good my positioÌ„ euen against themselues For seeing as they grant That God beholding all in a generall condemnation for originall sinne saueth the elect of mercie and iustly decreeth to condemne the reprobate for originall sinne it followeth of necessity that either some reprobate shall be saued which the papists neither dare nor may auouch or els that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is sinne indeed which is the doctrine I defend The consequution and illation is euident For if originall sinne be truly remitted in baptisme and be not truly sinne in the baptised then can none be iustly damned that are baptised for how shal they be iustly condemned for that which is remitted it cannot be And to graunt that all baptised persons shal be saued is most absurd neither can I thinke any papist so senselesse as to affirme the same For to name one for all their Pope Boniface the eight who as their owne deere frier Caranza saith entred into the popedome as a foxe reigned in it as a wolfe and died in the end as a dog is not I trow a saint in heauen and yet must we thinke he was baptised or els a terrible vae vobis will fall vpon our papists Now because the papists vse to boast that S. Austen is on their side I will prooue at large that he defendeth this my doctrine here deliuered and that I purpose in God to doe so plainely and euidently as none can stand in doubt thereof that shal seriously ponder my discourse The first place of Saint Austen SIcut caecitas cordis quam solus remouet illuminator Deus peccatum est quo in deum non creditur poena peccati qua cor superbum digna animaduersione punitur causa peccati cum mali aliquid caeci cordis errore committitur ita concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccatiest defectione consentientis vel contagione nascentis Like as the blindnesse of heart which onely God the illuminatour doth remooue is sinne through which man beleeueth not in God and the punishment of sinne wherwith a proud heart is iustly chastened and the cause of sinne when through the blindnesse of heart any euill is committed euen so concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit coueteth is sinne because there is in it disobedience against the gouernment of the mind and also a punishment of sinne because it was rendred to the merits of the disobedient and it is also the cause of sinne by defection of him that consenteth or by contagion of the child that is borne In these wordes Saint Austen expresseth three things precisely first that concupiscence in the regenerate is the punishment of sinne secondly that it is the cause of sinne thirdly that it is sinne it selfe VVhich three S. Austen doth not onely distinguish but withall he yeeldeth three seuerall reasons for the same and that he speaketh of the regenerate it is euident in this because he speaketh of that concupiscence against which the good spirit striueth Most impudent therefore are the papists when they auouch with open mouth that Saint Austen onely calleth it sinne because it is the cause of sinne And the gentle reader may here also obserue that S. Austen compareth concupiscence of the flesh with that blindnesse of heart which breedeth infidelity in man which how great a sinne it is euery one can tell The second place of Saint Austen NEque enim nulla est iniquitas cum in vno homine vel superiora inferioribus turpitâ—r seruiunt vel inferiora superioribus contumaciter reluctantur etiam si vincere non sinantur For it is some iniquitie when in one man either the superiour parts shamefully serue the inferiour or the inferiour partes stubbornly striue against the superiour although they be not suffered to preuaile These words of Saint Austen are so plaine as the papists cannot possible inuent any euasion at all For he saith in plaine and expresse tearmes that the rebellion which is betweene the flesh and the spirit is sinne yea that it is euen then sinne when it is resisted and cannot preuaile At which time and in which respect the papists will haue it to be merite but no sinne at all Behold a flat contradiction it is sinne saith Saint Austen it is merite and no sinne say the papists The third place of Saint Austen SI in parente baptizato potest esse peccatum non esse cur eadem ipsa in prole peccatum est ad haec respondetur dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo non vt non sit sed vt in peccatum non imputetur Sequitur non ergo aliquid remanet quod non remittatur cum fit sicut scriptum est propitius dominus omnibus iniquitatibus nostris sed donec fiat quod sequitur qui sanat omnes languores tuo qui redimet de corruptione vitam tuam manet in corpore mortis huius carnalis concupiscentia If concupiscence can both be in the baptised parent and withall be no sinne why is the selfe same made sinne in the child to this this is the answere that the concupiscence of the flesh is forgiuen in baptisme not so that it remaine not but so that it is not reputed for sinne Not any thing therefore remaineth which is not forgiuen seeing that is done which is written God is mercifull to all our iniquities but vntill that be done also which followeth which healeth all thine infirmities which redeemeth thy life from corruption carnall concupiscence abideth in the bodie of this death Saint Austen in these wordes sheweth plainely that concupiscence remaineth aswell in the baptised parent as in the vnbaptised child yet with this difference that it is sinne in the parent