duly and truely all affection and partialitie set apart read both The Downefall of Popery and the Iesuites answere to it I perswade my selfe hee will detest both the Pope and popery vntill his liues end S. R. Saint Austen saith Bell telleth vs that the bread which the Apostles ate was our Lord. I would Bell had marked this himselfe for it is the vpshot of this Controuersie and vnanswerable by any Protestant For if as Bell noteth out of Saint Austen the bread which the Apostles are was our Lord How can Protestantes deny it and say it was bare bread Or if as S. Austen speaketh they are bread our Lord how can Bell say they are not our Lord but bare bread T. B. Here our Iesuite triumpheth before the victorie and boasteth that that which I saide was the vpshot on my side is the vpshot on his side but how truely hee saith he will declare Saint Austen saith the Apostles are Panem Dominum The bread our Lord but that Iudas ate Panem Domini the bread of our Lord. Marke well the words gentle Reader Saint Austen putteth a cleere difference betweene that which the Apostles are and that which Iudas ate The Apostles saith hee are the Bread which is our lord but Iudas the bread of our lord This assertion of this holy father say I confoundeth the Papists for if our Lord maker be present really in flesh bloud bone vnder the accidents of bread and that so long as the same accidents remaine vncorrupt as the popish faith holdeth the doubtles Iudas should haue receiued his redeemer theÌ„ perforce Iudas should also haue receiued PaneÌ„ dominuÌ„ theÌ„ Iudas could not by any possibility haue barely receiued PaneÌ„ Domini which yet S. Austen affirmeth most constantly For first if it were true as it is not that after Popish supposed consecration the substance of bread were transubstantiated into Christes body naturall as it truely consisteth of flesh bloud and bone And again if it were also true that the self-same body remained vnder the forme of bread vntill it were corrupted as Popish Doctrine telleth vs then say I and it will bee prooued an vndoubted truth that all the Papistes in Europe and else-where are neuer able to shew me how Iudas did not receiue Panem Dominum the bread which is the Lord but Panem Domini The bread of our Lord. That is to say how Iudas could receiue the forme of bread with the Flesh bloud and bones of Christs Organicall and naturall body hidden vnder the same and for all that not receiue Christ himselfe and Panem dominum as the other Apostles did This indeed is the vpshot of this Question and striketh the Papistes starke dead they can neuer answere it truely while the world standes Now where our fond Iesuite asketh mee how I can say the Apostles are bare bread seeing they are the bread which Saint Austen saith is the Lord I answer that though perhaps he haue a great head yet seemeth he to haue but little wit For I willingly graunt with the same Saint Austen that Iudas ate the price of our Redemption with Saint Cyprian that the bread which Christ gaue to his disciples was his true flesh with Saint Chrysostome that Christ offered to Iudas the bloud which he had sold but al this sacramentally mystically figuratiuely and significantly For his sacred true and organicall body was is and must be really in Heauen vntill his second Aduent yet is it Sacramentally in the holy Eucharist Alasse alasse must Berengarius be enforced with fire and Fagot to sweare that Christes body was truely broken and truely torne with mens teeth and that onely because the figure of his body is broken and torne and we for all that and the holy fathers may not once say that christs body bloud is in the holy Eucharist Sacramentally Yea the holy Fathers do often call it the vnbloudy sacrifice and the bloud that issued out of Christs side whatsoeuer else is truely verified of his naturall and organicall body indeede and this they do because it is the sacrament and representation of that most sacred body and Sacrifice which was offered for our sins vppon the Altar of the crosse All that possibly can be obiected in these cases is fully and soundly answered in my Suruey of Popery CHAP. 6. Conteining the confutation of the Iesuites sixt Chapter touching coâ—radictions in the Masse S. R. THe Papists say that Christes body is the same in the Masse which was on the crosse and yet confesse it to be a figure thereof This Bell proueth to be a contradiction because Bellarmine saith a figure must needs be inferior to the thing figured But I deny euery figure to be inferior to the thing figured For God the Son is the figure of the substance of his Father and yet true God And Seth an Image of Adam and yet true man and such a figure of Christ is the Eucharist T. B. Our Iesuite may learne in the Schooles that Nullum