unanimiter nobiscum conspirat Basil Epist 293. Here you see the whole Western Church vindicated from that Heresie which doubtless S. Hilary well knew Those then in France that retain'd their antient Faith kept themselves within the communion of the Roman Catholique Church from whose communion never yet any separated but Schismatiques and Heretiques 34. The nâ—xâ— Father of the Church that I mâ—et with is Arch-bishop Lawd as you are pleas'd to call him whose authority you have often cited which I cannot but wondâ—r at since he was so far from being a Father that he neither livâ—d nor died a Son of the Church but the Doctor out of that pretended Aâ—ch-bishops book charges â—hâ— Church of Rome with four opinions â—â—pugnant to thâ— plâ—in words of Scripture viz. 1. â—ransubstanâ—â—ation 2 Administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind 3. Invoâ—ation of Saints 4. Adoration of Images Answ Though it be not much pertinent to our present purpâ—se to examine these Dâ—ctâ—ines according to Scripture since the Doctor confâ—ssâ—s that the Church of Rome nâ—twithstanding her errors is a trâ—â— Church and a member of the one Catholique Sect. 12. yet because he bâ—lieves the Church of Rome is justly charged with thâ—se â—nsound and un-Catholike Doctrines as â—â— is pleased to caâ—â— them I could not pass them by but shall endeavour as briefly as may be to vindicate the Church of Rome from that foul and false câ—lumnie 35 First then Transubstantiation according to the Roman Catholike Doctrine is a true and real change of the total substance of Bread and Wine after and by viâ—â—ue of the words of Consecration pronounc't by the Priest into the true reall and substantial Body and Blood of Christ Let us now examine how this Doctrine is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture Our blessed Saviour saith Matth. 26. 26 and Maâ— 14. 22. This is my Body and This is my Blood The words are plain and being taken literally must necessarily import a change For that which was before Bread and Wine after our Saviours consecration is according to the proper and literal sense of the words the very Body and Blood of Christ Where is then the Repugnancy between this Doctrine and the plain words of Scripture Christ sayes of that which was Bread and Wine This is my Body and This is my Blood The Church of Rome sayes so â—oo Instead then of a Repugnancy here is a fulâ— consent and agreement between the plain wordâ— of our Saviâ—ur and thâ— Doctrine of the Church of Rome Well but the words are not to be taken literally but figuratively Be it so Then is this Doctrine of the Church of Rome repugnant at the most but to the figurative sense not to the plain words or literal sense of Scripture But to come closer If the Doctor can produce any one Text of Scripture that shall be but halfe as plain for the Metaphorical or figurative sense or that the Creatures of ' Bread and Wine are not really and substantially changed into the very Body and Blood of Christ after Consecration but retain their former nature and substance of Bread and Wine as these words of Christ are for such a change I' will then for my part give the cause and turn Protesiant too or any thing else that Doctor Boughen shall command me to be But if he cannot produce any such Text as most certainly he cannot then is the Doctâ—ine of the Protestants and not that of the Church of Rome repugnant to the plain words of Scripture 36 But to justifie your selves and to avoid the Catholike Doctrine of the real presence and Transubstatiation you thus interpret those words This is my Body c. viz. This is a signe or figure of my Body but what Scripture have you for it What authority What Catholique Father what Councel did ever give that interpetation of those words I confess if there be no true and real change of Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ in the blessed Sacrament then will I also admit of that interpretation For if there be no such change then of necessity those creatures of Brâ—ad and Wine can be but bare signes and figures onely of Christs Body and Blood But behold Gods Providence over his Church The Holy Ghost fore seeing the evasions and shifts that some men would use to delude the world and to poison the Church with their Heretical Doctrines in opposition to Gods sacred Truth has in St. Lukes Gospel 22. 19 20 utterly cut you off even from that very glosse and interpretation The words of the Evangelist are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Cup of the new Testament in my blood which Cup is shed for you These are the words in the Original Language of St. Lukes Gospel And though both in the Latin and English translation the Relative which may seem to refer to Blood as well as to Cup yet in the Greek it is very plain that it must refer to Cup. If then that which was câ—â—â—ain'd in the cup was that which was shâ—d for the sins of the world how could it be Wine oâ— a sign or figuâ—e â—â—ly of Christs bloud or any thing else but the true and real bloud of Christ For no sign oâ— sigure of bloud but Christs true and real precious bloud was shed for the sins of the world I will endeavour to make this Doctrine appear more plaine by this Syllogism That which was shed for the sins of the world was the true and real precious bloud of Christ But that which was in the cup was that which was shed for the fins of the world Ergo. That which was in the cup was the true and real precious bloud of Christ The Major Proposition cannot be denied without blasphemy the Minor is most plain by the words of the Text and therefore the conclusion must necessarily follow Here is no Fallacy Doctor in this Syllogism no more terms then ought to be in a Syllogism but to utterly debar you of your sign or figure I argue thus That which was shed for the sins of the world was not a sign or figure only of Christs bloud But that which was in the Cup was shed for the sins of the world Ergo. That which was in the Cup was not a sign or figure only of Christ's bloud Those words then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Cup the New Testament in my Blood cannot admit of this interpretation This Cup is a sign of my Blood unless you will grant that a bare sign of Christ's bloud was shed for the sins of the world which is high blasphemy For it is very plain by the express words of the Text That the very Cup which was the New Testament in Christ's Blood was shed for the sins of the world wheâ—efore that Cup could not be a sign onely but the tru precious bloud of our Saviour Whâ—t say you Doctor who now
