without some iujury to that perfection of his glorious Body And therefore Hee that shall beleeve that let him heare that notable saying of Solomon Hee that is of a sodaine Beliefe hath a light and inconstant heart By occasion of this Question thus prosecuted they start as it were another Hare questioning whether it bee a matter of Faith to beleeve the Blood so appearing to be the Blood of Christ One side affirming it to be grounding themselves as they thought upon Bulls of the Popes of Rome upon a pretended Testimonie of Athanasius and upon the Divine Revelations of Saint Bridget On the contrary side your Doctor qualifieth the Approbations of Popes excepteth against the pretended Testimony of Athanasius and justly as counterfeit and denieth that the Revelation of Saint Bridget can be sufficient to prove it to be Impious and irreligious not to beleeve the contrary III. As for the third point of the Blood of Christ shed at his Passion wee leave them 8 Id. Disp 9. cap. 2. An portio aliquas de sanguine effuso in passione relicta fuerit in orbe tertarum Affirmo Nihil ejus sanguinis tunc effusi extra Dominici corporis venas remanfisse Silvester contrariè colligit ex Thoma Aliquid sanguinis in passione effusi remansisse apud mortales Ac Vasquez in 3. Thom. Qu. 5. Disp 36. cap. 8. Assero aliquam partem sanguinis Christi retaansisse nec in Resurrectione totum resumptum fuisse skirmishing together One side affirming and the other denying any part of that Blood to have beene at any time remaining in the world since the time of his Passion All this our Relation hath no other Ayme than to shew the Vnconscionablenesse of your Disputers in requiring Faith of Others to beleeve such and such Apparitions of Christs Blood which they themselves by their owne Reasons Contradictions and Conclusions have made uncredible CHAP. III. That the Romish manser of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Sacrament is manifoldly Impossible SECT I. NO sooner do you heare Protestants talke of the Impossibility 20 30 of your maner of Presence which your Church prescribeth but you presently cry out upon them as upon Blasphemous Detractors from the Omnipotencie of God as if they meant x Absit â—ut fidelis quispiam aurem accommodet impijs Sacramentarijs qui excaecatâ mente omnipotentiam Christi in hoc Sacramento vel comprehendere detrectant quòd tanquam pestem lethalem vitae intellectum nostrum in obsequium Christi cap tivare debemus Theologi Colon. in Provinc Cont. Tract de Sacram. Euch. fol. 92. To tie God to the rules of Nature as your Authors are pleased to suggest We hold it necessary therefore to remove this Scandall thus cast in the way for simple people to stumble upon before we can conveniently proceed to the maine matter and this wee shall endeavour to do by certaine Propositions I. That by the Iudgement of ancient Fathers some things by reason of Contradiction in them may be called Impossible without the impeachment of the Omnipotency of God yea with the great advancement thereof SECT II. THis Proposition accordeth to the judgement of ancient Fathers shewing that y Aug. de Civit. lib. 5. cap. 10. Dicitur Deus omnipotens faciendo quod vult non faciendo quod non vult quod si accideret nequâ—quam esset omnipotens unde proptereà quaedam non potest quia est omnipotens non potest mori non peccare non falli Ambros lib. 6. Epist 37. ad Chromaâ— Non posse mori non infirmitatis est sed virtutis Chrysost in â—ohan Nihil impotentius quà m hoc posse Adâ—e hereuâ—to Theodoret Dial. 3. cap. 4. Impossibilia sunt Omnipotenti Deo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic posse esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz Orat. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God cannot doe something even because he is Omnipotent as not dye not sinne not lye because such Acts proceed not from power but from impotencie and infirmitie âšœ Theophylact will explaine this Point in answering this Question Can God make that which is once done to have beene not done 1 Theophylact. in Marc. 10. Nuâ—quid autem dicunt Deum factum infectum facere non posse Dicimus Deum esse veracem factum autem infectum facere mendacium est Quo pacto quaeso verax mendacium fecerit prius enim perderet naturam suam Et ideò qui sic loquuntur perindè loquuntur ac si quaeâ—ant Num potest Deus non esse Deus vides igitur quam ridicula sit quaestio God is true of his words saith hee but to make that not to be done which hath beene done is a Lie How then can hee that is true Lie He should sooner lose his Divine nature They therefore that speake so talke as if they should aske whether God can be God whence their question appeareth to bee ridiculous So he The ancient Father Iustine Iustiâ— Martyr Quaest Grec Const qu. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinguisheth of Impossibilities One simple and absolute which hee calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other which hee saith is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving for his example in the first Impossibility a Diameter-line in a Figure to bee equall unto the sides thereof Of the further judgement of the Fathers hereafter âšœ So the Fathers It is not long since you have beene taught by an exceeding worthy Scholler that in such Cases as imply Contradiction the ancient Fathers noted the pretence of Gods omnipotencie to have beene anciently z Casaub Exerâ—t 3. ad Baron An 91 Num. 91. Scituâ— est piorum Patrum Oâ—nipotentiam esse Asâ—lum Haereticorum quo se recipiant ubi â—arionibus fuerint victi Gregor Nazianz. Orat. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic Ariani ab Orthodoxis convicti Christum Deum non esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eò confugâ—iebant ut dâ—cerent per omnipotentiam Dei hoc esse factum qui error confutatur ab Augustino qu 79. Vet. Novi Testâ—â— Potentia inquiunt Dei haeâ— est vt falsa sint vera mendacis est ut falsum dicat verum quod Dâ—o nâ—â— competit The Sanctuary of Heretikes And they give an instance in the Arians who denying Christ to have beene God eternall beleeved him to have beene created God in time as if it were possible there should be a made God whose property is to be eternall Their only pretence was Gods Omnipotencie to make false things true wherein they proved themselves the greatest Lyars Take unto you a second Proposition II. That the Doâ—trine of the same Impossibiity by reason of Contradiction doth magnifie the Power of God by the Universall consent of Romish Doctors and their divers Examples of Impossibility concerning a Body SECT III. YOur owne Iesuites doe lay this for a ground a Dicendum Deum omnia posse facere quae ullo modo fiant Omnes Theologi dicunt Deum esse
peccâsset in Christum sicetiam contra qui panem eundem adorat quòd certo credat non este panem sed ChristuÌ„ is propriè formaliter Christum adorat non panem Lib. 4 de Euchar. cap. 30. Vbi quis simpliciter adorans SacramentuÌ„ non consecratum est actus Latriae actus moraliter bonus procedens ex motivo honesto Sicut quando quis dat Eleemosynam homini petenti nomine Christi ex misericordia infusa operatur si prudenter existimaverit illum esse pauperem quamvis speculativè decipi contingat Suarez Ies Tom. 3. qu. 79. Art 8. Disp 65. pag. 829. col 1. Omnis fidelis rectè adorans hostiam consecratam adorat sub eâ conditione si perfecta sunt circa ipsam ea quae ad Consecrationem sunt necessaria secundùm divinam institutionem sic nunquam decipitur neque errat Bonavent in 3. Dist 24. Art 1. quaest â— ad ult Teste Suarez quo supra pag. 828. And in them who require it Actuall albeit Tacitam Azor. Ies reckoneth from Gabriel in Can. Missae Thom. Bonavent Albert. Richard yea and Canonistas Theologos excepting Cajetan Hassel Claud. Sainctes qui simpliciter sine conditione adorandum monent Azor. Instit Tom. 1. lib. 9. cap. 9. §. Decimo Dicendum est quod per se loquendo ac seclusis specialibus circumstantijs per Accidens occurrentibus absolutè adorandum esse hoc Sacramentum nullâ in actu appositâ conditione Ita sentit D. Thom. in 3. Dist 9. quaest 1. Art 2. q. 6. ad 2. ubi solùm dicit non requiri conditionem explicitam sed satis esse si habitu retineatur Habitu autem illam retineri nihil aliud esse videtur nisi mente animo habere intentionem adorandi verum Christum verumque Sacramentum non adhibendi adorationem nisi cum hac pendenti existimatione In eadem sententia est Richardus ubi inquit licet fides credit Christum esse sub speciebus sub conditione si omnia sunt facta quae ad consecrandum sunt necessaria tamen ad adorandum non oportere ut fideles hanc conditionem adhibeant in actuali cogitatione Idem Gabriel Marsil communiter Summistae verbo Adoratio Ità Suarez Tom. 3. quaest 79. Art 8. Disp 6â— pag. 828. col 2. Nihil obfuit Iacob cum Laban sibi ignoranti pro Rachel in concubitu substituerit Leam quia bonâ fide se cum propria uxore dormire putaret Ita non est Artolatra qui adorat Christum in pane non consecrato quem bonâ fide putat consecratum c. Salmeron Ies Tom. 9. Tract 33. pag. 181. Although say they in the Margin there be no true Consecration by reason of divers Defects yet in him who upon a Morall certainty with a sincere mind and good intention doth adore Bread it is but Materiall and no Formall Idolatry so that hee have an Habituall condition as being so disposed in his mind not to give a Divine honour unto it if hee knew it to be but Bread As for Example Hee that giveth an Almes to a Rich man being probably perswaded that hee is not rich the Act proceedeth from a pious Intention And As it was no Sin in Iacob to lye with Leah because hee thought her to be his wife so in this case it is no formall Idolatry to worship Bread being Morally perswaded that it is Christ Thus they Your Pretences herein are three Morall Certainty Good Intent and at least Habituall Condition But alas all this is but Sowing Fig-leaves together which will never be able to cover your foule shame of grosse Idolatry To begin first with that which you call Morall Certainty That the Pretence of Morall Certainty of worshipping of Bread instead of Christ cannot free the Romish Church from Formall Idolatry SECT II. OVr Confutation is grounded upon divers impregnable Reasons one whereof is taken from the Iealousie of God in his worship the second from the Faith required in a true worshipper the third from the nature of an Oath and the last from the Vncertainty of that which you call Morall Certainty First then although Morall and Conjecturall perswasions might excuse mens Actions in divers Cases yet in an Object of Divine Worship it is utterly condemnable even because of the Iealousie of the Almighty who expresseth himselfe to be a Iealous God Exod. 20. signifying as b Ego sum Deus tuus fortis zelôtes Exod. 20. 5. Dicitur Deus Zelôtes id est zelum tenens zelus autem est amor privatus nolens habere consortium in amato Et sic viri dicuntur habere zelum de uxoribus suis quia volunt quòd uxores suae solos illos ament solis illis copulentur Sic etiam Deus volebat quòd Idaei eam solum colerent eum ut Deum cognoscerent quando alius coleretur ut Deus dolebat tanquam si vir videat uxorem suam amantem alium virum Et sicut cùm mulier alteri quà m viro suo copulatur fornicari dicitur ita qui alterum quà m verum Deum colebat fornicari dicebatur in Scriptura cum Dijs alienis Abulens in Exod. 20. pag. 273 col 2. you know that Hee will not indure any consort in his worship his Motto being this I am and there is no Other Even as in the Case of mortall Majesty when as a subject building upon a Morall Certainty onely shall question the Title and Right of his Soveraigne established in his Throne hee becometh guilty of High Treason Secondly all Divine Worship must be performed with a Divine Faith which is an Infallible perswasion of the God-head of that which wee honour as God as it is written Hee that cometh to God must believe that God is Heb. 11. 6. and againe You must aske in Faith nothing doubting Iac. 1. because this is the nature of Faith as the Apostle describeth it Faith is the Hypostasis of things not seene Heb. 11. That is to take your c Graeci optimè interpretantur Hypostasin per substantiam quia fides essicit ut ea quae credit non minùs certa habeamus quà m si subsisterent Ribera Ies Com. in Heb. 11. pag. 514. owne Comment Faith â—aketh those things which are believed no lesse certaine than if they did subsist whereby wee are taught both the nature and necessitie of Faith in Divine Worship But Morall and Conjecturall Certainty is not an Hypostasis which implieth an Infallibilitie of Truth but an Hypothesis and supposition of that which may be otherwise and hath in it nothing but Vncertainty at all of which more * Chap. 9. Sect. 4. hereafter Thirdly God himselfe commandeth his People by his Prophet saying Thou shalt worship mee and in * Septuagiots Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shalt sweare by my Name Swearing then is an Adoration by Invocating of God and his owne peculiar Prerogative Hearken now By this Law of God none