simile est idem no similitude is the same with the thing whereof it is a similitude Which if it bee true as true it must bee graunted or else farewell Schoole-Doctrine then doubtlesse Christes body beeing the same in the Masse as Papists tell vs which was on the crosse cannot possibly bee a figure thereof But our Iesuite obiecteth that the Sonne of GOD is the figure of GOD and yet true God withall Likewise that Seth was the Image of man and yet true man withall I answer to the former with the auncient Father and reuerend Bishoppe Haymo Halberstatensis whose expresse wordes are these Quantum ad hominâ—s pertinet aliud est figura aliud est substantia quia dum pingitur imago figura alicuius hominis in pariete non est illud figura quod est substantia Apostolus autem figuraÌ„ in hoc loco pro ipsa substantia pro aequalitate essentiae posuit Concerning men a figure is one thing and substaunce another thing because whiles an image and figure is painted in the Wall the figure is not that which the substance is But the Apostle in this place put the figure for the substance and for the equality of Essence And the Popes owne deare Doctor Nicolaus de Lyra teacheth the selfe-same Doctrine These are his wordes Dicitur imago vel figura substantiae 1. Eiusdem substantiae cum patre Hee is called the Image or figure of his substance that is to say He is of the same substance with his father By which doctrine thus deliuered by these two learned writers we see euidently that the Apostle vnderstandeth by figure Substance so as this is the sence he is of the same substance with the Father For as the same Haymo saith in the same place as in the fire three things are inseparable the fire the heate and the brightnesse and in the brightnes is shewed to vs the fire and heat though humaine things may
for a meer vndoubted truth It followeth therefore by a necessary consecution that the quantity of Christs body to be in the Popish Masse is an article of popish faith S. R. Let vs see therefore how Bell disproueth it Forsooth because it implyeth contradiction for a greater body as Christs is to be contained in a lesser as in a Cake Behold the foundation of Bels faith We bring Christs expresse wordes that what he gaue to his Apostles at his last supper was his body giuen and his bloud shed for remission of sinnes T. B. Our Iesuite flyeth quite from my argument because it striketh him dead and laboureth to proue that Christes body is in the Sacrament But all in vaine For first that is not now in question Againe he is to answere me and not to wander about impertinent matters Thirdly I haue answered all that he obiecteth here as also all that can be obiected on their behalfe in my Suruey of Popery many yeares ago to which no Papist durst euer frame an answer vnto this day Fourthly I willingly grant the holy bread in the blessed Eucharist to be Christes body and the holy wine to be his bloud yet not really and substantially as the Papists hold but mystically and sacramentally according to the truth of Gods word And I retort the Iesuites reason out of Christes wordes against himselfe For if Christ had not meant that his body was then giuen sacramentally and not really he would haue said which shall be giuen not which is giuen in the Present tense I proue it because if Christs body had then beene giuen really and his bloud then shed really for the sinnes of the world no other Sacrifice attonement satisfaction or reconciliation had beene needfull on our behalfe which how absurd it is euery childe can discerne Christs meaning therfore is this This is my body sacramentally Or this is the sacrament of my body and bloud but not This is my naturall body and my reall bloud He that desireth the profe hereof at large I refer him to my Suruey of Popery S. R. But to come to Bels reason How proueth he it to bee contradiction for a greater bodie to bee contayned in a lesse T. B. Heere our Iesuite bestirreth himselfe to proue if it wold be that Christs body is not both contained and not contained in their Sacrament but all in vaine For his proofes if they were true as they be falfe would onely conclude this and nothing else viz. that God is able to do it S. R. For albeit it be contradiction for a greater body occupying a place proportionate to it greatnes to be conteyned in a lesse for so it should both be contained and not contained in the lesse yet no contradiction at all it is for a greater body retayning it greatnes to be so coarcted by Gods omnipotency that it fill a place farre lesse then is naturally due or proportionate to it greatnes For in this case it followeth not that it should both be contained not contained in the lesser bodie as in the former case but contained onely And thus we say hath Christ disposed of