the antient Catholique Faith So that in K. Edw. VI. days the Nation might be said to be heretical but the Church was even at that time Catholike otherwise it could not have been a church and in Q. Maryes daies both church and Nation were Catholique But you cannot prove that ever the Roman Nation much less the Roman Church was heretical since their first conversion to the Christian faith And if the Pope and with him all the bishops of Italy had at the same time forsaken the Catholique faith yet the Church of Rome might still have retain'd her prerogative of being the Mother church and Head of all particular churches in the world And though the Pope might have forfeited all his Ecclesiastical power and Jurisdiction and so ceast to be Head of the church yet the right of S. Peters Chair had always remained in the Church of Rome for since the bishop is not the church formally nor the church formally in the bishop the church cannot formally erre with the bishop neither must the church formally taken be there fore heretical because the bishop thereof is so Now I hope I have done with this â—edious and frivolous argument 65. That the Church of Rome imposes a new sense on the articles of the Câ—eeds is a meer calumny spoken gratis without any colour or shew of proof That the Church of Rome and you agree in the letter not in the Exposition is true The Church of Rome following the Exposition of the Universal Tradition and practise of the church and you your new phantastical and heretical Exposition but though you did agree with the Roman Church in the Exposition as well as in the letter yet could you not be excus'd from heresie because you oppose other Doctrines of Faith that are not contain'd in the three Creeds for not all points of faith that are necessary for all sorts of men to be believed are comprehended in the three Creeds either joyntly or severally 66. And whereas you charge the Church of Rome with imposing a new Creed of Pius 4. upon the church against a canon of the Councel of Ephesus I answer first That which you mean is but a profession of Faith wherein are contained certain Doctrines of faith that are not expresly comprehended in the Creeds It can no more properly be called a Creed then your book of Articles which is your Profession of faith and as not all but some certain persons only amongst you were bound by your Statutes to subscribe to that Profession so likewise not every man but some certain persons only are bound to subscribe to the other Secondly that Profession was agreed upon by the whole Councel and confirm'd by Pope Pius 4. It was neither compos'd nor commanded by the Pope alone but by him joyntly wiâ—h the Councel Thirdly there is not one Article of that Profession contrary or repugnant to any one article of the former Creeds and although this had been a new Creed as you call it yet had it not been against any canon of the Councel of Ephesus that Councel at the most for bidding only private persons to set forth or publish any Creed that should contain in it any Doctrine contrary to any article of belief in those former Creeds Neither indeed could the church in the Councel of Ephesus debar the church in future ages of that power and authority which the church in former ages assumed and exercised Why should it be more unlawful for the church assembled in the Councel of Trent to set forth a new form of Profession of Faith then it was for the church assembled in the Councel of Nice or Constantinople No Councel can rob the church of that power which Christ hath given her And by this Profession of Faith the Roman Church has neither alter'd the letter nor sense of former Creeds though you dare be bold to say She has strangely alter'd the sense I confess you are bold to say any thing but you have prov'd nothing 67. And whereas you say you take the Rule of Faith in the literal sense let us see to give but one instance since you make Scripture the sole Rule of your faith whether you take those words of our blessed Saviour Mat. 26. 26. Mar. 14. 22. and Luc. 22. 19. in the literal sense Our B Saviour there takes Bread and Wine and sayes This is my Body which is given or broken for you This is my Bloud which is shed for you which you thus interpret This is a sign only of my Body and this is a sign only of my Bloud You deny that the bread and wine which our B. Saviour took and blest was truly and substantially converted into his body and bloud and are not asham'd to say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture Let all the world judg whether herein you take the Ruleâ— of Faith in the literal sense It is much more plain that you go against the very letter of the Gospel against the expositions of the antient Fathers both Greek and Latin the Declarations of Councels the antient and universal practise of the whole church which alwayes adored the B. Sacrament after consecration with divine worship 68. In Sect. 29. I meet with another absurd and impertinent distinction between errour in Faith and errour in matters of Faith as if errours in Faith and errours in matters of Faith were not all one They have hitherto been esteemed all one and that by those who have been far beyond you both in learning and judgment though your sharp understanding be able to divide and put a difference between them 69. Much like to this is that saying of yours Sect. 30. Every violation of the Faith cuts not off from the Catholique Church but a false opinion of God does How then is that of S. Paul true Heb. 11. 