body frō al the Church to the end that faith may be edified and builded vp And to this purpose S. Cyrill It is meete that all the faithfull beleeue that howsoeuer our Lord be absent in body yet he is present by his power to all them that loue him c. And reciprocally no man doubteth seeing hee ascended into heauen that hee is absent in the flesh though present in the spirit What is it then I will not leaue you comfortlesse that is how that after he is ascended into heauen he is in vs by his Spirit And againe He is absent according to his Humanity but present according to his Diuinitie Vigilius Bishop of Trent dissenteth not from the former saying The Sonne of God had a beginning as concerning the nature of his 〈◊〉 but he had not any if you consider the nature of his Diuinitie in regard of that he is a creature but in regard of this the Creator in respect of that hee is a subiect to be contained in one place but in respect of this it is not possible for him to be contained in any place And this is the Catholike faith confession which the Apostles haue deliuered vnto vs c. Beda saith Christ ascending vp into heauen after the resurrection left his Disciples corporally howbeit the presence of his Diuine Maiesty did neuer leaue them I will conclude these testimonies with the saying of Bernard I goe from you saith the Lord according to my humanitie but I doe not goe away from you according to my Diuinitie I leaue you with my corporall presence but I aide and assist you with the presence of my Spirit But it may be said that the body of Christ being now a glorified body may bee in diuers places at once No so long as the humanity of Christ continues to bee a Creature so long is it limited to one place Theodoret speakes to this purpose It is glorified with diuine grace adored of the celestiall powres but notwithstanding a body subiect to that limitation that it was before And Augustine saith The Lord is on high but the Lord which is verity and truth that is to say in as much as he is God is here also it must needs be that the bodie wherein he rose againe should continue in one place albeit that his truth be dispersed abroad euerie where With whom doth consent Gregory Nazianzen We teach the same Christ consisting of a circumscriptible bodie and of an incircumscriptible spirit of a body which may be contained in a place and a spirit which no place is able to containe Now against such a cloud of witnesses with one consent agreeing that the body of Christ is finite and so limited to one place and cannot be in many places at once doth the Church of Rome contest to maintaine this their Sacrifice like the Vbiquitaries in ancient times who would haue the body of Christ to fill all places But they obiect That Christ is God and therefore omnipotent and consequently can do all things Why then can he not make his body to exist in many places at once I answer A posse ad velle non valet consequentia Christ will not doe all he can And yet I thinke I may bee bold to say that Christ as God cannot doe all things not that this implies any weakenesse in Christ for not to be able to doe some things argues his perfection as Christ cannot lye cannot deceiue cannot sinne for so saies S. Augustine If God could doe these things it were an 〈◊〉 and want of power in him for great is the power of the Word in that it cannot lye for that therein cannot bee any contradiction as it is and it is not Nay some things in the creature God cannot doe for as Aquinas speakes God is not Almightie in respect of the things wherein there is 〈◊〉 because they cannot be accounted of as possible things as he cannot make an 〈◊〉 man nor a Triangle without three angles their lines For this is to make a thing to be and not to be Neither can he as I suppose make a naturall body without quantitie or quantitie without dimensions or that which hath dimension to be in diuers places at once and yet to remaine entire in both places for that were ro make a contradiction true that the whole body of Christ should be here and the whole body of Christ should not be here Wherefore when the Papists ascribe vnto the body of Christ multipresence or vertue to be in a thousand places at one instant what is this but to suppose an impossibility and to take from the natural properties of a true humane body and thus as they destroy the signe in the Sacrament so by their sacrifice doe they subuert the very substance of the thing signified Argument 19. The last Argument is taken from the vncertainty of this Sacrifice and is thus framed That which is a true propitiatory Sacrifice for sinne giues assurance vnto him for whom it is offered of remission of his sinne But the Sacrifice of the Masse giues not aslurance of remission of sinne Ergo The Sacrifice of the Masse is not propitiatory The Minor is thus proued That which dependeth not vpon the institution of the Sacrament nor vpon the sacramentall words as the Papists terme them but vpon the intention of the Priest can giue no assurance of remission For if the Priest intend not with his minde albeit he speaketh the words with his mouth yet according to their owne doctrine he consecrateth not and so the body of Christ is not really in the Sacrament and consequently it cannot be a proper Sacrifice And thus they tye the grace of God