his bodie in the Sacrament Wee proue it by manie waies T. B. I aunswere with all subiection and due reuerence vnto Gods omnipotent power that God cannot doe any thing which eyther implyeth contradiction in it selfe or imperfection in God Not because there is any defect in GOD himselfe God forbid wee should so thinke but because there is defect in the thing that should so be done By reason of the former God cannot make a dead man remayning dead to be liuing albeit he can raise a dead man to life againe So neyther can God make a blinde man remaining blinde to see nor a deafe man remaining deafe to heare nor a dumbe man remaining dumbe to speake albeit he can restore seeing to the blinde hearing to the deafe and speech to the dumbe By reason of the latter God can neyther make another God nor any creature equall to himselfe nor commit any sinne nor faile in his promise nor repent of any thing that he hath done Now to coarct a great body so retaining it greatnes still that it may be conteined in a lesse body implyeth flat contradiction not for the reason which our Iesuite bringeth but because it is against the intrinsecall reason and the very Essence of quantity which is to haue partē extra partem one part without another And consequently our Iesuits supposed coarctation implyeth flat contradiction For it is impossible to conceiue or vnderstand how a body eight cubits long and eight cubits broad remaining so long so broad hauing euery part without other to be contayned of another body being but seuen cubits long and seuen cubits broad It implyeth as flat contradiction as to make a deafe man remaining deafe to heare It is therefore impossible to all power both create and vncreate to make Christs body to be contained in a little round cake in the Popish Masse S. R. First because Christs body in his natiuity opened not his Virgin-mothers wombe Ergo then it occupyed not a roome naturally proportionate to the greatnesse The consequence is euident and the antecedent is proued by many fathers T. B. I deny both the consequence and the antecedent The consequence because if it were as the Iesuite supposeth which I deny yet should Christes body haue occupied a roome naturally proportionate to the greatnes thereof And our Iesuite denying it vnawares affirmeth all Children to be vnnaturally in their mothers wombes The antecedent because Christ opened his mothers wombe as other children do For first Christ was presented to the Lord according to the Law as the Holy-ghost dooth record yet the Lawe required such presentation onely of them which opened their mother wombe Secondly Christ was made like vnto his Brethren in all things sin onely excepted Thirdly the auncient Fathers Tertullian Origen Ambrose and Hierome are of the same opinion Their expresse words are set downe at large in my Suruey of Popery And it will not serue the turne to say as some do that though Christ was borne of a Virgin yet should she haue bene corrupted no Virgin if her wombe had beene opened in the byrth of Christ. For first not onely holy writ but the auncient Fathers also and other learned Deuines are to be heard before all Physitions in the misteries of our faith Secondly Fernetius maketh nothing for the Papistes as who speaketh only of the dilatation of the Matrice that after the naturall and ordinary course Thirdly albeit it be most true as all holy Writers with vniforme assent do contest that Christs holy Mother the blessed Virgin Mary was euer a pure Virgin before his birth in his birth and after his birth yet it is likewise true that her wombe was opened in his byrth as is already proued For as their owne Angellicall D. sayth whose Doctrine sundry Popes one after another haue confirmed Virginity is
not be compared with things diuine euen so the nature of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost is vnited inseperably and by his word as by brightnes hee hath vouchsafed to shew himselfe vnto vs. Fondly therefore doth our Iesuite dispute when he would proue Christs body to be both the figure and the thing figured out of the apostles words wherfore by the word Figure vnderstandeth the Essence and equality of God Hee vseth a Metaphoricall speech for the dulnes of our capacities who can vnderstand nothing in the admirable diuine mysteries but by similitudes drawne from Creatures To our Iesuites second Obiection that Seth was both a true man and withall the figure of a true man I make this answere viz That it maketh against himselfe The reason is euident because as I haue prooued out of Haymo the figure of the thing figured in humaine Creatures are different and the one distinguished from the other And the Iesuite must needes graunt so much or else say as I think he will not for shame that Seth was