signifye the same as Or. Because to strike Father apart and to strike mother apart is worthy of death in a sonne therefore the Scripture Exod. 21. saying He that striketh his Father mother let him dye the death is to be vnderstood disiunctiuely his Father or mother This might be proued by other innumerable instances nor can so much as one example be brought where this rule fayleth This supposed I assume But the Scripture teacheth that the eating of Christs body a part by it selfe is sufficient vnto eternall life Iohn 6.52 The bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world And 58. he that eateth me shall liue by me and 59. he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer Ergo the precept Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you is vnderstood disiunctiuely Except you eate his flesh or drinke his bloud Hence the Fathers when they say the Gospell commands drinking of bloud they meane disiunctiuely because they ground the precept vpō this text The Authour of the booke De Coena Domini sayth the law forbad the eating of bloud but the Gospell commands drinking thereof to wit disiunctiuely S. Austine q. 57. In Leuit. In the law men are forbidden so tast of the bloud of the Sacrifices but in the new law from taking the bloud of our Sacrifice by way of nourishment no man is forbidden yea rather all are inuited thereunto that will haue life to wit disiunctiuely that is they are inuited if they will haue life to eate the flesh or drinke the bloud of our Sauiour Other places brought out of the Fathers by you are partly from the purpose partly falsifyed From the purpose are the places which affirme no more then that the body and bloud of Christ be giuen in the Sacrament vnto all Chrysostom hom 18. in ◠ad Cor. the Cup as distributed vnto all Ignatius epist. ad Philadelphenses c. Falsifyed is the Testimony of S. Iustine pag. 497. but specially pag. 482. for thus you cite it Iustinus Martyr sayth That Christians in his age distributed the sanctifyed bread wine to euery one present and he addeth further The Apostles taught that Iesus did command them to do thus You haue corrupted his testimony two or three wayes First by omission for S. Iustin doth mention not only wine but also water The Deacons sayth he distribute vnto euery one present consecrated bread wine and water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherfore if by this testimony you can proue it is a Diuine precept to giue wine you proue also that it is a Diuine precept to giue water cōsequently your selues to be trāsgressors of the Diuine precept who giue it not That this your peruersity to vrge vs with the testimony of S. Iustin which makes not to the purpose or else by the same your selfe are condemned might not appeare you falsified the place citing what pleased you and leauing out what serued not your turne Secondly these words of S. Iustine The Apostles taught that Iesus commanded them so to doe are not ioyning vpon the wordes that mention the giuing of consecrated bread wine water as you would haue men belieue but follow some 16. or 17. lines after are referred to another matter to wit that Christ gaue a Command to belieue the reall presence S. Iustine his true words are these We are taught that as Iesus Christ is made truly flesh by the word of God in the same manner the Eucharisticall foode by the prayer of the word proceeding from him is the flesh and blood of Iesus incarnate for the Apostles in their writings tearmed the Gospells do deliuer that Iesus gaue that preception vnto them For taking bread into his hands and hauing giuen thankes he sayd Do this in remembrance of me this is my body In like manner taking the Cup after thansgiuing he sayd This is my bloud Thus S. Iustine by which it is euident that he sayth that Iesus gaue a precept not of communion in both kinds but of belieuing the Reall Presence Whence your third corruption is discouered making S. Iustine to say that Iesus commanded to doe thus for to do thus is added vnto the text agaynst the drift thereof which manifestly speaketh of a precept to belieue thus not to do thus In like manner you falsify S. Cyprian Pag. 497. you produce these his wordes as making agaynst Communion in one kind In consecrating and administring the Cup vnto the people some do not that which our Lord did appoint and commanded As who should say these men did transgresse the Diuine precept in that they gaue not the Cup vnto laymen Had S. Cyprian meāt this he should not haue sayd they sin in administring but the contrary they sinne in not administring the Cup to the people But S. Cyprian presently declares wherein they did transgresse the Diuine precept to wit in that some did cōsecrate pure water without wine others meere wine without water and gaue the same to the people What is this agaynst Communion in one kind This place proueth they sinne agaynst the Diuine law who consecrate pure water in lieu of wine as some Protestāts teach men to doe and also that they transgresse the Diuine precept who offer vnto God and giue to the people pure wine without admixtion of water as all Protestans commonly do But that Priests are bound by Diuine precept to giue consecrated wine to the people this place doth not so much as insinuate nor will any learned man cite it for the necessity of the Cup except he haue drunke too much of the Cup. we interprete the place disiunctiuely (*) The place of S. Iohn explicated with an Answere to the Testimonyes of the Fathers Vnles you eate or drinke c. Communion vnder one kinde not agaynst the practise of the Primitiue Church §. 5. CERTAINE it is that the Primitiue Church did very often and frequently vse Communion vnder one kinde so that Laymen had by prescription a Right (i) Ad bibendum pocculum Dei iure communicationis admittimus Cyp. l. epist. 2. to receaue in both kindes yea they were bound thereunto by the obligation of Custome not by diuine precept Also because the Manichees being impiously perswaded that Wine was the (k) Aug. de haeres 46. gall of the Prince of darkenes did (l) Leo serm 4. de Quad. superstitiously abstayne from the Chalice the Church in detestation of this errour commanded for a tyme Communion vnder both kinds vpon which occasion Gelasius Pope made the Decree (m) Gelas. apud Gratian. de Consecrat cap. Comperimus recorded by Gratiā Aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant aut ab integris arceantur And why Because such Abstinents nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi that is were superstitious not absteyning out of any deuotiō but out of an impious perswasion of the impurity of Gods creature Wherfore the
Iesus what reason could you haue to trow as you doe that no Iesuit will maintayne it What Iesuit can you name of so many that haue written of this matter that doth not expresly maintayne that Christ in his supper gaue his mortall and passible body though after an immortall and impassible manner Hence though in the hoast his body could neyther be sensibly felt nor suffer yet otherwise the same might then suffer in the place where it did exist according to the naturall and proper manner of bodyes See Bellarm. lib. 3. de Euchar. c. 12. Suarez Vasquez Valentia and innurable others The sixt Argument pag. 398. If our Sauiours words be litterally 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 euerlasting life Iohn 6.49.50.51 ANSWERE I wonder you dare with such toyes oppose the literall truth of Gods word You may see the idlenes of this your argument in the like S. Paul sayth 1. Cor. 12.3 None can say Lord Iesus but in the Holy Ghost Should one argue that these words are not properly to be vnderstood because Parrats may be taught to say Lord Iesus so if these words None can say Lord Iesus but in the holy Ghost be properly expounded then Parrats should be inspired with the holy Ghost Were not this disputant to be laught at Are you a Doctour and do not vnderstand that externall actions vnto which diuine promises are made must be not only humane proceeding from man as he is man that is from reason and freewill which cannot be â—n dogs and swine but also Christian that is proceding from deuotion â—ayth in Christ Iesus which is wanting in Infidells The seauenth Argument pag. 398. If our Sauiours words were literall playne and regular then Papists could not be diâ—â—racted about the sense thereof but they are notoriously deuided For some say the Proâ—owne this signifyeth nothing others say it signifyeth bread some say it signifyeth â—â—e accidents of bread others it signifyeth the body of Christ c. Touching the body â—â—me say it is materia prima c. ANSWERE This argument proues nothing but your Ignorance who know not â—ow to distinguish diuision about the sense of a speach from diuision aâ—out the Logicall resolution of the single wordes of a speach All know â—hat haue any learning that learned men are deuided about the Logicall â—esolution of many propositions vulgar and plaine about the sense wherâ—f there neyther is nor can be doubt This speach Peter is a man A man â—unneth The wall is white are most playne nor are men deuided about their sense And yet he deserues not the name of a Scholler that doth not â—now there be solemne dissensions in Logicke amongst learned men aâ—out the resolution of these speaches that is about the precise and punctuâ—â—l signification of euery single word All Deuines agree in the sense of Christs speach This is my body that it imports the thing he held in his hands was in the end of the prolation of his speach essentially substantially his body as the substantiue verbe Esâ— doth import But they dispute about the Logicall and precise signification of the single words what is designed punctually by the demonstratiue Pronowne this what by Body which are meere Logicall and Philosophicall subtilties common to all propositions where the same words are vsed So that to mentioÌ„ these differeÌ„ces as matters of moment is a manifest signe that Hereticall Ignorance being out of loue with the literall sense of Gods word resolued not to belieue it seekes the vayle of euery idle pretence to hide the Infidelity of his hart The eight Argument pag. 413. If the sayd words be vnderstood literally then the body of Christ is properly brokeâ— and his blood properly shed in the Eucharist for Saint Paul sayth This is my body which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Saint Luke sayth This is the Cup the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you But the body of Christ is not properly broken nor his bloud properly shed in the holy Eucharist ANSWERE The word of God doth not say that the body of Christ is broken his bloud shed in the Eucharist but onely that the Eucharist is his body which is broken his bloud which is shed for vs for many for the remission of sinnes Caluin c. 11.1 ad Cor. doth expound broken and shed for vs on the Crosse where Christs pretious blood was properly shed his sacred body broken in the flesh and veynes therof which were there rent into peeces Besides to be broken for vs and shed for the remission of sinnes in this place signifyes to be sacrificed for vs vnto God as Caluin saith in the former place frangi interpretor immolari In which sense the body of Christ is broken properly not onely on the Crosse but also in the Sacrament this being a true Propitiatory Sacrifice as Catholicks teach Now take what part you will let the Sacrament be the body bloud of CHRIST broken and shed for vs that is sacrifyced for vs on the Crosse or broken and shed that is sacrifyced for vs in the Eucharist still it followes that the Eucharist is the true body and bloud of our Lord not bread and wine seeing Christ neyther in his Supper nor on his Crosse did sacrifice bread and wine for the remission of sinnes but his body and bloud only The ninth Argument pag. 401. Many Fathers treating of the Sacramentall signes call them figures representations memorialls antitypes of the body and bloud of Christ. But that which is a figure similitude representation of a thing is not properly the same ANSWERE First the Maior proposition of your Argument is false For not one Father of the many you cite doth say that the Eucharist is the figure of the naturall body and bloud of Christ but all they say is First that the Eucharist is a figure memoriall and antytype of Christs passion and death So S. Aug l. 3. de doctrin Christ. c. 16. Secondly that it is a figure of his mysticall body and of the vnity thereof Origen in c. 15. Matth. Aug. in Psal 3. Thirdly the bread and wine before consecration be figures of his body bloud as S. Ambros. l 4. de Sacram. c. 5. Druthmarus in c. 26. Matth. Fourthly that Christ did in the Eucharist represent his body where they take representation for the Reall exhibition of the thing promised as we commonly say that the debtour on such a day is to represent the money that is realâ—y deliuer as Tertul. cont Marci l. 1. c. 14. glossa de Consecrat d. 2. Fiftly they â—ay that the sacred vessells in the old law contayned only a figure of the body and bloud of Christ as the Authour of the Imperfect vpon S. Matâ—hew Finally for want of better testimonyes you bring some that proâ—esse agaynst you that
vnderstand the naturall qualityes that flow form the nature and essence of bread and wine (a) By substance also they vnderstand not the inward substance but outward corpulency massines of bread and wine for ordinarily and in common speach the naturall accidents and proprietyes of a thing are tearmed the nature of a thing Thus we say to be heauy and fall downeward is the nature of the stone to be hoat and to burne the nature of the fire which are but naturall qualityes of stone and fire By this or rather by a more strange manner of speach S. Theodoret Bishop of Ancyra (b) Hom. de natiuit Saluatoris in corr Epiph. p. 3. c. 9. to explicate agaynst Nestorius and Eutiches the coniunction of two Natures in one Person by the example of the water that Moyses conuerted into bloud sayth That the water was not changed in nature nor did cease to be water which in rigour of speach taking the nature of water for the inward substance thereof as cōdistinct from the naturall qualityes is not true But because water chāged into bloud remaynes according to some naturall qualityes and propertyes which it hath common with bread as moisture liquidnes the like he the better to fit accomodate the similitude sayth The water remayned according to the nature that is according to some naturall qualityes therof For these Fathers (c) These Fathers vnderstood not the inward Nature of bread and wine to remaine nor the inward substāce because they say that the mysticall signes passe by the working of the holy Ghost into another substane yet remaine in the propriety of their nature So saith Gelasius which cannot be vnderstood otherwise then that according to their outward nature and substance they remaine though in their inward nature and substance they be changed and passed into the substance of Christs body and blood bring those similitudes to declare the mystery of the Incarnatiō against the Heresy of Eutiches who denyed the naturall qualityes propertyes of the two Natures of God and Man to remayne distinct in the person of Christ. This errour they reiected by the example of the Eucharist where the naturall qualityes of bread remaine together with the body of Christ in the same Sacrament which naturall qualityes of bread they tearme the nature of bread as in some sense they may be tearmed to the end that the phrase of two distinct natures remaining might be common to the mysteries of the Incarnation and Eucharist and so the similitude seeme more fit and proper Yet the Fathers know well that the phrase did not agree to both mysteryes equally in the same sense And this obscure vttering of his mind is the lesse to be wōdered at in Theodoret because he doth professe in that place not to speake plainly as fearing that some Infidells or Gatechumens were present to whom the mistery of Transubstantiation was not to be reuealed Non oportet sayth he apertè dicere est enim verisimile adesse aliquos non initiatos Much lesse cause haue they to stand vpon the wordes of Saint Augustine (d) August serm ad Infant apud Bedam in cap. 10. Quod videtur panis est quod etiam oculi renūtiant quod autem fides postulat panis est corpus Christi For the sense is that consecrated bread is bread in outward appearance and the naturall accidences of bread truly remayne as the eye doth witnesse but in wardly and according to the substance it is not bread but the body of Christ as fayth requireth we belieue And it is to be noted that these wordes are not extant in the workes of S. Augustine but alleadged by Venerable Bede a follower of Saint Augustines doctrine and so it is not likely they are to be vnderstood but as Bede vnderstood thē who sets downe his mind in these words (e) Beda de mysterio missae apud Thom. Waldens Tom. 2. c. 8. 2. The forme of bread is seene but the substance of bread is not there nor any other bread but only that bread which came downe from heauen (*) The Minister pag. 435. to make a shew of many Fathers addeth vnto Theodoret and Gelasius the testimony of Bertram S. Chrysostome in epist. ad Caesarium Monachum S. Irenaeus S. Damascen Answere The booke of Bertram is of no credit being set forth with many Protestant additions as themselues confesse and you may see proued in a Treatise tearmed The Plea for the Reall Presence agaynst Syr Hūfrey Lynd his Bertrā The Epistle ad Caesariū Monachum is not S. Chrysostomes S. Irenaeus his testimony hath been already shewed to be impertinently alleadged S. Damascen is by you grossely abused as being brought quite contrary to his mind For when he sayth l. 4. de fide c. 14. As a fiery coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not only bread but bread vnited to the Diuinity he meaneth by the bread of the holy Cōmunion not bread remayning bread but bread changed into Christ his flesh To say that bread remayning bread in substance is vnited personally vnto the Deity is impious S. Damascen in that place doth most cleerly shew that he speaketh of bread changed into flesh For thus he writeth Christ did conioyne his diuinity with bread and wine that so by thinges that are common and to which we are vsed we may attayne to thinges diuine and aboue nature for verily the body borne of the Virgin is a body vnited vnto the Deity not that his body assumpted into heauen doth agayne descend in the Eucharist from heauen but that bread it selfe and wine are conuerted into the flesh and bloud of God And a little after A coale is not only wood but wood ioyned to fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not simple bread but bread vnited vnto the Deity But the body vnited to the Deity is not any single nature but the nature of flesh and the nature of the Deity be conioyned together in it Thus he most cleerly shewing not that the bread of the holy Communion remaining bread in nature is vnited to the Deity to make togither with it a personall compound of two natures it were blasphemy so to thinke but that bread chāged into Christs flesh is vnited to the Deity because the flesh into which it is changed is not meere and only flesh but also flesh vnited with the Deity How intolerably is S. Damascen falsifyed by you Being truly and fully cited how fully doth he teach Transubstantiation But such is your Religion you must make a shew of the Fathers to be on your side though you know in conscience they make agaynst you you must patch togither some of their mangled sentences to make a gay fooles-coate for your seely Credents least they seeme naked The seeming repugnances this mistery hath with sense should incline Christians the sooner to belieue it §. 4. THE former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfy were
foode of the soule HeÌ„ce the Eucharist as a Sacrifice 〈…〉 entyre in the 〈◊〉 oblatioÌ„ vnder the forme of bread without oblation in the forme of wine because the oblation in the forme of bread without wine doth not expressely distinctly represent Christs Sacriâ—â—ce on the Crosse by the effusion of his bloud But the Eucharist as a SacrameÌ„t is entyre in one only kind to wit vnder the forme of bread because the forme of bread only doth represent contayne and exhibite the true body of our Lord which is a full â—nd all-sufficient food to nourish the soule vnto eternall life as sayth our Sauiour He that eateth this bread liueth for euer Ioan. 6.59 By this the Ministers Cauilling pag. 460. 461. and throughout this whole Controuersy is answered for he only proues at the most that the Eucharist as a Sacrifice is not entyre in one kind vnder one kind the abetting of it by Concomitancie YOVR most Excellent Maiesty in the proposition of this Controuersy shews your deep insight into Theologicall difficultyes perceauing the mayne ground whereon the Catholike opinion of the lawfulnes of coÌ„munion vnder one kind standeth to wit Concomitancy which being graunted Communion vnder one kind is iustified The doctrine of Concomitancy proued §. 1. THE doctrine of Concomitancy is that vnder the forme of bread not only the body of Christ but also his pretious bloud and blessed soule are truly and really conteyned the body directly and by vertue of the wordes of consecration the bloud and the soule consequently For being conteined within the body of Christ they must needs concomitate that is follow the body in what place soeuer the same be (t) The Minister pag. 460. sayth The bloud of Christ cannot properly he sayd to be in his body by Concomitancy for then it were accideÌ„tally therein but as a part in the whole Answere We do not say bloud is accidentally in the body of Christ or by concomitaÌ„cy but that it is by concomitancy in the same place with the body As the soule is not by concomitancy in the body of a liuing man but as a part in the whole yet as Philosophy teacheth Mouetur per accidens cum corpore it is moued and remoued accidentally and by concomitancy with the body You must then distinguish To be in the body froÌ„ To be in the same place with the body The soule is in the body by direct substaÌ„tiall vnion therwith but in the place of the body the soule is not directly but by concomitancy in regard of her coniunction with the body which is directly in place In this maner the soule and bloud of Christs be directly and substantially in his body yet only by concomitancy in the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread where the body only is directly by vertue of the words In this sense also the Deity is in the SacrameÌ„t by Concomitancy For the Deity is not expressely signifyed to be in the Sacrament by vertue of the words which only affirme Christ his body to be present yet is the Deity present vnto and vnited with the body present by the vertue of the word HeÌ„ce the Deity is present by CoÌ„comitancy so that though otherwise it were not present yet should it be heere present by Concomitancy because inseparably ioyned with a thing that is present Neyther can any that acknowledgeth the Reall presence deny this Concomitancy without falling into many absurdities as I proue by three Arguments First he that acknowledgeth the Reall presence of Christs sacred Body vnder the forme of bread and denyes Concomitancy doth in his beliefe separate the bloud soule of Christ from his body But to separate eyther Christs Diuinity from his Humanity or soule froÌ„ his body or his bloud from his flesh is vnlawfull For such a belieuer doth dissolue and destroy Christ Iesus and so is one of the number of them that Saint Iohn condemneth Omnis spiritus qui soluit Iesum non est ex Deo hic est Antichristus (u) 1. Ioan. 4.3 And this Argument hath greatest force in their opinion who shall think that Christ leaues heauen for the tyme comes downe really according to his body and bloud for how can the body of Christ come downe from heauen without bloud and soule vnles he come down dead And so Christ should be not only mystically figuratiuely but truly really massacred in the Sacrament and the Eucharist be a bloudy sacrifice and not incruent as the Fathers tearme it 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 sayth This is my body but a body deuoyd of bloud without soule and consequently dead and senselesse is not the body of Christ as he is now glorious in heauen which hath bloud in the veines and is informed and glorifyed by a most excellent soule Therfore Christ glorious in heauen cannot say truly that a body voyd of bloud sense and soule is his body but soule life and bloud must needes follow and concomitate his body wheresoeuer it be Thirdly if vnder the forme of bread were only the body of Christ and his soule and bloud were not by Concomitancy there the Communicants should receaue the body of Christ but not truly Christ as our Aduersaryes graunt Caluin specially saying (x) Caluin l. 4. Instit. c. 7. n. 35. Quis sanus sobrius Christi Corpus Christum esse sibi persuade at And againe (y) Ibidem n. 74. Ne fando quidem auditum est corpus Christi aut sanguinem Deum hominem appellari But (z) Ambros. l. de ijs qui iâ—it In illo Sacramento Christus est Fathers affirme most coÌ„stantly that not only the body of Christ but also Christ (a) Hilarius l. 8. de Trinit Nos verè verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus himselfe is in the Sacrament That we take in the Dominicall refection the Word made flesh That (b) Cyrill Alexand. l. 4. in Ioan. c. 15. Per hanc benedictioneÌ„ mysterij ipsum filium Dei suscipimus by the consecration of the mysteryes we receaue the very Son of God That (c) Cyrill Hieros Catech. 5. mystag vnder the forme of bread we lodge within vs the soueraygne King that (d) Chrysost. homil 83. in cap. 26. Matth. hom 24. in 1. ad Cor. 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 consequently they did not thinke there was the meere body without bloud and soule seing as Caluin doth confesse It is an absurd manner of speach to tearme Christ the meere body of Christ And such a forme of speach was neuer heard of hitherto in the world Ergo Concomitancy that is Christs reall entyre body soule flesh bloud to be vnder the forme