not to his institution accompanied with his holy Spirit but to the intention of the consecrating Priest and the Son of God shall not be ours that is the life which is in him shall not distribute it selfe vnto the faithfull further then the discretion of this intention shal extend And it shall be in the power of the Priest to frustrate and send away empty a whole Assembly of Christians gathered together with desire to receiue saluation by this Sacrifice Yea howsoeuer the people are apt to depart without any benefit to their soules for if the intention of the Priest be not to consecrate or that in the act of consecration his minde bee otherwise busied in thinking of other matters then the body of Christ are not vnder the formes of Bread and Wine neither is it a reall Sacrifice And neuerthelesse if he doe consecrate yet the people do not communicate therein because they are not assured of the Priests intention and therefore cannot be assuied of the Reall presence of the body of Christ. Now where there is not assurance in the communicating there can be no comfortable or sauing receiuing but rather sinfull for so S. Paul saies Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sin And they themseluer
Cain Pharaoh Saul and Iudas not as they were reprobates but as they were sinners for God say they doth equally intend and desire the saluation of all men and the incredulitie of man is the cause that remission and reconciliation is not applyed to all They hold moreouer that the end which God propounded to himselfe in deliuering his Sonne to death was not to apply the benefit of remission to some particular men nor doe they 〈◊〉 that Christ was appointed to death by his Father before God thought of sauing men One of them sayes That reconciliation being obtained there was yet no necessitie of application that is after saluation and reconciliation for almes was obtained there was no necessitie that any one should bee saued because hee will haue the decree of sending Christ in order to goe before the Decree of sauing those that beleeue therefore that God intended to send his Sonne when as yet hee had not intended to saue them that beleeue And the 〈◊〉 would haue this to be the end why God sent his Son namely to make the saluation of men possible and to lay open a way to himselfe whereby hee might saue sinners without any preiudice to his Iustice by this meanes say they God hath gotten power of sauing man because without the death of Christ by which the iustice of God was satisfied God could not bee willing to saue man But the Truth bids vs be of another opinion Wee doe acknowledge that Christ dyed for all men but we deny that by the death of Christ saluation and forgiuenesse of 〈◊〉 is obtained for all men or that reconciliation is made for Cain 〈◊〉 Saul Iud 〈◊〉 Neither doe we thinke that remission of sinnes is obtained for any one whose sinnes are not remitted or that saluation was purchased for him whom God from eternity hath decreed to condemne We deny that election is after the death of Christ seeing Christ doth euery where affirme that he dyed for his sheep and for those whom his Father gaue him And when we say that Christ dyed for all wee take it thus that the death of Christ is sufficient to saue 〈◊〉 doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that it is sufficient to saue all men that euer were are or 〈◊〉 bee if they did beleeue in him and that the cause why all men are not saued is not the insufficiency of the death of Christ but the incredulity of man Whosoeuer therefore shall say that Christ offered his body an expiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of euery particular man as of pharaoh Cain and Iudas hee doth by this doctrine openly mocke God for Christ is imagined to obtaine that from his Father which he knew would neuer profit as if God should grant to his Sonne the saluation of that man which from eternity he decreed to condemne for if Christ obtained reconciliation and remission of sinnes for Cain or Iudas whether considered as reprobates or as sinners yet he knew this reconciliation and remission should neuer be applyed vnto them and therefore their doctrine is as if Christ should say vnto his Father I pray thee receiue to 〈◊〉 those whom I know thou 〈◊〉 neuer receiue into 〈◊〉 and whom I know certainly to be condemned For Christ as God knew full well the secrets of election Surely these men doe their endeauour that Christian Religion should be made a mocking stocke Can God at one and the same time loue and hate a man Loue him because he giueth his Sonne for him and would haue reconciliation obtained for him hate him because from eternitie he decreed to condemne him Can God be so vniust as to punish one offence twice For once Christ as the Arminians teach sustained the punishment of 〈◊〉 and Iudas and for them made satisfaction vpon the crosse yet for the same sins doe the same persons suffer eternall death Obiect To strengthen their tottering and declining cause they alleadge scripture God so loued the world c. which place they rest to prooue Christs dying for all men wheras indeed by the world Christ vnderstandeth the noblest and most worthy creatures as in the sequel of the verse That al those that beleeue in him might not perish 〈◊〉 haue euerlasting lise Where what was obscure by the generall tearme of the world is explained by its restriction onely vnto the faithfull and in this sense is the word World 〈◊〉 Ioh. 6. 