Adam and his owne Father But in Christes body the case is otherwise for the Papistes hold that Christes body in the Eucharist is Idem corpus numero the same body in number with his body on the crosse and his body now in heauen If they shall say otherwise then perforce must they say that which they dare not that Christ hath moe bodies then one S. R. I returne Bels Argument vppon himselfe because if figures must needes be inferior to things figured the Eucharist is some nobler thing then bread T. B. Our Iesuite careth not what he say so hee seeme to say somewhat so gladly would he and his fellowes haue the vulgar sort to think that they haue answered The Downfall of Popery But God be thanked they still fall downe that striue against it I aunswere First that albeit all figures were not inferior to the things figured yet should my manner of disputation bee good against Bellarmine because my argument is deduced out of his own ground and therefore called after their vse Argumentum ad hominem Secondly that our holy Eucharist is far nobler then bare Bakers bread viz Christs true and reall body sacramentally euen that very body which was nayled on the crosse that very bloud which with the spear issued out of Christs side All which I haue prooued at large in my Suruey of Popery and there haue answered al that possibly can be said for the Popish reall presence S. R. Neither Christs whole body nor part thereof is in the Eucharist before the pronuncication of the last word yet are not the former words superfluous For the last worketh the transmutation not by his owne vertue alone but with the vertue of them also or rather God worketh all when the last word is pronounced T. B. Behold here gentle Reader what vncertaintie is in popish faith and Doctrine For first our Iesuite telleth vs that either the last word in their supposed consecration worketh transubstantiation alone or with the help of the rest or else God worketh all when the last word is spoken Marry which of these is the truth that hee cannot tell vs. Secondly their Angelicall Doctor and Saint Aquinas saith that this conuersion is not like to naturall conuersions but is altogether supernaturall wrought by the onely power of God Thirdly the same Saint Aquinas telleth vs that this conuersion is doone in an instant Fourthly if either fit matter want or any word of consecration or the intention of the Priest nothing is changed it still remaineth bread Now then on the one side euery action that God doth is done in an instant the reason is euident because God is of infinite power to whose action no resistance can be made All learned papists graunt this to be so On the other side euery action that man doth is successiue in time because man is of finite and limited power the words therefore of consecration either worke nothing at all and so they are ciphers which to hold is absurd in popish doctrine or else transubstantiation is effected in time which is repugnant to Gods infinite power Heere I must tell our Iesuite that he passeth ouer with silence two most notable contradictions whereof he speaketh not one word for feare of biting I told him in the Downefall that Berengarius was compelled to confesse and beleeue that Christes body is broken with hands and yet doth Bellarmine graunt that it is not brokē with hands Ergo it is broken with hands and not broken with hands What can be a plainer contradiction None at all S. R. Catholiques thinke indeed that when the Priest wanteth both actuall and virtuall intention or omitteth any essentiall worde that there is no Consecration and the priest sinneth therein greeuously but the people worshipping erroneously vpon inuincible ignorance offend no more then did Saint Iohn when hee worshipped an Angel as God or as did Iacob when he lay with Lia who was not his wife thinking verily she had beene his wife Rachell T. B. This is horrible impiety that by Popish Religion men women are compelled to adore that with diuine worship as the euerliuing God whith perhaps euen by the Popes owne faith and beleefe is nothing else but a piece of bread Yet is it farre greater impiety and slat blasphemy against the sonne of God to excuse the people from sinne which commit openly such palpable and grosse Idolatry But inuincible ignorance saith our Iesuite doth excuse them as it did S. Iohn and Iacob Howsoeuer the case stand with S. Iohn and the Patriarke Iacob whereof I am not now to dispute ignorance can neuer excuse Idolatry Hee saith Christ that knoweth the will of God and doth it not shal be beaten with many stripes He that knoweth not the will of God and yet doth things worthy of stripes shal be beaten with few stripes And we are taught in Ezechiel that the wicked shall die in his iniquity though the watchman