because he was a Minister Now if it be granted that gifts and oblations by way of Religion may be made vnto Ministers your discourse against Oblations vnto Saints is eueruated and falleth to the ground For thus I argue If oblations may be made to God onely why are they made vnto Ministers If they may be made vnto creatures why not vnto Saints and Angells as well as vnto Ministers If oblations be proper vnto God how dare Ministers make themselues fellowes with God in this point of his Honour If they be not proper vnto God why do you reprooue vs for offering gifts and vowes vnto the blessed Virgin his Mother Heere you are so taken that you cannot shift away nor euade Fourthly and principally by this doctrine that Religious Adoration is due vnto Ministers you ouerthrowe all you say in the Third point against giuing worship specially Religious vnto blessed Saints and Angells For if Ministers may be religiously adored with reference vnto God why not Saints why not Angells You alleadge (d) Matth. 10.14 Scriptures that affirme Ministers to be the messengers of God and threaten punishment vnto such as will not admit of them But I pray you be not Angells Gods Messengers as much as Ministers yea in a more high holy excellent sort being all ministring Spirits sent in seruice for them that partake the inheritance of saluation Hebr. 1.23 You bring Matth. 10.42 He that shall giue to one of these little ones a cuppe of cold water only in the name of a disciple verily I say he shall not loose his reward How can you hence in force that diuine and Religious worshippe is due vnto Ministers rather then vnto any poore Christian Lazar or Beggar of whome Christ sayth (e) Matth. 25.40 Whatsoeuer you doe to one of my least ones you doe vnto me If Saints liuing vpon earth that be the liuely images of Christ may not be honoured with Religious adoration though what is done to them Christ taketh as done to himselfe what little colour and pretext can you Ministers alleadge why we should honour you with Religious Adoration You produce Galat. 4.14 where the Apostle saith vnto the Galathians You receyued me as an Angell of God eueÌ„ as Christ Iesus Who seeth not that this maks rather for adoration of Angells then of Mynisters S. Paul thought the Galathians did much in that they receyued him as an Angell But you say we must worship Ministers more then Angells to wit with Religious Adoration which is due to God only To the same purpose you cite two Fathers S. Ambrose and S. Gregory S. Ambrose epist. 26. sayth Domino defâ—rtur cùm seruulus honoratur the Lord is reuerenced when the seruant is honoured S. (f) Super Reg. lib. 5. cap. 1. Quam reuerendi sunt optimi Pastores Ecclesiae SaÌ„ctae liquet Dum enim Deo fideliter seruiunt tanto ei amoris vinculo coniunguntur vt quidquid eis ingeritur Diuinae iniuriae ascribatur Gregory writes that good Pastours who serue God faythfully are so conioyned with him in the bond of loue as what is done against them is taken as iniury offered vnto God How do these texts conclude Religious adoration to be due to your Ministeriall worships rather theÌ„ vnto Angels I pray you Syr be not Saints Angells the faythfull seruants of God his friends Be they not conioyned with him in loue as much as any Minister Why then should Religious worship be due to Ministers their Et caetera's and not to Saints their Reliques Images That Saints and Angells be the friends and faithfull seruants of God we certainly know that you Ministers be such how can you make it apparent or certaine And if you cannot why may not we argue agaynst your worships as you argue agaynst Images pag. 233. I am taught by learned Vasquez that the Diuell may lurke in Images and our Aduersary cannot proue that Christ is present or assistant vnto them Now it seemes vnreasonable to worship that which may receyue the Diuell when on the other side one cannot be certayne that it haue any fellowship with Christ. This your argument agaynst Images is stronger agaynst Religious Adoration of Ministers For of the Images we are certayne that they represent Christ Crucified vnto vs we feele this their force and efficacy in our harts when we worship Christ in them But that Ministers may receyue the Diuell that the Diuell may lurke in them we are (g) Luther tom 2. Ieâ—iensi fol. 68. sayth of Carolostadius Puto non vno Diabolo obsessum fuisse miserabilem illum hominem And of Zwinglian Ministers he sayth That the Diuell now euer dwelleth in them that they haue a blasphemous breast insatanized supersatanized and persatanized See the place in the book of the Tigurine Deuines confess Tigur An. 1544. fol. 3. taught by Luther who affirmeth so much of diuers Ministers and by other Ministers that (h) The Tigurine Deuines in the place alleadged say Lutherus cum suis Diabolis And Zwinglius En vt hunc homineÌ„ Satan totus occupare conetur Tom. 2. respons ad Confess Lutheri fol. 478. auerre no lesse of him That Ministers be Christs fellowes or haue fellowship with Christ that Christ is present by sanctity and grace with any of them you cannot make certaine yea according to your Tenet Christ doth not certainly and infallibly assist the whole Church much lesse is it certayne and infallible that he is present and assistant vnto euery Minister Wherefore seing it is certayne that the Diuell may lurke in Ministers and it is not certayne infallible that Christ is assistant vnto them we may conclude by your principles that it is vnreasonable they should be worshipped specially with Religious adoration which yet you do require that men yield vnto you in regard of your vnion with God The second Errour That that cannot be the true Church which hath wicked Visible Pastours §. 