for imitation Romists also haue yet a farther slight in their Checkstone trickes of beades forsooth to blesse and sanctifie them by the touch of Relickes or by the Popes benediction that such trash may be sold the dearer by their pettie Chapmen THE SIXT POINT THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSVBSTANTIATION IESVIT YOur Excellent Maiestie submitting your Iudgement vnto Gods expresse word doth firmely beleeue the body of Christ to be truely present in the most venerable Sacrament of the Altar which Doctrine doth naturally and necessarily infer whatsoeuer the Church of Rome holds as matter of Faith concerning the manner of his presence ANSVVER HIs Sacred Maiestie a true defendour of the antient Catholicke and Apostolicke Faith to his immortall praise submitteth his iudgement in this and in all other articles to the expresse word of God reuealed from Heauen by the holy Ghost and externally preached and penned by the Prophets and Apostles And concerning the sacred Eucharist he firmely beleeueth that in the holy vse thereof the verie Bodie and Bloud of Christ are truely really and effectually presented and communicated to all faithfull and worthie Receiuers But that the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation to wit that after consecration the substance of bread and wine is abolished and the shapes accidents and quantitie thereof onely remaine or that the Bodie and Bloud of Christ are inclosed substantially and corporally vnder the accidentall formes before participation or that dogs and swine truely eat the flesh and drinke the bloud of the sonne of man he cannot beleeue vntill demonstration be made that this Faith is taught by Gods expresse word and was antiently beleeued by the true Catholique Church IESVIT To declare this and together answer an obiection much vrged by some Protestants That they beleeue the bodie of Christ to be in the Sacrament but say they are not bound to beleeue the manner that not being expressed in Scripture ANSWER When the substance of a point is reuealed and the distinct and particular manner concealed it is sufficient to beleeue the former without searching into the latter And not only some Protestants but the Fathers also and some learned Pontificians deliuer thus much concerning the sacred Eucharist Bandinus and the master of the Sentences say Touching the manner of conuersion in the Sacrament some affirme one way and some another c. We say with S. Augustine This mysterie is safely beleeued but not with safetie searched into Cyrill of Alexandria We ought firmely to beleeue the holy mysterie but let vs neuer in matters thus sublime so much as imagine to vtter the manner how And againe The manner how this is done can neither be conceiued by the mind nor expressed by the tongue Theophilact When we heare these words of Christ vnlesse yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. Wee ought firmely to beleeue the same and not enquire after what manner And with these agreeth Caluin sup Ephes. 5.32 IESVIT We must note that men are bound firmely to beleeue the manner of a mysterie reuealed when the same belongs to the substance thereof so that reiecting the manner we reiect the beleefe of the substance of the mysterie This is euident and may be declared by the example of the mysterie of the Incarnation the substance whereof is That in Christ Iesus the nature of God and the nature of man are so vnited that God is truely man and man is verily God The manner of this mysterie is ineffable and incomprehensible yet we are bound to beleeue three things concerning it which if we denie we deny the mysterie in substance howsoeuer we may retaine the same in words First that this vnion is not onely metaphoricall by affection as two persons that are great friends may truely be said to be all one but also true and reall Secondly this reall vnion of Natures is substantiall and not accidentall so that thereby the nature of man is not only accidentally perfected by receiuing excellent participations of the diuine nature power wisdome and maiestie but also substantially the verie fulnesse of the Godhead dwelling corporally and substantially in him Thirdly this substantiall vnion is not according to the Natures so that the nature of God and the nature of man become one and the same nature as Eutiches taught but hypostaticall whereby God and man became one and the same person These particulars about the manner of the Incarnation though high and subtile and imcomprehensible to reason Christians may and must beleeue because they belong to the substance of the mysterie and are declared by the Church in generall Councells though the vulgar be not bound explicitly to know them ANSWER When the distinct and speciall manner is reuealed and belongeth to the forme and being of an Article we are obliged to inquire and firmely to beleeue the same according to the instance giuen about the personall vnion But when the same is not distinctly and plainely reuealed nor of the substance of the mysterie it is more safe according to the holy Scripture and Fathers to be ignorant of that which is abstruse and hidden than to be curious beyond our modell Exod. 19. 17. Pro. 25.27 Act. 1.7 Rom. 12.3 1. Cor. 4.6 Col. 2.18 Touching things inscrutable S. Chrysostome saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is better to be soberly ignorant than naughtily intelligent S. Hierom Melius est aliquid nescire securè quam cum periculo discere it is better to be ignorant of some things with safetie 〈◊〉 to seeke to learne them with perill S. Augustine Melior est fidelis ignorantia quam temeraria scientia and Iustine Martyr It is the part of euerie prudent and pious man in matters diuine sometimes to giue the wall to that which exceedeth his modell S. Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The verie Cherubims vaile their faces when it is come thus farre Saluianus in like manner saith Sacriligae temeritatis quoddam genus est si plus scire cupias quam sinaris It is sacrilegious temeritie to couet to know that which thou art not permitted But the questions of Theologie which are de modo concerning the distinct manner in many cases want sufficient grounds in diuine Reuelation to vnfold them and therefore in things of this nature humble scilence is more safe than temerarious definition IESVIT Jn this sort we say That the manner how our Sauiours bodie is in the Sacrament of his last supper must be beleeued and may not be denied as farre as it concernes the verie life being and substance of the mysterie reuealed which mysterie in substance is That the Bodie of Christ is present in the Sacrament in such sort that the Priest Minister thereof demonstrating what seemeth bread may truely say thereof in the person of Christ This is my Bodie This supposed as the substance of the Mysterie I inferre that two Catholicke Doctrines concerning the manner of this Mysterie
belong to the substance of this Mysterie and cannot be called in question without danger of misbeleefe First the Reall presence of the whole Bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread Secondly that this is done by Transubstantiation ANSWER Whatsoeuer is certainely reuealed in holy Scripture concerning the manner of Christs Presence in the Sacrament must be beleeued and not denied and so much is reuealed as is sufficient to inable the Minister people to vnderstand by Faith that Christs word and promise saying This is my bodie are infalliblie true and alwayes fulfilled when his Ordinance is obserued But Christ affirmeth not that the shapes of bread and wine are his Bodie and Blood neither that he is present by carnall vnion of his naturall Bodie and Blood with the formes or accidents of the Elements or that his Bodie and Blood are present in the holy Eucharist by Transubstantiation IESVIT §. 1. That the Reall presence of the whole Bodie of Christ vnder the formes of Bread belongs to the substance of the Mysterie TO prooue this I suppose as certaine that the Bodie of Christ is truely and really in the Sacrament of his Supper This I may iustly suppose seeing your Maiestie doth professe to hold a presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament no lesse true than we hold and consequently you will not vnderstand the words of Christ figuratiuely as Sacramentaries doe for they make the Body of Christ present in the Eucharisticall Bread but as in a figure holding not a true nor a reall presence but onely a presence by imagination and conceit as is euident ANSVVER Reall presence is taken two wayes First for a true and effectuall presence of the body and blood of Christ so as man receiuing the externall signes by his naturall parts receiueth also the thing signified and presented by the action of his spirituall facultie to wit by an operatiue faith Ioh. 6.51.53 54 55 56 57. Secondly for a corporall presence when the thing signified and presented is according to the naturall substance thereof contayned vnder the shapes of the outward signes and together with them conueyed into the mouth stomacke and bodily parts His most excellent Maiestie and all his Orthodoxall people beleeue reall presence according to the first acceptation but the fame is denyed according to the latter acceptation The Iesuit being ignorant of this distinction or else dissembling the same disputeth as followeth They which hold a reall presence of Christs body no lesse true than Papists themselues hold cannot vnderstand the words of Christ This is my body c. figuratiuely But his Maiestie holdeth a reall presence of Christs body no lesse true than Papists themselues hold Ergo His Maiestie cannot vnderstand the words of Christ This is my body figuratiuely I answer The Maior of the former argument is denyed for a true reall and effectuall presence of Christs body and blood may bee taught and deliuered by a figuratiue speech for First the mysticall head is really truely and effectually present to the mysticall body and yet notwithstanding this presence is taught in holy Scripture by figuratiue words Read Psal. 45. Salomons song Eph. 5. Ioh. 15. Secondly one part of our Sauiours words about the Sacrament to wit This cup is the new Testament in my blood Luc. 22.20 is figuratiue by confession of Romists themselues and yet they hold the thing expressed and meant by those words to be really giuen It is false therefore which the Iesuit and his consorts affirme That Protestants expounding the words of Christ This is my body figuratiuely doe by this sence ouerthrow the true presence of Christs body and bloud in the holy Eucharist and bring in onely a fantasticall and imaginarie presence for a mysticall Presence wrought by the power of the holy Ghost is as reall and true a presence in one kind as a corporall and carnall presence is in another kind But the Romists themselues are the men which contending for their carnall Presence giue vs a fantasticall body of Christ in stead of a true and naturall body and Phantasticall Elements to wit Accidents and emptie shadowes of Elements in stead of the substantiall creatures of Bread and Wine by this absurd doctrine vtterly subuerting the holy Sacrament IESVIT Wherein as your Maiestie knowes they contradict the antient Church which teacheth expresly That Christ did not say this is a figure of my body but this is my body and exhorts vs to beleeue Christ on his word he said This is my body I pray you let vs beleeue him whom we haue beleeued veritie cannot vtter vntruth and herein acknowledge with your Maiestie a most high and incomprehensible Mysterie which were no Mysterie at all the words being vnderstood in a meere figuratiue sence ANSWER The question is not Whether Christ vttered these words or not This is my body This cup is the new Testament in my bloud Neither is there any doubt of the veritie of our Sauiours speech or whether we must beleeue his word or not to which purpose Gaudentius speaketh but the question is concerning the sence of the words to wit whether This is my body This cup is the new Testament in my blood are to be expounded literally Arguments for the negatiue part are these which follow First if the substance of Bread and Wine be deliuered in the Eucharist our Aduersarie will grant that the words are figuratiue because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly But it shall be prooued in the sections following both out of Scripture and Fathers that the substance of Bread and Wine are deliuered in the holy Eucharist Secondly the words whereby the wine is consecrated Luc. 22.20 are tropicall by the confession of our Aduersaries Thirdly if the words be taken properly then the body of Christ and the bloud of Christ are deliuered and receiued without the soule and deitie of Christ for in proprietie of speech the body is a distinct and diuers thing from the soule and likewise the blood Fourthly that which Christ deliuered to bee eaten and drunke by his Disciples he did sacramentally eate and drinke himselfe Luc. 22.15 as S. Hierome S. Chrysostome Euthymius with many Schoole-men affirme But if the words be litterally vnderstood then he did eat his owne body and drinke his owne blood Fiftly if the words be vnderstood literally then Christ gaue his passible and mortall body to the Disciples but I trow no Iesuit will maintaine that a body mortall and passible can be in many Hosts or mouths at once neither can the same be corporally eaten without sensible touching and feeling thereof or diuiding one part thereof from another Sixtly if our Sauiours words be literally expounded then Infidells dogges and swine may eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man but all that eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man haue
in the bodies of St. Peter and the three yong men St. Luke c. 4.30 affirmeth not that our Sauiours bodie was inuisible but that he passed thorow the midst of the people and yet admitting that he was then inuisible the cause might be in the peoples eyes Luke 24. 16. or in the Aire and not in his bodie Genes 19. 11. Neither is actuall grauitie or actuall combustibilitie or visibilitie so inseparable from a bodie as circumscription and distinction of parts Lastly For a bodie to bee resplendent and to shine as the Sunne in glorie is not repugnant to the nature of the bodie but is of the perfection and happinesse thereof Matth. 13. 43. But that an indiuiduall bodie may bee in many places at once and in diuers formes and according to diuers actions and haue no reference to place nor any properties inward or outward of a true bodie is not Diuine veritie but an audacious fiction or rather an incongruous dreame and contradictorie Chymera But that is verified in this Question of the Romists which Ireneus saith Multa male oportet interpretari eos qui vnum non volunt rectè intelligere They are compelled to expound many things amisse which will not vnderstand one thing aright IESVIT § 2. Transubstantiation belongs to the substance of the Reall Presence THis J prooue That belongs to the substance of this Mysterie of the reall Presence which being denied and taken away the words of Christ This is my Bodie cannot be true taken in the literall sence in which sence they are to be taken as hath beene shewed But without granting Transubstantiation the words of Christ cannot be true taken in the literall sence Ergo Transubstantiation belongs to the substance of this Mysterie of the reall Presence The Minor is prooued Because these words This is my Bodie signifie that the thing the Priest holds in his hand is truely really and substantially the bodie of Christ for in this Proposition This is my Bodie the Verb est signifies a coniunction betweene this in the Priests hand and the bodie of Christ and being a Verb substantiue taken in his proper signification it signifies a substantiall Identitie betweene this in the Priests hands and the bodie of Christ. But this in the Priests hands being before Consecration bread a thing substantially distinct from the bodie of Christ cannot by consecration bee made substantially the bodie of Christ as the Fathers teach it is without some substantiall alteration or change and what other substantiall change can make bread to become truely the bodie of Christ beside substantiall conuersion of the same into his Bodie ANSVVER You cannot demonstrate that our Sauiours words must be expounded literally for the Instance of the cup Luke 22.20 besides other Arguments choakes you and therefore the mayne ground of your Doctrine being sandie the Arguments inferred vpon the same are infirme The waight of the first Argument lyeth in this Proposition Our Sauiours words cannot bee expounded literally vnlesse the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation bee granted I answere First if Transubstantiation were admitted the words of Christ This is my bodie This Cup is the New Testament in my blood cannot bee litterall for where there is any figure or trope the speech is not literall but in the Sacramentall words there is some figure or trope by our Aduersaries confession Secondly If the said words be vnderstood litterally then the bodie of Christ is properly broken and his blood properly shed in the Eucharist for Saint Paul saith This is my bodie which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Saint Luke This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you But the bodie of Christ is not properly broken nor his blood properly shed in the holy Eucharist Thirdly It is an improper speech to say This is my bodie that is the thing contained vnder these formes is by conuersion and substantiall Transmutation my bodie but Papists maintaining Transubstantiation expound Christs words in this or in some other manner whereby they depart from the proprietie of the letter therefore in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation they depart from the letter of the words and consequently they make the same figuratiue IESVIT But some may obiect That as a man shewing a leather purse full of gold may truely say this is gold or a paper wrapt vp full of siluer may say this is siluer so the bodie of Christ being vnder consecrated bread wee may truely say This is the bodie of Christ though the substance of bread remaine ANSWER Many famous scholemen teach that the doctrine of Consubstantiation to wit such a presence as maintaineth the substance of Bread and Wine to remaine together with the Bodie and Bloud of Christ is in it selfe more probable and were rather to be followed than the doctrine of Transubstantiation but onely because of the contrarie definition of the Romane Church and some of these Doctors hold that the opinion of Transubstantiation is not verie antient And Card. Caietan affirmeth that secluding the authoritie of the Roman Church there is nothing in the Scripture which may compell one to vnderstand the words properly IESVIT I answer that when substances are apt of their nature and ordained by vse to containe other substances then shewing the substance that containes we may signifie the substance contained as in the former examples The reason is because their naturall aptitude to containe other things being vulgarly knowne mans vnderstanding straight passes from the consideration of the substances containing to thinke of the thing contained therein But when substances are not by nature and custome ordained to containe others we cannot by shewing them demonstrate another because their outward forme signifies immediately the substance contained in them For example one puts a peece of gold in an apple and shewing it cries this is gold in rigor of speech he sayes not true because the sence of his word is that the thing demonstrated immediately by the formes and accidents of that apple is gold Yea put the case that one should say this is gold shewing a peece of paper vnfolded in a manner not apt to containe any thing in it he should not say true though by some deuise hee had put secretly into it a peece of gold because when the paper is shewed displaied and not as containing something in it and yet is tearmed gold the proper sence of that speech is that the substance immediatly contained vnder the accidents of paper is gold although it be couered with other accidents than those that vsually accompanie the nature of gold Wherefore the proposition of Christ This is my Bodie being spoken of a thing that naturally is not apt nor by custome ordained to containe an humane bodie it cannot be vnderstood litterally but of the subiect immediately contained vnder and demonstrated by the accidents and outward semblance of Bread Now the thing that lyes hidden immediately vnder the accidents
of Bread which was once substantially Bread cannot become substantially the bodie of Christ except it bee substantially conuerted into his bodie or personally assumed by the same bodie And seeing this second manner of vnion betweene Bread and Christs Bodie is impossible and reiected by Protestants as well as by Catholickes Wee may conclude that the mysterie of Christs reall presence cannot be beleeued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation specially seeing our Sauiour did not say here is my Bodie which speech may be verefyed by the presence of his Bodie locally within the Bread but This is my Bodie which imports that not onely his Bodie is truely and substantially present but also that it is the substance contained immediately vnder the accidents of Bread ANSWER First if a substance be either by nature humane Custome or diuine Ordination appointed to containe another substance then demonstrating the externall substance which containes we may signifie the hidden substance contained But according to that Tenet which maintaineth Consubstantiation the substance of bread is by diuine Ordination appointed to containe the substance of Christs bodie therefore demonstrating by words the substance of bread one may signifie the hidden substance which is Christs bodie Secondly Scotus Durand and Paludanus affirme that although the substance of Bread remaine yet because the substance of Christs bodie is also present it might truely and properly be said by our Sauiour This is my Bodie Now if such profound Scholemen haue weighed the Iesuits obiection do find the same light the propugnors of Consubstantiation haue smal reason to regard it Thirdly the former obiection is nothing to vs which maintaine a true mysticall presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist and refuse both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation for we beleeue and are able to demonstrate that our Sauiours words are figuratiue in part and yet the true Bodie and Bloud of Christ are really and verely communicated according to the manner formerly declared pag. 405. IESVIT Jf any man say that by this Argument it appeares that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture but from the words of the Jnstitution subtilly deduced and so may perchance bee numbred inter scita Scholae not inter dogmata Fidei I answer That the consequence of this Argument is not good as is euident in the example of the Incarnation The Doctrine that the vnion of natures in Christ is proper not Metaphoricall substantiall not accidentall personall not essentiall is no where expressely set downe by Scripture but by subtile deduction inferred from the mysterie which Scripture and Tradition deliuers Notwithstanding because these subtile deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the foresaid mysterie they cannot be denied without preiudice of Faith In this sort the Doctrine of Transubstantiation though not in tearmes deliuered by the Scripture but deduced by subtile and speculatiue inference may not be denied by them that will be perfect beleeuers because the Church hath declared the same to pertaine to the proper sence of Christ his words and substance of the mysterie ANSVVER I know at whom you glance when you say inter scita Scholae but your solution from the Doctrine of Incarnation is not leuell to the scope for illations are of two sorts some are immediate formall necessarie euident and illustrious to wit Christ Iesus is a true and perfect man therefore he hath an humane will some are obscure contingent remote and sophisticall to wit Christ said This is my bodie Ergo the consecrate host is Christs substantiall bodie by Transubstantiation Christ said Do this in remembrance of me Ergo he made his Disciples sacrificing Priests That which is deriued from Scripture the first way is Doctrine of Faith that which is inferred the other way may be loose vncertaine infirme and many times ridiculous and apparantly false Now let me intreate you vntill you prooue your deduction necessarie to ranke your Popish Masse and Transubstantiation among this latter kind of deriuatiue Articles Neither can the swelling vsurpation of Romish Prelates which you stile the Church make euery subtile speculation of Schoolemen and nice figment of humane wisedome an Article of Christian Faith any more than a bragging 〈◊〉 can by outfacing conuert copper into gold for Articles of Faith come downe from heauen by the holy Ghost and are such onely from their forme and originall causes As for your Romane Synode of Pope Nicholas and your Laterane vnder Innocent the third These were your owne Idols the definitions that passed in them were the breath of the Popes nostrils and therefore why are you so fantasticall as to enammell them with the title and authoritie of the Catholicke Church And in one of these conuenticles your Pope hath so rudely and grossely determined the Question of Reall presence that Romists themselues are now ashamed and forced to Glosses and strained Expositions to metamorphise and new mould those vndigested crudities IESVIT §. 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers IT is certaine the Fathers acknowledge a Transmutation of bread into the Bodie of Christ and that they meant Transubstantiation that is not onely a mysticall and significatiue but also a reall and substantiall change appeares by these fiue Circumstances of their Doctrine in this point ANSWER THat we may rightly vnderstand the testimonies of Fathers alleadged in this question wee are in the first place to examine what transubstantiation is according to Papalls The Trident Councell saith It is a conuersion of the whole substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of Christs body and bloud wrought by the words of consecration First by the whole substance they vnderstand the whole substantiall matter and forme Secondly they affirme that the whole substance of Bread and Wine is destroyed or ceaseth to be Thirdly the substance of Christs body and bloud are placed vnder the accidentall shapes of Bread and Wine Fourthly by the force of the words of consecration the substance of Bread and Wine ceasing the body and blood of Christ acquire a new manner of being vnder the externall formes differing from his being in heauen Fiftly the shapes and accidents of Bread and Wine subsist without any materiall subiect of inherencie and affect the senses and nourish in like manner as formerly they did This doctrine of Popish Transubstantiation is new according to the iudgement of many learned Schoolemen and the Primitiue Fathers neuer taught the same for many of them maintaine expresly That the substance of Bread and Wine remaine and none of them affirme either that the substance of Christs body and bloud are placed vnder the naked formes and shapes of Bread and Wine or that the Accidents haue no materiall subiect of inherencie or that the body and bloud of Christ acquire a new being in the Sacrament differing from that which they had