33. But albeit we grant that by the world is vnderstood mankind in generall yet it will not follow that Christ purchased saluation for all particular men but that he came to saue the whole nature of man though not all 〈◊〉 for in that hee redeemed some men it doth aboundantly testifie the loue of God to mankind Obiect 2. They assault vs with the words of 〈◊〉 Iohn Baptist Behold the lambe of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 away the sinnes of the world but hereby wee are to vnderstand that in the whole world no mans sinnes are remitted but by Christ as in the same sense Saint 〈◊〉 speakes In Christ all men are made aliue because no man is made aline but by him If a man say that 〈◊〉 taught all Greece and Italy Physicke hee doth not say that all particular men each seuerall person in Greece or Italy learned of him but that no man learned 〈◊〉 but from him Not to trouble you with many arguments the Thesis or true Position of this 〈◊〉 is this That Christ 〈◊〉 fus offere a not his body vpon the crosse to bee a propitiatory or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the sinnes of any reprobate but onely for the sinnes of the elect which haue in times past doe at this present and shall hereafter beleeue in Christ and attaine to true repentance This benefite then of Christs sacrifice is onely confined to beleeuers as the Apostle manifests whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood whereby it appeares that there is no propitiation without faith and consequently no obtaining of reconciliation And the same Apostle in the same epistle affordeth a strong testimony for the confirmation of this point for he sayes who shall lay any thing to the charge c. which place tells vs that they for whom Christ dyed cannot be condemned nor can any thing be layed to their charge but the reprobates are condemned and something is laide to their charge therefore Christ dyed not for them neither did he make satisfaction for their sinnes but onely for such as beleeue in him and for these alone doth hee also make intercession I pray not for the world but for them which thou hast giuen me So that the Ocean of Christs loue in offering of sacrifice and applying it is bounded within the shoare of beleeuers not extending it selfe vnto any reprobate wherefore the Scripture which is the best expositer of it selfe shewes that when it sayes Christ was a propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world meanes not of all men in generall
Iesuite of his owne society that hee might prooue the receiuing of the bread and the wine in the Eucharist not to bee any essentiall part of this sacrifice reasoneth negatiuely from Christ his institution thus It is very likely that Christ instituting this sacrifice did not make it of the essence of this sacrifice for the Priest to receiue for the Euangelists negatiue authority proones it it being probable that they relating the history of so great a mystery would not haue pretermitted so essentiall a rite thereof who doe expresly signifie that Christ did consecrate the Eucharist but that hee himselfe did take it they doe not report and immediately hee addes If the Priests receiuing of the bread and wine be of the essence of the Eucharist it ought to haue bin cleerely and plainely deliuered by the Euangelist From hence may bee collected thus much That wbosoeuer is not expressely related by the Euangelist concerning the institution of this sacrament is not essentiall or absolutely necessary thereunto This is Suarez his confession and as much as Luther and we desire for if the Euangelists haue not layde downe any institution of a sacrifice nor so much as named a a sacrifice in the Eucharist wee ought not to embrace it this therefore argues the malice of our aduersary Bellarmine who calls this a ridiculous manner of reasoning in vs which is vsed by a Doctour of his owne order not inferiour to himselfe in learning and iudgement Secondly let vs appeale vnto the iudgement of the Cardinall himselfe who answers in another case after the same manner for hee reciteth the Liturgies that passe vnder the name of Saint Iames because all things saith he contained in those liturgies and in the liturgies of other Fathers are not taken from the example or precept of Christ. Thus doth the Cardinalls argument frame it selfe whatsoeuer in the seruice of God is not by prescript precept or direct example of Christ confirmed is not lawfull or warrantable see now the partiality and philautia of the Cardinall for what hee thinkes commendable in himselfe he accounts ridiculous in another The Liturgie of Saint Iames is not lawfull because it contains many things not taken either from the example or commandement of Christ yet we may not say that the Masse is vnlawfull because it cannot be prooued by either example or commandement of Christ. Note here the Cardinall requires greater authority for the confirmation of a Liturgy then of their Massing sacrifice Wherefore when they vrge the lawfulnesse of this their sacrifice let vs reply Orthodoxally in the Cardinals owne words Shew vs either example or commandement from