever a existentium , sed etiam quià corpus & sanguis Domini , ut sunt sub illis speciebus , signa sunt ejusdem corporis & sanguinis , ut fuerunt in-Cruce , repraesentant enim passioné Christi : & ideò fortassis Basilius & alij Patres non vocant Eucharistiam figuram aut typum , sed Antitypum &c. — It à si Rex aliquis , gravissimo bello confecto , idem ipsum bellum ad oblectamentum populo in scen â praesens seipsum bellantem representare vellet . Bell. l. 2. de Euch cap. 15. Antitypa corporis & Sanguinis Christi dicuntur , quià corpus & sanguis Domini , ut sunt subillis speciebus panis & vini in Eucharistia , signa sunt corporis passi , & sanguinis effusi in Cruce . Suarez . quo supra pag. 554. Graeci Patres cum passim vocant Sacramenta Antitypa , — nihil aliud sibi volunt quam habere Sacramenta maximam similitudinem cum ijs rebus , quarum sunt Sacramenta . Billar . lib. 1. de Sacram. in genere cap. 9. d Billius com . in Nazianz. orat . 11. Audiamus quid Augustinus dicit in Prosperi sententijs ; Caro inquit , ●ius est , quam formâ panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus ; sanguis , quem sub specie vini potamus ; Caro , viz. carnis , & sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis ; carne & sanguine utroque invisibili , & intelligibili , & spirituali significatur corpus Christi visibile , plenum gratiae , & divinae Maiestatis . Gardiner . Episc . Winton . Augustini verba , ut litera sonat , intelligit . Item Claudius Sainctes Repetit , & allegari ai● , ut corpus Christi ostendatur , quatenus in Sacramento est , seipsum significare , ut erat in cruce , suique Sacramentum esse & figuram , & figuram esse passionis suae ; Eandem sententiam apertissimè tuetur Ro●fcns . & Iohan. Hessell . Haec Billius . e Trithemius . Ex sententijs Augustini , versibus hexametris & pentametris mixtum opus prosa pulcherrimum quod prenotare voluit , Epigramma , sic incipit , Dum Sacris , &c. [ But of the other Intituled , Sententiarum ex operibus Augustini , beginning thus , Innocentia , ●ee maketh no mention ; yea , and even in this ( as it is now set out among the works of Prosper ) printed Coloniae Agrippinae . An. 1609. apud Arnoldum Crithium , It is not to be ●ound . ] f Antonius Augustinus Archiepiscopus Tarracon . De emendatione Gratiani . g Lombardus . Attende his diligenter , quia Tropo quodam u●itur hic Augustinus , quo solent res significantes re●um sortirivocabula , quas significant ; Visibilis species panis vocatur nomine Carnis , & species vini sanguinis , &c. Lib. 4. distinct . 10. Apud Billium qu● supra . h Gratian. Caro , i. e. species Carnis , sub quo latet corpus Christi , — Est Sacramentum Carnis Christi , & sanguis , i. e. species vini , sub qua later sanguis Christi , est Sacramentum sanguinis Christi . De Consecrat . dist . 2. Cap. Hoc est quod . in Glossa . i See above at ( c. ) 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. & 〈◊〉 . Sub ●…gulis utriusque speciei partibus Christus totus est , & integer continetur . Concil ▪ Trident. S●… . 18. cap. 3. l See above at ( c ) m Billius . Eucharistiae Sacramentum d●citur Antitypon , & Typus , seu Symbolum , ●atione Specierum panis & vini , quae in oculorum sensum cadunt : & haec est communis ratio , quae à Theologis ●fferri solet . Haec ille Com. in Naz. orat . 11. * Booke 6. c. 5. §. 7. a Epiphanius in Ancorate . 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 lineamet is membroram , 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. b Cum docere vellet Epiphan . hominem ve●è factum ad imaginem Dei , licet non facile appareat in quo consistat similitudo inter Deum & hominem , cum Deus incorporalis sit , immensus ; & dicit multa esse eiusmodi quae aliud sunt , aliud videntur , ponit exemplum de Eucharistia , quae verè est corpus Christi , & tamen nihil minus est , quam quod appareat exterius , cum sit rotundum & insensibile , & proindè valdè dissimile corpori Christi . Hic sanc locus omninò convincit , nam quod dicit , oportet credere ipsum esse verum , excludit Tropos , praesertim cum addat , excider● à Salute qui non credit : quod etiam ad dit credendum esse , licet sensus repugnent , apertissime testatur , non eum loqui de significatione , sed de reipsa . [ words to be observed in the Greeke are these . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . [ The last words shew that Insensible is taken according to power , that is actively ] * See above , Chap. 1 § 6. * See above , Chap. 1. §. 4. n In sanctis nihil plus quàm corpus & sanguis Christi offeratur , ut ipse Dominus tradidit , hoc est panis & vinum , aquâ mixtum . Concil . Constant . apud Binium [ which Canon was made against the Aquarij ( those who would use no wine ) Can. 32. ] * See hereafter in the Sixt Booke , C. 5. §. 9 o See above , §. 6. ( x. ) * As is afterwards many wheres discovered . p Tertull. contra Marcion . l. 4. Id est , figura corporis . p. 291. q Cyprian . S●rm de Vnct. Et significantia , & significata ijsdem vocabulis censerentur . r Hier. lib. 1. contra Iovin . Typus sanguinis . s Gelasius contra Eutych . Quod in eius imagine profitemur . Apud Bibliothec. Patrū Tom. 5. p. 475. t Ambros . de Init. Myst . c. 9. Post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur — & 1. Cor. 11. mysterium esse typum sanguinis . u August . l. 3. de doct . Christ . c. 16. Figurativa locutio . Idem contra Adamant . Manich. cap. 12. Non dubitavit dicere [ Hoc est corpus meum ] cum signum daret corporis sui . Idem Tom. 2. Epist . 23. ad Bonifac. Sacramenta propter similitudinem earum rerum , quas repraesentant , plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt ; Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi , Corpus Christi , & Sacramentum sanguinis Christi , Sanguis Christi , it à Sacramentum fidei fides 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 eiusdem rei vocabulo nuncupavit . [ And Interpreting that which he called Fidei Sacramentum , He saith , Respondetur , Parvulum baptizatum credere propter fidei Sacramentum . ] * Afterwards Chap. 3. §. 6. x Isid . Hispalen : Panis , quem frangimus corpus Christi est , qui dicit , Ego sum panis vivus , &c. Vinum autem sanguis eius est , & hoc est quod scriptum est , Ego sum vitis vera : Sed panis , quia confirmat corpus ideò corpus Christi nuncupatur , vinum autem quià sanguinem operatur in carne , ideò ad sanguinem Christi refertur . — Haec autem sunt visibilia , sanctificata tamen per Spiritum Sanctum , in Sacramentum divini corporis transeunt . l. 1. de offic . c. 18. y Tert. advers . Marcion . l. 3. p. 180 ●er . 11. [ Venite , mittamus lignum in panem eius . ] Vtique in corpus , sic enim Deus in Evangelio , panem corpus suum appellans : ut & hinc iam intelligas corporis sui figuram panem dedisse , cuius ret●ò corpus in panem Propheta figuravit . * Lib. 3. throughout . * Lib. 6. Chap. 3. §. 2. a Primum Argumentum sumitur à materiâ , est enim materia , de quâ hic agitur , Pactum , Sacramentum , Testamentum Novum : fuisse à Domino institutum patet ex illis verbis [ Hic est calix Novi Testamenti in sanguine meo ] — I am verò nihil solet magis propriè , simplicitèr , aut exquisitè explicari quàm Testamentum , nè viz. detur occasio litigandi . Pacta seu foedera sunt etiam ex codemgenero , quae exquisitissimè & proprijs verbis explicantur , nèlocus ullus relinquatur cavillis . Sacramentum hoc effe , de quo agitur , nemo negat , — Sacramentum autem solere à Deo institui proprijs verbis , ut in corum usu non erretur . Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 9. §. Primùm & §. Deindè . & §. Porrò Sacramentum . b In ipsâ Scripturâ dicitur Testamentum & Instrumentum — Quia pacta Dei & foedera 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 , proprie loqui non posse , — Quandò sermo est de vitâ aeternâ , & praemio filiorum Dei , claris rebus comparatur , per Tropos est explicandus . — ut August . ait , Nullogenere locutionis , quod in consu●tudine humanâ reperitur , Scripturae non utuntur , quià utique hominibus loquuntur . Salmer . Ies . Proleg . l. 1. p. 3. & 4. & lib. 21. p. 371 , & 227 , 229 , 231 , 234. * See above , Chap. 2 Sect. 3. ( e , ) c See above , Chap. 2 Sect. 4. ( p. q. ) * Gen 49. d Verba Legum & praeceptorum debēt esse propria . Bellar. l. 1 de Euch. c. 9. §. Sequitur . * Luc. 22. 8. * Matth. 26. 27. e See above , Chap. 2 §. 4. ( l. ) f Praecipua dogmata &c. Bellar. quo sup . §. Denota . g Abulē in cum loc●● . Christus non laudat eos qui castrârunt se , sed qui se cast an t , concupiscentiam abscindedo — ut Chrys . Non membrorum abscisione sed malarum cogitationum increpatione : maledictioni nempè obnoxius , qui membrum sibi abscindit . Idem habet Hier. Addit Chrysost . super Matth. Abscissis vi●il●bus non tollitur cōcupiscentia ; Concupiscentia inde fit molestior . h Idem . Origines seipsum castravit , ut posset liberius praedica●e tempore Persecutionis , & s●●uriꝰ esse inter foeminas . Abul . super Matth. 5. qu. 250. p. 326. i Origen . Littera hae● occidit . in Levit. Hom. 7. k See above Chap. 2. §. 4. l Verus & literalis Sensus horū verborū 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 loco , nomine carnis , humana & carnalis cogitatio , ut distinguitur a spirituali cogitatione . Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Sed praeterea . * Gen. 3. 15. m Bell. Apostoli rudes & simplices erarie &c. Lib. 1 de Euch. 6. 9. §. Argumentum secundum . n Apostoli à Christo edocti fuerunt , & illuminati , ut cum summâ re●erētiâ Sacramentum hoc susciperent . Suarez . Ies . Tom. 3. Disp . 46 ▪ §. 3. o Nunquàm dimitcamus proprium verborum sensum , nisi cogamur ab aliquâ aliâ Scripturâ , &c. Bell. l. 1. de Euch , Cap. 9. §. Vltimò . * See above C. 2. §. 3. p See hereafter , B. 6. Chap. 3. §. 10. q See hereafter , B. 8. Chap. 4. r See above Chap. 1. §. 4. s Si praeceptiva locutio flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere , figurata est , ut [ nisi māducaveritis carnem meam ] facinus videtur iubere , ergo figura est , praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum , & suaviter , ac utiliter recolendum in memoria , quià pro nobis caro ●ius crucifixa , & vulnerata ●it , August . de Doctrina Christ. l. 3. c. 16. t See the last Booke Chap. 2. §. the last . * See hereafter , Cap. 4. §. 1. a Est conversio totius substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi , & totius substantiae vini in sanguinem , man●tibus duntaxat speciebus Panis , & Vini , quam quidem Conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissimè Transubstantiationem appellat . Conc. Trid. Sess . 13. Can. 〈◊〉 . b Ego N. N ▪ juro hanc Conversionem fieri , quam Catholica Ecclesia appellat ran●…stantiationē — Extrà quam fidē nemo salvus esse potest . Bulla Pij 4 super forma Iuramenti Prosessionis Fidei . c Transubstantiationem Protestantes esse sceleratam Haeresin dicunt . Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 11. a Vt definitur in Conc. Trid. Sess . 13. Can. 4. Ex sola veritate verborum [ Hoc est Corpus meum ] vera , ac propria Transubstantiatio colligitur . Vasquez . Ies . Disp . 176. c. 6. Verba tàm perse clara cogere possint hominem non protervum Transubstantiationem admittere , Bel. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. § Secundò . b Scotus , quem Cameracensis sequitur , — Dicunt non extare locū in Scripturis tàm expressum , ut sin● declaratiore Ecclesiae evidentèr cogat Transubstantiationem admittere . Atque hoc non est omninò improbabile , quià an it à 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 desinere esse , non tàm ex Evangelio , quàm ex Ecclesiae authoritate constare . Alan . lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. pag. 419. c See in the former Allegation at ( b. ) d Corpus Christi fieri per consecrationem , non probatur nudis Evangelij verbis , sin● pia interpretatione Ecclesiae . Roffens . Episc . con . Capt. Bab. cap. 9. pag. 99. e [ Hoc est ] pro Transit , Bonaventura docet . Idem ferè habet Occam , & Holcott , infinuat 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 significationem verbi [ Est ] quod si permittitur , nulla est vis in huiusmodi verbis ad probandam realem praesentiam nec substantiam Panis hîc non manere . Et ità potuit Haereticus exponere [ Hoc est ] id est , Repraesentat Corpus . Suarez . Jes . Tom. 3. qu. 78. Disp . 58. Sect. 7. A●t . 1. pag. 754. * See the former Booke throughout . f Fateor , neque Antiquos Patres usos esse hoc nòmine Transubstantiationis . Christoph . de Capite fontium , Archi●p . Caesar . lib. de reali Praesent . cap. 59. art . 4. g Conc. Lateran ense sub ▪ Innocentio Tertio coactum , ut Haereticis os obthuraret , Conversionem hanc novo & valdè significante verbo dixit Transubstantiationem . Alan . lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. p 422. As for that obiected place out of Cyrill of Alexandria Epist . ad Coelosyrium [ Convertens ea in yeritatem Carnis : ] It is answered by Vasquez the Iesuite ; non habetur illa Epistola inter opera Cyrilli . Vasquez . in 3. T●om . Tom. 3. num . 24. h Theoph. in Ioh. 6. De Christo perfidem manducato , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] i Calumniam hanc Patres Antiqui aptissimè confu●âtunt , atque ostend●runt non inventum fuisse hoc nomen [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] in Concilio Nicaeno , sed fuisse antè in usu Patrum ; at illud iam vocabulum vsur pari , quo sui Maiores usi fuissent . Bellarm. quo supra . c. 3. k Etsi veteres Ecclesiae Doctores non sint usi vo●● Trāsubstantiationis , tamen usi sunt vocibus idem significantibus , ut Conversioni● , Transmutationis , Transitionis , Transformationis , Transelementationis , & similibus . Lorich . Fortalit . fidei Tract . de Eucharist . §. Nota pro solutione Argumentorum . fol. 117. * 2. Cor. 3. 18. * 2 Cor. 11. 14. l Quicquid Spiritus Sanctus te●igerit , & Sanctificat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Cyrill . Hieros . Catech. 5. m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Nazianz. Orat. 40. p. 643. Edit . Paris . n Periculosa est vocum nova●um Libertas in Ecclesia , cum paulatim ex vocibus nov●… eriam res oriantur , cùm cuique licet in rebus Divinis nomina ●ingere . Bell. lib. d● Sacram. in Genere . c. 7. §. Ex quibus , * 1. Tim. 6. 20. * See above Chap. 1. §. 2. o Bell. l. 3. de Euch. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen . p Si quaeratur , qualis sit Conversio ( viz. Panis in Eucharistia ) an formalis , an substantialis , an alterius generis ; definire non sufficio . Quibusdam videtur esse substantialis , dicentibus substantiam converti in substantiam . Lomb. Sent. lib. 4. distinct . 11. lit . ( a. ) q Scotus dicit ante Concil . Lateranense non fuisse dogma fidei Transubstantiationem . Id ille dixit , quiá non legerat . Conc. Rom. sub Gregorio . 7. nec consensum Patrum , quem nos produximus . Bellar. lib. 3. de . Euchar. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen . r Ante trecentos Annos in Conc. Lateran . ad istius rei tàm admirabilis clariorem explicationem usurpatum fuit nomen Transubstantiationis : ut intelligant Christiani substantiam Panis in substantiam corporis Christi converti . Coster . Ies . Enchir c. 8. §. De Transubstantiatione . s Si nihil planè ad Doctrinam Ecclesiasticam spectans in Cone . Lateran . ex communi Patrum assensu Decretum esset sequeretur posse ●t falsum impugnari Articulum de Transubstantiatione . Card. Per. ensa Harangue au tiers Estats p. 33. As witnesseth our P. Preston alias Widdrington Discuss . Conc. Later . part . 1. §. 1. pag. 12. t Venêre multa in Consultationem , nec decerni quicquamtamen a ptè potuir , cò quòd Pontifex ( quo profectus est tollendae Discordiae gratiâ ) mortuus est Perusij . Platina in vita Innocentij . Decerni nihil apertè potuit , edira sū● quaedam , &c. Nauclerus Anno 1215. [ meaning after the Councell . ] Ad festum Sanctae Andreae protractum , nihil dignum memoriâ actum , nisi quod Orientalis Ecclesia , &c. Godfridus Monumetensis & Math. Paris Histor . minor . Concilium illud Generale , quod primâ fronte grandia prae se tulit , in risum , & scomma desijt , in quo Papa omnes accedentes Iudificatus est : illi enim , cum nihilin eo Concilio geri cernerent , redeundi veniam petierunt . Thus farre out of Widdrington alias Preston , in his Booke above cited . u Scholastici quidam haue Doctrinam de Transubstantiatione non valde Antiquam esse dixerunt : inter quos Scotus , & Gabriel Biel. Suarez Ies . Tom. 3. Disp . 50 §. 1. 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. y Mr. Breerly in his Liturgie Tract . 2. §. 11. pag. 158. a Conc. Trid. dicit , fieri Conversionem totius substantiae Panis , id est , tàm formae , quàm materiae in Substantiam Corporis Christi . Bell. lib. 3. de Eucharist . Chap. 18. §. Si Objicias . Concil . Trid. Sess . 13. Cap. 4. b Productio est , quandò Terminu● ad quem non existir , & ideò vi Conversionis necessariò producitur , ut aqua in vinum : Adductiva auterm , &c. Bell. ibid. §. Secundò notandum . — Productiva non est , quià Corpus Domini praeexistit . Idem ibid. §. Exhis . c De rarione Transubstantiationis non est , ut Substantia , in quam dicitur fieri Transubstantiatio , producatur aut conservetur perillam : imò qui hoc modo defendunt Transubstantiationem in Sacramento , ad quod dam genus Philosophiae excogitatum , potius quam ad verum & necessarium , rem reducere videntur . Vasq Ies . To. 2. disp . 214. c. 4. d Praeter Adductiuam Conversionem evidentèr refutavimus omnes modos Conversionis , qui vel dici , vel fingi possunt . Suarez Ies . Tom. 3. qu. 7● . disp . 50 §. 5 §. Tertio Principaliter . [ M. Fisher in his Reioynder talketh fondly of a Reproduction , as of Careases converted into men , in which Change any One may see that as much as is Produced is not Extant , for Dust is not Flesh . But since he cannot apply this Reproduction to Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ , his Answer is impertinent , and he may be produced for an idle Disputer . ] e Si Terminus ad quem Corpus Christi existat , sed non in co loco ubi Terminus à quo ( i. e. Panis ) tum ui Conversionis adducetur ad eum locum . Indè vocatur Conversio adductiva : nam corpus Christi praeexistit antè Conversionem , sed non sub speciebus Panis . Conversio igitur non facit ut corpus Christi simplicitèr esse incipiat , sed ut incipiat esse sub speciebus : non quod per motum localem è Coelo Adducatur , sed solùm quià per hanc cōversionē fit , ut quod ante erat solùm in Coelo , iam fit sub speciebus Panis . Nec haec Accidentalis Conversio , sed substantialis dicta est , quià substantia Panis definit esse , & substantia corporis Christi succedit Pani . Proindè Substantia in Substantiam transit . Talis est Conversio Cibi in hominem , per nutritionē ; nam anima non producitur sed tantùm per nutritionem fit , ut incipiat esse in ea materia , ubi anteà erat forma Cibi . Bel. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18. f Fuerunt huius sententiae Alens . Bonavent . Marsil — dicunt per hanc Cōversionem Corpus non accipere esse , sed accipere esse hîc ; necmultum discordat Thomas . Denique moderni subscribentes contra Haereti●os libentèr hanc sententiam amplectuntur , quià facilitatem quandam prae se fert , ut videre licet apud Ioh. Hessels , Claud. Guil. Paris , & Bellar. As witnesseth Suarez . qu● sup . disp . 50. §. 44. p. 635. Cùm Panis substantialiter mu●etur , it à ut desinat esse , haec Conversio est Substantialis , non Accidentalis . 2. Corpus Christi est substantia , quae succedit Pani , proindè substantia transit in substantiam . — & dicunt conversionem Adductivam esse quandò quod adducitur acquirit esse sub speciebus Panis — Bellar. qu●supr● . § Respondeo 1. — Cedere Corpori , in ratione existendi est propriè Converti in ipsum , & per Consequens fit vera in Carnem Transmutatio . Alan . lib. 1. de . Euch. cap. 34. g Dixi Conversionem Panis in Corpus Christi esse Adductivam , quod dictum video à nonnullis esse perperàm acceptum , qui indè non Transubstantiationem , 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 inhaerentia . Bellar. Recog . in lib. 2. de Euch. p. 81. h Per solam Adductivam actionem reverà non explicatur vera Conversio Substantialis & Transubstātiatio , sed ●an●●m Trāslocatio quaedam : quandò una Substantiasuccedit loco alterius , non potest propriè dici unam converti in aliam . Suarez . loco citat . p. 639. i Dico Corpus Christi ex pane fieri , non tanquàm ex materia , sed tanquàm à Termino à quo , ut mundus ex nihilo , [ then confuting himselfe ] e●iam ut ex aqua vinum ( that was not ex nihilo . ) In pr●senti negotio , Conversio non est Productiva . Panis enim cōvertitur in Corpus Christi praeexistens : ergò Corpus Christi factum ex Pane , & ex Carne est idem . Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Ad Tertium . k Alphonsus de Castro lib. 4. Ti● . Christꝰ . haeres . 2. Manichaei di●erūt Christū non ex utero Virginis prodijsse ; Et Apollinaris dixit Christū nō assumpsisse carnē ex Virgine . Item . Chiliastae , Democritae , Melchioritae , & Proclianitae . Prateolus in Elench . Haeret. suis quique titul●s . l Homily on Easter day , pag. 35. * See Booke 4. C. 4. §. 〈◊〉 . in the Challenge . * See above , Booke 2. Chap. 1. § 4. m Si quis dixerit remanere Substantiā Panis , Anathema sit . Conc. Trident. Sess . 13. Can. 2. n Panis etsi non annihiletur , tamen manet nihil in se ; ut Aqua post Conversionem in vinum . Neque obstat , quod fortè materia manserit , nā materia non est Aqua . Prima Conditio in vera Conversione est , utid , quod convertitur , desinat esse . Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 18. §. Igitur . & cap. 24 §. Ad Alterum . * 1. Cor. 11. 26 , 27. & 10. 16. * 1. Cor. 11. 21. o Archiep. Cabasila . Latini nostros rehendunt , quòd post illa verba [ Hoc est Corpus meum ] Panem & Vinum nominant , &c. Exposit . Liturg . c. 29. * Matth. 26. 29. p Origenes , Cyprianus , Chrysost . August . Hieron . Epiphan . Beda , Euthym. Theoph. [ Genimen vitis ] ad sanguinem Christi referunt — Maldon . Ies . Com. in eum locum ; where hee addeth : Persuadere mihi non possum haec verba ad Sanguinem esse referenda . — Hoc Patres , sed alio sensu à Calvinistis , qui dicunt Christum vinū appellâsse , quià vinum erat ; sed Patres vocaruntsanguinem Vinum , sicut Christus Carnem 10. 6. vocabat Panem . Maldo . in eund . locum . Haec , nè illi Calvinistarum errori affinis esse videatur . Maldon . Ibid. q Novum promisit , id est , Novum quendam modum sumptionis in regno , id est , post resurrectionem , quando Cibum sumpsit corporalem . Theoph. in Matth. 26. [ Bibite ex Hoc omnes : ] & , non Bibam amodò , &c. ] quâ in parte inveni●us vinum fuisse , quod sanguinem suum dixit , vndè apparet sanguinem Christi non offerti , si desit Vinum Calic● ▪ Cyprian . ad Cecil . Epist . 63. paulò ante medium , & Epiphan , contra Encratit . Qui aquam solùm adhibuerunt in Eucharist●… , ut dicant vino quoque utendum : In hoc sermone Domini ( inquit ) redarguuntur [ non bibam defructu hujus Vitis . ] Epiphan . Tom 2. lib. 2. [ Non bibam degenimine hujus Vitis . ] Christus post resurrectionem , n● putaretur Phantasia , comedit , undè Apostoli dixerunt , Act. 10. [ Comedimus , & Bibimus eum eo ] Sed cujus rei gratiâ non Aquam , sed Vinum bib it ? ad perniciosam Haeresin radicitus evellendam eorum qui Aquâ in mysterijs utuntur . [ Ex genimine Vitis : ] Certè Vinum non Aqùam producit . Chrysost . in eum locum Hom. 83. r August . de dogmat . Eccles . c. 75 Vinum fuit in redemptionis nostrae mysterijs , cum dixit [ non bibam . ] s Clem. Alex. Quòd Vinum esset , quod benedictum fuit , oftendit rursus dicens , [ Non bibam de fructu Vitis . ] Lib. Paedag. 2. cap. 11. sub finem . t Cum Matthaeus , & Marcus nullius alterius Calicis fecerint mentionem praeter sacri , quòd dicitur [ De genimine Vitis ] nullus alius Calix intelligi potest ab ijs demonstratus , quàm cujus meminerant — Et omninò videtur ex Matthaeo & Marco dictum hoc post consecrationem . Iansen . Episc . Concord . in cum locum , p. 914 col . 2. * See above , Booke 1. Chap. 3. §. 10. * See above , Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. And here above in the Margent . u Panis quià confirmat Corpus , ideò Corpus Christi nominatur : Vinum autem , quià sanguinem operatur , ideò ad sanguinem refertur . Haecautem 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. ) * Substantia Panis non pertinet ullo modo ad rationem Sacramenti , sed solùm Accidentia . Beilar . Lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 23. §. Respondeo substantiam . * 1. Cor. 10 17. y Vnus Panis , unū Corpus multi sumus , nam omnes in uno Pane participamus . ] Significatur vnitas fidei in vnitate Panis , ac unitate Corporis Metaphoricè , ad similitudinem multorū granorum , ex quibus con●icitur Corpus vnum . Et attulit Panē propter id , quod dixit [ Panis quem frangimus ] Caietan . Card. in ●um locum . pag. 137. z Vnum Ecclesiae corpus ex multis mēbris compositum est : nullâ re elucet ea Coniunctio magis , quàm Panis Vinique elementis . Panis enim ex multis granis conficitur , & Vinum ex multitudine racemorum existit . Ità fidelis , &c. Catech. Roman . part . 2. de Euch. pag. 177. a Augustinus . Dominus noster Christus , inquit , Corpus suum in ijs rebus commendavit , quae ad unum aliquod rediguntur : ex multis enim granis Panis efficitur , ex multis racemis unum Corpus confluit ; ut●ntur hac similitudine Sancti propè omnes Doctores . Teste Bozio de Signis Ecclesiae Tom. 2. lib. 14. cap. 6. b Consequentie Christ● , affirmativè sumpta , Hoc pa patur , hoc videtur , Ergo est Corpus , optima fuit , quià sensus non fallitur Circa proprium Obiectum : itaque 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 objecta . Sed cum Panis Substantiam sub illis Accidentibus latere denuntiant , falluntur . Dominus solùm probare voluit se nō esse inane spectrum , seu Phantasma , sed verum Corpus ; id quod ex Testimonio sensus Tangendi optimè probavit . Illud autem Corpus esse humanum , idem quod anteà fuerat , non probavit Dominus hoc solo Argumento , ex Tangendi sensu desumpto ( quod sine dub●o non erat sufficiens ) sed multis alijs modis , loquendo , mandueando , testimonio Angelorum , miraculo Piscium , allegatione Scripturarum . Bellar. 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . de Euch. c. 14. §. Respondeo . * 1. Cor 15. * Ioh. 20. 27. c Optimè Origines , Ostendit se Christus in vero Corpore suo resuscitatum . Tolet. Ies . in Ioh. c. 20. p. 534. d Probatum est , Christum idem Corpus numero demonstrâsse . Suarez ●es . Tom. 2. qu. 54. § 1. * 1. Cor. 15. 5. * 1. Ioh. 1. 1. * Iohn 20. 29. e Illud sine dubitatione dicere non verebor , non posse ab vllo Daemone formari corpus adeò simile humano , ut siquis cum curâ 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 qua●●or Argumentis confirmabo — Hoc ve●issimum esse patet ex eo , quod Christus dixit discipulis s●is [ Palpate & videte : ] & Thomae [ Affer digitum , &c. ] Perer . ●es . in Gen. 6. num . 78. p. 2. f Si Discipuli Christi non potuissent Christi vera ossa & carnes discernere , mollitiem , & duritiē eorum , non dixisset ijs [ Palpate , & Videre ] ac si diceret , Palpate , & Percipite veras carnes & ossa . Vasquez . Ies . Tom. 2. qu. 51. Art. 2. disp . 184. cap 2. p. 487. Thomas dicit fingula Argumenta non fuisse per se sufficientia , benè tamen coniuncta probari cum testimonijs Prophetarum . — Ego tamen cùm Cajetano Argumentum illud Tactus efficacissimum fuisse ad comprobandam ve●itatem Corporis humani in Christo . Idem ibid. g Illud Thomae [ non credam , &c. ] pertinaciae & obdurationis vitium erat , & peccatum Infidelitatis . Optimè Orig : lib. 2. con . Celsum , vbi 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 adiunxit , [ Nisi infero manum in vestigia Clavorum . ] Tolet. Ies . Com. in Ioh. 20. h Aug. de tempore . Si forte , inquit , Diceremus Thomae oculos fuisse deceptos , at non possemus dicere manus frustratas ▪ de Tactu non potest dubita●i . Et Greg. Pont. Plus nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem , quàm fides credentium Disscipulorum profuit , quià dubius ille Carnem palpando ad fidem reducitur , mens nostra omni dubitatione postpositâ . Teste Maldon . Ies . Com. in Jo● . 20. i See above at ( b. ) k Eranistes apud Theod. Quià sicut Panis desinit esse Panis post Consecrationē , sed mutatur in substantiam Corporis Christi . Ità 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 naturâ suâ , manent enim in priori suâ formâ , figurâ , & substantiâ . Theod. Dial. 2. Cap. 24. * See hereafter , Sect. 12. l Beda ex Augusti no , Serm. ad Infantes , in cap. 10. ad Cor. fol. 1●9 . apud Bedam . Quod vidistis Panis est , quod oculi vestri renunciant , quod autem fides vestra , &c. Sicut ex multis granis tri●ici vnus Panis : Ità ex multitudine fidelium , vna as●urgit Ecclesia . m Tertul. de Animâ . cap. 7. ad finem . Quid agis , Academice procacissime ? totū vitae statum evertis , ipsius Dei providentiam excoecas — non licet in dubium Sensus istos revocare , nè & in Christo de fide eorum deliberetur , nè forte dicatur , quod falsò Patris vocem audierit de ipso testificatam , aut deceptus sit , cum Petri socrum tetigit : aut alium posteà vnguenti senserit spiritum , quod in sepulturam suam acceptavit : alium posteà Vini saporem , quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit . Sic enim & Marcion Phantasma ●um maluit credere , totius corporis in eo dedignatus veritatem : Atqui nè in Apostolis quidem ludificata natura est , fidelis fuit & visus , & auditus in Monte , fidelis & gustus Vini in nuptijs , fidelis tactus Thomae : Recita testationem Iohannis ; Quod audivimus , inquit , quod oculis vidimus , & manus nost●ae contrectarunt de sermonevitae . Falsa vtique testatio , si ●culorum & aurium , & manuum sensus natura mentitur . * Luc. 24. 16. * Ib. vers . 31. * Hieron . ad Pammach : contra Err●res Iohan. Ierusal . Episc . Scias errorem fuisse non Corporis Domini , sed oculorum fuis●e clausorum : nam aperti sunt oculi eorum , & videbant . n ( 1 ) & ( 2 ) 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 not at eos , qui post Consecrationem oblationes suas vendicantes inebriarentur . Aquin. ibid. ( 3. ) Archiepiscopus Eboracensis hausto in ipso Calice ( ut aiunt ) veneno obijt , Matth. Paris . Anno 1154. in vita Steph. ●tem , Victor Tertius veneno Calici primae Missae mixto perijt , Malmsbur . lib. 3. cap. 39. & Volaterr . lib. 23. Henricus Lucelburg . Imp. cùm Eucharistiam acciperet â Fratre ordinis Praedicatorum Bernardo à Florentinis , & à Siciliae rege subornato , illicò caepitaegrotare : ferebatur Monachus sub unguibus venenum habuisse , quo & Calicem , & Hostiam infecerat : mox obijt Imperator , & Beneventi animam Deo reddid●t , Anno 1313. Cuspinian . & Valater . lib. 23. ( ut refert Zuingerus . ) ( 4 ) Quod vermes generantur ex Sacramento dubium non est , cum experimentis conster . Difficultas ergo circa modum est . Suarez . Ies . Tom. 3. qu. 77. Art. 5 Disp . 57. pag. 427. Alij ex aere vermes generari dicunt . Thomas refert hanc ●pinionem , sed dicit eam esse contrariam ei , quod ad sensum apparet : quod reverà ità est , satisque ab ipso quatuor rationibus confirmatur . Suarez . ibid. ( 5 ) Generatio , & Nutritio fit ex quantitate Panis , quae divinitùs locum tenet materiae Panis , ut Thomas explicat . Greg. de Valent. Ies . lib. 2. Exam. mystag . Calvin . pag. 446. Nullam esse necessariam materiam , sed solam quantitatem sufficere , ut subster formae substantiali advenienti , sive de potentia eius educatur , sive per nutritionem varietur . Sic Thomas , & Alij . Fundamentum huius opinionis est , quià conveni●ntèr hic modus est sine novis Miraculis . Haec opinio videtur falsa mihi om ninò , & incredibilis . — Dicendum est , necessariam esse omninò aliquam materiam , ex qua Generatio fiat , quià deratione essentiali huius Compositi est substantialis materia ; propter quod Aristoteles dicit , Impossible esse Substantiam componi à non substantiâ . Ergo impossibile est , ut Quantitas aleretur ad proprium munus Materiae , & substantialem Causalitatem eius . Suarez . quo supra Disp . 57. Art. 8. §. 〈◊〉 . 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 finè necessitate . ( 6 ) Mihi tamen videtur eandem numero esse . — Etiam iuxtâ quorundam veterum Sententiam , Alens . Bonavent . Innocent . nec maius est miraculum , sivè eandem , sivè materiam novam facere . Suarez . ibid. o Quomodò fiat haec materia . — Thomistae aliquot dicunt per Conversionem aliquam in ipsum Panem : Alij iterùm Creari ; & hoc verius . Suarez . quo supra . p See above at ( n ) num . 3. q Platina in vita Victoris . Henrici Regis fraude ( ut Martinus scribit ) veneno in Calicem iniecto , dum sacrificat , necatur . See also above at ( n ) num . 3. * In Cella Vicaria , novis vinis impletâ , solus A●r odore infectus inebriat . Coster . Ies . Christian . Institut . lib. 1. c. 8. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Iustin . E●posit . Fidei . r Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. Sicut Panis , qui est à terrâ , iam non Communis Panis est , sed Eucharistia , ex duabus rebus constans terrenâ , & caelesti : Sic Corpora nostra participantia Eucharistiam iam non sunt Corruptibilia , sed spem Resurrectionis habentia . s Origen . in Math. 15. Ille Cibus , qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei & Orationem , iuxtà id quod habet materiale in secessum emittitur . And after hee calleth this [ Materiale ] Materia Panis , super quem dictus est Sermo . Ibid. * Liturg. Tract . 2. §. 11. Subd . 3. t Ambros . l. 4. de Sacram . cap. 4. Quanto magis est operatorius sermo Christi , ut sint quae erant , & in aliud convertantur ? — Tu eras vetus Creatura , pos●quam Consecratus , nova Creatura esse coepisti . * See below , Chap. 4. Sect. 2. at the let ( c. ) u Cyprian . lib. de Vnctione . Dedit Dominus noster in mensâ , in qua ultimum Convivium cùm Apostolis participavir , proprijs manibus Panem & Vinum : in Cruce verò manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum , ut in Apostolis secretiùs impressa sincera veritas & vera sinceritas exponeret Gentibus , quomodò Panis & Vinum Caro eius essent & sanguis , & quibus rationibus Causae effectis convenirent , & diversa nomina , vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam , ut significantia & significata eisdem vocabulis conserentur . * Causabon Exercit . ad Baronij Annal. c. 38. Ignatius Epist . ad Ephes . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ad Philadelph . de Eacharistia loquens ; Panis , inquit , omnibus [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] Comminutus est . Vox haec propriè de ijs vsurpatur , quae in minutas partes comminuuntur : Sunt qui cas micas vocant . August . in Epist . 59. ad Paulinum ; Cum illud , ait , quod est in Domini mensâ benedicitur , & Sanctificatur , ad distribuendum comminuitur . Idem Casaub . quo supra . cap. 50. Osim in Ecclesia partes divisas vocabant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potiùs , quàm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Patres in Synod . Nicaen . Can. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Yea , and Baronius himselfe , Anno 57. nu . 149. Eucharistiae partes , Tert. de Monog . Buccellas : & August . ac Alij Particulas vocant . * Belowe in the fourth Booke . Ch. 9. y Hieron . in 1. Cor. 11. Dominus passionis suae ultimam nobis Commemorationem , & memoriam reliquit , quemad modùm siquis peregrè proficiscens aliquod pignus ei , quem diligit , derelinquat , ut possit eius amicitias , & benficia commemorate . z Gaudent Tract . 20. Christus crucifigendus istud haereditarium munus Testamenti eius Novi , tanquàm Pignus suae Praesentiae , dereliquit . a Th●●d . Dial. 2. c. 24. Non post sanctificationē mystica signa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Paulo post . Sic illud Corpus Christi priorē habet Formam , Figuram , Circumscriptionem , & ( ut summatim dicam ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] etiamsi post resurrectionem immortale , & immune ab omni corruptione . b Non loquitur de substantiâ quae distinguitur contra Accidentia , & quam in Categoricâ posuit Aristoteles ; sed de Essentiâ , & naturâ Accidentium . Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch c. 27. §. Sed me . * 1. Cor. 15. 〈◊〉 . c Alphonsus à Castro de haeres . Eutych . Negabant Christum habuisse naturam humanam ; tantùm i● eo ponentes naturā divinam . * Alter hircū mulge● : alter cribram supponit . * Vid . Protestants Appeale , Booke 2. Ch. 2. § ●0 . d In his Liturgie of the Masse . Tract . 