formerly vpon the crosse or which they haue not at this present in heauen And transmutation and transubstantiation are different conuersions as appeareth by the examples of Lots wife changed into a pillar of salt Gen. 19. 26. and water changed into wine Ioh. 2.9 for in these transmutations the common materiall substance remaining the formes and accidents were onely changed IESVIT First by the expressenesse of their words for there can be no words more significant and expressiue of a substantiall change betweene Bread and our Sauiours bodie than those the Fathers vse ANSWER Expresse words if they be figuratiue prooue not a substantiall change for the Fathers vse words which according to the letter import a substantiall change when they treat of regeneration and the Sacrament of Baptisme Also treating of the holy Eucharist they affirme that faithfull Communicants are changed into the body and flesh of Christ which our Aduersaries themselues vnderstand not of a substantiall change IESVIT S. Nyssen That the word made flesh is inserted within euery faithfull man by his flesh taking his consistence of Bread and Wine Consecration transelementing the nature of things appearing into the same flesh ANSVVER If the words of this Father be vnderstood of Transubstantiation then the bodies of faithfull receiuers are conuerted into the substance of Christs flesh for he saith Whē the immortal body of Christ is within him which hath receiued it it transmuteth him wholy into his owne nature Also the humane nature of Christ should be conuerted into the diuine nature and Christ should be commixed and contempered with the bodies of beleeuers and bread should be changed into Christs bodie as meat is into mans bodie Also Gregorie Nyssen saith That Christs body is inserted into beleeuers onely Lastly the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transelementation prooueth not Transubstantiation for in Transubstantiation the matter is destroyed and the quantitie and accidents remaine and in Transelementation the matter remaineth and the essentiall and accidentall formes are altered IESVIT S. Cyril saith That we might not feele horror seeing flesh and blood on the sacred Altars the Sonne of God condescending to our infirmities doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered to wit Bread and Wine conuerting them into the veritie of his owne flesh that the body of life as it were a certaine seed of viuification might be found in vs. ANSVVER This Tract of S. Cyril according to Vasques the Iesuit is not found among his antient workes but cyted out of him by Thomas Aquinas and therefore the authoritie thereof may bee suspected notwithstanding I answer as followeth First S. Cyrill by the words Conuerting them into the veritie of his flesh vnderstandeth not Popish Transubst but mysticall and Sacramentall Conuersion to wit conuersion of signification vse and operation for he speaketh of Bread and Wine not according to a part of their nature to witte their matter and substance but according to their whole nature containing substance accidents and quantitie now if the things offered to God in the holy Eucharist are the whole creatures of Bread and Wine and the same are conuerted into Christs flesh then the accidents and quantitie are conuerted into Christs body as well as the matter and forme which Romists deny Secondly from the word Conuersion Romists cannot prooue Transubstantiation for if the conuersion be onely of vse relation and operation as in the water of Baptisme then it followeth not That because S. Cyrill taught conuersion Ergo hee taught Transubstantiation And if it be a substantiall conuersion then also there cannot be Popish Transubstantiation for in this forme and substance perish and the accidents remaine in the other the common matter remaineth and the forme and accidents perish In all substantiall conuersions naturall or miraculous there is a new thing produced out of that which is conuerted as appeareth in the conuersion of Water into Wine and Lots wife into a Pillar of salt c. But in Popish Transubstantiation the body of Christ is not produced anew for it is praeexistent and receiueth no substantiall change by the confession of 〈◊〉 themselues neither is it substantially vnited vnto the accidents of Bread and Wine for it giueth no subsistance to them and it sustaineth them not but it is vnited accidentally onely by being made present where the substance of the Elements formerly were Now if water should be poured vpon the ground or otherwise consumed and wine be brought from 〈◊〉 as haile and snow are and be placed where water formerly was here is no substantiall conuersion so likewise when the substance of Bread and Wine cease and Christs body and bloud are brought 〈◊〉 the place where these were no substantiall thing is produced but one substance succeedeth in the roome of another by that which they stile vbiation It is in vaine therefore for Romists to obiect the Fathers words speaking of conuersion of bread and wine into Christs bodie and blood because in Popish Transubstantiation there is not conuersion of bread into Christs bodie but onely a locall succession of Christs bodie into the same vbitie where the substance of bread formerly was Thirdly In all substantiall conuersions either a new thing is produced or the old preserued In Transubstantiation no new thing is produced nor any old preserued Ergo Transubstantiation is no conuersion If they answere That some new thing is produced to wit an vnion of Christs bodie with the Sacramentall signes I answere That when a garment and a bodie are vnited here is no substantiall conuersion or when a Diamond and gold Ring are vnited or when the humanitie or Deitie are vnited in the person of Christ. If they say That the bodie of Christ 〈◊〉 is preserued as when nourishment is receiued into the bodie it preserueth the same then I demand Whether Christs bodie is preserued in regard of the being and if they affirme then it is also produced according to the being because the same thing which produced the bodie of Christ doth at this present onely preserue it and no new thing super-added but it is not produced anew Ergo It is not preserued or continued in the being which it formerly had by any new Action If they answere It is preserued according to the Sacramentall being I reply That this Sacramentall being must be either the being of Christs bodie according to matter and forme but then Christs bodie receiueth no such being for it was preexistent Or else it is the vnion and application of Christs bodie to the Sacramentall signes and then I reply That this vnion is onely accidentall and in regard of presentialitie and vbitie and consequently it is no conuersion of bread into Christs bodie but a translation and adduction of Christs bodie from heauen vnto the place of the substance of bread but translation and adduction of one substance into
the roome or seate of another is not substantiall conuersion but alteration of place IESVIT Saint Chrysostome When waxe is put into fire nothing of the substance thereof is left nothing remaines vnconsumed so likewise doe thou thinke that the Mysteries are consumed by the substance of the bodie of Christ. ANSWER This Father saith not That nothing of the substance of bread and wine is left but cleane contrarie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing of the substance goeth away And the words which follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are falsly translated for they are not Is consumed by the substance but Is coabsumed with the substance Also the substance of bread is not consumed by the bodie of Christ according to the Tenet of many Schoolemen The substance of the externall elements passeth into the bodie of the Receiuer and is consumed or vnited to the flesh of the Receiuer The bodie and blood of Christ represented by the same and receiued by Faith nourish the soule to life eternall Iohn 6. 54. And if our Aduersaries following their owne translation will expound Saint Chrysostome literally then Communicants receiue Christs bodie by the hands of the Seraphim and not by the Priests hands IESVIT S. Ambrose What arguments shall we bring to prooue That in the Sacrament is not the thing which nature hath framed but that thing which benediction hath consecrated and that greater is the force of benediction than of nature seeing by the benediction euen nature is changed ANSVVER The quantitie and accidents of the outward signes are framed by nature as well as the substance and the force of consecration and benediction passeth vpon the one as well as vpon the other and therefore the change of nature which Saint Ambrose intendeth is not the destruction of the elements and the conuersion thereof into another substance but the eleuating of these earthly creatures to be mysteries of grace and holy instruments to apply and communicate that which is represented by them It is inconsequent to argue They are changed in their nature Ergo Their naturall substance is destroyed for nature implieth qualities and properties as well as substance and it is taken Theologicè as well as Physicè for S. Peter speaking of regenerate persons 2. Pet. 1. v. 4. saith They are made partakers of the Diuine nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet his meaning is not that their former substance is abolished The nature of glorified bodies is changed and they are made spirituall 1. Cor. 15. 44. and yet they retaine the same substance Mans nature was changed after his fall Ephes. 2. 3. yet the substance of his nature remained Saint Ambrose himselfe saith That in Baptisme man is changed and made a new creature and treating farther of the Sacrament of Baptisme he saith Learne how the word of Christ is accustomed to change euery creature and when he will he altereth the course of nature IESVIT Secondly They require that the Authour that changeth bread into Christ his Bodie be omnipotent and consequently the change not meerely significatiue but substantiall S. Cyprian This Bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the word is made flesh S. Cyrill Hee that in the marriage of Cana changed Water into Wine by his onely will is not hee worthie that we beleeue him that he hath changed Wine into his Bloud S. Gaudentius The Lord and Creator of Natures that of Earth made Bread againe because he can doe it and hath promised to doe it makes of Bread his owne Bodie and he that of Water made Wine now of Wine hath made his Bloud ANSWER S. Cyprian was not the author of the Booke de Coena Domini so Bellarmine confesseth and before him Iohannes Hessels but in some copies it passeth vnder the name of Arnoldus who liued manie ages after Cyprian And yet in one part of that worke d. vnctione Chrysmatis there is a manifest place against Transubstantiation Our Lord saith he in the table wherein he banqueted with his Disciples with his owne hands deliuered Bread and Wine c. declaring also how the thing signifying and the thing signified are called by the same name Secondly to a mysticall change the omnipotent power of God is necessarie as appeareth in the water of Baptisme and earthly creatures cannot be instruments of grace or meanes to communicate spirituall or miraculous benefits without the same as appeareth in the waters of Iordan 2. Reg. 5. and in the poole of Bethesda Ioh. 5. Therefore although some do require an omnipotent power to eleuate and change the creatures of Bread and Wine yet it followeth not that they maintained Transubstantiation Thirdly the author by the words Natura mutatus changed in nature vnderstood not a corporall change for in the same sentence he declareth himselfe by the example of Christs humanitie which being personally vnited to the deitie is changed but not so as that it looseth his naturall forme and substance And in the same Booke this Father faith That although the immortall food deliuered in the Eucharist differ from common meat yet it retaineth in the kind of corporal substance He saith not Species in the plurall number meaning according to the new Popish sence the externall shapes and accidents for let the Aduersarie prooue out of antiquitie that S. Cyprian or the Primatiue Church maintained the late Romish Doctrine concerning shapes of Bread and Wine without the materiall substance and we will freely grant that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is antient but he saith Speciem the kind in the singular number that is the corporall substance and forme in the same sence in which S. Ambrose vseth the word saying Ante benedictionem verborum Coelestium alia species nominatur Before the benediction of wordes applied it is called another kind of thing S. Cyrills place maintaineth not Popish Transubstantiation for in this the shapes and accidents remaine and the materiall substance is corrupted but in our Sauiours miracle Ioh. 2. the shapes accidents and forme were changed and the materiall substance remained Gaudentius saith Satis declarat Sanguinem suum esse omne Vinum quod in figura passionis sua offertur Bonauent d. 11. q. 6. in 4. sent Omnia verba significantia innouationē circà corp ' Christi sunt falsè dicta Haec est simplicitèr impropria Corpus Christi fit Ne 〈◊〉 putes quod Coeleste effectum est per eū qui transit in 〈◊〉 Nam cum panem consecratum vinum Discipulis suis porrigerat c. The Lord makes Bread of his owne Bodie and he makes Wine of his Bloud and then he saith further of Bread he makes his owne Bodie and of Wine his owne Bloud but he saith not that this is done by Transubstantiation for Christs Bodie and Bloud are not transubstantiate but calling the same coelestiall food he declareth his meaning
to be that the change is spirituall and mysticall And speaking of the elements of Bread and Wine he affirmeth expresly that our Sauiour deliuered consecrated Bread and Wine to his Disciples If then according to Gaudentius the consecrated signes which Christ deliuered his Disciples were Bread and Wine they were not abstracted shapes and figures of Bread and Wine for where the matter and essence is abolished and the accidents onely remaine there is not the verie thing but a shadow and image thereof onely IESVIT Thirdly the Instrument by which God workes this Transubstantiation is by them acknowledged the most efficacious that may be to wit the word not of man but of God S. Ambrose Moses his word changed the water of Egypt into blood and againe turned them from bloud into water If so great was the benediction of man what may we thinke of diuine Consecration where the verie words of our Sauiour worke The words of Elias had power to bring downe fire from Heauen and shall not the words of Christ haue force to change the kinds of the Elements Againe thou seest how working and efficatious is the word of Christ. If therefore such vertue is in his Word that thereby things that are not receiue being how much more hath it power that the things that are still remaine in the geneall latitude of being and according to the sensible accidents and be conuerted into another substance ANSWER Among the six or seuen examples brought by S. Ambrose of changes only two are substantiall and the rest accidentall and the elements are changed when of common and naturall creatures they are made sacred and become chanels and instruments of sauing grace So the Fathers affirme That the word of Christ in Baptisme is most efficacious to alter the property of naturall water and to giue regeneratiue force and vertue to it Also the holie Scripture affirmeth concerning Euangelicall Doctrine That it is the immortall Seed of God the Word of eternall life the Power of God to saluation c. 1. Pet. 1.29 Act. 5.20 14.3 Rom. 1.16 the same conuerteth people to God Act 2.37 and maketh them new creatures 2. Cor. 5.17 1. Cor. 4.15 But yet from hence we cannot inferre that either the water of Baptisme or regenerate persons are changed by Transubstantiation IESVIT Fourthly The effect of this Transmutation taught by the Fathers is the presence of the substance of Christs bodie and the absence of the substance of Bread binding vs to abnegate our senses and not to beleeue what we seeme to see with our eyes Theophylact Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable creation although to vs it seeme Bread because we are weake and haue horror to eate raw flesh specially the flesh of man for this reason Bread appeareth but in essence and substance it is not Bread S. Cyril Come not therefore as vnto simple Bread and Wine for it is the Bodie and Bloud of Christ according to the affirmation of our Lord for although sense suggest the contrarie yet let Faith confirme thee iudging not of the thing by tast but indubitably and with full Faith beleeue that thou art made partaker of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ. And againe know this and with full certitude beleeue That the Bread seene is not Bread though it so seeme to the tast but the Bodie of Christ and that Wine seene is not Wine though tast iudge it to be so but the Bloud of Christ. ANSWER First the Fathers teach and we with them acknowledge that Christs bodie is mystically present to faithfull communicants 1. Cor. 10.16 But corporall presence by indistance of place and absence of the materiall substance of the elements was not taught by the antiēt Church for they teach That the creatures of Bread and Wine are present in the Eucharist and that after they be changed they nourish the bodie but the abstracted shapes of Bread and Wine are not Gods creatures but Popish fancies Againe they teach that such signes and elements are present as haue power to feed and nourish the bodie and to resemble the mysticall vnion betweene Christ and Christian people to wit Bread confected of many cornes of graine Wine of many grapes but mathematicall Bread and wine haue neither power to nourish neither doe they resemble the mysticall Vnion aforesaid for there is in them onely the shadow of graine and Grapes but no substance and Papists may as well say That painted bread and wine haue power of feeding and mysticall representation as these fictions and Mathematicall shadowes Secondly Cyrill sheweth in other passages of that worke what hee intendeth and meaneth namely That the consecrate bread is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common prophane and meere naturall bread which the sight and taste iudge so to be but sanctified eleuated and changed to supernaturall vse and operation Thirdly If Theophylact a late Writer and some one or two besides speake obscurely and improperly in this Argument what is this to the grounding and raysing of an Article of Faith or to the proouing a matter in question by a common and euident consent of Fathers Fourthly The Fathers exhort people to abnegate their sences in Baptisme wherein they maintaine no Transubstantiation and there is good reason why wee should doe this in the holy Eucharist because wee therein eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of man Credendo by beleeuing Iohn 6. 35. and not by sensible or corporall eating IESVIT Finally That the Fathers held Transubstantiation is prooued by the continuancie which they taught of Christs bodie in the Sacrament so long as the accidents of bread last as appeareth by their reseruing of the same For Reseruation to haue beene the custome of the Primatiue Church Protestants grant That the Sacrament was of some reserued in the elder dayes of the Church is not saith Master Fulke so great a question as whether it ought to be reserued And Chemnicius granteth that in this point on our side stands 〈◊〉 consuetudinis late patentis diu propagatae And whereas 〈◊〉 addeth Haec tamen veritati praescribere non debet hee accuseth the Primitiue Church and opposeth no lesse against them than vs and I am sure your Maiestie knowes that the Primitiue Fathers did vse to send the Sacrament vnto them that were lawfully absent from Church as doth witnes S. Iustin and vnto the sicke as Dyonisius Alex. writes of Serapion That Christians carryed the same to their priuate houses to take in the morning before other meate as testifieth Tertullian That many times they did weare the same about them for protection as Satyrus brother to S. Ambr. going to sea carryed it in a stole by vertue whereof he was saued in shipwracke That Martyrs had the same frequently with them to receiue it for their Viaticum as Tharsilius a most glorious Martyr who being taken with the
none of the antient Fathers maintained Romish Transubstantiation and I haue not obserued one expresse Testimonie produced by Romists wherein the Primatiue Fathers nay where Damascene or Theophilact affirme That the whole materiall substance and forme essentiall of bread and wine being destroyed the bare accidents and quantitie of bread and wine remaine or that the abstracted figures and qualities of those creatures are receiued into the mouth and stomacke and are tasted felt and conferre nourishment without any earthly matter conioyned to them But on the contrarie many Fathers affirme That after consecration bread and wine remaine Theoderet saith That they lose not their proper nature but remaine after they are sanctified in their former essence figure and kinde Gelasius saith Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini The substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to bee Bertram saith Secundam creaturarum substantiam quod fuerunt ante consecrationem hoc postea consistunt According to the substance of creatures they persist the same before and after consecration Ireneus teacheth That bread which is from the earth receiuing diuine calling or sanctification is not common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two seuerall things or matters one earthly and the other coelestiall Saint Chrysostome Before Sanctification wee call it bread onely but when diuine Grace hath sanctified it it is deliuered from the name of bread and is counted worthie of the Appellation of the Lords bodie although the nature of bread remaine in it still Damascene saith As a fierie coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not onely bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but bread vnited to the Diuinitie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it is apparent that when fire is vnited to a coale that the materiall substance of wood remaineth at least in part The Aduersarie in answere to Theoderit and Gelasius pretendeth that these Fathers by the words Substance Nature and Kind vnderstand onely the naturall qualities and accidents which flow from the Nature and Essence of Bread and Wine and he yeeldeth a reason saying That in ordinarie speech the naturall properties and qualities of things are tearmed the nature of the thing c. But this Answere is insufficient because it might perhaps salue the Obiection grounded vpon the word Nature but the Fathers affirme also that the Sacramentall signes remaine in their essence substance and kinde and they adde farther that they may bee sensibly tasted and felt and haue force of nourishing the bodie and that they are compounded of many cornes and of many grapes which make one substantiall bodie of bread and wine Now these things cannot truely bee said of the naked shapes and accidents of bread and wine suspended and diuided from their materiall substance Besides the Fathers deliuer the foresaid Doctrine to prooue the veritie and distinction of the two substantiall natures in Christ by making a comparison betweene the holy Eucharist and the two natures in Christs Person but if the substance of bread and wine cease and are changed into the very bodie and blood of Christ then the former comparison would rather confirme the false beleefe of the Hereticke than maintaine the Orthodoxall Faith of Christs humanitie remaining euen after his Ascension for the Hereticke might inferre vpon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation two errours about the humane nature of Christ. First That as in the Eucharist there is onely the outward shape and forme of bread and not the reall substance euen so in Christ there was the shape and forme of flesh but not the verie nature Secondly Euen as in the Eucharist the essentiall forme and materiall substance of bread and wine are swallowed vp and conuerted into the bodie and blood of Christ so likewise after Christs Ascension the humane nature is absorpt and conuerted into the Deitie IESVIT § 4. The seeming repugnancies this Mysterie hath with sence should incline Christians the sooner to beleeue it THe former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfie were this Mysterie easie and not accompanied with many seeming absurdities and repugnances against sense 〈◊〉 these foure First That a bodie as big as our Sauiours remayning still truely corpulent in it selfe should be contained within the compasse of a round Hoast scarce an inch long and broad Secondly That a bodie so glorious should be combined vnto corruptible elements and so made subiect vnto the indignities and obscenities that may befall vnto them Thirdly That the same bodie may be in heauen and on earth in innumerable places at once Fourthly That the substance of bread being conuerted into Christs bodie the sole accidents remaine by themselues performing the whole office of substance no lesse than if it were present euen to the nutrition of mans bodie These difficulties so scandalize Protestants that some condemne Transubstantiation as impossible yea as absurd ridiculous barbarous others professe they cannot subdue their vnderstandings to beleeue it as a 〈◊〉 of Faith To giue full satisfaction in this point I set downe this Proposition That these seeming absurdities should not auert but rather incline a true Christian minde to beleeue this Mysterie In proofe whereof I present vnto your Maiestie these three Considerations ANSVVER WEe measure not supernaturall Doctrine by humane sence or reason neither can any seeming repugnances of reputed Philosophie to Diuine Reuelation hinder our Faith where the holy Ghost commaunds vs to beleeue as appeareth in the articles of the sacred Trinitie Incarnation Resurrection c. Est quidem de communibus sensibus sapere in Dei rebus sed in testimonium veri non in adiutorium falsi quod sit secundum diuinam non contrà diuinam dispositionem saith Tertullian We must haue vnderstanding in the things of God out of common sence but this must serue to testifie truth and not to patronise errour according to diuine disposition Reuelation not against it So farre as sence and reason are not repugnant to diuine veritie but subseruient we may giue credit to them and euerie good Christian saith S. Augustine Vbicunque inuenerit veritatem Domini sui intelligat esse Wheresoeuer he findeth veritie taught either by nature or grace must vnderstand that it is his masters The question betweene the Romists and vs is not Whether if Transubstantiatiō be reuealed by God we may notwithstanding therefore refuse to beleeue it because the matter is difficill to be conceiued or because it hath manie seeming repugnances to sence for if they be able to demonstrate the first we must renounce the latter But the question is Whether Transubstantiation hauing no certaine and manifest ground in diuine Reuelation and many repugnances to common sence and reason and besides being expressely repugnant to the letter of the Scripture we are to beleeue the same First the holy Scripture calleth consecrated Wine the fruit of the Vine and consecrated Bread by the name of verie Bread
Luc. 22.18.1 Cor. 10.16 11.26.27.28 Secondly the same affirmeth not that the substance of Bread and Wine is abolished Thirdly naturall reason sheweth that accidents must haue a subiect of inhaerencie and that bare formes and shadowes of things cannot nourish without corporall substance Fourthly the sences of Tast and Feeling discerne apparantly a corporietie in the elements receiued In this case there is no reason to imagine that our sences are deluded or that God almightie by miracle worketh in a contrarie manner to the course of nature and to that which he hath otherwise reuealed in his word It is not sufficient for Romists to affirme That God vseth a miraculous course in these things and to palliate absurdities repugnant to sence reason and scripture vnder pretext of Gods omnipotencie but they must prooue by diuine Reuelation that he will doe this for God effecteth not all things by his omnipotencie which men may imagine to be possible In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my Bodie This cuppe is the new Testament in my Bloud c. there is not a sillable concerning accidents without a subiect or concerning any miracle wrought in the Sacrament by omnipotencie neither is there any such doctrine elsewhere reuealed And if Christs words be expounded figuratiuely according to S. Augustine Tertullian Theoderit Origen Bertram c. they make nothing for corporall presence by indistance of place and if they be vnderstood literally they prooue not Transubstantiation for Bread may be called the bodie of Christ by an inusitate forme of speaking which according to the Tenet of some learned Diuines is no trope or figure And if neither of these expositions content our Aduersaries they might haue beleeued the words of the holy Text as they sound literally and a reall presence of Christs Bodie and Bloud wrought by the power of the holy Ghost without defining and determining the expresse manner how For if they beleeue that accidents subsist without a substance and nourish and are tasted and felt and passe into the stomach and yet are not able to expresse the distinct manner how and if they beleeue a substantiall presence of Christs indiuiduall humane bodie in many hosts and yet are vnable to declare the maner how Why might they not haue suspended other questions concerning the distinct manner of presence and maintained onely a true and mysticall presence the distinct manner whereof is incomprehensible in this life and not haue disturbed the peace of the Church by defining as an article of Faith such a doctrine as hath no foundation in diuine Reuelation to make it appeare certaine and infallible IESVITS 1. Consideration The first is grounded vpon the supposall of two things most certaine First that the Primitiue Church preaching vnto Pagans Iewes and other Infidels the rest of Christian mysteries as the Trinitie the Incarnation the Resurrection of the bodie did most carefully keepe as much as might be from their knowledge the mysteries of the Eucharist yea Catechumens and Nouices were not before Baptisme fully taught or instructed therein Secondly the reason moouing the Primitiue Church to be carefull in this point was least Catechumens and Infidels being fully acquainted with the whole mysterie the one should be scandalized and the other mocke thereat Hence it was accounted such a haynous offence that Christians should discouer this secret vnto Infidels or dispute about the difficulties thereof in their presence The Councell of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arians number this as one of the greatest They were not ashamed in publique and as it were vpon a scaffold to treat of the mysteries before Catechumens and which is worse before Pagans And a little after Jt is not lawfull to publish the Mysteries before them that are not initiated for feare least Pagans out of ignorance mocke and Catechumens entring into curiosities be scandalized And againe Before Catechumens and which is more before Iewes and Pagans blaspheming Christianitie they handled a question about the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour S. Ambrose saith To declare the mysteries vnto them that be Catechumens is not Tradition but Prodition seeing by such declarations danger is incurred least they be diuulged vnto Jnfidels that will scoffe at them This supposed I infer that the seeming absur dities of the Catholique reall presence should incourage a true Christian mind to beleeue it for a true Christian desires to beleeue and firmely cleaue vnto the reall presence that was beleeued by the Primitiue Church But this was a reall presence accompanied with many so seemingly grosse absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfie Infidels therein or to keepe them from blaspheming but by concealing the mysterie from them and consequently they held the Catholique not the Protestant Doctrine in this point The Protestant Doctrine that makes Christs bodie present spiritually by Faith vnto the deuout Receiuer that communicating thinks sweetly of Christs passion and death containes no mysterie to be concealed in respect of the seeming absurdities ANSWER In the daies of the Fathers Heathens Iewes and Heretickes might enter into the Church and heare the publicke Sermons and preaching as appeareth by the fourth councell of Carthage and Infidels might read the bookes and tractates of the Fathers But the Fathers in their sermons to the people and also in their written bookes deliuered the Doctrine of the holy mysteries as appeareth by Ireneus Iustin Martyr S. Cyprian Gregorie Nissen Cyrill of Hierusalem S. Chrysostome S. Augustine S. Ambrose c. Neither is it apparant that the said Fathers taught any other secret Doctrine touching the holy mysteries than such as they preached in their Homilies and penned in their Bookes and therefore these Homilies and Bookes being publique it appeareth not that the Primitiue Church was more carefull to conceale the Doctrine of the Eucharist than of Baptisme or of the Trinitie The Obiections out of Athanasius and S. Ambrose shew that it was held vnlawfull in those ages to treat or dispute of the holy Eucharist intempestiuè that is before Heathens which were not at all instructed in the first Principles of Religion or to treat of this Doctrine in prophane places or auditories But what is this to Transubstantiation For it was held vnlawfull in the Primitiue Church in maner aforesaid that is in an vndue time order place to treat or dispute of the mysteries of Baptisme or of other profound mysteries belonging to Christian faith Also if it were granted that some antient Fathers beleeuing a reall Presence did therefore conceale the doctrine of the holy Eucharist Ratione scandali because of offence of Infidels arising vpon many difficulties and seeming contradictions to sence and common reason it followeth not from hence that those Fathers beleeued Popish Transubstantiation for many difficulties and repugnances to sence and common reason are found in Consubstantiation as well as in Transubstantiation and sundrie places of the Fathers may with more