in generall bound Multiplicamini replete terram Gen. 1.18 Secondly where the end of the institution is such as euery man must endeauour the atteyning thereof to the end that a man be bound to vse that institution it is further required that the thing instituted be necessary for atteyning of that end For if there be other meanes ordeined sufficient for the atteyning of that end a man is not bound to vse such particular diuine institutions For example man is bound to mainteyne his corporall life so long as Nature will permit and to this end God created variety of fruites yet no man is bound by diuine institution to eate fruits there being other meanes instituted for the maintenaÌ„ce of life (f) The Minister not being able to refell what the Iesuit heere sayth That because Christ did Institute the SacrameÌ„t in both kinds for the refectioÌ„ of souls it doth not follow that meÌ„ are bound by force of this Institution to receaue in both kinds as men are not bound to eate both fruite and flesh though God did institute both for the maintenance of mans life Not being I say able so refell this he laboureth to proue that CoÌ„munioÌ„ in one kind is agaynst the substance of the SacrameÌ„t which is impertinent in this place that controuersy being handled in the next Paragraffe and what the Minister here saith is there answered as in the proper place Applying this to our purpose It is apparent that by the force of diuine institution no man is bound to vse Communion vnder both kindes For though the end why Christ did institute the Sacrament in both kinds be necessary and all must endeauour the atteyning thereunto to wit mayntenance and increase of grace the life of the soule yet there be other meanes by which we may atteyne to this end Whence it is that learned Deuines hold that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not necessarium necessitate medij as they speake that is the vse thereof is not a necessary meanes for the maintenance of spirituall life but a maÌ„ 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 spiritual life yet communion vnder one kind is aboundantly sufficient thereunto For the Sacrament in the sole forme of bread conteyning the Authour and fountayne of life whole entyre according to body soule bloud and his infinite person is aboundantly sufficient for the refection of the soule yea no lesse sufficient then Communion vnder both kindes For this one kind conteyneth within it nothing lesse then what is conteyned in both Christ promiseth life to sole manducation (g) Ioan. 6. v. 58. Qui manducat me ipse viuit propter me And vnto the sole reception of his body vnder the forme of bread (h) Ibid. v. 55. 59. 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 (i) Gen. 2.9 if the Manna (k) Exod. 16.15 of the Iewes the bread of Angels did suffice to nourish the body without drinke why should any deny this soule-nourishing sufficiency vnto the sole body of Christ were the same alone in the bread but specially being there conioined with his soule his most precious bloud Hence it is apparent that without any iust cause some Protestants inueigh against the Councell of Constance as professing to coÌ„tradict the precept of Christ because it decreed Sess. 13. That the Sacrament may be lawfully giuen vnder one kind (l) The Minister here spendeth two pages in rayling agaynst the Councel of Constance but hath not one word of reason in his discourse He supposeth without proofe what the Iesuit hath by many reasons refelled that Christ commanded Communion in both kindes and that the Iesuits distinction of Institution from Precept is vlcerous a playster of figge leaues and the like words He sayth also that Christs Institution is a virtuall precept which is true in respect of thinges pertayning to the substance of the SacrameÌ„t but both kindes be not of the substance of the Sacrament as the Iesuit in the next Paragraffe doth demonstrate Non obstante quod Christus in vtraque specie illud instituerit Apostolis administrauerit Notwithstanding Christs institution and administration thereof in both kindes to his disciples This their bitternes proceeds from zeale without knowledge not distinguishing the Institution 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 necessary for the maintenance of mans soule in grace or no but the Institution of both kindes for the maintenance of spirituall life doth not bind further then the thing instituted to wit CoÌ„munion vnder both kindes is necessary for the mainteyning of spirituall life for which end one kind being sufficient as I haue shewed Christs institution of both kindes doth not inforce the vse of both If God should haue commanded the vse both of meate and drinke to euery man then euery man should be bound not only to eate but also to drinke thogh he had no necessity therof 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 obstantâ— that God did institute both eating drinking for the preseruation of life in euery man Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Sacrament §. 3. A Sacrament of the new Testament being a visible efficacious signe of inuisible grace foure thinges are necessary to concurre to the substantiall constitution thereof which I wil set downe in order togeather shew that they are all found in the Sacrament of the Eucharist giuen vnder one kinde (m) The Minister pag. 4â—6 saith this quadripart argumeÌ„t is Sophisticall as if the â—esuit should argue thus Head breast back leggs and armes are not of the substance of human nature Ergo a man without legs and armes is a perfect man according to the first creation of maÌ„-kind I need add no more but smile Answere You smile when you should rather blush for shame in not hauing so much iudgment as to conceyue your aduersaryes coÌ„uincing argument For he doth not dispute as you faygne but in this sort As he that hath soule and body with members organs for all the ends and functions of man is a perfect and entiere man so the Sacrament in one kind if it haue matter and forme sufficient for all the ends functions of the Sacrament is a full entyre Sacrament But such is the Sacrament in one kind as he doth largely proue descending vnto the particular ends Is this a discourse to be smiled at or answered by laughing First there is required some Element that is a visible sensible thing or action without which
especially vnto (f) Basil. epist. ad Caesar. Patritium Pratum Spiritual c. 79. Eremits to be carryed in most pure linnen Corporalls home to their houses to be takē in the morning before al other meats But there is no signe or token in Antiquity that the faythfull togeather with the consecrated bread did carry away with them cōsecrated wine yea diuers historyes shew the only forme of bread (**) Minister pag. 504. It was an ancient custome to send the Communion to persōs absent in both kinds as appeareth by Exuperius in S. Hierome Tom. 1. Epist. 4. and S. Gregory Nazianzen of his sister Gorgonia Answere Exuperius no laymen but Bishop of Tholosa hauing sold the syluer Ciboriums Chalices of his Church to mayntaine the poore was forced throgh pouerty to keep the Body and Bloud in a basket of Osier in a glasse-glasse-Cup so carrying them about when he did administer the same in the Church to the people But that he carryed the blood of our Sauiour in a glasse out of the Church about him S. Hierome doth not say yea he signifies that this vse of Osier-baskets glasse-Cups was in the Church saying Nihil ditius Exuperio nostro qui corpus Domini canistro vimineo Sanguinē portat in vitro qui auaritiam eiecit ETEMPLO nothing is more rich then Exuperius who doth carry the body of our Lord in an Osier-basket and his bloud in a glasse who hath cast Couetousnes out of the CHVRCH Nor is it probable that he carryed the bloud about him in a glasse when he went any iourney exposing the same to manifest danger of being irreuerently spilled specially glasse being so brittle and easely broken and the ancients exceeding sollicitous and anxious that the bloud might not be shed nor any particle of the sacred bread fall to the ground S. Gregory Nazianzen sayth of his sister Gorgonia praying earnestly for the recouery of her health That whatsoeuer of the Antitypes or Images of the pretious body and bloud her hand had hidden that shee did bath mingle with her teares which place Vasquez whome you so commend as learned and intelligent doth shew to be spoken of holy Images of Christs Passion and death not of the blessed Sacrament For Women were neuer permitted to touch the sacred Chalice with their hand nor to keepe consecrated Cups in their houses for the bloud but only white linen corporalls for the body It had been also agaynst the Reuerence ancient Christian deuotion did beare to the pretious bloud of our Sauiour for her to haue powred her teares into the sacred Chalice mingling them with the pretious bloud so that there is no signe in Antiquity that laymen did keep in their priuate houses or did carry about them the bloud of our Sauiour in the forme of wine Therfore in their priuate houses and out of the Church they still receaued in one kind was carryed away and consequently that the Church did not then esteeme of Communiō vnder one kind as of a sacrilegious mayming of the Sacrament as Protestants now doe Thirdly it was an ancient custome in the Grecian (g) Concil Loadicen can 49. Trullen can 52. Church to cōsecrate the holy Eucharist on Saturdayes and Sundayes on the other dayes of the weeke to Communicate ex praesanctificatis of the presanctifyed formes that is consecrated on the Saturday or Sunday before Now it is not probable that they did consecrate wine to endure fiue or six dayes long for feare specially in such hoate Countreys the same should grow sower Wherfore for the most part they did Communicate vnder one kind Fourthly the (h) Leo. serm 4. de Quadrag Manichees liued in Rome and other places shrowding themselues amongst Catholikes went to their Churches receaued the Sacrament publikely with them vnder the sole forme of bread and yet they were not noted nor thereby discerned from Catholiques A manifest signe that Communion vnder one kind was publickely 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 been hidden amongst these ancient Christians if they had byn perswaded as now Protestants are that receauing vnder one kind 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 (i) The Minister pag. 560. First the Manichees were espyed else how could the Pope reproue their practise Secondly Vasquez the Iesuit sayth That these Heretikes receaued the Cup into their hand but dranke no wine And amōg a great multitude some few might hold the Cup to their mouth make shew of drinking and yet receaue no wine Answere The Pope did reproue that practise of the Manichees because he knew it was their Heresy so to doe in that they held wine to be the gall of the Diuell and that Christ did not shed his bloud on the Crosse which also to be their practise such as were conuerted from that heresy did witnesse Vasquez doth not say that the Manichees did only put the Cup to their mouth without drinking and so lay hidden and vnknowne for he was not so simple but he did see this could not be done but the Deacons that gaue the Cup to the Cōmunicants one by one would presently haue perceaued it He sayth that they did drinke of the cōsecrated wine but kept the same in their mouth till they came to some place where without being noted they might spit is out Which I can not thinke to be probable First the Manichees holding wine to be a thing so impure and detestable as the Diuells gall how would they take the same into their mouth Secondly how could they keepe the wine in their mouth so longe but that some part therof would goe downe Thirdly S. Leo bids Catholickes to note the men that omnino altogeather refrayne from the Cup signifying that they might by this their perpetuall abstinence be distinguished from Catholicks that sometymes refrayned But if they tooke still the wine into their mouth kept the same there till they came to a solitary place where they might spit it out securely how could they be discerned by their abstayning from the Cup more then any other Catholicks did vse to doe Hence euen Vasquez doth acknowledge that this argumēt drawne from the dissimulation of heretikes namely of the Macedonian woman related by Sozom. l. 8. c. 5. is probabile valde apparens probable and very apparent to proue that Communion in one kind was arbitrary and a thinge indifferent in the ancient Church The last Argument is practise of the Apostles that is of the first Christians vnder them of whome we read in the Acts of the Apostles (k) Act. 2.42 Erant perseuerantes in doctrina Apostolorum communicatione fractionis panis orationibus speaking of sacred Eucharisticall bread the taking whereof was ioyned with prayer which vnto the newly baptized was
latin and through want of iudgement to make sensible construction of latin sentences The fourth Example §. 4. YOvv deuise many mysteries about the word species in answere of S. Cyprian his words cited by the Iesuit for Transubstantiation (y) Iste paniâ— non effigie se natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est 〈◊〉 Cyprian serm de Coena This bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made flesh yow say the Authour by the words natura mutatus chaÌ„ged in nature vnderstood not a corporall or Physicall but only a mysticall change This yow proue because in the same booke this Father saith that (z) Cyprian ibid. Corpâ—â—ralis substantiae retinens speciem sed virtutis diuinae inuisibil essentia probans adesse praesentiam although the immortall food deliuered in the Eucharist differ from common meat yet â—â—retaineth in the kind of corporall substance He saith not species in the plurall number meaning according to the new Popish sense the externall shapes and accidents of bread for let the Aduersary proue out of antiquiâ—â— that S. Cyprian or the Primitiue Church maintained 〈◊〉 late Romane doctrine concerning shapes of bread and 〈◊〉 without the materiall substance and we will freely grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is ancient 〈◊〉 he saith specieÌ„ in the singular number that is the corporall forme and substance Thus yow shewing your selfe to haue no species of true learning whether species signify kind or shape For heere yow discouer foure simplicityes in matter of Grammer The first is the mystery you make about the plurall and singular number of species as though S Cyprian if he had sayd in the plurall Alimonia immortalitatis corporalis substantiae retinens species should haue fauoured Transubstantiation wheras now that he sayth in the singular corporalis substantiae retinens speciem he doth ouerthrow it He sayth not say you species in the plurall number meaning the shapes and accideÌ„ts of bread but speciem in the singular that is the kind or the corporall substance or forme Now I pray you what GraÌ„mer doth teach that species in the plurall number doth signify shapes and externall accidents and in the singular kind and substance had S. Cyprian said plurally that the Eucharist corporalis substantiae retineâ— species why might you not haue interpreted species kinds natures and formes aswell as now you interpret speciem the nature kind and forme And though S. Cyprian say speciem corporalis substantiae in the singular yet why may not we expound shape and semblant of corporall substance aswell as we might haue expounded shapes and semblantes had he sayd in the plurall corporalis substantiae species Verily you are by your aduersary by the force of truth driueÌ„ into such straites as you coyne new Grammaticall mysteries agaynst all Grammer Your second simplicity is the noting that species in the singular doth signify nature and kind as though we were ignorant thereof or that you could heereby elude the testimonyes of the Fathers we bring to 〈◊〉 they taught the Eucharist to be the shape of 〈◊〉 and wine contayning the body and bloud of 〈◊〉 Lord. This I say is a seely and miserable shift for though species signify nature kind and this signiâ—â—â—â—tion be much vsed specially in Logicke yet no 〈◊〉 can deny but species doth also properly signify 〈◊〉 outward semblant shew and shape and that this signification is very vulgar And to know when specieâ— doth signify shape and not kind this rule is infallible that still it is taken for shape when it is opposed vnto nature and inuisible Essence When S. Paul exhortes that not only men haue their inward conscience pure towards God but also that they abstain ab omni specie mali 1. Thess. 5.22 who endued with common sense will interprete this otherwise then from any shew or â—â—â—blant of euill By this rule we prooue that the Fathers wheÌ„ they say that the species of bread remains they meane the shapes because they oppose the species of bread vnto the inward substance true being of bread Thus S Cyrill Cyrillus Hierosol orat 4 mystagog Know and most certainly beleiue 〈◊〉 this bread which seemeth to vs is not bread though the tast esteeme it to be bread but the body of Christ and that the wine seene of vs though to the tast it seeme wine is not wine but the bloud of our Lord nam sub specie panis datur tibi corpus sub specie vini datur tibi sanguis vnder the species of bread is giuen thee the body vnder the species of wine is giuen thee the bloud of Christ. What 〈◊〉 be more cleere then that this Father doth distinguish the species and shape of bread and wine from 〈◊〉 nature kind and substance affirming the first 〈◊〉 â—emayne and not the second Your third simplicity is that to prooue that species in the singular doth signify kind not shape you bring this place of Saint Cyprian (*) Cyprian serm de coena imâ—mortalitatis alimonia datur à communibus cibis differens corporalis substantiae retinens speciem sed Diuiâ—â— Virtutis inuisibili essentia probans adesse praesentiam Foâ— euen in this testimony species doth not signify kind but shape and so by this very text Transsubstantiation is proued This is cleere because wheâ— the species of a thing is in speach opposed agaynsâ— the vertue of the same thinge then species muâ—â— needes signify shape and shew not truth anâ— substance As when S. Paul sayth (a) 1. Tim. 3 5· Habentes specieâ— pietatis virtutem autem eius abnegantes no man that sober will translate Hauing piety in the nature kinâ— yet denying the vertue thereof but Retayning the shew piety yet denying the vertue thereof Now S. Cyprianâ— this text by you cited doth oppose the Eucharist acâ—cording to the species vnto the Eucharist accordinâ— to the inuisible Essence therof affirming the same to 〈◊〉 a common thing specie but a diuine presentiall veâ—â—tue iuisibili essentia Wherefore his words can bear no other sense but this that the Eucharist is the subâ—stance of corporal Bread according to the outwaâ—â— shape shew of the accideÌ„ts but the diuine presentiall vertue of Christs body bloud according 〈◊〉 the inward nature inuisible Essence of the thing Your fourth simplicity is that this your Gramâ—maticall speculation about the singular plurall 〈◊〉 Species being of it selfe seely is likewise altogeatheâ— impertinent vnto your purpose For you by this acception of Species would cleere the text of S. Cyprian alleadged by the Answearer to prooue that breâ—â— in the Eucharist remayneth only in shape and noâ— in substance In which text the Father doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word species but effigies saying Panis non effigie sed 〈◊〉 mutatus c. Bread changed not in the effigies 〈◊〉 in the nature is by the omnipoteÌ„cy of his Word 〈◊〉 his flesh Now though we should graunt your 〈◊〉
subscribed vnto as containing (m) See the Approbation I Francis White c. nothing but what is aggreable to the publike Faith and Doctrine established in the Church of England And yet heere yow say It is certaine that the Pope is the man of sinne sonne of perditioÌ„ so shewing your selfe to be of their number whome the said Authour in that very place doth rebuke as Omnium horarum homines Halters in opinions for priuate ends I omit also your folly in exclaming at the misery of English Romists for that they adhere vnto your supposed Antichrist not marking that to cleaue to the Antichrist of your forming must euen according to your owne principles be singular happines For Antichrist according to your Tenet doth sit gouerne in the House and Temple of God and so by the same breath wherwith you make men vassals of Antichrist you make them Gods Domesticks his House his Temple Will it be misery to be found such at the day of Iudgement Yea rather the Church of Christ the Temple of God being onely one out of which no saluation is had what a misery will it be at the day of Iudgement wheÌ„ by your owne mouth you shall be conuinced to haue forsaken that company which you confesse to be the Church and Temple of God through feare of your owne shaddow and fancy For what can be more foolish then to fasten the name of Antichrist vpon the Gouernour of the ChristiaÌ„ Church who doth dayly professe to belieue in Christ Iesus the sonne of God and Sauiour of the world who by his Adherents doth more then all the world besides defend and propagate amongst Pagans his most holy Name Religion But to let these things passe marke how you coÌ„tradict your selfe in saying on the one side that that caÌ„not be the House Temple of God which now hath or in former times hath had wicked Pastours On the other side that that is the House and Temple of God in which the Man of sinne that is a succession of wicked Pastours hath a long while for many ages gouerned and doth rule and gouerne So hard is it for men blinded with passion agaynst Christian Doctrine deriued by succession from the Apostles to run in their passionate conceipts without falling into the pit of open contradiction whereby their folly comes to be manifest vnto all men The third Errour You profâ—sse Infidelity about the Blessed Sacrament §. 3. THVS you write pag. 179. To that part of the Iesuits speach that we deny the Reall Presence or else the mayne Article of the Creed that Christ is still in heaâ—en because we will not allow a body in two places at â—nce I answere We cannot graunt that one indiuiduall â—ody may be in many distant places at one and the same â—nstant of time vntill the Papalls DEMONSTRATE THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF by teâ—timony of Scripture or the ancient TraditioÌ„ of the Church â—r by apparent reason Thus you This is playne deaâ—ing and open profession of Infidelity For what â—s heretical obstinacy but to reiect the word of God â—bout the mysteries of our Fayth in the playne exâ—resse and literall sense vntill the possibility of â—hat sense be first demonstrated No Heretike was eâ—er so barbarous as to prefer his reason beyond Gods word so farre as to affirme that the word of God contrary to his reason was false Their impiety was to reiect Gods word about some mistery of fayth in the literall sense flying to morall and mysticall interpretation because they could not comprehend and therefore would not belieue the possibility of the playne and litterall sense The Arrians did not deny the word of Scripture saying (n) 1. Ioan. â— 7 of the Father Word and Holy Ghost these three are one nor the Word of Christ (o) Ioan. 10.30 I and my Father are one to be true morally and mystically in respect of vnity by singular affection and consent betwixt these three persons They were Heretikes for denying the truth of these wordes in the proper and substantiall sense because the same seemed to them impossible For seing that we might not expound the Scriptures about mysteries of fayth to an easy figuratiue sense when the same according to the letter goeth beyond the capacity of our vnderstanding God doth so often in holy Writ (p) Gen. 18.17 Numquid Deo quid est difficile Hieâ—rm 32.17 Non est difficile tibi omne verbum Et v. 27. Numquid mihi difficile erit omne verbuÌ„ Luc. 1.37 Non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbuÌ„ Et Deo omnia possibilia sunt Matt. â—9 26 Luc. 18.27 Omnia possibilia sunt credenti Mar. 9.22 assure vs that nothing is impossible or difficile vnto him and (q) Iob. 9.10 That he can do things incomprehensible without number What greater obstinacy then for Christian men to professe that they will neuer belieue his word about the mysteryes of fayth in the literall sense vntill the possibility of the sense be demonstrated vnto them that is brought within the compasse and comprehension of their wit You may perchance excuse your selfe by saying the words of Christs institution This is my body takeÌ„ in the literall sense do not inforce that Christ according to his corporall substance is in two places at once I answere this you cannot say without contradicting not only the word of Scripture as is proued in the Reioynder but also your selfe For you do plainly affirme that this our doctrine yea euen Transubstantiation is contayned in the literall sense of the words of the Institution If say you the substance of bread and wine be deliuered in the Eucharist then the wordes are figuratiue and cannot be true in the proper sense because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly Thus you (r) Reply pag. 3â—7 whereupon I thus argue That without which the word of Christ cannot be true in the proper and literall sense is inforced and prooued by the word of Christ taken in the literall sense But except the substance of bread be absent and Christ in lieu thereof present according to his corporall substance the word of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the literall and proper sense as you affirme Ergo Transubstantiation and the presence of Christ on earth according to his bodily substance in lieu of bread is inforced proued by the literall sense of the word of Christs institution Wherfore to professe as you â—o neuer to belieue Christs body to be in two places at once vntill it be demonstrated vnto you to be possible is to professe you will not belieue the word of God in the literall sense about mysteries of fayth further then the possibility thereof can be made euident vnto you Is not this to professe Infidelity Secondly you may say that when you require that we demonstrate by testimony of Scripture that a body may be in two places at once you meane not that we bring texts of
Scripture that demonstrate by reasō how this is possible but only that we bring places that expresly say that This is possible vnto God For as you say pag. 438. In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my body there is not a sillable concerning accidēts without a subiect or of a bodyes being in two places at once or concerning any miracle wrought by Gods omnipotency I answere that likewise in this text of Scripture (s) Ioan. 1 1◠The Word was made flesh there is not a sillable that a perfect substantiall nature can exist without proper personality or that two complete natures can subsist togeather in the same Hypostasis nor of any miracle done by the diuine omnipotency yet because this text of Scripture about the mistery of the incarnation cānot be true in the literall sense except those hard incomprehensible things be graunted to be possible by diuine omnipotency we must togeather with the mistery implicitly belieue that God can separate proper subsistance from complete substantiall natures that two natures infinitly distant in perfection can subsist in the same Hypostasis though the Scripture doth not expressely so affirme In like manner though the words of Christ This is my body do not expressely say that his body may be in many places at once nor that accidents can exist without a subiect by diuine omnipotency yet because this his word whereon we grounde our fayth concerning this mistery cannot as your selfe graunt be true in the proper and literall sense except Transubstantiation and the Presence of his body in many places at once be belieued hence we must togeather with the reall presence and litterall sense of Gods word implicitely belieue these miracles to be done Wherfore in saying you will neuer belieue them except their possibility be first demonstrated vnto you through ignorāce of Theology you professe Infidelity For to resolue not to belieue seeming implicācies inuolued in the misteries of faith except they be eyther seuerally expressed as possible in Gods word or els demonstrable by reason is the right way to belieue iust nothing there being no mistery of faith which doth not imply some difficultyes the possibility of which is neyther expresly auerred in scripture nor can be demonstrated by reason A fourth Example of your Ignorance in Theology §. 4. I Adde another Example about the Blessed Eucharist wherein you discouer grosse Ignorance not only against Theology but euen common sense And this Example may serue as a patterne how insufficiently and impertinently you answere the Iesuites argument The Iesuit pag. 406. argueth in this sort Christ doth affirme that the Sacrament is truly really substantially not the figure and effect of his body but his very body but how can consecrated bread be termed truly really and substantially the body of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with it Thus you answere pag. 406. To the effecting hereof locall corporall presence is not necessary A Father and his Sonne may be absent by distance of place one from the other yet the Sonne is TRVLY AND REALLY VNITED with his Father so as his Fathers nature is in him and he hath right in his Fathers person and state A mans goods may be at Constantinople and yet he liuing in England is a true possessour and owner of them and he may communicate and vse them and distance of place hindreth not his right and propriety Now although there be a difference betweene things temporall and spirituall yet thus farre there is agreement that euen as we possesse temporall things being locally absent so likewise we may receyue and partake Christs body and bloud by the power of Fayth and donation of the Holy Ghost according to a celestiall and spirituall manner Thus you Now behold how many wayes yow discouer grosse Ignorance in this answere First were all that you say true yet is it impertinent and ineptly brought in answere of the Iesuits argument For the question is not whether men may receiue by the vertue of Fayth and donation of the holy Ghost sanctity and grace through the merits of Christs body and bloud that are absent for this al acknowledge to happen in Baptisme and to be possible in the Eucharist if Christ had so ordained The question is about the truth of Gods word whether consecrated bread may be truly and really called the body of Christ being as you say a thing not only indiuidually distinct but also locally distant from his body A man being in London may possesse iuridically an Horse that is in the Countrey is it therfore true to say that this man in London is truly really the Horse in the Countrey A Merchant in London may haue great treasures of money in Constantinople and a right to lay them vp in his Coffers at London may one therfore shewing his empty coffers at London say truly this is a treasure of money In like manner suppose which is false that a man hath iuridicall authority ouer Christs body absent and existing in heauen to dispose therof at his pleasure may he therfore be sayd to be truly and really Christs body May one therefore shewing the Sacrament being in your Tenet an empty thing in respect of containing Christs bodily substance say truly therof This is really Christs body and corporall substance who will maintaine such absurdities that is sober Wherefore your discourse that a man may truly posesse a thing absent serues nothing to satisfy the Iesuites question how can consecrated bread be truly verily really the body of Christ if he be not so much as present in place with it Secondly what more absurd then what you affirme that a man may not only in right possesse but really and truly vse his things that be absent Can a man in London vse and ride on his horse that is at Yorke Or a Merchant in Bristow feed on his grapes that are growing in his vineyard in Spayne If they cannot and it is ridiculous to say they can how can a man existing on earth receaue truly and really Christ distant from him as farre as the highest heauen Receaue him I say not in a signe only according to gracious Effects but euen according to his body and corporall substance with their mouth of flesh For Christ did not say This is a figure of my body or this is soule-feeding grace giuen by the merit of my body and bloud but This is my body euen to your corporall mouth wherewith I bid you to take and eate it Thirdly who cā forbeare laughing to heare you so soberly affirme that the Son that is absent from his Father as far as Constantinople is from London is not only morally by Loue and Affection but TRVLY and REALLY VNITED with his Father For Vnion is the way vnto Vnity so that whensoeuer two indiuiduall things are truly really vnited by this vnion is made a third indiuiduall thing distinct frō ech of them a part from all other