Christ and it shall 〈◊〉 For in this tempestuous night of opposition and contention wee haue nothing to steere our course by but by the compasse of Scripture and the Load-starre Christ in whom wee are to obserue dicta facta his words and his actions in his institution It is not vntrue that some Romanists haue thought that Christ did name the word sacrifice or oblation when he spake vnto his father albeit it be not mentioned by the Euangelist for they thought it necessary in consecration that Christ should haue vsed the words offering or sacrificing But that had beene strange forgetfulnesse in the 〈◊〉 to haue omitted the maine thing which must authorize this sacrifice and how did the spirit of the truth lead them into all truth if this were omitted which is the maine part of Gods seruice and the chiefe solace of a Christian soule But we will not 〈◊〉 them to so strict a taske as to finde in the institution of Christ the very words of a sacrifice or oblation it shall auaile them to proue any word tending to that purpose Bellarmine brags of the probate of the point and vseth this argument Christ offered himselfe vnder the forme of bread and wine vnto his father and bid his Apostles do this in remembrance of him therefore the Church may offer a sacrifice propitiatory according to Christs command laying Do this Who sees not here a Paralogisme or petitio principij For he takes that for granted which is the life of the cause and hee supposes that Christ offered himselfe vnder the formes of bread and wine which can neuer be proued and therefore is vnlikely to be granted by vs for if it can appeare that Christ at the institution of the Eucharist or Lords Supper did 〈◊〉 his body into the bread and wine and so did offer it vnto his father wee shall soone yeelde and the controuersie shall haue end But can any man beleeue that Christ carried his whole body in owne of his hands that he gaue it to be eaten to his Disciples which saw him present at the Table and heard him speaking to them both while they were eating him and afterward that the same sonne of man should at once both 〈◊〉 his owne body and 〈◊〉 intine and whole at Table That a true naturall body should be in many places at once Vnlesse hee were as Tursellian reports of St. Xanier one of Loyala's brood who was seene in a boate and ship both at once like Plautus his Amphitruo Sealiger layes downe his Axiome The numericall vnity of a finite thing cannot stand without continuity But Bellarmine sayth The very places wherein Christs body is are discontinued yea and the very body of Christ it selfe is 〈◊〉 from it selfe 〈◊〉 respect of place though not in respect of substance and quantity As though there could be any diuision of a materiall substance but by bounds of place or as if quantity were not both bounded and measured by place alone Or as if that sinite body which is in two places at once were not first diuided in it selfe So that we demaund of Bellarmine as once Paul did in another case Is Christ diuided The Papists do not say as once of old Behold here is Christ or there but which is much worse Behold Christ is both here and there and euery where in his true humane nature thus they blush not to teach impossibilities that the selfe same body should be all here and all not here all visible and all inuisible all vppon the Table and all in Heauen all eaten and all vneaten all in England and all at Rome Who sees not these impostures to be most palpable And for that Bellarmine will haue these words Do this to signifie as much as to sacrifice thereby to establish their great Diana the sacrifice of the Masse hee alleadgeth not one of the whole Catalogue of the Fathers who hath so interpreted those words Insomuch that his brother Cardinall dispairing of the proofe of the Masse by these words is faine to confesse Vt vel hoc ex loco vel alijs scripturae locis essicaciter probari non possit hoc esse sacrificium tamen ex eccle siae traditione idefficaciter probatur That albeit this sacrifice cannot be proued by this text Do this or by other places of
the pretended sacrifice of the Masse is not Propitiatory for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead The Maior is not denyed by our aduersaries The Minor is thus prooued Augustine saith Sacramentum est visibile signum inuisibilis gratiae a visible signe of inuisible grace so that in euery sacrament there is signum signatum the signe and the thing signified both which abide whole and intire in such sort as it is not possible that the one can be the other or any part of the other But the sacrifice of the Masse destroyeth the nature of a sacrament for it taketh away the substance of the bread which is the signe and seale of his body it taketh away the substance of the wine which is the symbole of his blood and that by 〈◊〉 and altering them as some of them hold or els by annihilating them as others say or by reducing them into their first matter from substances into accidents contrary vnto all nature yea contrary to the things signified for there ought to be resemblance betweene the signe and the thing signified as Manna did represent the bread of life which came downe from heauen in baptisme water which washeth away corporall spottes the blood of Christ which cleanseth our spirituall pollutions bread