adoring Bread instead of Christ's Body may therein be held as Formall an Idolater as any Heathen This is your Bishops Proposition The Assumption But any man among you may manifoldly be deceived in taking Bread for Christ's Body Which hath beene your generall Confession Our Conclusion must be Therefore any of you in adoring Bread for Christ in this Sacrament may be a Formall Idolater IV. That the Romish Worship is proved to be a Formall Idolatry by the Consequence used from the Consecration of your Popes SECT IV. SAlmeron a Iesuite of prime note in your Church endeavoureth to c Fides divina est quâ credimus Iesum eâdem credimus hunc esse Paulum Quartum Pontificem c. Non tantum humanâ fide cui subesse possit falsum Salmeron Ies in Epist Pauli part 3. Disp 2. pag. 183. 184. Alioqui eam adorare formidarem pag. 185. prove that all men are bound to believe the new Pope whensoever hee is Consecrated to be the true Pope not onely with a Morall or Humane Assurance but with a Divine and infallible Faith as were the Iewes bound to believe Christ Iesus at his coming to be the true Messias that is saith hee with a Faith that cannot possibly be deceived Wee have nothing to do with your Iesuits Position in this place concerning the Infallibillity of Beliefe of the Creation and Election of your Popes which wee have elsewhere proved to be a * See the Grand Romish Imposture c. Grosse Imposture But wee are to argue from his Supposition as for Example CHALLENGE YOur Iesuite d Si enim fides nostra penderet ex externa intentione Ministri commodum nobis esset repetere Baptismum in ea forma quam instituit Alex. 3. Papa Si baptizatus es ego non baptizo te c. cumque non magis constet nobis de secundo hoc Baptismo quam de priori esset tertiò quartò quintò Baptismus repetendus Salmeron ibid. pag. 188. Et proinde liberum erit an ista consecrata sit hostia debito adorationis cultu adoretur ad salutem percipiant an verè sint Ministri Christi Ibid. pag. 187. Signanter dixi sub fidem divinam pag. 184. § Vt ergò grounded his Assertion of an Infallible faith due to be had touching the Creation of your Popes upon a Supposition and his Conclusion upon the like infallible Beliefe which men ought to have concerning the Consecration of the Eucharist wherein saith hee if there should be any Vncertainty so that our Faith should depend upon the Intention of the Priest in like maner might every one doubt whether hee may adore the Sacrament as being not truly consecrated as also make doubt of the Priest himselfe as being not rightly ordained So hee who therefore in all these requireth a Faith infallible All these fore-cited Confessions of your owne Divines as first concerning your Definition of Idolatry next in the point of Co-adoration of the Creature together with the Creator thirdly in your Beliefe of the Canonization of Saints and lastly in the Creation of the Pope which are but humane Institutions do enforce much more a necessity of Infallibility in every Adoration instituted by God Now among all the Schismes of Anti-Popes sometimes of two sometimes of three at once and that for forty or fifty yeares space together if any one of those Popes in his time had heard any Papist saying to him you may not be offended although I hold your Adversary as for example Vrbane to be the true Pope and yield to him all Fealty and Obedience for I do this to a Good Intent in a Morall Certainty that hee is truly elected Pope and in an habituall Condition not to acknowledge him if I knew him not to be Pope wherein if I erre it is but a Materiall Disloyalty would not the Pope notwithstanding all these Pretenses judge this man to be Formally an Anti-Papist and pierce him with his Thunder-bolt of Anathema as Popes have often dealt with Cardinals Princes and Emperours in like Case yet what is this Glowormes slimy shine to the glory of Divine Majesty âšœ An Answer to a Conceited and Deceiptfull Impious Objection of a bold Spectacle-maker a Iesuite Shewing his Spectacles to be but Counterfeit SECT V. YOur Iesuit in his Booke of Spectacles made in Confutation of a Iudicious and Religious Knight among many other of his Paradoxes and Absurâ—ities as if concerning our present Question hee had meant to excell himselfe in the same kinde after his most diligent search into every Corner where to finde an Evasion by the helpe of Spectacles of his own making yet could spie no other than that poore little Crevise specifyed in his words following If Christ saith hee be not there in the Sacrament after Consecration wee are in danger to worship him where hee is not and if he be there then are you in danger in not worshipping him where hee is How then are you Protestants more safe than wee So your Iesuite But most Sophistically In Answer whereunto the Protestants can say no lesse than that this Objection is Fallacious Impious and Impudent The notable Sophistry whereof appeareth in this because of an Extreme Disparity betweene your Romish Terme of Worshipping by a Conjecturall Supposition as I adore thee ô Christ if thou be here and the Protestants Resolution of not adoring with Divine honour at all that which you your selves do not infallibly believe to be God For that there ought to be no performance of Divine worship where there can be any danger of Idolatry as is both proved by your owne Confessions and illustrated by your owne Similitudes Your Confessions stand thus I. Although there should be a possibility of Existence of the Body of Christ with the substance of Bread * See above Ch. 7. Sect. 2. yet not to adore it for feare of Idolatry Item Although Christ be in the mouth of the Communicant * See in the same place yet not to adore it there for feare of Idolatry Item Although it be possible Christ is there at all * See ibid. Sect. 3. 4. in the Challenge yet not to adore absolutely because of the Possibility that one may be deceived Next do but also Recognize your owne Similitude of * See above Chap. 6 § â— Iacob lying with Leah instead of Rachel and that you may make a more joynt Application suppose that both these Sisters had beene presented before Iacob masked and unknowne would your Iesuite judge it to be a like security and safety in Iacob to have taken either of them to his bed because it was posible hee might have made choice of his owne wife as it had beene to have abstained from admitting of either at that time lest hee might have made choice of not his owne wife Wee have furthermore in the title of this Section called this an Impious Answer and Evasion which wee are to prove from the Resolution
is Infallible faith then must usher Prayer yea and preaching also any fundamentall doctrine of beleefe as it is written * Psal 116. 10 2. Cor. 4. 13. I beleeved therefore I spake Yea without divine Faith it is impossible to use any religious Invocation * Rom 10. 14. How shall they invocate on whom they have not beleeved So incredible and faithlesse is your Romish Conjecturall Faith of your worshipping and Invocating Christ on the Earthly Altar whereas according to our Christian Creed of his sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven wee because faithfully do * See the Consent of Fathers above Chap. 4. Sect. 2. Catholikely and comfortably adore him where hee infallibly is upon his Throne of Majestie in Heaven That the Protestants stand secure in respect of the Fourth Romish Perplexity by defect in the Priestly Intention SECT V. FOr the necessity of the Priests due Intention in consecrating your a Bellarm. lib. 1. de Sacram. cap. 27. §. Quantum ad Nova haeresis orta est hoc tempore cujus Author Lutherus non requiri interiorem â—tentionâ— Ministri ad perfectionem Sacramenti non tà m inquit in Conferentis quà m suscipientis fide sita est virtus Baptismi si Minister joco absolveret sitamen credat se absolutum verissimè est absolutus Et §. Johannes Calvinus Vt si Minister totam actionem intùs subsannans coenam Christi riâ—u legitimo administâ—et non dubitem panem vinum mihi esse verissima Christi corporis sanguinis pignora Sic eâ—â—â—m Protestantes alij Catholicorum sententia est quae est Concil Trid. Requiri intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia Et pauâ—ò post §. Ad hanc Ad hanc Haereticorum sententiam accessit Ambros Catharinus quo excepto in hac doctrina miâ—siâ—è conveniunt Catholici Doctores Cardinall allegeth the Authority addeth the consent of your Doctors except Catharinus produceth the opinion of Luther and Calvin condemning this Romish Doctrine and condemneth their Censure as Hereticall But wee permit it to your discrete Iudgements whether to yeeld to this ostentative â—lourish of your Cardinall or to the exact and accurate discourse of your b Salmeron Ies Intentio duplex publica in observando formam publicam in pronunciatione verborum c. Altera verò privata particularis ipsius Ministri qui aut nihil credit eorum quae facit aut derisoriè facit aut contrariam habet intentionem non coÌ„ferendi Sacramenta At ejus Intentio non est absolutè necessaria Rat. I. Quià cùm intentio intima sit latens in corde ejus insensibilis sequeretur hominuÌ„ animos torqueri scrupulis dubitationibus an verum suscipiant Sacramentum quod sanè Scripturis et Patribus contrarium est qui nos firmâ fide Sacramentum suscipere adhortantur II. Rat. Quia sic hominum salus ex hominum aliquotuÌ„ arbitrio penderet et sic homines plus nocere possent quam Christus juvare III. Quià plecterentur Innocentes propter hominum malitiam quod remotum est à divina bonitate IV. Quià sic liberum erit Omnibus dubirare an Baptizati sint et an Eucharistiam adorent V. Quià hoc dogma proximum erit Donatistarum haeresi contra quos disputat Augustinus docens per malos ministros conferri salutaria Sacramenta VI. Mirum est olim Ecclesiam in controversia Novatianorum Donatistarum asserentium BaptismuÌ„ ab haereticis collatum nullum esse de debita illa intetione Ministri nihil disputâsse Ergo satis est publica Actio nisi Minister contra protestetur aut aliquo modo vitiet formam Sacramenti Sufficit eatenus publicus Actus ut Notarius publicum conficiens Instrumentum nec potest intentione sua internâ licet derisoriè agat illud validum reddere Pro hac sententia stant multi Patres Aug. lib. 1. cont literas Petil. oppugnans illud Donatistarum Conscientia dantis abluit conscientiam accipientis Salmer Ies in Epist Pauli Disp 2. pag. 186. Jesuite Salmeron to the contrary grounded upon sound Reasons among others this that this Perplexitie and doubt whether the Priest hath a Due intention in consecrating worketh to the tormenting of mens Consciences injury to Gods exceeding bounty and goodnesse contrary to the Iudgement of Antiquity and in speciall against that of Saint Augustine Saepè mihi ignota est Conscientia aliena sed semper certus sum de divina misericordia And lastly because of the Affinity which it hath with the heresie of the Donatists So hee All which turneth to the condemnation of your Doctrine teaching a necessary Priestly intention of Noveltie Impietie and relish of Heresie Wee adde to this that saying of the Apostle * Phil. 1. 18. If the word be preached whether of envie and vaine glory or of good will I rejoyce and will rejoyce which proveth that the evill Intention of the Messenger cannot impeach the Benefit of the message of Salvation and embassage of God Now there is the like Reason of the word visible which is the Sacrament as there is of the Audible Take unto you a Similitude in the marginall Testimony of your Iesuite Salmeron of a Notary publicke making a true Instrument according to the forme of Court in the time when he was distracted in his wits neverthelesse the same Instrument is of use and for the benefit of the partie who hath it not through the Intention of the Scribe but by the will of the Ordainer and willingnesse and consent of the Receiver Our fifth Securitie from your Romish Perplexitie touching Ordination SECT VI. TO passe over matters not controverted betweene us whether the Minister that consecrateth this Sacrament ought to be consecrated by Ecclesiasticall Ordination to this Function a matter agreed upon on both sides the onely question is if hee that ministreth happen to be an Intruder and no consecrated Minister whether this his Defect do so nullifie his Consecration of the Eucharist that it becometh altogether unprofitable to the devout Communicant Your Church in this case sendeth you to inquire after the Godfathers Godmothers Priest or Midwife that baptizeth to know whether hee have beene rightly baptized and this not satisfying shee will have you seeke forth the Bishop by whom hee was ordained and so to the Odainer of that Bishop and so to speere further and further untill you come to Saint Peter to see whether each of these were rightly consecrated a Priest and then to search into so many Church-bookes to know the Baptisme of each one without which the Act of this Priest now consecrating is frustrate and your Adoration Idolatrous Contrariwise wee in such an indeprehensible Case observe that wee speake of an extraordinary Case wherein the Actor or Act hath no apparent Defect are no way scrupulous knowing that things do worke Ad modum Recipientis as you have heard in the Example of preaching the word of God were it by Iudas or if