indiuiduall things When soule and body come to be vnited by this vnion is produced a third substance to wit a maÌ„ composed of soule and body When two waters that were seuered come to ioyne togeather there ariseth one third water wherin the two lesser waters are included as parts But Father and Sonne the one in London the other at Constantinople do not compose a third indiuiduall nature constant of theÌ„ both wherin they both are contayned as is most euident Ergo It is ridiculous to affirme that the Father in London is truly and really vnited with his Sonne in Constantinople Finally put case there were true and reall vnity betwixt Father and Sonne so that the sonne might be said to be one with his father truly and properly in respect of kind or specificall Identity what can this serue to shew that consecrated bread remaining bread in nature kind may be said to be the body of Christ or the same with it Had Christ said of another mans body This is my Body you might haue coÌ„strued it thus This is my body that is a body of the same kind and nature with mine but Christ saying of that which was bread this is my Body how can you vnderstand this to be true in respect of specificall Vnity Is bread of the same kind and nature as Christs body I am sure being afore warned of this absurdity you will not dare so to teach What then doth specificall Identity or vnity in nature and kind serue to shew that coÌ„secrated bread remaining bread in kind nature essence may be truly really Christs body Certainly Christ did affirme that the thing contained within the shape of bread was his indiuiduall body not another indiuiduall body of the same kind This cannot be true verily and according to propriety of speach as you grant if the substaÌ„ce of bread remaine much lesse if also the substance of Christs body be locally absent The Iesuits argument then doth conuince that the Sacrament cannot be truly really substantially Christs body if the body of Christ be not locally indistant from the same A fifth Example About Satisfaction §. 5. I will produce yet another Example of your Ignorance by which you contradict Protestants yea your selfe in the very same page and establish our Catholike doctrine of Satisfaction and Purgatory against which in that place you earnestly dispute Thus you wite pag. 540. The difference betweene the PontificiaÌ„s vs in this dostrin is THAT WE BELEEVE A REMAINDER of TEMPORALL Affliction AFTER the REMISSION of the GVILTE of Sinne in this life onely for Chastisement ERVDITION and PROBATION They maintaine a Remainder of Temporall Punishement not onely in this life but after the same in Purgatory Further we beleeue that the Paine of Chastisement inflicted vpon penitent sinners may by prayers of fayth exercise of vertue humiliation and mortification be REMOVED MITIGATED or conuerted to the increase of grace and glory in them that with patience holines endure the same in this life But we deny that eyther any paine followeth iust persons after their decease or that they can in this life by any good workes merit release of any temporall punishment or satisfy the Diuine Iustice for the fault or guilt of any sinnes on their behalfe much lesse for others Thus you On the one side denying against Catholikes Temporall Paine in the next life and on the other granting against ProtestaÌ„ts a Remaynder of Temporall Chastisement for sinne remitted after the remission of the guilt Wherby you contradict your selfe yea establish the possibillity of superabouÌ„dant Satisfaction Yow lay Principles which vnanswerably inforce temporall paine for remisse Penitents in the next world Which three thinges I will in order demonstrate that so it may appeare that through Ignorance you haue your selfe dissolued broken in peeces the whole frame of your Voluminous Reply in euery poynt of Controuersy proposed by his Maiesty and handled therein First you contradict your selfe for in this very pag. 540. against the Remainder of temporall paine thus you write That which is so forgiuen that after pardon it is not mentioned or remembred and which is cast behind Gods backe throwne into the bottome of the sea and which can no where be found and which is blotted out of the Debt-booke of the Almighty is not taken away by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesser but by a free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment But the holy Scripture and the Fathers teach such a remission of sinne on Gods part to the penitent Thus you what cleerer contradiction can be deuised then is betweene these two sentences Remission of sinne is made not by commutation of a greater punishment into a lesse but by free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment There is a remainder of temporall paine after the remission of guilt of sinne not onely for the triall and erudition of the penitent but also for Chastisement which may be remoued or mitigated by mortification and penitentiall workes What clearer contradiction I say can be deuised For teÌ„porall paine inflicted vpon penitent sinners by way of chastisement after the remission of the guilt of their sinne is vindictiue Punishment You professe in the end of this page to belieue Temporall paine to remaine not onely by way of Probation and Erudition but euen by way of chastisement after the remission of the guilt of their sinne Therfore you contradict what you say in the beginning of this page That remission of sinne is free and full condonation of all vindictiue punishment Agayne Condonation of sinne wherby eternall punishment is changed into temporall is remission of sinne by commutation of a greater chastisemeÌ„t into a lesse to wit of eternall into temporall as is most euident But in the end of this page you teach that sinne is so remitted as the guilt of sinne and eternall Damnation is changed into a remainder of temporall affliction for chastisement of the penitent sinner Wherefore if the changing of Eternall punishment into Temporall be commutation of greater punishment into lesse then by granting in the end of the cited page a Remaynder of Temporall Affliction after the remission of the Eternall you ouerthrow what you taught in the beginning of the same that remission of sinne is not made by commutation of greater punishment into lesse Secondly this your doctrine of the remainder of temporall paine after the remission of the guilt of sinne proueth that penitent saints may make compeÌ„sant yea superaboundant satisfaction in manner as Catholikes teach for in the remainder of temporall affliction we may consider and distinguish two things the greatnes of the paine reserued and the greatnes of Gods remaining anger against sinne remitted which he doth yet temporally punish If we regard the greatnes of Gods iust anger and offence we hold (t) Si ad ipsam offensam Diuinae Maiestatis respiciamus quatenus Deus videlicet sic homini manet infeÌ„sus vt meritâ—
sent vnto Protestants and by them printed Respons 2. De Inuocatione Sanctorum They defend Transubstantiation ibid. resp 1. c. 13. Communion in one kind for the sicke Gilbert Genebrard de ritibus Graecorum Secondly concerning primacy of Iurisdiction they hold that Christ did institute Monarchicall primacy in Peter Theophilact in cap. 21. Ioan. That the Romā Bistop for many ages lawfully succeeded Peter in this Primacy Ignatius Constantinopolitan Epist. ad Nicolaum primum That the Roman Bishop lost this primacy for holding the Procession of the Holy Ghost from God the Sonne that therefore this primacy is now in the Patriarke of Constantinople Michael Constant. apud Sigeb in Chron. an 1064. Is this Protestancy in substance Thirdly it is great indiscretion I speake with the least to affirme as our Minister doth that the Graeciās deny sacrifice for the dead with which doctrine no authour Catholike or Protestant euer charged them And they in their foresayd censure resp 1. c. 12. professe the contrary saying We hold that by the sacrifice of the Masse and Almesdeedes the dead are relieued yea Doctour Field Appendix part 1. pag. 30. accuseth some of them for holding Sacrifice not only for them that dyed in pennāce with sinnes of infirmity but also for them that dyed in damnable state Finally concerning marriages of Priests they hold that such as are marryed before Holy Orders may still keep cōpany with their wiues which the Church of Rome alloweth in them But the Protestant liberty of marrying after Holy Orders that not only once but if their wiues dye twise thrise yea as often as they please This the Graecians detest in the foresayd Censure Resp. 1. c. 21. So that the Minister was in great penury of Professours before Luther that is forced to name Graecians as Protestants according to kind For he might aswell haue named the Pope himselfe Waldenses not Protestants for Essence and Kind Concerning the Waldenses they were not Protestants according to kind but rather Anabaptists vnto whome Protestants are so vnkind as they burne them as Heretikes They were not Protestants For as all report as may be seene in Illyricus Catal. Test. pag. 1498. the most essentiall doctrine of the Waldenses was their extolling the merit of voluntary pouerty preaching the same so rigorously as they held all Ministers to be damned that haue rents and possessions and that the Church perished vnder Syluester and Constantine through the poyson of temporall goods which Cleargy-men then began to enioy as they sayd agaynst the Law of God I am sure none that know Protestants will thinke this doctrine of pouerty and giuing away all to the poore to be the Essence or so much as an Accidence of their Religion In respect of this their head-heresy about Pouerty the Waldenses are named the Poore-men of Lyons and were sayd by Reynerius cited by the Minister pag. 130. to haue beene euer since Siluester or the Apostles and that they were much applauded in the world to wit as I sayd only in regard of this Heresy about pouerty held anciently by the Heretikes tearmed Apostolici not in respect of other errours or doctrines wherein they agree with Protestants And so Protestants labour in vayne by Waldensians and the Apostolici to bring their pedegree from the Apostles Besides the Waldensians held these Anabaptisticall errours which are set downe by Illyricus in Catalogo Testium pag. 1502. seq out of Reynerius an authour of those tymes whome he tearmes candidum sincerum sincere and vnpartiall That children are not to be baptized baptisme being of no vse for them seing they do not belieue That there is no difference betwixt Bishopps and Priests nor betwixt Laymen and priests That the Apostles were meere Laymen That euery Layman that is vertuous is priest may consecrate preach administer Sacramēts That a woman pronouncing the words in the vulgar tongue doth consecrate yea transubstantiate bread into the body of Christ That it is mortall sinne to sweare in any case That the Magistrates secular and Ecclesiasticall being in mortall sinne loose their office and that no man is to obey them Indeed Illyricus pag. 1514. 1525. in fine sayth that this last errour is falsly layd to the charge of the Waldēsiās by Reynerius which he proues because AEneas Syluius in his Catalogue of their doctrine makes no mentiō of this But he is grossely deceaued two wayes First because Reynerius liuing in that tyme and being Inquisitour could know their errors better then Syluius Nor can we suspect his fidelity being as Illyricus doth acknowledge sincerus candidus sincere and vnpartiall towardes Waldensians Secondly AEneas Syluius in his Catalogue set downe by Illyricus euen in that very pag. 1525. a little before the middle chargeth the Waldēsiās expressely with this doctrine agaynst Magistracy Qui mortalis culpae reus sit eū neque Saeculari neque Ecclesiastica dignitate potiri nec parendū ei esse Finally the Waldensians held it not necessary to professe their fayth yea that they might deny it go to Masse celebrate and do outward acts of Idolatry This euen Illyricus pag. 1508. doth acknowledge to haue beene a fault in them but he sayth they may haue beene saued by repentance This is an idle shift for how could they repent themselues of that which they held not to be sinne How could they be the true Church wherein saluation is found who held such damnable doctrine as if they did not repent themselues thereof they are certainly damned so that it is extreme beggary in Protestants to begge of these Beggars of Lyons to be their Professours for the tyme before Luther who were euen by Protestant acknowledgement much more poore and voyd of true religion then of temporall wealth That Protestants not being able to cleere themselues to be the visible Church do vainely appeale vnto Scripture for their doctrine The Minister not trusting to the former answere and feeling in conscience that it is impossible that Protestants should shew their Church to haue beene visible before Luther sayth pag. 105. That this notwithstanding if Protestants be able to demonstrate by Scripture that they maintayne the same fayth and Religion which the Apostles taught this alone is sufficient to prooue them to be the true Church I answere they that cānot by marks of the Church set downe in Scripture cleere themselues to be the visible Church do idly appeale to Scripture in respect of doctrine their promises to shew the particular points of their Religion by Scripture are idle This I demōstrate by 3. Arguments First eyther Scriptures can cleere end all cōtrouersies of Religiō or they cannot If they cannot appealing vnto them hath no other end but that contention may be without end If they can cleere all controuersies then they can cleere the controuersy which is the true Church shewing markes and signes whereby the same may be cleerly knowne And if they can cleere this cōtrouersy thē it is reason this be cleared in
haue with the morall propertyes and perfections of the thing figured Secondly vpon sight of the proper Image straight a mentall imagination of the person resultes in one that knoweth him especially when the knowledge is ioyned with affection and this is done so presently that ocular aspect of the Image and mentall Imagination of the person seeme to be one and the same act But vpon sight of the figure the apprehension of the thinge figured doth not instantly follow but is leasurely caused by discourse comparing the one with the other Thirdly hence the proper Image is taken for the prototype that what is done to the Image by way of outward honour or dishonour the same is ought to be taken as done to the person and this by the naturall force of Imagination and by natures institution in this matter without any positiue ordinance The figure is not so taken without some positiue ordinance or custome For example If a Iew teare in peeces the Image of our Sauiour by way of despite that is done and to be taken as done mentally and by affection to our Sauiour but if he tread vnder foote bread and wine that is not to be taken as done in disgrace of our Sauiours body and bloud wherof bread and wine be types and figures except that bread and wine be sanctified to represent his body bloud is a distinct and liuely portrayture of some visible and corporall thinge parts of the Image corresponding to the parts of the thinge represented more or lesse particularly according as the Image is more or lesse distinct and liuely The office of an Image is to carry the Imagination of the beholders therof directly and immediatly to the person Imagined therin imagination of parts in the person represēted answering to the parts seen in the Image which kind and vse of Images Nature allowes vnto men to the end they may remember and more liuely imagine persons absent remoued from their corporall sight vpon whom they ought and haue great desire liuely and stayedly to fix their Imaginations and Thoughts The first Argument Hence ariseth the allowed Principle of Nature receiued by all Nations Ciuill and Barbarous Ita vt in eo to speake with S. Augustine nulla doctorum paucitas nulla indoctorum turba dissentiat That the Image may and ought to stand for the prototype and is by Imagination to be taken as it were the very person And (d) The Minister pag. 214. sayth This axione is not true of all Images but onely of such Images as are by ciuill or diuine ordinance appointed to stand for the Prototype This he proues by the examples of the brasen Serpēt Paschall Lambe Golden CHERVBIMS which might not be adored thogh Images of Christ yea Ezechias defaced the Image that is the brasē serpēt yet adored the Prototype Christ. Answer These examples are impertinent The brasen Serpent and the Paschall Lambe were types and figures of our Lord which we grant by the meere natiue force of Imagination without positiue ordinance do not necessarily stand for the thing figured yea the Iewes at the least the vulgar did not vnderstand that the brasen serpent was a type of the Messias nor can it be proued that Ezechias himselfe so vnderstood it The question is of proper Images of our Sauiour These we say stand for the prototype inuiolably by the law of nature that honour done or denyed outwardly to the Image is done or denyed mentally to the person and ought so to be taken The Minister if he will speake to the purpose must bring some examples where the proper Image may be disgraced without dishonour done to the Prototype which he will neuer find For euen Ezechias when he brake in peeces the brasen serpent did therein dishonour the proper prototype therof to wit the true serpent of which the brasen was the direct proper Image and of which he shewed contempt in respect of being adored of men by tearing in peeces the Image because it was adored with reference vnto it as Heathens worshipped the Images of Serpents and Calues The truth of this difference between an image figure may be made euident vnto the Minister by this familiar example If his wife be found beholding and kissing his Image that is set in the frontispice of his Reply with verses in praise of his sweet gracious face ought not this to be taken as done mentally to his person And were not the contrary to wronge her yet there is no ciuill Ordinance nor Parlament law that this his Image stand for him On the other side if she be found kissing making much of her little dogge though that be the type of a preaching Minister must that be taken as done vnto him No verily It is then cleere that there is difference betwixt figures and proper Images in respect of standing for the prototype Hence this principle Honour Dishonour done or denyed outwardly to the proper Image is done or denyed mentally to the person cannot be proued euer to faile nor can our Minister shew by the word of God that any proper Image of an adored person was euer lawfully made and not lawfully adored what we outwardly do to the Image is done by Imagination to the person And when we kisse the hands and feete of the Image in our Imagination we kisse the hands and feet of the person inwardly Imagined by his Image This is the Axiome of Philosophy gathered out of Aristotle Idem est motus in Imaginem Exemplar For motion proceeding from the body mind what the body doth really and externally to the Image the mind doth Imaginarily that is by conceite affection to the (e) This is then the first argument for the worshippe of our Sauiours Image which may be thus sūmed The proper Image so stands for the Prototype that what is done by way of outward honour to the Image is done by affection to the person whosoeuer denyes outwardly Reuerence to the Image is to be taken as denying mentally Reuerence to the person But our Sauiour is worthy of all worship so that it is impious to deny any worship vnto him Therfore supposing what Protestants grant that the Image of our Sauiour is lawfully made it is impious to deny outward Reuerence vnto it person The second Argument This Axione of Philosophy that no man thinke it disauowed in Theology the ancient Fathers vniformely teach as a prime truth euident in reason S. Damascene l. 4. c. 12. S. Augustine de doct Christ. c. 9. S. Ambrose de Dom. Incarn Sacrament c. 7. S. Basill de Spiritu sancto c. 18. S. Athanasius Serm. contra Arianos (f) The Minister pag. 229. lin 24. answereth to these testimonyes of the Fathers in this sort Damascene is not Ancient nor Orthodoxal in al points for as Cardinall Bellarmine saith de Scriptor Eccles. pag. 269. he denied the procession of the holy Ghost from the Sonne S. Augustine speaketh of signes
the Creed and prime Principles of Christianity in plaine and Catechisticall manner Besides it is easy for the RomaÌ„ Church to keepe her children from belieuing that Images be Gods or true liuing things or that any diuinity or diuine vertue resides in them as may be proued conuincingly in my Iudgement by experience had of her power in this kind about a point more difficill For what may seeme more euident then that a consecrated Hoast is bread of which foure senses sight feeling smel tast giue in euidence as of bread no lesse verily theÌ„ any other so farre as they can discerne And yet so potent is the word doctrine of the Church grounded on General CouÌ„cells declaring the word of God for TransubstaÌ„tiation as Catholikes denying their senses belieue assuredly that what seemeth bread is not bread but the true body of our Sauiour vnder the formes of accidents of bread Now caÌ„ any man with any shew of the least probability in the world thinke that it is difficill for this Church to perswade her childreÌ„ that the image of Christ is not a liuing thing nor hath any godhead or liuing diuine power lodged in it as plaine Scriptures shew and Generall Catholicke Councells particularly the Tridentine sess 25. and the Nicene act 7. define which doctrine neyther reason nor sense can mislike Or shall the sole similitude of members correspondent vnto humane liuing meÌ„bers which images haue so much preuayle in catholike minds so to bow down their thought to base Idolatry as to thinke a stocke or a stone to be a God and that the Church shall not be able by her teaching to direct them to a more high diuine apprehension being able to make them firmly belieue a consecrated hoast is not bread agaynst the Iudgement that they would otherwise frame vpon most notorious euidency of sense The ProtestaÌ„ts Church on the other side may seeme to haue no great vigour by preaching to perswade commoÌ„ people agaynst the Errour of the Anthropomorphits seing their Principle is that a world of preachers is not to be belieued agaynst the euident Scripture yea (r) Heere the Minister is bitter saying p. 277. lin 30. That it is impossible for Papists to deale sincerely That his Brother M. Iohn doth not speake of euery priuate man nor any company of people but that one Michaia one Stephen one Athanasius with the word of truth in mouth is to be preferred agaynst 4. hundred Baalites I answere The Minister denying his Brother spake of euery particular man shall receaue his doome by the breath of his Brothers owne mouth telling him the coÌ„trary who thus writeth in the place cited by the Iesuite to wit Way pag. 126. lin 12. It is lawfull and necessary for EVERY PARTICVLAR MAN to try all thinges and by the SCRIPTVRE to EXAMINE and to IVDGE of the things the CHVRCH teacheth him And when A MAN in this manner reiects the teaching of a Church as great and good as the Roman Catholike his iudgement therin is not PRIVATE as Priuate is opposed to SPIRITVAL Nor sayth he pag. 128. lin 2. is it impossible for a PRIVATE MAN to espy an errour in the best Church that is And pa. 150. lin 18. Whereas the Catholiks answer That the text of Scripture try the Spirits doth not allow EVERY MAN to doe this but only Pastours The Minister replyeth this is all false for the Epistle of S. Iohn speakes indiffereÌ„tly of ALL MEN Euery man by the Rule of Scripture is to try spirits that Epistle being directed not to the CLEARGY but to the PEOPLE And the reason added shewes that the PEOPLE are they that must try spirits for they must try the spirits that are in danger to be seduced by false Prophets and such are the PEOPLE and therefore they must examine theÌ„ All these are his brother Iohns words Now let the Reader iudge whether Iohn White doth not hold that not only extraordinary Prophets as Michaeas Stephen not only chiefe Patriarkes as Athanasius but that euery particular man of the people may iudge of the teaching of the whole Church and condemne as great a Church as the Protestants if by his spirituall exposition or by the spirit he be moued so to do What reason then had our Minister in respect of this allegation to be so bitter as to say it is impossible â—or Papists to deale sincerely Verily M. Francis had you as much natural vnderstanding togeather with knowledge of the Protestant Religion as had your Brother Iohn you wold see this doctrine that euery Priuate man is by diuine Order and InstitutioÌ„ to iudge of the Church how absurd soeuer to be necessarily consequent of the Protestant Principle That euery man must finally resolue his fayth into the light of the Scripture yea I could shew how your selfe euen in this reply haue giueÌ„ this authority of iudging the Church vnto euery priuate MaÌ„ as may partly appeare by the Censure sect 4. that a common ordinary man by Scripture may oppose as great and greater Church then is the whole Protestant Doctour White in his way pag. 59. Which principle being layd how will they conuince people that God is a pure spirit whome the Scripture doth so perpetually set forth as hauing humane members I may conclude therefore that their translating Scriptures into their vulgar languages breeds more danger vnto common people then our making of images But they will say the Translation of Scriptures into vulgar languages is commanded in Scripture and the Apostolicall Church practised it whereas we cannot proue by Scripture that the Apostles did warraÌ„t or practise the setting vp of images This they say with great confidence but any substantial proofe of this their saying I could neuer read or heare The testimonyes they bring in this behalfe Search the Scriptures Let his word dwell plentifully among you c. are insufficient to proue a direct and expresse precept or practise of traÌ„slating Scriptures into the vulgar tongue Catholikes on the coÌ„trary side though they boast not of Scriptures as knowing that nothing is so cleerly set downe in it but malapert errour may contend agaynst it with some shew of probability yet haue Scriptures much more cleere and expresse then any that ProtestaÌ„ts can bring for themselues euen about the vse of the image of Christ crucifyed in the first Apostolicall Church S. Paul to the Galatians c. 3. v. 1. sayth O yee foolish Galathians who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth before whose eyes Christ Iesus is liuely set forth Crucifyed among you The greeke word correspoÌ„ding to the English liuely set forth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to paint forth a thing In so much as eueÌ„ Beza traÌ„slates Iesus Christus depictus Câ—ucifixus Iesus Christ painted or pictured crucifyed before your eyes So that we haue in plaine and expresse tearmes that christ was pictured as Crucified in the Apostolical churches which the Apostle doth