gaue him no warning The man of God which beleeued the old Prophet that lyed vnto him sinned greeuously as appeared by his punishment because he transgressed the word of the Lord albeit hee offended ignorantly thinking hee had done the will of God S. R. What maketh it against the masse that three or foure Catholiques did in a difficult matter before it was defined by the Church dissent from the rest Let Bell if hee can shew this diuersity now since the Councell T. B. In the Downefall of Popery I proued out of Durand that onely the forme of Bread is changed in the Eucharist that the matter of Bread remaineth stil. Out of Rupertus the Popish Abbot that the bread is vnited Hypostatically to the sonne of God That Caietanus Henrieus Capreolus are of another opinion That Iohannes Parisiensis helde also that the bread was assumpted but in a different maner from the opinion of Rupertus That
all viz that Christ in the Popish Masse both is consumed and dyeth yet not really but Sacramentally All which my selfe will most willingly admit and agree vnto But our Papists will say and vnsay They say that Christ is in their Masse truely and really sacrificed and not onely Sacramentally For otherwise we should agree to them and they to vs. And then must they needs say that he is really not onely sacramentally sacrificed in their Masse and consequently that he is killed and consumed in the same really S. R. Againe Bellarmine saith Bell telleth vs that Christs body and bloud are offered truely and properly in the Masse That a true and reall sacrifice requireth true and reall killing seeing the Essence of the sacrifice consisteth in killing But this proofe relyeth onely vppon Bells false translating the word Quando seeing which he should haue translated When. T. B. Heere our Iesuite would haue his Reader beleeue that Bell hath falsely translated Bellarmine And why I pray you Because forsooth saith he Bell hath translated seeing the Essence of the sacrifice for when the Essence of the Sacrifice Let vs examine this point to the bottome First that Quando dooth aswell signifie seeing as when I referre my selfe to all skilfull Grammarians Secondly that it is so taken in Bellarmine I proue by the circumstances of the Text. These are Bellarmines expresse wordes Denique vel in missa fit vera realis Christi mactatio eccisio vel non fit Si non fit non est verum reaâ—e sacrificium missa Sacrificium n. Verum reale veram realem occisioneÌ„ exiuit quando in occisione ponitur essentia sacrificij Si autem fit ergo verum erit dicere à sacerdotibus Chrstianis vere realiter christum accidi at hac sacrilegium non sacrificium esse videtur Finally there is in the Masse either a true and reall killing of Christ or there is not If there be not neither is the Masse a true and reall sacrifice For a true and reall Sacrifice requireth a true and reall killing seeing the Essence of Sacrifice consisteth in killing Againe Bellarmine hath these wordes Per consecrasionem res quae ofertur ad veram realem externam mutationeÌ„ destructionem ordinatur quod erat necessarium ad rationem sacrificij By consecration the thing that is offered is ordained to true reall and externall mutation and destruction as beeing necessary for the Essence of a Sacrifice Againe thus Nam oper consecrationem c. For by consecration Christs body receiueth the forme of meat and meat is ordained to be eaten and so to mutation and destruction Againe in these wordes Neque obstat quod corpus Christi nullam in se laesionem patiatur neque esse suum naturale amittat cum manducatur eucharista Nam amittit esse sacramentale proinde desinit realiter esse in altari desinit esse cibus sensibilis Neither is it any hindrance that Christes body receiueth no hurt in it selfe neither loseth it naturall being when the Eucharist is eaten For it loseth it Sacramentall being and therefore it ceaseth to bee really on the Aultar it ceaseth to be sensible meat Out of these wordes of Cardinall Bellarmine I note first that a true and reall Sacrifice requireth a true and reall killing Bellarmine prooueth it because otherwise the Masse should not be a true and reall Sacrifice Hee addeth the reason because the Essence of a Sacrifice consisteth in killing Secondly that by consideration the thing which is offered is ordained to true reall and externall destruction as a thing needfull to the Essence of a Sacrifice and consequently that if Christes body be really in the Masse it must be really killed or destroyed Thirdly that Christes body suffereth no hurt in the Masse because only it loseth the Sacramentall being in ceasing to bee really on the Aultar These obseruations being well marked it will appeare as cleere as the Sunne shining at noone-day that Bellarmine granteth the Essence