these judged by Pope Gelasius to be Sacrilegious âšœ Hence was it that your Iesuite demanded 13 Nic. Causin Ies in his booke called the Holy Court pag. 539. How was it possible saith he that the Heresie of Eutyches being nousled under a false zeale of Reverence towards the person of the Sonne of God might not insnare the Empresse Pulcheria a woman Yea and what greater defence had the Pharisees for all their Superstitions than that of Reverence whom notwithstanding Christ did pierce thorow with so many Vae's for annulling of the Precepts of God by their Traditions under the pretence of religious Reverence and sanctity In briefe It was the opinion of Reverence that made Saint Peter to contradict our Lords Command when he said Thou shalt never wash my feete yet how dangerous it had beene for Peter to have persisted in opposition the Reply of our Saviour doth declare If I wash not thy feete faith Christ thou hast no part with me c. Vpon which Text Saint Å¿ Discamus Christum prout vult venerari honorato namque jucundissimus est honor non quem nos putamus nam eum Petrus honorare putabat cùm sibi pedes eum lavare prohibuit sed non erat honor quem agebac sed contrarium Chrysost Hom. 60. ad pop Antioch Tom. 1. Chrysostome readeth unto you this Lecture Let us therefore learne saith he to honour and reverence Christ as he would and not as wee thinke meete And sure we are that he would that same which he commanded saying Do this Therefore our next Difference betweene our defence and yours is no other than obedient Reverence and irreverent or rather irreligious Disobedience As for your Pretence of manifesting hereby a t Si sic tanta esset degnitas Laicorum circà sumptionem corporis Christi quanta Clericorum Gerson Tract de utraque specie Greater dignity of Priests than of Laicks it is too phantasticall for the singularity too harsh for the noveltie and too gracelesse for the impietie thereof seeing that Christ who gave his Body and Blood an equall price of Redemption for all sorts would have the Sacrament of his Body and Blood equally administred to People as to Priests as you have heard the Fathers themselves professe The Third kinde of Romish Pretences which are more peculiar to their owne Church in two points First because a Movit Ecclesiam ad hunc usum stabiliendum lege firmandum quòd videret ab Haereticis et ex errore oppugnari Sacramentarij autem non credunt Concomitantiam sanguinis Domini cùm corpore in specie panis undè etiam ij Lutheranorum maximè urgent utramque speciem qui cum Sacramentarijs rident Concomitaâ—â—tiam Bellar. l. 4. de Euch. c. 28. §. Secundò Heretikes saith Bellarmine and meaning Protestants do not believe Concomitancie that is to say that the blood of Christ is received under the forme of bread but for this Concomitancie the Church was moved to prescribe the use of the Eucharist in one kinde So he And this point of Concomitancse is that which b In his booke dedicated to K. Iames. Master Fisher and c In his Liturg. of the Masse pag. 396. Master Brerely most laboured for or rather laboured upon And albeit your Romane d Maximè omnium ad convellendam eorum haeresin qui negabant sub utraque specie corpus Christi contineri Catech. Rom. par 2. c. 4. nu 50. Catechisme judgeth this the principall Cause of inducing your Church to preferre one kinde yet wee whom you call Heretikes believe that the devout Communicant receiving Christ spiritually by faith is thereby possessed of whole Christ crucified in the inward act of the Soule and only deny that the Whole is received Sacramentally in this outward act under one onely part of this Sacrament which is the present Question And in this wee say no more than your Bishop Iansenius judged reasonable who hath rightly argued saying e Verùm non facilè apparet quomodò apertè exterior illa sumptio dici possit bibitio manducatio rectè dicitur quià sumitur aliquid ibi per modum cibi sed quomodò bibitio cùm nihil sumatur per modum potus non n. diceremus eum manducare et bibere qui panem tinctum vino sumeret quamvis sumat quod famem tollat et sitim Proindè secundùm horum sententiam videtur omninò dicendum cum dicitur manducare bibere non ratione actus exterioris qui manducationis tantùm speciem habet sed ratione actus interioris nempe ratione fidei Iansen Concord in Evang. pag. 457. It doth not easily appeare how the outward receiving of Christ under the forme of Bread should he called Drinking but onely Eating being received after the manner of meates as that is called Drinking onely which is received after the manner of drinke Drinking therfore and Eating are distinguished by Christ in the outward Act. So he even as your owne * Durand Rationale lib. 4. c. 54. Vna pars absque alia sumpta non est completum Sacramentum cùm panis corpus significat non potest sacramentaliter sumi sinè altera specie before him had truly concluded with whom Master * See Booke 2. Cap. 2. § 4. Brerely will beare a part Therefore your Concomitancie if wee respect the Sacramentall manner of Receiving is but a Chimaera and as great a Solecisme as to say that the Body and Bones of Christ are drunke and his Blood eaten contrary to the Sacramentall representation in receiving Bread and Wine as hath beene proved Next when wee aske you why onely your Church will not reforme and regulate her Custome according to the Institution of Christ and the long practice of the primitive Church you answer plainly and without Circumlocution that the Reason is Lest that your Church might seeme to have erred in her alteration if the ancient Custome And this your f Secunda ratio quià qui Concomitantiam negant ex alio pernitioso errore petunt utramque speciem quià nimirum existimant jure divino esse praeceptum propterea totam Ecclesiam longo tempore in hac re turpiter enâssè Bellar. quo sup §. Secundo Cardinall Bellarmine and the Iesuite g Rectissimè facit Ecclesia quod ipsa praxi contratiâ refutat eorum haeresin qui utramque speciem jure divino necessariam omnibus esse perperam contendunt Quae ratio jure optimo inter caetera cosiderata est in Conc. Constant contra Bohemos in Conc. Trident. contra recenâ—iores Sectarios Greg. de Valent. Ies Tract de usu Eucharist cap 10 §. Deindè pag 499. Valentian use and urge as a necessary Reason for confutation of Protestants who held the necessity of publike Communion in Both kindes Which Reason your owne Orator Gaspar Cardillo proclaimed as in a manner the sole cause of continuing your degenerated use h Ego existimo Patres
surrexit à Coena accepit haec cum gratias egisset dixit Hoc meum est hoc videmus quod non aequale est neque simile non imagini in carne non invisibili deitati non lineamentis membrorum hoc enim rotundae formae est insensibile quantum ad potentiam voluit per gratiam dicere hoc meum est hoc nemo non fidem habet sermoni qui enim non credit ipsum esse verum excidit à gratia salute Ob. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch cap. 20. words your Cardinall's b Cum docere vellet Epiphan hominem verè factum ad imaginem Dei licet non facile appâ—reat in quo consistat similitudo inter Deum et hominem cum Deus incorporalis sit immensus et dicit multa esse ejusmodi quae aliud sunt aliud videntur ponit exemplum de Eucharistia quae verè est corpus Christi tamen nihil minus est quam quod appareat exterius cum sit â—otundum et insensibile proinde validè dissimile corpori Christi Hic sanè locus omninò convinciâ— nam quod dicit oporet credere ipsum esse verum excludit Tropos praesertim cum addat excidere à Salute qui non credit quod etiam addit ciedendum esse licet sensus repugnent apertissime testatur non cum loqui de significatione sed de re ipsa words to be observed in the Greeke are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The last words shew that Insensible is taken according to power that is actively Objection and our Answer and then make your owne determination as you shall thinke good Man is said to be made after the Image of God Epiphanius not able to define what this Image consisted in whether it be man's soule or minde or virtue notwithstanding resolveth thatc All men have the Image of God in them but yet not according to nature namely that substantiall nature which is in God because God is Incomprehensible and infinite c. This is the maine point which Epiphanius will now illustrate but how By something saith your Cardinall which seemeth to be that which it is not And Epiphanius instanceth in the Eucharist wherein Christ taking into his hands those things which the Evangelists do mention he said of the one HOC This is mine viz. Body and of the other This is mine viz. Blood hereby understanding saith your Objector The Eucharist which is truely the Body of Christ although it seeme not to be so outwardly being of a round figure and Insensible or without sense and therefore farre unlike to be the Body of Christ So he Who thinking he hath overcome doth raise up his Iö and Triumph saying This argument is throughly convincent because Epiphanius addeth He who believeth not the words of Christ doth fall from Salvation adding further that they are to be beleeved although our senses gainesay it You have heard the Objection which seeming to so great a Champion so greatly Convincent you will give us licence to make a full Answer First by HOC ET HOC THIS AND THIS by the Interpretation of Epiphanius are meant The things which the Evangelist did mention and the Evangelist mentioned as you know Bread He tooke Bread He tooke the Cup meaning Wine in the Cup namely according to the * See above Chap. 1. §. 6. former generall Consent of the Fathers HOC signifyed Bread in one part of the Eucharist and Wine in the other But Bread neither in the Substance nor in the Accidents can be called Christs Body without a Trope as hath beene * See above Chap. 1. §. 4. Confessed which is our first confutation of your Cardinal who concludeth that Epiphanius excludeth all Tropes out of Christs Speech of HOC Secondly c Epiphanius in Ancorato Habent omnes id quod est secundùm Imaginem Dei sed non secundùm naturam non enim secundùm aequalitatem habent homines Deus enim mente incoÌ„ prehensibilis est cum spiritus sit super omnem spirituÌ„ All men saith Epiphanius have the Image of God although not according to nature or equality because God the Spirit of Spirits is Incomprehensible Then he seeketh a Similitude from the Eucharist an Image of a thing which seemeth to be that which in nature and equality it is not Now in the Eucharist there are two things to be distinguished the one is the Naturall the other is the Sacramentall Being thereof The Naturall Being of the Elements as of Bread and Wine cannot make this Similitude because whether they be taken as Substances or Accidents Hoc This hath no proportion with the word which is called Meum meaning Christs Body because the Hoc as Epiphanins saith is a Round figure But as Hoc and Hoc are Sacramentall Images representing Meum and Meum Christs Body and Blood the Bread broken to betoken his Body crucifyed and the Wine poured out a-part to signifie Christs Blood Shed so will the Similitude be most Harmonicall Even as Bread and Wine in the Eucharist although they differ in nature yet are they representative Signes and Images of the Body and Blood of Christ So the Image of God in man hath a resemblance of the Godhead although in respect of Nature and Equality it be as different as Finite and Infinite Comprehensible and Incomprehensible According to which Analogicall Mysticall and acramentall sense upon the hearing of these words of Epiphanius Whosoever will not believe Christs words as hee said falleth from grace wee willingly shall say Amen The rather because Epiphanius being an Adversarie to the Marcionites who denyed Christ to have a True Body but onely Phantasticall notwithstanding whatsoever proofe from mens senses who saw and felt them they could not digest the Faith of the Romish Church which teacheth that that which Epiphanius calleth Bread after Consecration should be contrary to the Demonstration of â—oure Senses as of Seeing Smelling Feeling and Tasting meere Accidents Thirdly a place as observable as any other He saith of this Hoc which is of a round figure and differing in nature and proportion from that Meum which is the Body of Christ that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Insensible But how Passively as not being able to be perceived No for then it could not be perceived to be Round But Actively as not able to perceive any thing in which respect hee opposeth it to Meum which is the Body of Christ Which againe manifestly contradicteth the abominable coÌ„mon doctrine of your Church as you have heard of Believing the Body of Christ as it is in this Sacrament to be unable either to see or heare or exercise any faculty of sense without a Miracle as is shewed Book 4. Chap. 9. Sect. 2. In the last place I require Iustice from your selves against a Proctor of yours The Case is this Bellarmine said quoth I that Epiphanius taught We are to believe these words of Christ although
