body move it hath the soul in it be its motion never so little or of so short continuance 3. Faith is before Charity and that not only by priority of nature but of agency or activity Faith is a leading grace Men first believe to righteousness and then make confession to Salvation Faith first apprehends and lays hold on the mercy and goodness of God in the promise and then for that his goodness and mercy towards us we do love him and keep his Commandments This is clearly taught by our Saviour Luke 7.47 as Salmeron Tolet Stella and others even Papists acknowledg Now in Nature the Soul precedes the body in its activity 4. If charity and good works were the soul of faith they should be intrinsecal to faith for the form is not out of the matter nor the soul out of the body but so they are not Hence 't is that some learned men call charity an external form of faith and other virtues and by spirit in the Text they understand the breath making the sence this Even as the want of breath argues a dead body so the want of works a dead faith Estius ascribes this Exposition to Cajetan Estius in Jam. 2.26 who as he saith was moved to it by this reason because works are not the form of faith but certain concomitant effects but the soul is the form of the body Azorius clearly adheres to Cajetan Azor. instit Moral lib. 9. c. 3. q. 6. denying charity to be an intrinsecal form of faith or other virtues because they have their proper fruit and produce works without charity only he calls it an extrinsecal form which will never prove it to be the soul of them Par. in loc Pareus doth well observe for this purpose that it 's not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not without soul but without spirit or breath Bernard speaks most suitably to this Exposition Sicut corporis vitam c. As we know the life of the body by motion so the life of faith by good works If this Exposition please not I shall commend to you that acute one of Mr Perkins saith he Perkins on Galat. 5.6 Here is a false composition of the words Faith that is without works is dead is true but to say Faith is dead without works as though they gave life to faith is false To conclude Though we deny charity or good works to be the enlivening soul of faith yet we assert them to be the inseparable concomitants of a true faith so that as good works cannot be without faith so neither can faith be without good works As faith looks towards the promise by beleeving it so doth it reflect upon the Will of God by obeying it these are its two vital acts that is internal this is faith's external act neither of which can a living faith not exercise CHAP. IV. Of the Churches Power and Infallibility in matters of Faith IN this Chapter you come to the Churches Infallibility as a main part of Religion and a leading Article in the Creed to whom you are so liberal that you leave little to Christ or his Father It 's the observation of one of your own men that throughout your Ladies Psalter the Name of God is changed into the Name of our Lady so the Name of God into the name of Church and the Attributes of God are predicated of the Church as here Infallibility answering herein the Apostles description of Antichrist That he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he is as God sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himself that he is God 2 Thes 2.4 But to your Chapter You might have done well seeing the Church must come in first to have defined to us what Church it is you speak of before you tell us of her Infallibility as whether it be the Church virtual or representative or essential did I know which you meant I could speedilier answer you but seeing I do not I shall shew the fallibility of each of them lest I should happen to miss of you 1. Then Infallibility is not a Jewel annexed to your Popes Crown Lyra commenting on the words of Christ Mat. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Lyran. ibid. A verâ fide subvertendo-scil saith Ex quo patet c. Whereby it is evident that this Church which hath this promise doth not consist in men of ecclesiastical or secular power or dignity because many Princes and Popes summi pontifices and others inferior have been found to apostatize from the Faith wherefore it consists in those persons in whom is true knowledg and confession of faith and truth Some of your Popes have been deposed for Heresie as Eugenius by the general Council of Basil Concil Basil Ses 34. apud Binnium Hart Answ to Reynolds p. 246. Honorius by the sixt general Council was condemned and that justly saith Hart in his Answer to learned Reynolds Innocentius was little better then an Heretique who held that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was necessary for children Nor was he alone in this Heresie for it continued in the Church 600 years as Maldonat observes Maldon in Joan 6. Concil Trid. ses 21. Can. 4 ap Bin. Now that it was an Heresie appears by the Curse laid upon it in the Councel of Trent If you say the Pope taught it not I answer How then durst the Church believe it and for so long a time whereas the faith of the members must be conformable to the belief of the Churches Head Or why did not the Pope hinder it when he saw it was believed in the Church as a necessary truth It cannot be imagined how the Pope should be free when the Church was so infected 2. Infallibility is not the inseparable Priviledg of the Church representative or a General Councel for according to Papists it hath no infallibility in it self but depends upon the infallibility of the Pope which I have shewed