to the multitude of externall seales Not the same least one and the selfe same thing which you abhorre should be at the same tyme in sundry places Not seuerall vnlesse you make many seuerall and distinct Communions not all to partake as S. Paul sayth of the 1. Cor. â—oâ— Bils 4. par pag. 7â—0 711 712. c. same bread And therfore when neyther of these retraites will serue M. Bilsons last craft and subtilty is That Christ is present in the Sacrament not mixing his substance with the elements but entring the harts of the faithfull Then tell me I beseech you how doth he enter Accidentally by some supernaturall quality infused into our soules Or Substantially by the entrance of his substance it selfe What Accidentally Then the Holy Eucharist is not as S. Paul waiteth The Communion of the bloud and participation of the body of our Lord but the participation only of your 1. Cor. 10. new created accident Of which I likewise demand whether the same or distinct accidents be produced in euery soule and so entangle you in all the former briars What Substantially How then doth the substance enter Whole or deuided into parts If by parts the glorious body of Christ should be mangled disfigured and remayne imperfect If whole the whole substance should be at the same tyme in diuers places cherishing the soules of diuers persons Besides how is he who sitteth at the right hand of his Father substantially vnited with vs vpon earth Can he enter our soules as M. Bilson dreameth not departing from the heauens and can he not enter the Hoast as Catholikes teach not departing from thence 4. M. Sparkes perchance will be more dexterous and expert in auoyding these difficulties As intricate and perplexed euery whit For he not contented with Christs spirituall Sparks p. â—16 presence only by faith auoucheth him to be also truly and really present to the harts of the faithfull Yet with such a strang and hidden presence as no tearmes can expresse no wit conceaue For answere M. Sparkes in what sort is Christ really present Withall his locall dimensions or without dimension Without is to destroy * Sparkes pag. 110. Vvhitaker cent 2. q. 5. c. 7. fol. 389 Spark pag 114. 115. 116. as you vrge against vs the nature of his body With all his dimensioÌ„s is impossible without penetration of Christs body with the body of his Communicant without multiplication rarefaction condensation and many other in your Shoole condemned absurdities Also how conioyne you Christ with vs Are our harts by the communion aduanced to heauen to be really vnited to him aboue or doth he descend to be personally conioyned with vs vpon earth Without a reall coniunction no Reall Presence by fayth can be framed much lesse such a Reall Presence as you imagine of Christs body broken and bloud shed of his passible and crucified body and bloud shed long since vpon the Crosse and not of his glorified and impassible body which now existeth Especially when you affirme in the same place That the body once broken and bloud shed haâ—h not beene really at any tyme iterated nor can be Are you not heere entrapped in your owne discourse Do not these words imply most palpable contradiction Is it possible for that which neyther really is nor really can be to be really present Doth not Aristotle and all Philosophers accord that Prius est esse quà m esse praesens A thing must first be before it can be present What leuity then what ignorance is this M. Sparkes in you and your fellows who auouch Christs body broken to be really present and not to be at all 5. Poore deceaued soules I lament your misery who in no trifling matters credit such triflers as mind not what they say nor how they write so they dazell the eyes and inueigle the harts of their vnhappy followers Yet least their hideous outcries fright the simple from imbracing the truth I will make answer to the residue of their pretended Calumnies Bils 4. par p. 731. c. Exod. 7. Matth. 11. Gen. 18. Aug. epist 23. Amb. l. 4. de Sacram. c. 3. 4. Orig. in 15. Matth. Ioan. 6. Gen. 49. Psal 77. Matth. 6. The greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Hebrew Segula 6. First M. Bilson and his Sect-mates often argue That the Eucharist is called by S. Paul and the ancient Fathers bread the Chalice wine euen after Consecration I graunt that for diuers causes the elements retaine these names First because they were bread and wine before as Araons rod was sayd to deuour the rods of the Aegyptians when they were Serpents The men healed by Christ were termed Blind Lame Deafe and Dead when they Saw Walked Heard and were Reuiued because such they had byn before Secondly because they reserue the outward formes of bread and wine as the Three that appeared to Abraham in humaine shape were called men whereas they were Angels Thus S. Augustine is to be vnderstood thus S. Ambrose thus Origen in the places cited in the margent where they attribute vnto the sacrament the name of bread Thirdly it is termed Bread for that it coÌ„teyneth the Bread of life The true Bread which came downe from heauen Christ Iesus And therfore called in Scripture Fat bread Bread of Angels Supersubstantiall bread according to the Greeke Hebrew copies S. Hierome nameth it Egregious and most singuler Hier. in c. 6. Matth. Iere. 11. v. 19. Aug. l. 1. loquutio in Gen. n. 138. 178. 