2. §. 2 subd . 3 p. 254. * Not so , for he was now not in a personall dispute , but deliberately writing against the Heresie of the Eutychians . * Valent. Ies . lib. 2. de Transub . c. 7. Dabimus aliud breve , & simplex , & sine ullo incommodo responsum . Enimverò antequam quaestio ista de Transubstantiatione palàm in Ecclesia agitaretur , minime mirùm est si unus , aut alter , aut etiam aliqui minùs considerate , & rectè hac de resenserint , & scripserint ; maximè cum non tractarent ex instituto ipsam quaestionē . e Non fuit hic Papa Gelasius , ut Adversarij impudentèr iactant ; sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episcopus . Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 27. f Baronius himselfe contendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius Anno 496. num . 123. &c. yet comming to answer to the Sentence of Gelasius , doth expound the doubtfull wordes thereof 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 vsu verborū Phrasiqúè dicendi Gelasij Papae , & alia eius sententia perspicuè demonstratum esse , &c. Et Anno 496. num . 13. Gelas . in Epist . ad Picen . ait , Peccato Originali substantiam hominis esse depravatam , cum tamen eadem substantia mansit , & Accidentia ; utpote iustitia originalis , & alia dona erant corrupta . g Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutychetem . Genad . de scriptoribus Eccles . c. 14. Anastas . de vita Gelasij . Margarinus de la Bigne lib. 5. Biblioth . Patrum p. 467. Masson . de Episc . Rom. in vita Gelasij . Alphons . lib. de haeres . T it Christus . haeres . 3. in fine . Onuphrius de Creat . Pontif. & Cardin. Gelasius ( inquit ) scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem , & Nestorium . Fu●sse Caesariensem Episcopum , non posse jure affirmari , videtur . And proveth , why not . h Gelasius lib. de duab . natur . cont . Eutych . Sacramenta certa , quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis Christi divina res est , propter quod per eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae , & tamen non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis , & vini ; & certè imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in Actione mysticâ celebratur . And againe . Permanentin proprietate naturae . i Bellar. & Baron . quo suprà . At dicit Gelasius , In Divinam t●anseunt Spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam , permanent tamen suâ proprietate naturae . [ By this it may be seene , indeed , that this Gelasius was a Latine Authour , ( but what is this to the Greeke Theodoret ? ) when the Latine Language was not so perfect , and that he did use the word equivocally , but yet so , that the matter it selfe doth challenge a proper use thereof , when he speaketh of the Substance of Bread. ] k Master Brereley Liturg. Tract . 2. §. 2. Subd . 3. p. 259. l Greg. Nyssen . Aquam per benedictionem sic mutari , ut divinum Lavacrū sit , à quò mirabiles existunt effectus . Orat. de Baptismo . m Dionys . Hierarch . Eccles . cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . §. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . n Chrysost . Ante Consecrationem Panem vocamus , Divina verò gratiâ Sacerdotis ministerio sanctificatur , & digna appellatione Dominici Corporis habetur , etsi natura Panis in ipso permansit . Epist . ad Caesar . o So our Peter Martyr . p So your Stephen Gardiner , Bishop of Winchester , lib 2. de Euch. as he is cited . q Author operis imperfecti , in Math. hom . 11. Si ergò haec vasa sanctificata ad priuatos usus transferre sit periculosum , in quibus non est Corpus Christi , sed mysterium Corporis eius continetur ; quantò magis vasa Corporis nostri , quae sibi Deus ad habitandum praeparavit ? r Dr. Iames in his Specimen corruptelarum , &c. Haec verba habentur in editione Antwerpianâ . Anno 1537. apud Ioh. Steelsium , & in Parisiensi An. 1543. apud Ioh. Roydwey , ut in Parisiensi aliâ apud Andraeam Parvum , Anno 1557. s Bertramus Gallus circa Annum Domini . 810. de Corpore & Sang. Christi : Prohibitum est omninò à Clemente Octavo in postremo Indice librorum prohibitorum . Possevin . Apparat. Tit. Bertram . t Bertramus vult Eucharistiam esse Panis & Vini substantiam , quae figuram , similitudinem , & appellationem Sanguinis Christi gerit . Senenens . Biblioth lib. 6. Anno 196. u Bertramus . Secundùm Creaturarum substantiam , quod fuerant ante Consecrationem , hoc & posteà consistunt : Panis & Vinum prius extitêre , in qua etiam specie consecrata sunt , permanere videntur . de Corpore Domini , pag. 38. x Animadvertat ( Clarissime Princeps ) sapientia vestra quod positis Scripturarum sacrarum testimonijs , & Patrum dictis &c. Idem . pag. 65. y Iudicium Vniversitatis Duacensis . Bertram Ca●holicus Presbyter , & Monachus Corvinensis — In Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores , & extenu●mus , excusemus , excogitato Commento saepè negemus , & Commodum eis sensum affingamus , dum obijciuntur in Disputationibus cum Adversarijs . Index Expurg . iuxta Conc. Trid. Decret . 2. Philip. 2. Reg. Hispan . iussu Anno 1571. z Bertramus Presbyter , qui in divinis Scripturis valdè peritus , non minùs vitâ , quàm doctrinâ infignis , multa sciripsit praeclara Opuscula , de quibus ad meam notitiam pauca pervenerunt . Ad Carolum Regem fratrem Lotharij Imp. scripsit Commendabile opus de Praedestinatione ; & libru●… unum de Corpore , & Sanguine Domini . Trithem . Abbas . a Ambros . Se●ino Christi , qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat , non potest ea quae sunt in id mutate , quod non erant &c. De myster . initiand . c. 9 — At omnipotentia non requiritur , ad faciendum ut res aliquid significet . Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 14. Ambrosius ostendit multis miraculis in Eucharistia nō esse id quod natura formavit , sed quod Benedictio cō . secravit . Idem . Ibid. c. 24. §. Posterior . & Aug. lib. 3. de Tr●…tate , cap. 4. b Ex Cyprian de Coena Domini . §. Secundum . — Panis iste non effigie , sed naturâ mutatus omporentiâ verbi factus est Caro. Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas apparebat , & latebat Divinitas ▪ ità Sacramento visibili divina se effundit essentia . Ob. Bellar . 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 shew . ] c Aug. de Trinitate , lib. 3. Non sanctificat ut sit magnum Sacramentum , nisi operante spiritu Dei , quae per illos cum haec omnia Corporales motus sint , Deus operatur . Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Sed Paulo . d Chrysost . hom . 83. Non sunt humanae virtutis haec opera , quae tune in illâ Coenâ confecit , ipse nunc quoque operatur , ipse perficit , ministrorum nos ordinem tenemus : qui vera haec sanctificat atque transmutat ipse est . This is obiected by Mr. Breerly , Tract . 2. §. 2. Subd . 2. pag. 111 Liturg. e See above in his obiecting of Ambrose . f Calvin . Semper memoriâ repetendum est Sacramenta nihil quàm Instrumentales esse conferendae nobis gratiae Causas . Antid . in Conc. Trid. Sess . 7. Can. 5. g Solus Deus ( communi Consensu ) instituere Sacramenta ex authoritate potest , quae gratiam efficiunt , aut etiam infallibiliter significant . Bellar. lib 1. de Sacram in gen . cap. 23. h Card. Alan . de Sacram. in Gen. c. 17. 〈◊〉 18. Sacramenti Institutionem neque ad Pontificem , neque ad ullam Creaturā pertinere : nec hoc solum sed etiam , &c. — propter solam significationem Gratiae , quain Sacramentis omnibus Communem diximus , debebant eriam vetera Sacramenta determinari per appplicationem n●ortis Christi : quià licet quidem in Creaturis , ad signationem effectuum spiritualium , aptitudo quaedam sit , t●men ista aptitudo non nisi à divinainstitutione determinatur ad peculiarem effectum . Habet enim Aqua ex natura sua ut munditiem significet , at ut determinatè purgationem animae à peccato originali significet , & hominis sanctificationem repraesentet ; divinaetantùm institutionis est , per quam elevatur Creatura haec supra naturae consu●tudinem , non solùm quoad vim operandi , sed etiam significandi . Non potest Sacramentum nisi à solo Deo Ordinari , quià habent Sacramenta Supernaturalem Effectum , ut in veterilege , quae dabant munditiem legalem . These ( hee saith ) that hee speaketh , Ex Theologorum Sententia . * Booke 2. Chap. 2 §. 7. i Ambros . lib. 4. de Sacram c. 4. Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini , ut incipiant esse quae non erant , quantò magis Operatorius est , ut sint quae erant , & in aliud conuertantur 〈◊〉 — Tu ipse eras vetushomo , postquàm consecratus eras , novus homo esse coepisti . k These wordes are wanting in the Roman and Paris Editions Anno 1603. As Bishop Vsher witnesseth in his Answer to the Iesuite . l See above at ( i. ) m Per Benedictionē natura ipsa mutatur . Ambros . De ijs qui mysterijs initiantur . where C. 9. ●e addeth , for Explication ; Corpus significatur . n Lindan . Aurea prors● sunt Divi Cypriani verba — h●c mihi advigilate , Evangelici , & Divum Cyprianum orbis totius Doctorem , imò miraculum , iudicem incorruptibilem audite . lib. 4 cap. 6. o Hoc Testimonium nullam admittit Solutionem . Bellar . lib. 2. de Euch. c. 9. §. Secundum . p Master Brerely Liturg. Praef. § 14 pag. 51. q Author illius de Coena Domini non est Cyprianus , sed aliquis post eum . Bellar . lib. 2. de Euch. c. 9. §. Extet . r Cyprian . de Coenae Dom. Panis iste naturâ mutatus omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro , &c. * Ephes . 2. 3. August . Ipsam naturam aliter dicens : cum proptièloquimur naturam hominis inculpabilis factus est . * Liturg. Tract . 4. §. 6. s Et sicut in person● Christi humanitas videbatur , & latebat Divinitas ; ità Sacramento visibili ineffabilitèr divina se effundit essentia . Author C●n● . Ibid. §. Quarto . * Rom. 1. 16. t Greg. Nyssen . Orat . de Baptismo . Divinum Lavacrum magnum quid operatur per Benedictionem , & mirabiles producit Effectus . a Irenaeus lib. 4. contra Her. c. 34. Non est Panis Cōmunis . Bellar . Obijcit l. 2. de Euch. per totum . b Sol. Chrysost . in Ps . 22. hom . 16. De aqua Baptismi . Non est aqua Communis . * See in this Sect. lit . ( 〈◊〉 . h ) d Bellar. Ob. Iustin . Mart. l. 2. Apol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Sol. Ratio . quià 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , id est , Eucharisticatus , sivè sanctificatus Cibus . e Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 1● . Ob. Cyril . Hieros . Catech. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Sol. Idem Catech. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . f Ob Cyri●● . mystag . 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . g Sol. Sequitur : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Idem Cat●… . Mystag . 3. h Greg. Nyssen . Altare hoc sanctum , cui adfistimus , lapis est naturâ Communis , nihil differēs ab alijs crustis lapideis , ex quibus pavimeta nostra exornantur : Sed quoniam Dei cultui consecratur , & dedicatur , & benedictionem accepit , mensa facta , & Altare immacula●um est . Orat. de Sancto Baptisme . Et nè contemnas divinum Lavacrum , neque id Commune putes , &c. i Cyrilli Testimonium vel solum sufficere deberet , est n. huius Sancti , & antiquissimi , & ex opere eius indubitato , & clarissimum & apertissimum , ut nullo modo perverti possit ; & est in Catechesi , in quâ solēt omnia propriè & simplicitèr explicari , & deniqué nemo unquā reprehendit Cyrillum erroris alicuius circa Eucharistiam . Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 13. k Cyril . Pro certissimo habeas Panē hunc , qui videtur à nobis , Panem non esse , etiamsi gustus Panem esse senserit , sed esse Corpus Christi — Rursus . Christus cui credamus , Panem in Corpus Transmutavi● — Nam sub specie Panis datur tibi corpus : sub specie Vini datur tibi sanguis . Catech . Mystag . 4. l Cyrillus apertè ponit Transmutationem Panis in corpus Christi , & solas species Panis remanere post Transmutationem , quià dicit Corpus Domini sub spec●e Panis sumi , distinguens Corpusd Pane. Bellar l●… de Euch. cap. 13. adding ; Hoc est Apertissimum Argumentum . * Liturg. Tract . 2. §. 2. Sub'd . 4. pag. 116. m Cyril . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Catech. Mystag . 4. Rursus . Mystag . 5. Non existimetis vos gustare Panem , & Vinum , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . n Bellar. Hoc confirmat sententiam 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 . Lib. 2. de Euch. C. 13. o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Cyril . Catc●● . Mystag . 3. p Bellar. lib. 2. de Buch. c. 22. q Master Brereley , Liturg. Tract . 2. §. 4. Subd . 2. pag. 167. r Chrysost . in Matth. Hom. 83. 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 iacent aspicientes , sed verba tenentes ? nam verbis eius defraudari non possumus , sed sensus saepi● fallitur . Quoniam igitur ille dixit [ Hoc est Corpus meum ] nulla dubitatione teneamus , sed credamus , nihil enim insensibile traditur à Christo nobis , sed in rebus sensibilibus . Omnia verò , quae tradidit , sunt insensibilia ; sicut in Baptismo per Aquam donum illud conceditur — Regeperatio intelligitur , quià est : nam si incorporeus esses , incorporea tibi tradisset dona ; quoniam verò anima conjuncta est Corpori , in sensibilibus intelligibilia tibi tradidit . s Bellar. Non po●uisset sanè Chrysostomus loqui clariù's , si Calvinistā aliquem habuisset , quem hor●ari ad fidem voluisset . Ibid. quo supra . t Non sunt Concionatorum verba in rigore accipi●nda , quùm primùm ad aures perveniant , multa enim per Hyperbolen Declamatores enunciant : ●●c interdum Chrysostomo contingit . Senensis Biblioth . Annot. 152 u Dentes Carni suae infigere Chrysost . hom . 45. in Ioh. Lingua cruentatur hoc admi●abili Sanguine . Hom. 83. in Matth. Turbam circūfusam rubifieri . Lib. 3. de Sacerdotio . x Num vides Panem ? num vinum ? nè putetis Corpus acc●pereab homine , sed ex ipso Sera●hinforcipe ignem . Idem . Tō . 3. de Euch. in Encaenijs . y Sacramentū est invisibilis gratiae signum visibile . Magist . Senten . lib 4. dist . 1. Sacramentum est res sensibus obiecta . Ca. tech. Trid. Teste Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacram. c. 11. z Sensus non fallitur circà proprium obiectum . Sententia vera . Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. a Sicut in Baptismo &c. Chrysost . See above §. 5. at ( r. ) * See hereafter at large , in the 8. Booke . * See above Chap. 3. §. 13. b Nos per hunc Panem vnione coniungimur . Chrysost . in 1. Cor. hom . 24. c Chrysost . Homil. 50. in Matth. iuxta Edit . Graec. Nè existimes Sacerdotem esse , qui hoc facit , sed [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] then followeth of Baptisme , Ibid. Ille non te Baptizat , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] * See above . c. 3. §. 7. * Ibid. in the Chapters following . c Eusebius Emiss . Ad est Substantia Panis , sed post verba Christi est Corpus Christi . Hom. 5. Obiected by Mr. Breerly . Liturg. Tract . 2. §. 2. Subd . 2. * See above , Booke 2. throughout . d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyrill . sup . * See above , Booke 2 c. 1. §. 4. e Ambros . De Pa●e ; Fit Corpus caro Christi . O● . by Bellar . lib. 2 de Euchar. c. 14. and by others . f Chrysost . Nos secum Christus in unam , ut ità dicam , massam reducit , neque id fide tantùm , sed reipsâ nos Corpus suum effecit . In Math. 26. hom . 83. Ob. by Mr. Breerly . Liturg. Tract . 2. §. 2. Subd ▪ 2. g Aug. Ipsi Christiani cum Capite ●uo , quod ascendit in coelum , vnus est Christus . Enarrat . in Psal . 127. Etin Psal . 26. Titulus Psalm● Omnes in illo , & Christi , & Christus sumus . h Leo , De homine Regenerato per Baptismum . Vt susceptus à Christo , & suscipiens Christum , non idem sit post Lavacrū , quod ante Baptismum fuit , sed ut corpus Regenerati fiat ●aro Crucifixi . Serm. de Passione . 14. i Beda in 1. Cor. 10. Nam & nosipsius Corpus facti sumus , & quod accipimus , nos sumus . k See above C. 4. §. 7. l See above C. 4. §. 2. m Ibid. at the Letter ( r. ) o Gregor . Nyssen . Quicquid assumenti conveniens est , & expetitum sit , ut Apostolus vult , qui hanc mensam nobis praeparavit , in id commutatur ; infirmioribus olus , Infantibus Lac , &c. Lib. de vita Mosis . p. 509. p Greg. Nyss . Corpus illud Christi in Corpus nost●um ingrediens totum in se transfert . Ob. by Bellar . lib. 2. cap. 10. §. Idem Greg. q Mr. Breerly . Tract . 2. §. 4 Subd 2 p. 164. r Chrysost . Admiranda Mysteria — ut non solùm per dil●ctione● , sed reipsa in illam Carnem cōvertamur . Hom. 45. in Ioh. s Theoph. in Mar● . 14. Vocat hanc Conversionem Transelementationem , quae quidem vox nihil minùs significat , quàm transubstantiatio : nā Transelemētatio significat mutationem totius rei — ad ipsam materiam , quae ab Aristotele Elementum dicitur . Si mu●atio solius Formae , rectè dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transformatio , & mutatio , externae figurae transfiguratio , cur mutatio substantiae non poterit rectè dici Transubstantiatio ? Bella. l. 3. de Euch. c. 23. §. Secundo . t Theoph. in Ioh. 6. Qui me manducat , quodammodò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . u Isidor . Pelusiot . l. 3. Epist . 107. De recipiente semen , ut terra bona : Qui verbu recipit [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] x Theoph in Mat. 26. Panis ineffabili modo transformatur — Panis quidem apparet , sed ca●●●st . Obiected by Mr. Breerly Liturg. Tract . 2. Sect. 2. Subd . 2. As for [ est caro ] this Phrase hath beene already answered . See above at ( s ) y Hier. in Marc. 14. Accepit Iesus Panem , & benedixit , fregit , Transsigurans corpus suum in Panem : quod est Ecclesia praesens , quae frangitur in passionibus . z Leo. Non alia igitur participatio Corporis , quàm ut in id , quod su●imus , transeamus . De passi●…e Serm. 24. a Mr. Breerly in his Apologic ( of the first Edition ) concerning the faith of the ancient Greeke Church . b Hier. Patriarch . Non enim hîc nominis tantùm communicatio est , sed rei identitas : etenim verè corpus & sanguis Christi mysteria sunt ; non quòd haec in corpus humanum transmutentur , sed nos in illa , melioribus praevalentibus . Which is his Answer in this point , to the Doctors of Wittemberge . * Appeal . lib. 1. Ch. 2. §. 7. [ The testimony it selfe , cited out of Greg. by Mr. Breerly , is answered in the first Booke , concerning EATING . * See above in this Chap. §. 3. &c. * Booke 8. Ch. 2. §. 1. Conc. Nicen. Baptisma non Corporis , sed mentis oculis considerandum . Apud Bini●m . lib. 3. Decret . Conc● Nic. de Baptismate . * See above , Ch. 4. §. 4. a Marcionitae , Manichaei , & alij Haeretici putabant corpus Christi verum non esse , sed phantasticū esse . Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24 §. Resp . Argumentum . b Ignatius ( citante Theodoret. Dlal . 3. ) Eucharistia est caro Christi . Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 2. Hoc scripsit Ignatius contra Haereticos , qui negabant Christū habuisse carnem veram , sed tantùm visibilem & apparentem . — Observandum est Haereticos illos non tàm Sacramentū Euch. quā mysterium incarnationis oppugnâsse . [ True , and the Argument of Ignatius was the same which Tert ▪ vsed 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 . * See above Booke 2. Chap. 2. at ( a. ) c Concilium dicit verò contineri corpꝰ in Sacramento contra Sacramentarios , qui volunt Christum adesse in Signo , & Figurâ : signa enim veritati opponuntur . Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap 2. d Augustin . contra Faustum lib. 19. pag. 349. Tom. 6. Delirat , qui dicit mutatis Sacramentis res ipsas diversas esse , quas ritus Propheticus pronunciavit implendas , & quas ritus Euangelicus annunciavit im●●●tas . — aliter res annunciatur facienda , aliter facta . * Heb. 10. * Ioh. 1. 15. * Ibid. 29. e Origen . Hom. 7. in Numer . p. 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 ; i. e. Christum ] Obiected by Mr. Breerley Liturg. Tract . 4. Sect. 2. Subd . 4 * Rom. 4. 11. f Aug. tom . 4. de Catechizand . rudib . c. 26. Signacula esse visibilia rerum divinarum . g Aug. tract . 50. in Ioh. Habemus Christum in praesenti ad Baptismatis Sacramentum : habemus in praesenti ad Altaris cibū & potum . Tom. 9 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 obiected by Bellarmine l. 2. de Euch. c. 11. i Christus nihil est illis , nisi frustum panis , & vini portiuncula . Salmeron . Ies . in Epist . Pauli disput . 11. §. Septimo . Eucharistiam esse tantùm figuram haeresis estantiqua : haec Calvini haeresis . Bellar. de Not. Ecclesiae c. 9. §. Quorundam . Malè cocta buccella , mysterium carnale , nihil divini portentat — Refigit ( inquiunt ) in memoriam Christi meritū , eiusque generi nostro collata beneficia . Augustū sanè ! nihil deterius ipsa praestat oculis nostris inspecta imago Crucifixi . Weston de 3. hominis officio c. 16. Patus putus panis pistorius , & merum meracum , siue vinum cauponarium . Espenc . de Adorat . lib. 5. c. 9. p. 188. k Doect Calvinus Symbola , & corpus Christi , licet loco inter se plurimùm distent ; tamen coniuncta esse , non solū ratione signi ; quia unum est signum alterius ; sed quia per signum Deus verè nobis exhibet ipsum corpus verū , & sanguinē , quo animae nostrae verè alantur . Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 1. Et Calvinꝰ affirmat saepiùs , Christi corpus esse praesens in Sacramento , quatenꝰ ibi animis nostris verè vnitur , & cōmunicatur substantialiter : sic enim loquitur , secundū substantiam , non modò secundū effectum . Et Fortunatus Calvinista dicit in Sacramēto corpus Christi versari realissime que percipi . Valent. Ies . Tom. 4. disp . 6. quaest . 3. punct . 1. §. 7. pag. 9. Idem Sadäel & Beza sentiunt . Idem ibid. Haec est eorum sententia ; licèt 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 & coniunctionem , virtute Spiritus Sancti in animo communicantis : sacramentaliter etiam , ore quidem corporis sumendo , non ipsum quidem corpus eius , sed signum corporis eius , panem , & vinum , quae dicit esse sigilla certa , quibus promissio redemptionis in corpore & sanguine Christi fidelibus obsignatur . Valent. quo supra . l Calvin . in his Booke intituled , Defensio Calvini de Sacramento . Augustana Confessio ; [ In sacrâ Coenâ verè dari cum pane & vino ipsum corpus Christi , & sanguinem , ] Huic consensum nostrum praebemus . Absit verò ! ut nos vel Coenae Symbolo suam auferamus veritatem ; vel pias animas tanto privemus beneficio , Defens . pag. 28. Huius rei non fallacem oculis figuram proponi dicimus , sed pignus nobis porrigi , cui res ipsa & veritas coniuncta est , quod 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 & imaginario opponunt , Barbarè loqui mallemus , quam pugnis materiam praebere . Scimus enim quae non deceant logomachiae Christi servos . Ibid. p. 46. Quasi verò nobis cum Swinkfeldió quicquam sit commune , qui nudum signum docuit . Ibid. Defens . 2. pag. 35. Figuratam esse locutionem fatemur , modò non tollatut figurae veritas , hoc est , modò res quoque ipsa adsit . 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 promptum efit . 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 , dùm carne pro nobis immolatâ Christus nos pascit , ut vitam ab eius substantia hauriamus . Ibid. pag. 83. * In the fist Booke throughout . * Booke 2. m Si quis negaverit in sanctissima Eucharistia contine●i verè , realitèr , substantialitèr corpus , & sanguinem Christi Anathema sit . Concil . Trid. Sess . 13. Can. 1. Nos dicimus Dominum Christum corporalitèr sub specie panis cōtineri . Greg. Valent. Tom. 4. disp . 6. q. 3. p. 1. n Supremuslocus detur miraculis ; veluti testimonijs ipsius Dei. ●ozius de signis Eccles . l. 14. c. 7. p. 170. o Hi● ea tantummodò referemus , quibus est palam factum divinitus in Eucharistia verum corpus esse , & oculi humani viderunt , & quod est omnium mirabilissimum videre adhuc possint panem conversum in ipsum carnem Christi . Bozius de Sig. Eccles . l. 14. c. 7. p Coccius Thesaur . Cathol . lib. 6. de Eucharistia . * In the place below-cited . q Simon Metaphrastes narrat , &c. Bozius ibid. r Iohannes , & Paulus Diaconus in vita Gregorij narrat , &c. Bozius ibid. and Coccius Thesaur . lib. 6. de Euch. art . 8. Anno 590. And Master Brerely Tract . 4. Sect. 3. Subd . 1. out of Paulus Diaconus de vita Greg. lib. 2. c. 41. s Ante Annos propè octingentos , ut narrat Pas●asius , quidem Presbyter , &c. Bozius ibid. & Coccius . t Bellar. lib. 3. de Each . c. 8. Deus non est te●●is m●ndacij , &c. u Ex Guitmundo , & Lanfranco , Bozius & Coccius ibid. a Tempore quo , vrgēte nefando Berengario , haec in controversiam sunt adducta , ut Deus adstipulatus intelligatur veritati , & refragatus errori , &c. Baron●… 1059. num . 20. ex Petro Damiano . b Quae admiranda hoc seculo in Slavorum Historiâ , authore Helmoldo Abbate , huius seculi narrantur fide dignissima , acc●pe . His ferme diebus , &c. Baron . anno 1192 , num . 20 , and 21. Haec de Transubstantiatione : confutavi● item idem miraculū Haeresin nuper obortam ●egantium aquā vino mixtam mutari in sanguinem . Baron . ibid. num . 24. c Bozius quo supra ex Viliano . d Bezi●s quosupra . e Bozius ibid. ex Viliano , &c. f Bozius ibid. and Onuphrius in vita Vrbani Quarti . Vivꝰ sanguis ex hostia manavit , & totam mappā , quam Corporale vocant , tinxit . g Bozius ibid. h Bozius ibid. i Master Brerely in his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse , pag. 188. & 399. * Master Fox Acts and Monuments , pag. 1115. ex Osberno , in vita Odonis . k Reverà videri Christum in specie pueri , aut carnis opinantur , sed cum dubitatione , Alensis , Gabriel , Palacius , Suarez . Ies . Tom. 3. Disp . 55. §. 2. pa. 710. l Dicendum est in huiusmodi apparitione non videri Christum in se : ita Thomas & omnes Thomistae . Suarez . ibid. Quandò apparet talis speci●s , quidam dicunt , quod est propria species Christi corporis , nec obstare dicunt , quod aliqua tantùm pa●s carnis , aut quod species pueri appareat , quià potest Christus in qua vult specie apparere in propria sive aliena : sed hoc est inconveniens , quia species Christi non potest in propria specie videri , nisi in uno loco , in quo definitive continetur : undè videatur in propria specie in coelis , non videtur in hoc Sacramento . Legitur quandoque multorum Episcoporum Concilio in pixide reservatum , quod nefas est de Christo in propria specie sentire . Aquinas . par . 3. qu 76. art . 8. Quis facile credat , quando visus est sanguis ab hostia sluere , illud esse sanguinem Christi ? vel quando Calix visus est repleri Christi sanguine , ibi esse Christi sanguinem extra venas corporis , ita vt tangi , aut bibi possit ? Et simile est , quandò appareat quasi frustum Carnis , quod illa fit vera Christi caro : nam per sese apparent indecentia , sive multo , sive parvo tempore duret . Et nulla est necessitas tot multiplicandi miracula . Experientia docet mutari , & tabescere id quod videbatur caro , & sanguis , quod non potest ulla ratione carni Christi attribui . Dicendum est id , quod in huiu●m●di Apparitionibus videtur , non solùm non esse ca●nem & sanguinem Christi , sed non esse verum sanguinem , ●ut veram carnem , sed colore tantum , & figurâ . Suarez Iesuit . quo suprà . And the Iesuite Sillivitius Senensis , Moral . quaest . Tom. 1. Tract . 4. cap. 4. & 5. Num. 142. & 101. In istis apparitionibus non videtur caro & sanguis in se , sed tan●ùm figura & color illam referens . m Quamvis non fiat ●t vera ca●o Christi , vel reverà vera car● ( ut respondent Thomistae ) sed tantum color , & figura cius , tamen quod sit ext●ema species , sive imago divinitùs facta , sufficiens est ad confirmationem veritatis . Suarez . Ies . Tom. 3. Disp . 55. Sect. 2. n Alens . Gabriel , Palacius dicunt quod miracula fiunt 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 . ] o Potest Daemon repraesentare figuras quarum libet rerum , ut argenti , auri , ●pularum , quemadmodum peritissimi Sculptores & Pictores varias formas , & figuras rerum ità fingunt , ut interdum verè esse videantur . Sed verè & propriè miraculum id dicitur opus , quod omnis naturae creatae vim atque potentiam excedit . Et una differentia , qua vera miracula possunt à falsis discerni , haec est , quòd falsa sunt phantastica , & simulata , ideoque non diuturna : vel sunt planè inutitila . Perer. Ies in Ex● . 7. Disp . 4. Num. 34. & D. 5. N. 36 , 38. Tertia ratio sumi potest ad confirmandam veritatem Corporis , ex dignitate personae corpus assumentis : quae cum sit veritas , non decuit ut in eius opere aliqua fictio insit . Aquin. part . 3. qu. 5 Art. 2. * Baron . Ann. 34. p Irenaeus adversus Haereses . lib. 1. ca. 9. Marcus purpureum & rubicundum apparere facit , ut putaretur ea gratia sanguinem stillare in Calicem per invocationem . q Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont. cap. 5. §. Neque . And Baronius : Si qua fides adhibenda est Metaphrasti , qui nullam hîc meretur fidem . Ann. 44. num . 38. * Coccius Thesaur . Cath. de Eucharistia . r Sed haud dubio falsa , vel supposititia . Lib. de Script . Eccles . Tit. Amphilochius ; & Card. Baron . ad Ann. 378. Num. 10. * Exod. 8. 19. * Iob. 13. 7. * Socrat. Hist . lib. 7. c. 17. s Aug. de Civit. lib. 22. cap. 8. Medicum podag●icum non solùm dolore , quo ultra solitum cruciabatur : verūetiam podagrâ caruisse , nec amplius quamdiu vixisset pedes doluisse . t Baron . Ann. 984. Num. 19. u Tanta fuit Evangelii authoritas , ut etiam codices ipsi miracula ediderint : ut Greg. Turonensis in vitâ Patrum narrat de S. Gallo , qui Evangeliorum codice accepto civitatis incendium restinxit : ut & S. Martinus , Ecclesia S. Anastasiae slagrante , teste Nicephoro , li. 5. cap. 22. Durant . de Ritib . lib. 2. c. 23. Num. 22. x Absit ut fidelis quispiam aurem accōmodet impijs Sacramentarijs , qui excoecatâ mente omnipotentiam Christi in hoc Sacramento vel comprehendere detrectant : quod tanquam pestem lethalem vitare , & intellectum nostrum in obsequium Christi captivare debemus . Theologi Colon in Provinc . Conc. Tract . de Sacram. Euch. fol. 92. y Aug. de Civit. l. 5. c. 10. Dicitur Deus omnipotens faciendo quod vult , non faciendo quod non vult : quod si accideret , nequaquam esset omnipotens : unde proptereà quaedam non potest , quia est omnipotens : non potest mori , non peccare , non falli . Ambros . lib. 6. Epist . 37. ad Chromat . Non posse mori , non infirmitatis est , sed virtutis . Chrysost . in Ioh. Nihil impotentius quàm hoc posse . Adde hereunto Theod. Dial 3. c. 4. Impossibilia sunt omnipotenti Deo , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : Sic posse , esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Nazianz . Orat. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : vel , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . z Casaub . Exercit. 3●… ad Baron . An. 91. Num. 91. Scitum est piorum Patrum , Omnipotentiam esse Asylum Haereticorum , quo se recipiant , ubi rationibus fuerint victi . Greg. Nazianz . Orat. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Sic Ariani ab Orthodoxis convicti , Christum Deum non esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , eò confugiebant , ut docerent per omnipotentiam Dei hoc esse factum : qui error confutatur ab Augustino , qu. 79. Vct. & novi Test . Potentia ( inquiunt ) Dei haec est , ut falsa sint vera : mendacis est , ut falsum dicat verum , quod Deo non competit . a Dicendū , Deum omnia posse facere , quae ullo modo fiant . Omnes Theologi dicunt , Deum esse omnipotentem , quià potest id omne , quod nō implicat contradictionem , quae ponit esse & non esse simul : & proindè si illud fieret , fieret aliquid , cuius esse esset non esse , &c. Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 2 §. Alio igitur . Idem . Adversarij conveniunt in hoc , id non posse fieri , quod implicat contradictionem . Ibid. Ipsa contradictio cōsistit in esse , & non esse . Si Deus haberet esse coniunctum cùm non esse , non esset Deus : Si non esset Deus , non esset Omnipotens . Quare posse facere quod implica● contradictionem , est Deum posse non esse omnipotentem . Maldon . Ies . Tom. 1. de Euch. qu. 1. p. 153. & Perer. Ies . in Gen. 17 initio . b I. Impossibile est Deum posse contineri in aliquo loco . Greg. de Valent. Ies . II. Fieri non potest divinâ virtute , ut spiritus existat more corporum divisibiliter . Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 14. §. Respondeo ad . III. Non potest corpus praedicari de pane , quia ita disparatum affirmarctur de disparato ; quod implicat contradictionem . Bell. quo supra . IV. Impossibile , idem esse praesens duobus temporibus simul , cum tempora fluunt . Bel. Ib. V. Rem eandem produci bis , aut ter in diversis locis non habet duo substantialia , nec substantialiter diversa : proinde non potest to● novis productionibus produci . Vasq . Ies . in 1. Thom. To. 2. disp . 76. c. 6. VI. Impossibile est per divinam potentiam quantitati , ut corpus quantum non sitaptum occupare locum . Suarez Ies . To 3. disp . 48. §. 1 p. 583. VII . Fieri non potest , quòd corpus Christi , ut sit in Sacramento , ex uno in alium locum venerit , ita enim fieret , ut à coelo fidelibus abesset , quoniam nihil movetur , nisi locum deserat è quo movetur . Catechis . Rom. de Euch. nu . 31. p. 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. c Calumniatur ( Westphalus ) a Nobis in dubium vocari Dei omnipotentiam — at rerum omnium conversionem fieri posse à Christo , nos quoque fatemur ; verùm inde si quis coelum conversum esse in terram colligat , ridiculus erit veritatis aestimator . Calv. in Admonit . ad Westphal . — Rursus . Nos ita addictos rationi humanae esse iactant , ut nihilo plus tribuamus Dei potentiae quam naturae ordo patitur , & dictat communis sensus . A tam improbis Calumnijs provoco ad Doctrinam ipsam , quam tradidi , quae satis dilucidè ostendit 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 ▪ Insane , quid à Deo postulas , ut carnem faciat non carnem ? perinde , ac si instes , ut lucem faciat tenebras — Convertet quidem quando volet lucem in tenebras , & tenebras in lucem , sed quòd exigis ut lux tenebrae sint , & non differant quid aliud quam ordinem Sapientiae pervertis ? & eadem est carnis conditio , ut in uno certo laco sit , & sua dimensione constet . Calv. Instit . l. 4. c. 17. §. 24. item Beza adversus Hess●usium . * See above Booke 3. Chap. 3. §. 2. C. 2. f Bertram . de corpore Domini , pag. 61. Ponamusunum testimonium Augustini , quod dictorum fidem nostrorum ponat , in fermone ad populū : potest ( inquit ) animo cuiuspiam cogitatio talis oboriri , Dominus noste● Iesus Christus accepit carnem de Virgine Maria , lactatus est Infans , &c. Quomodo panis corpus eius , & calix sanguis ? Is●a , fratres , ideò dicuntur Sacramenta , quiain eis aliud videtur , aliud intelligitur : quod videtur , speciem habet corporalem , quod intelligitur , fructum habet spiritualem . Ista venerabilis Author dicens , inst●uit nos quid de proprio Domini Corpore , quod de Maria n●tum est , — & nunc sedet ad dextram Patris , & quid de isto , quod supra Altare ponirur sentire debemus : Illud integrum est , neque ulla sectione dividitur , Hoc autem figura , quia Sacramentum . * Lib. 3. Chap. 3. §. 2. * Lib. 4. Chap. 7. §. 6. g Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. h M. Brerely in his Booke of the Liturgy of the Masse , pag. 150. Because Calvin . Instit . 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. 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 . Ibidem §. 26. Corpus Christi , ex quo resurrexit , non Aristoteles , sed Spiritus sanctu● finitum esse tradit , & coelo contineri usque ad ultimum diem . Et §. 30. Cuius ●rgo amentiae est , coelum terrae potius miscere , quàm non extrahere Christi corpus è coelestisanctuario ? k As for the obiected sentence , hee explicateth himselfe , §. 31. Christus illis praesens non est , nisi ad nos descendat , quasi v●rò si nos ad se evehat , non aequè eius potiamur praesentia . & §. 36. ut Christum illi● rite apprehēdāt , piae animae in coelum erigantur necesse ●st . [ As untruly also doth he alleage Bucer , Beza , and Farel p. 237. who had the same sence with Calvin . Master Foxe said that Christ if he list might be on earth , but hee said not so of and in the same time . ] l See in the former Allegation . m Fieri posse , ut Christi corpus possit esse in pluribus locis simul , praeter hunc A postatam nemoinficiatus est , quod cum ●redere noluit , tollit ab omnipotenti virtute . Salmer . Ies . tom . 9. tract . 