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

CHAP. III.

That no objected Act out of the Fathers, for proofe of an Invocation by Divine Adoration of the Eucharist, is conscionably alleged; not the first, which is their pre∣scribed Concealment of this Mysterie. [ 10] SECT. I.

ACts insisted upon by you, for proofe of Adoration; are these; The Fathers injoyning a Concealment of this Mysterie from some others: their Elevation of the Host after Consecration: their Cautelousnesse in administring it, without letting any part thereof fall to the ground: their Bodily Gesture in token of Humiliation; and their pretended Invocating on it. Wee acknowledge (that wee [ 20] may begin with the first) how strictly often times the Ancient Fathers generally prescribed to others, (which they observed themselves) that this Mysterie should be kept secret from all per∣sons, who were not initiated by Baptisme, and incorporated ther∣by into the visible Church of Christ, were they Infidels or Ca∣techumenists (that is) unbaptized Christians. Vpon this our Confession, as the Base, hearken what a discant your Doctors can chant, saying as followeth;a 1.1 The Fathers said of this my∣sterie of the Eucharist that onely [Fideles nôrunt] the Faithfull know it: and therefore wee must be perswaded they understood [ 30] a Corporall Presence of Christ herein; and consequently a Divine Adoration due unto it. Master Brerely swelleth big, in amplify∣ing this Objection; take a brief of the whole. The Fathers profes∣sing 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 Fa∣thers acknowledged no other presence in this, than in Baptisme, &c. So hee; and so also your Irish1 1.2 Iesuite.

Well then, by your owne judgement, if it may be found that [ 40] the Eathers observed a like Circumspection in the maner of utte∣ring, and Cautelousnesse in concealing the Sacrament of Baptisme from Infidels and Catechumenists; then must you confesse that this your Argument maketh no more for proofe of a Corporall Presence in the Eucharist, as you would have it, than in Baptisme, where you confesse it is no. And now behold the Fathers are as precise in concealing the Mysterie of Baptisme, from all persons unbaptized, even in as expresse termes as was spoken of in the

Eucharist; Chrysostome saying, (against such Persons)b 1.3 The faithfull know this. And againe, entring into a discourse of Bap∣tisme, he prefaceth saying;c 1.4 I would indeed speake this plainly, but I dare not, because of them that are not initiated, or Baptized.

{fleur-de-lys} Basil also, speaking of the Rites of Baptisme, saith that 2 1.5 The Ancient Fathers (before his time) left them in silence; and preserved them from curious and idle men. {fleur-de-lys} And Diony∣sius, the supposed Areopagite,d 1.6 Let none that is not a perfect Christian be admitted to the sight of the signes of Baptisme: even as the Councelle 1.7 Arausicanum also decreed. Which Cautions [ 10] are long since antiquated by disuse in Churches Christian, be∣cause all are now baptized that come to behold this Sacrament. If hereupon any Protestant shall inferre a Corporall Presence of Christ in Baptisme, and consequently an Adoration of Christ in the same Sacrament, you your selves (wee know) would but hisse at him, in detestation of his Consequence, as judging it Idolatrous.

But do you aske, why then the Fathers did teach Christians not to speake of these Mysteries in the hearing of the Catechume∣nists? Saint Augustine himselfe (whom your Cardinall hath [ 20] brought in for defence of Corporall Presence) will resolve us, and witnesse against him, telling him, not that the reason was the sub∣limity of the matter, as though they could not apprehend it, but becausef 1.8 The more honourably the Sacraments are concealed (spea∣king in generall) the more ardently they would be coveted and desi∣red. As for their not revealing them unto Infidels, the reason is evident; Infidelity is a mocker, and they meant to preserve Christs Sacrament from contempt. Thus your most specious Objection serveth for nothing more than to prove your Disputers to be wonderfully precipitant in their Arguing. [ 30]

That the objected Elevation, or lifting up of the Hoast, and preserving of it from falling, are no Arguments of Divine Adoration. SECT. II. [ 40]

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* 1.9 confessed, that this was not of prime Anti∣quity. But supposing Elevation to have been so ancient, yet was it not to the end it should be adored, no more than was the Booke of the Gospel, in the Roman Church, when it was (according to

the Rite thena 1.10 Lift up by the hands of the Deacon, and carried on his right shoulder. What else will you say of the Priests elevation? you would perswade (in theb 1.11 Margin) by some, that the Priest lifting the Hoast over his head, was prophesied of by the Psal∣mist; And, that the Rite of holding the Hoast up was chiefly, that the people knowing it to be now consecrated, should understand that Christ is on the Altar, whom they are to adore by falling downe on the ground. Whereof albeit some of you speak more confident∣ly, yet the most principall searcher into Antiquity dare say no more, than onely This is probable.

[ 10] Wee contrarily conceive, 1. that that Rabbinish interpretation can be no good ground to rest upon, which* 1.12 hath bin rejected by Bellarmine arrow_forward , as being idle and frivolous. 2. That the Ceremony of Elevation (as hath* 1.13 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 Pro∣bably prove it was for Adoration-sake, because it was aswell in use in your lifting up of the Hoast before Consecration; as your ob∣jected c 1.14 Missals of Saint Iames, and Basil do manifest. Lastly, [ 20] that where Elevation was practised after Consecration, the obje∣cted Authors confute your Assertion, for in Chrysostome (if wee should grant unto you the whole Liturgie to be his, which the best learned Grecians at this day do* 1.15 deny) it is read,d 1.16 That the Priest did take a portion out of the dish, and held it up but a little: this is not lifting it over the head, or very high, as your reason for Adoration would require. And in your objected S.e 1.17 Denis there is no more, but that The sacred celebrated Symbols were brought into light, which after Consecration hee termeth Vn∣covered Bread, divided of the Priest into many parts. Bread (wee say) broken after Consecration; which is the break-necke of your whole Defence.