172. quaest 34. in Exod. bread And Ieremy the Prophet alluding hereunto calleth his true body Bread without any Epithete saying Mittamus lignum in panem eius Let vs fasten the wood on his Bread Lastly it is called Bread after the Hebrew phrase which stileth all sorts of meats by the name Lechem Bread as in the 34. of Genesis 4. Regum 6. Witnesse also S. Augustine in his speaches vpon Genesis and Exodus 7. But M. Bilson produceth some ancient writers who do not only giue vnto the Eucharist the name of bread but determinately auow the nature and substance of bread to abide after consecration Among whome Gelas coÌ„t Eutichen Gelasius leadeth the way writing thus against Eutiches The Sacraments which we receaue of the body bloud of Christ are a diuine thing and by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet for all that ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine to be Then Theodoret The mysticall signes do not after Theod. dialog 2. sanctification depart from their owne nature For they remaine in their former substance figure and shape I answere They are sayd to remaine because they perseuer still in vertue power and efficacy For the outward formes and qualities which continue haue the same operations and worke the same effects which the substances before performed Or because the accidents which abide haue a miraculous yet substantiall manner of being not stayed not
inherent in any other thing Somewhat like to that which the former substances enioyed Thus Gelasius ought and no otherwise can he be expounded Gelasius answered for he doth not say yet ceaseth not in substance and nature c. but vsing first the word substance as a tearme ouer strict he corecteth and enlargeth it with this addition or nature and after explicating of what nature he meant he calleth the same proprietas naturae the property or quality of nature Then he affirmeth the Eucharist to be made a diuine thing and we by it partakers of the diuine nature a little after he addeth The elements are changed by the Holy Ghost into a diuine substance which confirmeth our and wholy subuerteâ—h the aduersaryes doctrine therefore M. Bilson very warily leâ—t it forth 8. As touching Theodoret the Greeke in which he Theodoret answered wrote explaineth his meaning for in the first place insteed of nature he vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which compriseth as all Grecians know the accidentall nature as well as the substantiall and signifyeth sometymes the vertue or quality of nature In the second place in lieu of substaÌ„ce Vide dicti Graecolat Conradi Gesneri Thesaurling graecae H. Stephani he hath the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Essence as Quinâ—ilian and Budaeus out of Philo or nature also as Tully translateth it And so we graunt that the true nature essence of the accidents still remaine Neither can the word nature essence no nor substance which the translatour vseth be vnderstood as it is diuided against accident For Theodoret sayth The signes depart not from their owne nature they remaine in their former essence But they neuer had nor could haue any other then an accidentall nature an accidentall essence or substance if you will so call it Because the nature and substance of bread and Wine was not their owne nature not their former substance but really distinct from theirs Therefore Theodoret could not truly affirme That they remained in their former substance which formerly they had not but in the accidentall essence which they formerly had and in which they still perseuere Nor yet can any Cauiller say that remaine is heere taken for inhere because then the accidents should also inhere in their figure inhere in their shape to which the verbe remaine is as necessarily referred as it is to their substance 9. Although this answere fully satisfyeth and taketh Another answer to Theodoret away all manner of cauillations yet I will not omit another which Reuerend Father Cotton gaue at a disputation in France to wit that the three Genitiues in Greeke should not all be turned into Ablatiues in Latin but two into Ablatiues the first into the Genitiue case thus Manent enim mystica Symbola 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in prioris essentiae seu substaÌ„tiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figura specie videri tangi pessunt sicut priùs that is The mystical signes remaine in the figure and shape of their former substance The reall presence and TransubstaÌ„tiatioÌ„ proued by Theodorets owne wordes in the very same place whom the CeÌ„turistes also reiect for the same Cent. 5. c. 4. col 517. 1008. and may be seene and touched as before Which answere somwhat varieth in wordes but is the same substance with the former both are notably strengthened and our TraÌ„substantiation established by this ensuing sentence which immediatly followeth But they are vnderstood to be those thinges which are made and belieued and adored as being those thinges which are belieued Now what are the thinges belieued what adored Not the outward signes barely of themselues they are seene not belieued they cannot without Idolatry be adored The thinges beleeued euen in our and in the Sacramentaryes opinion are the body and bloud of Christ those they apprehend those they adore by fayth yet they belieue and adore them absent we present but Theodoret auoucheth that the misticall signes Are made those thinges which are belieued which are adored therfore they are made the body and bloud of Christ And how are they made By representation by signification only No but truly and really As being sayth he those thinges which are belieued Can we deuise to speake more plainely for our selues then this Father speaketh in our behalfe whome quarreling enemyes would wrest against vs. The rest of M. Bilsons allegations I let passe because some of them make nothing against vs others may be answered as these before others are plainly of no account as the authority of Bertram a late suspected authour and of the false impious and sacrilegious CouÌ„cell of Constantinople vnder Constantinus Copronymâ—s so alleadged in the 2. Nicen Synod euen in the place quoted by M. Bilson howbeit his conscience serued him to produce their testimonyes for want of better 10. M. Bilson vrgeth againe The Lord tooke bread Bils pag. 730. 