though not for sinne imputed but in the child it both is sinne and is also so reputed And the reader must not forget that Saint Austen saith Nothing remaineth which is not forgiuen He doth not say Nothing is sinne that remaineth or thus No sinne remaineth but thus Not any thing remaineth which is not remitted As if he had said sinne indeede remaineth still in the baptised but shall not be imputed to the faithfull Marke well gentle reader the phrase which Saint Austen here vseth It is forgiuen that still remaineth saith Saint Austen or not any thing remaineth which is not forgiuen Therefore he must needes meane that something remaineth which is sinne though pardoned and not reputed sinne For nothing hath need of forgiuenesse but that which is sinne indeed The fourth place of Saint Austen I Deo apostolus non ait facere bonum sibi non adiacere sed perficere Multum enim boni facit qui facit quod scriptum est post concupiscentias tuas non eas sed non perficit quia non
I find these expresse wordes Sic Papa dicitur habere caelesteâ— arbitrium ideo etiam naturam rerum immutat substantiam vnius rei applicando alij de nihilo potest aliquid facere So the Pope is said to haue celestiall arbitrement and therefore doth he alter the nature of things applying the substantiall parts of one thing to an other and so can make of nothing something Thus the papists write of their Pope and he is well pleased therewith And yet the truth is that as man can in some cases at some time make one thing of an other so in all cases at all times to make some thing of nothing is proper to God alone The Popes parasites write thus of his power in generall Sicut non est potestas nisia deo sic nec aliqua temporalis vel ecclesiastica imperialis vel regalis nisi à Papa in cuius foemore scripsit Christus rex regum dominus dominantium Like as there is no power but of God so is there neither any temporall nor ecclesiasticall neither imperiall nor regall but of the Pope in whose thigh Christ hath written the King of kings and Lord of lords Loe here gentle reader two things are proper to God alone the one to be King of kings and Lord of lords the other to be the author of all power both which you see here ascribed to the Pope The Pope himselfe from his owne pen Gregorie the ninth deliuereth vs this doctrine Ad firmamentum coeli hoc est vniuers alis ecclesiae fecit deus duo magna luminaria id est duas instituit dignitates quae sunt pontificalis authoritas regalis potestas sequitur vt quanta est inter solem lunam tanta inter pontifices reges differentia cognoscatur To the firmament of heauen that is of the vniuersall church God made two lights pontificall authoritie and power royall that we may know there is asmuch difference between Popes and kings as there is betweene the sunne the moone The glosse setteth downe precisely how farre a king is inferiour to a Pope that is to any bishop of Rome in these words Restat vt pontificalis dignitas quadragesies septies sit maior regali dignitate It remaineth that the dignitie of the Pope is fourtie times seuen times greater than the power of the king Now touching the kissing of the Popes feete I answere that some Christian kings and emperours vpon a blind zeale not grounded in knowledge humbling themselues to the Bishop of Rome and yeelding vp their soueraigne rights to him opened the window to all antichristian tyrannie For in short time after as is alreadie prooued the Romish bishops became so lordly and insolent that they tooke vpon them to depose the emperors to translate their empires and to dispose at their pleasures of their royall scepters and regalities Much more might be said in this matter but for that the Pope hath made it sacriledge to dispute of this I will here onely tell thee gentle reader what the Popes deere frier Sigebertus hath written of his holines These are his expresse words Vt pace omnium honorum dixerim haec sola nouitas non dicam haeresis nondum in mundo emerserat vt sacerdotes illius qui regnarefacit hypocritaÌ„ propter peccata populi doceant populum quod malis regibus nullam debeant subiectionem licet ei sacramentum fidelitatis fecerint nullam tamen debeant fidelitatem nec periuri dicantur qui contra regem senserint imo qui regi paâ—â—erit pro excommunicato habeatur qui contra regem fecerit noxa iniustitiae periuris absoluatur To speake by the fauour of all good men this sole noueltie I wil not say heresie was not yet known in the world that his priests who maketh an hypocrite to reigne for the sinnes of the people should teach the people that they owe no subiection to wicked kings and that although they haue taken the oth of fealtie yet doe they owe them no allegeance neither are they periured that thinke ill against the king yea he that obeyeth the king is this day reputed an excommunicate person and he that taketh part against the king is absolued from the crime of iniustice and periurie This is our very case gentle reader this day in England so liuely painted out in best beseeming coulours as if the writer had bene liuing euen now amongst vs. So then wee haue to obserue here for our instruction That the Popes owne monkes and friers haue thought as ill of the Popes dealings in former times as we thinke of his procedings in these latter dayes As also That popish religon hath alwaies bene condemned euen of great learned papists that liued in the Popes Church VVhereof none can be ignorant that will seriously peruse my bookes of Motiues