Transubstantiation was hatched and which is contrary to his owne device of Conversion by Adduction wherein first he i Dicta Corpus Christi ex pane fieri non tanquà m ex materia sed tanquà m à Termino à quo ut mundus ex nihilo then confuting himselfe etiam sit ex aqua vinum that was not ex nihilo In praesenti negotio Conversio non est Productiva Panis enim convertitur in Corpus Christi praeexistens ergò Corpus Christi factum ex Pane ex Carne est idem Bell. l. 3. de Euc. c. 24. § Ad Tertium confoundeth himselfe and secondly his opinion hath beene scornfully rejected by your owne learned Doctors as being nothing lesse than Transubstantiation as you have heard Therefore may you make much of your Breaden Christ As for us Wee according to our Apostollicall Creec believe no Body of Christ but that which was Produced out of the Sanctified flesh of the Bl Virgin Mary for feare of k Alphonsus de Castro lib. 4 Tit. Christê° Haer. 2. Manichaei dixeruÌ„t Christum non ex utero Virginis prodijsse Et Apollinaris dixit Christum non assumpsisse carnem ex Virgine Item Chiliastae Democritae Melcluoritae ut Procli mitae pratcolus in Elench Haeret. in suic quique titulis Heresie This same Objection being made of late to a Iesuite of prime note received from him this Answer viz. God that was able to raise Children to Abraham out of stones can of Bread transubstantiate the same into that Body of Christ which was of the Virgin And hee againe received this Reply That the Children which should bee so raised out of stones howsoever they might bee Abraham's Children according to Faith yet could they not bee Children of Abraham according to the Flesh Therefore is there as great a Difference betweene that Body from Bread and the other from the Blessed Virgin as there must have beene betweene Children out of Stones and Children out of Flesh And this our Reason accordeth right well to the Ancient Faith professed within this Land in the dayes of Edgar a Saxon King as it is set out in an l Homily en Easter day pag. 35. Homily of that time which standeth thus Much is betweene the body that Christ suffered in and betweene the bodie of the hallowed Howsell The Body truly that Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of the Virgin Mary with blood and with bone with skin and with sinewes in humane limbes and his Ghostly body which we call his Howsell is gathered of many Cornes without blood and bone without lâ—mbe and therefore nothing is to be understood heerein bodily but all is Ghostly to bee understood This was our then Saxons Faith wherein is plainly distinguished the Body of Christ borne of the blessed Virgin from the Sacramentall which is called Ghostly as is the Body of Flesh from the consecrated substance of Bread A Doctrine directly confirmed by * See Booke 4. cap. 4. §. 1. in the Challenge Saint Augustine Wherefore wee may as truly say concerning this your Conversion that if it be by Transubstantiation from Bread then it is not the Body which was borne of the Blessed Virgin as your owne Romish Glosse could say of the Predication * See above E. 2. Chap. 1. §. 4. If Bread bee Christ's Body then Something was Christs Body which was not borne of the Virgin Mary CHALLENGE I âšœ In vindication of the same Truth against the late Calumniation of a Iesuite THis Sentence I have seene lately canvassed by a Iesuite against a judicious and religious Knight S r. H. L. falsly imputing unto him divers Falsities pretending especially that the English Translation used by the Knight is differing from the Latine Which Exception of your Iesuite must needes have proceded either from ignorance if hee knew not that the Translation used by the Knight was taken out of the Originall Saxon-language and not out of the Latine or if he knew so much from downe-right boldnesse in charging him with a false Translation I omit his frivolous Cavillations upon words The maine question for the sense is whether in this sentence of the Saxons Faith the Body wherein Christ suffered and his Body celebrated in this Sacrament betoken not two kinde of Bodies essentially differing one from the other or but onely the two different manners of the Being of one Body Your Iesuite affirmeth them to signifie the same Body and he calleth the contrary opinion false His Reason For whereas it is said saith he that the spirituall flesh which is as much as to say our Saviour his flesh in the Sacrament according to the outward shew consisting of Granes of Corne hath no Bones nor Sinewes nor distinction of Parts Life or Motion Here the Iesuite cryeth out against falshood but why Because the Knight forsooth hath pretermitted saith he these words According to the outward shew consisting of granes Whereby he would have us believe the new â—â—mish Faith of a Subsistence of meere Accidents Who if he had meant to have dealt ingenuously he should have manifested that his Latine Translation to have accorded with the Originall Saxon Copie But to take him as wee finde him If his words According to the outward shew imply as it needs must if he will speake to any purpose that the Body of Christ in this Sacrament although in outward shew it be without Bones Sinewes Life and Motion yet it hath all these inwardly in it selfe as it is in this Sacrament then whilest he laboureth to confute one Protestant he contradicteth all his fellow Iesuites of the same Society * See Booke 4. Chap. â— Sect. 2. who deny all possibility of Motion of Christ's Body in this Sacrament by any naturall and voluntary Act without a miracle But to speake to the point This Body and That Body say wee do diversifie two Bodies the one Sacramentall of Bread called Spirituall because of the spirituall and mysticall Signification this Bread consisting of Granes And the other the Naturall Body of Christ consisting of Bones Sinewes c. In a word This and That in this Saxon narration accordeth with the Doctrine of * See Booke 4. Chap. 4. in the Challenge Bertram taken out of Saint Augustine namely That in heaven to differ as much from This on the Altar as did the Body borne of the Virgin Mary from the other which was not so borne But if this Homily will not advantage your Iesuite hee will wrest his prejudicate Conceite out of another Homily of AElfrick if it be possible where we reade thus As Christ before his Passion could convert the substance of Bread and Creature of Wine into his owne Body that suffered and into his Blood which afterwards was extant to be shed So also was he able in the Desert to Convert Manna and Water out of the Rock into his Blood So he citing a Testimonie as fully Opposite unto your Transubstantiation in sense as it seemeth
Thomistae liquot dicunt per Conversionem aliquam in 〈◊〉 sum Panem Aâ—â— iterùm Creaâ—â— hoc verius â—uareâ—â— quo supra âšœ Vâ—â—quâ—z in 3 Tho. qu. 76. Art 8. Disp 184. c. 5. Probabilior sententia est à solo Deo per creationeÌ„ produci âšœ Miraculous Conversion or by a New Creation What you who every where teach that none are to conceipt of any Miracle in this Sacrament without necessary Cause can you possibly be perswaded that there is or can be any necessary Cause why God should worke a Miracle either of Conversion into or of New Creation of Bread for Breeding or Feeding of wormes or of Wine for making such men Drunke as should taste too largely of the Cup yea or else to poyson your Enemy were hee p See above at 〈◊〉 num 3. Emperour or q Platina in vita Victoris Henrici Regisfraude ut Martinus scribit venend in Calicem injecto dum sacrificat necatur See also above at n num 3. Pope Nay can it bee lesse than Blasphemy to say that God worketh Miracles for the accomplishment of vaine wicked and mischievous effects Farre be it from us to imagine that the Blessed Body of our Lord Christ who by his Touch cured so many diseases in the time of his mortality should now being glorified miraculously poyson his Guests whosoever they bee Beleeve if you can that if God wrought as you say a Miracle to convert Accidents into Bread to engender or nourish vile wormes that he would not much rather worke a miracle if any such miracle were herein to bee expected to hinder the poysoning of his faithfull Communicants In all this we appeale againe to true Antiquitie and require of you to shew we say not some expresse Testimony of Primitive Fathers but so much as any intimation or insinuation were it but by way of a Dreame of a Miraculous Conversion of the Consecrated Host when it beginneth to putrifie by being changed againe into Bread or of Mice eating the Body of Christ or that being putrified it should bread wormes seeing it were a miracle they should not bee so bred or any such kind of Romish Fancies and delusions or otherwise to confesse your Objectours to be miserable Proctours of a vile and desperate Cause Yet lest any of you may thinke that One coming into a Cellar full of new Wine and made Drunke with the smell thereof therefore meere Accidents doe Inebriate your Iesuite will deny this and tell you that it is the * In Cella Viâ—â—ria novis vinis â—â—plerà solus Accodore infectus meâ—â—t Cost Ies Christian Institut lib. 1. cap. 8. Ayre infected with the odour which maketh men Drunke âšœ And that no Incorporall thing can bee nourishment to a corporall Bodily Substance * See below in this Booke Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Gregory Nyssen doth make good and your 18 Fra. Marin Marsen ord Minim Com. in Gen. cap. 1. v. 1. pag. 464. Angelos nullam substantiam creâ—re posse Scâ—tus probat nisi virtue primi Agentis quia eorum volitio intellectio potentia sunt Accidents At impossibile est Accidens osse principium formale producendi substantiam quamcunque quia Substantia est nobilior quovis Accidentè A SECOND CHALLENGE with a Caution YOur Common and most plausible Objection to dementate vulgar people is to perswade them that you cannot attribute Credit to your Senses in this case without much derogation from Faith Therefore for Caution-sake be it knowne unto you that wee have not pleaded for the Truth of Senses as holding nothing credible but that which may be proved by the Testimony of Senses This wee utterly abhorre as the Gulfe of Infidelity proper to the Athean Sect for wee accord to that saying of an holy Father Fides non habet meritum ubi Ratio aut Sensus habet experimentum and also to that other of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustin Exposit Fidei Iustine In which respect we condemne the Incredulity of Thomas in that he would not beleeve except hee should See yet notwithstanding wee with our Saviour approve in Thomas that by Seeing he did beleeve For this is a true Tenet in Divinity Faith may be Supra above right Reason or Sense but never Contra against either It was never read that God required of any man a beliefe of any Sensible thing which was Contrary to the exact judgement of his Senses And therefore your opposition in this Case as it is Sensles so it is indeed Faithlesse as wee have already learned from Scripture and Fathers by whom the Iudgement of Sense hath beene acknowledged to bee in Sensible Objects a notable Ground of Faith All this while wee have said nothing of your professed maner of Existence of Accidents which you may reade in the Challenge following âšœ A THIRD CHALLENGE Touching the Accidents of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament COncerning the Accidents of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament after Consecration some are such as were before Consecration inherent in them as to bee Visible Savory Solid c. And some are Accessory Impressions and Alterations which accrew afterwards as if it shall happen to bee after Consecration Hot Cold Sweet or Sower or the like Wee demand what thing you do judge that to be which so hapneth to bee hot or sweet after Consecration None can deny but this must be either Quality or Quantity or some materiall Substance Wee consulting with two of your owne Iesuites heare the one maintaining that these two Accidents have 19 Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eucharist cap. 24. §. Respondeo tractantur Si mutatio in Pane Eucharistiae sit sola alteratio ut calefactio coÌ„densatio tum non requiritur materia aut substantia pro subjecto nam AccideÌ„tia omnia pro subjecto habent Quantitatem quae in Sacramento maneat unde Hostia consecrata dicitur alba sapida rotunda parva Haec enim omnia denominant Quantitatem alioqui non possit fieri denominatio non enim Accidentia de seipsis dicunsuâ— in Concreto sed solùm de Subjecto exceptà Quanâ—â—tate quae dicitur Quantitas Quanta Quantity for their Subject and the other 20 Lessius Ies Opusc de Perfectionibus divinis lib. 12. cap. 16. num 112. Alterum Miraculum est circa species quòd ita Passiones Impressiones suscipiant aliarum quantitatum perindè ac si Materiae Panis Vini remaâ—â—rent calescunt enim Species atque frigeseunt similesque mutationes subeunt Quidam putant Quantitatem solâ—â— esse immediate Subjectâ—â—h omnium Accidentinum quod difficile est creditu quid enim Quantitatis indoli cum illis Qualitatibus non enim Quantitas haber ullam propensionem ad calorem frigus saporem 〈◊〉 similia neque enim illa dicuntur calescere frigescere aut benè maleve olere Confuting this Because Hotnesse Sweetnesse and such like Qualities have no affection to Quantity meaning that we cannot call any Quantity Cold Hot