731. brake bread But that which he tooke that which he brake he gaue to his disciples therfore he gaue bread The same fallacy might I returne vpon him That he tooke prophane and common bread Therfore he gaue prophane and not Sacramentall bread With the same collusion any heathen Matth. 9 v. 26. might depraue the most famous miracles of Christ That of the Gouernous daughter raised by him he might say for example That Christ was inuited to the maid dead that he entred to her dead held her by the hand dead spake to her dead but she to whom he entred she to whom he spake arose Therfore she arose not aliue but dead He might after the same manner delude the resuscitation of Lazarus For vpon whom did Christ call when he sayd Lazarus come forth Did he call vpon the liuing Ioan. 1â— v. 43. or vpon the dead I know you wil grant that he called vpon the dead and yet as you must needs confesse by the power of his God-head and force of his voyce he came forth aliue So I answere vnto you That Christ tooke bread blessed bread c. yet by the power and efficacy of his words when he sayd This is my body the bread was changed and transubstantiated into his body Perhaps you will cauill that the beholders saw the actions of life in the fornamed parties Whà t then Will you credit the eyes of men which might be deceaued witnessing them to liue and will you not belieue the words of Christ who cannot beguile vs auouching this his body No sayth M. Bilson for Christ vseth these words I am the dore I am the vine and yet he is not really eyther dore Chrys ho. 83. in Mat. Bils 4. par pag. 717. c. or vine Is this your guise of arguing from a Liâ—erall to a figuratine speach Heere the things themselues the connection of the text fayth reason and whatsoeuer els inforceth a figure In the words of our Lords Supper all things plead the property of the letter The Collation of places the
and approaching receiue it with pure lips S. Augustine That Christ carried his owne body in his owne hands when he said This is my body and that secundum literam according to the letter and so as King Dauid could not carrie himselfe Which two points are worthilie noted because the Apostles eat with their corporall mouthes what Christ held in his corporall hands In fine S. Cyril saith We doe not deny our selues with assured faith and sincere charity to be spiritually conioyned to Christ but that we haue no manner of coniunction with him according vnto the flesh this truely we deny 15. Is it not strange M. Sparkes should vaunt of all these learned Writers within eight hundred years when all disclaime his false imputation when all confesse the Reall Presence not only to fayth but also to the mouth Bils 4. par pag. 754. 755. c. to the tongue to the lips to the hands to the flesh to the bowells of all Communicants Is it not as strange M. Bilson should goe about to defeate these and the former authotityes with his accustomed sleight of Seales Sacraments bearing the names of the things themselues For if the outward seales onely were receaued into the mouth the outward seales only were eaten by fayth bare figures and seales nourish the soule seeing the same flesh the same bloud the same body the same Mediatour of God and Man Christ Iesus which is belieued by fayth is auouched as you see to be receaued into the hands mouths harts bowels of the faythfull Deny then M. Bilson the true reall flesh to the mouth of the body deny it also to the mouth of the soule and so become a Manichee a Marcionist a denyer of Christ Or giue leaue at least to them and other Heretikes to subuert by like sophistry the chief principles of our beliefe LiceÌ„ce them to expound by sound of names without sense of wordes whatsoeuer is written of the true flesh bloud and body of our Lord of his Incarnation Passion and glorious Resurrection 16. What pretense then can any Protestant make vnlesse he open the gate to a floud of blasphemyes why he should delude such ineuitable proofes Why he should discredit so many lights Lampes and Ornaments of the Church and preferre the hard wrested construction of some new fangled teachers before such vndeniable texts of Fathers and testimonyes of Scripture Perchance he may pretend with D. Bilson and D. Sparkes the impossibilty inconueniency and contradictions our doctrine Bils 4. par pag. 790. 794. 795. 796. Sparks p. 180. sequentibus implyeth To which I might answere Philosophers Infidells obiected such stuffe against the true IncarnatioÌ„ and Passion of our Lord I might say that he yieldeth assent to diuers articles of our fayth more contrary and repugnant to the reach of our naturall reason as to the mistery of the holy Trinity to the fecundity of our B. Lady remayning a Virgin to the Resurrection of putrifyed and decaied flesh c. I might also reply that we should not measure the works of the Almighty by the weakenes of our feeble vnderstanding as S. Basil singulerly teacheth against Eunomius by the example of the Emmet Basil Epist â—68 But what if I demonstrate the Reall Presence to be possible conuenient and without any repugnance or contradiction at all 17. To begin with the possibility of our conuersion or Transubstantiation We do not as M. Bilson iniuriously fathereth vpon vs make the creature the Creatour or the dead Bils 4. par pag. 729. element of bread the Sonne of God We only teach the bread and wine to be changed into the flesh bloud of Christ And that one substance may be turned into another yea and bread into flesh experience it selfe aboundantly teacheth For the bread which we eate and wine which we drinke by the naturall heat and concoction of our stomacke is conuerted into the flesh and bloud of man the same effect had the food which Christ receaued Likewise the graine of seed sowed in the ground altereth in nature buddeth vp into a faire eare of Corne. Wax cast Niss orat cate ca. 37. Damas l. 