at the day of Judgement to iustifie our not beleeuing any part of Gods word by reason of the seeming absurditie thereof ANSWER You are not able to demonstrate that God will haue vs beleeue that the whole Organicall body of Christ hauing the stature quantitie and magnitude of a perfect mans body is contayned in the compasse of a small Hoast or in a crum of Bread for that Christ Iesus hath a true and perfect body differing in kind from a Spirit from an Angell and from an immateriall substance diuine reuelation teacheth but that the same indiuiduall and corporeall substance partaketh the spirituall manner of Angelicall existence and the diuine immensitie simplicitie and omnipresence as Bellarmine affirmeth is not reueiled vnto vs by the holy Ghost neither can the same be inferred ex Reuelatis from any plaine and euident truth which God hath reuealed Neither is it reuealed that the Abstracted formes and accidents of Bread and Wine subsist or are tasted and felt or nourish the body and are afterwards corrupted according to the manner of corporeall food hauing no substantiall or materiall nature in them Therefore this large tract wherein the Obiectour laboureth to prooue a possibilitie of the former by diuine miracle and omnipotencie is vnworthy our examination for we make no question of Gods omnipotent power in effecting whatsoeuer himselfe pleaseth as hath beene formerly answered Pag. 181. Yet the Fathers and Schoolemen very well teach vs That such things as implie a contradiction and falsitie are not the obiect of diuine power and they teach vs further that there is a twofold power in God Ordinata Absoluta one according to the order which himselfe hath fixed by his word and will the other according to the infinitenesse of his essence and which exceedeth his will Now according to the power of God measured and regulate by his word and will all things are impossible which God will not haue to be And thus we say that it is impossible that the whole body of Christ can be in one crumme of Bread or substantially present in many places at one instant and accidents cannot subsist or be tasted felt and nourish and be conuerted into the substance of mans body without a materiall subiect of inherencie to sustaine and giue force vnto them But on the contrarie we dispute not what God is able to effect by his absolute power neither is this question of any vse in the matter now in hand for the naturall kind of the things themselues created by God and the Doctrine of holy Scriprure teach vs what is the reuealed will of God but that hee changeth this Ordinance which himselfe hath fixed no Diuine Testimonie or Reuelation affirmeth or teacheth The sole pretext which Papals haue to palliate the absurdities pursuing Transubstantiation at the heeles are the words of Institution But there is nothing coactiue in the said words to prooue this Romish Article by the confession of the best learned Papists as I haue formerly prooued pag. 414. And besides many other Reasons This Argument out of our Sauiours words is most strong against Transubstantiation If nothing bee found in our Sauiours words This is my Bodie which prooueth the conuersion of the substance of bread into Christs bodie more than which is likewise found to change the quantitie and accidents then Popish Transubstantiation being onely a conuersion of substance and not of quantitie and accidents cannot be concluded out of our Sauiours words But nothing is found in our Sauiours words This is my Bodie c. proouing any more the conuersion of substance than of quantitie and accidents for our Sauiour tooke the whole bread both according to the substance and also according to the quantitie and accidents thereof into his hands and blessed and consecrated the same intirely with the like thankesgiuing and pronuntiation of words and performed all things to the one as well as to the other Therefore if our Sauiours words prooue Transubstantiation of the substance of Bread and Wine they must likewise prooue conuersion of the quantitie and accidents into Christs bodie and blood But by the confession of Papals they doe not the latter for the quantitie and accidents are not conuerted into Christs bodie and blood and consequently they doe not the former Now this being apparent the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation hath no foundation in our Sauiours words This is my bodie c. I supersede therefore to examine the Obiectors particular Arguments among which one is learnedly borrowed from the flies wing which according to Romish Phylosophie may be thinned extended and inlarged to make a case such perhaps as Base Viols haue to put the whole world into Euery punie in our Vniuersities can distinguish betweene Mathematicall or Potentiall diuision of a bodie and Physicall or Actuall Aristotle himselfe teaching vs that there is Minima caro though there be not Corpus minimum But this fictious Cosmotecture and case may well bee paraled to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and they are twinnes the one as credible and infallible in Theologie as the other in Philosophie But if our Aduersarie would be pleased to respite vs from beleeuing Transubstantiation as an Article of our Creed vntill his vast words cap-case made of a flies wing bee finished hee shall finde vs more flexible and prone to credite his Romish Doctrine in this and other Articles IESVIT Secondly Wee cannot imagine the bodie of Christ to bee really combined vnto the consecrated formes and not to bee polluted by such indignities as may happen vnto the formes yet wee haue seene or may see things able to make this not to seeme incredible for holy men often by Prayer so purifie their soules and by contemplation bring their spirits to such an independencie of their sences that neither bitter meates offend their tastes nor loathsome sents their smell nor shrill cries their hearing yea burnings and torturings are not perceiued their spirit being eloyned through Diuine vnpolluted affection from the contagion of the bodie vnto the substance whereof it still remaines most really vnited This being so cannot the glorious bodie of Christ graced with most Diuine Ornaments flowing from the excessiue blisse of the soule made spirituall impassible and insearchable bee really present vnto the formes of consecrated bread and yet free immune and wholly independent of any contagion or corruption that may happen to those formes especially the bodie of Christ not being so strictly and substantially tied vnto the formes as the spirit is to the bodie it informeth but is present vnto them as an Angell assistant is to the bodie wherein he worketh What dishonour can it bee to attribute to Christs most venerable bodie this spirituall manner of Angelicall presence yea rather a participation of the Diuine Immensitie for as God by his incomprehensible Immensitie exists euery where no lesse pure in the sincke than in the Sunne no lesse sweete in the dunghill than in a Garden of odoriferous
repugnant to Catholike faith and most conformeable to pietie To Elysius I adde Cassander a moderate and peaceable Romane in his Booke d. Baptismo Infantum which with many authorities and weightie Arguments defendeth the same doctrine concerning Infants against the common straine of rigorous Pontificians And thus againe our braine-sicke Aduersarie fighteth against pietie and humanitie obiecting that against Protestants as a fundamentall errour which moderate Romists themselues propugne as the more safe and tollerable Doctrine IESVIT SEauenthly Their errour against Reall Presence which they denie or else the mayne Article of the Creed That Christ is still in heauen at the right hand of his Father for they will not allow a bodie in two places at once ANSWER THe more learned Iesuites themselues acknowledge That Protestants beleeue the reall Presence of Christs Bodie and Blood in the holy Eucharist and our Diuines deliuer their Faith concerning the Sacrament in this manner God forbid wee should denie that the flesh and bloud of Christ are truly present and truly receiued of the faithfull at the Lords Table it is the Doctrine wee teach others and comfort our selues with The difference then betweene Papals and vs is not concerning the obiect or matter receiued in and by the Sacrament but touching the manner of Presence and the manner of Receiuing Caluin saith thus concerning the difference That the bodie and bloud of Christ are communicated to vs in the holy Eucharist none of vs denie the question is concerning the manner of this communication The sacred Scripture neither expressely nor yet by any formall consequence teacheth the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as some learned Papists themselues confesse neither is this Doctrine any part of the antient Catholique Faith as some other among them say The Fathers are against Transubstantiation The mysticall signes saith Theodoret doe not after sanctification depart from their owne nature but remaine in their former substance figure and forme The Sacraments which wee receiue of the bodie and bloud of Christ saith Pope Gelasius are a diuine thing and by them wee are made partakers of the Diuine Nature and yet for all that the nature of Bread and Wine ceaseth not to be After consecration saith S. Chrysostome it is deliuered from the name of Bread and reputed worthie to be called the Lords Bodie notwithstanding the nature of Bread still remaineth The signes as touching the substance of the creatures are the same after consecration which they were before saith Bertram To the other part of the Iesuits speech Or else the maine Article c. I answer first we cannot graunt That one indiuiduall Bodie may be in many distant places at one and the same instant vntill the Papals demonstrate the possibilitie hereof by testimonie of sacred Scripture or by the antient Tradition of the Primitiue Church or by apparent reason And if they shall except saying That they make not Christs bodie locally present in many places at once but substantially onely wee say with Augustine Spacia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt Take away their places from bodies and the bodies shall be no where and if they shall be no where they shall haue no being And in another place Corpora non possunt esse nisi in loco Bodies cannot be but in some place And againe Christus homo secundum corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco vnde venit non est The man Christ is in a place according to his Bodie and hee passeth from place to place and when hee commeth to another place hee is not in that place from whence hee came The Papals paralogize saying That because circumscription and localitie are not of the essence of the bodie therefore by the omnipotent power of God the bodie may be without them But if this illation be good then wee may likewise inferre That because to be created made or begotten is not of the definition of humane bodies therefore humane bodies by the omnipotencie of God may be increate and without beginning The learned Iulius Scaliger speaketh in this manner Tametsi quod non includitur in definitione abesse potest à definito in definitione non omne tamen abesse potest à re definita Propria enim quae vocantur in definitione non ponuntur à re tamen abesse nequeunt cuius propria sunt Etsi namque sunt natura suis subiectis posteriora non tamen re c. Qua necessitate coniunctum cum corpore locum arbitror Although that which is not included in the definition may be separated from the thing defined in the very definition yet it cannot be parted from the subiect or thing which is defined for the essentiall properties of things are not placed in the definition yet they cannot be diuided from the subiect whose properties they be And although by posterioritie of nature they follow the subiects yet indeed they are inseparable And thus place or circumscription is inseparably conioyned with a bodie Secondly The bodie of Christ in the Eucharist hath magnitude and quantitie as Aquinas and other Schoolemen commonly teach But things which haue magnitude and quantitie are diuisible and limitted and confined to a certaine space and measure equall to their bulke and materiall substance also they haue distance of parts and are extended at leastwise in order to themselues and bounded by their owne termination compasse or surface although nothing extrinsecall to them should containe them outwardly as is instanced in the highest Heauens When Sophisters say That Christs bodie hath quantitie and not the manner or nature of quantitie they deliuer plaine Chimaera's and Fictions For as a thing cannot be a substance and want the proper nature and manner of a substance so likewise a bodie cannot haue quantitie and want the proper manner and condition of quantitie And whereas to elude so manifest Veritie Papists flye to the Omnipotencie of God saying That although in nature it be impossible for one and the same bodie to be in many places at once yet because God is omnipotent hee is able to effect it Wee answer first it implyeth a contradiction That God should destroy the nature of a thing the nature of the same thing remaining safe Secondly wee say with Tertullian The power of God which we must stand of is his Will and that which he Will not he cannot And S. Augustine Christ is said to be omnipotent in doing what he Will. Nothing is impossible to God because it exceedeth his power saith S. Ambrose but some things are repugnant to his Will and some things to his veritie Tit. 1. 2. And the impossibilitie of these things proceedeth not of Infirmitie in God but of Might and Maiestie because his Truth admitteth
no Lye nor his Power any Inconstancie Because therefore Christ hath a true and perfect Bodie both in regard of substance and matter and also in respect of quantitie stature measure posture proportion c. and because euerie true humane bodie by the Ordinance of the Creator who hath formed and constituted the seuerall kinds and natures of things after a speciall manner is determined to one indiuiduall place at one instant and must also haue distinction and diuision of parts with a length latitude and thicknesse proportionall to the quantitie thereof Therefore except God himselfe had expressely reuealed and testified by his Word that the contrarie should be found in the humane bodie of Christ and that the same should haue one manner of corporall being in Heauen and another in the holy Eucharist at one and the same time a Christian cannot be compelled to beleeue this Doctrine as an Article of his Creed vpon the sole Voyce and Authoritie of the Laterane or Trident Councell Some learned Papists confesse ingeniously That secluding the Authoritie of the Church there is no written Word of God sufficient to enforce a Christian to receiue this Doctrine And moderne Pontificians are not able to confirme their present Tenet to wit That Christs humane bodie may be in many vbities or places at one time and that the whole bodie of Christ is circumscriptiuely in Heauen and according to the manner of a Spirit and of the Diuine nature it selfe without extension of parts in euerie crumme of the Sacramentall formes This Doctrine I say Papals are not able to confirme by the vnanimous Testimonie and Tradition of the antient Church Therefore because the same is grounded neither vpon Scripture nor Tradition they begge the question when they alleadge Gods omnipotent power for it must first of all and that vpon infallible Principles appeare That God will haue it thus before his omnipotencie be pleaded that he is able to make it thus But the Iesuites Sophisme whereby hee would intangle vs within the snares of fundamentall Errour when wee denie Christs bodily presence in many places at once proceedeth in this manner No bodie can be truely receiued in many places at once vnlesse the same be corporally present in many places at once The Bodie of Christ is truely receiued in many places at once to wit in euery place where the holy Eucharist is administred Ergo The Bodie of Christ is present in many places at once I answere The Maior Proposition is denyed for there is a twofold manner of true Presence and consequently of Receiuing one Naturall by the hand and mouth of the bodie Another Mysticall and Spirituall by the deliuerie of the holy Ghost and by the apprehension and action of the soule First The holy Ghost truely and verily reacheth and presenteth the Obiect which is Christs Bodie and Blood crucified and offered in Sacrifice for mans Redemption Secondly The reasonable soule being eleuated by a liuely and operatiue Faith apprehendeth and receiueth the former obiect as really verily and truely after a spirituall and supernaturall manner as the bodie receiueth any corporeall or sensible obiect after a naturall manner Iohn 1. 12. Ephes. 3. 17. Fulgentius saith Filium Dei vnicum per fidem recipiunt They receiue the onely Sonne of God by Faith Our Sauiour saith That holy Beleeuers receiue the Flesh and drinke the Blood of Christ Iohn 6. 50 53 54. Credendo by 〈◊〉 v. 35.47 Paschasius hath these words The flesh and blood of Christ c. are truely 〈◊〉 by Faith and vnderstanding It is not lawfull to eate Christ with teeth This Sacrament is truely his flesh and his blood which man eateth and drinketh spiritually 〈◊〉 saith Hold readie the mouth of thy Faith open the iawes of Hope stretchout the bowels of Loue and take the Bread of life which is the nourishment of the inward man Eusebius Emisenus When thou goest vp to the reuerend Altar to bee filled with spirituall meates by Faith behold honour and wonder at the sacred Bodie and Blood of thy God touch it with thy minde take it with the hand of thy heart and chiefly prouide that the inward man swallow the whole Saint Ambrose Comedat te cor meum panis Sancte panis viue panis munde veni in cor meum intra in animam meam Let mine heart eate thee oh holy Bread oh liuing Bread oh pure Bread come into my heart enter into my soule Saint Augustine There is another Bread which confirmeth the heart because it is the Bread of the heart And in another place Then is the Body and Blood of the Lord life to each man when that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament is in very truth spiritually eaten spiritually drunken Now from the former Testimonies it is manifest that the Bodie and Blood of Christ may truely and really bee eaten and receiued by operatiue Faith in the Sacrament And if it bee further obiected That spirituall eating and drinking of the Bodie and Blood of Christ may bee without the Sacrament I answere That the same is more effectually and perfectly accomplished in the Sacrament than out of the Sacrament because the holy Ghost directly and in speciall when the Sacrament is deliuered exhibiteth the Body and Blood of Christ as a pledge and testimonie of his particular loue towards euery worthie Receiuer and the liuely representation and commemoration of Christs death and Sacrifice by the mysticall signes and actions is an instrument of the Diuine Spirit to apply and communicate Christ crucified and to increase and confirme the Faith Charitie and pietie of Receiuers Lastly It is remarkeable that vntill the thousand yeeres and more after Christs Ascension Orthodoxall Christians beleeued that the Bodie and Blood of Christ were truely and really present and deliuered to worthie Receiuers in and by the holy Eucharist according to St. Pauls Doctrine 1. Cor. 10.16 And that the same must be spiritually receiued by Faith or else they profited nothing But the manner of Presence which some Modernes now obtrude by Consubstantiation or by Transubstantiation was not determined as an Article of Faith And to say nothing of Consubstantiation the defence whereof inuolueth them in many absurdities which vndertake for it it is apparant that Transubstantiation is a bastard plant and vpstart weed neuer planted by the heauenly Father but the same sprang vp in the declining state of the Church and it is perplexed and inuolued with so many absurdities and contradictions to Veritie formerly receiued that our Aduersarie was transported with partiall folly when he presumed to ranke the refusall of this new and prodigious Article among fundamentall Errours IESVIT EIghtly Their denying the Sacrament of Penance and Priestly Absolution the necessarie meanes for remission of finnes committed after Baptisme ANSVVER THe Obiector by Penance vnderstandeth not Repentance as it is a vertue for Protestants beleeue true
euerlasting life Ioh. 6.49.50 51.54.56 Seauenthly if our Sauiours words were literall regular and plaine as Papists pretend then they themselues could not bee distracted and diuided about the sence thereof But they are notoriously diuided First Some of them say that the Pronoune This signifieth nothing Others say it signifies the Bread Alex. Hales Hocest corpus meum sensus est signatum hoc signo quod est panis transubstantiandus in corpus meum est corpus meum that is The sence of these words This is my body is the Bread presently to bee transubstantiate into my body is my body Some say it signifieth the Accidents and formes of Bread others it signifieth the body of Christ. Some say it signifieth confusedly that which is contayned vnder the formes And euery of these opinions hath sundry crookes windings and limitations Secondly Touching the Verbe substantiue est is some expound it by continetur vnder these formes my bodie is contained Others expound it by Erit This shall be my bodie when the sentence is ended Some say it signifieth Transmutatur It is changed and conuerted Thirdly Touching the words Corpus meum my Bodie Some say it is Materia prima The first matter of Christs Bodie Others The materiate Bodie with the reasonable soule Others A Bodie organicall without reference to being a liuing Bodie or a dead Others A liuing Bodie Some say it is a Bodie without quantitie dimensions or parts Others A Bodie hauing quantitie without extension figure order of parts Others A bodie hauing quantitie without extrinsecall reference to place an immateriall Bodie like vnto Angels and Spirits and they resemble the same by the Image of mans face reflecting in a glasse A Bodie hauing the stature of a man and yet contained in euerie crumme of bread Thus whiles Romists denie that there is a figure in our Sauiours words they fall into innumerable absurdities in stead of the true and perfect bodie of Christ crucified for vs and communicated in the holy Eucharist they reach vs a fantasticall bodie and a very vaine shadow and Image of Christs reall bodie But the Aduersarie to make the contrarie Tenet appeare Catholicke affirmeth That the antient Church expresly denied our Sauiours words to be figuratiue and in his Margen he pointeth out certaine Authours Euthymius Theophilact Damascene c. I answere although these Authours being none of them antient but post nati affirme that Christ in the holy Eucharist deliuereth not onely a figure of his bodie but his true bodie which is also our Tenet yet they say not that there is no trope or figure in our Sauiours words Theophylacts words are Non tantum figura exemplar est corporis Christi c. It is not onely a figure or similitude of Christs bodie Euthymius Esaias beheld a fierie coale the coale was not simply or onely wood but fierie wood such is this fierie coale in this great Mysterie Secondly It is to be obserued that these Authours teaching that bread and wine are Sacramentally or mystically conuerted doe also maintaine that the said Elements remaine in their materiall substance and that Christs bodie and blood are receiued into the spirituall powers of the soule and they say farther That Christ changeth the worthie Receiuers into his Bodie IESVIT As for some places of Fathers brought to the contrarie how they are to be vnderstood your Maiestie is not ignorant Saint Augustine saying That Christ gaue to his Disciples a figure of his Bodie and Blood spoke not of a bare emptie figure but of the figure of a thing really present as likewise in another place when he saith Christ affirmed it was his Bodie when he gaue a signe of his Bodie though there he may seeme to speake in the opinion of the Manichees who held That Christ had not true flesh but a meere figure shape and shaddow of flesh against whom in that place he vndertakes to prooue That the figure of a thing may bee tearmed the thing it selfe Argumento ad hominem that Christ said This is my Bodie when hee gaue but a figure of his Bodie to wit as you thinke Tertullian hath this speech Christ taking bread into his hands and distributing it to his Disciples made the same his Body saying Hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis mei where figura corporis mei is referred not vnto corpus meum as an explication thereof but vnto hoc in this maner hoc id est figura corporis mei est corpus meum This to bee Tertullians meaning appeares by the drift of his discourse in that place for Tertullian is to shew that whereas in the Old Testament Bread was afigure of the Bodie of Christ as appeares by the words of the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius id est crucem in corpus eius Christ in the New Testament made this figure to be truely and really his Bodie taking Bread into his hands saying this that is This figure of my Bodie is my Bodie as if he said Bread which antiently was a figure of my Bodie I doe now make to be truely and really my Bodie and this is an vsuall phrase in Tertullian who not to interrupt the sentence of holy Scripture addeth his explication of the subiect not presently but after the Attribute as when he said Christus mortuus est id est vnctus the sence whereof is Christus id est vnctus mortuus est ANSWER Many of the Fathers treating of the Sacramentall signes call them Figures Representations Similitudes Memorials Antitipes c. of the Bodie and Blood of Christ. But that which is a figure similitude and representation of a thing is not properly the same Saint Augustine It is a figuratiue speech commanding vs to be partakers of the Lords Passion and sweetly and profitably to keepe in minde that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. The Lord did not sticke to say This is my bodie when hee gaue the signe of his bodie Origen This I speake of the typicall and figuratiue bodie Saint Ambrose Which is the figure of the bodie and blood of the Lord Iesus Saint Chrysostome In the sanctified vessell there is not the true bodie of Christ but a mysterie of his bodie is there contained Gratians Glosse The Diuine bread which representeth the flesh of Christ is called The bodie of Christ but improperly Beda Substituting his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine Druthmarus The blood of Christ is aptly figured thereby Bertram Bread and Wine is figuratiuely the Bodie and Blood of Christ. And Tertullian more antient than any of these saith That Bread representeth the Bodie of Christ And he saith in two places That it is a figure of Christs Bodie The Iesuit in his answer to these plaine testimonies taketh notice onely of S.