23. pag. 173. n Beza cum adversarijs congressus , ubi Calvini mysteria non posse● defendere , in eam prorupit Blasphemiam , ut Deum neget omnipotentem : disertè enim scribit , Deum non posse efficere , ut Corpus aliquod , manente substantia , sit absque ●oco , vel in pluribus locis simul ; Illud enim Angeli axioma [ apud Deum nihil est impossibile ] non sine exception● accipiendum esse , quod factum fieri nequit infectum — O argutos Philosophos ! qui Dei Maiestatem ad suas physicas regulas non erub●scunt revocare Prateol . Elench . Haeres . lib 2. Tit. Bezanitae . o Catholiciisti cū Thoma in quartum distinct . 14. art . 2. hāc rationem , cur non possit corpus Christi localiter esse , &c. — Quod si verò non possit corpus Christi localitèr esse in diversis locis , quia divideretur à seipso , profectò nec possit Sacramentaliter esse eadem ratione : qui licet dicat hoc non esse per l●ci occupationem , tamen dicit , per realem & veram praesentiam in pluribus Hostijs , sive Altaribus : quae realis praesentia in ●ot Altaribus , & non locis intermedijs , non minùs tollere videretur indivisionem r●i . Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. pag. 491. Quidam Catholici , atque in cis Sanctus Thomas existimant non posse unum corpus esse simul in diversis locis localitèr ; quià ( inquiunt ) unum est illud , quod indivisum in se est , & divisum à quocunqu● alio . ●ellar . quò suprà . * See the former testimony . p Duplex est divisio , una intrinseca , in se , altera extrinseca , & accidentalis in respectu ●oci . Itaque cum corpus est in diversis locis , non tollitur indivisio in se , sed extrinseca , in respectu ●oci , ut ●ùm Deus sit unus , est in diversis ●ocis , & anima rationalis est in diversis partibus corporis una . Bellar. ibid. q Si dicas , corpus est hic , & ibi idem , ipsum quidem distrahas in diversa : principio primo perse , & immediato prohibetur corpꝰ esse in pluribus ubi : est autem continui●as affectus cōsequēs immediatè unitatem ; Contradictiones enim sunt . Iulius Scal. Exercit. 5. qu. 6. * See below Chap. 4 §. 2. and Chap. 5. §. 2. r Loquitur ad mentem sanctarum illarum mulierum — Sed optima est sol●tio , moraliter intelligi , ut si quis dicat , talis homo non sede● ad mensam , coenatus est enim . Bellar. lib. 3● de Euch. cap. 4. * 1. Cor. 15. 14. s Videlz . Ad comprobandum dictum [ Non est hîc . ] Salmer . Jes . Tom. 11. tract . 9. pag. 72. t Quasi dicat , si verbo non credatis , vacuo sepulchro cr●datis . Anselm . * Marc. 26. 12. u Aug. tractat . 50. in Ioh. Pauperes habebitis semper vobiscum , me autem non habebitis ] loquebatur de praesentia corporis : habebitis , secundùm providentiam , secundùm Maiestatem , & invisibilem gratiam — secundùm carnem verò , quam verbum assumpsit , secundùm id , quod de Virgine natum est , &c. nō habebitis . quare quoniā conversatus est cum Discipulis quadragin●a diebus aseendit in coelu● , & non est hîc . a Simul in summo coelo , & in aëre vicino terrae . Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 3. §. Secundum &c. b Tolet. Ies . in eum locum . c Aug. in Psal . 54. & Tract . 1. in Ioh. Caput in coelis , cuius membra calcabantur in terra . d Ambros . in 1. Cor. 15. Apparuit ei primo in coelo . e Greg. Moral . Hō . 34. in Evang. ad finem . Persecutorem de coelo allocutus . f Isid . Pelus . lib. 1. Epist . 409. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Et Theophylact. in in Act. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. g Potuittantisper de coelo descendisse . Lorin . Ies . in Act. 9. * See above Chap. 2 Sect. 3. h Cōcludo , Christi corpus tantùm esse in coelo & in Eucharistia ; seclusoque ●odem Eucharistiae mysterio , non solùm non esset corpus ubique , sed neque etiam esset al●●ubi , nisi in coelo : & contrarium asserere esse● magna temeritas fine fundamento , & contra omnes Theologos . Suarez Ies . Tom. 1. in Thom. quast . 14. Art. 1. Disp . 34. §. 4. a Alf●ns . de Castro c●nt . Haeres . Eutych . b Theod. Dial. 2. Dicunt Christi carnem spiritualem , & alterius substantiae quàm sit nostra caro : ●…maginantur se per haec Deu● magnifacere , cum tamen falsi veritatem accusant . c Leo Papa Epist . 13. quae est ad Pulcher. Aug. Subrepsi●●e in●elligo spiritum falsi●atis , ut dùm affirmat se religiosiùs de filij Dei maiestate sentire , si ei naturae nostrae veritatem inesse non dicat , &c. d Theod. Dial. 3. l. 3. ex Euseb . Emis . ( Contra eos , qui dicunt Corpus Christi in Divinitate mutatum esse post resurrectionem . ) Hos di●●re necesse est vel divinae naturae manus & pedes , & alias corporis partes tributas esse , vel fateri corpus mansisse in suae naturae finibus . Atqui divina natura simplex est & incomposita , corpus autem compositum & in multas partes divisum : non est ergo mutatu● in naturam divinitatis , & quidem immortale factum , & divinâ naturâ plenum ; sed tamen corpus , quod propriam habet Circumscriptionem . e Vigil . lib. 4. con . Eutych . Circumscribitur loco per naturam carnis suae , & loco non capitur per naturam divinitatis suae . Hec fides est confessio Catholica , quam Apostoli tradidetunt , Martyres roboraverunt , & fideles nunc usque custodiunt . Et paulò superius . Quia nunc in coelo est , non est utique in terra . f Fulgent . de persona Christi , ad Trasmund . l. 2 , c. 5. Vnus idemque homo localis ex homine , qui est Deus immensus ex Patre . Vnus idemque secundum humanam substantiam , absens coelo , cum esset in terra ; & derelinquens terram , cum ascendisset in Coelum . g Damascen . de fide Orthodoxa lib. 3. cap. 3. Earum naturarum , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 astruimus salvari : nam creatum ; mansit creatum ; increatum , increatum : mortale manebat mortale ; immortale , immortale : [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] h Athanas . part . 2. Adversus eos qui nullum non miraculum imminuunt , eo quòd carnem negant : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . i Nazian . Epist . 1. ad Cledon . Hominem & Deum , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . k Aug. Epist . 57. ad Dardan . [ After his Caveat ; Cavendum ne ità divinitatem astruamus hominis , ut corporis veritatem auferamus . ] Tolle spatium corporibus , & n●squàm erunt , & quià nusquàm erunt , non erunt . Et paulòpost . Cum carnis substantijs immortalitatem dedit , naturam non abstulit : Et aliquantò post . Distantibus spatijs non corpora simul esse possunt . Idem contra Faustum Manich. lib. 2. cap. 11. Secundùm praesentiam spiritualem pati nullo modo Christus potuit : secundum praesentiam corporalem simul in sole & luna esse non potuit . l Ambros . in Luc. 24. Stephanus non super terram te quaesivit , qui te stantem ad dextram Dei vidit . m Cyril . Alex. Tom. 2. lib. 2. de Trinit . Si verè Sectionem & partitionem divina natura ( ut illi dicunt ) reciperet , & intelligeretur ut corpus : si autem hoc , & in loco omninò , & quantitate ; & si quanta facta esset , non eff●…geret Circumscriptionem . fol. 89. * See hereafter , Ch. 3. Sect. 3. * Mat. 24. 23. * See Chap. 5. Sect. 3. * Chap. 6. Sect. 2. s Chrysost . lib. 3. de Sacerdotio ; O miraculum ! O Dei benignitatem ! qui cum patre ●ursum sedet , & eodem tempore omnium manibus pertractatur . Obijcit . Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 22. not considering what went before these words , in the same place , where Chrysostome will not have his hearer beleeve , that the Priest and People communicating doe not [ in terris consistere , sed potius in coelum transferri . ] then followeth , O miraculum , &c. — adest ●n●m Sacerdos non igne●… gestans , sed Spiritum Sanctum . * See. B. 3. Ch. 4. §. 6. t Chrysost . ad populum Antioch : hom . 2. Helisaeus ▪ Melotem accepit ( Heliae ) erat posthac duplex Elias , sursum Elias , deorsum Elias . Then applying this to the Sacrament ; Helias nempe melotem Disclpulis suis reliquit : filius autem Dei ascendens nobis carnem dimisit ; sed Elias quidem exutus , Christus autem & ipsam nobis reliquit , & ipsam ascendens habuit . * Greg. Nyssen . — Vnu●… Christi corpus per totum orbem tot fidelium Millibus impertiri , &c. Alleadged by Mr. Breerly , Tract . 2. §. 4. Subd . 1. p. 149. a Aug. Tom. 8. in Psal . 33. Conc. 1. [ Efferebatur in manibus eius ] Hoc quomodò possit fieri●n homine , quis intelligat ? manibus alienis portatur quis ; suis autem nemo portatur . Quomodò intelligatur de Davide secundum literam non invenimus : in Christo autem invenimus , quando commendans ipsum corpus suum , ait , [ Hoc est corpus meum : ] fer●bat enem corpus in manibus suis , &c. b Obijcit Bell. Vox [ Quodammodo ] Signi , non propriâ specie , sed alienâ , nee modo usitato , sed extraordinariè : satis est , quod non figuratè significatur , L. 2. de Euch cap. 24. c Tostatus Abulensis . [ Et collabebatur inter manus eorum : ] Nempè ad modum hominis furiosi ostendebat se , ūt insanum . Com. in cum locum . * See the fift Booke C. 5. §. 2. and C. 6. §. 3. a August . Sicut secundùm quendā modum Sacramentum Corporis , Corpus Christi est ; ita Sacramentum fidei fides est . See above §. 8. at ( a. ) b Decret . part 3. de Consecr . dictinct . 2. C. Hoc est . Sicut ergo caelestis panis , qui Christi caro est , suo modo vocatur corpus Christi , illius vz. quod , &c. — vocaturque immolatio carnis , quae sacerdotis manibus fit , Christi Passio : non rei verirate , 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 absurditie of interpreting Christ's flesh to be the Bodie of Christ . c Glossa . ibid [ Coeleste , &c. ] Coeleste Sacramentum , quod verè representat Christi carnem , Christi caro vocatur : unde dicitur suo modo , non reiveritate , sed significante mysterio , vt sit sensus , vocatur Christi corpus : i. Significat . d Calvin . Admonit . vlt. ad Westphal . Augustinum totum esse nostrum , omnes libri clamant . * See above Chap. 4. § 3. e Vnum corpus in diversis locis positū unum habet esse substantiale , sed multa habet esse localia : ex quo fit , ut omnia multiplicari debeāt , quae consequuntur esse locale : illa autem non multiplicantur , quae aliunde proveniunt , Relationes verò ad loca necessariò multiplicantur , propter dimēsiones locorum . Itaque erit idem corpus sursum , & deorsum , propinquum , & remotū , poterit moveri in locum , & quiescere in alio loco , nec tamen implicatur ulla contradictio . Illa enim dicuntur Contradicentia , quae conveniunt uni respectu eodem , eodem tempore , modo , loco . Ac ne 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 motū movere . Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. § Ac primum . * See above Chap. 4. §. 3. f Theod. Dial. 2 : cap. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . g Corpus Christi , in diversislocis positum , habet unum substantiale , & quae sunt absoluta in eo non multiplicātur respectu diversorum locorum , unde quae recipiuntur à corpore , sive Actiones sint , sive Qualitates , sive quaecunque alia , non multiplicantur . Ratio , quia corpus unum est , non multa ; ut si corpus Christi in uno loco calesiat , in alio erit calidum : si in uno loco vulneretur , in altero erit vulneratum . Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 4. Actus contrarij , ut amoris , & odij , assensus , diffensus , non possunt competere uno subiecto in diversis locis , quia vitales actiones proficiscuntur ex potentia naturali , ut à principio agente , & eadem potentia non habet vim naturalem ad efficiendum actus contrarios — Ratio ; inter actus contrarios — tantam esse repugnantiam , ut etiam per potentiam Dei absolutam non possint esse in eodem subiecto , & loco , quia sese omninò destruunt ex parte obiecti , Suarez . Ies . Tom. 3. Disp . ●8 . §. 2. §. Atque . * Quicquid pertinet ad Christū secundùm quod in se est , id potest ei tribui in propriâ specie , & in hoc Sacra mento existenti , ut vivere , mori , dolere , animatum esse . Aquin. p. 3. q. 81. art 4. Cum Thoma consentiunt Scotus , Alcisidorus , Aegidius , Petrus à Soto , & huic favet Innocentius . Suarez quo supra p. 602. h Putatur à quibusdam vetustioribꝰ Theologis Christum propter varias eius existētias simul mortalem , & immortalē , passibilem , & impassibilem se repraesentare . Alij huic se sententiae opposuêre tēpore Berēgarij , quia viderunt maximè intelligentiae repugnare , ut idem corpus sit simul mortale , & immortale . Alan . Card. de Euch. Sacram. lib. 1. pag. 451. * See in this Booke Chap. 7. §. 3. and 4. a In his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse : where hee hath other as Idle reasons as this . b In his Booke of the Reall Presence , tract . 2 §. 4. S●bd . 1. p. 149. * Verbum , quasi a●rem verberans . Cic. c Greg. Naz. Orat. 51. Vnius corporis locus duorum , aut plurium non est capax : sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . d Argumentum sumitur ab exemplis Dei , & animae ratio . nalis . Deus est unus in infinitis locis indivisibilis , & anima humana est tota in qualibet par●e corporis . Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 3. e Anima est in corpore , ut cōtinens , non ut contenta . Aquin . 1. qu. 52. 〈◊〉 . * See above Chap. 4. Sect. 3. f Quòd si quis requirat esse in loco tàm circumscriptivè quàm definitivè , id requirere , ut non sit alibi ; dicere possumus daritertium modum existendi in loco , nimirùm , per solam praesentiam , quomodò Deus est in loco . Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 4. §. Altero . g Iob 1. 6. [ Cum venissent & 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 necessario requiratur , ut ab uno loco in locum alium veniant . Simili ratione confirmat hanc veri●atem Tert. Apol. c. 22. Chryso . Hom. in Heb. 1. Ambros . l. 1. de Sp. S. c. 10. Damasc . l. 2. de fide c. 3. Nazian . Orat. 2. de Theol. Athanas . Epist . ad Serap . Teste Pined● Ies . in cundem locum Ioh. h Damascen . Orthod . fid . l. 1. c. 17. & l. 3. c. 7. Angelus dicitur esse in loco , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Deus autem ubique existens , corpora verò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . i Athanas . Tom. 1. Epist . ad Serap . p. 201. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . k Ambros . de Sp. S. lib. 1. cap. 10. Seraphim quod iubetur exequitur , Spiritus quod vult dividit : Seraphim de loco ad locum transit , non cnim complet omnia , sed ipsum repletur a Spiritu . l Greg. Moral . lib. 2. cap. 3. Angeli , ut & nos , loco circumscribuntur : comparatione quidem corporum nostrorum Spiritus sunt , comparatione Dei incircumscripti , corpus sunt . m Athanas . qu●st . ad Antioch . 26. Quomodò ( cedo mihi ) una existens Petri aut Pauli anima , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apparere in ●●o monumento , & in mille templis per totum mundum , nè● Angelus potest ? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Edit . Paris . Anno 1627. n Tert. de Trinit . circiter medium . Si homo tantummodò Christus , quomodò adest ubique invocatus ? cùm haec non hominis natura sit , sed Dei , ut adesse possit in omni loco ▪ si homo tan●ummodò Christus , cur & Mediator invocatur ? &c. o Aug. Epist . 57. ad Dardan . [ M●cum ●ris in Paradiso . ] Non ex bis verbis in coelo existimandus Paradisus , neque enim in ●pso die futurus erat in coelo ho no Christus , sed in inferno secundù● animam , & in sepulch●o secundùm carnem . p Aquinas 1. qu. 52 Art 2. q Nazian . Orat. 51 cont . Apollinar . Obijcientem : Duo perfecta non continebat Christus , vz. divinitatem & humanitatem . Resp . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( ut vas unius modij non duos modios continet ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . &c. * Below Chap. 6. Sect. 2. r Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 3. Argumentum sumitur à mysterijs , &c. s Aeternitas est instans Durationis . Bellar. ibid. §. Quin●um . 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 . Ar nos altero modo non nisi per absolutam Dei potentiam vbiquitatem creaturae convenire arbitramur , Valent. Ies . lib. 1. de vera Christi praesent . in Euch. c. 12. §. Quaesanè . pag. 241. b Veterum Theologorum apud D. Thomam ratio haec est , si idem corpus possit esse in duobus locis simul , potest in pluribus , atque adeo ubique — Et unà cum codem Thoma dicunt , Haereticum esse affirmare , corpus Christi esse poss● in duobus locis simul , quia ubique esse , est proprium Deo. Teste Suarez Tom. 3. qu. 75. Art. 1. disp . 48. Sect. 4. c Dicere corpus Christi esse , vel esse posse in Infinitis locis simul , immensitatem divinam requirit . Bellar. lib. 3. de Christio . c. 18. d Aquinas 1. q. 52. art . 2. Deus est essentia infinita , ideo non solùm in pluribus locis est , sed ubique . Angelus quia est virtutis finitae non se extendit nisi ad unum determinatum — undè sequitur quòd non sit ubique , neque in pluribus locis , sed in uno loco tantùm . e Vnum corpus esse ubique affirmare est Haereticum . Thomas . Quia Catholici ex hac proprietate essendi ubique dicunt antiquos Patres sufficienter probasse Spiritus Sancti Diviniratem , ut patet ex Augustino , Fulgent . Ambrosio , Basil . Teste Suarez . Ies . Tō . 3. disp . 48. Sect. 4. Rat. 1. f Fulgent . ad Trasimund . lib. 2. pag. 325. Spiritus Sancti in nobis habitatio non localis est , inhabitat enim Trinitas in suis fidelibus , sicut tota in cunctis : nec per separatos homines , & separata loca particularitèr separatur . g Basil . de Sp. Sancto cap. 22. sub finem . Reliquae virtutes omnes in loco circumscriptae esse creduntur , nam Angelus qui astabat Cornelio non erat in eodem loco , quo cùm astaret Philippo : neque qui locutus est Zachariae ab Altari per idem tempus etiam in coelo suam implebat stationem . At Spiritus ( Sanctus ) simul & in Abaccuc operatus , & in Daniele in Babylonia creditus , & in Catarcta cùm Ieremia , & cum Ezechiele in Chobar ; Spiritus enim Domini replevit orbem terrarum , [ Quo ibo à Spiritu tuo ? ] Et Propheta ; Quon●am ego , inquit , vobiscum sum , & Spiritus meusstat in medio vestri . h Ambros . de Spirit . Sancto l. 1. c. 7. Cùm igitur omnis creatura certis naturae suae circumscripta limitibus , siquidem & illa invisibilia opera , quae non queunt locis & finibus compre● hendi , substantiae tamen suae proprietate clauduntur , quomo . dò quis audeat creaturam Spi. Sanctum appellare , qui non habet circumscriptā & determinatam naturam ? — Ideò cum Dominus servos suos Apostolos destinare voluit , ut agnosceremus aliam esse naturam , aliud gratiam spiritualem , alios aliò destinabat , quia simul omnes esse ubique non poterant ; dedit autem Spirit . Sanctum , qui licet separatis Apostolis inseperabilis gratiae mun●s infunderet : quis igitur dubitat , quin divinum sit quod infunditur , simul pluribus , nec videtur ? corporeum autem quod videtur à singulis , & tenetur . i Aug cont . Maxim. Axian . Epist . l. 3. c. 21. Cùm sic laudetis Sp. Sanctum , ut in sanctific and is fidelibus ubique praesentem esse dicatis , tamen negare audeatis esse Deum ? [ The Vbique spoken of the faithfull hath the sence of Vbicunque , because the number of the faithfull is but finite , and their places distinct , here and there , and not absolutely every-where . ] k Didymus Alex. lib. 1. de Spirit . Sancto , Hieron . interprete , ( extat in Biblioth . S. Patrum Tom. 6. pag. 679. ) Iose Spiritus Sanctus , si unus esset de creaturis , saltem circumscriptam haberet substantiam — Spiritus autem Sanctus cùm in pluribus sit , non habet substantiam circumscriptam . [ And he proveth it is Pluribus , idem in Prophetis & Apostolis , &c. ] l Cyril . Alex. de Spirit . Sancto ( quod non est Creatura . ) Quum in loco & circumscriptione intelligant quae facta sunt , Spi. autem Sanctus non sit , de quo psallit David , Quo ibo à Spiritu tuo ? * See above Chap. 5. & 6. a Greg. Nyssen . in Orat. Catech. C. 37. Per totum orbem ●ide liū millibus uno die impertitur , totumque cuiusque per partem evadat , & in seipso totū permaneat , &c. Obiected by Master Brereley Liturg. Tract . 2. Subdiv . 1. [ Answered before , Chap. 4. Sect. 7. ] * See below , Ch. 10. * See Sect. 3. following . b Magnitudo & figura unitae sunt corpori Christi naturalitèr & inseperabiliter — & Christus corpus suum carnem vocat , Ioh. 6. At certè substantia sinè quantitate & complexione quadam accidentium caro dici non potest — Denique in corpore Christi eius animainest : atqui anima in corpore esse nequit , nisi disposito & organizato . Secundò extensum esse in se , & partem habere extra partem , & proindè 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. l. 3. de Euch. c. 5. Tollere partium distinctionem ponit monstrosam corporis confusionem , ut ibi sit nasus , ubi oculus ; & manus , &c. Alan . l. 1. de Euch. c. 3. p. 444. c Totus & integer Christus sub specie panis , & sub qualibet eius speciei parte inest . Conc. Trid. Sess . 13. Can. 3. Sub quavis particula . Catech. R● . de Euch. num . 29. d In singulis partibus continuis , quantum vis minimis , & ejusdem quantitatis . Suarez . Ies . Tom. 3. D. 52. Sect. 2. p. 679. e Respondeo , quod est difficillimum , ob humani ingenij imbecilitatem . Dico corpus Domini habere partem extrà partem , si vox [ extrà ] dicat habitudinem ad subiectum , non si dicat habitudinem ad obiectum , non si dicat habitudinem ad locum . Resp . nego consequentiam , quià distinctio partium in subjecto est essentialis : at distinctio quoad locum non est essentialis , sed impediri potest . Bellar . l. 3. de Euch. Ca. 7. Negatur esse impossibile , 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 Sacramentalium continuantur . Suarez quo supra p. ●83 . a Totum Christi corpus in partibꝰ indivisilibus specierum panis esse negarunt Albertus , Scotus , Aegidius — quia videtur impossibile , in se corpus extensum , & magnae molis cum tota organizatione , & figura in puncto collocari . Suarez quo supra . p. 683. b Opinio antiqua , quae fuit Durandi , dixit corpus Christi in Eucharistia non haberequantitatē . Fundamentum huius opinionis fuit , quod essentia quantitatis est , habere partes extra partes distinctas inter se , fieri aurem non possit , ut si corpus Christi habeat partes distinctas , in Euch. sit totum in qualibet parte . Teste Maldonat . Ies . Tom. 1. de Euch. c. 8. Arg. p. 180. & Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 5. c Occham , & alij dixerunt quidam esse magnitudinem corporis Christi in Eucharistia : ●ed ita , ut nulla sit figura , nec distinctio partium . Sic Occham . Bellar. ibid. §. At. * See above in this Chapter , Sect. 2. * See above , Sect. 2. d Aug. Nullum corpus potest esse ubique totum , quantumcunque corpus , vel quantulum●unque corpusculum loci occupet spacium , cundemque locum sic occupet , ut in nulla eius parte sit totum necesse est : longè alia natura est animae , quàm corporis , quanto magis Dei ? l. 1. Ep. 3. ad Volusian : [ Whose question to S. Augustine was ; Vtrum Christus intemeratae foeminae corpus impleverit ? ] a In eo , quod dicitur Deus ubique carnali cogitationi resistendū est , & mens ● Corporis sensibus amovenda , ne quasi spaciosa magnitudine opinemur Deum per cuncta diffundi , ut aër , aut lux : omnis enim huiusmodi magnitudo minor in sua parte , quàm in roto : sed ita potius , ut est magna sapientia etiam in homine , cuius corpus est parvum . — Nam si duo fint homines aequaliter sapientes , quorum alter est corpore grandior , non plus sapiuntambo , quam singuli ; sic in minore corpore non minor est sanitas , cum minora , & maiora corpora tam sana sint . — Dispar est profecto in membrorum molibus quantitas : sed par est in disparatis sanitas — quae non quantitas , sed qualitas est . Non potuit ergo obtinere quantitas corporis quod Qualitas . Aug. Ep. 57. ad Dardan . 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 aeris partes suos implent locos — Lucisque pars alia infunditur per hanc fenestram , alia per aliam , & maior per maiorem , per minorem autem minor . Idem . To. 6. Ep. fundamenti . c. 16. c Adiungebat ( Haereticus ) omne illud , quod in Domino palpari potuit , post resurrectionem in subtilitatem aliquam esse red actam . Greg. Exposi . Moral . li. 14. c. 31. d Damascen . lib. 1. de Orthodox . fide . c. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * Chrysost . Nazia●z . Aug. Ambros . e Durand . Disp . 44. qu. 6. [ Whom you therfore reiect . ] Teste Suarez . Tom. 2. Disp . 48. qu. 54. Art. 4. §. 5. f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Chrysost . Hom. 87. in Iob. 21. [ but according to the Latine Edition . Hom. 86. super Ioh. 20. This testimony was obiected against P. Martyr in the Disp . at Oxon. fol 60. ] * Booke 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. g Conc. Ephes . Tom. 5. C. 1. Anathem . 3. Non alienum est ab illo corpus , quod sibi univit , quod ubique palpabile , & aspectabile existit . h Hier. Creatura cessit Creatori . i I●stin . quaest . & Resp . ad Orthodox . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. k Aquinas . par . 3. qu. 54. art . 2. Respondeo . Vide corpus Christi non habuisse partes corporis naturales , pertinet ad errorem Eutychij , qui dicebat corpus nostrum in illa resurrectionis gloria impalpabile , & ventis aëreque subtilius : Et quòd Dominus post confirmata corda Discipulorum palpantium , omne illud , quod in to palpari potuit , in aliquam subtilitatem redegit , ut Greg. exponit , Moral . lib. 14. cap. 31. l Prateol . Elench . Haeret. Tit. Eunomiani . — Dicebant corpus nostrum post Resurrectionem impalpabile esse & invisible ; imò aere & vento subtilius : de qua haeresi Grego●ius Eutychium convincit . m Bellar. l●de notis Eccles . cap. 9. Sander . de visib . Monarch . li. 7. pag. 321. Maldon . Ies . Com. in Luc. 2. 23. n Docue●unt — solum Christum aperuisse vulvam . Mald. in Luc 2. o Origen in hunc locum . Hom. 14. Tert. de carne Christi . Ambr. & Greg. Nyssen . in testimonijs ex vet . Testamento collectis , Epiphan . Heres . 78. Hier. si . 2. cont . Pelag. Theophylact. & Euseb . [ That which hee addeth of their pius sensus is fri●olous , even as his Imputation to Protestants , saying , that they deny that Mary the Mother of our Lord was a Virgin in her birth ; is slanderous : ] and Jansenius Conco . cap. 13. — Alij Patres hanc legem aperiundi uulvam ad solum Christum propriè pertinuisse asserunt . Theophyl . & Ambros . Non enim virilis coitus virginalis secreta reseravit . Similia habet Origenes Hom. 14. in Luc. And Beatus Rhenanus in Tert. de carne Christi ( before that he fell into the hand of Inquisitors , and their Index Expur●at . ) durst say ; Tert. contra Recentiorum placita dixit ; Mariam patefacti corporis lege peperisse . a Apud Maldon . Ies . in Luc. 2. Id Patres dixisse ardore abreptos disputationis cōtra Marcionitas , ne Christum corporeum phantasma facere viderentur , si dixissent matris uterum non aperuisse . b Ibid. Pelusiot . lib. 1. Epist . 23. Aperire vulvam ( Luc. 2. ) non dicitur de quovis primogenito [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * Math. 19 24. 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 iuxta 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. disp . 32. Conc. 2. & Conclu● . 3. Corpus Christi ut est in hoc Sacramento non possit naturaliter moverilocaliter ab intrinseco à propria anima , & interna virtute motiua naturali , 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 Sacramenta●es , quas nec physic● contegere possit , neque ad motum voluntatis movere . Ibid. conclus . ult . Potest ut est in hoc Sacramento virtute extrinseca moveri per Accidens , quia possunt Sacramentales species moveri , vt a Sacerdote , Elevando . Sect. 3. De sensibus exterioribus nominales ci●atidicunt posse Christum , ut est in hoc Sacramento , ut Deum audire , &c. Alij hoc negant . Sunt nonnulli , quinegant id fieri posse de Potentiâ Dei absolutâ , ut corpus in extensum à loco aut seipsum videat , autalia . Dico , non potest nat●raliter exercere actus sensuum exteriorum ; Ita tenet Thomas & alij Authores — quia sensus cius non potest recipere has species ab obiectis externis , quia hic actus est materialis , & extensus suânaturâ — Quamvis potentia absoluta potest — Idem dicendum de sensibus interioribus & appetitu sentiente , quia nòn uti phan●asmatibus , nec actum secundum elicere , quia hic actus est materialis , & nisi à materiali & extenso principio non potest intellectus eius , secl●so 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. Tho. qu. 76. Art. 7. disp . 53. §. 4. So also Vincentius Silliuitius Senens . Ies . Moral . quaest . To. 1. Tract 4. 5. nu . 1 39. & 141. Motus localis non convenit corpori per se , nec possunt actiones sensuum convenire Christo naturaliter , quia hae exercentur , per species in substantia divisibili . At Christi corpus est in sacramento indivisibiliter , &c. * 1. Cor. 15. 44. * Psal . 116. * See above Chap. 4. §. 10. a In his Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse Tract . 2. §. 4. Subd . 1. d Suarez Ies . Dicēdum tamdiu conservari Christum praesentem sub speciebꝰ , 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 cadan● species . In tertia●… Th● . qu. 75. Art. 1. Disp . 46. §. Dicendum . Sect. 8. Rursus q. 76. Disp . 54 §. 2. Christus non recedit ex hoc Sacramento , donec in Accidentibus talis fia● Alteratio , quae ad corrūmpendū panē & vinum sufficeret ▪ §. Dico secundo . Rursus , Quòd Christus recedat statim ut Species deglutinantur , antèquam alterentur , est contra generale principium . §. Tertio . e Potest corpus Christi per accidens moveriab eo , qui potest species consec●…tas secundum locum mutare . Suarez Tom. 3. quaest . 76. Disp . 2. art . 7. And , Ad motum specierum movetur Christus . Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 19. Si per negligentiam aliquid de sanguine stillaverit in terram , &c. D●cret . D. 2. Cap. Si per negligentiam . Nunquid caden●e sacramento cadit corpus Christi ? Dic quod sit . Glossa ibid And Bozius l. 14. de signis Eccles . cap. 7. telleth of a woman , that ●id it in a Dunghill . See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. f A Naus●abundis èxpuitur . Suarez , quo supra . Si quis stomacho ●vomit illas species , corpus Christi evomit — si species possint discerni ab alijs , debent cum reverentiasumi , & cremari ▪ & cine●es i●xta Al●are recondi . Gloss . Decret . quo supra , & Summa Angel. Tit. Eucharistia n. 5. pag. 147. g Si fiat fiaus●a Sacerdoti per muscam incidentem — si aliquid venenosum incideret in calicem , vel quod provocaret vomitu●… , tum &c. Missal Rom. Decrete & iussu Pij V. Pont. Edit . in instruct . ante Missam , p. 35. In hac parte distinctionis ponitur poe●it●…tia corpus Christi vomentibus . Decret . de Consecr●t . quo supra . h Si quis per ebrietatem , vel voracitatem Eucharistiam ●vomu●rit ▪ 40. di●bus poeniteat . Decret . ibid. D●cunt isti , quod corpus Christi non intrat ventrem ▪ quod falsum est , cum species intrant : quamdiu enim species manent , Christus later integer sub ijs , & sic potest ●vomi . * Si hostia consecrata dispar●at velcasu aliquo , vel vento , vel a mur● accepta , ut nequeat repe●iti , altera consecretur . Missal . Rom. quo supra p. 32. i A muribus comeditur , quia Denominationes , qua tantùm indicant motum local●m per terminum ●ius , propriètribuuntur corpori Christi , à quocunque fiant , huiusmodi est commestio . Suarez Tom. 3. qu. 76. Disp . 54. p. 706. k Si autem species illae transeant per stomachum indigestae , per aliquam infirmitatem , tunc sunt extia proprietatem refectionis , etiamsi vadant in sec●ssum , non est ibi corpus Domini . Et hanc opinionem Boetius dicit esse probabi●em ▪ S●…ia Angel. quosupra . * See above in this Booke Chap. 1. Sect. 2. * 1. Cor. 15. Philip. 2 8 , 9. l Origen . in Matth. 15. 27. Id quod materiale est in ventrem abit , & in secessum s●…m eijcitur . * Cyril . Hier. Catech. Mystag . 5. p. 542. Panis hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Chrysost . Hom. de Euch. in Lucam : Num vides panem ? num vides vinum ? sicut re●…qui cibi in secessum vadunt ? absit , sic ne cogites [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] m Card. Bellar. and Master Brerely in places above-cited . n Non nulli vix ferre possunt Christum quoque modo includi in parvâ pixide , cadere in terram , comburi , rodi à bestia — Annon ' credunt Christum parvulum inclusum in angustissimo utero ? cundem potuisse in via cadere , humi jacuisse , & remoto miraculo à bestia morderi & comburi potuuisle ? si ita pati potuit in propria specie , cur mirum videtur si illa sine laesione in specie aliena eidem accidere posse dicamus ? Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 10 §. Denique . o Aquinas . Etiamsi canis hostiam consecratā manducet , substātia corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus , part . 3. qu. 80. art . 3. * Phil. 2. 6. * Ioh. 3. 16. * 1. Cor. 15. * Act. 9. 4. a Nefas nunc esset Christum in propriâ specie in pixide includi putare . Aquin. part . 3. quest . 76. art . 8. * See hereafter Book 5. Chap. 7. Sect. 1. * See above in this Booke Chap. 2. Sect. 2. a Concilij verba . Iterùm etiam hîc in divina mensa nè humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panē & calicem , sed attollentes mentem fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mensa agnū illum Dei tollentem peccata mundi incruentè , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] à Sacerdotibus immolatum : & pretiosum eius corpus & sanguinem verè nos sumentes , credamus haec esse nostrae resurrectionis symbola . Propter hoc enim neque mulcum accipimus , sed parum , ut sciamus , non ad satietatem , sed ad sanctificationem offerri , Vt resert Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 10. b Hunc canonem Conc. Niceni probatum fuisse Marpurgi Luthero , & alijs . — Martinus Bucerus dixit ; Ità in Domino sentio : & 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 . c Hoc testimonium Niceni Conc. primi in actis eiusdem Conc. in Vaticana Bibliotheca his verbis , &c. Hoc testimonium agnoscunt etiam Adversarij , ut Occolampadius , Calvin . Instit . l. 4. c. 17. §. 36. Petrus Boquinus , Klebitius : & nituntur hoc testimonio ad gravissimam suam haeresin stabiliendam , &c. Bellar. ibid. d Per Agnum omnes intelligunt Christum , ut distinguitur contra symbola . Bellar quo supra . — Illi ( Protestantes ) quasi admoneant , nè quaerendum Christum in Altati lapideo . Sed mente conscendamꝰ ad coelum , in coelo situm Agnum . — At vult Concilium , ut ad sacram ipsam mésam attendamus : sed in ipsa non tàm Symbola , quàm quae sub illis latent consideremus . Ibidem per tótum . e Iubet Concilium ut non inhaereamus speciebus panis & vini ; quasi ibi nihil sit , nisi quod oculi renūtiant . Bellar. quo supra . f Nic. Cabasila . Latini dicunt eos , qui panem & vinum nominant , & tanquàm nondùm sanctificatis precantur sanctificationem post illa verba [ Hoc est corpus meum ] rem supervacuam facere . Expos . Liturg. cap. 29. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Conc. Nicen. h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * See hereafter Book 7. Chap. 4. Sect. 7. i Catechis . Rom. Christum Dominum esse in hoc Sacramēto non dicimus , ut parvus aut magnus est , sed ut substantia est . Tract . de Euch. num . 36. * See the fift Booke Chap. 6. Sect. 1. & 2. k Gregor . Nyssen . Quomodò enim res incorporea corpori cibus fiat ? In Orat. de vita Mosis , p. 509. * See above Booke 3. Ch. 3. Sect. 7. & 10. &c. l Conc. Tolet. 16. Anno 693. Can. 6. Integrum panem esse sumendum — nequo grande allquid , sed modica tantum oblato , secundùm id quod Ecclesiastica consuetudo retentat : cuius reliquiae aut ad conservandum modico loculo absque aliqua iniuria Sacrificijs cōsecretur ; aut si sum endum fuerit necessarium , non ventrem illius , qui sumpserit , gravis sarciminis onere premat , nec quid indigesticè vadat , sed animum alimoniâ spirituali reficiat . * See above Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. m Ob. 1. Cum dicit agnum Dei sicum esse in sacra mensa , & eundem agnum opponit symbolis , declarat agnū propriè esse in mensa : & non solùm ut per symbola repraesentatur . 2. Agnus dicitur à Sacerdotum manibus immolari , quod non fit in coelo : neque enim tàm lōgas manus habent Sacerdotes , ut ad coelum pertingant 3. Dicimur verè sumere corpus Christi , & quòd non solùm corde sed & corpore sumitur , prebatur : quià corpꝰ & sanguis Domini dicuntur esse nostrae resurrectionis symbola , quià cùm nostris corporibꝰ cōiunguntur . Si autem sola esset animorum coniunctio , solus animus resurrecturus significaretur . Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 10. * See above Chap. 1. Sect. 2. * 1. Cor. 1. 