[ 30] {fleur-de-lys} And why may not wee thinke the Elevation, for Adora∣tion of the Host, to be an after-Invention, aswell as was the Ele∣vation of the Chalice for the same end? whereof it is confessed by your owne Ritualist, that3 1.18 The elevation of the Chalice, that the people might adore it, was not commanded untill after the daies of Thomas Aquinas. So hee; and that (you know) was a thousand and some hundreth of yeares after Christ his Institution of this Sacrament. It were strange, if the Romish

Faith had then been, that the Blood of Christ, beeing Corpo∣rally in the Sacrament, and Consequently adored of the peo∣ple, that the Primitive Church should not have used an Eleva∣tion of the Cup, for better Accommodation-sake, aswell as your new Romish Church hath ordained so many Ages since. Not to tell you of the Church under Prester-Iohn, which (as is4 1.19 confessed) used no Elevation. {fleur-de-lys}

Your third Objection is the diligent Caution given by Ancient Fathers, to take heedf 1.20 Lest that any Crum should fall to the ground, and if any little part thereof should fall, it should be left to [ 10] 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. Pha∣raoh his Butler and Baker, we are sure, would have been loath to miscarry in spilling, or letting fall any part of their carriage, when they were to present their service unto their King; much more carefully ought every Christian, in executing his sacred Function, to observe the Lawes of Decorum. Marke we, by the way, Master Brerely durst not call the part falling any thing but a Part, not A part of Christ's Body, that were Impious, not a part of Accidents, that were absurd: what meaneth the childish Fa∣bling [ 20] trow wee, but that if they should speake out, they should betray their Cause, in calling that little part a part of Bread, as your objected Dionysius spake? And when all is said, wee heare no proofe of Divine Adoration of the Host. But we leave you to take your Answer from your Salmeron, who hath told you that * 1.21 Casuall spilling of the Cup is no sinne.

{fleur-de-lys} Howbeit, wee aske you, whether it were a Veniall sin in your Cardinall, to allege the words of Tertullian, as spoken of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, which, by the judge∣ment of your owne5 1.22 Authors were spoken of Common and [ 30] ordinary Bread and Wine? It were well that this kind of over∣sight both in Cardinall arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward and Master Brerely were not in them a fault Common and ordinarie. Howsoever wee could tell you, that if the hazard were so great, as your Ob∣jections imply, namely, that any subject matter of Adoration had been believed to be in it, than was the holy Bishop Exu∣perius (whom notwithstanding Saint Hierome commendeth) much blameable for6 1.23 Carrying it in a Glasse. And much more condemnable should that godly Pope Zephyrinus have beene7 1.24 Who ordained that the Masse should be celebrated in [ 40] Chalices of Glasse; which the more brittle they were, the more solidly they confirme unto us this Truth, that Antiquity har∣boured not your beliefe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in this Sacrament. {fleur-de-lys}

Only we must againe insist in the former Observation, to wit, the frequent speeches of the Fathers, telling ••s of Crums, Frag∣ments, little parts of this Sacrament; and of Burning them into ashes, after the Celebration ended. Now answer us, in good sad∣nesse; was it ever heard of, we say not of ancient Fathers, but of any professing Christianity, were the Catholikes or Heretikes, who would not have judged it most execrible for any to say, or thinke that A crum, or little part of Christ's Body falleth? or that by a dash of the Cup, the Blood of our Lord is spilt or that the Pri∣mitive [ 10] Fathers, in the Remainder of the Sacrament, Burned their Saviour? Yet these must they both have thought, and said, if (as you speake of Eating, Swallowing, feeding Corporally on Christ's Body) the Body of Christ were the proper Subject of these acci∣dentall Events.

That the Objection taken from any Gesture, used in the daies of Antiquity, doth not prove a Divine Adoration of the Eucharist. [ 20] SECT. III.

GEsture is one of the points, which you object, as more ob∣servable than the former, but how? because Chrysostome will have the Communicant take it witha 1.25 Inclining his head downe before the holy Table. Cyril, byb 1.26 Bowing after the maner of A∣doring. You will be still like your selves, insisting upon H••tero∣genies, 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 [ 30] with a [Sursum corda] that is, Listing up our hearts to Christ above. And this may become every Christian to use, and may be done without Divine Adoration of the thing before us.

Nay, and that no Gesture, either Standing, Sitting, or Kneeling, is necessary for such an Adoration, your greatest. Advocate doth shew out of Antiquity, and affirmeth this as a Point (asc 1.27 he saith) agreed on by all; adding that Divine Adoration consisteth not in the outward Gesture, but in the Intention of the mind. For, indeed, there is no one kind of outward Gesture, which (as you have con∣fessed) [ 40] is not also communicable to man: so that although that were true, which is set down in that Rubrick of* 1.28 Chrysostomes Li∣turgie, that the Ministers did use to Incline their Bodies to the ho∣ly Table, yet none can be so simple to thinke that they did yield Divine honour unto the Table. Nay, your owne great Master of Ceremoniesd 1.29 Durantus hath observed the like Bewing downe

of the Priest in the preparation of this Sacrament, even Before Consecration; and one of your Iesuites witnesseth that the (ob∣jected) e 1.30 Greek Church at this day doth Reverently adore, before Consecration of the Bread and Wine, albeit Christ be not therein. And lest you may thinke your Posture of Kneeling to be abso∣lutely necessarie, wee referre you, for your ample satisfaction, to your owne learned French Bishop* 1.31 professedly discussing this Point.