4 defi c. 14. Irenaus l. 5. cap. 2. Chryshom de Euâ—h Centurywrit c. 4. col 4â—6 Ambro de init myst cap. 9. Cyr. Iero. cate 4. mystag into fire is melted consumed and turned into fire Which similitudes the Fathers of former ages haue vsed to illustrate this mistery S. Gregory Nissen and S. Iohn Damascen the first S. Irenaeus the second S. Chrysostome the third who annexeth thereunto that as Nothing of the substance of Wax remaineth so heere the Misteryes are consumed by the substance of the body By which passage if the Century-writers may be credited S. Chrysostome doth seeme to confirm TransubstaÌ„tiation S. Ambrose whome they likewise reproue for not writing well of the same matter sometime coÌ„pareth the substantiall mutatioÌ„ of bread in the Eucharist to the creation of heauen and earth of nothing Otherwhile to the conuersion of the Rod of Moyses into a serpent of bloud into water water into bloud and the like S. Cyrill of Hierusalem conuinceth it by the miraculous change our Sauiour made of water into wine disputing thus Christ confirming and saying this is my bloud who Gauden tract 2. de Exo. will euer doubt and say it is not his bloud He once conuerted water into wine in Cana of Galily and is he not worthy to be belieued that he hath changed wine into bloud S. Gaudentius hath the like who flourished within the 400 yeares after Christ He that produceth bread out of the earth of bread againe maketh Greg. Nyssen oracate cap. 37. his owne body for he is both able and promised it and he that made of water wine maketh of wine his owne bloud S. Gregory Nissen We rightly belieue the sanctifyed bread to be changed by the word of God into the body of the Sonne of God S. Ambrose Thou sayest perhaps to me I see another manner of thing How Ambro. lib. de â—js qui iniâ— myst cap. â— then tellest thou me that I receaue Christs body Then this is yet to be established by vs. And how many exampls may we vse to proue 〈…〉 is not that which nature framed but that which the blessing consecrated and that the power of blessing ouer commeth nature because by blessing euen the very nature it selfe is changed Behould that is not sayth S. Ambrose which nature made but what did nature make The substance of bread what becommeth of it It is changed quoth he how by blessing into what Into that which the blessing consecrateth What it that The body of Christ for he tooke Ciryl ep ad Colas bread blessed and sayd This is my body S. Cyrill of Alexandria who succeeded them in the next age God condescending to our frailtyes instilleth into the thinges offered the power of life Conuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis onuerting
them into his true and proper flesh that the body of life may be in vs as a certaine quickening seed Eusebius Emissenus The inuisible Euseb Emiss ser de cor Domi. Cyp. de coens Dom. Priest Christ Iesus turneth by his word with a secret power the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud saying Take and eate for this is my body S. Cyprian who liued before any of these This bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples not in outward apparence but in nature changed by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh The like he hath in other places In so much as a famous * Vrsin in commonef cuiusdam Theol. de sacra Coen Aug. ser citato à Bedain c. 10. â— Cor. Humfrey Iesu pâ— 2â— ca. 5. pag. 626. Matth. 4. v. â— ProtestaÌ„t confesseth That in Cyprian are many sayings which seeme to conforme TraÌ„substantiation S. Augustine and sundry others euidently also graunt our Reall mutation or Transubstantiation of the elements Which doctrine Gregory the Great and Augustin our Apostle brought into England as D. Humphrey teacheth and the Diuell himselfe acknowledged to be possible when he sayd vnto Christ Dic vt lapides isti panes fiant Commande that these stones be made bread 18. Secondly if we respect the conueniency it was meet we should really eate and really drinke of the reall victime truly slaine and offered for vs. It was meet that he who became our companion in the manger our teacher in the Temple our Priest at the Altar our price sacrifice and ransome on the Crosse should likewise be our food and sustenance at the table It was most meet that he who imparted his owne diuine person and all the riches of his Godhead by Hypostaticall vnion to the flesh and bloud of a pure and vnspotted man should also coÌ„municate the same flesh and bloud and all the treasures of his diuine and human nature to the soules and bodyes of As our first Parents were not infected by a Metaphoricall but by a true eating of the accursed Tree so we cannot be healed by a Metaphoricall but by a tru eating of the Tree of life NisseÌ„ orat catech ca. 37. Ignatius Ep. ad Ephes Athan. de huâ—â—atur suscep Cyril in Io. â—p ad Calosy â—re 1. 4. c. â—4 l. 5. c. 2 alibi Cyr. Alex. 1. 10. in â—o c. 13. Spaâ—kes in his answer to M. Iohn d'Albins pag. no. 257. his faithfull seruants The wisedome of God requireth that as our Forefathers and we were first impoisoned not by the desire but by the true and real eating of the forbidden apple so we should be cured by the true and substanciall feeding of this blessed fruit For S. Gregory Nissen proueth After the manner of the poyson so likewise the medicine must enter into our bowells the vertue therof be traÌ„sfused into all partes of the body 19. Againe the poyson which Adam receaued was a venemous fountaine of a double contagion ioyntly infecting both body and soule two wounds it inflicted it defiled our soule with sinne our body it enthralled to death and corruption What could be more behoofull for our Redeemer then to prepare a medicine against both these wounds A medicine to wash our soules from sin and rayse our body from dust to beautify the one with grace and cloath the other