15. * See below Booke 5. Chap. 8. Sect. 6. m Ad futuram resurrectionē , per Baptismi Sacramentum , ius & pignus accepimus . Coster . Institut . Christ . l. 4. c. 4 See more in the Booke following . Chap. 8. Sect. 6. * Chap. 5. Sect. a Calvin . in hijs libris , vz. Consensio in re Sacramentaria : & Defensio cōtra Westphalium : & Explicatio de vera participatione coenae Dom. i Fateor me abhorrere ab hoc crasso cōmento localis praesentiae . Substantiā Christi animae nostrae pascuntur : sed secundum virtutem , non secundùm substantiam . ii Signum tantùm porrigi , centies contrà . Quasi verò cum Swinckfeldio quicquam nobis commune . — iii In Catechismo disserui , non solū beneficiorum Christi significationem habemus in coena ; sed substantivè participes , in unam cum eo vitam coalescimus . — Figurata locutio , fa●eor , ●…odò non tollatur re● veritas . v Ergò in coena miraculum agnoscimus , quod & naturae sines , & sensus nostri modum exsuperat : quòd Christi caro nobis fit communis , & nobis in alimentum datur . — Modus incomprehensibilis . ( VI. ) Neque enim tantùm dico , applicari merita , sed ex ipso Christi corpore alimentum percipere animas , non secùs ac terreno pane corpus vescitur . Vim carnis suae vivificans spiritus sui gratiâ in nos transfundit . Spiritualem dicimus , non carnalem , quamvis realem , ut haec vox , pro vera , contra fallacem sumitur : non secundùm substantiam , quamvis ex eius substantia vita in animas nostras profl●it . vi Si nos in consensu , quem continet Augustana Cōfessio , complex●s esse dixi , non est quòd qui● me astutiae insimulet . Verbulum in ea Confessione ( qualis Ratisbonae edita fuit ) non extat doctrinae nostrae contrarium . De Philippo Melanct●one , eius Authore , viro spectatae pietatis , dico , non magis me à Philippo , quàm à proprijs visce●ibus divelli posse . Et quidem non aliter sanctae memoriae B●cerum sensis●e , luculentis testimonijs probare mihi semper promptum erit . Lutherus , meae s●nt●ntiae non ignarus , propiâ tn . manu non gravatus est me saluta●e . Quum Marpurgi essem , dimidia conciliatio facta est : ab eo conventu digressus affirmat eodem , quo ante , loco , Occolampadiū & Zuingliū habere , quos illic fratū loco posthà● fore sanctè pollicitus est . Hacte●●s Calvinus . b Summus Salvator hoc Sacramentū volu●t esse tanquàm sp●…ualem anima●ū cibum , quo alantur & conforten●ur viventes vita ill●us , quo dixit , [ Qui manducat me , &c. Concil . Trid. Sess . 13 c. 2. c Sacramento utendum ad alendam animam . Catech. Trid. de Euch. num . 29. d Decret . ex Ambros . De mysterijs . Corpus Christi est corpus spirituale . Dist . 2. C. In illo . e Ambros . lib. 5. de Sacram c. 4. f Conc. Triden● . Panem illum supersubstantialem freq●ēter accipiant . Sess 13. c. 8. * Jo● . 6. 32. g Alanus , & alij ex citatis Authoribus dicunt , quandò re-ipsà non potest suscipi hoc Sacramentum , ad perficiendam hanc unionem , sufficere quòd hoc Sacramentum in voto suscipiatur , quià hoc satis est , ut homo fiat membrum Christi vivum , & uniatur illi . Suarez Ies . Tom. 3. Disp . 64. Sect. 3. pag. 824. Satis est si spiritualiter manducatur in voto , eti●msi non sacramentaliter . Acosta Ies . de Indorum salute lib. 6. c. 7. Verè & spiritualiter sumunt , qui fide tenent , sub illis speciebus verum esse corpus Christi , & simul ipsum desiderio recipiendi ardeant . Tolet. Ies . Instruct . Sacerd . l. 2. c. 29. h M. Brerely Tract . 2. Sect. 5. Sub. 2. i Calvin . Epist. 372. ●et in the same Epistle he saith of Papists , Dānantur , qui dicunt Iudā non minùs corporis Christi participem fuisse , quàm Petrum . In his Institut . lib. 4. c. 17. Non alia quàm fidei manducatio . §. 8. Cordis sinum tantùm protendant , quo praesentem amplexentur . §. 12. Vinculum coniunctionis est Spiritus Christi . §. 13. Non carnalis . §. 16. Non contactu . §. 33. Impij & scelerati non edunt Christi corpus , qui Iunt ab eo alieni , quià ipsa caro Christi in mysterio coenae non minùs spiritualis res est , quàm salus aeterna . Vnde colligimus , quòd quicunque va●ui sunt spiritu Christi , carnem Christi nō posse edere magis quàm vinū bibere , ●ui non coniunctus est sapor . — Aliud tamen est offerri , aliud recipi . — spiritualem cibū omnibus porrigit Christus , etiam indignis ; at non absque fide recipitur . §. 34. Saepiùs , fateor , occurrit ápud Augustinum istaloquendi forma , Comedi corpus Christi ab infidelibus , sed seipsum explicat , &c. Haec Calvinus . k Sextum eorum Pronunciatum est , Improbos non suscipere corpus Christi , licet symbola suscipiant . Calvin . Instit . l. 4. c. 17. §. 33. & Beza . Teste . Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 1 §. Porrò . l Ex Vbiquitistarum opinione sequitur corpus Christi non posse verèmanducari ore corporali , sed solum ore spirituali per fidem : est ipsissima sententia Sacr●mentariorum . Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch c. 17. §. Secundo ex . m Hieron . in Malach . 1. Immundi mūdissimum sanguinem bibunt . [ But only Sacramentally , for it goeth be●ore in the same place ; ] Quando Sacramenta violantur , is , cuius sunt Sacramenta , violatur . But Hier. in Esa . 66. Omnes magis amatores voluptatis , quàm amatores Dei ; dum non sūat sancti corpore & spiritu : nec com●dunt carnem Christi , nec bibunt eius sanguinem . n Orig. in Matth. 15. Verbum , caro fa●tum , verus cibꝰ , quē qui comedit vive● i● aeternùm : quem nullus malus potest edere . — alioqui nequaquam ▪ scriptum ●uisset , [ Quisquis ederit , vivet in aeternum . ] o Aug. Tract . 59. in Ioh. Illi manducabāt panem Dominum , Iudas autem panem Domin● . [ Responde● Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 13. Iudas non utilitèr edebat , sicut qui panem comedit , reijci● rursùs , dicitur non comedere . [ But it is plaine , that Saint Augustine distinguisheth Signum à signato , and saith ; Iudas did not eat Panem Dominum . ] Et Tract . 26. being cōstant to himselfe upon these words ; [ Qui māducat carnem meam , in me manet : ] Qui non manet in Christo● proculdubiò non māducat spiritualem carnem eius nec bibit eius sanguinem , licet carnalitèr & visibilitèr premat dentibus Sacramentum tantae rei , & iudi●ium sibi manducet . To the same purpose Cyril . Alex. lib. 10. in Ioh. c. 13. Sola membra Christi comedunt carnem Christi . p Idem Cyril . Alex. lib. 4. in Ioh. ( Citante Sudrez . Tom. 3. qu 79. Disp . 64. Sect. 3. ) Sicuti enim si quis liquefactae cerae aliam ceram infuderit , al●eram cum altera per totum commisceat necesse est : ità si quis carnem & sangui●●m Domini recipit , cùm ipso ità coniungitur , ut Christus in eo & ipse in Christo inveniatur . * See hereafter , Chap. 8. Sect. 4. a Haec sententia sc ▪ de vnione Corporali ) multis Theologis visa est improbabilis , — quòd non propter corporalem coniunctionem , sed propter spiritualem , institutum est , dicente Christo , [ Verba measunt vita . ] Suarez Ies . Tom. 3. Disp . 64. Sect. 3. p. 822. b Rhemists Annot. in . 〈◊〉 . Cor. 11. vers . 27. c Chrysost . Hom. 60. & 61. adpop. Antioc● . d Bellar. Obijcit Cyprian . Serm. de Lapsis , de ijs qui post negatum Christum , sinè poenitentia , accedunt ; plus eosiam manibus atque orc delinquere , quàm cùm Dominū negârunt . Deinde Cyprianum recensere miracula facta in vindictam eorum , qui corpus Christi tantùm violant . Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9. [ See this answered in the 7. Section following . ] e Aug. Tract . 26. in Ioh. sup . illa verba Apostoli . 1. Cor. 10. de fidelibus Iudaeis [ Omnes eandem escam spiritualem ( in Manna ) edebant , & bibebant eundem potū spiritualem , &c. ] Corporalem escam diversam , illi Manna , nos aliud , sed spiritualem eandem : aliud illi , aliud nos bibimus , sed aliud specie visibili , idem autem significante virtute , Item . Eandem quam nos escam ; sed Patres nostri , ( nempe fideles ) non Patresillorum . Aug. ibid. f At eandem interse , non nobiscum eandem . Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. §. Quià . g Iudaeos eandem escam spiritualem edisse nobiscum : exposuit hunc locum de Manna Augustinus , & qui eum secuti sunt multi , ut Beda , Strabo , & Author Glossae ordinariae — reprobatum hoc esse à posterioribus . Ego persuasum habeo , Augustinum , si nostrâ aetate fuisset , longè aliter sensurum fuisse , omni genti Haereticorum inimicissimum , cum videret Calvinistás ad eundem ferè modum hunc locum interpretari . Maldon-Jes . in Ioh. 6. v. 50. col . 706. h Calvin . Inst . lib 4. c. 14. §. 23. Eandem nobiscum — Contra Scholasticorum dogma , quo docent , veteri lege tantùm adumbrari gratiam , & novâ praesentem conferri . i Bertram de Corp. Dom. p. 20. Quaeres , fortasse , quam eandem ? nimirum ipsam , quam hodie populus credentium in Ecclesia manducat . non n. licet — diversa intelligi , quoniam unus idemque Christus , qui populum in mare baptizatum carne suâ pavit , eundemque potum , in petra , Christum sui sanguinis undam populo praebuisse . — vide nondum passum Christum esse , etiam tamen sui corporis & sanguinis mysterium operatum fuisse : non n. putamus ullum fidelium dubitare , panem illum Christi corpus fuisse effectum , quod discipulis Dominus dicit [ Hoc est corpus meum . ] k 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. l Aug. in Ioh. Tract . 26. Sacramentum sumitur à quibusdam ad vitam , à quibusdam ad exitium : Res vero ipsa , cuius est Sacramentum , omni homini ad vitam , nulli ad mortem , quicunque eius particeps fuerit . ( * ) See above . Chap. 2. § 1. * Luc. 9. 5. m Rupertus in Ioh. 6. Si qu●● existimat ' illo Sacramento se non egere , in eo Ipso , quòd manducare & bibere contemnit , quantumvis Catholicae professionis homo sit , à societate membrorum Christi , quae est Ecclesia , se praecidit , &c. n Quemadmodum enim frigidè accedere [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] — sic non cōmunica●e de istis [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] Chrys . inprimam ad Cor. 10. hom . 24. o Conc. provinciale Coloniense fol. 29. can . 14. Qui non tutum hunc panem vitae , qui de coelo descendit , accipere desiderant , homines solo nomine , Christiani sunt Capernaitis deteriores , etiam voluntarie in filium Dei peccantes , & Corpori Dominico & sanguini contumeliam inferentes terribili● quaedam expectatio iudicijman●t . * Aboue . §. 4. * Heb. 6. 6. p Aug. lib. contra Fulgent . Donatist . Sicut qui manducat , et bibit sanguinem domini indignè , iudicium fibi manducat , & bibit . Sic qui indignè accipit Baptisma , ●udicium fibi accipit , non salu●em . q Contum elia illata imagini , ad personam repraesentatam pertinere censetur . Nota est Historia . Theodorij , de vindicta quam in Antiochenos exercuit , propter deiectā Imperatricis imaginē . Niceph. lib. 13. Hist . c. ●3 . Teste Suarez . Ies . Tom. 1. in 3. Thom. disp . 54. §. 3. r Ambros . in 1. Cor. 11. Indignus est Domino , qui aliter mysteriū celebrat , quàm ab ●o traditum est . * 1. Cor. 30. s Hier. in 1. Cor. 11. Reus erit corporis & sanguinis Christi , qui tanti mysterij Sacramentum pro vili desp exerit . t Pri●…as . in e●nd●● locum . Quià acciperent quasi cibum cōmunem . * See above Chap. 〈◊〉 . lit . ( o ) u Optatus lib. 2. * 1. Sam. 5. * 1. Sam. 6. * 2. Sam. 6. * Levit. 10. * Dan. 5. * 2. King. 2. * Numb . 11. x Quidam , qui sancti Anthonij imaginem abolere cupiebant , non tulerūt illud scelus impunè , sed èvestigio peste illâ , quae dicitur Antonij , correpti interierunt . Bozius de signis Eccles . l. 15. c. 12. ex Lindano . y Manlius locorum cōmunium collect . Minister cuiusdam Sartoris Lipsiae , Anno 1553. ob temeratam institutionem divinā quâ praecipitur ut species utraque administretur , unicam tantùm recipiēs , cōscientiae crimine oppressus , exclamavit , ô ( inquit ) Ego sum &c. z Sir Booth , of Saint Iohn's Coll. in Cambridge . a Master Brerely , Liturg. Tract . 2. Sect. 3. b Iansen . Concord . in Ioh. 6. per totum . * There are reckoned by some these Authours , Bi●l , Cusanus , Caietane , Tapper , Hesselius : to whome may be added Peter Lombard . lib. 4. dist . 8. lit . D. c Maldonat . in Ioh. 6. vers . 53. Scio doctos , scio Catholicos , scio religiosos , & probos viros : sed impediunt nos quo minùs in Haereticos acriter invehamur , qui hoc capite de Eucharistia non agi contendunt . * Above at ( a. ) * Matth. 9. 7. * Matth. 13. 36. d August , 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 quià non credunt — ut Propheta , nisi credideritis , non intelligetis . Aliquantò superiùs . Illi non put●runt illum erogaturum corpus suum — Ille autem dixit , se ascensurum in coelum — Certè tunc intelligetis , quià co modo , quo putatis , non erogat corpus — [ Caro non prodest quicquam ] sicut illi intellexerunt carnem , spiritualiter intellectum vivisicat . And Master Brerely out of Aug. in Psal . 98. [ Nisi quis manducaverit , ] Dixerunt , durus est hic sermo : acceperunt illud stultè , carnaliter illud cogitaverunt . e Sed verus & literalis sensus corum verborum est , carnalis intelligentia nihil prodest , ut exponunt Theophyl . Euthem . nec non Origines . Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 14. f Master Brereley Liturg. Booke 4. §. 8. at Fourthly . * See. afterwardes Chap. 6. Sect. 3. in the Challenge . 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 And ●gavens . praesente Nicolao , & coram centum trede cim Episcopis Confessionem jureiurando firmavit . — Quibus verbis conceptum fuit eiusmodi Berengarij iusiurandum , cùm in pleno Conc. 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 Iusiurandum , ab Humberto Episcopo Card. scriptum , ab ipso Papa universoque Conc. recognitum atque approbatum anteà fuerat . [ Haec ex Lanfranco . ] — Nicholaus Papa scriptum Iusiurandum misit per omnes urbes Italiae , Galliae , Germaniae , & ad quaecunque loca , quo fama Berengarij pervenite potuit . Hactenus Baronius . b Ad perpetuam rei memoriam . &c. Bulla P. ante Gratian. Extat in Decret . de Consecrat . Dist . 2. C. Ego Berengarius . c Waldensis , Ruardus , Scotus sine ulla distinctione hac locutiones protulerunt , nempè , ità contrectari , manibus frangi dentibus teri , propriè dici de corpore Christi , dicere visi sunt . Suar. Ies . To. 3. Disp . 47. Sect. 4. §. Prima quae . d Quodsi corpus Christi in Eucharistia editur , certè frāgitur , dentibusque fidelium teritur : utrumque n. cibo , quem edimus , & cōiunctum & proprium . Can. loc . theol . l. 5. ca. ult . sub sinem . e Tàm miro modo corpus Christi connectitur speciebus , ut unum ex ambobus fiat Sacramentum . — Ex hoc sequitur , sicut antea per cadem panis , ità nunc corpus Christi à nobis contrectari , mandù cari , carni nostrae immisceri , dentibusque teri ; & hoc vel illo loco & vase collocari . Quae omnia sive per se , sive per Accidens corpori Christi in Sacramento competant , nihil refert , modò certâ fide credamus haec tàm verè & propriè fieri ac dici circa corpus Christi , quàm si in propria specie esset , & non minùs quàm sifierent in ipso pane , non minùs quàm crucifixio &c. attribuuntur Domino Deo in Scriptura , propter coniunctam humanitatem in eadem Hypostasi . Alan . Card. l. 1. de Euch. cap. 37. p. 435. f Hoc Concilium Generale fuit — Et haec Abiuratio apertissimè significat rem à Concilio definitam sub Anathemate : nec anathematizantur nisi Haereses damnatae ab Ecclesiâ . Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 21. §. Primùm : g In his Reioind . pag. 270. h Nullae sunt exactiores formulae loquendi , in materià fidei , quàm eae quibus utuntur ij , qui Haeresin abiurant . Bellar. lib. 2. de Imag. sanct . cap. 22. §. Secundò nulla . i Calvin . l. 2. defens . Sacram. Nonne centum potiùs mortes praeoptandae sunt , quàm ut quis tanti Sacrificij monstro se implicet ? pag. 25. k Caro Christi , Dùm in hoc Sacramento manducatur , non dentibus atteritur , quià tangi nequit , estque immortalis & impartibilis . Manducatio autem realis requirit contactum rei edendae , ut possit dividi & transmutari . Quod hîc de corpore Christi fieri nequit . Salmeron . Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 20. p. 136. l Si de ratione māducationis esset attritio dentibus facta , Dico , Christi corpus verè & propriè manducari , etiam corpore in Eucharistia , non quòd attritio est necessaria ad manducationem , satis ést enim transmissio in stomachum deglutiendo . Sin verò attritio dentibus facta sit de ratione manducationis : Dico Christi corpus propriè manducari , non tropicè : non enim dicimus corpus Christi absolutè manducari , sed manducatur sub specie panis , quaesententia significat species manducari visibiliter & sensibiliter , ac proindè dentibus atteri . Bellar. l. 1. de Euch. c. 11. §. Respon . corpus . m Frangi , metaphorica , & non proprià locutioest , colligitur ex Thoma qu. 77. art . 7. & patet , quià fractio propriè & in rigore significat divisionem & discontinuationem partium : quae constat non fieri in partibus corporis Christi . Suarez . in Thom. qu. 75 Disp . 47. Art. 1. Sect. 4. * Canus , see in the former Section . n Si propriè loqui velimus , falsae sunt omnes istae Propositiones , Corpus Christi māducatur à nobis , corpus Christi devoratur , corpus Christi frāgitur , quià ipsi modi , qui his verbis significantur , non conveniunt corpori Christi , quod est in hoc Sacramento : sed hae sunt verae , Recipitur à nobis sumitur à nobis . Malden Jes . Tom. 1. de Sacram . Tract . de Euch. p. 144. Verè sumitur , sed non atteritur . Ibid. p. 143. o Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarij , in maiorem haeresin incides quàm ipse fuerit . Igitur omnia referas ad species ipsas &c. Glossa apud Gratian. de Consecrat Dist . 2. C. Ego Berengarius . p Ob. Scoto Brittannus , apud Pontificios — corpus Christi Cyclopum dentibus ●eri . Resp . Dansqueius Theol. 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 , cum tunicam à pectore laceravit . * Suarez . See above , Booke 1. c. 1. §. 4. * See above Chap. 4. Sect. 1. ( d. c. ) q Hostiam saliv â reverentèr liquefactam in corpus dimittat : non est enim dentibus terenda , vel palato admovenda , sed ante ablutionis sumptionem deglutienda . Coster . Ios . Institut . lib. 1. cap. 5. r Nimis carnaliter intelligebant ( Discipuli Capernaitae ) credentes eius carnem comedi oportere , sicut edebantur animalium carnes , quae dentibus conteruntur . Madridius Ies . de frequenti usu Eucharistiae , cap. 4. a Orig. Hom. 7. in Levit. pag. 141. Nis● manducaveritis carnem meam ] Si secundùm literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est , occidit haec litera : vi● tibi aliam proferam ex Evangelio literam quae occidit , [ Qui non habet , inquit , gladium , vendat tunicam , & ●mat gladium ] si verò spiritualiter , nō occidit , sed est in eo spiritus vivificans . b Athanas . Tract . in illa verba . — Quicunque dixerit verbum in filium hominis , &c. ] Quod hominibus corpus suffecisset ad cibum , ut ▪ vniversis mundi alimonia fiere● . Sed propterea ascensionis su● m●minit , ut ●os a corporali intellectu abstraheret — Quae locutus sum ( inuit ) spiritus sunt & vita . i. e. corpus in cibum dabitur , ut spiritualiter unicuique tribuatur , & fiat singulis praeservatio ad resurrectionem . c Tertul. de Capernaitis . Quia durum & intolerabile existimârunt sermon●m , quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinâsset , praemisit , [ Spiritus est qui vivificat . ] lib. de Resur . carnis . d August . in Job . 6. Non moritur . ] Non qui panem premit dente , sed qui manducat in Corde . Tract . 26. — Idem in Psal . 98. Spiritualiter intelligite , non hoc Corpus , quod videtis , manducaturi estis , & bibituri sanguinem illum , quem fusuri sunt , qui me crucifigent : Sacrame ▪ tum commendavi vobis , spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos . e Aug. apud Gratian . de Consecrat . Dist . 2. Vt quid . ] Quid paras dentem , & ventrem ? crede , & manducâsti . Ex Aug. de remed . Poenitent . §. Vt quid . * See above Booke 4. Chap. 7. §. 3. f Idem rursus apud Gratian ibid. Christꝰ manducatꝰ vivit , quia resurrexit occisus : nec , quandò manducamus , partes de illo facimus & quidem in Sacramento id fit : nôrunt fideles quemadmodùm manducet carnem Christi , per partes manducatur in Sacramentis , manet integer c●…o . Ex Aug. Serm. de verbis Evangelij . * See above Chap. 3 § 1. in the Challenge . g Chrysost . in Ioh. 6. ( Graecè ) Hom. 47. ( Latine ) Hom. 46. [ Verba , quae ego locutus sum , spiritus & vita . ] Spiritus , hoc est Spiritualia , hoc enim nihil carnale , nullam consequentiam carnalem habentia : [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . — Caro non prodest quiequam . ] Quid hoc ? nunc de ipsa carne dixit ? absit , sed pro carnaliter audire deijs , qui car●aliter accipiunt quae dicuntur . — Quomodò non prodest quicquam caro , sinè qua nemo potest vivere ? vide quòd non de carne , sed de carnali auditione dictum est . b Orig Hom. 5. in diuers . Script . loca . Sub tectum tuum ingreditur , imitare Centurionem , & dic non sum dignus , Domine , &c. Obijc . Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 8 Nō vidi Adversariorū respōsum ad hoc . [ Yea , Resp . Orig . ibid. ] Intrat nunc Dominus sub tectum credentium duplici figurâ vel more , quandò enim sancti Ecclesiarum Antistites sub tectum tuum intrant , tune ibidem Dominus per cos ingreditur , & tu sic existimes , tanquàm Dominum suscipiendum . Then followeth the other figure , ] Cum hic sanctus cibus , & incorruptibile ●pulum , &c. i Chrysost . Hom. 60. ad pop . Antioch . Multi dicunt velle se eius formam videre , ipse concedit , non tantùm videre , sed & tangere , & manducare , & dentibus terere . So Chrysost . ibid. Lingua rubescit sanguine Christi . Et lib. 3. de Sacerdotio , & Hom. 47. in Ioh. [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] spiritualia sunt . k Dentibus teri , quema dmodùm Chrysost . ●ocutus est , hae● non possunt nisi Sacramento-tenùs Intelligi non propriè . Maldon ▪ Ies . in Matth. 26. 2● . * See above Chap. 4. §. 2. l Gaudent . Promisit corpus suum , porrigit tibi corpus suū , corpus accipis . Ob. Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 21. [ Albeit a little after upon these words , I Nisi manducaveritis : ] Voluit Christus animas nostras pre●ioso suo sanguine sanctificari , per imaginem pretiosae passionis , quo omnes fideles populi exempla passionis ante oculos habentes , quotidiè gerentes in manibus , & ore sumentes ac pectore , redemptionis nostrae op ' indelebili memoriâ teneamus . Gaudent . Tract . 2. De Ratione Sacramentorum . m Aug. l. 2. con . Advers . legis & Proph. c. 9 Christum sanguinem dantem , fideli corde atque ore suscipimus . Ob. Bellar. quo supra . cap. 24. §. In sex to . n Notandū . Non corde tantùm , sed etiam ore dici , — Bellar. ibid. [ yet it followeth immediatly in Saint Augustine giving this generall Rule for such sayings , ] Agi in omnibus Scripturis secundum sanae fidei regulam , figurativè dictum vel factum si quid exponitur de quibu●liber rebus & verbis , quae in sacris paginis continentur , expositio illa ducatur , &c. [ Teaching in all other Scriptures ( as in this ) a figurative sence , wherein any m●t●…er of Horrour or Turpitude may seeme to be contained . ] o Leo Serm. 14. de Passione Christi . Ipsum per omnia & spirite & carne gustemus . Ob. Bellar. quo supra c. 28. [ Gustemus pro Gestamus ; for he speakes of Baptisme lawfully administred , whereby we are said to Put on Christ , Gal. 3. By which ( saith he ) Corpus regenerati fiat caro crucifixi . [ Other places obiected out of Leo we grant , as Serm. 6. de Ieiun . 7. Mens Ore sumitur , quod corde creditur . And so say wee ; Ore , Sacramentally . ] p Greg. Papa Hom. 22. in Evang. Qui sanguis super utrumque postem ponitur , quandò non solùm ore corpotis , sed etiam ore cordis hauritur . Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 32. [ But Greg. a little after , Et in superliminare domus agni sa nguinem ponimus , quià crucem ill●us passionis in fronte po●●amus . ] q Isych . lib. 6. in Levit. cap. 22. Per ignoratiam percipit , qui nes●it quià corpus hoc & sanguis est secundùm veritatem , &c. Ob. Bellar. quo supra . [ yet the same Isych . lib. 1. in Levit. cap. 2. ] Carnem aptam ●ibo fecit post passionem : si enim non fuisset crucifixus , sacrificium eius corporis minimè concederemus , comedimus autem nunc cibum s●men●es memoriam passionis . ] r Optat. Milevit . lib. 6. cont . Parmen . In Altaribus membra Christi sunt portata . — Altare sedes est corporis & sanguinis Christi . — Immane facinus quandò fregistis calices sanguinis Christi . Obijcit ▪ Bellarm. quo supra . Albeit the same Optatus in the same Booke ; Iudaeos estis imitati , illi injecerunt manus Christo , à vobis pas●… est in Altari . ] s Chrysostomus in 1. ad Cor. 10. Hom. 24. Non conspicaris cum tantùm , sed tangis , &c. t Aug. Vos estis in mensa , vos estis in calice . Teste Beda in 1. Cor. 10. u Chrysost . in Mare . Hom. 14. Tenete pedes Salvatoris . x De Consecrat dist . 2. Can. Cum frangitur . Dum sanguis de calice in ora fidelium funditur . Aug. y Hier. in Psal . 147. Quando audimꝰ s●rmonem Dei , caro Christi & sangu●s eius in auribus fideliū funditur . z Master Brereley . Cyprian de Coena Dom. Christus pincerna porrexit hoc poculum , & docuit , ut non solùm exterius hoc sanguine frueremur , sed & interius aspersione omnipotenti animâ muniremur . Litur . Tract . 2. §. 2. Subd . 4. a Cyprian . paulò post . Cruc● haeremus , sanguinem sugimus , & intra ipsa redemptoris vulnera figimus linguam , &c. b Gaudent . Tract . 2. lubemur caput Divinitatis eius cùm pedibus incarnationis manducare . c Hier. in Psal . 147. Ego corpus Iesu Evangelium puto . — Et cùm dicit , [ Qui bibit sanguinem meum ] licet in mysterio possit intelligi , tamé veriùs sanguis eius , sermo Scripturarum est . d Orig. in Numb . 23. Hom. 16. Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi , non solùm Sacramentorum ritu , sed cùm doctrinae eius verba recipimus , in quibus vita consistit : sicut ipse dicit , Ioh ▪ 6. Verba mea spiritus sunt & vita . e Saepe monuimus non esse Concionatorum verba sempe● in rigoreaccipienda : multa enim Declamatores per Hyperbolen enuntiant & inculcant vel occasione personarum inducti , vel affectuum impctu , vel orationis cursu rapti . Hoc interdùm Chrysostomo contigit . Sixtus Se●ens . Bibli●th . l. 6. Annot. 152. a Satis est ut transmissio fiat in stomachum , deglutiendo . Bell. l. 1. de Euc● . c. 11. b Missale Roman . authoritate Concili● Tridentini , & Pap● Pij quarti . Ordinariu missae . Corpus tuum , Domine , quod sumpsi , & sanguis , quem potavi adhaereat visceribus meis . c Missale parvum pro Sacerdotibus in Anglia , Iuss● Pa●●i Quinti Papae editum . Deus , qui humani generis vtramque substantiam praesentium munerum alimento vegetas , & renovas Sacramento , tribue quaesumus ut corum & corporibus nostris subsidium non defit , & mentibus . * See above in the fourth Booke C. 8. §. 2. * See above C. 4 §. 2 * Ibid. §. 1. d Osor , Jes . Tom. 2. Conc. 2. in Ioh. 6. Caro mea verus est cibus &c. Vorare , est sine masticationeglutire . e Theoph. in Ioh. 6. p. 304. Capernaitae putabāt , quòd Christus cogeret eos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , voratores carnis suae esse : nos hîc spiritualiter intelligimus , neque carnium voratores sumus . f Origen in Matth. 25. [ Quod si quicquid in os ingreditur , in ventrem abit , & in secessum ejicitur . ] E● ille cibus sanctificatus verbo Dei , iuxta id quod habet materiale , in ventrem abit , & in secessū eijcitur . Coeterum iuxta precationem pro proportione fidei factus sit utilis , efficiens ut perspicax sit animꝰ . Nec materia panis , sed super eo dictus sermo prodest non indignè comedenti . Et haec quidem de symbolico corpore : multa por●ò & de verbo dici possunt , quid factum est , caro , verus que cibus , quem qui comede●it vivet in aeternum . g Bellar. Ista omnia rectè intelligi possunt de Eucharistia — at materiale , quod in sece●sum abit , sunt accidentia , non respectu formae naturalis , sed sanctificationis & magnitudinis : nam magnitudo ad materiam potius pertinet quàm ad formam — Et per hoc quòd Symbolicum corpus vocat , intelligit corpus Christi , ut est hîc symbolum & signum sui ipsius , ut erat in cruce . Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 8. * See Booke 4. Chap. 10. * Booke 2. C. 2. §. 6. * Booke 6. C. 5. §. 7. h Cyrill . Hierosol . Cate. Mystag . 5. Panis hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. i Chryso●t . de Euch. in E●caen . Non sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt : absit ! ne sic cogites . k Ambros . lib. 5. de Sacram. cap. 4. Non iste panis est , qui vadit in corpus , sed panis vitae aeternae , qu● animae nostrae substantiam fulcit , Ibid. Supersubstantialis . l Aug co● . Fa●st . Manich. lib ▪ 20. cap. 11. Ex fabula vestra de Sp. Sancto terra concipiens gignat patibilem Iesum , qui est salus hominum omnium suspensus ex ligno &c. Cap. 12. Cur non Totum simul unus Christus , si propter unam Substantiam , & in arboribus Christus , & in persecutione Iudaeorum Christus , & in sole , & in luna Christus ? &c. Cap. 13. In uva agnoscunt Deum suum , in cupa nolun● ▪ quasi aliquid eos calca●us & inclusus offenderit : noster autem panis & calix ▪ non quilibet , quasi propter Christum in spicis ▪ & sarmentis ligatum , sicut illi desipiunt , sed cer●a Consc●ratione mysticus fit nobis , non nascitur : proinde quòd nòn ita fit ▪ quamvis sit pauls & calix , alimentum refectionis est , non Sacramentum religionis , nisi quòd benedicimus , gratiàsque agimus Domino in omni munere ●ius , non solùm spirituali , verum-etiam corporali . Vobis autem per fabulam vestram in estus omnibus Christus ligatus apponitur , adhuc ligandus vestris visceribus , solvendusque ructatibus : nam & cum manducatis , Dei vestri defectione vos reficitis , & cum digeritis , illius refectione deficietis . — Quomodo ergò comparas panem & calicem nostrum , & parem religionem dici● , errorem longè à veritate diseretum ? peius n● decipimus quàm nonnulli , qui nos propter panem & calicem Cererem & Liberum colere existimant . — Sicut enim à Cerere & Libero Paganorum Dijs longè absumus quamvis panis & calicis Sacramentum , quod ità laudâstis , ut in ●o nobis pares esse volueritis , ritu nostro amplectamur . &c. Edit . Parisijs Ann. 1555. * See Chap. 7. Sect. 1. m Editio Paris . Anno 1614. Noster panis — mysticus fit nobis [ Corpus Christi ] non nascitur . Whereas the direct Sence is , that Bread consecrated is not naturally bread ( as were the Spicae , that is , ●ares of corne , spoken of by the Manichees ) but made Mysticall and Sacramentall by Consecration . n Si praeceptiva locutio flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere , figurata est , ut [ Nisi manducaveritis carnem me●m : ] facinus videtur jubere . Ergò figura est , praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum , & suaviter & utiliter recondendū in memoria , quià pro nobis caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit . August . de Doct. Christ . lib. 3. Cap. 16. a Multi Catholici his temporibus , in odium Haeresis , veram praesentiam corporis Christi in hoc Sacramēto — Sumptione eius fieri unionem inter corpus Christi & suscipientem , quam realem , naturalem , & substantiale● , atque etiam corporalem vovocant . Sic Algerus , Turrecremata , Roffensis , Hosius , Turrianus , Bellarminus , Alanus . Suarez Ies . Tom. 3. qu. 79. Disp . 64. Sect. 3. b Denique recentior●s omnes , qui de hoc Sacramento contra Haereticos scribunt , hoc ferè modo loquuntur . Suarez in 3. Tho. Disp . 64. §. 3. p. 822. c Card. Alan . Cum comedimus Eucharistiam , corpore Christa verè vescimur , ex quâ manducatione per naturae instrumenta realirer recipitur intra nos , atque Substantiae nostrae permiscetur , sicut coeteri cibi , nisi quod mutationem in carnem nostram non patiatur . De Euch. lib. 1. cap. 28. d Fer●u● Mendozam Cardinalem Burgensem in lib. quem de vnione scripsit , docuisse Christum Sacramentaliter manducatum non solùm fieri praesentem in loco , quem species possent Sacramentaliter occupare , sed quodammodò diffundi per totum Corpus hominis , ut toti illi in omnibus eius partibus uniatur , seque illis immisceat : sed haec cogitatio non solùm improbabilis , sed etiam absurda , & plusquam temeraria est . Suarez . quo sup ▪ pag. 822. * See above C. 6. §. 2. e Nihilominùs haec sententia improbabilis , & aliena dignitate & maiestate huius Sacramenti , quod non propter corporalem coniunctionem , sed propter spiritualem institutumest , dicente Christo [ Mea verba Spiritus sunt & vita . Ioh 6. ] Suarez quo sup . pag 822. * See the testimonie above cited . Chap. 6. §. 2. * See above at ( b. ) * See his Testimonies cited a little before , lit . ( 〈◊〉 . ) * See the Testimonies in the 3. 〈…〉 Section following . * Witnes Suarez in the former Section , at ( a , b. ) a Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. per totum . a Non est novum apud Irenaeum , Hillarium , Nyssenum , Cyrillum , & alios , ut Eucharistia dicatur alero corpora nostra : sed non intelligunt Patres , cum hoc dicunt , Eucharistiâ nutriri vel augeri mortalem substantiam Corporis nostri , si● enim facerent Eucharistiam cibum ventris , non mentis , quo nihil absurdius fingi possit . Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 4. ad finem . b Cum dicunt Hillar . & Cyril . nostra corpora habere vnionem corporalem & naturalem cum corpore Christi : Doctores hi non sunt ità intelligendi , utvelint ex Christo sumpto , & sumen●e fieri unum Ens naturale ( indigna est illis doctrina ) sed hoc dicere voluerunt propter unionem , quae ratione charitatis & fidei sit , adesse intra nos ipsos verè & realiter Christum ipsum , qui Causa est fidei eiusdem . Tolet. in Ioh. 6. Annot. 29. * Suarez in the Chap. 7. §. 1. c Suarez . Jes . in Thom. part . 3. disp . 64. §. 3. recenset vz. 1. Irenaeum . Quando mixtus calix , & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei , ●it Eucharistia ex , quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia . lib. 5. contra Haeres . c. 2. 2. Chrysost . No● secum in unam massam r●duxit , neque id fide solùm , sed reipsâ nos suum corpus effecit . Hom. 88. in Matth. Vt non solùm ▪ per dilectionem , sed reipsa in illam ▪ carnem cōvertamur . Hom. 5. in Iohannem . 3. Cyril . A●ex . [ Qui manducat carnem meam in me manet , & ego in illo . ] Sicut si quis liquefactae Cerae aliam ceram infuderit , alteram cum alterâ commisceat , necesse est — ità qui carnem recipit , cum pso coniungitur , 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 cùm ita fiat , non●è corporaliter facit , communicatione carnis eius , Christum in nobis habitare ? lib. 10 cap. 13. Greg. Nyssen . Sicut parum fermenti assimulat totam massam aspersione , ità Corpus Christi , cùm fuerit intra nostrum , ad se transmutat & transferr . Orat. Catech. c 37. 5. Leo Papa . Vt accipientes virtutem coelestis cibi , in carnem ipsius , qui caro nostra factus est , transeamus . Epist . 23. 6. Hilarius . Nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus , quo modo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est , & naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub Sacramento nobis communicandae ●arnis admiscuit . Lib. 〈◊〉 . de Trinit . He might have added Iustine Martyr , and others . Docet Apostolus ex natura Sacramentorum esse hanc fidelium unitatem , ad Galatas scibens : Quotquot baptizati estis in Christo , Christum induistis — Quod unum sunt in tantâ gentium , conditionum , sexuum diversitate nunquid ex assensu voluntatis , an ex Sacramenti vnitate ? quia his & Baptisma sit unum , itaque qui per ●andem rem sunt unum natura unum sunt . Hilar. de Trinit . lib 8 Sus●ipiens Christum non idem fit post lavacrum , qui ante Baptismum fuit , sed Corpus regenerati fiat caro crucifixi . Leo. Ser. 14. de Passione Domini . d Tolet. Com. in Ia● . 6. Anot. 26. Docet Augustinus lib. 1. de Pecc . merit . Parvulos per Baptismum participes fieri huius Sacramanti ( Eucharistiae ) quod hac ratione fit , nam per Baptismum sunt de corpore mystico Ecclesiae , ad unitatem Christi pertinent ; hoc Sacramentum huius unitatis corporis ●ignum est , & ideo ho● Sactamento aliquo modo participant , nemp● quantum rem significatam , & dici possunt ●arnem Christi manducare & bibere sanguinem . e Isidor . Pelus . Verbum Dei [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] Lib. 2. Epist . 281. Item Gregor . Nissen . de Sancto Stephan● ; Gratiâ Spiritus sancti permixtus est & contemperatus . f Aug. apud Gratian . de Consecrat . dist ▪ 4. Ad hoc . Ad hoc Baptismus valet , ut baptizati Christo incorporentur . g Chrysost . in Ephes . H●m . 