pro aliqua corporis Christi productione sed pro eo quod est corpus Christi adduci seu fieri praesens in Sacramento ex hac parte nihil difficultatis est in praedictis annuntiationibus Panis fit Corpus Christi melius docent Tho. Rich. Gabr. Sotus Ledesma hanc propositionem esse falsam si secundùm proprietatem vocum accipiatur Et ratio manifesta est quià cum aliquid dicitur fieri aliud debet esse aliquod commune saltem materia sub utroque termino Transmutationis hic autem nihil manet commune nisi Accidentia quae non fiant corpus Christi sed continent AEgidius Coninck de Sacramentis Qu. 75. Art 8. De pane sit Corpus Christi Ex pane fit corpus Christi in rigore sunt falsae si apud Patres inveâ—â—antur piè explicandae sunt Patres Catachresi usos esse This Proposition Bread is made the Body of Christi is False say your Doctors And It cannot agree with the Body of Christ in true Proprietie and they give reasons hereof in the Margin The other is That to affirme that Bread is changed into Christ his Body is a false Proposition the reason is because in your Transubstanciation there is no Change made in Christ's Body A third may be this touching the Praeposition Dè That the Body of Christ cannot be properly said to be made De Pane of Bread for so it should not be of the flesh of the Virgin Thus can they say and thus can they conclude and yet notwithstanding for defence of their Transubstantiation thus durst they produce such Testimonies of Fathers wherein the Bread is said to be made Christ's Body and which speake of Changing Bread into Christ's Body and also such which expresse the Body of Christ to be made of Bread Which one Consideration as it doth discover the Vnconscionablenesse of our Adversaries so may it instruct us that all such Sentences of the Fathers are to be Interpreted as spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in a Figurative Sense CHALLENGE ONely give us leave to speer you a Question before wee end this third Booke Seeing that Transubstantiation cannot properly be by your owne Doctrine except the Substance of Bread ceasing to be there remaine only the Accidents thereof this Position of the continuance of Onely Accidents without a Subject being your Positive Foundation of Transubstantiation Why is it that none of all your Romish Disputers was hitherto ever able to produce any one Testimony out of all the Volumes of Antiquity for proofe of this one point excepting onely that of Cyril which * See above Chap. 4. § 4. hath bin as yoe have heard egregiously abused and falsified Learne you to Answer this Question or else shame to object Antiquity any more but rather confesse your Article of Transubstantiation to be but a Bastardly Impe. Wee might inlarge our selves in this point of your Vnconscionablenesse in your objecting Testimonies of Fathers for proofe aswell of Transubstantiation as of the other Articles above-mentioned but that they are to be presented in their proper places to wit in the following Treatises concerning Corporall Presence Corporall Vnion Corporall Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Sacrament and the Divine Adoration thereof so plainly that any man may be perswaded our Opposites meane no good Faith in arguing from the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers Hitherto of the First Romish Consequences THE FOVRTH BOOKE Treating of the second Romish Consequence arising from the false Exposition of these words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY called Corporall Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist THE Sacramentall Presence hath a double Relation one is in respect of the thing sensibly received which is the Sacrament it selfe the other in respect of the Receiver and Communicant Both which are to bee distinctly considered as well for our right discerning of the matter in hand as also for Method's sake The first is handled in this Booke the second in that which followeth CHAP. I. Of the state of this point of Controversie That notwithstanding the difference of opinion of Christ's Presence be onely De modo that is of the maner of Being yet may the Romish Doctrine be Hereticall and to hold the contrary is a pernitious Paradoxe SECT I. IT would be a wonder to us to heare Any of our owne profession to be so extremely Indifferent concerning the different opinions of the Maner of the Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament as to thinke the Romish Sect therefore either Tollerable or Reconciliable upon Pretence that the Question is onely De modo that is of the maner of Being and that Consequently all Controversie about this is but vaine langling Such an one ought to enter into his second thoughts to consider the necessity that lyeth upon every Christian to abandon divers Heresies albeit their difference from the Orthodox profession were only De modo As for example First The Gnostick taught man's soule to have it's beginning by maner of Production from the substance of God The Catholikes sayd nay but by maner of Creation of nothing The Pelagians maintained a free will in spirituall Acts from the grace of Nature The Catholikes nay but by speciall grace of Christ freeing the will through the efficacious operation of his holy Spirit The Catharists held themselves pure in a purity of an absolute perfection The Catholikes nay but by an Inchoative comparative and imperfect perfection of purity Furthermore against our Christian Faith of beleeving God to be absolutely a Spirit the Anthropomorphites conceived of God as of one after the maner of men consisting of Armes and Leggs c. Not to be tedious Wee come to the Sacraments The Cataphrygae did not Baptize in the name of the Blessed Trinity after the maner of the Catholikes The Artotyritae celebrated the Eucharist in Bread and Cheese To omit many others take one ponyard which wee are sure will pierce into the intrailes of the Cause to wit the heresie of the Capernaits in the dayes of our Saviour Christ who hearing his Sermon teaching men to Eate his flesh and conceiving thereby a carnall maner of Eating irreconciliably contrary to the spirituall maner which was beleeved by the true Disciples of Christ departed from Christ and Apostated from the Faith âšœ For we are to understand that there is a double Quomodo How The one Insidelitatis as though it were unpossible to be True in the Sense of the speaker The other Quomodo How Prudentiae by inquiring into the Possible Sense of the speaker Of the first kind was that of the Capernaits by not beleeving through their praejudicate understanding of his speach Contra Christi Sensum That other is of us Protestants beleeving the same words juxta Christi Sensum âšœ And that the Romish maner of Eating Christ his Body is Capernaiticall her maner of Sacrifice sacrilegious her maner of Divine Adoration therof Idolatrous and all these maners Irreconciliable to the maner of our Church is copiously declared in the
by Damascen to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Essentiall to a Body In like maner Ephraemius in Photâ—us sticketh to the same Argument of difference of natures by reason of Contradiction saying concerning the two distinct natures of Christ That none that hath wit can say that the same Nature is both palpable and impalpable visible and Invisible âšœ Let us ascend hither to the more primitive Ages to inquire of Fathers who had conflict also with Heretikes who gainesaid the Truth of either Nature Athanasius urged Christ his Ascension into Heaven 〈◊〉 prove that hee was as truly man as God because his God head was never out of Heaven being h Athanas 〈◊〉 2. Adversus eos q. trullum nos miraculum 〈◊〉 eo quod carâ—em negant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vndâ—â—rminate in place and uncircumscribed even then when it was Hyphstatically united with the Body being on earthâ— Therefore it was his Body that ascended into Heaven from Earth His Argument is taken from Circumscription even as I l Nazian Epist 1. id Cledâ—â— Hominem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianzen also doth Characterize them Cyril of Alaxandria is a Father whose Patronage your Disputers would be thought often to rely upon hee is now about to deliver his Iudgement so freely and plainly as if hee had meant to stop the mouthes of all our Opposiâ—es in the same Answer which hee maketh against certaine Heretikes who held that God's nature is a Substance which can received vision and partition If God saith m Cyril Alex Tom. 2. lib. de T. inir Si verè Sâ— chohem Partitionem Divini naturâ— ut 〈◊〉 dicunt reciperet intelligeretur ut corpus si autem hoc in loco omâ—â—nò li quanta facta esset non effugeret Circumscripâ—â— fol. 89. Cyril should be divisible as a Body then should it be contained in place and then should it have Quantity and having Quantity it could not but be Circumscribed Will you now say which hitherto hath beene your onely Answer to other Fathers that Cyril meant not that it was absolutely Impossible that Quantity should be without Circumscription but onely according to the Course of nature then might the Heretikes whom Cyril confuted have made the same Answer and consequently Cyril's Consequence and Confutation together with the Arguments of the Fathers above-mentioned had beene of no force What shall wee say must still the ancient Fathers be made no better than Asses in arguing that your Romish Masters forsooth may be deemed the onely Doctors even then when they prepare the same Evasion for Heretikes which they devise for themselves but you must pardon us if wee believe that Cyril seeing he durst say that God himselfe if hee were a Body must be in a place as a thing having Quantity and Circumscribed would have abhorred your now Romish Faith of believing * See hereafter Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Christ's Body consisting of Quantitie albeit not Circumscribed in place âšœ The Arguments which wee receive from these Fathers in Confutation of your Romish Faith of believing the same Humane Body of Christ Circumscribed in Heaven and Vncircumscribed on your Altars on Earth are Two The first is their denying the Possibility of Christ's Body to be Vncircumscribed and that upon two grounds One because Circumscription is Essentiall and as Proper to Christ's Body as Vncircumscription is Proper to his Divine Nature without which Difference there should follow a Confusion of his two Different natures which was the very same Heresie which they impugned Their second ground is from the infallible Rule of Contradiction being the extremest Degree of Impossibilitie that can be imagined namely For the same â—ody to be at the same time mortall and immortall palpable and impalpable And yet your Fathers of the Councell of Trent in their wisedomes have Canonized it for an Article of your Faith by teaching a palpable and Circumscriptive Body of Christ in Heaven and impalpable and Vncircumscriptive on Earth It might be held a kind of Impiety not to consult with Saint Augustine in a Question of this moment The Iudgement of Saint Augustine stiled by learned Doctors The Mallet of Heretikes to knocke out their Braines First giving this Caution viz. 13 Aug. Epist 57. ad Dardan where after this Coveat Cavendum ne ità Divinitatem affirmamus ut corporis veritatem auferamus hee hath these words Spatia locotum tolle corpotibus nusquaÌ„ erunt quià nusquam erunt nec erunt Idem Tract 31. in toh Homo secundùm corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco unde venit non est Deus autem implet omnia ubique totus nec secundùm spatia tenetur locis erat tamen Christus secundùm visibilem carnem iâ— terra secundùm invisibilem majestatem in coelo in terra To take heed lest wee sâ— establish Christs Deity that wee destroy not the truth of his Body Hee afterwards concludeth against the Impossibilitie of a Body uncircumscribed saying Take away Space of Place from Bodies and then shall they be no-where and if they be no-where then must they be no-what having no Being at all Secondly where hee concludeth that Christ according to his Visible flesh was on earth when according to his Invisible Majesty Hee was both in Heaven and Earth hee layd this Ground thereof to wit that A Body removing from one place to another is not in that place from whence it came But our Catholike Article of Faith saith that Hee ascended from Earth to Heaven And therefore by Saint Augustine his Argument Hee was not then on Earth In the third place Discussing the Difference of the two Natures of Christ more fully in respect of Presence in Place for the reconciling of a Seeming Contradiction of Christs words saying in one place I am with you unto the Ends of the World and another place saying You shall not have me alwayes with you he assoyleth the Difficultie by Differencing Christs Natures 14 Aug. Tract 50. in â—oh Pauperes semper habebitis vobiscuÌ„ me autem non semper habebitis Potest sic intelligi Accipiant hoc boni sed non sint soliciti loquebatur emiâ— de praesentia corpoâ—â—s sui Nam secunduÌ„ majestatem suam secundùm providenuam secundùm inessabilem invisibilem gratiam impletur ab eo quod dâ—ctum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum usquè ad consummationem seculi secundùm autem â—d quod de Virgine natus est quodque in Resurrectione maniâ—estatus est non semper habebitis vobiscum Quare Quoniâ—m conversatus secundâ— corporis pâ—aesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipuliâ— suis eis videntibus ascendit in coesum non est hîc Ibi est enim sedet ad dextrim Patris hic est non enim recesâ—â—â— praesentia majestatis Secundùm praesentiam carnis Ec. lesia modo side tenâ—â— oculis