with incorruptioÌ„ And what could sooner worke this admirable cure then the glorious flesh of this holy Sacrament Which is not only the Ocean of Grace but the medicine of immortality the preseruatiue as S. Ignatius calleth it against death The first fruites of glory as Athanasius writeth The liuely and reuiuing seed of our bodyes as S. Cyrill sayth The pledge the earnest the hope or expectation of Immortall life as Irenaeus affirmeth According to that of Christ He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting and I will rayse him at the later day The body then must eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that it may partake the benefit of Resurrection our soule by fayth might enioy the dowryes of blisse But this terrestriall nature of our body cannot as S. Cyrill of Alexandria teacheth be aduanced to immortality except the body of naturall life be conioyned vnto it 20. Yet D. Sparkes maugre S. Cyril or whosoeuer els obstinatly persisteth that the body of Christ cannot be really conioyned with ours Because Christ is ascended into heauen sitting at the right hand of his Father and the heauens must Bils 4. par pag. 788. 789. c. Ioan. 20. Read S. Aug. ep 3. ad Volus Amb. l. 10. in cap. 24. Luc. Hila. l. 3 de Tri. Iustin q. 117. Cyril l. 12. in Io. c. 53. Bede Theoph. Euthym. Ruper boc loco whoproue Christs entrance the dores being shut containe him vntill the restitution of all thinges As though good Syr he could not be at the same tyme in diuers places to wit in heauen sitting on the right hand of his Father and heere vpon earth in euery consecrated hoast not naturally as the Fathers copiously quoted by M. Bilson constantly teach but supernaturally by the power of him vnto whome nothing is impossible For so he hath wrought many wonderfull workes aboue the course of nature He came forth of the Virgins wombe preseruing her virginity rose out of the sepulcher not remouing the stone entred into his Disciples the dore being shut ascended to his Father not deuiding the heauens when he penetrated them But as in these examples diuers bodyes were supernaturally in one place so by the same supernaturall power one body may likewise be at the same tyme in diuers places for it is a common Axiome approued by Philosophers that Contrariorum eadem est ratio Amongst contraryes the same reason holdeth on both sides Moreouer we are instructed by fayth that the single person of Christ is vnited to most distinct diuers natures to the nature of God and to the nature of man that the sole essence of God is in three persons really distinct that one and the selfe same moment of eternity is answerable correspondent to most different and contrary tymes to tyme past tyme present and tyme to come But as one person sustaineth diuers natures one nature is communicated to diuers persons one moment coexisteth to diuers Amb. orat in Auxen Aeges l. 3. de exid vrbis Hieros cap. 2. â—o Dams orat de B. Virgine tymes why cannot one body be resident in diuers places 21. Els how could our Sauiour after his Ascension haue met S. Peter flying the persecution of Rome as S. Ambrose and Aegesippus record How could he haue descended to honour the funeralls of our B. Lady as S. Iohn Damascen and Nicephorus witnesse How could he appeare to S. Paul as in the 9. Chap. of the Actes of the Apostles in the 22. and 23. For in none of these apparitions could he Calu. in c. 9. act l. 4. Instit c. 17. §.
29. Act. 9. v. 17. Act. 23. v. 11. 1. Cor 15. v. 5. Act. 23. v. 11. Act. 22. v. 78. 15. depart from the right hand of his Father as Scripture teacheth and Protestants do confesse He must needes therefore be at the same tyme in heauen and vpon earth in most remote and separate places For if M. Sparkes answere with Caluin and his consortes that Christ appeared either in the heauens to S. Paul or that these were not true but imaginary apparitions S. Luke himselfe reproueth them saying That Christ appeared to S. Paul not in the heauens but in via in the way Not a farâ—e off but neere at hand assistens ei standing by him Not as to S. Steuen but as to Cephas to Iames to the fifty brethren Not aboue the cloudes in any vnknowne place but vpon the earth in the Castle of Claudius Lysias Tribune of the souldiers Not in a traunce or illusion by night but in a cleare vision in a plaine conference at noone day so as he might see the iust one and heare his voyce out of his owne mouth Lastly not by any imaginary reprâ—sentation but by such a true and perfect apparition as the Resurrection of Christ is proued therby 1. Cor. 15. Chrys hom 38. in c 15. 1. Cor. Tho. 3. p. 4. 57. art 6. ad 3. Bils 4. par pag. 793. Chrys lib. 3. de Sacer. For which cause either at some of these tymes he appeared truly to S. Paul as S. Chrysostome and S. Thomas conclude euen in his owne proper person and with his naturall body or S. Paul deceiptfully proueth Christs Resurrection by his apparition vnto him To accuse S. Paul is to appeach the holy Ghost of fraud and deceipt to graunt he truly appeared is to subscribe to his being in many places And consequently that of S. Chrysostome which M. Bilson phraseth an Hyberbolicall vehemency is an absolute verity In the tyme of our Sacrifice he that sitteth aboue with his Father at that very instant and moment of tyme is handled with the hands of all 22. Another repugnance against which M. Bilson Bils 4. par pag. 794. 