of euery true and reall Sacrifice to consist in killing or destruction And therefore doth he graunt freely that Christ is killed in the Masse sacramentally though not really Christes body saith hee although it suffer no hurt in it selfe neither lose it naturall beeing when the Eucharist is eaten yet it loseth it sacramentall being and ceaseth to be really on the Popish Aultar But euery one knoweth that when any thing loseth the being or life theÌ„ it is killed and destroyed In regard heereof Bellarmine as is already prooued affirmeth resolutely that eyther there is a reall killing in the Masse or else no Sacrifice there at all Marry he expoundeth this reall killing in the Masse to bee nothing else indeede but the sacramentall destruction of Christs body in the Eucharist But therein he contradicteth himselfe because neither a sacramental body is a true and reall body neyther a sacramentall killing a true and reall killing And so when all is saide and done Bellarmine can conclude no more indeed but that Christs body is in the Eucharist sacramentally And therfore when Christ saith This is my body the true sence meaning is this no other This is my body Sacramentally or the Sacrament of my body S. R. Bell fondly inferreth Christ to be killed if his body and bloud be put apart in the Masse because not to put body and bloud apart where they were not before but to separate them where they are vnited is to kill Else GOD should kill a man if hee created a Soule and body apart T. B. The Crow thinketh her owne Bird the fairest and euery foole thinketh himselfe a wise man How fondly soeuer Bell inferreth and how wisely soeuer our Iesuite disputeth this must euer bee true viz That the Popish Priest in the Popish Masse doth what in him lyeth to kill christ in the Masse so often as he pronounceth their supposed consecration words if it should be true which the Pope and his Popelinges holde that by vertue thereof Christes body is put apart from his bloud and his bloud apart from his body For most certaine it is that no true man consequently Christ can liue any longer then his body and bloud be vnited together it is a meerfoolery to say as our Iesuite doth that to put a maÌ„s body bloud apart where they were not before is not to kill the man For example sake because our Iesuite seemeth very grosse I will not say a foole if it will please his worship to call a Butcher to him to take all his bloud from him as hee doth from an Oxe or Calfe and to receiue it into a great vessell so as no part thereof fall vppon the ground and that doone to carry the same to Saint Peters Church in Rome and to put it vnder the high altar there and vvhen he hath so done to carry his body to Hexam in the north parts of England there to bee solemnely buryed if then
I say our Iesuite remaine aliue and be not killed I will subscribe to this his doctrine And yet is it cleere that in this case his body bloud shold be put apart where they were not before But our Iesuite seemeth to ayme at a farther mark What is that at the creating of Christs body and bloud Is it so indeed Is it possible so to thinke It is very so For these are his words as you heare else God should kill a man if hee created a Soule and body apart Well now I remember an old said saw which doubtles is as foolish as it is old that the priest in the popish masse can create his God God so blesse me and all good Christians that we neuer harken to such Theology CHAP. 4. Containing the confutation of the lesuites fourth Chapter of the second Article IN this fourth Chapter our Iesuite rehearseth sundry absurdities which are found in the Popish Masse But the more hee busieth himselfe to discharge their Masse thereof the more the same absurdities do increase Let vs take a tast of one for all Bell saith he inferreth that either Christs Sacrifice was vnperfect in his last Supper or else that it was needles in his bitter passion on the crosse To which he answereth that neyther of both dooth follow For saith he Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was a most perfect vnbloudy Sacrifice and yet his Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull as the peculiar price which GOD exacted at his handes for the redemption of the World Loe he granteth freely that Christs Sacrifice at his Supper was most perfect and yet the heathen Philosopher can tell him that Perfecto nihil addi potest To that which is perfect nothing can bee added This notwithstanding he affirmeth these three things First that the Sacrifice on the Crosse was needfull Secondly that it was the peculier price which GOD exacted Thirdly that it was for the redemption of the world Which three points being as truely marked and remembred as they are truely granted all but such as are