2. ANOTHER errour no lesse absurd and sottish theÌ„ this you maintaine to wit that that cannot be the true Church whose visible Rulers are or haue been wicked or impious Thus you write pag. 100. Wicked persons according to S. Augustine are not indeed and verily the body of Christ And agayne they are not in the body of Christ which is the Church because Christ cannot haue damnable members And Bernard sayth that it is euident that Christ is not the head of an Hypocrite but the visible Rulers of the popish Church haue many tymes been as our Aduersaryes themselues report not only Hypocrites but also apparently monstrous and damnable sinners Therfore the Popish Church caÌ„not be the Catholike Church out of which no saluation is to be had And agayne pag. 54. you argue in this manner They which are not of the body of Christ nor of the house of God really and in truth do not constantly preserue or faythfully deliuer Apostolicall traditions nor are they such as the spirit of God infallibly
yet his doctrine is agaynst the whole Consent of Deuines expresly agaynst S. Augustine who sayth that a man holding with Photinus whose Errors were fundamentall agaynst the Trinity God head of Christ thinking he holdes Catholike doctrine is not yet an (*) The Minister sayth pa. 196. that the IESVITE cites not Augustine truly for he ōly saith I would not affirme of such a person that he is an Heretique Answere This is vntruth S. Austine saith Istum nondum haereticū dico I do affirme this mā not to be yet an Heretique though he hold fundamentall errour till he knowe he dothe it agaynst the Catholike CHVRCH What he addeth that S. Austine meanes that ignorance is not heresy in foro Ecclesiae but is heresy in foro caeli is ridiculous for the contrary is true because whosoeuer denyes though ignorātly the knowne articles of the Creed is an heretike in foro Ecclesiae because he is presumed to erre out of contempt not out of ignorance But if he be truly ignorant he is no heretike in foro caeli because verily he is not willfull Heretike till warned that he holds agaynst the Catholike Church he chooseth to perseuer in his errour Hence I inferre that Protestants erre fundamentally according to the second kind of erring to wit in the manner in all points they hold agaynst the Roman Church which I haued proued to be the true Catholike Church For he that holds any priuate opinions so stifly as rather thē forsake it he denies abandons the Catholike Church a mayne article of his Creed erreth fundamētally as is cleere But Protestants hold their priuate opinions so stiffely as therupon they haue denyed and abandoned the Catholike Church to wit the Roman Neyther doth it import that they retayne the word hauing reiected the sense seeing not the letter of the Creed pronounced but the matter belieued makes men Christians Neyther is it inough to say that they belieue the Church of the Elect seeing the Church of the Creed is not the Church of the only Elect a meere Fancy but the visible and conspicuous Church continuing from the Apostles by succession of Bishops which thus I prooue The Church whereof Christ sayd I am alwayes with you to the consummation of the world is the Church of the Creed or the Church which to forsake is damnable For the Church wherewith Christ still abideth not according to corporall visible presence but by his spirit is the body of Christ whereof he is head into which he infuseth the life of grace consequently he that forsaketh this Church forsaketh the body of Christ and the head thereof and cannot liue by his spirit but is in a dead and damnable state as a member cut off and separated from a liuing body as S. Augustine epist. 50. de vnit Eccles. c. 16. long agoe noted The Catholike Church is the body of Christ whereof he is head out of this body the Holy Ghost quickeneth no man Now the Church wherof Christ sayd I am alwayes with you to the consummation of the world is not the Church inuisible of only the Elect but a visible Church deriued by succession from the Apostles Therfore he that forsakes the Church deriued by succession from the Apostles forsakes the Church of the Creed the Catholike Church the body of Christ puts himselfe into a dead damnable state may haue all things besides saluation and eternall life as Fathers affirme whose testimonies in this behalf are notable and famously knowne whereunto D. Field yieldeth acknowleging one holy Catholike Church in which only the light of heauenly Truth is to be sought where only grace mercy remission of sinnes and hope of eternall happynes are found AN ANSVVERE TO THE Nyne Points