795. c. mightily inueygheth is That we make the body of Christ in the Eucharist without the propertyes of humane shape length extension c. because we defend it to be wholy and indiuisible in euery part of the Blessed Host as the soule of man is wholy in the head wholy in the feet and wholy in euery part of the body But this likewise by the Almighty hand of God may easily be effectuated For to be corporally or locally confined to any determinate place is no such absolute and inherent necessity no essentiall Bils locis citatis property as M. Bilson how diligent soeuer in other points not diuing in this into depth of Philosophy inconsideratly mantayneth but only an accidental quality relation or sequell which naturally followeth euery bodily substance as heate floweth from the nature of fire and grauity or weight from the condition of any earthly or heauy thing Yet as God supernaturally suspended Dan. 3. v. â—0 Matth. 14. v. 26. the actioÌ„ of heate in the Furnace of Babylon froÌ„ burning the three Children the poyse of his earthly body when he walked vpon the waters so he may also separate and seclude all locall extension from the quantity of his flesh and bloud whose essence only consisteth in the inward proportion of shape extension of parts in respect of themselues wherby one part is truely distinguished and immediatly conioyned to this and not to that other which inward extension distinction and proportion the body of Christ retayneth albeit it be wholy in the whole and wholy in euery part of the consecrated Host Eutychius the Patriarch of Constantinople Euty apud Nic. lib. 3. â—nnal about one thousand yeares agoe expressed this by the voice of man which being one only collision or beating of the ayre is wholy notwithstanding heard of many hundred togeather and wholy receaued into the Organ of euery particuler mans hearing as the body of Christ is wholy contayned vnder euery particle of the sacred host 23. The third false supposed implicancy by our Aduersaryes is the separation we affirme of the externall formes of bread and wine and making them abide without their substances for therein we destroy as they imagine the Nature it selfe of accidents whose innate and essentiall property is in their conceite to inhere in their subiects But heere in they bewray the like ignorance as before Because all the best Philosophers deny inherency to be any essentiall condition of an accident and the chiefe of Peripatetickes Aristotle himselfe Arist lib. 3. de anima tex 9. sayth greatnes is one thing and the existency of greatnes another Now if the existency be different much more the inherency which is the quality and manner of existency Basil in Hexam ho. 6. The same is taught and proued by S. Basil who affirmeth that the accident of light was first created in the beginning and remained without a subiect and that the spheare or globe of the Sunne was after made as a waggon or chariot for that original light Then meeting with this our Protestants cauillation that an accident caÌ„not be without a subiect he addeth Say not vnto me it is impossible that the light should be separated from the body of the Sunne For neither do I affirme this separation possible to thee or me but I iudge it auoucheable that such thinges as by the thought and cogitation of the mind may be seuered the power of him that created both can actually and indeed part and disseuer The adustine and burning force of the fire thou truly canst not separate from the gloming brightnes thereof but God diuided them in the fiery bush wherin he appeared to his seruant Moyses Yea and the like strange anatomy his mighty hand will make as that great Doctour goeth forward of the whole element of fire when in the later day he will separate according to him The hoat and scorching violence from the cleare light or Basil ibid. splendour thereof and depute that to hell for the due punishment of the reprobate aduance this to heauen for the comfort of his elect Besides al learned deuines auer the personality of Christ S. Thom. â— part q. 4 art 2. Cyril epist ad Nestor 5. Synod can 5. â—ulg lib. de incar c. 4. which is a substantiall mode or manner of being alike intrinsecal to substaÌ„ce as inherency is to any accident to be secluded froÌ„ his humane nature the humane nature to subsist without his proper person which although it be a greater and deeper mistery theÌ„ that we haue now in hand yet this parity I find betweene them that as the humane nature of Christ doth efficiently subsist supported by the person of the word without the formal effect of subsistency so the accidents of bread and wine doe heer remaine efficiently preserued by the
it were the ciuill or domesticall war of inward vices to remayne with the baptized For they are not such vices which are now to be called sinnes if concupiscence draw not the spirit to vnlawful workes conceaue and bring forth sinne By which wordes I may resolue and end this mayne coÌ„trouersy that the repugnance betweene the flesh the spirit the vntowardnes to good the forwardnes to euill other defects of nature are vices indeed but no sinne in the faythfull I may note also by the way the extrauagaÌ„t examples which Protestants bring of a woman in trauaile of a womaÌ„ child of one Viper ingendring another to proue thereby that coÌ„cupiscence a sinne may coÌ„ceaue and bring forth sinne For that we willingly confesse we graunt that voluntary concupiscence which is a sinne Abbot c. 2 sect 6. fol. 211. may cause and beget another sinne But we say that the suddaine motions of concupiscence which inuade our mind against our will and that concupiscence of it owne nature is not sinnefull vnles by winning our consent it conceaue and consumate sinne as S. Iames and S. Augustine heere expresly auow Yet who was euer so mad as to teach a womaÌ„ not to be a womam vnles she conceaue or a viper no viper except it breed and ingender vipers Their examples therefore are impertinent and all the oiections they make against vs either friuolous or fully VVillet contr 17. q. 1. p. 558. answered 12. Neuerthelesse before I finish this questioÌ„ some may expect I should more largly vnfold what Originall sinne is and how it stayneth our soules against the Anabaptists the Albigensians and Zuinglian Protestants Likewise how all the whole progeny of Adam is infected there with against the Caluiuists Puritans of our tyme Calu. l. 4. instit c. 16. §. 