maintains Doctrines repugnant to plain words of Scripture you or the Church of Rome you will say perehance that those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were formerly but Marginal Note and are now crept into the Text and that all the Greek copies of S. Lukes Gospel are corrupted This indeed is the answer that one of your great and learned Reformers Beza has given though without any ground or colourable proof but he well knew that the words of the Text were so plain that they could not admit of any other shift or evasion and by this shift you may evade any authority of Scripture that may be brought against you and had truth no other way to defend it selâ— we also might thus answer any text of Scripture that can be alledged against any Doctrine of the Church of Rome 37. But let us now see what the antient Fathers say concerning this fond Doctrine and repugnant to the plain words of Scripture S. Chrysostome speaking of Christ's presence in the blessed Sacrament has these words Ecce eum vides ipsum tangis ipsum manducas Et tu quidem vestimenta cupis videre Ipse verò tibi concedit non tantum videre verùm manducare tangere intrate sumere Hom. â—o ad Pop. Antiochen Behold tâ—ou seest him Christ thou touchest him thou catest him thou desirest to see his garments and he is pleas'd that thou shouldest not only see him but also eat him touch him and receive him within thy body And that this seeing eating touching and receiving Christ is not in a bare figure only appears plainly by these words of the Father following in the same Homily Quod Angeli videntes horrescunt neque liberè audent intueri propter emicâ—ntem inde splendorem hoc nos pascimur That which the Angels tremble to behold and scarce dare presume to look upon by reason of iâ—s glorious splendor even this do we feed on Mark this good Doctor Angels tremble not at such mean creatures as Bread and Wine neither have these creatures as bare signs only of Christs body and bloud such glorious lustre and splendor Indeed Christs true body which good Catholiques feed on is a glorious body ten â—housand times more glorious then the Sun though the glory thereof as being a spiritual body cannot appear to mortal eyes And that you may not fly to your other shift and say that we receive and feed on Christs body by Faith and love only hear what the same Father sayes in the same Homily a little before the last words cited Neque enim illi satis fuit hominem fieri colaphis caedi crucifigi verùm ut semetipsum nobis commiscet nos fide tantùm verum ipsa re nos suum efficit corpus He Christ was not onely contented to become man to be buffeted and crucified but he also incorporates himselfe into us and makes us to be his own body not by Faith only but truly and really And Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antio the same Father thus saith Vnum corpus eâ—â—icimur c. Vt itaque non tantùm per charitatem hoc â—iamus verum etiam ipsa re in illam misceamur carnem hoc namque per escam efficitur quam largitus est nobis We are become one and the same body with Christ viz by the power of the blessed Sacrament That then we may be so not by charity only but truly and really let us be incorporated into that flesh for this is brought to pass by that food which he has given us And now Doctor how is it possible that Bread and Wine should incorporare us into Christ's flesh or that bare figures should make us become one body with him and that not only spiritually and mystically but truly and really But let us hear the same Father speak once more Hom. 60. ad Pop. Antioch Nos Ministrorum tenemus locum qui verò sanctificat â—a immutaâ— ipse est We supply the place of Ministâ—rs but he that sanctifies and changes them is Christ himself Here is a change and that by the power of Châ—ist not theâ— by the Faith of the commuâ—icant 38. Let us now hear what S. Ambrose sayes de Sacram. â—i 4. c. 4. Panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum ubi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi quomodo potest qui panis est corpus esse Christi Consecratione Before the words of Consecration it is bread as soon as Consecration comes of bread it is made the flesh of Christ Mark those words De pane of or from bread How can that which is bread become the Body of Christ by consecration And a little after Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est ut quae erant in aliud commutentur If then there be so great poâ—er in the word of our Lord Iesus that those things which had no being should begin to have a being how much rather does it effect that those things which had a being should be chang'd into an other substance Here then is a change a substantial or essential change as appears plainly by those words in aliud commutentur And what does a substantial or an essential change differ from Transubstantiation and this change is wrought principally by Christs omnipotent power instrumentally by the words of Consecraâ—ion pronounc't by the