proposed by your most Excellent Maiesty I Haue bene large in my former proofes that the Roman is the one holy true catholike church whose Traditions comming downe by perpetuall succession from Christ and his holy Apostles are so constantly and strongly to be belieued that no proofes out of Scripture by priuate interpretatiō vnderstood though seeming most euident may stand to contest (a) The Minister here spends a whole leafe of Paper in bitternes gall against vs as if we did professe to preferre Old Custome before knowne Verity It is not so but thus the case standeth between Protestants and vs. First as for Verity neither they nor we know our Religion to be verity by manifest sight nor by the light lustre euidence of the thinge or doctrine as both of vs must acknowledge if we be sober Secondly there be records which by Tradition we know to haue bene giuen by the Apostles which vpon good warrant are belieued to deliuer nothing but Gods holy word Thirdly when Controuersies arise about this word of the Apostles and there be different opinions about the sense therof seeming arguments be brought on both sides we thinke that side ought to preuaile as the truly Christian for which perpetuall Christian Tradition Custome stand Fourtly we Iudge that that side ought to be reiected as not truly Christian where Christian Tradition is so notoriosly defectiue as they cānot ascend from this age vpward towards Christ by naming professours of their Religion higher then one hundred yeares or if they presume to passe further they are presently conuinced to feigne as it happeneth vnto Protestants This is the summe of all that hath been hitherto sayd and the forme of the Catholicke proceeding about their resolution of fayth against thē And this I haue not done without purpose assuring my selfe that if your Maiestie were throughly perswaded in this point you would without any mans help most easily and fully satisfy your selfe in particular controuersyes out of your owne wisdome and learning For as some that haue bene present at your Maiesties discourses casually incident about Religion report few of our Deuines though trained vp continually in Academies and Exercises of Theology are able to say more thē your Maiesty in defence of the catholicke cause for particular controuersyes when you please to vndertake the patronage thereof which I can easily belieue out of my owne Experience who could not but admire seing your Maiesty so well acquainted with our doctrines and so ready and prompt in Scholasticall subtilities Wherfore most humbly I beseech your most Excellent Maiesty to honour these my poore labours with a gratious perusall of them accepting of mine Answers whē they may seeme reasonable being in defence of doctrines receiued from Auncestors which deserue approbation when there is no euidency against them and of your abundant clemency pardon my prolixity seeing the questions by your Maiesty proposed were so difficill and obscure as I could hardly haue made any shorter full explication of them THE FIRST POINT The (b) The Minister in this question knowes not well what to stand vnto He graunts the question and then he denyes it agayne contradicting himselfe yea censuring his owne whole
reuealed all these verityes to Christs Iesus and he (f) Omnia quae audiui à Patre nota feci vobis Ioan. 15. v. 15. agayne to his Apostles partly by word of mouth but principally by the immediate teaching of his holy spirit to the end that they should deliuer (g) Docete omnes gentes Math. 28.20 them vnto mankind to be receiued and belieued euery where ouer the world euen to the consummation thereof Fourthly that the (h) Illi profecti praedicauerunt vbique Marc. vlt. 20. Apostles did accordingly preach to all nations deliuer vnto them partly by wryting partly by word of mouth the (i) O Timothee depositum custodi 1. Tim. 6.20 whole entyre doctrine of saluation planting an vniuersall Christian company charging them to keep inuiolably and to deliuer (k) Haec commenda fidelibus hominibus qui possunt alios instruere 2. Tim. 1.2 vnto their posterityes what they had of them the first messengers of the Ghospell Fiftly though the Apostles be departed their primitiue Hearers deceased yet there still remaynes a meanes in the world by which all men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached and the primitiue Church receyued of them seing the Church euen to the worlds end must be (l) Ephes. 