to be a Chimaera Azorius tells us Azor. iustit Moral part 2. l. 5. c. 12. q. 1. that it 's agreed upon by all Catholikes that a General Councel may err in faith and manners if it be not called and confirmed by the Authority of the Pope of Rome And he instances in the Council of Ariminum of 600 Bishops who erred with Arius The Council of Constantinople of 300 Bishops who erred with Leo the Emperor This is the meaning of Lorinus as I conceive Lorin in Act. 15.7 p. 583. Col. 2. when he saith Wise or learned men are to be consulted with but all the infallibility is in him alone Now let any Papist shew any reason why in a Council the Pope should be infallible and out of it should be as other men But Councils called and confirmed by Popes have with Papists themselves been accounted fallible The Council of Basil was called by Eugenius and had the
not sinners but if any man be a worshiâ—per of God and doth his will him heareth he John 9.31 The sacrifices of the wickâ—d are an abomination to the Lord but the prayer of the upright is his delight Prov. 15.8 Jam. 5.16 The Scripture asserts the only prevalency of the righteous mens prayers 2. It s a wrong to Christ to attribute this vertue to such men for if they can do it Christs intercession becomes needless or sinfulness being that which brings in the necessity of a Mediatour 4. You propound and answer three Objections which you suppose may be made against you Obj. 1. It will be opposed say you in the vast distance that is betwixt Heaven and Earth Saints and Angels cannot hear Reply Blessed souls in their state of Separation have as Angels Luke 15. an hearing quite other from that of souls immersed and plunged in flesh and blood These hear by means of corporal Organs which limited within a certaine distance cannot receive impression out of the same Those hear with their understandings which are by so much the more open and quick of apprehension by how much the less their dependance is on matter The Saints then being freed of all corporal clogs may hear at any distanc Ans 1. The Knowledge of blessed Souls in their state of Separation though different from that of souls housed in bodies of clay yet is inferiour to that of Angels as Aquinas shews because the nature of the soul is inferiour to the Angelical nature Souls have a common and confused knowledge Aquin. part 1. q. 8 9. Art 3. as he calls it but Angels have an exact and more perfect knowledge 2. The freedom that blessed souls have from corporall clogs doth not invest them with the particular knowledge of things done here upon earth This is also asserted by Aquinas Ibid. Art 8. c. who for confirmation of it brings in Saint Gregory and Augustine the former of them seeming to prove it from the distance of habitation of spirits from that of bodies the latter by Scripture viz. Isai 63. And the gloss upon it and by his mothers not visiting him and by the promise made to good Josiah 2 King 22.3 The Motion of Angels from place to place makes it at least probable that their knowledge is not alike when they are absent as when they are present with us I confess that Aquinas saith their motion from place to place is in order to operation not knowledge Ibid. q. 55. Art 2. ad 3m. But however they are here as Executioners of Gods pleasure in works of judgement or mercy yet it may seeme that they also go about to see the carriages works and dealings of men whereof they are said to make report Zech. 1.10 11. Nor is this for information of God as if he knew not what men did but rather that the Angels beholding by themselves mens actions may justifie God in his punishments of the wicked and rewarding of his people or may acquaint the Saints therewith who being not messengers as Angels have their constant abode in the presence of God This seems to be Augustines conceit if the book be his for he layes down two means whereby the Saints may know what hath been done on earth Lib. de Cura pro Morl. apud Lyarn in Is 63.16 viz. the relation of those who die and so come to them or else the relation of Angels who are present with us in our actions Now if Angels know not humane affairs alike when absent as when they are present what ground have we to think that blessed souls have this priviledge 4. It s false that souls in their state of seperation have an hearing or understanding quite other from that of souls immerced and plunged in flesh and blood For excepting the want of the Ministery of sences the soul hath the same manner of understanding in its seperate estate that it hath whilest in the body though more accurate and less laborious and the reason is clear because understanding follows the nature or essence of the soul which in both estates is one and the same did the soul understand by species whilest in the body p. 1. q. 83. Art 6. so it doth still as Aquinas holds Did the soul understand by discourse So it doth still not onely understanding one thing after another but one thing by another 2. Object You say it will be opposed Be it Saints can hear at what distance soever yet this not possible unless Objects be proposed and what capacity in Prayers sent so farre off as to reach to Heaven Reply Catholicks boast not of any such vertue in their prayers but they believe as is confessed by all that God is every where and that he is the chief and principall Cause of all effects and so of mans prayers Now it being the propertie of every cause to relate to its effects and so to represent the same as looking glasses do faces and other opposed objects The Saints whose happiness consists in a clear vision