rejoyce in my sufferings for you and fill up that which is wanting of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake which is the Church To which I answere The true meaning of these words in their own Aquinas words on this place is this saying These words according to the superfice might haue an ill sense as if Christs passion were not sufficient for our redemption but for filling up that which wants the sufferings of the saints wer to be added but this is hereticall sayeth he for the blood of Christ is sufficient for the redemption of many worlds himself being the propitiation for our sinnes but it is to be understood sayeth he that Christ and his Church make up but one mysticall person whose head is Christ and all the godlie are his bodie members thereof this then was wanting that as Christ had suffered in his naturall bodie so he was to suffer in Pauls person as a member of his mysticall bodie Christs sufferings in his bodie being for the redemptioÌ„ of his Church but the sufferings of the saints for the Church being for this that by their example the Church may be confirmed sayeth he where we see that the sufferings of the saints serve to the church for coÌ„formity confirmation but not as this Pamphleter would haue them to be a treasure for papall indulgences to bring in a treasure of money to the popes coffers The second place which he brings is Philip. 2. 30. wherein Paul exhorteth the Philippians to receiue Epaphroditus with all gladnes because for the work of Christ hee was neare to death to supplie their work of service towards him which as Aquinas says They were not able in their owne persons to performe to him which words of Paul no more proveth the Pamphleters point wherat he aimeth of the benefit of popish indulgences then that Rome is in Vtopia but showeth both his usuall impertinencie impudence and ignorance 18. THat no man can do works of supererogation VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Math. 19. 21. wher our Saviour sayeth to the young rich-man If thou will be perfect go sell all that which thou hast and give to the poor c. and follow me wheÌ„ce it plainlie appeareth sayeth he that a man by the assistance of Gods grace may do somthings counselled which are of more perfection than are things commanded To whom I answere 1. in their owne Ferus words on this place saying In these words is implyed that which is necessarie commanded to all to wit Poverty of spirit which is nothing else but with the heart to cleaue to no creature neither doeth the kingdome of heaven belong to any but to such as do so sayeth he 2. This coÌ„mand to this young at this time to sell all was a personall coÌ„mand given for this end to discover this young mans covetousnes and hypocrisie in saying he had keeped the whole law from his youth like that personall command given to Abraham of sacrificing Isaac to discover his great faith and obedience to all after ages And wee know that such personall coÌ„mands for tryall or discovery doth not tye all 3. The perfection of Angels is to do Gods Commandements as wee see Psal 103. 20. and in that petition of the Lords prayer Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven Yea Christs owne perfection was in this the doing of his Fathers will shall wretched sinfull man be able to go beyond the perfectioÌ„ of these The second place which he bringeth is 1. Cor. 7. 25. Now concerning virgins I haue no Commandement of the Lord yet I give my judgement we reade counsell sayeth hee and to do that which is counselled is not necessarie because one nevertheless may bee saved sayeth he To which place I answere 1. Not only the originâ—ll hath the word judgemeÌ„t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not counsell but also Cardinall Cajetan acknowledgeth the same on that place ingenouslie 2. By command the Apostle meaneth a generall command oblieging all persons at all times as the precepts of the Morall Law do and concerning such special coÌ„mands of living single and keeping virginitie hee showeth that he hath no such CoÌ„mandement of the Lord but in regard of the present condition of Christians lyable to daylie persecution he declares his judgement only that to live single in the estate of virginitie it is better then to liue in a married estate for their owne good but not that thereby they could supererogat at Gods hands therfore leaving it in the meane time free to every one to do as God hath distributed to every one his gifts as he speaketh 1. Cor. 7. 17. 3 Gerson de consult evang statu perfect and with him their Paludanus in lib. 3. sent d. 34. q. 3. do teach That some may attaine to as great hight of perfection living in marriage and possessing riches as we see in Abraham Iob as they who liue single or in the estate of povertie As also Jansenius in his concord on the Evangelists cap. 100. alleadging the authoritie of Aquinas teacheth That the perfection of a Christian life consisteth essentiallie in keeping of Gods Commandements Aquin 2 2. q. 184. art 3. and as we see Philip. 4. 