Augustine and Tertullian and concerning the first he saith that S. Augustine spake not of a bare and emptie figure but of the figure of a thing really present but this answere is deceitfull for the Sacramentall elements are a true and liuely figure and not a bare and emptie signe of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ. And although the Bodie and Bloud of Christ are not essentially contained and inclosed in the shapes or materiall substance of the elements yet they are really communicated by the holy Ghost at and by the faithfull and worthie receiuing of these diuine mysteries The second place of S. Augustine admitteth not the Iesuits solution for one difference betweene the Manichee and this Father was concerning Moses his words Deut. 12.23 Thou shalt not eat the Bloud for the Bloud is the Soule S. Augustine saith Possum interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum I may expound that commandement by saying it was set downe in a signe for Christ doubted not to affirme This is my bodie when he gaue a signe of his Bodie In these words S. Augustine teacheth that as the Bloud is called the Soule after the manner of a signe so likewise the Bread in the holy Eucharist is called the bodie of Christ because it is a signe of his bodie This similitude prooueth that S. Augustine held our Sauiours words This is my Bodie to be a siguratiue enunciation which is the thing affirmed by vs. Tertullian affirmeth expressely of Bread which he receiued into his hand and distributed to his disciples that it is a figure of Christs Bodie And the Aduersaries 〈◊〉 expounding his words in this manner The figure of my bodie is my bodie is voluntarie or rather sophisticall for the words immediately following are he called bread his Bodie and in other places he maketh bread the subiect of the proposition This is my Bodie But the accidents and shape of bread are not bread neither did our Sauiour when he said This is my Bodie demonstrate the forme only of Bread or command the formes only of Bread and Wine to be corporally receiued for he did demonstrate that which was sacramentally changed but the accidents of Bread and Wine are not changed into Christs Bodie and Bloud by the confession of Papists themselues IESVIT This supposed I inferre that the bodie of Christ is present in the mysticall Supper not onely to the faithfull that receiue the Sacrament nor onely to the place or Church where the holy Synaxis is celebrated but vnder the formes of Bread in the verie same place therewith This manner of presence is cleerely consequent vpon the precedent and that granted this cannot be denyed For the reason for which Christians hold the bodie of Christ to be really truly present in the Sacrament is because they cannot otherwise in proper and plaine sence verifie the word of Christ to say of Bread this is my bodie Wherefore we must either put no real presence at all or els put such a real presence as is able to verifie the foresaid speech in proper and rigorous sence But if the bodie of Christ be not in the same place with the consecrated Bread contained vnder the formes thereof it cannot be said to be verily and really the body of Christ. For though we should suppose the Body of Christ to leaue heauen and be substantially present in the Church where the Sacrament is giuen yet this supposed presence would no waies further the verifying of the words of Christ This is my Bodie except his bodie be vailed and couered with the sensible accidents of Bread so that it be demonstrated by them and pointing vnto them one may truely say This is the Body of Christ. For why should consecrated Bread be tearmed truely and substantially the Bodie of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with it Wherefore the Fathers affirme that Christ is so in this Sacrament as he is vailed with the semblances of Bread as S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in his Booke highly commended by Dr. Whitaker saith Let vs therefore with all certitude receiue the Bodie and Bloud of Christ For vnder the forme of Bread is giuen Thee his Bodie Yea Caluin saith In the supper Christ Jesus to wit his Bodie and Bloud is truely giuen vnder the signes of Bread and Wine ANSVVER Although the mysticall words be not vnderstood properly and rigorously yet we may truely and really though spiritually eat the Flesh and drinke the Bloud of the sonne of man by a liuing Faith Ioh. 6.54 1. Cor. 10.16 The food which entreth into the bodie must be locally present but this food entreth not into the bodie but it is the bread of life which nourisheth the substance of the soule saith S. Ambrose But the Obiector demandeth Why consecrated bread should be tearmed truely substantially the body of Christ if his bodie be not so much as in the same place with it Our answer is because of the Sacramentall vnion betweene the signes and the bodie of Christ represented and spiritually communicated to the worthie receiuor by that signe As a Kings crowne may be called a kingdome because it is a signe thereof and the placing thereof vpon the head may be a meanes of conferring a kingdome So likewise in Sacramentall speeches the outward signe is called by the name of the thing signified because it representeth it and is by diuine institution an effectual instrument to applie and communicate the same 1. Cor. 10.16 And by the same reason Christs Bodie may be said to be in the bread and his Bloud in the Cup not by locall presence or as wine is contained in a vessell which S. Cyrill affirmeth not but vertually and by relation and spirituall donation because when the Minister deliuereth the outward signe and the Communicant receiueth the same The holy Ghost deliuereth and communicates the thing signified to the beleeuing soule IESVIT Whence it is also consequent that the whole bodie of Christ is contained vnder a consecrated Host be the same neuer so little for by this mysterie the bodie of Christ is demonstrable by the sensible accidents so that consecrated bread may be termed truly really substantially the bodie of Christ not a parcell or part thereof only But were not the bodie of Christ wholly and entirely vnder the formes of bread consecrated bread could not truely and properly be tearmed the bodie of Christ but a sole part and 〈◊〉 thereof Againe we haue no reason to beleeue the bodie of Christ is truely and really present in the Sacrament but only to the end that it may in the Supper be truely and really eaten to nourish and feed mens soules And if he be eaten onely mentally by Faith we haue no ground to thinke that he is present more than mentally by Faith the presence of his bodie being ordained vnto the manducation thereof for else why did he institute this Sacrament
probabilitie be alleadged in fauour of reall Presence by Consubstantiation than for Transubstantiation Lastly The mysticall vnion betweene Christ and his members is ineffable and the manner incomprehensible and the Protestant Doctrine teaching a reall donation of the bodie and blood of Christ and a mysticall coniunction by the operation of the holy Ghost with the soules of faithfull Receiuers and that dead and corruptible creatures can be a meanes and instrument heereof is a great mysterie of godlinesse incredible to prophane persons and therefore the Primitiue Church which beleeued this Doctrine might iustly require that this Mysterie should not be manifested before Infidels and other infirme Christians vntill they were first instructed in the rudiments of Christianitie IESVIT Yea the Fathers did not feare to declare vnto Catechumens this Sacrament so farre as it was commemoratiue of Christ and his Passion as appeareth by the Treatises of Saint Augustine vpon Saint Iohn made before Catechumens out of which Treatises Protestants for their meere commemoratiue presence alleadge many Sentences to little purpose For he there explicates spirituall manducation by Faith and he excludes the grosse imagination of eating Christs bodie in his proper shape tearing it in pieces with the tooth but denies not yea rather insinuates another kind of spirituall manducation not onely by Faith but by reall sumption though to conceale the Mysterie from Catechumens he speakes not so clearely thereof Wherefore as the Palme tree the heauier the waight is that is laid vpon it the more it riseth vpwards as it were ioying in difficulties so a true Catholicke Christian feeling in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming absurdities that presse carnall imagination to the ground groweth thereby more strong to beleeue it imbracing these difficulties as manifest signes that this doctrine was beleeued by the Primitiue Apostolicall Church On the other side Protestants finding the Presence of Christs body by Faith to be deuoyd of such difficulties may by the very lightnesse thereof suspect it is not the doctrine which the Fathers concealed from Jnfidells as more absurd to humane Imagination than any other mystery of Christian Religion ANSWER You obiect that the Fathers declared to Catechumens that is to Nouices in Christianitie a commemoratiue presence in the holy Eucharist but not a corporall presence by Transubstantiation and from hence you would inferre that the Fathers held two kinds of Presences of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist the one soly spirituall by intellectuall apprehension the other corporall by reall sumption of Christs body into the mouth and stomacke of the receiuer and you pretend that S. Augustine was of this iudgement But you must remember that you are not now to deale with Aduersaries which will credite your bare words and proofes you haue none Therefore I answer First that the Fathers taught no other kind of Presence to them which were baptised and receiued the holy Eucharist than to Catechumens or vnbaptised Christians although they instructed the one sort more fully than the other Secondly S. Augustine teacheth not that Christs body is receiued inuisibly insensibly and according to the nature of a spirit by the mouth and stomacke of each Communicant but he teacheth onely two kinds of manducation in the Sacrament one both corporall and spirituall wherein the body of man receiueth the externall elements of Bread and Wine and the soule receiueth the true body and bloud of Christ by faith the other corporeall onely wherein the receiuer partaketh the outward signe and not the thing signified Panem Domini non panem Dominum the visible Sacrament of Christs body but not his very body and he affirmeth not vpon the sixt chapter of S. Iohn That a malicious sinner continuing such receiueth the very body and blood of Christ. Thirdly Protestants beleeue not onely a commemoratiue but also an exhibitiue presence of the thing signified together with the outward signe according to the manner formerly declared pag. 405. and this Presence is mysticall and such as may seeme incredible to vnbelceuers because of sundry difficulties repugnant to common sence to wit That Christs flesh by the vnspeakeable power of the holy Ghost should be after a sort incorporated into the soule and that corruptible and dead creatures should be eleuated and made effectuall instruments to apply and communicate Iesus Christ and the vertue of his death to faithfull Communicants IESVITS 2. Consideration This consideration is drawne from the qualitie of the difficulties obiected against this Mysterie which be such as a Christian in honour should neglect them For if it be the part of a prudent and intelligent man not to permit Imagination to preuaile against his Reason What a disgrace is it for a Christian that his faith should be conquered by these kind of difficulties For that the seeming absurdities of this misterie be not in respect of naturall Reason but meerely of Jmagination may hence appeare that some naturall truths be in a manner as difficile and incredible which will be seene if we compare the foure aboue mentioned difficulties with the difficulties some truths euident in nature haue ANSWER When difficulties obiected arise from experience of sence and principles of nature and there is no expresse or manifest word of God sufficient to mooue vs to beleeue the contrarie it is the part of each intelligent and prudent man rather to credite that which is apparent to sence and common reason than to beleeue Paradoxes vpon no true ground and reason IESVIT First we cannot imagine that the whole body of Christ can be contained in the compasse of a small Hoast But it is not more incredible that in a thing of small quantititie for example the wing of a Flye there should be so many parts as vnfolded and laid together would couer the whole face of the world both of heauen and earth And yet it is demonstrable in Philosophy That euen in the wing of a Flye there are so many parts as broad and long as the wing though still thinner and thinner that Almightie God separating and vnfolding them may therewith couer the whole world For certaine it is that some finite number of such parts so separated each of them as long and as broad as a Flyes wing would couer the face of the whole world certaine also it is That the wing of the Flye is still diuisible into more and more such parts so that no finite number is assignable but God may still separate from that wing a greater number without any end therefore it is certaine that in the wing of a Flye there is so much quantity as is sufficient to couer the face of the whole world both of heauen and earth if God would but separate and vnfold the same Is not this Secret of Philosophy as incredible to carnall Imagination as the being of Christs body within a small Hoast Wee that cannot comprehend things we see with eyes and feele with hands certainely we shall haue much adoe
in it selfe Js it iniury to his charitie to thinke that loue vnto men makes him vnite himselfe really and substantially with them and to be as it were incarnate anew in euery particular faithfull man entering really into their bodies to signifie efficatiously his inward coniunction by spirit vnto their soules Finally is it an iniury to his Wisedome to beleeue that to satisfie on the one side the will of his Father that would haue him euer in heauen sitting at his right hand on the other side the Ardencie of his owne affection vnto men desiring to be perpetually with them he inuented a manner how still remaining glorious in heauen he might also be continually on earth with his Church secretly not to take from them the merit of faith yet to afford full satisfaction to his owne loue really by continuing personall presence and most intime coniunction with them On the other side it imports them that thinke Transubstantiation impossible or that God cannot put the same body in different places at once to consider if they erre easie it is for men to erre that with the compasse of their vnderstandings measure the power of God how dangerous and vnexcusable their errour will prooue when they shall be called to giue vnto their omnipotent Maker a finall account particularly of this Doctrine so much derogating from him Let them thinke how they will answer if God lay to their charge the neglect of the most prudent and reasonable aduise which S. Chrys. giues Let vs beleeue God saith he let vs not reiect his Word though the same seeme secret and absurd vnto our cogitation and sense for his speech doth surpasse our reason and sense his words cannot deceiue vs but our senses be deceiued easily and often How will they reply if they be pressed with the Intergatory which S. Cyril makes vnto such misbeleeuers If thou couldst not comprehend the diuine operation of God Why didst thou not accuse the imbecility of mans wit rather than the omnipotencie of God Or how disputing or proposing so many arguments against Gods power reiecting or questioning the same because they could not vnderstand it they neuer called to mind the saying of S. Augustine Ecce quibus argumentis diuinae omnipotentiae humana contradicit infirmitas ANSWER This third and last consideration is a meere declamation grounded vpon a vaine supposition for it presumeth as granted the opinion of Transubstantiation to be most probable and reasonable as being declared by many antient Fathers defined by generall Councells c. But this supposition is a begging of the question for not so much as one antient Father or generall Councell did euer declare or define the same as it will plainely appeare to all iudicious Persons which shall compare and apply the sentences of Fathers and antient Councells to the Popish definition of Transubstantiation And the said Doctrine is not grounded vpon our Sauiours words and the miracles which Romists venditate to authorise the same are eyther Fryars fables or reports misapplyed and wrested to a contrary end And that there should be merit or at leastwise lesse perill in adhering to this doctrine rather than to any other may bee proclaimed ouer and ouer againe by Romists but it deserueth credit when they demonstrate That an opinion which is not grounded vpon diuine Reuelation and which containeth so many difficulties as cannot be solued and the beleefe whereof is vnnecessarie can be imbraced with safetie and expectation of reward To the words following in the Iesuit That he might also bee continually with his Church secretly it is answered That excluding Transubstantiation Christ Iesus is continually with his Church secretly by his grace spirit and mysticall vnion and he dwelleth in the hearts of iustified persons by faith Epkes 3. v. 17. S. Chrysostome S. Cyril and S. Augustine in the places obiected affirme that we are not to beleeue our dull and carnall sence when it suggesteth vnto vs that which is repugnant to faith and when it acknowledgeth no other force and operation in the holy Sacraments but that which is sensible and naturall But embracing this doctrine of the holy Fathers we cannot from thence extract the fancie of Transubstantiation Learned Papists themselues acknowledge the intricacies and difficulties of this Article many of them affirme that secluding the authoritie of the Romish Church there is nothing in diuine Reuelation compelling to beleeue it The doctrine is not Catholike or Antient The Propugners of it vntill the late Trident Councell disagree in that which is maine and substantiall in it and for auoiding one figure they make many Therefore it standeth not with Christian Wisedome to imbrace or maintaine this doctrine and Romists are more confident than prudent in imposing the same as an Article of the Creed censuring the Noncredents as hainous Heretikes My finall conclusion about this Article is That doctrine which is not expresly taught or formally deduced from holy Soripture which no antient Councell or Church for the first 600 yeares plainely taught and vnto which many aduerse passages are extant in the monuments of antiquitie also which is repugnant to sence and common reason and hath no apparent vtilitie ought not to be imposed as an article of diuine faith But such is the doctrine of Romish Transubstantiation Therefore it ought not to be imposed as an article of diuine faith and the Roman Church should either cancell this part of their new Creed or be lesse censorious in obtruding of it THE SEVENTH POINT COMMVNION VNDER ONE KIND AND THE ABBETTING OF IT BY CONCOMITANCIE IESVIT YOur most Excellent Maiestie in the Proposition of this Controuersie shewes your deepe insight into Theologicall difficulties perceiuing a maine ground whereon the Catholicke opinion of the lawfulnesse of Communion vnder one kinde standeth to wit Concomitancie which being granted Communion vnder one kind is iustified ANSVVER IF his Sacred MAIESTIE should yeeld you Concomitancie yet vpon that ground Communion in one kinde could not be iustified Neuerthelesse we denie both 〈◊〉 and Communion vnder one kinde IESVIT § 1. The Doctrine of Concomitancie prooued THe Doctrine of Concomitancie is that vnder the forme of bread not onely the bodie of Christ but also his precious blood and blessed soule are truely and really contained the bodie directly and by vertue of the words of Consecration the blood and the soule consequently for being contained within the bodie of Christ they must needs Concomitate that is follow the bodie in what place soeuer the same bee neither can any that acknowledges the reall Presence denie this Concomitancie without falling into many absurdities as I prooue by three Arguments ANSWER THe bodie of Christ is considered two wayes First According to the nature of a perfect liuing bodie secondly As it is represented and exhibited in the Sacrament If we consider it the first way the blood of Christ cannot properly be said to be
in his bodie by Concomitancie for then it were accidentally therein but as a part in the whole for as the bones sinews and veynes are integrall parts of anaturall humane bodie so likewise is the blood and naturall parts are in the whole by substantiall vnion not by Concomitancie for then they were in the bodie or belonging thereunto as an adiunct to his subiect If we consider the bodie of Christ taken for the more solid parts thereof as it is represented and exhibited in the Sacrament to wit as it was fixed to the crosse and diuided from the blood then according to this Sacramentall representation and exhibition the same alone neither containeth nor representeth the blood The sacred Eucharist is one intire Sacrament totum compositum hauing two externall Elements to wit Bread and Wine and these two signes or elements represent the materiall Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse which consisted at the time of the Oblation thereof of a bodie fixed on a tree and the same dying by effusion of blood Luk. 22.21 And in the holy Eucharist Christ is as it were crucified before our eyes and his bodie and blood by representation are diuided and God Almightie vseth these mysticall creatures as instruments to communicate vnto euery worthie Receiuer the Sacrifice of Christ his Sonne 1. Cor. 10.16 But as the Sacrifice vpon the Crosse was not performed in one of these Indiuiduals apart or by it selfe but ioyntly in them both and without effusion of blood there is no remission of sinnes Heb. 9.22 So likewise in the holy Eucharist the bodie of Christ is represented as it was diuided from the blood and againe the blood as seuered from the bodie and God concurreth with both the Elements deliuered and receiued with the one as it were by inception and with the other by consummation and Communicants partake not the whole Sacrifice of Christ vntill they haue receiued both the materiall parts of the Sacrament Here then is no Popish Concomitancie either of the blood to the bodie when it is receiued apart or of the bodie to the blood when that is receiued alone but the Sacrament reacheth the bodie blood as they were diuided and they are then conioyned to make one Sacrifice when they are both deliuered and receiued The whole cannot be in one part neither doth one part Concomitate another but is substantially vnited to another and in a Sacrifice or Sacrament compounded of diuisible parts he which giueth or receiueth one materiall part doth not therein or thereby distribute or receiue the whole Neither againe is the Deitie vnited to the bodie or blood of Christ by Concomitancie but by personall vnion Thus then I argue Whatsoeuer is receiued in the Sacrament by vs was before offered to God vpon the Crosse. But the bodie of Christ hauing bloud in it by concomitance or the deitie in it by concomitancie or the bloud of Christ hauing in it the bodie or 〈◊〉 by concomitancie was not offered to God vpon the Crosse for before the effusion of the bloud the same was in the bodie as a part not by concomitancie After the full effusion the bloud was diuided from the bodie and the 〈◊〉 was with the bodie by personall vnion and not by concomitancie Ergo At this day the bodie and deitie of Christ are not in the bloud of Christ by concomitancie c. IESVIT First hee that acknowledgeth the reall presence of Christs sacred bodie vnder the forme of bread and denies concomitancie doth in his beleefe seperate the bloud and soule of Christ from his bodie but to seperate either Christs diuinitie from his humanitie or soule from his bodie or his bloud from his flesh is vnlawfull for such a beleeuer doth dissolue and destroy Christ Jesus and so is one of the number of them that S. Iohn condemneth Omnis Spiritus qui soluit Iesum non est ex Deo hic est Antichristus ANSVVER The summe of this obiection is Whosoeuer dissolueth Christ Iesus is an Antichrist Euerie one who admitteth reall presence and yet denyeth concomitancie dissolueth Christ Iesus for he seperateth the bloud and soule of Christ from his bodie and his diuinitie from his humanitie Ergo Whosoeuer in the reall presence denyeth concomitancie is an Antichrist Our answer is Whosoeuer dissolueth Christ Iesus according to S. Iohns meaning 1. Ioh. 4.3 by denying his deitie humanitie or personall vnion is Antichrist But the denying of Popish concomitancie inferreth none of these For although we affirme that in the holy Eucharist the bodie and bloud of Christ are represented distinctly and as they were diuided at his passion yet this dissolueth not Iesus but signifieth the seperation of his bodie and bloud formerly made vpon the Crosse And we beleeue that the holy Ghost according to the distinct signification of the sacramentall elements reacheth in a spirituall manner the bodie and bloud of Christ crucified to all faithfull communicants and addeth a seuerall effect and vertue of spirituall refection to each distinct part receiued according to the signification and this is confessed by Vasques Ruard Tapper Alexander Halles IESVIT And this argument hath greatest force in their opinion who shall thinke that Christ leaues heauen for the time to come downe really according to his Bodie and Bloud for how can the bodic of Christ come downe from heauen without bloud and soule vnlesse he come downe dead and so Christ should be not only mystically and figuratiuely but truely and really massacred in the Sacrament and the Eucharist be a bloudie Sacrifice and not incruent as the Fathers tearme it ANSWER None of our part thinke that Christ leaueth heauen to come downe really according to his bodie and bloud Act. 3.21 Donec seculum finiatur 〈◊〉 est Dominus Augustine in Ioh. tract 7. vntill the world be finished the Lord continues aboue And the Fathers tearme the holy Eucharist an vnbloudie sacrifice not because Christ is properly and in his substance offred therein but because his bloudie sacrifice vpon the crosse is by this vnbloudie commemoration represented called to remembrance and applyed Read the sentences of Fathers placed in the margen Read also Peter Lombard and the Enchiridion of Colen IESVIT Secondly The Priest in the person of Christ who is glorious in heauen or rather Christ being glorious in heauen by the mouth of the Priest saith This is my bodie but a bodie deuoid of bloud without soule and consequently dead and sencelesse is not the bodie of Christ as he is now glorious in heauen which hath bloud in the veines and is informed and glorified by a most excellent soule Therefore Christ glorious in heauen cannot say truely that a bodie void of bloud sence and soule is his bodie but soule life and bloud must needs follow and concomitate his bodie wheresoeuer it be ANSVVER First The new Testament acknowledgeth no proper sacrificing Priests but Christ Iesus onely