of God must needs see and behold amongst other effects of his goodness and mercy the Petitions of those who become humble suitors to them Answ 1. They that grant that Saints can hear at any distance are not very wise to object the distance betwixt earth and heaven and I am perswaded none doth so but you travelled to set forth your late invented and unconceivable Looking-glass which like Randolphs Pedler you will not fall to vent amongst other Popish trumperies and indeed you shew your self a pedling Scholar in bringing it in implicitly denying what you had expresly asserted a little before for you told us that Saints could hear at any distance but now as if your conscience had checkt you for that you tell us that its God in whose presence they are that reveals it to them But secondly how doe you prove that God is the Author or Cause of prayers to Saints He did never so much as command them nor the Prophets or Apostles in Scripture give us one example of them Till you prove it a Christian dutie you cannot intitle God to it as the Cause of it any more than to sin which you say he doth onely suffer and permit p. 79. God doth not allow any to give his glory to another much less doth he concur in assisting him therein Thirdly its false that its the property of every Cause to relate to its effects and so to represent the same as Looking-glasses do faces and other opposed objects If this were true then when you see a workman you should in him see all his works and so one man should be a Looking-glass to another which would make good store of Looking-glasses and strange ones too T is true some causes doe represent their effects so there are effects that represent their Causes and that more like glasses representation of the face or other objects So that you might as well prove that every effect doth represent its Cause
this precept Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup 1 Cor. 11.28 And he further tells them That as oft as they did so they did shew forth the Lords death that is they did according to their duty attaine to the end of the Sacrament 2. The whole or both kinds are necessary for the obtaining of that end because 1. Otherwise the passion of Christ is represented Aquinas Aquin. 3. q. 76. Art 2. ad 1 m. saith of the whole Valet ad representandam c. It avails for the representation of the passion of Christ in which the blood was separated and apart from the body therefore in the forme of consecration of the blood there is mention of its effusion It s a great mistake of Papists that they look at Christ in the Sacrament not as suffering and shedding his blood but under another consideration whereas the end of the Sacrament is to shew forth the Lords death 2. Because otherwise whole Christ should not be received but his body only without his blood and consequently should have imperfect instead of perfect nourishment It s granted by Popish Schoolmen that although whole Christ be under the form of bread and whole Christ under the form of wine Aquin. Supr yet Ex vi Sacramenti c. i. e. by the power of the Sacrament the body of Christ only is under the species of bread and his blood only under the species of wine Petrus de Palude is full in this saith he There ought to be a two-fold matter of this Sacrament viz. the matter of meat and drink because the effect of the Sacrament ought to be representd perfectly and in a manner agreeable to nature because Sacraments work that which they figure but the effect of this Sacrament is the perfect nourishment of the soul therefore the matter representing ought to be by perfect refection of the body which is not but by meat and drink See more to this purpose in Cassand de Sacr. Com. sulutraque specie p. 1034. c. 4. The primitive Christians yea and all succeeding Christians for above a thousand years after Christ did practise according to Christs institution and example The first that rejected the Cup were the Manichees against whom Pope Gelasius made a Decree that they should either communicate in both kinds or in neither yea Christs institution was the ground of the first Christians practise as Cassander shews and with him Bonaventure Cass de Sacr. Com. c. p. 1019 1020 1021. Bon. apud Cass ibid. who saith the reason of both kinds is dispositively from nature but completively from divine institution which hath ordained these two signes to signifie one perfect refection The Eastern Churches have both kinds to this day and that upon this ground Sure then these Christians did more reverence Christs institution then the Popes followers do and looked upon it not as a bare example that may be rejected but as a divine precept whereby thy conceived themselves obliged to duty 3. You say Wherâ—fore thâ— Romane Church believing Christs institution of the Sacramâ—nt to have been under both kinds giveth to it its full due Reply 1. I wonder that you who are sometimes so generous as that you will give God more then you owe him or otherwhile so strict with him that he shall not have a mite more then his due But 2. How can you say you give the Sacrament its full due when you take away one of those signes which Christ hath ordained to be used in it I believe if you took away the bread and gave the people only the cup which crochet may come into the head of some Pope for any thing I know you would say you gave Christs institution its full due but if you give it its full due when you leave onely one kind what do you think they did who used both did they supererogate or were they superstitious Surely either you give too little or they too much