8. beyond which in performance can no flesh go Lastlie We find in scripture Gods counsell to man his coÌ„mand to be all one as these places testifie psal 73. 24. Prov. 1. 25. 30. Jer. 49. 20. Act. 20. 27. and Revel 3. 18. How soever with man it may be said as it is proverbiall Counsell is no command The third place which he bringes is Math. 19 12. There be Eunuchs who haue made themselves so for the kingdome of heaven he that is able to receive it let him receive or keepe it now of precepts it is not said keepe them who may or is able but keep theÌ„ absolutlie sayeth he For answere 1. Let him hear the Iesuite Maldonats exposition upon this place saying The words receive it in this place signifieth the same as to understand for Christ thereby would say no other thing than elswhere hee useth to speake of any grave matter saying he that hath eares to heare let him heare sayeth he 2. These Eunnchs that made theÌ„selves such that is lives as Eunuchs chastlie and in a single life the text sayeth that they did it for themselves to attaine to the kingdome of heaven which everie one is bound to do and not to supererogat for others As for Origens words which hee alleadgeth on the 1. Rom. 15. saying These things which we do over aboue our dutie I find nowise in that place and though they were yet we must distinguish betweene duties to which wee are bound by a generall precept common to all as hath beene said duties to which we are not so bound but left to the performance therof according as every one findeth himself gifted or not which answere serveth also to that place alleadged out of
their faith to God ward was spread abroad And that this is the onlie thing which these words import their late Estiê° on Rom. 1. showeth As for testimonies of Fathers and 1. to that of Cyprian who writting to Cornelius sayeth Whilst with you there is one mind and one â—oyce the whole Church is confessed to be RomaÌ„ I answere 1. That Cyprians words are perverted which are these dum apâ—â— vos unus animus una vox est Ecclesia omnis Romana confessa est that is Whilst with you there is one minde and one voyce the whole RomaÌ„ Church hath confessed Cyprian thus commending the Church of Rome for an unanimous confession of faith before heathen persecutors as others had done which indeed proveth the soundnes of the Roman Church in Cyprians time as a meÌ„ber of the catholik church but not that shee only then was the Catholick Church 2. Giving that these were the words of Cyprian as they are alleadged they would import onlie that whil the RomaÌ„ Church keeped the unitie of the true faith that all other orthodox and sister Churches of these times would acknowledge themselves to bee of her communion and this we may see confessed by Stapleton relect con 1. q. 5. who giveth this to be the reason why by the ancients the Roman and Catholick Church wer held for one thing because her communion sayeth he with the whole Catholick Church was then most evident and certaine whence it followeth that shee her self then was not the whole Catholick Church 3. where it is said to Pope Cornelius Whilst with you there is one minde one voice that is as long as you kepe the trueth and profession thereof this speech being conditionall and limited it importeth that shee might lose the same as shee hath done Therefore not only was shee forewarned Rom. 11. 20. Not to be high minded but feare but also Cyprian ad Pompeium accuseth Pope Steven who succeeded Cornelius that he maintayned the cause of Hereticks against the Church of God the Pope then and Roman Church under him in Cyprians estimation maintayning Hereticks against the Church could not theÌ„ be accounted by him to be the Catholick Church nor yet to be infallible The second testimonie of Augustins where he sayeth That they who dissent from the bodie of Christ which is the Church they are not in the Catholick Church proveth nowise that the RomaÌ„ Church is this onlie Catholick Church But rather as the words of that testimonie beareth The whole body of Christendom And as for Jeroms words That it is all one to say the Roman faith and the Catholick faith I haue alreadie answered that this was because of her communion with the Catholick Church when Rome was orthodox and as Isai 1. 21 The faithfull City was not become an Har lot 10. THat the Churches unitie is not necessarie in al points of faith I answere that this is an impudent Calumnie as the Harmonie of Confession of reformed Churches showeth and ours in particular of 1581. art 16. For wee maintaine that a two-fold unitie is necessarie to be in Christs church to wit An unitie in Trueth and an unitie in affection both which wee should pray for and promove that as the psalmist speaketh 122. 