your framing a Christ unto your selves who as hee is in this Sacrament Is you say without power of motion of sense and of understanding Why my Masters can there be Lamenesse Blindnesse Deafenesse and Impotencie it selfe without Hurt of the same party so maymed c. This is worse than your dirty imagination of placing him in a Dunghill âšœ A Vindication of the former Truth against the palpably-Absurd albeit amongst you most plausible Defence of your seeming Romish Absurdities in Master Fishers Answer to KING JAMES of Blessed and ever surviving Memory SECT VI. HIs Tractate upon Transubstantiation so greatly magnified of the Romish Professors is very large wee shall draw his principall Points into a Compendium which consisteth of two Generalls and of divers Particulars His two Generalls are his Position and Supposition Master Fisher his Generall Position for Defence of Romish Absurdities the Consequences of your Transubstantiation Numb 1. A Christian Catholike saith he Seeing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation many seeming Absurdities that presse carnall Imaginations to the ground growes more and more strong to believe them imbracing these difficulties as signes of that doctrine which was believed of the Primitive Church And againe The seeming Absurdities should rather incline a Christian to beleeve this mystery Our Reply in Generall to prove that his former Assertion may truly be termed FISHERS FOLLIE For if the Absurder a thing be it shall deserve a more beliefe then the Pagans of whom Tully could say There is nothing so Absurd which is not taught of some Philosopher even to the affirming of Snow to be Blacke should be held to be more faithfull than the best of Christians and Heretikes who have turned their Phantasticall dreames into Articles of Faith should be judged to be more true Beleevers than are true Catholikes And sure wee are that by this Position the Jewish Rabbins who taught the people to beleeve in an implicit Faith all their Doctrines albeit it were to hold his Left hand was his Right should bee esteemed no lesse Faithfull than the Papist who by like Doctrine of blind Obedience have professed that Christ his Bodie being in divers Hoasts taketh the Right hand and left hand of it selfe And by the same Assertion shall Master Fisher thinke himselfe to be a better Catholike than were any of the ancient Fathers or yet any Romish Doctor yea or than is M. Fisher himselfe as will appeare in the sequele of our Reply The second Generall is Master Fisher his Supposition Numb 2. Master Fisher his Supposition is That although the Absurdities which are imputed by Protestants to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation seeme to be such Because they are not apprehensible by reason yet are they therefore saith he the rather to be beleeved notwithstanding whatsoever Impossibilities that can be pretended So hee Our Confutation must be accordingly two-fold The first in respect of Impossibilities and the next of Indignities Our Reply displaying the Absurditie of Master Fishers Supposition in respect of Impossibilities by the Generall Doctrine of Fathers Consent of Romish Divines and by his owne particular Praevarication First the Ancient Fathers of the Primitive age have unanimously professed a Doctrine of an Absolute Impossibility in all such things which imply any Contradiction as you have * See above in this B. 4. cap. 3. Sect. 2. 3. heard and maintaining this Doctrine of granting an Impossibilitie in such Cases to be a Truth greatly magnifying the Omnipotencie and Almighty power of God even by reason of Contradiction in them which is an affirming and denying of the same thing Concluding furthermore that gain-saying of Impossibilitie in things contradictory hath beene anciently The Sanctuary of Heretikes So the holy Fathers Secondly all the Doctors of the Romish Schooles of whatsoever Age Sect Society or Denomination have subscribed to the judgement of those Ancient Fathers in the same point of Impossibilitie but why Impossibility Because say they that such things are unconceivible in mans reason and that they seeme Absurd because of Contradiction And hereupon have concluded of many Impossibilities touching a Body as for example * See above c. 3. Impossible for a Body to be produced in divers places at once Impossible for a quantitie of a Bodie not to possesse a place Impossible for Christs Body as in this Sacrament to goe from one place to another Impossible for the same Bodie to be equall with a greater quantity and many other more Impossibilities have they reckoned upon the same ground that the Reason of man could apprehend nothing in such points but an implication of Contradiction And now all these great pillars of Christianity as well in the Vniversall Church Primitive as in the now Romish must by Master Fishers former Assertion be held to have beene no better than underminers of the Christian Faith in that they did not Rather beleeve those things to be possible even because they seemed Impossible by reason of Contradiction Lastly to come to Master Fisher his owne Praevarication * Mr. Fisher in his Answere to the 〈◊〉 upon the seventh point which is the â—ommunion in both kinds How can the Body of Christ saith hee be without either Blood or Soule unlesse it were dead and so should Christ be massacred in this Sacrament and that Eucharist be a Bloody Sacrifice and Christ glorious in Heaven cannot say truly that a Body voyd of Soule Blood and Sense is his Body Yea as Calvin himselfe confesseth It is an Absurd maner of speech to terme Christ the meere Bodie of Christ So hee Whereupon hee will be found so implicated within the horâ—es of a Dilemma that hee cannot expedite himselfe For say good Master Fisher should a Christian man as you have sayd the rather beleeve a Doctrine because it seemeth to be Absurd wee speake of sensible Objects why then do you not beleeve these Absurdities which you your selfe now do so utterly therefore condemne But do you indeed condemne them because they seeme impossible and Absurd why then have you broached a Doctrine of Rather beleeving things because of their seeming Impossiblities So easie it is for a Patron of Absurdities to prove himselfe notably Absurd Master Fisher his Generall Supposition in respect of Seeming Indignities happening to the Bodie of Christ from the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Numb 3. As hee sayd of Absurdities in respect of Impossibilitie so doth hee also argue from Seeming Indignities condemning Protestants for arguing against Transubstantiation because of Seeming Indignities As in not conceiving Christs Bodie saith hee to be combined unto the Consecrated formes of Bread and not to be polluted with such Indignities and Obscenities So he Our Reply As though no other Indignities might be imputed to Romish Doctrine except it were in such like Cases wherein the Bodie of Christ should receive some Corporall hurt or pollution There were and are amongst the Romish * See Booke 5. cap. 7. Sect. 1. Professors and that no small Babes who have taught a
of faith eat it not although they do visibly presse with their teeth the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ yet are they in no wise Partakers thereof But your Romish Church flatly otherwise as you all know and therefore hath your Sympresbyter Master h Mr. Brerely Tract 2. §. 5. Sub 2. Brerely endeavoured to assume some Protestants to be on your side whom hee hath alleged with like faithfulnesse as hee hath cited Master Calvin than whom hee could not have in this case a greater Adversary For although Calvin grant with all Protestants that the wicked and faithlesse receive truly by way of Sacrament the Body of Christ yet doth hee deny that they have in their Bodies any Corporall Conjunction or Vnion with Christ because the Vnion which wee have i Calvin Epist 372. yet in the same Epistie hee saith of Papists Damnantur qui dicunt non minus corporis Christi participem fuisse Iudam quam Petrum In his Institut lib. 4. cap. 17. Non alia quam fidei manducatio Sect. 8. Cordis sinum tantùm protendant quo praesentem amplexentur §. 12 Vinculum con junctionis est spiritus Christi §. 13. Non 〈◊〉 §. 16. Non contactu §. 33. Impij scelerati non edunt Christi corpus qui sunt ab eo alieni quia ipsa caro Christi in mysterio coenae non ramus spiritulis res est quà m salus aeterna Vnde colligimus quod quicunque vacui sunt spiritu Christi carnem Christi non posâ—e edere magis quam vinum bibere cui non conjunctus est Sapor Aliud tamen est offerri aliud recipi Spiritualem â—ibum omnibus porrigit Christus etiam indignis at non absquè fide recipitur §. 34. Saepius fateor occurrit apud Augustinum ista loquendi forma Comedi Corpus Christi ab infidelibus sed seipsum explicat c. Haec Calvinus saith hee is Onely Spirituall onely with the soule onely with the heart onely by faith and although it be offered to the wicked to be really received yet do they not receive it because they are Carnall Their onely Receiving therfore is but Sacramentall So Master Calvin It had beene good that your Priest had suspected his owne Iudgement and as well in this case as others by doubting his owne eye-sight had borrowed your k Sextum eorum pronunciatum est Improbos non suscipere Corpus Christi licet Symbola suscipiant Calvin Instit lib. 4. cap. 17. §. 33. Beza Teste Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 1. §. Porro Cardinall his Spectacles then would hee have clearly perceived that together with other Protestants Calvin held that The wicked although they receive the Symbols and outward Signes of Christ's body yet the Body it selfe they doe not receive So your Cardinall of the Doctrine of Protestants For although indeed Calvin sayd that The wicked eat the Body of Christ yet explayning himselfe hee added these two words In Sacramento that is Sacramentally which in Calvin's style is taken for Symbolically onely As for the Consent of Protestants herein wee put it to your great Cardinall and Champion their greatest Adversary to expresse l Ex Vbi quitistarum opinione sequitur corpus Christi non posse vere manducari ore corporali sed solum ore spirituali per fidem est ipsisima sententia Sacramentariorum Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 17. §. Secundo ex Hee joyneth Lutherans to the Calvinists in one Consent for denying the Orall and Corporall Eating thereof and for believing the Eating of it Onely by Faith Yet lest any may say that in receiving the same Sacrament hee doth not receive the thing signifyed thereby you may have a Similitude to illustrate your Judgements as thus The same outward word concerning Justification by Christ cometh to the eares of both Vnbelievers and Believers But the Believers onely are capable of Justification That the wicked Communicants albeit they eat not bodily Christ's Body yet are they Guilty of the Lord's Body for not receiving Spiritually namely through their Contempt in not receiving the Blessing offered thereby SECT II. THe Apostle 1. Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever saith hee Eateth this Bread and Drinketh this Cup unworthily hee shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. And vers 29. eateth and drinketh Damnation to himselfe not discerning the Lords Body Your Remish Professours men not the least zealous for your Romish Cause objecting this against the Protestants call upon you saying first m Rhemists Annot in 1. Cor. 11. vers 27. Here upon marke well that ill men receive the Body and Blood of Christ be they Infidels or ill livers for else they could not be guilty of that which they receive not Secondly That it could not be so hainous an offence for any to receive a piece of Bread or a Cup of Wine though they were a true Sacrament for it is a deadly sinne for any to receive any Sacrament with will and intention to continue in sinne or without repentance of former sinnes but yet by the unworthy receiving of no other Sacrament is man made guilty of Christs Body and Blood but here where the unworthy Receiver as Saint n Chrysost Hom 60. 61. ad Pop. Antioch Chrysostome saith do vill any to Christs owne Person as the Iewes and Gentiles did that crucified him Which invincibly proveth against the Heretikes that Christ is herein really present And guilty is hee for not dâ—scerning the Lords Body that is because hee putteth no difference betweene this high meat and others So your Rhemists Your Cardinall also as though hee had found herein something for his purpose o Bellar. Obijcit Cyprian Sterm de Lapsis de ijs qui post negatum Christum sine poenitententia accedunt plus cos jam manibus atquè ore delinquere quam cum Dominum negâ—runt Deinde Cyprianum recensere miracula facta in vindictam eorum qui corpus Christi tantum violant Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 9. See this answered in the 7. Sectioâ— following fasteneth upon the sentence of Cyprian who accounted them that after their denyall of Christ presented themselves to this Communion without repentance to offer more injurie to Christ by their polluted hands and mouthes than they did in denying Christ and besides hee recordeth Examples of Gods miraculous vengeance upon those who violated the Body of Christ in this Sacrament So hee All these points are reducible unto three heads One is that Ill men might not be held guilty of the Body of Christ except they did receive it as being materially present in this Sacrament Next is the Guilt of prophaning this Sacrament which being more hainous than the abuse of any other Sacrament therfore the injury is to be judged more personall The last that the Examples of Gods vindicative Iudgemeuts for Contempt hereof have beene more extraordinary which may seeme to be a Confirmation of both the former Before wee
