A15057:156
An answer to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Jesuit in confidence whereof…An ansvvere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Iesuit in confidence wherof…
An answer to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Jesuit in confidence whereof he offered disputation to the ministers of the Church of England, in the controversy of faith. Whereunto is added in brief marginal notes, the sum of the defence of those reasons by John Duræus the Scot, being a priest and a Jesuit, with a reply unto it. Written first in the Latin tongue by the reverend and faithful servant of Christ and his Church, William Whitakers, Doctor in Divinity, and the Kings Professor and public reader of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. And now faithfully translated for the benefit of the unlearned (at the appointment and desire of some in authority) into the English tongue; by Richard Stock, preacher in London. ...An ansvvere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Iesuit in confidence wherof he offered disputation to the ministers of the Church of England, in the controuersie of faith. Whereunto is added in briefe marginall notes, the summe of the defence of those reasons by Iohn Duræus the Scot, being a priest and a Iesuit, with a reply vnto it. Written first in the Latine tongue by the reuerend and faithfull seruant of Christ and his Church, William Whitakers, Doctor in Diuinitie, and the Kings Professor and publike reader of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. And now faithfully translated for the benefit of the vnlearned (at the appointment and desire of some in authoritie) into the English tongue; by Richard Stocke, preacher in London. ...
London: printed by Felix Kyngston for Cuthbert Burby and Edmund Weaver, 1606London: printed by Felix Kyngston for Cuthbert Burby and Edmund Weauer, 1606
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But what now followeth in your contestation? Thou wilt (say you) acknowledge the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ on the Altar. And for this you cite the 14. Canon of the Nicene Coū cell, in which there is not so much as any mention made neither of unbloody, nor ofi sacrifice, nor of ⟨p. 105⟩Altar. But Deacons are there prohibited to arrogate so much unto themselves, that Bishops or Priests being present, they should take upon them to administer the Sacrament of the Lords supper, because it was not lawful for Deacons to deliver the Lords body unto Priests. Now it is an usual thing to call bread the Lords body, because it is a Sacrament of the Lords body; neither in the mean time do I deny that the supper of the Lord is called by many of thek ancient Fathers, an unbloody sacrifice: both because we retain the mysteries of Christs death without any blood, & also offer up praises & thanksgiving as it were for sacrifices unto God; and therefore Cyril joineth in the supper, these together, unbloody sacrifices and praises. 3And Eusebius writeth, that we build an Altar to the Lord, of unbloody and reasonable sacrifices, according to the new mysteries. Now if you ask what manner of unbloody sacrifice this is, let Eusebius himself answer you in his own words. He hath delivered unto us, a lmemorial of his death, which we offer unto him in place of a Sacrifice. Again, you propound the eleventh act of the Council of Chalcedon, which containeth nothing at all, which appertaineth to this matter in hand, neither that place of Socrates which you quote.5 You might have dealt better and more simply, if you would have cited the ⟨p. 106⟩words themselves, and not only quoted uncertain and confused notes in the margin: but you feared lest you might have bin too easily discovered, unless you had masked your self under the visor of deceit.