and Suruey And this shall suffice for the first article to which if their hearts doe not faint them or their consciences condemne them the papists will frame some answere vndoubtedly The second Article touching the erroneous doctrine of the Popish masse The first member Of the impossibilitie of their supposed reall presence AQuinas the Iesuit Bellarmine the councell of Trent Melchior Canus Iosephus Angles and the rest of the Romish brood hold constantlie as an article of their christian faith That the true organicall and naturall bodie of Christ Iesus which was borne of the Virgin Marie which was crucified and nayled on the crosse which rose againe the third day from death and is circumscriptiuely and locally in heauen is also truelie really and substantially vnder the forme of bread and wine in the sacrifice of the popish masse But this is impossible as which implieth flat contradiction and consequently late romish religion consisteth of impossibilities falshoodes and contradictions The doubt hereof is onely in the assumption for proofe whereof I set downe this supposall with our Cardinall Bellarmine viz. That we are not bound to beleeue any thing which implyeth contradiction And because I will proceed sincerely yee shall heare his owne words thus doth he write Neque fides nostra ad id nos obligat vt ea defendamus quae euidenter implicant contradictionem Neither doth our faith bind vs so that wee must defend those things which implie euident contradiction But so it is that the popish imaginarie being of Christs bodie in a little round cake implieth in it selfe euident contradiction and cannot possibly be brought to passe For example no power vpon earth or in heauen can bring to passe that a bodie being three cubits long and one cubit broad remaining still so long and so broad shall be contained in another bodie of two cubits length and halfe a cubite breadth The reason hereof is euident because so to containe and be so contained implieth flat contradiction And this is the case now in controuersie concerning Christs supposed being in the round popish cake For if Christs naturall and
organicall bodie be there as popish faith auoucheth then must the papists beleeue euident contradictions contrarie to Iesuit Bellarmines resolution yea contrarie to all power all Logicke all reason All the papists in England are not able to solue this reason I challenge them all and aduise them to consult together and to craue helpe of their friends elswhere and then to let me haue their speedie answere hereunto Cardinall Caietane affirmeth boldly that no text in the whole Gospell doth prooue effectually and conuince the reader to vnderstand these words properly This is my bodie For which respect frier Ioseph aduiseth grauely to read their Cardinall caute warily Aquinas affirmeth constantly Corpus Christi non esse in pluribus locis simul secundū proprias dimensiones that Christs bodie is not in many places at once according to the proper dimensions thereof whose assertion is my flat position For Christs naturall bodie cannot be without those dimensions which naturally pertaine vnto it Durandus holdeth the very same opinion S. Austine saith plainely that Christs true bodie can be but in one onely place of heauen Vbi totum presentem esse non dubites tanquam deum in codem templo dei esse tanquam inhabitantem deum in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum Thou must not doubt saith S. Austen that Christ is wholly present euery where as God and in the same temple of God as God inhabiting it and in some one place of heauen for the manner of a true bodie Lo this graue father telleth vs that Christ as God is euery where but yet in respect of his true bodie he is onely in heauen and in some certaine place of heauen Only in heauen because the Scripture saith That he shall be there till the worlds end in some certaine place of heauen to declare the nature and veritie of a true bodie indeed So then if he were present as the papists would haue him his bodie should lose the nature and veritie of a true bodie indeed Againe in another place S. Austen hath these words Donec seculum finiatur sursum est dominus sed tamen etiam hic nobiscum est veritas domini corpus enim in quo resurrexit in vno loco esse oportet veritas autem eius vbique diffusa est Our Lord is aboue vntill the worlds end but yet his truth is with vs here for the bodie of our Lord wherein he rose againe must needs be in one place but this truth is diffused euery where Againe the same S. Austen writing against Faustus the Manichee hath these expresse words Secundum presentiam corporalem simul in Sole in Luna in cruce esse non posset According to his corporall presence it was not possible for him to be both in the Sunne and in the Moone and on the crosse at one and the same time O papists answere if you can if not recant for shame The second Member Of the Sacrifice of the Popish Masse THe Papists teach and beleeue as an article of Christian faith That in their masse Christs true and reall bodie is truly and really sacrificed to God the father vnder the forme of bread as also his true and reall bloud vnder the forme of wine Yet this implieth horrible impietie and brutish crueltie as shall be prooued and consequently popish Masse is to be abhorred First where the Apostle telleth vs that Christ rising againe from the dead henceforth dieth no more because death hath no more dominion ouer him the papists tell vs a contrarie