6. Without faith it is impossible to please God Can a man violate Faith though but in some one point and yet be a Catholique who ever thought so besides your â—elf by the same reason one and the same man may be at the same time both Catholique and Heretique But to prove your new opinion you produce an antient testimony of S. Augustine de fid Symb. c. 20. Haeretiâ—i de Deo falsa sentiendo ipsam fidem violant quapropter non pertinent ad Ecclesiam Catholicam Heretiques by having a false opinion of God violate Faith it self wherefore they belong not to the Catholique Church Answ Here is now a fine proof if well examin'd You must know Doctor that the word Quapropter wherefore refers to the words immediately going before and then 't is plain that this testimony of the Father makes directly against you For if men be therefore cut off from the Catholique Church because they have violated the Faith then it necessarily follows that every violation of Faith cuts a man off from the Catholique Church But in favour to the Doctor let us once grant against all
over all the parts of the Christian world and as being the great Metropolitan of the world infuses unity into all particular Churches and Christians She is in this her largest amplitude properly and truly call'd the Catholique Church And because the Catholique Church cannot fall into any error in faith or any other damnable error whatsoever nor teach Doctrines superstitious sacrilegious or repugnant to plain words of Scripture because she is and ever shall be guided by Gods Holy Spirit which hitherto has and ever shall lead her into all truth therefore it cannot be truly said that the Roman Church being this Catholique Church ever was or can be guilty of errors in faith or of superstitious sacrilegious or any damnable Doctrines whatsoever 73. Besides when Luther first for sook the communion of the Roman Church did he not stand alone was he not divided from the world even from those that were not in communion with the Church of Rome as well as from those that were did he communicate in the Sacraments or external worship with any particular Church Congregation People Nation or Sect professing the name of Christ can any man separate himself from that church in whose communion he once liv'd whose Faith and Doctrine he imbrac't and joyn himself to no other congregation in the whole world professing the name of Christ either in doctrine or external communion and yet be no Schismatique If so then there never was or can be any Schism If then Luther was Schismatical in being divided from the Whole Christian world in Faith and communion it necessarily follows that all those who first adhered to him forsaking the communion of that church whereof they had formerly been members and all those who have since followed Luther and have not joyn'd themselves to any church or Christian Congregation whatsoever besides themselves must be guilty of the same Schism How then is it possible for you to avoid the guilt of Schism since you have forsaken the communion of the Church of Rome with whom you once communicated as you confess Sect. 19. and have not joyn'd your selves to any other Christian Congregation whatsoever You abhor the communion of the Roman Church and that which you call the Greek Church abhors you Will you say that the Protestants are the whole Catholique Church then you contradict your self who grant Sect. 12. that Rome her self is a Church a member of the one Catholique You must also then confess that the Greek Church as you call it is no part of the Catholique Church and the truth is you have good reason so to do since she refused to receive you into her communioâ— abhorring and detesting your new Doctrines as heretical If then all those of the Protestant Sect be Schismatical as it most plainly appears they are certainly the Protestants of England must necessarily be involv'd in the same Schism 74. Let us now see how you can vindicate your selves from heresie I will not look beyond those four Doctrines wherewith you have charg'd the Church of Rome as being fond sacrilegious and repugnant to plain words of Scripture viz. Transubstantiation Administration of the B. Sacrament to the Laity in one kind Invocation of Saints Adoration of Images And by your opposing these doctrines as they are held and taught by the Roman Church I shall endeavour to make it appear to the world that you cannot avoid the just imputation of Heresie First then I demand whether the Fathers assembled in the four first General Councels were not competent and lawful Judges of the heresies of those times as the Arrian Macedonian Nestorian Eutychian c. and whether they had not power to condemn those heresies and to anathematize those that held and taught them as heretiques If they had no such power then did they most injuriously and tyrannically usurp a power and Jurisdiction which of right belonged not unto them But this cannot be prudently suppos'd that so many holy reverend and learned Fathers should usurp an authority or arrogate to themselves that power which was not lawfully deriv'd upon them by Christ and his holy church They were the selected Pastors of the whole church men renowned for their piety and learning and could not therefore be ignorant how far the Jurisdiction and authority of a lawful Councel might extend neither would their piety suffer them to transgress the limits of that authority If then those four first Councels had power to judg of and to