to Christs institution 3. How silly is it to say You believe Christ did institute it under both kinds the Devills believe it so many Turks Pagans Jews yet give not Christs institution its full due They look upon Christs actions as of a private man eating and drinking with his Disciples but no way obligatory to them or others and you give it no more Lastly I appeal to any rational man whether Christs institution of the Sacrament under both kinds may not probably require from us a conformity of practise withall considering the practise of the Church of God in her purest times and the good or no apparent prejudice that can come to us by it It s evident that an Antichristian Spirit in Rome puts her on to thwart Christs institutions that so she may set up her own inventions Christ instituted Baptism in one only Element of water and as if that were defective the Roman Church hath added salt spiâ—â—le c. He institutes his Supper in two Elements of bread and wine and as if these were too many she restraines the people to the use of one only So that probably had Christ instituted bread onely you would have added the cup that the institution might have something of your Lord God's the Pope 4. You say For the Communion under one kind there being no Commandement forbidding the same it is rashness in an high degree and want of charity to condemn her as sacriledgious for so doing Reply 1. Whether it be rashness in us to condemn Rome of Sacriledg or in Rome to deprive Christian people of the Cup let any judge who doth but consider the fathers of this sacriledge the Manichees the rise of it Non ex constitutione aliqua Cassand supr p. 1035. c. Not by any constitution in any approved Primitive Councel but only by custom which is oft times the patron of much wickedness 2. If it be rashness to condemn Rome as sacrilegious c. one of your Popes was guilty of this high degree of rashness with us who expresly decrees that this division of one and the same mystery could not he made Sine grandi Sacrilegio without hainous Sacriledge 3. It is no rashness to condemn her of sacriledge for the Cup is an holy thing having divine Institution Apostolical and primitive Administration It must therefore needs follow that the taking away of this can be no less then Sacrilege Aquin. 22 ae q. 99. Art 3. nay according to Aquinas its the highest kind of Sacriledg But it s strange to see what little â—â—gard divine Institution or Apostolical practise hath with Papals â— though sometimes they accuse us of novelty and cry up themselves as the only followers of divine Institutions Apostolical traditions and primitive practice we must be branded with heresie for disceding from them yet here they are in another strain and because we use the Cup according to Christs Institution and primitive practice we are
necessity doth require and this is possible in our way c. Whence I infer that seeing charity reacheth only thus far that a man should endeavour to devote himself to God and divine exercises omitting other things so far as he can It cannot therefore extend to perfect and absolute obedience to Gods will This endeavour was all that St. Paul attained to Philip 3.11 12 13 14. It s most false and an uncomfortable Doctrine to true souls to say many a good endeavour burns in Hell For either such endeavours were not real or not seasonable and so not good But prove that a real a seasonable endeavour burns in Hell 2ly You answer It s equally unnatural to endeavour impossibilities and to desire things unknown Who would chose but smile to see one leap and skip as aiming to soà r and fly in the aire knowing it to be possible only for birds that are fitted with wings and feathers for the purpose Reas 1. There is a twofold impossibility 1. Natural or simple impossibility when a thing cannot naturally be done 2. Moral when the thing is in its own nature possible but there are divers intervening obstructions which for the present make it impossible 2. therefore I answer things that are simply or naturally impossible are not to be endeavoured we are not to endeavour to be Gods to make a humane body without the quantity and qualities of such a body to place one body in two places or two bodies in one or as your instanc is to fly in the aire as birds though perhaps art might make this possible But if the things have only a moral impossibility there is no question but they may be endeavoured And this way only are the Commandments of God impossible to us they are not contrary but according to right reason only reason being crazed its unable to be conformed to this rational Law this is asserted by St. Paul Rom. 8.3 What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh c. The impossibility is not in it self but in our flesh that is our corruptions It were not unnatural for a poor man that owes a summe of money to endeavour to pay it though at present he be unable to pay any considerable part of the summe Nay it were wickednesse in him to lay aside endeavour because of present impotency qui non potest quod debet debet quod potest Hereafter we shall be able to do Gods Will at present we rather endeavour to do it then actually do it only here is our comfort we have a gratious father who will accept of his childrens endeavours as if they actually did what he commanded them 2. Obj. There are no particular persons can be pointed out of whom you can say these keep the Commandments Answ 1. Indeed to point at any particular that doth keep the Commandments is hard no man knowing Eccles 9. whether he be worthy of love or hatred Reply You have