Heb. 7.23.27.28 ca. 10. 21. Neither is there any word or sentence in our Sauiours Doctrine concerning any reall sacrifice but only of himselfe vpon the Crosse neither was any altar vsed and ordained by Christ and his Apostles And if in all reall sacrifices the matter of the oblation must be really destroyed and changed and no physicall destruction or change is made in the bodie of Christ or in the elements of Bread and Wine by Transubstantiation then Romists haue deuised a reall sacrifice in the new Testament which hath no diuine Institution Secondly There is no created vertue inhaerent in the Sacramentall words as they are pronounced by a Priest to make the bodie of Christ locally present in the holy Eucharist but when all the words and all the actions are lawfully performed which Christ commanded the holy Ghost is assistant to his owne ordinance and deliuereth vnto faithfull people the crucified Bodie of Christ and the Bloud of Christ shed for our sinnes vpon the crosse And although the crucified bodie of our Sauiour was seuered from the soule yet the deitie euen then remained vnited to that bodie which then was not dead in regard of merit and satisfaction and all they which receiue that bodie by operatiue faith are made partakers of the merit and satisfaction thereof and by this receiuing are more and more ingraffed into Christ. IESVIT Thirdly If vnder the forme of bread were onely the bodie of Christ and his soule and bloud were not by concomitancie there the communicants should receiue the body of Christ but not truely Christ as our Aduersaries grant Caluin specially saying Quis sanus sobrius Christi corpus Christum esse sibi persuadeat And againe Ne fando quidem auditum est corpus Christi aut sanguinem Deum hominem appellari But Fathers affirme most constantly that not onely the bodie of Christ but also Christ himselfe is in the Sacrament that we take in the Dominicall refection The word made flesh that by the consecration of the Mysteries wee receiue the verie Sonne of God that vnder the forme of Bread we lodge within vs the Soueraigne King and that we see Christ feele Christ eate Christ Non regium puerum sed ipsum vnigenitum Dei filium An hundred other places might be brought where the Fathers call the consecrated Bread Christ and consequently they did not thinke there was the meere Bodie without Blood and Soule seeing as Caluin doth confesse Jt is an absurd manner of speech to terme Christ the meere bodie of Christ and such a forme of speech was neuer heard of hitherto in the world Ergo Concomitancie that is Christs reall and entire Bodie Soule Flesh Blood to be vnder the forme of Bread was acknowledged by the Fathers ANSVVER It is granted that worthie Communicants in the holy Eucharist receiue Christ Ioh. 6. 33 35 48. but Sacramentall eating his flesh and drinking his blood is the meanes by which they are vnited and incorporated with Christ himselfe therefore the Obiection to wit if the soule and blood were not in Christs bodie by Concomitancie Communicants should receiue the bodie of Christ but not truely Christ is inconsequent because by receiuing the one they receiue the other and the former is the instrumentall cause of the latter So in this kinde of spirituall Concomitancie neither the Fathers nor Caluin nor we nor you need be at any difference IESVIT This Principle which is no lesse certaine than the true reall Presence supposed I inferre the lawfulnesse of Communion vnder one kinde to wit vnder the sole forme of Bread by this Argument If Communion vnder one kinde be not against the substance either of Christs Institution or of his Sacrament or his Precept or of the Practise of the Primitiue Church it is lawfull iustifiable and for iust Reasons may be commanded by the Church This Proposition is true because there neither are other causes of dislike that may not be reduced to these foure neither doe Christs Institution or Sacrament or Precept or the Primitiue practise bind vs to keepe them further than in substance the accidentall Circumstances of Institutions Sacraments Precepts Primitiue Customes being variable according to the variable disposition of things vnto which the Church Militant in this life is subiect Now I assume Concomitancie being supposed it may be made euident that Communion vnder one kind is not against the substance either of Christs Institution or of the Sacrament or of his Precept or of his Primitiue practise For the substance of these foure Obligations is one and the same to wit that we be truly and really partakers of the Bodie and Bloud of our Sauiour which is fully done by Communion vnder one kind as I will shew in the foure consequent Sections ANSWER If Concomitancie which is stiled in this place by the name of a Principle were graunted yet Communion in one kind is not iustifiable For although it depriue not people of Christs Bloud as it is a bodily part contained in the veines yet it depriueth them of the Bloud of Christ as it was shed and poured out and offered in Sacrifice for them To the maine Argument I answer denying the Assumption For Communion in one kind is repugnant to the first Institution of the Eucharist by Christ who hallowed two materiall Elements Bread and Wine appointed them a distinct signification deliuered them indifferently to all the Communicants and annexed a Promise to the reception of the one as well as to the sumption of the other Secondly It is repugnant to the expresse Precept of Christ saying Drinke yee all of this and to S. Pauls Precept 1. Cor. 11. 28. Thirdly The practise of the holy Apostles and of the Primitiue Church is against it Fourthly The people which receiue in one kind receiue onely a Moitie and piece but not the whole and entire Sacrament IESVIT § 2. Communion vnder one kind not against the substance of the Institution of Christ. DIuine Institution is an Action of God whereby hee giues being vnto things with reference vnto some speciall end This end is twofold the one corporall and temporall for which God hath instituted agreeable 〈◊〉 meanes that men may be borne into this world he did institute marriage and for maintenance of the said life being had hee or dained many sorts of meate The other end is spirituall for which God hath instituted Sacraments as for the first obtaining of grace and spirituall life the Sacrament of Baptisme and Penance and for the preseruing of grace and increasing therein particularly the Sacrament of the Eucharist That a man bee bound to vse the Jnstitution of God two things are required First that the end thereof bee necessarie and hee bound to indeuour the attaining thereof Hence it is that though marriage bee the Jnstitution of God appointed to propagate mankinde yet euery man is not bound to marry because he is not bound to propagate
mankinde when there be others that do abundantly complic with that duty to which mankind is in general bound multiplicamini replete terram Secondly when the end of tion is such as euery man must indeauour the attayning thereof to the end that a man be bound to vse that institution it is further required that the thing instituted be necessarie for attaining of that end for if there be other meanes ordained sufficient for the attaining of that end man is not bound to vse such particular diuine institutions For example man is bound to maintaine his corporall life so long as nature will permit and to this end God created varietie of fruites yet no man is bound by diuine institution to eate fruites there being other meanes instituted for the maintenance of life Applying this to our purpose it is apparent that by force of diuine institution no man is bound to vse Communion vnder both kinds For though the end why Christ did institute the Sacrament in both kinds be necessarie and all must indeauour the attaining thereof to wit maintenance and increase of grace the life of the soule yet there be other meanes by which we may attaine to this end Whence it is that learned Diuines hold that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not Necessarium necessitate Medij as they speake that is the vse thereof is not a necessarie meanes for the maintenance of spirituall life but a man wanting meanes of Sacred Communion may by other meanes preserue himselfe in the state of grace And though we should suppose that actuall Communion were a necessary meanes to preserue spirituall life yet Communion vnder one kind is abundantly sufficient thereunto For the Sacrament in the sole forme of Bread contayning the Author and fountaine of life whole and intire according to Body Soule Bloud and his infinite person is abundantly sufficient for the refection of the soule yea no lesse sufficient than Communion vnder both kinds For this one kind 〈◊〉 within it nothing lesse than what is contained in both and Christ promiseth life to sole manducation Qui manducat me ipse viuit propter me and vnto the sole reception of his Body vnder the forme of Bread Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi vita qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum If the Tree of life in the midst of Paradise if the Manna of the Jewes the Bread of Angells did suffice to nourish the body without Drinke Why should we deny this soule-nourishing sufficiencie vnto the sole body of Christ were the same alone in the Bread but specially being there conioyned with his soule and his most precious bloud ANSWER FIrst the ground of the obiection laid by the Iesuit in certaine comparisons taken from Marriage Meatand Drinke is of no consequence for as touching Wedlocke the same presupposing humane Propagation is necessarie both Necessitate Medij and Necessitate praecepti that the generation of man may be morally lawfull Heb. 13.4 so likewise presupposing that Christians doe receiue the holy Eucharist it is necessarie Necessitate finis or Medij necessitate praecepti That they receiue the same as the Author appointed it to be receiued which was not in one kind but in both And as touching Food it is necessary that man receiue it in some kind or other for the sustenance of his life but because God hath left it to the libertie of mans Election to vse which kind he liketh and hath not by law or precept obliged him to any one kind in speciall thereforeman is free in choosing his materiall Food and obtaineth the end of Food and obserueth the law of his Maker when he orderly vseth any kind thercof But in the matter of the holy Eucharist as God hath not made it adiaphorous for man to change the Elements substituting Water and Broath or Flesh in the stead of Bread and Wine so likewise he hath not permitted it to humane discretion to omit or vse the Sacramentall signes but hath by expresse precept obliged his Church to thevse of one signe as well as the other But I wonder that the Iesuit in this discursiue preamble would vse an instance from our naturall foode than which nothing by wayof inference doth more expresly refute him Can he in the Sacrament make mention of Food and not consider that our Sauiours intent in the institution was to proportion our Spirituall food to our Corporall In our bodily nourishment haue we not need of drinke as well as meat Did not our Sauiour therfore adde the Cup to the Bread and equally blessed both How dare they then make the repast of our soules a dry banquet And although God neuer bound any man to eate all kind of meat yet he neuer forbad any man all kind of drinke Secondly If the matter or materiall part of compounded things belongs to their substance then the defalcation of one kind is against the integritie of the substance of the Eucharist For the Element of Wine vnto which answereth the distribution and reception thereof is a medietie or halfe part of the matter of the holy Communion and if the taking away thereof is not against the substance of Christs Institution then likewise the taking away of Bread which is the other part and the retaining of Wine onely is not against the same for the blood of Christ is as noble a part of Christ and hath as great vertue necessitie and commendation in holy Scripture as his bodie strictly taken and consequently the outward signe heereof is as necessarie for all the members of the Church as the externall signe of his bodie But against this the Iesuit argueth as followeth If Lay people may attaine the end for which Christ ordained the Eucharist without receiuing in both kindes then Communion vnder one kinde is not against the substance of Christs Institution But Lay people may attaine the end c. to wit maintenance and increase of grace by Communion in one kinde because one kinde containeth in it nothing lesse than what is contained in both Ioh. 6. v. 55 58 59. Ergo Communion vnder one kinde is not against the substance of Christs Institution ANSWER The sequele and assumption of this Argument are denied First Communion vnder one kinde may be of the substance of Christs Institution although the end and fruit of the holy Eucharist might bee receiued by other meanes for as in the Sacrament of Baptisme the end is regeneration and remission of sinnes Acts 22. 16. Tit. 3. 5. and this end in some cafe may bee obtained without aspersion of water as appeareth in Baptismo sanguinis when Martyrs decease without Sacramentall Baptisme and yet to be washed or sprinkled with water is of the substance of Christs Institution so likewise Communion in both kindes is of the substance of Christs Institution although the end and fruit of the holy Eucharist to wit continuance and increase of grace may be obtained by
spirituall manducation alone without Sacramentall If the former illation of Romists were good it will follow likewise from thence that receiuing of Bread in the Eucharist is not of the substance of Christs Institution for whole and intire Christ according to bodie and soule and infinite person is in the blood alone if the Popish Doctrine of Concomitancie be true and if this be granted as of necessitie it must then Romists may mangle and transforme the holy Sacrament at their pleasure Secondly The end and fruit of the Sacrament is either common to the holy Eucharist with other meanes of Grace or else proper to it onely To eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of God by recognition of Christs Passion and by Faith in the same may be an effect of the Gospell preached Ioh. 6. 54. But to eate the same flesh and blood communicated more distinctly and effectually by visible seales of the couenant of the new Testament is an end and fruit peculiar and proper to the holy Eucharist 1. Cor. 10. 16. A man may haue the same inheritance bestowed on him by the word and writing of the Donor yet when the same is confirmed by the seale of the Donor the donation is of greater validitie and if by Law or custome two seales should be appointed the apposition of one is not of equall force and validitie to the apposition of both so likewise because the Sonne of God made choyce of two outward signes namely Bread and Wine to represent and apply his Passion and Oblation and withall commanded the common vse and reception of both saying Drinke ye all of this and also annexed a speciall promise and blessing to both these outward signes ioyntly vsed therefore the vse sumption of one of these without the other cannot haue so great force to apply the effect fruit of the Sacrament as the vse reception of both And as in concauses or partiall causes the action of the one cannot produce the effect without the other and as when two keyes are prouided to open a locke the same is not opened by one of them onely so likewise Christ Iesus hauing instituted and sanctified two signes for the more proportionable and effectuall application of his Bodie and Blood it is grosse presumption in man to mutilate and cut off a part of that bodie which the wisedome of Christ hath framed in due and beautifull proportion and to diuide that which God hath ioyned together and without warrant from Gods reuealed word to attribute a totall effect to a partiall meanes and cause IESVIT Hence it is apparent that without any iust cause some Protestants inueigh against the Councell of Constance as professing to contradict the Precept of Christ because it decreed That the Sacrament may bee lawfully giuen vnder one kind Non obstante quod Christus in vtraque specie illud instituerit Apostolis administrauerit Notwithstanding Christs Institution and Administration thereof in both kinds to his Disciples This their bitternesse proceeds from zeale without knowledge not distinguishing the Jnstitution of God from his Precept which are very distinct for the Precept of both kinds if Christ gaue any doth bind whether both kinds be necessarie for the maintenance of mans soule in grace or no but the Jnstitution in both kinds doth not binde further than the thing instituted to wit Communion vnder both kinds is necessarie for the maintaining of spirituall life for which one kind being sufficient as I haue shewed Christs Institution of both kinds doth not inforce the vse of both If God should haue commanded the vse both of meate and drinke euery man should be bound not onely to eate but also to drinke though he had no necessitie thereof but now seeing God hath not giuen such a Precept a man that can liue by meate without euer drinking is not bound to drinke non obstante that God did institute both eating and drinking for the preseruation of life in euerie man ANSWER The Councell of Constance is iustly censured for presuming to alter and disanull the ordinance of Christ for if it be flagitious amongst men to alter and contradict the lawfull Will of a Testator Galat. 3.15 shall it not be much more vnlawfall to alter the Testament of the Sonne of God who disposed to the common people his Bloud as well as his Bodie saying Drinke ye all of this Math. 26 27. and except yee eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the man c. Ioh. 6.53 And the words of the said Synod are most presumptious for this they pronounce Although Christ after supper instituted and administred to his Disciples vnder both kindes c. And although in the Primitiue Chruch this Sacrament was receiued of Beleeuers in both kinds yet notwithstanding the contrarie custome for Laicks to receiue in one kind is with good reason brought in and they are Heretickes which hold this sacrilegious or vnlawfull But what are these men in comparison of Christ and his Apostles and of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church If men may thus twit Christ and his Apostles what shall become of all religion The sole and totall rule to guide the Church in the matter of the holy Eucharist is Christs Institution and practise recorded by the Euangelists and testified by the Apostles and the Primitiue Church in their doctrine and practise followed this rule as some of our learned Aduersaries ingeniously confesse If therefore Christ Iesus and his Apostles and after these the Primitiue Church administred the Communion to lay people in both kinds as this Synod confesseth and on the contraie nothing is extant in holy Writ or in the monuments of the Fathers to testifie that Christ and his Apostles retracted or altered this first practise What audacious sacriledge was it in the Prelates of Constance vpon their owne priuate and childish reasons to cancell Christs last Will and Testament and to violate the sacred precept and ordinance of the Sonne of God But our Aduersarie laboureth by a distinction of Institution and Precept to plaister the vlcerous Doctrine of the 〈◊〉 of Constance saying or implying That although Christ did institute the holy Eucharist in two kinds yet he gaue no precept for the vse of it in two kinds But this plaister of sig-leaues healeth not the wound for there is both an institution and a precept for both kinds and more expressely for the cup than for the bread for Christ said expressely and literally Drinke yee all of this whereas he said not so literally and expressely eat yee all of this Besides his institution is a vertuall and interpretatiue precept as appeareth by S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.23 And Christ did institute the Eucharist in two kinds that people might receiue and vfe it in two kinds Also if the manner of the institution prooueth not the manner of the vse then the Eucharist may be vsed in another manner I meane in things substantiall than
as it was instituted and if this then it may be vsed in wine onely without bread or in broth or in flesh for we haue no direction or rule for the manner of greater authoritie than the institution Lastly diuine institution doth not only signifie an action of God whereby he giueth being vnto things with reference to their end in which manner the Iesuit sinisterly defineth it but it signifieth also a decree rule precept and information concerning the vse and practise of that which God hath ordained Now our Sauiour when he ordained the holy Eucharist in regard of the being and entitie thereof he withall conioyned the vse of the same as a necessarie condition to make it operatiue and effectuall to his people For euen as in Baptisme although the Word and Element constitute the Sacrament in regard of the definition yet the same is no Baptisme to vs vntill the Word Water be applied to the subiect by ablution so likewise in the holy Eucharist the words and elements make the definition but the vse and application according to the manner taught by Christ giues it a Sacramentall vertue and operation in respect of vs IESVIT §. 3. Communion vnder one kind not against the substance of the Sacrament A Sacrament of the new Testament being a visible efficatious signe of inuisible grace foure things are necessarie to concurre to the substantiall constitution thereof which I will set downe in order and together shew that they are all found in the Eucharist giuen vnder one kind First there is required some element that is a visible and sensible thing or action without which no Sacrament can subsist tearmed by Diuines Materia Sacramenti This substantiall part is not wanting in the Sacrament giuen in one kind in which kind there is consecrated bread visible and sensible in the accidents thereof and manducation also an action visible and appar an t to sence ANSVVER THis quadripartite argument at least in the three formost branches is meerly sophistical indeed against common sence as if one should question whether a man without legs or armes were a perfect entire man according to the first creation of mankind the perpetual succeeding law of nature not erring The Iesuit should answere thus This is a sufficient and perfect man for the other members which he hath as head brest backe c. are not of the substance of humane nature In my replie I need adde no more but smile And yet to answere his particulars First in euerie Sacrament there is required not onely a sensible action but also a visible and materiall signe and therefore to speake by the way some of the seuen which Romists number in their List or Kalender are no Sacraments But in the holy Eucharist there is a double visible element and materiall visible signe to wit Bread and Wine Math. 26.26 27. Luc. 22. 19 20. 1. Cor. 11.23.25 and these outward elements being two in number and diuided the one from the other were distinctly and seuerally distributed by our Sauiour and were receiued by the communicants apart the one of them after the other and although they make but one Sacrament in regard of the definition as similarie and dissimilarie parts make but one bodie yet there is a diuersitie and pluralitie both in their matter and forme and a reason why they must be two and not one indiuiduall signe IESVIT The second thing required to the substance of the Sacrament is Verbum the Word that is a forme of speech shewing the diuine and supernaturall purpose vnto which the element is consecrated Neither is that part wanting in the Sacrament giuen vnder one kind which is consecrated by the words of Christ This is my bodie and the Theologicall Principle taken out of S. Augustine verified Accedit verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum ANSWER As the outward elements are two in number so likewise a double act of blessing and consecration must passe vpon them for otherwise that part which wanteth benediction is not a sacramentall signe but a common creature and if any signe be omitted then the Sacrament wanteth integritie of parts IESVIT The third thing is signification euerie Sacrament signifying some diuine effect of grace which God worketh by the application thereof and the sensible signe euen by nature hath as S. Augustine noteth some proportion and analagie to signifie that diuine effect which to produce it is assumed by Gods omnipotencie as an Instrument This sacred signification which the holy Eucharist hath is of three kinds and all three are found in the Sacrament giuen vnder one kind First this Sacrament is a signe of spirituall food for the nourishment and refection of the soule which signification is manifestly found in Communion vnder one kind for the Eucharist doth signifie this effect of spirituall nutrition because it is a signe of Christ the Bread of Life the food of Angels the fountaine of grace but by the sole forme of bread Christ is signified as present according to his most sacred bodie and consequently as most sufficient to feed and refresh the Soule Another signification of this Sacrament is vnion and coniunction betweene the Faithfull as being members of the same Bodie whereof Christ is Head and fellow members one with another as S. Paul declares which coniunction the Sacrament in the forme of Bread doth signifie For Bread being a compound of many graines of Wheat massed together in one Loafe and also made of Flower and Water mingled one with another signifies the perfect vnion both of the Church with Christ and of the Faithfull that are in the Church one with another as S. Paul testifies Vnum corpus sumus quotquot de vno Pane participamus where he makes no mention of Wine the Sacrament in the forme of Bread being alone able to shew and worke this signification This Sacrament doth also signifie the Passion and Death of our Sauiour which Death and Passion is shewed and represented by Communion vnder one kind For receiuing the Sacrament in the forme of Wine onely wee haue a sufficient ground to remember the Bloud of Christ that was in his Passion shed and seperated from his Bodie Likewise by participating of the consecrated Bread wee may liuely conceiue the Bodie of Christ as it was depriued of the most precious Bloud by the effusion thereof on the Crosse whereupon Christ as S. Paul testifies did after the consecration of each kind particularly recommend the memorie of his Passion as knowing that in each of them alone was a sufficient Monument and memoriall thereof ANSWER Significations may be found in Types and figures being no Sacraments as in a Vine and Branches a naturall Humane Bodie a materiall House or Temple a Lambe led before the shearer and the like but yet because they are otherwise in the Sacrament both in regard of a more perfect and liuely representation and also because a