This being knowne, how can you in any credibility conclude, as you have done, a Corporall presence of Christ in this Sacrament [ 10] after Consecration, from a Reverence which hath been yielded to the same Sacrament, before it was consecrated? In which consi∣deration your Disputers stand so much the more condemnable, because, whereas they shew some Examples of a Bodily Incli∣ning to the Sacrament, done before Consecration, yet after Conse∣cration 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 af 1.32 Brute Beast prostrating it selfe before the Host, and doing Reverence unto it. Wee would have concealed this, but that you seeme to glory [ 20] herein, as being for your Instruction, like to the reproofe given mira∣culously to Balaam by his Asse. Well might this Legend have be∣come 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* 1.33 Horse taught by Art to kneele to any person at his Masters command; and once in France, when, by the Suggestion and Instigation of Romish Priests, his Master was called into question for Sorcerie, hee for [ 30] vindication of his credit with them, commanded his Horse to kneele before a Crucifix, and therby freed himselfe from suspition of Diabolicall familiarity, according to the Principles of their owne superstition. And for any one to conclude this to have bin Gods miraculous work in that Horse, (as the other was in that Asse) would seeme to be the reason of an unreasonable man; because all Miracles alwaies exceed all power both of Art, and Nature; else were they no Miracles at all. Thus to your fourth Objection from outward Acts, we passe on to Examples.

That no Example of Invocation, objected out of Antiquity, can [ 40] inferre the Divine Honour of the Sacrament, as is pretended. SECT. IV.

YOur Instances are Three; the principall in Gorgonia, the Si∣ster of Gregory Nazianzen, in whose Oration, at her Fune∣rall,

we find thata 1.34 She having been troubled with a prodigious dis∣ease, after that neither the Art of Physick, nor teares of her Parents, nor the publike Prayers of the Church could procure her any health, went and cast her selfe downe at the Altar, Invocating Christ, who is honoured on the Altar, saying that she would not remove her head from the Altar, untill shee had received her health: when (Oh admi∣able event!) she was presently freed from her d••sease. This is the Story set downe by Gregory Nazian••en. Hence your Cardinall concludeth, that Gorgonia invocated the Sacrament, as being the very Body and Blood of Christ, and calleth this An hot and [ 10] stinging Argument; and so indeed it may be named, yet onely in respect of them, whose consciences are scorched, or stung with their owne guiltinesse of in forcing and injuring the Story, as will now appeare.

For first, why should wee thinke that she invocated the Sacra∣ment? Because (saith yourb 1.35 Cardinall) she prostrated her selfe at the Altar, before the Sacrament; which words [Before the Sacra∣ment] are of his owne coyning, and no part of the Story. His next reason; Because she is said to have invocated him, who is hono∣red [ 20] on the Altar. As though every Christian praying at the Table of the Lord, to Christ, may not be justly said to Invocate him, who is used to be Honoured by the Priest, celebrating the memory of Christ thereon. Nay, and were it granted, that the Sacramentall Symbols had beene then on the Altar, yet would it not follow, that she invocated the Sacrament, as betokening a Corporall pre∣sence of Christ (as your Disputers have fancied) no more than if the said godly woman upon the same occasion presenting her selfe at the sacred Font, wherin she had beene baptized, could be thought to have invocated the water therein; because she was [ 30] 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* 1.36 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* 1.37 Baptisme. But, for a Conclusion, wee shal willingly admit of Gregory Nazi∣anzen to be Vmpier betweene us. He, in relating the Story, saith of the Sacrament of the Eucharist;9 1.38 If shee at the time [ 40] of her invocating had laid up any part of the Antitypes (or Sym∣bols) of the precious Body and Blood of Christ, that shee mingled with her teares. So hee, calling the consecrated Sacrament Antitypes, or Signes of Christ's Body: therby signifying, that the Sacrament is not the Body and Blood of Christ, as hath been* 1.39 pro∣ved unto you at large out of Nazianzen, and other Greeke Fa∣thers,

Whereas if indeed he had meant that the Body and Blood of Christ had beene there corporally present, as that which was Invocated; then now (if ever) it had concerned this holy Father to have expresly delivered his supposition thus, viz. If she had at that time of her Invocating laid up any whit of the precious Body and Blood of Christ. Wee say of the Body and Blood of Christ, and not (as hee said) of the Antitypes, or Signes of his Body and Blood. Thus is your hot and stinging Reason become chilly, cold, and altogether dronish.

Your second Instance is in Dionysius the Areopagite, who wri∣ting of the Sacramentc 1.40 said, O must divine Sacrament, reveale [ 10] union us the mysterie of thy signes, &c. which in the eares of your Disputers ringeth a flat Invocation of the Sacrament: {fleur-de-lys} And that10 1.41 Nothing could be said more plainly. {fleur-de-lys} Contrariwise wee confidently affirme, that your Teachers have taken a figure Prosopopoeia for Invocation; like men who take Moon-shine for Day-light, as wee shall manifest by Examples, Confessions, yea and the very Instance of Dionysius himselfe.

Prosopopoeia then is a figure, when one calleth upon that which hath no sense, as if it had sense; as when in Scripture the Pro∣phet [ 20] said, Heare ô Heavens, and hearken ô Earth, Isa. 1. In like maner, among the Ancient Fathers, one called upon his owne Church Anastasia, whence he was to depart, and saying thus, d 1.42 Oh Anastasia, which hast restored our Doctrine, when it was de∣spised! Others of the Element of Baptisme, thus: Oh water that hath washed our Saviour, and deserved to be a Sacrament! or thus, e 1.43 Oh water which once purged the world, yea (as another) and na∣ming itf 1.44 A Divine Lavacre, &c. Nay, you your selves can sing, & chant it to the Crosse,g 1.45 Oh Crosse our only hope, &c. and in expounding the same, allow no more than a Prosopopoeia and [ 30] figurative speech, lest that otherwise your Invocation may be judged Idolatrous. And wheras in another Romish Anthem it is sung of the Eucharist, Oh holy Feast! This Saying (saith ano∣ther h 1.46 Iesuite) agreeth to every Sacrament. Thus have you heard both from Fathers, and from your selves the like Tenour of In∣vocation; Oh Church! Oh Water! Oh Crosse! Oh Feast! nothing differing from Dionysius his Oh Divine Sacrament! yet each one without any proper Invocation at all.