could not haue more fondly sensed them For his Maiesty speaking of prayers and denying merit vnto the repeating of prayers what according to sense could he meane but the merit proper of prayers which is to impetrate or obtayne And so the Iesuit prouing the speciall merit of Impetration hath proued what his Maiesty questioned As for your selfe seeing you deny not that vnto repetition of prayers speciall merit of Impetration is affixed I do not doubt but you yield the very Doctrine his Maiesty disliked to wit that repetition of prayers in a fixed number hath speciall force and efficacy to impetrate certayne number for the causes before mētioned destitute of the example of Saints that liued in the best ages of the Church Palladius in his history cap. 14. 25. setteth downe some examples of Saints praying in this kind Yea the Century-writers Cent. 4. col 1329. and Osiander acknowledge the example of Saint Paul a most holy Monke liuing in the fourth age after Christ that In dies singulos trecentas orationes Deo velut tributum reddidit ac ne per imprudentiam in numero erraret trecentis lapillis in sinum coniectis ad singulas preces singulos eiecit lapillos consumptis igitur lapillis constabat sibi orationes lapillis numero pares abs se expletas esse Which example of so great a Saint so knowne and notorious (u) The Minister answereth that singular exāples are no rule for Ammonius being sollicited to be a Bishop cut of his owne eare yet he is not imitable herein so neyther is S. Paules exāple in saying prayers vpon Beades to be followed I Answere Some thinges are such of their owne nature as they cannot be done lawfully and with out sinne but by special reuelation as the killing mayming himselfe in which kind examples in Scripture or else where related are admirable not imitable But when the thinge vsed by some singular Saint is not agaynst any law of God or man but a thinge that may be done without speciall reuelation the same is imitable by all others in due circumstances Now what law diuine or human forbids a man to say three hundred prayers a day one hundred to ech of the three Diuine Persons Or what law doth prohibit him to vse 300. little stones or beades in numbring them for help of Memory Or why may we not help our memory in numbring our deuotions by calculation of Beades if S. Paules example be pious and laudable If to say Prayers in a certayne number vpon beades be intrinsecally euill it cannot be done piously by the singular instinct of Gods Spirit seing God can neuer inspire men to doe any thinge that is essentially euill If it be not of it selfe essentially euill why should Protestants forbid men to vse such helpes of our deuotion except they can shew an expresse positiue Diuine law in Scripture agaynst it and neuer censured by any Father may more then abundantly suffice for satisfaction in a matter of no more moment then this For we are not curious in this Point nor doe require of any man that he say his prayers in a certaine number so that he may not say more or lesse as his deuotion serues him THE SIXTH POINT The doctrine of Transubstantiation YOVR Excellent Maiesty submitting your Iudgement to Gods expresse word doth firmely belieue the body of Christ to be truly present in the most venerable Sacrament of the Altar which doctrine doth naturally and necessarily inferre whatsoeuer the Church of Rome holds as matter of Fayth concerning the manner of this Presence To declare this and togeather answere an Obiection much vrged by some Protestants that they belieue the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament but are not boūd by this to belieue the Manner that not being expressed in Scripture We must note that men are bound firmely to belieue the manner of a mystery reuealed when the same belongs to the substance therof so that reiecting the manner we reiect the beliefe of the substance of the mystery This is euident and may be declared by the example of the mystery of the Incarnation the substance wherof is that in Christ Iesus the nature of God and the nature of man are so vnited that God is truly Man man verily God The manner of this mystery is ineffable and incomprehensible yet we are bound to belieue three thinges concerning it which if we deny we deny the mystery in substāce howsoeuer we may retayne the same in words First that this vnion is not only Metaphoricall (a) Non affectualis vnitas sed secundū subsistentiam Synodus 5. Generalis quae est Constantinop 2. Can. 4. by Affection as two persons that are great friends may truly be sayd to be all one but also true and Reall Secondly reall Vnion of natures is (b) Qui nō confitetur Dei verbū substantialiter VNIRI carni Anathema sit Synod Chal. act 5. Synod quinta General can 5. substantiall and not accidentall so that therby the nature is not only accidentally perfected by receauing excellent participations of the diuine nature power wisdome and Maiesty but also substantially the very fulnes of the God-head dwelling corporally and substantially in him Thirdly that this substantiall Vnion is not according to the Natures so that the nature of God the nature of man became one and the same nature as Eutiches taught but (c) Ex duabus naturis secundū substātiā vnitis vnum eumdem Christū qui non confitetur condēnatus est Concil Lateran sub Martin 1. Can. 6. Hypostaticall whereby God and Man became one and the same person These particulars about the manner of the Incarnation though high subtill and incomprehensible to reason Christians may and must belieue because they belong to the substāce of the Mystery and are declared by the Church in generall Councels though the vulgar be not bound explicitely to know them In this sort we say that the manner how our Sauiours Body is in the Sacrament of his last Supper must be belieued may not be denyed as farre as it concernes the very life being and substance of the Mystery reuealed Which mystery in substance is that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament in such sort that the Priest minister therof demonstrating what seemeth bread may truly say thereof in the person of Christ This is my body This supposed as the substāce of the mystery I inferre that two Catholike doctrines concerning the manner of this mystery belong to the substance of this mystery cannot be called in question without danger of misbeliefe First the Real Presence of the whole body of Christ vnder the formes of bread Secondly that this is done by Transubstantiation An Addition prouing the Catholicke Reall Presence according to the litterall Truth of Gods Word agaynst Ministeriall Metaphores Figures and Shifts HIS Maiesty in questioning onely Transubstantiation seemeth to suppose the Reall Presence of the Body and Blood of our
Sauiour vnder the Sacramentall signes and that the words of our Sauiour This is my body be true in their proper and litteral sense This was the reason that the Answerer omitted to proue largely this Catholicke Doctrine Now the Minister finding himselfe vnable vpon this supposition of his Maiesty to answere the Iesuits argumēts for Transubstantiation yea Pag. 397. affirmeth that vnlesse Transubstantiation be granted the wordes of our Sauiour cannot be true in their proper and litterall sense Hence he denyes the presence of the body of Christ Substantially within the sacred signe laboureth to proue that the words of the Supper are figuratiuely and not properly to be vnderstood He grants a Reall and True Presence of Christs body in words but so obscurely as no man is able to vnderstand his meaning Wherfore to cleere this matter wherein Ministers desire to be darke that men may not see the grosse infidelity of their hart agaynst Gods expresse word I shall shew 3. things First what Zuinglians and Caluinists hold in this point Secondly how the Doctrine both of Zuinglius Caluin is against Gods word Thirdly that their reasons not to admit of the literall truth of Christs word be vaine and idle The Zuinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament §. 1. A Three-fold presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is confessed on all sides The first Figuratiue or in a Sacramentall signe bread signifying his body and wine his bloud The second Imaginatiue or by the pious apprehension of the faithfull receauer who for more deuotions sake doth or may imagine as if he saw the body of our Lord in the Eucharist truly really and bleedingly present vnder the signes of bread and wine The third Effectuall or according to the Spirituall effects of grace purchased by the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour and giuen by vertue of this Sacrament vnto the soule to nourish the ghostly life therof As all proceed thus farre so Zuinglians will proceed no further They grant the body and bloud of Christ to be present in the Sacrament figuratiuely in a signe imaginatiuely by fayth effectually by grace but deny them to be present according to their corporall substance or further then in the outward signe to the mouth and in the inward effect to the soule So that they grant the Sacramentall signe to be bare and empty in respect of contayning the body of Christ though full and effectuall in respect of affoarding soule-nourishing grace Caluinists seeme in their words to maintaine a more reall presence For though they maintayne the substance of the body of Christ in respect of place to be in heauen only and not in the Sacrament yet they teach that the same body without being present vpon earth is giuen vs on earth not only by the apprehension of fayth Non solùm dum fide amplectimur Iesum Christum pro nobis crucifixum à mortuis excitatum Not only in the inward spirituall effects of soule-nourishing grace purchased by the death of his body Non solùm dum bonis eius omnibus quae nobis acquisiuit corpore suo efficaciter communicamus but realiter really truly Dum habitat in nobis dum vnum fit nobiscum dum eius membra sumus de carne eius dum in vnam vt ita loquar cum ipso substantiam coalescimus Caluin in cap. 11.1 ad Cor. Hence we may discouer the Caluinian iugling and playing fast loose about this Mystery when they so often say that the body of Christ is really present but Spiritually for the word Spirituall may be vsed in this Mystery for two ends First to expresse the substance of the thing present to signify the reall Presence not of the corporall substance of our Lords body but only of the spiritual effect therof to wit of soule-feeding grace This sense is false as shall be proued and the very same which Caluin doth condemne in the Zwinglians as execrable blasphemy opusculo de Coena Domini Secondly to expresse the manner of the Presence and to signify that the corporall substance of our Lord is present truly yet in a spirituall that is secret inuisible indiuisible manner this doctrine is true and herein not differing from the Catholike In like manner their Phrase of Presence by Fayth is equiuocall and may haue a threefold sense First Presence by Fayth may signify Presence by pious imagination of Fayth the Receauer conceauing the body of our Lord as if he saw the same corporally and bleedingly present If by Presence by fayth Caluinists meane no more then this then they doe not differ from the Zwinglians nor do they put any more reall presence then imaginatiue that is presence of things according to pious representation and apprehension though not really in truth Secondly Presence by Fayth may signify that Fayth doth dispose and prepare the soule and that then vnto the soule prepared by Fayth our Sauiour is vnited really and truly not according to the corporall substance of his body but only according to the spirituall effect of his grace This sense is also Zuinglian and condemned by Caluin as hath been shewed Thirdly Presence by Fayth may signify presence according to the iudgment of Fayth or a presence which only Fayth can find out feele behold This sense is true and Catholike and doth suppose the body of Christ to be present absolutely and independently of Fayth For were not the body of Christ afore hand present Fayth should not be true that iudgeth his body to be present Whether our Minister be Zuinglian or Caluinist in this point God only knowes he speakes obscurely of purpose He neuer sayth as Caluin doth li. 4. Institut c. 17. n. 7. That by substantiall communication the body and blood of Christ are vnder the signes of the supper deliuered vnto the fayth full yet he sayth and often repeates that the body of Christ is truly really effectually communicated These words sauour more of the Caluinian then of the Zuinglian phrase Notwithstanding his adding effectually after truly and really may draw the speach to be Zuinglian in sense to wit that the body of Christ is giuen truly really effectually that is really accordinge to the truth and reality of the Spirituall effect not really according to the truth and reality of the corporall substance The Zuinglian and Caluinian Presence confuted §. 2. THE Zuinglian doctrine that the body of Christ is present only in an effectuall signe of grace not in substance is against the plaine expresse words of our Sauiour For he did not say this is the signe or figure of my body nor this is the benefit or effect of my body but this is my body and consequently it is his body in substance and essence if the substantiall Verbe Est do signify substance and essence Hence Luther Epist. ad Argent sayth that the words are nimis clara toto cleer and much more cleere then he could haue wished Caluin also in cap.
last of the seauen so that his arguments are Nine in all These being the summe and substance of all his disputation I will heere set them downe answere them one by one that the Reader may see vpon what friuolous reasons these men are mooued to reiect the literall sense of Gods word concerning the highest mysteryes of Fayth His first Argument pag. 397. If the substance of bread and wine do remayne Christs speach This is my body This is my bloud cannot be properly true because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly But it shall be afterward by Fathers and Scriptures proued that the substance of bread and wine remaynes ANSWERE You will prooue the substance of bread to remayne in the holy Eucharist ad Kalendas Graecas the meane while out of what you heere confesse I argue agaynst you You grant that except Transubstantiation be maintayned the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the literall sense But they must be vnderstood in the literall sense for on these words the Church of God doth ground a chiefe mystery or Sacrament of Fayth But as hath beene prooued no figuratiue text can be the ground of our beliefe concerning any Sacrament or mystery of Fayth The second Argument pag. 397. The words wherby the wine is consecrated Luc. 22.20 are Tropicall by the confession of our Aduersaryes ANSWERE First it is not absurd that our Sauiour deliuering some precept article or Sacrament should vse words that are figuratiue and exorbitant according to the rules of Grammer if they be not figuratiue nor vnusuall but ordinary playne manyfest perspicuous according to the common phrase and vulgar manner of speach This speach This is the cuppe of my bloud which is shed for you if it be figuratiue according to Grammer yet is it playne easy cleere according to common speach for no man hearing these words This is the cup of my bloud shed for you can thinke that the cuppe and not the bloud contayned therein was shed for vs. Secondly I deny that any word of this speach This is the cuppe of the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you is figuratiue This is the cup of my bloud is not figuratiue seing Christ had in his hand a true cup not the figure of a cup and the thing contayned therein was truly and properly bloud The bloud of Christ is also truly and properly sayd to be the new Testament for it is the thing required by the new Testament Couenant for the remission of sinnes but commonly and vulgarly men say of the thing required by Couenant this is our Couenant Finally the cup in his bloud is properly sayd to be shed seing the bloud was truly and properly shed so the cup properly shed in that respect as to say of a cup of wine this cup is spilt in the wine therof is not figuratiue but rather a speach vnnecessarily playne The third Argument pag. 397. If the words be taken properly then the body and bloud of Christ is deliuered and receaued without the soule and Deity of Christ for in propriety of speach the Body is a distinct and diuerse thing from the soule and likewise from Bloud ANSWERE Thousand instances might be brought that shew your grosse Ignorance in Theology who thus argue For example the Ghospell Iohn 1.10 sayth the Word was made flesh Is this Argument good Flesh in the propriety of speach is a distinct and diuerse thing from bloud and from soule Ergo eyther these words be figuratiue and do not prooue that the word tooke substantially Flesh or els we must say that he tooke dead flesh without bloud soule S. Peter sayth that Christ did beare our sinnes in his body vpon the wood were he not simple that would argue as you do Body in propriety of speach is a thing distinct from the soule and from the God-head Therefore eyther the wordes are figuratiue and do not proue that Christ did truly suffer in body or els we must say that his body without soule and without his Deity suffered on the Crosse. Not so For though the body be a thing distinct and diuerse from the soule yet it is a thing vnited and ioyned with the soule when the person liueth and so the body of a liuing person cānot be giuen except the soule be giuen consequently or by concomitancy therewith Ordinary Philosophy might haue taught you this where it is cōmonly sayd that though the Body be distinct from the Soule yet cānot the body be mooued or remooued deliuered and receaued without the soule the same going from place to place per accidens cum corpore by concomitancy togeather with the body The fourth Argument pag. 397. Seing Christ as Saint Hierome Saint Chrysostome and Euthimius affirme did himselfe Sacramentally eate and drinke what he gaue to his disciples if the words be literally vnderstood then he did eate his owne body and drinke his owne bloud ANSWERE You would haue vs belieue that it is ridiculous and foolish to say that Christ did eate his owne body which yet you durst not vtter in playne words For if Christ as you affirme did eate what he gaue to his disciples eyther he did eate his owne body or else his word in rigour is false wherby he sayd of what he gaue to his disciples Take eate This is my body Hence the Fathers who affirme that Christ did eate what he gaue affirme that Christ did eate what he gaue his Apostles consequently inforced by the euidence of Gods word expressely auerre that he did eate his owne body as Saint Hierome ad Hedib q. 2. Christ in his supper was the eater the meate that was eaten Saint Chrysostome homil 83. in Matth. That the Apostles might not feare to do the same Christ himselfe first dranke his own bloud Yea S. Augustine Concion 1. in Psalm 33. sayth that Christ in his last supper carryed himselfe in his owne hands secundum literam according to the letter which Dauid neyther did nor possibly could doe The fifth Argument pag. 398. If the wordes be vnderstood literally then Christ gaue his Disciples his passible and mortall body But I trow no Iesuit will maintayne that a body mortall and passible can be in many hoasts or mouths at once nor can the same be corporally eaten without sensible touching ANSWERE You might truly haue sayd I trow no Caluinist will belieue that a mortall and passible body can be in two hoasts or mouths at once let the word of God say it neuer so expressely and euen as expressely as these words import Take eate this is my Body which shall be deliuered for many vnto death which shall be broken for you on the Crosse. If Christ gaue his body that was to suffer and dye he gaue his body that was then passible mortal in many hoasts at once vnto the mouths of the twelue Now this being the playne expresse and litterall truth of the word of
the body and bloud were giuen in the shape of â—read and wine as Venerable Bede in c. 22. Luc. out of whome you cite â—hese words substituting his body and bloud in the FIGVRE of bread and wine What is this but that the figure and shape of bread remaynes the body of our Lord being present in lieu of the substance therof Secondly your Minor assertion that the figure of a thing is not the â—ame with the thing figured is impious and directly opposite vnto Gods word First Christ Iesus is a figure of his Fathers substance Heb. 1.3 and yet is he the same substantially with the Father Iohn 10.30 Secondly S. Peter fishing in the sea and catching a great multitude of fish is a figure of himselfe preaching in the world and conuerting soules vnto Christ Luc. â— 10 and yet Peter fishing and Peter preaching is substantially the same person Thirdly Christ as found in the temple on the third day after his â—eesing was a figure of himselfe rising after the third day of his sepulture Ambros. in cap. 2. Lucae Also Christ as making a shew to goe further in his Iourney to Emmaus represented himselfe as mounting to heauen August cont mendac c. 13. and yet Christ found after three dayes and Christ rising after three dayes Christ making a shew to passe on and ascending to his Father is substantially one and the same person False then and impious is your assertion that the figure of a thing cannot be the same with the thing figured and consequently this your Argument The Eucharist is tearmed by the Fathers the figure of Christs naturall body Ergo it is not substantially properly his body is idle Hence the finall conclusion is that you haue no ground in Scripture not to take these words of our Lord This is my Body in the litterall sense and that the true reason you do not litterally vnderstand them is the difficulty of the matter and the Infidelity of your hart Now let vs returne vnto the Iesuits discourse That the Reall Presence of the whole Body of Christ vnder the formes of bread belonges to the substance of the Mystery §. 1. TO proue this I suppose as certayne that the body of Christ is truly and really in the Sacrament of his supper This I may iustly suppose seing your Maiesty doth professe to hold a presence (d) PraesentiaÌ„ credimus non minùs quà m vos veram haec fides Regis Regia Resp. ad Card. Peron in oper Regis pag. 399. 400. of the body of Christ in the Sacrament no lesse true then we hold and consequently you will not vnderstand the words of Christ figuratiuely as SacrameÌ„taryes do 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 only a presence by Imagination conceypt (*) This was supposed by the Iesuit as cleere and hath been proued in the former addition agaynst the Ministers Cauills as is euident wherin as your Maiesty knowes they contradict the ancient Church which teacheth expressely that Christ (e) Euthym. panop pa. 2. tit 22. Theop. in Marc. c. 14. Damascen Orthod fidei l. 4. c. 14. did not say This is a figure of my body but this is my body and exhorts vs to belieue Christ vpon his word He said This is my body (f) Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. Chrysost. in c. 26. Matth. hom 83. Ambros. de ijs qui mysterijs iuitiant c. 9. Epiph. in anchorato Hilar. l. 8. de Trinit Cyrill Hieros Cateches 4. I pray you let vs belieue him whom we haue belieued Verity cannot vtter vntruth And herein they acknowledge with your Maiesty a most high and incomprehensible mystery which were no mystery at all the words being vnderstood in a meere figuratiue sense As for some places of Fathers brought to the contrary how they are to be vnderstood your Maiesty is not ignorant S. Augustine (g) August in Psal. 3. IdeÌ„ cont Adimant c. 11. saying that Christ gaue to his disciples a figure of his body and bloud spake not of a bare empty figure but of the figure of a thinge really present As likewise in another place when he sayth Christ affirmed it was his body when he gaue a signe of his body though here he may seeme to speake in the opinion of the Manichees who held that Christ had not true flesh but a meere figure shadow and shape of flesh Against whoÌ„ in that place he vndertakes to proue that the figure of a thing may be termed the thing it selfe alledging argumento ad hominem that Christ said This is my body when he gaue but a figure of his body to wit (*) Had not S. Augustine argued in the opinion of Manichees that hold the flesh of Christ was not true but only a figure of flesh the Manichees might haue denyed this his example seing both the Gospell and the Fathers say the Eucharist to be truly Christs body and not a meere figure as you thinke Tertullian (h) Tertul. li. 4. cont Marcion hath this speach 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 explicatioÌ„ therof but vnto hoc in this manner hoc id est figura Corporis mei est Corpus meum This to be Tertullian his meaning appeares by the drift of his discourse in that place For Tertullian is to shew that wheras in the old Testament bread was a figure of the body 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 truly and really (i) Tertullian in saying that Christ made bread his body doth therby declare the conuersion of bread into his body euen as the Euangelist doth signify the conuersion of water into wine in saying Our Sauiour made water wine Iohn 2.9 his body taking bread into his hands saying this that is the figure of my body in the old Testament is my body truly and really in the new which is asmuch as if he had said Bread which anciently was a figure of my body I do now make to be truly and really my body And this is vsuall in Tertullian who not to interrupt the words of Scripture addeth his explication of the subiect not presently but after the Attribute (k) Tertul. contr Praxeam c. 29. as when he said Christus mortuus est id est vnctus the sense wherof is Christus vnctus mortuus est This supposed I inferre that the body of Christ is present in the mystical supper not only to the faithfull that receaue the SacrameÌ„t nor only to the place or church where the holy Synaxis is celebrated but vnder the formes