Preepts of the old and new Testament some personall circumstances may be noted and yet the substance of the Commandement is generall 1. Cro. 28.9 Pro. 30.1.3 Math. 18.2.3 Ioh. 13.13 14. Also we may consider a twofold vnitie of the Cup Specifical and Indiuiduall to drinke of the same indiuiduall Cup euen as to eate of the same indiuiduall loase is an accidentall circumstance But to drinke and receiue the common kind to wit the fruit of the Wine this is the substance of the Commandement If we parallell the Obiection the defect is manifestly ridiculous It is not of the substance of Christs Commandement That lay People shall receiue consecrated Bread at the Communion because the Bread which Christ gaue his Disciples was of one Indiuiduall loafe but the bread of one indiuiduall loafe will not suffice all men in the world therefore the Precept of receiuing consecrated Bread was Personall and concerned the Apostles only Now if a man should vse this Argument which in substance is the same with the Iesuits he had in my opinion more cause to blush for shame than to glory before the Presence of a most iudicious and learned King as this vaine Boaster doth IESVIT Another text of Scripture some vrge to prooue That Communion vnder one kind is commanded to wit the famous place out of the sixt chapter of S. Iohn Except ye eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in you Where our Sauiour vnder the penaltie of loosing eternall life commands not onely eating but also drinking Perchance your Maiestie doth not stand much vpon this as not beleeuing that chapter of S. Iohn to concerne the Sacramentall sumption of our Sauiours Flesh as also some learned Catholikes hold Not withstanding though we grant that Chapter to concerne the eating and drinking in the Sacrament as most of the Fathers teach yet this obiection may be easily satisfied by the former Principles for as we distinguish in the Sacrament the substance and the manner The substance being to receiue the body of Christ the manner in both kinds by formall eating and drinking so the same distinction is to be made in our Sauiours Precept about this Sacrament For howsoeuer his words may sound of the manner of receiuing in both kinds yet his intention is to command no more than the substance to wit that we really receiue his body and bloud which may be done vnder one kind This is made cleere by the Precept by our Sauiour giuen about another Sacrament to wit Baptisme where though his words seeme to define the manner yet his mind was but to determine the substance He saith to his Apostles Baptise all nations in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost To baptise signifies the same that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not to wet or sprinkle with water but to put and plunge into the Water by immersion bathing them in water in which respect Baptisme is tearmed by the Apostle the Lauer or Bath of the renouation of the holy Ghost And yet because the Church teacheth Baptisme by 〈◊〉 or sprinkling to be sufficient and substantiall Baptisme no lesse than Baptisme by immersion Christians must and doe so interpret the words of Christ Baptize that is plunge into the water all Nations to command onely cleansing and washing in substance not the manner thereof by immersion as his words may seeme to import and the Primitiue Church did the first sixe hundred yeares practise Jn this like sort the words Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke of his bloud you shall not haue life in you be preceptiue no further than they signifie reall receiuing of his body and bloud not the manner of both kinds as may appeare by the intention of the Commaundement For as Christ gaue this Precept of Eating and Drinking onely to the end that wee might haue life in vs so likewise he meant to command the same no further than it was necessary to this end But eating formally the body of Christ vnder the forme of Bread and vertually and implicitly his bloud as contayned within his Sacred body suffiseth that we may haue life in vs as he promiseth in the same place He that eateth this Bread shall liue for euer What necessitie then is there to vnderstand this Precept of formall receiuing in both kinds But further I adde the coniunctiue particle and signifies disjunctiuely the same that vel or as Argentum aurum non est mihi and particularly of this Sacrament He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh damnation the sence is disjunctiue eateth or drinketh vnworthily In this sort the words of Christ Except you eate and drinke is to be vnderstood disjunctiuely Except you eate the flesh or drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in you Which disjunctiue sence to be the sence intended in this place may be prooued because else Christ should be contrary to himselfe for seeing in the ver 59. of this Chapter He promiseth life eternall to eating onely Qui manducat panem viuit in aeternum If in the foure and fiftie verse of the same Chapter he require vnto himselfe life euerlasting eating and drinking both he should in the space of a few lines speake contraries And because this is impossible wee interprete the place disiunctiuely vnlesse you eate or drinke c. ANSWER Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth that the Text of Saint Iohn cap. 6. is to be expounded of the holy Eucharist and not onely of spirituall receiuing but also of Sacramentall eating and drinking the Bodie and Blood of Christ And hee saith that although some Catholickes to wit Gabriel Biel Cusanus Caietan Ruard Tapper Hesselius and 〈◊〉 expound this Chapter of spirituall Receiuing yet other Pontificians hold as himselfe doth with Bellarmine also agree Suares Vasques Gregorie Valence Salmeron Barradius c. From this Exposition it followeth That Communicants when they partake the holy Eucharist ought to receiue in both kindes for our Sauiour saith Iohn 6.54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood c. 55. My flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed 56. Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him 53. Except ye eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of man c. Our Aduersarie after some staggering about the place Ioh. 6. condescendeth at last to Bellarmines Tenet and admitting that Saint Iohn treateth of Sacramentall Receiuing answeres the former places by a distinction of substance and manner saying That howsoeuer Christs words may sound of the manner of Receiuing in both kinds yet his intention is to command no more than the substance and he prooueth this by the example of Baptisme wherein although according to the letter dipping and plunging
into the water is required yet according to the Intention sprinckling is sufficient But heere I demand of the Romist Whether any thing touching the manner of receiuing the Eucharist is deliuered in Christs words or not And if nothing then our Sauiour treateth not either of Spirituall or Sacramentall eating or drinking for both these belong to the manner and if hee speake about the manner then the Blood of Christ must be Sacramentally receiued as well as his Bodie but it is not receiued Sacramentally vnder bread alone because to receiue Sacramentally is to receiue vnder the proper and indiuiduall signe representing the Blood receiued which is Wine And implicite and vertuall receiuing of Christs Blood is spirituall drinking and this is performed out of the Sacrament and not onely in the same The last euasion is That in the words of Christ Et is taken for Aut that is vnlesse you eate the flesh or drinke the blood of the Sonne of man ye haue no life c. This poore Cauill borrowed from Claudius de Saincts is against the letter of the Text and if it be admitted then it will follow That it is not necessarie to drinke the blood of the Sonne of man implicitely and vertually and the reason why Christ nameth bread alone vers 51. is in opposition to Manna for the Sonne of God descended from heauen by incarnation and propounded himselfe incarnate as an obiect of Faith and because he was the spirituall Life and food of mans soule by donation of his Word and Grace and heerein excelled Manna which was onely corporall bread But in the sacred Eucharist Christ is represented as hauing perfected mans saluation and this representation is made by two sensible signes wherein his suffering of death by separation of bodie and soule and of bodie and blood is visibly proposed and whosoeuer receiueth him Sacramentally as he was sacrificed on the Crosse must receiue him by both the signes because in both and not in one alone there is a representation of his Passion and of the effusion of his blood As for the Iesuites instance in the manner of Baptising whether by plunging or by sprinckling the same is not to purpose For in our Question the Dispute is about taking away one of the Elements and materiall parts of a Sacrament in Baptisme onely a circumstance in the manner of applying and vsing the Element was altered by the Church But from alteration of a thing accidentall or of circumstance to inferre a libertie to defalcate a substantiall part is sophisticall IESVIT §. 5. Communion vnder one kinde not against the Practise of the Primitiue CHVRCH CErtaine it is that the Primitiue Church did very often and frequently vse Communion vnder both kindes so that Lay men had by prescription a right to receiue in both kindes yea they were bound thereunto by the Obligation of custome not by Diuine Precept ANSWER THe Primitiue Church in all her publicke Assemblies and congregations administred the holy Eucharist to the people in both kinds perpetually and not frequently onely or often as the Iesait minseth And Iustin Martir saith That the Apostles prescribed this as commanded by Christ and Saint Cyprian hath these words Lex esum sanguinis prohibet Euangelium precipit vt bibatur Whereas the old Law forbade the eating of blood the Gospell commandeth to drinke the blood and in his 63 Epistle Many Bishops c. depart not from that which our Master Christ commanded and performed Praecepit iussit but others of ignorance and simplicitie In Calice Dominico sanctificando 〈◊〉 ministrando In consecrating and ministring the Cup to the people doe not that which Christ our Lord and God performed and taught Petrus de Occhagauia saith that the words Et plebi ministrando Deliuering it to the people are not St. Cyprians But this man went by heare-say as appeareth both by the elder later Edition of Cyprian And that this was the constant Doctrine of this Father is manifest by other places cited in the Margen Therefore it is palpably vntrue which the Iesuit venteth They were bound thereunto by Obligation of Custome and not by Diuine Precept IESVIT Also because the Manichees being impiously per suaded that wine was the gall of the prince of darknesse did superstitiously abstaine from the Chalice The Church in detestation of this errour commaunded for a time Communion vnder both kinds Vpon which ocasion Gelasius Pope made the decree recorded by Gratian aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant aut ab integris arceantur And why because such Abstinents 〈◊〉 qua superstitione docentur astringi that is were superstitious not abstaining out of any deuotion but out of impious persuasion of the impuritie of Gods creature Wherefore the crime with which some Protestants charge vs That our receiuing vnder the sole forme of Bread is to iumpe in opinion with the Manichees we may as Doctor Morton confesseth reiect as injurious saying That it was not the Manichees 〈◊〉 from wine but the reason of their for 〈◊〉 that was iudged hereticall This custome was the cause that Cyprian saieth That the Law 〈◊〉 the eating of bloud but the 〈◊〉 commaunds the same should be drunke not only because some Christians to wit Priests are bound to 〈◊〉 the Bloud of Christ but also because Christ in his 〈◊〉 did 〈◊〉 the Sacrament of his Bodie and Bloud in both kinds Whence grew the custome of the Primitiue Church to receiue in both kinds and by custome there grew further an Oligation to drinke of the 〈◊〉 there were some iust cause of 〈◊〉 as in the sicke and in some that by nature loathed wine ANSVVER One errour begets another It was formerly said that Communion in both kinds was vsed by the Fathers as a matter of custome onely and not because of precept now it is added that this was done only because of the errour of the Manichees I answere First before euer the Manichees appeared in any number Communion in both kinds was in practise as appeareth by the Apostles and by Ignatius Dionysius Iustin Martyr Ireneus Tertullian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Saint Cyprian Secondly although Pope 〈◊〉 in his Sermon speaketh of the Manichees yet Vasques the Iesuit saith That he commanded not the vse of the Cup because of them but required that these Heretickes which feigned themselues Catholickes and came to the holy Communion receiuing the Bread and taking the Cup into their hands pretending that they drunke the Wine and yet did not should carefully be obserued Thirdly touching the place of Pope Gelasius the same Author saith That whereas some of his part applie the same to the Manichees yet this exposition agreeth not with the last branch of the Canon for therein Gelasius teacheth that the mysterie of the Eucharist is of that nature in regard of it selfe that without grieuous sacriledge it cannot be diuided and seuered
the one part from the other to wit because of the institution and signification Thus our Aduersarie is confuted touching Pope Leo and Gelasius by a most intelligent and learned Doctour of his owne societie IESVIT And as this is certaine and granted on our part so it is no lesse certaine that the Primitiue Church did neuer practise the vse of the Cup as pertaining to the essentiall integritie of the Sacrament or as commaunded by diuine precept but thought the recoiuing vnder one and both kinds a thing indifferent This may be prooued by the consideration of the time since Christs 〈◊〉 from our dayes vpward whence I gather fiue Arguments First is the confession of our Aduersaries amongst whom a Bohemian Protestant doth professe That hauing the feare of God before his eyes be dares not censure the Roman Church of Heresie in this point Hospinian writes that some Protestants confessed that whole christ was really present exhibited and receiued vnder euery kind and therefore vnder the onely forme of Bread and that they did not iudge those to do euill that communicated vnder one kind Melancthon As to eate or not to eate Swines flesh is placed in our power and athing indifferent so saith he J iudge of the Eucharist that they finne not who knowing and beleeuing this libertie doe vse either part of the figne And Luther They finne not against Christ who vse one kind seeing Christ doth not commaund to vse it but hath left it to the will of euerie one And Hospinian alledgeth Luther affirming Jt is not needfull to giue both kinds but the one alone sufficeth the Church hath power of ordaining onely one and the people ought to be content therewith if it be ordained by the Church But these testimonies though they may serue to stop the mouth of a clamorous Aduersarie yet are they not sufficient to satisfie any iuditious man in regard their Authors were men most vncertaine and various in their Doctrines about Religion now auerring as Orthodox and diuine Truth what soone after they fell to abhor as hereticall and impious ANSWER Concerning Luther Melancthon Iohannes Perzibram c. I answere that your benefactor Coccius to whom you are perpetually indebted for your readings alledgeth some such sayings out of these Authors but how truely it is vncertaine for in the ordinarie editions I find the contrarie deliuered by them made a Booke of Recognitions And it were more seemely for your selfe to reuoke your errours than to persist in a blind and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Truth IESVIT I adde therefore secondly the definitions of the three generall Councels celebrated before the breach of Luther from the Romane Church The Councell of Florence wherein were present the Grecian and Armenian Bishops where 〈◊〉 is defined that Christ is whole vnder each 〈◊〉 The Councell of 〈◊〉 though they allowed the vse of the Cup 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 defined the lawfulnesse of Communion vnder one kind The Councell of Constance gaue example vnto both these former Councels being the first that defined this truth ANSVVER You adde nothing of any worth for the Councels of Constance and Basil were in your owne eyes vncanonical and he adlesse and are reiected by your selues in diuers articles and when you prooue which will be Ad Calendas Graecas that the three Synods named by you were generall Councells it shall be granted that Communion in one kind is not destitute of generall Synodicall late Testimonie IESVIT The third argument is the receiued and allowed generall custome of the Church which spontaneously euen before the Councell of Constance did abstaine from the Cup as the said Councell doth acknowledge which may be prooued by the testimonies of many that liued before the Councell of Constance Yea Alexander Halensis who liued two hundred yeares before the 〈◊〉 of Constance sayeth That almost euerie where Lay men receiued vnder the sole for me of Bread And venerable Bede doth signifie That in the Church of England euer since the first 〈◊〉 of her vnder S. Gregorie was vsed 〈◊〉 vnder one kind for the Laitie which could neuer haue entred into the Church without being 〈◊〉 and marked as an Heresie had not the Church euer held Communion vnder one or both kinds as a thing of indifferencie ANSWER The Greeke Church alwayes receiued in both kinds as your selues acknowledge therefore Communion in one kind was at no time an vniuersall Custome Also Vasques the Iesuit saith Wee cannot denie but that euen in the Latine Church Communion in both kinds was vsed and had continuance vntill the age of Thomas Aquinas Alexander de Hales affirmeth There is more Merit and power of Grace in Communion in both kinds than in one Lastly you were guided with that Spirit which is mentioned 3. Kings 22. v. 21. when you affirme That venerable Bede saith in the Church of England euer since her first Conuersion vnder S. Gregorie Communion vnder one kind was in vse for the Laitie First No such report is found in this Author Secondly In one of the Testimonies cited by your selfe the contrarie is affirmed For the two Apostles which are reported to haue spoken to a certaine young Lad say as followeth You must wait vntill the Masse or Communion be ended and hauing then receiued the holy Food of the Lords Bodie and Bloud you shall be deliuered from your infirmitie by Death and exalted to coelestiall ioyes IESVIT The fourth Argument is drawne from many signes and tokens that the Primitiue Church did sometimes vse Communion vnder one kind First the 〈◊〉 receiued vnder the onely forme of Bread as may appeare by the History of Serapion related by Eusebius and the Graecians at this day though they giue the Cup to the Communicants in the Church yet to the sicke they send the Sacrament vnder one kind Yea S. Ambrose as Paulinus relateth in his life at his death receiued the Sacrament vnder the sole forme of Bread and straight after the receiuing thereof gaue vp his soule ANSWER First touching Serapion related by Eusebius he receiued both Bread and Wine for the ladde which brought the Portion of the Eucharist was commanded by the Priest which sent him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sop the Bread into Wine and being moistened to put it into the old mans mouth and this was performed accordingly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ladde wetted or moistened the Portion of Bread which he receiued of the Priest and infused the same into Serapion the old mans mouth and the Councell of Towers alleadged by Burchardus and Iuo reporteth the manner and reason of dipping the Bread in this sort We command That the Eucharist which is 〈◊〉 to be giuen sicke Persons shall be dipped into the bloud of our Lord that the Priest may say in truth The body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ profit thee to life eternall Which dipping sheweth that they thought it not sufficient to
giue the sicke only the Bread Secondly if Paulinus of whom Erasmus saith it is the same Craftsman which hath corrupted so many things in the writings of S. Hierome and S. Augustine report truely touching S. Ambrose this prooueth not That Communion in one kind was in ordinary vfe but that S. Ambrose being speechlesse and without vnderstanding and deceasing instantly after the Bread was put into his mouth and consequently being preuented by death receiued by reason of this accident one materiall part of the Sacrament onely IESVIT Secondly it was an antient custome in the Church to giue the Sacrament vnto Lay men especially vnto Eremites to be carryed in most pure linnen corporalls home to their houses to be taken in the morning before all other meates but there is no signe or token in Antiquity That the Faithfull together with the consecrated Bread did carry away with them consecrated Wine yea diuers Histories shew the onely forme of Bread was carryed away and consequently that the Church did not then esteeme of Communion 〈◊〉 one kind as of a Sacrilegious mayming of the Sacrament as Protestants now doe ANSVVER It was an antient custome to send the Communion to Persons absent in both kinds as appeareth by the Historie of Exuperius in S. Hierome And Gregorie Nazianzen saith of his sister Gorgonia if her hand had laid vp any Portion of the types or tokens of the pretious body and of the bloud c. And as touching sicke persons Why should we not iudge that the same order and proportion was kept in sending the Sacrament to them at their houses as was obserued when sicke persons came to the Communion Table or Altar in the Church IESVIT Thirdly it was an antient custome in the Graecian Church to consecrate the holy Eucharist on Saturdayes and Sundayes and on the other dayes of the weeke to communicate Ex praesanctificatis of the praesanctified forme st hat is consecrated on the Saturday or Sunday before Now it is not probable that they did consecrate Wine to indure fiue or sixe dayes long for feare specially in such hot Countreyes the same should grow sower Wherefore for the most part they did communicate vnder one kind ANSWER The Office of the Greeke Church making mention of the Sacramentall signes consecrated or sanctified before they were vsed nameth Bread and Wine For thus wee reade in the same That after the Priest hath sanctified the Bread hee powreth Wine and Water into the sacred Cup and rehearseth the accustomed words c. And the Liturgie Praesanctificatorum of the Presanctified signes according to Genebrards 〈◊〉 speaketh both of the body and of the bloud presented in the mysticall signes It appeareth also by Balsamon vpon the 52 Canon of the Synod in Trullo that both the Elements were consecrated at least vpon two seuerall dayes in the weeke and Baronius acknowledgeth That in antient times the Eucharist was reserued in both the kinds now if it was consecrated and reserued in both kinds Why should we imagine that it was not deliuered and receiued in both kinds IESVIT Fourthly the Manichees liued in Rome and other places shrouding themselues among Catholikes went to their Churches receiued the Sacrament publikely with them vnder the sole forme of Bread and yet they were not noted nor there discerned from Catholikes A manifest signe that Communion vnder one kind was publikely in the Church permitted at the least vpon some iust causes that might be pretended For how could the Manichees still refusing the Cup haue beene hidden among these antient Christians if they had beene persuaded as now Protestants that receiuing vnder one kind only is a Sacriledge If one in the Church of England should refuse the Cup but once in a publike Communion in the Church would he not be incontinently noted ANSWER The holy Eucharist in the dayes of Pope Leo the first was administred in both kinds and Romists could neuer as yet produce any one sufficient testimonie or example that so much as any one congregation of Christians in antient times receiued in the open Church vnder one kind And although the place obiected out of Leo doth in speciall concerne the Manichees yet it sheweth plainely that the present doctrine and practise of the Roman Church is not consonant to the antient practise of the same Church Neuerthelesse our peruerse Aduersary argueth against vs out of this place of Leo saying That if the Communion had not sometimes beene administred vnder one kind the Manichees practise in refusing the Cup could not haue passed vnmarked but must necessarily haue beene obserued I answer First The Manichees were espied and discouered otherwise how could the Pope reprooue their practise Secondly Vasques the Iesuit saith That these Heretikes receiued the Cup into their hand but dranke no Wine and among a multitude of Communicants some few might hold the Cup to their mouth and make shew of drinking and yet receiue no Wine IESVIT The last Argument is practise of the Apostles that is of the first Christians vnder them of whom wee reade in the Acts of the Apostles Erant perseuerantes in Doctrina Apostolorum communicatione fractionis Panis Orationibus speaking of sucred Eucharisticall Bread the taking whereof was ioyned with Prayer which vnto the newly baptised was straight giuen after Baptisme and yet there is no mention of Wine So that Protestants if they will haue these Christians to haue Wine they must out of their owne liberalitie by way of interpretation bestow it vpon them seeing the words of the Text doe not affoord it them To this Apostolicall practise wee may adde the example of Christ who gaue to his two Disciples in Emaus the Sacrament vnder the sole forme of Bread That the Bread Christ gaue was Eucharisticall and consecrated the words of the Text insinuate some learned Fathers affirme and the miraculous effect of opening their eyes to know Christ and their returne to Hierusalem and the Church of the Apostles in all hast confirmes it That they receiued at the hands of Christ the Sacrament vnder one onely kind of Bread is euident by the context of the Holy Narration which saith That vpon our Sauiours breaking and giuing them Bread they knew him and bee straight vanished out of their sight So that here also if Protestants will haue Wine giuen to these Disciples they must by the superabundance thereof in their Expositions supply 〈◊〉 want thereof in Scripture yea the Scripture in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 capable of that Exposition the Apostles acknowledging of Christ in the verie fraction and giuing of Bread and our 〈◊〉 departing in the same moment leaues not-time for him to giue them Wine after the Bread ANSWER Your last Argument is poore and drowsie and perhaps you imagine that at this your Feast if yet we may be said to drinke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine Calice we haue drunke well before and therefore in the
Heauen especially to them that haue had the Truth manifested the heart of this Argument were broken Besides the force of this Argument lyes vpon two things one expressed the other vpon the By. First That which is expressed is Wee and our Aduersaries consent That there is saluation to some in the Romane Church What would you haue vs as malicious at least as rash as your selues are to vs and denie you so much as possibilitie of saluation If wee should wee might make you in some things straine for a Proofe But wee haue not so learned Christ as eyther to returne euill for euill in this headie course or to denie Saluation to some ignorant silly Soules whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men that professe the Foundation Christ. And therefore seeke not to helpe our cause by denying this comfort to silly Christians as you most fiercely doe where you can come to worke vpon them And this was an old Tricke of the Donatists For in the Point of Baptisme Whether that Church or in the part of Donatus they 〈◊〉 all to be baptised among them Why because both parts 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 was true 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 which that peeuish Sect most vniustly denyed the sound part as S. Augustine deliuers it I would aske now Had not they Orthodoxe Baptisme among them because the Donatists denyed it iniuriously Or should the Orthodoxe against Truth haue denyed Baptisme among the Donatists to crie 〈◊〉 with them Or that their Argument might not be the stronger because both parts graunted But marke this how farre you runne from all common Principles of Christian Peace as well as Christian Truth while you denie Saluation most vniustly to vs from which you are further off your selues Besides if this were or could be made a concluding Argument I pray why doe not you beleeue with vs in the Point of the Eucharist For all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of England That in the most blessed Sacrament the worthie Receiuer is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and Reall Bodie and Bloud of Christ truly and really and of all the benefits of his Passion Your 〈◊〉 adde a manner of this his presence Transubstantiation which manie denie and the Lutherans a manner of this presence Consubstantiation which more denie If this Argument be good then euen for this consent it is safer communicating with the Church of England than with the Romane or Lutheran because all agree in this Truth not in any other Opinion And therefore if you will force the Argument to make that the safest way of Saluation which differing parts agree on Why doe you not yeeld to the force of the same Argument in the 〈◊〉 of the Sacrament one of the most immediate meanes of Saluation where not onely the most but all agree Secondly The other vpon the By which helpesthis Argument is your continuall poore Out-crie against vs That wee cannot be saued because wee are 〈◊〉 of the Church Sure if I thoughtI were out I would get in as fast as I could But what doe you meane by Out of the Church Sure out of the Romane Church Why but the Romane Church and the Church of England are but two distinct members of that Catholike Church which is spread ouer the face of the Earth Therefore Rome is not the House where the Church dwells but Rome it selfe as well as other particular Churches dwells in this great Vniuersall House vnlesse you will shut vp the Church in Rome as the Donatists did in Africke I come a little lower Rome and other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are in this 〈◊〉 to whom 〈◊〉 Christ the care of the Household is committed by God the Father and the Catholike Church the Mother of 〈◊〉 Christians Rome as an elder Sister had a great 〈◊〉 committed vnto her in and from the prime times of the Church and to her Bishop in her but at this time to 〈◊〉 passe manie 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 formerly beene in the House England and some other Sisters of hers are fallen out in the House What then Will the Father and the Mother God and the Church 〈◊〉 one Child out because another is angrie with it Or when did Christ giue that Power to the Elder Sister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and her 〈◊〉 the Bishop there should thrust out what Child 〈◊〉 pleased Especially when shee her selfe is 〈◊〉 accused to haue giuen the offence that is taken in the House Or will not both Father and Mother be sharper to her for this vniust and vnnaturall vsage of her younger Sisters but their 〈◊〉 Children Nay is it not the next way to make them 〈◊〉 her out of doores that is so 〈◊〉 to the rest It is well for all Christian men and Churches that the Father and Mother of them are 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 as some would haue them And Saluation need not be feared of any 〈◊〉 Child 〈◊〉 outing from the Church because this Elder 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are discouered in the House and 〈◊〉 growne 〈◊〉 for it to them that complayned But as Children crie when they are awaked so doe you and 〈◊〉 with all that come 〈◊〉 you And 〈◊〉 confesses That yee were in 〈◊〉 dead sleepe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much 〈◊〉 when the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you Now if you can prooue that Rome is 〈◊〉 the Catholike Church it selfe as you commonly call it speake out and 〈◊〉 it In the meane time you may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too if you will and it seemes you doe for here you forget 〈◊〉 what the B. said to you 〈◊〉 The doubting Person said the B. to me may be better saued in it than you B. 〈◊〉 that is easier than you than 〈◊〉 man that knowes so much of Truth and opposes against it as you and your 〈◊〉 doe How farre you know Truth other men may iudge by your proofes and causes of Knowledge but how 〈◊〉 you oppose it when it is knowne that is within and no man can know but God and your selues Howsoeuer where the Foundation is but held there for ordinarie men it is not the 〈◊〉 of vnderstanding but the simplicitie of beleeuing that makes them safe For Saint Augustiue speakes there of men in the Church and no man can be simply said to be out of the visible Church that is baptized and holds the Foundation And as it is the simplicitie of beleeuing that makes them safe yea safest so is it sometimes a quicknesse of vnderstanding that louing it selfe and some by respects too well makes men take vp an vnsafe way about the Faith So that there is no question but manie were saued in corrupted times of the Church when their Leaders vnlesse they repented before death were lost And Saint Augustines Rule will be true That in all Corruptions of the Church there will euer be a difference betweene an Heretike and a plaine well-meaning man that is mis-led and beleeues an Heretike I pray you Marke this and so by Gods grace will I. For our Reckoning will bee