24. 25 Fulk in c. 3. Ioan. sect 2. in cap. 7. 1. ad Cor. sect 11. VVhitak controu â— q. 6 c. 3. who imagine the children of the faythfull to be receaued of God into the inheritance of the couenant from their mothers wombe be regenerated by the Holy Ghost and may be saued without Baptisme Vpon which wicked ground M. Dod a silenced Minister once Preacher at Banbury resused to christen the Lady Popes child vntill their meeting day before which tyme the poore infant dyed without domage or hurt to his soule as that wretched fellow deliuered Against these and many such errours some I say may looke I should reason a little but because they are only mayntained by old condemned Heretikes or new Schismaticall Precisians and not generally imbraced by the Synagogue of England whose common heresyes I heere impugne it shal be sufficient to descry the rockes and dangerous shallowes you ought to â—huâ— least you suffer shipwracke sayling in this difficulty without the card of direction First then beware of the Pelagians who say we incurre the corporall death and punishment but not the guiltines of our forefathers fault vnles byimitation we follow his transgressions Whome S. Paul refuteth teaching That we all trespassed in Adam Are by nature Rom 5. Ephis 2. v 3. the children of wrath Borne and conceaued as King Dauid sayth in sinne On the other side take heed of Matthias Illyricus his drunken phrensy who fayneth our birth-sinne not to be any relation or accident but the defiled substance Psal 50. Matth. Illiric in l. de essentia iustit iniustit original it selfe of man Making thereby either God the author and abettour of sinne who createth propagateth preserueth our humane nature or some other Creatour of thinges then God with the Manichean Heretikes From whome wicked Caluin whose steps our Sectaryes precisely follow departeth not much affirming The whole nature of man is a certaine seed of sinne whereby not the flesh or sensuall parts alone but the very soule is so corrupted that it Calu. l. 2. c. 1. §. 9. needeth not only to he healed but in a manner to put on a new nature Detest and flye these dotages and that of Origen who dreamed our sinne of nature to be the dayly crimes Ibid. §. 9. oursoule committed before it was vnited to the body Which dreame he tooke from the Platonists and it is condemned Concil Brach. c. 6. in the first Bracharan Councell and by S. Leo Epiphanius and others The dotage likewise of Tertullian and Apollinaris who imagining that oursoules descended S. Leo ep ad Turb c. 10. Epipha ep ad Ioan. Ierosol S. Aug. l. de â—aeres c. 86. S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 8â— artic â— Genes 2. Vasq in 1. 2. disp 232. c. 4. sup q. 83. by propagation from nature as the soules of plantes and beasts accordingly thought Originall sinne to be the naturall contagion which one polluted soule deriueth from another Which the whole Schoole not only of Deuines but also of Philosophers constantly abhorre and truely teach the soule of man to be immediatly created by the hand of God and at the same tyme infused to the body as Moyses intimated in the second of Genesis Our Lord formed man of the slyme of the earth and breathed into his face the breath of life and man became a liuing soule O ther 's more neer then these yet not conformable to truth affirme our radicall crime to be a positiue accident and vitious quality But vvho I pray doth produce this accident Not God he cannot be the cause of finne nor Adam nor the Diuel nor any earthly creature they haue no power to effectuate any such positiue and hereditary quality or if they Vâ—sq ib iâ— disp c. 2. could it being corporall as themselues graunt how can it infect the spirituall soule Neither yet is Originall sinne the meere fault which Adam committed imputed vnto vs as Pighius and Catharinus teach for that maketh vs by extrinsecall Rom. 5. Concil Trident. sess 5. denomination only not truely and properly sinners as S. Paul and the Councell of Trent define we are 13. Nor is it the only binding ouer or desert of punishment because these be sequels both which follow of Vasq ibid. cap. 3. sinne for no man is iustly designed or obnoxious to punishment but he that hath deserued it no man deserueth it but he that hath trespassed offended Sinne therfore goeth before the lyablenes or desert of punishment What then shall we say What is the natiue and home-bred crime of which we speake I answere as before that it is the want and priuation of Original iustice as it is voluntarily caused in vs by the disloyalty and transgression we committed in our first fathers reuolt whereupon we gather out of S. Anselme this pithy definition of it It is the S. Ansel l. de coÌ„ep virg c. 26. Dionys l. de Eccles Hierar Concil Trid. sâ—ss 5. Can. 2. Aug. l. 1. de nâ—â—pt concup c. 28. nakednes or want of iustice due to the children caused by the disobedience of Adam Which S. Dionysius meaneth