2.20 c. 4.5.11 founded on the Apostles and belieue nothing as matter of Fayth besides that which was deliuered of them These things being supposed the question is What this meanes is and how men may now adayes so many ages after their death know certainly what the Apostles taught originally preached To which question I answere that the last and finall resolution (m) Note that the Minister many tymes doth falsify the Iesuits Tenet specially pag. 34. saying That the last and finall resolution is into vnwritten Tradition not into Scripture This he doth not say but that the persuasion that our Fayth is true is finally resolued into the authority of God reuealing and that it is Diuine into the Apostles miraculous preaching But what doctrine was taught by the Apostles we know only by Tradition therof is not into Scripture but into the perpetuall tradition of the Church succeeding (n) All from this place vnto the first argument the Minister leaueth out being the substance of the whole discourse yet he sayth he hath set down the booke verbatim See his Preface the Apostles according to the principle set downe by Tertullian in the beginning of his golden by Protestants commended Booke (o) Tertull. de praescript 1.61.21 Quid Apostoli pâ—â—dicauerint praescribam non aliter probari debere quà m per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt that is I set down this principle what the Apostles taught is to be proued NO OTHERVVISE then by the TRADITION of the Churches which they planted By which Prescription ioyned with the other fiue suppositions is raysed the Ladder for true Catholike resolution about Faith set down by the sayd Tertullian on which a Christian by degrees mounts vnto God or as S. Augustine (p) August de vtilitate credendi cap. 10. sayth ducitur pedetentim quibusdam gradibus ad summâ penetralia veritatis the Ladder is this the ascending by it in this sort What (q) Tertull. de praescrip c. 21. 37. Nos ab Ecclesijs Ecclesiae ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo I belieue I receaued from the present Church the present from the primitiue Church the primitiue Church from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God God the prime verity from no other fountayne different from his owne infallible knowledge So that who so cleaueth not to the present Church firmely belieuing the tradition thereof as being come downe by succession is not so much as on the lowest step of the Ladder that leads vnto God the reuealer of sauing truth successiue tradition vnwritten being the last and finall ground whereon we belieue that the substantiall points of our beliefe (r) Note the Iesuit doth not say Tradition is the last ground on which we belieue our Fayth to be sauing truth or the word of God but only that it came froÌ„ the Apostles so mounting vp by the Church vnto the Apostles by the Apostles vnto God and by him vnto all necessary truth came from the Apostles This I proue by these foure (*) These arguments as they coÌ„uince there is no meanes to know what the Apostles taught but Christian Tradition so they consequently conuince that if the Christian Religion be sauing truth God must assist this perpetual Catholike Tradition therof that no Errors creep into it arguments The first Argument IF the mayne and substantiall points of our fayth be belieued to be Apostolicall because writteÌ„ in the Scripture of the new Testament and the Scriptures of the new Testament are belieued to come from the Apostles vpon the voyce of perpetuall tradition vnwritten then our ResolutioÌ„ that our fayth is Apostolicall stayeth lastly and finally vpon Tradition vnwritten But so it is that the Scriptures of the new TestameÌ„t cannot be prooued to haue been deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles but by the perpetual Tradition vnwritten conserued in the Church succeeding the Apostles For what other proofe can be imagined except one would prooue it by the (a) The Minister pag. 19. to Titles addeth inscription of some Epistles subscription insertion of names in the body of the bookes but neither is this true of all books nor of all Epistles nor it is inough to satisfy a man For may not a counterfayte write a Gospell for example in the name of Peter repeating the name of Peter the Apostle in the booke twenty tymes So it is childish to meÌ„tion this as the last stay of persuasion For what more childish then to prooue a thinge vnknowne by another as much vnknowne Titles of the bookes which were absurd seing doubt may be made whether those Titles were set on the Books by the Apostles themselues of which doubt only Tradition can resolue vs. Besides the Ghospell of S. Marke S. Luke as also the Acts of the Apostles were not written by any Apostles but were by their liuely voyce and suffrages recommended vnto Christians as Sacred Diuine otherwise as also (b) Bilson de perpetua gubernatione Ecclesiae pag. 85. Historiae illae à Marco Luca exaratae Canonicam authoritatem ex Apostolorum suffragiâ—s nactae sunt qui eas lectas approbârunt M. Bilson noteth they should neuer haue obtayned such eminent authority in the Church neyther should they be now so esteemed but vpon the supposall of Apostolicall approbation But how shall we know that the Apostles saw these writings and recommended the same vnto Christian Churches but by Tradition Ergo the last and highest ground on which we belieue what doctrine was deliuered by the Apostles is the tradition of the Church suceceding them For we may distinguish three properties of doctrine of faith