Priest then doubtless not by the faith and charity of the communicant 39. Some of your Sect I know have been very forward to acknowledg Christ truly and really present in the blessed Sacrament nay that Christs body is really present there but how by faith but what you mean by that expression by Faith I know not howbelt I am sure you must understand either the manner or the means of Christs body being really present there If by those words you understand the manner of Christs body being present in the Sacrament then is his body present there apprehensively only for by Faith the soul apprehends Christs body which in that apprehension is spiritually present to the faithful and worthy communicant but how then can this be clear'd from a contradiction for to be present apprehensively only by faith is contradistinguisht from being truly and really present so that to say Christs body is truly and really in the blessed Sacrament by faith is in effect to say Christs body is truly and really in the Sacrament and Christs body is not truly and really in the Sacrament And if by Faith you understand the means that is either the meritorious pardon that word or instrumental cause of Christs body being really pâ—esent in the Sacrament or a necessary condition without which Christ's body cannot be really present there then first you contradict the forecited Fathers who say that Christ's body is really present in the Sacrament by the omnipotent power of Christ in the words of Consecration pronounc't by the Priest Secondly
Liberius is accus'd of Arianism but falsly for he never subscribed to that damnable Heresie never decreed taught or maintained it He subscribed only to the banishment of S. Athanasius to which the Emperor Constantius forâ—'t and compel'd him by torments as St. Athanasius himself testifies in both his Apologies where he clearly acquits him of Heresie And if St. Athanasius in an other place and St. Hierom charge him with subscâ—ibing to Arrianism it is to be understood interpretative only in that he subscribed to S. Athanasius's banishment which was procur'd by the Arrians and externally communicated with some Arrian Bishops especially since not only those ancient Authors Socrates lib 2. Eccief Hist c. 29. Sozomen lib. 4. c. 10. Theodoret lib. 2. c. 16 17. but also S. Athanasius himself in the fore-cited places testifies that he was no Heretique and that he did nothing in compliance with the Arrians but what he was compell'd unto by a tedious banishment and force of torments And that all Italy and Spain should side with this Pope in that Heresie as you afterwards charge them Sect. 23. is most notoriously false spoken gratis without any authority or ground whatsoever 23. The second Pope that stands charg'd with Heresie is Honorius but what his heresie was the Doctor declares not T is true some Heretiques have charg'd this Pope upon what ground I know not with joyning with the Monothelites in their heresie but it cannot appear that ever he held or taught that Heresie either publickly or privatly His errors were at the most but conjectured by some private Letters which after his death were published in his name But that in his life time he renounc't that Heresie appears Epist Honor. ad Sergium Act. 13. sext Synod Yet suppose Honorius had erred what was that to the Church of Rome she notwithstanding might be free from error And that de facto she was free and persecuted that heresie Pirrhus Patriarch of Constantinople being at her suit banish't by Hâ—raclius the Emperor appears plainly by Platina in Honor. 1. and Sabellicus Aenead 8. lib 6. 24. In the next place comes in Zepherinus charg'd with Montanism but most unjustly He was no Montanist only out of a candid and peaceable disposition he endeavoured to make peace between the Catholiques and the Montanists and this was all his Heresie That plrce of Lyra by you cited in Mat. 16. makes rather against you then for you He sayes there that some Popes have Apostatiz'd and thence concludes that the Church depends not on any particular mans person but consists in those that profess the true faith of Christ He sees not your consequence That because the Bishop of Rome falls into Heresie therefore the Church of Rome must be Heretical but maintains the contrary 25. But behold Marcellinus an Idolater who denyed Christ and offred sacrifice to Idols Answ So also did S. Peter deny his Master Marcellinus externally denyed Christ for fear of torments so did St. Peter for fear of the Jews yet they both confest Christ in their hearts though they both grievously sinned in their external denying of him But as S. Peter repented and afterward became a glorious Martyr so likewise did this blessed Pope follow S. Pâ—ter both in his Repentance and Martyrdom But what is this to the Church of Rome Did all the rest of the Apostles deny Christ because S. Peter denyed him I suppose no man of reason will say so and if not why should the whole Church of Rome be said to forsake