declaâ—e and define doctrines of faith and to anathematize all those that should oppose them how came the Councels in succeeeding ages to be depriv'd of this power How came the church to lose that authority wherewith she was once invested was her power but temporary and after some few ages to expire or did Christ foresee thaâ— after some few ages his church would be no more infested with Schismatiques or heretiques but we plainly find that such have molested the church in all ages and therefore doubtless in all ages has this power continued in the church and if so why was it not as lawful for the second Councel of Nice which was held above 800. years since to judg and define what reverence and honor is due to holy Images and to condemn the Iconoclasts or Image-breakers as it was for the former Councels to condemn the Arrians Nestorians c And why was it not as lawful for that great and glorious Councel of Lateran wherein were present both the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Hierusalem to judg of and declare the true real and substantial conversion of the creatures of bread and wine after consecration into the true and real body and bloud of Christ and to declare the manner of that conversion as also to express the antient doctrine of the church by the proper signification of a new word Transubstantiation as it was for the first General Councel of Nice to judg of and declare Christs consubstantiality with the Father and to invent that new word to express the antient doctrine descending unto them by universal and in fallible Tradition of Christs co-eternal and co-equal Divinity with the Father You wil find in Vincentius Lyrinesis c. 32. that it was no new thing in his time for the church to invent new words to express old doctrines Why was it not lawful for the Councel of Constance Sess 13. to define and declare the indifferency and sufficiency of communicating the Laity under one kind only and to anathematize those that should pertinatiously oppose that doctrine Lastly why was it not lawful for the Councel of Trent Sess 25. to declare the lawfulness of invocating the blessed Saints and to denounce a curse against all obstinate opposers thereof Thus you see those four fond and sacrilegious doctrines and such as you say are repugnant to plain words of Scripture confirm'd declar'd and defin'd to be sacred truths and Apostolical Traditions by four General Councels You have also seen them held and practis'd by the antient Fathers that
visible in times of hottest persecution and so visible that we can even at this day point at it and that afterwards when it was more glorious it should become invisible to all eyes as that church must be which was distinct from the church of Rome and those in communion with her and that for so many hundred yeares transcends any mans understanding but D. Boughens 12. It is more then probable saith he that there were in this very Island 7000. soules that were not tainted with Popish errours but he brings not so much as a probable argument for it By Popish Errours he means the antient doctrine of the Roman Catholike Church but it is most improbable that there were so many as seven besides such as were condemn'd for Heretikes and confest to be such even by Protestants themselves that before Luthers Apostaâ—ie were separated from the Roman church for there was not so much as one man or woman that followed Luther or Calvin or any other Protestant whatsoever in their new Doctrine or imbrac't their new Reformation as you call it but had been before a profest Roman Catholike 13. It is enough for us sayes the Doctor to prove them to be errours to be against Scripture and the received sense of the antient church Answ For shame Doctor recall your words I am sure that this speech must proceed from much impudence or ignorance they were never yet prov'd to be errors against Scripture some indeed have barkt against Gods church and blasphemed her faith and doctrine as you have done in this Pamphlet wresting the Scripture to their damnable purposes and I am sure that of all men you will never be able to prove them so But what can be more apparent to the world then that all Antiquity confirms the doctrine of the Roman church and condemns yours 14. That which you say concerning the Popes Liberius Honorius and Jo. 22. shall be answer'd hereafter in a more proper place 15. But the Doctor is sure that he ha's manifested that the Church of Rome and those particular churches in her communion are not cannot be the Catholike Church Answ Indeed he ha's made it so manifest that no body can see it for if this conclusion The church of Rome and those particular churches in her communion are not cannot be the Catholike Church be either expresly or implicitly in any thing that he ha's said before I will then lay down the â—â—dgells and never lift up my hand more against D. Boughen 16. In his following discourse I conâ—esse the Doctor seems to say more then ever he said before viz. That the church of Rome and those in communion with her might be a Catholike but not the Catholike Church a part but not the whole Answ But good Doctor saying is one thing and manifesting another this must not be beg'd but prov'd all that he said before was that Rome was a particular church and this too was but only said not prov'd at all and now he at least seems to draw neerer to the question and say that the church of Rome and those particular churches in her communion are but a part of the Catholike Church and that therefore the Catholike Church is of a larger extent and comprehends within her bounds more churches then those only that are in communion with the church of Rome This is easily said but where are your proofs where is your Scripture for it or where is your authority of Fathers or Councells for it can you or any man else shew that at any time