the first place For as Protestants acknowledge the particular examination of doctrines is tedious and long not for the capacity of all whereas the finding out of the true Church endeth all controuersyes seeing we may securely follow her directions and rest in her Iudgement Field Epist. dedicat Secondly what more idle and vayne then to appeale from Scripture setting downe matters cleerly vnto Scripture teaching thinges obscurely or not so cleerly what is this but to appeale from light to darkenes or at the least from noone day to twy-light But no particular point of doctrin is in holy Scripture so manifestly set down as is the Church the marks whereby the same may be knowne no matter about which the Scripturs are more copious and cleere then about visibility perpetuity amplitude the Church was to haue so that as S. Augustine sayth Scriptures are more cleere about the Church then euen about Christ. in Psalm 30. concion 2. That Scripture in this poynt is so cleere that by no shift of false interpretation it can be auoyded the impudency of any forhead that will stand agaynst this euidence is confounded de vnit Eccles. c. 5. That it is prodigious blindnes not to see which is the true Church Tract 1. in 1. Epist. Ioan. That the Church is the tabernacle placed in the Sunne that it cannot be hidden vnto any but such as shut their eyes against it l. 2. cont Petilian c. 32. What vanity then is it for Protestants not being able to cleere by Scripture the cleerest of all points to appeale vnto the prouing of their doctrine by more darke or lesse euident places Thirdly if no man can directly know which be the Scriptures the Apostles deliuered but by the Tradition of the Catholike Church then it is vayne before they decide this controuersy to vndertake to proue by Scriptures what doctrine the Apostles taught For how can Scripture make me know what the Apostles taught vnlesse I know aforehand the Scriptures to be the Apostles I may see this or that doctrine deliuered in the Scripture shewed me as the Apostles but I cannot know that doctrin to be the Apostles except I know aforehand the booke to be the Apostles but this cannot be proued but by the Tradition of the Church I omit many other arguments wherby this shift may be conuinced to be but flying from the light of Gods word about the visible Church For as sayth Saint Augustine l. 1. contra Crescon cap. 33. God would haue his Church to be described in Scripture without any ambiguity as cleere as the beames of the Sunne that the controuersy about the true Church being cleerly decided when questions about particular doctrines that are obscure arise we might fly to her and rest in her iudgement that this visibility is a manifest signe wherby euen the rude and ignorant may discerne the true Church from the false Augustine l. 13. cont Faust. c. 13. must eyther be the Roman or the Protestant or some other opposite vnto both Protestants cannot say a Church opposite vnto both for then they should be condemned in their owne Iudgement and bound to conforme themselues to that Church which can be no other but the Grecian a Church holding almost as many if not more doctrines which Protestāts dislike thē doth the Church of Rome as I can demonstrate if need be It is also most manifest vndenyable that Protestants are not such nor part of such a Church since their Reuolt and separation from the Romane seing confessedly they changed their doctrines they once held forsooke the body wherof they were members brake off from the stocke of that tree wherof they were branches Neyther did they depart from the Roman ioyne themselues with any Church professing their particular doctrines dissonant from it Ergo the Roman is the one holy Catholike Apostolicall Church The second Argument THIS also plainly will appeare to any man of vnderstanding that will cast on the Roman Church an vnpartiall eye For she is most euidently Apostolicall hauing most glorious successiō of Bishops Pastours famous in all (x) The Minister p. 116. lin 9. sayth that it is incōsequent to inferre negatiuely from humane history to say historyes are silent therfore no such matter I answere Hēce one may feele euen with his hand what an vnconsequent and absurd Religion theirs is which cannot stand without denying principles euident in common reason receaued by consent of mankind for who doth not feele that to argue from humane history thus negatiuely they are silent Therfore there neuer was any such matter is many times conuincing and strong This some Protestants more iudicious then our Minister acknowledge who thus write It is most playne that euen negatiuely an argument from humane authority may be strong as namely this The Chronicles of England mention no more then only six Kings bearing the name of Edward since the tyme of the last Cōquest therfore it cannot be there should be more It is true men are ignorant many things may escape them they may be deceaued they may conceale truth or vtter vntruth out of malice they may forget what they know Howbeit INFINITE CASES are wherin all these impediments are so MANIFESTLY excluded as there is no shew or colour wherby any such exception may be taken Thus M. Hooker Eccles. Policy pag. 115. 