20. ( de Baptisme ) Facti sumus os ex ossibus , & caro ex carne eius . h Damasc . Epist ▪ ad Zachar. Episc . D●●rorum Quod accipitur , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Teste Casau● . in Baron . Exercit. 16. C. 39. i Primas . in 1. Cor. 10. Sicut Salvator dixit [ Qui manducat meam carnem , manet in me ] — Sic Idolorum panis Daemonum participatioest . Et ut multi de uno pane participantes unum corpus sumus : sic si de ●odem pane manducamus , vnde Idololatrae , unum cum illis Corpus efficimur . k Augustin . Consess . lib. 7. cap. 10. Manducabis me , Tu me in te mutabis , & tu mutaberis in me ▪ Theophylact . in Ioh. 6. Qui māducat me vivet propter me , & quod ammodo miscetur mihi . Cyrillus in Ioh 11. c. 26 Suo Corpore Christus credentes per communionem mysticā benedicens nos secum & inter nos unu corpus fecit . Suarez in 3. Thom. quaest . 79. Art. 8. Disp . 64 §. 3. Vnionem hanc Patres dicunt non esse solùm inter Christum & nos , sed etiam inter nosmetipsos , quatenus sumus membra Christi . [ Primasiu● his Testimony i● at the letter ( i ) immediately going before . l In Liturg●… . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And Concil . Nicen. Can. 13. Si quis egreditur de Corpore , ultimo & necessario viatico non privetur &c. Aquin as part . 3. qu●st . 73. Art. 4. Hoc Sacramentum est praefigurativum fruitionis Dei , ideo dictum Viaticum , quia hic praebet nobis viam illu● perven●endi . m Basil . Exhort . ad Baptismum ▪ de Baptismo sic mo●e● Inve●em : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Nazia● , Orat. ●0 . de Baptismo , vult Morientem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Teste C●… . in Baronium 16. cap. 52. * See above C. 7. §. 1. at ( c ) and ( d. ) * See above §. 3. Cyril . Qui manducat , manet in me : Christus in nobis habitat . Hil. Manet in nobis . * See above §. 3. Irenaeus , Cyril , Hil. n Suarez . Si quis dixeritunionem corporalē durare solùm quamdiu Christi praesentia durat sub speciebus — ex hoc contra mentem Sanctorum , Illi enim dicunt , illam Vnionem , quâ totum Ecclesiae corpꝰ Christo , ut capiti , coniungitur — Et eand●m 〈◊〉 ●um ●a quae 〈◊〉 inter ipsos Christianos , ut membra Christi . Et suam sententiam cōfirmāt ex Testimonio Pauli 1. Cor. 10. [ Quoniam unus panis , 〈◊〉 corpus m●…i sumus , qui de uno pane participamus : ] quod probat Sanctos loqui non de transeunte Vnione , sed de durabili & permanente . In Thō . 3. qu 79. Disp 64. §. 3. Ratione etiam . * See above Chap. 2. Sect. 2. * See above §. 3. o Hieron . Comedentes cibos impietatis , non comedūt carnem Iesu , nec bibunt eius sanguinem In Isa . c. 66. p Suarez . Haec Vnio cōmunis est peccatoribꝰ indignè māducātibus . Quo suprà §. Tota haec . * Ioh. 6. * See above . q Ians●nius Concord . in Ioh , 6. sparsim Dominus non loquitur de manducatione sacramental● , sed de spirituali , quae est per ●idē non mortuam — per manducare significat credere , & non secundùm primariam intentionem , sed de Sacramētali loquutum esse probatur , 1. quiasupra manducare pro credere sumpsit . 2. tantùm manducātes intelligit cos , qui manent in Christo , & Christus in illis — Certè ita docet August . l. 3. de Doctrina Christ . c. 16. [ Nisi manducaveritis ] facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere , figura est praecipiens Passioni Domini esse communicandum . * See above §. 3. * See above §. 3. r Suarez . Damasc . 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 eius sanguinem & corpus intramembra nostra receperimus , atque ità ( ut B. Petrus dicit ) divinae naturae consortes efficimur . Hinc Suarez . Vbi propter Sacramentalem susceptionem non agnoscit altam Vnionem praeter spiritualem per gratiam &c. ●n 3. T●om . qu. 79. Disp . 64. Sect. 3. §. Nihilominus . * See above Chap. 6. Sect. 3. in the Chall . s Suarez . Glori● corpori●●respondet gloriae animae , sicut beartrudo animae respondet gratiae & Charitati : ut sicut hoc Sacramentum neque haber neque habere potest aliam efficaciam circa gloriam animae praeter cam quam habet circa gratiam & charitatem , ita neque aliter potest efficere gloriam corporis , quā gloriam animae . Concludit . Hoc Sacramétum non aliam conferre vitam & immortalitatem corporis , quàm nutriendo & cōservando gratiā & charitatem . In 3. Thom. qu. 79. Disp . 64. §. 2. t Concil . Nicen. Hoc Sacramentum Symbolū Resurrectionis . Ignatius ; Pharmacum immortalitatis . Cyril . Cibꝰ nutriens ad immortalitatem . Teste Suarez Ies . ibid. And Irenaeus contra Haereslib . 4. cap. 34. Corpora nostra participantia Eucharistiā ia●● non sunt corruptibilia , spem resurrection●s habentia . u Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch c. ●7 . ex Optato . Optatus vocat Eucharistiam Pignus salutis , tutelam fidei , & spem resurrectionis . x Basil . Exhort . ad Baptis . Baptismus est virtus ad resurrectionem , & ar●●abo . y Primas . in . 1. Cor. 11. Sa●vator Deus exemplum dedit , ut quotiescunque hoc facimus in mente habeamus ▪ quòd Christus pro nobis mortuus est , ideo nobis dicitur corpus Christi , ut cum recordati fuerimus , non simus ingrati gratiae eius . Quemadmodum ●…quis moriens relinquat ei , quem diligit , aliquod pignus , quod ille post mortē eius quandocunque viderit , numquid potest lachrymas continere , si perfectè dilexerit ? and Co●terus the Iesuite . See above Booke 4. Chap. 9. §. 5. z Cyprian . de coena Dom. Ad participation emspiritus , non usque ad consubstantialitatem sed usque ad societatem germanissimam . — Nostra & ipsius coniunctio non miscet personas , neque unit substantias , sed affectus consociat , & conf●●derat voluntates . a Item . Potus & esus ad eandem pertinent rationem , quibus sicut corporea nutritur substantia , & vivit , & incolumis perseverat : it à vita Spiritus hoc proprio alimento nutritur : & quod est esca carni , hoc animae est sides , quod cibus corpori est verbum spiritui , excellentiori virtute peragens aeternalitèr , quàm agunt alimenta carnalia temporalitèr . [ Idem Cyprian . & alia multa habet contra Carnalem Coniunctionem , de●oena Dom. a Maister Breely in his Liturgie Tract . 2. §. 2 subd . 4 : pag. 121. where , in his margent , hee citeth Vadian , whom hee na meth a Zwinglian : And if so , how farre hee was from confessing a corporall presence , the Romish Authours , who condemne him for the contrarie opinion , doe proue to be false . See aboue Cap. 5. §. 3. b Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 4. * In the Margent of Master Brerely ibid. c Maldonat . Montanistae Peputiani ( ut Author est August . lib. de Haeres . cap. 17. Et Epiph. in Haeres . 49. ) Infantem conspersum farinâ solebant compungere , & sanguinem ab illa expressum miscere fatinâ , & ex eo panē cōficere ad Eucharistiam . Vnde credo natam fuisse illam notam , quam Gentiles inurebant Christianis , quod Infantes occiderunt . Lib. de 7. Sacrā . Tom. de Euch. §. Sexta Quaestio . d Baronius . Anno. 120. num . 22. vsque ad num . 36. Quae Gnosticiagebant in occulto , palam facta convertebant in Christianos : nam Epiphan . Haeres 26. Foetum iam natum detectum pistillo tundant , & omnes contusi pueri participes facti , esu peracto &c. Irenoeus . l. 1. c. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum ( Haereticorum ) omnes nos blasphemant , & avertunt aures à praeconio nostro veritatis . Origenes testatur opera Iudaeorum has columnias aduersus Christianos divulgatas . lib. 1. cont . Celsum . — Caecilius ethincus , apud Minutium Felicem , obijcit in Octavium . Sic iam , de initiandis tyronibus , fabula tàm detestanda quam nota est &c. Hac Baronius locis supra notatis . e Gretzerus Jesuita de cruce lib. 1. cap. 51. Ethinci aliqui mentiebantur Christianos Asinum pro Deo colere , Tert. Apolog cap. 16. alij Asini caput , & per Iudibrium Christiani appellabantur Asinarij &c. * Booke . 6. Cha. 9. §. 2. * Bellar. supra . * See above Booke 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. * See hereafter in the Eight Booke . a Si quis dixerit , non offerri Deo verum & proprium Sacrificium , aut non esse Propitiatorium , Anathema fit . Conc. Trid. Sess . 22. Con. 1. & 3. Visibile . cap. 1. Sacramentum verè propitiatorium . cap. 2. b Prima Controversia est , sit nè Missa verè & propriè dictum Sacrificium . Secunda , sit nè Propitiatorium . Bellar. Praef. ante Tract . de Missa . a [ Hoc facite ] Tunc , ut à Sancta Synodo definitum est , Christus Sacerdotes instituit , praecepitque ut & ipsi & qui successuri cis essent , corpus ejus immolarent . Catechis . Trid. de Euch. num . 58. b Certum est , probari Sacrificium Missae his verbis [ Hoc facite ] &c. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 12. c Gnaschah , Heb : the same in Greeke , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in Latine , Facio . Iud. 6. 29. Ios . 5. vers . ult . Ioh. 13. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and Marc. 11. 3. Si quis dixerit , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; * See above Booke 5. Chap. 2. §. 2. d Maldon . Non quòd contendam illud verbum [ Facite ] illo loco significare idem quod sacrificare . Lib. 7. de Sacram. Tom. 1. part . 3. de Eucharist . e Quod olim dicimus , Missas facere , Veteres quoque dixerunt Divine mysteria celebrare . Hilar. &c. Ex Cassand . Liturg. cap. 16. f Alexander Papa & Martyr , Passionem Domini inserens Canoni Missae , ait , [ Hoc quotie scunque feceritis , ] Id est , Benedixeritis , Fregeritis , Distribueritis , &c. Id. Cassander ibid. cap. ●9 . g Operae-pretium erit imposturam Adversariorum refutare . Calvinus fingit Catholicos ●irà probare Propositionem nostri argumenti ex Virgilii verbis , Cùm faciam vitula , &c. 〈◊〉 Kemnitius ridet Catholicos . — sed errant , nec bon● fide referunt argumenta Catholicorum . Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa , c. 12. h Sunt qui ex verbo [ Facite ] Sacrificium ostendere co●antur , quia al●quandò accipitur pro Sacrificare , ut cum Virgilius dicit — Cùm faciam vitula pro frugibus ipse veni●o . Ianse●… . ●oncord ▪ in eum locum . cap. ●31 . p. 904. i Et Poeta , Cum faciam vitulâ , &c. Valent . Ies . lib. 1. de Sacrif . Missae , c. 4. §. Fatentur . p. 519. Eam vim habet verbū Faciendi , ut cum Poeta dicit , Cùm faciam Vitulâ , &c. Salmeron Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 27. pag. 205. §. Septimo . a Bellarm. de Missa , lib. 1. cap. 1 , 2. In Graeco Textu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , dicit , Calix qui funditur , non hic est sanguis qui funditur : itaque indicant sangu●…em fundi , ut erat in Calice . b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . c M. Breely Liturg. tra●● . 3. c. 3. subd . 2. d Rhemists A●… . upon Luc. 22. 20. e Rodolph . Goclenius Professor Marpurg . Problem . Gram. lib. 5. Demosthenes . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Cic. 2. de Orat. Benedicere autem , quod est peritè loqui , non habet definitā aliquā regionē , cujus terminis septa teneatur . Vox [ Septa ] non congruit cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benedicere , sed referenda est ad vocem Eloquentiae . Hee observeth the like in Plato , Virgil , Homer , pag. 232 , 233 , 261 , 262. f Sixtus Sen●●sis Biblioth . lib. 8. pag. ult . Nos ingenuè fa●… nonnullas mendas in hac nostra editione inveniri , etiam Soloecismos , & Barbarismos , hyperbata , &c. g Rhemists Preface before the New Testament . h D. Fulke against Greg. Martin . Apoc. 1. 4. & 8. 9. & 3. 12. &c. i Ioseph . Scaligeri Notae in novum Testamentum . Luc. 22. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : Mera est Antiptosis , pro , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Basil . Reg. Moral . 21. l Bellarm. lib. 1. de Miss . cap. 12. Datur , Frangitur , Funditur , in Praesenti tempore , docet apertissimè nō fusum esse in Cruc● sanguinem , sed in Coena . m Rhemists upon Luc. 22. 20. n M. Breerly , Liturg. Tract . 3. §. 3. subd . 1. p. 319. o Ibid. subd . 3. p. 319. p Ibid. subd . 1. p. 317. * See above . chap. 2. 〈◊〉 . 4. q Iansenius referring it to the Cup , yet saith : [ Qui effunditur ] communiter intelligitur de effusione factâ in Cruce , & rectè . Concord . 131. * Liturg. Tract . 3. §. 3. subd . 1. * See hereafter Booke 〈◊〉 . r Liturg. in the place above cited . s Missale Rom. Calix Sanguinis — qui effundetur . t Liturg. Tract . 3. c. 3. subd . 3. p. 145. u Salmeron Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 3. c. 3. p. 90. Frangitur , i. e. Clavis , Lanceâ , Flagellis laniandum est . Barradas Tom. 4. in Concord . c. 4. è Chrysost . in 1 Cor. hom . 24. quod fiangitur , hoc est , quod Clavis frangitur . x Bellarm. Vtcunque possit fractio , &c. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 12. §. Ad quartum . * Luc. 22. 21. * Vers . 22. a Origen . Hom. 9. in Levit. [ Effundetur ] Teste Bellarm. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 8. Tertull. l. 3. in Marc. [ Tradetur ] Teste Bellarm. ibid. c. 7. Ambros . lib. 4. de Sacram . c. 5. [ Confringetur . ] Athanas . in 1 Cor. 11. [ Tradetur . ] Missa Basilii [ Effundetur . ] Isidor . Com. in Exod. 1. 50. [ Effundetur . ] Theodoret , in eundem locum , [ Tradetur . ] Alexand. Epist . 1. Decret . [ Tradetur , Fundetur . ] Teste Greg. Valent. Ies . l. 2. de Sacrific . Missae . c. 5. p. 627. Chrysost . Dabitur . in 1 Cor. 11. * See above Book● 2. Chap. 2. a Ex qua intellige , ●a verba [ Quod provobis frangitur ] non esse ad Consecrationem necessaria : sed consultò à Latinis praetermissa , ne esset locus absurdae intelligentiae , quâ quis existimare possit verè frangi corpus Christi . Iansen . Concord . cap. 131. in Matth. 26. b Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 12. §. Ad secundum . Sanguis Christi reipsa non e●… de Corpore . * See above Booke 4. Chap. 2. Sect. 3. c Alfo●sus lib. 6. adversus Haeres . Tit. Eucharistia , ●●res . ult . Cum Sanguinem p●o nobis semel in ara Crucis e●●usum , post resurrectionem nunquam eum fu●urus sit : convincitur inde etiam , nunquam sanguinem verum il●…s integrè alicubi e●●e ●ine ejus corpore vero . — Sol. Ob. Quamvis sub specie vini totus Christus lateat , non tamen species illae totum Christum significant , sed solùm sanguinem e●●usum in Cruce , & à corpore separatum . d Coster . Euchirid . cap. 9. de Sacrificio . §. Ex quibus . Christus veram sanguinis effusionem passus in cruce , sanguine ipso à corpore separato . Hic vero tantum illius mortis repraesentatio . a Sotus cum ali●● hanc Elevationem ut Oblationem pertinere aliquo modo ad substantiam hujus Sacrific●● existimant . Sed dico , esse tantum Ceremonialem actionem , ab Ecclesia institutam , nec semper fuisse in Ecclesia . Suarez Ies . Tom. 3. disp . 75. §. 3. Per hanc primā actionem negandum est Christum sacrifica●e . Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 27 , & 29. Elevatio & vocalis oblatio non ad essentiam pertinent . Alan . de Euch. lib. 2. cap. 15. & Alii . b Non consistit in fractione , quia nō est haec necessaria . Salmer●n Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 29. p. 222 , 223. c Pro sola Consecratione facit ●mni● nostra superior Explicatio . Alan . lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15. * Quorundam opinio est , non esse d● essentia hujus Sacrifici● ipsam Consecrationem . Suarez quo supp . 966. d Post Consecrationem oblatio vocalis , his verbis , [ Memento Domine . ] — Alii di●unt esse de essentia . Sed dico , tam cer●um esse hanc oblationem non esse de Essentia , quam illam alteram Oblationem ante Consecrationem , — 〈◊〉 . quia Christus non adhib●it eam in coena . 〈◊〉 . Quia non constat Ecclesiam ●●m semper adhibuisse : nec est de Institutione Christi , sed Ecclesiae . Suarez Ies . 〈◊〉 . sup . pag. 964. Non est de ●ssentia , quòd Dominus nec Apostoli in princip●o ●â ●si sunt , nec sit in persona Christi , sed Ministri & Ecclesiae . Bellarm. lib. 1. de M●ss● , cap. 〈◊〉 . §. Quinta Prop. e Oblatio prae●●den● Consecrationem non pertine● ad essentiam : n●● oblatio quae consequitur . Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa ▪ cap. 27. §. Q●arta , & Quinta . f Immersio in calice — Hanc tenuit Canus . Sed constat Christum , pe●…●…llam actionem non sacrificari . Suarez . 〈◊〉 . sup . g Consumptio utriusque speciei per os Sacerdotis , quatenus est immolatio victimae obla●ae . Bellarm. 〈◊〉 . sup . h Consumptio non videtur pertinere ad E●●entiam , quia Scriptura discernit inter Sacrificium & participationem ipsius ▪ 1 Cor. 10. Nonnē qui edunt hostias , parti●ipe● sunt Altaris ? Salme●… T●m . 9. Tra●● . 29. pag. 23● . i Non in Consumptione , quia aliud est Immolare , aliud de Immolatis participa●e , & ratio●●m p●tius habet Sacramenti quàm Sacrificii . — Et frequenter reses v●… Populi communionem , non esse perfectè sacrificatas , vel saltem tùm , quando conceduntur à p●p●lo sacrificari . Alan . lib. 2. de E●●h . cap. 17. ( i ) Suarez . Sumptionem Sacerdo●alem non esse de Essenti● , t●… Tho●as , Bonaventur● , Major , & ex modernis Alan , Ca●●alius , Cath●rinus ▪ Palacius , Turrian . In 3. Thom ▪ disp . 75. Sect. 5. And Suarez himselfe : Sola consecratio est sufficiens , ut in qua tota essentia constar . Ibid. k Tota Essentia Sacrificii pendet ex Institutione Christi . Sua●●z , & Salme●on suprà . l Non est in potestate Ecclesiae instituere Sac●●ficium . Salmeron Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 28. p. ●19 . Idem al●bi , v●de supra at ( h ) m Quidam bitontinus Episcopus in Conc. Trid. ( ut Canus & Alii re●erunt ) tentavit defendere , Christum 〈◊〉 n●cte Coenae non obtulisse Sacrificium . Suarez q. s●p . disp . 74. Sect. 2. p. 949. a Bar●… in An● . 44. nu● . ●3 . Ministrantibus , Graecè est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , id est , Sacrificantibu● . Bellarm . lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 13. Hac voce Sacrificium proba●ur , quia non significat publicu m●●us , quia non potest significare ministerium Verbi , aut Sacramentorum , quia haec non exhibentur Deo ; at hîc ministrantibus & Domino ; & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , eum ad sacra accommodatur & absolutè ponitur in Scripturis semper acci●●tur pro ministerio Sacrificii . Vt Lu● . 1. de Zacharia . Et Cl●… de Sanctes pr●f in ●…ssas Graecorum . b Casa●box Exercit●t . 16. cap. 41. Vocem hanc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usus Ecclesiae aptavit ministerio & cultui Dei pub●ico , sed dive●●imodè . Apud Dionys●… Ar●op . Diac oni dicuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : in patrum libris ●●t mentio Liturgrae matutinae & vespertinae , & in Actis Concil . Ephes . notat Balsa●on Liturgiam constare ●ola oratione ●ine ulla Sacramentorum administratione , peculiarite●●…dum ad celebration●● Eucharistiae , cujus p●rtes duae sunt , Recitatio Scripturarum , & Administratio Coenae . Jus●●niani novella 7. Quod Bellarm. ait , quoties haec vox ad 〈◊〉 a●co●●odatur , & absolu●è pouitur , pro ministerio sacrificii s●… , infig●is est error , nam in exemplo quod subjungit Luc 1. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nen est Sacrificium , sed vox generalis omnia ministeria sacer●… & Levitica complectitur . Zachariae autem , ut Lucas ait , contigera● sors soffitus offerendi , non ●ute● sacrificandi — Ne● minus errat , quod s●…cet vix a●… hanc vocem a Patribus ac●●pi , quàm promi●isterio Sacri●…i , 〈◊〉 observatio quàm sit aliena , satis ex dictis constat . a Postremum Argumentum ex Scripturis habetur , 1 Cor. 10. Ubi primò Mensa Domini comparatur cum Altari Gentilium . Ergo , Mensa Domini est quoddam Altare , & proinde Eucharistia Sacrificium . 2. Ita vult Sacrificium Deo oblatum in Eucharistia , sicut sunt Sacrificia à Iudaeis Deo , vel à Gentilibus Daemonibus suis oblata . 3. Docet ita manducantē Eucharistiam participem esse Altaris Dominici , ut manducans Idolothyta particeps ●rat Altaris Idolorum , per Sacrificia . Ergo Eucharistia est Sacrificium . Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 14. * Aenaeid . 8. p●st Sacrificium Aenaeas invitat●… estad Epulas . b Aquinas . Non potestis Calicem Domini bibere & Daemoniorum ●…ul . ] Quoad Sacramentum sanguinis . Non potestis mensae Domini participes esse , quoad Sacramentum corporis , & mensae Daemoniorum . In 1 Cor. 10. * See above Booke 5. Chap. 8. Sect. 3. at the letter ( i ) . * Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 6. a Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 6. ex Ambrosio . Panem & Vinum obtulit . De Sacram. lib. 5. cap. 1. Quod to●o orbe celebratur . lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. & 6. August . lib. 17. de Civit. Dei , cap. 17. & alibi . Primum apparuit Sacrificiū , quod nunc offertur Deo to●o orbe terrarum , quod protulit Melchisedech . Et Epist . 95. ad Innocent . Prolato Sacramēco 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 Ps●l . 109. & Occum . 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 Bellarm. lo●o supracitato . M. Breerly citeth Aug. de C●vit . Dei , lib. 10. cap. 19. Visibile Sacrificium . In his Liturgie , Tract . 3. * See hereafter Chap. 5. Sect. 1. b Isidor . Victimas jam , non q●ales Judaei , sed quales Melchisedech offerunt credentes : Id est , Panem & Vinum . i. e. corporis & sanguinis Sacramen●um . Lib de Vocat . Gent. cap. 26. c Hieron . Epist . ad Evag. Pane & vino simplice , puroque Sacrificio Christo dedicaverit Sacramentum . d Cyprian . lib. 2. Epist . 3. ad Cecil . Christus idem quod Melchisedech panem & vi●um , idem sc . suum Corpus & Sanguinem . Euseb . Caesar . lib. 5. Demonstr . cap. 3. Sacerdotes v●no & pane , & Corporis & Sanguinis ejus mysteria repraesentant , quae sanè mysteria Melchisedech tanto ante Sp●… divino cognoverat . Hieron . Epist . ad Marcell . Melchisedech in Typo Christi Panem & Vinumobtulit , & Mysterium Christianum in Salvator●s sangume & Corpore dedicavit . Et Quaest . in Genes . Melchisedech obl●to pane & vino , i. e. Corpore & Sanguine Domini Jesu . Eucher . Lugdun . lib. 2. c. 18. in Gen. Vt O●lationem Panis & Vini , i. e. Corporis & Sanguinis ejus Sacramentum in Sacrificium Christus inst●r illus [ Melchiz . ] offerens , panem & vinum , carnem viz. & sanguinem suum . H●c Bellarm. lib. 1. de M●ssa , cap. 6. a Bellarm. Non videtur po●se negari , &c. Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 6. §. Acc●dit . b Ribera Jes . Id non ideò dixerat , quod sermonem illum tacere vellet , erat enim id , id quod in hac Epistola agit , valdè accommodatum , sed ut magis illos excitaret studio audiendi , & intentiores redderet — Non desperat Paulus quae scripturus est posse ab illis percipi , si animum attendant , aut certè à nonnullis eorum , qui eruditiores erant , per quos coeteri etiam paulatim intelligerent . Com. in Heb. 6. num . 1. Where also he hath these words : Cum ●llorum & imbecillitatem & tarditatem accusat , ideirco facit , ut pudore ad melius intelligenda incitarentur : [ Missa nunc faciamus rudimenta , & ad perfectionem feramur . ] Hoc est , Date operam ut mecum intelligatis , quae perfectis dici solent . a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 6. ex Epip●anio . Sacrificium crucis peractum est , ergo aliud Sacrificium esse oportet , quod jugiter offeratur — Ig●…ur necesse est in Ecclesia veram Sacrificandi actionem admittere ; quae Christo summo Sacerdoti per Ministros suos tribuatut , qualis actio nulla erit , si Missae Sacrificium auferatur . Ibid. §. Est etiam . Ad aeternum Christi Sacerdotium necesse est ut Christus saepiùs offerat per se , vel per suos Ministros , jam quidem ciuentè , &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 ●actum est , nec dicitur aeternum Sacerdotium cum non jugiter sacrificatur . Ibid. §. Secunda Causa . b Conc. Trid. Sess . 22. C. 1. Christus Sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech ; & si semel obtulit in cruce , ut aeternam redemptionem operaretur : quia tamen p●r mortem ejus Sacerdotium extinguendum non erat &c. c Novi Testamenti ministerium jam inde à Melchizedech petitum , jam & Christus voluit secundum ejus ordinem dic● ▪ Sacerdos , & Presbyteri sunt Ministri Christi , i. e. ejus , qui fuit Sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchizedech . Sand. de Visi● . Monar●● . lib. 1. pag. 20. §. Quae cùm . a Mutatum Sacerdotium de Sacerdotali in Regalem , ut eadem ipsa sit Regalis & Sacerdotalis . Chrysost in Heb. 7. Horn. 13. Fuit in Melchizedech singularis dignitas , quòd Sacerdotium administrabatur per Regem . Teste Greg. Valent. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 4. a Bellarm. Regnum spirituale Christo proprium : — item Regnum divinum universale , ratione Hypostaticae Vnionis ; item gloriae in Beatitudine : Temporale terrenum Christo conveniebat . Lib. Recog . pag. 28. b Victor , Pacis perturbator . Irenam apud ●useb . Hist . lib. 5. cap. 24. c Non tantum contra Barbaros , sed etiā ejusdem patriae , sanguinis , & fidei Principes Domini nostri Dei pacis minus pacifici Vicarii . Esp●nc . in 1. Tim. digress . lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 273. d Leodiens . Epist . ad Paulum 2. de Greg. Septimo ; Novello schismate Regnum & Sacerdotium scindeba● . Teste Espencaeo q● sup . e Non secundum ordinem Aaron , cujus Sacerdotium per propaginem sui seminis in ministerio temporali fuit , & cum Veteris Testamenti Lege cessavit : sed secundū ordinem Melchizedech , in quo aetorni Pontificis forma praecessit . Leo Papa Serm. 2. in . Annivers . die Assumpt . ad Pontif. f Nunc sanè non amplius semen secundum successionem eligitur , sed forma juxta virtutem quaeritur . Epiphaa . cont . H●r●s . 55. g Salmeron Ies . Nos in Christo Sacerdotes sumus tanquam Vicarii — Satis est nobis illum Principem semper vivere . Com. in Heb. cap. 10. Disp . 19. h Ribera . Successor quidem Christo Petrus , & reliqui post cum Pontifices in officio gubernandi Ecclesiam , & pascendi oves Christi Verbo praedicationis , & Sacramentorum Administratione . At non successit in officio redemptionis , & Pontificis per se Deum iratum placantis — in quo non sunt Successores , sed Ministri Christi . In Heb. 10. num . 8. i Platina in Vitis Sergii 3. Formos● , Stephans , Christopheri . * Heb. 7. 23. * Heb. 7. 26. ( * ) 1 Io● . 1. 8. k Lombard . de Ordinat . Pr●sb . Accipiunt etiam calicem cum vino , & patinam cum Hostiis , ut sciant se accipisse potestatem placabiles Deo hostias offerendi . Hic ordo à filiis Aaron sumpsit initium . &c. Lib. 4. Distinct . 24. lit . 1. l P. Lombardus collegit sententias Theologorum , & Magister Theologorum scholasticorum dici meruit . Lib. de Script . Eccles . T●t . Petrus Lombardus . a Bellarm. Crucis Sacrificium non est perpetuum , sed effectum ejus — nec dicitur aeternum quòd non jugiter sacrificatur — non in coelis jam Sacerdos per solam orationem , nec mediante oblatione Victimae , quià tùm 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 . Bellar. ibid. cap. 25. §. Quod autem . And , Sacrificium crucis , respecte Christi● norum . Ibid. cap. 20. And , Per Ministros suos perpetuò sacrificat seipsum in Eucharistia : hoc enim solummodo perpetuū habet Sacerdotium . Bellarm. ibid. cap. cod . ad finem . b Alan . Christus in ipso coelo non aliquid Sacerdotale facit , nisi respectu nostri Sacramenti , quod ipse per nostrum ministerium efficit continuò & offert . Lib. 2. de Euchar. cap. 8. §. Reliqua . c Rhemists . Christ his Priesthood consisteth in the perpetuall offering of Christ his Body and Blood in the Church . Annot. in Heb. 7. 17. d Ribera Ies . in his Comment upon the places alleaged , Chap. 7. 23. Chap. 8. 2 , & 3. Chap. 9. 23. His Booke is familiar with you , where you may peruse the places . e Ribera Ies . Thomas Expositionem a●…fe●● , nempè pe● [ Coel●…stia ] ap●…psum coelum , cujus figura erat tabernaculum . Etemundari dicitur , quia homines per Christum emundari sunt , qu●…llud ingredientur . Thomam sequutus est Lyranus . — Mihi etsi Emundatio ista non placet , ●…men [ Coelestia ] appellari coelum ipsum , quià ita Vocabulum propriè accipitur . Et cogit quod sequitur , 〈…〉 enim in manufac●a ●ancta Iesus est ingressus , sed in exemplaria verorum : ] nempè , Coeli , quod cap. 8. dici●… Tabernaculum verum , quod Deus fixit & non homo . Etiam coelum polluebatur ab hominibus . In eum locum . f Aqumas . [ M●horibus hossiis ] Id est , meliori sanguine . Ob. Illa erat una hostia . Resp . Licet non sit in se , tamen ploribus hostus veteris Legis figurabatur . In Heb. 9. [ Meaning , that the Apostle used the plurall number , because he was now in Speech of Multitudes of Sacrifices . ] a Th●●d in Psal . 109. Sacerdos nunc est Christus , non ipse aliquid ●…ens , sed voca ur Caput Offerentium , quando quidem corpus ●●ū Ecclesiam vocat . Objected by Bellarm . lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 6. b His words immediately following are these : Et proptereà Sacerdotio fungitus ut homo : recipit autem ea quae offeruntur ut Dens . Offert autem Ecclesia Corporis & ejus sanguinis symbola . So Theod. c Ambros . Nunc Christus offertur , hic in Imagine , ibi in veritate , ubi apud Patr●… Auvocatus p●o Nobis . Lib. 1. d●offic . cap. 48. sub fi●em . d Aug. in Psal 94. Impo●…us in ara Sacrificium , quando Deum laudamus : at verò Sacerdotem si requiras , super coelos est , interpellat p●o te , qu●… terris mortuus est pro te . f Aug. lib. 20. de Civit. cap. 10. Episcopi & Presbyterr ( inquit ) sunt propriè Sacerdotes . Bellarm. obji●it . lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 17 * 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 as●…untur . Catechis . Rom. par . 2. de Ordine , num . 22. g Aug. ibid. In Apo● . 20. 6. [ Sed erunt Sacerdotes Christi , & regnabunt cum Eo , &c. ] Non utique de solis Episcopis aut Presbyteris dictum est , qui propriè 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 Praiers , and Praises to God , 1 Pet. 2. 5. And another is in speciall , by publique Function , commending the same spirituall Sa●…es , in publique Service , in the name of the Church . And s● , according to the s●… e●… of terming them properly Priests , wherewith before ( as you have heard ) in comparing Almes with the Iew●sh Sacrifice , hee 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 , other but Analogicall . ] h ●…s in their A●●otat . upon the place : and M. Breerly in his Booke of the Liturgie Tract . 3. Sect. 3. Subd 4. i Aquinas . Istud altare ve● est crux Christi , in quâ Christus immolatus est , vel ipse Christus in quo , & per quem preces nostras offerimus : & hoc est Altare a●…um , de quo Apoc. 8. Com. in hunc locum . k Antididag . Coloniens . de Missae Sacrificio . §. P●sthac . — [ Habemus Altare ] Heb. 13. & Apoc. 8. [ Aureum altare , ] in q●o , & pe● quod omnes Christiani universa Sacrificia spiritual●a fidei , devotionis , gratiarum actionis , spei , & charitatis Deo Patri debent osterre . — Atque ità fit , ut Christus sit altare , Sacerdos , & Sacrificium . August . lib. 10. de Trinitate . l Bellarm. Quia non desunt ex Catholicis , qui interpretantur hunc locum vel de Cruce , vel de Christo ipso ; non urgeo eum . Lib. 1. de Misso , cap. 14. m Origen . Jejunans debes adire Pontificem tuum Christum , qui utique non in terris quaerendus est , sed in coelis : Et per Ipsum debes offerre Hostiam Deo. In Levit. cap. 16. Hom. 10. n Greg. Nazian . Si ab his Al●…bus me ar●●bunt , at aliud habeo , cujus figurae sunt ea , quae nec oculis cernimus , super q●od nec as●ia ▪ nec manus asc●… , nec ullum Artificum instiumentum auditum est ; sed men●is hoc opus est , huic que per contemplationem astabo , in hoc gratum immolabo Sacrificium , oblationes & Holocausta , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] tantò praestantiora , quantò Veritas un brâ . Oral . 28. pag. 484. o Chris●st . in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. ●●ud sanè tremenuum Sacrificium , ut cum concordia ad illud ac●●damus , ut Aquilae sacti ad ipsum coelum evolemus : ubi enim cadaver , ibi aquilae . Cadaver Domini corpus , propter mortem : Aquilas autem non oportet ad inferiora trahi aut repere , sed ad superiora volare , & solem justuiae intuer● oculo mentis acutissimo . Aq●…ilarum enim haec men●a est , non Graculorum . p Aug. adversus Iudaeos , cap. 9. Nam & Aäron & Sacerdotiū jam nullum est , in aliquo templo , & Christi Sacerdotium est aeternum in coelo . q Oecumen . in Heb. 10. super haec verba , [ Cum certitudine fidei . ] Cum deinceps nihil visibile supersit , neque Templum , hoc est coelum ; neque Pontifex , id est , Christus ; neque Hostia , quae Corpus illius est , fide deinceps opus est . r Ambros . in Heb. 10. Cum fiducia , ait Apostolus : nihil enim hic visibile , neque Sacerdos , neque Sacrificium , neque Altare . s Canus loc . Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. Oblatio , quam Christus in coelis incruentum fecit . pag. 421. * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 9. a Barredas . Quod singulis diebus Christus offert incruentè , Hoc juge Sacrificium est Ecclesiae . Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap. 15. Salmeron . E●●usio sanguinis semel facta semper prodest , modò jugiter offeratut . In Heb. 10. Disp . 19. Becanus . Juge Sacrificium Veteris Testamenti fuit figura Missae in novo , ratione determinationis temporis : sicut ille offerebatur mane & vespere , ita Christus à principio mundi usque ad finem . Apoc. 13. Agnus occisus — Lib. de Analog . utriusque Testam . cap. 13. num . 14. b Irenaeus . Nos quoque Victimas offerre ad altare frequenter . Est ergò Altare in coelis , illuc etiam prec●s nostrae & orationes dirigendae ; & templum — ut ex Apoc . apertum est . Lib. 4. cap. 34. c Greg. Sine intermissione pro nobis Holocaustum Redemptor immolat , qui sine cessatione Patri suam pro nobis inearnationē demonstrat . Moral . lib. 1. cap. 24. in Iob. d Coster En●…irid . 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 mortui & exanguis offert . [ That is objectively ; for it is the Bloody Body , that is presented by us in the Eucharist . ] * See hereafter Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 5. a Bellarm. Immolatio Agni Paschalis potest quidem dici figura Passionis : nam fi Agnus ille fuit figura Eucharistiae , Eucharistia autem figura Passionis , quis negat Agnum istum figuram fuisse & Repraesentationem Passionis ? Quarè Joh. 19. Videmus Evangelistam reddere cansam , 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 , quàm 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 epulcmur in azymis Veritatis — Dicent Adversarii 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 . b Bellarm. q● suprà §. Dicent &c. Dicent Adversarii Apostolum loqui de Immolatione in cruce facta : at nos probabimus figuram illam propriè impletam fuisse in c●●na . c Job . 13. 1. [ Antè diem Paschae sciens Iesus , quia venit hora , ut transiret ex hoe mundo ad Patrem . ] Hîc mortem Transitum vocat . — Alludit ad Pascha , ac fi Latinè diceret , 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 ●um locum . d August . in Psal . 68. Cum venit Dominus ad Sacramentum sanguinis & corporis sui , ità loquitur , [ Sciens quod ho●a venit , ut transiret ad Patrem de mundo . ] Quibus verbis expressit transitum Paschae Teste Pererio Ies . in Exod. cap. 12. Disp . 8. e 1. Cor. 5. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus , ergò Epulemur Azymis sinceritatis , & veritatis . [ Aquinas assign●t Rationem , quare fideles debent esse Azym● : quae quidem Ratio sumitut ex my●… Passionis ] — Sicut Agnus figuralis immolatus est à fil●s Israel . ut populus liberaretur — it à Christus occisus ab Israëlitis , ut populus liberaretur à servitute Diaboli . Christus enim per passionem trans●t ex mundo ad Patrem . Joh. 13. Haec Aquin. Com. in 1. Cor. 5. And Tollet in his Testimony before cited . So Becanus Ies . f [ Pascha nostrum . 1. Cor. 5 ] Nempè per immolationem in cruce , & effusionem sanguinis illius , liberatum est genus huma●um . Analog . utrius●u● Testam . cap. 13. pag. 313. g Impleta erat figura Paschalis , quando ●erum nostrum Pascha est immolatus Christus Iesus , & nos per ejus sanguinem liberati eramur . Iansen . Concord . 〈◊〉 vang . c●p . 131. pag. 895 h Joh. 19 [ Cruta non confregerant , ut imple●e●ur quod scriptum est , Osnon comminuetis ex eo . ] Bellarm. q● sup . yet gaine-saith with his . Tamen &c. §. Illud . i Origen . Sacrificium , pro quo haec omnia Sacrificia in typo & figura praecesserunt , unum & perfectum immolatus est C●ristus . Hujus Sacrificii carnem quisquis tetigerit , sanctificabitur . In Levit. cap. 6. Hom. 4. k Chrysost●mus de Cruce & Latrone . 1. Cor. 5. Pascha nostrū immolatus est Christus : ●estivitas ergò &c. Vides crucis ●ntuitu perceptam laetitiam ? in cruce enim immolatus est Christus : Ubi immolatio , amputatio peccatorum ; ubi amputatio peccatorum , reconciliatio Domini — novū Sacrificium — nam ipse Sacrificium erat , & Sacerdos ; Sacrificiū secundum carnem , Sacerdos secundum Spiritū , offerebat secundum Spiritū ▪ offerebatur secundum carnem — & altare Crux fuit . Chrys●st . T●● . 