between the times of the Apostles and Luthers Apostasie there was any particular church divided from the church of Rome and those in communion with her and yet acknowledged either by the church of Rome or any in communion with her or by any Catholique Father or any Catholique Councell to be a true member of the Catholike church if this cannot be shown as I am most certain it cannot why should we take it upon your word that the church of Rome and those in communion with her is not the Catholike Church but a part only thereof was there ever any particular church not in communion with the church of Rome that sent her Bishops and Prelats to any General Councel wherein the whole Catholike Church was represented or did ever any General Councell receive Bishops or permit them to sit and vote there that were sent from any such church or that would not acknowledge their subjection to the Bishop of Rome as the common Pastor and visible head of Gods church 't is very strange that there should be whole churches whole countryes and Nations all true members of the Catholike Church and so acknowledged that were not in communion with the church of Rome that is never acknowledged any subjection to the Sea or Bishop of Rome and yet that there should be no Records thereof that all these should be invisible to the world for these 1600. yeares together These are strong arguments against you Doctor what arguments you will hereafter bring for your selfe I know not but as yet I am sure you have brought none at all 17. I commend your wisdome in concealing the words of those Canons by you cited Sect. 10. for you plainly perceived that they made nothing for you That sixth canon of the Councel of Nice which seems most to strengthen your cause and ha's been so often objected by your party and so often answer'd ha's been prov'd upon diligent examination to make directly against you as appeares plainly Concil Calc Act. 16. 18. But the Doctor is much scandaliz'd at the maiming of the Lords Supper so that if there were no other cause then that he could not communicate with the Church of Rome Sect. 11. It seems Doctor Boughen cannot content himself with that wherewith the good Primitive Christians were all satisfied They could be contented to carry the blessed Sacrament to their houses and reserve it there for times of necessity under one Species They thought it sufficient to minister it to their sick under the Species of Bread onely to their children when that by some was thought necessary under the Species of Wine onely but the Doctor will have both or none None of the antient Fathers nor the most learned of all the Primitive Christians could ever find it in Scripture that Christ ordained the blessed Sacrament to be given in both kinds to all sorts of people but Doctor Boughen is so quick-sighted that he ha's discover'd that which the whole church for 1500. yeares together could not find out 19. But good Doctor how do we rob the Laity of Christs bloud if those creatures of Bread and Wine be after Consecration truly really and substantially chang'd into the body and blood of our blessed Saviour then those that receive his body receive his blood also for whosoever communicates under one Species only receives both the body and bloud And if there be no such change as I am sure according to your doctrine
maintains Doctrines repugnant to plain words of Scripture you or the Church of Rome you will say perehance that those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were formerly but Marginal Note and are now crept into the Text and that all the Greek copies of S. Lukes Gospel are corrupted This indeed is the answer that one of your great and learned Reformers Beza has given though without any ground or colourable proof but he well knew that the words of the Text were so plain that they could not admit of any other shift or evasion and by this shift you may evade any authority of Scripture that may be brought against you and had truth no other way to defend it selâ— we also might thus answer any text of Scripture that can be alledged against any Doctrine of the Church of Rome 37. But let us now see what the antient Fathers say concerning this fond Doctrine and repugnant to the plain words of Scripture S. Chrysostome speaking of Christ's presence in the blessed Sacrament has these words Ecce eum vides ipsum tangis ipsum manducas Et tu quidem vestimenta cupis videre Ipse verò tibi concedit non tantum videre verùm manducare tangere intrate sumere Hom. â—o ad Pop. Antiochen Behold tâ—ou seest him Christ thou touchest him thou catest him thou desirest to see his garments and he is pleas'd that thou shouldest not only see him but also eat him touch him and receive him within thy body And that this seeing eating touching and receiving Christ is not in a bare figure only appears plainly by these words of the Father following in the same Homily Quod Angeli videntes horrescunt neque liberè audent intueri propter emicâ—ntem inde splendorem hoc nos pascimur That which the Angels tremble to behold and scarce dare presume to look upon by reason of iâ—s glorious splendor even this do we feed on Mark this good Doctor Angels tremble not at such mean creatures as Bread and Wine neither have these creatures as bare signs only of Christs body and bloud such glorious lustre and splendor Indeed Christs true body which good Catholiques feed on is a glorious body ten â—housand times more glorious then the Sun though the glory thereof as being a spiritual body cannot appear to mortal eyes And that you may not fly to your other shift and say that we receive and feed on Christs body by Faith and love only hear what the same Father sayes in the same Homily a little before the last words cited Neque enim illi satis fuit hominem fieri colaphis caedi crucifigi verùm ut semetipsum nobis commiscet nos