116. Now amongst these cases wherein the negatiue argument from Tradition and history is strong the chiefest is when the matter is famous and illustrious and there is a line and succession of chiefe Bishops Princes Persons notoriously knowne euen to the particularityes of their names actions dayes of their raygne and death Wherfore it is idle what the Minister pag. 230. brings agaynst this that we know not who was the first that eate mans flesh nor when the Assyrian matrons did first prostitute themselues in the temple of Venus For no wonder we know not such things seing we haue not a lineall history of these times as we haue of other times specially since the comming of Christ. For lineall history concerning illustrious matters is both affirmatiuely negatiuely strong yea more strong negatiuely then affirmatiuely The reason is because it is not so impossible that men with full report should vent an vntruth as that they should be by full cōsent silent about a most illustrious truth men being in such cases more prone to report then to conceale For example should one contest that some of our Kings since the Conquest set vp Images in al Churches of England the Country being before that tyme pure Protestant might not such an impudent writer be conuinced of madnes by negatiue history And why But because there is a most notorious line of our Kings since the last Conquest and their names actions dayes of their raygne and deathes most famously knowne In the same manner there being a line of Popes so conspicuously knowne as nothing more from Peter vnto Vrban they eight what
discourse as impertinent This I demonstrate out of his owne wordes First pa. 242. he sayth that the question is not about Diuine and Religious worship of Images but about any kind of reall worship These be his very wordes The question whether Images be to be adored with diuine worship or not is Heterogeneous that is impertinent to this disputation It is sufficient that Papists adore and worship Images with some kind of Reall worship such as the Trident Councell expressely defineth Thus he there professing that to impugne Iconolatry or diuine worship of images is impertinent And yet in the beginning of this disputation he professeth contrarywise to impugne this only Adoration not euery kind of worship of Images Thus he writes pag. 212. The Aduocate of Images should first of all haue declared what he vnderstandeth by worship of Images whether Veneration only or Adoration properly so called Veneration signifies externall reuerence regard of pictures such as is giuen to Churches Communion-Tables and sacred vessels And according to this notion many haue approued worspippe of Images that deny adoration Adoration properly so taken is yelding of honour by Religious submission of soule body c. the worshipping of Images in this māner is superstition Thus the Minister Who to proue that Protestants allow veneration or externall worshippe of Images in his margent citeth Iunius against Bellarmine professing in the name of all Protestants None of vs say Images are not to be worshipped much lesse do we say that they are no waies to be worshipped WE ALLOW that they be worshipped in their kind as Images but not with Religious worshippe Behold how cleerly he grants the question in hand euen asmuch as the answerer intended to proue For what the Minister sayth that the Answerer doth not declare what he vnderstādeth by worshippe whether externall Veneration or internall Adoration is false For he often and cleerly affirmeth that the worship he meanes to proue to be due vnto the Image of our Sauiour is the externall regard the reuerence of bowing such as is vsed towards Aultars and Communion tables out of inward religions reuerence and deuotion vnto Christ. This the Answerer did set down presently in the beginning of his discourse about images and repeates the same almost in euery paragraffe See his text in the Ministers booke pag. 214. Outwardly to the Image inwardly to Christ. pag. 206. Externally to the Image by mentall affection vnto the person pa. 827. Outwardly to the Image by deuout and pious Imagination to the person and the like very often Nor is the Ministers insinuation true that the Councell of Trent doth define the worshippe of Images vnder the tearmes of Religious Adoration First the Councell nether vseth the tearme Religious nor Adoratiō but Veneration the tearme the very word allowed by the Minister Secondly the Councell declares that this Veneration is outward regard as kneeling bowing the body vncouering the head done before the Images of our Sauiour to the end we may adore him that is testify our inward supreme deuotion towards him Finally it is false that Adoration doth properly signify Diuine Religious worship seing properly according to the common acception of the word in Scripture it signifyes any bowing of the body in signe of reuerence as might be proued by more then an hūdred examples of Scripture where creatures are said to be adored The Fathers sometimes take the word Adore in the more principall sense and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only for diuine worshippe In which sense they say only God is adored Epiphan haeres 79. Sit in honore Maria Deus adoretur Hieronymus Ep. 53. Non Angelos vel aliquam creaturam adoramus Yet also the same Fathers take the word in the proper sense say that other things besides God are adored as Men. Augustine de ciuit l. 10. c. 4. Homines si mullum illis addatur etiam adorandi Men are to be honored when much adored S. Hierome Epist. 