7. peace may bee within her walls and prosperitie within her palaces And because they brag so much of unitie in doctrine and all points of faith for stopping the mouths of all Romanists ever heereafter ut ex ungue Leonem I will onelie amongst many instance but in one or two maine points of poperie that their unitie is like the division of tongues which was amongst the builders of Babell The first is papall Indulgences and Pardons which are so lucrative dependeth on their Purgatorie wherin thus they varie 1. Some of the old schoolmen as Bellar. witnesseth lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 2. they doubt of this spirituall treasure and Francis Mayro on 4. sent D. 19. maketh question in particular sayth hee of the treasure of Christs overflowing satisfactions laid up in the Church Againe Durand likewise on 4. sent D. 2. doubteth if the satisfaction of saints belong to the treasure but S. Thomas and Bonaventure sayeth hee thinketh that both belongeth thereunto Againe this is denyed by sundrie ancient Divines sayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 7. That pardons delivereth men from punishment not onelie before the Church but also before God and verie graue Authours sayeth hee as Alfonsus Durand Paludanus Pope Adrian the 6. Petrus à Soto and Cardinall Cajetan hold That pardons were never given but for enjoyned penance but Aquinas Ioannes Major Sylvester Dominicus a Soto Michael medina Ledesinius Antonius Cordubensis Navarrus Panormitan and Ioannes Andreas sayeth hee these maintaine the contrarie 2. For the Persons that haue power to give pardons it is questioned sayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 11. by what law Bishops may give pardons for some hold that they may do it by Gods law sayeth hee but others deny it yea Angelus in summâ— and Bartholemus Fumus do hold that all Priests who may heare confession may also grant pardons sayeth hee and they bring for their warrant Pope Innocentius and Panormitan but the coÌ„mon opinion sayth Bellarmin is contrarie to these 3. For the persons whom they availe thus they varie for amongst the Catholick Doctours sayeth Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 14. Ostiensis in summa and Biel on the canon of the Masse lect 57. haue taught that pardons nowise profite the dead and so this maâ—teth soule Masses but other Catholicks sayeh hee do hold the contrarie Again if they help the dead Bellarmin lib. 1. de Indulg cap. 14. showeth that it is controverted whether by way of suffrage or otherwise and that they are divyded in three opinions Last of all sayeth Bellarmin in the same place the hardest question of all is Whether pardons do help the dead upon any justice or condignitie or onely of the meer and free favour of God and congruitie some hold the first sayeth he as Dominicê° Soto on 4. sent d. 21. Navarrus others hold it to be meerlie of the mercy bounty of God And so holdeth Cajetan Petrus a Soto Cordubensis and others Now in such a division of tongues and Pen's in this point what is popish unitie let any man judge The second grand point which I will instance is TranssubstantiatioÌ„ wheron is grounded the Idoll of their Masse and that idolatrous adoration of their Hostie wherein sayth the Iesuite Aâ—lapide on Isai 7. 14. by the words of consecration as the bread is trulie and reallie transsubstantiat so Christ is brought forth and as it were begotten upon the Altar so powerfully efficaciouslie as if Christ were not yet incarnat yet by these words this is my Bodie He should be incarnat and assume an humane bodie therfore sayth he the Priest is as the Virgin that bare him the Altar is the manger the little Emmanuell which hee beareth is Christ brought
furth under the little Hostie Than which what can be grosser blasphemie let any man judge 1. In this point theÌ„ let us see what is their catholick unitie in the ground wheron they build this their transsubstantiation Which is commonlie alleadged to bee expresse scripture and in particular these words Math. 26. 26. this is my Bodie but concerning this Gabriel Biel on the canon of the Masse lect 40. sayeth Whether Christs Bodie in the Sacrament be by conversion or without any conversion the substance and accidents of bread still remaining is not found expreslie in the canon of the Bible nor can it be proven by any scripture sayeth bishope Fisher cont Captiv Babyl num 8. Cardinall Cajetan likewise affirmeth as witnesseth Suarez tom 3. disp 46. That these words of Christ are not able to prove Transsubstantiation but that they may be taken in a figurative sense as these 1. Cor. 10. 4. Cajet 3. q. 78. art 1. yea Cardinall Bellarmin speaketh thus lib. 3. de Euch. c 23. It is not altogether improbable that there is no expresse place of scripture which without the Churches determination can evidentlie inforce a maÌ„ to admitt of Transsubstantiation for albeit the scripture seem to us that they may compell any that is not refractarie to believe the same yet it may be justly doubted whether the Text bee cleare enough to inforce the same sayeth he seing the most sharp witted learned men such as Scotus was haue thought the contrarie 2. Wee haue sundrie Roman Catholicks who haue denyed Transsubstantiation upon any ground whatsoever as 1. Bertram a priest in his learned treatise of the Bodie and Blood of Christ written to Charles the bald King of France about the yeare 880. 