And that you may further understand, that this Dionysius his OH! is as in voyce, so in sense the same which we judge it to be, [ 40] what better Interpreter can you require of this Greeke Author Dionysius, than was his Greeke Scholiast Pachymeres? who hath given his Iudgement of this very speech directly, saying that i 1.47 It was spoken as of a thing having life, and that fitly, as did Na∣zianzen, saith he; O great and holy Pascha, &c. And how should this be otherwise? seeing Dionysius, at the writing hereof, was not in any Church or place, where the Eucharist was celebrated,

but privately contemplating in his mind upon this holy Myste∣rie. The due consideration of these your former so frivolous, and so false Objections provoketh us to cry out, saying, Oh So∣phistry, Sophistry! when wilt thou cease to delude the soules of men? In which maner of speech, notwithstanding, wee do not Invocate, but rather detest, and abominate your Romish Sophi∣stry. And lest any of you should stumble upon the Attribute, which Dionysius giveth to the Eucharist, in calling it a Divine Sa∣crament, as if it should imply a Corporall Presence therein, reade [ 10] but one Chapter of the same Author, and hee will teach you to say as much of many other things, wherein you will not believe any Corporall Existence of Christ, we are sure: for there he equal∣ly nameth the place of Celebration,* 1.48 Divine Altar; the Sacra∣mental Signes, Divine Symbols; the Minister, Divine Priest; the Communicants, Divine People; yea and (which may muzzle eve∣ry 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 arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward [ 20] thus;k 1.49 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 al∣most who not? But do you first, if you please, admire the wit of your Cardinall in so framing his Consequence, and after abhor his will to deceive you, when you have done: for he applieth the words, spoken by Basil of an Invocation before Cons••cration, (when as yet, by your owne Doctrine, Christ is not present) as spo∣ken of an Invocation of the Eucharist after Consecration; for [ 30] proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ therein, and the Divine Adoration thereof, as will most evidently appeare. For first it is not unknown to you, that the Greeke Church differeth from your Roman in the forme of Consecration at this day, they consecrating in words of prayer, and Invocation, and you in the repetition of Christ's words [This is my Body] wherein there is* 1.50 no Invocati∣on at all. And Basil was of the Greeke Church. Secondly, your l 1.51 Archbishop of Caesarea, for proofe that Invocation by prayers was a forme of Consecration used primitively in the Greeke [ 40] Church, citeth the two most ancient Fathers, Tertullian and Irenaeus; and of the Greeke he allegeth Iustine, Cyril, Damas∣cen, Theophilus Alex. yea, and (by your leave) Basil himselfe too: and that Basil was an Orthodoxe Greeke Father you will not deny.

Thirdly, therfore (to come home unto you) wee shall be di∣rected by the Objected words of Basil himselfe, appealing here∣in to your owne consciences. For your Lindanus was, in the estimation of your Church, the strongest Champion in his time

for your Romane Cause; he, to prove that the forme of Conse∣cratio, of the Eucharist standeth not in any prescribed words in the Gospel, but in words of Invocation by prayer (as* 1.52 hath been confirmed by a Torrent of Ancient Fathers) saith,m 1.53 That the same is illustrated by these words of Basil, saying, What Fa∣ther hath left unto us i•• writing the words of Invocation, when the Bread is shewne unto us? adding, That no man of sound Braines can require any more, for the clearing of the point concerning••th forme of Consecration. So then, Invocation was an Invocation by Pray∣er unto God, for the Consecration of the Bread let before them, [ 10] and not an Invocation of Adoration unto the Eucharist, as alrea∣dy consecrated; which your Cardinal unconscionably (wee will not say, unlearnedly) hath enforced.

Looke upon the Text againe, for your better satisfaction; It speaketh expresly of an Invocation, when Bread is shewne: but you deny that Bread is Invocated upon, untill after Consecration. And Basils demanding [What Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocation?] is, in true and genuine sense, as if hee had expresly said, what Father before us hath left in writing [ 20] the words of Invocating God by Prayer of Consecration of Bread, to make it a Sacrament? as both the Testimonies of Fathers above confessed manifest, and your objected Greeke Missals do ratifie unto us. For, in the Liturgie ascribed to Saintn 1.54 Iames the Apostle, the Consecration is by Invocating and praying thus, Holy Lord who dwellest in holiest &c. The Li∣turgie ofo 1.55 Chrys••stome Invocateth by praying; Wee beseech thee, O Lord, to send thy Spirit upon these Gifts prepared before us, &c. The Liturgie under the name ofp 1.56 Basil consecrateth by this Invocation, when the Priest lifteth up the Bread, Looke [ 30] downe, O Lord Iesu our God, from thy holy habitation, and vouch∣safe, &c. All these therefore were according to the Example of Christ) Invocations, that is, Prayers of Consecrating the Sacra∣ment; and therefore could not be Invocations of Adoration of the same Sacrament. {fleur-de-lys} Which Invocation, in Consecrating by Prayer,10 1.57 Cyril calleth an Invocation of the holy Tri∣nity. {fleur-de-lys} And as for any expresse or prescribed forme or pray∣er 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 [ 40] is that which is testified in your owneq 1.58 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 Dis∣puters, in objecting this Testimony of Basil, contrary to the evident Sense; and accordingly judge of the weaknesse of your Cause, which hath no better supports than such fond, false, and ridiculous Objections to relye upon. Such as is al∣so

that yourr 1.59 Cardinall his objecting the words of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, concerning the receiving of this Sacrament, saying, Lord I am not worthy thou shouldest come under the roose of my mouth: which hath beene confuted, as unworthy the* 1.60 mention in this case.