fide tantùm verum ipsa re nos suum efficit corpus He Christ was not onely contented to become man to be buffeted and crucified but he also incorporates himselfe into us and makes us to be his own body not by Faith only but truly and really And Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antio the same Father thus saith Vnum corpus eâ—â—icimur c. Vt itaque non tantùm per charitatem hoc â—iamus verum etiam ipsa re in illam misceamur carnem hoc namque per escam efficitur quam largitus est nobis We are become one and the same body with Christ viz by the power of the blessed Sacrament That then we may be so not by charity only but truly and really let us be incorporated into that flesh for this is brought to pass by that food which he has given us And now Doctor how is it possible that Bread and Wine should incorporare us into Christ's flesh or that bare figures should make us become one body with him and that not only spiritually and mystically but truly and really But let us hear the same Father speak once more Hom. 60. ad Pop. Antioch Nos Ministrorum tenemus locum qui verò sanctificat â—a immutaâ— ipse est We supply the place of Ministâ—rs but he that sanctifies and changes them is Christ himself Here is a change and that by the power of Châ—ist not theâ— by the Faith of the commuâ—icant 38. Let us now hear what S. Ambrose sayes de Sacram. â—i 4. c. 4. Panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum ubi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi quomodo potest qui panis est corpus esse Christi Consecratione Before the words of Consecration it is bread as soon as Consecration comes of bread it is made the flesh of Christ Mark those words De pane of or from bread How can that which is bread become the Body of Christ by consecration And a little after Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est ut quae erant in aliud commutentur If then there be so great poâ—er in the word of our Lord Iesus that those things which had no being should begin to have a being how much rather does it effect that those things which had a being should be chang'd into an other substance Here then is a change a substantial or essential change as appears plainly by those words in aliud commutentur And what does a substantial or an essential change differ from Transubstantiation and this change is wrought principally by Christs omnipotent power instrumentally by the words of Consecraâ—ion pronounc't by the Priest then doubtless not by the faith and charity of the communicant 39. Some of your Sect I know have been very forward to acknowledg Christ truly and really present in the blessed Sacrament nay that Christs body is really present there but how by faith but what you mean by that expression by Faith I know not howbelt I am sure you must understand either the manner or the means of Christs body being really present there If by those words you understand the manner of Christs body being present in the Sacrament then is his body present there apprehensively only for by Faith the soul apprehends Christs body which in that apprehension is spiritually present to the faithful and worthy communicant but how then can this be clear'd from a contradiction for to be present apprehensively only by faith is contradistinguisht from being truly and really present so that to say Christs body is truly and really in the blessed Sacrament by faith is in effect to say Christs body is truly and really in the Sacrament and Christs body is not truly and really in the Sacrament And if by Faith you understand the means that is either the meritorious pardon that word or instrumental cause of Christs body being really pâ—esent in the Sacrament or a necessary condition without which Christ's body cannot be really present there then first you contradict the forecited Fathers who say that Christ's body is really present in the Sacrament by the omnipotent power of Christ in the words of Consecration pronounc't by the Priest Secondly
this real presence of Christ's body must be either by a change of one substance into another and so consequently by that which the Church calls Transubstantiation and then you will not accuse that Doctrine for being repugnant to the plain words of Scripture or else by consubstantiation and then why do you not adore it and why do you charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry for adoring Christ wheresover he is corporally present since his Humanity is inseparably and Hypostatically united to his Divinity 40. Let us now hear what Eusebius Emissenus sayes Invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis sanguinis sui verbo suo secretâ potestate convertit These words are cited out of the Author by Gratian. de consecrat dist 2. c. quia corpus The invisible Priest Christ converts the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud by his word by his secret power How can Transubstantiation be more plainly exprss't then in these words Or what is Transubstantiation but a change of creatures into another substance Many more testimonies might be brought both from the antient and modern Fathers in confirmation of this Doctrine which to avoid prolixity I have omitted 41. This Doctrine of Transubstantiation being proved as it hath been both by Scripture and Fathers is a sufficient justification of the administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind the blessed Sacrament being integrally as well as essentially contain'd under either kind which is the second Doctrine repugnant as you say to the plain words of Scripture But where is it said in Scripture You shall not administer the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind onely Or where is it said You shall administer the blessed Sacrament to the Laity under both kinds If any such precept be contain'd in plain words of Scripture why