tale that Christ dieth euery day nay a thousand times a day in the daily sacrifice of their masse for with them all priests the Pope Cardinals and some others excepted doe ordinarily say masse euery day and three masses vpon euery Christmas day VVhich being so and three hundred Iesuits and seminarie priests being this day in England and Scotland as the Iesuites tell vs an huge multitude of masses must be said daily in these realmes and many times must Christ be put to death so farre forth as in them lieth though they pretend to honour him thereby For as Cardinall Bellarmine graunteth freely a sacrifice implieth intrinsecally the consumption of the thing that is sacrificed I will not auouch any vntruth vpon any man gentle reader these are his owne words Sacrificium enim preter oblationem requirit mutationem consumptionem rei quae offertur For saith Bellarmine a sacrifice besides the oblation requires an alteration and a consumption of the thing which is offered Againe Bellarmine in another place telleth vs that the bodie and bloud of Christ are offered in the masse verè propriè truly and properly vnder the formes of bread and wine Againe Bellarmine saith in another place that flesh and bloud are not fit for meat nisi prius animal moriatur vnlesse the beast first die and be slaine Againe the same Bellarmine teacheth the same doctrin yet more plainely in another place Thus doth he write Sacrificium enim verum reale veram realem occisionem exigit quando in occisione ponitur essentia sacrificij For a true and reall sacrifice requireth a true and reall killing seeing that the essence of the sacrifice consisteth in the killing thereof And in very deed this is that constant doctrine which S. Paule doth inculcate to the Hebrewes So then we see it cleare and euident by popish faith and doctrine that Iesus Christ our sweet redeemer must first be killed then offered lastly torne and consumed by the teeth of the sacrificing masse-priest or els the popish masse cannot be perfect as their most perfect doctor telleth vs. For confirmation of this popish doctrine it is a constant position and generally receiued axiome in the popish church that by vertue of their consecratorie words Christs bodie is put apart from his bloud and his bloud apart from his bodie and so Christ is there slaine by force of their consecration though he still liue indeed because the priests words haue not so much force as they imagin You shall heare Bellarmines owne words Nam inprimis ideo in coena seorsim consecratur corpus seorsim sanguis vt intelligamus presentiam corporis sanguinis in coena esse ad modum occisi mortui corporis For first therfore is the bodie consecrate apart in the supper and the bloud asunder that we may vnderstand the presence of the bodie and bloud in the supper to be there after the manner of a bodie slaine and dead These are his words and this which he thus deliuereth is the constant doctrine of the Popish Church VVhereupon it followeth of necessitie that if any papist should haue said masse in triduo mortis Christi during Christs death then Christs bodie by vertue there of should haue been dead in one place and his bloud in another place for otherwise Christ should haue been both quicke and dead at
once which implieth contradiction Aquinas graunteth this illation these are his words Ideo si in illo triduo mortis fuisset hoc sacramentum celebratum non fuisset ibi anima Christi Therefore during Christs death if this sacrament had been celebrated the soule of Christ should not haue been in it Secondly if this popish kind of doctrine were true these absurdities and grosse impieties must perforce follow hereupon viz. that Christ the night before he was crucified was both sitting at the table and borne in his own hands both liuing and dead both visible and inuisible both long and short both broad and narrow both light and heauie that he was a sacrifice for our sinnes before he died for our sinnes that his sacrifice was either vnperfect in the former oblation in his last supper or els that it was needlesse in his bitter immolation vpon the altar of the crosse For as the Apostle telleth vs Christ was not to offer himselfe often as the high priest did but once to the destruction of sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe These are his words as the papists our English Rhemists I meane haue put them downe and as it is appointed to men to die once and after this the iudgement so also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sinnes of many Loe Christ died but once and that one oblation was sufficient to take away all sinnes in the world The word exhaust which the Rhemists vse doth significantly expresse so much But the words of S. Paul in another place are most manifest and doe plainely conuince this truth In the which will saith S. Paule we are made holy euen by the offering of the bodie of Iesus Christ once for all Againe thus But this man after he hath offered one sacrifice for sinnes is set downe for euer on the right hand of God Againe in these words For with one offering hath he made perfect for euer them that are sanctified Loe gentle reader Christ saith Christs apostle made but one oblation Christ say the papists hath made many and still maketh moe oblations Christ saith Christs Apostle died but once on the crosse Christ say the papists dieth euery day in the masse Christ saith Christ apostle made perfect finished and consummated mans redemption with