2. Rabanus Maurus aâ— Abbot in his treatise of the Eucharist which is also extant 3. Aelfricus Archbishope of Canterburie in his saxon sermon on the sacrament or housell as he calleth it anno 996. and yet to ascend higher Gelasius a Pope in his treatise against Eutyches of the two natures of Christ where he sayeth Tho in the Sacrament we receiue a divine thing to wit the Bodie blood of Christ yet the substance and nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to remaine sayeth he and Biel on the canon of the Masse telleth us that in his time concerning the sacrament or any conversion therein amongst Catholicks there were four opinions wherof the first was That the substance of bread remained still sayeth hee 3. In the manner or sort of conversioÌ„ which they pretend to be in the sacrament Papists they varie and disagree mightilie For 1. Bellarmin telleth us lib 3. de Euch. cap. 11. that Durand holdeth That one essentiall part of the bread namlie the forme is turned but that the other part which is the matter or substance is not turned and so did pope Innocent the 3. teach sayeth Durand Rational Divin lib. 4. f. 63. but others haue taught the contrarie sayth Bellarmin That the matter of the bread is turned into Christs Bodie but that the essentiall forme remaineth but as for Lombard their great Master of senteÌ„ces his words are these lib. 4. sent d. 11 If it it be asked what sort of conversion it is whether formal or substantiall or what other sort it is definire non sufficio saieth hee that is I am not able to define it and so he quyteth the matter Biel againe on the canon of the Masse lect 40. he sayeth that ther are four opinions concerning this conversion The First That the substance of the bread remaineth still together with Christs Bodie The 2. is That the substance of the bread remaineth not still but after consecration becometh the body of Christ The 3. is That tho the bread remains not yet the accidents of bread as weight colour taste remaineth and that Christs Bodie begineth to be under these accidents And the fourth opinion is contradicting all the former That neither doeth the substance of bread remaine nor yet is it converted into Christs bodie for the absurdities that follow theron but is annihilat or redacted to nothing or else resolved into that which they call materia prima Bellarmin also in the forecited place sayeth that Abbot Rupertus maintayned an opinion diverse from all the former to wit That the bread is personallie assumed by Christ in the same manner that the humane nature was assumed by him and of this also Cardinall Aliaco in 4. sent q 6 sayeth That this is possible and more agreable to reason and easier to bee understood But thereafter in the same place hee positivlie sayeth That the conversion of the bread according to his judgement into the bodie of Christ is successive as the night is turned into the day because as after the night the day commeth so sayeth he after the breads departing there is Christs Bodie But Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 18. § ex his will not haue this coÌ„version productive nor successiue but adductive as hee calleth it that is whereby Christs Bodie preexistent before this conversion in heaven beginneth to be sayeth hee under the accidents of bread wher it was not before which indeed is no conversion at all but onlie a meere translocation Moreover sayeth Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5. There hath been two opinions devysed in the Scholes for unfolding the greatnes of this mysterie one of DuraÌ„ds on 4. sent d. 10. who holdeth it probable that the substaÌ„ce of the bodie of Christ is in the Eucharist without greatnes or quantitie another is of some ancient Divines whom Ockam followeth who say that there is in the sacrament the very magnitude and quantitie of Christs bodie which notwithstanding they think cannot bee distinguished from the substance therof but that all parts do so runne one in another that ther is no shape in Christs bodie nor any distinction or order in the parts thereof But the common opinion of the Schooles and of the Church sayeth hee is contrarie to this and that in the Eucharist or little hostie there is whole Christ with his magnitude and bigness all other accidents hath both order shape agreable to a humane bodie Which is the eight miracle of the eleaveÌ„ that Durand maketh the priest daylie to work in the Masse lib. 4. ration divin f. 63. which miracles notwithstanding are not seene whereas Cardinall Cameracensis in 4. sent q. 5. saâ—eth I ought not to believe that he worketh any miracle sayeth hee except I see the same And indeed these are such as are foreprophecied 2. Thess 2. 9. and are called lieing signes and wonders 4. They agree no better in this point to wit Wherby did Christ produce in his last supper Transsubstantiation Concerning which their Biel on the canon of the masse lect 36. sayeth There are four opinions The 1. That Christ did make this conversion not by any words which hee uttered but by his divine power without any words and that Pope Innocent 3. was of this minde