3. pag. 826. l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Idem . Tom. 5. Serm. 88. Edit . Savil. pag. 602. m Sacrates Hist . lib. 5. cap. 22. Origenes Doctor valdè sapiens cum animadverteret Legis Mosaicae praecepta ad literam non posse intelligi , praeceptum de Paschate ad divinam contemplationem traduxit : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * See the Testimony following . 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 absolutè , absque adjuncto , ut cum dicitur , Sacrificium laudis , &c. Argum. 2. Vox [ Munda ] opponitur immundis oblationibus Judaeornm , quae non dicuntur immundae ex parte offerentium tantum , quia opponit illis oblationem : non enim Munda diceretur in omni loco , cum in pluribus sint mali Ministri . Argum. 3. Dicitur , [ Non accipiam munus à manibus vestris . ] Hinc colligimus , non solùm mundam esse hanc nostram , sed & novam . — Argum. 4. Ex Antithesi . Contemptus Hebraeorum erat in publicis Sacrificiis , 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 , qu● Sacerdotibas succedunt . Ergò non loquitur de spirituali , sed de Sacrificio propriè dicto . b Bellarm. In Hebraea , & Graeca Editione sic leg●mus [ Incensum offertur nomini meo , & Sacrificium mundum . ] Quo supra . c Septuaginta Apertiùs . Valent. Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 4. p. 526. d Bellarm. Vocem illam [ Incensum ] interpretatur Tertull. Orationem , ut & ante eum Iren. lib. 4. cont . Haeres . cap. 33. Incensa autem Iohannes vocat orationes Sanctorum . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 10. §. 〈◊〉 altero . — Hieron . Thymiama , i. e. Sanctorum orationes Deo offerendas . In Mal. 1. Chrysost . in Psalm . 95. Thymiama purum vocat Preces , quae post Hostiam offeruntur , ut Psal . 140. Oratio mea dirigatur tanquam Incensum , &c. Euseb . Caesar . demonstr . 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 . Lib. 1. contr . Advers . Legis & Prophet . cap. 20. * See the preceding Marginalls . a See in the Testimonies above cited , for it is called absolutely Incense , and not Incense of Prayer , &c. * Isaiah 1. 13. b Bellar. Postquam dixerat Malachias [ offertur nomini meo oblatio munda ] Exponit cap. 3. à quibus offerenda sit munda oblatio : Purgabit , inquit , filios Levi : Vbi , per Filios Levi , non possunt intelligi Levit●… veteris Testamenti — sed nostri Sacerdotes . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 10. §. Quintum . * Augustine , Ambrose , Cyprian , Leo. c M. Foxe Act. Monument . pag. 2117. Levitico ordine te privamus . * Isa . 66. a Chrysost . in Psal . 95. ( objected ) Malachias appellat Thymiama purum , sacras preces . b Tertull. ob . by Bellarm . lib. 3. cont . Marcion . ex Psalm . 57. In Ecclesiis benedicite Dominum Deum , ut pariter concurreret Malachiae prophetia , In omni loco Sacrificium mundum : Gloriae sc . relatio , & Benedictio , & Laus , & Hymni . [ Which words Bellarmine restraineth to Prayers and Praises only , in the Masse ; whereas Tertullian speaketh of Prayers in generall . ] Againe , Lib. 4. advers . Marc. a little after the begiuning . Dicente Malachia , Sacrificium mundū , s●-simplex oratio de conscientia pura . [ Where he expoundeth Pure Sacrifice to be Praier . ] 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 Deo offerendum . d Bellarm. Resp . Non quasi Oratio sit ipsum Incensum , seu Sacrificium , sed illud quod per Orarationem , i. e. per verba Consecrationis perficitur . Solent enim Patres verba Consecrationis orationes , sen mysticas preces interpretari . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 10. [ First sondly , for the words of Consecration containe in them no terme of Prayer : And secondly falsly , for the Fathers did not call these words Prayer . Both which have beene amply discussed . ] e Hieron . ( objected ) Mal. 1. Vt sciant Judaei carnalibus Victimis spirituales successuras . Thymiama , hoc est , Orationes Sanctorum offerendas , Oblationem mundam , ut est in Ceremoniis Christianorū . Bellar. Licet per Incensum intelligat Orationem , tamen per Sacrificium intelligit Eucharistiam : dicit enim offerri in Ceremoniis 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 . f Irenaeus ( ●b . ) advers . Haeres . lib. 4. cap. 34. speaking as well of Sacrifices in Judaico populo , as in Ecclesia , saith ; Non Sacrificia sanctificant hominē , sed Conscientia pu●a ejus , qui offert &c. Then of Eleemosynae , which the Apostle calleth Hostiam acceptabilem : Oportet nos oblationem Deo facere in sententia pura . And then , Ecclesia offert oblationē hanc Fabricatori puram , offerens ei cum gratiarum Actione ex creatura ejus . Judaei autem non offerunt , quia manus eorum plenae sanguine &c. g Ribcra Ies . Ad loca Scripturae adducta respondere Apostoli . Apud S. Clementem lib. 6. Const . Apost . C. 22. in hunc modū . Recusabat Deus populi Sacrificia saepenumero in eum peccantis , atque existimantis Sacrificiis eum , & non poenitentiâ placatum iri . Idem docet Irenaeus , lib. 4. cap. 33. In Hos . 6. num . 24. h Antididag . Colon. Tract . de Sacrif . Missae , §. De Consecratione . Quis ignorat vetera Patrum Sacrificia , quae Christum figurabant , 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 . i Tertull. lib. 3. advers . Marcionem . Sacrificia rejecta , qui à non secundum Dei religionem celebranda , sua jam , non Dei fecerant . pag. 160. And , Sacrificia spiritualia accepta , which hee nameth above , Cor contribulatum , laudem , &c. Lib. adversus Iudaeos . k Chrysost . ( objected ) in Psal . 95. Ex hostia prima mensa mystica coeleste Sacrificium , summeque 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 q o Apostolus Ephes . 5. Christus tradidit se ipsum pro Nobis Deo Sacrificium . l Cypr. ( ob . ) ex lib. 1. cont . Iudaos , cap. 16. Novum Sacrificium , Sacrificium Laudis . a Psalm . 72. juxta Heb. [ Et erit pugillus frumenti in summitatibus montium ] vulg . Lat. [ Et erit firmamentum in terra in summis Montium . ] Galatinus de Arcanis Cath. Veritat● , lib. 10. cap. 5. Hoc est , dicit Chaldaea Translatio Rabbi Jonathae , Et e●t Sacrificium panis in summis montium — Cum ergo ait , Erit placenta frumenti in terra , in capité montium , vult dicere , quod placenta panis fiet Sacrificium in Capitibus Sacerdorū , qui sunt Ecclesia . Haec ibi — Nec mirum de sapientibus antiquis Judaeorum Messiam placentam trumenti , & frustum panis iuturum dixisse . The same hath Coccius Thesaur . Cath. lib. 6. Art. 4. pag. 679. He addeth other Authors , 〈◊〉 witt , P. Galatinus , Claud. Sanctesius , & Genebrard . in hunc Psal . Coc●…i●s ▪ ibid. Art. 16. pag. 763. b M. B●eerly in his Protestants Apol. noting Duraeus the Iesuite to have urged the same out of Galatini●… . c Senensis Biblioth . lib. 2. §. Traditiones . Non possum satis mirari studium Petri Galatini , qui — in eam Vanitatem devenit , ut doceret opera Thalmudica in Latinum verti oporrere , & publicè in Scholis Christianorum explicari . d Bellarm. in Psal . 71. vers . 16 ▪ Scio quod Paulus Burgensis ex Paraphrasi Chaldaica adferat ad probandum hoc in loco Sacrificium Missae : sed scio etiam quam multis fabulis Judaicis Pharaphrasis illa scateat , ideò piget ex lacunis Expositionum Judaicarum hau●… , &c. a Maldon●● . Ob. Iren●um lib. 4. cap. 32 , & 34. Scribit Christianos Deo offerre pri●itias creaturatum panem & vinum — Dicebatur etiam sacrificare homo profanus , qui Sacerdoti tradebat victimam , ut eam pro se sacrificaret : non quòd illa traditio esset Sacrificium . Ita ●ocuti sunt etiam Christiani antiqui , ut constat ex verbis Cypriani in Serm. de Eleemof . Locuples matrona fine Sacrificio in Dominicum veniens . Nec necesse est ( ut Irenaeus ●oquitur ) de proprio Sacrificio , quia nefas est credere Ecclesiam obtuli●●e rem ullam corpoream & ●errestrem Deo post abrogata omnia hujus●…d , Sacrificia terrena . Maldonat . loco ci●at● . Accipiendo Sacrificium pro re , quae sacrificatur , negati non debet , panem & vinum aliquo modo in Missa offerri , & pr●inde pertmere ad rem praesentem : na● cùm ante Consecrationem dicimus [ Suscipe , Sancte Pater , hanc tuam immacula●am Hostiam ] certè pronomen , Hanc , demonstrat 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 Sacrific●●m ex creaturi● . Et Cypr. lib. 2. Ep. 3. Christum obtulisse Calicem vino & aqua mixtam . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 27. §. Re●pondeo ut . * See above Chap. 3. Sect. 2. b Valent. Ies . obj cienti Melchizedechum o●tuli●●e panem & vinum ca●ùm . Resp . Sacerdotium Christi secundùm ordinem Melchizedech — Etiam ratione rei oblatae , non quatenus oblatione illius substantiae determinatae , sepanis & vini exercebatur . Lib. 1. de Misse , cap. 4. c Bellarm. respondens quaestioni . An cum solus Panis muta●ur , si propriè sacrificaretur ? Inquit , Id absurdissimum esset : tùm haberet Ecclesia Sacrificium inanimum , & vilius multò quàm habuerint olim Hebraei . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 27. §. Sed haec . d Nefas est , credere Ecclesiam obtulisse rem ullam corpoream & terrestrem Deo post abrogata omnia hujusmodi Sacrificia terrena . Maldon . lib. de 7. Sacram. Tom. 1. de Euch. part . 3. §. Primum Argumentum . e Salmeron . Communis sensus est omnium Christianorum , non esse aliud Sacrificium quàm Corpus & Sanguinem Christi — At si panis esset Sacrificium , sequeretur , quòd res inanimata sacrificarētur — — Et quòd summa Latria esset circa panem & vinum . Tom. 9. Tract . 29. §. Quinta . f Bellarm. Apostolus declarat , non esse terrenú aliquid quod offert Christus , si esset super terrain , ex Heb. 〈◊〉 . 4. Etostendit nunc mellores hostias offerri . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 6. §. Resp . quid . * Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22. 19. g To these former , we adde another objected Testimony of Augustine . Lib. de fide ad Pet. Diac. cap. 19. Nullatenus dubites unigenitum Dei filium obtulisse hostiam Deo pro nobis , cui nunc cum Patre & Spiritu Sanct● offerimus Sacrificium panis & vini , in fide & charitate , in Catholica Ecclesia per universum mundum . ( * ) See above at ( a ) . a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , 〈◊〉 . 27. §. His igitur . — In Missa Sacrificio requiritur ut res prophana sit sacra : sic hic , ubi panis convertitur in corpus Christi — §. Respondeo , &c. Non panis sed quod ●x pane factum propriè sacri●●catur . [ For still the Question is that of Lomba●ds ; Quae●●tur si quod gerit Sacerdos , sit propriè Sacrificiū . Lib. 4. Dist . 12. li● . G. ] a Bellar. Si sola repraesentatio Sacrificii crucis , tùm non potest di●i oblatio in hunc modum : Offero tibi Pater , &c. ac à Patribus oblatio dicitur . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 15. § Quartò . b Rhemists Annotat. in L●c. 22. and Bellar. Finis ●rat Sacrificiorum praecedentium reptae●entare Sacrificium Crucis , ut futurum , Et ficut veter● Sacrificia non amit●ebant verans & propriam rationem Sacrificii , ex co quòd essent representativa● ita nec Sacrificium Eucharistiae amittit propriam Sacrificii rationem , propter Commemoratione● . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 12. §. Quod verò . c Bellarm. Sacrificia illa Levitica non culpam & poenam aeternam , sed immunditiem legalem , & poenam temporalem explabant . — Patet ex Dei promissione de remissione peccatorum ; ex mensura Sacrificii majori● & minoris pro majore & minore delicto . Levit. 6. & 4 , & 5. At pro peccatis gravioribus , ut blasphemia , homicidio , &c. nulla videmus instituta Sacrificia . Lib. 4. de Poenitent . cap. 15. §. Respondeo . & §. Ex his . Non quoad culpam & poenam Gehennae , nisi quatenus figna erant protestantia fidem in Christuum , ut docent communiter Theologi . Idem lib. 2. de effect . Sacram. cap. 17. Et omnia illa erant Sacrifieia vera , & signa●ula promissionis Christ● venturi & morituri . Idem lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 24. a Ambros . Vmbra in Lege , imago in Evangelio , veritas in coelestibus : antè agnas offerebatur ▪ nunc Christus offertur quasi Homo , quasi recipiens passionem , & offert sese ipse quasi Sacerdos , ut peccata nostra dimittat , hîc in imagine , ibi in veritate , ubi apud Pattem pro nobis quasi Advocatu● intervenit . Lib. 1. de offic . cap. 48. b August . H●jus Sacrific● caro & sanguis antè adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur ; in passione Domini per ipsam Veritatem : post Ascensum per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur . Con. Fau●● . lib. 20. cap. 21. Tom 6. Nonne semel immolatus est Christus , & tamen in Sacramento quot : diè immolatur ? Hee 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 corum accipiunt . Aug. lib. Epist . 23. S●● of this above , Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. Andye● againe more plainly in his 20. Booke against Fau●tus , Cap. 21. it followeth ; Vt Baptismus dicitur sepulchrum ; sic , H●c est corpus meum . * See above Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 8. out of his Epist . 23. ad Bonifacium . c Epist . 23. ad Bonifac . Paulò ante verba superiora , nempè , Pascha Appropinquante saepè dicimus crastinam Domini passionem , cum ille ant● multos 〈◊〉 passus fit , nec omninò nisi semelista passio facta 〈◊〉 , nempè isto die : ( dicin us ) Christus resurrexit , cum ex quo resurrexit tot Anni transierunt , cum nemo ita ineptus sit qui nos ita loquentes arg●at nos esee men●●tos — ut dicatur ipse Dies , quia non est ipse , sed similis — nonne semel immolatus est Christus ? &c. a Chrysost . in Heb. 10. Hom. 17. pag. 1171. [ Christus semper suo sanguine intrat ] Ipse Sacrificium Sacerdos , & Hostia : si hoc non esset , multa oportebat etiam Sacrificia offerri , saep . ùs oportebat crucifigi . — Eandem ipsam Hostiam , quam Christus immolabat , offerimus , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ] vel potiùs Recordationem ipsisius , &c. b Theophylact. in Heb. 10. pag 885 , 886. Nunc & ipsi sine sanguine immolamus ? Ita quidē , Sed Christi tunc reminiscimur obitus : & una nobis est immolatio , non multae , quandoquidē & ille semel immolatus est . Eundem semper offerimus , quin po●…s Oblationis illius memoriam facimus , perinde ac si esset hoc tempore immolatus . Quocirca unum effe hoc nost●um Sacrificium constat . — Vnicum est & semel oblatum — nam & unus est sanguis , & semel fosus . c Theod. in Hebr. cap. 8. Cumeffecitur alia Sacrificia non essent necessaria , cur novi Testamenti Sacerdotes mysticam Liturgiam seu Sacrificio●● peragant ? sed clarum est iis , qui sunt in rebu● divini● eruditi , nos non aliud Sacrificium offerre , sed unius illius sal●taris memoriam peragere — Dixit enim , Hoe facite in memoriam mei . d Ambros . in Heb. 10 Offerimus quidem , sed Recordationem salutaris mortis ejus , & una haec Hostia , non multae . e Euseb . Demonst . Evangelic . lib. 1. cap. 10. Sacrificamus & incendim●is , a●●âs autem magni Sacrificii illius memoriam , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . f Primasius in Heb. cap. 10. Quod Deus &c. Offer●●● quidem Sacer●●●es nostri , sed ad reco●dationem mortis ejus — sicut ipse dixit , Hoc facit● in Commemo rationem 〈◊〉 — Vn● hostia , non multae — Corpus unum cum illo , quod suscepit in utero virginali , non autem multa Corpora , nec nunc quidem aliud magnum , aliud minu● . g Hier. Tom. 5. lib. 13. Com. in Ezech. cap. 44. Qui offerat Deo Sacrificium , ita ut verus Sacerdos sit , imò Imitator ejus , qui est Sacer ●o● secundum ordinem Mele●izedech . Idem Tom. 9. lib. 4. cap. 26. in Match . Sicut Melchizedech panem & vinum offerem , ipse quo que veritatem corporis & sanguinis sui repraesentet . * See above Booke 4. cap. 9. Sect. 4. a Co●… . Trid. Christum reliquisse Sacrificium Ecclesiae suae visibil● , quo cruentum illud in cruce peragendum repraesentaretur . Sess . 22. cap. 1. b Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22. c Barradas Ies . Eri tibi stupendam Dei adinventionem notam facimus . Animo concipiamus Regem aliquem post reportatam de Hostibus Victoriam , &c. Sic Christi corpus veluti in scena per●onatur , i. e. speciebus panis & vini velatur , &c. Tom. 4 Concord . Evang. lib. 3. cap. 13. §. Optimus . And Bellarmine . * [ See above 2. Booke , 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 , Cha. 3. * See hereafter , Cha. 6. Sect. 1. * See above , at ( b ) a Bellom . lib. 5. de Miss , cap. 5 § Quintò — Partes ad nomen Sacrificii Epitheta ●ae , è addunt , quae soli vero Sacrificio conveniunt , & quae ineptè dicerent de ●ola ●● praesentatione . Cyp. li. 2. Epist . 3. Plenum & verum Sacrificium . Chrysost . Hom. ad pop . Antioch & omnes Graeci , Passion terribile Sacrificium & horroris plenum . Aug. lib. ●0 . de Civit. Dei , cap. 20. Summum verumque Sacrificium . Euseb . lib. 1. Demonst . Evang . cap. ult . Sacricrificium Deo plenū . [ This last is not undoubtedly spoken of the Eucharist . ] Ibid. §. Secundo . — Si Patres putâssent Sacrificium Eucharistiae non esse Sacrificium nisi repraesentativum , nunquam dixissent in numero multitudinis offe : ri Deo Victin as , & Sacrificia . Of the Epithete ( Unbloody ) in the next Section . b August . de Civitat . Dei , lib. 10. cap. 6. Verum Sacrificium omne opus bonum , ut Deo adhaereamus , factum . Tertull. In omni loco Sacrificium mundum , gloriae scilicer & rogatio , benedictio , laus , hymni Lib. 3. advers . Marcionem . Rursus , Sacrificium mundum oratio simplex de purâ Conscientia . Ibid. lib. 4. paulò post 〈…〉 um . Iustin . Dialog . cum Tryphon . Preces & Gratiarum actiones , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . c Cyrill . Apol. Lectio Scripturatum terribilium . Teste I well● art . 17. Chrysost . in 1. Corinth . M●m . 40. De Baptismate pauld post initi●● , post pronunciationem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * See Booke 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. d E●seb . lib. 1 Demonst Evang cap. 10. Po●●ò has rursus incorporeas & intelligentia praeditas hostias prophetica nunciant orac●la . Immola Deo Sacrificium laudis & Orationes sanctas , &c. Iust . Martyr . Dialog . cum Tryphon . pag. 269. Supplicationes & gratiarum actiones solas esse charas Victimas Deo. b Basil . in his Masse , ob . by Salmero 〈◊〉 , Tom. 9. Tract . 30. §. Sed contutans : and by Lindanus Panop . lib. 4. cap. 53. Nos app●opinquantes Altari tuo sulcipere , & dignissimos offerre hanc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( Lindanus , non carnis , sed mentis ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Salmeron Ies . Absque sanguine hostiam : & admitte 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . [ And not till long aster the words of Consecration , beginning at [ Respice , Domine . ] Missa Chrysost . Ob. abe●sdem qo suprà . Hanc nostram supplicationem , tanquàm ad Altare , admittere non recuses , & ●ac nos idoncos qui Tibi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nostris prop●●●atis offeramus . Idem Sa●neron . Offerimus Tibi rationabile & incruencum obs quium . [ Which words are in the body of your Liturgies put before the words of Consecration ( Edit . Aatuer● . ex officina Plantin . 1960. cum privilegio Regis . ) but which Lindan will have to be s●t after Consecration . ] The Liturgie of S. ●ames : Pro oblatis , sanctificatis , pretiosis , immaculatis donis divinis oremus Dominum — acceptis eis in supercoeleste , mentale , spirituale Altare , in odorem spiritualis fragrantiae , &c. Paulò post : Deus Pater , qui oblata tibi dona mera , frugum oblationes accepisti in odorem suavitatis . [ And after followeth the words of Consecration : Sancto , qui in Sanctis , &c. — Suscipe incorruptum Hymnum in sanctis & incruentis Sacrificiistuis . ] c Chrysost . Hom. 11. Quid est rationabile obsequium ? quod per animam , quod secundùm Spiritum offerrur : quicquid non indige● corpore , quicquid non indiget instrumentis , neque locis , in quibus ipse quidem est Pontifex , ut mansuetudo , patientia , &c. Sacrificium laudis , justitiae , spiritus contribula●i . g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Euseb . Caesar . l. 4. de vita Constant . c. 45. de Euth . Al●i sacras literas interpretātur : Alii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & myst●…s consecrationibus diuinum numen placabant , & supplices preces pro communi pace offerebant . Et Demonst . lib. 1. cap. 6. Sacrificium mundum . h Non per cruores , sed per quas actiones summo Deo offerendas . After , there ●olloneth an Oration of Constant ne , Ad Sanctorum coetum . Tale Sacrificium peragitur , vacuum languine , & ab omni violen iâ . As ●ob . Dad●…us D●ctor Paris . transtateth it . i Againe , Demonst . Evang. lib. 1. cap. 10. Has rursus [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] i. e. materiae expertia Sacrificia , intelligentiâ praeditas hostias , Prophetica nunciant oracula ? Immola Deo Sacrificium laudis — Hymnos & sanctas Orationes celebrantes . k Nazianz. Invect . 1. adversus Iulian. ante med . [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] i. e. Ve ab incruento Sacrificio manus elueret , per quod nos Christo , ipsiusque passionibus , & divinitate communicamus . [ Marke , Incruentum , per quod , is distinguished from , Christo , therefore was not Christ the Incruentum , objected by the Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22. 19. ] l Ambros . lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. Sacerdos dicit , Ergò memores glorios●ssimae ejus passionis , offerimus Tibi immaculatam hanc Hostiam incruentam , & hunc panem sanctum , & hanc oblationem salutis aeternae . m Suseipias in sublimi Al●…i tuo , per manus Angelorum , sicut accipere dignatus ●s munera Abel , &c. ] To be expounded , as Bellarmine doth almost the same words in the Romane Masse . n Accipiendo Sacrificium pro re , quae sacrificatur , negari non debet panem & vinum aliquo modo in Missa offerri , ac proinde pertinere ad rem , quae sacrificatur . Nam cùm antè Consecrationem dicimus [ Suscipe , Pater , hanc immaculatam Hostiam ] certè Pronomen , Hanc , demonstrat ad sensum id quod manibus tenemus , id autem panis est . Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 27. §. Respondeo ut . [ Because the Cardinall doth often in this and other Chapters justifie the Romane terme of Masse , by the like in Ambrose . ] o Athanes . Melchizedech dedit Abrahamo vinum meracum addito panis ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) frusto — hic typus fuit offerendi Sacrificium [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] meruentum san●… oblationem . Hist . de Melchizedeth . ad sinem . Tom. 2. * [ Doe but examine the places againe , and you shall finde Basil to have spoken of Service before Consecration ? Chrysost . Of Blood 〈◊〉 Wine , before Consecration : Eusebius in one place is inter preted ( 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 joyne Athanasius . ] a Clemens Rom. Const . lib. 6. cap. 2● . Pro Sacrifieio c●uento , Rationale & incruentum ; ac illud mysticum Sactificium corporis & sanguinis Christ● , quod insymbolum mor●… ejus c●… lib. ●Const . cap. 26. Adhuc agimus Tibi gratias , Pater nost●r , pro pretioso corpore & san●… cuj●… A●…typa celebramus , ut mortem ejus denuntiaremus , per ipsum enim Tibl glori● . Athen. c Cyril . Hierosol . My●●ag . 5. Postquàm confec●mus [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] Aliquant● p●st , Obsecramus Deum pro &c. Et Christum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] Ob. à Salme●on● Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 30. a Salmeron . Tom. 9. Tract . 29. pag. 225. Hesychius lib. 2. cap. 8. in Levit. Dicit Christum cum coenaret seipsu● occidisse . Chryso●t . in 1 Cor. hom . 24. In Eucharistia Christùm pati & occidi . R●rs●● Tract . 31. pag. 238. Alii docent in Eucharistia offerri cruentum Sacrificium . Alexander Papa Epist . 1. Cypr. lib. 2. Epist . 3. Passio Domini est Sacrificium quod offerimus . Hieron . in Dialog . advers . Luci●er ▪ Christum plu●ies passum confitemur , Paschatius de Corpore & Sanguine Domini . Sacrificium Crucis interatur . b Quis unquàm Catholicus dixit Christum rursùs mor● ? R●bera Ies . Com. in Heb. 10. num . 25. c Observandum est Christum ●icet modo impassibili existat in Sacramento , tamen dici à Pat● ibus mortalem , imò mortuum & pass●m in Sacramento , eatenus quidem , quatenus ex modo Consecrationis , ipsaque vi significationis Sacramentalis mors , & passio Domini commemorantur atque repraesentantur . Alan . Card. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 38. sub finem . d Gloss● de Consecrat . Dist . 2. Quid sir . Hoc est , ejus Mors repraesentatur . e Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 25. §. Respondeo si , &c. Si Catholici dicerent in Sacrificio Missae verè Christum mori , argumentum Calvini haberet aliquid viriū : sed cum dicunt omnes eum non mori , nisi in Sacramento & signo repraesentante mortem ejus , quam aliquando obiir , tantùm abest , ut Missa obliteret Christi mortem , ut potiùs efficiat ut nunquam obliteretur . * See above , chap. 5. Sect. 3. * Booke 2. chap. 2. Sect. 4. * Io● . 6. * Ambrose , August . above , Chap. 5. Sect. 5. * Above , Chap. 5. Sect. 6. f Chrys●●t . in Epist . ad Heb. Hom. 16. Baptismus est passio Christi . g Ambros . de P●●nitent . lib. 2. cap. 1. In Baptismo crucifigimus in nobis filium Dei. * Bo●ke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 7. * See Baren . Anno ●02 . &c. a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 15. Si Patres existima●unt Eucharistiam solùm ●sse Sacrament●● , & non etiam Sacrifici● , nulla esset causa cur aliter loquerētur de Eucharistia , quàm de Baptismo . Nusquam autem Patres Baptismum vocant Sacrificium , nec dicunt ▪ Baptizare esse Sacrificare , vel immolare . Quo modo igitur possible est Patres in modo l●quendi nobiscum ; in sententia cum Adversariis conveni●●e ? §. Hic igitur . Ru●sùs , Baptismus est Sacramentum Repraesentationis mortis Christi , Rom. 6. Et tamen nulli veterum baptismum Sacrificium Deo oblatum unquam appellaverunt : non igitur sola repraesentatio causa esse po●uit , cur actio coenae Sacrificium appellaretur . Ibid. §. Tert. bapt . b Card. Alan . Patres a●usos esse nomine Sacrificii — quis possit cum Haereticis vel tenuiter suspicari , cum hoc solum eo nomine app●llent , nec alteri ferè Sacramento unquam tribuunt ? Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14. c Suarez Ies . In mu●tis Conc. vocatur hoc Sacrificium incruentum — Solum est observandum , propter Hae●eticos , qui hoc etiam ad metaphoram detorquenr nomen , Sacrificium . Sanctos Patres nunquam vocâsse Ministerium Baptismi , aut alterius Sacramenti nomine Sacrificii , cum tamen Sacrificiū M●taphoricè sumptū in eo conveniet . Cum ergo Eucharistiam simpliciter & absolutissimè Sacrificium vocant , signum est ●os propriè de Sacrificio loqui . Tom. 3. Disp . 74. Sect. 2. p. 952. * M. Fisher , ●or one . d H. b. 10 26. [ Voluntariè pecc●ntibus non relinquitur Sacrificiū pro peccato ] Qui diligentiùs pertiactant hunc locum Apostoli , intelligunt de Holocausto Dominicae passionis , quod eo tempore offert qui●que pro peccatis suis , quo ejusdem passionis fide baptizatus : Vt sit sensus , [ Non relinquitur Sacrificium pro peccaris ] hoc est , non potest denuò baptizando purgari . August . Tom. 4. Expos . ad Rom. Col. 1185 , 1186 , 1187. e Melchi●r 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 cr●cis . Hinc illi Baptisma translatitiè Hostiam nuncuparunt . Loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. pag. 424. a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 2. §. Sed omissa . Omne Sacrificium est oblatio , sed non omnis oblatio Sacrificium , hoc fit cùm r●s oblata consumitur . 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 . Ib. §. Secundum . Non quae in sola oblatione fita , ut aurum , argentum , &c. Ibid. §. Secundò . Non decimae aut primitiae . §. Sed in . Nec Patres appellant Sacrificium , id quod solum est figura , & commemoratio Sacrificii . §. Tertiò . Non pia voluntas , quia invisibilis . §. Secundò . Non Eleemosynae , quia non soli Deo oblatae §. Tertiò . Nulla reverentia externa , ut genuflexiones , preces , quia actiones transeuntes . §. Sexto . Passiones Martyrum , & alia omnia bona opera , largo modo — non autem propriè & in rigore , Sacrificia dici possunt . Ibid. cap. 3. §. Resp . Martyrum . c Cassand . Liturg. cap. 22. Ordo celebrandi Missam , secundùm Romanos , celebrante Pontifice , extractus ex variis libellis — Ibid. cap. 27. Populus dat Elcemosynas suas , i. e. panem & vinum , tàm masculi quàm foeminae . Ibid. De veteri ritu oblationis panis & vini , I●en . lib. 4. cap. 32. Primitias creaturarum offerentes — Hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola pura offert Fabricatori , offerens cum gratiarum actione . Ibid. In expositione ordinis . R●mani , exscriptis Greg. Papae . Oblationes fidelium fuisse tantùm panem & vinum — Et Collectae in usum Pauperum , veltestitutionem Ecclesiarum , opportuno tempore , non inter solennia Missarum , — quae populi donaria , non certè Sacrificia — Sacrificium autem , ficut Isidorus , dictum quasi sacrum factum , quià prece mystica consecratur . Cassand . ibid. Non ignoramus veteres Theologes appellâsse Eucharistiam Sacrificium laudis . Maldenas . lib. de 7. Sacram. Tom. 1. part . 3. §. Praeter haec . pag. 322. a Bellarm. — Sunt Relata , ità ut Sacrificium propriè 〈◊〉 sacerdotio propriè dicto : & Sacrificio impropriè dicto impropriè dictum sacerdotium respondeant . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 2. §. Quintum . b Maldonat . Ies . Serpens aeneus fuit Sacrificium commemorativum futuri Sacrificii Christi , sed tamen non habuit altare . Lib. de 7. Sacram . Tom. 1. de Euch. §. Quintum genus . c Abulens . in Ios . 22. Altare hoc non fuerat ad Sacrificium offerendum . Quaest . 9. d Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 17. §. Neque . — Neque obstat quod Ministri Ecclesiastici non dicebantur Sacerdotes , aut utebantur nominibus Templi , Sacrificii , Altaris , & similibus , quia tempore Apostolorū , vigebat Sacerdorium Judaicum , ideo abstinebant ab iisdem vocibus , ne viderentur cosdem illos ritus innovare . e Eodem modo Durantus de Ritibus , lib. 〈◊〉 cap. 1. num . 7. x See above , Chap. 3. Sect. 8. x See above , Chap. 2. Sect. 1. f See the former Testimonie at ( d. ) g Euseb . Hist . lib. 10. cap. 4. Sanctuario hoc modo absoluto , Altarique tanquàm Sancto Sanctorum in medio Sanctuarii sito ; ne à plebe eò possit accedi , cancellis ex ligno fabrifactus circumclusit . Coccius Tom. 2. Tract . de Altari , in vita Antonii . Altare à multitudine circumdatum . Chrysost . de visione Angelorum , lib. 6. de Sacerdotio . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & D●oxys . Hierarch . Eccles . cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . [ These Testimonies verifie the same Assertion of Dt. Fulke against Greg. Martin , cap. 17. The Table stood so , that men might stand round about it . ] h Aug. quast . super Exod. lib. 2. cap. 9. Altare est populus Dei. Lib. 1. de Serm. in monie . Altare in interiore Dei templo , i. e. fides . Lib. 10. de Civitat . Dei , cap. 4. Ejus est Altare cor nostrum . And other Fathers ordinarily . i Nazian . Orat. 28. — Esto , ego pellor ab Altari in Ecclesia : at novi aliud Altare mentis & contemplationis in coelo , ibi adstabo , & Deo offerani Sacrificia , quae sunt tanto acceptiora , quàm ea quae offerimus ad Altare , quantò pretiosior est veritas quàm umbra . k Cyril Alex. cont . Iulian. lib. 9. ( Iulian. Ob. ) Judaei sacrificant , — vos autem invento novo Sacrificio — quarè 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 Judaei sacrificarent , ut in umbris praecepta implerent , nos tamen larâ viâ cuntes , 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 . — Undè scribit . D. Paulus , ut diem agamus in Azymis synceritatis & veritatis . ( Rursus Iulian. ibid. lib. 10. ) Offerre Sacra in Altari , & sacrificare cavetis . ( Resp . Cyril . ) Adnibemus Sacrificia spiritualia , sc . & mentalia : nam illi ex sanguine offerebant boves , & oves , — Et ex fructibus similam , eleas , &c. nos tamen tam crasso ministerio relicto tenue & subtile , at spirituale perficimus : offerimus enim in odorem suavitatis fidem , spem , charitatem , justitiam , laudes . Sacrificium enim secundùm naturam incorporeum decet Deum . ( Iulian. ) Et Cain obtulit Sacrificium de fructibus terrae : Abel de carnalibus . ( Cyril . Resp . ) Offerimus mel 〈…〉 oddam quàm illi — Sacrificamus enim mentalitèr & spiritualitèr virtutum fragrantias . ( R●●sus Iulian. Ob. ) Non circumcidimini , non Azyma , non Pascha servatis . Non possumus , inquiunt , ( viz. Christiani : ) pro nobis enim sen el immolatus est Christus , & prohibuit Azyma — non Abraham imitantes Altaria erigitis Deo , nec sacrificatoria aedificatis . ( Resp . Cyrill . ) Circumcisionem habemus Spiritus — In Azymis spiritualia quae habemus . ( Et ad Pascha Resp . ) Affulsit veritas , Immolatus est pro nobis Christus Agnus verus . l Greg. Nazian . Orat . 3. advers . Iulian. ( De Gallo & Iulian● . ) Quinetiam in Clerum seipsos ascripserunt , ut divinos quoque libros plebi lectitarent : non minus id sibi amplum & honorificum existimantes quàm aliud quidvis , &c. * S● hereafter , Chap. 4. Sect. 3. a Bellarm. Sacrificium Missae accipitur propriè pro re , quae sacrificatur : & etiam accipitur propriè pro actione sacrificandi . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 27. §. Resp . ut . * See above , Chap. 1. Sect. 5. a Conc. Trid. Christus tradebat visibile Sacramentum sub specie panis & vini . Sess . 22. & Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 27. §. Secundo . b Septimò , ritu mystico consecratur : nam debet res illa , quae Deo offertur , ex profanâ fieri sacra . Idem significat Sacrificare , quod sacrum facere . Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 2. c Bellarm. Octavò , transmutatur , quid ad verum Sacrificium requiritur , ut id , quod offertur Deo , planè destruatur , i. e. it● mutetur , ut desinat esse id qod antè erat , In quo differt à simplici oblatione , quae interdum mystico ritu elevabatur coram Deo , sed non destruebatur , nisi quando verè sacrificabatur . Ratio duplex , 1. ●b significationem mortis Christi . 2. ad protestationem subjectionis nostrae coràm Deo — Ideò requiritur , ut non solum usus , sed etiam substantia consumatur . — Sacrificium requirit Consumptionem . Pater , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , est à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , mactare . Matth. 22. Altilia di●unt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occisa , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , i. e. Exhalario , in quo differt ab oblatione ; Item 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , consumo . Probatur ex Scriptura , ubi omnia Sacrificia destruenda erant , si viventia , per occisionem ; si inanimata solida , per combustionem ; si liquida , per effusionem . Ex inanimis solidis per immolationes , sic dictas à mola , vel molendo , quamvis vox , Immolare , pro sacrificare sumatur . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 2. per totum . Et idem ibid. cap. 4. §. Nunc. d Conc. Trid. a●d Bellarm. above cited , §. 3. at a. e Salmeron . Christus cruentus , & incruentus , non differunt , sed quod ille visibilis , hic invisibilis . Tom. 9. Tract . 29. §. Jam do . f Aquinas . Bénedictio sacerdotalis fertur super terminum à quo , non super terminum ad quem , i. e. super corpus Christi . In 1. Cor. 10. g Bellarm. Corpus Christi per consecrationem accepit formam cibi , & ad comestionem & destructionem ordinatur : & licet nullam laesionem patiatur in se , neque amittit suum esse naturale sed amitrit Sacramentale Esse , & proinde desinit esse realiter in altari , & definit esse cibus sensibilis . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 27. §. Tertiò . h Lombardus cum quaeritat quid Sacerdos gerit fit dicendū Sacrificium aut Immolatio , accipit nomen . Immolationis pro occisione , respondet autem ●ect●ssimè , Christum sem●l tantùm immolatum , i. e. occisum suisse , non autem immolari , i. e. occidi in Sacramento & repraesentatione . Rursus paulò sup●… . §. Ad hanc . Cruenta Immolatio semel tantùm verè & propriè facta est , nunc autem propriè , sed per Repraesentationem . Lib. 4. Dist . 