and wine which nourish our naturall life the body and blood of Christ which sustaine and feede vs vnto eternall life But roundnesse whitenesse moistnesse and rednesse which they giue vs for signes what analogy or proportion haue they with our spirituall nourishment These accidents of bread and wine haue no power or vertue to feede the body but the substance of bread and wine they leaue those and take away this where then is the sacrament when the signe is abolished Againe the sacrifice of the Masse taketh away the thing signified in the Lords Supper What 's that It is the body and blood of Christ yea Christ himselfe For the very body and blood of Christ was giuen only for them which 〈◊〉 in him and abide in him for them saith the Apostle which dwell in him by faith and in whose hearts he dwelleth for them saith Saint Augustine which are his members and therefore the same Father saith a man may eate panem Domini the bread of the Lord and yet not eate panem Dominum the Lord the bread making a difference betweene the bread in the sacrament and that life-giuing bread which is Christ himselfe represented by the symboles in the Eucharist But oh what iniury is offered by the Papists in their sacrifice vnto the body and blood of Christ which is the food of eternall life when dogs and swine that is reprobates and hypocrites shall bee made pertakers of it nay and these ex opere operato by vertue of the very act of receiuing doe merit remission of sinnes and relaxation of punishment nay a Mouse or a Dog may eate the precious body of our Lord Iesus Christ which doth so 〈◊〉 their greatest Doctors that if it be demanded Whether if a Dog or a Mouse doe eate the 〈◊〉 Host they doe 〈◊〉 the very body of Christ they are at a non plus and know not what to answer Wee affirme and dare iustifie That the signe of the Sacrament may be receiued of all that are of competent age in the Church But Res Sacramenti the thing signified in the Sacrament can onely be receiued by the faithfull which are rightly of the Church for so saith Origen Of this true and verie meate of this Word made flesh no wicked or vngodly man can eate because it is the Word and Bread of life because hee that eateth of this bread liueth for euer And S. Augustine speakes plainely to this purpose saying The Signes are common to the good and 〈◊〉 but the thing proper to the faithfull alone therefore the Apostles did eate Panem Dominum The bread which was the Lord but Iudas onely Panem Domini the Bread of the Lord against the Lord. Doth not this take away Christ himselfe when the Church shall giue vnto wicked men and vnbeleeuers and they themselues shall receiue the very substantiall Body of Christ. Againe they destroy the humanity of Christ for the which the Fathers of the Church haue so mightily contended against diuers Heretikes for when without warrant of Gods word they ascribe vnto this body a property of being in a thousand places at once how do they not destroy the nature of a true Humane body which can be but in one place at one time as is prooued Pag. 198. Nay doth not this Sacrifice make Christ a dead Christ in that they doe really separate his body from his blood making them in consecration and after consecration to subsist apart which separation was the very death of Christ And whereas Christ saith I am with you vnto the end of the world And Where two or three are gathered together in my name I will be in the middest of them These and the like speeches are to be vnderstood of the Diuinitie of Christ which filleth all places as these Speeches You shall not have me alwaies with you It is expedient for you that I goe away The heauens must containe him vntill the restauration of all things are to be vnderstood of his Humanity which is circumscriptiuely onely in one place at once And so the Fathers vnderstand these places Origen saith It is not the man which is euery where Where two or three be gathered together in his name Or yet is alwaies with vs vntill the end of the world Or which is in euery place where the faithfull are assembled but it is the Diuine power which is in Iesus And so Saint Augustine You haue the poore alwaies with you c. Let not good men be troubled in respect of his maiestie prouidence grace c. It is fulfilled which he said I am alwaies with you In respect of the flesh which the Word tooke vpon it it is the same which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You shall not haue me alwaies The Church enioyed him but a few daies in respect of his bodily presence but now it possesseth him by faith and seeth him no more with these bodily eies c. And in another place vpon 〈◊〉 words Vado venio ad aos He went as men he staied behinde as God He went in as much as he was but in one place he staied and abode still in as much as hee was euery where By which words of S. Augustine it appeares that hee conceiued the Humane body of Christ to reside in one place and not to bee in many places at once And in another of his writings hee hath these words It is expedient for you that I goe Although that hee be alwaies with vs by his Diuinitie but if he had not gone away from vs corporally we should haue seen him daily with these carnall eies and should neuer haue beleeued in him spiritually c. And for this cause he hath absented himself in