Gods sight much lesse pleasing sacrifices to him as in the precedent discourse hath beene shewed if they be defyled with sinne 4. M. Abbot answereth Therefore good works being touched and infected with the contagion of sinne before they can please God must haue some meanes to take away the guilt imputation of the sinne c. which Christ doth perfuming them with the sweet Abbot c. 4 sect 44. fol. 578. 579 incense of his Obedience But how doth Christ take it away By abolishing or not imputing the contagion By not imputing sayth Abbot but thus he taketh away according to them the filth of adultery of murder of sacriledge and all heynous crymes from the beleeuing Protestant And are those sinnefull workes thereby made gratefull hostes and acceptable sacrifices pleasing vnto God No sayth he agayne Our good deedes are not sinnefull workes Are they not What is that guilt then of contagious sinne which must be taken away before they can please God If they be not sinnefull no contagion of sinne is to be pardoned by not imputing if they be sinfull then your sinneful acts inherently in themselues sinnefull by not imputing the guilt of contagion become gratefull pleasing and acceptable vnto God Neyther can M. Abbot any way cuade by his frequent and worm-eaten answere that the action we do is not sinnefull because it is in substance a good Ibid. â—7â— worke and the fruit of the good spirit of God and the default and imperfection is only an accident to the worke Nor Whitaker who to the same purpose replyeth in his answere to Duraeus VVhitk â— in his answere to Duraeus l. 8. pag. 698. We meane not that good workes are sinnes but that they haue some sinne mixed with them For it followeth not that siluer is drosse because it hath some drosse mingled with it Seeing our dispute is not heere of the physicall substance which in euery action euen of murder theft and the like is transcendentally good or in genere Entis to vse the Philosophers tearmes but of the morall bounty or deformity of a worke which if it be tainted with the mixture of any euill how accidenttally soeuer it cannot be good sith it is true which Dionysius teacheth Good ariseth from an entiere cause euill from euery defect So that Whitakers example which Abbot also alleadgeth Dionys de diuin nomin c. 4. par 4. Bonum ex vna tota causa malum ex multis particularibuâ— que proficiscitur defectibus of gold or siluer mingled with drosse is nothing to the purpose because there be two materiall substances really distinct heere we question of one morall act which admitteth no distinction there although one metall be mingled with the other yet by seuerall veynes in seuerall places they are so incorporated as the siluer is not drosse or drosse siluer heere the same act flowing from the same will aymed at the same end must be both good and bad pure and defiled siluer and drosse which is impossible For as it inuolueth contradiction that one and the same assent of vnderstanding should be at the same tyme both true and false in the agreement of all Philosophers and Deuines so likewise it implyeth that one and the same acte of the will should be ioyntly at the same moment good and euill laudable and vituperiall pleasing displeasing vnto God Wherefore if euery action of it owne nature be euil no worke of ours can be in substance good as M. Abbot would haue it none excellent as Whitaker pretendeth but the most excellent must needes in it selfe be wholy marred wholy odious vnto God wholy and substantially naught howsoeuer by outward acceptation it may seeme beautifull and fayre Not so say they for our good workes are not wholy euill not hatefull not sinnes but infected quoth M. Abbot with the contagion of sinne We say not quoth Whitaker to marry a wife is sinne Abbot VVhitak in the places cyted aboue but that they who marry wiues intermixe some sinne in that good action But you say that that intermixed sinne may wholy marre the action make it odious to God if that which is done be weighed in the ballance of diuine iustice Therefore you say that the action of it selfe is wholy euill wholy marred altogeather odious vnto God and hatefull of his owne nature vnles you beleeue that an action weighed in the ballance of diuine iustice becometh thereby worse more odious and abhominable then of it selfe it is and that our supreme highest Iudge who iustly condemneth the wickednes of man maketh it more wicked by the seuerity of his iudgement 5. Moreouer from whence creepeth this spot of sinne into that good and lawfull action of marriage Not from the will of taking a wife for that is laudable no sinne according to the Apostle not from the substance of the act for that M. Abbot also alloweth to be good not from any other accidentall circumstance of end tyme place or person for I suppose they be all guided by the rule of reason How then is sinne intermixed in the good action of marriage By the same act which inseparably draweth the stayne of corruption with it or by some other adioyned The desire of taking a wife for a good end in such as may lawfully marry is free from all sinne as by a wicked intention to which it is ordeyned if by the same one and the same action is both good and euill a sinne and no sinne agreable to reason and disagreable consonant and dissonant to the will of God the often refuted vnauoyded implicancy which you incurre If by some other act or vicious intent either this intention is principall and the cause of marriage as to marry the easier to contriue the murder of his wife or some other then the action of marriage is not good but impious wicked and detestable or it is a secondary intent and followeth the desire of marriage so it cannot vitiate the former good desire nor be termed a sinne intermixed therewith which albeit obstinate and ignorant aduersaryes can hardly be drawn to confesse yet will I make it so cleare as they shall not be able to deny Let vs take for example the act of louing God or dying for his sake what mixture hath it or slyme of euill any stayn that ariseth from the obiect beloued or will which loueth it Not from the obiect for that is infinite goodnes without all spot or blemish therefore no blemish can be intermixed with that act as it tendeth to so pure an obiect nor from the will of louing it for no feare of excesse no danger of impurity can possibly flow from desiring to loue the fountaine it selfe and mayne sea of purity not from the mudd of distraction not from the scumme of vaine glory not from the froath of pride which sometyme may accompany that heauenly loue for as it is impossible the act of loue should be an act of distraction vanity