of bread in the very same place therwith This manner of presence is cleerly consequent vpon the precedent and that graunted this cannot be denyed For the reason vpō which Christians hold the body of Christ to be really and truly present in the Sacrament is because they cannot otherwise in proper plaine sense verify the word of Christ who sayd of bread This is my body Wherefore we must eyther put no Reall Presence at all or else put such a Reall Presence as is able to verify the foresayd speach in proper and rigorous sense But if the body of Christ be not in the same place with the consecrated bread contained vnder the formes therof 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 to be substantially present in the Church where the Sacrament is giuen yet this supposed Presence would no wayes further the verifying of the words of Christ This is my body except his body be veyled couered with the sensible accidents of bread so that it be demōstrated by them pointing vnto them one may truly say This is the body of Christ. For why should consecrated bread be tearmed truly and substantially the body of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with (*) The Ministers folly who doth in this place affirme that thinges distant may be truly really vnited is refuted in the Censure Sect. 3. §. 5. it Wherefore the Fathers affirme that Christ is so in this Sacrament as he is veiled with the semblances of bread As Saint Cyrill of Hierusalem in his booke highly commended by D. Whitaker (l) Whitakerus de sacrae Scriptura q. 6. c. 11. Cyrill Cathec 4. sayth Vnder the forme of bread is giuen thee his body Yea Mayster (m) Caluin in ep ad Cor. c. 11. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 32. Caluin sayth In the supper CHRIST IESVS to wit his Body and Bloud is truly giuen vnder the signes of bread wine Whence it is also consequent that the whole body of Christ is contained vnder a consecrated hoast be the same neuer so little For in this mystery the body of Christ is demonstrable by the sensible accidences so that consecrated bread may be tearmed truly really and substantially the body of Christ not a parcell or part therof only But were not the body of Christ wholy and entyrely vnder the formes of bread consecrated bread could not truly properly be tearmed the body of Christ but a sole part and parcell therof Agayne we haue no reason to belieue that the body of CHRIST is truly and really in the Sacrament but only to the end that it may in the Supper be truly and really (n) Augustin cont aduersus Legis Prophet c. 9. Fidele corde ore suscipimus Cyprian de lapsis Tertullian lib. de resur Caro corpore Christi vescitur Iren. l. 5. c. 2. Nissen orat Cathec Chrysost homil 83. in 1. ad Cor. Leo serm 6. de ieiunio 7. mensis eaten to nourish and feed mens soules And if it be eaten only mentally by fayth we haue no ground to thinke that it is present more then mentally by fayth this presence being ordayned vnto the māducation thereof for else why did Christ institute this Sacrament vnder the elemēts of bread wine But if Christ be not present wholy and totally vnder the forme of bread he cannot be truly and really eaten why then is his body brought from heauen to be there really present Or how can the body of Christ being coextended in place according to the naturall dimensions therof enter into the mouth of the worthy receauer yea in at the mouth of the (o) When some Fathers seeme to say that the wicked eate not Christs body they meane they do not eate it fruitfully or thriue in soule by the eating therof As we commonly say of mē that thriue not by eating that they do not eate their meat as Beda super Exod. Infidelis carne Christi non vescitur S. Cyrill Hilary Chrysostome Origen and others quoted by the Minister p. 407. speake not of meere corporal eating but of eating by Fayth and thus Infidells and wicked persons do not eate the body of Christ. S. Augustin in Ioan. tract 27. saying that the wicked receaue not rem Sacramenti the thing of the Sacramēt by the thing of the Sacramēt meaneth grace not the body of Christ. And tract 59. saying that Iudas did eate panem Domini the bread of the Lord non panem Dominum not bread that was the Lord he meaneth that Iudas in his owne persuasion and fayth did not eate the bread that was the Lord yet he did eate the bread that was the Lord according to truth in the fayth of the Church Iudas sayth he Ep. 162. tooke that which the FAITHFVLL know to be the price of their Redemption wicked and vnworthy receauer as Fathers teach Wherefore seing we must of necessity graunt as I haue proued that some part of the body of Christ is vnder consecrated bread penetrating the same occupying the same place with it why shold we doubt to belieue the whole body of Christ to be wholy and totally in euery consecrated hoast For if we can belieue that two bodyes be in the same place at once we may as easily belieue the same of twenty And if we graunt that one part of Christs body doth penetrate that is doth occupy the same roome with the quantity of bread why should we not thinke that the rest of his parts may also do the like Our Sauiour sayth Matth. 19. That it is more easy for a Camell to passe through a needles eye then for a rich man to enter into the Kingdome of heauen adding though these things be impossible vnto men yet all is possible vnto God If then God can put a whole Camell into the eye of a needle is not he able to put the whole body of Christ within the bignes of a consecrated hoast The body of Christ which being mortall passible could penetrate the body of his mother come out of her wombe through the same still remayning entyre as we professe in the Creed to belieue Natum de Maria Virgine why may not the same body being now glorious immortall and as the Apostle speakes spirituall penetrate the quantity of bread and inclose it selfe wholy and entierly within the small compasse therof Christ that made heauy things not to weigh as the body of Peter walking on the water Matth. 14.16 coloured thinges not to be seene as his owne person which he so oft made inuisible to the Iewes bright thinges not to shine as his body after his Resurrection more bright then the Sunne did not shine in so many apparitions to his disciples finally a flaming furnace not to burne the bodyes of the three children cast into the midst thereof why may not he keep
a body from occupying a place or from extruding another body frō the place where it is (p) Read S. Augustine de Agone Christiano c. 24. serm 160. who by these examples proueth that a body may penetrate with another where he saith Shew me the weightines of flesh in the body that walked vpon the waues and I will shew the true massines and solidity of flesh in the body that came in the doores being shut and was borne into the world without vndoing his mothers integrity in his byrth For to occupy a place or to extrude thence another body is but an effect consequent flowing from the nature of a quantitiue substance as to weigh to be seene to shine to burne be the naturall and necessary effects of heauy coloured bright fiery things Transubstantiation belonges to the substance of Reall Presence §. 2. THIS I proue That belonges to the substance of this Mystery which being denyed and taken away the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true taken in the literal sense in which sense they are to be taken as hath been shewed But without granting Transubstātiation the words of Christ cannot be true taken in the literall sense Ergo transubstantiation belongs to the substance of this mystery of the Reall presence The minor is proued because the speach This is my body doth signify that the thing the Priest holds in his hands is truly really and substantially the body of Christ. For in the proposition This is my body the verbe Est signifyes a coniunction betweene This in the Priests hands the body of Christ and being a Verbe substantiue in his proper signification signifyes a substantiall Identity betweene This in the Priests hands and the body of Christ. But This in the Priests hands being before consecration bread a thing substantially distinct from the body of Christ cannot by consecration be made substantially the body of Christ as the Fathers teach it is without some substantiall alteration or change And what other substantiall chāge can make bread to become truly the body of Christ besides substantial conuersion of the same into his body (q) The Minister flyes vnto the figuratiue sense choosing rather to deny the truth of Gods word according to the letter thē admit Transubstantiation Against which he hath three arguments scattered in his Reply which I wil here ioyne togither and answere The first is pa. 434. the consecrated bread is tearmed very bread 1. Cor. 10.16 11.26.28 Answere This is a very vntruth For it is still in those places tearmed bread cum addito with such an addition as signifies that it is not properly bread but our Sauiours body 1. Cor. 10.16 The bread we breake that is Sacrifice vnto God is the communication of the body of our Lord. And 1. Cor. 11.26 as often as you eate THIS bread 27. Whosoeuer shall eate THIS bread vnworthily 28. So let him eate of THAT bread to wit wherof he had said before that Christ by the verity of his word doth make it his body Now he that eateth bread turned into Christs body or made his body doth not truly eate bread As the Maister of the Marriage-feast in Cana who tasted water made wine Iohn 2.9 did not tast water truly For as water made wine is not water euen so bread consecrated and made our Lords body is not bread The second is pag. 447. which he setteth out magnificently in a distinct letter and ech proposition in a seuerall line The substance is this If the words of our Sauiour This is my body chāge the substance of bread into his body then also they change the quantity accidents For our Sauiour tooke the whole bread into his handes and sayd this is my body as wel vpon the accidents as vpon the substance of bread But they proue not the conuersion of accidents For Popish Trāsubstantiatiō is only a conuersion of substance not of accidents Therefore they proue not the conuersion of the substance Answere The wordes of our Sauiour this is my body change not euery thing into his body ouer which they be spoken by way of breathing for then they should chāge the ayre into his body but only that ouer which they are so spoken by way of signification that their signification can not be true in the litteral sense except that be hi◠body Now the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the litterall sense except the substance of bread be changed into his body as the Minister doth confesse pag. 397. lin 17. But they may be true according to the letter the substāce being chāged though the accidēts remayne For if the Sacrament outwardly cloathed with the formes and accidents of bread be inwardly in nature and substance Christs body then is it truly and substantially his body and may be sayd to be his body taking the word to be in the proper sense for substantiue being euen as Iacob cloathed with the garments of Esau was truly and substantially Iacob and not Esau though in outward shew and shape he seemed Esau. Therfore the litterall truth of Christs words this is my body inforceth vs to say that the substance of bread is chāged into his body but not that the quātity of bread is so changed And thus the magnificence of your argument is marred proued to be but an empty shew The third argument is pag. 422.423 In all miraculous substantiall conuersions a new substance is produced but the body of Christ doth preexist so cannot be produced Answer The maior is false as appeareth by millions of miraculous cōuersions which partly haue beene partly shall be For in the resuscitation of the dead when carcasses are conuerted into men no new thing is produced but old things and substances which formerly had been are reproduced It is true the power of nature being limited according to time place cannot reproduce but onely produce at one time and in one place But the power of God being infinite eternall immense and independent of time and place can reproduce things that preexist according to different times and places as often and in as many places as he is pleased Hence he can and doth reproduce vpon earth the body of our Sauiour preexisting in heauen as the Fathers auerre S. Ambros. l. 4. de Sacra c. 4. When consecration is done the body of Christ is MADE of bread And S. Cyprian serm de coena Vsque hodie Diuinissimum Sanctissimum corpus CREAT S. Gauden homil tract 2. in Exod. Quia potest promisit de pane corpus suum EFFICIT S. Hierom. ep ad Heliod Sacerdotes corpus Christi proprio ore CONFICIVNT But some may obiect that as a man shewing a Leather-purse full of gold may truly say this is gold or a paper wrapped vp full of siluer may say this is siluer so the body of Christ being vnder cōsecrated bread we may truly say this is the body of Christ
though the substance of bread remayne I answer that when substances are apt of their nature and ordayned by vse to contayne other substances then shewing the substance which containes we may signify the substance contained as in the former examples The reason is because their naturall aptitude to contayne other things being vulgarly knowne mans vnderstanding straight passeth from the consideration of the substances contayning to thinke of the thing contayned therein But when substances are not by nature and custome ordayned to contayne others we cannot by shewing them demonstrate another because their outward forme signifyes immediatly the substance contained in them For exāple one puts a piece of Gold in an apple shewing it cryes this is Gold in rigour of speach he sayth not true because the sense of his words is that the thing demonstrated immediatly by the formes and accidēts of that apple is Gold yea put case that one should say this is gold shewing a peece of paper vnfolded in a manner not apt to contayne any thing in it he should not say true though by some deuise he had put secretly into it a peece of gold Because when the paper is shewed displayed and not as contayning something in it and yet is tearmed Gold the proper sense of that speach is that the substance immediatly contayned vnder the accidents of paper is gold although it be couered with other accidents then those that vsually accompany the nature of gold Wherefore the proposition of Christ This is my body being spoken of a thing that naturally is not apt nor by custome ordained to contayne an humane body it cannot be vnderstood literally but of the subiect immediatly contayned vnder and demonstrated by the accidents and outward semblance of bread Now the thing that lyes hidden immediatly vnder the accidents of bread which was once substantially bread cannot become substantially the body of Christ except it be substātially cōuerted into his body or personally assumed by the same body And seeing this second manner of vnion between bread Christs body is impossible and reiected by Protestants aswell as by Catholiks we may conclude that the mystery of Christs Real presence cannot be belieued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation Specially seing our Sauiour did not say Heere is my body which speach may be verifyed by the Presence of his body locally within the bread but This is my body which imports that not only his body is truly and substantially present but also that it is the substance contayned immediatly vnder the accidents of bread If any man say that by this argument it appeares that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture but from the wordes of the Institution subtilly deduced and so may perchance be numbred inter scita Scholae not inter dogmata Fidei I answere that the cōsequēce 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 in the Scripture but by subtill deduction inferred from the mystery which Scripture and Tradition deliuer Notwithstanding because these subtill deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the aforesayd mystery they cannot be denyed without preiudice of fayth 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 denyed by them that wil be perfect Belieuers because the Church hath declared the same to pertayne to the proper sense of Christ his wordes and substance of the mystery Concil Romanum sub Nicolao 1. Lateranense sub Innocentio 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers §. 3. IT is certayne the Fathers acknowledge a transmutation of bread into the body of Christ that they meant Transubstantiation that is not only a mysticall significatiue but also a Reall and substantiall change appeares by these 5. circumstances of their doctrine in this point First [I.] ¶ The Marginall Annotations corresponding to these ensuing Numbers follow afterwards togeather by the expressenesse of their words for there can be no words more significant and expressiue of a substantiall change betweene bread our Sauiours body then those the Fathers vse Saint (s) Orat. Cathechis c. 34. Nissen That the word made flesh is inserted within euery faythful mā by his flesh taking his consistance of bread and wine Consecration II. transelementing the nature of things appearing into the same flesh S. Cyrill (t) Cyrill Ep. ad Calosyrium Influit oblatis vim vitae conuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis sayth That we might not feele horrour seing flesh and bloud on the sacred Altars the Sonne of God condescending to our infirmityes doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered to wit bread and wine III. Conuerting them into the verity of his owne flesh that the body of life as it were a certaine seede of viuification might be found in vs. Saint (u) Chrysost. hom de Euchar in Encoen Nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit Chrysostome When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance therof is left nothing remaynes vnconsumed IIII. so likewise do thou thinke that the mysteryes are consumed by the substance of the body of Christ (x) Ambros. de initian myster c. 9. Non hoc quod natura formauit sed quod benedictio cōsecrauit Benedictione enim ipsa natura mutatur 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 then of nature seing by the benediction euen Nature is changed V. Secondly they require that the Authour that changeth bread into Christ his body be VI. Omnipotent consequently the change not meerely significatiue but substantiall VII Saint Cyprian (z) Cyprian de coena Domini Panis non effigie non natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh S. Cyrill (f) Cyrill orat 4. mystagog He that in the marriage of Cana changed water into wine by his only will is not he worthy that we belieue him that he hath changed wine into his bloud S. (g) Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. Gaudent The Lord Creatour of natures that of earth made bread agayne because he can do it and hath promised to do it makes of bread his owne body and he that of water made wine now of wine hath made his bloud Thirdly the instrument by which God workes this Transubstantiatiō is by them acknowledged the most efficacious that may be to wit the word not of man but of God S. Ambrose (h) Ambros. de ijs qui
mysterijs initiantur cap. â— Moyses his word changed the waters of Aegypt into bloud agayne turned them from bloud into water If so great was the benediction of man what may we thinke of diuine consecration where the very words of our Sauiour worke The word of Elias had power to bring downe fire from heauen shall not the words of Christ haue force to change the kinds of the elements Againe (i) Ambros. lib. 4. de Sâ—cram cap. 4. Thou seest how working efficacious is the word of Christ. If therfore such vertue is in his word that therby things that are not receaue being how much more hath it power that the things that are still remayne in the general latitude of being according to the sensible accidents and be conuerted into another substance VIII Fourthly the effect of this transmutatioÌ„ taught by the Fathers is the presence of the substance of Christs body the absence of the substance of bread binding vs to abnegate our senses and not to belieue what we seeme to see with our eyes IX Theophilact (k) Theophilact c. 4. 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation although to vs it seeme bread because we are weake and haue horrour to eate raw flesh especially the flesh of man for this reason bread appeareth but in essence and substance it is not bread Saint Cyrill (l) Cyrill Hieros Catech. mystagog 4. Come not therfore as vnto simple bread and wine for it is the body and bloud of Christ according to the affirmation of our Lord for although sense suggest the contrary yet let fayth confirme thee Iudge not of the thing by tast but indubitably with full fayth belieue that thou art made partaker of the body bloud of Christ. And againe Know this with full certitude belieue that the bread seene is not bread though it so seeme to the tast but the body of Christ that wine seene is not wine though tast iudge it to be wine but the bloud of Christ. X. Finally that the Fathers held Transubstantiation is prooued by the continuancy which they taught of Christs body in the Sacrament so long as the accidents of bread last as appeareth by their reseruing of the same For reseruation to haue been the custome of the primitiue Church Protestants grant That (m) Habent veteris Ecclesiae exemplum fateor Caluin Instit. l. 9. c. 17. sect 39. the Sacrament was of some reserued in the elder dayes of the Church is not sayth (n) Fulke agaynst Heskins Saunders p. 77. M. Fulke so great a questioÌ„ as whether it ought to be reserued And Chemnitius (o) Chemnit in exam Con. Trid. p. 2. p. 102. granteth that in this point on our side stands Antiquitas consuetudinis latè patentis diu propagatae And whereas he addeth haec tamen veritati praescribere non debet he accuseth the Primitiue Church opposeth no lesse agaynst them then vs. And I am sure your Maiesty knowes that the primitiue Fathers did vse to send the Sacrament vnto them that were lawfully absent from Church as doth witnesse S. Iustine (p) Iustin. Apol. 2. fine vnto the sicke as (q) Dionys. Alexand ep ad Fab. apud Euseb. l. 6. cap. 36. Chrysost. Ep. 1. ad Innocent Dionysius Alexandrinus writes of Serapion That Christians carryed the same to their priuate houses to take in the morning before other meate as testifyeth Tertullian (r) Tertul. l. 2. ad vxorem Gregor Nazian orat de Gorgon That many tymes they did weare the same about them for protection as (s) Ambros. orat in obitâ—â— fratris Satyri Satyrus brother to Saint Ambrose going to sea carryed it in a stole by vertue whereof he was saued in shipwracke That Martyrs had the same frequently for their Viaticum as (t) SimeoÌ„ Metaphrast vitae S. Stephani Papae Martyris cap. 17. Vsuard in martyrolog Guitmund de corp sanguine l. 2. Tharsilius a most glorious Martyr who being taken with the Sacrament about him permitted himselfe rather to be bruized with stones to death then disclose it vnto the Persecutours whome when they had crowned thy searching curiously for the Sacrament in his clothes and about his dead body found nothing God by miracle keeping the same out of their impious hands Saint (u) Cyprian serm de Lapsis Cyprian records diuers miracles done in the confirmation of this our Sauiours permanent presence in the SacrameÌ„t namely of a woman vnworthily approaching to the chest where the same was kept that was frighted backe with fire that thence flashed out tanta est Domini potentia sayth Saint Cyprian taÌ„ta maiestas And so fully were they perswaded in this opinion that Christs body is permanently in the Sacrament that Cyrill (x) Cyrill Alex. ep ad Calosyr dareth say Insaniunt qui dicunt benedictionem à sanctificatione cessare siquae reliquiae remanserunt eius in sequentem diem Non enim mutabitur Sacrosanctum corpus Christi sed virtus benedictionis viuificatiua gratia iugis in eo est They be mad with hereticall folly who say that the blessed Sanctification of the Sacrament ceaseth if the same be reserued vntill the next day For thereby the sacred body of Christ is not changed but the grace of benediction viuification is perpetuall in it Now what reason could the Fathers haue thus constantly to defend this continuation of our Sauiour in the SacrameÌ„t but that they belieued bread to be changed into his body remayning demonstrable by the formes accidences thereof so long as they remayned entyre and were not changed into the accidences of some other substances XI A Refutation of the Ministers Shifts to elude the former Testimonies of the Fathers according to the reference of the precedent Numbers I. NO words of Scripture or Christian Antiquity can be so cleere euident which Hereticall obstinacy will not wrest against the truth yea racke till they rent them in peeces by violent interpretations as saith S. Ambrose Ep. 17. In which kind be the Ministers Replyes vnto these expresse pregnant testimonies of the Fathers for Transubstantiation as wil appeare by the confutation which heere ensueth II. Transelementing The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TranselemeÌ„tation saith the Minister pag. 421. proueth not Transubstantiation For in Transubstantiation the matter is destroyed the quantity and accidents remayne in Transelementation the matter remayneth the essentiall accidentall formes are altered Answere The falshood and inanity of this Shift is conuinced by these foure arguments which shew Transelementation to import the same as Transubstantiation The First is drawne from the notion of the word Elements Transelementation For Transelementation of bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord signifyes that there is a change betwixt them according to their elemeÌ„ts Elements import the primordiall simples the original principles the substantiall parts of which