has it never yet been discovered and if there be no such plain precept there then the administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind cannot be repugnant to plain words of Scripture the unlawfulness thereof câ—n bâ— but at the most deducible from some places of the Scriptureâ— which being obscurâ— and aâ—biguous cannot be better interpreted then by the antient and universal practise of the church which in former ages esteemed the administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity under one or both kinds a thing indifferent and upon several occasions practised both as when the Maniâ—hees abstaining from wine as a thing unlawful condemned the use of the Chalice in the blessed Sacrament divers Catholique Bishops in opposition to those Herctiques commended the practise of communicating under both kinds and afterwards when this errour was exploded and a contrary succeeded viz. an opinion of certain Heretiques who maintain'd the necessity of communicating under both kinds because as they said Christ was not wholly and entirely comtain'd under either Then the church to prevent a farther Schism declared the lawfulness and sufficiency of communicating in one kind only and did withall forbid the administration of the blessed Sacrament under both The indifferency of communicating in one or both kinds and the antienâ— practise of the church in relation therunto I have els where shown Sect. 20 wherefore here I will only add those words of our blessed Saviour in confiâ—mation thereof Jo. 6. 59. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever If then the end of the institution of the blessed Sacrament which is eternal life may be obtain'd by eating only the body of Christ it cannot be necessary for salvation to communicate in both kinds since salvation may be obtain'd by communicating under the Species of Bread only and these words are a plain exposition of those words precedent so often alledg'd against the Church of Rome by Heretiques Jo. 6. 54. Vnless ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye shall not have life in you whereby it appeares that the conjunctive And is to be taken disjunctively for Or as it is in those words of the Apostle Act. 3. 6. Silver and gold have I none where the sense is Silver or gold have I none Besides Christs body and bloud being entirely contain'd under either Species whosoever receives his body must also receive his bloud and since Bloud is properly the subject of drinking not of eating he that any way receives Christs bloud may be said to drink it drinking being as properly refer'd to the subject as to the action Whâ—â—â—fore though that word And were to be taken conjunctively as it is not yet were it sufficient to communicate under one Species only because whosoever eats Christs body must also necessarily drink his bloud Those other Texts so much urged by Protestants Mat. 26. 27. Drink ye all of this And Luc. 22. 19. Do this in remembrance of me are very impertinent those words being spoken to the Apostles only and to them as Priests and Bishops not in relation to the Sacrament only but to the Sacrifice which the Apostles and their Successors the Priests were to offer up for a continual commemoration of Christs Passion Besides it is to be observ'd that ouâ— blessed Saviour used not those words absolutely Do this in remembrance of me but only when he gave his Body under the Species of Bread and when he administred the Cup then he used them conditionally Do this as often as ye shall drink in remembrance of me 42. The third fond Doctrine and repugnant to the plain words of Scripture is invocation of Saints But where are those plain words of Scripture I have read the Old and New Testament yet never could find any such precept as this Thou shalt not or no man shall invocate Saints Or Thou shalt not desire the Saints to offer up thy prayers to God Or Thou shalt not pray to the Saints to pray for thee and if no such precept can be found in Scripture in plain terms as never any such was yet discovered there then doubtless this Doctrine is not repugnant to the plain words of Scripture But on the contrary I find this Doctrine viz. That the blessed Saints may be invocated very probably if not necessarily deducible from Scripture For if Angels may be invocated why may not Saints who see God as well as the Angels and are in the same state of bliss and glory with those blessed Spirits but that the Angels may be invocated is most plain in divers places of Scripture As from the examples of Abraham Gen. 18. who in that one chapter prayed six times to the Angel Of Lot Gen. 19. Of Jacob Gen. 32. and Gen. 48. 15. where Jacob blessing the sons of Joseph after he had invocated his Angel Guardian useth these words And let my name and the name of my Fathers Abraham and Isaac be invocated on them Which words are far more plain for Invâ—cation of Saints then any place of Scripture that you or any other can alledg can make against it And