If you would have some Examples of Adoring Christ with Divine worship, in the Mysterie of the Eucharist, by celebrating the maner of his death, (as Hierome may be said to have ado∣red at Ierusalem, Christ in his Cratch; or as every Christian doth [ 10] in the Mysterie of Baptisme) wee could store you with multi∣tudes: but of Adoring the Eucharist, with a proper Invocation of Christ himselfe, wee have not as yet received from you any one.

{fleur-de-lys} A Vindication of the Testimonies of Dionysius, Pachymeres, and Nazianzen, against the late vaine Calumni∣ations of a Romish Seducer. SECT. V.

[ 20]

IN the former Section was objected the Testimonie of Dionysius, saying of the Eucharist [ô Divine Sacrament!] as if it had beene spoken to the Sacrament, by invocating of it; and implying therein a Divine Adoration, because of that Corporall presence of Christ under the Formers of Bread and Wine. The Insufficiencie of this Consequence was mani∣fested (besides divers other Instances) by the Testimonie of Pachym••res your Greeke Expositour of Dionysius, referring us to Nazianzen his like words, when hee sayd [ô great and [ 30] holy Pascha.]

A late Romish Seducer (to omit his verball wranglings, which are now removed in this second Edition) falleth foule upon mee in an invective Conclusion, saying

[So wee see that arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward , Dionysius, Pachymeres, and Nazianzen all agree: and that onely my Lord of Durham hath dealt inju∣riously with them all.]

So hee. Even so, as it became an egregious Seducer to say, as will now appeare. The par∣ties, which are said to be injured, are no lesse than fower; arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward the Objector of Dionysius, Dionysius the Author [ 40] objected, Pachymeres the Expositor of the same Dionysius, referring us to the like Saying in Nazianzen, and lastly Na∣zianzen himselfe; unto whose sentence wee were so refer∣red. Whose words are these [ô great and holy Pascha:] which words, sayd I, were spoken to the Feast of Easter, and not to the Eucharist, and consequently not to Christ as Corpo∣rally present therein.

Nay (saith the Seducer) by [Pascha] was not meant the Feast of Easter, but the Eucharist, and

that by [ô great and holy Pascha] Nazianzen declareth his Invocation of Christ therein.

So hee. As soone then as wee shall understand the words of Nazianzen aright, wee shall easily discerne the Exposition of Pachymeres, and by him the meaning of Dionysius, and consequently the meere Sophistry (as I called it) of your Cardinall arrow_back Bellarmine arrow_forward .

The words of Nazianzen, truly translated, are these; [But ô Pascha, the great and holy, the purification of the world, for I will speake unto thee as to that, which, as it were, hath Life.] The last words, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] will assoile the whole doubt, which [ 10] are spoken onely by way of a Metaphoricall Similitude, thus; [As to that, which, as it were, hath Life:] thereby implying, that it is in it selfe without Life, as both your Bil∣lius the Translator of Nazianzen, and Nicetas his Commen∣tator and Expositor; and lastly, Nazianzen himselfe will manifest. I. Billius (being hee whom the Romish Sedu∣cer himselfe hath attested, and whom wee now assume for our Proctor) translateth Nazianzen's words thus; [11 1.61 To enim quasi vitâ praeditum alloquar. For I will speake unto thee, even as having Life: or, to that, which, as it were, hath Life:] [ 20] Wee demand then, would any but an Anti-Christian say of Christ, that he is but a [Quasi] one who, as it were, hath Life? Secondly Nicetas, Metropolitane of Heraclea, is a professed and privileged Expositor of Nazianzen, him wee desire to be our Advocate in this Cause. [12 1.62 These words of Nazianzen [ô great Pascha, I say, ô sacred Pascha] Nazianzen (saith hee) referreth unto the Feast it selfe, as if it were indued with Life.] So hee. Do you not see how the words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is [As it were having Life] compelled this learned Bi∣shop to expound the words of Nazianzen as meant properly [ 30] of [The Feast it selfe] called in Greeke and Latine Pascha, and by us Pace or Easter, and not to the Eucharist? which was that my Conclusion, against which the Romish Seducer hath revelled, and thereupon in a maner reviled me, to make me a Falsificator like himselfe.

Lastly Nazianzen is hee, whom wee reserve for our Pa∣tron in this Cause. The subject matter of the whole Oration of Nazianzen, now mentioned, is (as all know that have read it) the Celebration of the Great and holy Feast of Easter, of the which Feast, some few lines after his entrance into his [ 40] Oration, hee hath these words; [Pascha of the Lord, Pascha, and (in honour of the Trinity) I say the third time Pascha. This is the Feast of Feasts, and Celebrity of Celebrities;] expresly speaking not of Christ the Lord, nor of the Eucharist, but of that which hee calleth The Feast of Feasts: namely, that, which hee as expresly named The Pascha of the Lord: which words in the beginning of Nazianzen's Oration most harmo∣niously

accord unto his words now controverted in the end of the same Oration with Ecchoing as it were to the Former saith [ô great and holy Pascha] namely, in respect of the same Pascha, the Feast of Feasts, and Celebritie of Celebrities.