The 2. That Christ blessed and consecrated the bread but with a secret benediction unknowne to us whereby he Transsubstantiâ—â— the bread into his Bodie of which the Evangelists maketh mentieÌ„ when they say that he tooke bread and blessed it so that heerby Christs Bodie behoved to be preexistent in the sacrament by that blessing before he said this is my bodie that so that speech of his might be true The 3. is That our Saviour by these words this is my bodie made that coÌ„version of bread into his bodie but ttha be spoke these words twise though it be written but once and that first he spoke them softlie and unheard whereby he made the conversion and thereafter audiblie to teach them how thereafter they should make this conversion And the 4. opinion is That by these words this is my Bodie which be spake audiblie he made this conversion of bread into his owne Bodie 5. Herin again they greatly controvert to wit whereby the Priest daylie doth make this conversion 1. Some say as Durand in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 63. and Biel on the canon of the masse lect 47. with others That the same is by vertue which Christ hath placed and made wherent in the words themselves of this is my Bodie 2. Others say That this conversion dependeth upon the intention of the Priest as Bellarmin sayeth The whole Church holdeth lib. 3. de justifi cap. 8. whose words are these The Sacrament without the intention of the priest cannot be made a Sacrament 3. Lombard their great Master of sentences lib. 4. dist 13. sayeth That it dependeth upon an Angels descending from heaven to consecrate the Hostie Whose words are these It is called the Masse because of the comming of the heavenlie Angell sayeth hee to consecrate the bodie of Christ according to the Priests prayer saying Omnipotent God command that these things be carried by the hands of thy holie Angel before thy high Altar therefore except the Angel come it cannot be called a Masse sayth he seing therefore as Bellarmin hath told us that it cannot be a Sacrament without the Priests intentioÌ„ and that no man can know the intention of another sayth Bellar. farr lesse be sure of an Angels coÌ„ming downe to comsecrate the bread turne it into Christs body I would theÌ„ on these grounds of their own ask any papist when he adoreth the hostie how he can be sure whether hee adoreth Christs body or onely a piece of bread which were most grosse Idolatrie as all must confess 6. To come to the words of consecration themselves 1 in generall next in particular let us see how they agree heerein 1. The most common opinion is that in generall they are to bee taken properlie and not figuratiuely but on the contrarie Bertram and the others with him forecited as also Cardinall Cajetan in 3. q. 78. art 1. holdeth that they are and may be taken figuratiuelie and after a Sacramentall manner of speech as wee see in Circumcision and the Passover yea more in the Popes owne canon Law de consecra dist 2. c. hoc est it is said ther That the heavenlie Sacrament which trulie representeth Christs flesh is called Christs Bodie but improperlie and not in veritie of the thing sayeth that place but by a mysticall signification so that the meaning is sayth the glosse it is called Christs Bodie that is it is a sign of his bodie 7. Next to come to the words in particular 1. The Catholicks do not agree sayth Bellarm. lib. 1. de Eucâ— cap. 11 in the manner of explicating what is properlie meaned by this Pronowne hoc or this in the words of consecration this is my Bodie in this there are two famous opinions sayth he the one that this pronowne hoc signifieth the Body of Christ the other is of S. Thomas sayeth he that it signifieth not the body of Christ precisâ—ie nor yet the bread as some hold but in coÌ„mon that substance be what it will which is under these formes so that the meaning is hoc this that is under this and thâ—se formes or accidents is my bodie Neither determinating it to the bread says Biel in can Missae lect 48. because so this speech should be false this bread is my Bodie nor to the bodie of Christ for this were absurd to say this bodie is my bodie sayeth he as also seing the vertue of the words of consecration depends on the pronouncing of the last word meum as Biel showeth in the same place therefore by hoc Christs bodie cannot bee understood Againe the same Biel in the place forecited sayeth that concerning this there are diverse opinions which he reduceth to two 1. That by hoc nothing at all is demonstrat and this Durand also declareth lib. 4. rat divin f. 64. 