but worded it all this while now you come to speak indeed and now you are rather with then against us The Commandments say you may be kept but its hard to point at any particular c. 1. Hereby you tell us that your self have performed a very hard work for you have given us divers examples of particular men and women that have kept them 2. You comply with old Pelagians whose answer you borrow for when they were bid to instance in any that kept the Commandments they answered that they said not who did but who might keep them to which Hierom replyed Egregii Doctores c. Brave Doctors who say that may be done which they cannot shew us was ever done Hierom. You are the posterity of these Brave Doctors and the same weapons that slew your Fathers will kill you 3. The text you urge shewes only that by outward events none kows whether he have the love or hatred of God outward events coming alike to all Answ 2. But that all in general may keep them Christ himself assures it 1 Tim. 2. Wiling all to be saved God wills no thing impossible and he that wills the end wills the means Rep. You ventured very far in your last answer even to the wounding of your cause and therefore do wisely to come off and apply a plaister to your wound before you make a fresh assault This assertion is as wicked as the other is vain Can all in general keep the Commands Is not faith a branch of the Commandments Yet the Scripture expressly saith of some that they could not beleeve John 12.39 Is it possible for reprobates vessels of wrath to keep the Commandments Aquinas in that place I lately mentioned shewes they cannot How then can all in general 2. The Text you urge as the words of Christ himself Aug. Enchir c. 103. do not prove any thing but that God would have some of all kinds of men saved Kings Private men Noble Ignoble High Low Learned Unlearned as Augustin truly expounds it 3. You falsly suppose that perfect personal obedience is the means of salvation If you had spoken of man under a covenant of works you had said truth teaching that as God wills mans salvation so he requires as a necessary means thereunto that man in his own person should perfectly obey Gods Commandments But blessed be God who hath made a New Covenant with us through Jesus Christ who is become The Lord our righteousnes 4. If this perfect obedience be the necessary means of salvation then it s not only possible that some may keep the Commandments but its certain that all that are saved do keep them and then it were not such an hard matter to name such as have and do keep them You that can Canonize Saints can tell who are saved your hope having the Keys of Heaven at his girdle can tell who goes in and consequently who hath kept the Commandments 3. Object Our condition excludes capacity of perfect obedience Answ It s in the power of men to love God so far forth as the capacity of their condition reacheth this is sufficient to denominate and render the subject it is in perfect Reply 1. The former part and indeed the main of your assertion is the same with what Protestants say against you We say and professe it that so far as the capacity of our condition reacheth it s in our power to love God and hence we infer that we cannot keep the Law perfectly because we are in an imperfect condition our knowledg is but in part and our love is no more Adam could have loved God perfectly for the capacity of his condition reached it so shall we do in Heaven Aquin. 12.9.109 when that which is imperfect shall be done away But it s not thus with any man at present regeneration is not perfect there are seeds of corrouption as Aquinas confesseth 2. The later part of your assertion is clearly false That power which is according to the
its probable his Monk Austin was not free In the life of Austin p. 511 512 and therefore when he came amongst the Brittains who had the Gospel and many Bishops and learned men amongst them he was rejected by them for which Hierom Porter calls them Schismaticks maintaining errors yea that held many things repugnant to the unity of the Catholick Church Therefore we may at least probably suppose them Orthodox being opposite to those innovations the Bishop of Râ—â—â—e by his Apostles would have brought upon them 2 To your minor Saint Austines Church and doctrine were the same with the now Roman or the Roman Church in Gregory the Great 's time was the same it is at thiâ— present I answer could you prove this it would make much for you but hic labor hâ—c opus est this is too difficult a work for you and therefore you pass it off with a reference of us to a company of quotations to no purpose There is no Protestant Writer that I meet with that affirms Austins Church and Doctrine were the same with the now Roman Perkins in his Exposition of the Creed as I can understand him doth not but rather saith the contrary for speaking of the present Church of Rome he saith They hold justification by works of grace they maintain a daily sacrifice of the b dy of Christ in the Mass for the sins of quick and dead they worship images c. Thus then it appears that the old Church of Rome is changed and is now at this day of a Spâ—use of Christ become an Harlot and therefore no more a Church of Christ indeed than the carkass of a dead man that wears a living mans garment is a living man though he look never so like him This same is the very judgement of all Protestants I meet with and is most fully and clearly demonstrated by the learned Doctor Morton in his above mentioned appeal where he largely shews what was the judgement of Saint Gregory in those