But this Romish Seducer, never considering these Premi∣ses, peremptorily posteth on, objecting onely the words of Nazianzen immediately following, which unto a Cursory Reader, might seeme to make, for him, some shew of Con∣futation; for thus hee proceeds: [ô word of God, and Light, and [ 10] Life, and Wisedome, and Power, for I am delighted with all thy names, &c.] Which words we confesse are spoken of Christ, and not of the Feast, whereupon your Seducer concludeth, that the former words [ô Pascha] refer likewise to Christ. Which his Erroneous conceipt hath beene long since confuted by the forenamed Bishop Nicetas, expresly affirming of these words that They were spoken of the* 1.63 Feast, and these last words [ô Word of God and Light, &c.] are spoken indeed to Christ the spirituall Pascha. But how? by Invocation? no: but by Ac∣clamation (saith hee) nothing being more Familiar to Ora∣tors, [ 20] than to use Apostrophe's, by Transition from the Signe to the Thing signified: as here, from the Signe, which was Christ's day of Resurrection, to the Contemplation of the person risen againe.

Notwithstanding, were it that this had beene an Invoca∣tion of Christ, yet except it had beene an Invocation of him, as hee was then in the Eucharist, it maketh nothing at all for Bellarmines Conclusion, which was thus, Ergò Christ is cor∣porally is this Sacrament, and to be Divinely adored therin.

By all which you may clearly discern the true meaning of [ 30] the first objected Author Dionysius from his Expositor Pa∣chymeres. II. The Iudgement of Pachymeres, by his Re∣ference to the Sentence of Gregory Nazianzen. III. The exact Vnderstanding of Gregory Nazianzen, by the Com∣mentarie of the Bishop Nicetas. And IV. the truth of that Commentarie by the Tenor of Nazianzen's Oration it selfe, as you have heard; and consequently that there is still just Cause for us to exclaime both against the So∣phistry of your arrow_back Bellarmine, and rashnesse and impotencie, if not impudencie ra∣ther, [ 40] of this frivolous Seducer and Calumniator.{fleur-de-lys}

Notes

• a 1.1

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 2. ciiat Au∣gustin Serm. 10. de verbis Apostol. viz. Quod corpus dixit es∣cam, & sanguinem potum, Sacramentum fidelium agnoscunt fideles—Be hanc phrasin [nôrunt fide∣les] habet in locis in∣finitis: at profectò non est fidelibus tan∣tùm notum, quòd corpus Christi fide percipiatur. Idem. Ob∣jicit Claudius de San∣ctes ante lib. de Litur∣gijs patrum. Rursus Bellar qui sup. cap. 15. At certè nulla reddi potest causa, cur Eu∣charistiam ne videri quidem permitterent Infidelibus, vel etiam Catechumenis, si ni∣hil est nisi signum.
• 1 1.2

  Mr. M••llon in his Reply, pag 221.
• b 1.3

  Chrysost. in Gal. 4. Non natura, sed Dei promissio Sacra∣mentum fecit: sic re∣nascentia nostra na∣tura quidem nulla est, caeterum verbum Dei, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.4

  And againe in 1. Cor. Hom. 40. about to entreat of the words of S. Paul, [Quid fa∣cientij, qui baptizan∣tur pro mortuis? [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 {fleur-de-lys} And yet againe, in Ioh. 85. Hom. 33. joy∣ning that Contempla∣tion of Baptisme and of the Eucharist to∣gether, hee saith; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. id est, Initi∣ati. {fleur-de-lys}
• 2 1.5

  Basil. de Spir. Sanct. Cap. 27. Con∣secrare oleum uncti∣onis, hominem ter mergi, renuntiare Sa∣tanae, & reliqua eti∣am in Baptismo, un∣de habemus? nonnè ex antiqua traditio∣ne? nonnè ex doctri∣na, quam Patres in silentio, quod curio∣sos & otiosos sub∣movet, servârunt?
• d 1.6

  Dionys. Hierar. cap. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.7

  Con••. Arau••••••n. 1. Catechumeni non sunt ad Baptismum admittendi. Can. 19.
• f 1.8

  Aug. Tom. 9. Tract. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Ioh. Quid si eis fidelium Sacramenta non producuntur, non ideo fit, quod ea ferre non possent, sed ut ab 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tan∣tò ardentiùs concupiscantur, quantò honorabilius eis occultantur. [Speaking of the Catechumenists.]
• * 1.9

  Suarez. See above Book 6. Ch. 1. Sect. 5. at (a.)
• a 1.10

  Durant. de Ritib. lib. ••. cap. 23 num. 7 In ordine Romano Diaconus osculans E∣vangelium, levat in manus codscem, & partem ejus in dex∣tro humero ponens, vadit ad Ambonem.
• b 1.11

  Idem de Ritibus l. 2. cap. 40. in Psal 71. In capite montium: hoc est (ait Rabbi Io∣nathan) Sacrificium in capitibus Sacerdo∣tum. Durand. Ratio∣nal. lib. 4. cap. 42 num. 54. Elevatu••. ut populus congreslus consecrationem fa∣ctam esse, & Chri∣stum super Altare ve∣nisse reverenter pro∣sternatur in terram, & illum ore adóret. Et Durant. quo supr. Adorationis ergo Eu∣charistiam in altum attolli, Durandus & Ivo asserunt, Proba∣bile est.
• * 1.12

  See above, B. 3.
• * 1.13

  See above, B. 6. Chap. 4. Sect. 5.
• c 1.14

  Missals published by Claudius Sanctes a Parisian Doctor, be∣fore Consecration, in the Missal of S. Iames, Attollens: In the Masse of Basil. Exal∣tans panem.
• * 1.15

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• d 1.16

  After Consecration in the Masse of Chry∣sostome. Modicum at∣tollens Sacerdos, di∣cit Sancta sanctis.
• e 1.17

  In Dionys. Areop∣relating the forme of their Mosse, objected by Durantus de Ritib. lib. 2. cap. 40. Mysteria, quae ante laudaverat Sacerdos, venerandis operta 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in conspectum agit, divi∣naque munera reverenter ostendens, ad sacram Communionem convertitur. Wherein there is no one word of, Venerandis, or Reverenter, but this.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Dionys. Areopag. cap. 3.
• 3 1.18