12. §. Post haec . i Alanus de Eucharist . lib. 2. cap. 13. In carn●s & sanguinis separatione ( undè propriè in animalibus r●actatio ) consistit vis hujus mysterii , ut in eo solo cernatur divinae mortis repraesentatio — sequitur Christum esse praesentem modò immolatio — quod funditur in remissione peecatorum : e●go per modū Victimae praesens est , imò Christus hîc praesens induit eum modum , quem habuit ut se offerens in Sacrificio Ciucis . ( Aliquantò post haec ) Propter concomitantiam de qua superius diximus in seipso non moritur . k Costerus Christian . In stitutionum , lib. 1. cap. 10. Christus in cruce solus scipsum obtulit per veram sanguinis effusionem & mortem : hîc per Sacerdotem , tanquain ministrum , se offert sine Sanguinis Effusione & morte , sed per utriusque repraesentationem . * Iohn 6. * Ibid. a Canus . Quià per Sacrificia legis externa res quaedā spirituales potiores praefignabantur , has omninò res Sacrificia , holocausta , hostias sacrae literae appellant : ut mactationes brutorum animalium figurae erant mortificationis . Loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. In secundo . a Non terrenis , sed spiritualibus est Deo litandum . Tertull. adversus Iud. eos . b Erant tum Sacrificia pro delicto , quae nunc sunt Sacrificia poenitentiae de delicto . Ambros . lib. 3. Epist . 28. c Spiritus contribulatus . — Ostendit Deus , se velle Sacrificium , non trucidati pecoris , sed contriti pectoris . Aug. de Civit . Dei. lib. 10. cap. 5. d Mundo moriens , ipse est Sacrificium . Idem . e Tunc corpora pro corporibus ; nunc non corpora , sed vitia corporis perimenda . Arnob. c●nt . Gen●es . f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Isid . Pelus lib. 3. Epist . 75. g Illi offerebant oves & boves : nos tàm craffo praeteriro Sacrifici● 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. ] h Chrys●st . in Gen. Hom. 60. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . i Pe●usiota . lib. 3. Epist . 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . k Praeces & 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 beene said , Deomagis placet Schir , quàm Schior , id est Canticum , quàm vitulus . Bellarm. ibid. l Gladio verbi mactans vitia . Hieron . & rursus in Psal . 26. Hostia jubilationis , hostia praedicationis . m Chrysost . in Psal . 95. Munus Evangelicum Sacrificium mundum & immaculatum . n Sacrificium praedicationis omnibus aromatibus praestantius . Aug. o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicunt , vel quòd eâ Deus prae Sacrificiis placere sibi testatur : haec sancta vestis aromata Sanctorum est . Chrysost . p Vbi scriptum est , [ Misericordiam magis volo quàm Sacrificium ] nihil aliud quàm Sacrificium Sacrificio praelatum intelligi oportet : quoniam quod ab hominibus appellatur Sacrificium , fignum est veri Sacrificii . August . lib. 10. de Civitat . cap. 5. r Nos templum Dei sumus omnes , cor nostrum akare Dei , cruentas victimas ca dimus , quandò usque ad sanguinem pro veritate certamus . August . ibid. cap. 4. s Verum Sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur , ut Deo in sancta societate haereamus : relatumque ad illum finem , ut beati esse possimus . Idem . lib. 10. de Civit. cap. 6. a In the Engl●sh Liturgie . b Iansen . Christum in coena Sacrificium obtulisse , primum quidem satis est significatum , cùm dicitur Gratias egisse : Gratiarum enim actio est quoddam Sacrificiū , à qua Christi actione Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Domini nomen illud ab initio Ecclesia accepit . Con●ord . cap. 131. * See above , Chap. 3. Sect. 5. c Bellarm. Melancthon Eucharistiam Sacrificium esse vult , — & Calvinus non solum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse vult , sed etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 2. §. Ac primum , & § Expendamus . d Canus . Lutherani in Apologia Augustana perperam Sacrificium definiebant esse opus à nobis Deo redditum , ut eum honore afficiamus . Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. Quibus rebus . Bel larm . Melancthon , dicit , Missam dici posse Sacrificium , quatenùs sumptio Eucharistiae fieri potest ad laudem Dei , sicut coetera 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 Sacrifici● Christi . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 15. §. Aker modus . * See above , Chap. 5. Sect. 7. a Synod . Trident. Sacrificium verè propitiatorium — Hujus oblatione placatur Deus , gratiam & donū poenitentiae concedens dimittit peccata , una enim eademque hostia est , idem nam offerens Sacerdotum ministerio , qui seipsum in cruce obtulit . Sess . 22. cap. 2. b Catechis . Rom. ( jussu C●ns . Trident. & Pii Quarti Pont. editus . ) Vt Sacrificium est , non solum merendi , sed & satisfaciendi quoque efficaciam habet . De Luth. num . 55. Osorius Ies . Conc. Tom. 4. de Missae Sacrificio in Psalm . 4. [ Sacrificate Sacrificium . ] Vnicum hoc Sacrificium est Sacrificium laudis , gratiarum actionis , expiatoriū & satisfactorium pro peccatis , & impetratorium pro vivis & defunctis . Ità tradit Conc. Tri● . a Bellarm. Secundum Argumentum sumitur ex his verbis Institutionis , quae apertissimè docent Christum obtulisse in coena pro peccatis Apostolorum . Lib. 2. de Missa , cap. 2. §. Secundum . * See above , Chap. 1. Sect. 2. * In the fore-cited place . * See above , Chap. 1. Sect. 3. a Valent. Omne's actiones 〈◊〉 rectè propi●… Deum aliquâ ratione censeri debent . Lib. 2. de Miss● , cap. 5. Ide●m . Pe●… ratione Precibus propi●… vis in Scriptura tribuitur , quaterius beneficia divina ex misericor●… Dei , per illas impetra●●us . Ibid. * See above , Chap. 8. Sect. 3. * August . See above , Chap. 5. Sect. 2. * Chrysost . Ibid. a Origen . in Levit. H●m . 13. Siredeas ad illum que●● Deus proposuit Propitiatorem per fidem , & fi respicias ad illam commemorationem , de qua dicit Dominus , Hoc facite in commemorationem mei ; ista est sola commemoratio , quae propitium facit hominibus Deum . * See Cha. 5. Sect. 11. b Salmeron . Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 31. 9. Postremò supe●est . pag. 238. Quidam Patres judicant inprimis hac hostia expiari peccata , quòd cruentum memoret Sacrificiū . Hanc dicendi rationem sequitur Concil . Ephes . in Ep. ad Nestorem . Euseb . in Demonst . Evang. lib. 1. cap. 10. August . in Psal . 75. * See above , Chap. 8. Sect. 2. * See above , Chap. 5. Sect. 13. at the letter ( c ) . a Canus . Satis est ut verè & propriè sit Sacrificium , quòd mors Christi ita nunc ad peccati remissionem applicetur , ac si nunc ipse Christus moreretur , id quod Scriptorum veterum testimoniis confirmatur . — August . Semel immolatus in seipso Christus , & tamen quotidiè immolatur in Sacramento . Paschatius : Quotidiè Christus mysticè pro nobis immolatur , & passio ejus in mysterio traditur . Et Cyrillus in Conc. Ephes . Athanas . ad Antioch . Theophyl . in Hebr. cap. 10. Greg. demum Nazian . ( ut coeteros omittam ) hanc incruentam Immolati●nē vocant . L●c. theol . lib. 12. cap. 12. §. Illud . pag. 422. b Cyrill . Mys●ag . 5. Christum mactatum offerimus , ut Deum propitium reddamus . Ob. per Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa , cap. 2. Greg. Nyssen . orat . 1. de Resur . & Theophyl . in Matth. Dicunt mactationem esse in hac oblatione , &c. c Salmeron . Quod benignè interpretandum — nimirùm , mactationem antiquam Christi in cruce inveniri , non novam & realem ab e● 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 . d Ambros . Hîc imago , veritas in coelestibus , nunc Christus offertur , sed offertur quasi homo , quasi recipiens passionem . O●fert se ipse , quasi Sacerdos , ut peccata nostra dimittat , hîc in imagine , ibi in veritate ubi apud Patrem . Lib. 1. de offic . cap. 48. * See above , Chap. 3. Sect. 8. at the letter ( c ) . a Bellar. Ratio 2. quare Sacri●…ciū Crucis sit tanti valoris , hoc autem finiti , sumitur ex parte offerentis : nam Sacrificio Crucis ipse offerens est filius Dei per se ; at in Sacrificio Miss● est ipse offerens per Ministrum — Illa actio immediatè producta à divino supposito , ipsa ab humano . Lib. 2. de Missa , cap. 4. b Salmeron . Ies . Modò Christus in Eucharistia personā induit re● 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 . * See above , Chap. 5 Sect. 4. c Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 2. See above , Chap. 5. Sect. 3. d Loquitur Apostolus de Sacrifici●s veteris Legis , — Potest etiam absolutè & generatim accipi , quod quotiescunque fit remissio , fit sanguinis effusio : sed non nisi virtute effusionis sive nunc facta , sive post futura . Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 25. §. Ad illud . e Si accommodemus ad Evangelium , dicendum est , peccata nunc remitti , non propter praesentem effusionem , sed per praeteritam . Maldon . Ies . lib. de 7. Sacram. Tract . de Euch. immediatè antè exitum Tom. 1. f Si respicimus corpus Christi , quod continetur in Euch. quis negat esse propitiatorium , non ratione oblationis , quā Sacerdos facit , sed ratione Oblationis factae in cruce ? Conc. Provinc . Colon. de Missa , fol. 105. And a little after . Non propitia●orium , ratione Sacrificii , quod est situm in actione Sacerdotis , seu Missae communicantium , aut Ecclesiae : sed ratione Sacrificii , quod in cruce oblatum . a Mirum non est , si cùm Christus infinitus extitit , ejus hostia fuit infiniti meriti & satisfactionis . Salmeron . Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 33. pag. 265 , 266. b Erat infiniti valoris : nec enim aliter potuit compensari injuria Deo facta . Ribera Ies . in Heb. 10. num . 19. c Valor Sacrificii Missae est finitus . Haec est communis sententia Theologorum : in quo distinguitur à Sacrificio Crucis — quod infinitae virtutis erat , & nunquàm repetitur . Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa , cap. 4. §. Quarta P●op . [ And yet it is knowen that Card. Cajetane , C●nus , and Scotus were of a contrary opinion . ] To this last testimony of Ballarmine adde also Salmeron . Ies . Tom. 5. Tract . 33. §. Tertiò . a Conc. Trid. Ut visibile Sacrificium — quo cruenti Sacrificii virtus in remissionem peccatorum applicaretur . Sess . 22. cap. 1. b Ribera Ies . Quoniam quotidiè peccamus , quotidiè vi●tutem passionis Christi participamus , quod Conc. Trid. docuit , quo cruentum illud , semel in cruce peragendum , repraesentaretur , atque salutaris ejus virtus in remissionem peccatorum eorum , quae quotidiè à nobis committuntur , applicaretur . Et hoc Catholicis quidem hominibus manifestissimum est , Haeretici negare non possunt , quoniam Scripturae verbis apertissimè comprobatur de virtute passionis , ad omnia peccata tollenda . Rom. 3. & 5. Apoc. 1. 1. Joh. 2. Com. in Heb. 1. 10. num . 16. * See the last Testimony . 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 . Ca●●● loc . theol . lib. 12. pag. 432 , 433. d Vale●t . Ies . Itaque sunt , qui censeant hoc Sacrificium valere tantùm ad relaxationem poenarum , quarum culpa prius condonata fuit . Lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 5. §. Itaque sunt . pag. 542. Remittuntur venialia . Costerus Christien . iustitut . lib. 1. cap. 8. a Alan . Card. Pro iis peccatis , pro quibus Christus mortuus est . Lib. 2. de Euchar. cap. 35. [ Wherein hee bringeth the Testimonies of Chrysostome , Cyprian , Theophylact , and Origen , expounding them of all sinnes , adding also ; ] Ego verò nunquam invenio hujus Sacrificii usum à Patribus ad pauciora restringi peccata , quàm ipsa immolatio crucis . Ibid. pag. 626. b Calix — sive medicamentum & holocaustum ad sanandas infirmitates , & purgandas iniquitates . Cypr. de coena Domini . Vt cum Deo acceptum fuerit peccata dimittantur . August . de Civit. lib. 20. cap. 25. Omnis nocumenti est reparatio , omnis sortis purgatio . Da●asc . lib. 4. defide , cap. 14. Omne crimen . Jul. Papa apud Gratian. de Consecratione . Dist . 2. Vt peccata nostra dimittat . Ambros . lib. 1. de Offic. cap. 48. [ There might be added Justine Martyr , Dial. cum Tryphone , Chrysost . Hom. 13. in Ephes . Orig. Hom. 13. in Levit. besides the Liturgies of Basil , and others that are extant . ] * See above , Book● 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. c Canon Missa ( De Applicatione ) — & omnium Circumstanstantium , quorum tibi fides cognita est , & nota devotio , pro quibus Tibi offerimus , &c. d Hinc Suarez Ies . Quia oblatio hujus Sacrificii est fructuosa ex opere operato : ergò rationi consentaneum est , ut omnes , qui ad illam verè concurrunt , vel per proprium actum , se● concursum moralem participent hujusmodi fructum talis oblationis . I● 3. Thom. qu. 83. Art. 1. Disp . 79. §. 8. e Costerus Christian . Institutionum , lib. 1. cap. 8. de sacro Missae officio quotidiè audiendo . Quotquot adsunt & dign●●…arant , spiritualiter corpore Domini reficiuntur per o● Sacerdotis . * Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. a Salmeron Ies . Si hoc esset infiniti valoris , & celebrata esset Missa pro redemptione omnium animarū , quae in Expiatorio carcere continentur , totum evacuaret Purgatorium : quod non est credendum , quia frustrà tot Missae pro u●o defuncto celebrarentur . Tom. 9. Tract . 33. pag. 268. De Missis privatis . b Valent. Ies . Quaedam portio remissionis competit Sacerdoti ministranti , quaedam ei , cui Sacerdos vult peculiari intentione applicare — Quae intentio non tantùm valet pro pluribus , ac si pro uno solo celebretur . Lib. 〈◊〉 . de Missa , cap. ●l● . §. Ac primum . & Alan . lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. Vt qui Sacrificium pro Petro offert , ratione stipendii . Suarez Ies . Tom. 3. Disp . 79. §. 9. pag. 1021. c Alan . In certarū personarum Caus●… certam Sacrificii aestimationem , ac fructus quantitatem definite non tàm certa loquimur , quià ad ista particularia nec Scripturae , nec Patres quicquam conferunt . Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. pag. 635. d Inquiri potest , an tenetur Sacerdos ex justitiâ applicare Sacrificium Petro , ratione ab eo accepti stipendii ; nihilominus applicat Paulo : vel cum jubetur offerre Sacrificium pro tali Defuncto , offert pro se . Quidam dicunt Sacrificium operati in hujusmodi casibus non secundùm voluntatem Ministri , sed secundùm obligationem , quâ tenetur pro hoc vel illo offerre . Alii volunt obligationem tenere — Sed operatur secundum intentionem Ministri , quatenùs est Christi Minister ▪ Suarez q o supra . [ But your Cardinall , ] Sed injustè facere . Alan q o sup . cap. 35. pag. 640. * See above , Chap. 1. a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa , cap. 3. Mora Christi est Sacrificiū propriè dictum , & perfectiffimum . b Bellarm. ibid. cap. 20. §. Probatur . Sublato Sacrificio Missae , nullum restat in Ecclesia Sacrificium propriè dictum . Nam si ullum esset , id esset Sacrificium Crucis , illud enim unum Adversarii assignant unicum esse Christianae religionis Sacrificium . At hoc commune omnibus veris religionibus , sed semel peractum manet , quoad effectum , & virtutem . * Apoc. 5. 12. * Iohn 3. * See a Synops● hereof , Booke 8. a Concil . Trid. Cultum Latriae , qui vero Deo debetur , in veneratione huic Sacramento exhibeant . Sess . 13. cap. 5. b Si quis dixerit in hoc Sacramento unigenitum Dei filium cultu Latriae non esse adorandum ; Anathema sit . Ibid. Can. 6. c Suarez Ies . Adoratione Latriae absolutâ , & perfectâ , quâ per se adoratur Christus — Non solùm Christum sub specie●us , sed to●um visibile Sacramentum unico Latriae cultu , quia est unum constans ex Christo & speciebus — Sicut vostis — Magna est differentiae inter has species & crucem , quae reipsa disjuncta est 〈◊〉 Ch●isto . In 3. Thom. q. 79. Disput . 65. §. 1 , & 2. d Missale Rom. Sacerdos prolatis suis verbis [ Hoc est corpus meum , &c. ] hostiam clevat , ●amque adorat — adorandamque ostendit — post genu slexo ad terram usque ipsam veneratur . Ritus c●lebrandi Missam . Post genuflectit ; inclinatur Sacramento pectus ter percutiens , dicit , Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi miscrere nobis , &c. Canon . Missae . e Bellarm. Omnes Idololatriam appellant hujusmodi adorationem . lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 29. §. Porrò . f Greg. Valent. Lutherani nos Idololatras vocant , seu ( ut ipsi nugari solent ) Artolatras . Lib. 1. de Idololat . cap. 3. §. Sed. g Coster . Ies . Nec opus erat ut genuflexo significationem novam honoris darent , sumentes corpus dominicū , quià cundem habebant piaesentem , & corpus suum porrigentem , quem mente semper colebant . Enchir. de Euch. Tit. Adoratio , Answering this Objection : Apostoli in ultima coena hoc Sacramentum non adorabant . * Sec hereafter , Chap. 7. Sect. 2. h Bellarm. lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 29. Scriptum est Deut. 6. Dominum tuum adorabis , &c. §. His praemissis . * 1. Cor. 11. a Chrysost . in Mom. ad Cor. 24. Cum horrore accedamus ad Deum . Ob. Harding &c. I●em Bellarm. lib. 2. d● Euch. cap. 22. Citati● locis quibusdam Chrysostomi , ad hae● Adversarii neque respondent , neque respondere possint : Si enim Angeli ad altare astant capitibus inclinatis , & cum horrore ac tremore vix audent intueri , propter splendorem inde emicantem , quis negare potest aliud ibi esse quam panem ? Et si Angeli adorant , quis homines reprehendere potest si adorent ? Paulo superius ex Hon. 4. 〈◊〉 . ad Coriath Accedimus ad agnum illum jacentem , & peccata mundi tollen●em deprecantes : ubi apertissimè dielt vocari agnum jacentem , &c. Et Hom. ad Ephes . 3. Hostiam quam Angeli cum tremore suscipiunt . * See above , B●●ke 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. in the Challenge . b Chrysost . Orat. in Philogon . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Idem paulò superius . c Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa , cap. 15. §. Quinto — Omnes Graeci Patres passim vocant terribile Sacrificium , & horroris plenum . * See above , Booke 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. * See above , Booke 5. Chap. 2 Sect. 7. * See above , Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 8. * Ibidem . d Durand . Angeli adsunt semper nobis orantibus . Lib. 7. c. 12. e Nazianz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Orat. 40. de Baptisme . f August . de meritis & de remiss . lib. 11. cap. 18. de baptizatis ; Illi cum timore ad medicum Christum portantur . a M. Breerly . Pon-Pontificales vestas , & calices coeperunt esse honorandi , Sacramenti causâ . Liturg. Tract . 2. §. 〈◊〉 . Sub● . 2. b August . Epist . 164. Baptisme Christi ubique veneramur . 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 su●●exit , & adoravit eo● pronus in terram . 3. Reg. 1. Inclinaba● se & adorabat Bersheba Regem prona in terram . Rectè igitur Johannes adoravit Angclum laeta nunci●… ; Cur Angelus recusavit , Greg. Hom. 8. in Evang. Angelos antè adventum Christi adoratos , post assump●… humanitatem adorationem recusasse . Eodem modo Glossa , Hugo , Rupertus , & alii nonnulli , &c. S● Suarez T●… . 1. D●sp . 54. & Bellarm. Hieronymus non ignorabat Adorationis multa genera , & alium soli Deo , aliam rebu● deberi sacris . Apol. cap. 1. §. Primum . [ And he reckoneth A ●oration of Reliques , Tombes of Martyrs , &c. d Adoro plenitudinem Scripturarum . Adversus Hermog . post medium . pag. 350. ( c ) Greg. Nazianz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Orat. 40. f Ambros . lib. 3. de Spir. sanct . cap. 12. Iractans illum locum Psal . 98. [ Adorate Scabellum pedum ejus . ] Per Scabellum terra intelligitur , per terram autem ca●o Christi , quam hodiè quoque in mysteriis adoramus : & quam Apostoli in Domino Iesu adoraverunt . Ob. 1. per Bell. Apol. cap. 8. pag. 107. Hic locus nullam admittit solutionem . Item lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14. g Aug. in Psalm . 98. Nemo illam carnem manducat , nisi prius adoraverit . Ob. Bell. Alius locus insignis . Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 24. §. Alius . h Athanas . contra M●ced . Di●l . 1. pag. 265. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . a Aug. in Psal . 98. Non hoc corpus , quod videtis manducaturi estis — spiritualiter intellectum vivi●icavit . * See hereafter , Chap. 4. Sect. 2. b Theod. Dial. 2. Signa mystica post sanctificationem manent in priore substantiâ , figurâ , & ●or●…â , sicut p●ius : Intelliguntur autem ea , quae facta sunt , & creduntur : & [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] adorantur . Ob. Bell. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 27. §. Sed apertissimè — asserit praesentiam Domini in Euch. quia p●nis consecratus est verè id quod intelligitur , Creditur , & Adoratur . * See this discussed to the full , Booke 3. a Bellarm. lib. 2. de Eucl. cap. 2. citat Augustin . Serm. 10. de verbis Apost . viz. Quòd corpus dixit escam , & sanguinem potū , Sacramentum fidelium agnoscunt fideles — Et hanc phrasin [ nórunt fideles ] habet in lo●is infinitis : at profectò non est fidelibus tantùm notum , quòd corpus Christi fide percip●atur . Idem objicit Cla●di●● de Sanctis ante lib. de Litur●iis Patrum . Rurs●… Bellar. 〈◊〉 sup . cap. 15. At cettè nulla reddi potest causa , cu● Eucharistiam ne videri quidem permitterent Infidelibus , vel etiam Catechumenis , si nihil est nisi signum . b Chrysost . in Gal. 4. Non natura , sed Dei , promissio Sacramentum fecit : sic ●enascentia nostra natura quidem nulla est , c●terum verbum Dei , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . c And againe in 1. Cor. Hom. 40. about to ●ntreat of the words of S. Paul , [ Quid facient ii , qui baptizantur pro mortuis ? [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . d Dionys . Hierarch . cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . e Conc. Arausican . 1. Catechumeni non sunt ad Baptismum admittendi . Can. 19. f Aug. Tom. 9. Tract . 96. in Ioh. Quid si eis fidelium Sacramenta non producuntur , non ideò fit , quod ea ferre non possent , sed ut ab iis tantò ardenti●s concupiscantur , quantò honorabilius eis occultantur . [ Speaking of the Catechumenists . ] * Suarez . See above , Booke 6. Chap. 1. Sect. 〈◊〉 . at ( a ) . a Durant . de Ritib●… lib. 2. cap. 23. num . 7. 〈◊〉 ordine Romano Diaconus osculan● Evangelium , levat in manus codicem , & partem ejus in dextro humero ponens , vadi● ad Ambonem . b Ida● d● Ritib . lib. 2. cap. 40. in Psal . 7● . In capite montium : hoc est ( ait Rabbi Jonathan ) Sacrificium in capitibu● Sacerdotum . Durand . Rational . lib. 4. cap. 42. num . 54. Elevatur , ut populu● congressu● consecrationem factam esse , & Christum super Altare venisse reverentèr prosternatur in terram , & illum ore adoret . Et Durant . quo suprà . Adorationis ergò Eucharistiam in altum attolli , Durandus & Ivo asserunt , Probabile est . * See above , Booke 3. * See above , Booke 6. Chap. 6. Sect. 5. c Missalls published by Claudius Sainctes à Parisian Dr. Before Consecration , in the Missall of S. Iames , Attollens : In the Masse of Basil , Exa●…ans pane●… . d After Consecration , in the Masse of Chrysostome , Modicum 〈◊〉 tollens Sacerdos , dicit Sancta sanctis . e In Dionys . Areopag . relating the forme of their Masse , objected by Duran●… de ●iti● . lib. 2. cap. 40. Mysteria , quae ante laudaverat Sacerdos , venerandis oper●a signis in conspectum agi● , divinaque mu●cr● reverentèr ostenden● , ad Sacram Communionem convertitur . [ Wherein there is no one word of ▪ Venerandis , or Reverentèr , but this . ] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Dionys . Areopag . cap. 3. f Ter●…ll . in lib. de Cor●●● milit . Calicis a●t panis aliquid in terram discuti , anxiè patimur . Ob. by Mr. Breerly , Liturg. Tract . 2. Sect. 8. Subd . 4. pag. 216. And out of Origen . Hom. 5. in Levit. Take heed no little crumme fall to the ground . Tract . 4. Sect. 6. And Pius Bishop of Rome ordained that the consecrated Bread and Wine falling to the ground should be left to the Sacrificer , and the rest remaining should be burnt with fire unto as●…es . So great a Reverence was then prescribed . Ibid. Tract . 2. Sect. 8. Subd . 4. * See above , Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. in Answer to the second Pretence . a Chrysost . in Liturg. Post●à fimiliter Sacerdos s●…it sanctu●… pan●… , in●…ato capit● ante sacrā mens●… oran● . b Cyril . Hierosol . Mys●●g . 5. Accede ad calice●…●anguinis illius pro●… [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] c Esp●ncae●s . Nec disputatio super Adorandi gestu , cum de Adorationis substantia inter omnes semper conven●rit , ac etiamnum convenit , stantes aut ●edentes , proni aut supini , erecti aut geniculati Christum in Eucharistia praesentissimum adoremus , per se non refert — cum Adoratio non tam in externo cult● , quàm intimo mentis affectu cernitur . Lib. 2. de Adorat . cap. 16. initio . * The Latine is , Inclinantes Altari : but ●…nce I finde it in the Greeke ( before Consecration ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and so thrice the l●ke . A●ter Consecration ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And againe ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . [ Behinde the Table bowing downe his head . ] And againe , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . d Durant . Peractâ thurificatione , Sacercerdos levitèr incurves●it ante Altare — dùm autem inclina● Sacerdos , humilitatem Christi significat . — Sacerdos reflexus ad Altare , cùm paratur Consecratio ▪ Lib. 2. de Ritib . cap. 25. e Vasquez Ies . Graeca Ecclesia ●ntò Consecrationem reveren●er adorat , etiam ●i non sit ibi Christus . D● Adorat . lib. 2. cap. 11. [ Falsly commenting that this was Divine honour , and just . ] f Mr. Breerly Liturg. Tract . 2. §. 9. Subd . 3. [ out of Bellarm. and Bellarm. 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 . * HORST●…rding ●…rding to his Masters owne Relation . a Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 11. de Gorgonia . S●ror Gorgonia adver●â copori● val●●udine laborabat — ●r●tque prodigiosum mor●i genus , quod n●c Medicoru●… arte , nec parentum lachrymis , nec publicis precibus sanari potuit : desperatis omnibus aliis auxiliis intempestâ nocte captat● ad Altare cum fide proc●…it , cumque qui super isto honoratur ingenti clamore invoc●ns , cum caput ●●um pari cum c●amore Altari admovisse● , & d●inde ho● pharmaco ( i. e. L●…ry●… , ut exp●… E●… Cretensis ) perfudisset , & si quid uspiam [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] Antityporum precio●● Corporis & Sangui●is manu recondiderat , id 〈…〉 admiscuisse● ( ô rem admirandaml ) ●●atim se mor●o liberatam sentit . b Bellarm. Procumben● ante Altare coram venerabili Sacramento — Quid autem super altare colatur , dubium esse non potest , cum ●ihil ibi ponatur nisi panis & vinum , mutand● in corpus & sanginem Christi — Petrū Martyre●… valdè u●●it pupugitque hic locus . Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14. * Ste●…ve , Booke 1. Chap. 1. Sect. 10. As further also appeareth in the Liturgie of Pope ●…nt ; Accip●ant D●aco●… reliquias , & portent in Pa●●ophoria ( Doub●less● , ●rom the Al●ar to a pla●e remote . ) Test● Pamel●… Tom. 1. M●ssal . Pa●rum ●atin . pag. 118. * S●e above , Booke 4. Chap. 2 Sect. 5. * Above at the letter ( a ) . * Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. c B●llarm . Dionys . Ar●op . Hier. cap. 3. part . 3. O divinissimum & sacrosanctum Sacramentum , obducta ●ibi significantium 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 R●tib . lib. 2. cap. 11. And indeed who not ? d Nazianz. Orat. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . e Ambros . in Luc. lib. 10. cap. 22. O aqua , ●u aspersum sanguine ( Christum ) l●visti , Sacramentum Christi esse meruisti , &c. f Optat. lib. 6. cont . Parmen . O aqua , quae & purum ●eceras orbem , & terram lavisti . g O salve Crux , ●pes unica ! auge piis just●●iam , &c. Est Prosopopoeia . Vasquez Jes . lib. 2. de Adorat . Disp . 9. cap. 4. pag. 445. h O sacrum convivium ! quod omni Sacramento convenit . Tolet. Jes . Instruct . Sacerd lib. 2. cap. 15 p. 366. i Pachym . in locum Dionys . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ex Orat . in obitum Gorgon . * See above , Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 13. k Basil . lib. de Spir. sancto , cap. 27. Verba Invocationis , cùm ostenditur , quis Sanctorum in scripto nobis reliquit ? ] Hunc habemus morem veteris Ecclesiae , ut post consecrationē oftenderetur populo Eucharistia , quod nunc fieri videmus , & conceptis verbis invocaretur . Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15. §. Alterum . And Durant . de Ritib . lib. 2. cap. 11. Planè ab ipsis Ecclesiae incunabulis post Consecrationem Eucharistiam in altum tollere , Dionys . & Basil . de Spiritu Sancto , cap. 27 , &c. * Proved above , Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 3. in the Challenge . l Archlep . Caesariensseu Christoph . de Capite sontium , Tract . var. Sacerdos invocando Deum panem consecravit : Hanc alii , ut Tertulianus , Iren. Justin . Gratiarum actionem hujusmodi Invocationē seu benedictionem vocant . p. 34 Alicu●● Theodoretus , Basil . Cyril . Hierosol . Iren. Damascen . Theoph. Alex. vocant Eucharistiae formam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Invocationem . Ibid. pag. 33. And bee alleageth your Lindanus for a Suffragator in this point . * See Booke 〈◊〉 . Cha. 2. m Paulus non tradidit formam Consecrationis , quod Basilius ità illustrat , ut sano capiti nihil ad haec sit ullo modo requirendum amplius , cap. 42. de Spi● . sancto ; Verba , dùm ostenditur pani● ( inquit ) & poculum benedictionis quis Sanctorum nobis reliquit ? Lindan . Pa●●p . lib. 4. cap. 41. n Liturg. Iac. [ Sancte Domine , &c. ] o Liturg. Chrysost . [ Adhuc offerimus — mitte Spiritum , &c. p Liturg. Basil . [ R●spice Domine . ] q Decret . part . 1. C. 11. Ecclesiasticorum . Aug. ex Basilio ; Quae scripta nobis , quibus verbis sit Consecratio , commendavit ? r Origenes dixit , Domine , non sum dignus , &c. Ergò vel vult adorari & invocari panem , vel Christum ipsum hîc contineri . Bellaram . lib. 2. de Luch . cap. 8. §. Alterum . * See above , Booke 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. a Calvin . Instit . lib. 2. cap. 17. §. 36. Nec aliâ causâ in antiqua Ecclesia fuisse institutum , ut antè myster●orum celebrationem diceretur , [ Sursum corda . ] b In omnibus Liturgiis Graecis Jacobi , Basilii , Chrysost . Et omnibus Latinis habetur id , quod etiam hoc tempore nos facimus , Bellarm. lib. 〈◊〉 . de Euch. cap. 14. §. Respondeo si . c Respondeo [ Sur●ùm corda ] non significare e●evationem ad ●ocum corporalem , sed elevationem à rebus terrenis & curis hujus vitae , ad Deum & res aeternas . Non respondetur , Habemus ad firmamentū , sed [ Habemus ad Dominum . ] Et certè qui Christum quaerebant in praesepi , in templo , in sepulchro , Sursum corda habebant , quià illum quaerebant , qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula . — Et fieri potest ut qui terram intuetur , cor deorsum — Sic qui in Eucharistia Christum quaerunt & venerantur , cor sursùm habent , si de ipso Christo , non de negotiis hujus vitae interim cogitent . Bellarm. Ibid. * Liturg. Grac. [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] d Monet ergo Sacerdos populum [ Sursùm ] i. e. super se●p●um elevar●co●da ad Dominum , juxtà exhortationem Apostoli , Col. 3. Quae sursùm sunt quaerite , non quae super terram . Durand . Rat●n . lib. 4. cap. 33. e Aug. in Psal . 148. [ Laudate Dominum in excelsis . ] Primò de c●lo dicit , posteà de t●rris , lauda●ur enim Deus , quifecit coelum & terram . Nos adhoc in imo sumus , sed cum cogitamus quomodò illic laudetúr Deus , ●oribi habeamus : & non sin● causa audimus [ Sursùm corda . ] * S●e abo●e , Bo●ke 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8 , &c. * Ibid. * Booke 4. Chap. 10. Sect. 1. * Booke 5. f Cyril . Hier. C●tech . Mystag . 5. Ob hanc causam ●lamat Sacerdos [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] quià opo●tet sursùm habere cor , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , & non ad terrena negotia deprimere ; Paulò post , 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . g Aug. in Psal . 85. Certè rectè admoner , ut Sursùm corda habeant : audiant igitur & faciant , levent ad coelum ▪ quod malè est in terra : ibi enim non putrescit cor , si levetur ad Deum . Teste Pamel . Tom. 1. Missal . in Missa Aug. Hippo●ens . pag. 527. * See above , Booke 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 8. h Tempore veteris 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 . i Ambros . in Luc. cap. 24. Maria , quae quaerebat Christum in terra , tangere non potuit : Stephanus tetigit , qui quaesivit in coelo . k August . Tom. 2. Epist . 44. ad Maxim. Christianis Catholicis nihil ut nume● adoratur , quod conditum est à Deo. Idem Tom. 8. ●n Psal 98. Timeo terram adorare , ne me d●mn●t qui fecit coelum & terram . Nazianz. Orat. 31. Ei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * See Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. a Missal . Rom. pag. 31. Ubi debita materia deficit , non conficitur Sacramentum — Si non sit panis triticcus , vel fi 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 . b Dico , species consecratae perfect● misceri possunt cum liquore specie distincto , & tum non manet ●ub eis sanguis Christi . Ità Thomas . Teste Suar. Ies . in 3. Thom. Disp . 67. §. 4. §. Dico . Et Durand . Si plus apponatur aquae quàm vini , erit irritum Sacramentum . Lib. 4. cap. 42. c Missal . Rom. in Can. Missae . Sex modis contingere potest formae variatio ( nimirùm ) per Additionem , detractionem , alicujus vocis mutationem , vel si una ponatur loco alterius , corruptionem vocis alicuj●s , detrahendo vel mutando syllabam aliquam , transpositionem , i. e. ordini● dictionū variationem , ac deinde per interruptionem , ut pronuntiando unam partem formae , ac quiescendo per aliquod spatium , velloqu●●do aliquid impertinens . Minima variatio destruit integritatem substantial●m , si per●at sensus . Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacram. in Gen. c. 21. §. Secunda Prop — Sacramenta rata non sunt , si dum conferuntur unum tantùm verbum , quod ad substantiam pertiner , omittatur : imò si uniu● syllabae omissio sensum verborū mutaverit , a●t corruperit , collatum Sacramentum non valet : ut si Sacerdos dixerit , Hoc est Cor meum , pro [ Corpus meum . ] Azor. Ies . Instit . Moral . Tom. 1. lib. 5. cap. 28. §. Animadvert . — [ Hoc est , &c. ] Si quis diminueret aliquid , aut immutaret de forma Consecrationis , vel aliquid addat , quod significationem mutaret , non conficeret Sacramentum . Missal . Rom. pag. 33. Haec sunt necessaria necessitate Sacramenti , quibus sublatis , tolli●ur Sacramentum , ut nimirùm non peccet Sacerdos corrumpendo verba Consecrationis . Item Alan . de Sacram. ●n Gen. cap. 21. d Agrippa . Sicut nattatur de Sacrificulo , sivè verum , sive fabula sit , qui cùm plures haberet Hostias , 〈◊〉 Grammaticam omitteret , in haec verba consecravit , Haec sunt corpora mea . Devani● . Scient . cap. 3. e Bellarm. Si Sacerdos ●ingit se consecrare , cum non consecrat , Christus abest . — Nisi intentio Ministri sit saltem virtualis , animo faciendi quod facit Ecclesia , non est Consecratio . De Sacram. in Gen. cap. 27. Si quis non intendit con●icere , nisi delusoriè aliquid agere . Missal . Rom. pag. 33. — Vel ex oblivio●… , cum hostia aliqua lateat , cùm non intendit consecrare nisi quas videt . Vel si habe●s coram se undecim hostias , & intendet consecrare decem , non determinan● quas decem intendit , non consecrat , quia requiritur I●tentio . Missal . ibid. a Decret . lib. 13. Tit. 43. C. 3. Veniens ad gradum Sacerdotii , camperit tande quod non fit baptizat●s , ritè fecimus ipsum baptizari . b Bellarm. — Vel una litera . De Sacram. in Gen. cap. 25. §. Secunda Prop. — Haec sunt nece●saria necessitate Sacramenti , ut nim●rùm non peccet Sacerdos corrumpendo verba Consecrationis : ut in Baptismo si quis dicat , Baptizo te in nomine Matris , &c. Ala● . ●ard . de Sacram , in Gen. cap. 21. And Azorius , See above , Sect. 2. lit . ( c ) . c M. Fox his Acts and M●…m . pag. 1969. d Cos●… Philiarch . de offic . Sh●erd . Tom. 1. lib. 1. C. 14. Potest dari casus , sicut audivi datum esse , quòd ●ilius alicujus nobilis sit à levatrice baptizarus aquâ rosaceâ , quiâ est silius nobilis , &c. * See the pr●ceding Sect. in the Margent . a Si de●icit o●d● Sacerdotalis in conficiente , non consicitur Sacramentum , Missal , Rom. pag. 31. b Multae sunt causae propter quas non potest accidere , ut Christus non sit prae●ens : ut ●i Sacerdos non sit baptizatus , vel non sit ritè ordinatus , quod pendet ex multis aliis Causis , quibus ●er● in infinitum progredi possumus ; ut ex parte materiae saepè accidit defectus . Suarez Ies . in 3. Thom. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp . 65. §. 2. c Plena sunt illa tempora Ordinationibus Paparum , Exordinationibus , Superordinationibus . Baron . An. 908. num . 3. & Ann. 897. num . 6 , & 8. & Ann. 900. num . 6 Platina in vita Ioh. 10. sol . 146. & in vita Sergii 3. sol . 148. d Platina in vi●a St●ph . 6. de F●rmoso ; Abscissis duobus dextrae illius digitis , poti●●imum eis , quibus Sacerdotes in Consecratione utuntur . a Bellarm. Vbi deest vera Consecratio , nullum est periculum in co , qui bonâ fide Sacramentum adorat , adoratio enim potissimum ex intentione pendet ; quarè sicut is , qui panem non consecratum inju●iâ aff●ceret , putans consecratum esse , gravissimè peccâsset in Christum : sic etiam contra qui panem eundem adorat , quòd certo credat non esse panem , sed Christū , is propriè & formaliter Christum adorat , non panem . Lib. 4. de Euch. cap. 30. Vbi quis simpliciter adorans Sacramentum non consecratum est actus Latriae , & Actus moraliter bonus , procedens ex motivo honesto . — Sicut quando quis dat Elee mosynam homini petenti nomine Christi , ex misericordia infusa operatur , si prudenter existimaverit illum esse pauperem , quam vis speculativè decipi contingat . Suarez Jes . Tom. 3. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp . 65. pag. 829. col . 1. Omnis fidelis rectè adorans hostiam consecratam , adorat sub ea conditione , si perfecta sunt circa ipsam ea , quae ad Consecrationem sunt necessaria , secundum divinam institutionem , & sic nunquam decipitur , neque e●rat . Bonavent . in 3. Di●● . 24. Art. 1. qu. 1. ad ult . Tes●e Suarez qo sup . pag. 828. [ And in them , who require it Actuall , albeit Tacitam , Azor. Jes . reckoneth from Gabriel in Can. Missae , Thom. Bonavent . Alber● . Richard. yea and Canonistas Theologos , excepting Cajetan . Hassel ▪ Claud. Sainctes , qui simpliciter & sine conditione adorandum moment . Azor. Instit . Tom. 1. lib. 9. cap. 9. §. Decimo . ] Dicendum est , quod per se loquendo , ac seclusis specialibus circumstanti●s per Accidens occurrentibus , absolutè adorandum esse hoc Sacramentum , ●…ll● in act●… appositâ conditione . Ita sentit D. Thom. in 3. Dist . 9. qu. 1. art . 2. q. 6. ad 2. ubi solùm dicit , non requiri conditionem explicitam , sed satis esse si habitu retineatu● : Habitu au●em illam retineri , nihil aliud esse videtur , nisi mente & animo habete intentionem adorandi verum Christum , ve●umque Sacramentum , & non adhi●…di adorationem , nisi cum hac pendenti existimatione . In eadem sententia est Richardus , ubi ( inquit ) lice● fides credit Christum esse sub speci●bus , sub conditione si omnia suntfact● , quae ad consecrandum sunt nece●saria , ta●…en ad adorandum non oportere , ut fideles hanc conditionem adhibeant in actuali cogitatione . Idem Gabri●l , Marsil . & communiter Summistae , verbo , Adoratio . Ità Suarez Tom. 3. qu. 79. Art. 8. Disp . 65. pag. 828. col . 2. Nihil ob●uit Jacob , cum Laban sibi ignoranti pro Rachel in concub●tu substituerit Leam , qu●à bonâ fide se cum propria uxore dormire putare● . Ità non est Artolatra , qui non adorat Christum in pane non consecrato , quem b●n●●ide putat consecratum , &c. Salmer●… Ies . Tom. 9. Tract . 33. pag. 181. b Ego sum Deus t●us fortis Zelo●es , Exod 20 5. ] Dicitur Deus Zelô●es , id est , zelum tenens : zelus autem est amor prvatus , nolens habere consortium in amato . Et ●ic viri dicuntur habere zelum de uxoribus suis , quia volunt quòd uxo●es suae solos illos ament , & solis illis copulentur . Sic etiam Deus volebat quòd Judaei ●um solum co●erent , & ●um ut Deum cognoscerent : & quandò alius coleretur 〈◊〉 Deus , dolebat , tanquàm ●i vir videat uxor●… suam amantem alium virum . Et ●icut cùm mu●…er alteri quàm viro suo copulatur , fornicari dicitur : ità qui alterum quàm verum Deum colebat , fornicari dicebatur in Scriptura cum Diis alienis . Abulens . in Exod. 20. pag. 273. col 2. c Grae ci optimè interpretantur Hypostasin per substantiam , quià fides efficit ut ea , quae credit , non m●nùs c●rta habeamus , quàm si subsisterent . Ribera Ies . Co●… Heb ▪ 11. pag. 514. * Chap. 9. Sect. 4. * Sep●●agints . d Sacerdos inclinatus Sacramento , junctis manibus , & ter pectus percutiens , dicit , Agnus Dei , qui ●ollis peccata mundi , mis●r●re nobis . Et rursus , Agnus Dei , &c. M●ssal . Rom. pag. 24. Rursus . Inclinato capite versus Sacramentum , dicit intelligibili voce , Da nobis pacem : E●rursus secrete , Domine Jesu Christe , &c. Missal . Rom ibid. * Thorow-out the 7. Chapter . * See Chap. 7. thorowout . a Bellarm. Sicut is , qui panem non consecratum injuriâ afficeret , &c. See above , Sect. 1. ( a ) . b Mala intentio vitiat opus : sed perperam inde colligitur opera mala ex intentione bona justificari . Nam opus bonum nascitur ex integra causâ , malum autem ex quovis defectu oriri potest . Bellarm. de amiss . Grat. lib. 2. cap. 4. §. Primum enim . * Chap. 7 , and 8. * See above , Sect. 1. at the letter ( a ) ad ●…nem . * Ibid. * Acts 9. 5. * 1. Cor. 15. 9. * 2. Tim. 〈◊〉 . 〈…〉 . * Ioh. 16. 2. * Prov. 30. 20. * Confessed above , Chap. 5. Sect. 6. by your Iesuite Suarez . a Honor est testimoninm excellentiae , quod continetur verbo vel facto , quae de excellentia alicujus convenientem existimationem illi gignit . Sic honor divinus est quicquid verboruns aut officiorum omninò accommodatum est ad gignendam existimationem hujusmodi , quae in divinam majestatem propriè conveniat . Hoc duplici modo , 1. ut opus sit n●turâ suâ ità praeclarum , ut quis illud naturali lumine rationis solum Deum tali hono●e dignum esse judicet , quale est Sacrificium . Alterum , ut tale sit intentione ejus , qui vult de persons , quam honorat , talem existimationem excitare , quae in divinam majestatem conveniat , licet honor iste alioqui indifferen sit . Greg. Valent. lib. 2. de Idol . cap. 3. b Est Idololatria divini cultus erg●falsum Deum exhibitio : colere enim pro Deo eum , qui non est Deus , aut ipsum laudando , aut e● aliquo modo prosternendo , Idololatrare est . — Idololatria ( quae est falsa Adoratio ) non est nisi erro● in intellectu , quo dignum honore judicamus Deum falsum , cui Idololatrase prosternit . Tolet. Ies . Instit . Sacerd. lib. 4. cap. 24. §. Est igitur . c Idololatria comprehendit omnem superstitiosam religionem , quâ quaelibet res colitur pro Deo , Lorinus Ies . in Acts 17. 16. d Nos visibili Sacramento invisibilo corpus Christi praesens , adeoque Christumcipsum invocamus , & quasi divinum quoddam adoramus , & qua●…vivum quiddam ratiorrabile alloquimur , rogamus [ O salutaris Hostia , &c. ] Espenc . lib. 5. de Adoras . cap. 8. fol. 185. & ibid. lib. 2. cap. 9. fol. 25. 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. §. Praetereà . f Ne Idololatria co●…itteretur , air , ( nempè Claudius Sainctes ) cum Christo in Eucharistia debeatur summꝰ divinusque cultus , non est eo Adorationis genere colendum sensibile continens , quo contentus Iesus . Teste Vasquez Ies . de Adorat . lib. 2. Disp . 8. cap. 11. pag. 389. g Panis substantiam , post Consecrationem , abesse probatur , quià si unà cum Domini substantia panis sub eisdem Accidentibus contineretur , periculum e●●et nē populus simpliciter adoraret panem . Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 22. initio . Et Alanus lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 34. Non posse , ait , in Eucharistiae duplicem existere substantiam , quià Ecclesia esset in summo periculo Idolalatriae , &c. Ratio est , quià cùm adoramus id quod delitescit sub speciebus panis , si esset ib● 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 urramque referri . Vasquez Ies . quo sup . h Sacramenta haec in sumente homine , quià quandiù in eo Sacramentaliter sun● incertum est , nec regulariter , ●●c ordinarie solent adorari . — Praeceptor meus D. Joh. Benedictus , magnum Dominicani ordinis ornamentum , docuit , majua esse Idololatriae periculū , si Christus adoraretur in homine , quià homo est subjectum rationis capa● ( honor est autem praemium virtutis ) signa verò sacra non propter se , sed propter res , quas figurant & exhibent , sunt veneranda , in iis tantum periculi non inest , quàm ●i homines peculiari hoc honore propter sumptum sacramentaliter , & sic aliquandiù Christum in eis habitantem prosequeremur . Sic eniur homines paulatim Deos esse putaremus . 〈…〉 de Euch. lib. 1. cap. 6. fol. 14. i Conc. Ephes●… . Tom. 1. C. 12. §. Pari. Neque hominem cum verbo adorandum dicimus , sed unum eu●demque , nè illud cùm verbo aliquam divisionis imaginationem meriti objiciat . Et Tom. 4. C. 26. — Adoratione verò non seor●… Deum , nec seorsim hominem , sed unum Christum . a Ambros . Catharinus Compsae Arch●episc . Anno● . advers . nova dogmata Cajet . Card. Ti● . 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 Xisti Quarti sententiam in Decreto Canonizationis Bonaventurae , ubi confidens de Spir. Sancti supren â directione , confidenter illum Sanctum esse pronuntiat , & fideliter ab omnibus teneri praecipit — Quod arroganter fecisset , si haec res ad fidem non attineret . ●ag . 128. Bonaventuram protuli , qui docet horribilissimum esse , Ecclesiam in hujusmodi errare posse , & periculosum esse in re fidei , eò quòd si unus Sanctus vocatur in dubium , etiam coeteri vocari possunt , & ità periculosum esset invocare Sanctos . pag. 129. Adduxi iterùm testimonium Hieronymī in Epist . ad Phil. Hominem non sanctum Sanctorum jungere societati , esset Christum violare , cujus membra sumus . Ibid. Ob. Sat e●it in universali credere , Canonizationem Sanctorum veram esse : at Canonizationem hujus aut illius credere non tenemur , quià an Sanct●s sit , pendet ex facto , utrùm nimirum talis fuerit , & talia fecerit , in quo Ecclesia errare 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 pi● credendum est , ●am errar● non posse . Risp . At ego crederem pictatem fidei esse divinae revelationis & authoritatis , non hominum . pag. 142. Ob. Certâ autem humanâ certitudine suadet credere pietas fidei , ceita verè divinâ certitudine ●ubet credere necessitas fidei . pag. 142. Resp . Credere vivum esse membrum Christi , quod est putridum , fidem laedit : quare est error pernitiosus . pag. 144. Et Thomas ; si per cultum exteriorem aliquod falsum significetur , est cultus perniciofus . pag. 147. Acultu divino abesse debet omne mendacium , quia in eo fidem nostram protestamur , & cum Deo agimus & Io●…mur , qui omne falsum , fictum , vanum abhominatur . Haec Ca●harinus ibid. pag. 149. b Catharin . ibid. qu● suprà . Ob. Doctrina haec su●detur exemplis hostiae non consecratae , quam Sacerdos exhibet adorandam , ubi nulla Idololatria , quià fides Ecclesiae non ad has aut illas species panis refertur , sed ad hoc , quod corpus Christi continetur sub speciebus panis , quando fuerit rite benedictum . Patas tu quòd minus potest errare Ecclesia in adoratione hos●iae non consecratae , quā in cultu Sancti ? pag. 132 , 133. Resp . Catharin . Petrus de Palude asserit , nullo modo esse dandam Hostiam fimplicem 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 fuisset , secisset populum Idololatrare , atque ideò tanto magis provocaret in se iram Dei. — Audi , in hostia consecrata adoratur Christus ut Deus , non simpliciter , sed ut existons sub his speciebus . Cumigitur ibi non ex●stat Christus , sed creatura pro Christo invenitur , cui exhibetur Latria , atqu●…deò Idololatria est . Idololatrae enim etiam hâc errant ratione , qui coelum ( puta ) aut aliquid aliud adorabunt , putantes se ibi adorare Deum , quem a●imam Mundi dicebant , juxta Varronis Theologiam . Non igitur excusantur ab Idololatria , quòd arbitrarentur se unum Deu● colere , sicut verè erat unus Deus : sed quod illum ibi adora●ant , ubi non erat ●o modo , quo esse existimabant . Ibid. pag. 134 , 135. c Fides divina est , quâ credimus Iesum , cadem credimus hun● esse Paulum Quartum Pontificem , &c. — Non tantum human â fide , cui subesse possit falsum . Salmeron . Ies . in Epist . Pauli part . 3. Disp . 2. pag. 183 , 184. Al●oqui eam adorare formidarem . pag. 185. * See the Grand Romish Imposture , &c. d Si enim fides nostra p●nderet ex externa intentione Ministri , commodū nobis esset repete●e 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 . pa. 184. §. Vtergò . a Dicimus ad plenam resolutionem , cùm cultus terminatur ad ipsas creaturas , Idololatriam esse injustam . Alan . de Sacram . in Gen. cap. 23. b Latria est cultus Deo proprius , nec per se deferendus imagini , ratione Relationis , Bellarm. lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 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 Idolum , relicto Deo , sed ctiam cùm 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 cùm 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 . c Sunt benè multi , qui imagines colunt , non ut signa — sed magis eis fidunt quàm Christo . Polydor. Virgil. Invent. lib. 6. cap. 13. * Manifestius est , quàm ut verbis explicari possit , cultum nimiùm invaluisse , ità ut ad summam Paganorū adorationem nil à nostris reliqui fit factum . Cassander Consult . Art 21. Dici non potest , quan●a 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. d Fuerunt ex Ethnicis , qui simulachra adorabant , quià ea animata esse credebant divinis spiritibus . Greg. Valent. lib. 1. de Idol . cap. 2. pag. 690. Idololatria quintuplex apud Gentiles : 1. Adoratio ipsorum simulachrorum materi●lium , vel Daemoniorum illis affixorum . 2. Aliarum Creaturarum , ut Coeli , Teriae , &c. 3. Hominum mortuorum ▪ 4. Mundi , tanquàm animati . 5. Substantiarum immaterialium , etiam perse , ut Daemoniorum , sive malorum Angelorum . Lerin . Ies . Conc. in Act. 17. 20. Quatuor ob causas movebantur Ethnici crede●e Idôla esse Deos : 1. quià sic edocti à Pontificibus suis . 2. quià videnatur totus mundùs id credere . 3. quià operâ Diaboli Idola loquebantur , & movebantur . 4. quià humana forma praediti essent . Bellarm. lib. 2. de Imag. cap. 13. §. Quartum . * See above . ( * ) See above , Chap. 7. Sect. 2. at ( a ) . a Talis error est , quo in orbe terrarum nunqu●m vel visus , vel auditus fuit — tolerabilior enim est error eorum , qui pro Deo colunt statuam ●uream , aut alterius materiae imaginem , quomodò Gentiles snos Deos venerabantur , vel pannum rubrum in hastam elevatum , quod narratur de Lappis , vel viva animalia , ut quondàm Aegyptii ; quam eorum qui frustum panis . Coster . Jes . Enchirid . de Sacram. Eucharist . cap. 8. §. Decimo . * See above , Chap. 6. Sect. 6. * See in the former Section at ( d ) . * Act. 17. 23. * Heb. 11. 6. * Esay 44. 15 , &c. a Conc. Carthag . 6. Can. 20. Quoniam sunt quidam , qui dic Dominico flectunt genua in diebus Pentecostes : placuit sanctae & magnae Synodo cunctos — stantes Deum orare debere . Durant . de Ri●●●us , lib. 3. cap. 2. num . 21. Hoc ipsum diebus quinquaginta à Pascha usque ad Pentecosten observari consuetū veteres Patres testantur . Ratio ex Ambrosio Serm. 21. de Pentecoste , quià Resurrectionem Domini celebremus : & ut Hieron . Proem . in Epist . ad Ephes . Non flectimus genua , non curvamur in terra , sed cum Domino surgentes ad alta sustollimus . b Calvin . Institut . lib. 4. §. 37. Jam verò longius prolapsi sunt ( viz. Papistae ) ritus enim excogitârunt pro●sùs extraneos , in hoc , ut signum divinis honoribus afficiant . At Christo ( inquiunt ) hanc Venerationem deferimus . Primùm si in coena hoc fieret , dicerem eam esse adorationem legitimā quae non in signo refidet , sed ad Christum in coelo sedentem dirigitur . c Calv. defens . Sanct. Doctr. advers . Westphal . Sive utilitas nostra spectetur , sive dignitas & reverentia , quam Sacramento deferri par est . pag. 25. Rursus ; Profani , quia sacrae communicationis pignus , quod reverenter suscipere decebat , — non mirum si corporis & sanguinis Christi rei censeantur . Ibid. p. 39. * See above , Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6 , 7. * Heb. 11. 1. * Heb. 11. 6. * Psal . 116. 10. & 2. Cor. 4. 13. * Rom. 10. 14. * See the Consent of Fathers above , Chap. 4. Sect. 2. a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 27. §. Quantum ad primum . Nova haeresis orta est hoc tempore , cujus Author Luthe●us , non requiri interiorem intentionem Ministri ad perfectionem Sacramenti : non tàm inquit in Conferentis quàm suscipientis fide sita est virtus Baptismi : & si Minister joco absolveret , si tamen credat se absolutum , verissime est absolutus . Et §. Johanaes Calvinus . — Vt si Minister totam actionem intùs subsannans , coenā Christi ritu legitimo administret , non dubitem panem & vinum mihi esse verissima Christi corporis & sanguinis pignora . Sic etiam Protestantes alii — Catholicorum sententia est , quae est Conc. Trid. Requiri intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia . Et paulò post . §. Ad hanc . Ad hanc Haereticorum sententiam accessit Ambros . Catharinus : quo excepto , in hac doctrin● , mirificè conveniunt Catholici Doctores . b Salmeron Ies . Intentio duplex , publica , in observando formam publicam in pronuntiatione verborum , &c. Altera verò privata & particularis ipsius Ministri , qui aut nihil credit corum , quae facit , aut derisoriè facit , aut contrariam habet intentionem non conferendi Sacramenta — At ejus Intentio non est absolutè necessaria . Rat. 1. Quià cùm intentio intima sit latens in corde ejus insensibilis , sequeretur hominum animos to●queri scrupulis & dubitationibus , an verum suscipiant Sacramentum : quod sanè Scripturis & Patribus contrarium est , qui nos firmâ fide Sacramentum suscipere adhortantur . 2. Rat. Quià sic hominum falus ex hominum aliquorum arbitrio penderet : & sic homines plus nocere possent quam Christus juvare . 3. Quià plecterentur Innocentes propter hominum malitiam , quod remotum est à divina bonitate . 4. Quià sic liberum erit Omnibus dubitare an Baptizati fint , & an Eucharistiam adorent . 5. Quià hoc dogma proximum erit Donatistar●m haeresi , contra quos disputat August●…us , docens per malos ministros conferri salutaria Sacramenta . 6. Mirum est oli●… Ecclesiam , in controversia Novatianorum & Donatistarum , asserentium Baptismum ab Haereticis collatum nullum esse , d● debita illa intentione Ministri ni●il disputâsse . Ergo satis est publica Actio , nisi Minister contra protestetur , aut aliquo modo vitie● 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 Petilian . oppugnans illud Donatistarum . Conscientia dantis abluit conscientiam accipientis . Salmeron Ies . in Epist . Pauli Disp . 2. pag. 186. * Phisip . 1. 18. e Suarez Ies . Simpliciter adorand us est Christus in Eucharistia , & aliud exigere ex iis esset superstitiosum , & vanis scrupulis , & superstitionibus expositum : neque enim est consentaneum ibi trepida●e , 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. * See above , Chap. 5. Sect. 6. at ( a ) . d Aug. Cont. Faust . Ma●…b . lib. 20. cap. 21. Nos à Cerere & Libero Paganorum Diis longè absumus . * Coloss . 〈◊〉 . * Booke 1. thorowout . * Booke 4. Chap. 2. and 3. * Iob 13. 4 , & 7. a Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. in the Challenge . b Booke 6. Chap. 1. Sect. 5. c Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. d Ibid. Chap. 10. e Ibid. and after , &c. f Ibid. Chap. 3. Sect. 〈◊〉 . g Ibid. h Ibid. Chap. 10. Sect. 4. * Ibid. Chap. 11. i Ibid. Chap. 〈◊〉 . Sect. 4. k Booke 6. 〈◊〉 ▪ ●ut . a Missal . Rom. Offerimus Majestati tuae , Domine , Immaculatam Hostiam sanctum panem vi●ae aeternae , & Calicem salutis perperuae — supra quae propitro vultu respicere digneris , sicut dignatus es munera justi pueri tui Abel . And in the next place . Jube hae● perferri per manus sancti Angeli in sublime Altare tuum coeleste . b Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa , cap. 24. Facilis est respensio : 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 & populiastantis , qui simul etiam offerunt , fieri potest ut non placeat — Paulò 〈◊〉 . Comparatio non est inter Sacrificium nostrum , & Sacrificiū Abelis , sed tantùm ratione fidei , & devotionis offerentium , ut nimirum tanta fide offerant , quantâ Abel — quod Sacrificium Abelis non habetet in se , quod Deo placere , cumque placare possit , quare dicitur Heb. 11. per fidem obtulit Abel Deo Sacri●ficium melius — Ratio . Gen. 4. Respe 〈◊〉 Deus a●● Abel , & Sacrificium . Post . 〈◊〉 . Porrò . — Deferri Sacrificium per manus Angeli nihil aliud est , quam intercessione Angeli commendari Deo nostrum obsequium , & cultum . So also Suarez Tem. 3. Disp . 83. Art. 4. Jube hae● , i. e. ●o●a nostra . Et Salmeron ●es . Tom. 9. Tract . 32. sub . finem . c Bellarm. sup . a Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa , cap. 24. Super quae propitio , &c. habentur apud Ambrosium post consecrationem . Lib. 4. de Sacram . cap. 6. R●…s●s Bellar. ibid. Haec verba posita sunt post consecrationem apud Ambrosium lib. 4. de Sacram. cap , 6. in Liturg●…s Jacobi , Clementis , Basilii , Chrysostomi . b Liturgia Iacobi antè Consecratienem . Diaconus . Oremus pro sanctificatis tremendis donis — ut Dominus acceptis ●is in super-coeles●e spirituale Altate 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 consecra●s verba Consecrationis adhibet : Sancte qui in sanctis requi●scis — suscipe hymnum incorruptum in sanctis & incruentis Sacrificiis tuis . c Liturgia Basilii antè Consecrationem . Pontifex — Suscipe nos , ut simus digni offerre rationabile illud absque sanguine Sacrificium — & vide super servitutem nostram●…●t suscepisti munera Abel , sic ex manibus nostris suscipe ista ex benignitate tuâ . Et rursus Diac. Prooblatis , sanctificatis , & honorificentissimis muneribus Deum postulemus , ut qui accepit ea in sancto & supercoelesti Altari suo in odorem suavitatis , emittat gratiam & spiritum nobis , &c. P●st , sequitur Cons●…ratis . Po●tifex : Respice Domine Iesu . Et post Consecrationem ; Gratias agimus . d Clement . Constitut . lib. 〈◊〉 . cap. 16. called , Constitutio Jacobi , apud Binium . Tu , qui Abelis Sacrificium suscepisti — And after , Pro omnibus tibi gloria , &c. cap. 17. Benignè aspicere dig●eris super haec dona propo●ita in conspectu tuo — & complaceas tibi in eis , in honorem Christi , & mittas spiritum super hoc Sacrificium , testem passionum ejus — ut ostendas hun● panem corpus ejus , &c. Po●… Consecrationem , cap. 19. Etiam rogemus Deum , per Christum suum , pro munere oblato Domino , ut Deus , qui bonus est , suscipiat illud pe● Medistorem Christ●… in coele●●e Altare suum in odorem suavitatis pro hâc Ecclesiâ , &c. e Missa Chrysostomi antè Consecrationem . Adhuc o●ferimus tibi rationabile , & incruentum hoc obsequium , Deposcimus ut mittas Spiritum sanctum super nos , & super apposita muneta . Sequitur Consecratio . Fac Panem istum preciosum Corp●s , &c. Post Consecrationem . Adhuc offerimus tibi rationabile hoc obsequium pro fideliter dormientibus , &c. Post . Dominum deprecemur , ut qui s●scepit ea in sancto & coelesti Altari suo , mittat nobis propterea gratiam , & donum Spiritus Sancti . f A●…s . de Sacram. lib. 4. cap. 6. post Consecrationem . Offerimus tibi hunc Panem ●anctum , 〈◊〉 Calicem , & petimus ut hanc Oblationem suscipias in sublimi Altari tuo per manus Angelorum , sicu● ac●ipere dignatus es munera pucri tui Abel , &c. g Booke 5. thorowout . a Booke 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. * Ibid. b Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 5. & 11. & Sect. 14. in Chryso●… . and by Cyprian his Confutation of the Aquarii , ibid. Sect. 5. & Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. c Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 5. * Ibid. Sect. 13. d Above in this Booke Chap. 1. Sect. 4. e Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 6. f Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 8 , 9 , &c. g Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11. h Booke 4. thorowout . i Ibid. Chap. 7. Sect. 6. and Booke 5. Chap. 3. thorowout . k Booke 5. thorowout . l Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 10. m Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11. and Booke 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. n Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 11. o Booke 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. p Booke 6. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. thorowout , and else-where . q Booke 4. Chap. 10. Sect. 1. r In this Booke 8. Chap. 1. Sect. 3. s Booke 6. thorowout , more especially Chap. 5. Sect. 9 , & 10. t Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 6. u Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , &c. x In this Booke , Ch●… 2. Sect. 2 , & 3. y Above in this Book Chap. 1. Sect. 3. z Booke 7. thorowout . a Booke 4. thorowout . b See Booke 6. thorowout . c Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 13. a Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. ( in the first Challenge . ) b Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. a Cyrillu● Hieros . my●ag . Catech. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . b Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. a Booke 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. b Booke 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. c Ibid. Sect. 5. d Ibid. Sect. 2. a Booke 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. b Booke 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 3. c Ibid. Sect. 8. d Ibid. Sect. 5. e Ibid. Sect. 2. f Ibid. g Ibid. Sect. 7. a Booke 4. b Booke 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. a Booke 4. Chap. 1. Sect. 2. b Booke 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. a Booke 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. b Booke 5. thorowout . c Ibid. d Ibid. Chap. 8. Sect 3. e Ibid. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. f Booke 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 1. a Booke 5. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. b Hieronymus ad Edi●… . Nos in baptismo , sanguine & Corpore Christi vescimur . c Booke 5. Chap. 8. Sect. 3. d Ibid. e Ibid. f Ibid. g Ibid. h Ibid. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. i Booke 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. a Booke 6. thorowout . b Ibid. Chap. 5. Sect. 13. a Ibid. a Booke 7. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. b Ibid. c Ibid. d Booke 4. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. e Ibid. Sect. 5. f Booke 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. g Ibid. h Booke 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 7. i Ibid. k Booke 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. l Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 8. m Booke 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. n Ibid. Sect. 3. o Ibid. p Booke 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 3. q Ibid. r Ibid. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. s Ibid. a Bulla Pii Quarti super forma Juramenti — Profiteor omnia declarata in Concilio Tridentino , & hanc esse fidem veram Catholicam , extra quam nemo salvus esse potest . 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 . b Sacrobosc . 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 . Bib●…th . part . 2. lib. 12. cap. 16. Sanè Authenticam prore certae fidei poni constat . Greg. Valent. Anal. lib. 〈◊〉 . cap. 5. Esse Authenticam , nihil aliud est hoc in loco quàm conformem esse Originali . c Booke 6. Chap. 1. Sect. 2. d Azorius Moral . Tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 3 §. Quartò . &c. Quaeritur an Vulgata in reliquis extra fidem & mores ( in quibus pro cerro habendum , Eam omni vacare crrore , ) errorem aliquem contineat . Inter Catholices dubi●… est ; quib●… asserentibus c●m esse à Concilio approbatam , tanquam immunem abo●…i errore in fide & motibus , non tamen ab aliis , & proinde aliqua in ea esse vitia , item aliqua , quae significantius , proprius , verius , & melius verri po●… : aliqua esse in contrarium & alienum sensum conversa , idque prob●…o C●… 〈◊〉 , qui post 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 Defens . Trid. lib. 4. Lindanus de optimo gen . interp . lib. 3. cap. 10. &c. Hi omnes fatentur aliquos esse errores non solum vitio Scriptorum , sed etiam incuriâ & neg●… ipsius Interpretis . e Bellarm. lib. 2. de verbo Dei , cap. 12. Ecclesia tantúm hanc versionem appellavit , non ita tamen ut asseruerit nullos Librariorū errores in ea reperiri , sed certos nos reddere voluit , in iis presertim quae ad fidem & mores pertinent , multa esse in hac versione Interpretum errata . Eodem modo Sacrebosc . Defens . fid . Trid. & Salmeron . Tom. 1. Prolegem . 3. f Azorius qo sup . Mihi verò verior videtur eorum esse sententia , qui opinantur vulgatam Editionem non solùm in rebús fidei , & morum , sed in coeteris quoque omnibus omni errore carere : quia licet aliquando aliqua significantius , proprius , ac latius reddi potuerit ; non tamen verius , aut simpliciter certius . g Greg. Valent. Analys . lib. 8. cap. 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 , posser aliquandò ea Editio in Disputationibus rejici , nempè si diceretur in hoc certe aut in illo loco , non esse hujus Authorem Editionis Spiritus Sancti mentem assequntum — In omnibūs igitur locis v●…t Concilium Eam haberi pro Authenticâ , exceptis erroribus Typographorum — ( Vt Judic . cap. 11. pro ▪ Altera Matr●s loctum fuisse Adultera Matre , ut quidam objiciunt ) — Nam Concilium probavit veterem benè Typis impressam — Post . §. Porrò . Nullo modo audiendi sunt it , qui ; post Concilium Tridentinum , contendunt , Editionem Vulgatam aliquibus in locis , quod ad ipsam sententiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; Qui● 〈◊〉 ●raeti , & H●…ci Codices , siquidem diffideant à nostra , sunt per eam cornigendi . h Index . Expurg●…ius Hi●… a● nomen Martinz . — Quamvis haec , quae Hieronymus , & Augustinus docuerunt , vera sunt , tamen post Concilii Tridentini Decretum , non licet Vulgatae Latinae . Testimonia quovi●… 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 in ipsius Concilii Decreto constitutum est . fol. 145. i Clem. Octarus — In 〈◊〉 ●… — 〈◊〉 accuratissimè mendis purgatus . k Ephes . 1. 14. Lat. Vulg. Spiritu fignati 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 visime Dei , ●om . 10. pag. 1687. Accipis Codicem ab amico , cui das pignus , cum reddideris quod accepisti , ille , cui reddis , habebit , tu pignus accipies , non enim habebit ambas res : sed quando pretium paras dare pro care , 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 dar , tanquam pignus per spiritum suum , cum eam rem ipsam reddiderit . quâ promissâ pignus dedit , auferendum est à nobis Pignus ? Absit ! Sed quod dedit , hoc implebit : ideo meliùs Arrha , quàm Pignus — hoc enim implebitur , cum Arrha data est . a Bulla eadem . Sacram Scripturam admitto juxta eum fensum , quem Tenuit , & Tenet Mater Ecclesia — extra quam nemo salvus , &c. b Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 11. c Booke 5. Chap. 4. Sect. 2. d Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 13. a Bulla ●ad . Nec Scripturam ullam , nisi juxtà unanimem Consensum Patrum interpretabor . b Valent. Ies . Anal. l●b . 8. cap. 8. Patet nobis via urgendi unum aut alrerum Doctorem authoritate reliquorum . c Canus lo● . theol . lib. 7. cap. 3. num . 8. Plurium Sanctorum authoritas , reliquis licet paucioribus reclamantibus , firma Argumenta sufficere , & praestare non valet . d Valent. quo supra . Quod si per Sententiam Doctorum aliqua fidei controversia non satis commodè componi posset , co quòd de corum consensu non satis constaret , sua tunc constet Autoritas Pōtifici , ut consult is aliis ad definiendum reguli● , de quibus est dict●m , Ecclesiae proponat , quid sit sentiendum . e Bellarm. Epist . Dedic . Paulo Quints , antè Comment . in Psal . Psalmorum ego tractationem magis propriâ meditatione , quā multa librorum lectione composui . f Maldon . Ies . in Matth. 20. Existimant Patres filios Zebedaei temerè respondisse , ego vero credo eos verè esse locutos . Item in Matth. 16. 18. Non praevalebunt ] Quorum verborum sensus non videtur mihi esse , quem omnes praeter Hilarium , quos legisse memini , Authores putant . Item in Matth. 11. 11. Variae sunt Patrum opiniones , sed ( ut liberè fatear ) in nul a carum aquiesco . Item in Matth. 11. 13. Prophetae & lex ] Omnes fere ve●eres ita exponunt , sed non est apta satis interpretatio . Item Matth. 19. 11. Non omnes capiunt , i. e. non omnes capimus : Sic omnes fere veteres exponunt , quibus equidem non assentior . Item in Iob. 6. 62 Sic quidem expono , & licet Expositionis hujus Autorem nullum habeo , hanc tamen magis probo , quam illam Augustini , caeterarumque alioqui probabilissima●● quia hoc cum CALVINISTARUM sensu magis pugnat . g Canus loc . Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. Sancti omnes qui in ejus rei mentionem incidêre , uno ore asseruerunt B. Virginem in originali peccato conceptam fuisse . And then hee reckoneth , adding : Et si nullus contravenet it ; infirmum tamen cx omnium autoritate Argumentū . h Salmeron Ies . in Rom. 5. Disp 49. In quo omnes peccaverunt . ] Mariam conceptam in originali peccato , e●si● non si● haeresis daninata , nempè tam●… ad fidem spectat . Item Disp . 51. A qua multitudine Patrum , locum ab autoritate infirmum , & — Pauperis est numerare pecus — Exod. 13. In judicio plurimorum non acquiesces sententiae , ut à vero demas : & multitudinem multitudini opponimus . At Devoti erga D. Virg. Resp . Totam Devotionem e●ga illam non consiste●e in Patribus , ut in Bernardo , &c. At Antiqui . Resp . Quilibet senex laudator temporis acti : sed & illud asserimus quo juniores , eo perspicaciores Doctores esse . After hee wrangleth , and wresteth some savings of Fathers to his part , In celeberrimâ Parisiensium Academiâ nullus in theologia titulo Doctoris dignus habetur , qui non primum jusjurandi religione se adstrinxerit ad hoc Virginis privilegium tuendum . i Bernard . Epist . 174. Hanc prolis praerogativam B. Mariae tribuere non est honorare Virginem , sed honori detrah●re . Et Paulò ante — Nunquid patribus doctiores , aut devotiores sumus ? * Booke 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 1. k Booke 2. Chap. 1. Sect. 6. and Chap. 2. Sect. 6 , & 7. l Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. See also Booke 3. Chap. 3. in the words , [ The fruit of the Vine . ] Sect. 5. a See above in this Sect. 4. initio , at the letter ( a ) . b Synod . Trident. Sess . 1● . c Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 11. * Ibid. Sect. 5. & Sect. 10. d Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9. e Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. f See Booke 4. a Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 3. * Ibid. b Booke 1. thorow-out . c Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 7. d Ibid. e Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 10. f Ibid. Sect. 10. g Booke 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 4. h Ibid. i Booke 2. Chap. 3. thorowout . k Ibid. l Booke 2. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. * Iohn 3. m See above in this Booke , Chap. 2. Sect. 3. n Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. o Booke 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 〈◊〉 . p Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. q Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 9. r Manichaei dicebant Christum 〈◊〉 esse verum hominem , sed phantasma quoddam . Pr●…l . Ele●ch . Haret . s Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect. 12. Ibid. Sect. 13. u Booke 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. & Chap. 5. Sect. 3. & Chap. 6. Sect. 1. x Chap. 4. thorowout . y Ibid. Sect. 6. a Ibid. b Chap. 4. Sect. 〈◊〉 . c Chap. 6. Sect. 〈◊〉 . d Ibid. e Chap. 7. Sect. 6. f Chap. 7. Sect. 6. g Chap. 4. Sect. 9. h Prateol . El●nch . ●●res . Tit. Philoponus Alexandrinus . 〈◊〉 Statuit mor●…m resurrectionem esse , viz. rat●onalium animarū cum corruptibili corpore indissolubilem unionem . i Booke 4. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. k Ibid. Chap. 3. Sect. 2. l Chap. 4. Sect. 6. at ( b & c ) . m Ibid. n Booke 5. thorowout . o Chap. 5. Sect. 2. p Booke 5. Chap. 6. Sect. 3. q Booke 5. Chap. 7. Sect. 4. r Booke 5. Chap. 7. Sect. 1. s See above in this Booke , Chap. 1. Sect. 2. t Booke 7. Chap. 8. Sect. 2. u Chap. 5. Sect. 3. x Chap. 9. Sect. 5.