Christ to his heauenly Father are thereby made most highly venerable But the Crosse Nailes and Lance were those things which at the instant time of Christs Passion had a residence in Christs bodie and were ioined thereunto as instruments of his Passion and were offered by Christ to his heauenly Father Ergo The Crosse Nailes and Lance are thereby made most highly venerable Both Propositions are false in whole or in part First those things which at the instant time of Christs Passion had a residence in his bodie and were ioined thereunto per contactum phisicum as instruments of his Passion were not thereby made most highly venerable because there is no diuine authoritie or any other snfficient reason to prooue this assertion Secondly these things were seperate instruments and not perpetually conioined to his person and if none did worship them when they were actually conioined there is no reason to thinke that they are to be worshipped being diuided If apparrell when it is ioined to an honourable person may be coworshipped with the person yet when it is diuided from the person and hangeth in a wardrobe or is worne by a Page it is otherwise Whiles God appeared to Moses in the bramble bush the ground whereon Moses stood is called holy Exod. 3.6 But this holinesse being only relatiue transitorie and denominatiue and not inherent or durable the former vision and apparition being finished the ground whereon Moses stood returned to his old condition The like may be said of the water of Iordan considered when Christ was baptised with it and againe considered when his baptisme was finished and out of the vse An Embassador during his embassage is a publicke and honourable person when his office ceaseth the honour consectarie and dependant vpon his office ceaseth also Secondly the latter branch of the assumption to wit the Crosse Nailes and Lance were offered by Christ to his heauenly Father at his Passion is impiously false for nothing was offered by Christ to his heauenly Father at his Passion but himselfe and part of himselfe Heb. 7.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he offered vp himselfe Heb. 9. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the eternall Spirit he offered himselfe without spot to God c. Heb. 10. 10. Wee are sanctified through the offering of the body of lesus Christ once for all 1. Pet. 2.24 Col. 1.22 Heb. 9.12 By his owne bloud he entred once into the holy place c. 1. Pet. 1. 19. And if the Crosse Nailes and Lance were offered by Christ to his Father then we were redeemed with corruptible things contrarie to the Apostles doctrine 1. Pet. 1. 18 and Wood Nailes and Yron were a part of the propitiatorie Sacrifice for the sinnes of the whole world which is a Iesuiticall or rather an Antijesuine doctrine that is a doctrine ascribing to dead creatures Yron Wood Steele Nailes c. that which is most proper to the pretious blood of Iesus This doctrine maintained by Loiolists is most sacrilegious and more to be abhorred than Iudas his lips But it is fulfilled in these men which Clement Alexandrinus saith of heathen Idolaters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are they not prodigious monsters which adore stockes and stones IESVIT Out of which J may conclude that Christ Iesus being a true man his Image hath a most euident and vndeniable right to represent him and so to be honoured for his sake ANSVVER Conclusions borrow their strength from their premises but the former premises haue no power to inforce this conclusion For although Christ is a true man yet his painted Image wanteth euident and vndeniable right to represent him because such right presupposeth diuine institution The same represents him and stands for him only by humane imagination which is all the Aduersarie is able to prooue but religious worship must haue a more sound and certaine foundation otherwise we must say to Papals when they are thus prodigall in giuing Christs honour to Idols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 4. 22. ye worship ye know not what If in ciuile worship one should frame an Image or chaire of State in honour of a king and commaund people to kneele and bow to it none will be so foolish as to obey vnlesse such commandement be deriued from the kings authoritie or law But in things religious and heauenly men haue not the same libertie of deuising and commanding as appeareth by Gedeons Ephod Iudg. 8.27 Lastly if it should be granted that artificiall Images did represent figure or teach Christ Iesu by diuine institution as fully as the Bookes of holy Scripture or as the inward conceits and images of the mind yet it were inconsequent to inferre that the same were therefore to be worshipped in such manner as Papals require They were indeed to be vsed with reuerence but reuerent vsing and adoration are diuers actions IESVIT §. 2. THis Worship was euer since the Apostles in the Church without beginning ANSVVER IF it had no beginning how can this man prooue that the Apostles were the Authors IESVIT The disagreeing of Protestants about the time when Worship of Jmages began is a sufficient Argument That there is no beginning thereof assigneable ANSVVER The Iesuits Proposition is Worship of Images hath beene practised in the true Church euer since the Apostles c. His first Argument to confirme this is If Protestants disagree in assigning the time when the worship of Images first began in the Church Then the worship of Images was practised vniuersally and perpetually from the Apostles dayes But Protestants disagree in assigning the time when the Worship of Images first began in the Church Ergo The worship of Images was practised vniuersally and perpetually from the Apostles dayes and consequently the same worship is to be receiued and practised in these dayes First The consequence of the Maior Proposition is denied For is it not ridiculous to argue in this manner Learned Papists disagree in assigning the time when Heathenish Idolatrie first began Therefore Heathenish Idolatrie had his beginning in Paradise But learned Papists Bellarmine Pererius Barradias c. disagree in assigning and pointing foorth the moment of time when Heathenish Idolatrie fist began The time when people first began to offer their sonnes and daughters to diuells is not assigneable And who can certainely report when barbarous people first began to eate mans flesh or when the Assyrian matrons began first to prostitute themselues at the temple of Venus Is it therefore consequent that these customes had their beginning from Noahs dayes because their originall is not assigneable Our aduersaries Achilles therefore Protestants are not able out of approoued Historians to assigne the persons and time who and when began the worship of images in the Church Ergo the said custome is originally from the Apostles rather deserueth contempt and derision than an accurate solution 2. The assumption of the former argument is also denyed For Protestants disagree not in
vnder the elements of Bread and Wine But if Christ be not present wholly and totally vnder the forme of Bread he cannot be truely and really eaten Why then is his bodie brought from heauen to be there really present or how can the bodie of Christ being coextended in place according to the naturall dimensions thereof enter into the mouth of the Receiuer yea in at the mouth of the wicked and vnworthie as Fathers teach ANSWER That bodie which is neither circumscriptiuely nor definitiuely present in the outward signes is not substantially contained in the same The bodie of Christ is neither of these waies present in the outward signes not the first way for in circumscription the continent must be as large or ample as the thing contained not the second way for that which is definitiuely in one place cannot at the same time be substantially in another And yet although the bodie of Christ is not according to his materiall substance wholly and intirely vnder the outward elements notwithstanding the bread may truely be tearmed the bodie of Christ because of a relatiue Pactionall and Sacramentall Vnion and Donation of the things signified together with the signes worthily receiued For God Almightie hath made a Couenant with his Church and faithfull people to nourish their Soules with the liuely food of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ Ioh. 6.32 He hath also appointed a Sacrament in which there shall be made a representation and commemoration of his passion vntill his comming againe 1. Cor. 11.26 and he hath annexed a promise therunto which is that as often as the same is lawfully administred he will communicate to all worthie receiuers the Bodie and Bloud of Christ 1. Cor. 10.16 Now then when the outward Sacrament is administred and receiued as is aforesaid God remembring his Couenant reacheth vnto the soules of his people by the powerfull hand of the Holy Ghost the very bodie of his Sonne crucified and his blood shed and powred out and hereby feedeth and nourisheth them to eternall life The Obiect or thing carnally and bodily receiued is the Elementall Creature The Obiect and thing receiued spiritually and internally is the bodie and blood of Christ crucified vpon the Crosse. The Donour and distributer of this inward gift is the blessed Trinitie the Sonne of God himselfe and by appropriation the Holy Ghost The eating and drinking of it is by Faith Iohn 6. 29. 35.40.47 And thus if it be demanded What kind and manner of Presence we maintaine It is answered First a mentall and intellectuall presence by way of representation Secondly an exhibitiue presence by way of donation and Tradition on Gods part and faithfull reception on mans part whereby wee possesse the thing giuen and are vnited mystically to Christ our Head Now to the effecting hereof locall and corporeall presence is not necessarie A father and his sonne may bee absent by distance of place one from the other yet the sonne is truely and really vnited with his father so as his fathers nature is in him and he hath right in his fathers person and estate A mans goods may be at Constantinople and yet he liuing in England is a true possessour or owner and proprietarie of them and he may communicate and vse them and distance of place hindreth not his right and proprietie Now although there bee a difference betweene things temporall and spirituall yet thus farre there is agreement That euen as wee possesse temporall meanes being locally absent so likewise wee may receiue and partake Christs bodie and blood locally distant by the power of Faith and by the donation of the Holy Ghost according to a celestiall and spirituall manner For in Baptisme we are washed with the blood of Christ and wee put on the Lord Iesus Gal. 3.27 Now that which is absent cannot wash or bee put on in a naturall manner but a spirituall vnion and application is necessarie Euen so in the holy Eucharist wee are nourished with the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour but to the performance hereof locall presence or presence by indistance of place is of no vse but a spirituall vnion and application is sufficient These things premised the Iesuits Argument is answered as followeth First The bodie and bloud of Christ are in such sort truly and really presented in the holy Eucharist as that they are truly and really eaten not bodily but spiritually by Faith Secondly Although they be receiued by Faith onely yet they are truly and really communicated by the powerfull operation of the Holy Ghost Thirdly Christs bodie is not brought locally from Heauen vnto Earth but being crucified vpon the Crosse is symbollically represented vpon Earth by the Sacramentall signes and actions and being locally at this day sitting on Gods right hand in Heauen is also truly and effectually communicated and giuen to worthie Communicants Fourthly The Sacrament is not instituted in vaine although Christs bodie and bloud are not locally present in the outward Elements For if vpon the worthie receiuing of the Sacrament the Holy Ghost truly and effectually communicates vnto vs Christs bodie and bloud to be the food and life of our soules and doth not so effectually and fruitfully communicate the same by any other meanes then there is great vse of this Sacrament and vnspeakable benefit receiued by it although Christs bodie and bloud are not locally contained within the outward signes Fifthly The Fathers teach not that Infidels and wicked persons receiue in at their bodily mouth the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ. First The Fathers cited in the Margine of the Iesuits booke speake not of wicked and vnworthie persons Secondly They affirme expressely That Infidels and wicked persons receiue the bodie of Christ onely Sacramento tenus that is according to the visible signe and not reuera in truth and in deed Panem Domini non Panem Dominum The Bread of the Lord and not the Bread which is the Lord or the Lords Bodie The Author bearing the name of S. Cyprian saith Lambunt Petram Wicked men like AEsops Foxe licke the outside of the Rocke but sucke not out the Honey They receiue saith Bernard Corticem Sacramenti furfur Carnis the outward Barke of the Sacrament and the Branne of Christs flesh Beda Omnis Infidelis non vescitur carne Christi No vnbeleeuer eateth the flesh of Christ. Hilarius Panis qui descendit de Coelo non nisi ab eo accipitur qui Dominum habet Christi membrum est The Bread which came downe from Heauen is receiued of him onely which hath the Lord and is a member of Christ. Cyril of Alexandria For as much as wicked men doe not liue nor are reformed to immortalitie they eat not that flesh Origen If it were possible for one perseuering a wicked man to eat the Word which became Flesh being liuing Bread it would not haue beene written Whosoeuer eateth this Bread shall liue
for euer S. Chrysostome This Bread filleth the mind and not the belly this is our Bread and the Bread of Angels Thirdly Whereas some of the Fathers say That the bodie of Christ is receiued into the mouth they vnderstand by the bodie of Christ the Sacrament or outward signe of his bodie as appeareth not onely by their owne Exposition where they call the outward signe a figure of Christs bodie but also because they say the bodie of Christ is visibly eaten and his bloud is visibly drunke Also they affirme That the bodie of Christ is spirituall food and passeth not into the bodie but into the soule IESVIT Wherefore seeing we must of necessitie grant as I haue prooued That some part of the Bodie of Christ is vnder consecrated Bread penetrating the same and occupying the same place with it Why should wee doubt to beleeue the whole Bodie of Christ to be wholly and totally in euery consecrated Hoast ANSVVER The Question is Whether the whole Bodie of Christ is entirely and totally in euerie consecrated Hoast that is Whether the true and substantiall Bodie of Christ which is an humane bodie essentially and in kind differing from a Spirit and hauing magnitude proportion order and distinction of parts is contained vnder euerie small crumme of consecrated Bread The Iesuit propugneth this Paradox in manner following IESVIT For if we can beleeue that two bodies bee in the same place at once we may as easily beleeue the same of twentie And if we grant that one part of Christs body doth penetrate that is occupy the same roome with the quantitie of Bread Why should we not thinke that the rest of his parts may also doe the like Our Sauiour saith That it is as easie for a Cammell to passe through a needles eye as for a rich man to enter into the kingdome of heauen adding Though these things be impossible to men yet all is possible vnto God If then God can put a whole Cammell in the eye of a needle is he not able to put the whole body of Christ within the bignesse of a consecrated Hoast The body being mortall and passible could penetrate the body of his Mother and come out of her wombe through the same still remaining entyre as we professe in the Creede to beleeue Natum de Maria Virgine Why then may not the same body being now glorious immortall and as the Apostle speakes spirituall penetrate the quantitie of the Bread and inclose it selfe wholy and intirely within the small compasse thereof and Christ that made heauie things not to weigh as the body of Peter walking on the water coloured things not to be seene as his owne person which he so oft made inuisible to the Iewes bright things not to shine as his body after his Resurrection more bright than the Sunne did not shine in so many apparitions to his Disciples finally a flaming furnance not to burne the bodies of the three children cast into the midst thereof Why may not hee keepe a body from occupying a place or from extruding another bodie from the place where it is for to occupie a place or to extrude thence another body is but an effect consequent and flowing from the nature of a quantitatiue substance as to weigh to be seene to shine to burne be the naturall and necessarie effects of heauie coloured bright and fierie things ANSVVER We must beleeue whatsoeuer God hath reuealed But God hath reuealed that Christ hath a true body and all proprieties and attributes essentiall to a true body Heb. 2.16 Luc. 24. 39. And therefore the Romish doctrine which conuerteth the indiuiduall and finite body of Christ into a Spirit and fancie and destroyeth the true properties of the same affirming that is not circumscript palpable or situated in one particular place at once is erroneous neither can that be one and the same indiuiduall body betweene which are interposed many bodyes but betweene the one indiuiduall body of Christ in heauen and the same body in the Eucharist many other bodies to wit the seuerall bodies of the Heauens the Ayre the Pixe c. are interposed and the body of Christ in heauen is not ioyned to the sacramentall body by continuation or indiuision But it is obiected a whole Cammell may bee in the eye of a needle Math. 19. 24. 26. The passible body of Christ passed through the Virgins wombe the same being closed and not opened Peters heauie body walked aboue the waters the bodyes of the three young men continued in the fierie ouen vnconsumed or scorched Christs body was diuers times inuisible and once it was resplendent as the Sunne c. Therefore the now glorified body of Christ by the omnipotent power of God may be separate from circumscription length and thicknesse and other effects and properties of indiuiduall humane bodies It is answered the examples mentioned in the Antecedent are set vpon the Racke for our Sauiour affirmeth not that a Cammell continuing in his ordinarie quantitie can passe through the eye of a small needle but he saith onely that this may as easily be fulfilled as a rich man which maketh Mammon his God may enter into the kingdome of heauen Prouerbiall speeches Parables and suppositions are not according to euery passage in them to be strayned or expounded literally Luc. 17.6 Math. 7.3 If it be further said it followeth in the Text All things are possible with God Math. 19. 26. Marc. 10. 27. Luc. 18.27 Our Answere is First these words are referred to the latter part of Christs speech touching the rich mans entrance into heauen and not to the Cammels passing thorow the needles eye Secondly all things agreeable to truth and which God will haue done are possible but that it is agreeable with Truth for a Cammell retaining his quantitie with the whole bodie to passe thorow the eye of a needle or that God will haue this to bee or that it is his will that the bodie of Christ shall bee separated from circumscription and continencie of place deserueth to be credited when the Aduersaries prooue it by Diuine Reuelation or by other demonstration Secondly The Scripture affirmeth not nor yet the Apostles Creed that the blessed Virgin in 〈◊〉 trauell in Puerperio bare Christ in a different manner from other women Luk. 2.23 and what a sophisticall inference is this the Creed hath Borne of the Virgin Marie meaning according to conception generation and clearenesse from the companie of man Ergo the bodie of the blessed Virgin was not opened at the time of Christs birth Also many Fathers and some Schoolemen denie this and therefore from an Antecedent doubtfull and in question a consequent or conclusion of Faith cannot be inferred Thidly The example of Peter Math. 14. 29. and the three yong men Daniel 3. prooue not the question for the miracle might be in the water and in the fire and not
present and the Doctrine was personally pronounced to them alone Also Math. 18.9 15.22 the like is found concerning other doctrines and precepts and yet these doctrines and precepts are common to all Christians The Romists if they were not partiall could distinguish betweene personall precepts deliuered to the Apostles onely as they were by office Pastors of the Church and betweene common precepts deliuered vnto them as Christians and as they represented the whole body of the Church But the Obiectour addeth That we are not able to demonstrate that this Precept Drinke yee all of this was common I answere First if that which Christ said to the Apostles S. Paul spake to the whole multitude of Beleeuers then Christs words vttered to the Apostles were common But the first is true 1. Cor. 11. 28. And S. Hierome inferreth vpon the same Oportet Coenam dominicam esse communem quià ille omnibus Discipulis suis qui aderant equalitèr tradidit Sacramenta The Lords Supper ought to be common because Christ deliuered the Sacraments of his Bodie and Bloud equally to all the Disciples that were present Secondly If Communion in both kinds hath not foundation in Christs words vttered to the Apostles then Communion in one kind wanteth foundation in Christs words and institution and if it haue not foundation in Christs words then it wanteth all foundation for S. Paul grounds his whole Doctrine touching the holy Eucharist vpon our Sauiours words and institution 1. Cor. 11.23 Thirdly If the reason why the Apostles receiued the Cup was because they were Priests then all Priests being present at the communion ought to receiue in both kinds although they administer not but this is repugnant to the practise of the Romane Church Fourthly It is not certaine that the Apostles were Priests when Christ ordained and administred the Eucharist for that they were not Priests Math. 18. is affirmed by our Aduersaries and that they were made Priests Luke 22. by the words Hoc facite as Bellarmine Suares Henriques Hosius Canisius c. say can neuer be prooued for what force is there in Hoc facite to conclude Priestly Ordination and if Hoc facite prooueth Priesthood then Lay men are made Priests when the words Doe this in remembrance of mee are spoken to them in part or respectiuely Hitherto we haue found nothing in our Aduersaries but Sophistrie of words and Theomachie against Diuine Institution and Apostolicall Tradition But to hold correspondence with the rest the Iesuit addeth IESVIT Secondly These words Accipite manducate bibite Take eate drinke were certainely spoken vnto the same persons and they runne so together in rancke that no man can with probabilitie make the one outrunne the other But the command Accipite which signifies Take with your hands for it is a Precept distinct from Manducate which is take with your mouth was giuen to the Apostles onely not vnto all the faithfull else wee must say That all Communicants were bound to take the consecrated Bread and Cup with their hands who euer heard of such a Precept in the Christian Church ANSWER This Argument truely propounded is All persons commanded to eate were commanded to take None but the Apostles were commanded to take for if Lay men were commanded to take they must alwayes receiue the Eucharist in their hands Ergo None but the Apostles were commanded to eate This Obiection fighteth against Lay mens receiuing in one kinde which vntill 〈◊〉 we supposed Papists had permitted but it seemeth that they will haue the whole vse of the Sacrament depend vpon the Popes deuotion and pleasure But touching the Argument I denie the Assumption for Lay men were commanded to take that is to receiue at least into their mouthes and then to manducate that is to chew or swallow and to let the Element receiued passe into their stomack To take with the hand is agreeable to Christs manner of Administration and it was vsed in the Primitiue Church but the same is not of absolute necessitie for some Communicants may want hands or the naturall vse thereof but to receiue into the mouth and then to manducate or drinke is commanded The Iesuit imagineth that all taking is by the hand and thus he prooueth himselfe to be neither good Grammarian nor Diuine Virgill saith Illos porticibus rex accipiebat in amplis where accipio is to entertaine S. Paul saith Per quem accepimus gratiam Rom. 1. 5. By whom we haue receiued grace and Apostleship ca. 8.15 Ye haue receiued 〈◊〉 the spirit of Adoption The Angell said Ioseph thou sonne of Dauid feare not to take Mary thy wife Math. 1. 20. His Bishopricke let another man take Act. 1.20 IESVIT The third reason is because there was a peculiar and personall cause Why Christ should giue that particular Councellor Admonition for the imperatiue word doth not euer signifie a precept but often an aduise or a permission as your Maiestie well knowes to his Apostles at that time to wit because he would haue them all not onely drinke of his bloud but also would haue them drinke of the same Cup without filling and consecrating the same anew this is more manifest in the Protestants opinion who thinke the Chalice whereof Christ said in S. Mathew Bibite ex hoc omnes to be the same whereof he said in S. Luke Accipite diuidite inter vos non enim bibam amplius de hoc genimine vitis For this being supposed the words Drinke ye all of this imports the same as Diuide this Cup amongst you But Diuide this Cup amongst you was a personall precept giuen to all the Apostles importing that euery one should drinke but a part of that Cup and that also in such measure as the Cup without new filling and consecration might suffice for all to drinke therof What All men in the world Or all Christians that should succeede them to the Worlds end Christ neuer intended that one Cup for all nor is it indeed diuided or parted with vs but the Apostles dranke it vp amongst them Wherefore referring my saying to your Maiesties learned censure I conclude that to me it seemes cleere that the precept or rather direction Drinke ye all of this was but personall confined vnto the number of all there then present ANSWER The Precept Drinke ye all of this saith the Iesuit was personall and concerned the Apostles onely because our Sauiour commanded them All to drinke of the same Cup without filling and consecrating it anew But if Drinke ye all of this had imported a generall duty then Christ could not haue stinted them to one single Cup. This obiection is grounded vpon a false Principle which is all Precepts are Personall in regard of their substance wherein any circumstance is Personall Nothing can be more absurd and false than this Position for in the Decalogue it selfe some things were Personall as appeareth by the Preface Exod. 20.2 Likewise in many generall or common