  Barthol. Gavant. Com. in Rubr. Missae. Tunc se erigens Sacerdos, quan•••••• commode potest, in altum elevat, & intentus in eum oculis, populo reverenter ostendit adorandum—Rubrica Missae: [Sacerdos genufle∣ctens reverenter adoret, & calicem disco opertam cum sanguine elevet, & erectum quantum potest ostendet po∣pulo adorandum.] Hinc Author, Non autem sub praecepto haec Blevatio calicis ante Sanct. Thomam, ex So∣to in 4. Dist. 13. Quaest. 2. Art. 5. Vnde neque Thomas meminit illius, ubi minute omnes ritus Missae ponit. part. 2. Tit. 8. pag. 108.
• 4 1.19

  Cassand. in Li∣turg. cap. 11. Sacer∣dos sublevet, Id ip∣sum quoque facit in Calice, sed non ele∣vat.
• f 1.20

  Tertull. in lib. de Corona milit. Ca∣licis aut panis aliquid in terram discuti, an∣xiè pa••mur. Ob. by Mr. Brerely, Lit••••g. Tract 2. Sect. 8. Sub. 4. pag. 286. And out of Origen. Hom. 5. in Levit. Take heed no little crumme fall to the ground. Tract. 4. Sect. ••. And, Pius Bishop of Rome or∣dained that the con¦se••rated Bread and Wine falling to the ground should be left to the Sacrificer, and the rest remaining should be burnt with fire unto ashes. So great a Reverence was then prescribed. Ibid. Tract. 2. Sect 8. Subd 4. {fleur-de-lys} Bell. li. 2. de Euch. ca 7. Tertul. de corona milit. inter alios Christianos ri∣tus ponit summam cautionem, quam ad∣hibebant Christiani, ne aliquid Euchari∣stiae in terram cade∣ret: Calicis (inquit) aut Panis nostri al∣quid in terram decuti anxiè patimur. {fleur-de-lys}
• * 1.21

  See above, B. 1. Chap 3. Sect. 10. in Answer to the second pretence.
• 5 1.22

  Gabriel Epis••. Albisp. lib. 2. Obser∣vat. 35. in lib. Tert. ad uxorem [Calicis & panis nostrialiquid in terram decuti anxiè patimur.] Pameliusin eum locum. Quod addit (inquit) panis nostri, facit ad distin∣ctionem Bucharistiae Sacramenti, in quo non calix & panis communis proponu••tur. And the Bishop himselfe; Tertul. laudat aetatis suae morem, quo aegrè ferebant si casu communis panis & vini aliquid in terram exciderit.
• 6 1.23

  Hier. ad Rustic. cap. 4. commending the Bp. Exuperius. Nihil de illo dicimus, qui corpus in canistro, & sanguinem portabat in vi∣tro.
• 7 1.24

  De Consec. D. 1. C. Vasa.—Zepherinus Episcopus patenis vitrcis Missas celebrare constituit.
• a 1.25

  Chrysost: in Li∣turg Posteà similiter Sacerdos sumit san∣ctum panem, inclina∣to capite ante sacram mensam orans.
• b 1.26

  Cyril. Hieros. My∣stag. 5. Accede. ad ca∣licem sanguinis illius pronus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]
• c 1.27

  Espencaeus. Nec disputatio super Ado∣randi gestu, cum de Adorationis substan∣tia inter omnes sem∣per convenerit, ac etiamnum convenit, stantes aut sedentes, proni aut supini, ere∣cti aut geniculati, Christum in Euchari∣stia praesentissimum adoremus, per se non refert—cùm A∣doratio non tam in externo cultu, quàm intimo mentis affectu cernitur. Lib. 2. de A∣dorat cap. 16. initio.
• * 1.28

  The Latine is, In∣clinantes Altari: but since I finde it in the Greeke (before Conse∣cration) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and so thrice the like. Af∣ter Consecration; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [Behinde the Table bowing downe his head.] And againe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 1.29

  Durant Per∣actâ thurificatione, Sacerdos levite•• incurvescit ante Altare—dum autem inclinat Sacerdos, humilitatem Christi significat.—Sacerdos reflexus ad Altare, cum paratur Consecratio. Lib. 2. de Ritib. cap. 25.
• e 1.30

  Vasquez. Ies. Graec•• Ecclesia antè Consecrationem re∣verenter adorat, etiā si non sit ibi Christus. De Adorat. lib. 2. c. 11. [Falsly commenting that this was Divine honour, and iust.]
• * 1.31

  Gabriel Episc. Albisp. Observat. sacr. lib. 1. Observ. 12.
• f 1.32

  Mr. Brerely Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 9. Subd. 3. [Out of Bel∣larm. and Bellar. out of Antoninus.]—When (not unlike to the reproofe which God miraculously gave to Balaam by the speech of an Asse) a bruit-beast for our instruction did prostrate him∣selfe in reverence be∣fore the blessed Sa∣crament.
• * 1.33

  BANKS HIS HORSE; according to his Masters owne Re∣lation.
• a 1.34

  Greg. Nazian. Orat. 11 de Gorgonia. Soror Gorgonia ad∣versà corporis valetu∣dine laborabat—eratque prodigiosum morbi genus, quod nec medicorum arte, nec parentum lachry∣mis, nec publicis pre∣cibus sanari potuit: desperatis omnibus alijs auxilijs intem∣pestà nocte captatâ ad Altare cum side procumbit, eumque qui super isto hono∣ratur ingenti clamore invocans, cum caput suū part cum clamo∣re Altari admovisset, & deinde hoc phar∣maco (i.e. Lachryma∣rum, ut exponit Elias Cretensis) perfudisset, & si quid uspiam [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Antity∣porū preciosi Corpo∣ris & Sanguinis ma∣nu recondrderat, ad lachrymis admiscurs∣set (ô rem admiran∣dam!) statim se mor∣bo liberatam sentit.
• b 1.35