one onely sacrifice Christ say the papists doth perfect and consummate his with the daily sacrifice of the masse Now whether Christs apostle or our papists be of better credit let the indifferent reader iudge Thirdly the cup is the new testament in my bloud saith Christ which is shed for you But a testament is not of force without the death of the testator as S. Paul teacheth vs. And consequently either Christs bodie was not really offered in his supper or at least it was a sacrifice of no force value or efficacie at all for that it was not yet ratified by the death of the testator Hereupon it followeth of necessitie that when Christ saith in S. Luke This cup is the new testament in my bloud and in S. Matthew This is my bloud of the new Testament the sence is all one most plaine and cleare viz. that the cup is a sacrament of the bloud of Christ and of the new Testament confirmed thereby but indeed is no more really the bloud of Christ it selfe than it is really the new testament it selfe For the expresse mention of remission of sinnes is referred to the bloud of Christ shed vpon the crosse and not to the sacrament of his bloud seeing his bloud was not shed in his supper but in his bitter passion Fourthly the Apostle saith flatly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is not henceforth any oblation for sinne But if Saint Paule say truly that there is no oblation for sinne after Christs death on the crosse then doubtlesse the papists must needs say falsely that they haue a daily propitiatorie sacrifice in their popish masse Neither will it serue their turne to answere that it is the selfesame sacrifice of the crosse but offered in another manner for if that were true then should their masse-sacrifice be of infinit value which for all that no papist dareth auouch Nay Bellarmine saith in plaine tearmes Valor sacrificij missae finitus est The value or worth of the masse is finit not infinit And yet if the value of the masse be not infinit then doubtlesse that sacrifice cannot be the sonne of God for he is of infinit power of infinit maiestie of infinit value Yea whosoeuer denieth Christs bodie and bloud subsisting in the person of God by hypostaticall vnion to be of infinit value he is become a flat Arrian beleeuing Christ to be pure man and not God And consequently the papists howsoeuer they thinke or speake of their masse yet in making it a sacrifice they must perforce be blasphemous against the sonne of God Again Bellarmine confesseth against himselfe vnawares and against an article of popish faith That their popish masse is not verè propriè truly and properly propitiarie Quod Christus nunc immortalis nec mereri nec satisfacere potest Because saith Bellarmine Christ now being immortall can neither merit nor satisfie But I am well assured that their holy late councell of Trent teacheth otherwise These are the words Et quoniam in diuino hoc sacrificio quod in missa peragitur idem ille Christus continetur incruentè immolatur qui in ara crucis semel seipsum cruentè obtulit docet sanctasynodus sacrificium istud verè propitiatorium esse And because in this diuine sacrifice which is made in the masse that same Christ is contained and offered vnbloudily who on the altar of the crosse once offered himselfe bloudily the holy councell teacheth it to be a propitiatorie sacrifice truly indeed Loe how the papists say and vnsay one while it is truly a propitiatorie sacrifice another while it cannot truly be so called VVell the Pope hath allowed Bellarmines doctrine and he hath also allowed the Councell and yet wise men can see how they flatly disagree and that in the highest point of their melodie Fiftly the Popes owne decrees doe seale vp this truth against the Pope these are his words Sicut ergo coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius viz. quod visibile quod palpabile mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipso immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio sic sacrum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As therefore the heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is after it manner called the bodie of Christ when indeed it is the sacrament of Christs bodie of that bodie which is visible which is palpable mortall and nailed on the crosse and that oblation of flesh which is made
by the hands of the priest is called Christs passion death crucifixion not in the truth of the thing but in a mysterie which signifieth the thing so the sacrament of faith by which baptisme is vnderstood is faith Thus saith the text Let vs now heare their own glosse vpon the same text these are the expresse words Coeleste sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed improprie vnde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate sed significate mysterio vt sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus id est significatur The heauenly sacrament which representeth Christs flesh truly is called the bodie of Christ but vnproperly wherefore it is said suo modo after it manner but not in the truth of the thing but in the mysterie of the thing signified that this may be the sence it is called Christs bodie that is to say it signifieth his bodie Out of these golden words deliuered as God would haue it by the pens of papists to the confusion of all papists I note first that the holy and blessed bread of the Eucharist or Lords supper is called the bodie of Christ. Secondly that it is also called