contrarie the redundant satisfactions of Saints are laid vp in the Treasurie of the Church But this assertion is voluntarie deliuered onely and not prooued And if Saints haue superabundant Satisfactions then they haue also superabundant Merits as appeareth in Christ who is their samplar and if their Satisfactions are communicable why shall not their merits be communicated to other persons and if this why may not the Church applie and communicate the one as well as the other Poperie is a mysterie Apoc. 17.5 And the Canonists say of the Pope Stat pro ratione voluntas his absolute will stands for a reason Et potest aliquid de nihilo facere he is able to make something of nothing otherwise there is the same reason for communication of Merits and for Satisfactions for in Christ Iesus both were communicated alike Christ is the Samplar or Archtype according to which the Doctrine of saintly Merit and Satisfafaction if there were in truth any such must be proportioned IESVIT The Doctrine of Satisfaction is like the former of Merit much spoken against and by many disliked in the highest degree who yet perchance doe not much vnderstand what they so earnestly impugne as may appeare by this briefe declarion of our Doctrine in this point ANSWER We grant the paritie of both Doctrines in regard of falshood and as there is no Merit of Condignitie but in Christ Iesus alone so likewise of Satisfaction But whereas you say that many dislike the same without vnderstanding what they impugne this insolent censure is frequent with you yet we freely grant that by mixing Theologie and Sophistrie you 〈◊〉 laboured to make your new Doctrine 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 and you are oftentimes so obscure and vncertaine in this and many 〈◊〉 points that you vnderstand not your selues And of our selues we may affirme without arrogancie that for ought you are able to demonstrate to the contrarie God almightie both by Nature Art and Grace hath affoorded vs no lesse sufficient meanes to vnderstand truth than your selues IESVIT First we doe not thinke that any sinner can make satisfaction by workes vnto God for the guilt of mortall and damnable sinne The reason is because workes of Satisfaction are such as gaine pardon and obtaine it by some kind of justice from God The workes of his children may merit in this sort as being the workes of them that are instruments of the holy Ghost dwelling and operating within them and liuing members of Christ his mysticall body receiuing influence of life and operation from him as from their head Sinners are neither the children of God nor the temples of the holy Ghost nor liuing members of Christ so their workes cannot be so gratious as they may deserue any thing as due to them in any kind of justice from God much lesse can they deserue so great a reward as remission of mortall sinne and of the eternall punishment due thereunto ANSWER As you thinke not the one touching sinners so you cannot prooue the other concerning iustified persons as appeareth by that which hath formerly beendeliuered in confutation of your errour IESVIT Secondly we doe not teach that any Saint or Angell can make satisfaction vnto God for the mortall sinne of any man no not all Saints and Angels putting together all their good Workes and Satisfactions The reason is because an iniurie is so much the greater by how much the person that offers it is base and the person to whom it is offered is noble as the light of reason and the estimation of mankind sheweth But God whom man casts away and abandoneth by sinne and consequently wrongs is of infinit dignitie and man offending him comparatiuely with him infinitly base wherefore mortall sinne which is an abandoning of God for some transitorie content is iniurie done vnto God incomparably grieuous On the other side Satisfaction is the lesse esteemed by how much the person satisfying is meane and the person offended great Men and Angells what are they being compared with God certainely nothing therefore certainely their Workes and Satisfactions are inestimably disproportionable to satisfie for any the least mortall sinne the guilt whereof is so great a debt as is vnsatisfiable but onely by the pretious bloud of the Sonne of God hee being a person coequall and consubstantiall with his Father to satisfie Gods anger by humbling the infinite dignitie of his person vnto the most disgracefull death of the Crosse offered satisfaction full and compleat yea superabundant the person satisfying in regard of his diuinitie being infinitely more honourable than the person offending was contemptible by reason of his basenesse Thirdly the Roman Church teacheth That those that haue beene made the children of God by Baptisme if they sinne mortally afterward when they repent God forgiues them the guilt of sinne and consequently the eternall punishment by the sacrament of Penance bountifully and graciously through the meere merits of Christ without their satisfactions onely they must by faith by feare by hope by contrition by purposes of amendment prepare and make themselues capable of that gratious and grace-infusing pardon ANSWER The Sonne of God alone is the propitiation for our sinnes 1. Iohn 2.2 and the fault and guilt of sinne was purged by the same Oblation By him all that beleeue are iustified or absolued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from all Act. 13. 39. Neither are there two distinct Sacrifices and Ransomes to wit the Blood of Christ for the redemption of crimes and eternall paine and the merits and supra-passions of Saints together with Christ his sufferings for smaller sinnes and for the temporall paine of mortall But the Lambe of God bare all our sinnes in his Bodie vpon the Tree Iohn 1.29 1. Pet. 2.24 and his Blood alone cleanseth from all sinne 1. Iohn 1.9 Smaller sinnes and offences are a parcell of mans debt to God and wee pray to God in the Name and for the Merits and satisfaction of his beloued Sonne to forgiue vs our whole debt Our Sauiour taught not his Church to pray to his Father for a free remission of lesser sinnes for our owne satisfaction together with Christs but binding vp all sinnes in one bundle he teacheth vs to pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Forgiue vs our debts that is all our debts Psal. 103.3 as we forgiue our debtours Math. 6.12 If therefore our Aduersaries teach no more concerning this than what is contained in this Section to wit that no Saint or Angell can make satisfaction to God for mortall sinne This Doctrine is true but there is also a further truth to wit No Saint or Angell can make compensant satisfaction to God for the guilt of any sinne great or small but all such satisfaction taking the word properly was performed by the Sonne of God who trode the Wine-presse alone and of the people there was none with him Esa. 63. 3. Ioh. 1.29 1. Ioh. 2.2 Secondly It is a Veritie That regenerate persons
miscarriage hath power to represent her selfe in another Bodie or Councell and to take order for what was amisse eyther practised or concluded So here is a meanes without infringing any lawfull Authoritie of the Church to preserue or reduce Vnitie and yet graunt as the B. did and as the Church of England doth That a Generall Councell may erre And this course the Church tooke did call and represent her selfe in a new Councell and define against the Hereticall Conclusions of the former as in the case at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus is euident 4. The next thing I consider is Suppose a Generall Councell infallible in all things which are of Faith If it prooue not so but that an Error in the Faith be concluded the same erring Opinion that makes it thinke it selfe infallible makes the Error of it seeme irreuocable And when Truth which lay hid shall be brought to light the Church who was lulled asleepe by the Opinion of Infallibilitie is left open to all manner of Distractions as it appeares at this day And that a Councell may erre besides all other instances which are not few appeares by that Error of the Councell of Constance And one instance is enough to ouerthrow a Generall be it a Councell Christ instituted the Sacrament of his Bodie and Bloud in both kinds To breake Christs Institution is a damnable Error and so confessed by Stapleton The Councell is bold and defines peremptorily That to communicate in both kinds is not necessarie with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ. Consider with me Is this an Error or not Bellarmine and Stapleton and you too say it is not because to receiue vnder both kinds is not by Diuine Right No no sure For it was not Christs Precept but his Example Why but I had thought Christs Institution of a Sacrament had beene more than his Example onely and as binding for the Necessaries of a Sacrament the Matter and Forme as a Precept Therefore speake out and denie it to be Christs Institution or else graunt with Stapleton It is a damnable Error to goe against it If you can prooue that Christs Institution is not as binding to vs as a Precept which you shall neuer be able take the Precept with it Drinke yee All of this which though you shift as you can yet you can neuer make it other than it is A Binding Precept But Bellarmine hath yet one better Deuice than this to saue the Councell Hee saith it is a meere Calumnie and that the Councell hath no such thing That the Non obstante hath no reference to Receiuing vnder both kinds but to the time of Receiuing it after Supper in which the Councell saith the Custome of the Church is to be obserued Non obstante notwithstanding Christs Example How foule Bellarmine is in this must appeare by the words of the Councell which are these Though Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament and gaue it his Disciples after Supper vnder both kinds of Bread and Wine yet Non obstante notwithstanding this it ought not to be consecrated after Supper nor receiued but fasting And likewise that though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faithfull vnder both kinds yet this Custome that it should be receiued by Lay-men onely vnder the kind of Bread is to be held for a Law which may not be refused And to say this is an vnlawfull Custome of Receiuing vnder one kind is erroneous and they which persist in saying so are to be punished and driuen out as Heretikes Now where is here any slander of the Councell The words are plaine and the Non obstante must necessarily for ought I can yet see be referred to both Clauses in the words following because both Clauses went before it and hath as much force against Receiuing vnder both kinds as against Receiuing after Supper Yea and the after-words of the Councell couple both together in this reference for it followes Et similiter And so likewise that though in the Primitiue Church c. And a man by the Definition of this Councell may be an Heretike for standing to Christs Institution in the very matter of the Sacrament And the Churches Law for One kind may not be refused but Christs Institution vnder Both kinds may And yet this Councell did not erre No take heed of it But your Opinion is yet more vnreasonable than this For consider any Bodie Collectiue be it more or lesse vniuersall whensoeuer it assembles it selfe Did it euer giue more power to the Representing Bodie of it than binding power vpon all particulars and it selfe too And did it euer giue this power any otherwise than with this Reseruation in Nature That it would call againe and reforme yea and if need were abrogate any Law or Ordinance vpon iust cause made euident to it And this Power no Bodie Collectiue Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill can put out of it selfe or giue away to a Parliament or Councell or call it what you will that represents it And in my Consideration it holds strongest in the Church For a Councell hath power to order settle and define Differences arisen concerning the Faith This Power the Councell hath not by any immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken vp in the Church from the Apostles Example So that to hold Councels to this end is apparant Apostolicall Tradition written but the Power which Councels so held haue is from the whole Catholike Church whose members they are and the Churches Power from God And this Power the Church cannot further giue away to a Generall Councell than that the Decrees of it shall bind all particulars and it selfe but not bind the Church from calling againe and in the after calls vpon iust cause to order yea and if need be to abrogate former Acts I say vpon iust cause For if the Councell be lawfully called and proceed orderly and conclude according to the Rule the Scripture the whole Church cannot but approoue the Councell and then the Definitions of it can neuer be questioned after And the Power of the Church hath no wrong in this so long as no Power but her owne may meddle or offer to infringe any Definition of hers made in her representatiue Bodie a lawfull Generall Councell And certaine it is no Power but her owne may doe this Nor doth this open any gappe to priuate spirits For all Decisions in such a Councell are binding And because the whole Church can meet no other way the Councell shall remaine the Supreame Externall Liuing Temporarie Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controuersies Onely the whole Church and shee alone hath power when Scripture or Demonstration is found and peaceably tendered to her to represent her selfe againe in a new Councell and in it to order what was amisse Nay your Opinion is yet more vnreasonable For you doe not onely make the Definition of a Generall Councell but the Sentence
speciall Promise of Diuine assistance and grace is annexed to the Sacramentall signes vsed and receiued according to Christs Institution which belongeth not to other signes and figures therefore it is inconsequent to say one Element receiued alone signifies as much in substance as both Ergo the vse of one Element is as profitable and effectuall as the vse and reception of both But if the obiection be reduced to forme the defect will be more apparent If there is the same signification of one single Element which there is of both then there is the same benefit obtained by receiuing one which is obtained by receiuing both But there is the same signification of one single Element which there is of both to wit spirituall Food vnion of the Faithfull and Christs passion Ergo There is the same benefit obtayned by receiuing in one kind as in both I answer First denying the consequence of the Maior Proposition For although there were the same signification in one Element which is of both yet there is not equall benefit reaped by receiuing one as is reaped by receiuing both because the promise of Grace is annexed to the receiuing both and not to the receiuing of one without the other for when a promise is made vpon condition of a duty to be performed the promise is not fulfilled but vpon obseruing the condition Now Christ hauing instituted the Sacrament as a seale of his Couenant and appointed the same to be receiued in both kinds as his Institution shewes the Church cannot expect that Christ should fulfill his promise in giuing his flesh and blood by the Sacrament vnlesse the Church obserue his ordinance and doe that which he appointed Also obedience is better than Sacrifice 1. Sam. 15. 22. but when we administer and receiue in both kinds we obey Christ saying Drinke ye all of this and we disobey when we doe otherwise Therefore although there were the same signification of one Element which is of both yet the same benefit is not reaped by receiuing one which is obtained by receiuing both Secondly to the assumption I answer that there is a more perfect and liuely representation of spirituall feeding and refection and of coniunction of the faithfull and of Christs death and Sacrifice vpon the crosse by both the signes than by one and pouring out of the wine doth in a cleerer manner represent and signifie the effusion of Christs bloud and also the separation of his body and soule and there is a more perfect similitude of nourishment in Bread and Wine together than in Bread alone Eccles. 4. 9. so likewise two Elements represent more than one and nourish more than one and vnite more than one Otherwise if the representation of one Element were equall to the representation of both to what purpose should our Sauiour institute a Sacrament in two kinds which according to Papists who will seeme wiser than God is as sufficient in one kind as in both IESVIT The fourth thing required to the substance of a Sacrament is Causalitie to wit to worke in the soule the Spirituall effects it signifies This Causalitie cannot be wanting to the Sacrament vnder one kind wherein is contayned the fountaine of Spirituall life For the cause why the Sacrament in both kinds giueth grace and refresheth the soule is That Christ is assistant vnto them bound by his promise at the presence of sensible signes to worke the proportionable spirituall effects in disposed soules But Christ is in the Sacrament vnder the forme of Bread and he is able through infinite power and bound by inuiolable promise to worke the effect of grace preseruing vnto life eternall the worthy participant of this Sacrament vnder the forms of Bread Qui manducat hunc panem viuet in aeternum Not any doubt then may be made but the Sacrament in one kind is full entire compleate in substance and by participation thereof prepared consciences doe receiue the benefite of celestiall fauour that conserueth the life of the soule with daily increase in perfection ANSVVER The summe of this obiection is There is the same power of causing Grace in one signe receiued alone as in both because Christ the Fountaine of Grace is receiued in one signe alone Ioh. 6. 51. Therefore the receiuing of one signe alone is as sufficient and profitable as the sumption of both The Antecedent of this Argument is denyed And the Scripture Ioh. 6. 51. saith not Whosoeuer eateth Sacramentall Bread without Wine shall liue for euer but if any eat this Bread which came downe from Heauen to wit Christ Iesus incarnate shall liue for euer And then it followeth Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you Ioh. 6.53 Now let the Romist chuse which Exposition hee pleaseth If our Sauiour in these last words speaketh of Sacramentall and Spirituall eating ioyntly then Communion in both kinds is necessarie to life eternall and if he speake of Spirituall eating only by Faith then this Scripture prooueth not the necessitie of receiuing eyther Bread or Wine and much lesse prooueth it that there is the power of causing Grace in receiuing Bread alone IESVIT §. 4. Communion vnder one kind not against Christ his Precept ALthough Communion vnder both kinds pertaine not to the substance of the Sacrament yet if Christ did specially command the same we are bound to that obseruance and should by Communion vnder one kind sinne not against his Sacrament and Institution but against a speciall Diuine Precept ANSWER WHen Christ instituted the Sacrament he prouided and prescribed two materiall Elements and not one onely or none and he sanctified and distributed both and with his Institution and Practise he conioyned a Precept Doe this in remembrance of me Drinke ye all of this Saint Paul likewise saith Let a man prooue himselfe and so let him eate of this Bread and drinke of this Cup and the practise of the holy Apostles in their dayes and of the successours of the Apostles and Saint Pauls owne practise appeareth 1. Cor. 10.16 cap. 11.26 and he describeth Communicating by taking the Cup as a most noble part saying Yee cannot drinke the cup of the Lord and the cup of deuils 1. Cor. 10.21 Iustin Martir who borders vpon the Apostles saith That Christians in his age distributed the sanctified Bread and Wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to euery one present and he addeth further that the Apostles taught That Iesus commanded them to doe thus Saint Chrysostome saith That whereas in the old Law there was a difference betweene Priests and Laicks in communicating of Victimes in the New Testament it is otherwise for one Bodie and one Cup is ministred to all This practise continued as a Law more than a thousand yeeres after Christ. And Haimo who liued in the yeere 850. saith That in his dayes all the people receiued out of the
Cup the Blood of Christ. And Paschasius after him saith That the Flesh or Bread is not lawfully receiued without the Cup or Blood But whatsoeuer our Sauiour himselfe and his Apostles and their successours and the antient Church by perpetuall succession taught and practised a thousand yeeres and vpward yea euen the Latine Church it selfe and the Easterne Churches to this day the Romish generation exalting it selfe aboue God not onely presumeth to commit Sacriledge at home but it censureth the followers of Christs Testament of damnable Heresie Now that they may with some colour aduance their owne Tradition against the Ordinance of Christ they prie into euery corner and inuent friuolous Glosses and Pretexts as wee shall further perceiue by that which followeth in our Aduersaries Discourse IESVIT Hence wee may probably inferre That Christ gaue no speciall Precept thereof because Christ hath commanded no more concerning the vse of the Eucharist than what by the substance of the Institution and nature of the Sacrament we are bound vnto leauing accidentall circumstances belonging thereunto to be ordained by the Apostles and Pastours of the Church as S. Augustine noteth saying Our Lord did not appoint in what order the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to be taken afterward but left authoritie to make such appointments vnto his Apostles by whom he was to dispose and order his Church So clearely doth S. Augustine speake that Christ gaue no commandement to his Church concerning the vse of the Sacrament besides such as are contained in the substance of the Institution of the Sacrament of which kinde Communion vnder both kinds cannot be as hath beene prooued which will farther appeare by pondering the places alleadged to prooue a Precept ANSVVER Ecclesiasticall power to adde detract or alter any thing about Sacraments is confined to things adiaphorous and Saint Augustine in the place obiected speaketh expresly of these but the materiall parts of Sacraments belong to their substance euen as the matter of the heauens is of the substance of the heauens and the matter of the Scripture is of the substance of the Scripture And if in the holy Eucharist the Element of Wine is not of the substance thereof then the Eucharist may bee administred without wine also the kinde of the Element may be changed and milke or broath substituted in the place of wine and the Communion may be celebrated in wine without bread In all compounded things the moitie of the matter is the moitie of the substance and whatsoeuer Iesuited Romists teach I see not how their Laickes can truely say that they haue at any time in all their liues beene partakers of this Sacrament for if halfe a man be not a man then likewise halfe a Communion is not a Communion If they except That they receiue the Blood of Christ Consecutiue or by Concomitancie I reply This Answere solueth not the difficultie for I dispute of the materiall Element and the direct receiuing thereof and not of receiuing the blood of Christ spiritually or any other way Now the wine is a moitie of the substantiall outward matter of the Eucharist and therefore if they receiue not the wine they receiue not the one halfe of the substantiall outward matter of the Eucharist and consequently they receiue no Eucharist for as the poope of a ship the prowe being broken away is no ship and as halfe a cloake is not a garment to keepe a man warme so likewise halfe a Communion is no Sacrament And concerning the being of Christs Blood in the bread by Concomitancie I answere If this were granted they receiue not Christs blood Sacramentally but some other way for nothing is receiued Sacramentally but that which is caused by the words of consecration Ergo It is not there Sacramentally and consequently it is not receiued Sacramentally IESVIT The words of Christ Doe this in remembrance of me doe no wayes inferre a Precept of both kinds First because he said Doe this in remembrance of me onely of the Sacrament in forme of bread of the forme of wine not absolutely but conditionally Doe this as often as you drinke in memorie of me that the Aduersaries of the Church might not haue any the least plausible shew to complaine of her neglecting Gods Precept For this Precept Doe this being the onely Precept giuen by Christ to his Church as shall afterwards appeare and giuen absolutely of the forme of Bread conditionally of the forme of Wine there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing against Christs Precept by Communion vnder one kinde ANSWER The first reason vpon which you presume that our Sauiours words Doe this in remembrance of me are not Preceptiue in regard of Communion in both kinds is an emptie shadow without substance of matter Our Sauiour in your Tenet saith not Doe this as often as you Lay men communicate but whensoeuer you receiue the cup and drinke then doe it in remembrance of me But if this be the whole sence then Christs words must be resolued against sence in this manner As often as you Lay people drinke which needeth neuer to be done by you according to Romish Diuinitie Doe this nothing in remembrance of me Secondly Quotiescunque biberitis as often as you drinke maketh not the Precept conditionall in respect of the cup more than of the bread for in the very next verse it followeth Quotiescunque ederitis panem hunc as often as you shall eate this bread and therefore if as often as you shall drinke restraineth the speech in regard of the cup then as often as you shall eate restraineth the Precept in regard of the bread And Haimo saith Idem sensus est c. There is the same sence of Doe this being referred to the cup as of Doe this being referred to the bread But Doe this referred to the bread is a Precept Ergo Doe this referred to the cup is also a Precept But the Romanist infatuated with this conceit croweth as followeth That the Aduersaries of the Church might not haue the least plausible shew c. The Vermine is deceiued in calling vs Aduersaries of the Church for wee are fast friends to the true Catholicke Church and we are Aduersaries to Romists an vnsound Church no otherwise than Saint Paul was to the Galathians when he said Am I therefore become your enemie because I tell you the truth Gallat 4. 16. And touching the fancie of this Obiectour I adde That euen as when Saint Paul said 1. Cor. 10. 31. Whether yee eate or drinke or whatsoeuer thing else ye doc doe all to the glorie of God If these words should be resolued in this manner As often as ye eate and drinke doe this to the glorie of God the placing of this word As often restraineth not the speech from being a Precept so likewise when Saint Paul saith As often as ye shall drinke doe this in remembrance of me this manner of speaking altereth not his words from