a thing is fundamentally composed Hence Fire Ayre Water Earth as also the Letters of the Alphabet be tearmed Elements because both are primordiall simples and substantial parts the one of mixed substances the other of wordes and sentences Now the body and bloud of Christ as also bread wine being corporall substances the primordiall simples and substantiall principles wherof their nature is originally composed be substantiall matter forme as euery Philosopher knowes Ergo Transelementation of bread wine into Christs body and bloud doth import that bread and wine be changed into Christs body bloud according to their Elements that is matter forme Is not this Transubstantiation The second reason is because in Transelementation matter doth no more remayne then in Transubstantiation so your deuised difference betwixt them is false For as when Transelementation is partiall that is according to forme only the matter remaynes so likewise in Transubstantiation For example when wood is turned into fyre the forme being destroyed the matter remayneth As wood by this change may be sayd to be Transelemented into fire because it is changed into fire according to the forme which is one element of wood so likewise it may be sayd to be Transubstantiated into fire because it is changed into fire according to the forme which is one part of the substance of wood Though Christians do not vse so to speake because aswel the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Grecian Church as the word Transubstantiation by the latin be consecrated to signify the substantiall change in the Eucharist which is totall according to both elements substantiall parts Thirdly I thus argue The Minister grants that Transelementation doth import an essētial change or a chāge according to the essentiall forme of bread into Christs body but this cannot be according to the essentiall forme only not also according to the essentiall matter of bread else the body of Christ should be made bigger by the matter of bread changed into it as we see the fire to be made bigger by the matter of wood remayning after the conuersion therof into fire Ergo seing the Minister grants that Trāselementation imports an essentiall chāge he must if he will not be ridiculously absurd consequently grant that this change is to tall else the body of Christ shal be augmēted by the material additiō of bread vnto it Fourthly this is proued by the Fathers appropriation of this word vnto the mystery of the holy Eucharist For did not Transelementation of bread wine into Christs body blood import a substantiall change but only an accidental mystical significatiue conuersion of them I aske First why do the Fathers neuer say that the water of Baptisme is Transelemēted into Christs bloud as wel as they say that wine is Trāselemented into his bloud For thus they might haue spoken of Baptisme as well as of the Eucharist had they been of the Protestants Religion which is that water is mystically and significatiuely made Christs bloud in Baptisme as much as wine in the Eucharist Secōdly why do the Fathers neuer say that our bodyes in the day of iudgment are Transelemēted into Christs body but only as the Minister cites S. Nissen orat Catechist c. 34. transmutantur they be transmuted why this but because transmutation being a Generall tearme signifyes any mutation whether substantial or accidental whereas Transelementation cannot import but a substantial change Finally why do the Fathers neuer say that mans soule is by grace charity Transelemented into Christ into whome the same is mystically changed Theophilact indeed cited by the Minister in Ioan. c. 6. v. 56. saith that a man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a manner Transelemented into Christ as he might no lesse truly haue sayd in a manner Transubstantiated into Christ but that men are by grace Transelemented into Christ they neuer say Which be manifest signes that the Fathers vnderstood by Transelementation according to the proper naturall signification of the word a substantiall conuersion not only an accidental much lesse a meere mysticall change III. S. Cyrill sayth the Minister by the words Conuerting bread and wine into the verity of his owne flesh vnderstandeth not Popish Transubstantiation but mysticall Sacramentall Conuersion to wit Conuersion of signification vse operation For he speaketh of bread wine according to their whole nature contayning substance accidents but the accidents are only mystically conuerted into Christ his body Answere This myst which the Minister would cast vpon this matter by the tearme of mystical cōuersion serues only to catch Woodcocks for euery man of iudgment may presently see that this sense cannot stand with the words of S. Cyrill For S. Cyrill sayth that did men see and feele what is inwardly done in consecrated bread wine men should find horrour to feed theron because they should see and feele that they eate and drinke flesh bloud Hence that this may not be perceaued he sayth the conuersion of bread wine is done inwardly by Christs penetratiue power conuerting them into the verity of his flesh and bloud But did men see what is inwardly done in bread wine by the Protestant significatiue conuersion they would feele no horrour for in their Tenet no change at all is made inwardly in bread but the whole outward substance is assumed as an Instrument to sanctify the soule If a Christian should see this conuersion of vse operation should he see I say that bread is eleuated to produce sanctifying grace in his soule why should he feele horrour to feed thereon So that it is not only willfulnes against the light of truth but also folly to expound this place of S. Cyrill of meere mysticall significatiue change IIII. Vnto this Testimony of S. Chrysostome the Minister replyeth in these words The Father sayth not that nothing of the substance is left but the cleane the cōtrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing of the substance goeth away the words which follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are falsely 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 body of Christ according to the Tenet of many Scholemen The substance of the externall elements passeth into the body of the receauer is consumed or vnited to the flesh of the receauer Answere This your Reply toucheth two points first the Translation secondly the sense of this place I will discouer your vanity about both As concerning the first you shew your selfe to be a wrangler and giuen vnto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by S. Paul labouring to make those sayings to be dissonant and contrary betwixt which there is not any difference in respect of sense What disagreement in respect of sense is there between these two sentences which you say be contrary When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance thereof is
left When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance thereof goeth away Certainly they disagree as much as these two which for sense are iust the same When meate is set on the Table before the hungry persons nothing is left When meate is set on the table before hungry persons nothing goeth away For when S. Chrysostome sayth waxe being put into fire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing of the substance goeth away you cannot except you would haue him seeme a â—oole make him meane that nothing of the waxe goeth away by consumption and metling into the fire for euery child knoweth this to be false His meaning theÌ„ is nothing of the substance goeth away from the fire vnconsumed but the whole substance is conuerted into fire as the Iesuit expounds Also what difference betwixt these two translations which you make Contrary The mysteries are togeather consumed by the substance of the body The mysteries are coabsumed with the substaÌ„ce of the body They be punctually the very same in regard of sense as much as these two are Wood and Coale are coabsumed with fire Wood Coale are togeather consumed by fire For without question S. Chrysostome saying that the mysteries are coÌ„sumed with the substance of the body as waxe is by fire doth intend that the body is the Instrument wherby the mysteryes are consumed as fire is the Instrument to consume waxe As concerning the sense of this place that S. Chrysostome doth intend to teach that the substance of bread is coÌ„sumed by the body of Christ not by the body of the receauer is euident by the drift of his discourse Which because it is cleere pregnant for TransubstantiatioÌ„ I will set it downe in Greeke as it is in M. Sauells Edition in the 7. To me amongst S. Chrysostomes Genuine works Homil. 6. de poenitentia pag. 690. where S. Chrysostome repreheÌ„ding them who hauing spent the morning of festiuall dayes in ridiculous vanityes and toyes yet come to the holy Sacraments sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is in English After these vanities with what confidence doest thou approach vnto the Mysteries with a conscience so polluted If thou did'st hold dunge in thy hands durst thou touch the hemme of the garment of an earthly King No thou durst not Do not regard that it is bread in outward shew do not thinke that it is wine for it is not meate that is cast out by egestion as others are God forbidd do not so thinke But as when waxe is ioyned to the fire nothing of the substance thereof goeth away out of the fire inconsumed so do thou thinke the mysteryes are consumed by the substaÌ„ce of the body Wherfore coÌ„ming to receaue do not thinke you take the diuine body as from the hand of a man but as fire from the tonges of the Seraphim Thus S. Chrysostome affirming and prouing that the mysticall bread and wine be not in truth and substance bread and wine but the body of Christ because as waxe is so consumed by fire as nothing of the substance therof escapeth or goeth away so the substance of bread wine is consumed by the substance of Christs body The conceyt insinuated by the Minister that S. Chrysostome meanes that the mysticall Elements are indeed consumed but by the body of the receauer is most seely For S. Chrysostome because the Sacramentall bread and wine be consumed by the substance of the body concludes that therfore when we receaue we must not thinke we receaue bread and wine in truth nor ordinary meate such as is cast out by egestion What discourse can be more sottish then this of S. Chrysostome did he meane as you would make him that the mysticall elements be by digestion consumed into the flesh of the receauer and that therefore when we take them they be not truly bread and wine nor such meate as is cast out by egestion for his reason concludes the playne contrary of what he would prooue Agayne S. Chrysostome hauing sayd that the mysteryes are consumed by the substance of the body as waxe is by fire inferres that therefore when we receaue we ought to receaue Christs diuine body as FIRE from the hand of the Seraphim which cleerely shewes that the diuine body of Christ is by him said to be as FIRE consuming into it selfe the substance of bread wine and not the body of the receauer Where note that this holy Father doth not say that we should thinke the Sacrament to be a coale of fire taken froÌ„ the hand of the Seraphim but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thinke as if we receaued a coale of fire from the tongues of the Seraphim wheÌ„ce is answered the seely obiection the Minister makes that if we take the wordes of S. Chrysostome as they found we must say that the Sacrament is fire and not giuen by the Priest but by the Seraphim For Saint Chrysostomes words neyther haue this sense nor sound Finally what he sayth that the substance of bread is not consumed by the body of Christ according to the Tenet of many Scholemen shewes his want of skill to vnderstand Scholasticke Authours For they all agree that the body of Christ made present in the Eucharist by vigour of his word This is my body doth destroy and consume the substance of bread at the least morally that is by binding God to destroy it that his word may be true which without the destruction of bread cannot be true in the sense by him intended Only the question is whether the body of Christ as present haue also physicall opposition with the substance of bread destroying the same by physicall impression made vpon it wherein some hold the affirmatiue some the negatiue part whome the Minister in his margent citeth saying substantiam corporis Christi non pugnare cum substantia panis SVAPTE NATVRA Is not this impertinent V. The Minister heere sayth It is inconsequent to argue they are changed in nature Ergo their naturall substance is destroyed For S. Peter speaking of Regenerate persons 2. Pet. 1.5 sayth they are made partakers of the Diuine Nature and yet his meaning is not that their former substance is abolished Answere First the Minister doth not set downe the true force of the argument For the argument is not Bread is changed in nature Ergo the substance thereof is destroyed but thus we argue What is so changed in nature that it is no longer the thing or substance nature framed is destroyed according to the substance thereof This is manifest for were not the nature thereof destroyed it should be still the thing and substance nature framed But S. Ambrose sayth bringeth many conuincing arguments out of Scripture to proue that by consecration bread is so changed in nature as Non est quod natura formauit it is no longer the thing and substance nature framed but the body of Christ Ergo according to Saint Ambrose bread in the Eucharist is so changed as the nature
thereof is abolished into the body of Christ. Secondly the example you bring about Regenerate persons is by you vsed impertinently and truly pondered applyed serueth our purpose For in Regeneration the substance of man is not abolished because by Regeneration man is changed to be participant of the Diuine Nature not from what he is originally by the constitution of nature but from what he is by the corruption of the Diuell and sinne Hence by vertue of Regeneration a man ceaseth to be not according to the substantiall Origen of his nature but only according to the superinduced peruersion thereof by the Diuell But in the Eucharist Saint Ambrose sayth that bread by consecration passeth into the sacred body of Christ from the thing it was by the framing constitution of nature Ergo bread according to S. Ambrose ceaseth to be according to the thing it is by the framing of nature to wit the essence of bread VI The Minister Replyes That to a mysticall change the omnipotency of God is required as appeareth in Baptisme Therefore although some Fathers require an omnipotent power to eleuate and change the creatures of bread and wine yet it followeth not that they maintayned Transubstantiation Answere The Fathers indeed require the omnipotency of God in Baptisme not to change the nature of water into the nature and verity of Christs bloud but to the end that water remayning water vnchanged in nature be eleuated to produce sanctifying grace in the soules of men Thus Saint Leo by you often cited serm 4. de natiuit sayth Virtus altissimi quae fecit vt virgo pareret Saluatorem eadem facit vt regeneret vnda credentem He doth not say as you would make fooles belieue the Fathers vse to speake that the Diuine omnipotency doth change the water into the nature and verity of his bloud but That the same power of the Highest makes water being water to bring forth regenerate persons which caused a virgin remayning a virgin to bring forth the Sauiour But about the holy Eucharist the Fathers speake in another manner They require the Omnipotency of God not to eleauate bread wine that remayning still in nature bread and wine they may sanctify mens soules but to change them into Christs body and bloud by which change they become in thēselues without further eleuation proportioned meanes to sanctify soules as cōtaining within themselues the fountaine of grace Yea the Fathers speeches about the water of baptisme be so different from their speeches about the bread and wine of the Eucharist as this alone might suffice to conuert the Minister were he not obstinate What Fathers say that Christ at the Mariage of soules with him in Baptisme can doth conuert water into his blood by his omnipotency as he could and did conuert water into Wine at the carnall Mariage of Cana as S. Cyrill S. Gaudentius cited by the Iesuit say of the wine of the Eucharist What Father doth say that water changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of the word made his flesh as is sayd of the Eucharisticall bread by the Authour of the booke De Coena Domini VII Though some question be made whether this Authour was S. Cyprian yet learned men both Catholicks and Protestants agree he was an holy ancient Father The Authour of the booke de Coena Domini sayth M. Fulke agaynst the Rhem. Testam in 1. Cor. 11. fol. 282. was not in tyme much inferiour to Cyprian Erasmus in his Annotatiōs vpon S. Cyprian printed at Basill Anno 1558. fol. 287. sayth The Authour was some learned man of S. Cyprian his age as Pamelius doth demonstrate by many euident reasons so that we haue Transubstātiation as ancient as S. Cyprian For what the Minister sayth that this Authour meaneth only a mysticall and Sacramental change to be made is idle as I thus demonstrate The change this holy Father teacheth is made not in the shape quantity accidēts of bread but only in the inward nature and essence thereof panis non effigie sed natura mutatus But the Ministers mysticall conuersion is made vpon the shape quantity accidents of bread as he sayth pag. 425. it passeth vpon the quantity and accidents of bread as well as vpon the substance Ergo the conuersion of bread into Christs flesh taught by this holy ancient Father is an inward substantiall conuersion and not the Ministers mysticall change VIII What the Minister sayth to this Argument that the Fathers affirme the water of Baptisme to be changed into Christs blood by the vertue of his word is false nor hath he cited any Father that doth so affirme Yea such speaking of the water of Baptisme were ridiculous or rather impious as affirming thinges about the mysteryes of Religiō which may make them seeme senselesse and ridiculous without any ground so to affirme in Gods word For Christ neuer sayth of the water of Baptisme Be washed herewith for this is my blood as he sayth often in Scripture of the wine of the Eucharist drinke yee of this for this is my bloud IX To the fourth argument the Minister replyes that the Fathers exhort People to abnegate their senses in Baptisme wherein they mantayne no Transubstantiation I Answere The Minister still singes the same songe that the fathers speake in the same manner of the conuersiō of water into Christs blood in Baptisme as they speake about the conuersion of wine in the Eucharist which is most false and the Minister hath not cited the wordes any Father so affirming The Fathers about Baptisme exhort men to belieue that God can by water wash and purify the soule and this to be a supernaturall worke aboue the naturall force of water which one may belieue without contradicting the euidence of any of his senses yea without any great difficulty in reason For what great matter is it to belieue that God being omnipotent at the presence of water washing the body can inwardly by grace wash the soule But about the Eucharist they say that we must firmely and indubitately belieue that that which seemeth bread and wine is not bread wine but the body bloud of Christ so that vnder the forme of bread and wine is giuen vs the bloud of our Lord and though sense suggest the contrary that it is wine we must abnegate and not belieue our senses herein Shew one Father I say that doth thus affirme of the water of Baptisme that we must firmely and indubitately belieue the same not to be water in truth though it be water in shew and because our sight feeling and tast suggest that it is water that we must with full Fayth abnegate and deny this iudgment framed by sense X. The Minister heere pag. 429. bringeth three triuiall argumēts to prooue the Fathers held the substance of bread to remayne after consecration which are not worth the answering yet I will say a word to each of them not to omit any thing that
may seeme substantiall in his Reply The first The Fathers teach that the creatures of bread and wine remayne but the abstracted shapes of bread and wine be not Gods creatures but Popish fancyes I Answere the force of this argument doth consist in two lyes the one imposed vpon the Fathers the other vpon vs. For first the Fathers you cite do not say that the Creatures of bread and wine remayne in the Eucharist after consecration but that the holy Eucharist is made of the Creatures of bread and wine they being conuerted turned into the body and bloud of Christ saying Before consecration it is bread but after Consecration of bread is made the flesh of Christ. Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 4. Secondly we say that the true solide and reall quantity of bread endued with all the true qualityes and naturall propertyes remayne and not onely abstracted shapes and fancyes as you maliciously or dreamingly misrelate our Doctrine Hence true is the saying of Irenaeus l 4. c. 34. that the holy Eucharist is composed of two thinges the one heauenly to wit the body of Christ the other earthly to wit the quantity of bread endued with the sensible and earthly propertyes thereof The second The Fathers teach that the signes and elements are present and haue power to feede and nourish the body but Mathematicall bread and wine haue not power no nourish the body for there is in them only the shadow of grayne and grapes and Papists may as well say That paynted bread hath power of feeding Answere This argument is like the former grounded on the Ministers false slandering o◠dreaming misprision of our Doctrine For we hold that the quantity of bread endued with the sensible vertues and qualityes of bread remaynes truly really substantially and not only in a shadow and picture of bread Now the quantity of bread and wine endued with the actiue qualityes can please delight alter and change the body of the receauer and be agayne altered and changed by the nutritiue power therof and so nourish the body as the Iesuit hath declared in the second Consideration The Third The Fathers affirme that the elements of the Eucharist resemble the mysticall vnion betwixt Christ Christian people to wit bread confected of many graynes of wheat and wine of many grapes but Popish fictions and Mathematicall shadowes of grayne and grapes cannot resemble this mysticall vnion Answere The Fathers do not say as you impose vpō them that the Eucharisticall bread and wine resemble the mysticall vnion betwixt Christ and Christian people but the vnion Christians must haue betwixt themselues that they may be vnited vnto Christ as the mysticall body to their head To represent this vnion the sacred signes must be truly bread and wine not after consecration but before For as no substances be conuerred into the naturall body and bloud of Christ but such as are made of many graynes and grapes vnited togither in one masse so none can be vnited vnto Christ by grace and made partakers of his sauing gifts but such as being many by nature are vnited by Charity concord and due subordination in one mysticall body the holy Church So that not the Eucharisticall signes but your arguments be fictions and shadowes without any truth substance or solidity in them XI To the fifth argument the Minister sayth Because this Iesuit produceth no new matter but only repeateth what we haue formerly confuted and especially because Reseruation concludeth not Transubstantiation I forbeare further examination of the particular Testimonyes produced by him Answere With what forehead could you say that this Iesuit heere produceth no new matter but ONELY repeateth what you haue formerly confuted Might not I with truth say this is more then onelye For where haue you answered formerly the testimonyes of the Fathers here cited by the Iesuit that hold the Eucharist to remayne the body of Christ out of vse and that it is to be worshipped and adored as such Where haue you answered the Confession the Iesuit doth here produce of Protestants euen of your Kemnitius to whom you here refer vs in your margent affirming Reseruation of the Sacrament which you detest as Idolatry to haue been the continuall custome of the primitiue Christian Church largely diffused ouer the world Antiqua consuetudo latè patens diu propagata thereby granting Christian Antiquity Vniuersality and Continuance to stand for vs agaynst you But you say that Reseruation concludes not Transubstantiation This proueth your shallow insight into these matters as by these two arguments I shew First the Fathers reseruing the Sacrament shew they held such a Reall Presence as by vertue thereof the body of Christ must of necessity be present so longe as the accidents of bread remayne For they would not haue bound Christians to adore the Sacrament as Christs body so longe as the proper accidents of bread remayne had they not held that the same is the body of Christ infallibly and by diuine Institution so longe as the foresayd accidents remayne But neyther the Zuinglian presence by figure nor the Caluinian presence by Fayth nor the Lutheran presence by Consubstantiation doth as themselues teach of necessity inforce the Sacrament to be the body of Christ so longe as the accidents of bread remayne but only the presence by Transubstantiation hath this nature force Ergo the Fathers held neither the Zwinglian nor the Caluinian nor the Lutheran Presence but the Catholicke Transubstantiation Secondly the Fathers as hath been shewed do perpetually affirme that bread and wine are conuerted transelemented changed into the nature and verity of Christs flesh and bloud so that Protestants haue no shift to auoyde the euidence of this their Christian consent for our Religion agaynst thē but by saying they speake only of mysticall conuersion to wit of signification vse and operation as sayth our Minister pag. 422. lin 1. But their reseruing the Sacrament and adoring the same reserued as Christs body permanently and out of vse doth conuince that they mayntayned another conuersion then meere significatiue of operation and vse as is manifest Ergo the Fathers by reseruing the Sacramēt shew manifestly two things First that they held the Catholike doctrine of substantiall cōuersion Secondly that Ministers willingly against their conscience expound their sayings as teaching no more but Conuersion of meere significatiō vse operation Agaynst this consent of Fathers Protestants obiect the testimony of Theodoret (y) Theodoret. Dialog Inconfusus Gelasius de duabus naturis aduersus Eutichet Gelasius who in playne tearmes affirme that the substance of bread and wine remaines in the holy Eucharist bringing this as an example of the Incarnation where the natures of God and Man remayne in Christ Signa mystica sayth Theodoret post sanctificationē non recedunt à sua natura And Gelasius non esse desinit substantia vel natura panis vini I answere that these Fathers by the nature of bread and wine