her faith because her Bishop for fear of torments denyed Christ in some exâ—â—â—ior action as S. Peter had done before him by oaths and execrations Perchance you will say that S. Peter was not as truly chief of the Apostles and head of that Church which was then in being when he denyed his Master as Marcellinus was Bishop of Rome To this I answer that our blessed Saviour had then founded his Church viz. the night before S. Peters denial when he gave an end to the legal types and ceremonies and instituted the substance the blessed Sacrament of his pretious body and bloud The Church thus founded S. Peter must necessarily be the head thereof and consequently chief of all the Apostles unless you will deny the Apostles to be part of that Church which was then in being And he that shall deny S. Peter â—o be heâ—â— thâ—reof gives Christ the lye who formerly had made that promise to S. Peter in plain and express words Matth. 16. 18. Thou arâ— a rock and upâ—n this rock will I build my Church Christ said not thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church as you falsly translate to deceive the world but Thou art Cephas which in the Syrian language which our Saviour then spake signifies a Rock and upon this Cephas that is this Rock will I build my Church Our blessed Saviour used not two different words as you would make the world believe as Peter in one place and Rock in the other but in both places used the word Cephas which signifies a Rock that being the name which Christ gave to Peter when he first call'd him And though the Catholike Translaters of the New Testament who profess to follow exactly the vulgar Latin Edition as being more authentick then any Greek Copy now extant in the world have translated that place as you do viz. Thou art Peter c. yet have they dealt more ingeniously with the world in advertising that the word Peter signifies a Rock and that our blessed Saviour used not two but one and the same word Cephas which signifies a Rock in that promise made to S. Peter whereas you though professing to follow the Original yet when it makes against you forsake it and follow the Latin and when that makes against you then you pretend to follow the Original Thus you will alwayes have a shift to delude the world and your own souls for had you in that place followed the Original you should have translated it Thou art a Rock not Thou art Peter besides in the Greek the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Rock as ruly and as properly as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So then Christ founded his Church on S. Peter as a Rock as the very connexion of the words demonstrate For in these words of our blessed Saviour I say unto thee Peter thou art a Rock and upon this Rock will I build my Church Can any reasonable man imagine that by those words This Rock Christ meant any other Rock then that whereof he made mention in the words immediately preceding viz. Thou art a Rock It is then most apparent that Christ built his Church on S. Peters person at least as to the Discipline and Government thereof and consequently upon his Successors For if our blessed Saviour knew that his Church even in her very infancy when the Apostles themselves inspired with the Holy Ghost where a great part
thereof would stand in need of some supreme Head and Governour certainly he foresaw that when his Church should be more ample and numerous and more subject to divisions and factions it would stand in far greater need of an Vniversal Head wherein all particular Churches and members thereof might be united and therefore would not leave it without some common Pastor to guide and direct it And I desire you to take notice Doctor that herein all the Fathers both Greek and Latin Antient and modern unanimously agree and that this common and supreme Pastor of Christs Church ever was and ever must be S. Peters Successor who hithetâ—o ever since S. Peter plac't his Chair there has been the bishop of Rome and for ought we know ever will be till the end of the world And this those very Authors Stella and Lyra whom you have cited for your self will plainly tell you even in those very places which you have cited Besides who ever confirm'd the acts of any lawful General Councel but the Pope In his absence had he not his Delegates who saâ—e in the supreme place of the Councel though they were not alwayes Bishops and that even in the Easterne Church I could be more copious in this point but I here intend a reply only not a Treatise of Controversie 26. I come now to Pope John 22. who stands charg'd with a strange and monstrous Heresie viz. for affirming that God the Son is greater then God the Father and the Holy Ghost and Stella's authority is produc't to prove it Answ I confess Stella has accus'd him of it but I must be bold to excâ—pt against his authority and testimony in this matter of fact for it cannot appear that Stella spake this upon any just ground or probability for no man besides