the passion death of Christ. Thirdly that it is not Christs bodie truly properly and in the truth of the thing Fourthly that it is Christs body as the sacrament of baptisme is faith Fifthly that it is not Christs bodie in truth but in signification Sixtly that it is only called Christs bodie because it is the sacrament of his body as baptisme is called faith being only the sacrament of faith Seuenthly that it is Christs bodie impropriè suo modo significat◠mysterio improperly after a sort in the mysterie of the thing signified which words must be well remembred and marked Lastly that it is said negatiuely non rei veritate it is not Christs bodie in truth in deed or in the veritie of the thing These words are the very vpshot of the controuersie they can admit no solution For if Christs bodie were in the sacrament really and substantially with bodie flesh bloud sinews bones and quantitie as the papists say and beleeue then doubtlesse he should be there in rei veritate in the truth of the thing euen in that true bodie which was borne of the blessed virgin the true mother of true God and true man Answere papists if ye can or els come home and yeeld to the truth for shame The third Member Of the barbarous and plaine villanous proceeding against Berengarius for deniall of the abouenamed popish sacrifice POpish decrees tell vs a long tale of one Berengarius sometime deacon of a church in Gaunt who held a doctrine surely grounded vpon the holy scriptures but wholie opposite to the late popish faith viz. That the bread and wine in the holy Eucharist after Christs words vttered which they call consecration are onely the sacrament and not the true bodie and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ and that they cannot sensuallie or sensibly for so their owne word sensualiter signifieth bee handled or broken with the hands of the priests or torne with the teeth of the faithfull For this opinion so setled vpon Gods word as all the cursed Romish brood are not able in truth to gainesay the same Pope Nicholas with his Romish synod did so cruelly proceed against the sillie deacon as he must needs either abiure and renounce the truth or else betake himselfe to be burnt with popish fire and faggot out of hand In regard whereof the poore deacon ouercome with humane frailtie yeelded at least in shew of wordes to their most wicked cruell and very barbarous or rather villanous suggestion Then the Pope and Councell set downe the forme of words which he should pronounce the summe whereof I haue alreadie alleaged who as list may read the words at large in the place quoted in the margent I omit the wordes because they are long and tedious onely I wish the reader to obserue seriously with me for this reason can neuer be answered till the worlds end that it is an article of popish faith oh horrible blasphemie That the true and reall body of the sonne of God which was borne of the vigin Marie and sitteth at the right hand of God the father omnipotent and all sufficient is torne in pieces with the teeth of the faithfull and broken asunder with the hands of the priest in their idolatrous masse For these are the words of the popish synod Manibus sacerdotum frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Which wordes are so fully farced with blasphemie and repugnant to the truth that neither Melchior Canus nor the popish glosse nor Bellarmine can tell how to shuffle vp the same but with shame inough they passe it ouer as they can Bellarmine who is as it were the Popes owne mouth writeth in this manner Respondeo nunquam fuisse quaestionem an Christi corpus vere vt est in se frangeretur manibus dentibus tereretur certum enim est semper fuit Christi corpus incorruptibile nunc existens non posse frangi teri nisi in signo siue sacramento ita vt dicatur frangi ac teri cum signum eius id est species panis frangitur teritur I answere saith the Iesuite that question was neuer made if the body of Christ as it is in it selfe were truely broken with hands and torne with teeth for it is and and euer was certaine and sure that Christs bodie being now incorruptible cannot be broken and torne saue only in a signe or sacrament so as it may be said to be broken and torne when the signe thereof that is to say the forme of bread is broken and torne Out of these words I note first that by the Popes owne doctrine for the Iesuites doctrine is the doctrine of the Pope seeing the Pope hath approoued it Christs bodie cannot be broken or torne truely and indeede I note secondly that the Pope and his Councell decreed the contrarie doctrine and that as an article of popish faith when they compelled Berengarius to confesse it with his mouth and to beleeue it with his heart and did also publish the same per vrbes Italiae Germaniae Galliae through the cities of Italie France and Germanie for so saith the decree Ego Berengarius I note thirdly that it is truely said Christs bodie is broken because the forme of the bread is broken as popish doctrine teacheth vs. For we see here that this is all that the papists can say for themselues and vpon this strong foundation and inuincible bulwarke I inferre this golden and euident corollarie viz. That if it be true to say Christs bodie is broken and torne because the signe of his bodie is broken and torne then truely may wee say and truelie doe we say that Christs bodie is in the Eucharist because the signe of his bodie is there because the sacrament of his bodie