17. Baptistae cineres adorare to ADORE the Ashes of S. Iohn The holy Crosse. Cyrill Alexandrin homil de Deipara in Concil Ephesin Crux adoratur toto orbe terrarum Holy Images· Damascen lib. 4. Orthod fidei c. 7. Saluatoris c. Imagines adoramus we adore the images of our Lord. Hence it is euident that our Minister on the one side witnessing out of Iunius that all Protestants allow some kind of worship vnto Images to wit veneration externall worship and on the other professing to impugne the Religious adoration of images only hath yeelded the question in controuersy his disputation against Iconolatry is according to his owne doome and word Heretogeneous that is impertinent and in the ayre VVorshippe of Images I Haue more hope to giue your Maiesty satisfaction in this article because all kind of Theologicall proofes stand for the same and nothing against it as I am perswaded which I declare by this discourse If the custome of worshipping Images be grounded on the prime principles of nature christianity If the same hath bene receiued in the church Vniuersally without any knowne time of beginning If places of Scripture that Protestants vrge against vs make asmuch against their custome of making Images so that with no probability or ingenuity they therupon mislike vs If by the vse of Images there be no danger or hurt to ignorāt people which may not with very ordinary diligence of pastors teachers be preuented otherwise the vtilityes very great Then there is no reason of iust mislike of this custome But this supposition is true in the same order I will endeauour to shew in the foure Particulars Worshippe of Images consequent out of the principles of Nature and Christianity §. 1. AN Image (c) This description of an Image sheweth the differēce of proper Images of our Sauiour frō types and figures By declaration wherof the cheife part of the Ministers disputation will be answered which is grounded vpon confusion of these two different things The proper Image represents the person of our Sauiour according to the true and proper shape of his kind and some indiuiduall propertyes that agree to him only Such is the Image of a man crucified pourtrayted accordinge to speciall circumstances recorded in the gospell A figure represents his person in the shape of some creature dissonant from his forme kind whose corporall proprieties haue resemblance with our Sauiours morall and spirituall perfections Thus the Lyon and Lambe be types or metaphoricall Images of our Sauiour which resemble him not in corporall shape but in his heauenly perfections his mildnes being figured by the Lambe his fortitude by the Lyon From this fundamentall difference other three flow First the proper Image represents to mans Imagination making him to apprehend by Imagination the person or the samplar as really present before his eies The figure represents to mans vnderstanding which apprehends by reason the analogy or proportion which the corporall qualityes of the figure
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
the Apostle prefer prayer that doth edify the vnderstanding yet doth he not prohibite prayer of meere affection without new instruction of the vnderstanding but saith that in such prayers men pray with their spirit and affection though not with their vnderstanding Now that S. Paul did cōmād that seruice should be in such a language as euery womā in the Church might be able to vnderstād it word by word (b) The Minister sayth pag. 374. that Ignorance of the distinct notion of euery word hindreth not sufficient edification when the ordinary necessary and common passages of the publicke seruice are intelligible Thus he Now I subsume But people who vnderstand not latin distinctly may by instruction through bookes Sermons and Cathechismes vnderstand the ordinary necessary and common passages of the publicke seruice specially by the helpe of vse and custome as experience sheweth Ergo publicke prayers in latin may yield sufficient edification and so are lawfull is incredible nor are our Aduersaryes able to proue it neyther can they shew by any Records of antiquity that such a custome was in the Primitiue Church yea the cōtrary may more then probably be shewed because the drift of the Church in appointing Lyturgies or set formes of publike Prayer at the oblation of the Eucharisticall sacrifice was not for the (C) The Minister sayth that indeed the end of publicke seruice is not to instruct People yet the prayers must be said in a language vnderstood of all because they which come to God with sound of wordes without vnderstanding offer the sacrifice of fooles Answere He that offereth vnto God vocall prayers full of deuout pious affection knowing only in generall that they be pious deuout expressing such affections offers a gratefull sacrifice vnto God though he doe not distinctly vnderstand the words and parts of the Prayer For exāple if one that vnderstands not Latin belieue the Psalme Miserere to be full of penitent affections and say the