2. Some say that by hoc the bread is demonstrat so that the meaning should bee this bread is my bodie that is in a Sacramentall way the signe of my bodie But because this would seeme sayeth he to be hereticall therefore sayeth Richardus de sancto victore that it is a mixt demonstration partlie to the sense partlie to the understanding so that the meaning is this in which the bread which is seene is to be transsubstantiat is my bodie which must be believed and so the word is must be expounded in the future shall be this is likewise the opinioÌ„ of Richardê° de media villa and others but Alexander Ales expreâ—slie will haue by hoc the bread to bee demonstrat and thereafter to bee transsubstantiated by the words of consecration 8. They controvert no lesse likewise in the next words corpus meum or my bodie as Gabriel Biel showeth in his 37. lecture on the canon of the Masse Whether that bodie which Christ gave to his Disciples was his mortall and passible bodie or that which was immortall and impassible to these who say the first it is objected that then sayeth heâ— it is not the same bodie which is now given in the sacrament which is immortall and impassible and that the Masse is therefore called an unbloodie sacrifice Againe in the contrarie to these who hold that it was his immortall and impassible bodie it is likewise objected that this coâ—ld not be because his Bodie did afterward suffer and die being yet unglorified and therefore was mortall and passible Therefore sayeth Biel Hugo Cardinalis being straitned on both hands by the former contradictions concludeth for his part siding with neither of them saying That in this questioÌ„ as in such like others I professe sayeth hee that I will rather reverence than dispute such secrets and in simplicitie of faith I think this sufficient if we say that Christ gaue them such a bodie as pleased Him to give because Hee was Omnipotent And so leaveth the matter in doubt which of them it was and useth a short easie way to solve all questions 9 In the words also that followeth which is broken
for you as they are set downe 1. Cor. 11. 24. They are againe like the Midianits Judg. 7. 22. Every mans sword against his fellow For 1. Pope Nicolas the 2. with his Councell at Rome as wee may see decret 3. p. d. 2 cap. 42 affirmeth That it is Christs Bodie sensuallie that is broken torne in pieces with the teeth of the receivers which yet sayeth Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 24. § quartum cannot be spoken of Christs bodie or flesh without great blaspheÌ„ie And which a little after that time made that great physitian learned Philosopher Averroes to say as B. Esponceus reporteth lib. 4. de Euch. ador cap. 3. mundum peragravi c. that is I have travelled through the world sayeth hee and I never saw a worse more foolish â—ect than that of the Christians is because with their teeth they devoure that God whoÌ„ they worship which I may say is at this day the greatest scandell to Turks Iewes and Pagans that scarreth and debarreth them from embracing Christianitie as sir Edmund Sandys showeth in his speculum Europae p. 230. Next their master of senteÌ„ces Lombard l. 4. dist 12. telleth us that this definition of the Pope and his Councell is false erronious seing Christs bodie is now incorruptible immortall and impassible that Christ rebuked the carnall understanding of his Disciples sayeth he who thought that his flesh was to be divyded in parts or torne in morsels as other flesh is therfore sayeth he dist 11. because it is nefarious to devoure Christ with our teeth he hath recommended his flesh and blood to us in a mysterie 3. Others againe sayth he affirmeth that there is no reall breaking there as men seemeth to see with their eyes but that it is said to be broken sicut fit in magorum prestigiis c. that is as useth to be done by magick tricks or Iuglers who by delusion deceiveth mens eyes sayeth he that they seeme to see that which is not a right comparison indeed of masse priests 4. Others againe sayeth the same Lombard affirme that by the wonderfull power of God there is a breaking ther where notwithstanding nothing is broken a grosse contradiction and this Durand in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 36. maketh to bee the fourth miracle of the eleven that is dayly wrought by the masse Priest to wit That in the Masse that which is indivisible yet is divyded and tho it be divyded sayeth hee it remaineth whole 5. Biel also on the canon of the Masse lect 36. fayth that That which Christ brake and the Priest now breaketh is the sacramentall species as whytnes roundnes but neither Christs bodie nor yet any thing that is whyte and round a strange Chimera indeed The like sayeth Lombard lib. 4. d. 12. That it is neither Christs body that is broke nor bread though the Apostle sayeth 1. Cor. 10. 16. the bread which we break but this fraction is of the forme onelie and shape of the bread sacramentallie done sayth he which was also the opinion of Pope Innocent the 3. And so speaketh Cardinall Cameracensis in 4. q. 6. saying That this is the common opinion that the accidents of the breade which remaine without any subject ar only that which is broken Than which Assertion there can be no greater absurditie 10. No lesse digladiation is amongst Romanists concerning what is eaten in the sacrament according to Christs words Take Eate For 1. as hath beene said according to pope Nicolas judiciall defyning It is Christs bodie flesh that is eaten with the mouth and torne with the teeth which Bellarmin calleth blasphemous and Lombard hereticall But on the contrarie Alexander Ales p. 4. 