that quickeneth it is not spoken to exclude the Reall Presence or to qualifie his former sayings but to admonish them not to judge things by carnall reason and yet more evidently in the words following There are some of you that beleeve not Hee sayd not saith Saint Augustine there be some among you that understand not so plainly did hee hereby instruct them not how to understand but how to beleeve for had hee for their better understanding intended hereby to have qualified or corrected his former sayings as to be meant Eating Spiritually by Faith hee would have explained himselfe in plaine termes and so have satisfied the Iewes Vpon which premises I do conclude that because our Saviour did reprove his Scrupulous hearers not for want of understanding but for want of beleefe it doth from thence and from other premises abundantly follow that his fore-sayd promise was not obscure and Figurative but plaine and literall for our receiving of him without our bodily mouthes Thus farre your celebrious Priest namely so as in almost all other his Collections not understanding the Truth of the matter His Inferences stand thus First Christ reprehended the Capernaites for not Beleeving his words concerning Eating his Flesh but not for not understanding them Therefore it followeth that they understood his words of Eating his Flesh right well Secondly They understood his Speech Therefore Christ in saying The Flesh profiteth nothing it is the Spirit that quickeneth did not thereby qualifie his former speech to instruct their understanding Thirdly They needed no instruction of their understanding Therefore Christs words of Eating his Flesh were not Figurative Fourthly these his words were not Figurative Therefore his words of Eating his Flesh teach a Corporall Presence thereof in the Sacrament Each of these Consequences are delivered as ignorantly as confidently For common learning teacheth that there is a double consideration of Truth in every True speech the one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is True the second is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is the Truth or true sense thereof To the apprehending of the first is required Beliefe whereupon Aristotle gave that Rule to every Schollar that intendeth to learne the principles of any Art to wit Oportet discentem credere A Schollar is bound to beleeve The other point touching the Truth or true sense what it is is the Object of mans understanding so that there is a great difference betweene both these in the case of a Reprehension As for example the Master teaching the definition of Logick saying It is an Art of Disputing rightly may justly reprove his Schollar for his not beleeving it because his not beleeving is wilfull so can hee not for his not understanding it for that hee therefore learneth because hee doth not understand except it be that being taught hee either through carelesse negligence or else affected ignorance will not understand This agreeth with the Current of Scripture Iohn 6. verse 38. Christ being the Oracle of Truth which descended from Heaven to reveale the will of his Father might justly exact Beliefe that whatsoever hee spake to the sonnes of men was most true as it is written The will of God is that whosoever beleeveth in mee c. verse 40. viz. That they must Eate his Flesh But his hearers could not understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What was the true sense of these words which caused them to say This is an hard saying Therefore like Schollars of preposterous wits would they not beleeve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely That they were True hence it was that Christ reproved them for not beleeving onely verse 64. and not for not understanding Because it was as lawfull for Christs Disciples to be ignorant of his darke sayings and Parables which were therefore so spoken that his Schollars might more earnestly labour to know them as it was after lawfull for them to seeke of their Master whose precept is to * Matth. 7. 7. Seeke and promise to Find how to understand them As it is written * Matth. 13. 36. His Disciples sayd unto him Declare unto us the Parable of the Seed and Christ answered them Hee that soweth c. That admirable Doctor of Gods Church Saint Augustine will shew himselfe herein an understanding Schollar of Christ see his Testimony requiring of all the Disciples of Christ in the first place Beliefe of Christs-words that they are True before they did understand what was the Truth thereof confirming his Rule by that Scripture Except you believe you shall not understand O but the Capernaites saith Master Brerely did understand Christs words right well And Saint d Aug. in Ioh. 7. Tract 27. Sunt quidam in vobis qui non credunt Non dixit sunt quidam in vobis qui non intelligunt sed causam dixit quare non intelligunt nempè quia non credunt ut Propheta nisi credideritis non intelligetis Aliquanto superius Illi putarunt illum erogatuâ—um corpus suum Ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum Certe tunc intelligetis quia eo modo quo putatis non erogat corpus Caro non prodest quicquam Sicut illi intellexerunt carnem spiritualiter intellectum vivificat And Master Brerely out of Augustine in Psal 98. Nisi quis manducavetit Dixerunt durus hic sermo accepâ—unt illud stultè carnaliter illud cogitaverunt Augustine contrary to Master Brerely expressely answereth They did not understand the Truth of Christ his Speech but apprehended it foolishly and literally nor was there ever any Father or Author no not in your owne Romish Church wee thinke before one Master Brerely that thought otherwise Wee are willing your Bishop Iansenius may moderate this Difference See the 1 Iansenius Concord cap 59. upon the very words of Saint Augustine Non dixit sunt quidam in vobis qui non intelligunt sed causam dicit quare non intelligunt Advertenda differentia inter credentes non credentes non credentes ob verba non intellecta offendebantur credentes verò verba non intellecta humiliter susceperunt admirabantur Margin His second Assertion touching that speech of Christ The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickneth That it was not spoken by Christ to Qualifie his former termes of Eating his flesh is very like also to be his owne being flatly contrary to the same Father whom hee avouched for Saint Augustine saith that Christ by these words taught the Capernaites to understand his other words of Eating Spiritually a Truth which Master Brerely's owne great Master Cardinall f Sed verus literalis sensus eorum verborum est carnalis intelligentia nihil prodest ut exponunt Chrysost Theophyl Euthem nec non Origines Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 14. Bellarmine hath published alleging for proofe thereof the Testimonies of other Fathers saying Chrysostome Theophylact Euthemius and also Origen so expoundeth it So hee âšœ Who notwithstanding should not
names of the Things signifyed thereby whereof you have heard a Memorable example out of * See above Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 2. Homer where even as Christ sayd of Consecrated Bread This is my Body So those Heathen in Sacrifising of Lambes for Ratification of their Oaths and Covenants called those Sacrifices their Oaths And that nothing was more familiar among the Heathen you may know by that Proverbiall speech Sine Cerere Libero friget Venus without Ceres and Bacchus Lust doth languish where they give to Bread the name of the Goddesse Ceres and the name of God Bacchus to Wine Secondly and more especially may this appeare out of Iustine immediatly after the place now objected thus 15 Iustin Loco supracitat Hoc est sanguis meus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ saith Iustine receiving Bread saith This is my Body and taking the Cup sayd This is my Blood and delivered them onely in those words the which also even the wicked Devils by Imitation have taught to be done in the Mysteries of their Mithra namely for that Bread and a Pot of Water is put in the Sacrifices of him that is initiated unto their Communion in the Sacrifices by Addition of certaine words as you either know or might have knowne So Iustine To the Heathen Emperour Do you not see how the Devils in their Sacrifices and Mysteries as 16 Tertul. de Corâ—na 〈…〉 Agnoseamus ingenia 〈◊〉 ideuco quaedam de divims assectantis ut nos de suoruâ— fide confundat et â—udâ—cet Idem de Praesâ—ription Ipsus res Sacramentorum devinorum in Idol â—rum mysterâ—â—s aemulatur Tiâ—git ipse quosdam celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem Resurrectionis inducit Tertullian witnesseth affect Divine Rites And by Imitation play Christs Apes as other Fathers use to speake And that not onely in their Materiall Ceremonies such as are Bread and Cup but also in their Verball by Addition of words as Iustine sheweth Where you may perceive how Iustine argued with those Heathen out of their owne Mysteries and that wee may so call them Sacraments even as Saint Paul did with the Athenians out of the Inscription of their owne Altar It happened not above a quarter of a yeare after that had set downe this Observation that in reading a Booke of that never too worthily Commended Mirrour of Learning Master Isaac Casaubone I found this my Opinion fortifyed and as it were animated with his most acurate Judgement shewing out of his most exquisite Reading that 17 Isaac Casaub in 〈◊〉 exercitat 16. Iustinus in Apologia altera narrat malos Daemonas in Mithâ—ae mysterijs S. Eacharâ—â—liae aemulationem quandam tradidisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecce panem et poculum sed aquae ut dixi non vin◠〈◊〉 verba solemnia super Symbolis proferri solita id enim significat isto in loco vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qâ—d super dicta qua voce utuntur Iuris consulti Etiam Arrianus loco paulo ante indicato sacras mysteriorum voces commemorat quas magnà cum reverentiâ excipi solitas ostendit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum Eucharistia et sit et dâ—catur Communio sicut ante est expositum inâ—â—dem Mithrâ—â— mysterijs Communio quae est omnibus animantibus inter se miro Symbolorum genere expriâ—â—baâ—ur The Devils did in aemulation of Christians use in their Mysteries of Mythra Symbols of Bread and Cup adding solemne Mysticall words Hee furthermore sheweth out of Porphyrie that in their Religious Communion they had certaine Aenigmaticall expressions Calling their Communicants if Men Lions if Women Hyenas and if Ministers Crowes Still as you see using Mysticall and Figurative Appellations in their Ceremoniall Rites Vpon which evidence wee may easily encounter your Cardinalls Dilemma with this that followeth Either the Emperour and the Heathen people did perceive that the words of Christ now published by Iustine were spoken Figuratively signifying the Outward Eating of his Body Bodily in a Signe onely or they did not If they did know so much then could they not be offended with Orthodoxe Christians or Scandalized thereby And if they did not know that they were Figuratively and Mystically to be understood then would not those Emperours have absolved Christians from all blame as you see they did but punished them for Sacrificing of Infants which Act among these Heathen was held to be Criminall and Capitall And that Iustine did not Praevaricate by concealing his Figurative sense of Christs words it is as manifest by that he Instructed them therein out of their own Phrases used in their Ceremonies of their God Mithra The Impossibility that any Heathen could be offended at the former words of Justine SECT VI. NO Heathen that heard of the Catholike Faith of Christians concerning the Body of Christ in those Primitive times published by Ancient Fathers and by Iustine himselfe could except it were against their Consciences impute unto Christians a Corporall Eating of the Body of Christ For first the Articles of Christian Faith for which so many Armies of Martyrs conquered the Infidelity of the world by Martyrdome being this that Christ the Saviour of the world God and Man ascended into Heaven and there now reigneth in the Kingdome of everlasting Blessednesse adored of all Christians with Divine worship Another Article Vniversally held of those Catholike Fathers as hath been * See Book 4. c. 5. §. 5. proved that the Body of Christ was ever notwithstanding his Resurrection and Ascension Circumscribed in one place And thirdly All knowing that this Principle was universally and infallibly believed of all the Heathen namely To thinke it Impossible for one Body to be in many places at once Therefore was it Impossible for the Heathen to conceive that the Christians taught a Corporall Eating of that Body on Earth which they believed was Circumscribed and conteined in Heaven Fourthly That this was the Faith which the same Ancient Father Iustine did professe and publish at that time is now to be tryed out of the Bookes of Iustine himselfe That Iustine himselfe did accordingly argue against the Possibility of Christs Bodily Presence on Earth And that Attalas objected condemneth the Romish Capernaiticall Swallowing of Christs Body SECT VII IVstine in the same Apologie now objected and by him directed unto the Heathen Emperor Antoninus sirnamed the Godly before his words of Eating Christs flesh setteth down the Christian Article of his Ascension into Heaven saying 18 Iustin in Apologia secund pag. 64. Deus Christum post Resurrectionem illaturus coelo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. adversantes Daemones percutiat et bonorum numerum expleatur propter quos nondum extremum Decretum et consummationem fecit that God the Father assumed Christ after his death into Heaven there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is To detaine him untill hee vanquished the Devils and filled up the number of the Godly An