same with many teares of inward sorow contritiō for his sinnes whosoeuer will say that this man offers vnto God the sacrifice of fooles is himselfe an Infidell or Foole. For what greater folly then to think that prayers of pious affection please not God except the affection correspond mathematically to the words peoples instruction but for other reasons First that by this publike Seruice a continuall dayly tribute or homage of prayer thankesgiuing might be publikely offered and payed vnto God Secondly that christians by their personall assistāce at this publike seruice might protest exercise exteriourly acts of Religion common with the whole Church represented by the Synaxis or Ecclesiasticall meeting of euery Christian parish Finally to the end that euery Christian by his presence yielding consent vnto the publike prayers prayses and thankesgiuings of the Church and as it were subscribing setting his seale vnto them by this assisting at them might ordinarily participate of the graces benefits fruits which the Church doth obtaine by her Liturgyes and publike oblations Now for this end there is no need that euery one shold vnderstād word by word the prayers that are sayd in the publike Liturgy but it sufficeth that the Church in generall and in particular Pastours and Ecclesiasticall persons dedicated vnto the Ministeryes of the Church and who watch being bound to giue an account of soules committed to their charge haue particular notice of all the prayers that are sayd and that all who will may be taught instructed in particular if they will vse diligence desire it Moreouer the Churches anciently euen in the purest tymes of Christianity had Chancels vnto which Laymen might not enter so could not particularly and distinctly vnderstand (c) It had bene folly for the Church intending her Liturgy for the instruction of lay-men to haue excluded them out of the Chancells and though our Aduersary say that the Preist read seruice in so audible a voice as he might be heard from the highest of the Chācell where the Aultar was placed vnto the body of Church yet this he might better haue spokē vnto fooles then vnto men of vnderstāding that know how great the Chancells of many Churches are and how farre distinctly audible a mans voice ordinarily is the prayers said by the publike Minister of the Church Within the sayd Chancells they did also vse to say a good part of the Liturgy (d) Vide Liturgias impressas anno Domini 1568. Basil. in Liturg fol. 34. secretly so that their voyce was not audible vnto any Yea the Greeke Church did anciently vse a Veyle (e) Basil. ibidem fol. 34.38.41.43.46 Chrysostom Liturg. fol. 55. hom 61. ad Pop. wherewith the Priest was for the tymes of the sacred Oblation compassed which are manifest signes that the Church did neuer thinke it necessary that all the publike Liturgy should be heard much lesse word by word vnderstood by the whole vulgar multitude present therat Besides it is certayne that the Scripture was not read in any language but Greeke ouer al the Churches of the East as S. Hierome (f) Hieron praefat in Paralip witnesseth Also the Greeke Liturgy of Saint Basill was vsed in all the Church of the East and the Grecian was not the vulgar language of all the Countreyes of the East as is apparent by manifest testimonyes particularly of the (g) Basil. de Spiritu sancto c. 19. Cappadocians (h.i) Hieron in Prooem 2. lib. com ad Galat. Act. Apost c. 1. v. 10. 11. Mesopotamians (h.i) Hieron in Prooem 2. lib. com ad Galat. Act. Apost c. 1. v. 10. 11. Galathians (k) Theodoret. in histor SS Patrum hist. 13. Lycaonians (l) Hieron de script Eccles. in Anton. Aegyptians Syrians yea that all these Countreys and most of the Orient had their proper language distinct from the Greeke is manifest out of the Acts of the Apostles No lesse manifest is it that the Latin Liturgy was cōmon anciently for all the Churches of the Westerne parts euen in Africke as appeareth by testimonyes of S. (*) August Epist. 57. de doctrin Christian. l. 2. c. 13. August in Psalm 123. in exposit Ep. ad Rom. epist. 173. Augustine But it is manifest that the Latin was not the vulgar language for all nations of the West and though the better sort vnderstood it yet some of the (m) Although the Fathers say that the Greek Liturgy translation did serue all Asia and the East Although likewise they affirme the same of the Latin for all Africa and the Occident yet our Minister saith to the contrary pa. 379. and 380. that all people had their Liturgyes in their natiue tōgue which he proueth because the people did then praise God in all languages and did pray according to S. Iustine and Tertulliā togither with the Preist Ergo the publike Liturgy was read in the Church in all vulgar tongues As his denying what
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
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
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
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
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
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-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