this mystery not accompanyed with many seeming absurdityes repugnances agaynst sense particularly these foure First that a body as big as our Sauiours remayning stil truly corpulent in it selfe should be contayned within the cōpasse of a round Hoast scarce an inch long and broad Secondly that a body so glorious should be combined vnto corruptible elements and so made subiect vnto the indignityes and obscenityes that may befall vnto them Thirdly that the body may be in heauen and on earth in innumerable places at once Fourthly that the substance of bread being cōuerted into Christs body the sole accidēts remaine by themselues performing the whole office of substance no lesse then if it were present euen to the nutrition of mans body These difficultyes so scandalize Protestants that some condemne Trāsubstantiation as impossible yea as (f) Field of the Church lib. 3. absurd ridiculous barbarous Others professe they cannot subdue their vnderstandings to belieue it as a matter of Fayth To giue full satisfaction in this point I set downe this proposition that these seeming absurdityes should not auert but rather incline a true Christian mind to belieue this mystery In proofe whereof I present vnto your Maiesty these three Considerations (g) The Minister here sayth that this longe tract about Gods omnipotency is impertinent because Protestants deny not Gods omnipotency But this Cauill is refuted in the Censure Sect. 3. §. 3. where it is shewed that to deny the litteral sense of Gods word about the mysteryes of our fayth to be possible vnto God is Infidelity Now Protestants grant the holy Eucharist to be a chiefe mystery of fayth Transubstantiation to be the literall sense of Gods word about the same wherefore this tract about the Diuine omnipotēcy is pertinently brought agaynst them The first Consideration The first is grounded vpon the supposall of two thinges most certayne First that the Primitiue Church preaching vnto Pagans Iewes and other Infidells the rest of Christian mysteryes as the Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection of the body did most carefully keepe as much as might be from their knowledge the mystery 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 Infidells being fully acquainted with the whole mystery the one shold be scandalized the other mocke therat Hence it was accounted such an heynous offence that Christians should discouer vnto Infidels or dispute about the difficultyes thereof in their presence The Councell (g) Concil Alexand. apud Athanas. Apolog. 2. of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arrians number this as one of the greatest They were not ashamed in publike and as it were vpon a scaffold to treate of the mysteryes before Catechumens and which is worse before Pagans And a little after It (h) Epist. Iulij apud Athanas Apol. 2. is not lawfull to publish the mysteryes before them that are not initiated for feare Pagans out of ignorance mocke and Catechumens entring into curiosityes be scandalized And agayne Before Catechumens which is more before Iewes Pagans blaspheming Christianity they handled a question about the body and bloud of our Sauiour And to the same purpose Saint Ambrose (i) Ambros. de myster initian c. 1. saith To declare the Mysteryes vnto them that be Catechumens is no tradition but prodition seing by such declarations danger is incurred least they be diuulged vnto Infidells that will scoffe at them This supposed I inferre that the seeming absurdities of the Catholike reall presence should encourage a true Christian mind to belieue it For a true Christian desires to belieue and firmely cleaue vnto the reall Presence that was belieued by the primitiue Church But this was a reall Presence accompanyed with many seeming grosse absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfy Infidells therein or to keep them from blaspheming but by concealing the mystery from them and consequently they held the Catholicke not the Protestant doctrine in this point The Protestāts (k) The Minister pag. 442. lin 12. saith that Protestāts hold the elements of bread wine to remaine to be instruments of our coniunction by grace vnto God and that this is a mystery incomprehensible Answere First Protestants do not hold the elements of bread and wine to be proper instrumēts infusing grace into mans soule but that men are iustifyed by their faith onely that this Sacrament is a meere signe and seale therof Secōdly though Sacramental influence of grace into the soule be a thinge supernaturall yet no mystery of extraordinary difficulty to be belieued nor absurd vnto sense For this is no more thē that vpon our eating and drinking of bread and wine in remēbrance of Christs body broken of his blood shed on the Crosse God infuse soule-nourishing grace into the worthy receauer Now what difficulty to belieue this or what seeming absurdity therin This is no greater mystery then that vpon the washing of the body with the element of water God inwardly wash the soule with grace Wherfore seing Protestāts cā find in their Eucharist no mystery more hard seemingly absurd thē in Baptisme doubtlesse it is not the mystery of the Primitiue Church concealed frō Infidells in regard of the seeming absurdity and immanity therof vnto carnall imaginatiō whereas Baptisme was not conceaued to be of that seeming absurdity nor concealed doctrine that makes Christs body present spiritually by fayth vnto the deuout receauer that communicating thinkes sweetly of Christs passion and death contaynes no mystery to be cōcealed in respect of the seeming absurdityes yea the Fathers did not feare to declare to Catechumens this Sacrament so farre as it was commemoratiue of Christ and his passion as appeares by the treatises of Saint Augustine vpon S. Iohn made before Catechumens out of which Treatises Protestants for their meere commemoratiue Presence alleadge many sentēces to little purpose For he there explicates spirituall manducation by fayth and he excludes the grosse imagination of eating Christs body in his proper shape tearing it in pieces with the teeth but denyes not yea rather insinuates another kind of spirituall manducation not only by fayth but by reall sumption though to conceale the mystery from Catechumens he speaks not so cleerly thereof Wherfore as the Palm-tree the heauier the weight is that is layd vpon it the more it riseth vpward as it were ioying in difficultyes So a true Catholike Christian feeling in the doctrine of Transubstātiation many seeming absurdityes that presse carnall imagination to the ground groweth thereby more strong to belieue it imbracing these difficultyes as manyfest signes that this doctrine was belieued by the Primitiue Apostolicall Church On the other side the Protestants finding the Presence of Christs body by faith to be deuoyd of such difficulties may by the very lightnes thereof suspect it is not the doctrine which the Fathers concealed from
Infidells as more absurd to humane imagination then any other Mystery of Christian Religion The second Consideration This consideration is drawne from the quality of the difficultyes obiected agaynst this mystery which be such as a Christian in honour should neglect them (l) Vnto this argument shewing God cā couer the face of the whole world with thinner thinner parts taken out of a flyes wing euery Puny in our Vniuersities saith the Minister pag. 448. can distinguish betweē mathematicall and potentiall diuision of a body physicall and actuall Aristotle him selfe teaching vs that there is minima Caro though there be not minimum corpus Answere By this reply you shew your selfe to be not so much as a Puny in Philosophy For not knowing what you say you grant vnto your Aduersary as much as he would proue because you vnderstād not the Philosophicall tearmes you vse He did not say that the winge of the fly is physically or actually diuided into so many thinne parts as would couer the world but only that it is diuisible into so many thinne parts but you do not deny but there is so much potential or possible diuisiō in the flyes winge And if the diuision of a flyes winge into so many thinne parts as will couer the world be potentiall and possible I hope you will not deny but God can make the same actuall except you will say that there is in the quantity of a flyes winge more potentiality to be deuided then in God power to deuide so denying him to be Omnipotent Secondly your coming forth with Aristotles minima caro sed non minimum corpus doth more more bewray your Ignorance For the Philosophicall disputation de termino paruitatis is de minimo naturali whether a thinge homogeneous that is whereof euery particle is of the same kind with the whole as water fire flesh can be so little as it cannot be lesser or thinner by the course of nature wherein many learned Deuines hold the Negatiue part that no flesh is so little but it may be lesse by the course of nature But in respect of the Diuine power no Christian Philosopher doth hold there is minima caro flesh so litle and thine that God can not make the same lesser and thinner without end and so with a flyes winge couer the world And whereas you iestingly require you may haue respite not to belieue Transubstantiation vntill this vast worlds Capcase be made of a flyes winge you may haue your desire so you cā be contēt the meane tyme to vndergoe the punishment they must endure who will vndertake to comprehend the Omnipotency of God within the CAPCASE of their idle brayne For if it be the part of a prudent intelligent man not to permit imagination to preuayle agaynst his reason what a disgrace is it for a Christian that his fayth should be conquered by these kind of difficultyes For that the seeming absurdityes of this mystery be not in respect of naturall reason but meerly of imagination may hence appeare that some naturall truthes be in a manner as difficill and incredible which wil be seene if we compare the foure aboue mentioned difficulties with the difficulties some truthes euident in nature haue First we cannot imagine that the whole body of Christ can be contayned in the cōpasse of a small hoast But it is not more incredible that in a thing of small quantity for example in the winge of a fly there should be so many parts as vnfolded and layd togeather 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 fly there are so many parts as broad long as the wing though still thynner and thinner that Almighty God separating and vnfolding thē may therewith couer the whole world For certayne it is that some finite number of such parts so separated each of thē as long and as broad as a flyes winge would couer the face of the whole world Certayne also it it that the winge of a fly is stil diuisible into more more such parts that no finite number of them is assignable but God may still separate from that winge a greater nūber without end Therefore it is certayne that in the wing of a fly there is so much quantity as is sufficient to couer the face of the whole world both of heauen 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 We that cānot comprehend thinges we see with eyes and feele with hands certaynly we shall haue much adoe at the day of Iudgement to iustify our not belieuing any part of Gods word by reason of the seeming absurdityes therof Secondly we cannot imagine the body of Christ to be really combined vnto the consecrated formes and not to be polluted by such indignityes as may happen vnto the formes yet we haue seene or may see thinges able to make this not to seeme incredible For holy men often by prayer so purify their soules and by contemplation bring their spirits to such an independency of their senses that neyther bitter meats offend their tast nor loathsome sents their smell nor shrill cryes their hearing yea burnings torturings are not perceaued their spirit being eloyned through diuine vnpolluted affection from the cōtagion of the body vnto the substance wherof it still remaynes most really vnited This being so cānot the glorious body of Christ graced with most diuine ornaments flowing from the excessiue blisse of the soule and and thereby made spirituall impassible vnsearchable be really present vnto the formes of consecrated Bread and yet immune free and wholy independent of any contagion or corruption that may happen to the formes specially the body of Christ not being so strictly and substantially tyed vnto the formes as the spirit to the body it informeth but is present vnto them as an Angell assistāt is to the body wherein he worketh what dishonor can it be to attribute vnto Christs most venerable body this spirituall manner of Angelicall presence yea rather a participation of the diuine immensity For as God by his incomprehensible immēsity existes euery where no lesse pure in the sinke then in the sunne no lesse sweet in the dungehill then in a garden of odoriferous floures So the body of Christ by supernatural participation of his diuine presence is really vpon earth in things visible inuisible in thinges hurtfull impassible in thinges noysome inuiolable in things impure immaculable to his friends that receaue him with loue most sweet and comfortable and ouerflowing in graces but to the vnworthy receauer present in a manner dead senseles as if he were not there at all And as he that receiues into his armes a body wherin the spirit absorpt in contemplation neyther feeling nor felt lyeth inclosed may be sayd
to imbrace the body without the spirit which is in that body insensible and as good as if it were not there So they that receaue vnworthily are sometymes sayd by the Fathers (m) August tract 26. in Ioan. 25. Caeteri Apostoli manducauerunt panem Dominū Iudas autē panem Domini to receyue the Sacrament without the body of Christ because though the body of Christ be really in the Sacrament they receaue yet he is there in a dead manner in regard of them as if he were not there at all because he stirres not vp heauenly affections in them nor makes them feele the workings of his grace loue Thirdly we cānot imagine the same body can be in many places togeather at the same tyme it is true but as hardly can we imagine the soule to be in the head and in the feet of a man one the same without diuision in it selfe or an Angell to be in two Townes of the Countrey wherof he is President as farre distant one from the other as Yorke from London Also who can conceaue God who is infinitely one indiuisible to be both in heauen and on earth at once Of which incomprehensible manner of presence Saint Augustine sayth (n) August ep 3. ad Volusian Miratur hoc meus humana quia non capit fortasse non credit What meruayle that imagination fayles vs to apprehend the multiplyed Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament which is spirituall Angelicall and supernaturall comparable with the diuine that S. Gregory Nissen (o) Greg. Nissen in orat de Pasch. stickes not to say Sicut Diuinitas replet mundum tamen vna est ita innumerabilibus locis offertur tamen vnum corpus est The body of Christ being glorious is for operation as swift and agill as any thought but a mans thought is so quicke that one may be by thought in two disioyned places at once for example in London at Rome Some Deuines (p) Caiet 1. p. q 52. art 2. Ferrar. 3. contra Gent. ca. 65. Marsil in 2. q. 2. ar 2. Dionys. Cister in 2. dist 6. q. 1. art 1. conclus 6. giue such agility to Angells that they can place themselues substātially where they please by a thought thinke that as their thoughts so likwise their substances are so independent of corporall state that they can be naturally in two distinct places without being in the spaces interiacent But the agility of Christs glorious body is more excellent and perfect as being supernaturall then the naturall agility of Angells yea then of thoughts why then should we make any doubt but he may be in disioyned different places at once Fourthly we find difficulty to conceaue that accidents existing separated from any substance can performe the office of substance euen to the nourishment of mans body but we should perchance find as much difficulty to belieue that of a little Kernell of an apple a great Tree may be made and nourished by the force and vigour proceeding from the same did we not see by dayly experience the same to be true That ashes may be made glasse that stones in the stomake of a Doue yron in the belly of an Ostridge be turned into flesh that of a rotten barke of a tree falling into the water should be bred produced a perfect bird to me seemes more incredible then that God should make the accidents of bread separated from their substāce to nourish mans body (*) The Minister heere laboureth to shew a difference betwixt the wonders of Nature the Miracles of the holy Eucharist which is impertinent For the Answerer doth not intend that there is the same kind of strāgenes in both but argueth That seing in Nature such incomprehensible thinges be found we ought not to deny the litterall sense of Gods Word for any difficultyes that may occurre For the dead barke of a tree may seeme to haue no more efficacy of it selfe to produce a liuing creature specially so perfect a bird as a Barnacle then haue the accidents of bread to feed breed the flesh of a liuing man yea many Philosophers teach in my iudgement conuince that in substantiall generations where no cause coequall in perfection to the effect produced is present God by the secret operation of his power supplyes the deficiency of naturall causes Why then should any man so much mislike our doctrine that in this mystery where the substance of bread is wanting God by the secret operation of his power supplyes the defect thereof seing by the opinion of many learned Philosophers his Prouidence by the like secret special working doth ordinarily dayly and hourely supply the manifold defects of substantiall secondary agents Neyther is the manner how God can doe this difficill to explicate For he may enable the quātity of bread to receaue and sustayne the working of mans nutritiue power when in that quantity there is the last accidentall disposition to the forme of flesh he can secretly produce againe materiā primā that was of the bread and combine the same with the prepared quantity the substantiall forme of flesh what reason is there why God may not do this yea do it sooner then we speake it Wherefore the seeming absurdityes of this mystery being as I haue shewed meerly imaginary and not like those agaynst the Trinity and the Incarnation wherein not so much imagination as reason findes difficulty it is the part not only of sincere Christian Fayth but also of a cleere excellent wit to contemne them not to permit wandering vnruly fancy destitute of reason to controule our beliefe about the (*) The Minister here pag. 454. rayles lustily saying That the Romists presūptuously forming Chimera's and Idols in the forge of their own deceaued brest deserue to be fed only with accidents as the birds that pecked at paynted grapes All which is both blasphemous simple for what more impious then to tearme the litterall sense of Gods word concerning the misteries of faith such as our doctrine about the same is cōfessed to be a Chimera and Idol framed in the forge of a deceaued brest What more seely then to thinke the Protestants Sacrament being a figure of Christs body in substance but bread a more substātiall food of the soule then the Catholickes which is in shape shew bread in essence substance the pretious flesh of the Sauiour Be not Protestants rather the birds that peck at the picture figure shape of their soules food Is not the soule better fed with the litterall playne substantiue sense of Gods word thē by the figuratiue comments of men literal sense of Christs words so many wayes by the grauest testimonyes of Antiquity recommended vnto vs. The third Consideration Thirdly to make Christians incline to belieue this mystery so difficill to carnall Imagination this Consideration may be very potent to wit that in belieuing the same on the one side
there may be great merit and excellent Fayth if it be a truth and on the other side though which is impossible it should be false yet in belieuing it we shall not fall into any damnable errour For although we suppose this vnpossible case yet what can be layd to our charge which we may not defend and iustify by all the rules of equity and reason If we be accused that we tooke bread to be the body of Christ adoring the same as God so committing Idolatry we may defend that both for soule and body we are innocent heerin For seing the body is not made guilty but by a guilty mind euen our body may plead not guilty seing our mind our thoughts our deuotiō were totally referred vnto Christ whom we truly apprehend by faith as veyled with the accidents of bread and so may repell the reproach of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread-worshippers with saying Quae vouit mens est pani nil vouimus illâ Neyther did we belieue that the bread was changed into Christs body vpō slight reasons or mooued by the fancyes of our own head but contrary to our fancyes out of reuerence to the (q) The Minister here contradicting himselfe sayth that Trāsubstantiation is not inuolued in the litterall sense of Gods word And further that the same was neuer defined in Generall Councells For as the Ariās would allow no Councell to be lawfull which condemned Arius so with these mē no Councell is lawfull vpon which Iohn Caluin will not bestow his Blessing Otherwise why should not the Lateran Councell vnder Innocent the third and the second Councell of Nice celebrated aboue eight hūdred years agoe where the substātiue reall presence is defined and the figuratiue condemned be lawful general in which both the Latin and Grecian Church did concurre to define expresse wordes of Christ This is my body A sense declared by most ancient Fathers defined by many Generall Councels deliuered by full consent of our Ancestours so practised in the Church for many ages without any knowne beginning Finally confirmed with the most credible cōstant report of innumerable (r) The Minister sayth that these Miracles be but the lyes of Fryars which he proues by a iest that was rife in the mouth of Wickliffifts Est Frater Ergo mendax Answer The miracles done in proofe of the Corporall and substantiall permanent presence of Christs body in the Eucharist are related by most auncient Fathers and writers of which many whole Townes Cittyes and Countreyes haue been eye witnesses as it were madnes to questiō thē These may be read in Ioannes Garetius who hath gathered them together as also in Iudocus Coccius The Prouerbe He is Fryar Ergo a lyar is true of such Fryars as Martin Luther Bucer Peter Martyr Fryar Barnes and the like founders and pillars of the fifth Gospell And if the matter be looked into without passiō this inference Est Minister Ergo mēdax will seeme more iustifiable euen in Caluins iudgement who sayth that most of them that shew most zeale are ful of falshod fraud lying Hierom Zanchius a famous Protestāt in the Preface of his booke contra Arianum Anonymū saith of Ministers That euen they who are tearmed Pillars of the Ghospell are for the most part impudēt lying companions that out-face the truth euery way thereupon exclayming O Tempora O Mores most euidēt miracles Can a Christian belieue any point of religion vpon surer grounds And if God at the day of Iudgement will condemne none but such as liuing in this world wronged him in his honour why should Catholikes feare any hard sentence in respect of their prōpt credulity of Transubstātiation that is of Gods word takē in the playne proper sense Is it any iniury to his verity that they deny their senses correct their imaginatiōs reforme their discourses abnegate their iudgments rather then not to belieue what to them seemeth his word Is it iniury to his power to be perswaded that he can doe things incomprehēsible without number put the same body in innumerable places at once make a body occupy no place yet remayne a quantitatiue substance in it selfe Is it iniury to his charity to thinke that loue vnto men makes him vnite himselfe really and substantially with them to be as it were incarnate anew in euery particular faythfull man entring really into their bodyes to signify efficaciously his inward cōiunction by spirit vnto their soules Finally is it any iniury to his wisdome to belieue that to satisfy on the one side the will of his Father that would haue him euer in heauen sitting at his right hād on the other side the ardency of his owne affection vnto men desiring to be perpetually with them he inuented a manner how still remaining glorious in heauē he might also be continually on earth with his Church secretly not to take from them the merit of Fayth yet to affoard full satisfaction to his owne loue really by continuall 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 easy it is for men to erre that with the compasse of their vnderstanding measure the power of God how dangerous inexcusable their errour will prooue when they shal 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 answere if God lay to their charge the neglect of that most prudent reasonable aduise which S. Chrysostome Homil. 83. in Mat. giues Let vs belieue God sayth he let vs not resist his word though the same seeme absurd vnto our cogitation sense for his speach doth surpasse our reason and sense his words cannot deceaue vs but our senses be deceaued easily and often How will they reply if they be pressed with the interrogatory which S. Cyrill l. 12. in Ioan. makes vnto such vnbelieuers If thou couldst not comprehend the diuine operation of God why didest thou not accuse the imbecillity of mans wit rather then the omnipotency of God Or how disputing proposing so many Arguments agaynst Gods power reiecting or questioning the same because they could not vnderstand it neuer called they to mynd the saying (s) August lib. 12. de Ciuit c. 11. of Saint Augustine Ecce quibus argumentis Diuinae omnipotentiae humana contradicit infirmitas quam possidet vanitas THE SEAVENTH POINT Communion (*) Note that the holy Eucharist is both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament A Sacrifice as offered vnto God for thansgiuing and remission of sinnes A Sacrament as receaued by mē for the foode sanctification of their soules It is a Sacrifice because a liuely and expresse representation of Christs bloudy Sacrifice on the Crosse. It is a Sacramēt because representing exhibiting Christ Iesus as the full and all-sufficient
of bread was acknowledged by the Fathers (*) The Minister pag. 462. proposeth this argument agaynst Concomitancy which he thinkes to be so stronge and glorious as he sets the same in a distinct letter ech proposition in a distinct line to call the eye of the Reader vpon it Whatsoeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was before offered to God on the Crosse. But the body of Christ hauing soule and bloud in it by Concomitancy was not offered to God vpon the Crosse. Ergo at this day soule and bloud be not in the body of Christ by Concomitancy c. I answere This argument serues as a myrrour wherein Learned men may see and admire our Ministers want both of Philosophy and Logicke His want of Philosophy in not distinguishing the being by Concomitancy in the body from being by Concomitancy in the place where the body is The body of Christ neyther on the Crosse nor in the Eucharist hath soule bloud in it and vnited with it by Concomitancy yet the body of Christ not only in the Sacrament but also on the Crosse had soule and bloud present with it by Concomitancy or consequence For the soule being substantially vnited with the body and bloud contayned within the body they were consequently inforced to be togeather with the body in the same place on the Crosse. Hence the Ministers argument is turned agaynst himselfe That body is receaued in the Eucharist which was offered to God on the Crosse but Christs body hauing soule and bloud in the same place with it by Concomitancy was offerred to God on the Crosse. Ergo the body of Christ hauing soule in the same place with it by Concomitancy is in the Sacrament His ignorance in Logicke is likewise very specious and notable to present vnto the world with so great solemnity an idle Sophisme and Fallacy tearmed by the Logitians Figurae dictionis Of which fallacy one kind is when from the substantiall word one argueth vnto the accidentall As for example this Sophisme What meate soeuer thou didst buy in the market thou dost eate at dinner but thou did'st buy raw flesh in the market Ergo thou dost eate raw flesh at dinner And this likewise What fingers soeuer thou had'st being a Childe thou hast now being a man thou had'st little fingers being a Child Ergo thou hast little fingers now being a man Iust of the same frame fashion is our Ministers argument What soeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was offered on the Crosse A body that had not blood in it by Concomitancy was offered on the Crosse Ergo a body not hauing blood in it by Concomitancy is receaued in the Sacrament If this forme be good one may proue that we do not now receaue the body of Christ risen from death Whatsoeuer is receaued in the Sacrament was offered on the Crosse A body hauing soule and blood in it by vertue of resurrection from death to life was not offered on the Crosse Ergo a body risen from death or hauing soule and blood in it by vertue of resurrection from death is not receaued in the Sacrament Here your Ladyes may see with what Baberyes you delude their Ignorance arguing from the Substantiall vnto the Accidentall tearme For though Christs body receaued in the Sacrament be the same that was offered on the Crosse in respect of substance it doth not follow that therefore it is the same also in respect of accidents qualityes and circumstances Hence his body may now haue blood and soule by Concomitancy with it in the Sacrament though it had not had blood soule by Concomitancy with it on the Crosse. This principle supposed which is no lesse certayne then the true real presence I inferre the lawfulnes of Communion vnder one kind to wit vnder the sole forme of bread by this Argument If communion vnder one kind be not agaynst the substance eyther of Christs institution or of his Sacrament or his precept or of the practise of the primitiue Church it is lawfull iustifiable for iust reasons may be commanded by the Church This proposition is true because there neyther are other causes of dislike that may not be reduced to these foure neyther doth Christs Institution or Precept or the Primitiue practise binde vs to keep them further then in substance the accidentall circumstances of institutions Sacramēts precepts primitiue Customes being variable according to the variable disposition of thinges vnto which the Church militant in this life is subiect Now I assume Concomitancy being supposed it may be made euident that Communion vnder one kind is not agaynst the substance eyther of Christs institution or of the Sacrament or of his precept or of the primitiue practise For the substance of these foure obligations is one the same to wit that we be truly really partakers of the body and bloud of our Sauiour which is (e) The Minister p. 467. saith Though Concomitancy be granted yet Communion in one kind is not iustifyed because the blood by Concomitancy is receaued in the veines of the body not as shed out of the veynes But people must receaue the blood of Christ represented as shed which is not done but by receauing the Cuppe Answere The essence of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice is to represent the effusion of our Lords blood so can not be entyre in one kind But the essence of the Eucharist as a Sacrament is to represent the body and blood of our Lord as the foode of the soule But in eyther kind the body and blood to be sufficient food of the soule the Iesuit prooueth so that people be not boūd so receaue the bloud represented distinctly and expressely as shed but only the Priest that doth sacrifice fully done by Communion vnder one kind as I will shew in the foure consequent Sections Communion vnder one kind not agaynst the substance of the Institution of Christ. §. 2. DIVINE Institution is an action of God whereby he giues Being vnto things with reference vnto some speciall end This end is twofold the one corporall and temporall for which God hath instituted agreable and conuenient meanes That men may be borne into this world he did institute marriage and for maintenance of the sayd life being had he ordayned many sorts of meate The other end is spirituall for which God hath instituted Sacraments as for the first obtayning of grace and spirituall life the Sacraments of Baptisme Pennance for the preseruing of grace increasing therein particularly the Sacrament of the Eucharist That a man be bound to vse the Institution of God two things are required First that the end thereof be necessary and he bound to endeauour the attayning therof Hence it is that though marriage be the institution of God appointed to propagate mankind yet euery man is not bound to marry because he is not bound to propagate mankind when there be others that do aboundantly comply with that duty to which mankind is