Liberius is accus'd of Arianism but falsly for he never subscribed to that damnable Heresie never decreed taught or maintained it He subscribed only to the banishment of S. Athanasius to which the Emperor Constantius forâ—'t and compel'd him by torments as St. Athanasius himself testifies in both his Apologies where he clearly acquits him of Heresie And if St. Athanasius in an other place and St. Hierom charge him with subscâ—ibing to Arrianism it is to be understood interpretative only in that he subscribed to S. Athanasius's banishment which was procur'd by the Arrians and externally communicated with some Arrian Bishops especially since not only those ancient Authors Socrates lib 2. Eccief Hist c. 29. Sozomen lib. 4. c. 10. Theodoret lib. 2. c. 16 17. but also S. Athanasius himself in the fore-cited places testifies that he was no Heretique and that he did nothing in compliance with the Arrians but what he was compell'd unto by a tedious banishment and force of torments And that all Italy and Spain should side with this Pope in that Heresie as you afterwards charge them Sect. 23. is most notoriously false spoken gratis without any authority or ground whatsoever 23. The second Pope that stands charg'd with Heresie is Honorius but what his heresie was the Doctor declares not T is true some Heretiques have charg'd this Pope upon what ground I know not with joyning with the Monothelites in their heresie but it cannot appear that ever he held or taught that Heresie either publickly or privatly His errors were at the most but conjectured by some private Letters which after his death were published in his name But that in his life time he renounc't that Heresie appears Epist Honor. ad Sergium Act. 13. sext Synod Yet suppose Honorius had erred what was that to the Church of Rome she notwithstanding might be free from error And that de facto she was free and persecuted that heresie Pirrhus Patriarch of Constantinople being at her suit banish't by Hâ—raclius the Emperor appears plainly by Platina in Honor. 1. and Sabellicus Aenead 8. lib 6. 24. In the next place comes in Zepherinus charg'd with Montanism but most unjustly He was no Montanist only out of a candid and peaceable disposition he endeavoured to make peace between the Catholiques and the Montanists and this was all his Heresie That plrce of Lyra by you cited in Mat. 16. makes rather against you then for you He sayes there that some Popes have Apostatiz'd and thence concludes that the Church depends not on any particular mans person but consists in those that profess the true faith of Christ He sees not your consequence That because the Bishop of Rome falls into Heresie therefore the Church of Rome must be Heretical but maintains the contrary 25. But behold Marcellinus an Idolater who denyed Christ and offred sacrifice to Idols Answ So also did S. Peter deny his Master Marcellinus externally denyed Christ for fear of torments so did St. Peter for fear of the Jews yet they both confest Christ in their hearts though they both grievously sinned in their external denying of him But as S. Peter repented and afterward became a glorious Martyr so likewise did this blessed Pope follow S. Pâ—ter both in his Repentance and Martyrdom But what is this to the Church of Rome Did all the rest of the Apostles deny Christ because S. Peter denyed him I suppose no man of reason will say so and if not why should the whole Church of Rome be said to forsake her faith because her Bishop for fear of torments denyed Christ in some exâ—â—â—ior action as S. Peter had done before him by oaths and execrations Perchance you will say that S. Peter was not as truly chief of the Apostles and head of that Church which was then in being when he denyed his Master as Marcellinus was Bishop of Rome To this I answer that our blessed Saviour had then founded his Church viz. the night before S. Peters denial when he gave an end to the legal types and ceremonies and instituted the substance the blessed Sacrament of his pretious body and bloud The Church thus founded S. Peter must necessarily be the head thereof and consequently chief of all the Apostles unless you will deny the Apostles to be part of that Church which was then in being And he that shall deny S. Peter â—o be heâ—â— thâ—reof gives Christ the lye who formerly had made that promise to S. Peter in plain and express words Matth. 16. 18. Thou arâ— a rock and upâ—n this rock will I build my Church Christ said not thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church as you falsly translate to deceive the world but Thou art Cephas which in the Syrian language which our Saviour then spake signifies a Rock and upon this Cephas that is this Rock will I build my Church Our blessed Saviour used not two different words as you would make the world believe as Peter in one place and Rock in the other but in both places used the word Cephas which signifies a Rock that being the name which Christ gave to Peter when he first call'd him And though the Catholike Translaters of the New Testament who profess to follow exactly the vulgar Latin Edition as being more authentick then any Greek Copy now extant in the world have translated that place as you do viz. Thou art Peter c. yet have they dealt more ingeniously with the world in advertising that the word Peter signifies a Rock and that our blessed Saviour used not two but one and the same word Cephas which signifies a Rock in that promise made to S. Peter whereas you though professing to follow the Original yet when it makes against you forsake it and follow the Latin and when that makes against you then you pretend to follow the Original Thus you will alwayes have a shift to delude the world and your own souls for had you in that place followed the Original you should have translated it Thou art a Rock not Thou art Peter besides in the Greek the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Rock as ruly and as properly as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So then Christ founded his Church on S. Peter as a Rock as the very connexion of the words demonstrate For in these words of our blessed Saviour I say unto thee Peter thou art a Rock and upon this Rock will I build my Church Can any reasonable man imagine that by those words This Rock Christ meant any other Rock then that whereof he made mention in the words immediately preceding viz. Thou art a Rock It is then most apparent that Christ built his Church on S. Peters person at least as to the Discipline and Government thereof and consequently upon his Successors For if our blessed Saviour knew that his Church even in her very infancy when the Apostles themselves inspired with the Holy Ghost where a great part