Stella either Catholique or Heretique that I could ever yet read or hear of ever charg'd Pope John 22. with that blasphemy 't is true some Heretiques and amongst the rest Calvin Just li. 4. c. 7. Sect. 28. have charged this Pope for affirming that the souls of men were mortal but most injuriously for he never taught nor held the mortality of the soul all that he held contrary to the opinion of the world was That the souls of the Just should not see God before the Resurrection This opinion was far from Heresie the Church never having defin'd the contrary and divers ancient Catholique Fathers being of the same opinion neither did he ever absolutely defend that opinion as an unquestionable truth For as Jo. Villanus Hisior li. 11. cap. 19. reports the day before his death he declar'd that he never had any intent to define it and that whensoever he discoursed of it his end was to find out the truth and added withall that he held the contrary opinion to be more probable and I am sure it is most improbable that Ockam his bitter enemy should charge him with this and Calvin with the other and yet neither of these should make any mention of that blasphemous Heresie which D. Boughen one of Stella layes to his charge if either he had been guilty or they could have found any probable argument or colourable ground that he might be guilty of that horrid blasphemy but suppose this had been true as it is far from all probability of truth what is this to the purpose What if Liberius Mâ—rcellinus and John 22. all Bishops of Rome had their private errors what is all this to the Church of Rome your Intelligencer Stella even in that place by you cited will tell you they erred as private persons only not as bishops of Rome or Heads of the Church they never decreed nor defin'd Heresie they never commanded any heretical Doctrine to be receiv'd as a divine truth by the whole Church They might fall into errors so likewise did Peter as Stella sayes even after Christ had prayed for him that his Faith should not fail But I suppose no man will be so unreasonable or blasphemous as to say Peters Faith failed after Christ had prayed that it should not fail though externally for fear of the Jews he denied it Peter then denied his Faith what was this to the other Apostles and the rest of Christs Disciples Liberius Marcellinus and Pope John 22. had their errors what was this to the Church of Rome had you read Stella but a very few lines further you would have found small incouragement to have cited his authority for your opinion for though he seems in some sense to grant your Minor Proposiâ—ion as you call it Sect. 18. in your missh pen Syllogism Sect. 17. viz. That Liberius Marcellinus and Iohn 22. erred in Faith yet he there plainly denies your conclusion viz. That therefore in their times the Church of Rome became no Church but was an Anti-christian Synagogue His words in Luc. 22. 31. the very place by you cited are these Ecclesia enim Autiochena Alexandrina Constantinopolitana saepe defecerunt à fide Ecclesia verò Romana nunquam defecil quia Christus ait Petro â—ravi pro te ut uon deficiat fides tua The Church saith he of Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople have often fallen from their faith but the Church of Rome never fell from her faith because Christ said to Peter I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not You see Doctor what a plain testimony here is against you out of the same Author which you have cited for you Stella was not so sharp-sighted as to see your consequence viz. That beause Marcellinus Liberius and John 22. had fallen from the true faith therefore the Church of Rome had forsaken her faith but the contrary he maintains exprefly viz. That although Liberius Marccllinus and John 22. all Popes of Rome denied the true Faith yet the Church of Rome never failed or fell from her faith He could not draw your Conclusion from such Premises as yours are and yet doubtless he knew a Syllogism and a rational consequence as well as you 27. But why should Vigilius be an Eutychian was it because out of reverence and respect to the Councel of Calcedon he could not be induc't neither by the perswasions nor threatnings of the Emperour to repeal an Act of that Councel in condemning those Tria Capitula which the Counccl had receiv'd as Orthodox nothing favouring the Heresie either of Nestorius or Eutyches one whereof was the Epistle of Ibas who publiquely in the Councel renounc't the Heresies both of Nestorius and Eutyches another the writings of Theodoret against Nestorius for which Theodoret had formerly been depos'd by the Eutychian Faction in that Latrocinal Councel at Ephesus and afterwards restor'd by the Catholiques I confess this is a very strong argument that he was no Eutychian but that he was one you only say it you alledg no reason you cite no authority nor testimony but that of Lyra whom I cannot find making any mention at all in the place by you cited in Mat. 16. either of