  Bellar. Procum∣bens ante Altare co∣rā venerabili Sacra∣mento—Quid autem super altare colatur, dubium esse non po∣test, cum nihil ibi po∣natur nisi Panis & Vinum, mutanda in corpus & sanguinem Christi—Petium Martyrē valdè ussit pupugitque hic locus. Lib. 2. de Euch cap 14
• * 1.36

  See above, Book 4. Chap. 1. Sect. 10. As further also appeareth in the Liturgie of pope Clement; Acci∣piant Diacont reli∣quias, & portent in Pastophoria (Doubt∣lesse from the Altar to a place remote.) Teste pamelio Tom 1 Missal. Patrion La∣tin. pag 118.
• * 1.37

  See above, Book 4. Chap. •• Sect. 5.
• 9 1.38

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Orat. 11. quo supra.
• * 1.39

  Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6.
• c 1.40

  Bellar. Dio∣nys. Areop. Hier. cap. 3. part. 3. O divinis∣simum & sacrosan∣ctum Sacramentum, obducta tibi signifi∣cancium signorum o∣perimenta aperi, &c. Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 3. Item ipsum invocat Sacramentum, & pe∣tit ab ipso, quae à solo Deo rectè peti pos∣sunt. And, Durant. de Rit ib. lib. 2. cap. 11. Aud indeed who not?
• 10 1.41

  Mallon. Ies. in his Reply.
• d 1.42

  Nazian. Orat. 32. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.43

  Ambros. in Luc. lib. 10. cap. 22. O aqua, tu aspersum sanguine (Christum) lavisti, Sacramentum Christi esse meruisti, &c.
• f 1.44

  Optat. lib. 6. cont. Parmē. O aqua, quae & purum feceras orbē, & terrā lavisti. Greg. Nyssen. Divinū lavacrum, See above, Booke 3. C. 3. §. 13.
• g 1.45

  O salve Crux, spes unica! auge piis justitiā, &c. Est Pro∣sopopoeia. Vasquez. Ies. lib. 2. de Adorat. Disp. 9. cap. 4. pag. 445.
• h 1.46

  O sacrum cō∣vivium! quod omni Sacramento conve∣nit. Tolet. Ies. Instruct. Sacerd. lib. 2. cap. 15. pag. 366.
• i 1.47

  Pachym. in locum Dionys. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ex Orat. 42.
• * 1.48

  See above Booke 3. Chap. 3. Sect 13.
• k 1.49

  Basi••i de Spir. sanct. cap. 2•• [Verba Invocationis, cùm o∣stenditur, quis San∣ctorum in scripto no∣bis reliquit?] Hunc habemus morem ve∣teris Ecclesiae, ut post consecrationē osten∣deretur populo Eu∣charistia, quod nunc fieri videmus, & con∣ceptis verbis invoca∣retur. Ob. Bellar. lib. 2 de Euch. cap. 25 §. Al∣terum. And Durant. de Ritib. lib 2. cap. 11. Planè ab ipsis Eccle∣siae incunabilis post Consecrationem Eu∣charistiam in altum tollere, Dionys. & Ba∣sil. de Spiritu Sancto, cap. 27, &c.
• * 1.50

  Broved above, Book 1. Ch. 2. Sect. 3. in the Challenge.
• l 1.51

  Archiep. Caesari∣ens. seu Christoph. de Capite fontium, Tra∣ctat. var. Sacerdos in∣vocando Deum panē consecravit: Hanc a∣lij, ut Tertull. Iren. Iustin. Gratiarum a∣ctionē hujusmodi In∣vocationem seu be∣nedictionem vocant. pag. 34. Alicubi The∣odoret Basil. Cyril. Hierosol. Iren. Da∣mascen. Theoph. A∣lex. vocant Euchari∣stiae formam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Invocationem. Ibid. pag. 33. And hee allegeth your Linda∣nus for a Suffragator in this point.
• * 1.52

  See Booke 1. Chap. 2.
• m 1.53

  Paulus non tradidit formā Con∣secrationis, quod Ba∣silius ità illustrat, ut sano capiti nihil ad haec sit ullo modo re∣quirendum amplius, cap. 42. de Spir. san∣cto; Verba, dùm o∣stenditur panis (in∣quit) & poculum be∣nedictionis, quis San∣ctorū nobis reliquit? Lindan. Panop. lib. 4. cap. 41.
• n 1.54

  Liturg. Iac. [Sancte Domine, &c.]
• o 1.55

  Liturg. Chry∣sost. [Adhuc offeri∣mus—mitte Spiri∣tum, &c.]
• p 1.56

  Liturg. Ba∣sil. [Respice Domi∣ne.]
• 10 1.57

  Cyril. Hiero. sol. Mystag. Catech. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• q 1.58

  Decret. part. 1. cap. 11. Ecclesiasti∣corum. Aug. ex Basi∣lio; Quae scripta no∣bis, quibus verbis sit Consecratio, com∣mendavit?
• r 1.59

  〈…〉〈…〉 Bellar. lib 2. de Euch. cap 8. §. Al∣t••rum.
• * 1.60

  See above B. 5. Chap 5. Sect. 6.
• 11 1.61

  Billius in Orat. 42. Nazianz.
• 12 1.62

  Nicetas in lo∣cum ipsum Nazianz. [O Pascha magnum & sacrum Pascha, &c.] Haec verba Na∣zianzeni ad Festum ipsum perinde ac vitâ praeditum refert.
• * 1.63

  See above a•• [12]