Sensus communis inopes men without all both sense reason will plainely perceiue and constantly hold that Christs Sacrifice at his last Supper was either imperfect vvhich our Iesuite denieth or else no real sacrifice at al which I defend All the rest of the chapter is full of the like vanity for consideration whereof it is enough to peruse The Downefall of Popery CHAP. 5. Containing the Iesuites confutation touching Berengarius VVHere in The downefall of Popery I related truely the cruell dealing of the Pope and his Popish councell with Berengarius our Iesuite would gladly excuse the Pope and his Sinod but it will not be S. R. Bell exclaimeth mightily because Berengarius was compelled to beleeue that Christ in the Eucharist is sensibly touched broken with the hands of Priests torne with the teeth of the faithfull T. B. Bell doth so Idque merito He hath iust cause so to do R. S. Neuerthelesse Christes body is said to be toucht broken and chewed in the Eucharist because the signe of bread in which it really is is so vsed As GOD is said to haue beene crucified because the humanity in which hee was was so handled and Christ touched when his garment was touched T. B. Heere is all that confessed which I intended for to prooue viz That the bread of the Eucharist is called Christs body because it is the signe and Sacrament of his body And therefore that Berengarius was most cruelly and villanously dealt withall when he was enforced eyther to bee burnt with fire and Fagot or else to sweare that he beleeued in his hart that Christs body was truely touched and broken with the hands of Priests and truely torne with the teeth of the faithfull When for all that many learned Papists Bellarmine Melchior Canus and others with this our Iesuite who would and dooth say the best he can for the Popes defence do freely graunt and plainely confesse that Christes body can neither bee broken with hands nor yet torne or chewed with teeth Loe Berengarius was compelled to beleeue as an article of his faith that Christes body was truely in veritate broken with the hands of Priests and torne with teeth and yet the truth is farre otherwise as both Bellarmine Canus and our Iesuite do confesse Fie on such religion hang vp such Popish Faith accursed be such doctrine S. R. The holy Fathers Saint Cyprian Saint Chrysostome and others do teach vs plainlie that Christs body is broken with hands and chewed with teeth yea Christ himselfe saith This is my body which is broken VVill Bell now condemne Christ and these holy Fathers of wickednesse villany blasphemy and horrible impiety Nay will he condemne both English many forraine Protestants whose doctrine saith he is that Christs body is broken torne and consumed with mouth and teeth Behold good Reader For Papists to say Christs body is touched broken and torne is villany and horrible impiety but for Protestants to say the same and adde consuming too is good doctrine T. B. I prooued out of Cardinall Bellarmine that famous Iesuiticall Fryer that Christs body cannot bee broken and torne saue only in a figure or Sacrament And that by his doctrine it may be sayd to bee broken and torne when the signe thereof is broken and torne Out of whose doctrine I inferred this golden Colorrary viz that if it be true to say Christs body is broken and torne because the signe of his body is broken torne then truely may we say and truely do we say that Christes body is in the Eucharist because the signe of his body is there because the Sacrament of his bodye is there because the representation of his body is there And much more truely might Christ himselfe say This is my body when he gaue the signe and Sacrament of his body I then added that it is the constant doctrine of the church of England which also many other reformed Churches approoue therein that Christs body is receiued broken torne and consumed with mouth teeth figuratiuely significantly mystycally sacramentally And consequently if the Papistes would be iudged by this doctrine which by the pen of the Iesuite Bellarmine they heere deliuer the controuersie would soone bee at an end Now I referre my self to the indifferent Reader whosoeuer he be whether the Iesuite S. R. bee an honest man or no. For first hee beareth the Reader in hand that I condemne Christ and the holy Fathers Secondly that I condemne both the English Churche and many forraine Christians Thirdly he chargeth mee to hold the same Doctrine which I vtterly condemne in Popery Fourthly he iustifieth the condemnation of Berengarius whose doctrine for all that both Bellarmine and Melchior Canus do iustify and himselfe vnawares in this chapter If I should deale with the Papists in this manner all the world would exclaime against me If any indifferent Reader shall