CHRISTI SIGNIFICATVR If that there were no more force in the word SIGNIFICATVR than in NOMINATVR why did your Cardinall bogle and startle at it and utterly dash it out The Eighth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 135. pag. 191. S. CYPRIAN OB. NOn effigie sed is not set downe in the Latine sentence of Cyprian and Caro Factus est is left out in the English both of purpose as will be thought ANSW Neither I dare sweare on purpose because both of them are alleged the first NON EFFIGIE SED translated in the English and CARO FACTVS EST expressed in the Latine Our Advantage now is this to call to our Readers Remembrance that hee must interpret these words of Cyprian by that his other Saying namely that Things signifying are called by the same names by which things signified are called The Ninth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 135. pag. 191. M. BRERELY CYprian said Things Indifferent change their nature after they be commanded OB. Hee meant not simply but after a sort as the Testimonies shew which hee alleged ANSW He meant as simply as any Protestant can do saying a little before the words A thing of Indifferencie being determinated by the Church if it be violated is a sinne What is if this be not a Change of the Nature to become by reason of the Churches Decree of a thing Indifferent and not sinfull a thing sinfull and therefore not Indifferent The Tenth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 136. pag. 194. IVSTINE MARTYR OB. YOu make Iustine say that hee called the Eucharist therefore no common Bread because it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Sanctified meate ANSW And that I say millions of Popish Doctors at the first hearing would sweare to wit that the Church of Rome accounteth the matter of the Eucharist COMMON BREAD and WINE before it be Consecrated Our Advantage is that the Objector hath brought an whole house the Church of Rome it selfe which you call the house of God upon his head by this Exception The Eleventh Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 136. pag. 195. S. CYRIL of HIERVSALEM OB. BEllarmine is taxed of Vnconscionablenesse for concluding out of Cyril that the Sacrament is not to be judged by sense when as the words of Cyril in the same place are expressely saying It is the Body of Christ although thy sense tell thee not so yet let thy faith confirme thee c. ANSW I have taxed him most justly not for any mistaking of the words of Cyril but for wresting and abusing his meaning Bellarmine believing it was so sayd of Cyril as absolutely denying that there can be any tryall of the naturall Substance of Bread after Consecration by the verdict of any of mans senses whereas Cyril spake onely of the Sacramentall nature thereof This was evidently proved out of Cyril who affirming Sacred Oile to be no more Bare Oile after Consecration as he said of the Eucharist It was no more meere Wine after it be Consecrated thereby taught us to judge of both alike Even as wee may say upon the same reason that the water of Baptisme is during the use thereof no meere Water But why even because it is Sacramentall and that accordingly wee are not to beleeve our Senses when wee are in Contemplation of this Sacrament to thinke it now to be mere Water but beleeve it to be of another nature else our naturall eyes and senses shall deceive our Spirituall sight of Faith in discerning the Spirituall and Mysticall meanings thereof Yea and in this respect I might have taxed Bellarmine for inferring from such speeches an absolute denying of the tryall by sense of the natural part of the Sacrament because hee might have beene instructed By the * See Booke 2. cap. 1. Sect. 7. Councell of Nice of the meaning of such speeches of the Fathers that Councell saying as much of Baptisme thus Baptisme is not to be considered with the eyes of our Bodies but of our Mindes All which is to abstract the thoughts of Christian men from all Earthly conceipts when they are conversant in the Celebration of such sacred Mysteries This wee have noted Book 3. pag. 207. This also hath occasioned another Advantage against your Romane Faith by observing in the same place of Cyril another Sentence concerning this Sacrament Coelestiall Bread saith hee sanctifying both Body and Soule But how both it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As the Bread is congruous to the Body so is the word meaning Christ in his Body convenient for the soule What other can be meant hereby but that calling the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after Consecration hee acknowledged not any Substantiall change thereof and more demonstrably because of the Comparison hee hath of the Sacramentall applying of the Body of Christ to the food of the Soule as hee doth the Sacramentall Bread to the nutriment of the Body and Sanctification thereof in hope of Resurrection to life as the Fathers have Commented The Twelfth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag 132. pag. 298. S. CHRYSOSTOME OB. CHrysostome is said to be placed in the front of the host of Bellarmines Fathers whereas Bellarmine in his Catalogue of Fathers De Euchar. lib. 2. citeth twenty Fathers before him ANSW If Bellarmine have had other Treatises in his Controversies against K. IAMES of blessed memory wherein Chrysostome was made the Champion was this fondnesse in mee to say as I have sayd and not rather rashnesse in this Objector in thus gain-saying OB. II. But you have furthermore omitted the words of Chrysostome which in English should be these Although these things exceed our sense and reason yet let us hold them without doubting ANSW Hee telleth mee what was omitted looking directly upon that but forgot to acknowledge what was expressed out of Chrysostome looking askew and asquint at it My Translation out of Chrysostome delivered his words in the first part thus ALTHOVGH THE SPEECH OF CHRIST MAY 〈◊〉 STRANGE TO SENSE AND REASON which is 〈◊〉 to that which is omitted Christ's speech exceeds our sense and reason In the other part was set downe these words of Chrysostome YET LET VS BELIEVE HIS WORDS Fully equivalent with those which were omitted YET LET VS RECEIVE CHRIST'S WORDS WITHOVT DOVBTING except the Papists will thinke us to be of their degenerate Faith Of Believing with doubting Where you may perceive that your Objector considered not how easie it had been for me by not omitting some words to have beene superfluous The Thirteenth Passage Book 3. * Edit 1. pag. 140. pag. 199. SIXTVS SENENSIS OB. IT is alleged out of Senensis that hee maketh Chrysostome to have beene the most frequent in Hyperbolizing of all the Fathers But Senensis onely saith that Chrysostome did Interdum use Hyperbole's ANSW And I say Aliquando seu INTERDVM dormitat Homerus Esto igitur INTERDVM Although I made it good in the same Section that hee often
which is transcendently Religious and Spirituall And the Outward is common to each Degree three onely outward Acts excepted Sacrificing Vowing unto and Swearing by Homages appropriated to the Majestie of God Sacrifice to betoken his Soveraignty Vowing to testifie his Providence and Swearing for the acknowledging of his Wisedome in discerning Iustice in condemning and Omnipotencie in revenging all Perjury be it never so secret That the Reverence used by Protestants in receiving this Sacrament is Christianly Religious SECT II. THeir Inward is their religious Estimation of this Sacrament in accounting the Consecrated Elements to be in themselves Symbols and Signes of the precious Body and Blood of Christ a Memoriall of his death which is the price of mans Redemption and to the Faithfull a Token of their spirituall Vnion with all the Members of Christ and by the incorporation of them in their flesh a Pledge of their Resurrection unto life Secondly their outward Application for testifying their inward estimation consisteth not essentially in any one peculiar Gesture in it selfe as you will a Conc. Carth. 6. Can. 20. Quoniam sunt quidam qui die Dominico slectunt genua in diebus Pentecostes placuit sanctae magnae Synodo cunctos stantes Deum orare debere Durant de Ritib lib. 3. cap. 2. num 21. Hoc ipsum diebus quinquaginta à Pascha usque ad Pentecosten observari consuetum veteres Patres testantur Ratio ex Ambrosio Serm. 21. de Pentecoste quia Resurrectionem Domini celebremus ut Hieron Proem in Epist ad Ephes Non â—lectimus genua non cuâ—vamur in terra sed cum Domino surgentes ad alta sustollimus confesse from Antiquity whether it be in Standing Bowing Kneeling or the like even because the Gestures of Vncovering Bowing and Kneeling are outward behaviours communicable to other persons besides God according to their Naturall Morall Politike and Religious respects Howbeit any of these outward Gestures which carry in them a greater respect of Reverence may be injoyned by the Church whereunto obedience is due according to the just occasions inducing thereunto And where there is no such necessary occasion there the publike observation of the Rites of Communicating commanded by Christ in his first Institution performed namely by Supplications and Praises is a plaine profession of Reverence and more especially that Invitation used in most Churches Christian of the Priest to the People Lift up your hearts and their answerable Conclamation Wee lift them up unto the Lord. It will be objected by Some who pretend to have some Patronage from Calvin that Kneeling at the receiving of the Communion is Vnlawful Every such One is to be intreated to be better acquainted with Calvin where speaking of the Reverence of kneeling hee saith b Calvin Institut lib. 4. §. 37. Iam verò longius prolapsi sunt viz. Papistae ritus enim excogitârunt prorsùs extranâ—os in hoc ut signum divinis honoribus afficiant At Christo inquiunt hanc venerationem deferimus Primùm si in coena hoc fieret dicerem eam esse adorationem legitimam quae non in signo residet sed ad ChristuÌ„ in coelo sedentem dirigitur It is lawfull if it be directed not to the Signe but to Christ himselfe in Heaven which is the resolute profession of our English Church in the use of this Gesture âšœ And the use of Bowing towards the Lords Table hath in it no other nature or meaning than Daniel his Kneeling with his face towards Ierusalem and the Temple For as this was a Testification of his joynt-Society in that religious worship which had beene exercised in the Temple and Altar thereof at Hierusalem so ours is a Symbol of our union in profession with them who do faithfully Communicate at the Table of the Lord. âšœ But to returne unto you who thinke it no Reverence which is not given by Divine Adoration of this Sacrament wee aske Do not you use the Sacrament of Baptisme Reverently you do yet do you not adore the water with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you yield unto the Eucharist All this notwithstanding Calvin his estimation of this Sacrament seemeth but prophane to many of you but the Reason is you would rather condemne him than judge him lest that his Doctrine if it come to examination might condemne you For albeit hee abhorre your Divine Adoration of the Host yet doth he also c Calvin deâ—ens Sanct. Doctâ— advers Westphal Sive utilitas nostra spectetur sive dignitas reverentia quam Sacramento deferri par est pag. 25. Rursus Profani quià sacrae coÌ„municationis pignus quod reverenter suscipere decebat non mirum si corporis sanguinis Christi rei censeantur Ibid pag. 39. condemne every Prophane man who shall partake thereof in the state of Impenitencie To be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ Your next Question will be after this our Discovery of the manifold Perplexities wherein you by your Romish Doctrine are so miserably plunged how Protestants can avoid in many of them the like Intanglements That Protestants in their Profession and Practice stand secure from the first two Romish Perplexities in respect of Preparation of the Elements and undue Pronunciation of the words of Consecration SECT III. OVr Church commandeth that the best Bread and Wine be provided for this best of Banquets the Supper of our Lord yet doth it beleeve that Christ the Ordainer thereof will not deprive the soules of his guests of their desired spirituall Blessings for the negligence of his steward in being defective to provide the Materiall Elements if so be that there be therein according to Christ his Institution the substance of Bread and Wine As for Pronunciation you know Protestants make their Celebration in a tongue knowen unto all the people communicating and in a loud voice according to the universall Practice of the Church of Christ in primitive times as * See above Book 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. 7. hath beene confessed So that the Peoples eares may be their owne witnesses whether the words of Consecration either by Prayer or together with the forme of Repetition of the words of Institution be truly delivered which freeth them from your Romish perplexity of not knowing whether the Priest hath truly Consecrated by his muttering of the words in an unaudible voice The Protestants Security in respect of the third Romish Perplexity of Adoring in a Morall Certaintie SECT IV. OVr Profession is to adore Christ with an infallible faith and not with a conjecturall Credulity or Probability as wee are taught by the holy Scripture the Canonicall foundation of Christian faith defining Faith to be an * Heb. 11. 1. Evidence of things not seene namely a more infallible apprehension of the minde than any perception of sight can be a faith required of every one which shall approach in supplication to God * Heb. 11. 6. Hee that cometh to God must beleeve that God