main points of controversie betwixt Protestants and Papists and how far Rome at present is from that faith which Saint Gregory taught and all this he doth by the testimonies of the most learned Papists Your mention of all the English Cronicles is but a Popish vaunt be pleased in your next to mention the places where they affirm your doctrine to be the same with Saint Gregories and their words till then I suspend all further answer to this Argument which as it is the last it is the weakest and most evidently false in its propositions as I doubt not it will appear to the judicious Reader CHAP. XII Of certain Objections made against the Roman Church answered YOu begin your Chapter with a sad complaint of enemies of the Roman Church in these words The enemies of the Roman Church have not shewn more pride in contemning her power then malice in raising false and slanderous reports against her good name therefore I will endeauour in this Chapter to clear her fame mainly clouded and shot at by the ensuing objections Answ When you charge the Objectors with slander you seem to be ignorant of the nature and definition of slander There cannot be slander where there is no lying accusation or a charging of such things upon others whereof they are not guilty And this your Aquinas will tell you is true Now can you say that the Objectours charge you with that whereof you are not guilty If their accusation be false why do you not disown the things they charge you with but rather defend them You affirm that Christs Body may be in divers places at once that the Mass with Altars images and relicks are to be adored that Saints and Angels are Mediatours c. If it be true why do you charge the Objectors with slander in the reporting of them But let vs examine the Answers to the Objections 1 Objection THe first objection is The Church of Rome teacheth Christs body to be present in many places at once which implyeth contradiction Answ 1. The measure of Gods power is his will and his will is above the reach of our capacitie therefore no wonder if God oftentimes doth that we cannot dive into the understanding of I reply 1. If you speak of Gods absolute Power it s not measured by his Will God is able to do more then he hath done or will do Of this absolute power John the Baptist speaks Math. 3.9 God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham Thus we grant he is able to make more works and of a piece of bread to raise up an humane body he can turn one thing into another of a different kind This Power as it s not measured by Gods Will so it s not the foundation or reason of our faith whereby we believe the existence of any thing But 2 If you speak of Gods executive power which is the power measured by his Will whereof you speak then we affirme this presence is impossible to God because contrary to his will as I shall shew even now 3 Whereas you say Gods Will is above our capacity c. Rom. 11.34 Deutr. 29.29 I answer Gods Will comes under a twofold Consideration it s either secret or revealed that part of his will which is secret as it concerns not our knowledge so neither doth it call for our faith or obedience but his revealed will is for us to know and obey If then you speak of Gods secret will you shew your self presumptuous intruding into such things as you ought not but if onely of his revealed then you imply that this Politopie is expressed and revealed unto us Now this I utterly deny for evidence whereof I shall premise that there are two volumes of Gods will whereby it s fully expressed unto us viz. Reason and Scripture by the former its expressed more imperfectly and darkly by the latter most fully and clearly The former is subordinate to the latter and the latter is perfective of the former Whatsoever else testifies of Gods Will it s in subordination to these and is to be tryed by them Nor are we to account any mans dictate to be Gods will that doth not agree with one or both of these I shall therefore shew the dissonancy of your Doctrine 1. to Reason then 2. to Scripture 1. It s contrary to Reason Aquin. Suppl 3. part q. 83 Art 3. ad 4m. that one body should be present in many places at once without the destruction of that body Aquinas saith Vnum corpus c. One body cannot be at once locally in two places no not by a miracle and he gives this reason because to be in many places at once is repugnant to the very nature of an Individuum which is to be divided in it self for it would follow that it should be in a distinct posture whence it follows that for the same body to be locally at once in divers places includes contradictiion as for a
still hereticks and cursed to hell by the Tridentine Conventicle To say there is no express command for the Cup therfore it cannot be sacriledge to take it away is false for it may be sacriledge to take away an holy thing though there be no express command for the thing You say there is no command for the people to use the Cup. Now if this be so I am confident you cannot shew me an express command for the peoples eating the bread which you seem to grant in saying that in the primitive times the people sometimes received the cup not the bread which they durst not have done if there had been an express command for receiving the bread Now I pray resolve us whether it would be sacriledg to take away from the people both bread and wine If it be not sacrilegious then it is evident your people stand at the Popes mercy for their partaking at all of the Sacrament and for any thing I see he may take it quite from them If it be sacrilegious then it s as