no Sacrament can subsist tearmed by Deuines Materia Sacramenti This substantiall part is not wanting in the Sacrament giuen in one kind in which there is consecrated bread visible and sensible in the accidents thereof and manducation an action also visible and apparent to sense The second thing required to the substāce of the Sacramēt is Verbum the word that is a forme of speach shewing the diuine and supernatuall purpose vnto which the element is consecrated Neyther is that part wanting in the Sacrament giuen vnder one kind which is consecrated by the wordes of Christ This is my body and the Theologicall principle taken out of Saint Augustin verifyed accedit verbum ad elemētum fit Sacramentum The third thing is Signification euery Sacrament signifying some diuine effect of grace which God worketh by the application therof and the sensible signe euen by nature hath as Saint Augustine Epist. 23. noteth some proportion analogy to signify that diuine effect which to produce it is assumed by Gods omnipotency 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 Sacramēt is a signe of spirituall food for the nourishment and refection of the Soule which signification is manifestly found in Communiō vnder one (n) The Minister very often though out of place as pag. 470. li. 20. pa. 442. obiects If Communion in both kindes be not of the substance of the Sacrament why should Cōmunion in bread or wine be of the substance of the Sacrament Why may not Communion in Cheese be truly a Sacrament as well as Communion in one kind Answere First diuers Protestāts namely Beza and Caluin see Beza epist. 2. epist. 25. teach that though Christ did institute the Sacrament in bread and wine yet in case that bread and wine be wanting one may vse some other proportionable Element as Cheese and Beere Might you not imploy your talent in rayling vpon these men better then on the Councell of Constance Secondly The Protestants allowing of Cheese in lieu of Bread and beere in lieu of wine is to change the substance of the Element wherin Christ did institute the Sacrament and consequently to change the substance of the Institution and Sacrament bringing in an Institution and Sacrament of another substance But to receaue the Sacrament in the kind of bread without wine is not to change the substance of the Element but only whereas the Sacrament for more complete signification was instituted in two elemtēs as for the same reason it was instituted after supper to vse the one element without the other the whole nature of the Sacrament sufficient for all the functions thereof being found in one kind as the Iesuit doth heere demonstrate kind For the Eucharist doth signify this effect of spirituall nutrition because it is a signe of Christ the bread of life the food of Angells the fountayne of grace but by the sole forme of bread Christ is signifyed as present according to his most Sacred body and consequently as most sufficient to feed and refresh the soule Another signification of this Sacrament is vnion and coniunction betweene the faythful as being members of the same body wherof Christ is head fellow-mēbers one with another as S. Paul declares Rom. 12.4 which coniunction the Sacramēt in the forme of bread doth signify For bread being a compound of many graynes of wheate massed togeather in one loafe also made of floure and water mingled one with another signifyes the perfect vnion both of the Church with Christ of the faythfull that are in the Church one with another as Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10. testifyes 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 worke this signification This Sacrament doth also signify the passion and death of our Sauiour which death and passion is shewed and represented by Communion vnder one kind (o) The Minister sayth pag. 479. That both kinds do more liuely represent Christs Passion then one only Answere What is this to the purpose to proue the Sacrament in one kind substantially imperfect Baptisme by plunging the Childe into water represents Christs death and resurrection more liuely thē Baptisme by sprinkling yet is Baptisme by aspersion a full and entyre Sacrament For receauing the Sacrament in the forme of wine only we haue a sufficient ground to remember the bloud of Christ that was in his passion shed and separated from his body Likewise by participating of the cōsecrated bread we may liuely conceaue the body of Christ as it was depriued of the most precious bloud by the effusion therof on the Crosse wherupon Christ as Saint Paul (p) 1. Cor. 11. v. 14.15 testifyes did after the consecration of ech kind particularly recommend the memory of his passion as knowing that in ech of them alone was a sufficient monument and memoriall thereof The fourth thing required to the substāce of a Sacrament is Causality to wit to worke in the soule the spirituall effects it signifyes This Causality cannot be wanting to the Sacrament vnder one kind wherein is conteyned the fountayne of spirituall life For the cause why the Sacrament in both kindes 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 proportionably spirituall effects in disposed soules But Christ is in the Sacramēt vnder the forme of bread 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 (q) Hence is refuted what the Minister saith pag. 478. without any proofe That the promise of grace is not made to one kind only vnder the forme of bread Qui manducat hunc panem viuit in aeternum Ioan. 6.55 Not any doubt then may be made but the Sacrament in one kind is full entyre complete in substance by participation thereof prepared consciences do receaue the benefit of celestiall fauour that conserueth the life of the soule with dayly increase in perfection (*) The Minister very often obiecteth as pag. 479. 502. and elsewhere That according to the Tenet of some Scholemen greater benefit of grace it reaped by communion in both kinds Answere First Catholicke Deuines of greater number learning hold the contrary Secondly This is impertinent for the questiō is not whether Communion in both kinds be of greater perfection but whether it be necessary vnto Saluation Thirdly if Cōmunion in both kindes giue more grace yet this excesse may be easily equalled by other diligences as by often receauing in one kind and by obedience to the Church c. The Minister 472. proueth Communion in both kinds to be of greater profit because it is
an act of obedience vnto Christs precept Drinke yee all of this but obedience is better then Sacrifice 1. Sam. 15. 22. His argument supposeth without proofe what the Iesuit hath shewed to be most false and so may be with more truth turned to the contrary for to receaue in one kind is an act of obedience vnto the Church whereof Christ sayth He that heareth not the Church let him be to thee as an heathen and a publican But obedience is better then Sacrifice Therefore more spirituall profit and merit is gotten by Communion in one kind Communion vnder one kind not agaynst Christ his Precept §. 4. ALTHOVGH Communion vnder both kindes pertayne not to the substance of the Sacrament yet if Christ did specially commaund the same we are boūd to that obseruance and should by communion vnder one kind sinne not agaynst his Sacrament and Institution but agaynst a speciall diuine precept Hence we may probably inferre that Christ gaue no speciall precept thereof because Christ hath commaunded no more concerning the vse of the Eucharist then what by the substance of the institution nature of the Sacrament we are bound vnto leauing accidentall circūstances belonging thereunto to be ordeyned by the Apostles and Pastours of the Church as S. Augustin noteth saying (r) Augustin ep 118. Our Lord did not appoint in what order the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to be taken afterward but left authority to make such appointments vnto his Apostles by whome he was to dispose and order his Churches So cleerly doth S. Augustine speake that Christ gaue no commaundements to his Church concerning the vse of the Sacrament besides such as are conteyned in the substance of the Institution and of the Sacrament of which kind Communion vnder both kindes cannot be as hath been proued which will further appeare by pōdering the places alleadged to prooue a Precept The words of Christ Do this in remembrance of me do no wayes inferre a Precept of both kinds First because he sayd Do this in remembrance of me absolutly only of the Sacrament in the forme of bread of the forme of wine not absolutely but conditionally Do this as often as you drinke in memory of me that the Aduersaryes of the Church might not haue any the least plausible shew to complayne of her neglecting Gods Precept (s) The Minister in this place is very bitter tearming the Iesuit Vermine infatuated Romanist and the like But in lieu of answering his argument he confirmes the same as is shewed in the Censure Sect. 4. §. 5. For this precept Do this being the only precept giuē by Christ to his Church as shal afterwards appeare and giuē absolutely of the forme of bread conditionally of the forme of wine there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing agaynst Christs precept by Communion vnder one kind Secondly suppose Christ spake these Imperatiue wordes Do this after the giuing of the Cup yet are they to be vnderstood with this restriction Do this that is all things that belong to the essence and substance of this action in memory of me For if we extend the precept Do this further then the substance of the action vnto the accidentary circumstances therof in which Christ did then institute and giue the Sacrament many absurdityes will follow For by this rule we must alwayes celebrate and receaue the Eucharist after supper as Christ did specially seeing this circumstance of after supper was chosen of Christ as being very proper mysterious For thereby is signifyed that this is the sacrifice which succeeds the Paschall Lambe that was offered in the Euening the sacrifice whereof the royall Prophet sayth (t) Psal. 140. v. 2. in the person of Christ Eleuatio manuum mearum sacrificium vespertinum The sacrifice which instituted in the euening of the world was to continue vntill the end thereof We should also by this rule be bound still to celebrate in Azime that is vnleuened bread in which Christ did celebrate and giue the Sacrament saying Do this which circumstance was also mystical and signifyes the purity of our Sauiours virginall body person which was without any Leauen of sinne And besides the Priest might not giue the Sacrament vnto any but such whose feet he had washed afore seing Christ gaue the Eucharist with this preparatiue circūstance which doubtlesse is very pertinent and mysterious to signify with what purity of conscience mē ought to approach vnto the sacred Table If to bind men to obserue these circumstances of our Sauiours action though mysterious and Sacramentall were absurd as without doubt it is most absurd then we must not extend the precept Do this to the circumstances of Christs action but acknowledge that the precept Do this only includes the doing of that which pertaines to the substance of the Sacrament and so not to the giuing of both kindes the substance thereof being entyre in one only kind as hath been proued (u) The Ministers ignorance and simplicity in answering these argumēts is discouered in the Censure Sect. 1. §. 2. The second text much vrged for the giuing of the Cup vnto all men is the wordes of our Sauiour Bibite ex hoc omnes wherein some note our Sauiours prouidence saying that he foreseeing that some would take the Cup from the Laity graunting them the consecrated bread sayd of the Cup Bibite ex hoc omnes but not of bread Manducate ex hoc omnes I answere the wordes of our Sauiour be plaine Drink ye all of this But the difficulty is to whō they are spokē who are those all Luther would haue all men for whom the bloud of Christ is shed whence it followes that as the bloud of Christ was shed for all men euen Infidells Iewes Turkes Infants the Cup also should be giuen vnto all these which to say were very absurd Others restrayne the wordes All to the faythfull come to the yeares of discretion who must drinke of the Cup all of them But what shall we say of them that are by nature Abstemij who cannot endure the tast of any wine yet are not to be excused from the Sacrament Wherfore the truth is that these words were spoken vnto all the Apostles and to them all only And though it be inough for Catholiks to say it and put their aduersaryes to prooue their pretended Precept which they call of the eternall King for the Cup and so long as they cannot cleerly conuince the contrary good reason the word of the Church defined by Councells should stand yet ex abundanti we can very probably shew out of the sacred Text that the particle all concernes all the Apostles only First what one Euangelist Mat. 26.27 sayth was commanded vnto al Bibite ex hoc omnes drinke yee all of this another relates to haue been answerably performed by them all Matth. 14.23 Biberunt ex eo omnes all dranke thereof but the second all is restrayned to all the Apostles and to
his fourth argumēt wherein he would proue that the Apostles were not made Priests by the wordes Doe this For suppose they were not made Priests by that speach how will he thence conclude that the words Drinke yee all of this were not spoken personally vnto the twelue cōmanding them to drinke all of the same indiuidual Cupp Besides in the two arguments to proue the Apostles were not made Priests by the word Do this he shews intolerable ignorance The first is what force is there in these wordes Do this to conclude Priestly ordination Answere Are you a Doctour and do not know that the word of the Almighty hath force to giue men power commission authority to do what he doth command them to doe Christ by the word Do this commanded the Apostles to do what he had done that is to consecrate bread and wine into his body and blood to receaue and consume the same to giue them to the faythfull Ergo by saying Do this he gaue them power commission authority not only to receaue themselues but also to consecrate and giue vnto others his holy body and blood which is the power and office of Priesthood Secondly If say you Do this proueth Priesthood then lay men are Priests when the wordes Doe this be spoken to them in part or respectiuely Answere Doe not you feele how you bewray the weakenes and vanity of your argument in your very proposition thereof You say the wordes Do this be spoken vnto lay men but in part that is they command them to receaue but not to consecrate and giue the Sacrament vnto others But the power or commission only to receaue the Sacrament is not Priesthood but the commission to consecrate administer the same vnto others Therefore the wordes Doe this do not make them Priests to whome in part respectiuely but to whom they are spoken absolutely in the full sense Another text of the Scripture some vrge to proue that Communion vnder one kinde is commāded to wit the famous place out of S. Iohn (a) Ioan. 6.59 Except yee eate the flesh drinke the bloud of the Sonne of Man you shall not haue life in you Where our Sauiour vnder the penalty of loosing eternall life commaūds not only eating but also drinking Perchance your Maiesty doth not stand much vpon this as not belieuing that Chapter of Saint Iohn to concerne the Sacramentall sumption of our Sauiours flesh as also some learned Catholiks hold Notwithstanding 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 satisfyed by the former Principles For as we distinguish in the Sacrament the substance the manner the substance being to receaue the body of Christ the manner in both kindes 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 receauing in both kinds yet his intention is to commaund no more then the substance to wit that we really receaue his body and bloud which may be done vnder one kind This may be made cleere by the Precept our Sauior hath giuē 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 sayth (b) Matt. 28.18 to his Apostles Baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost To Baptize signifyes the same that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not to wet or sprinckle with water but to put and plunge into water by immersiō bathing them in water in which respect Baptisme is tearmed by the Apostle (c) Tit. 3.4 the Lauer or bath of the renouation of the holy Ghost And yet because the Church teacheth Baptisme by aspersion or sprinckling to be sufficient substantiall Baptisme no lesse then Baptisme by immersion christiās must do interpret the words of Christ Baptize that is plūge into the water all Nations to command only cleansing washing in substance not the manner thereof by immersion as his words may seeme to import and the Primitiue Church did the first 600. yeares practise In like sort the wordes Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you be preceptiue no further then they signify reall receauing of his body and bloud not the manner of both kindes as may appeare by the intention of the commandement For as Christ gaue this precept of eating and drinking only to the end that we might haue life in vs so likewise he meant to cōmaund the same no further then it was necessary to this end But eating formally the body of Christ vnder the forme of bread and (d) What the Minister saith that the receauing the blood of Christ Virtually as being by Concomitācy ioyned with the body is spirituall receauing and not Sacramentall is false For only iust and holy men receaue the body of Christ spiritually But wicked mē receaue the blood of Christ together with his body by Concomitancy Therefore this virtuall receauing of Christs blood is corporall and Sacramentall and not only spirituall virtually and implicitely his bloud as conteined within his sacred body sufficeth that we may haue life in vs as he promiseth in the same place v. 59. He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer what necessity then is there to vnderstand this precept of formall receauing in both kinds But further I add the coniunctiue particle Et and frequently signifyes disiunctiuely the same that vel or as Argentum aurum non est mihi (e) Act. 3.6 and particularly of this Sacrament (f) 1. Cor. 11.20 He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh damnation the sense is disiunctiue Eateth or drinketh vnworthily In this sort Except you eate and drinke is to be vnderstood disiunctiuely Except you eate the flesh or drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in you Which disiunctiue sense to be the sense intended in this place may be proued because else Christ should be contrary to himselfe For seeing in the verse 59. of this Chapter he promiseth life eternall to eating only Qui māducat hunc panē viuit in aeternum If in the 94. verse of the same Chapter he require vnto life euerlasting eating and drinking both he should in the space of a few lines speake contraryes And because this is impossible THIs last answer is truest may be inuincibly proued by Scripture First it cānot be denyed that in Scripture the particle Et and is takē disiunctiuely as the Iesuit proueth in the text the Minister granteth Secondly whensoeuer two thinges are required to one the same end for which ech a part is sufficient then the particle Et and must needs be vnderstood disiunctiuely to
crime with which some Protestants charge vs that our receauing vnder the sole forme of bread is to iumpe in opinion with the Manichees we may as D. Morton confesseth reiect as iniurious saying That it was not the Manichees abstinence from wine but the reason of their forbearance that was iudged hereticall Morton Protestant Appeale lib. 1. cap. 4. pag. 140. (*) Agaynst this explication of the place of Gelasius it is obiected that the same doth not agree with the reason of the Canon For Gelasius sayth men are not to be permitted to receaue but in both kinds because the diuision of one and the same Sacrament cannot be done without sacriledge The whole decree is this We find that some men hauing taken the portion of our Lords body refrayne from the Cup of the holy bloud Which men because they are imbued with I know not what superstitiō let them without any question receaue the whole Sacraments or nothing at all for the diuision of one and the same mystery cannot be vsed without a great Sacriledge I Answere first Gelasius doth not say no man is to be permitted to receaue in one kinde but only no superstitious abstinent Secondly his reason is not ōly because the deuiding of the Sacramēt is Sacriledg but quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi because they are proued to be imbued with a certayne superstitious opinion to wit that the creature of wine is impure The discourse then of Gelasius is because these men are superstitiously conceyted that the creature of wine is the Diuells gall therefore by them the deuiding of the holy mystery receauing the consecrated Bread without the Cup sine grandi sacrilegio fieri non potest cannot be done without great Sacriledge Whēce he concludes proculdubio arceantur let such men be kept from Communion in one kind without any question mercy or indulgēce As if he had sayd Vnto men Orthodoxally conceited about the creature of wine Cōmunion in one kind may be granted sometimes vpon iust causes as if they be by nature abstemij that cannot endure wine But men that be superstitiously persuaded agaynst the nature of wine proculdubio arceantur let Communion in one kind be denyed vnto them without question and granted in no case because in respect of them Communion in one kind is euer Sacrilegious The Minister also in this place keepeth a styrre and would make the world belieue that the Iesuit Vasquez doth maynly oppose himselfe agaynst the Iesuit Answerer about this place of Gelasius The Iesuit sayth he is confuted by a learned and intelligent man of his owne Society to wit Vasquez who sayth that some of his party apply the place of Gelasius agaynst Manichees but this exposition agreeth not with the last clause of the Canon Answere You shew great desire to discredit your aduersary yet cannot you doe it so much as in this trifle with truth For in citing the censure of Vasquez you leaue out the principal word which being set down would haue marred your market Vasquez not only sayth that some of his side explicate the place of Gelasius of lay Manichees but also addeth his Iudgment about the same saying probabiliter explicant this their explication is probable Do not you see your falshood in citing and vanity in vrging this censure of Vasquez If this explication be probable euen by the Iudgment of Vasquez how is the Iesuit confuted by Vasquez of his owne Society as not answering your argument sufficiently Is it not sufficient that Catholicks bringe probable solutions vnto your arguments agaynst Christian customes defined in Councells and receaued in the Church before you or your Luther were borne You your selfe say pag. 11. That no man is to reiect the Doctrine and custome of the Church or the exposition of Scripture commonly and anciently receaued vpon vncertayne and probable reasons If the Iesuit hath answered your arguments probably as euen by this censure of Vasquez he hath then be your arguments at the most but probable and consequently your reuolt from the Church of Rome grounded thereon dānable Who now is condemned by Vasquez his Censure But Vasquez sayth that the Iesuits explication though it agree fitly to the rest of the decree of Gelasius yet cannot be fitted to the last branch thereof where Gelasius sayth that the diuision of the one and same mystery is Sacrilegious in it selfe and in nature Quare mihi magis placet altera explicatio Wherefore sayth Vasquez vnto me another explication seemeth more probable I Answere First Gelasius doth not say that the diuision of the mystery is in itselfe in nature a Sacriledge nor can it be very probably sayd that he did so meane For what sense is there in this discourse To deuide the Sacrament by receauing in one kind is a Sacriledge of his owne nature and absolutely in it selfe therefore let not these men be permitted in any case to receaue in one kinde quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi because they are conuinced to hold superstitious Doctrine about the impurity of the creature of wine Besides had Gelasius meant that Communion in one kind is a sacriledge absolutely in it selfe he would haue decreed that not only superstitious mē but absolutely all men should be kept frō the same proculdubio without any question Wherfore Gelasius his decree cannot be better sensed then thus Because these men are conceyted superstitiously agaynst the creature of wine their receauing in one kind without the Cup can not but be impious Therefore proculdubio arceantur let not Communion in one kind be giuen vnto them in any case though vnto Orthodoxe people vpon iust reasons the same may be granted Secondly suppose all that Vasquez would cōclude to wit that another exposition is more probable what haue you gayned Surely nothing for this other exposition better liked by Vasquez is that Gelasius spake not of laymens receauing but of Priests that celebrate and consecrate affirming that it is sacrilegious in it selfe for Priests to cōsecrate without receauing in both kinds If the Iesuit Vasquez in this exposition and doctrine seeme to you learned intelligent be it so in Gods name you are satisfyed and your Aduersary contented for he did neuer meane to say that this explication is improbable specially the same being giuen by Gratian who read that Epistle of Gelasius which now it not extant This custome was the cause that Cyprian (o) Cyprian de Coena Domini sayth that the Law forbad the eating of bloud but the Ghospell commands the same should be drunke not only because some Christians to wit Priests are bound to drinke the bloud of Christ but also because Christ in his Ghospell did institute the Sacrament of his body bloud in both kinds whence grew the Custome of the primitiue Church to receaue in both kindes by custome there grew further an obligation to drinke of the cup except there were some iust cause of abstinence as in the sicke