11. memb art 2. as also Bonaventure in 4. sent d. 12. art 3. Affirme that the eating of Christs bodie is mysticall and not orall or corporall and giveth this as a reasone thereof that whereas three things are implyed in corporall eating to wit 1. a masticatioÌ„ or chewing with the teeth 2. a trajection into the stomack and bellie And 3. a Conversion of the thing eaten into the substance of the eater this last which is most essentiall in eating cannot agree to the bodie of Christ which is not turned into our substance but rather in a mysticall manner turneth us into it self say they to which they might also added that which our Saviour â—peaketh of that which goeth in at the mouth that it likewise goeth out in the draught Math. 15. 17. Againe if a Mouse or Ratt or any such beast happen to eate the consecrated Hostie it is controverted what is eaten by such 1. then in the Roman missall and cautel's of the Masse it is affirmed that they eate Christs bodie for these ar the very words Item â—â— corpus Christi a muribus vel araneis consumptum vel corrosum fuerit c. that is If the bodie of Christ be consumed or gnawne by Myce or spiders if these vermine can be found let them be burned and what remaineth of that which is gnawn by them unconsumed if it may be done without horror let it be eaten But Lombard in the contrarieê° lib. 4. d. 13. sayeth That Christs bodie is not eaten by such beasts though it would seeme that it were and if any will ask sayeth he What is it then which is eaten by such he answereth verie blâ—ntlie saying Deus novit that is God knoweth not hee But Durand in his rationale divinorum lib. 4. f. 63. telleth us that Pope Innocent the 3. resolveth the matter otherwise and sayeth That as the substance of the bread is miraculously turned into the bodie of Christ when it beginneth to be in the Sacrament so doth bread miraculously returne wheÌ„ Christs bodie ceasseth to be there and therfore that the mouse or any such beast eateth onlie the bread that miraculouslie is so furnished unto them by God Even as the same Durand tells a tale there how a Matron that furnished bread sabbathlie to Pope Gregorie did laugh when shee heard the Pope affirme that to be Christs bodie which shee knew to be bread that her self had baken whereupon the Pope to coÌ„vince her of her errour by his prayer he converted the hostie visiblie into a finger of flesh when heere on shee was converted he prayed againe and turned the finger of flesh into bread againe And so heere were three pretie coÌ„versions si credere fas ect The first of the Hostie into Christs bodie invisiblie the next of the Hostie into a finger of flesh visibly the third of the finger of flesh back againe into bread visiblie Quis talia fando temperet c 11. Heere againe in the other Element of the Sacrament they contend one against another concerning the mixture of water with the wine the TranssubstantiatioÌ„ of both 1. Then Cardinall Aliacâ— in 4. sent q. 5. telleth us that Scotus did hold That water is not simplie necessarie at all to be used in the
occasionall but that politick picklock of popish sacramentall auricular confession whereby everie one is forced to confesse to a Priest all their sinnes which they can remember with all the agravating circumstances else to expect no forgivenes of them from God which as their owne Ferus on Math. 11. 28. sayeth by the confession of the learned is nihil nisi carnifiâ—ina conscientiae that is nothing else but a torturing of the conscience sayeth he when men are forced to auricular confession and may not make it but to their owne Priest though he be unlearned naughtie and inconstant And trulie sayeth their owne Cassander consult art 11. I believe there should be no controversie in this if this wholsome medicine of confession had not beene insected and defyled by many unskillfull and importunat soule-physitians whereby they haue laid snares upon their consciences and as it were by certaine tortures tormented them whom otherwise they should haue eased and relieved Next to come to answere to his scripture Arguments which hee bringeth for his popish auricular confession the first is Math. 3. where it is said That Ierusalem all Iudea and all the region round about Iordan went out to Iohn the Baptist and â—er baptised of him confessing their sinnes To whom I shall answere onlie in the Iesuit Maldonats words on this place saying What Catholick was ever so unlearned that he would prove the sacrament of confession by this place seing as Cardinall Cajetan showeth on act 19. 18. This their confession was but generall and publick any other being by all probabilitie impossible that hee could heare in particular and in private such a huge multitude as out of all the forenamed places came to him to be baptised of him We see then by Maldonats verdict that this Pamphleter is an unlearned dolt The second place is act 19. 