evident that sacriledge depends not absolutely on a particular command and that its truely sacrilegious to take away the cup from them 4. There is a Command for both Let a man examine himselfelf and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup 1 Cor. 11.28 v. 25. from whence Dionysius Carthusiensis infers that in the Primitive Church the Sacrament was administred under both kinds This do ye as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me i. e. as Dionysius expounds it take this cup and drink of it So t is said He took the Cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it And they all drank of it Mat. 26.27 You answer These words indeed Doe thâ—s in commemoration of me Drink ye all of this imply a Commandement but concerning onâ—ly Priests to whom as the pâ—wer of making so the Obligation of taking under both kinds is peculiar and proper The Reason is because hereby as the words clearly bear he chiefly aâ—mes at a remembrance of his death and passion which including a separation of his soul from his body and of his blood from his flesh cannot be so lively and so fully represented under one kind Reply 1. Do the words onely imply a command are they not as express and full a command as can be 2. How may it appear that it concerns onely Priests that the Obligation of taking under both kinds is peculiar and proper to them there are divers reasons to the contrary 1. If it concerned onely Priests then the people could not be able to produce any precept of Christ for their receiving at all because with this is joyned the command of eating the bread and to these all precepts of this nature are reducible 2. Christ you say in the words doth chiefly aim at a remembrance of his death and passion which cannot be so lively and so fully represented under one kinde But the people are able to remember Christs death and passion as well as the Priests yea and are as much obliged thereto in regard of their particular interest in the benefits of Christ represented in the Sacrament and particularly by the Cup. Which benefits are the ground of our receiving of this Element as appears by the Evangelist Drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sin Supr It cannot be denied but the reason of this Precept doth as much concern the people as the Priests the precept therefore must also concern them 3. There were no Priests present with Christ at his Institution for according to Papals none were present but the twelve Apostles Now they were not Massing Priests for first its the common opinion amongst you that the order of Priesthood was not actually conferd till after Christs resurrection when he sent them and breathed on them Joh. 20. He could not therefore give a command to Priests when there were no Priests with him 2. The twelve Apostles according to the Popish Schoolmen and others did represent Bishops not ordinary Priests who as Aquinas severall times affirms were the successours of the seventie Disciples 4. If none were with Christ but the twelve which is questionable it is most evident that they did represent believers and that the command concerned them Cassander shews this out of divers antient Authors viz. Paschasius Rathertus Chrysostome Theophylactus Cyprian Origen and Augustine Cass de sacr Com. sub utraque spec p. 1019. And certainly if it were not thus the Apostle did in vain urge the Institution and Precept of Christ to the Saints or private Christians in Corinth and that in order to their practice they might have told him that it concern'd himself and such as he but not them You bolster up your selves much by your word Make to whom as the power of making c. hereby endeavouring to perswade us that Christ speaks to sacrificers about sacrificing hereby shut out the people froÌ„ the cup. But without any reason for if it could prove any thing it should seem rather to appropriate the use of the bread to the Priests then the Cup seeing they have Christned it an incruent sacrifice the wine after consecration being reall and true blood But I wonder seeing our criticall adversaries are so full of this word that the hot headed Rhemists did not translate it Make this if it were for nothing but to oppose the Heretical Calvinisti that render the Greek Do this Sure they were convinced that this conceit was but worthy of private observation and therefore creeps in with the note onely but further its observable that S. Matthew and S. Mark say onely Take eat This is my body drink you all of it He gave it to them and they all drank of it S. Luke saith Do this not mentioning taking or eating or drinking of it S. Paul unites them in one saying Take Eat This do in remembrance of me So that to do this is to take and eat the bread and drink the wine according to Christs Institution which doth principally concern the people And this Dyonisius Carthusiensis doth propound as probable And its further observable that whereas S. Luke onely of all the Evangelists doth use the words Do this he onely useth it with reference to the bread which belongs say you to the people not to the Cup which is the sacrificers portion The precept which you mention out of S. John Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood c. which you say extends to the Laitie I shall not much build upon because I conceive it s not spoken of the Sacramentall eating and drinking This onely I shall gather from it that Christ is perfect nourishment and that as his flesh is meat so his blood is drink both necessary for our nourishment and that therefore as we have the Bread in the Sacrament to assure