18. where it is said That these who believed came to Paull and confessed and shewe their deeds To which place also I answer in Cajetans words which are these As they did flock together sayeth he to the baptisme of John confessing their deeds without doubt generallie or their publick sinnes so here For none of these confessions were Sacramentall but a profession onlie of repentance for their former life sayeth hee The third place which hee adduceth is Numb 5. 6. Then shall they confesse their sinnes which they haue done To which I answere 1. That hereby sacramentall confession cannot be proven because they hold it to be a sacrament of the gospell which was not instituted as Bellarmin granteth lib. 3. de pont c. 20 till after Christs resurrection 2. Bonaventure lib. 4. d. 17. art 1 citeth Augustin saying That the offering of sacrafices was the legall confession of sinnes whence he inferreth That it appeareth that there was no other confession under the law but the oblation of sacrifices 3. Their owne Lyra on Levit. 16. 21. showeth That the Priest did not heare in particular the confession of the people but in generall for the other had been impossible sayeth he But I wonder how he omitteth that which usuallie they object is Bellarmins maine argument for auricular confession to wit Jam. 5. 16. which sayeth Confesse your sinnes one to another To which I can not answere better than in Cardinall Cajetans words and by adducing his reasons saying Ther is here no speech of sacramentall confession for sacramentall confession is not one to another but to the Priest onlie sayeth hee wherefore this confession is that whereby we mutuallie confesse our selves to be sinners that one may pray for another or for reconciliation where wrong is done sayeth he As for Fathers which hee citeth they are either false counterfit as Clements Epistles which Bellar. in his book of Ecclesiasticall writters declareth and proveth to bee spurious or else they are falslie alleadged as Ireneus and Tertullian who as their Beatus Rhenanus testifieth speaketh only of publick confession and not of private saying in Tertul. de poenit Let none-marvell that Tertullian speaketh nothing de clancularia illa admissorum confessione that is of that secret confession of sinnes Neither is there any such thing in Origen or any alleadged works of Ambrose that makes for popish sacramentall and auricular forced confession nor any such work of his as in muliere peccatrice in all the Catalogue of his works set downe by Bellarmin de scrip eccles and though there were such a work and such words As confesse freelie to the Priest the hidden secrets of thy soul this were but onlie as one stood in neede of comfort and counsell upon distres of conscience as hath beene said but I wonder most of his citation of Chrisostom and Augustin both of which are against any such forced confession Chrisost conc 4. de Lazaro saying Do I say confesse to thy fellow servant who may upbraid thee No. Confesse unto God who can cure thee Augustin lib. 10. confess c. 3. sayth thus What haue I to do with men that they should heare my Confessions as if they could heale all my diseases 16. THat Pardons Indulgences were not in the Apostles times VVHich he sayeth is contrary to 2. Cor. 2. 10. where the Apostle sayeth To whom yee forgive any thing I for giue also To which I answere 1. That this showeth onlie the Apostles consent to the releasing of the incestuous Penitent from the Church censure of Excommunication formerly pronunced 1. Cor. 5. 3. and this sayeth Estius is the exposition of all the latine Fathers and so maketh nothing for papal indulgences or pardons Which their owne Prierias lib. cont Cath. de indulg and Cajetan opusc lib. 5. cap. 1. granteth to haue no ground in scripture tho this Pamphleter would wrest scripture for them Yea moreover sayeth Cajetan none of the ancient fathers greek or latin haue broght any such to our knowledge which makes that Bellarmin bringeth not one father for them 2. Their Alfonsus a Castro lib. 8. cont heres Tit. indulgentia as also B. Fisher cont Luth. art 18. granteth that their use is onlie of late The second place which he bringeth is 2. Cor. 2. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishmeÌ„t whence he concludeth that it lyeth in the hand of the spirituall Magistrat to measure the time of such censure or punishment that is imposed To which I answere That these his words confirmeth what wee haue said before showing what ancient indulgences were in foro Ecclesiae which we practise in the exercise of our discipline towards peÌ„itents as we see cause but this maketh nothing for papall indulgences which they extend not onlie to the living but also to the dead in purgatorie and wherein what is their unitie or rather huge division of tongues and pen's we haue showne in the answere to the tenth Assertion 17. THat the actions and passions of the saints serve for nothing to the Church VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Coloss 1. 24. where the Apostle sayeth I now